Obama on gun control

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by Archaea

There seems to be some consistency if somebody does not respect the Second Amendment that they also do not respect a person's right to retain as much as they can earn.

Exactly. I don't care if a candidate LIKES guns, but I care how they feel about the 2nd ammendment. It tells me alot about their views on freedom in general.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Reagan
Reagan
Bush
Clinton
Clinton
Bush
Bush

Unless my memory does not serve me well, gun rights were not a tipping point in any of these elections. I am too young to really remember the Carter election and prior, so can't speak to that. Did Nixon get elected by giving guns to everyone?

So many red herring issues.

When are we going to dredge up abortion again?

Even the people here arent voting based on gun rights. for as much spewing as IPU does on the gun issue, his hot button is money in his pocket, not guns. So even if Obama put guns in school lunches but also raised taxes, IPU would not vote for him. Nobody here cares about guns. they care about cash.

You are correct that my #1 issue is being able to keep more of my money; however, I also really like the 2nd Amendment in that it allows me to have the assurance that I can defend my family from those that would come into my home to cause harm without worrying about ending up in prison.

[Mars]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

What exactly is the big revelation here? A Dem leans towards stricter gun control while a Republican wants less gun control?

I would think that it is a hotter issue than usual with the D.C. Ban in the news.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

You are correct that my #1 issue is being able to keep more of my money; however, I also really like the 2nd Amendment in that it allows me to have the assurance that I can defend my family from those that would come into my home to cause harm without worrying about ending up in prison.

Self-defense is not part of the second amendment. That is crim law, not con law. And really, common law.

The second amendment makes no references to self-defense or defense of property. have your organized a malitia to defend your home?

[MikeWaters]

Texas law used to say that you didn't have a right to respond with force to attempted deadly force being used against you.

If a bad guy broke into your home and pulled a gun on you, the jury was instructed to consider whether you had the ability to "retreat." Because it was your obligation to retreat.

But recently Texas passed the "Castle Law" and you no longer have a duty to retreat in such a circumstance. Someone breaks down your door and has a gun on you, you have the legal right to defend yourself with deadly force.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Texas law used to say that you didn't have a right to respond with force to attempted deadly force being used against you.

If a bad guy broke into your home and pulled a gun on you, the jury was instructed to consider whether you had the ability to "retreat." Because it was your obligation to retreat.

But recently Texas passed the "Castle Law" and you no longer have a duty to retreat in such a circumstance. Someone breaks down your door and has a gun on you, you have the legal right to defend yourself with deadly force.

Castle doctrine has been around for centuries and comes from English common law, hence the term castle doctrine.

The majority of states have some form of castle doctrine.

Again, the second amendment does not provide any of these rights. Common law and crim law do.