Chicago Finally To Have Concealed Carry

[m4mpetcock]

Do you really want an emotionally overwrought, and armed, person rushing into a potentially fatal confrontation?

You seem to forget that, in most states, LEGAL gun owners go thru safety training, as opposed to an "emotionally overwrought, and UNarmed, person rushing into a potentially fatal confrontation."

[m4mpetcock]

One final point, and I'm gonna let this poor horse die.

If a legal gun owner rushes into a situation like that and dies, it was still the choice he had.  As opposed to having inept legislators, in some states where the closest Sherriff's office is miles away, removing that choice and the person dies at the hands of an armed intruder while the honest homeowner was unarmed. 

[Katiebee]

I have less confidence in the general public. And here in Texas, the training is minimal, and state legislators are trying to make training even more minimal.

I have no objection to a homeowner repelling an intruder. I have more problems with a homeowner knowingly entering a hostile situation.

That last scenario has fewer good outcomes all around, including wrongful death of the intruder, and possible manslaughter charges for the homeowner.

[m4mpetcock]

I have more problems with a homeowner knowingly entering a hostile situation.

The question is, ultimately, whose business is it but the homeowner and the criminal?  My home is my castle.  If I want to go down in a blaze of glory defending it, stay the hell off of my property and you won't have anything to worry about.

On  the other hand, if you want to forever be at the mercy of gun toting criminals, have at it.  But don't infringe upon others' right to defend themselves, their family, and their home. 

[Katiebee]

The question is, ultimately, whose business is it but the homeowner and the criminal?  My home is my castle.  If I want to go down in a blaze of glory defending it, stay the hell off of my property and you won't have anything to worry ...

The law. It is the business of the law. And as a nation of laws and not of individuals, it makes a great deal if difference. If you get rid of laws, then yes you will NEED a weapon at all times.

And don't speak of rights then, for all have the same right, that of main force. What is mine is mine, and what is yours is also mine if I'm strong enough to take it.

That is the logical and ultimate conclusion of your argument.

Actions taken within the law are defensible, actions that exceed the law, are open to prosecution. That is the crux. We are not debating if you have a right to defend yourself and property if you are intruded upon we are debating whether you have the right to intercept an intruder after you have discovered him, and whether your actions will be acceptable under the law.

Stand your ground laws do not apply when you initiate the confrontation.

[m4mpetcock]

And how many (thousands upon thousands) of laws have been found to be unconstitutional?  And were they found to be unconstitutional because everyone followed them without question?  Or were they found to be unconstitutional because the quite-often, too-long, arm of the law was imposed upon someone who appealed their fine, conviction, etc and their cause was elevated thru the courts?


Again, if you think it makes sense for the law to tell you to stand back and let some armed intruder do whatever they're capable before the law gets there, that's your business. 

Again, "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

[Katiebee]

We are not debating the same thing. I have not once, in the discussion with you intimated anything about the right to keep and bear arms. I have consistently been arguing the point that the employment of force in specific situations may put the homeowner into jeopardy with the law.

I strenuously advocate that you review what I have said.

[Grm]

Human nature being what it is, many people without guns may have walked into the same situation, unknowingly.  The come home.  They see their door ajar.  They rush in to see what someone did to their house.  Adrenaline works in mysterious ways. 

Adrenalin and guns is a fatal mix, in that situation the fatal could be anyone, yourself, some innocent person, a family member and even if its an intruder, he maybe unarmed.
Taking another human being's life isn't easy, its not like the movies, you will have to live with it for the rest of your life.

[Gina Marie]

Again, "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Isn't listing a partial quote considered "cherry picking"?

[Katiebee]

Actually, it would be cherry picking if the rest of the quote was obscure. In this instance the entire sentence is well known and accessible, so it's more of a shorthand to express the entire quote.

[Gina Marie]

oh... ok.

[Katiebee]

That said it doesn't mean that quote is used appropriately in the argument. It could be used inappropriately to prove something that wasn't being argued. In other words they totally miss the point.

[m4mpetcock]

That said it doesn't mean that quote is used appropriately in the argument. It could be used inappropriately to prove something that wasn't being argued. In other words they totally miss the point.

 

*Edit to make video visible

[joan1984]

The Heller Decision specifically noted that the people, citizens, made up the entirety of the militia, and the individual rights of the people to own and bear arms is the proper reading of the sentence. Reading the Amendment's "militia" is "cherry picking".

aint no militia in DC, and a citizen may own and bear arms, per the supreme court, and laws saying otherwise are unconstitutional. DC being near all Dems, as to political office holders, they dither and seek some new way to read the decision, while they encumber their citizens... Chicago was thought to be more difficult than DC, so this new IL law is a major breakthrough, no more city decisions required.

Again, "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Isn't listing a partial quote considered "cherry picking"?

[phtlc]

I am curious to see what the real statistics will be in a year, but then we will never truly know. I would venture that any group making them will slant them to their own ends and you can henpeck which stats you want to use to make your case.

Exactly. When I was an undergrad I was working as an RA for a very senior professor who was doing an agenda based paper and she had me play with the stats until they said what she wanted.

[phtlc]

Here's one way of looking at it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBjzdvSloG8
After THAT experience, do you think those punks said, "Well, we just have to get right back on that horse we fell off of?"  Or do you think, after they finished scrambling, they thought, "JeHEYsus!  Maybe this career ain't so safe after all?"

My question with this is did he actually have to start shooting? Don't get me wrong, I have no sympathy for the punks, but starting a shootout in a crowded café has serious risks of collateral damage. If he felt that lives were in immediate danger and he had to shoot then fine, but I sure hope this guy didn't expose everyone in the room to gunfire over money.

[phtlc]

I have no objection to a homeowner repelling an intruder. I have more problems with a homeowner knowingly entering a hostile situation.

I have no moral objection to a homeowner entering his/her home under such circumstances but I question the judgement. Unless I think there is a family member in there being harmed, it might be better just to call the police and wait since the property is insured.

That said, in such situations my own judgement hasn't always been impeccable.