Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If the liberals succeed in outlawing guns or making them (or ammo) impossible to obtain, you not only place the citizenry at the absolute mercy of our already-abusive Big Government, but you set up a situation of "might makes right" for everyone in America, on the streets and even in your home. Do you really want 6' tall thugs free to do anything they want to innocent people, unafraid of being stopped by a responsible American with a gun?
Liberals seem to think that the only thing that stops a responsible person from killing others is that no gun is available. They do not seem to understand that responsible people who are not mentally ill will not shoot someone when they lose their temper, any more than they would pick up a steak knife and kill their housemates--or get in their car and run down the neighbor they don't like. Normal, civilized people are constrained by societal norms to not hurt others (unless when necessary in self defense or to protect another).
Unfortunately, liberals want the mentally ill, and the career criminal, to spend a year in jail then freely walk around--with their debt to society supposedly fully paid--and enjoy the freedoms of the non-criminal citizen. I'll bet that liberals understand that it is THESE defective specimens that cause criminal chaos, but since such crime justifies bigger and bigger government and police states, they are happy to keep recycling dangerous criminals onto the streets. And at the same time, liberals try to disarm responsible Americans, instead of allowing them to prevent criminal activity where it happens (on the street, and in the home).
Since I personally would lose in any hand-to-hand fight with virtually any male, or high-mass female, or drug-fueled nutcase that decides to rob me and/or do me harm, I must insist that I retain the ability to defend myself (both on the street and in my home). I have lived in places where people were attacked and dragged out of their cars by lunatics with road rage; had these people had guns to defend themselves, the attacker would have either backed off or been severely injured or killed in the attack.
I also studied hundreds of true-crime cases where people have been attacked in their own homes, often with all members of the family killed, by an attacker armed with only a knife or a club. Even if the attacker had a gun, the armed homeowner has a huge advantage by merely having to wait for the attacker to approach. Again, a simple gun (in a gun safe) would prevent the crime, and possibly permanently remove a vicious criminal before the liberals manage to set him free on parole again.
A good guy that saved many many American soldiers lives.
True, and goes to show that you can be the most gifted marksman and it means nothing if somebody is determined to kill you. Now, if there were five of him that day maybe one would have got the draw, but by the time even the best react, it doesn't do much.
True, and goes to show that you can be the most gifted marksman and it means nothing if somebody is determined to kill you. Now, if there were five of him that day maybe one would have got the draw, but by the time even the best react, it doesn't do much.
The effectiveness of self defense with a firearm is completely situationally dependent. The man who shot him was a friend.
The US didn't have a standing army in those days. Only Militia (hmmm, the ignored part of the 2A).
Oh it isn't ignored at all. ( :sigh: ) instead of wasting my time AND yours by giving you a long, drawn out historical education that dispels your militia argument, which you've undoubtedly heard before and have chosen to ignore, let's put it another way......
"A well balanced breakfast, being necessary to a nutritional diet, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed"
So who has the Right? The breakfast? Or the people? The collective militia argument defies not only common sense and the historical record, but even the basic understanding of the English language. The Constitution was written in very simple English so that even the common man could understand it's intent. It's people like you, who have an agenda that want to warp and distort it's words. For that reason, I think we need a new Constitutional Amendment by which we remove the first clause of the 2A to cut the legs out from under the rejected "militia" argument once and for all, something that the Heller decision should have done back in 2008.
True, and goes to show that you can be the most gifted marksman and it means nothing if somebody is determined to kill you. Now, if there were five of him that day maybe one would have got the draw, but by the time even the best react, it doesn't do much.
I can post stories all day long of less than gifted marksman defending their lives with guns.
I have grown up with guns and taught my kids safety with guns and no one i know has shot any one .
I don't know any one that has shot any one except police men.
I'm 64 years old . If it was as common a problem as liberals claim I should know a lot of folk that have used a gun on others.
If you don't like guns , post a sign on your door ,"this is a gun free zone" and be done with it.
I can post stories all day long of less than gifted marksman defending their lives with guns.
And quite a few have done so without firing a shot
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.