Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 110. (Read 450471 times)

If the government is the prosecutor in the case, the judge might be able to override the jury to some extent. But if the prosecutor is a man in a common law court of record, the jury has the final say. The judge is only a magistrate, completely separate from the Tribunal - Corpus Juris Secundum Volume 25 Section 344.

The jury can do its job in court but ONLY in court, as it cannot control anything further than what what each juror says in their verbal and written verdict. A jury can say "we find the defendant guilty of attempted murder and order him to serve life in prison without possibility of parole, probation, pardon, or commutation" but the government can then immediately release him following that verdict and not only allow him to continue his criminal violence through neglect, but also affirmatively give him instruction and material support in committing more criminal violence.

It's naive to think there can be ANY effective people control without at least 1:1, round the clock supervision by volunteers.

Okay. Anybody can kill anybody passing him while walking down the sidewalk, without much or any training, if the murderer is fast enough.

In our little story, it was assumed that the perp would be taken into custody if he lived. Then, hopefully the jury would do its job in court.

Gun control? Anybody can kill anybody. Place everybody in strait-jackets and let robots feed us and wipe our behinds. That way we won't be able to hurt anybody. How much people control do some naive nuts want?

False premise. A deadly weapon is a deadly weapon. Use any deadly weapon to attempt or successfully commit murder, and you are equally as bad of a crook as any other crook who uses any other deadly weapon to attempt or successfully commit murder.

I missed that the only legitimate death penalty, the instant death penalty in lawful self-defense, was administered by the Good Samaritan. Until the perp comes back as a zombie, there's no need to discuss whether a jury would need to guarantee he will never possess any deadly weapon again. Which no jury as we know it could, as everything can be a deadly weapon, so the safest place to put a living or undead attempted or successful murderer is prison, where he will only be able to murder other murderers, and people who volunteer to guard murderers.

I guess whichever law they are planning to create for this, they better have it more particular with the cops. These guys got way more issues than civilians owning guns. But yea, i am so pro against tougher restrictions in owning guns.

Isn't that exactly what the jury would be ordering in the case where it was necessary? Cops gun down more people than anybody else. Yet we don't take their property from them. Why take the property of anyone else?

But with some simple gun control you could save countless lives by not allowing people who are likely to commit atrocities from legally obtaining firearms.   There will still be people  with gun,   just not those that are likely to use them to harm others.  The main reason criminals can get hold of guns so easily is because you have no licensin. 

The flaw in your thinking is twofold at least:
1. The perp used a hatchet. This means he was not using a gun in the first place. So, he was not as bad of a crook as he could have been. Why would he be worse if he had lived? Besides, jury people aren't completely stupid. They would take into account the perp's history in their decision and judge accordingly.
2. The simple point of gun control is to take guns away. The extended point is to control the people. Already Chicago and New York are trying to control people based on what they think a person is going to do, that he might do a criminal act in the future. This is dangerous thinking on the part of officials. A person is innocent until he makes himself guilty. You and I just might be on a watch list, ready to lose our freedom for something we haven't done. Is that what you want?

If we all armed ourselves, we would have mutual respect for each other. Those of us who didn't have this respect would be dead like the hatchet-perp. But there would be far fewer perps, because they would know that every next guy just might fight back with the gun that he had, because everybody had guns. The perps would all be dead, or too afraid to be perps, and they just might change their lives around to be honest people, just so they could live.

The jury can say "no guns ever" but unless they're willing to personally hold the perp at gunpoint in 6-12 member, 24/7/365 rotation for the rest of his life, they're not going to be able to stop him from having a gun outside a prison.

If some guy hauls off and hits you, are you going to press charges? Or are you going to simply forgive him, especially if he knocks a tooth out, and you have to spend $1,500 to get it fixed? Let the guy go if you want. Don't press charges if you want.

An attack that doesn't do any damage is still a threat, and actual threats are punishable by law if the one who was threatened presses charges. Press charges with a jury trial, and let the jury make the law for the case in question. Essentially, the jury can do whatever it wants - no guns ever, prison term, fine, etc.

No, no, NO! No gun control MEANS NO CRIMINAL CONTROL! After the "knife attacker" was discharged from the hospital, he would not serve a single millisecond of confinement, despite his attempted murder/"knife attack" being a crime worthy of life imprisonment!

That's up to a jury, on a case by case determination.   

So with no gun control lets imagine the knife attacker survived this ordeal, Should he then be allowed to buy a gun and then more than likely do the same thing he did here except with a gun? Because thats what no gun control means. Again i dont think anybody (maybe some are ive not read every page) is saying your guns will be taken away completely, only that some form of control is put in place.

Concealed Carry Saves Clerk from Ax-Wielding Attacker at 7-Eleven







Read more at http://wearechange.org/concealed-carry-saves-clerk/.

All you people who are against gun control seem to be under the impression that once you have gun control you have to give up your guns, Thats not the case. Gun control is simply putting in stricter checks or disallowing certain people for instance mentally insane or convicted criminals from having guns. Gun control is a must in any civilised country.

this is what you are talking about the local weapon control. if we talk about the wold wise weapon control it mean the smuggling of weapon from one country to another country. so  can say that it is difficult to control weapon trafficking because some countries have a very large amount of income from weapons trade. for this purpose they are imposing war between and with in countries. there are so many countries whose geographic conditions compel them to buy weapons from the these countries.

Gun salesman-in-chief:
52,600 a day under Obama,
more seen under Hillary







Read more at http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gun-salesman-in-chief-52600-a-day-under-obama-more-seen-under-hillary/article/2594961.

I feel for those poor guys.

The best thing to do is not to ban firearms but include it in the curriculum. When we ban firearms people who do not have firearms cannot protect themselves against outlaws. IF gun handling is included in school curriculum there will be more disciplined gun users in the world. Responsible gun handling is the solution and not the banning of gun.

Crowder Schools SkyNews on Guns

Published on Jun 23, 2016

Crowder debates SkyNews host on gun control.