Right to Bear Arms on Docket... - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-21-2008, 08:27 PM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 15,624
Local Time: 11:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by the iron horse


The Supreme Court Court is not acting as activists judges in this case. This was brought to the Court by Washington D.C. bacause they lost the case in a lower court. The suit was brought against D.C. by a D.C. law enforecement officer who disagreed with the D.C. gun ban.
Well obviously all cases before the SCOTUS are there on appeal from a lower court. The definition of "activist judge" has nothing to do with this procedural rule so I'm not really sure what you're referring to here.

(For the record, I think the talk of activist judges is mostly BS - they're activist when they disagree with whatever your particular position seems to be. But, had they ruled otherwise, I have no doubt we'd hear crowing about what an activist court this has become.)
__________________

__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 03-21-2008, 08:35 PM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,460
Local Time: 05:29 PM
America can go on arming itself, so the world can continue spinning.
Thank God!

"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions."

Yes, every day I wake up and feel my freedom to be so infringed and can hardly cope with this essential freedom taken from me by my government. I'm so unfree.
__________________

__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 03-21-2008, 10:57 PM   #18
New Yorker
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,158
Local Time: 11:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


Well obviously all cases before the SCOTUS are there on appeal from a lower court. The definition of "activist judge" has nothing to do with this procedural rule so I'm not really sure what you're referring to here.

(For the record, I think the talk of activist judges is mostly BS - they're activist when they disagree with whatever your particular position seems to be. But, had they ruled otherwise, I have no doubt we'd hear crowing about what an activist court this has become.)

What is the definition of an activist judge?

This gun issue...


Whatever they decided, I do not think this case is an example of "activists judges."
__________________
the iron horse is offline  
Old 03-21-2008, 11:21 PM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Vincent Vega
America can go on arming itself, so the world can continue spinning.
Thank God!

"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions."

Yes, every day I wake up and feel my freedom to be so infringed and can hardly cope with this essential freedom taken from me by my government. I'm so unfree.
Well they also have stronger freedom of speech protections, take the good with the bad.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 03-21-2008, 11:37 PM   #20
Refugee
 
dazzlingamy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The city of blinding lights and amazing coffee - Melbourne.
Posts: 2,467
Local Time: 03:29 AM
I always thoughts that 'the right to bear arms' meant you know in self defence, like protecting the country and the like, not shooting someone cause they don't go yo drug money, or going on some killing spree cause you're depressed.

I also believe that people who want a gun for self defence, and not understand the gravatis of the situation. Shoot dead an intruder armed with a knife - wow, you're so brave, and now you've taken someones life. It just seems so unbalanced and wrong.
__________________
dazzlingamy is offline  
Old 03-22-2008, 12:12 AM   #21
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:29 AM
So protecting your person and property doesn't fall under self-defence? A moot point, an argument based on the freedom to own a gun in principle rather than the conditional case of self-protection (which isn't clear) makes more sense.

If somebody has broken into a house with a knife and the person in the house is at serious risk then harming or killing them should generally fall under self-protection - it shouldn't matter if it is unfair. Would it be fair if you beat them to death with a hammer but wrong if you shoot them with a gun?

Self-defence should be proportionate, if somebody kills another person in self defence I fail to see what difference it makes whether they use a gun or any other tool. And again, just to reiterate that self-defence is a bad argument for gun ownership, if people need guns to survive then there are probably bigger problems.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 03-22-2008, 05:49 AM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,460
Local Time: 05:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Well they also have stronger freedom of speech protections, take the good with the bad.
The kind of speech that gets me in trouble here is so far of I can't really be bothered. Though I agree there is a legitimate argument for a full protection of freedom of speech, I wouldn't view this being worthy enough for everyone getting armed.

I don't feel so oppressed only because of some little freedom I have not. And this is like most other topics: I don't see the extremes as being necessary.

Quote:
Originally posted by dazzlingamy

I also believe that people who want a gun for self defence, and not understand the gravatis of the situation. Shoot dead an intruder armed with a knife - wow, you're so brave, and now you've taken someones life. It just seems so unbalanced and wrong.
I would be cautious seeing a knife as something not that dangerous. A knife is as dangerous a weapon as a gun.
And in the case of self-defense, if I got attacked by someone with a knive I would not hesitate to shoot should I have a gun.
The danger I see here more is that with nearly everyone having a gun, or the risk of that being much higher, an intruder is more likely to be armed himself and both sides are likely to be more trigger happy.

Giving everyone the right to get the gun of his liking isn't in any way addressing the reasons for crimes being committed, has more or less zero effect on the crime rate and is rather increasing the likelihood of turning a crime into a tragedy.
But guns are neither reason nor solution for the problem of crime.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 03-22-2008, 10:51 AM   #23
Blue Crack Addict
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 29,703
Local Time: 11:29 AM
i look forward to getting held up at gunpoint as a result of this law.

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 03-22-2008, 12:42 PM   #24
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 15,624
Local Time: 11:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
If somebody has broken into a house with a knife and the person in the house is at serious risk then harming or killing them should generally fall under self-protection - it shouldn't matter if it is unfair. Would it be fair if you beat them to death with a hammer but wrong if you shoot them with a gun?
Yes, because if you're being robbed in the middle of the night at knife point, amid all that chaos you are going to quickly and efficiently go downstairs to wherever you keep your gun safely locked away from your children, and proceed to aim at the intruder.

This scenario is one of the sillier arguments in favour of gun control.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 03-22-2008, 10:29 PM   #25
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
And again, just to reiterate that self-defence is a bad argument for gun ownership
The point that I was making was that self defence is self defence, that there really isn't a difference between shooting somebody that poses a threat to your life and beating them to death with a blunt object; the reason would be the same as would the end result. It was in response to a post that stated that a gun was an unfair advantage against a hypothetical knife wielding intruder.

Your answer assumes that 1: the owner has a family, 2: that they live in a 2 story house 3: the gun is locked away far away from their bed. Your logistical argument is far too conditional to be a blanket case against guns as self-defence.

And guns for self-defence is a very silly argument for gun control.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 03-22-2008, 11:29 PM   #26
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 15,624
Local Time: 11:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer

And guns for self-defence is a very silly argument for gun control.
What?

Gun control is a reasonable limitation in a civilized society. But this is really almost an irrelevant point in America, where the better question is - what makes the society that much more prone to gun violence (because gun ownership is not directly linked to gun violence aside from being an obvious prerequisite) with respect to other comparable western democracies.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 03-22-2008, 11:47 PM   #27
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
This scenario is one of the sillier arguments in favour of gun control.
You said that self-defence was a silly argument in favour of gun control; that is a true statement, was it the intended statement?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 03-23-2008, 08:37 AM   #28
Refugee
 
dazzlingamy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The city of blinding lights and amazing coffee - Melbourne.
Posts: 2,467
Local Time: 03:29 AM
no my point in self defence is, the aim of it shouldn't be death. Most people shooting a weapon are going to cause big problems cause they arn't aiming for the leg or arm or something, they just wildy shoot at the head.

Of course someone should defend themselves but there is a huge difference from knocking someone else out with a bat or tackling them and tying them up, or smashing them over the head with a glass, then shooting point blank at them. If you accidentally kill someone from them falling and cracking their head after you hit them, thats not your fault, but if you are using a lethal weapon, with really no regard, care of knowledge its all going to end much worse.
__________________
dazzlingamy is offline  
Old 03-23-2008, 09:34 AM   #29
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:29 AM
Your examples of "reasonable" self defence include tackling and knocking out with a bat - they are things that people can't be expected to do (an averaged sized woman against an average sized man for instance). If somebody was threatening me with a knife tackling them would be the last thing on my mind, it would be suicidal. To even get close enough to strike them with a bat would be dangerous.

A proportionate response that ends up killing the agressor is not moral, but it shouldn't be criminal. That is what I take issue with; your implication that the right to protect ones life is trumped by an aggressors right to bodily safety. In cases of genuine self-defence fault should rest on the aggressor, not the victim. That when it comes to the absolute extreme of having your life directly threatened the response must aim to be non-lethal (as opposed to a frantic do as much damage to them if the opportunity arises - which it probably won't - response). If you have a strong moral opposition to violence in self-defense then it is fine for you to live your life accordingly; but to impose that upon other people would be wrong.

It is an argument independent of gun rights but one relevant for the right to protect oneself from harm. It is also so overtly simplistic as it glosses over what constitutes proportionality, if it extends to protection of property, how much somebody could have done being looked at retroactively etc.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 03-23-2008, 10:00 AM   #30
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 38,340
Local Time: 10:29 AM
One should compare the number of people killed by self defense with a legal gun, to the number of people murdered with a legal gun...

I guarantee you self defense will lose...
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com