20/20 Friday (WARNING: Gun Control thread!)

[Richard G]

In order to acquire a possession license in NYS you must, among other things, fees and such, have three notarized signatories vouch for your good moral character.

All of this is unconstitutional.

 

[Guest]

This is the point: The second amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. Hence, all guns are legally owned because any restrictions on ownership are unconstitutional.

Oh my. Are you serious? A crack dealer who steals a gun is entitled to it?

I've heard some strange theories about what the second amendment means but this one is really out there. I think I should drop out of this discussion right now.

I need a vacation anyway. See y'all soon and hopefully someone will decide to eject the crazies by then, before they're all that's left. (Not meaning you Shanek, you're usually more sane than this...)

 

[shanek]

It was only after the media shone the light that the high executioner

hehehe...Lord High Executioner...Anyone else here ever seen The Mikado?

I've got a little list...

 

[Richard G]

I'm quite certain Shaneck is refering to law abiding citizens. Federal laws prohibit possesion by felons, those under the influence or disability, and those with a current restraining order against them.

For the law abiding, there are no restrictions. Except for cities with illegal, unchallenged, unconstitutional gun control laws.

 

[Guest]

This is the point: The second amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. Hence, all guns are legally owned because any restrictions on ownership are unconstitutional.

Says you. But not the courts.

 

[Guest]

Probably the most important bit of info from the article: "No one in Dixon's family was hurt."

To me, the most important bit of info was: "Police said he has 19 previous arrests, predominantly for burglary, and is on parole until 2004 for a burglary conviction."

There is the real problem. Why was this guy on the street to begin with? Mr. Dixon wouldn't of had to defend himself if the SOB was behind bars.

 

[Reginald]

Gun/no guns.
Gun control laws/no gun control laws.

Strict laws on fire arms in the UK. I dont care, there is no way some guy is going to walk around in my kid's bedroom with impunity.

In the absence of a gun, I'll use my cricket bat. Failing that a table leg, failing that my fist.
(All of which would be against the law in those circumstances).

I say this as a man who has never raised a hand in anger against another human being in my 39 years.

You dont have time to weigh the moral issues when your children are in danger. (He did better than I would in that he issued a challenge).

 

[Richard G]

Excellent point Luke. If the courts would quit letting these convicted, violent criminals back on the streets, we wouldn't have half the crime we do today. That another one of my pet-peves, soft assed judges, doing a kind thing for a criminal so me and my family can be victimized later.

 

[shanek]

Re: Legality

This is an example of an irresponsible gun owner - a cowboy.

How was he irresponsible? What evidence do you have that his ownership of the gun or the way he used it put anyone else in danger? Or is it "irresponsible" to inadvertently violate Section 403(C)(9)(g) Subsection 408.24165 of Ambiguous And Confusing Rule 401(C)(7)(q)?

You have made a mistake - you prop this story up to support your opinion on gun control and all you have done is shown us another irresponsible gun owner.

Show how he was irresponsible.

I still contend, albeit without statistical back up, that the majority of gun owners are irresponsible cowboys - untrained, illegal and not caring to be responsible. They hunt poorly, they shoot poorly, they don't pay attention, they mix alcohol with gun sport and/or they do not conform to established laws.

Evidence?

This is another example of the reasons we need to toughen up on gun control.

Yeah, so his 18-month-old baby boy could be put at risk along with him and his wife.

"Irresponsible coyboys"...you gun control nuts don't have a fscking brain in your heads. You really p*ss me off with your self-righteous blathering.

Can you see my issue with this gentleman.

No. Not at all. He used a gun in a responsible manner to defend his family against an intruder whom the government had already convicted but released early on parole to make room for nonviolent offenders, like those who have weapons they don't like or petty drug offenders.

And he should suffer the consequences of his actions.

Oh, yes, how dare he defend his family from a violent criminal...

 

[shanek]

If you smell funny they won't let you have a gun? Really?

I can believe prior institutionalizaton in a mental hospital, a felony conviction, even a domestic abuse conviction, but funny looking?

"The problem is not the abuse of power; it's the power to abuse." —Michael Cloud

 

[shanek]

Oh my. Are you serious? A crack dealer who steals a gun is entitled to it?

That wasn't what I said, and you know it.

 

[shanek]

I'm quite certain Shaneck is refering to law abiding citizens. Federal laws prohibit possesion by felons, those under the influence or disability, and those with a current restraining order against them.

Not to mention the fact that stealing anything is illegal in and of itself.

For the law abiding, there are no restrictions.

And someone who steals is, by definition, not law-abiding.

 

[Guest]

We can't pick and choose which laws we obey, shanek. As a resident of New York, Mr. Dixon is obligated to obey the laws of that state.

Two wrongs don't make a right, no pun intended.

 

[shanek]

In the absence of a gun, I'll use my cricket bat. Failing that a table leg, failing that my fist.
(All of which would be against the law in those circumstances).

Really? So, anything you could possibly use to defend yourself or others against a violent criminal is against the law there? It's wackier over there than I thought...

 

[shanek]

Excellent point Luke. If the courts would quit letting these convicted, violent criminals back on the streets, we wouldn't have half the crime we do today. That another one of my pet-peves, soft assed judges, doing a kind thing for a criminal so me and my family can be victimized later.

That's not it; they have to make room for people like Ron Dixon and Ed Rosenthal.

 

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Here's another Newsday article: Intruder Shooting Fourth In 2003. In the one case where the gun was legally registered, no charges were filed. Also, Dixon rejected a plea deal on the weapons charge. However, I think if he was in the process of registering, they should cut him some slack.

 

[shanek]

We can't pick and choose which laws we obey, shanek.

If a law stops me from defending my family against a violent criminal, I'm d*mn well going to violate it.

Besides, what we have here is conflicting laws—an obscure New York law which contradicts the Supreme Law of the Land. In such a case, you go with the higher law.

 

[Reginald]

If a law stops me from defending my family against a violent criminal, I'm d*mn well going to violate it.

Couldn't agree more.

WHO could stand by and see thier family in peril and not act?

I suppose you could ask the guy downstairs to discuss the rights and wrongs over coffee and a cake!

 

[Guest]

If a law stops me from defending my family against a violent criminal, I'm d*mn well going to violate it.

Besides, what we have here is conflicting laws—an obscure New York law which contradicts the Supreme Law of the Land. In such a case, you go with the higher law.

His family was not being attacked at the time he bought the gun. His family was not being attacked at the time he brought the gun to New York. You are deliberately obscuring the point.

No one is saying he shouldn't have shot the burglar. No one is saying he shouldn't defend his family.

He broke the law long before the burglar came on the scene.

So the law was not preventing him from defending his family.

You keep saying the Supreme Law of the Land suprecedes the state law. How funny is that? I take it you aren't in favor of states' rights?

And since the Supreme Court of the Land has not said the law is unconstitutional, you don't have a leg to stand on.

You do recall that the Supreme Court is in the Constitution, don't you?

 

[shanek]

His family was not being attacked at the time he bought the gun.

Well, what sort of sense does that make? Are you saying that someone has to wait until there's an intruder, hope he'll let you out of your house to go buy a gun (if any gun stores are even open at the time), then let you back in where you can threaten him with the gun, and hope he doesn't murder your family in the meantime???

This just gets kookier and kookier....

You keep saying the Supreme Law of the Land suprecedes the state law. How funny is that? I take it you aren't in favor of states' rights?

That's a question that can only be asked out of ignorance. The Supreme Law of the Land (i.e., the US Constitution) sets up states' rights, within certain limitations, one of those being that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.