Gun control debate (merged)

#25,928
#25,928
Best anaylsis of Ralph Yarl case I have seen....

https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1vOxwMVRXLoGB


Beginning at 11:45 in video the attorney gives Missouri law on self defense. Missouri law states that such deadly force can be used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, OR ATTEMPTS TO UNLAWFULLY ENTER a dwelling, residence or vehicle lawfuly occupied by such person.

27:35 a witness tho't it was odd their elderly neighbor would have a visitor this late (10 pm) at night. It would be also odd for Mr Lester therefore he would go to his door at 10pm with a gun having no trespassing signs posted. Mr Lester believed someone was attempting to break into his house because someone was banging on his door forcefully enough that Lester's neighbor could even hear the banging inside his own home.

32:27 county prosecutor Thompson said Lester shot Yarl through the door without Yarl crossing threshhold of his home and there was a racial component. Again Missouri law says deadly force can be used if one ATTEMPTS TO UNLAWFULLY ENTER and there was no racial component in Lester's statement to the police.


36:35 Merritt, who is Yarl's attorney, said Lester shot Yarl when Yarl rang the doorbell of the home where he thought his twin brother lived and that words were exchanged between Lester and Yarl with Lester telling Yarl not to come around here any more. Yet the county prosecutor Thompson gave a different account from Merritt saying the probable cause statement does not indicate words were exchanged and whether Yarl rang the doorbell "may be in dispute". Nothing in the charging documents says the shooting was racially motivated Thompson clarified.

51:30 Lester stated he saw a large 6 foot tall black male pulling on his exterior door handle. Obviously the liberal media and Yarl's attorneys are trying to bias the mind of the general population with propaganda before all facts get out.

Good listen.
 
Last edited:
#25,929
#25,929
KB5252 said:
Because "fair" is subjective. Too many people think they deserve or are entitled to something just for being and it seems to be getting worse.

I've always tried to provide the best I can for my daughter, I've instilled respect for others, self and hard work. She rarely asks for anything. She wants a job at 16 because she wants to be self sufficient, she says she doesn't like to ask us for things. She's seen us struggle recently, that's the part that both cuts me as father but also makes me proud.

I'm afraid too many have passed along hopelessness and created a generation of nihilists.
Click to expand...
Congrats on raising what appears to be a great daughter. We have a shortage of kids being raised appropriately.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol
#25,930
#25,930
Jxn Vol said:
$30-$60
Click to expand...
Link? I think I have a little room in my arsenal. You never know when a bear or zombie will be in need of a g good lobotomy. Prob have to come out of the slush fund... not sure Mrs. KD will understand the need for a blade like that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#25,931
#25,931
kiddiedoc said:
Link? I think I have a little room in my arsenal. You never know when a bear or zombie will be in need of a g good lobotomy. Prob have to come out of the slush fund... not sure Mrs. KD will understand the need for a blade like that.
Click to expand...
There are several on Ebay. I typed in Zombie Headsplitter Machete. I’m thinking 1 for the truck and 1 for the garage.
 
#25,932
#25,932
86% of crime between black and white people is black people commiting crimes against white people. That’s why the Ralph Yarl story being so big is crazy. Yet there’s a ton of Christian/Newsome’s out there that the media will never mention
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, davethevol and volgr
#25,933
#25,933
jmacvols1 said:
Best anaylsis of Ralph Yarl case I have seen....

https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1vOxwMVRXLoGB


Beginning at 11:45 in video the attorney gives Missouri law on self defense. Missouri law states that such deadly force can be used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, OR ATTEMPTS TO UNLAWFULLY ENTER a dwelling, residence or vehicle lawfuly occupied by such person.

27:35 a witness tho't it was odd their elderly neighbor would have a visitor this late (10 pm) at night. It would be also odd for Mr Lester therefore he would go to his door at 10pm with a gun having no trespassing signs posted. Mr Lester believed someone was attempting to break into his house because someone was banging on his door forcefully enough that Lester's neighbor could even hear the banging inside his own home.

32:27 county prosecutor Thompson said Lester shot Yarl through the door without Yarl crossing threshhold of his home and there was a racial component. Again Missouri law says deadly force can be used if one ATTEMPTS TO UNLAWFULLY ENTER and there was no racial component in Lester's statement to the police.


36:35 Merritt, who is Yarl's attorney, said Lester shot Yarl when Yarl rang the doorbell of the home where he thought his twin brother lived and that words were exchanged between Lester and Yarl with Lester telling Yarl not to come around here any more. Yet the county prosecutor Thompson gave a different account from Merritt saying the probable cause statement does not indicate words were exchanged and whether Yarl rang the doorbell "may be in dispute". Nothing in the charging documents says the shooting was racially motivated Thompson clarified.

51:30 Lester stated he saw a large 6 foot tall black male pulling on his exterior door handle. Obviously the liberal media and Yarl's attorneys are trying to bias the mind of the general population with propaganda before all facts get out.

Good listen.
Click to expand...

The whole thing sounds like an accident blown out of proportion. Luckily, it seems like the kid will survive.

When there arent enough actual stories to feed the racial narrative, ones like this have to blown out of proportion to help feed the narrative.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jmacvols1
#25,934
#25,934
McDad said:
Sorry, Bill. The constitution cannot be amended via national referendum.
Click to expand...
The entire notion is just bananas.

But he’s not even talking about a national referendum. He’s talking about State & Local governments holding referendums and having people vote on the constitution.

Could you imagine large swaths of the country voting on Freedom of Religion, and then what the State sponsored religion would be? Holy moly.
 
#25,935
#25,935
85SugarVol said:
The entire notion is just bananas.

But he’s not even talking about a national referendum. He’s talking about State & Local governments holding referendums and having people vote on the constitution.

Could you imagine large swaths of the country voting on Freedom of Religion, and then what the State sponsored religion would be? Holy moly.
Click to expand...

I have zero problem with States voting to ban guns. I didnt like the SCOTUS overturning NY gun laws. Federal Bill of Rights were only supposed to apply to the General Govt, not States.
 
#25,938
#25,938
volgr said:
I have zero problem with States voting to ban guns. I didnt like the SCOTUS overturning NY gun laws. Federal Bill of Rights were only supposed to apply to the General Govt, not States.
Click to expand...


So no Second Amendment against state government decisions? Tennessee could pass a law banning possession of guns and the 2A does not prevent it?

As much as I loathe the easy the 2A is misinterpreted and abused by the NRA and others, I have to say I think you are mistaken.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kiddiedoc
#25,939
#25,939
lawgator1 said:
So no Second Amendment against state government decisions? Tennessee could pass a law banning possession of guns and the 2A does not prevent it?

As much as I loathe the easy the 2A is misinterpreted and abused by the NRA and others, I have to say I think you are mistaken.
Click to expand...

Originally the constitution only applied to the federal government. That’s what he’s talking about. So it was not originally applied to state or local decisions.

Even then, our constitution in TN is pretty clear.

Edit: I’m not sure how a lawyer doesn’t understand that
 
  • Like
Reactions: volgr
#25,941
#25,941
lawgator1 said:
So no Second Amendment against state government decisions? Tennessee could pass a law banning possession of guns and the 2A does not prevent it?

As much as I loathe the easy the 2A is misinterpreted and abused by the NRA and others, I have to say I think you are mistaken.
Click to expand...

TN Constitution has its own second amendment (actually Section 26 in the Declaration of Rights) Why? Because the Federal Bill or Rights didnt apply to States.
 
#25,943
#25,943
volgr said:
TN Constitution has its own second amendment (actually Section 26 in the Declaration of Rights) Why? Because the Federal Bill or Rights didnt apply to States.
Click to expand...
The Bill of Rights (and amendments) dictate the rights guaranteed by the Federal Government. States are given the power to decide other rights and laws not strictly dictated by the Constitution.

I'm not sure where you guys are coming up with this nonsense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, VOLinAL, 85SugarVol and 1 other person
#25,944
#25,944
kiddiedoc said:
The Bill of Rights (and amendments) dictate the rights guaranteed by the Federal Government. States are given the power to decide other rights and laws not strictly dictated by the Constitution.

I'm not sure where you guys are coming up with this nonsense.
Click to expand...

So why do most State Constitutions have a declaration of rights that overlap those in the Bill of Rights? For example a right to bear arms.

You are wrong on this. Read ratification debates. Read the Madison's notes during the Constitutional Convention.
 
#25,945
#25,945
85SugarVol said:
Uh huh.

Their “common sense” proposal is to remove the intimidating writing down the side of the blade.

Wonder what their subsequent “common sense” proposal will be when that doesn’t work 🤔
Click to expand...
Well, who would ever think to split a head with it if head splitter wasn’t written on it?
 
#25,946
#25,946
volgr said:
So why do most State Constitutions have a declaration of rights that overlap those in the Bill of Rights? For example a right to bear arms.

You are wrong on this. Read ratification debates. Read the Madison's notes during the Constitutional Convention.
Click to expand...
What part of "shall not be infringed" am I misinterpreting?
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#25,950
#25,950
  • Like
Reactions: CagleMtnVol, InVOLuntary, joevol33 and 1 other person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top