Gunowner quiz on Obama

[soberups]

Any gun owner who believes they can walk onto a campus, take out a gun and fight another gun weiding loser and in the process kills a child should face the maximum penalty for "wrongful" death.

Nobody has the right to place a child in jeopardy because of the 2nd amendment.

If a gunman walks into a classroom and starts shooting, that child is already in jeopardy. Are you saying that it is somehow "safer" to just sit there and watch while innocent students get executed? Are you saying that if you were in that room and you had a gun, you would allow your own child to get murdered rather than taking action to eliminate the threat? How pathetic.

 

[tieguy]

Nothing in my wallet is worth shooting somebody for.

It is impossible to sit here in my nice safe recliner and speculate about when I would make the decision to shoot. It would depend upon the number of assailants, how well they are armed, and whether I felt they were likely to escalate the violence or run away once they had gotten my wallet. The whole point of having a concealed weapon is that I get to make this life or death decision for myself, instead of having it made for me.

A lot has been posted here about "shooting to kill" vs. "shooting to wound." It is a mistake to think in these terms. In a self defense scenario you shoot at center of mass to stop the assailant, and you continue shooting until he is no longer a threat. Your intent is to stop the threat....whether the bad guy is killed or wounded is outside of your control and not your concern.

But again the point that there are very few gentle robbers who poitely ask you for you wallet. Would you take a beating without defending yourself?
Because thats usually what happens when you get robbed. They beat you down and then take your valuables.

 

[trplnkl]

Sober, funny you said this, cause this is where I was going with my hypotheticals as both of you failed to address them with any logic.
To start with, it wasn't Sober that said that. Your "hypotheticals" or as I like to call them "dream plays" are hard to address in the manner you want, your set up leans to an outcome that you want.

Gun owners who believe they are the save-all to crime in america is a falacy.
The fallacy is your's, not the gun owners. No one here has said or alluded to anything to suggest a "save-all" to crime.

Responsiblities and liabilities are two words that all gun owners must realize.
Most gun owners that I know, and believe me I know many, understand their responsibilities and are well aware of the possible liabilities involved.

There are laws that protect people from being 'injured" or "killed" by people in superman mode.

This is called "wrongful" death.
Here is one point where your "logic" breaks down. The "wrongful death" laws are all after the fact laws. They do not protect anyone from anything, they are designed to punish someone guilty of wrongfully causing a death.

Any gun owner who believes they can walk onto a campus, take out a gun and fight another gun weiding loser and in the process kills a child should face the maximum penalty for "wrongful" death.
I don't know of anyone that thinks like this. Do you? No, I mean really.
Oh now you are tagging responsible gun owners "losers". I suggest you have some T-shirts made you that read:
If someone is going shoot me,
please do not stop them.
I'd rather die than have a "loser" save me
And then wear them everywhere you go.

Nobody has the right to place a child in jeopardy because of the 2nd amendment.
Again, your logic breaks down, your really not too good at this logic thing are ya? As sober pointed out, the young adults (college students are far from being "children") are already placed in danger in your "dream plays".

 

[Jagger]

...your arguments are based on modern interpretations of what the framers of the constitution meant.

My argument is that the intent of the lawmakers, at the time they made the Second Amendment, should be ascertained by applying the well established common law rules of construction, as they existed at the time the Amendment was made.

In 1789, the well established rule of construction pertaining to legal expressions comprised of parts that didn't coincide, was that the means should be sacrificed to the end.

The following is an excerpt of pamphlet put out by a contemporaneous friend of Madison (who wrote the Bill of Rights):

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

That link doesn't go to a pamphlet put out in the 1700's. James Madison didn't write the Bill of Rights. It was written by a legislative body comprised of about 85 lawmakers.

It would be incongruous to suppose or suggest the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, which were proscriptions on the powers of the national government, simultaneously acted as a grant of power to the national government.

The first twelve amendments weren't recommended to the several states as a Bill of Rights. The first amendment of the twelve recommended by Congress in 1789 granted it the power to regulate the proportion of Representatives to the people represented.

Similarly, as to the term "well regulated," it would make no sense to suggest this referred to a grant of "regulation" power to the government (national or state), when the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights was to both declare individual rights and tell the national government where the scope of its enumerated powers ended.

The first twelve amendments weren't recommended as a Bill of Rights and one of the proposed amendments clearly granted Congress a regulatory authority.

 

[Jagger]

When the Constitution was ratified, the Framers unanimously believed that the "militia" included all of the people capable of bearing arms.

George Mason, one of the Virginians who refused to sign the Constitution because it lacked a Bill of Rights, said: "Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people." Likewise, the Federal Farmer, one of the most important Anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution, referred to a "militia, when properly formed, [as] in fact the people themselves."

In 1789, the rule of construction was that, the words of a legal instrument should be generally understood according to their usual and most known significations. (See Blackstone's Commentaries of the Laws of England) In 1789, The most known significations of the word 'militia" were "the standing force of a nation" and "train-bands." (See 1787 edition of A Dictionary of the English Language)

The "subject matter" defined the term " well regulated militia" as " the body of the people", "trained to arms" (trained in war) [for the "safe defense of a free state", "under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power"] (See the 1776 Virginia Bill of Rights)

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

--Virginia Bill of Rights 1776

​

George Mason, one of the Virginians who refused to sign the Constitution because it lacked a Bill of Rights, said: "Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people."

What militia was Mason talking about?

The Original Pre-Amendment Constitution doesn't say the militia is the whole people. All it tells us about the militia is that Congress has the power to organize, arm, discipline and govern it, and that the States have power to appoint officers and train the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

Thus, we conclude, theword "militia" in the Constitution means a body of individuals organized (as a military force), armed (with weapons of war), disciplined (instructed in military matters and governed by military rules and regulations), trained (to be a military force) and commanded by officers.

 

[soberups]

But again the point that there are very few gentle robbers who poitely ask you for you wallet. Would you take a beating without defending yourself?
Because thats usually what happens when you get robbed. They beat you down and then take your valuables.

If some teenage tweaker pulls out a knife and tells me to hand over my wallet, I may very well do so. Quite frankly, the hassle and paperwork involved in shooting the SOB isnt worth the $30 I might have in there.
If an assailant hits me first...or if there are several of them...or if my wife or kid is with me...then its different. I will respond to violence with violence of my own, and drop the guy. At that point the decision is easy, It will look to them as if I am reaching for a wallet and the last surprise they ever get in their life will be the bullets they get instead of money.

 

[tieguy]

If some teenage tweaker pulls out a knife and tells me to hand over my wallet, I may very well do so. Quite frankly, the hassle and paperwork involved in shooting the SOB isnt worth the $30 I might have in there.
If an assailant hits me first...or if there are several of them...or if my wife or kid is with me...then its different. I will respond to violence with violence of my own, and drop the guy. At that point the decision is easy, It will look to them as if I am reaching for a wallet and the last surprise they ever get in their life will be the bullets they get instead of money.

I think if someone comes at you with the intent of robbing you and you're packing then you plug them. I've seen too many incidents over the years where someone was politely held up and then politely executed.

 

[toonertoo]

I think if someone comes at you with the intent of robbing you and you're packing then you plug them. I've seen too many incidents over the years where someone was politely held up and then politely executed.

I agree, Ive seen it personally myself which helped shape my redneck attitude.
Plus I'm from Pennsylvania, born and bred, so just ask John Murtha.