1
   

USSC Out of Touch?

 
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 08:13 am
So, your "law" would be retroactive, making legal gun owners criminals? Is that how you think? Someone needs to take you out behind the wood pile....
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 08:14 am
WOOHOO!!! USSC got it right this time!!

Stick that in your dark eye and twist!
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 08:26 am
Its just as I predicted this AM. Now Id like to see some cases on incidental issues on 2A . Issues that were never intended, spkien of, nor even conceived by the framers.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 08:27 am
PS ceej, you must learn to think more logically and less like some schoolyard punk.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 09:07 am
cjhsa wrote:
WOOHOO!!! USSC got it right this time!!

You must be very happy.

I'm not sure I agree with all your arguments for the decision, but in the end I find that I actually agree with the decision. To me it seems like a personal freedom (what you do in your own home) issue. I'm big on preserving personal freedoms, and I think gun ownership is one of them.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 09:33 am
farmerman wrote:
PS ceej, you must learn to think more logically and less like some schoolyard punk.


Why bother thinking logically when you can just scare others with your big scary gun? BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!

I get fed up with the intimidation factor many people like cjhsa use. I think they give gun owners a bad name and further they behave in a manner which makes me question whether they have the maturity to carry the responcibility that comes with a firearm.

The conservative spin machine and groups like the NRA say that "guns don't kill people, people kill people," which is true if your thought process is centric around the idea that gun violence only happens with a human element. Take a different issue such as a school distributing (or even just having a basket of) condoms, and what I hear from the the conservatives is how now every child will have sex, as if to say they would not have sex if the condom was not present.

I don't believe that every teenager who picks up a condom is going to feel enabled to have sex anymore than i feel that any person with a gun is going to shoot someone. What I believe is that when you understand the responcibility of something, you respect it more.

Guns should not be treated like any other possession. They are special. To deny this is foolish.

I did martial arts for years as a child, and in the end my conclusion was that I never wanted to get in a fight. I began to realize the severity of violence and what effect it could have on others and myself. I respected my talent/disipline/power and never wanted to have to use it.

I think too many gunnuts have the power of a gun without the disipline or respect. If after learning about guns you don't feel like violence is an absolute last resort, you should not have a gun.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 09:39 am
Quote:
If after learning about guns you don't feel like violence is an absolute last resort, you should not have a gun.



Ceej fails this test almost daily. I hear, in many of his posts , that he considers preemptive shooting of those that threaten him a proper method of self defense.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 10:19 am
If someone threatens you with physical harm, of course you have the right to defend yourself in any manner. It's more than just an inalienable right, it's a self evident truth.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 10:23 am
cjhsa wrote:
If someone threatens you with physical harm, of course you have the right to defend yourself in any manner. It's more than just an inalienable right, it's a self evident truth.


I'm sorry, but it is not.

Me: Cj, I'm going to punch you in the mouth!

Cj: I'm going to shoot you dead, and it's perfectly appropriate that I do so.

...

Not a logical response to the level of the threat.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 10:25 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
If someone threatens you with physical harm, of course you have the right to defend yourself in any manner. It's more than just an inalienable right, it's a self evident truth.


I'm sorry, but it is not.

Me: Cj, I'm going to punch you in the mouth!

Cj: I'm going to shoot you dead, and it's perfectly appropriate that I do so.

...

Not a logical response to the level of the threat.

Cycloptichorn


Well put. I don't think Cj realizes that it would fail the test of self defense and therefore not be a "traditional lawful use" of a handgun.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 10:26 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
If someone threatens you with physical harm, of course you have the right to defend yourself in any manner. It's more than just an inalienable right, it's a self evident truth.


I'm sorry, but it is not.

Me: Cj, I'm going to punch you in the mouth!

Cj: I'm going to shoot you dead, and it's perfectly appropriate that I do so.

...

Not a logical response to the level of the threat.

Cycloptichorn


AFTER you punch him in the mouth, he has a right to shoot you dead, if you are in his house.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 10:27 am
I can't guess your intent.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 10:30 am
woiyo wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
If someone threatens you with physical harm, of course you have the right to defend yourself in any manner. It's more than just an inalienable right, it's a self evident truth.


I'm sorry, but it is not.

Me: Cj, I'm going to punch you in the mouth!

Cj: I'm going to shoot you dead, and it's perfectly appropriate that I do so.

...

Not a logical response to the level of the threat.

Cycloptichorn


AFTER you punch him in the mouth, he has a right to shoot you dead, if you are in his house.


I don't believe that this is as clear-cut as you make it; there have been plenty of people convicted for Murder, for shooting people who clearly were not threatening the life of the person who decided to draw steel on the other guy.

cj, your response is exactly why I support logical restrictions on handguns and their use; some not only lack the ability to properly judge a situation, they actively want a situation to occur where they can use deadly force.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 10:34 am
cjhsa wrote:
I can't guess your intent.


Then you are the one with the dilema. Go ahead a sqeeze the trigger, and be prepared to aswer to the consequences. If you don't know his intent and you fire, you might as well assume his intent. That my little gunpowder junkie would be a very foolish thing to do.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 10:35 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
woiyo wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
If someone threatens you with physical harm, of course you have the right to defend yourself in any manner. It's more than just an inalienable right, it's a self evident truth.


I'm sorry, but it is not.

Me: Cj, I'm going to punch you in the mouth!

Cj: I'm going to shoot you dead, and it's perfectly appropriate that I do so.

...

Not a logical response to the level of the threat.

Cycloptichorn


AFTER you punch him in the mouth, he has a right to shoot you dead, if you are in his house.


I don't believe that this is as clear-cut as you make it; there have been plenty of people convicted for Murder, for shooting people who clearly were not threatening the life of the person who decided to draw steel on the other guy.

cj, your response is exactly why I support logical restrictions on handguns and their use; some not only lack the ability to properly judge a situation, they actively want a situation to occur where they can use deadly force.

Cycloptichorn


If you are uninvited, in my home, and you attack me physically, self defense certainly comes into play.

2 parts, in my home uninvited AND a physical assault. I'm not even so sure about the second part having to actually occur.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 10:38 am
McGentrix wrote:
It's another states right revoked by the Federal Gov't. I think that's the biggest issue I have with it.


Which states' right was revoked?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 10:38 am
woiyo wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
woiyo wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
If someone threatens you with physical harm, of course you have the right to defend yourself in any manner. It's more than just an inalienable right, it's a self evident truth.


I'm sorry, but it is not.

Me: Cj, I'm going to punch you in the mouth!

Cj: I'm going to shoot you dead, and it's perfectly appropriate that I do so.

...

Not a logical response to the level of the threat.

Cycloptichorn


AFTER you punch him in the mouth, he has a right to shoot you dead, if you are in his house.


I don't believe that this is as clear-cut as you make it; there have been plenty of people convicted for Murder, for shooting people who clearly were not threatening the life of the person who decided to draw steel on the other guy.

cj, your response is exactly why I support logical restrictions on handguns and their use; some not only lack the ability to properly judge a situation, they actively want a situation to occur where they can use deadly force.

Cycloptichorn


If you are uninvited, in my home, and you attack me physically, self defense certainly comes into play.

2 parts, in my home uninvited AND a physical assault. I'm not even so sure about the second part having to actually occur.


Jeez, you are intellectually lazy.

Your original comment said nothing about being uninvited in your home. You have a real bad habit of going back and changing the original proposition when the folly of your words is pointed out to you.

Your original comment:

Quote:

AFTER you punch him in the mouth, he has a right to shoot you dead, if you are in his house.


I do not believe that what you wrote here is true in the slightest.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 11:13 am
woiyo wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
woiyo wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
If someone threatens you with physical harm, of course you have the right to defend yourself in any manner. It's more than just an inalienable right, it's a self evident truth.


I'm sorry, but it is not.

Me: Cj, I'm going to punch you in the mouth!

Cj: I'm going to shoot you dead, and it's perfectly appropriate that I do so.

...

Not a logical response to the level of the threat.

Cycloptichorn


AFTER you punch him in the mouth, he has a right to shoot you dead, if you are in his house.


I don't believe that this is as clear-cut as you make it; there have been plenty of people convicted for Murder, for shooting people who clearly were not threatening the life of the person who decided to draw steel on the other guy.

cj, your response is exactly why I support logical restrictions on handguns and their use; some not only lack the ability to properly judge a situation, they actively want a situation to occur where they can use deadly force.

Cycloptichorn


If you are uninvited, in my home, and you attack me physically, self defense certainly comes into play.

2 parts, in my home uninvited AND a physical assault. I'm not even so sure about the second part having to actually occur.


So you would shoot a stranger in your house? What if they were just in the wrong house? Like cjhsa put it, you "cant guess" intent. What if they were running away? Someone being in your residence is NOT carte blanche on going trigger happy.

You can't just fire first ask questions later. If you think you can, I question your education on firearms and in general question your common sense.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 11:19 am
Uninvited and after an assault?

Yea, I'd offer him a cup of tea. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 11:21 am
What if he was invited? Would you still then have the right to kill?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » USSC Out of Touch?
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/24/2024 at 08:11:49