Antonin Scalia: There Are 'Undoubtedly' Limits To A Person's Right To Carry Guns

Quote from Brass:

So the law-abiding citizens broke the law, and had a spell of clairvoyance....
More...

You ignored virtually the entire post you're responding to and came back with a bunch of NOTHING as usual.

clairvoyance? I asked why they'd even need to know in advance, you dodged the question as you so often do.

Oh, I know you and your ilk are immune to facts on this issue. But in CO "no guns" signs have no force of law unless posted on a place specifically listed as being out of bounds by law.
 
Quote from Lucrum:

...Oh, I know you and your ilk are immune to facts on this issue. But in CO "no guns" signs have no force of law unless posted on a place specifically listed as being out of bounds by law.
More...
Quote from Lucrum:

...who ignored the "no guns" sign on the door?
More...
 
Quote from ammo:

if carrying laws were more lax , 7 or 8 people in the theater would have taken out the aurora shooter,knowing that, he, or any criminal might think twice, crime would go down as long as the majority of the population were decent people, we know the criminals are going to be carrying, the police can't be everywhere,we should not be denied the need/right to defend ourselves
More...
Quote from Free Thinker:

geeze. do you people only think in black and white? you want a bunch of people in a dark theater shooting from all directions?
have you watched too many cowboy movies where the bullet never hits the innocent bystander in the background?
More...
To simplify ammo's post for you...
In this case and most others, this would have been a non-event if the shooters might have had the notion that maybe a dozen or so certified and trained individuals (in other words they bull's eye their intended target) were in the crowd.
Even as off their rocker as the perps are, most of them wouldn't have tried to pull of such a stunt if they knew their plan would turn out a failure. That's what get them off... succeeding in what they have planned.
Take the events of 9/11... If just one person (not to mention 5 or 6) had been packin' heat, the hijackers might have been crazy enough to attempt the hijacking but, that day wouldn't have turned out like it did.
Surely you libtards have enough sense to understand that.
Does anybody know if there were many incidents of lone gunmen pulling off mass shootings when everyone was allowed to carry a weapon? Just curious.
 
Quote from PiggyBank:

I'm right. There is no possible case for charging the guy attempting to take out the REAL LIFE mass murderer who IS killing people.
More...

§ 8.07 Risk to Innocent Bystanders



[A] Common Law – Courts apply a transferred-justification doctrine, similar to the transferred-intent rule: a defendant’s right of self-defense "transfers" (just as intent to kill does) from the intended to the actual victim. While the defense is absolute in some jurisdictions, other courts do not treat this rule as absolute. If the defendant, acting justifiably in self-defense against an aggressor, fires a weapon "wildly or carelessly," thereby jeopardizing the safety of known bystanders, some courts hold the defendant guilty of manslaughter (or of reckless endangerment if no bystander is killed), but not of intentional homicide.
 
Quote from Lucrum:


FACT is now your really just obfuscating rather than admit the intent of your original statement is false. [/B]
More...

FACT: we are ALL for some degree of gun control.
 
Quote from bigarrow:

FACT: we are ALL for some degree of gun control.
More...

It's FICTION, saying it's fact over and over only reinforces your closed minded and preconceived notion. It doesn't make it fact.

There are hundreds of thousands if not millions of Americans who strongly believe the 2nd Amendment should be honored as literally written. As in "...shall not be infringed upon". That's what gun control is, an infringement of a constitutionally guaranteed RIGHT.


And EVEN if I'm wrong and you're right. We ALREADY have way too much gun control, which isn't even working BTW. As in 22,000 local state and federal firearms laws on the books right now. What kind of fool deludes themselves into thinking some more regulations will make a positive difference?
 
Quote from Free Thinker:

§ 8.07 Risk to Innocent Bystanders



[A] Common Law – Courts apply a transferred-justification doctrine, similar to the transferred-intent rule: a defendant’s right of self-defense "transfers" (just as intent to kill does) from the intended to the actual victim. While the defense is absolute in some jurisdictions, other courts do not treat this rule as absolute. If the defendant, acting justifiably in self-defense against an aggressor, fires a weapon "wildly or carelessly," thereby jeopardizing the safety of known bystanders, some courts hold the defendant guilty of manslaughter (or of reckless endangerment if no bystander is killed), but not of intentional homicide.
More...

Look u are making up all types of hypothetical what if's which really don't matter as your 1st statement today was and still is stupid. here's one for you, what if the minute holmes walked back into the theater in body armor and gas mask, someone drew their firearm and the minute he fired a shot, this person dropped him?

Aurora really happened, if someone had shot back, at Holmes obviously, and killed someone innocent that strayed into the line of fire.. i would bet my left pinkie that NO JURY would convict him of ANY crime.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Accidental+Killing

"Now suppose that the defendant was lawfully defending himself or his property from attack, and in the process killed an innocent bystander. The defendant told police that lethal force was necessary to thwart an attack upon his person, and he tried to shoot the attacker but instead killed a nearby pedestrian, who had nothing to do with the attack. The common law would have treated the bystander's death as an excusable accidental killing, so long as reasonable grounds existed for the defendant's belief that lethal force was necessary for Self-Defense."

I am sure different jurisdictions treat things differently but Aurora is about as black and white self defense as possible in the real world.
 
Quote from PiggyBank:

Look u are making up all types of hypothetical what if's which really don't matter as your 1st statement today was and still is stupid. here's one for you, what if the minute holmes walked back into the theater in body armor and gas mask, someone drew their firearm and the minute he fired a shot, this person dropped him?

Aurora really happened, if someone had shot back, at Holmes obviously, and killed someone innocent that strayed into the line of fire.. i would bet my left pinkie that NO JURY would convict him of ANY crime.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Accidental+Killing

"Now suppose that the defendant was lawfully defending himself or his property from attack, and in the process killed an innocent bystander. The defendant told police that lethal force was necessary to thwart an attack upon his person, and he tried to shoot the attacker but instead killed a nearby pedestrian, who had nothing to do with the attack. The common law would have treated the bystander's death as an excusable accidental killing, so long as reasonable grounds existed for the defendant's belief that lethal force was necessary for Self-Defense."

I am sure different jurisdictions treat things differently but Aurora is about as black and white self defense as possible in the real world.
More...

You ever get the feeling we're arguing with a brick wall? A wall full of holes maybe?

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top