More fun in Iowa... More crazy Bills

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by geekgirl, Feb 11, 2011.

  1. geekgirl macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    #1
    (here's a place to discuss and post new proposed bills in the Iowa Legislature)

    New madness in the Iowa House:

    Is 'no retreat' gun law needed?

    Nice. There's no way this would end badly, right?
     
  2. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #2
    Of course not, everyone with a gun is always responsible. :rolleyes:

    we need some sort of gun control laws, either use the second amendment to force everyone with a gun to have training in the militia, or the National guard since that's what the original militias turned into, or replace the second amendment with something that makes more sense. We don't need guns for everyone.
     
  3. guzhogi macrumors 68030

    guzhogi

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Location:
    Wherever my feet take me…
    #3
    I can understand the need & want to protect yourself & others, I feel people should getting training on guns and use them responsibly. If someone attacks you and you accidentally shoot someone else, you should be held responsible.

    Plus, I could see a situation where a cop or other law enforcement official is in plain clothes and is chasing after a criminal. What happens if you see this and think the cop is the bad guy chasing an innocent person? Your first instinct might be to shoot the cop.

    I just don't think there is a perfect solution for this. There are so many situations & variables, it's too difficult to just gloss this over.
     
  4. Andeavor macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    #4
    Let's just give everyone a gun and end this debate. Shoot whomever you (dis)like, do self-justice and live your life in fear, it's not like God wants you to behave like a gun-toting moron to brag about how many evil people you defended yourself against once you go to heaven.

    *sigh*
     
  5. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #5
    oddly enough I think that is a good law to have on the books. Last thing we need is a criminals having the right to sue who they attack.
    My though on it is as soon as you attack someone you have lost all your rights (including your right to live) until after the attack is over.
     
  6. StruckANerve macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Location:
    Rio Rancho, NM
    #6
    I am in full support of any law that gives a victim more power than a criminal.
    "Duty to Retreat" is a disgusting concept.
     
  7. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #7
    You don't support the right to defend yourself from 'serious injury or death' without fear of being sued or thrown in jail? Fascinating. :eek:
     
  8. OutThere macrumors 603

    OutThere

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Location:
    NYC
    #8
    .
     
  9. guzhogi macrumors 68030

    guzhogi

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Location:
    Wherever my feet take me…
    #9
    I agree wholeheartedly. That's one reason I don't like street gangs. Gang A kills a member of Gang B, then Gang B retaliates & kills a member of Gang A. Gang A retaliates against Gang B's retaliation, and so forth. And it gets even worse if during the retaliations, a member of Gang C gets killed, bringing Gang C into the fight. I just wish these guys would cut their losses and learn to cooperate.
     
  10. StruckANerve macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Location:
    Rio Rancho, NM
    #10
    So when some guy tries to rob me at gunpoint I should just smile and give him a hug?:confused:
     
  11. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #11
    You realize that that link is 100% completely irrelevant to the issue at hand, right? You realize that MLK Jr. was talking about violent protesting, etc. vs his own policies of peaceful techniques for political causes. These comments have nothing to do with self-defense.
     
  12. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #12
    Good God. This has NOTHING to do with gang wars. This has to do with an Iowa Citizen's right to defend themselves against 'serious injury or death' without legal retribution.
     
  13. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #13
    There has to be a balance.

    Why do concealed carry permit holders recieve no training in actually using a firearm in self defense? Most states require only cursory firearms safety training, or none at all.

    I don't think such laws should be enacted unless they also introduce legislation that would change the concealed carry permitting process to require the completion of training in the use of firearms similar to that given to armed guards and policemen.

    One thing is definitely true about this law. It will result in more shootings, justifiable or otherwise.
     
  14. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #14
    The government is not your end-all be-all master of all things. I don't need the government to tell me what to eat, what to drink, whether or not I can own a gun... why is it that big government advocates think that everything in this world is better off with some form of government getting its greasy fingers all mixed up in everything? The government has to get it's fingers in everything. Here's a crazy idea - let us live our lives, let us do what we want unless we infringe the rights or damage the property of someone else.

     
  15. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #15
    even under a law like that that type of stuff will fall under gang violence and that is an entire another matter and they can still press charges.
     
  16. guzhogi, Feb 11, 2011
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2011

    guzhogi macrumors 68030

    guzhogi

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Location:
    Wherever my feet take me…
    #16
    Actually, I was referring to the Martin Luther King, Jr. post regarding how violence often breeds more violence. I used gang wars as an example of that. I agree people should have a right to defend themselves without legal retribution. But what if someone attacks you and you shoot them. As justifiable as that may be, wouldn't some of the friends & family members of the guy who attacked you want revenge?

    While guns do make it easier to stop people from harming you, there are other ways to defend yourself. Examples may be self defense if someone attacks you. If someone breaks into your home and tries to rape, murder or do other kind of harm to you, you can also have a security system in your house that calls the police. There are many non-lethal forms of defense out there. And as you said, the law is help you defend yourself without legal retribution, not necessarily kill your attacker.

    I'll admit, I have a really weird sense of logic that allows me to connect two seemingly random things. Even I don't understand myself sometimes, but please at least allow me to explain myself and how I got to my conclusions before you berate me. Thank you.


    I agree, training on firearms, imo, will cut down accidental shootings, and eventually some retaliatory shootings.

    I'd like a smaller government too. However, for that to happen, I feel that people would need to take better responsibility for their actions. Don't forget, many of these government regulations were put in for a reason. You may not always agree with them, but they were necessary for something. You wouldn't want a person who knows nothing about guns or someone who would use a gun maliciously to have one, right? What would you do to fix this problem?
     
  17. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #17
    You seriously disagree with the notion that those with a gun should be trained in the proper handling of one? That is somehow an over reach? I call it common sense. It doesn't interfere with the right of gun ownership at all.
     
  18. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #18
    What's wrong with getting the kinds of training that police or armed guards get? Wouldn't that make people carrying firearms more likely to use them safetly and less likely to make mistakes? I don't understand why you feel justified in rejecting such an idea out of hand.

    At some point you have to stop focusing on this eternal "the Gummint can't tell me what to do" monolgue and actually look at the merit of a proposal. Not all liberals are against gun ownership or even concealed carry. But your position on how it should be legislated is so extreme you just refuse to look for common ground. You are selfishly unwilling to even talk compromise.
     
  19. OutThere macrumors 603

    OutThere

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Location:
    NYC
    #19
    You see no possible way that MLK's discussion of violence could be at all relevant to our discussion of violence? Sure, his argument was made in the context of social movements, but if you can't look at the quote, think about it and apply it to this context, you're writing it off without making much of a mental effort. To be expected, I guess, from a constitutional literalist.
     
  20. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #20
    States (notice, not feds, even though they could probably find some way to justify it via a liberal reading of the commerce clause) have the complete right to require this type of training if they wish. I do not in any way deny them this authority as it is clearly theirs for the taking.

    I would however suggest that just like we don't require safety classes to own a knife, or to operate an acetolyne torch, that it's likely unnecessary and unproductive in most cases. I would personally suggest that common sense, optional classes, people taking personal responsibility instead of 'expecting someone to tell them what they need to know' or 'expecting other people to keep them safe' would generally do a better job would likely do a better job of preventing accidents than government mandated eduction.

    I refuse the assumption others make that simply throwing money and a new government program/regulation at something will make it better, or that it's better for society as a whole. I know that if we were given a better chance to be responsible for ourselves with less government intrusion we'd be far better off in the long run. People rely too much on government... every time you give government more control you lose a bit of liberty so you had be pretty darn sure it's worth it, because you'll never get it back.
     
  21. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #21
    You'd seriously oppose something like a 2 hour safety class?
     
  22. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #22
    "Context Matters" perhaps we should tie his quote to the sport of boxing? That would be equally relevant applying it to self-defense.
     
  23. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #23
    Yep. I own a gun. I wasn't forced to take a class. I took one anyway for free at my local shooting range. Today, I enjoy shooting on a regular basis, we're safe and have a lot of fun... and imagine that... with no help from the government! They didn't need to tell me where to shoot, how to shoot, why to shoot, when to shoot. I figured it all out on my own!
     
  24. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #24
    Yes, it does.

    Being able to learn the point of something, then compare it to something else is the very basis of comprehension and knowledge.
     
  25. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #25
    Congrats!

    I was able to drive a car without killing anyone from age 14, yet I was still required to take classes. Damn government. :rolleyes:
     

Share This Page