2nd Amendment Ruling

[Monty22 833]

A gun that is unloaded, disassembled or secured with trigger locks is a rock.

Looks like D.C. need another Judicial bitch slap.

[Monty22 833]

Here is an interesting story from England, where because of the handgun ban enacted several years ago, there should be no crime.....

Knife happy Brits kill at an alarming rate

[Jason Harris 31]

Having a gun ban would only stop crimes committed by guns.

I think the sadder issue is there are a lot of great things about the American spirit, but one ugly aspect of our culture is we our violence, and we're effectively exporting it to other parts of the world -- regardless what becomes their weapon of choice to act upon it. Between movies, rap lyrics, advertisements and street styles, we're influencing the world as much as we do when building McDonalds in Moscow or Disneylands in Paris.

Just as none of us truly know what the answer should be with gun restrictions, who knows what the answer should be in censorship? It's obvious that violent images have an effect on some people, just as it's obvious that some of us can go to a two hour movie, get a charge from the action, then put it behind us as we leave. As I'm typing this, I realize the bigger question on both of these questions is how far should society go to protect the majority from the actions of the deluded few?

There's no doubt that some people murder with guns (or knives, axes and ice picks), just as there is no doubt that some people are amped to participate in a brawl outside of a bar because of lyrics they've heard in songs. Then there are the rest of us who go home before last call or keep their gun in a box by their bed, never to be used except in an emergency.

At heart, few Americans want any liberties restricted, but we all know there is an element among us that is essentially deluded and dangerous, so how far do we go in siphoning civil liberties to protect the majority?

[Monty22 833]

Having a gun ban would only stop crimes committed by guns.

I think the sadder issue is there are a lot of great things about the American spirit, but one ugly aspect of our culture is we our violence, and we're effectively exporting it to other parts of the world -- regardless what becomes their weapon of choice to act upon it. Between movies, rap lyrics, advertisements and street styles, we're influencing the world as much as we do when building McDonalds in Moscow or Disneylands in Paris.

Just as none of us truly know what the answer should be with gun restrictions, who knows what the answer should be in censorship? It's obvious that violent images have an effect on some people, just as it's obvious that some of us can go to a two hour movie, get a charge from the action, then put it behind us as we leave. As I'm typing this, I realize the bigger question on both of these questions is how far should society go to protect the majority from the actions of the deluded few?

There's no doubt that some people murder with guns (or knives, axes and ice picks), just as there is no doubt that some people are amped to participate in a brawl outside of a bar because of lyrics they've heard in songs. Then there are the rest of us who go home before last call or keep their gun in a box by their bed, never to be used except in an emergency.

At heart, few Americans want any liberties restricted, but we all know there is an element among us that is essentially deluded and dangerous, so how far do we go in siphoning civil liberties to protect the majority?

The most practical answer, that does not infringe on civil liberties (unless you are a criminal) would be Castle Doctrine laws.

[Sid 3]

Here is an interesting story from England, where because of the handgun ban enacted several years ago, there should be no crime.....

Knife happy Brits kill at an alarming rate

You can run from a knife but you can't run from a bullet

[Monty22 833]

Here is an interesting story from England, where because of the handgun ban enacted several years ago, there should be no crime.....

Knife happy Brits kill at an alarming rate

You can run from a knife but you can't run from a bullet

Not sure what your point is, dead is dead , doesn't matter how you got there....

Not everyone can just run away- If I'm out with my wife and 6 month old son, our chances of fleeing a knife wielding attacker are slim. I'm also not inclined to turn my back on someone with a weapon.

[Jason Harris 31]

The most practical answer, that does not infringe on civil liberties (unless you are a criminal) would be Castle Doctrine laws.

I've never heard of them. What are Castle Doctrine laws?

The odds are I'd be for them, since no one holds a gun to our head and makes us a commit a crime. Sorry, that pun was just hanging in the air.....

[Monty22 833]

Castle Doctrine Laws

[gxc999 7]

Castle Doctrine Laws

The Castle Doctrine varies greatly by state. Some states don't have any, some basically let you shoot people who accidentally walk in the wrong house when drunk. The "Stand Your Ground" laws seem to intend to change America back into the old wild west; this is what happens when nutjob, extremist legislators are elected to the state legislature. Also, whether a state has adopted the MPC or not is another factor. The basic truth is that criminal law is state law by and large. However, firearms are (to a large extent) one of the exceptions to that.

BTW, convicted felons are now challenging their gun bans. This should be fun...

[Monty22 833]

Castle Doctrine Laws

The Castle Doctrine varies greatly by state. Some states don't have any, some basically let you shoot people who accidentally walk in the wrong house when drunk. The "Stand Your Ground" laws seem to intend to change America back into the old wild west; this is what happens when nutjob, extremist legislators are elected to the state legislature. Also, whether a state has adopted the MPC or not is another factor. The basic truth is that criminal law is state law by and large. However, firearms are (to a large extent) one of the exceptions to that.

BTW, convicted felons are now challenging their gun bans. This should be fun...

In CT, that's called Felony home invasion.

No, it protects people who lawfully use force against criminals- if you don't want to get shot, don't commit crimes. It's negative reinforcement.

Letting people protect themselves when the government can't is extreme?

[gxc999 7]

Castle Doctrine Laws

The Castle Doctrine varies greatly by state. Some states don't have any, some basically let you shoot people who accidentally walk in the wrong house when drunk. The "Stand Your Ground" laws seem to intend to change America back into the old wild west; this is what happens when nutjob, extremist legislators are elected to the state legislature. Also, whether a state has adopted the MPC or not is another factor. The basic truth is that criminal law is state law by and large. However, firearms are (to a large extent) one of the exceptions to that.

BTW, convicted felons are now challenging their gun bans. This should be fun...

In CT, that's called Felony home invasion.

No, it protects people who lawfully use force against criminals- if you don't want to get shot, don't commit crimes. It's negative reinforcement.

Letting people protect themselves when the government can't is extreme?

You're taking what I said out of context. If you want to see what happens when moronic state legislatures adopt flawed bills, see the Texas case where an old white man killed two unarmed immigrants he thought had burglarized his neighbors property. He told the 911 operator in advance, "I'm going to kill them" and did exactly that. He hid behind the castle doctrine claiming they were standing on the very edge of his property when he murdered them in cold blood. Do you really think this is just? We almost all think you have the right to defend your family against armed robbers at 4am, but many of the states passed far-reaching laws that lend themselves to abuse. The only reasonable thing to do is adopt the limited scope Castle Doctrine. And yes, when you have states passing laws that allow you to shoot and kill someone who has punched you (when you can flee, fight back etc), that, by definition, is the WILD WEST.

[Monty22 833]

That's a poor example- Again- if you don't want to risk getting shot, don't commit crimes. The two men shot were criminals here illegally- one had been deported in 1994 for a cocaine related conviction. If they had not 1. Been in this country illegally, 2. been in someone else's house illegally, they likely both would be alive. They both new the risks and took the gamble and lost. The D.A. had no problem with it: "The message we're trying to send today is the criminal justice system works," Harris County District Attorney Kenneth Magidson said.

[gxc999 7]

That's a poor example- Again- if you don't want to risk getting shot, don't commit crimes. The two men shot were criminals here illegally- one had been deported in 1994 for a cocaine related conviction. If they had not 1. Been in this country illegally, 2. been in someone else's house illegally, they likely both would be alive. They both new the risks and took the gamble and lost. The D.A. had no problem with it: "The message we're trying to send today is the criminal justice system works," Harris County District Attorney Kenneth Magidson said.

I think you're missing the point. They were unarmed, and shot dead walking across a man's house (ostensibly to get away) while the cops were literally arriving on the scene. This is justice? It's cold blooded murder. He even said in advance, when they were not on his property yet, "I'm going to kill them." You rationalize their killings because they were illegal immigrants and minor criminals. Where do you choose to draw the line? Callous disregard for life at it's finest. Moreover, your belief that this will send a message (to other criminals or act as a deterrent) is useless because men such as these wouldn't have any idea of the state law anyway. It is wrong, it is immoral, it is unethical and in most other states, it would've probably been capital (premeditated) murder. You can not (sanely) justify using deadly force when you aren't threatened with grave bodily harm like this. I'll be ecstatic if he one day gets thrown in jail for jaywalking.

[Monty22 833]

Your missing MY point- there is something to be said for personal responsibility. Their OWN ACTIONS put them in a situation where they could be killed, yet they chose to do it anyway. The homeowner claims they came toward him in a threating manner - neither one of us were there, so we can only speculate what actually happened. Who is to say the two "minor" criminals" weren't going to move on to bigger and better things? Link These two sweethearts were on parole for burglary.

[Trooper 8]

That's a poor example- Again- if you don't want to risk getting shot, don't commit crimes. The two men shot were criminals here illegally- one had been deported in 1994 for a cocaine related conviction. If they had not 1. Been in this country illegally, 2. been in someone else's house illegally, they likely both would be alive. They both new the risks and took the gamble and lost. The D.A. had no problem with it: "The message we're trying to send today is the criminal justice system works," Harris County District Attorney Kenneth Magidson said.

I think you're missing the point. They were unarmed, and shot dead walking across a man's house (ostensibly to get away) while the cops were literally arriving on the scene. This is justice? It's cold blooded murder. He even said in advance, when they were not on his property yet, "I'm going to kill them." You rationalize their killings because they were illegal immigrants and minor criminals. Where do you choose to draw the line? Callous disregard for life at it's finest. Moreover, your belief that this will send a message (to other criminals or act as a deterrent) is useless because men such as these wouldn't have any idea of the state law anyway. It is wrong, it is immoral, it is unethical and in most other states, it would've probably been capital (premeditated) murder. You can not (sanely) justify using deadly force when you aren't threatened with grave bodily harm like this. I'll be ecstatic if he one day gets thrown in jail for jaywalking.

One example of what you think is abuse does not make your case. Joe Horn was found innocent. He shot two illegals who robbed his neighbor's house. Had they not done that, they would be alive today.

Firearms are used in self-defense everyday, as evidenced by this story:

http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?A.../NEWS/807190395

As for deterring criminals, countless polls and studies show that criminals are concerned about armed citizens and prefer helpless victims.

[mrusse01 0]

One example of what you think is abuse does not make your case. Joe Horn was found innocent. He shot two illegals who robbed his neighbor's house. Had they not done that, they would be alive today.

The argument that 'had they not done that, they'd be alive' is pretty silly.

I could shoot a jaywalker right between the eyes....had he not chosen to break the law and jaywalk, he wouldn't have got dead. It was his CHOICE to jaywalk, but that doesn't mean what I did is right.

A more appropriate argument is that a jury of his peers found Joe Horn innocent, end of story.

[chippa13 1844]

That's a poor example- Again- if you don't want to risk getting shot, don't commit crimes. The two men shot were criminals here illegally- one had been deported in 1994 for a cocaine related conviction. If they had not 1. Been in this country illegally, 2. been in someone else's house illegally, they likely both would be alive. They both new the risks and took the gamble and lost. The D.A. had no problem with it: "The message we're trying to send today is the criminal justice system works," Harris County District Attorney Kenneth Magidson said.

I think you're missing the point. They were unarmed, and shot dead walking across a man's house (ostensibly to get away) while the cops were literally arriving on the scene. This is justice? It's cold blooded murder. He even said in advance, when they were not on his property yet, "I'm going to kill them." You rationalize their killings because they were illegal immigrants and minor criminals. Where do you choose to draw the line? Callous disregard for life at it's finest. Moreover, your belief that this will send a message (to other criminals or act as a deterrent) is useless because men such as these wouldn't have any idea of the state law anyway. It is wrong, it is immoral, it is unethical and in most other states, it would've probably been capital (premeditated) murder. You can not (sanely) justify using deadly force when you aren't threatened with grave bodily harm like this. I'll be ecstatic if he one day gets thrown in jail for jaywalking.

One example of what you think is abuse does not make your case. Joe Horn was found innocent. He shot two illegals who robbed his neighbor's house. Had they not done that, they would be alive today.

Firearms are used in self-defense everyday, as evidenced by this story:

http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?A.../NEWS/807190395

As for deterring criminals, countless polls and studies show that criminals are concerned about armed citizens and prefer helpless victims.

Anyone else find it slightly concerning when the criteria for a cop shooting a criminal is stricter than for John Q. Public.

[Trooper 8]

Anyone else find it slightly concerning when the criteria for a cop shooting a criminal is stricter than for John Q. Public.

Dunno about that, seeing as how most cops get off even on questionable shootings.

[Monty22 833]

One example of what you think is abuse does not make your case. Joe Horn was found innocent. He shot two illegals who robbed his neighbor's house. Had they not done that, they would be alive today.

The argument that 'had they not done that, they'd be alive' is pretty silly.

I could shoot a jaywalker right between the eyes....had he not chosen to break the law and jaywalk, he wouldn't have got dead. It was his CHOICE to jaywalk, but that doesn't mean what I did is right.

A more appropriate argument is that a jury of his peers found Joe Horn innocent, end of story.

There are several crimes where it is quite common to be shot at while perpetrating, especially in Texas. Carjacking, rape, home invasion/burglary and arson are a few. It is legal to use force, deadly force included to prevent/stop these crimes. The ignorance of your post is mind numbing. It is not unreasonable to think that these two "gentlemen" knew what they were doing could end violently- that's why most people try to break in when no one is looking. What you have written makes no sense.

John Horn was never charged to begin with, so it's not appropriate to say he was found innocent by a jury.

[mrusse01 0]

One example of what you think is abuse does not make your case. Joe Horn was found innocent. He shot two illegals who robbed his neighbor's house. Had they not done that, they would be alive today.

The argument that 'had they not done that, they'd be alive' is pretty silly.

I could shoot a jaywalker right between the eyes....had he not chosen to break the law and jaywalk, he wouldn't have got dead. It was his CHOICE to jaywalk, but that doesn't mean what I did is right.

A more appropriate argument is that a jury of his peers found Joe Horn innocent, end of story.

There are several crimes where it is quite common to be shot at while perpetrating, especially in Texas. Carjacking, rape, home invasion/burglary and arson are a few. It is legal to use force, deadly force included to prevent/stop these crimes. The ignorance of your post is mind numbing. It is not unreasonable to think that these two "gentlemen" knew what they were doing could end violently- that's why most people try to break in when no one is looking. What you have written makes no sense.

John Horn was never charged to begin with, so it's not appropriate to say he was found innocent by a jury.

So, if I live in Texas and I see a bunch of teenagers lighting my shed on fire (arson), I'm well within my legal rights to come bursting out my house shooting at them?

Obviously there is a line that you have to draw here somewhere, and it's going to be different case by case. That's why we have a criminal justice/legal system. That's all I was trying to get at, that to issue a blanket statement saying "well, you might get shot doing that, so it's your fault if you get killed" isn't how it works. There is a fine line between defending yourself and vigilantism.

[chk hrd 164]

it's a matter of taking the rights away from honest people. The rights of a criminal should not be greater than the rights of the victim. Societies should stop coddling criminals and protect the honest person.

[chippa13 1844]

Get rid of the ACLU and you might have a shot.

[DavidT 11]

ACLU is a two sided sword. Much like lawyers, politicians, cops, etc.

You despise them most of the time, but when you need them they're there to help out.

[chippa13 1844]

I haven't needed them yet and it doesn't look like anytime soon, either.

[TheBert 0]

I've never needed the fire department either.