Gun Control & RKBA

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)

34. You claim to acknowledge the right to self defense but you're content with banning the means

Thu Feb 18, 2016, 01:20 PM

Feb 2016

to effectively defend one's self and others.

If a law such a gun control, which is really nothing more than mere words on paper, denies someone the means to effectively exercise their rights then the law is in error. It would be the same as using the law to ban religious texts -- the means by which someone exercises their religious liberty -- while claiming to recognize religious liberty.

For example, if a minor, who is not legally old enough to own a weapon under the law used a weapon that was prohibited by law to fend off a sexual assault I would argue that the right to self defense takes priority over the prohibitions of age and device and as such no charges should be held against the would-be victim.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

96 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

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