Why should gun rights trump common sense?

[SecularMotion]

The gun rally held at our state capitol last month, and around the country in other state capitols, shows once again the disconnect that the radicals have with the rest of our country. The national polls show a majority of Americans favor sensible gun laws. So, what is the problem?

Begin with the NRA and its radical leadership. And who profits from their propaganda?

Gun manufacturers, of course. Here are five of the NRA’s biggest gun industry backers who have contributed $1 million or higher. They include the biggest financial contributor — MidwayUSA, a distributor of high-capacity magazines, but also oil and gas company Clayton Williams Energy, Inc. Other gun industry donors include Beretta USA Corporation, Pierce Bullet Seal Target Systems, LLC, and Springfield Armory, Inc.

The NRA does not represent its members who overwhelmingly support sensible controls. Their allegiance should be to its members but if you follow the money, you will clearly see that they are the mouthpiece for those profiting from unregulated gun laws.

http://abetteriowa.desmoinesregister.com/2014/02/05/mcmahon-why-should-gun-rights-trump-common-sense/

[Boom Sound 416]

1. If folks who show up at a gun rally

Are radicals, then what are war protesters? Or any other civil display

[Eleanors38]

2. Gun controllers regularly preach bans & a potpourri of disconnected restrictions...

they don't speak for most Americans.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. Gun rights are common sense.

See how easy it is to play stupid rhetorical games.

[Surf Fishing Guru]

4. Midway is the leader because . . .

they participate in the "round-up" program. CUSTOMERS choose to round-up the change total of their order and those quarters, dimes, nickels and pennies go to the NRA.

MidwayUSA Customer Round-Up: $9,708,298.29

Since 1992, we have asked Customers to Round-Up the total of each order and donate the change to the NRA/ILA. We send these donations to the NRA/ILA National Endowment for the Protection of the 2nd Amendment. The NRA/ILA doesn't spend your money - they only spend the interest from it - so the Endowment continues to grow each year.

Total Endowment Balance: $11,916,473.75

[Lizzie Poppet]

5. Obviously they shouldn't.

Fortunately, they don't.

Gun rights in no way conflict with genuinely "sensible" gun control regulations.

[Straw Man]

6. Calling MidwayUSA a "distrbutor of high-capacity magazines" ...

... is like calling Wal-Mart a "distributor of birth control."

[beevul]

7. Justice Robert H. Jackson has the answer.

“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”

Justice Robert H. Jackson of the Supreme Court 1943

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. Nice quote. I like that.

[SecularMotion]

9. Another quote from Justice Jackson

No liberty is made more secure by holding that its abuses are inseparable from its enjoyment…The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact….

Justice Robert H. Jackson of the Supreme Court 1949

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

10. I like this quote from Joseph Story:

"On the Right to Arms of Military Utility and the 2nd Amendment The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

[Token Republican]

11. Why should irrational fears trump constiutionally protected rights?

Weasel words right back at ya OP.

Instead of the merry go round, how about the OP state what guns s/he believes are permitted, and specify exactly what reasonable laws should be enacted, and we'll go from there.

[SecularMotion]

12. Like a moth to a flame

Enjoy your stay

[Token Republican]

13. I will

Thanks!

[oneshooter]

14. Why don't you answer.

It seems a perfectly reasonable request/question.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

15. To quote John Fogerty

"...Ooh, they only answer More! more! more!"

[SecularMotion]

16. Define "reasonable"

[oneshooter]

17. So it is not "reasonable" to ask your opinion?

Not "reasonable" to open a discussion with you?

Not "reasonable" to ask for your opinion on the matter under discussion?

Not "reasonable" to expect, on a discussion board, discussion?

[SecularMotion]

18. Let me know when you're ready to give a definition.

I'll be waiting.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

20. Are you ever going to be ready to explain how

you think the US government deliberately murdered 3,000 citizens but you simultaneously want all citizens to be disarmed?

[SecularMotion]

21. When you can provide a link to prove I made that claim, I'll give you an answer.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

26. I know you bleat quite a bit about people accepting the "official story."

My mistake if I assumed it was anything more than just bleating.

[SecularMotion]

28. So you can't provide a link?

I'll be waiting for your apology.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

31. Apologize for what? Perhaps you can provide a link to what you actually believe.

Or you can state it here.

[SecularMotion]

32. I wouldn't waste my time.

You'd only twist and distort my opinion to try to fit your delusions of what liberals actually believe.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

33. THERE IT IS!

Why are you so embarrassed by what you believe? Even if I did try and distort what you say you would still be on record as making your own case for everyone else to read in your own words. I have no ability to overcome that. However, if you do NOT state your case then I can characterize what you say -- or don't say -- however I choose.

Hmmmm.

Case in point: You're posting threads about some guy who claims to be a former CIA pilot and investigating 9/11 as an inside job being found dead. Now, if you're NOT a 9/11 troofer it seems odd you would peddle such bilge because non-troofers consider such bilge to be -- well -- bilge.

Maybe you're not a troofer but so far you have chosen to evade explaining your position. Are you embarrassed? Evasive so you can't be pinned down? Simply trolling? Who knows? We're left to decide for ourselves.

[SecularMotion]

34. Stick to making your own opinions.

You're doing a lousy job of trying to state mine.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

35. Thanks. I so enjoy irony.

[SecularMotion]

36. See post #32

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

39. No thanks but...

...see post #35.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

61. You refuse to state your opinion -- in addition to the fact you do nothing else besides

making inflammatory posts. That pretty much is the definition of a troll.

[SecularMotion]

63. If my posts upset you so much, please put me on ignore and stop disrupting threads.

[SecularMotion]

72. I've had enough of your stalking and harassment.

I'm taking this matter to the admins.

[HALO141]

94. LMAO

Just when I thought I couldn't have any less respect for you, you go and prove me wrong.

You adamantly refuse to state your own opinion, thereby saving yourself the admittedly futile task of trying to defend it. At the same time you carpet bomb the thread with articles from hoplophobic ideologues and take pointless pot shots at anyone who disputes them. You sanctimoniously declare that if someone doesn't provide you with a link to one of those same ideologues that supports their arguments then they are right wingers. That sounds to me like a personal attack but evidently no one else feels the need to cry to the admins.

You were asked fair and valid questions. What do YOU think should be banned? What laws would YOU define as "reasonable?"

[SecularMotion]

95. This account has been dormant for some time. Is it a sock puppet?

[HALO141]

96. it's been dormant because I was busy elsewhere.

[SecularMotion]

97. And your first post upon returning

is to take an ongoing conflict out of context and use it to mount a personal attack against me.

I'm not buying it.

[HALO141]

98. Whatever, dude.

I really don't give a shit what you "buy."

[oneshooter]

24. The truth, is that enough for you?

[SecularMotion]

29. You're being evasive.

[oneshooter]

38. Hows this then.

reasonable
  Use Reasonable in a sentence
rea·son·a·ble
[ree-zuh-nuh-buhl, reez-nuh-] Show IPA
adjective
1.
agreeable to reason or sound judgment; logical: a reasonable choice for chairman.
2.
not exceeding the limit prescribed by reason; not excessive: reasonable terms.
3.
moderate, especially in price; not expensive: The coat was reasonable but not cheap.
4.
endowed with reason.
5.
capable of rational behavior, decision, etc.

[SecularMotion]

40. Here's your answer

The irrational fears that drives gun owners' need to carry lethal weapons in public does not trump the constitutionally protected right to not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Trayvon Martin, Jordan Davis, and Chad Oulson were all deprived of their lives without due process of law. All were executed by carriers of concealed weapons acting under the mistaken belief that their acts were justified by their perverted interpretations of Florida's Stand Your Ground law.

[gejohnston]

41. what does TM have to do with SYG or the

other two? Since Zimmerman had no ability to retreat, it didn't matter if Florida had SYG or DTR/

[Token Republican]

43. Zimmerman

A lot of people think that had FL not had SYG, Zimmerman would not have acted so aggressively in the first place. I think that's the reasoning behind the SYG claim.

[proudretiredvet]

45. I think a lot of things

But I'm not so arrogant that I believe that my thoughts trump existing laws or prevailing SCOTUS decisions.

[gejohnston]

46. there is no evidence of that

SYG or DTR only matters when and if there is immediate treat to life or grave bodily harm. According to the Neighborhood Watch coordinator, he did everything within the bounds, including getting out of the vehicle to answer the NEN operator's question about which direction TM was running. She said so under oath in court.

[proudretiredvet]

44. Don't confuse the poster with facts he knows how he thinks it should have been.

So that just has to be the truth. because they said so.....

[Token Republican]

42. Thank you

Thank you for your answer. While your legal claims are not exactly correct, legalities are really secondary as your underlying goal itself is acknowledged and commendable. Reason and logic should dictate policy, and policy should guide laws, not the other way around.

I find that when there is a disagreement, being able to state the other side's position is often a useful starting point. To that end, I understand your position to be simply that the cost of carrying weapons in public costs more lives than it saves. Is this correct, and are there any other reasons you'd like to add?

[proudretiredvet]

47. and you are trumped by the SCOTUS.

Since what I do is legal, and is one of my rights in the bill of rights and under the second amendment of our constitution, and because not one of my guns have ever done murder or accidentally hurt anyone, I will not and do not take the responsibility or the guilt for any or all of the other undefined incidents that you infer, or vaguely refer to.
Facts are usually a friend in a discussion. I have a few books full. Let us go there.

[Token Republican]

49. I don't disagree

And we probably agree on the 2A issues and then some.

I'm trying to understand how the other side thinks in a calm and rational discussion.

Of course, a half republican posting on a democratic board in a 2A group hosted by a site that is opposed to guns probably isn't the most promising ways to go about it, but what the heck.

[proudretiredvet]

51. Your a half republican and I'm a moderate democrat.

And we are both still here. Amazing.

[Token Republican]

55. It is amazing

but in a good way.

I'm still recovering from the shock from learning that website that calls itself progressive has nothing to do with Flo.

[img][/img]

[SecularMotion]

52. And thank you as well for a reasoned response devoid of NRA talking points.

I have no problem with carrying weapons in public as long as the carrier has a proven track record of responsible gun use and safe handling of firearms. I do have a problem with the gun lobby's push to lower the threshold to obtain carry permits and weaken the laws on the use of lethal force by civilians. This creates a danger to public safety that outweighs the benefits of civilians carrying weapons.

Please point out where my "legal claims are not exactly correct." I'd appreciate your evaluation.

[Token Republican]

54. Good points

The current polarization of firearms is pushing both sides. As the saying goes, where you stand depends on where you sit, and from my seat the current push to expand carry laws is a direct result of over zealous people who are pushing for a slow but gradual ban on all firearms. Not everyone who supports gun laws falls into the category, but enough do so that there is zero credibility remaining, at least from where I sit. I'm sure you see things different, hence this discussion.

Lets use your example; that carrying in public should have a proven track record of responsible use and safe handling. That's actually a very reasonable position which I would support. If the political environment were different, such an approach might actually work. For example, allow different classes of licenses, all of which would be a "shall issue" based on objective standards that apply to everyone. Such licenses would be for both long guns and handguns. Possessing a valid license would be an easy way to check that the owner is not a prohibited person. In fact, it would eliminate the need for a background check as well as the prohibition on sales across state lines. True, illegal sales could be made, but they can just as easily be made under existing laws. The advantage of having an actual license though is it would be much easier to enforce restrictions.

Likewise for handguns, using a model like driver's licenses could exist. A learner's permit for range use and learning. A home license, a full carry. Using a point system for violations could be a way to help reduce the issues of safety too.

Unfortunately, there is zero discussion on any approach such as this. Instead, the focus is on pistol grips, the manufacturing weight of new guns, or other arbitrary features that can change at a whim. The same goes for magazine size too, I bet you don't know the back story behind why 10 rounds came to be the magic number. Back in the 80s, Bill Ruger made the famous statement of no honest man needs more than 10 rounds and any size larger should be banned. What is not commonly known is Ruger's products at the time were largely 10 rounders, and they were facing declining sales to the newer firearms that held more. A ban on 11+ rounders would have been a great way to protect Ruger's sales. The gun control side took that statement and ran with it, and the rest is history.

Anyway, back to your post. The problem with existing carry laws is carry permits are often handed out as political favors to connected people. I can provide links if you like. Those advocating few carry permits would be well suited to also advocate for equal application of the restrictions.

To anyone else reading who is pro 2A, I am intentionally omitting all 2A arguments and SCOTUS rulings which I am well aware of. I'm trying to focus on policy to get a deeper understanding on the effects of existing law.

[SecularMotion]

58. I agree that a tiered licensing system is reasonable regulation.

They are zealots on both sides of the issue and we shouldn't allow them to drown out rational discussion. Having a honest discussion with the denizens of the gungeon is like discussing the healthcare issue with teabaggers at a town hall meeting. They are only here to disrupt and obstruct any rational discussion. They are brainwashed by NRA propaganda just like teabaggers are brainwashed by talk radio propaganda.

I'm disappointed to see you're already retreating to the NRA position against "may" issue. The fact that there are abuses to all laws in our legal system doesn't mean we discard the laws. The answer is to develop systems to insure the law is applied fairly. We can do this through review boards for oversight and handling of grievances.

[Token Republican]

59. Shall versus May

I think you have a different understanding of shall issue versus may issue.

Shall issue doesn't mean that every nut job gets a carry license no questions asked. It means there is one set of standards that apply to everyone and anyone who meets those standards obtains a license.

May issue means there are no objective standards, its a two tier approach. Step one is to meet the objective standards and the second tier is a license is granted upon the discretion of the licensing agency.

By way of example, take driver's licenses. They would be considered shall issue, as if certain defined standards are met, you get a driver's license. If driver's licenses were may issue, then you'd still have to have to take the written test, get a learner's permit, and take a road test. If you pass the road test, then it would be up to the DMV to determine if you have good cause to drive, with the underlying assumption that the availability of public transportation is sufficient to deny a driver's license.

I think the real key you are making though is what those objective standards should be.

Your claim of having review boards and oversight already exists and has failed. It is currently 100% impossible for me to get a carry license under any shape manner or form. Not because of anything I've done, but because of where I live. There is a 99.999999% denial rate of carry except for those with connections. A few counties over, I would be granted a carry license. This pattern has been challenged and upheld, so I'm not exactly sure how you think a system of favoritism could be remedied.

[SecularMotion]

64. Until we have stricter licensing standards in place "may" issue should be method to issue permits.

It would take more than your anecdote to convince me that "may" issue is too unfair and should be discarded.

[Token Republican]

66. Ugg

I hate weasel words on both sides. Stricter, common sense, natural rights, NRA talking points, gun grabbers. All meaningless.

It will be much more useful to specify what you mean by stricter. The word by itself is empty, as what is strict for you is different than what is strict for someone else.

Its more important for this discussion that we use words that have the same meaning to us, as it helps foster a useful dialogue. I think we do with shall and may.

And I wasn't trying to convince you of anything. It is possible to understand a concept even if you don't agree with it.

[SecularMotion]

67. I mean stricter as in the tiered licensing system you endorsed in your previous post.

[Token Republican]

69. Go on please

What do you think is a reasonable tiered licensing system? What objective standards would you employ. Assume for discussion you could replace all may issues with an objective shall issue based on your standards. What would those standards be?

Its easy to say strict, but the key is the details.

[SecularMotion]

71. From your previous post

Lets use your example; that carrying in public should have a proven track record of responsible use and safe handling. That's actually a very reasonable position which I would support.

Ex-military or law enforcement have a history on record that would prove they are capable of responsible public carry. All other civilians would need a clean public record and endorsement from a public official.

[Token Republican]

73. Ok

Some thoughts.

Military have training to use weapons but not normally in civilian peacetime settings. But assuming your right, if the same level of training was available to civilians, would that also be a qualifier?

What exactly do you mean by a clean public record. Again, weasel words are the enemy here. Do you mean no violent felony convictions? no felony convictions? no misdemeanor convictions? no non criminal violations? no arrests? Would any of these transgressions be time barred, ie - would a minor misdemeanor conviction from 20 or 30 years ago but spotless otherwise be sufficient?

And what exactly do you mean by public official? Public officials who can be bought and sold? What about public officials who are pro 2A, how exactly would that do anything. Technically a public notary is a public official too.

Can a public official decline to give an endorsement without reason? If so, then we're back to the discretionary may issue standard which is exactly what your proposal is trying to avoid.

I see where you are going, but you need to think it through a little more.

[SecularMotion]

75. We're not writing legislation here

If you'd like to continue this discussion, I'd suggest not getting bogged down in details and stick to broad subjects for now. As far as a clean public record, I'll leave that up to the officials issuing the permit to judge.

It seems you have a great distrust of government and public officials to perform their duties in a fair manner. I don't share that distrust. The system works well with proper checks and balance in place along with methods to address grievances.

[Token Republican]

76. That's a may issue

If the officials issuing a permit judge, then by definition its a may issue.

If you support may issue instead of shall issue, that's fine, but getting the terms backwards does nothing to further a discussion.

Bogged down in details? The system works? Orlly?

Would you support this system for exercising a right?

Submit application to exercise a right. Let make it voting right to see if you agree.
Wait 10 months
Submit 2 to 4 character references
Be finger printed, undergo a year long additional background check
Undergo a personal interview. Have your spouse interviewed. Have your employer interviewed
Wait another 12 months
Upon passing the background check, still be denied based upon the discretion of the agency because of a minor incident from 10 years ago.

Have challenges to this system be upheld as a reasonable means of preventing voting fraud.

Swap carry for voting and now you have the existing system for many may issue states.

I don't expect this to change your mind, I write this for the benefit of anyone else who may be reading this thread.

[SecularMotion]

77. If you're trying to equate voting rights with issuing permits for public carry of a weapon.

it's time to end this discussion.

[Token Republican]

78. Okey dokey

Bye

[blueridge3210]

79. I wonder

Which "public official" the OP would trust with determining who is to be trusted with a carry permit? Michelle Bachman? Rick Perry? Scott Walker? Just curious.

[oneshooter]

74. Retired LE can carry in all fifty states. Dunn was retired LE.

So where do the standards become "standard", without a federal license being involved?

[Token Republican]

60. Do you support repealing some laws?

Another aspect of real discussion involves the pro control side acknowledging there are ridiculous laws that do nothing and are not enforced due to their stupidity. Are there any laws that you are aware of that you feel should be repealed?

For discussion, I offer USC 922 r.

This little nugget is the height of absurdity.

922 r as I understand it says owning a foreign made semi auto gun is acceptable. However, if any parts are replaced, originals must be used. Using non original parts is a felony. An exception is made if you use 10 or more US made replacement parts, and then all is fine and dandy. There have been zero convictions and as far as I know, zero prosecutions under this law since it was enacted in the 1990s.

If you can justify exactly what this law does, and why its a crime to use 1 to 9 USA made replacement parts but 10 or more is ok, I'd love to hear it.

If you can't, would you be in support of repealing a law that you can't justify as part of a process of compromise?

922 R

Summary of 922 R

[SecularMotion]

65. I consider the discussion of the definition of an "assault weapon" to be a diversionary tactic

of the gun lobby and won't be dragged into that discussion.

I hope we can agree that there are weapons that should not be available to the general public and a line needs to be drawn that restricts the sale of such weapons.

[Token Republican]

68. Don't follow

I agree assault weapon is a diversionary tactic but that's from the control side. Actually, I find discussions of what are defined as assault weapons useful in understanding how much knowledge someone has on firearms. I'm not sure if that's what you're saying or if you are claiming its a diversion from the 2A side.

Edit to add: There's at least 10 to 20 definitions as to what is an assault weapon, so if they are brought up please specify what definition is being used.

If you want to leave this topic alone, I'm good with it, so long as you don't claim assault weapons should be banned as that begs the question what is an assault weapon.

In concept I agree that there are weapons that should not be available for civilian use. Most people do. But this is often where the discussion breaks down.

I'll discuss pretty much anything, so long as its polite and respectful. And I'll go one more step. I'll read or take any reasonable step you suggest to help me understand your viewpoints. It may not change my mind, but I'm always willing to test my views.

[Straw Man]

82. Don't you get tired of tap-dancing so hard?

I consider the discussion of the definition of an "assault weapon" to be a diversionary tactic

of the gun lobby and won't be dragged into that discussion

So you want to ban something without defining it?

The discussion you "won't be dragged into" is any one that makes you responsible for your rhetoric. You are practically a textbook definition of bad-faith argumentation.

[Token Republican]

84. Tap tap tap

So you want to ban something without defining it?

The discussion you "won't be dragged into" is any one that makes you responsible for your rhetoric. You are practically a textbook definition of bad-faith argumentation.

You gotta ban it to see what's in it!

[SQUEE]

92. Look man I don't know you,

but slamming former SoTH Pelosi, even off handed is not cool.
Makes me wonder....

[Token Republican]

93. No need to wonder

I've been very up front with where I'm coming from. My name was chosen in part to disclose this so I would not be considered a hidden troll. I've refrained from criticizing the left on this site, and focusing on areas where I do agree with democrats. The sole exception are my posts in the group, where dissent from the majority view does seem to be permitted.

I've been moving more and more away from the R side, and part of my reason being here is to see how much of a fit I am with the D side thinks, even on issues that I don't agree with. Sort of testing the waters, so to speak.

But no matter where I wind up, I will poke fun at all politicians, regardless of party affiliation, regardless if I voted for or against them. Always have and always will.

[SQUEE]

88. Since I can not ask in your own personal forum..

you say..."we shouldn't allow them to drown out rational discussion"
I ask you to explain how my measured and calm response, and querry in your very own group has led you to personaly ban me from said forum.
YOU sir drown out rational discusion, you post and run, you play hide and seek, you accuse a sizable portion of your own party, via veiled and cute phraseology, of not caring,and in fact reveling in bloodshed, but have never shown a whit of concern of the victims as you wave a bloody shirt, and yet have the temerity to blame me and others on this board of the vices you revel in.

Where is this discourse, this rational discussion you espouse, I will start a thread where you and can discuss this, and ask that only in depth multi paragraph answer are posted, I wager you will not accept.

[SecularMotion]

89. The Gun Control Reform Activism Group

is a safe haven for DU members who see the need for strong gun regulations as "settled science." You were blocked from the group for trying to start a debate over the need for Gun Control. The Gun Control & RKBA Group is open to all sides of the issue and is the place for those debates(both rational and irrational) to occur.

As far as having a rational discussion with you, I doubt that is possible from the hostility displayed in your comments. But if you take the time to set aside the NRA talking points and compose an OP that seeks common ground, I'm sure myself and others will join the discussion.

[Token Republican]

90. He's Right

Secular is right on the rules for the other group. Personally I think its limiting in many ways, but its their house their rules.

I had hoped that a more rational discussion could take place in this group so that both sides could actually learn a bit more from each other. I still hope that, but I doubt it.

Weasel words cause a lot of confusion, some use that to promote an agenda. Others truly don't see they only have a superficial grasp of basic concepts.

So we get lots of fluff arguments about NRA talking points, assault weapons, natural rights and from my cold dead hands.

And a round and a round she goes.

[SQUEE]

91. not at all, I asked how any common ground can be found

when all this is to you is a game and an oppurtunity to practice sophistry.
Hostilty? really.. and I am the delicate flower? there was no hostility, none. you won't engage because you can't, you have one goal on this forum, and that is not discourse, it is not change and your agenda shines out to anyone with a modicum of intellectual honesty. You do me and my "precious" such a service, you nakedly lay out the plans and dreams of your flock, and have not even the sense to know your enemy. And that is how you see me,YOUR enemy. I on the other hand am certain that aside from this issue, i share many goals and ideas with you. You can not look above my holster and give me the respect I deserve as a human being, I am merely a projection of your fears, and your bigotry and prejudice blinds you to all else

[Token Republican]

53. Legal Answers

Here's where your legal analysis is a little off, but I say that with the understanding that's a secondary issue for this discussion. The focus is on what the laws should be.

The restriction to depriving life, liberty or property is on the government, not the individuals. The constitution acts as a safeguard on the government only. Under the constitution, the federal government and individual states may pass criminal laws to punish and deter people from committing crimes.

The three people you mentioned were not deprived of life without due process. They were all killed by non government entities, and the individuals who killed them were or will be tried. Whether you like the results or not, each of the individuals who shot them had or will have their fate determined by our judicial system.

SYG did not directly affect the shooters. At best, one could argue that SYG gave them a false sense of being more aggressive than they would otherwise, but I really don't see that as true. I currently am still developing my final views on SYG, my current thinking may surprise you, I am not in favor of SYG but for different reasons.

[SecularMotion]

62. I agree the point is not legally correct. Carriers are non-government entities.

But it's not entirely incorrect. The government issues the permits to allow carry and passes the laws that allows carriers to act with impunity when faced with threats.

[gejohnston]

80. since you are opposed to SYG

should states that have been common law SYG for over 120 years (like California, Illinois, Washington to name a few) pass duty to retreat laws? California's SYG allows you to to counter attack. But when some asshole shoots up a gas station in California, nobody blames SYG. SYG has been around for about 130 years, and the debate between SYG vs DTR has been going on for as long. 33 states have SYG of some form. Why hasn't there been overhyped cases from the other states.
I don't believe Florida's SYG gave three individuals any sense of anything. Even in Florida, most if not all self defense cases (all three that I personally know of, two never made the mass media) either had no ability to retreat or attempted to retreat. The media centered on three cases, claimed it had something to do with SYG, when one was manslaughter and the other is murder. Besides, if Florida and Georgia were to repeal their SYG laws, their self defense law would default back to their common law, which was SYG. IOW, nothing would change.
SYG simply means no duty to retreat, no more no less. However, in Florida at least, the jury can still consider an ability to retreat.

Had the facts been exactly the same in the three famous Florida case but happened in, say, California they would have never made the national news. Had they happened in Wyoming, the media would make it a "SYG and Old West" meme. The problem would be that 1) SYG wasn't legal in the Old West (the old west ended in 1890. California became the first SYG state in 1895) and 2) Wyoming doesn't have a SYG statute and its common law is DTR.
The only problem I see with SYG is that the media is too lazy, too stupid, and often too dishonest to accurately explain it and report the facts.

[Token Republican]

83. SYG

SYG is the latest boogieman. Its being touted as more dangerous than heat seeking bullets. SYG did not play a role in any of the three individual's deaths.

While I haven't finalized my position on SYG, the reason I'm tending to opposing it is simple. Death is final, and before allowing the use of deadly force in self defense, it makes sense to me to utilize all options to avoid taking another life.

But again, my view here is a work in progress.

[gejohnston]

85. I think most people attempt to retreat if possible

there are two cases in Florida that didn't make the national news, mostly because it didn't fit the narrative. One was an African American guy in the Miami area that was attacked by a white guy and another black guy. Witnesses reported that he tried to retreat and drive off, he was blocked and wasn't able to. He landed up wounding one and killing the other. Since he asked for an immunity hearing (where the misnomer "invoking SYG " comes from) and won, it didn't go to trial. Another case in the Tampa area involved the victim trying to retreat from a school bully that already put him in the hospital once before. When he was blocked by the bully's buddies, he stabbed the bully. During the juvenile court hearing, the victim was on trial for manslaughter. He didn't claim self defense, or anything else. After listening to several witnesses describing the defendant backing way while being attacked by the deceased, the judge simply declared it justifiable homicide and dismissed the case. Zimmerman cried for help for almost a minute before firing, which leads me to believe he would have if he could.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes explains my view best in Brown v US (1921)
“Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife. Therefore, in this Court, at least, it is not a condition of immunity that one in that situation should pause to consider whether a reasonable man might not think it possible to fly with safety or to disable his assailant rather than to kill him.”

[beevul]

87. I agree.

"The irrational fears that drives gun owners' need to carry lethal weapons in public does not trump the constitutionally protected right to not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

I agree completely.

In order for gun carry to " trump the constitutionally protected right to not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, the two would have to be in conflict with each other.

They aren't.

[Token Republican]

19. Let me try

Since you don't want to say what you think is reasonable, let me have a go. Is this your position?

People can own any gun they want except those that are banned.

Military weapons should be banned because they are military weapons
Assault weapons should be banned because they look like military weapons.
Assault weapons can be defined as any weapon at all based on shape, size, attachments and color.
Non assault weapons should be banned because they are only cosmetically different than assault weapons.
Bolt action weapons should be banned because they are sniper weapons
Lever action weapons should be banned because they fire just as fast as semi automatics
Rifles should be banned because they are high powered.
Pistols should be banned because they are concealable.
Standard capacity magazines will be called high capacity magazines and should be banned because 11 is a bad number
Reduced capacity magazines should be banned because they are just as deadly as standard capacity magazines
Hi points should be banned because they suck
Single shot guns should be banned because even one bullet can kill.

FMJ bullets should be banned because those are armor piercing
Hollow points should be banned because they are cop killers
All other bullets should be banned because they are both armor piercing and cop killers
5.56 mm ammo should be banned because its assault ammo and is the most deadly ammo in the world
ammo greater than 5.56 should be banned because its even more deadly
ammo smaller than 5.56 should be banned because its the same size as 5.56 and it doesn't get much smaller.

None of this infringes on the right to bear arms, as people can own any other gun that's not covered by these bans. Any gun that is owned must be held by the police when not in use. People are permitted to own one gun and must maintain ten million dollars in liability insurance.

Is that close to what you believe?

[SecularMotion]

22. Is that what right wing nuts think all liberals believe?

[oneshooter]

25. Prove them wrong.

[Token Republican]

27. I'm just trying to pin your positon down.

I'm just trying to pin you down by getting your specific suggestions.

Maybe you could post what you think is reasonable. But I bet you won't.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

30. Then let's mark you down for --

Military weapons should NOT be banned
Assault weapons should NOT be banned
Assault weapons can be defined as any weapon at all based on shape, size, attachments and color.
Non assault weapons should NOT be banned
Bolt action weapons should NOT be banned
Lever action weapons should NOT be banned
Rifles should NOT be banned because they are high powered.
Pistols should NOT be banned
Standard capacity magazines will be called high capacity magazines and should NOT be banned
Reduced capacity magazines should NOT be banned
Hi points should be NOT banned
Single shot guns should NOT be banned.

FMJ bullets should NOT be banned
Hollow points should NOT be banned
All other bullets should NOT be banned
5.56 mm ammo should NOT be banned
ammo greater than 5.56 should NOT be banned
ammo smaller than 5.56 should NOT be banned

Glad to have you aboard, man!

[proudretiredvet]

48. Many on the left who are against guns are very gun ignorant.

They do not know enough about firearms to have written all that and not made a fool out of themselves.
The gun ignorance of the anti gun crew often defeaters any and all credibility they would like to believe they have.

[oneshooter]

50. Hey now!!! They are proud of their ignorence and their inate inability to raise themselves.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

23. How's that for a list of freedoms

[Skeeter Barnes]

86. That's what a the grabbers would call "a good start".

[geckosfeet]

37. Hateful fearful rhetoric unfounded in reality.

Read the laws around firearms ownership and licensing in MA NY NJ, CA, RI, CT.

Who profits from these laws? Politicians. Criminals. And private security firms.

[NYC_SKP]

56. I'm askared of boogers. Boogers should be illegal, cuz I'm askared of 'em.

And if you don't also hate boogers, then you are obviously a racist.

It's true.

Seriously, this is the level of discourse we find being presented by the people who don't commonly post in this group.

[ileus]

57. Human rights should trump silly laws.

guns don't have rights.....humans do.

As a human that desires the ability to defend myself and family I'll keep my right to protect our lives.

[gejohnston]

81. Albert Eisenstein said it best

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."

"common sense" is nothing more than buzz words people default to when they can't make a rational or logical argument. That is why Palin used the phrase so much. It can also be a marketing ploy, like Oliver North's "common sense radio".