Jim Jefferies Comedian on gun control

a reply to: WhatAreThey

No i understand they are felonies, and last time I checked not all felonies carry a death penalty.
Also your are not convicted of the felony until a judge says so, not some guy, or gal on the street with a gun

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: WhatAreThey

No i understand they are felonies, and last time I checked not all felonies carry a death penalty.
Cause your are not convicted of the felony until a judge says not, not some guy, or gal on the street with a gun

Due process protects you from the government, not citizens. The law protects you from citizens.

I did not memorize the list, but if someone is committing a violent crime against myself, my family, or another citizen then the law (at least in my state) authorizes me to use lethal force. So yes, in essence, most of those crimes do carry the death penalty if you are caught by a citizen while committing that crime (once again, this is as per the laws in my state).

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: WhatAreThey

No i understand they are felonies, and last time I checked not all felonies carry a death penalty.
Also your are not convicted of the felony until a judge says so, not some guy, or gal on the street with a gun

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: WhatAreThey

No i understand they are felonies, and last time I checked not all felonies carry a death penalty.
Also your are not convicted of the felony until a judge says so, not some guy, or gal on the street with a gun

Understanding of legal structure and theory is important here to understand why, yes, some gal or guy on the street can decide. This shouldn't be that long. Please let me explain, so that you may understand.

The guy who is literally in the process of murdering you isn't convicted of the felony until a judge says so, either. This is an area that the criminal law that you refer to can not, and does not apply. There are no judges here, no police officers, in this moment. You do have certain rights, right now, as it is happening - and they are not derived from criminal law.

However, once he is done killing you, criminal law can apply. Someone can call the police. Evidence can be gathered. The state can initial legal proceedings. A judge can make a decision. Your funeral can start.

If that's how you want to live your life (or end it), then be my guest. Transfer all of your power (natural rights to the state.

Now,

You have natural rights, as a living breathing human. This is not some 'conspiracy theory' but actually how legal systems operate. "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a natural right. They are unalienable by any legal system. Same goes with the Bill of Rights. It is a list of rights that are inalienable. They are secured - not granted or created.

So,

While he is trying to kill you, or rape your daughter, or commit a forcible felony on someone, another type of law applies. It's called natural law. This type of law is not determined by legislature, but by nature. This act, that is occurring to you or someone else, right in this moment is assessed "Mala In Se" in natural law, which means "Wrong In Itself". It is agreed by human nature, cause and effect, and reasoning throughout the course of human history to be an evil action.

There are outliers who believe certain actions such as the above are not wrong in themselves. Those people are typically tyrants, criminals, outcasts, and humans who are unable to experience sympathy and lack the faculties for compassion which typically guides them on the path of being those previously described.

Anyway... Many of those 16 reasons that Florida lists, and nearly every other state lists, are "Mala In Se". Some are "Mala Prohibita" or just prohibited, but they are understood that the result of such actions are "Mala In Se".

Let's tie this in,

Self-defense, defense of property, and defense of others is also an inalienable right. Time and time again, throughout human civilization and legal philosophy, it has been reasoned to be true. In the pattern of dictatorships and tyrannical rule, it is another story completely.

Forcible felonies, those with are "Wrong In Itself", give a human being, in that moment, the natural right to defend oneself or another with lethal force to stop the act that is "wrong in itself". This is no way implies that he is now immune to criminal law. After the event is over, criminal law will often take over and the person who stopped the forcible felony may be put on trial so that society can judge him to be innocent or guilty. If he is guilty of a non-justifiable homicide then he has committed murder and will be punished according to the criminal code.

I love it when the old "USA has less violent crime per 100,000 people than UK"
Like that is a fair stat and the only one needed,
what is the stat for Crime with guns per 100,000? between UK and USA?

Let's start there shall we.

a reply to: Taggart

Does it matter how a violent crime is committed?

originally posted by: Taggart
I love it when the old "USA has less violent crime per 100,000 people than UK"
Like that is a fair stat and the only one needed,
what is the stat for Crime with guns per 100,000? between UK and USA?

Let's start there shall we.

It is a fair stat, just not a convenient one for pro gun control advocates. It shows that people who want to commit violent crimes, will continue to commit violent crimes regardless of the availability of firearms. It also could suggest that there is a correlation between an armed citizenry with open access to a means for protection and the prevalence of violent crime. You can not even carry a pocket knife in the UK to protect yourself.

89 % increase in gun crimes in England post ban in a single decade

www.dailymail.co.uk...


I will concede that this is old data, but, it doesnt change the facts. Criminals will still get their hands on contraband and use it to their advantage. It has always been this way. I would submit that denying a good citizen the means to protect oneself and family from the criminal element is" wrong headed thinking" Serving up the law abiding, hard working citizens to appease some idealistic crusade where the world is filled with rainbows and unicorns makes as much sense as a football bat.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Taggart

Does it matter how a violent crime is committed?

Is gun crime higher or lower in UK than USA?

The reason I ask as we are talking about Guns here.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Taggart

Does it matter how a violent crime is committed?

Comparing violent crime between the UK and the USA is hard as the police here in the UK get paid to deal with violent crime so the more they report the bigger their budget is so as far as the police are concerned nearly everything is classed as violent even a bit of a verbal argument will be classed as a violent event...yep its nuts

but also to those who say guns are banned in the UK, technically everything is allowed it just needs a letter from the home secretary and you can have multiple vulcan cannons outside your house firing probably a million rounds a second, but at UK ammo prices you'd be better off buying your own island somewhere

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
The thing about gun owners is..they never argue any points..just call anyone who disagrees with them an idiot and if you don;t like it..go home...etc.

He even talks about it...and he says "No, I came here legally, pays his taxes and your 1st amendment guarantees him the right to say anything he wants"...

Apparently you missed the gigantic informational poster posted above filled with actual facts on gun control? Might want to scroll up and read that.

originally posted by: DrMescalito
Is gun crime higher or lower in UK than USA?
The reason I ask as we are talking about Guns here.

The stats obviously show gun crime is higher in the United States but violent crime per capita is higher in the United Kingdom.

I do not understand the fixation foreigners have with trying to differentiate how someone ends up violently assaulted. Either you were or you were not.

originally posted by: Maxatoria
Comparing violent crime between the UK and the USA is hard as the police here in the UK get paid to deal with violent crime so the more they report the bigger their budget is so as far as the police are concerned nearly everything is classed as violent even a bit of a verbal argument will be classed as a violent event...yep its nuts

Cooking the crime books is not a social phenomenon relegated to the United Kingdom, it happens everywhere. Even using a fair margin of error the statistics previously supplied show that if you want to injure someone the lack of a firearm will not overly hinder your commission of said crime.

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
a reply to: SubTruth

I would say that the majority just "LIKE" guns and some actually use it for the purpose they wanted on for..protection.

Why would you need an arsenal if you didn't just love guns..if it was for protection one would suffice.

One firearm is good for the intended purpose of the firearm. Multiple firearms can be owned logically as the reason for them will be quite varied (i.e. you don't want to hunt a large animal with a 9mm pistol unless you really wanna die). You probably do not need a .50 cal Barrett for home protection however, still nice to know you have a long effective range.

As you are a proponent for one 'gun' (firearm), maybe you will opt in for the one kitchen knife argument as well because they all ….erm…. well, …cut.

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Fine..tell me where he was wrong when he said once guns were banned in Australia..there have been no mass shootings?

Maybe they did not need any more mass shootings to justify the abolition of firearms in Australia? Neither of us can prove this premise either way so stalemate at best.

Tell me if your a responsible gun owner and your gun is locked away..what good it is if you do not have the time to get it because it is locked away. Where was he wrong about that?

Hypothetical: Someone breaks into your house, you can open your safe that is touch sensitive so you can access a weapon and potentially protect your family - OR - You pick up your phone when someone confronts you with a weapon and all you have is hold signal while trying to get the police to come help you; if the latter, good luck to you and your family….

How about if you attacked the government and the military intervened...you would be out gunned...where was he wrong about that? Do you really think you would stand a chance against tanks, drones, fighter jets, missiles, warships and against a well organized group...where was he wrong about that?

History is rife with small armed groups/individuals that have made a tremendous difference in combat against a larger better equipped opponent however, it is your lack of understanding and practical experience in these matters that seems to afford you to determine a correct policy against other people's civil liberties. I for one do not want non/mal-informed people setting policy for people that do know and have experience.

You guys say you have debunked..etc...but have done nothing.

You seem to be very vociferous on this matter and thus have let anyone with any experience with firearms know that you are the portion of society that reserves the right and privilege to remain clueless to the facts of the discussion; as such I would recommend that you post a sign that reads "GUN FREE ZONE" in front of your home so that people know which house to ignore when there is a problem. You can rely on the police to help you….

Good luck on that!

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

I blame the special interest groups and lobbyists that bought our government and allowed the gunman to get a hold of a firearm legally in the first place instead of allowing the laws that we have already on the books to be enforced.

originally posted by: DrMescalito

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Taggart

Does it matter how a violent crime is committed?

Is gun crime higher or lower in UK than USA?

The reason I ask as we are talking about Guns here.

Since we are talking about guns here, is your 2nd amendment higher or lower in importance than in the USA?

a reply to: SM2

MIDDLE GROUND!

For gods sake! How absolutely dense can people be?

I know there's people you think shouldn't have access to guns right? Murderers, rapists, gang members, crazy people, terrorists?

Or do you think we all should live in the fictional wild west?

This, this right here is why I'm for gun control, people that are so god dammed myopic that they can't see beyond their own effing personal bull [snip].

People, like this somehow think that if everyone including children are constantly armed that fixes all our problems. Look at the world, look at the ME, lots of guns in Iraq, I'm not really sure if they have gun laws, and people who believe an invisible man in the sky says they should kill.

Do we have people in this country that believe in an invisible man in the sky too? Oh right, we do, and some of those people also think that the invisible man in the sky says they should kill too!

en.m.wikipedia.org...(United_States)

There are also people in this country that want to kill just because if the color of a person's skin, or where a person was born.

Maybe just maybe, these kinds of people shouldn't have free access to firearms.

originally posted by: HauntWok
I blame the special interest groups and lobbyists that bought our government and allowed the gunman to get a hold of a firearm legally in the first place instead of allowing the laws that we have already on the books to be enforced.

Since you seem to have forgotten that we covered this on a previous thread how do lobbyists force local, state and federal policing agencies not to enforce the law?

Specific examples would be appreciated.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yes, I remember, here's 10:

www.theguardian.com...

Most likely more of there hidden in legislation as "for other purposes".

a reply to: HauntWok

Let's look at #1.

First, there is no reciprocity between various states.... PA and NJ for instance. This is why a PA mother faces 10 years in prison in NJ because she crossed the bridge into NJ with a handgun.... and there is NO reciprocity!

Even so....
Does the fact that ALL states have reciprocity for drivers licenses weaken driving laws?
Seriously... if reciprocity weakens laws, shouldn't you be limited to driving only in a state that you are licensed in???

This thread is a fail. Why are all anti-gun threads devoid of substance? Oh yeah because they don't have any valid points. I can't believe all you guys let this guy troll you for 8 pages.