Reality of Gun Ownership

[This_person]

Show me where I said that? I have constantly said the homeowner should defend himself. I have constantly said a person running away, fleeing from the home, in my opinion should not die for this crime.

Well, then right here is where you said that. If there is someone in your home robbing it and you defend yourself from that person (potentially lethally), you are suggesting it is okay to shoot someone for the crime of robbery. But, if they turn around (I believe you said "cowardly to shoot them in the back"), then it's not okay to shoot them for the exact same crime, because now they've stopped it (for the moment).

You said it right here.

Show me where I said if a person had their back turned reaching for weapon, an object, they shouldn't be shot? You can't show me because I have never and would never say that. The situation where a person shoots someone in their home has to be judged by the totality of the cicumstance. That is my stance.

Then why was it cowardly a few posts ago if the criminal got shot in the back?

 

[Pushrod]

Show me where I said that? I have constantly said the homeowner should defend himself. I have constantly said a person running away, fleeing from the home, in my opinion should not die for this crime.

Show me where I said if a person had their back turned reaching for weapon, an object, they shouldn't be shot? You can't show me because I have never and would never say that. The situation where a person shoots someone in their home has to be judged by the totality of the cicumstance. That is my stance.

I think we are all spriralling down through the chaff to the point where we all generally agree with each other. This thread I consider good discourse.

As far as Amendment XIV, I have my pocket Constitution open in front of me and I don't see where it addresses Individual Rights as being granted by the government instead of inherent.

I assume you are referring to section I which states;
Section I. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jusrisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens fo the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due processs of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I don't see anywhere in there where it talks about Inherent Rights, except the mention of life, liberty and property. The privileges it mentions are not the Rights we as humans possess. So I don't see what you are pointing at in this amendment. The Constitution is pretty clear in differentiating between Rights and Privileges.

 

[JimW711]

Show me where I said that? I have constantly said the homeowner should defend himself. I have constantly said a person running away, fleeing from the home, in my opinion should not die for this crime.

Show me where I said if a person had their back turned reaching for weapon, an object, they shouldn't be shot? You can't show me because I have never and would never say that. The situation where a person shoots someone in their home has to be judged by the totality of the cicumstance. That is my stance.

I remember years ago (early 60's) when a neighbor who was then a Captain on the PG County force told my dad that if they're in your home, shoot them and shoot to "kill" them because a "dead" man can't testify against you.

Here we are 40 some years later and I still believe that's great advice considering how the criminals have more rights today than the common citizen.

 

[smcop]

Well, then right here is where you said that. If there is someone in your home robbing it and you defend yourself from that person (potentially lethally), you are suggesting it is okay to shoot someone for the crime of robbery. But, if they turn around (I believe you said "cowardly to shoot them in the back"), then it's not okay to shoot them for the exact same crime, because now they've stopped it (for the moment).

You said it right here.Then why was it cowardly a few posts ago if the criminal got shot in the back?

Wow. You are not just putting words in my mouth, you are making stuff up! I never once said anything about a robbery.

And if you are going to quote me, then please quote the whole thing. I stated shooting someone in the back who is running away is cowardly.

You are adding things I have never said.

You can apologize for misquoting me.

 

[smcop]

I remember years ago (early 60's) when a neighbor who was then a Captain on the PG County force told my dad that if they're in your home, shoot them and shoot to "kill" them because a "dead" man can't testify against you.

Here we are 40 some years later and I still believe that's great advice considering how the criminals have more rights today than the common citizen.

An innocent man has more rights. We are all presumed to be innocent. There may be probable cause to indicate we are guilty, but until a jury or a judge decides, we all have the same rights.

Criminals, upon conviction loose rights.

 

[smcop]

I think we are all spriralling down through the chaff to the point where we all generally agree with each other. This thread I consider good discourse.

As far as Amendment XIV, I have my pocket Constitution open in front of me and I don't see where it addresses Individual Rights as being granted by the government instead of inherent.

I assume you are referring to section I which states;
Section I. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jusrisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens fo the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due processs of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I don't see anywhere in there where it talks about Inherent Rights, except the mention of life, liberty and property. The privileges it mentions are not the Rights we as humans possess. So I don't see what you are pointing at in this amendment. The Constitution is pretty clear in differentiating between Rights and Privileges.

Sooo....I guess those slaves always had the right not to be slaves? If this is correct, then how many people were prosecuted for the violation of their rights? In 1940, people who owned property had the "right" not to rent to people based on their race. Is that right still afforded today? Of course, I could go on and on, but why?

My statement was I can't grant anybody rights, only the legislature can. The legislature certainly granted people of color the right to live, eat, work and study where they like. Read Brown V. Board of Education, and the civil rights act of 1964.

 

[This_person]

Wow. You are not just putting words in my mouth, you are making stuff up! I never once said anything about a robbery.

And if you are going to quote me, then please quote the whole thing. I stated shooting someone in the back who is running away is cowardly.

You are adding things I have never said.

You can apologize for misquoting me.

Not really, but you can apologize for improperly accusing me:

Burglary in itself is not a violent crime. If the burgular takes action that one believes would be harmful to others, then shame on them and they deserve what they get.

No, I am quite consistent. I am not instructing a citizen on how to determine if someone is running or not, I am saying if they are fleeing, I don't believe their life should end over a non-violent crime.
..... What I am saying is this. If you are preserving life, or the protection of ones self or others, then do what is necessary. It is my opinion, that one should not DIE for a property crime. That is all.

So, a Burglar "deserves what they get", but it's a "non-violent crime", and you "don't believe their life should end over a non-violent crime." So, they deserve what they get, unless it's not what you think they should get?

However, you did say "as they're leaving" in your "shooting in the back is cowardly" statement, so I'll stand corrected on that. I would just not presume they're leaving until they're dead - then I'll know they've left and they're not just going away from my home and stuff for a moment.

 

[Pushrod]

Sooo....I guess those slaves always had the right not to be slaves? If this is correct, then how many people were prosecuted for the violation of their rights? In 1940, people who owned property had the "right" not to rent to people based on their race. Is that right still afforded today? Of course, I could go on and on, but why?

My statement was I can't grant anybody rights, only the legislature can. The legislature certainly granted people of color the right to live, eat, work and study where they like. Read Brown V. Board of Education, and the civil rights act of 1964.

No, the legislature CANNOT grant a right, it is INHERENT! The legislature didn't grant blacks a right, they recognized them as human, entitled to their inherent rights.
You can still 'not' rent to someone based on their race if you desire. If it is a public business, no you can't refuse services based on race, but an individual who wants to rent out a room in their house can refuse to rent for any reason they desire.

Remember this:
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among them are Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happiness.

Because individuals equally possess these rights by nature, government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. The purpose of government is to secure these fundamental rights, not grant them.

To believe anything else is utterly and despicably wrong.

 

[smcop]

No, the legislature CANNOT grant a right, it is INHERENT! The legislature didn't grant blacks a right, they recognized them as human, entitled to their inherent rights.
You can still 'not' rent to someone based on their race if you desire. If it is a public business, no you can't refuse services based on race, but an individual who wants to rent out a room in their house can refuse to rent for any reason they desire.

Remember this:
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among them are Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happiness.

Because individuals equally possess these rights by nature, government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. The purpose of government is to secure these fundamental rights, not grant them.

To believe anything else is utterly and despicably wrong.

Explain sufferage, the womans "Right" to vote? At what age does a man have the right to vote? And who is it that holds these truths to be self evident. Oh wait....that is the members of the legislature who wrote the document.

 

[smcop]

Not really, but you can apologize for improperly accusing me:

​

I didn't improperly accuse you. You made something up about me speaking about a robbery, which I never did.

So, a Burglar "deserves what they get", but it's a "non-violent crime", and you "don't believe their life should end over a non-violent crime." So, they deserve what they get, unless it's not what you think they should get?

You need to read the whole thing...Again! If the burgular takes aggressive action, he has no longer become soley a burgular, but someone who is committing or attempting to commit an assault.

However, you did say "as they're leaving" in your "shooting in the back is cowardly" statement, so I'll stand corrected on that. I would just not presume they're leaving until they're dead - then I'll know they've left and they're not just going away from my home and stuff for a moment.

Apology accepted.​

 

[JimW711]

An innocent man has more rights. We are all presumed to be innocent. There may be probable cause to indicate we are guilty, but until a jury or a judge decides, we all have the same rights.

Criminals, upon conviction loose rights.

If I catch a criminal breaking into my house, I will wait until he's completely inside the house and to a point where no part of his body will land outside of the house when he hits the floor after being shot dead. There will be no presumption of innocence at that time because he will no longer have any rights.

 

[Bustem' Down]

I'm not a big fan of gun ownership because you need protection. I think you should own a gun because you want to and have the freedom to, not need excuses to.

 

[RadioPatrol]

Do you really think that?

I fully support a guy protecting his home, but do you actually think killing criminals will stop more from coming?

Heck, thousands of criminals have been killed in various ways all over the country. Hasn't stopped more from coming.

Yep this is true, but maybe there would be less breaking and entering, except maybe while drunk or high, if people knew they would probably get their ass shot ...

drug dealing gang bangers yeah sure they expect to get gunned down at some point ... but thieves don't ...

ya think those 2 wet backs in Tx last yr were expecting the neighbor to fix the breaking and thieving problem ?

 

[RadioPatrol]

You seem to think criminals have certain rights to not be injured or even killed as long as they aren’t violent. Well, while you’re granting the criminals his rights, you are taking my right to be secure in my person away.

Well Put .... if a MoFo breaks into my house he is wrong, and will suffer what ever punishment I dish out

 

[Xaquin44]

Yep this is true, but maybe there would be less breaking and entering, except maybe while drunk or high, if people knew they would probably get their ass shot ...

drug dealing gang bangers yeah sure they expect to get gunned down at some point ... but thieves don't ...

ya think those 2 wet backs in Tx last yr were expecting the neighbor to fix the breaking and thieving problem ?

eehhh

You're already allowed to have guns in your home .... they know there's a risk, but are willing to take it.

 

[toppick08]

Well Put .... if a MoFo breaks into my house he is wrong, and will suffer what ever punishment I dish out

or breaks my Christmas decorations...

 

[RadioPatrol]

An innocent man has more rights. We are all presumed to be innocent. There may be probable cause to indicate we are guilty, but until a jury or a judge decides, we all have the same rights.

Criminals, upon conviction loose rights.

Yeah well If I catch your Punk Ass in my house without permission aka Breaking and Entering .... I am going to shoot you down.

If you immediately offer to surrender I will except.

If you make any move other than to surrender and lie on the floor and wait for the police. Do not turn around, make no sudden moves.

Put your hand up immediately and surrender ... anything else is threating my family's safety and will get you dropped ...

 

[This_person]

I didn't improperly accuse you. You made something up about me speaking about a robbery, which I never did.

Are you seriously debating the word "robbery" vs. "burglary"? Or, are you just too foolish to read what YOU wrote?

You need to read the whole thing...Again! If the burgular takes aggressive action, he has no longer become soley a burgular, but someone who is committing or attempting to commit an assault.

Oh, I see. You weren't saying someone has the right to defend themselves even in the case of catching the burgular, but ONLY if that criminal takes some other form of aggressive action.

Apology accepted.

No apologies were offered.

 

[smcop]

Are you seriously debating the word "robbery" vs. "burglary"? Or, are you just too foolish to read what YOU wrote?

Are you really that foolish that you don't know the difference between a burglary and a robbery?

Oh, I see. You weren't saying someone has the right to defend themselves even in the case of catching the burgular,

When did I ever say that? See, you can't win your argument based on the merits of mine, so you want to add things or interpret things never said.

N

o apologies were offered.

Your admission you were wrong was close enough for me.

 

[sweetprincess23]

I support a person DEFENDING thier home, but to shoot a person in the back as they are climbing out a window, is that really home defense or is it vigilantism?

smcop while I do agree that killing someone for breaking into a home is not right, you have yet to tell us what we should do to defend our homes. Calling the police is not going to help if the intruder is already in your room. My idea would be one of those tazer guns that police have. i think i would get pleasure watching the intruder dangle from my window he tried to escape from after I shot him with a tazer gun. the kind police use that sticks into the criminals and you get to keep tazing him and watch him squarm until the police show up. Like I said, I agree with you but you haven't given any other ways to defend ourselves.