Classic defensive gun use incident in Tallahassee

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: face23785

I am fascinated by the whole 'gun rights' in the US topic though... I'm just honestly yet to come across an argument that came even close to convincing me that an armed society is a more enlightened society.

That's an interesting metric you've chosen there. Of course it's entirely subjective. And none of our rights are based on enlightenment. These are just some of your problems. You make up standards that have no application in this discussion.

Well, when one cannot grasp another concept, the need to make up their own rules and metrics makes them feel better than admitting they do not understand.

originally posted by: Im2keul
a reply to: Subaeruginosa
Wrong, it is a right not a privilege, until you lose that right. Commit a gun CRIME you lose your right, get it?

Yeah sorry, I must of missed that part in the second amendment where it states you lose your right to own a firearm if you've been deemed mentally ill or convicted of a crime.

'Shall not be infringed', that's all I saw.

The way I see it, either the second has to sometimes be infringed for the wellbeing of modern society... which would render the entire second amendment obsolete.

Or, every single person in modern society should have the right to own a firearm.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Do you ever get tired of being wrong is these particular conversations??

That sort of crime is a felony in every state of the Union, last I heard...

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: Im2keul
a reply to: Subaeruginosa
Wrong, it is a right not a privilege, until you lose that right. Commit a gun CRIME you lose your right, get it?

Yeah sorry, I must of missed that part in the second amendment where it states you lose your right to own a firearm if you've been deemed mentally ill or convicted of a crime.

'Shall not be infringed', that's all I saw.

The way I see it, either the second has to sometimes be infringed for the the wellbeing of modern society... which would render the entire second amendment obsolete.

Or, every single person in modern society should have the right to own a firearm.

That is part of our common sense compromise solution. You know, that constant call for compromise, while ignoring the 70 years of common sense compromise to date? Yet, it is never enough?

See, you still fail to grasp the history of the topic, and continue to step into those cow patties in front of you.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: Im2keul
a reply to: Subaeruginosa
Wrong, it is a right not a privilege, until you lose that right. Commit a gun CRIME you lose your right, get it?

Yeah sorry, I must of missed that part in the second amendment where it states you lose your right to own a firearm if you've been deemed mentally ill or convicted of a crime.

'Shall not be infringed', that's all I saw.

The way I see it, either the second has to sometimes be infringed for the the wellbeing of modern society... which would render the entire second amendment obsolete.

Or, every single person in modern society should have the right to own a firearm.

That is part of our common sense compromise solution. You know, that constant call for compromise, while ignoring the 70 years of common sense compromise to date? Yet, it is never enough?

See, you still fail to grasp the history of the topic, and continue to step into those cow patties in front of you.

Not to mention that other parts of the Constitution spell out the lengths the government has to go through before they can deny you of your rights, such as your freedom, ie. due process etc. Obviously that stuff is in there with the intention of acknowledging you can lose some rights due to your own actions.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Quite frankly, I'm one of that minority that believes that once their time is done--barring repeated offenses, or other mitigating circumstances, depending upon the nature of the crime--they should be allowed to have guns.

I'm in a distinct minority, I know...

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Krakatoa

Quite frankly, I'm one of that minority that believes that once their time is done--barring repeated offenses, or other mitigating circumstances, depending upon the nature of the crime--they should be allowed to have guns.

I'm in a distinct minority, I know...

If they can vote again, they should have the rest of their rights back too. If we can't trust you with a gun, your prison sentence wasn't long enough. That's my view on it. The idea of prison is to reform and rehabilitate you, and when we let you out you're supposedly no longer a threat to society.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Krakatoa

Quite frankly, I'm one of that minority that believes that once their time is done--barring repeated offenses, or other mitigating circumstances, depending upon the nature of the crime--they should be allowed to have guns.

I'm in a distinct minority, I know...

I have a similar perspective regarding the felony restrictions. The reason is that now they can upgrade misdemeanors to felony status that have nothing to do with violent or unstable behavior, and WHAM, you have lost your right to own a firearm.

That is the latest "legal" way toward outlawing firearm ownership. Move the goal posts....redefine what "felony" is since it's already codified in law that a felony (any felony) results in stripping of your rights.

I think that felonies related to violent and/or unstable behavior should be the only felonies that qualify for that.

a reply to: face23785

Exactly!!

That's my view in its virtual entirety.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Im2keul
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Your quote "Gun possession in general (whether legal or illegal) is either 'no big deal'... or it is a big deal, which should only be afforded to people who have gone through a strict process to prove their worthy of the privilege."

Wrong, it is a right not a privilege, until you lose that right. Commit a gun CRIME you lose your right, get it?

Don't be surprised that an Aussie has no concept of the difference between a right and a privilege. Their govt is setup to give the people the "right" not protect a right that already exists. It's a very different concept, and sometimes more than some brains can adequately grasp.

With the "quote in the avatar I would have assumed american, then I seen southern island.

I agree with this, I am one of those that feel if you pay for the crime it should be done. If they are deemed to dangerous, why let them out?

a reply to: Krakatoa

Our lawmakers are drunk on power and have no common sense.

25 rifle rounds.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Nobody will acknowledge that. It interferes with agenda. Backdoor politics.

a reply to: seagull

I agree with you...bill of rights doesnt make a distinction

a reply to: CharlesT

it was 3:40 am, woken from sleep and probably not overly trained. They fired back, I have no problem with this gentlemans effort at saving his own life.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: face23785

Couldnt agree more. Oregon had a gun bill this year wjere they were going to make all semi autos and any revolver or rfle capable of more than five rounds a felony.

Apparently these liberal heroes can readily dispatch a charging bear, a pack of wolves and 30 foot leaping Mountain lions handily with a 5 rd. .38 (only handgun I own less than 6 rds)

Oh yeah, just do some fancy kung fu or something like you see in the movies. Only wussies need guns, right?

Like I said, it's sheltered know-nothings with no grasp of real life. The most intense confrontation most of them have had is being the victim of "microaggression" on college campuses.

Or being frightened of the doorbell in their house.

Or the garbage disposal.....

In other more relevant news...

Classic offensive gun use all over the USA every single day everywhere.

But ya know, freedom and the right to own stuff specifically designed to kill other people and just say yes to activist judges that interpret the constitution in a way where words that apply to the 2nd are just straight up ignored.

originally posted by: okrian
In other more relevant news...

Classic offensive gun use all over the USA every single day everywhere.

But ya know, freedom and the right to own stuff specifically designed to kill other people and just say yes to activist judges that interpret the constitution in a way where words that apply to the 2nd are just straight up ignored.

Defensive uses outnumber offensive. It's a net benefit. Damn those facts.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: face23785
I'm just honestly yet to come across an argument that came even close to convincing me that an armed society is a more enlightened society.

It's actually an easy thought experiment.
Would the world be a better or worse place without guns?

Truth is it won't change a damn thing other than than individuals ability to protect themselves and family. The reality is there will always be people out there trying to hurt others. Moral posturing aside. You remove their means of defense it will only get worse.