Hero Defends Shop With Unregistered Gun

[Kevin_Kennedy]

This is called a diversion. People tend to do it when they know they are losing. Here is a thought, stay on point.

The man who shot up those people did it illegally. I thank him for protecting his workers, but he did it illegally. He should be prosecuted. If they determine he is to get a slap on the wrist, so be it.

Gun laws are there for a reason, not for convenience when you think the shooter is justified.

Selective law enforcement is wrong. Agree?

No, because the law he broke is unjust in the first place. Had he not broken the law he would have at least been robbed, probably assaulted, and maybe dead. Any law that makes it illegal to defend yourself, your property, and other innocent people is unjust and needs to go immediately.

Personally, I don't believe there should be any restrictions on the right to bear arms. However, according to the Constitution, the individual states have the authority to place restrictions on the said right as they see fit.

If the restriction was passed without the ability of the employers to have a say, I would agree with you that said law is unjust. That isn't the case though.

That would be the argument between common law and natural law. Do we have to accept a law just because the government has the right to enact it if it violates our natural rights? I say any law, regardless of whether the government has the right to enact it or not, that violates the natural law is unjust.

 

[elvis]

No, because the law he broke is unjust in the first place. Had he not broken the law he would have at least been robbed, probably assaulted, and maybe dead. Any law that makes it illegal to defend yourself, your property, and other innocent people is unjust and needs to go immediately.

Who cares if you think a law is unjust? If you think it's unjust, petiton your representatvies to change it.

You don't get to unilaterally decide what laws you observe and what laws you don't.

I don't live in New York, so it's not for me to try and change their system. Though pointing out why it's unjust is my choice.

What if I think murder being illegal is unjust? Should I be allowed to put caps in whomever I choose because I think it's an unjust law?

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

No, because the law he broke is unjust in the first place. Had he not broken the law he would have at least been robbed, probably assaulted, and maybe dead. Any law that makes it illegal to defend yourself, your property, and other innocent people is unjust and needs to go immediately.

Personally, I don't believe there should be any restrictions on the right to bear arms. However, according to the Constitution, the individual states have the authority to place restrictions on the said right as they see fit.

If the restriction was passed without the ability of the employers to have a say, I would agree with you that said law is unjust. That isn't the case though.

That would be the argument between common law and natural law. Do we have to accept a law just because the government has the right to enact it if it violates our natural rights? I say any law, regardless of whether the government has the right to enact it or not, that violates the natural law is unjust.

The store owner was not prevented from protecting himself and his property. It is the manner in which he did such, that is in question.

Does the II Amendment restrict the federal government, the state government(s), or both? I contend that it is a restriction against the federal government only.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Who cares if you think a law is unjust? If you think it's unjust, petiton your representatvies to change it.

You don't get to unilaterally decide what laws you observe and what laws you don't.

I don't live in New York, so it's not for me to try and change their system. Though pointing out why it's unjust is my choice.

What if I think murder being illegal is unjust? Should I be allowed to put caps in whomever I choose because I think it's an unjust law?

You could go ahead and try to do so I suppose, but I'm doubting that argument would get anywhere. Once again, it comes down to the natural law. You don't have the natural right to take somebody else's life. You do, however, have the right to defend your life, your property, and the lives of others. Any law that restricts that right, such as forcing people to register their guns, goes against the natural law.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

I am glad he killed some of the thugs. That doesn't change the fact that he was in violation of the law. And for whatever reason, he is not going to be prosecuted.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Personally, I don't believe there should be any restrictions on the right to bear arms. However, according to the Constitution, the individual states have the authority to place restrictions on the said right as they see fit.

If the restriction was passed without the ability of the employers to have a say, I would agree with you that said law is unjust. That isn't the case though.

That would be the argument between common law and natural law. Do we have to accept a law just because the government has the right to enact it if it violates our natural rights? I say any law, regardless of whether the government has the right to enact it or not, that violates the natural law is unjust.

The store owner was not prevented from protecting himself and his property. It is the manner in which he did such, that is in question.

Does the II Amendment restrict the federal government, the state government(s), or both? I contend that it is a restriction against the federal government only.

I agree that the Constitution originally was meant to apply only to the federal government, and I think that's how it should be again. However, the argument today is that the 14th Amendment made it so that some of the amendments apply to the states as well. So if that's the case then it must mean all the amendments apply to the states, not just the ones convenient for the current party in power.

If he would have been prosecuted, as some in this thread are calling for, then he is being punished for defending his life, property, and the lives of his employees. That means that technically he was not allowed to defend his life, property, and the lives of his employees under the law. That goes against his natural rights, and that is why the law is unjust.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

That would be the argument between common law and natural law. Do we have to accept a law just because the government has the right to enact it if it violates our natural rights? I say any law, regardless of whether the government has the right to enact it or not, that violates the natural law is unjust.

The store owner was not prevented from protecting himself and his property. It is the manner in which he did such, that is in question.

Does the II Amendment restrict the federal government, the state government(s), or both? I contend that it is a restriction against the federal government only.

I agree that the Constitution originally was meant to apply only to the federal government, and I think that's how it should be again. However, the argument today is that the 14th Amendment made it so that some of the amendments apply to the states as well. So if that's the case then it must mean all the amendments apply to the states, not just the ones convenient for the current party in power.

If he would have been prosecuted, as some in this thread are calling for, then he is being punished for defending his life, property, and the lives of his employees. That means that technically he was not allowed to defend his life, property, and the lives of his employees under the law. That goes against his natural rights, and that is why the law is unjust.

If you are calling for the "Incorporation" theory with the II Amendment, I disagree. That would remove power from the individual states on said matter. Why would you want to do that? If you are against the "incorporation" theory, why throw out the "they are doing it already with some of the other amendments" argument to me?

You acknowledge that the II Amendment was meant to restrict the federal government and not the individual states. Ergo, the individual states have a right to place any restriction they see fit. Placing a restriction on said right does not remove the inherent right, as you appear to be arguing.

You appear to be arguing for, as well as against, the proper reading of the Constitution, because you don't like the law that said owner is under. That line of defense is not going to work Kevin. The law may be unjust in your eyes, but it is not unjust from a constitutional standpoint.

You can't agree with me on the restriction of the federal government, and then in the next breath say the law is unjust because the state exercised its right under both the state and federal Constitution. You got no case Kevin, if you believe in strict constructionism.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The store owner was not prevented from protecting himself and his property. It is the manner in which he did such, that is in question.

Does the II Amendment restrict the federal government, the state government(s), or both? I contend that it is a restriction against the federal government only.

I agree that the Constitution originally was meant to apply only to the federal government, and I think that's how it should be again. However, the argument today is that the 14th Amendment made it so that some of the amendments apply to the states as well. So if that's the case then it must mean all the amendments apply to the states, not just the ones convenient for the current party in power.

If he would have been prosecuted, as some in this thread are calling for, then he is being punished for defending his life, property, and the lives of his employees. That means that technically he was not allowed to defend his life, property, and the lives of his employees under the law. That goes against his natural rights, and that is why the law is unjust.

If you are calling for the "Incorporation" theory with the II Amendment, I disagree. That would remove power from the individual states on said matter. Why would you want to do that? If you are against the "incorporation" theory, why throw out the "they are doing it already with some of the other amendments" argument to me?

You acknowledge that the II Amendment was meant to restrict the federal government and not the individual states. Ergo, the individual states have a right to place any restriction they see fit. Placing a restriction on said right does not remove the inherent right, as you appear to be arguing.

You appear to be arguing for, as well as against, the proper reading of the Constitution, because you don't like the law that said owner is under. That line of defense is not going to work Kevin. The law may be unjust in your eyes, but it is not unjust from a constitutional standpoint.

You can't agree with me on the restriction of the federal government, and then in the next breath say the law is unjust because the state exercised its right under both the state and federal Constitution. You got no case Kevin, if you believe in strict constructionism.

I believe in strict constructionism, but I also believe in the natural law. Just because a law is constitutional doesn't mean I have to agree with it. I don't agree with the income tax and believe the 16th Amendment should be repealed immediately. Just because New York has the right to enact a law, under the Constitution, restricting the right to bear arms doesn't mean it's not unjust and in violation of the natural law. Slavery was certainly unjust, but it was sanctioned by the Constitution. The point is, where the Constitution or state law goes against the natural law it is unjust and should be changed.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

I agree that the Constitution originally was meant to apply only to the federal government, and I think that's how it should be again. However, the argument today is that the 14th Amendment made it so that some of the amendments apply to the states as well. So if that's the case then it must mean all the amendments apply to the states, not just the ones convenient for the current party in power.

If he would have been prosecuted, as some in this thread are calling for, then he is being punished for defending his life, property, and the lives of his employees. That means that technically he was not allowed to defend his life, property, and the lives of his employees under the law. That goes against his natural rights, and that is why the law is unjust.

If you are calling for the "Incorporation" theory with the II Amendment, I disagree. That would remove power from the individual states on said matter. Why would you want to do that? If you are against the "incorporation" theory, why throw out the "they are doing it already with some of the other amendments" argument to me?

You acknowledge that the II Amendment was meant to restrict the federal government and not the individual states. Ergo, the individual states have a right to place any restriction they see fit. Placing a restriction on said right does not remove the inherent right, as you appear to be arguing.

You appear to be arguing for, as well as against, the proper reading of the Constitution, because you don't like the law that said owner is under. That line of defense is not going to work Kevin. The law may be unjust in your eyes, but it is not unjust from a constitutional standpoint.

You can't agree with me on the restriction of the federal government, and then in the next breath say the law is unjust because the state exercised its right under both the state and federal Constitution. You got no case Kevin, if you believe in strict constructionism.

I believe in strict constructionism, but I also believe in the natural law. Just because a law is constitutional doesn't mean I have to agree with it. I don't agree with the income tax and believe the 16th Amendment should be repealed immediately. Just because New York has the right to enact a law, under the Constitution, restricting the right to bear arms doesn't mean it's not unjust and in violation of the natural law. Slavery was certainly unjust, but it was sanctioned by the Constitution. The point is, where the Constitution or state law goes against the natural law it is unjust and should be changed.

Said store owner was not prevented by law (natural or otherwise) from protecting himself and his property Kevin. That is a fact. The gun restriction in his state was properly ratified and is congruent with strict constructionism. You can't rightfully state you believe in something, and then proceed to argue against it, which is what you are doing with me Kevin.

Until and unless you can show that the state law was not properly ratified, in violation of its own state constitution, or the Constitution of the United States, you have no solid ground for retort. All you have is emotional dislike. And as you and I both know, that doesn't cut it when we are talking about the Constitution.

The law is not unjust as you keep claiming. The employers of said state had the right and power to make their voices heard, in regards to the proposed law and its subsequent ratification. How can you claim said law is unjust, when the people of that state have exercised their rights, and those rights under that law are congruent with the Constitution of the United States?

 

[Diuretic]

Don't swear, just agree, if you break the law you should be punished. The old man thankfully stopped a robbery, but he broke the law and should be punished for BREAKING THE LAW.
There are gun laws for a reason, agree? If they determine he should get a slap on the wrist, so be it.

The next time a home boy shoots someone because he saw a crime and his gun is unregistered, please come back here and defend him as well. I will say the exact same thing, thank you and he should be prosecuted. Lets see if he gets a slap on the wrist and support from everyone like this old man.

alert us when those high ranking democrats who failed to pay their taxes are in jail,, then we will deal with the shop keeper. TIA

This is called a diversion. People tend to do it when they know they are losing. Here is a thought, stay on point.

The man who shot up those people did it illegally. I thank him for protecting his workers, but he did it illegally. He should be prosecuted. If they determine he is to get a slap on the wrist, so be it.

Gun laws are there for a reason, not for convenience when you think the shooter is justified.

Selective law enforcement is wrong. Agree?

The shooting was probably legal (self-defence doctrine). The weapon was unregistered. The weapon's unregistered status doesn't affect the actions of the man in defending himself and/or others.

Selective law enforcement happens all the time, what's important are the reasons any selective law enforcement decision is made.

 

[Diuretic]

alert us when those high ranking democrats who failed to pay their taxes are in jail,, then we will deal with the shop keeper. TIA

This is called a diversion. People tend to do it when they know they are losing. Here is a thought, stay on point.

The man who shot up those people did it illegally. I thank him for protecting his workers, but he did it illegally. He should be prosecuted. If they determine he is to get a slap on the wrist, so be it.

Gun laws are there for a reason, not for convenience when you think the shooter is justified.

Selective law enforcement is wrong. Agree?

No, because the law he broke is unjust in the first place. Had he not broken the law he would have at least been robbed, probably assaulted, and maybe dead. Any law that makes it illegal to defend yourself, your property, and other innocent people is unjust and needs to go immediately.

The law on this isn't "unjust". You may disagree with it but that doesn't make it "unjust".

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If you are calling for the "Incorporation" theory with the II Amendment, I disagree. That would remove power from the individual states on said matter. Why would you want to do that? If you are against the "incorporation" theory, why throw out the "they are doing it already with some of the other amendments" argument to me?

You acknowledge that the II Amendment was meant to restrict the federal government and not the individual states. Ergo, the individual states have a right to place any restriction they see fit. Placing a restriction on said right does not remove the inherent right, as you appear to be arguing.

You appear to be arguing for, as well as against, the proper reading of the Constitution, because you don't like the law that said owner is under. That line of defense is not going to work Kevin. The law may be unjust in your eyes, but it is not unjust from a constitutional standpoint.

You can't agree with me on the restriction of the federal government, and then in the next breath say the law is unjust because the state exercised its right under both the state and federal Constitution. You got no case Kevin, if you believe in strict constructionism.

I believe in strict constructionism, but I also believe in the natural law. Just because a law is constitutional doesn't mean I have to agree with it. I don't agree with the income tax and believe the 16th Amendment should be repealed immediately. Just because New York has the right to enact a law, under the Constitution, restricting the right to bear arms doesn't mean it's not unjust and in violation of the natural law. Slavery was certainly unjust, but it was sanctioned by the Constitution. The point is, where the Constitution or state law goes against the natural law it is unjust and should be changed.

Said store owner was not prevented by law (natural or otherwise) from protecting himself and his property Kevin. That is a fact. The gun restriction in his state was properly ratified and is congruent with strict constructionism. You can't rightfully state you believe in something, and then proceed to argue against it, which is what you are doing with me Kevin.

Until and unless you can show that the state law was not properly ratified, in violation of its own state constitution, or the Constitution of the United States, you have no solid ground for retort. All you have is emotional dislike. And as you and I both know, that doesn't cut it when we are talking about the Constitution.

The law is not unjust as you keep claiming. The employers of said state had the right and power to make their voices heard, in regards to the proposed law and its subsequent ratification. How can you claim said law is unjust, when the people of that state have exercised their rights, and those rights under that law are congruent with the Constitution of the United States?

This is a classic argument for the "Tyranny of the Majority." Just because a majority of New York's population, through their elected officials, may want gun restrictions doesn't mean that it's right to do so. The rights of the minority must be defended as well. Those calling for this man's prosecution are saying that because the state of New York said so this man doesn't have the right to defend himself from criminals. No one can take away somebody's natural rights, which includes the right to self-defense.

 

[Diuretic]

No, because the law he broke is unjust in the first place. Had he not broken the law he would have at least been robbed, probably assaulted, and maybe dead. Any law that makes it illegal to defend yourself, your property, and other innocent people is unjust and needs to go immediately.

Personally, I don't believe there should be any restrictions on the right to bear arms. However, according to the Constitution, the individual states have the authority to place restrictions on the said right as they see fit.

If the restriction was passed without the ability of the employers to have a say, I would agree with you that said law is unjust. That isn't the case though.

That would be the argument between common law and natural law. Do we have to accept a law just because the government has the right to enact it if it violates our natural rights? I say any law, regardless of whether the government has the right to enact it or not, that violates the natural law is unjust.

Common law is built on natural law. You may be thinking of positive law. No you have to accept a law provided it's passed in accordance with legislative provisions, you only have to obey it. Laws which violate natural law are valid laws unless they are seen to be in violation of the positive law which governs the legislative process. There are no "natural rights".

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

This is called a diversion. People tend to do it when they know they are losing. Here is a thought, stay on point.

The man who shot up those people did it illegally. I thank him for protecting his workers, but he did it illegally. He should be prosecuted. If they determine he is to get a slap on the wrist, so be it.

Gun laws are there for a reason, not for convenience when you think the shooter is justified.

Selective law enforcement is wrong. Agree?

No, because the law he broke is unjust in the first place. Had he not broken the law he would have at least been robbed, probably assaulted, and maybe dead. Any law that makes it illegal to defend yourself, your property, and other innocent people is unjust and needs to go immediately.

The law on this isn't "unjust". You may disagree with it but that doesn't make it "unjust".

Any law that violates a person's natural rights is unjust.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Personally, I don't believe there should be any restrictions on the right to bear arms. However, according to the Constitution, the individual states have the authority to place restrictions on the said right as they see fit.

If the restriction was passed without the ability of the employers to have a say, I would agree with you that said law is unjust. That isn't the case though.

That would be the argument between common law and natural law. Do we have to accept a law just because the government has the right to enact it if it violates our natural rights? I say any law, regardless of whether the government has the right to enact it or not, that violates the natural law is unjust.

Common law is built on natural law. You may be thinking of positive law. No you have to accept a law provided it's passed in accordance with legislative provisions, you only have to obey it. Laws which violate natural law are valid laws unless they are seen to be in violation of the positive law which governs the legislative process. There are no "natural rights".

You're correct, I did mean positive law. My mistake.

As to there being no natural rights, we're going to have to disagree on that.

 

[Diuretic]

I believe in strict constructionism, but I also believe in the natural law. Just because a law is constitutional doesn't mean I have to agree with it. I don't agree with the income tax and believe the 16th Amendment should be repealed immediately. Just because New York has the right to enact a law, under the Constitution, restricting the right to bear arms doesn't mean it's not unjust and in violation of the natural law. Slavery was certainly unjust, but it was sanctioned by the Constitution. The point is, where the Constitution or state law goes against the natural law it is unjust and should be changed.

Said store owner was not prevented by law (natural or otherwise) from protecting himself and his property Kevin. That is a fact. The gun restriction in his state was properly ratified and is congruent with strict constructionism. You can't rightfully state you believe in something, and then proceed to argue against it, which is what you are doing with me Kevin.

Until and unless you can show that the state law was not properly ratified, in violation of its own state constitution, or the Constitution of the United States, you have no solid ground for retort. All you have is emotional dislike. And as you and I both know, that doesn't cut it when we are talking about the Constitution.

The law is not unjust as you keep claiming. The employers of said state had the right and power to make their voices heard, in regards to the proposed law and its subsequent ratification. How can you claim said law is unjust, when the people of that state have exercised their rights, and those rights under that law are congruent with the Constitution of the United States?

This is a classic argument for the "Tyranny of the Majority." Just because a majority of New York's population, through their elected officials, may want gun restrictions doesn't mean that it's right to do so. The rights of the minority must be defended as well. Those calling for this man's prosecution are saying that because the state of New York said so this man doesn't have the right to defend himself from criminals. No one can take away somebody's natural rights, which includes the right to self-defense.

Of course the man has the right to defend himself from criminals, where has anyone argued that in this thread?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Said store owner was not prevented by law (natural or otherwise) from protecting himself and his property Kevin. That is a fact. The gun restriction in his state was properly ratified and is congruent with strict constructionism. You can't rightfully state you believe in something, and then proceed to argue against it, which is what you are doing with me Kevin.

Until and unless you can show that the state law was not properly ratified, in violation of its own state constitution, or the Constitution of the United States, you have no solid ground for retort. All you have is emotional dislike. And as you and I both know, that doesn't cut it when we are talking about the Constitution.

The law is not unjust as you keep claiming. The employers of said state had the right and power to make their voices heard, in regards to the proposed law and its subsequent ratification. How can you claim said law is unjust, when the people of that state have exercised their rights, and those rights under that law are congruent with the Constitution of the United States?

This is a classic argument for the "Tyranny of the Majority." Just because a majority of New York's population, through their elected officials, may want gun restrictions doesn't mean that it's right to do so. The rights of the minority must be defended as well. Those calling for this man's prosecution are saying that because the state of New York said so this man doesn't have the right to defend himself from criminals. No one can take away somebody's natural rights, which includes the right to self-defense.

Of course the man has the right to defend himself from criminals, where has anyone argued that in this thread?

Those calling for his prosecution are saying he doesn't have that right. You don't get prosecuted for doing something you have the right to do, therefore they're clearly saying he didn't have the right to defend himself because his gun wasn't registered with the state.

 

[Diuretic]

No, because the law he broke is unjust in the first place. Had he not broken the law he would have at least been robbed, probably assaulted, and maybe dead. Any law that makes it illegal to defend yourself, your property, and other innocent people is unjust and needs to go immediately.

The law on this isn't "unjust". You may disagree with it but that doesn't make it "unjust".

Any law that violates a person's natural rights is unjust.

There are no "natural rights". Laws create and specify rights. Laws regulate behaviour, that's why they exist.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The law on this isn't "unjust". You may disagree with it but that doesn't make it "unjust".

Any law that violates a person's natural rights is unjust.

There are no "natural rights". Laws create and specify rights. Laws regulate behaviour, that's why they exist.

The United States was founded with a respect to the natural law. You may not agree with it, but that's the American way.

 

[Diuretic]

That would be the argument between common law and natural law. Do we have to accept a law just because the government has the right to enact it if it violates our natural rights? I say any law, regardless of whether the government has the right to enact it or not, that violates the natural law is unjust.

Common law is built on natural law. You may be thinking of positive law. No you have to accept a law provided it's passed in accordance with legislative provisions, you only have to obey it. Laws which violate natural law are valid laws unless they are seen to be in violation of the positive law which governs the legislative process. There are no "natural rights".

You're correct, I did mean positive law. My mistake.

As to there being no natural rights, we're going to have to disagree on that.

Sorry I didn't read this when I posted about the non-existence of natural rights (again). I don't want to seem like I'm simply contradicting so yes, we can certainly agree to disagree - without rancour of course.