Amtrak: All Aboard -- And Bring Your Guns

[DDU]

free speech has it's restrictions as well as the right to bear arms.

 

[Jiro]

free speech has it's restrictions as well as the right to bear arms.

only difference - the reason why Amendment One has a certain restriction is because people abused it for hate purpose..... some idiots used free speech to incite violence.

Amendment Two doesn't. It prevents you from getting harmed.

 

[Reba]

free speech has it's restrictions as well as the right to bear arms.

The right to bear arms isn't supposed to be restricted for law-abiding citizens.

It is restricted for felons (law breakers) and non-citizens.

The unlawful use of guns by criminals to commit crimes is not a right protected by the Second Amendment. It happens but it's not a right, and it's not protected.

 

[netrox]

But why can't we use Second Amendment to kill anyone who try to threaten us? We aren't allowed.

Like if I am a gang member, don't I have the right to kill enemies to protect my turf?

 

[Jiro]

But why can't we use Second Amendment to kill anyone who try to threaten us? We aren't allowed.

yes we are allowed to do that in majority of states. only few states plus 1 capital do not allow it. Its statute is ridiculous. DC and Illinois have already lost its cases in Supreme Court. NJ, NY, and CA are next.

Like if I am a gang member, don't I have the right to kill enemies to protect my turf?

yes you may only if you are legalized to carry one and if your self-defense is justified.

 

[Reba]

But why can't we use Second Amendment to kill anyone who try to threaten us? We aren't allowed.

In most states you can; in the others, it's being contested. In all states you should be allowed to defend yourself and loved ones, according to the Second Amendment.

Like if I am a gang member, don't I have the right to kill enemies to protect my turf?

IF the gang member is not a convicted felon, and is old enough, and passes a background check, then he can legally purchase a gun. IF he buys the gun from an authorized dealer, or from an individual who is selling a legally acquired gun. IF he takes and passes the course his state requires for a concealed carry permit, then he can carry that gun on his person, within the limitations of that permit.

He can use that gun for self defense and the defense of other persons. Note, that is defense. He can't take any offensive or revenge actions. Also, he can defend people, not "turf" if you're referring to neighborhoods.

 

[Daredevel7]

Sounds like pro-gun people DO want restrictions anyway...?

 

[Reba]

Sounds like pro-gun people DO want restrictions anyway...?

Not necessarily. It could mean that some pro-gun people put up with the current situation as a realistic compromise.

In the case of criminals, I support restrictions. People who break our laws make the decision to risk losing their rights. That's their choice.

Last night, an angry drunk guy threatened Hubby's life at an intersection. Hubby said he felt very defenseless in that situation. If the guy had carried out his threat, what could he do?

 

[Beowulf]

Eh? I have guns. I don't care what the law says.

 

[Daredevel7]

Not necessarily. It could mean that some pro-gun people put up with the current situation as a realistic compromise.

In the case of criminals, I support restrictions. People who break our laws make the decision to risk losing their rights. That's their choice.

Last night, an angry drunk guy threatened Hubby's life at an intersection. Hubby said he felt very defenseless in that situation. If the guy had carried out his threat, what could he do?

Very simple, shoot the damn guy.

Too bad, he will have to live with the fact that the angry drunk guy was really a father having a really bad day with anger management issues when he is drunk. But hey, he can live with it if he really convinces himself that if he didn't have a gun, he would have been killed... right?

 

[Daredevel7]

It's hard to find that balance....

Should more innocent people be killed because people thought they were bad?

Or

Should more innocent people be killed because they were defenseless?

 

[Jiro]

Very simple, shoot the damn guy.

Too bad, he will have to live with the fact that the angry drunk guy was really a father having a really bad day with anger management issues when he is drunk. But hey, he can live with it if he really convinces himself that if he didn't have a gun, he would have been killed... right?

and too bad that drunk will have to live with the fact that the frightened man was really a father and grandfather having a bad day with a drunk being stupid.

 

[Jiro]

It's hard to find that balance....

Should more innocent people be killed because people thought they were bad?

Or

Should more innocent people be killed because they were defenseless?

hard? not really. simple - don't be stupid to get yourself killed in a gun-friendly state

 

[Jiro]

Sounds like pro-gun people DO want restrictions anyway...?

we already got the restrictions we wanted - criminals as a private citizen automatically lose their Amendment 2 rights once they committed a crime.

 

[Daredevel7]

hard? not really. simple - don't be stupid and get yourself killed in a gun-friendly state

You often quote statistics talking about gun friendly states in conjunction with low crime.

Are these really the right statistics?

Did the fact that it is gun friendly MAKE them have low crime?

Or did the fact that because it IS a low crime state, the gun laws have less restrictions?

I mean look at the gun friendly states. Vermont? Alaska?....

Yea.. kind of a weak argument if you ask me.

 

[Jiro]

You often quote statistics talking about gun friendly states in conjunction with low crime.

Are these really the right statistics?

Did the fact that it is gun friendly MAKE them have low crime?

Or did the fact that because it IS a low crime state, the gun laws have less restrictions?

I mean look at the gun friendly states. Vermont? Alaska?....

Yea.. kind of a weak argument if you ask me.

simply look at rest of 40 other states that are gun-friendly too. Take a look at PA (Philadelphia) vs NY/NJ (NYC/Camden).

I think that's a pretty dang strong argument right there.

 

[Reba]

Very simple, shoot the damn guy.

Too bad, he will have to live with the fact that the angry drunk guy was really a father having a really bad day with anger management issues when he is drunk. But hey, he can live with it if he really convinces himself that if he didn't have a gun, he would have been killed... right?

He would shoot only if the other guy threatened him with a gun first.

But Hubby wasn't carrying a gun last night.

 

[Jiro]

He would shoot only if the other guy threatened him with a gun first.

typical and reasonable mindset of most law-abiding, responsible CCW holders - an equal proportionate use of force.

But Hubby wasn't carrying a gun last night.

I bet that would surprise many liberals

 

[Jiro]

btw Reba - how was he threatening to your hubby? wanting to fist fight?

 

[Beowulf]

typical and reasonable mindset of most law-abiding, responsible CCW holders - an equal proportionate use of force.


I bet that would surprise many liberals

:roll: