Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: 911 tells young mother, "do what you have to do to protect your baby" [View all]TPaine7
(4,286 posts)In fact, to quote you, it's one "of those really simple obvious things."
First the premise:
iverglas
52. one intends the foreseeable consequences of one's actions
If one does not advocate measures to prevent this individual and people like him from acquiring firearms, one advocates him and them having firearms.
One of those really simple obvious things.
No one had alerted the authorities? To what?
There was an investigation relating to his mental status that was ongoing at the time in connection with a custody dispute.
I'll be happy to entertain proposals that people who are involved in custody disputes should have their eligibility to acquire and possess firearms withdrawn. Anybody want to start?
Source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/11725687#post52
Now I think you will recall that the government of the District of Columbia (along with the Brady Campaign who gave them a higher gun control rating than any state in the nation and supported their laws, the law professors who supported their laws, and many anti-gun activists) were against people having any loaded gun in their homes. They wanted to ensure that guns were unloaded--or better yet, disassembled--and separated from ammunition.
DC defeated a defendant who raised the defense that while under attack a person could load a gun in spite of the law. DC had legal precedent that you could not load a gun even if you or your family was under lethal attack, being beaten, kidnapped, tortured or raped. Loading a gun in one's home was forbidden. Period.
If you have forgotten, I've posted on it before. Here's a link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=170607&mesg_id=170607
As I recall, you did not advocate any measures to prevent victims being disarmed in the face of violent criminal attack. Did I miss that post?
Your principle:
one intends the foreseeable consequences of one's actions
If one does not advocate measures to prevent this individual and people like him from acquiring firearms, one advocates him and them having firearms.
One of those really simple obvious things.
Your Principle Applied:
one intends the foreseeable consequences of one's actions
If one does not advocate measures to prevent this individual and people like her from being legally disarmed in the face of violent attack, one advocates her and them being left defenseless.
One of those really simple obvious things.
Of course, DC and those who supported its laws went far beyond not advocating measures to prevent this individual and people like her from being legally disarmed in the face of violent attack. They went so far as to actually advocate that she be disarmed, even if her baby was being harmed in front of her.
They, and their fellow gun control travelers in Canada and Europe should be especially harshly condemned by your principle. After all, they don't merely fail to advocate against the harm; they directly advocate for it!
I take it these things are only "really simple and obvious" when they support gun control, right?