Posted on 04/16/2006 5:33:39 AM PDT by Pharmboy
Two brothers who were shot defending their Brooklyn shop from a pair of stick-up men were busted for returning fire with an illegal handgun, police sources said. The gunfight erupted at 7:40 p.m. Friday when the two bandits, entered Vinnie's Style, a clothing boutique on Flatbush Avenue.
One of the pair allegedly fired a .45-caliber pistol when the brothers, Paul and Jacob Parris, refused to get down.
Both were charged with weapons possession when cops learned the Parris' used an unlicensed 9mm pistol in the shootout, sources said.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Thanks for completely misunderstanding and misrepresenting my post; I don't claim that specific rights are granted by God as some twisted theological doctrine with a scriptural basis as you infer. What I stated is not based on my original thoughts at all, it is based on statments by the Founding Fathers that they regarded certain principles as fundamental rights granted by virtue of being born as men with freewill created by God in His image: the right to own property, the right to defend that property with force if necessary... the latter gives rise to the derived right to keep and bear arms, without which defense of property against another so armed is not possible.
Common sense is indeed uncommon; but I don't thank God for any worldly nonsense... I do thank Him for the new covenant in Christ, His priceless gift of salvation through grace, for the blessings he has given to me and my congregation, and for the blessings He has bestowed upon my service and ministry to Him. If you read my tagline you may notice that I'm His slave... the slave of the Lamb. Unlike you, I do not believe that government should be used as a tool to control men. It should simply enforce the rights of men so they can exercise their God given freewill as long as they are not directly harming others; in this way they may either use that freedom to bring greater glory to God or to hasten their own destruction.
To me, that's the biggest danger about voting third party or staying home in November.
Cases like this used to be dropped. I'm afraid it now will be resolved like Ronald Dixon's case.
When I was a soldier serving my country carrying these weapons protecting the rule of law you didn't seem to want to keep me away from them
The right to bear arms is not infringed..
you simply have to comply with very simple laws to keep that right.
Lambslave comments:
"-- Sorry, but this is the most nonsensical post I've ever seen. A RIGHT --- can't be taken away by men.
How do you know something is a right?
By definition, if you have to comply with "simple laws" to "keep it" it is not a right, it is a privilege given by the government. --" -76-
Almondjoy rebuts:
Well that is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. God also has given us a RIGHT to murder, enslave, molest, among other things.
Joy, anyone who really imagines they have a right to "murder, enslave, molest" etc, is very disturbed. Say it isn't so..
That doesn't mean we should excerise that right.
Murdering , enslaving, or molesting your peers is criminal behavior, Joy. -- Under our Constitution, using due process, laws can be written and enforced that prevent you from behaving that way.
God didn't give us the RIGHT to own weapons... that was a man made creation.
Our inalienable rights to life, liberty, or property are self evident.
Weapons are property; -- and like other forms of property, reasonable regulations can be written concerning their use, but ownership itself cannot be prohibited/infringed.
God didn't send down an AK-47 in Moses hands... he sent down commandments saying Thou shall not kill.
Thou shall not ~murder~. ---- Men are endowed with the ability to make & possess AK-47's.
Well I believe and constitutional law in this country supports me that the RIGHT to bear arms is not infringed by keeping luntanics like you away from certain weapons and I thank God everyday that there is still some common sense left in this country... and when I say some.. I don't mean alot of it.
Dream on that you possess common sense about Constitutional law.
Where are these constitutional 'laws'? -- The ones that support you by saying: "-- the RIGHT to bear arms is not infringed by keeping lunatics like you away from certain weapons --"?
Can you give us a link?
Ummm, its most probable that the commandment states thou shalt not murder, rather than kill.
I don't know the post to which you are replying and I'm not commenting on that, just the translation.
"It is self defense if the perps body is across the threshold of the point of entry. If he falls backward outside drag em back in."
Your screen name is perfect for this type of advice. Are you seriously suggesting that physical evidence be altered? Mah Gawd, if he falls backward outside, let his sorry dead-ass carcass lie there where it falls. You start messing with evidence and no one will believe a damn thing you say. Don't mess with physical evidence. It may sound catchy, but it will cost you a load of pain.
I'm glad Rosa Parks did not have that attitude. If guns are outlawed altogether, should we simply turn them in without a fight?
The laws we are discussing on this thread have to do with New York City's laws which prevent EVERYONE from owning any sort of firearm. Why do you support such laws? Because the majority of New Yorkers are minorities?
You're on the wrong site. Try democraticunderground.com -- you will be welcome over there.
You've obviously redefined the word right beyond any currently held meaning.
right n.
1. That which is just, morally good, legal, proper, or fitting...
6. Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature. Something, especially humane treatment, claimed to be due to animals by moral principle.
7. A just or legal claim or title.
Well that is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Yep.
The laws have already been established and supported by the Supreme Court. That's where I find my authority to claim that it's already been established in law.
At which point I, a legal upstanding citizen of this great nation, will then become an outlaw.
Nice attitude.. ok so by your definition you would find it acceptable for the next Rosa Parks to defy abortion laws?
No of course not.. because to you abortion is murder right? Opposed to someone who doesn't believe in God and therefore doesn't see abortion as murder.
Or do you champion Polygamists who said that have a God given right to marry as many women as they want.. some as little as 14? Would you compare them to Rosa Parks?
Rosa Parks quest for equality was a cause all of us should champion. Her breaking the law to get that equality was a direct violation of God's law for us all to obey the laws of a government.
Cannot a government give you a right to murder?
So again your basis for law is with the government.
Sorry but the definition of right still fits the bill.
Does this mean you have finally found something to like about Texas? We are neighbors.
Yes, friendly neighbors!
Yes, friendly neighbors!
Mt Springs is nice.
Dream on that you possess common sense about Constitutional law.
Where are these constitutional 'laws'? -- The ones that support you by saying: "-- the RIGHT to bear arms is not infringed by keeping lunatics like you away from certain weapons --"?
Can you give us a link?
The laws have already been established and supported by the Supreme Court. That's where I find my authority to claim that it's already been established in law.
Can you admit that the USSC supports a LOT of unconstitutional laws?
Are you claiming that every law they support, -- you support?
Are you aware that one of the goals of this site is to restore support for the 2nd Amendment, as written, -- not as it is erroneously "supported" by the court ?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.