If You Can See Both Sides Of Gun Control Debate

[ChrisL]

Well one thing the Founders agreed on was that the govt did need the power to control the power, to some extent. They were not fans of mob rule, and they tossed the Articles of Confederation, in favor of the Constitution, because the former did not delegate enough power to the federal govt.

And as far as working for the people, that's what our govt does. There's no doubt that there are venally ambitious people in our govt, but the founders not only expected that, but they also designed the system so that, in order to gain the power they seek, those people would have to act in the peoples' interests.

Yeah, and they don't . . . unless those people are lining their pockets that is. :roll:

 

[sangha]

Yeah, and they don't . . . unless those people are lining their pockets that is. :roll:

Actually, they do.

The last clause in your post hints at the founders genius - they designed a system where the success of people seeking to line their pockets in politics would depend on their being responsive to the needs and desires of the people.

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

you are wrong though, a cop can only fire when he reasonably believes that there is an imminent threat of severely bodily harm

Dude, if a person raising a firearm to you or firing at you, you are facing a threat of imminent danger. What part of that are you not understanding?

The difference between cops and civilians is NOT the threat of imminent danger, it is the legal ability to break into someone's house with guns drawn. If a private citizen does that, and the occupant shoots them dead, the occupant is within their rights, if the citizen entering the home shoots the occupant, they are guilty of murder, even if they did it in self defense.

What is so complicated about this that prevents you from acknowledging this rather large difference?

 

[TurtleDude]

Dude, if a person raising a firearm to you or firing at you, you are facing a threat of imminent danger. What part of that are you not understanding?

The difference between cops and civilians is NOT the threat of imminent danger, it is the legal ability to break into someone's house with guns drawn. If a private citizen does that, and the occupant shoots them dead, the occupant is within their rights, if the citizen entering the home shoots the occupant, they are guilty of murder, even if they did it in self defense.

What is so complicated about this that prevents you from acknowledging this rather large difference?

that has absolutely no relevance to the issue.

and you are wrong-there are circumstances where you may break into someone else's home

but the fact is a cop cannot fire unless he has a reasonable belief of imminent bodily harm

you are confusing the entrance into the situation versus the right to fire.

and if someone is holding your child and raping him or her you can damn well go into that dwelling and if the rapist shoots you dead he will die in prison if caught

you cannot claim self defense when you have engaged in illegal behavior that justifies someone shooting you

 

[LaMidRighter]

Dude, if a person raising a firearm to you or firing at you, you are facing a threat of imminent danger. What part of that are you not understanding?

The difference between cops and civilians is NOT the threat of imminent danger, it is the legal ability to break into someone's house with guns drawn. If a private citizen does that, and the occupant shoots them dead, the occupant is within their rights, if the citizen entering the home shoots the occupant, they are guilty of murder, even if they did it in self defense.

What is so complicated about this that prevents you from acknowledging this rather large difference?

Guess what, if an officer breeches perimeter without probable cause or a warrant and gets shot dead the home owner is protected. Police have no more right to shoot than other civilians, the ONLY difference is benefit of the doubt in court. Likewise, an officer who shoots a homeowner without a legitimate reason faces the SAME EXACT charges as any other citizen.

 

[ChrisL]

Actually, they do.

The last clause in your post hints at the founders genius - they designed a system where the success of people seeking to line their pockets in politics would depend on their being responsive to the needs and desires of the people.

Are you kidding? I don't think the founders intended on lobbyists.

 

[Master PO]

Well one thing the Founders agreed on was that the govt did need the power to control the power, to some extent. They were not fans of mob rule, and they tossed the Articles of Confederation, in favor of the Constitution, because the former did not delegate enough power to the federal govt.

And as far as working for the people, that's what our govt does. There's no doubt that there are venally ambitious people in our govt, but the founders not only expected that, but they also designed the system so that, in order to gain the power they seek, those people would have to act in the peoples' interests.

you make me sad!

this what your espousing, is this what you learned from the american education system.

the constitution solved the problems the founders were having with the articles of confederation.....money, commerce, and lack of federal law enforcement.

government was not created to be a postive force, nothing in aticle 1 section 8 premits the government to solve people's personal problems.

the founders did expect faction in our government, but they sought to limit it by creating republican government, not democractic , and they structured it to have several checks and balances.

but some checks and balances have been removed and america has moved closer to democracy (collectivism) which favors bribes, welfare, subsities, lobbying, expanding government, majority rule.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Guess what, if an officer breeches perimeter without probable cause or a warrant and gets shot dead the home owner is protected. Police have no more right to shoot than other civilians, the ONLY difference is benefit of the doubt in court. Likewise, an officer who shoots a homeowner without a legitimate reason faces the SAME EXACT charges as any other citizen.

Actually, with the Texas castle doctrine, private citizens have more situations that deadly force may be employed than do LEOs. I can legally shoot someone for taking my lawn mower from my yard, a LEO cannot do that for me. It seems that deadly force may be legally used, with no requirement to retreat, for any offense above a class 3 misdemeanor committed against me.

Texas justifiable homicides rise with 'Castle Doctrine' - Houston Chronicle

Texas justifiable homicides reportedly rise with state's 'stand-your-ground' law | Fox News

 

[ChrisL]

Actually, with the Texas castle doctrine, private citizens have more situations that deadly force may be employed than do LEOs. I can legally shoot someone for taking my lawn mower from my yard, a LEO cannot do that for me. It seems that deadly force may be legally used, with no requirement to retreat, for any offense above a class 3 misdemeanor committed against me.

Texas justifiable homicides rise with 'Castle Doctrine' - Houston Chronicle

Texas justifiable homicides reportedly rise with state's 'stand-your-ground' law | Fox News

Wow! I had no idea Texas was so liberal with their stand your ground laws.

 

[sangha]

you make me sad!

this what your espousing, is this what you learned from the american education system.

the constitution solved the problems the founders were having with the articles of confederation.....money, commerce, and lack of federal law enforcement.

government was not created to be a postive force, nothing in aticle 1 section 8 premits the government to solve people's personal problems.

the founders did expect faction in our government, but they sought to limit it by creating republican government, not democractic , and they structured it to have several checks and balances.

but some checks and balances have been removed and america has moved closer to democracy (collectivism) which favors bribes, welfare, subsities, lobbying, expanding government, majority rule.

Unsurprisingly, your response does nothing to refute anything I said and involves a great amount of misrepresentation.

When you talk about the pblms the founders were trying to solve (ie money, commerce and lack of fed enforcement), what you really mean was that the fed lacked the power to collect taxes and regulate businesses - the very things you claim the Fed has no power under the constitution. :lol:

You then go on to make the inane claim that govt was not created to be a "positive force", as if it were created to be a negative one. This is just gobbledy gook that makes you feel as if you said something meaningful.

Then you bring up the issue of "faction" (meaning political parties) which is an issue I did not mention. Once again, your posts are obtuse and irrelevant.

And finally, you close with a list of practices which have been with us from the very founding of this nation, and pretend that they are a modern invention.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Actually, with the Texas castle doctrine, private citizens have more situations that deadly force may be employed than do LEOs. I can legally shoot someone for taking my lawn mower from my yard, a LEO cannot do that for me. It seems that deadly force may be legally used, with no requirement to retreat, for any offense above a class 3 misdemeanor committed against me.

Texas justifiable homicides rise with 'Castle Doctrine' - Houston Chronicle

Texas justifiable homicides reportedly rise with state's 'stand-your-ground' law | Fox News

I hadn't considered that but it is true. We can't shoot outside of the house in La. without a present threat of harm.

 

[Master PO]

Unsurprisingly, your response does nothing to refute anything I said and involves a great amount of misrepresentation.

sure it does..... i refuted your state below

When you talk about the pblms the founders were trying to solve (ie money, commerce and lack of fed enforcement), what you really mean was that the fed lacked the power to collect taxes and regulate businesses - the very things you claim the Fed has no power under the constitution. :lol:

lacked power ..............to collect taxes and regulate commerce under ---------->the articles of confederation

would you like to provide a statement from me where i stated, ...........saying government cannot regulate commerce among the states, or collect taxes.....because you will never find such a thing.

from u.s. government printing:

Articles of Confederation. — Under the Articles of Confederation, (trade rivalries) separated the new States from each other. There was an emphasis of State over National interests: One State lost its supply of cheap manufacturing material; industries suffered from want of coal, factories from lack of material, markets were limited; economic barriers were set up, no cooperation existed, exclusiveness prevailed.

The commerce clause. — The commerce clause set up an agency of exceptional worth by reason of the freedom granted in interstate traffic,--------> the elimination of barriers, duties, or restrictions which might otherwise be created in exchange, sale, and shipment from (State to State). Citizens of any State have equal rights as citizens of the United States, subject only to such local laws as apply to all citizens of the State within which business is transacted.

The taxing clause. — The taxing clause permits taxes to be levied for the ---------->requirements of government only; such taxes to be uniform in application and subject to revision as necessity governs.

i stated the founders in their IDEA, wanted, no direct tax on the people.

it is unconstitutional for government to redistribute wealth from one citizen to another, congress cannot do charitable work.

JAMES MADISON ..(father of the constitution) --"Charity is no part of the legislative duty of government"

You then go on to make the inane claim that govt was not created to be a "positive force", as if it were created to be a negative one. This is just gobbledy gook that makes you feel as if you said something meaningful.

then i beg your pardon, using terms you do not understand......again..... the government was not created as a (positive) force to DO things for the people.

it was created as a (negative) force to protect the life, liberty, and property of the people and leave them ALONE.

Then you bring up the issue of "faction" (meaning political parties) which is an issue I did not mention. Once again, your posts are obtuse and irrelevant.

faction is --->special interest, those people................ who seek, power, money, favors, from our government...which does not benefit the people as a whole...IE. unions, NRA, environmentalist, AARP, CORPS...small business.

YOUR WORDS...."There's no doubt that there are venally (ambitious) people in our govt, but the founders not only expected that, but they also designed the system so that, ------------>in order to gain the power they seek.

so some individuals are to have more power in government?......more power then others members, i don't recall never seeing that is in the constitution, members of congress being more powerful than another. all your describing is a person who seeks to fulfill his own need for glorification.

the founders did not want men trying to gain power and influence in our government that is why they state in the Constitution , that congress, needs to meet, at least ONCE a year, they did NOT want congress in sessions most of the year PASSING LAWS, they wanted congress to do their job and go home, and back to their regular work, keeping the government limited.

And finally, you close with a list of practices which have been with us from the very founding of this nation, and pretend that they are a modern invention.

those list of practices have always existed...yes, ...but under republican government, they were (LESS), more limited.

federalist #10 "The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of --->republican than of democratic government<---; and it is this circumstance principally which renders (factious combinations LESS) to be dreaded in the former than in the latter"

republican government (republicanism) is MIXED government, power is in the hands of the STATES themselves , and WE THE PEOPLE, this bi carmel body.....this prevented senators from being lobbied, if prevented the people of this nation acting on passion, (whims), the people could not act as a collective body. majority rule was not possible on issues of life, liberty, and property, this is meant to keep ,.....faction/ special interest --->limited.

Bicameralism is an essential and defining feature of the classical notion of mixed government.

 

[Rocketman]

I suppose I must abstain, because I cannot agree with your stipulations. I do not trust the government not to ban all guns (and then, do worse still) when and if they can. Thus I have problems with some of your suggestions.

Also, I can't agree that gun control is going to significantly reduce mass-murders and crime... depending on what sort of gun control we're talking about, it may increase it.

One only has to look a Chicago to see what gun control restrictions mean for citizens.

 

[TurtleDude]

One only has to look a Chicago to see what gun control restrictions mean for citizens.

and ballet boy wants even more bans

 

[Rocketman]

and ballet boy wants even more bans

More bans will simply turn good people into criminals

How many good people ignore laws prohibiting marijuana now?

 

[TurtleDude]

More bans will simply turn good people into criminals

How many good people ignore laws prohibiting marijuana now?

its amazing how many dopers think criminals will be deterred by gun laws

 

[Rocketman]

its amazing how many dopers think criminals will be deterred by gun laws

Obviously they aren't affected by their habits.:roll:

 

[Dammitboy!]

I don't have a huge problem with restricting free speech.
I don't fear the government is going to try to outlaw ALL speech.
I don't have issues with background checks, waiting periods, and limits to how much one person can use free speech in some given time frame.
I don't have issues with registration for free speech. I don't have issues with classes in free speech safety.

See how stupid that looks if we change one enumerated right for another?

 

[Dammitboy!]

I don't consider common sense gun safety measures to be evil. I consider people walking into schools and shooting children to be evil.

I will not turn my back to THAT, how about you?

Sounds like an appeal to emotion.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I didn't read the thread - but I'll chime in, anyway.

In all due honestly - restrictions will be useless . . . limit magazine size: someone will just use multiple magazines - or illegally own larger ones.
So on - so forth. every attempt to thwart use and ownership will have little impact on people who want to murder people in mass number.

People who do this (mass killings) aren't concerned about the law or else they wouldn't be killing 20 people on a balmy Monday afternoon.

The law affects ONLY law abiding citizens who want to follow the law (even if they don't agree with it) because they are exactly that: mindful, respectful law abiding citizens.
The law does not affect criminals unless they are caught and imprisoned and it only adds to their already-to-be-lengthy prison sentences.

If Congress really wants to limit ownership they first need to define it - as of yet - it's still very loosely defined and open to extreme interpretation. They need to defined it and pin it down with an amendment to the amendment.

As of yet - no one is stepping forward to do that . . . and unless they do - pretty much everything will be seen as inhibition of rights. . .

And I see both sides as far as their interests and wants go - though unless Congress follows their own law and admends the 2nd there's nothing that's sustainable in my view.

 

[GlenS]

"The "hitler" and "stalin" references don't work with me". Even as out president does the exact same things there two tyrants did?

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

Sounds like an appeal to emotion.

It is not unusual for people to emotional about children being murdered, but children are quite often the most important thing in the world to their parents, and a group represent our collective future. There are rational reasons for protecting children, not just emotional.

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

Guess what, if an officer breeches perimeter without probable cause or a warrant and gets shot dead the home owner is protected. Police have no more right to shoot than other civilians, the ONLY difference is benefit of the doubt in court. Likewise, an officer who shoots a homeowner without a legitimate reason faces the SAME EXACT charges as any other citizen.

Your qualification separates the difference I suggested.

Police can and do get warrants, private citizens cannot and do not.

So when you SAME EXACT, you have to qualify it by saying SAME EXACT when they don't have a warrant. I have argued that that warrants and probable DEFINE the difference. So of course if you remove the difference, you have removed the difference, but it does not cause the difference to cease to exist.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Your qualification separates the difference I suggested.

Police can and do get warrants, private citizens cannot and do not.

So when you SAME EXACT, you have to qualify it by saying SAME EXACT when they don't have a warrant. I have argued that that warrants and probable DEFINE the difference. So of course if you remove the difference, you have removed the difference, but it does not cause the difference to cease to exist.

Actually, police can get warrants but that is the ONLY difference, other than that they have a bit more benefit of the doubt in court. Citizens can get court orders under specific circumstances which may be similar to warrants, this concerns property disputes, landlords suspecting illicit/damaging activities on their property, commitment orders on loved ones, etc. Police are civilians with few extra special priveledges and firearms should definitely not be one of them.

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

See how stupid that looks if we change one enumerated right for another?

Silly rehtorical trick, and I'll show you.

So when are speech restrictions acceptable for you?

Should it be okay to tell fire in a crowded movie house?

So, speech that can endanger people can be restricted. What then of guns?

Do you feel smarter now?