Criminals For Gun Control 1 Home Invasion (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


Duskypearls -> Criminals For Gun Control 1 Home Invasion (2/5/2012 7:47:44 PM)

So, are you for or against it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngsKzdKNAmo&feature=youtu.be




Aylee -> RE: Criminals For Gun Control 1 Home Invasion (2/5/2012 8:01:49 PM)

I am against stronger gun control laws.

In fact, I am rather pissed off that I seem to be the only one that did NOT get a free gun through Fast and Furious.




Duskypearls -> RE: Criminals For Gun Control 1 Home Invasion (2/5/2012 8:12:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

I am against stronger gun control laws.

In fact, I am rather pissed off that I seem to be the only one that did NOT get a free gun through Fast and Furious.


Girl after my own heart!




Aylee -> RE: Criminals For Gun Control 1 Home Invasion (2/5/2012 10:30:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Duskypearls


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

I am against stronger gun control laws.

In fact, I am rather pissed off that I seem to be the only one that did NOT get a free gun through Fast and Furious.


Girl after my own heart!


Nah. After all, if I did get your heart, what would I do with it? Carrying it around in a jar would cause comments at work and I do not eat organs or offal.




LizDeluxe -> RE: Criminals For Gun Control 1 Home Invasion (2/6/2012 6:14:46 AM)

I agree with President Washington.



[image]local://upfiles/1291121/FF0F4CC7CF024DE5ADAAFC270010241E.jpg[/image]




Duskypearls -> RE: Criminals For Gun Control 1 Home Invasion (2/6/2012 6:54:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee


quote:

ORIGINAL: Duskypearls


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

I am against stronger gun control laws.

In fact, I am rather pissed off that I seem to be the only one that did NOT get a free gun through Fast and Furious.


Girl after my own heart!


Nah. After all, if I did get your heart, what would I do with it? Carrying it around in a jar would cause comments at work and I do not eat organs or offal.


It would make you a gutsy girl, though.




OsideGirl -> RE: Criminals For Gun Control 1 Home Invasion (2/6/2012 7:58:14 AM)

I work from home, so I'm here all day alone. I keep a 22 by the door. (We do not have children)





Iamsemisweet -> RE: Criminals For Gun Control 1 Home Invasion (2/6/2012 8:11:16 AM)

I carry most of the time. While I am prepared to use my gun if I need to, I have also familiarized myself with the laws regarding justifiable use of a firearm. I would not want to be prosecuted for shooting someone in a situation where the law doesn't find it justified.




LaTigresse -> RE: Criminals For Gun Control 1 Home Invasion (2/6/2012 8:24:10 AM)

I support stricter gun laws. There are types of guns that are legal for civilians to own that no civilian has any business owning.




kalikshama -> RE: Criminals For Gun Control 1 Home Invasion (2/6/2012 8:29:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LizDeluxe

I agree with President Washington.

[image]local://upfiles/1291121/FF0F4CC7CF024DE5ADAAFC270010241E.jpg[/image]


What did President Washington mean by disciplined?

Just as there are qualifications around obtaining and keeping a driver's license, so should there be for owning weapons.




Yachtie -> RE: Criminals For Gun Control 1 Home Invasion (2/6/2012 8:32:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse

There are types of guns that are legal for civilians to own that no civilian has any business owning.



Hmmm. I can't think of one.




LaTigresse -> RE: Criminals For Gun Control 1 Home Invasion (2/6/2012 8:38:49 AM)

How unfortunate for you.




Yachtie -> RE: Criminals For Gun Control 1 Home Invasion (2/6/2012 8:42:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

Just as there are qualifications around obtaining and keeping a driver's license, so should there be for owning weapons.


That's funny[:D] I see licensed people about town driving their cars who absolutely have no idea of the rules of the road. It's trite, but Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than all my guns combined.

Being trained, and applying that training, is what makes one qualified, not possession of a license.

Edit: License is defined (see Black's Law Dict, 5th ed.) as permission by a competent authority to do that which would otherwise be illegal, a trespass, or a tort. No mention of competency which is what old George meant.




Hotch -> RE: Criminals For Gun Control 1 Home Invasion (2/6/2012 11:37:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

I carry most of the time. While I am prepared to use my gun if I need to, I have also familiarized myself with the laws regarding justifiable use of a firearm. I would not want to be prosecuted for shooting someone in a situation where the law doesn't find it justified.


Find it justified? If I shoot someone it's because they intended to do me or others grave bodily harm. I don't intend to kill anyone for any other reason, so justified or not in the eyes of the law, I'm pulling the trigger... It's the lesser evil of all possible outcomes. I'm not sure what situation you would find yourself in, ready to take a human life and have to debate your justification.




Iamsemisweet -> RE: Criminals For Gun Control 1 Home Invasion (2/6/2012 11:43:51 AM)

I understand what you are saying Hotch.  However, there was a situation in my county a couple of weeks ago, where a drunk 29 yo man wandered up to a rural home at about 12:30 in the AM.  Scared the bejesus out of the homeowner, no doubt.  What happened next is still under investigation, and the homeowner is not talking, but the end result is that the homeowner shot and killed the drunk.  The drunk was outside the home, apparently in the driveway.  The prosecutors' office is reviewing the case for prosecution of the homeowner.  Like I said, there are many facts yet to come out.  Obviously, the HO would have been completely justified if the drunk had forced his way into the house, but the fact that he was still outside makes it a little iffy legally.  Obviously,. the HO was afraid, but was his fear justified?

No thanks, I don't need a hassle with the law in my life.  Obviously, I wouldn't shoot anyone either unless I felt my life was in danger.  But I also don't want there to be any questions about the circumstance.  The drunk's family is all up in arms, and the newspaper printed the HO's address.  I wouldn't want to be in his shoes.




Hotch -> RE: Criminals For Gun Control 1 Home Invasion (2/6/2012 12:06:08 PM)

Thanks for the clarification.

I hope that homeowner is prosecuted if the evidence finds him negligent. There really isn't anything more serious or requiring laser sharp judgment then shooting someone. I don't agree with any form of government control over what firearms I can possess, because that Constitutional right is guaranteed in part for the exact reason G.W. was quoted for above. But on the other hand, you have to take responsibility for your actions in our civilized society.




IrishMist -> RE: Criminals For Gun Control 1 Home Invasion (2/6/2012 3:41:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse

I support stricter gun laws. There are types of guns that are legal for civilians to own that no civilian has any business owning.

I carry guns for work. I also have more than a few in my home (and YES, I raised my kids WITH GUNS ) While I am a very strong supporter of a person's right to bear arms; I am also an advocate for stricter gun laws. In a bit of irony, I have guns within my home, that my teenage daughter has access to, that in reality, no person outside of a military establishment should own.

So yes, I agree with what was said by LaTigresse.




tazzygirl -> RE: Criminals For Gun Control 1 Home Invasion (2/6/2012 4:10:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LizDeluxe

I agree with President Washington.



[image]local://upfiles/1291121/FF0F4CC7CF024DE5ADAAFC270010241E.jpg[/image]


There seems to be some question as to him actually saying that.

The citations I’ve seen generally say that the Independent Chronicle issue reprinted a Jan. 7, 1790 speech; the speech in the Jan. 14, 1790 Boston Independent Chronicle is a Jan. 8, 1790 speech, but the first item in that article bears a Jan. 7, 1790 reference.

http://volokh.com/2010/04/14/government-is-not-reason-it-is-not-eloquence-it-is-force/

From there is a link to this...

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washs01.asp

and the quest reads...

A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies.

The proper establishment of the troops which may be deemed indispensable, will be entitled to mature consideration. In the arrangement which will be made respecting it, it will be of importance to conciliate the comfortable support of the officers and soldiers with a due regard to economy.


In the entire speech, the word "include" never appears once.

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/firsts/sou/text.html

Im not saying he could not have said that at another time. However, the source is attributed to that speech, and those words are taken out of context.




LizDeluxe -> RE: Criminals For Gun Control 1 Home Invasion (2/6/2012 4:19:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama
What did President Washington mean by disciplined?

Just as there are qualifications around obtaining and keeping a driver's license, so should there be for owning weapons.


I can't be certain what George meant by that term as I never met him or spoke to him. I'm going to guess he meant that the firearms owner should be responsible in his ownership, which I would strongly agree with. I'm not entirely sure what the purpose of the second sentence is since that condition already exists in just about every jurisdiction in the country. Well, it exists for law abiding citizens. Making stricter gun laws doesn't really apply to everyone one else such as the gentleman in the You Tube video.




LizDeluxe -> RE: Criminals For Gun Control 1 Home Invasion (2/6/2012 4:27:11 PM)

quote:


There seems to be some question as to him actually saying that.


Okay. I retract the Washington quote and pic and would remove them if I could.

Nitpick this instead:

Amendment II

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.


This is why I generally do not involve myself in internet gun debates. Not entirely sure why I "pulled this trigger" this time. (Pun intended)

Over and out.





Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125