'Shoot first' laws make it tougher for burglars in the United States

[Diuretic]

Don't tell me what I can and cannot say you fucking bastard. If the issue I am discussing is not the issue you want to read about than don't read it. Since I intend to take the character and intellectual capacity of those who are part of the discussion into account you can choose to discuss that issue or not. As for me I will decide which issues I will discuss and which I will not. If you don't want to discuss those issues than feel free not to respond but it is obvious you want to discuss them since you did respond.

I don't give a shit what you think about this POSTER and you can save it for PM you hypocritical jackass. But of course I NEED TO GET OVER MYSELF WHILE YOUR RETARDED ASS DOESN'T. Now that you have stated your opinion of me and posters who choose to discuss other issues you can move on. Now that you have posted your thoughts about others in this thread instead of saving it for PM you can admit that you are a fucking hypocrite who wants others to behave one way while you get to behave another. Now tell me what else you think is stupid you fucking moron. If you don't want to discuss the issue of you being a bastard than go find another issue to discuss and another person to have a discussion with.

Lack of self-control Edward. When you read this again, and you will, because you're fascinated with yourself, will you be embarrassed? Your petulant outburst is actually worse than many others here that I'd categorise as, well, up themselves. Now I know you, I know what to expect. I'll make allowances for your lack of self-control but I won't spare your obviously fragile ego. You may wish to put me on ignore, I may be too painful for you. And I won't even have to use a swear word or insult you personally.

 

[M14 Shooter]

For comparison, how often does a bicyclist injure himself and how often does a bicyclist permanently maim someone else with a bicycle?

This is an absurd, meaningless comparison.
How many people accidentally down in a pool; how many people are accidentally drowned by someone else in a pool?

I think that the Bill of Rights needs limitations.

There are limits on the right to arms that do not violate the 2nd amendemnt.
None of the limits YOU want on the right to arms fall into that category.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We need to use some common sense here.

Common sense:
Allowing people to defend themselves and their property with deadly force.
It is, after all, their right to do so.

Now robbers are going to carefully plan their invasions and go directly for the homeowners bedrooms, put a bullet in them, and then just in case kill their children and proceed to rob them.

Unlikely. Criminals do not confront people, especially those that might be armed, unless they have to, and criminals are unlikely to commit murder just so they can steal a TV.

Now, it makes sense for the owners to defend themselves and that it would be okay for the owner to shoot to kill someone who is robbing their house...

So.. what's your issue with the law that allows home owners to shoot people robbing their house?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I am saying that if there is a law that allows the homeowner to shoot and kill from the shadows without any danger being posed by the robber that those who invade homes in those states are more likely to address the threat before going about the robbery.

This assumes that someone is willing to commit murder to steal a TV.
What makes you think this is the case?

That this law will also prevent those who do not want to murder someone from even committing the robbery in the first place

Good!

 

[M14 Shooter]

Don't tell me what I can and cannot say you fucking bastard.

Son, I think your parents would be very upset if they knew you were using their computer to post things like this.

 

[Shogun]

The first amendment isn't broadly applied in this country. In fact, freedom of speech is also a regulated right as is the right to own guns. It is odd that those who believe that the second amendment should have no restrictions or limitations ignore that the first does as does every other right enumerated in the Constitution. It must be because they have an agenda. I do not accept your either-or proposition. I support the second amendment and do not want it repealed instead I reject your retarded interepretation of it as I am sure most intelligent people do.

I don't really care what you accept or reject. No, dummy. Your speach is not limited. You would know better if you had first hand experience with a government that actually DID restrict speach. You are babbling like a martyr christian whose only strategy is to feel sorry for themselves. the FACT of the Ferlinghetti trial and the FACT that you can say anything you want on this messageboard belay how stupid your post is. We let Nazi's, Fred Phelps, the lefty organization of the day, muslims, mexicans and any other shit head with an opinion express that opinion. THAT is your freedom of speech. I bet money, marbles and chalk that you, yourself, have NEVER been harassed for trying to speak your opinion by the federal government. the above stupid post is a testement of your armchair politics coddled in a nation that never made you understand what a limit on speech is really about.

and, as for guns, I'll stand by what I posted: When assholes with opinions start inflicting arbitrary limits on guns then don't cry like an outdated hippy the next time you find yourself shuffled to a "protest zone" 3 miles from where the event is located at.

 

[mattskramer]

This is an absurd, meaningless comparison.
How many people accidentally down in a pool; how many people are accidentally drowned by someone else in a pool?


There are limits on the right to arms that do not violate the 2nd amendemnt.
None of the limits YOU want on the right to arms fall into that category.

I think that it is a reasonable comparison. If some idiot shoots himself or stumbles into a pool, that is just fine. It helps weed out the gene pool. The issue for me comes when someone injures someone else. Okay. I have a question for you, would you support denying gun ownership rights to someone who accidentally kills his daughter who tried to sneak in late from a date? Would you deny guns for a family that left a gun around for a child to play with? I would.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I think that it is a reasonable comparison.

You can think that all you want.

I have a question for you, would you support denying gun ownership rights to someone who accidentally kills his daughter who tried to sneak in late from a date?

Was he convicted of a felony?

Would you deny guns for a family that left a gun around for a child to play with?

Were they -- the entire family -- convicted of a felony?

 

[mattskramer]

Don't you have a Hillary fundraiser to attend or something?

(Sigh) No. I don’t support Hillary. So far, my favorite candidate is Rudi. Cute retort. Anyway, you didn’t pause to think about my entire post for a second did you? Okay. So you have no qualms with allowing me to burn puppy dogs to death if it fits my religion, right?

 

[mattskramer]

You can think that all you want.


Was he convicted of a felony?

No. I guess that I see your point. You are a stickler for the law and constitution. So, if they were clumsy and foolish and their negligence results in the death of an innocent person, it is okay for them to continue to own and use guns. In your opinion, they should be forced to give up their right to own guns only when they are convicted of a felony. Okay. We disagree. If someone's negligence results in death, that person should lose rights in my opinion.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I guess that I see your point. You are a stickler for the law and constitution.

Silly me, thinking that we should stick to what the Constitition says.

So, if they were clumsy and foolish and their negligence results in the death of an innocent person, it is okay for them to continue to own and use guns.

Does their negligence result in a felony conviction?
If not, then they still have their right to arms.

In your opinion, they should be forced to give up their right to own guns only when they are convicted of a felony.

That's not -my- opinion, that's the 5th amendment of the US Constitution.

If someone's negligence results in death, that person should lose rights in my opinion.

How much does it suck for you to know that the US constitution holds more power than your opinion?

 

[Shogun]

No. I guess that I see your point. You are a stickler for the law and constitution. So, if they were clumsy and foolish and their negligence results in the death of an innocent person, it is okay for them to continue to own and use guns. In your opinion, they should be forced to give up their right to own guns only when they are convicted of a felony. Okay. We disagree. If someone's negligence results in death, that person should lose rights in my opinion.

just like negligent driving gets people banned from cars, eh...

 

[mattskramer]

Silly me, thinking that we should stick to what the Constitition says.

I guess that I am not communicating very well. I think that I understand what the constitution says and what it does not say. I’m not that interested in debates about the constitution says. I’m more interested in understanding what people think that the constitution/rule of law should be. How could things be improved in such a way to promote more safety while not damaging (at least not seriously damaging) our freedoms and liberties? I also like to see how consistent they are in their reasoning.

Does their negligence result in a felony conviction? If not, then they still have their right to arms.

Yes. I understand that this is what the law says. Is this the way that you think that it should remain? I guess that if you were around before amendment 13 was established, you would have said that slavery is okay because the constitution does not say otherwise.

That's not -my- opinion, that's the 5th amendment of the US Constitution.

Yes. I’ve read the Constitution. I know what the amendments say. I am not asking you about the constitution. I am asking you for your opinion. I’ll ask it again. Is it also your opinion that people should be forced to give up their right to own guns only when they are convicted of a felony? Try to follow me.
Yes, the second amendment to the constitution says:

A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I do not see any exceptions mentioned. There is no background check mentioned. It clearly says that the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Okay. Let us consider another amendment. Okay. I guess that it should remain as it is.
Similarly, the first amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I do not see any exceptions. It clearly says that congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Therefore, am I allowed to burn/sacrifice puppies if it is in keeping with my religion: yes-or-no? Perhaps there should be exceptions to the free exercise of religion.

How much does it suck for you to know that the US constitution holds more power than your opinion?

It does not suck. I think that there are rules and laws that you would like to have changed. Are you going to tell me that you like all laws (every single one) as they now stand?

 

[Shogun]

Yes. I understand that this is what the law says. Is this the way that you think that it should remain? I guess that if you were around before amendment 13 was established, you would have said that slavery is okay because the constitution does not say otherwise.


for American society in that point in time; yes it WAS ok. Do we judge early America through the lens of our own ethnocentrism? of course we do. Slavery was a mark against our founders. BUT... Notice how slavery was handled in the Constitution.. it wasn't via a supreme court ruling and it sure as hell wasn't just because someone had an opinion against it. If YOU don't like the second amendment then get your grass root effort started and get your own version of the 13th amendment passed. As it is, bearing arms is a right worth protecting as is the first amendment.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I think that I understand what the constitution says and what it does not say.

Then why do you continually propose/support things that violate it?

I fully support any gincontrol law that:-
-Guarantees that criminals/kids/loonies will not get guns
-Does not infringe on my right to arms.

You find one, and I'll support it.

Yes. I understand that this is what the law says. Is this the way that you think that it should remain?

You cannot take away anyone;s rights until you give them due process.
That means charging them and convicting them with a crime.

I’ll ask it again. Is it also your opinion that people should be forced to give up their right to own guns only when they are convicted of a felony?

You cannot take away anyone's rights until you give them due process.
That means charging them and convicting them with a crime.

I do not see any exceptions mentioned. There is no background check mentioned. It clearly says that the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You are correct.
And so, I ask again:
Why do you continually propose/support things that violate it?

 

[Shogun]

I do not see any exceptions. It clearly says that congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Therefore, am I allowed to burn/sacrifice puppies if it is in keeping with my religion: yes-or-no? Perhaps there should be exceptions to the free exercise of religion.


THE SUPREME COURT: Animal Sacrifice; Court, Citing Religious Freedom, Voids a Ban on Animal Sacrifices
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...25755C0A965958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

 

[mattskramer]

Then why do you continually propose/support things that violate it?

Where have I said that we should violate the Constitution? I am merely giving ideas. I understand that in order to implement the ideas, we may need to amend the Constitution.

I fully support any gun control law that:-
-Guarantees that criminals/kids/loonies will not get guns
-Does not infringe on my right to arms.
You find one, and I'll support it.

That is like saying that I support flapping my arms as a means of flying to Dallas. I understand that you don’t support anything that may even slightly infringe on your right to own guns. How well to you support the first amendment. If my religion calls on animal sacrifice, my I burn doggies? I’m still waiting for an answer.

You cannot take away anyone;s rights until you give them due process. That means charging them and convicting them with a crime.

Quit ducking and dodging. So, your answer to my question is “yes”, right? You that people should be forced to give up their right to own guns only when they are convictedof a felony.

And so, I ask again: Why do you continually propose/support things that violate it?

I am not supporting things that violate the Constitution provided that, in order to implement such things, the Constitution is changed. Following your logic, I may burn dogs if my religion calls on me to do so. That is in complying with the first amendment, right?

 

[mattskramer]

I do not see any exceptions. It clearly says that congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Therefore, am I allowed to burn/sacrifice puppies if it is in keeping with my religion: yes-or-no? Perhaps there should be exceptions to the free exercise of religion.


THE SUPREME COURT: Animal Sacrifice; Court, Citing Religious Freedom, Voids a Ban on Animal Sacrifices
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...25755C0A965958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

Thanks for finding that article for me. What if my religion prohibits me from giving money for the sake of developing weapons? What if I am a true pacifist and am truly opposed to paying taxes when I know that part of it will go to create guns and pay soldiers to kill an alleged enemy? Should I be allowed to stop paying taxes?

 

[Shogun]

That is like saying that I support flapping my arms as a means of flying to Dallas. I understand that you don’t support anything that may even slightly infringe on your right to own guns. How well to you support the first amendment. If my religion calls on animal sacrifice, my I burn doggies? I’m still waiting for an answer.


and I gave you an answer....

 

[M14 Shooter]

Where have I said that we should violate the Constitution? I am merely giving ideas. I understand that in order to implement the ideas, we may need to amend the Constitution.

So, rather than continually talking about things that violate the constitution, why dont you talk about reasons why the amendment should be changed.

I understand that you don’t support anything that may even slightly infringe on your right to own guns.

Good!

How well to you support the first amendment.

Irrelevant to the 2nd amendment issue.

Quit ducking and dodging.

So, your answer to my question is “yes”, right? You that people should be forced to give up their right to own guns only when they are convictedof a felony

OBviously. Thats why we have a 5th amendment.

I am not supporting things that violate the Constitution provided that, in order to implement such things, the Constitution is changed.

So, rather than continually talking about things that violate the constitution, why dont you talk about reasons why the amendment should be changed.