• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Homeowner shoots intruder (escaped convict)

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
SpatiallyAware said:
Oh absolutely there are. ATPN is full of them. Lately we've had a lot more logical thinkers in here so they aren't nearly as bold and crass as they were earlier this year, but rest assured that once one gets a whiff of what's going on the rest of the thug supporters will follow.
Click to expand...

Agree. There are so many of them on here. For some reason they aren't as loud as they used to be.
 
CYIQLZI.jpg
 
waggy said:
you didn't read the article very well did you?

Long -- who had allegedly shot a deputy pursuing him on Sunday --

"(Long) had a handgun but was described as non-confrontational,"

sooo he had a gun.
Click to expand...

You're right. I didn't read closely enough and jumped to an incorrect conclusion. My bad.

My point still stands, however. As an intruder he further armed himself with a firearm in the home, leaving himself armed and the homeowner unarmed for a time until he left the firearm unattended and wandered off. This story was a hair's breadth a tragic tale of how a firearm can turned against its owner. As people opposed to gun control, this isn't one we should be celebrating but should instead treat it as a cautionary tale about proper firearm storage, ie, putting it somewhere a homeowner can quickly and easily get it if needed for defense but an intruder cannot. The homeowner lucked out in a big way and that was only after things went terribly wrong for him, we should keep that in mind.
 
eskimospy said:
No, I'm genuinely curious to what you think 'shall not be infringed' means in relation to the right to bear arms in the US.
Click to expand...

What it means is rather obvious, but I don't claim to be a constitutional absolutist.

What it should mean in practice in 2013 is that any new state laws regarding gun control should have as much scrutiny as the voting laws in the post-Reconstruction South. (Federal Gun legislation is dead for years to come.)

Most states get the picture, and some have even added the wording to their state constitutions as well.

It seems that NY, CA, CT, and IL need a further smack-down from the Feds, which will come. In CO, you are about to see some high profile recalls of gun-grabbers, so that state is off the list for now.
 
eskimospy said:
No, I'm genuinely curious to what you think 'shall not be infringed' means in relation to the right to bear arms in the US.
Click to expand...

Definition of SHALL
verbal auxiliary
1
archaic
a : will have to : must
b : will be able to : can
2
a &#8212;used to express a command or exhortation <you shall go>
b &#8212;used in laws, regulations, or directives to express what is mandatory <it shall be unlawful to carry firearms>
3
a &#8212;used to express what is inevitable or seems likely to happen in the future <we shall have to be ready> <we shall see>
b &#8212;used to express simple futurity <when shall we expect you>




not
adverb \&#712;nät\
1
&#8212;used as a function word to make negative a group of words or a word
2
&#8212;used as a function word to stand for the negative of a preceding group of words <is sometimes hard to see and sometimes not>

Definition of BE
intransitive verb
1
a : to equal in meaning : have the same connotation as : symbolize <God is love> <January is the first month> <let x be 10>
b : to have identity with <the first person I met was my brother>
c : to constitute the same class as
d : to have a specified qualification or characterization <the leaves are green>
e : to belong to the class of <the fish is a trout> &#8212;used regularly in senses 1a through 1e as the copula of simple predication
2
a : to have an objective existence : have reality or actuality : live <I think, therefore I am>
b : to have, maintain, or occupy a place, situation, or position <the book is on the table>
c : to remain unmolested, undisturbed, or uninterrupted &#8212;used only in infinitive form <let him be>
d : to take place : occur <the concert was last night>
e : to come or go <has already been and gone> <has never been to the circus>
f archaic : belong, befall


in·fringe
verb \in-&#712;frinj\
in·fringedin·fring·ing
Definition of INFRINGE
transitive verb
1
: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>
2
obsolete : defeat, frustrate
4
&#8212;used to express determination <they shall not pass>
 
OCGuy said:
What it means is rather obvious, but I don't claim to be a constitutional absolutist.

What it should mean in practice in 2013 is that any new state laws regarding gun control should have as much scrutiny as the voting laws in the post-Reconstruction South. (Federal Gun legislation is dead for years to come.)

Most states get the picture, and some have even added the wording to their state constitutions as well.

It seems that NY, CA, CT, and IL need a further smack-down from the Feds, which will come. In CO, you are about to see some high profile recalls of gun-grabbers, so that state is off the list for now.
Click to expand...

Voting laws in the south had a preclearance requirement due to a specific statute passed by Congress. There is no such statute in place for gun laws, so that requirement doesn't make sense. (EDIT: You would in effect be asking for the 2nd amendment to receive extra constitutional protections above and beyond the rest of the bill of rights, which clearly won't be happening)

The general holdings of SCOTUS on this matter (even post-Heller) are that the states have wide latitude to restrict arms ownership, but there is a floor beneath which they cannot go.
 
eskimospy said:
Voting laws in the south had a preclearance requirement due to a specific statute passed by Congress. There is no such statute in place for gun laws, so that requirement doesn't make sense.

The general holdings of SCOTUS on this matter (even post-Heller) are that the states have wide latitude to restrict arms ownership, but there is a floor beneath which they cannot go.
Click to expand...

And today the CA appropriations committee is about to bust right through it, and Davis will sign or let automatically become law.

I am aware that there is no requirement for review, I was saying what should happen. This would stop the politicians from clogging up our court system, wasting tax dollars to defend bills that will ultimately be thrown out.

Yes, call me a whacko for thinking the #2 item, right behind my freedom to type this post, should have "extra scrutiny" if someone tries to impede it.
 
Bowfinger said:
It's a local story that interests me. I'm just trying to keep it from turning into yet another gun nut circle jerk. The only people more ridiculous than the gun haters are the gun worshipers. Guns are a useful tool. They aren't evil, and they aren't a magic want to protect you from evil. Sadly, people like you and your equally shrill gun-hating counterparts consistently prevent intelligent, productive conversation about gun-related issues.
Click to expand...

The above made me want to stand up and clap.
 
OCGuy said:
And today the CA appropriations committee is about to bust right through it, and Davis will sign or let automatically become law.

I am aware that there is no requirement for review, I was saying what should happen. This would stop the politicians from clogging up our court system, wasting tax dollars to defend bills that will ultimately be thrown out.

Yes, call me a whacko for thinking the #2 item, right behind my freedom to type this post, should have "extra scrutiny" if someone tries to impede it.
Click to expand...

You don't give 'extra scrutiny' to certain amendments because of their order in the list. They are all equal. Also, I imagine many of these gun restrictions will be upheld, but only time will tell.
 
Abraxas said:
You're right. I didn't read closely enough and jumped to an incorrect conclusion. My bad.

My point still stands, however. As an intruder he further armed himself with a firearm in the home, leaving himself armed and the homeowner unarmed for a time until he left the firearm unattended and wandered off. This story was a hair's breadth a tragic tale of how a firearm can turned against its owner. As people opposed to gun control, this isn't one we should be celebrating but should instead treat it as a cautionary tale about proper firearm storage, ie, putting it somewhere a homeowner can quickly and easily get it if needed for defense but an intruder cannot. The homeowner lucked out in a big way and that was only after things went terribly wrong for him, we should keep that in mind.
Click to expand...




And what's the alternative, had the homeowner had no gun? Maybe a little pat on the head and sweet good byes?? Right.....


As I have said numerous times, the worst of the worst home invasions are never publicized.

Families don't want it broadcasted that they were forced to watch a couple of hooded thugs rape the woman int he home. Women don't want the stigma of a rape victim. Men don't want it broadcasted that they couldn't protect their family.

Truly you only hear about the 'mild' cases, such as what this thread is about.



Here's some light reading for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom#Crime
 
eskimospy said:
Yeah, it's not 'us vs. them', it's SpatiallyAware vs. the 'thug supporter crew'.
Click to expand...


When I say "us vs them" I am talking about how you illogical gun grabbers treat the entire situation.


And in regards to 'me' versus 'thug supporters', I will take that label with pride. I can't stand thugs or violent thug culture. It's a drain on society.

I am all for immediate public execution of violent thugs along with their parents if said thug is underage while the crime was committed.
 
SpatiallyAware said:
When I say "us vs them" I am talking about how you illogical gun grabbers treat the entire situation.


And in regards to 'me' versus 'thug supporters', I will take that label with pride. I can't stand thugs or violent thug culture. It's a drain on society.

I am all for immediate public execution of violent thugs along with their parents if said thug is underage while the crime was committed.
Click to expand...

You have to remember when reading these threads that you're overcome by rage and emotion when it comes to things like this so you're frequently unable to think logically or coherently. Because of this, you fairly often make hypocritical statements like the one I highlighted.

You can't explain it away, you're condemning people for us vs them statements in the same thread that you make them yourself, and about the same topic. Just embrace it.
 
eskimospy said:
You have to remember when reading these threads that you're overcome by rage and emotion when it comes to things like this so you're frequently unable to think logically or coherently. Because of this, you fairly often make hypocritical statements like the one I highlighted.

You can't explain it away, you're condemning people for us vs them statements in the same thread that you make them yourself, and about the same topic. Just embrace it.
Click to expand...


LOL overcome by rage?



"Us versus them" matters when you're trying to get something changed. For example gun grabber laws... You have to 'work with' everyone to get your point known. Instead you and your ilk want to paint everything with a broad stroke... "enact federal laws just like for machine guns" and other idiotic statements that have absolutely no give and take.


Personally, the values I support are already in place and strongly protected. I am not trying to change anything, so it's not "us versus them" to me.



Basically..... When you're trying to get people to compromise you don't go about it in a divisive way. I know that's how liberalies function, but it simply doesn't work.
 
eskimospy said:
You have to remember when reading these threads that you're overcome by rage and emotion when it comes to things like this so you're frequently unable to think logically or coherently. Because of this, you fairly often make hypocritical statements like the one I highlighted.

You can't explain it away, you're condemning people for us vs them statements in the same thread that you make them yourself, and about the same topic. Just embrace it.
Click to expand...

Going for the low hanging fruit tends to turn a halfway respectable discussion into...well...yea Eskimo.
 
SpatiallyAware said:
And what's the alternative, had the homeowner had no gun? Maybe a little pat on the head and sweet good byes?? Right.....


As I have said numerous times, the worst of the worst home invasions are never publicized.

Families don't want it broadcasted that they were forced to watch a couple of hooded thugs rape the woman int he home. Women don't want the stigma of a rape victim. Men don't want it broadcasted that they couldn't protect their family.

Truly you only hear about the 'mild' cases, such as what this thread is about.



Here's some light reading for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom#Crime
Click to expand...

Abraxas said:
You're right. I didn't read closely enough and jumped to an incorrect conclusion. My bad.

My point still stands, however. As an intruder he further armed himself with a firearm in the home, leaving himself armed and the homeowner unarmed for a time until he left the firearm unattended and wandered off. This story was a hair's breadth a tragic tale of how a firearm can turned against its owner. As people opposed to gun control, this isn't one we should be celebrating but should instead treat it as a cautionary tale about proper firearm storage, ie, putting it somewhere a homeowner can quickly and easily get it if needed for defense but an intruder cannot. The homeowner lucked out in a big way and that was only after things went terribly wrong for him, we should keep that in mind.
Click to expand...

Already answered. I'm not saying he shouldn't have a gun, I'm saying he shouldn't have a gun unsecured where an intruder can sneak in and easily take it. If you are intent upon issuing out vague belows at the pro-gun control crowd, please stop quoting me to do it. I'm not part of them.
 
eskimospy said:
I can still have a halfway respectable discussion with you, but you can't expect people to indulge the crazies like SA.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I will ask you the same thing: What do you think the 2nd means? Do you agree with Obama and the DNC and most Americans that it guarantees a personal right to own firearms?

Have you ever seen a firearm bill that you have thought goes too far?
 
OCGuy said:
Fair enough, I will ask you the same thing: What do you think the 2nd means? Do you agree with Obama and the DNC and most Americans that it guarantees a personal right to own firearms?

Have you ever seen a firearm bill that you have thought goes too far?
Click to expand...

I think the 2nd means similar things to every other amendment. It means that the government needs to provide a compelling case to restrict that right.

I don't care what Obama or the DNC thinks about gun control. Whether the 2nd amendment was intended to guarantee a personal right to arm oneself is unclear, but I believe in our current society it should be taken as such. I believe in an individual right to arm oneself for self defense purposes.

I have a great deal of experience with firearms in my life. I am not afraid of them, but I would never choose to have one in my home. I believe that's a choice for each person to make however (within reason for the weapons involved), and I believe it is each person's choice to make on their own.

Usually when I object to segments of gun control bills it is because I find the restrictions to be stupid, not because I think they infringe on the right to self defense.
 
eskimospy said:
Didn't answer the question. Not only is it a phrase, not a collection of individual words, but what words mean in common conversation and what they mean in constitutional law are frequently very different things.
Click to expand...

You are a political weasel of the highest order.
 
eskimospy said:
I think the 2nd means similar things to every other amendment. It means that the government needs to provide a compelling case to restrict that right.

I don't care what Obama or the DNC thinks about gun control. Whether the 2nd amendment was intended to guarantee a personal right to arm oneself is unclear, but I believe in our current society it should be taken as such. I believe in an individual right to arm oneself for self defense purposes.

I have a great deal of experience with firearms in my life. I am not afraid of them, but I would never choose to have one in my home. I believe that's a choice for each person to make however (within reason for the weapons involved), and I believe it is each person's choice to make on their own.

Usually when I object to segments of gun control bills it is because I find the restrictions to be stupid, not because I think they infringe on the right to self defense.
Click to expand...


Your position seems contradictory. You cannot possibly have it the way you see it, so a choice has to be made.

If you truly believe what you wrote, then there is no way you haven't seen a bill that has gone too far. DC and IL, for example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top