I'll never need a gun - Part 7

JustThisGuy

New member
Here is another very sad story of a man who thought he would never need a gun.

http://www.khou.com/news/local/Mom-...-after-home-invasion-near-Katy-135990298.html

The young father was the unfortunate subject of a home invasion robbery gone very bad. Luckily, the three children home at the time were physically unharmed, though the psychological trauma may be substantial.

We are so lucky to be living in a country where we have the right of self-protection (gone in much of the world now). We all need to cherish that right, buy a gun and train to be ready to use it.

My heart goes out to his family.
 
Not to nitpick, as I do see your point, but this guy likely couldn't legally own a gun: "Though Lopez had a criminal record that included theft and drug charges, a friend who stopped by the home to leave flowers said Lopez was living right when he was killed."

Still very sad what happened.
 
The wife?

I says nothing of the wife's criminal record. Could she have owned a gun? While it would still be illigal for him to use it, it is legal to commit a crime to stop a greater crime from occuring when there is an imminent threat.

In this case the crime may have been Illigal posession of a firearm be a felon (even though it was his wife's gun) done to prevent a murder.

I've seen guys get arrested because their wife had a gun in the house. While I agree I generally dont want a waepon anywhere near a felon, Why does that infringe on the rights of their spouses? Maybe thats a situational question based off this story.
 
While I agree with convicted felons not being able to own firearms I still do not believe it should be forever.
Prior to the 1968 gun control act, someone completing their sentence could be restored to full civil rights. I have seen the results of this both good and not so good.
As for Mrs. Lopez owning a firearm, I question if Mr. Lopez could legally reside in the same home if firearm was in a place he could have access??
Sad Story.
 
While it seems likely that this fellow had a felony record, I cannot definitively say from that article that he does. The article mentions drug and theft charges, but those are not necessarily felonies.
 
(bk688)

I says nothing of the wife's criminal record. Could she have owned a gun? ...

That's a very good point. I'd have no problem with him using his wife's gun to defend his family, especially in their own home. I would not want to see charges pressed against him in that situation.
 
(Spats McGee)


While it seems likely that this fellow had a felony record, I cannot definitively say from that article that he does. The article mentions drug and theft charges, but those are not necessarily felonies.

You are quite correct. Poor assumption on my part. Wow, I'm really batting 1000 today. Think I'll just wish everyone an upcoming Merry Christmas and leave it at that.
 
I know this is heresy, but even convicted felons have a God-given right to defend themselves and their families.

If they're so feral and uncontrolled they can't be allowed on the streets, keep them in jail.
 
I know this is heresy, but even convicted felons have a God-given right to defend themselves and their families.

He did have the right to defend himself and his family. He just didn't have the right to own or possess guns.

If they're so feral and uncontrolled they can't be allowed on the streets, keep them in jail.

Losing various rights is part of the punishment for a felony conviction. Felons often times can get their rights restored, but most don't attempt to do so.

Given that the law has been in place for at least 43 years, how long have you been working to get it overturned?
 
Prior to the 1968 gun control act, someone completing their sentence could be restored to full civil rights.

This is still the case now in certain states. There is a process, but it can be done.
 
I know this is heresy, but even convicted felons have a God-given right to defend themselves and their families.

I don't believe it's heresy; I happen to agree with you, and I happen to think that a convicted felon who has "paid his debt to society" should automatically have his right to own firearms reinstated unless the crime was one of violence. Many, if not most of the thousands of felonies on the books today are non-violent "crimes" (e.g. donating too much to a political campaign, digging up arrowheads on federal land, filling in wetlands on your own property, and a host of other heinous activities) which have been classed as felonies by Congress in its zeal to appear "tough on crime". Blanket prohibition of ownership of guns by convicted felons is just another example of how federal gun laws are more about snaring the unwary than about making society safer.
 
One argument I don't get -- felon does his time and upon release gets to go buy a gun with his making-license-plates money on the way to go vote maybe?

The point I REALLY don't get is that there is no substance to the headlined point of the post -- the victim never disavowed owning a firearm (which the post sorta implies and would be an interesting story). In fact, he was a criminal himself! What's the point here? Crimes happen. Even to criminals. Who said he never thought he'd need a gun? Maybe he used them professionally before he was convicted. Maybe he was robbed in the course of his latest criminal drug activity (more likely than a random home invasion). Guns don't stop all crimes or even most times (most homes in the US have a firearm). So why this particular story? Wouldn't any heinous crime be fodder then?

There's no firearm association here. Why is this a legitimate post? What is Gehrhard missing!?
 
Last edited:
OK, so let's take away their right to possess a firearm while they're in prison? How is that a loss of their civil rights? Commit felonies, you lose those rights, he should have thought of his future, family, and things like that before he did the felonies that got him where he was.
 
Back
Top