Our guns are not being confiscated, so this is a "what if" thread.
If our guns are confiscated the zombies will eat our brains.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Gun Confiscation Crusade Begins
- Thread starter Wesley Briggman
- Start date
- Status
If our guns are confiscated the zombies will eat our brains.
Let 'em try!
In most jurisdictions, in relation to firearms, the right of self-defense is limited to a residence and applies to non-Christians as well. Outside of the residence the right requires special dispensation.
To my knowledge, there are no "inalienable rights" mentioned in the constitution, only on the preamble to the DOI.
If I am misinformed, I expect to be gently chided.
I believe it is "unalienable rights"In most jurisdictions, in relation to firearms, the right of self-defense is limited to a residence and applies to non-Christians as well. Outside of the residence the right requires special dispensation.
To my knowledge, there are no "inalienable rights" mentioned in the constitution, only on the preamble to the DOI.
If I am misinformed, I expect to be gently chided.
I believe it is "unalienable rights"
the definition of inalienable
inalienable
1. not transferable to another or not capable of being taken away ordenied; not alienable :
the definition of unalienable
unalienable
1. not transferable to another or not capable of being taken away ordenied; inalienable :
You are correct. So am I.
Okay, you want a practical answer to a theoretical question? Look what happened in Australia's recent mandatory buyback, aka confiscation - they only had about five million in circulation and only had a compliance rate of 25% at the best. Now, this country has a lot more people but about as many guns as citizens and Americans tend to defy their government, so it will end up like all state confiscation efforts, few will turn them in, the vast majority would just ignore the law and the others would probably storm SCOTUS. This IS a gun culture, like it or not, and all hell would break out if they tried.
Happy for you, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the term "unalienable rights". They are only mentioned in the DoI:
“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”
Liberty = freedom (from God) to have guns
Life = freedom (from God) for self-defense
Pursuit of Happiness = freedom (from God) to collect, hunt, etc.
Happy for you, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the term "unalienable rights". They are only mentioned in the DoI:
“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”
Liberty = freedom (from God) to have guns
Life = freedom (from God) for self-defense
Pursuit of Happiness = freedom (from God) to collect, hunt, etc.
Actually 30 of the 50 states have self-defense laws that allow the use of deadly forces if the person is reasonably in fear for his life. And some states, such as Texas, include being in reasonable fear of loss of property (in Texas, only between sundown and sunup).
Nope. Self defense is an affirmative defense in all 50 states. States with several different iterations of the Castle Doctrine often greatly expand that to include not only homes, but vehicles.
Your living in California must have caused you to forget how free people live.
I can not disagree with your response because it is clear as mud in view of what I posted.Actually 30 of the 50 states have self-defense laws that allow the use of deadly forces if the person is reasonably in fear for his life. And some states, such as Texas, include being in reasonable fear of loss of property (in Texas, only between sundown and sunup).
Nope. Self defense is an affirmative defense in all 50 states. States with several different iterations of the Castle Doctrine often greatly expand that to include not only homes, but vehicles.
Your living in California must have caused you to forget how free people live.
I am sorry you didn't understand it. The law does that to some people.
Thank you for being consistent. Ego is the anesthesia that deadens the pain of insensitivity.
Last edited:
So, when you said
You weren't telling the truth? You did understand it? It was clear?
I don't understand you at all. You say one thing, and when responded to, you suddenly change your tune and go on the attack?
Are you offended that I was a Law Enforcement Officer and have a very good understanding of the self-defense laws in many jurisdictions?
Are you offended that I used my time as a LEO to pay my way though law school?
What is it with you? What is it about my post that you find so offensive? That I corrected your misunderstanding of the law? That I pointed out your statement
which, of course, is not true. It is legal, even in your home state of California, to defend yourself with deadly force when deadly force is used against you.
Or was it my correcting your statement that
was wrong, and that defense of self and others is an affirmative defense in ever state and there is no such thing as a "special dispensation" when it comes to the law?
Please! What are you so bent out of shape about?
Pride is the burden of a foolish person.
You need to read the original.the definition of inalienable
inalienable
1. not transferable to another or not capable of being taken away ordenied; not alienable :
the definition of unalienable
unalienable
1. not transferable to another or not capable of being taken away ordenied; inalienable :
You are correct. So am I.
In most jurisdictions, in relation to firearms, the right of self-defense is limited to a residence and applies to non-Christians as well. Outside of the residence the right requires special dispensation.
To my knowledge, there are no "inalienable rights" mentioned in the constitution, only on the preamble to the DOI.
If I am misinformed, I expect to be gently chided.
Of course, the term Inalienable is Jefferson's. And, of course, Christians and heathen are all mixed together in American law. I myself have no idea what the heathen think on this matter. It should be clear to the whole world by now that government is not a god of any kind and therefore government cannot grant rights to anyone, right? By extension of logic, the Bill of Rights listed for individuals the promises of the federal government on the matters in the Bill of Rights. Incidentally, the right to bear arms is the only right that is openly being challenged on the basis of age. The villains in this matter are the leftist who want absolute power. Can you imagine what the leftists would do if they were ever able to confiscate everyone's guns? It would be a Stalinist dictatorship in the blink of an eye and we would be starving and then be shipped off to concentration camps to be worked to death. That is the leftist dream for America, right?
One more thing. This Florida shooter was without a father in the home, which I understand is the case with the last 26 out of 27 mass murderers. The Las Vegas shooter's father was in prison, for example. Also, the Florida shooter was on meds for being mentally ill and should not have been able to buy a gun. Also, leftist Broward County had a policy installed more or less by Obama that teenage juvenile delinquents who committed crimes while in Broward County schools would not be arrested if possible because the Superintendent and Sheriff got rewards and recognition for low arrest rates. That is how Travon Martin got loose--he was not arrested for burglary and seemed to be casing some housing units in the complex where Zimmerman was. If the Sheriff had arrested Martin, Martin might still be alive today. If the Sheriff had arrested Cruz for some of his felonies.... Of course, the FBI apologized for their failure. You can't blame them because they have had very bad leadership in this century.
Yes, it is. You are too proud to admit you posted error, and when you were corrected, you ignored the truth and did what most pride filled people do, you launched a personal attack. In my (admittedly not entirely humble) opinion, to have little regard for the truth is to have little regard for He Who is Truth, the Lord Jesus Christ. But that's just me.
So because someone who honestly disagrees with you you find them with little regard for Christ? What gall you have! What pure arrogance! Your statement is not only without doubt wrong but it is evil. Accusing someone who simply disagrees with you as seeing Christ less than they should is not Christian. Nor should it be the behavior of a moderator or admin. I suggest you check yourself.
Yes, of course. Everybody knows we are all in exactly the same place in our Christian experience, and that everything every poster posts is the absolute truth and every post is without factual error and therefore can never be corrected or disagreed with.
It is not a question of disagreeing. It is a question of posting that which is patently false. There are other posters with legal experience, ask them if his remarks concerning self-defense only applying when you are at home, or if there is a "special dispensation" for when you are out in the community, are accurate. Don't take my word for it. Get a second opinion.
Well, one good thing has come from it. You now have a post to report to the Council. Your constant stalking of me, and contradicting everything I say, has finally paid off. Glad I could make your day so enjoyable.
You are right again!!You need to read the original.
I tried to add you to my list of "people to ignore". Unfortunately, because of your position on this board, my attempt failed. Therefore, I am asking you to place me on your list of "people to ignore".
Thankfully, God chosen me to be his child because of his love, mercy and grace. All praise be to Him.
- Status