Gun Control & RKBA

jmg257

(11,996 posts)

13. Why would someone have a prohibited weapon?

Reply to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #12)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 11:27 PM

Feb 2016

Seems that would be illegal.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

96 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The right to life [View all] discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 OP

It means the State can't take your life without due process. COLGATE4 Feb 2016 #1

What if the state or those empowered through it seek to take a person's life without due process? Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #3

Then you fight it through the legal process. Not COLGATE4 Feb 2016 #4

How do those being murdered by a corrupt state employ the legal system? Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #8

hmmm discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #9

Does that mean you're in favor of capital punishment? n/t discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #5

Whether I am or not, it's part of the legal system in COLGATE4 Feb 2016 #15

The idea of self-defense has been codified over millennia discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #18

RW rabble rousers, the lot of them. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #23

Maybe but they do have... discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #24

You understand, that since the OP is about the Declaration of Independence Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #26

Reads like something Cliven Bundy would approve of. nt COLGATE4 Feb 2016 #28

You sound too embarrassed to admit you lack a counter argument. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #29

So self defense shouldn't be legal? ileus Feb 2016 #6

Of course self defense is legal. It's an integral part of COLGATE4 Feb 2016 #14

The citation in the OP is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #17

Now you're just being picky. n/t discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #25

Guilty as charged. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #27

Has someone passed an act somewhere removing "self-defense" from Justification jmg257 Feb 2016 #2

No but they seem to be working on it n/t discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #10

What should be the penalty for self defense with a prohibited weapon? Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #12

Why would someone have a prohibited weapon? jmg257 Feb 2016 #13

Yes, it would be illegal. Hence my use of the term "prohibited." Please answer my question -- Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #16

What is/are the charge(s) for possession of said illegal weapon? jmg257 Feb 2016 #19

In other words, and contrary to your initial post, you would support Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #20

Not sure where I said that. I do understand that numerous weapons jmg257 Feb 2016 #21

It seems to me the debate ought to be centered more on whether an instance of self-defense was Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #22

You are dealing with two separate legal issues. COLGATE4 Feb 2016 #30

That's like saying -- Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #31

That doesn't even make sense. nt COLGATE4 Feb 2016 #32

You claim to acknowledge the right to self defense but you're content with banning the means Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #34

You would argue that and you would lose. COLGATE4 Feb 2016 #37

The law is not a naturally occuring thing, it is only a human construct. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #40

The action of self-defense stands apart from possession of a banned weapon discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #33

"Choosing to illegally acquire the minigun should be a crime COLGATE4 Feb 2016 #35

and??? discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #36

No right is unlimited or unqualified. COLGATE4 Feb 2016 #38

Since... discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #39

Because of the danger their use presents to the public. COLGATE4 Feb 2016 #54

That sounds about right discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #57

Handguns are easier to conceal than than sawed-off shotguns. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #68

It is illegal to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater only if there is not a fire. If there is a fire Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #41

Are you talking about charging the person for USING the illegal weapon jmg257 Feb 2016 #43

Use implies possession. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #44

But you likely would not be charged for USING it if you were justified jmg257 Feb 2016 #45

But had the person been obedient to the law they would not have been able to use the Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #46

Depends on what the legislation is targeted to accomplish. jmg257 Feb 2016 #47

We're still waiting to see a recent gun control proposal that Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #49

It seems many laws are going to "infringe upon rights" at some point. jmg257 Feb 2016 #58

Registration is the antecedent to confiscation. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #65

(S)he refuses to acknowledge the fact that these are two separate, COLGATE4 Feb 2016 #83

More than that. I get the notion they feel that any jmg257 Feb 2016 #88

I completely agree. nt COLGATE4 Feb 2016 #89

And again... discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #42

What you fail to understand - or do not want to COLGATE4 Feb 2016 #48

acknowledging your refusal to answer (eom) discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #50

Unbelievable. Stick a fork in me - I'm done. COLGATE4 Feb 2016 #51

re: "Stick a fork in me..." That would be an assault n/t discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #52

If you want to play lawyer, first learn a little law. COLGATE4 Feb 2016 #56

I have a veritable... discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #60

You have it backwards. A right to self-defense implies COLGATE4 Feb 2016 #61

I submit that any codification in law... discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #63

Interesting. Impractical, but interesting. COLGATE4 Feb 2016 #66

Why should the legal system be different? n/t discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #67

My life is the only reason I need to own a firearm. ileus Feb 2016 #7

works for me n/t discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #11

And if you take the life of another with your gun? guillaumeb Feb 2016 #53

So far the danger of... discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #55

Tell that to the countless victims who die every year guillaumeb Feb 2016 #59

Yes, great sympathy for all innocent victims discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #62

How many is that? beevul Feb 2016 #64

Even one is too many. Agreed? guillaumeb Feb 2016 #70

I'm not going to agree or disagree on anything until you substantiate your claim. beevul Feb 2016 #72

30,000 gun deaths a year is an obscenity. guillaumeb Feb 2016 #74

Thats an answer to a question I didn't ask. beevul Feb 2016 #76

I said "very many". How many is too many? Or how many must there be guillaumeb Feb 2016 #78

I know what you said. beevul Feb 2016 #80

"Countless victims"? TeddyR Feb 2016 #69

Perhaps an attempt on your part to minimize a problem? guillaumeb Feb 2016 #71

"Projection, Your Honor." beevul Feb 2016 #73

Post 71. Explain away. guillaumeb Feb 2016 #75

Post 73. Explain away. beevul Feb 2016 #77

Absolutely not TeddyR Feb 2016 #79

The FBI counted them for me. guillaumeb Feb 2016 #81

Show me the stats TeddyR Feb 2016 #82

I think I've been saying that... discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #92

That sounds nice, but what percentage of the homicides are committted by repeat offenders? guillaumeb Feb 2016 #94

According to the CDC... discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #95

There was a story in the Washington Post TeddyR Feb 2016 #96

I have a right to Nuclear Weapons, because, "Right to Life". stone space Feb 2016 #84

Well maybe but you certainly a right to hyperbole but just a few questions discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #85

Oh, this tired old argument again? GGJohn Feb 2016 #86

I'm not the one who brought up this tired old "right to life" arguement for weapons. stone space Feb 2016 #87

No, instead you bring up a tired old meme that's been debunked GGJohn Feb 2016 #91

Actually the argument was about self-defense discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #93

No worries - as long as you were not negligent in its use! jmg257 Feb 2016 #90