we should start a poll. we will ask gun thread posters whose positions are stated with clarity and without evasion Yours or mine How do you think that will turn out. you complain about pro gun posts you never offer any solutions You claim you don't care about the issue but yet you are constantly here
nope, you are wrong because in none of those states did the dire consequences that the ARC predicted come true.
I agree, I am done with it. its obviously what you claim. they are mad that the election turned out badly for them and they are trying to get even by trolling people they assume voted against Hillary on the gun issue
40 years of data says you are wrong. You can disagree with that fact, but all that shows is you are too stubborn to admit the truth.
the problem is -the anti rights posters don't even believe the stuff they post. Its not about crime control its not about public safety. If it were-they would save their bile for criminals and gangbangers, not NRA members or pro gun voters. What they care about is taking pot shots at people who they perceived as having voted for politicians who don't support their leftwing agendas
True. At this point, with the data being so absolutely on the side of gun rights, its obvious people supporting gun control have ulterior motives.
School shootings happen almost exclusively in states that do not allow educators to legally carry firearms while on school property, therefore it is understandable if there is a lack of data, as it would be quite stupid to carry out an attack where the potential victims may be legally armed. Comparatively speaking, it would be much like walking into a law enforcement precinct, and opening fire on those that are present.
I used to think most anti gun people were ignorant or in some cases stupid and that the leaders of the ARC (anti rights coalition) were merely misguided people who had their hearts in the right place. 40 years of dealing with both groups proved my initial beliefs wrong. Anti gun people may be ignorant and some of the slower among them really do believe laws that only impact honest people will actually deter criminals. but most are proactively hostile towards gun owners and it has nothing to do with crime. Its all about politics and the fact is-many left-wingers despise the power the NRA wields in elections and hate the fact that many of us gun owners will not support politicians who try to pretend they are doing something about violent criminals by passing BS gun control laws. and the leaders of the ARC are at best dishonest in pandering to the low wattage sheeple with claims that gun bans will make them safer. Most leaders of the ARC are not stupid and their purpose is to harass people who don't vote for them
I believe we have become too worried about litigation, and liability, and other inane things in this country. When someone would actively choose to be helpless in the face of watching innocents be slaughtered in front of them instead of making themselves able to respond effectively and save lives... well, to say I can't understand that mindset would be understatement. As for resource officers, I'm fine with that so long as they are properly equipped to effectively interdict a would-be mass murderer. It is long overdue for people to recognize that properly armed security personnel on school grounds is not only desirable, but mandatory, and that teachers who wish to become properly certified to carry defensive armament to deal with a worst-case scenario should have that as an option.
The ruling was essentially that the legislature cannot shift the defendant's burden of proving he was acting in self-defense onto the state to prove that he wasn't.
Two people during the commission of a crime are not a judge or jury. They are the variables involved in the matter. Only judges and juries can determine innocence or guilt. Protecting one's self and killing someone in the process is irrelevant to that process. If someone is coming at me, and they pull a gun to try and shoot me, and I end up shooting him...I don't have to wait for him to go to court (after he kills me). It's my right to protect myself from dying. After the fact of protecting myself is when I will go to court.
Self defense is an affirmative DEFENSE. It would be near impossible to prove someone wasn't "in fear" as a preliminary matter when they are not required to testify. It is up to the defendant to prove they were in fear for their life.
The anti-gun left prefers unarmed victims -- innocent blood betters the chances they can enact their anti-gun agenda.
that is an accurate synopsis. However, the Legislature could change the burden on the state to make the state prove that if someone kills an intruder on their property, the state also has to prove that the shooting was unjustified.
No. You are "innocent until proven guilty" regardless of the circumstance. That is how our system is meant to be. It is not the job of the defendant to prove he was actually in fear; it is the job of the prosecutor to prove the case he wasn't. Anything else is a bastardization of our founding ideals.
