Anonymous Responds To Obama's 2013 Gun Policy

Situation:
There's an intruder walking around my house. He doesn't know the layout of my house. My gun is ready. I stealthily pursue him and he enters my sister's bedroom. Bangbangbang~ shoot him in the back. he dies.

Would that be self defense?

Yes, I meant if the invader was in a retreat running away. But honestly in that situation you tackle his *** and drag him back into your house (j/k this forum needs purple text for sarcasm.)

If you have justifiable belief that there is imminent threat to yourself or sister. Afaik if he has a knife or gun in his hand yes, if not, probably not.

New York Penal Law section 35.15 effectively ordains that: "A person may... use DEADLY physical force upon another person" "when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be NECESSARY to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be .... a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or ROBBERY; or (c) ... a burglary...." There is no duty to retreat under these circumstances. However, if one is "challenged" in a bar for a fight, accepting such challenge and using deadly force, instead of walking away, generally will not constitute a self-defense.

I know legally if you get in a fight and the person tells you to take the first shot, Take It!. You aren't liable for any damages the consenting party agrees to. Now if the punch for example kills them I'm not sure in that situation.

That probably varies by state. I wouldn't take it as a universal.

See this is not entirely clear reading directly from the code. Is the absence of the duty to retreat equivalent to ability to use lethal force? If you encounter a burglary, I'm not sure you're allowed to immediately shoot the person.

Don't castle laws grant the home owner immunity from civil liability if it was a justified homicide? (Self Defense)

Meaning the invader's family couldn't sue you in the first place?
I've heard of a few stories that make me face palm in regards to law suits and home owners getting stuck with a bill because of a death or injury they caused on a home invader.

Castle laws vary by state.

in Texas it does. In Cali nope

Offtopic, just noticed the Avatar went from serious to sexy lol.

Haven't changed mine in awhile. I need to make another manwhore gif but more risque.

Edit:

Ugh..

265.37 - Magazines 8-10 rounds that are loaded with more than 7 rounds.
Possession in the home is a violation. Second offense is a Class B Misdemeanor.
Possession outside of the home is a Class B Misdemeanor. Second offense is a Class A Misdemeanor.


Feel bad for them.

Comes down to a trial in the end. Wealthy/important guy gets burglarized and shoots intruder, probably getting away with it. Not so wealthy/average guy gets burglarized and shoots intruder, probably not so certain a fate.

Just hope youre never put in a situation that tests it.

I own more then 3 guns, an apparent felony in some places. I also own hi cap magazines along with a Law enforcement type weapons. I am a member of the armed services, a medic to boot and I'll be damned if anyone tries to take away my firearms. I have an inalienable right to own such weapons as much as you have the right to not own them. You can kindly *** off if you wish to remove them from my possession.

The problem with f*cking with the 2nd amendment is that any meaningful change also gives you the power to nullify the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th amendments. Once those are gone you mind as well be living in China. There will ALWAYS be a "For the CHILDREN!!!" reason to get rid of any / all of those rights.

1st Amendment protects a vast majority of speech, including the violent and vulgar. "For the CHILDREN!!!" can be used as an excuse to limit the use of free speech for the violent / vulgar (video games / movies and X-rated material). Lawyers and government officials can then stretch and twist those new laws to cover anything they want, political protests can be limited merely by planting someone who express's some form of violence. 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th all relate to the judicial system, and "For the CHILDREN!!!" can be used to get "hard on rape / abuse / cp" by making those accused of those crimes not eligible for those rights. That can then be stretched by lawyers / government officials to cover all sorts of things.

A prime example of "For the CHILDREN!!!" was prohibition. It created a wave of sympathy for the wives and children of abusive drunks and the religious democrats got the Amendment passed. It created a huge crime wave and enabled organized crime (gangs of that time) to control large sections of the population. More innocent people died as a result of the violence created from that amendment then were saved from the banning of alcohol.

And while I don't own any firearms (their highly illegal where I live) and would most likely only own a few for home protection, I'm very wary any liberals trying to alter constitutional rights in the name of social activism. There are more important things that need dealing with the whatever hot button perceived social ill assails the relatively rich, over-privileged middle class.

I am of the mind set that if we introduced better licensing/accountability processes they too would be deemed "Unconstitutional". Just because they would deny people who shouldn't own a gun in the first place, and are legally not allowed to own a gun anyway, the right to own that particular weapon.

The argument that any gun can be used for killing is redundant. Yes, if you were intent on shooting people from a clock tower, you wouldnt use a high capacity low range weapon to do that.You want to defend yourself in a close quarters situation, a rifle is not your best choice. You are angry at the world and decide to go to your local mall to take out as many people as possible, a shotgun will probably not do you any good.

Weapons kill when employed to kill. That is not an untruth or a non-fact. However, some weapons are made to perform specific tasks and should not be allowed to be used in situations where they are not meant to be. I understand someone wants to go hunting with an automatic weapon, sure, but just because you want to doesnt mean that you should or that it would be efficient to do so. Weapons that are made for siege,assault, or militaristic combat should not be in the hands of non-military/militia (yes i said it) personnel.You literally have no reason to own a weapon like that as an ordinary citizen.

I, for one don't care about guns. However given this statement, it is absolutely transparent that the forefathers wanted to make sure that the government understands that the people have a right to abolish it and change it to however we feel it to be necessary in the event that it becomes tyrannical. So while I understand that people shouldn't own nukes and crazy WOMD's, I for one understand the evil that the government is continuing to squeeze. We are still a while away from something tyrannical happening, however I for one wouldn't want to have to try to kill an army with a musket....

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

People need to understand, this amendment wasn't for hunting. It was established for the soul purpose of making sure that the people were armed to protect themselves from invaders number one and number two their own government. I hope one day there is peace and no one commits murders, however I am a realist. As long as there is man there will be evil. Evil people do bad things, and people need to be able to protect themselves from evil...

Here is the second part of the document.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

SO, I ask you , When you time of duty comes, and with all the advancements of technology, do you want a musket?

no, just no. You obviously don't understand the meaning of a "right" do you?

At the time, private citizens owned better weapons than the military, an arm is an arm, the second amendment is to keep the government in check, it's part of the checks and balances, to deny that is to deny history and reality, and to go against it is no better than treason.

Fumiku hit it dead center. 2nd Amendment is not about hunting, not about sportsmanship or hobbies. It's about arming the civilian population to ensure the government does not maintain a monopoly on the use of violence. This entails, by definition, that there will be those who have arms that will not use them responsibly. This was true in the 18th century, the founders of the USA and writers of it's framework knew good and well that bad people would be allowed to have firearms. And knowing this, they agreed that the right to bear arms should not be infringed. So no matter how bad people feel, no matter how much some young liberal activists wants to "save the CHILDREN!!!", no matter how much those same young liberal activists want to "do something" by instituting a communist fascist regime. A regime that doesn't have to bother itself with such barriers to progress as human rights, due process and civil liberties. As good an idea as all that sounds, the Constitution plainly laid it out that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Supreme Court has already determined that membership in a civilian para-military organization and the right to own and operate a firearm are two separate and distinct rights. They have also determined that laws banning concealed carry are unconstitutional and struck them down. They went further as to state that legislation so restrictive as to create a virtual ban on firearms is unconstitutional.

So there you have it, any attempt to an out right ban will be immediately rejected. Any attempt on banning concealed carry will rejected. And I'm willing to put money that any attempt at banning semi-automatic rifles will also get struck down.

Now laws restricting those with documented medical histories might be in a grey land. See medical histories are not due process and the right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, just like voting and speech. Criminals with felonies can be denied legal access to weapons due to the due process of a jury trial having determined them guilty (not that they can't easily get them off the street).

Honestly this is a slippery slope, as what exactly would be considered "due process" with medical examinations? If someone walks in to see the doctor because their having nightmares, would they be denied the right to own a firearm? Would someone who got angry in a public place be considered "unstable" and thus denied their 2nd Amendment rights? If we can deny someone their 2nd Amendment right for being angry in a public place, why can't we deny them their 1st, 4th, 5th, hell any of them are open game. The young liberal activist would yell "hey use common sense, that's not what we intend", yet it won't be young liberal activists writing and enforcing these laws. It'll be old cynical rich powerful men utilizing these laws to obtain more power and wealth. It wont' be the young protesting uni student who gets to determine who keeps their rights and who doesn't. It'll be the rich old "white" powerful man who does, and you can guarantee "THE CHILDREN!!" will be the last thing on his mind.

The USS america is going down quicker than a virgin on prom night due to unconstitutional libtard lemmings,

Such a strong argument you make for yourself when you use buzzwords and ad hominems.

This guy, full of class.

How many more cyclical arguments about gun control can we expect this season? Just curious...I think Leila hit the nail on the head in the last gun control thread.

specially if these "do you wanna fend off invading armies with a Musket?" arguments flare up in every one.....

._.'

@Deces: you're not helping.

As long as it remains in the political sphere probably.

16 mass shootings in 2012. We'll have a debate for each in 2013 I imagine.

For situational aspect, if you shot an invader and hes down, immobile and disarmed, and you walk up to him and start putting one in each limb just for insult to injury, Then yea i can see why ppl would think thats going to far.

But the idea of 'only if the invader is immediately threatening your life' is insain. Generally, the only way to confirm that your life is in danger, is to put your life in more danger. That just doesn't seem like a logical self defense strategy.

Most invasions take place at night (in the dark). If so, how exactly are you supposed to confirm that your life is in danger, without putting yourself in more danger? Shout out and ask if hes armed? (and hope the criminal doesn't lie too) Flick on a light (if you can reach one) and let him see exactly where you are, and just hope hes not in a killing mode? Try and tackle him and hope he doesn't have, or is concealing, a gun (or anything else in that kinda of close combat). If someone is invading your home, the logical thing to do is to assume your life is in danger. If you don't, theirs a good chance you wont a life to worry about.