Judge Says Citizens Need To Buy Guns

chattanoogan.com/articles/article_143550.asp
:popcorn: Judge Says Citizens Need To Buy Guns To Protect Themselves
posted January 28, 2009

General Sessions Court Judge Bob Moon on Wednesday told a female home invasion victim she needs to buy a gun to protect herself. “There should be a law that law abiding citizens with no felony convictions should own a gun,” the judge said while setting bond for Colton Dobbins.

Judge Moon told Danielle Walker, “I know many fine police officers. But we can’t depend on the police to protect us any more.” He said Chattanooga is the 57th most dangerous city in the country, and to many criminals “the value of human life means nothing to them.”

The judge said, “With 7,000 foreclosures every day and 6,000 kids dropping out of school” that the crime situation is going to get much worse.
. . .

What a smart judge. I wonder if President Obama will appoint him to something? :newidea::hmmm:

Yeah right! :rotfl:

sure they do then they can defend their property like this Texan
themonitor.com/sections/article/photo/?source=gsa&v=1.2&pic=1&id=22541
indicted for shooting 3 guys he suspected were stealing his trees.
guess there are judges, then there are judges.

I don’t know? I don’t think this guy was justified in using deadly force for this.

We need more judges like him.

Can we borrow him for Georgia?:slight_smile:

Georgia, hell. How can we arrange for him to replace Obama?

What an insane judge. There should be no law forcing someone to do this. I told you it would happen eventually where control would come from the conservatives as well.

And if I am a lawabiding citizen but refuse to buy a gun I guess I would be breaking the law, albeit a stupid one. Look, I don’t deny gun ownership but it is just as offensive that we all be forced to carry one as it is to take away the right to own one.

Jim, the judge never said people should carry a gun.

It is a big step for some to even own a gun, but it is a monumental leap to presume that he suggests that every law abiding citizen be armed when they are out in public. He never made that leap.

This specific case was about home invasions. His words were directed to the woman who lived in the home, it can only be presumed that he was suggesting that the law be directed to having a gun in the home for home protection. He did not even specify what type of gun (shotgun? handgun? rifle?)

I wonder if he was looking at the town in Georgia (Kenessaw) where homeowners are required, by law, to have a gun in their home? Crime statistics show it as a safer place since the law went into effect. But it should also be stated that the law does allow for exclusion by people who have objections to arms for religious and other reasons. Still, the law exists, and it is believe to have been beneficial because criminals don’t know which homes are, in fact, armed and because criminals face a high likelihood of facing an armed homeowner.

I will not obey any law that requires me to own a gun, even in my home. What about all those homes where the gun gets in the wrong hands of the children and ends up injuring or killing one of them. Have they included those statistics in the safety survey. Or are they just looking at crimes prevented.

Jim, I don’t recall any survey being talked about in this thread. To which survey(?) are you referring?

But as to the so-called statistics about guns in homes like the famous Dr Kellerman study, that has been debunked many times, yet it is still quoted as the gospel by anti-gun groups. Oddly enough, Dr Kellerman debunked his own study by dramatically revising his numbers downwards and then further undercut when Dr Kellerman stated that he would like his wife to have a gun. I only mention the Kellerman study because it is the most famous/infamous work that is referred to by newspapers, the Brady Campaign and by anti-gun Politicians. I can only presume that is the study to which you refer.

However if there is a study that you’d like me to review I’d be happy to look into whatever study you provide.

But back to this thread, the Judge in the case simply told a woman who lives with her young child that she should get a gun. The motive for his statement stems from the fact that her home was broken into by a violent criminal. The judge then stated (paraphrasing his words) people should be required to buy guns because police cannot protect people from crime.

You are, of course, aware that Jesus commanded His followers in Luke 22:36-38 to purchase a sword even if they had to sell their cloak to do it. The “sword” (Greek: maxairan) is a dagger or short sword that belonged to the Jewish traveler’s equipment as protection against robbers and wild animals. Pretty much the equilavent of what a gun is today.

As a rabid supporter of the second amendment, I feel weird typing this: I do not agree with the judge. I do agree with his sentiment that it would makes the world safer, but I think ownership should be an individual choice. Loosen the weapon laws, allow open carry, pass the castle doctrines and duty not to retreat, but don’t FORCE people who have no desire to own a firearm to purchase one.

Let us not overlook the possibility that the judge might have been engaging in a little bit of judicial hyperbole. Wouldn’t be the first judge to do that.

Just a thought.

DaveBj

I agree that SOME people should not own firearms. I sell guns for a living and based on their actions, there have been some customers that I have refused to sell to. This happens more than one might think. However, let’s not forget that this type of “law” is not entirely that unusual – Sweden or Switzerland (or both) require a rifle to be present in every home (or something like that).

Safety?

5 gallon buckets, bathtubs and cars have all been proven to be far more dangerous to children than having a firearm in the home. If you want to go off the “danger” spectrum see how dangerous it is to have a swimming pool in your backyard - its even more dangerous for your children if your NEIGHBOR has a swimming pool than you owning a firearm. :smiley:

I’ve done my duty:

http://forums.catholic.com/album.php?albumid=169&pictureid=1242

http://forums.catholic.com/album.php?albumid=169&pictureid=3831

Heck maybe next gun show I go to I may do my duty again.:stuck_out_tongue:

I might have to consider easing my opposition to human cloning if it meant we could clone this judge and seat one in every state :wink:

I had a friend from Zurich who told me not only did he have to own a rifle but the government supplied two boxes of ammo per year that you were required to fire.

Makes your home safer and allows you to live free of tyranny.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.