Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Gun Control & RKBA

In reply to the discussion: The right to life [View all]
The right to life [View all] discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 OP
It means the State can't take your life without due process. COLGATE4 Feb 2016 #1
What if the state or those empowered through it seek to take a person's life without due process? Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #3
Then you fight it through the legal process. Not COLGATE4 Feb 2016 #4
How do those being murdered by a corrupt state employ the legal system? Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #8
hmmm discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #9
Does that mean you're in favor of capital punishment? n/t discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #5
Whether I am or not, it's part of the legal system in COLGATE4 Feb 2016 #15
The idea of self-defense has been codified over millennia discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #18
RW rabble rousers, the lot of them. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #23
Maybe but they do have... discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #24
You understand, that since the OP is about the Declaration of Independence Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #26
Reads like something Cliven Bundy would approve of. nt COLGATE4 Feb 2016 #28
You sound too embarrassed to admit you lack a counter argument. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #29
So self defense shouldn't be legal? ileus Feb 2016 #6
Of course self defense is legal. It's an integral part of COLGATE4 Feb 2016 #14
The citation in the OP is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #17
Now you're just being picky. n/t discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #25
Guilty as charged. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #27
Has someone passed an act somewhere removing "self-defense" from Justification jmg257 Feb 2016 #2
No but they seem to be working on it n/t discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #10
What should be the penalty for self defense with a prohibited weapon? Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #12
Why would someone have a prohibited weapon? jmg257 Feb 2016 #13
Yes, it would be illegal. Hence my use of the term "prohibited." Please answer my question -- Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #16
What is/are the charge(s) for possession of said illegal weapon? jmg257 Feb 2016 #19
In other words, and contrary to your initial post, you would support Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #20
Not sure where I said that. I do understand that numerous weapons jmg257 Feb 2016 #21
It seems to me the debate ought to be centered more on whether an instance of self-defense was Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #22
You are dealing with two separate legal issues. COLGATE4 Feb 2016 #30
That's like saying -- Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #31
That doesn't even make sense. nt COLGATE4 Feb 2016 #32
You claim to acknowledge the right to self defense but you're content with banning the means Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #34
You would argue that and you would lose. COLGATE4 Feb 2016 #37
The law is not a naturally occuring thing, it is only a human construct. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #40
The action of self-defense stands apart from possession of a banned weapon discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #33
"Choosing to illegally acquire the minigun should be a crime COLGATE4 Feb 2016 #35
and??? discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #36
No right is unlimited or unqualified. COLGATE4 Feb 2016 #38
Since... discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #39
Because of the danger their use presents to the public. COLGATE4 Feb 2016 #54
That sounds about right discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #57
Handguns are easier to conceal than than sawed-off shotguns. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #68
It is illegal to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater only if there is not a fire. If there is a fire Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #41
Are you talking about charging the person for USING the illegal weapon jmg257 Feb 2016 #43
Use implies possession. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #44
But you likely would not be charged for USING it if you were justified jmg257 Feb 2016 #45
But had the person been obedient to the law they would not have been able to use the Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #46
Depends on what the legislation is targeted to accomplish. jmg257 Feb 2016 #47
We're still waiting to see a recent gun control proposal that Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #49
It seems many laws are going to "infringe upon rights" at some point. jmg257 Feb 2016 #58
Registration is the antecedent to confiscation. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #65
(S)he refuses to acknowledge the fact that these are two separate, COLGATE4 Feb 2016 #83
More than that. I get the notion they feel that any jmg257 Feb 2016 #88
I completely agree. nt COLGATE4 Feb 2016 #89
And again... discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #42
What you fail to understand - or do not want to COLGATE4 Feb 2016 #48
acknowledging your refusal to answer (eom) discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #50
Unbelievable. Stick a fork in me - I'm done. COLGATE4 Feb 2016 #51
re: "Stick a fork in me..." That would be an assault n/t discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #52
If you want to play lawyer, first learn a little law. COLGATE4 Feb 2016 #56
I have a veritable... discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #60
You have it backwards. A right to self-defense implies COLGATE4 Feb 2016 #61
I submit that any codification in law... discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #63
Interesting. Impractical, but interesting. COLGATE4 Feb 2016 #66
Why should the legal system be different? n/t discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #67
My life is the only reason I need to own a firearm. ileus Feb 2016 #7
works for me n/t discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #11
And if you take the life of another with your gun? guillaumeb Feb 2016 #53
So far the danger of... discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #55
Tell that to the countless victims who die every year guillaumeb Feb 2016 #59
Yes, great sympathy for all innocent victims discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #62
How many is that? beevul Feb 2016 #64
Even one is too many. Agreed? guillaumeb Feb 2016 #70
I'm not going to agree or disagree on anything until you substantiate your claim. beevul Feb 2016 #72
30,000 gun deaths a year is an obscenity. guillaumeb Feb 2016 #74
Thats an answer to a question I didn't ask. beevul Feb 2016 #76
I said "very many". How many is too many? Or how many must there be guillaumeb Feb 2016 #78
I know what you said. beevul Feb 2016 #80
"Countless victims"? TeddyR Feb 2016 #69
Perhaps an attempt on your part to minimize a problem? guillaumeb Feb 2016 #71
"Projection, Your Honor." beevul Feb 2016 #73
Post 71. Explain away. guillaumeb Feb 2016 #75
Post 73. Explain away. beevul Feb 2016 #77
Absolutely not TeddyR Feb 2016 #79
The FBI counted them for me. guillaumeb Feb 2016 #81
Show me the stats TeddyR Feb 2016 #82
I think I've been saying that... discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #92
That sounds nice, but what percentage of the homicides are committted by repeat offenders? guillaumeb Feb 2016 #94
According to the CDC... discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #95
There was a story in the Washington Post TeddyR Feb 2016 #96
I have a right to Nuclear Weapons, because, "Right to Life". stone space Feb 2016 #84
Well maybe but you certainly a right to hyperbole but just a few questions discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #85
Oh, this tired old argument again? GGJohn Feb 2016 #86
I'm not the one who brought up this tired old "right to life" arguement for weapons. stone space Feb 2016 #87
No, instead you bring up a tired old meme that's been debunked GGJohn Feb 2016 #91
Actually the argument was about self-defense discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #93
No worries - as long as you were not negligent in its use! jmg257 Feb 2016 #90
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»The right to life»Reply #91