YAGT: Woman was trying to shoot someone in a road rage incident, but shot her husband instead

[zinfamous]

Then promise me you will never bring up the irresponsible vs responsible gun owner argument again.

Guns are already regulated far more than alcohol is. When did you have to take a background check to buy a beer? And if you live in county that has elected to go dry then move. Just like folks have moved to cities or states with more liberal gun laws.

We can talk all you want, but if you support more burdensome laws to stop the law-abiding from enjoying their 2A rights and achieve a defacto ban, all in an effort to somehow stop the murderers, then I'm not going to agree.

Today I can go to a parking lot just outside of a gun show and buy a gun without a background check. It's like buying a keg from that one local shop in town that famously sells to all the highschoolers.

 

[obidamnkenobi]

in 2018, about 43 percent of U.S. households had at least one gun in possession.

source? I thought it was less than 30% now?

 

[soundforbjt]

source? I thought it was less than 30% now?

None of the sources would be accurate since no one actually knows.

 

[Atreus21]

Neither is personal ownership of guns, yet here you are pretending it does. State guard divisions is what a modern militia is, and the intent of the 2nd Amendment is that the federal government cannot bar the state from arming its militia. Not individual jackasses having the right to own whatever gun they want, which flies in the face of every aspect of that amendment as its neither an actual militia, nor is it "well regulated".

I really don't know how you fucking clowns can keep pointing to the 2nd Amendment for why we can't or shouldn't regulate when literally that's made a focal point in the first 3 words of the Amendment. Its abundantly clear that they absolutely saw a need for regulation of said militias, so even if you intentionally bastardize what a militia is to say it can be a single individual person, it still means you should be well regulated, and that clearly is not the case, as evidenced by the perpetual events where people harm others with their guns.

Nonsense. It plainly states the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia part is only the justification, the reason why disarming the populace is a bad idea: because you can't have any militia without an armed populace.

 

[Jaskalas]

The police charged her with attempted murder. So I suppose the facts of this case, unknown to us (not enough detail present in the article), do not indicate this couple as the victims of a road rage incident. I mean, if someone is ramming your vehicle or acting aggressive and chasing you with a vehicle. That is cause for self defense, is it not?

I picture a plausible scenario where she should have attempted to use a weapon.

Though she failed, AND given the charges I will assume the facts are not in her favor. Still, I found it odd that everyone just assumes they were the aggressors. Someone could have been a victim in this situation.

 

[Atreus21]

No it doesn't, any more than restricting nuclear weapon ownership required repealing the 2nd amendment.

The 2A allows you to bear arms; gun ownership isn't even mentioned.

You don't think guns are considered arms?

 

[cytg111]

Newsflash: SCOTUS has already determined it's an individual right so maybe it doesn't mean what you think it means.

I think your president has just set the precedence on what to do with SC rulings.

 

[tweaker2]

Somebody should draw a picture of what a "well regulated militia" looks like.

That should clear things up.

 

[Bird222]

I think your president has just set the precedence on what to do with SC rulings.

He ain't my president. In addition Trump's justices didn't have anything to do with it.

 

[Indus]

Nonsense. It plainly states the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia part is only the justification, the reason why disarming the populace is a bad idea: because you can't have any militia without an armed populace.

And when the constitution was created, did they take into account, people arm themselves with 7.62mm caliber AR's or just muskets?

 

[Bird222]

And when the constitution was created, did they take into account, people arm themselves with 7.62mm caliber AR's or just muskets?

And when the constitution was created did they take into account Twitter and cyber-bullying for the 1st amendment? Are you really going to go with the 'unknown advancement in tech' argument? I need to stop now. No amount of logical discussion is going to change anybody's mind. Hopefully someone can come up with ideas that will truly make us safer and not infringe on people's rights.

BTW just curious, what exactly did you 'disagree' with in my previous post?

 

[skyking]

i have a different take on the crime. Perhaps it was a brilliant attempt at offing the husband, under the guise of a road rage incident? Hmm?
"that asshole just cut us off, go get em honey!"

 

[outriding]

None of the sources would be accurate since no one actually knows.

Well maybe they should add another question on the census..

How many firearms do you have in your household?

 

[cytg111]

And when the constitution was created, did they take into account, people arm themselves with 7.62mm caliber AR's or just muskets?

Jackpot .. it takes us back to Obama vs. Romney again, Horses and Bayonets is where its at.

 

[cytg111]

And when the constitution was created did they take into account Twitter and cyber-bullying for the 1st amendment? Are you really going to go with the 'unknown advancement in tech' argument? I need to stop now. No amount of logical discussion is going to change anybody's mind. Hopefully someone can come up with ideas that will truly make us safer and not infringe on people's rights.

BTW just curious, what exactly did you 'disagree' with in my previous post?

Yes.
And I dont think logic is what you think it is. Indus argument is inherently sound.
I mean, plot another data point, extrapolate from musket to AR to 20mm anti tank rifles, hell, someone is working on suitcase nukes. Look under your chair, everybody gets a nuke. Would it be a good idea for everyone to have nukes? No, cause some idiot will set one off and take 20.000 people with him/her ... Is it a good idea to have assault rifles in common circulation? No cause someone will one and plow down a church or a cinema killing 30 people.
Logic dictates that you have to come up with a number. What is an acceptable loss for you to keep your 2nd? Is it 20.000? 30? 1? 0? You are never gonna get to 0 and 1 is probably lower than the number who dies from paper cuts ... What is the right number?

 

[Indus]

And when the constitution was created did they take into account Twitter and cyber-bullying for the 1st amendment? Are you really going to go with the 'unknown advancement in tech' argument? I need to stop now. No amount of logical discussion is going to change anybody's mind. Hopefully someone can come up with ideas that will truly make us safer and not infringe on people's rights.

BTW just curious, what exactly did you 'disagree' with in my previous post?

Advancement in tech to kill hasn't been matched by advancement in tech to not get killed. Namely there's no bulletproof vest that'll save you from a 7.62mm cartridge and it doesn't even have to be a headshot.

And it's us, our kids and grandkids who are paying the price with all these school shootings and road rage or workplace rage incidents and it's no fault of our own except we choose to do nothing about the second amendment.

And that's exactly what I disagreed with you about.. the scotus ruling that is willing to sacrifice me, you, our families in the name of the 2nd amendment but not the 2nd amendment instead of us.

 

[Bird222]

Yes.
And I dont think logic is what you think it is. Indus argument is inherently sound.
I mean, plot another data point, extrapolate from musket to AR to 20mm anti tank rifles, hell, someone is working on suitcase nukes. Look under your chair, everybody gets a nuke. Would it be a good idea for everyone to have nukes? No, cause some idiot will set one off and take 20.000 people with him/her ... Is it a good idea to have assault rifles in common circulation? No cause someone will one and plow down a church or a cinema killing 30 people.
Logic dictates that you have to come up with a number. What is an acceptable loss for you to keep your 1st? Is it 20.000? 30? 1? 0? You are never gonna get to 0 and 1 is probably lower than the number who dies from paper cuts ... What is the right number?

I agree that common people shouldn't have nukes. Destructive power I think is a valid consideration. Cost/benefit is also something that should be considered. However, I don't think that an AR is at that level.

 

[Bird222]

Advancement in tech to kill hasn't been matched by advancement in tech to not get killed. Namely there's no bulletproof vest that'll save you from a 7.62mm cartridge and it doesn't even have to be a headshot.

And it's us, our kids and grandkids who are paying the price with all these school shootings and road rage or workplace rage incidents and it's no fault of our own except we choose to do nothing about the second amendment.

And that's exactly what I disagreed with you about.. the scotus ruling that is willing to sacrifice me, you, our families in the name of the 2nd amendment but not the 2nd amendment instead of us.

My previous post said that Trump wasn't my president and his justices had nothing to do with the individual right ruling. I'm pretty sure they didn't have bulletproof vests to stop the muskets either back in the day (oh there I go being logical again) but they still passed the 2nd. You'd probably be surprised about the weapons that regular people could actually have when the constitution was written. They didn't feel the need to make exceptions back then.

 

[Indus]

My previous post said that Trump wasn't my president and his justices had nothing to do with the individual right ruling. I've said many times that the 'anti' folks need to work on amending the constitution so get to it.

Honestly we're so polarized, it'd be much better off starting a new country with a new constitution. And I think everyone would be more happier without the other extreme in their lives except the military industrial complex!

 

[Veliko]

You don't think guns are considered arms?

You've missed the point entirely.

The 2A allows you to bear arms, nothing more.

A wooden spoon is arms.
A gun is arms.
A nuclear missile is arms.

It isn't legal for a civilian to own a nuclear missile, yet I don't hear anyone complaining that their 2A rights are being infringed upon.

Therefore, banning ownership of guns wouldn't infringe upon your 2A rights.

 

[Bird222]

You've missed the point entirely.

The 2A allows you to bear arms, nothing more.

A wooden spoon is arms.
A gun is arms.
A nuclear missile is arms.

It isn't legal for a civilian to own a nuclear missile, yet I don't hear anyone complaining that their 2A rights are being infringed upon.

Therefore, banning ownership of guns wouldn't infringe upon your 2A rights.

I think the 2A is limited to 'bearable arms'. A nuclear missile doesn't fit this. Again the SCOTUS needs to define this once and for all.

 

[brycejones]

I think the 2A is limited to 'bearable arms'. A nuclear missile doesn't fit this. Again the SCOTUS needs to define this once and for all.

Since its legal to effectively ban automatic weapons I would argue SCOTUS already has. Just because one can "bear" a weapon doesn't mean there is a right to own it.

 

[Veliko]

I think the 2A is limited to 'bearable arms'. A nuclear missile doesn't fit this. Again the SCOTUS needs to define this once and for all.

The 2A doesn't say that.

 

[Paladin3]

So if she had shot "the right guy" it would have then become an arguable case of self-defense?

This along with a previously mentioned idea that "you're considered a responsible gun owner right up until the instant you're not".

Somehow, things have been tilted in the nation's gun owner's favor whereby ease of access is so much more important than the safety of the majority of the nation's citizens who think a gun is out of place unless they are used in the home for self-defense, at a range or in the wilderness for hunting game (exceptions given of course, ie- trained professionals etc.).

The average citizen is expected to blindly trust their fellow citizens (of whom they have no idea who they are) that their bearing arms is being used responsibly and have been successfully trained to avoid having the willful intent of using such in moments of anger, rage, jealousy, frustration, revenge and vigilante justice.

That's a tall order right there, yet in defense of the 2A, the rest of us are going to have to suck it up and assume that every registered gun owner is a responsible one (see second paragraph) and that we are all safe when in the presence of those who choose to brandish them in public.

From a logical, common sense point of view, this sounds rather silly to me.

No, it would never be considered a case of self-defense because she and her husband pursued and provoked the fight. You can't start a fight, use a gun and claim it was self-defense. With weapon in tow, they went looking for a fight.

 

[Paladin3]

Whose preemptive argument is this preemptive argument?

Um...it would be mine. That's my user name right there. Your point? Anything?

Since this entire thread was intended to show how stupid the average gun owner is based on the actions of one individual, my post was very much on topic.