Guns And The Laws That Govern Them

Baldimo wrote:

Why not. You want to use tragic accidents (which are fewer then self-defense shootings)
to limit people's access to guns. Prove the case then.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Right after you prove that tragic accidents are fewer than self-defense shootings.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

The victim STILL has the right to fight back,
regardless of any accidents; thay have NO effect on his rights.

Frank Apisa wrote:

And there is no effect on my rights to call these accidents
to everyone's attention.

I have no objection to that, Frank,
but your silence toward water and cars
shows forth the HYPOCRISY of your argument qua SAFETY and guns.
U just want CRIMINALS to be safer than thay are when victims are
as well armed as thay are.

Frank Apisa is crusading for O.S.H.A. for violent criminals on-the-job!!!
Frank wants them to be safe from the defenses of their victims on-the-job, in the streets.

Frank Apisa wrote:

In any case, if all these guns make for a safer community...
why isn't the United States one of the safest places on the planet?

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Because not enuf of the victims carry defensive guns.

When ALL victims of future crime are fully armed, THEN talk to us of accidents, Frank.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Avoided the question, I see...as well you should, because the answer destroys your argument.

MY argument is that government has NO jurisdiction to institute gun control.
Its jurisdictional foundation is a hoax.

I further argue that IF we do NOT
concede a MONOPOLY of power to violent criminals,
then their more powerful victims will be safer from them than thay woud be
if only the violent predators had power (meaning had guns).
That argument is un-affected by any accident rates,
however Frank, I am willing to tolerate laws requiring students
to be taught gun handling safety in public schools from K thru 12.
Does that satisfy your concerns ????????

Incidentally, u r avoiding the fact that most deaths from gunfire
arise from the War on Drugs, another jurisdictional farce.
I do not belong to that milieu, which embraces almost all
of those bloody casualties. I feel safe; very safe.

Incidentally, Frank, I have some free advice for u
upon which u need not comment if u dont wanna,
having to do with forethought:
if u do have defensive hardware
in a jurisdiction that is raping the US Constitution 's Bill of Rights,
then u O it to yourself to THINK AHEAD.

If u used it defensively
to save the lives of your family, then WHERE woud u stand
if u have an ugly bloody dead thing on your bedroom floor?? Do u live in an apartment?

Elevator access?? Embarrassing to be dragging down big, bloody dead things to dumpsters??
Awkward conversation with nabors?? Is NJ friendly to defense of your family??
Failing to plan is planning to fail.

If gun laws made us safer, then gun free zones would have zero shootings. Cities that have strict gun laws would be the safest in the country.

How are the stats in your favor? 100,000 self-defense uses a year vs 30,000 shootings? Is this opposite day?

Everyone who has the right to LIVE
has as much right as anyone else, including police and the mayor,
to defend his life. Government was never granted authority to interfere in that.

I will absent myself from discussion for a few hours,
inasmuch as I am taking a computer-based course on Out Of Body Experiences in NY.
David

Everyone who has the right to LIVE
has as much right as anyone else, including police and the mayor,
to defend his life. Government was never granted authority to interfere in that.

So you are saying that criminals in prison for murder, rape,
violent assault, robbery and such...should have a right to own guns.
And individuals committed to (what used to be called) insane asylums...
should have a right to own gun.

That is very interesting.

I think it incredible that anyone as intelligent as you could possibly
think that way...but surprises are a part of life.

I will absent myself from discussion for a few hours,
inasmuch as I am taking a computer-based course on Out Of Body Experiences in NY.
David

Good luck with the course, David.
I hope you find it informative and rewarding.

I've never personally had an out of body experience in NY...
or anywhere else for that matter, but it does sound interesting.

Do you always put words in people's mouths? Who said self defense deaths?

Using a gun in self-defense doesn't always mean killing someone or even having to fire your weapon.
I myself have used a gun in home defense and didn't have to fire a shot.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Everyone who has the right to LIVE
has as much right as anyone else, including police and the mayor,
to defend his life. Government was never granted authority to interfere in that.

Frank Apisa wrote:

So you are saying that criminals in prison for murder, rape,
violent assault, robbery and such...should have a right to own guns.
And individuals committed to (what used to be called) insane asylums...
should have a right to own gun.

Yes, as far as I know,
thay DO have that right, the same as the right to own real estate.

That is very interesting.

I think it incredible that anyone as intelligent as you could possibly
think that way...but surprises are a part of life.

I will absent myself from discussion for a few hours,
inasmuch as I am taking a computer-based course on Out Of Body Experiences in NY.
David

Good luck with the course, David.
I hope you find it informative and rewarding.

I've never personally had an out of body experience in NY...
or anywhere else for that matter, but it does sound interesting.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Everyone who has the right to LIVE
has as much right as anyone else, including police and the mayor,
to defend his life. Government was never granted authority to interfere in that.

Frank Apisa wrote:

So you are saying that criminals in prison for murder, rape,
violent assault, robbery and such...should have a right to own guns.
And individuals committed to (what used to be called) insane asylums...
should have a right to own gun.

Yes, as far as I know,
thay DO have that right,
the same as the right to own real estate.

And you would argue that the government
should not refuse them permission to exercise that right.

You would take this argument that far?

That is very interesting.

I think it incredible that anyone as intelligent as you could possibly
think that way...but surprises are a part of life.

I will absent myself from discussion for a few hours,
inasmuch as I am taking a computer-based course on Out Of Body Experiences in NY.
David

Good luck with the course, David.
I hope you find it informative and rewarding.

I've never personally had an out of body experience in NY...
or anywhere else for that matter, but it does sound interesting.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Everyone who has the right to LIVE
has as much right as anyone else, including police and the mayor,
to defend his life. Government was never granted authority to interfere in that.

Frank Apisa wrote:

So you are saying that criminals in prison for murder, rape,
violent assault, robbery and such...should have a right to own guns.
And individuals committed to (what used to be called) insane asylums...
should have a right to own gun.

Yes, as far as I know,
thay DO have that right,
the same as the right to own real estate.

Frank Apisa wrote:

And you would argue that the government
should not refuse them permission to exercise that right.

I woud, tho I need not;
so far as I know, government has never presented them
with that challenge (neither qua guns nor real estate).

Frank Apisa wrote:

You would take this argument that far?

Yes. Y not??

U know, actually, the prisoners have the right to be safe from one another.
Bear in mind that thay were not sentenced to be slain nor sexually defiled
in the discretion of other incarcerated criminals; that's not the penalty.
In theory, government shud deny them access to one another (unless thay consent)
or let them use their own defensive weapons, rather than let it be
what it actually is in jail or in prison. Thay have a legal right to survive. Yes??

Martha Stewart had the legal right to survive and to be chaste (not chased?); yes??

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Everyone who has the right to LIVE
has as much right as anyone else, including police and the mayor,
to defend his life. Government was never granted authority to interfere in that.

Frank Apisa wrote:

So you are saying that criminals in prison for murder, rape,
violent assault, robbery and such...should have a right to own guns.
And individuals committed to (what used to be called) insane asylums...
should have a right to own gun.

Yes, as far as I know,
thay DO have that right,
the same as the right to own real estate.

Frank Apisa wrote:

And you would argue that the government
should not refuse them permission to exercise that right.

I woud, tho I need not;
so far as I know, government has never presented them
with that challenge (neither qua guns nor real estate).

Just want to be sure I understand you, Counsellor…
not to be confused with (allow you to dig this hole as deep as you want}:

You are telling me that you would argue for the right of prisoners
to own and possess guns…

during their confinement in prison…

and that to the best of your knowledge,
they are not prevented from doing so in any jurisdiction of which you are aware?

Frank Apisa wrote:

You would take this argument that far?

Yes. Y not??

U know, actually, the prisoners have the right to be safe from one another.
Bear in mind that thay were not sentenced to be slain nor sexually defiled
in the discretion of other incarcerated criminals; that's not the penalty.
In theory, government shud deny them access to one another (unless thay consent)
or let them use their own defensive weapons, rather than let it be
what it actually is in jail or in prison. Thay have a legal right to survive. Yes??

C'mon, David...we are discussing "guns and the laws that govern them."
My questions at this time (and supposedly your responses) have to do
with the right of prisoners in prisons to own and possess guns.

Respectfully, I am trying to understand your position more clearly...
which accounts for the question I asked up above.

Martha Stewart had the legal right to survive and to be chaste (not chased?); yes??

I am not a lawyer so I try not to comment directly on legal questions of this sort.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Everyone who has the right to LIVE
has as much right as anyone else, including police and the mayor,
to defend his life. Government was never granted authority to interfere in that.

Frank Apisa wrote:

So you are saying that criminals in prison for murder, rape,
violent assault, robbery and such...should have a right to own guns.
And individuals committed to (what used to be called) insane asylums...
should have a right to own gun.

Yes, as far as I know,
thay DO have that right,
the same as the right to own real estate.

Frank Apisa wrote:

And you would argue that the government
should not refuse them permission to exercise that right.

I woud, tho I need not;
so far as I know, government has never presented them
with that challenge (neither qua guns nor real estate).

Frank Apisa wrote:

Just want to be sure I understand you, Counsellor…
not to be confused with (allow you to dig this hole as deep as you want}:

You are telling me that you would argue for the right of prisoners
to own and possess guns…

U CHANGED the question.
Now u include possession.

Frank Apisa wrote:

during their confinement in prison…

If my favorite person were confined to a jail or a prison,
then I 'd become very concerned qua his or her personal safety.
For safety, I 'd want him or her to have the option to remain alone.
Failing that, he might well need some effective means
of self defense in the middle of a bunch of criminals: yes??
( Join our gang, or DIE, bitch! Then follow our RULES! )
Imagine your dad or your son or your favorite brother
being hurled into prison? Does it MATTER
whether he remains intact? Un-defiled?? Is that important? Do u care??
What if incarceration happened to YOU, as it did to Martha Stewart??
Do u think SHE expected it, b4 she got into trouble?

Frank Apisa wrote:

and that to the best of your knowledge,
they are not prevented from doing so in any jurisdiction of which you are aware?

So far as I know, gun controllers have never challenged anyone's right to own guns; I cud be in error, but I doubt
that anti-gun laws have addressed gun ownership. If Ted Nugent
were incarcerated, then by operation of law, it 'd a crime for him
to possess a gun.
I doubt that there 'd be a suit in equity to divest him of title to his guns.

In such a statutory scheme, when a citizen dies in Vermont,
his heir or legatee in NJ might become a criminal by operation of law
when he inherits that estate including (with the legatee's knowledge
or not) a gun collection.

e.g., if a man becomes a grandfathers and he begifts his grandson
with a deed of gift of his gun collection on his first birthday,
so far as I have ever heard, no one has ever objected to that,
nor moven to outlaw it.

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

You would take this argument that far?

Yes. Y not??

Do you mean aside from the question of sanity?

Quote:

U know, actually, the prisoners have the right to be safe from one another.
Bear in mind that thay were not sentenced to be slain nor sexually defiled
in the discretion of other incarcerated criminals; that's not the penalty.
In theory, government shud deny them access to one another (unless thay consent)
or let them use their own defensive weapons, rather than let it be
what it actually is in jail or in prison. Thay have a legal right to survive. Yes??

Frank Apisa wrote:

C'mon, David...we are discussing "guns and the laws that govern them."
My questions at this time (and supposedly your responses) have to do
with the right of prisoners in prisons to own and possess guns.

Respectfully, I am trying to understand your position more clearly...
which accounts for the question I asked up above.

Forgive me; sometimes I have a little fun with chosen words.
I 've been like that for about the last 7O years or so.
My position is: even those condemned to death have the right
to remain safe until the time that the death warrant is executed.
(If u dispute that, ask yourself: "if a guard wanted to rape or sodomize
Ethel Rosenberg pre-electrocution, woud he have had the right to do it?")
I argue that the prisoners all have the right to remain safe
from being robbed, sodomized, mutilated or murdered by incarcerated criminals.
To that end, thay shud be offered the option of remaining alone.

WHO is protected by 2A? In US v. Verdugo 110 S. Ct. 1056
the USSC tells us that the same people are protected
by the First Amendment, the SECOND AMENDMENT, the Fourth Amendment (searches & seizures)
the 9th Amendment and the 10th Amendment.
Were the Authors of the 2nd Amendment (James Madison)
thinking of the people in prison??
No. (We know that because at the time, prisoners were not armed.
There was no discussion of that in the press, nor in surviving correspondence.)
The significant consideration, to which u did not directly refer is:
safety of the guards and their ability to control the prison
that is occupied by a well armed malicious militia.

DAVID wrote:

Martha Stewart had the legal right to survive and to be chaste (not chased?); yes??

Frank Apisa wrote:

I am not a lawyer so I try not to comment directly on legal questions of this sort.

She did; she does.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Everyone who has the right to LIVE
has as much right as anyone else, including police and the mayor,
to defend his life. Government was never granted authority to interfere in that.

Frank Apisa wrote:

So you are saying that criminals in prison for murder, rape,
violent assault, robbery and such...should have a right to own guns.
And individuals committed to (what used to be called) insane asylums...
should have a right to own gun.

Yes, as far as I know,
thay DO have that right,
the same as the right to own real estate.

Frank Apisa wrote:

And you would argue that the government
should not refuse them permission to exercise that right.

I woud, tho I need not;
so far as I know, government has never presented them
with that challenge (neither qua guns nor real estate).

Frank Apisa wrote:

Just want to be sure I understand you, Counsellor…
not to be confused with (allow you to dig this hole as deep as you want}:

You are telling me that you would argue for the right of prisoners
to own and possess guns…

U CHANGED the question.
Now u include possession.

I see. In your mind...owning a gun to protect yourself
is somehow different from actually possessing it.

Dig as hard as you want, David...but you will never reach bottom.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Everyone who has the right to LIVE
has as much right as anyone else, including police and the mayor,
to defend his life. Government was never granted authority to interfere in that.

Frank Apisa wrote:

So you are saying that criminals in prison for murder, rape,
violent assault, robbery and such...should have a right to own guns.
And individuals committed to (what used to be called) insane asylums...
should have a right to own gun.

Yes, as far as I know,
thay DO have that right,
the same as the right to own real estate.

Frank Apisa wrote:

And you would argue that the government
should not refuse them permission to exercise that right.

I woud, tho I need not;
so far as I know, government has never presented them
with that challenge (neither qua guns nor real estate).

Frank Apisa wrote:

Just want to be sure I understand you, Counsellor…
not to be confused with (allow you to dig this hole as deep as you want}:

You are telling me that you would argue for the right of prisoners
to own and possess guns…

U CHANGED the question.
Now u include possession.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I see. In your mind...owning a gun to protect yourself
is somehow different from actually possessing it.

Its an ez concept.
I 'm sure that u r better than equal to the task of mastering it:
suppose that u acquire your first gun.
U lend it to me.
If a predator (human or not) kills u because u were un-armed,
u owned that gun while I borrowed it, but u did not POSSESS it,
and accordingly u got killed. Do u see the distinction ???

Qua prisoners, my position is that thay shud be offered
the opportunity to be left alone, out of contact with any other prisoners,
unless thay choose to have social contact with them.
If thay r safe, alone, under constant guard, then I 'll be satisfied qua 2A.
We can indulge the fiction that not only do we give them guns to KABA,
but we give them the troops to man those guns: the guards.

Lemme put it this way, in the fullness of good faith, with all humor laid aside:
I am sure that when the Authors of the 2A wrote it,
thay meant all of the people of the USA,
certainly including children for their protection from violence,
excepting: Indians (who were not deemed part of the USA)
incarcerated criminals, mentally sick men who were confined
to hospitals, and African slaves.

IF the wardens insist that thay mix with dangerous criminals,
then their 2nd Amendment rights to KABA have been activated.

WHO is protected by 2A? In US v. Verdugo 110 S. Ct. 1056
the USSC tells us that the same people are protected
by the First Amendment, the SECOND AMENDMENT, the Fourth Amendment (searches & seizures)
the 9th Amendment and the 10th Amendment.
Were the Authors of the 2nd Amendment (James Madison)
thinking of the people in prison??
No. (We know that because at the time, prisoners were not armed.
There was no discussion of that in the press, nor in surviving correspondence.)
The significant consideration, to which u did not directly refer is:
safety of the guards and their ability to control the prison
that is occupied by a well armed malicious militia.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Dig as hard as you want, David...but you will never reach bottom.

We 'll C.