Clearer focus on the gun issue.

[Bogtrotter07]

Here is a case that has flown under the media radar. My kneejerk reaction is that the media recognizes that its sales value is less than its incendiary nature.

I would like to start by apologizing for some anti-Florida statements I have made. Some of you really love Florida, and I have nothing against the state, except certain attitudes of lawmakers. In fact one of my twenty-five favorite places is Crescent Beach, Siesta Key, Sarasota, FL.

I would like discussing the issue, in terms of, is it safe to put all powers of judge, jury, and executioner in one mans hands. I supposed we could discuss the theater shooting, taking of life amidst popcorn and text messages, but I thought this case would be better. It recreated some of the same situations present in the Martin-Zimmerman case, but was a little more cut and dried, in that there was no evidence if a physical assault requiring self defense. So there were none of the issues of obscured evidence.

My position is that we all have the right to defend ourselves. But that must be tempered with the technology of the day. As when the constitution was written, men rode horses and in wagons, the firearms were not capable of hitting anything at great distances, let alone with the accuracy, rate of fire, or killing capacity. Further, try concealing a Brown Bess, or even the flintlock or percussion cap pistol of the day. Because of these technical changes, we must make legal safeguards to insure the rights and liberties of other citizens, including those that carry and those that don't.

Your lively discussion without name calling would be greatly appreciated. I will start with the right to bear arms by responsible citizens should not be curtailed. But, also we have a gun-death epidemic in this country.

Florida jury deliberating verdict in loud music murder trial

Reuters
By Susan Cooper Eastman
2 hours ago

Florida jury starts deliberations in loud rap murder trial Reuters
Loud music murder trial in Florida enters first day Reuters
Trial opens for Florida man who killed black teen over loud music Reuters
Fla. jurors deliberate in loud music killing trial Associated Press
Florida teen in loud music murder trial was unarmed, witnesses say Reuters

JACKSONVILLE, Florida (Reuters) - A north Florida jury resumes deliberations on Thursday in the trial of a middle-aged software engineer who shot and killed a black teenager who refused to turn down the rap music blaring from his car.

Defense attorneys say Michael Dunn, 47, who is white, acted in self-defense when he fired off ten rounds at an SUV carrying four teens, killing Jordan Davis, 17, while parked in a Jacksonville gas station.

After deliberating for two hours on Wednesday, the jury asked the judge if they could review security camera video from inside the gas station which captures the reaction of the clerks to the sound of the gunfire, as well as Dunn's fiancée, Rhonda Rouer, who went into the store to buy wine.

The trial, has drawn international attention because of racial overtones and claims of self-defense.

Dunn is charged with first-degree murder in the November 2012 shooting of Davis. He also faces three charges of attempted murder for firing 10 shots at four teens in a Dodge Durango.




.. View gallery
Dunn looks at his family during his murder trial in …
Michael Dunn looks at his family during his murder trial in the shooting death of unarmed teen Jorda …

Davis was out on the town with friends when the argument broke out. Prosecutors said Davis used foul language when confronting Dunn, but that Davis was unarmed and never posed a physical threat.

"Jordan Davis didn't have a weapon. He had a big mouth. That man wasn't going to stand for it, and it cost Jordan Davis his life," Assistant State Attorney John Guy said on Wednesday, wrapping up the prosecution's case at the end of a week-long trial.

"This case is not about self-defense. It's about self-denial," he added.

The case has drawn comparisons to the trial of George Zimmerman, the former central Florida neighborhood watchman who was acquitted last year of murder after saying he shot an unarmed black 17-year-old, Trayvon Martin, in self-defense during a struggle.

If found guilty, Dunn, who has been in custody since the incident, faces up to life in prison. Prosecutors say they will not seek the death penalty.




.. View gallery
Defendant Dunn reacts on the stand during testimony …
Defendant Michael Dunn reacts on the stand during testimony in his own defense during his murder tri …

The jury of 8 whites, 2 blacks, one Asian and one Hispanic, was ordered by the judge to be sequestered during deliberations.

In closing arguments, Dunn's attorney, Cory Strolla, said the state had failed to prove its case, pointing to a lack of conclusive forensic evidence about where Davis was when he was shot.

"Michael Dunn was in a place where he had a right to be, asking for a common courtesy. He had no duty to retreat. He had a right to meet force with force, including deadly force," said Strolla. "He's had that gun for 20 years and he has never fired it once."

Dunn took the stand in his own defense on Tuesday and told the jury he started shooting in a state of panic after the exchange of words grew more heated and he thought he saw the barrel of a gun in the back window as Davis started to get out of the car.

Police said they found no weapon in the teens' SUV after the shooting.

In what some analysts say was key testimony during the trial, Rouer told the jury that Dunn never mentioned to her on the night of the shooting seeing a gun in the teen's car, despite later telling police that was why he opened fire.

(Writing by David Adams)

 

[wizards8507]

Bog, I'd suggest that you misunderstand the entire point of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in the first place. The (primary) purpose is not to protect citizens from one another in self defense, although that's part of it. The primary purpose is to protect the citizens from a tyrannical government. The full text of the second amendment clearly references a citizen militia, which is intentionally distinct and separate from Congress' ability to raise an army. Limitations on citizen firearm ownership like the ones you mention would simply ensure that the people are less well-armed than the government itself, which makes the entire concept of a militia and the second amendment itself worthless. People always assume it could never ever happen here, but step one of any oppressive regime is to eliminate citizen firearm ownership.

 

[BGIF]

We have a previous thread on this started in July '13

http://www.irishenvy.com/forums/lep...l-dunn-trial-jordan-davis.html?highlight=Dunn


It's not long but it highlighted the differences between Dunn and Zimmerman.


I haven't followed the case since then.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Bog, I'd suggest that you misunderstand the entire point of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in the first place. The (primary) purpose is not to protect citizens from one another in self defense, although that's part of it. The primary purpose is to protect the citizens from a tyrannical government. The full text of the second amendment clearly references a citizen militia, which is intentionally distinct and separate from Congress' ability to raise an army. Limitations on citizen firearm ownership like the ones you mention would simply ensure that the people are less well-armed than the government itself, which makes the entire concept of a militia and the second amendment itself worthless. People always assume it could never ever happen here, but step one of any oppressive regime is to eliminate citizen firearm ownership.

Thoughtful post, thanks!

Good! I understand exactly what you are saying. In todays age, I believe keeping the government out of my bedroom, off of my phone line and internet connection, and from having secret relationships with vendors I choose to do business with is a more important issue that me having a gun.

I mean no offense, have you seen the military's capabilities? We can't outshoot them any more than they can wipe us out without destroying the whole thing.

So I come to the point that the arguments I see for carrying guns, are for what they can provide protections against. Fiends, individuals that want to violate my rights specifically, to inflict harm or bodily injury, or take my life if their efforts go undefended.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

We have a previous thread on this started in July '13

http://www.irishenvy.com/forums/lep...l-dunn-trial-jordan-davis.html?highlight=Dunn


It's not long but it highlighted the differences between Dunn and Zimmerman.


I haven't followed the case since then.

Thank you for posting!

I had hoped that I didn't make this tread a discussion of the case. Instead that it be a refocused effort on discussing what is going on with gun control, gun violence, and some of the castle laws, and other legal changes to the law that make taking human life easier.

 

[wizards8507]

In todays age, I believe keeping the government out of my bedroom, off of my phone line and internet connection, and from having secret relationships with vendors I choose to do business with is a more important issue that me having a gun.

I agree, but what happens if the government becomes so abusive of the things you mention (phone, internet, etc.) that shouting from the citizenry and the media isn't enough to get them to back off?

 

[DomerInHappyValley]

I've always hated the argument that when the Constitution was written the firearms were less advanced.
It was the middle of a war they were using the most advanced technology of the day that they had available.
What would you like them to do? say to the British. "We know you have rifles, but we feel they are too advanced so we're just gonna use bow and arrows, and swords."

 

[wizards8507]

I've always hated the argument that when the Constitution was written the firearms were less advanced.
It was the middle of a war they were using the most advanced technology of the day that they had available.
What would you like them to do? say to the British. "We know you have rifles, but we feel they are too advanced so we're just gonna use bow and arrows, and swords."

I agree. Sure, the weapons were less advanced than they are today, but the "bad guys" also had less advanced weapons. The "good guys" need to be as well armed as the "bad guys" at every given point in time, not viewed across centuries.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I think that is like the point that when people rode horses, and on horse pulled wagons, you didn't need any kind of licensure. With the proliferation of individuals, and individuals who wanted to carry guns of increasing power that all changed. Much like road engineering, signage, and licensure changed since the auto was introduced.

Good point and I think this is where the problem is. You are right about the original intent and you are right that just becase weapons are "better" we shouldn't be restricted access; but there is a legitimate question if unrestricted access presents a more or less safe environment for all citizens.

As far as the government and defeating it in its absolute grab for power and control I rate the following.

1) Information
2) Money
3) The vote
4) Control of logistics and communications
5) Guns

So I see limiting the control of money, so limit the influence of special interests, and you increase the value of each vote as of primary importance.

And so on and so forth.

Until when you get to the inevitability of a shooting war. Then both sides have lost.

 

[Emcee77]

Bog, I'd suggest that you misunderstand the entire point of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in the first place. The (primary) purpose is not to protect citizens from one another in self defense, although that's part of it. The primary purpose is to protect the citizens from a tyrannical government. The full text of the second amendment clearly references a citizen militia, which is intentionally distinct and separate from Congress' ability to raise an army. Limitations on citizen firearm ownership like the ones you mention would simply ensure that the people are less well-armed than the government itself, which makes the entire concept of a militia and the second amendment itself worthless. People always assume it could never ever happen here, but step one of any oppressive regime is to eliminate citizen firearm ownership.

This is a contentious issue in Second Amendment jurisprudence. The text of the amendment is, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." As you can see, the clause mentioning the militia is "prefatory." It is not grammatically necessary to the sentence and judges have argued over what it means or how much weight it should be given.

I've always hated the argument that when the Constitution was written the firearms were less advanced.
It was the middle of a war they were using the most advanced technology of the day that they had available.
What would you like them to do? say to the British. "We know you have rifles, but we feel they are too advanced so we're just gonna use bow and arrows, and swords."

I'm not sure you are following the argument. It's that the concept of a militia that can hold the government in check is so outdated as to be meaningless because today's military technology is so sophisticated that no citizen militia could possibly compete. In the 1770s, the difference between the American rebels' weapons and the British army's weapons was the difference between hunting rifles and long soldiers' muskets. A cannon was about as advanced as it got, and it wasn't too hard to find a blacksmith to make one. It wasn't outrageous to protect people's right to weapons at a time when these were the most destructive weapons you could get. Nowadays, we've got fighter jets and tanks, RPGs and AK-47s. Most people agree that the average citizen should be prohibited from owning weapons such as these because of their capacity for mass destruction in an instant, but isn't that inconsistent with the understanding of the Second Amendment as designed to protect the people's ability to resist their own government with force? These are the weapons you would need to do that.

I believe a guy I know wrote a student article on this subject. I haven't read it and I don't know whether it is b.s. or what, but if anyone is interested:

John Zulkey: The Obsolete Second Amendment: How Advances in Arms Technology Have Made the Prefatory Clause Incompatible with Public Policy

 

[BGIF]

Dunn Davie Doesn't Fit This Discussion

Dunn Davie Doesn't Fit This Discussion

Bogs wrote in part:

I would like discussing the issue, in terms of, is it safe to put all powers of judge, jury, and executioner in one mans hands. I supposed we could discuss the theater shooting, taking of life amidst popcorn and text messages, but I thought this case would be better. It recreated some of the same situations present in the Martin-Zimmerman case, but was a little more cut and dried, in that there was no evidence if a physical assault requiring self defense. So there were none of the issues of obscured evidence.

My position is that we all have the right to defend ourselves. But that must be tempered with the technology of the day. As when the constitution was written, men rode horses and in wagons, the firearms were not capable of hitting anything at great distances, let alone with the accuracy, rate of fire, or killing capacity. Further, try concealing a Brown Bess, or even the flintlock or percussion cap pistol of the day. Because of these technical changes, we must make legal safeguards to insure the rights and liberties of other citizens, including those that carry and those that don't.

I fail to sse the connection between your Second Amendment concerns and the Dunn-Davis case. Dunn claimed Davis pulled a shotgun on him while inside his vehicle. Dunn retreated to his vehicle opened the door, reached in his glove box, took his hand gun and fired multiple shots into Davis vehicle. He then fired more shots as the Davis vehicle tried to leave. Dunn then went back to his hotel room and ordered a pizza. He then drove home. The police tracked him down by a witness getting his license plate number.

Dunn was not carrying (glovebox back in the car). He claimed he saw the victim with a weapon justifying his stand your ground stance although he didn't stand his ground but strategically retreated to his car, opened the door, got his gun, aimed and fired ... at someone who was firing at him. He fired a total of 10 shots at a person who the police did not find a gun on or in the car.

Oh and Dunn was pissed off by the loud rap music coming from the deceased car and supposedly their attitude. They were young and he was middle aged. They were black and he is white.

Now what has this case got to do with your preamble in your post?

IF Dunn was judge, jury, and execution when his life was not threatened AFTER he retreated if there even there was a valid threat, it's up to the prosecutor to prove it and the jury to convict.

Alledged shotgun against a handgun back in the car's glove box? Whether it's a pump or a breech loader I'll take the shotgun and you'll be dead 10 out of 10 times before you get a shot off. Dunn had more rounds to fire but the shotgun takes less aiming. It doesn't even have to be centered on you for a hit. We have both types of weapon in this house and both are owned by my wife and she a capable shot with both.

But neither of those weapons is high powered high tech. My brother's replica flintlock makes a damn big hole. It's a lot more awkward to fire than a shotgun or handgun but you'd be just as dead from my single shot .22 hitting your live as Davis was from Dunn's handgun.

Nobody in Dunn Davbs had a Uzi, AK, AR, Thompson, Street Sweeper, or Barrett so why the specious high tech part of your preamble?

O.J. was judge, jury, and executioner and he used a kitchen knife. The jury didn't convict but every house still has knives although the Founding Father didn't protect their possession.

The movie theater, school shootings had high powered and/or semi automatic capability but also had a mentally challenged individual pulling the triggers when they should not have been allowed to own or possess any firearm EXCEPT IT'S NOT AGAINST THE LAW.

We've taken two legally purchased weapons from my bother-in-law's residence over the years. A diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic, he's been in lockup several times at court order and with police pickup. The weapons have been mentioned in sworn testimony at each hearing and the judge has brushed the issue aside as it's not illegal for him to purchase or possess them. For the past year he's been administered shots for his illness by my wife, his sister. She and another sister clean his house, do his laundry, buy groceries, etc while I take him to the movies. He never knows when we're coming day or time. They also have keys to his house and toss it. There's no gun in that apartment or his car. But we can't attest to the bushes around his apartment or the woods down the street.

I learned to shoot when I was 4 years old and got that single shot .22 when I was 5. It's never been pointed at anyone. I was taught that way. In the Army I could drop a target at 600 meters consistently. I don't need a 30 round magazine and neither should anyone else.

Wizard make a sound argument that the Founding Father's feared government ie The Crown just as my ancestors feared the occuping Crown for about 800 years and they didn't have guns in the early days nor artillery like was used at the Post Office one Easter Morn. I hear Wizard's argument but am strongly opposed to unfettered possessionj of military weaons by the public. The vast majority lack the training and place to use such weapons. and there are too many like my poor brother-in-law that is credit to society on meds and off them a threat to himself and others. The untrianed and infirm with weapons are more a threat to public safety than a deterent to a dictator. Hitler won at the ballot box.

We have more weapons in this country then our military has soldiers. They don't have to be automatic to stop a coup. We also aren't allowed LAW's, TOWs, grenades, artillery, tanks, attack choppers, nor B-1 bombers. So I don't buy the Crown defense argument in today's society nor do I buy using a bully or a mentally competent as the substance of your point of view.

 

[DomerInHappyValley]

I think that is like the point that when people rode horses, and on horse pulled wagons, you didn't need any kind of licensure. With the proliferation of individuals, and individuals who wanted to carry guns of increasing power that all changed. Much like road engineering, signage, and licensure changed since the auto was introduced.

Good point and I think this is where the problem is. You are right about the original intent and you are right that just becase weapons are "better" we shouldn't be restricted access; but there is a legitimate question if unrestricted access presents a more or less safe environment for all citizens.

As far as the government and defeating it in its absolute grab for power and control I rate the following.

1) Information
2) Money
3) The vote
4) Control of logistics and communications
5) Guns

So I see limiting the control of money, so limit the influence of special interests, and you increase the value of each vote as of primary importance.

And so on and so forth.

Until when you get to the inevitability of a shooting war. Then both sides have lost.

Bogs
There have been many times throughout history where the less well armed side wins. Even in modern times with modern weapons. So it's not that far outside of the realm of possibility.
I make no bones about it. I'm a huge proponent of the second. Not because I believe that I should be able to own any gun I want, but because I believe the 2nd gives the rest teeth.
No one wants another civil war and with both sides being armed both sides are willing to come together and listen.
A MAD situation if you will.
It's overly simpilistic, but it is what it is.
The problems we have is psycho's. It's not enough anymore to kill yourself, now everyone wants their 15 minutes of fame. My kids can't tell you the 12th president, but they can name the Newtown shooter.
Or they guy you posted in your OP. Seriously loud music caused you to shoot someone. How can we blame the gun this guy was a ticking time bomb. There was no fight, there's no way to justify it. He was pissed at the world and was looking for someone to kill.

 

[Irish YJ]

The simple solution is to give everyone their own armed drone. That would bring us closer to the current technology standards of our government.

Or one could argue that our old style guns could potentially shoot down their drones...

Kidding, but halfway serious here.

At the end of the day, I'm pro gun..... but I can't understand for the life of me why people get more upset about the gun issue than all the government abuse of power. There is virtually no privacy anymore. Sad, sad, world. Even sadder is that the general public accepts it.

 

[Wild Bill]

Bogs wrote in part:




I fail to sse the connection between your Second Amendment concerns and the Dunn-Davis case. Dunn claimed Davis pulled a shotgun on him while inside his vehicle. Dunn retreated to his vehicle opened the door, reached in his glove box, took his hand gun and fired multiple shots into Davis vehicle. He then fired more shots as the Davis vehicle tried to leave. Dunn then went back to his hotel room and ordered a pizza. He then drove home. The police tracked him down by a witness getting his license plate number.

Dunn was not carrying (glovebox back in the car). He claimed he saw the victim with a weapon justifying his stand your ground stance although he didn't stand his ground but strategically retreated to his car, opened the door, got his gun, aimed and fired ... at someone who was firing at him. He fired a total of 10 shots at a person who the police did not find a gun on or in the car.

Oh and Dunn was pissed off by the loud rap music coming from the deceased car and supposedly their attitude. They were young and he was middle aged. They were black and he is white.

Now what has this case got to do with your preamble in your post?

IF Dunn was judge, jury, and execution when his life was not threatened AFTER he retreated if there even there was a valid threat, it's up to the prosecutor to prove it and the jury to convict.

Alledged shotgun against a handgun back in the car's glove box? Whether it's a pump or a breech loader I'll take the shotgun and you'll be dead 10 out of 10 times before you get a shot off. Dunn had more rounds to fire but the shotgun takes less aiming. It doesn't even have to be centered on you for a hit. We have both types of weapon in this house and both are owned by my wife and she a capable shot with both.

But neither of those weapons is high powered high tech. My brother's replica flintlock makes a damn big hole. It's a lot more awkward to fire than a shotgun or handgun but you'd be just as dead from my single shot .22 hitting your live as Davis was from Dunn's handgun.

Nobody in Dunn Davbs had a Uzi, AK, AR, Thompson, Street Sweeper, or Barrett so why the specious high tech part of your preamble?

O.J. was judge, jury, and executioner and he used a kitchen knife. The jury didn't convict but every house still has knives although the Founding Father didn't protect their possession.

The movie theater, school shootings had high powered and/or semi automatic capability but also had a mentally challenged individual pulling the triggers when they should not have been allowed to own or possess any firearm EXCEPT IT'S NOT AGAINST THE LAW.

We've taken two legally purchased weapons from my bother-in-law's residence over the years. A diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic, he's been in lockup several times at court order and with police pickup. The weapons have been mentioned in sworn testimony at each hearing and the judge has brushed the issue aside as it's not illegal for him to purchase or possess them. For the past year he's been administered shots for his illness by my wife, his sister. She and another sister clean his house, do his laundry, buy groceries, etc while I take him to the movies. He never knows when we're coming day or time. They also have keys to his house and toss it. There's no gun in that apartment or his car. But we can't attest to the bushes around his apartment or the woods down the street.

I learned to shoot when I was 4 years old and got that single shot .22 when I was 5. It's never been pointed at anyone. I was taught that way. In the Army I could drop a target at 600 meters consistently. I don't need 30 rounds and neither should anyone else.

Wizard make a sound argument that the Founding Father's feared government ie The Crown just as my ancestors feared the occuping Crown for about 800 years and they didn't have guns in the early days nor artillery like was used at the Post Office one Easter Morn. I hear Wizard's argument but am strongly opposed to unfettered possessionj of military weaons by the public. The vast majority lack the training and place to use such weapons. and there are too many like my poor brother-in-law that is credit to society on meds and off them a threat to himself and others. The untrianed and infirm with weapons are more a threat to public safety than a deterent to a dictator. Hitler won at the ballot box.

We have more weapons in this country then our military has soldiers. They don't have to be automatic to stop a coup. We also aren't allowed LAW's, TOWs, grenades, artillery, tanks, attack choppers, nor B-1 bombers. So I don't buy the Crown defense argument in today's society nor do I buy using a bully or a mentally competent as the substance of your point of view.

Good post.

Just curious, why do you suggest nobody would need 30 rounds?

 

[DomerInHappyValley]

Good post.

Just curious, why do you suggest nobody would need 30 rounds?

If you can't hit your target in 30 rounds you weren't meant to shoot at it.

 

[Wild Bill]

If you can't hit your target in 30 rounds you weren't meant to shoot at it.

What if you're defending property, yourself or others against more than one target, i.e., Korean store owners during the Rodney King riots?

 

[Cackalacky]

I just want access to tactical nukes and EMPs just in case the government tries to be tyrannical with me.

 

[BGIF]

Good post.

Just curious, why do you suggest nobody would need 30 rounds?

Sorry, I was unclear with that statement. I meant to say "I don't need a 30 round magazine"


IF I go hunting with my shotgun, legally, I have to plug it so it can hold no more than 3 shells at a time. The only reason to have greater capacity is to shoot people. Why not just reduce the shotgun's capacity to hunting laws. If I have a home intruder coming down my hallway I only need one shoot to take out the entire hallway.

Be it birds or deer, anybody that needs 30 rounds to score a hit shouldn't have a gun.

Anyone of legal age can drive a car ... if they pass the test AND if they are capable. It's a public safety issue and common sense. In Paul Revere's day if you went around town on Saturday night, THEY probably took your gun away from you. Wyatt Earp banned guns in the Wild West inside the city limits. Didn't work all the time but it did cut down on crime.

 

[Emcee77]

Sorry, I was unclear with that statement. I meant to say "I don't need a 30 round magazine"


IF I go hunting with my shotgun, legally, I have to plug it so it can hold no more than 3 shells at a time. The only reason to have greater capacity is to shoot people. Why not just reduce the shotgun's capacity to hunting laws. If I have a home intruder coming down my hallway I only need one shoot to take out the entire hallway.

Be it birds or deer, anybody that needs 30 rounds to score a hit shouldn't have a gun.

Anyone of legal age can drive a car ... if they pass the test AND if they are capable. It's a public safety issue and common sense. In Paul Revere's day if you went around town on Saturday night, THEY probably took your gun away from you. Wyatt Earp banned guns in the Wild West inside the city limits. Didn't work all the time but it did cut down on crime.

GREAT points. In the recent Supreme Court case of DC. v. Heller, Scalia acted like there were no restrictions on firearm ownership until recent years. Justice Breyer pointed out in his dissent that there absolutely were some Founding-era restrictions on possession of weapons in certain towns and cities. In his view, the right to possession of firearms has never been an unrestricted right, and a municipal handgun ban should be constitutional. The majority of the court did not agree with him on that.

So, bottom line, I'm not sure there's that much to discuss here in the way of the Second Amendment, as others have said. After the Heller case, it's well-settled that the Second Amendment protects your right to own a handgun for your own self-defense, regardless of whether anyone thinks that's a proper interpretation or not. True, Heller dealt only with the right to protect oneself in one's own home, but the logical consequence of its reasoning is that the right to carry a gun in public is also protected. The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals recently so held in striking down Illinois's unlawful use of weapons law, which made Illinois the only state in the country that effectively prohibited concealed carry. Moore v. Madigan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The only issue in the Davis/Dunn case is whether, as a factual matter, Dunn had a reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary to protect against an imminent harm.

 

[T Town Tommy]

I own several guns of all types. I believe we have a right to own guns. I do not, however, think I need to own a Barret 50 cal. And I don't believe that was the original intent of the 2nd Amendment. I am in favor of more stringent background checks, more severe punishment for those who own guns illegally, and even more severe punishment for those that use a gun in the commission of a crime.

There is a balance somewhere in all the debate about gun ownership in America. But taking it to both extremes is dangerous.

 

[BGIF]

What if you're defending property, yourself or others against more than one target, i.e., Korean store owners during the Rodney King riots?

I had a co-worker who was in the National Guard in the Newark Riots in the 60's. He had two or three guys in his unit who shot up all their ammo in about 15 minutes. Not a 15 round clip, every damn round they had. If they heard a shot blocks away they fired in that direction. When they asked for more ammo, they were interrogated then placed under guard.

If you can't hit something with that many rounds you shouldn't have a gun, U.S. Soldier or Korean store owner.

I've was in Newark when the riots started. At one point there was a sniper on the roof where I lived. There was an M151 jeep at the intersection a half block up the street. It had a mouinted 50 caliber machine gun loaded with a boxed belt. The whole 9 yards so to speak. Incredible overkill trying to maintain order and promote public safety when you have fire power that can shoot through apartment buildings.

I have a nephew who is the police chief in Ft Lee NJ, yeah where The Bridge is. His brother recently retired. I have a cousin in CA who was LAPD during the Rodney King riots and I'm good friends with Joey Getherall's father a retired LAPD detective who was a cop during Rodney King. Joey is a cop as is one sister and two brother-in-laws. I know a bunch of cops. They carry 9 mms.

Some cops have more firepower to take on the high powered drug criminals. I'd prefer the cops didn't have to carry miltary grade weapons by making them illegal period.

You can still hunt, still target shoot, still protect your home or business but without taking out two dozen other people in the process.

 

[BGIF]

I own several guns of all types. I believe we have a right to own guns. I do not, however, think I need to own a Barret 50 cal. And I don't believe that was the original intent of the 2nd Amendment. I am in favor of more stringent background checks, more severe punishment for those who own guns illegally, and even more severe punishment for those that use a gun in the commission of a crime.

There is a balance somewhere in all the debate about gun ownership in America. But taking it to both extremes is dangerous.

HEAR! HEAR!

 

[Bubbles]

Some cops have more firepower to take on the high powered drug criminals. I'd prefer the cops didn't have to carry miltary grade weapons by making them illegal period.

....because the high powered drug criminals will respect the laws making them illegal?

 

[BGIF]

....because the high powered drug criminals will respect the laws making them illegal?

I said prefer, didn't I?


Did you read Tommy's post where he pointed out strict laws ENFORCED for using or possessing.

 

[Bubbles]

I said prefer, didn't I?


Did you read Tommy's post where he pointed out strict laws ENFORCED for using or possessing.

Sure, and I'll buy that the [otherwise of sound mind] weekend criminal will think twice in that scenario, but not the high powered drug boss.

I am in favor of NO more strict laws until the states and fed actually start rigorously prosecuting those breaking the current laws. We live in a world which is perpetually decriminalizing these horrible atrocities; 'it must be some childhood trauma', 'he was bullied as a kid', 'he did not know any better', etc, etc.

Last year, in my state, uber blue, there were something on the order of 6000 failed background checks by felons trying to purchase guns illegally. Less than 10 were investigated and prosecuted.

If we enforce the laws we currently have, and there is still a problem (which I would doubt), then I would be willing to consider changes.

 

[wizards8507]

I know a bunch of cops. They carry 9 mms.

I think your comments are largely based on ignorance. I'm not saying "you're ignorant" but I think there are facts of which you may not be aware. The worst attacks and mass murders in US history are not committed with "military grade weapons," they're committed with 9mm (Virginia Tech), homemade bombs (Bath, MI), airplanes (9/11), kitchen supplies (Boston Marathon), and hunting rifles (Sandy Hook). Please don't say the word "assault rifle" because you'll just prove you don't know anything about firearms. The Bushmaster used at Sandy Hook is a prime target for gun control people because it LOOKS like a military-style M16 or AK-47, though it functions like neither. The term "assault rifle" is nothing more than a political football that has no actual definition within the world of firearms.

Some cops have more firepower to take on the high powered drug criminals. I'd prefer the cops didn't have to carry miltary grade weapons by making them illegal period.

I honestly don't think you know what military-grade weapons are.

You can still hunt, still target shoot, still protect your home or business but without taking out two dozen other people in the process.

Guess how many times anyone has ever "taken out two dozen other people in the process." In all of US history, it's happened twice. Two times. In over 86,000 days.

 

[BGIF]

Sure, and I'll buy that the [otherwise of sound mind] weekend criminal will think twice in that scenario, but not the high powered drug boss.

I am in favor of NO more strict laws until the states and fed actually start rigorously prosecuting those breaking the current laws. We live in a world which is perpetually decriminalizing these horrible atrocities; 'it must be some childhood trauma', 'he was bullied as a kid', 'he did not know any better', etc, etc.

Last year, in my state, uber blue, there were something on the order of 6000 failed background checks by felons trying to purchase guns illegally. Less than 10 were investigated and prosecuted.

If we enforce the laws we currently have, and there is still a problem (which I would doubt), then I would be willing to consider changes.

Again, I quoted Tommy's post highlighting "enforced" and posted underneath it.

"Hear! Hear!

 

[wizards8507]

GREAT points. In the recent Supreme Court case of DC. v. Heller, Scalia acted like there were no restrictions on firearm ownership until recent years.

This is more of a Constitutional Law issue, but there would be much less pushback on gun control if it were done at the state and local level (I believe someone mentioned Wyatt Earp). Federal gun control is a bigger issue because the Constitutional authority behind it is sketchy at best. Make the decisions at the state and local level rather than apply a one-size-fits-all approach to the entire country. You gun control guys can all go live in Chicago and New York where the rules are strict and only the lawbreakers have guns.

 

[adsnorri]

The simple statement I have always said relating to guns is " Buying a gun should be harder than driving a car".

We have to take tests, prove that we are capable of actually driving. I understand the 2nd amendment and that this in fact would infringe on some people's right to bear arms....it should. Every person should not be allowed to carry or own arms. Many people are a threat to themselves and others and could be stopped before purchase with a simple test and training.

As well, getting rid of the "cool off" period in Indiana was the dumbest move I have ever seen. I know of two occasions myself of a person(s) that the "cool off" period would have saved from dying.

Everyone should not be allowed to buy a gun. Now, my statement may not have had any impact on stopping Dunn but that is unknown. It wouldn't have hurt.

 

[Bubbles]

Again, I quoted Tommy's post highlighting "enforced" and posted underneath it.

"Hear! Hear!

DAMNIT, I AGREE WITH YOU!!!!