Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can see how (not that I agree with it) "the citizens" could be misconstrued as a collective right... but "every citizen" or "all individuals"? I'd be interested in reading those case findings if you have links. That's disturbing.
I completely agree that these deliberate misinterpretations are disturbing, but when you include the inclusive words "all" or "every" or use plurals you are opening the door for the anti-gun crowd to put their own spin on the interpretation to suit their agenda. "A person" or "each citizen" or "an individual" leaves no room for deliberate misinterpretation because each of those phrases refers to a single person, not a group of people.
While I certainly agree with severely prosecuting anyone who uses a firearm in commission of a crime, we may have disagreement as to what should be considered a firearm crime.
Merely possessing a firearm should not be considered a crime, even if some other criminal activity took place. For example, if someone is arrested for burglary, even though they possessed a firearms at the time, they should only be prosecuted for burglary, not for the mere possession of a firearm. Now if that firearm was used during the commission of a crime, that is an entirely different matter. To automatically add to the sentence of someone convicted of a crime just because they had a firearm in their possession, even though the firearm was never used, is wrong and another form of government gun control.
Exercising your right to keep and bear arms should not be automatically construed as a criminal act, any more than exercising your right to free speech.
I would have to disagree with you. A burgler would carry a gun but for 1 reason. In the event the burlery went wrong to try and fight his way free. By intent alone the gun now becomes a crime.
Example I argue with someone and pull out my legally owned weapon. I never say that I intend to use it, but I drew the weapon in the heat of the moment. This reasonably can be construed as a threat. I feel carrying a gun while in the act of committing a crime should carry an additional penalty. Lets face it. Its a criminal carrying a gun..
I would have to disagree with you. A burgler would carry a gun but for 1 reason. In the event the burlery went wrong to try and fight his way free. By intent alone the gun now becomes a crime.
Example I argue with someone and pull out my legally owned weapon. I never say that I intend to use it, but I drew the weapon in the heat of the moment. This reasonably can be construed as a threat. I feel carrying a gun while in the act of committing a crime should carry an additional penalty. Lets face it. Its a criminal carrying a gun..
If they pull out a firearm while in commission of a crime, then it becomes a firearm crime whether they use the firearm or not. However, if they do not pull out a firearm, regardless of their intent, then there is no firearm crime. Presumably if the burglar was arrested then the burglary "went wrong." Maybe they did intend to use the firearm when they first took it, and then changed their mind when they got busted. Who knows? If no firearm was drawn, then there should not be an additional firearm charge.
If you draw a weapon, legal or not, then you are definitely making a threat, and possibly committing a crime (depending on the circumstances).
In my opinion, charging someone with a firearm crime when no firearm is used or even drawn is akin to charging someone with a crime for merely stating an opinion, or arresting someone just because they chose to exercise their 5th Amendment rights and not confess to a crime. When we start making it a criminal act to exercise our constitutionally protected rights, then we have begun to go down a slippery slope that will lead to the elimination of all our rights.
Not sure if this is where I originally read it but it works:
It appears it comes from the Census Bureau...
Poverty American Style: Cars, TVs, Three-Bedroom Homes (http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/poaverty.htm - broken link)
Thanks for posting the link, even though it's from a conservative biased source :-) It's not really that they eat less, but like most Americans they don't eat the recommended amount. I do think a lot has to do with fast-food items being relatively cheap and the lack of education to contribute to this issue.
If they pull out a firearm while in commission of a crime, then it becomes a firearm crime whether they use the firearm or not. However, if they do not pull out a firearm, regardless of their intent, then there is no firearm crime. Presumably if the burglar was arrested then the burglary "went wrong." Maybe they did intend to use the firearm when they first took it, and then changed their mind when they got busted. Who knows? If no firearm was drawn, then there should not be an additional firearm charge.
If you draw a weapon, legal or not, then you are definitely making a threat, and possibly committing a crime (depending on the circumstances).
In my opinion, charging someone with a firearm crime when no firearm is used or even drawn is akin to charging someone with a crime for merely stating an opinion, or arresting someone just because they chose to exercise their 5th Amendment rights and not confess to a crime. When we start making it a criminal act to exercise our constitutionally protected rights, then we have begun to go down a slippery slope that will lead to the elimination of all our rights.
Well...this is not quite right...
For example, "Robbery" is defined by most states' penal codes as the asportation (carrying off) of property belonging to another from their direct control by means of force or fear.
If some little suburban teen who looks like Hannah Montana walks up to a 7-11 clerk and says "this is a robbery, give me all your money" they're just going to laugh at her. Give her a knife, they take her more seriously. Give her an AK-47 and she has some real powerful persuasion.
Thus, the amount of force or fear is directly related to the clear and present ability of a potential suspect to carry out the threat of bodily injury or felonious assault.
In addition, when carrying a firearm, it's very common for a person to panic and wind up pulling the trigger, turning an otherwise "routine" robbery into a murder. I dealt with this over and over during my tenure as a gang cop. Rarely is a person surprised during a robbery and winds up beating someone to death with their bare hands. But jerking a trigger is going to cost a person their life.
So not only does the use of a firearm in a crime increase the chances of it escalating to a homicide, but it also gives more weight to the felon as they use force or fear to commit a crime, AND it shows the intent of the person as they are assumed to be willing to commit homicide to accomplish their means.
So when a person uses a gun during a crime, or carries/displays a gun during a crime, there absolutely should be additional penalties or at least more severe "shades" of that statutory offense.
1) I carry a gun, because a cop is to heavy and hard to conceal.
2) an armed man will kill an unarmed man with regularity
3) beware of the man with one gun, he probably knows how to use it very well
4) when every second counts, the cops are just minutes away. sometimes its pays to shoot first, then call 911.
5) america is not at war. the U.S. Military is at war. America is at the mall
hopefully this women will be sentenced to a quick death because even if her intention was to shoot the dog, that is good enough for me
Anyway she will probably get about 6 years for involuntary manslaughter
And yes, we need to ban guns, people who have guns live in some john wayne fantasy, the less guns in public the better the world will be, all countries that have tough guns laws have lower homocide rates, the 2nd amendmant is outdated and the USA is about making change for the better, if the Republicans still had their way women wouldnt be allowed to vote and blacks would still be picking cotton
here is a chart on countries firearm death(the republican solution would be to have more guns because if everyone owned a gun the less chance someone would shoot someone)]
And the tranquilizer is a good idea, but people need guns more for some psychological issue
you take guns from law abiding citizens, only criminals will have guns.
the problem with guns is, ppl keep selling to ppl who are up to no good. Thats the thing we lock poor ppl up when they are caught with a gun. But guns keep ending up in this same areas, it seems we dont want to lock up the big timers. Seems alot like lets lock up the low street drug dealers, but not the ppl living in mansions. They low street dealers are not supplying the drugs to america. Just like the petty criminals who get caught with guns. With the cycle we have guns & drugs will alwasy run america
you take guns from law abiding citizens, only criminals will have guns.
And then we could just go out and arrest everyone who has a gun because they would all be criminals!!
Makes perfect sense to me!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
about guns
