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.
(sigh) Another impotent leftist gun-rights-hater, trying to pretend he has a relevant point?
Back to the subject:
People from the present day all the way back to America's founding, knew that the country would be safer and more free if government had no power to restrict people's guns at all... even despite the occasional nutcase with a gun in a restaurant or office building. Some of them wrote and ratified the 2nd amendment for that exact reason.
The hysterical leftists hate that idea. The idea of people being free to defend themselves, and even choose the means they use to do it, strikes at the heart of the leftists' agenda to have them completely dependent on government. No matter how inefficient and counterproductive that dependency is.
A lecture on history is not necessary, thank you.
To you it might be of value though: the Supreme Court has ruled that the rights provided by the 2nd amendment are not unlimited. So try again.
I'm not in a city/suburban area. I could call 911 if something happened, but the local officer already has the opinion that I'm "over-reacting" to the explicit texted threats of sexual assault. And by the time the police/sheriff/etc. got to my house, they'd be investigating a crime that had already happened, NOT preventing the crime from being committed in the first place. Anyway, their job is NOT to prevent crimes. Their job is to enforce the law and investigate crimes that have already happened.
So... Do I choose to be a sitting duck, hoping that man doesn't follow through on his threats? Or do I arm myself and learn responsible self-defense with a firearm? I chose the latter.
Your right, and I've got no problem with that. To bad you feel the need and/or fear, but I get it. Just be sure to use good judgement when you go to pull that trigger is all...
I might be a bit more concerned and questioning if you felt the need for a weapon that can kill nearly 60 people and injure over 500 in minutes to deal with your issues however, but that's a few too many sexual predators in your area all at once to worry about I hope.
PS: I too have no false hopes about how soon I can expect police to arrive when needed. We've found our dog to be the best preventative measure above all the others so far...
True, but of course the fact is that with so many guns purchased legally, so too is it all that much easier to obtain them illegally, because they're everywhere!
All a bad guy needs to do is go to some other bad guy who has legally purchased lots of guns for no good reason, and we have lots of guns either way, purchased legally and/or illegally. This is why I know the problem of gun violence will never really be ended or mitigated to any satisfactory level in this country already overloaded with guns by just about any comparable measure. "Genie is out of the bottle."
Fact remains, however, we are a country where the rule of law is considered important. We must determine what should be considered legal or not legal and what laws are appropriate accordingly, regardless the many ways criminals can get around these laws, and not just gun laws...
This has been a problem and dilemma for modern society through all of modern times and before!
“But to ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow. … For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding.” --- Jeff Snyder
A lecture on history is not necessary, thank you.
To you it might be of value though: the Supreme Court has ruled that the rights provided by the 2nd amendment are not unlimited. So try again.
“But to ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow. … For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding.” --- Jeff Snyder
The intent would be to dry up the supply of particular weapons. For instance a ban on handguns could very well dry up the supply so that in a couple of decades they become rare. They will never go away but they can become rare. And that would be the goal.
Would it work? Of course to some degree. What degree? Depends.
Your right, and I've got no problem with that. To bad you feel the need and/or fear, but I get it. Just be sure to use good judgement when you go to pull that trigger is all...
Of course! I have no desire to harm another person unless it's a me or them situation.
Quote:
I might be a bit more concerned and questioning if you felt the need for a weapon that can kill nearly 60 people and injure over 500 in minutes to deal with your issues however, but that's a few too many sexual predators in your area all at once to worry about I hope.
For my specific self-defense purpose, I don't need that kind of weapon, so I don't have one.
BUT... I DO have family and friends who have ongoing problems with wild boars. They can weigh up to 1,000 lbs, and if they charge you, your children playing in the yard, your pets, etc., it's going to take more than a shotgun to take it down.
Quote:
PS: I too have no false hopes about how soon I can expect police to arrive when needed. We've found our dog to be the best preventative measure above all the others so far...
A dog will bark. If there's no one around near enough to hear it, will that even matter?
“But to ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow. … For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding.” --- Jeff Snyder
I don't know who you are addressing, but I'm not in favor of banning guns, like I have commented too many times already...
What is truly a test of one's patience is the misrepresentation of opposing opinion.
Argue that we should not allow poison spices to be sold on store shelves, and along comes someone who will insist that means all spices of any kind...
A lecture on history is not necessary, thank you.
To you it might be of value though: the Supreme Court has ruled that the rights provided by the 2nd amendment are not unlimited. So try again.
They also ruled that it is an individual right unrelated to service in a militia and applies to weapons that are in "common use". Semi automatic firearms and their high capacity magazines are ubiquitous and are indeed in "common use". Scalia in writing for the majority elaborated in that it did not protect bazooka's, RPG's or things like that. It applies to firearms that are hand held. So try again, only this time read the decision in it's entirety instead of hand picking sections that you think might help your cause.
Obviously the 2nd Amendment is not unlimited otherwise long standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by criminals and the criminally insane would have been nullified had the court ruled otherwise. The court also made reference to that.
Of course! I have no desire to harm another person unless it's a me or them situation.
For my specific self-defense purpose, I don't need that kind of weapon, so I don't have one.
BUT... I DO have family and friends who have ongoing problems with wild boars. They can weigh up to 1,000 lbs, and if they charge you, your children playing in the yard, your pets, etc., it's going to take more than a shotgun to take it down.
A dog will bark. If there's no one around near enough to hear it, will that even matter?
People who accidentally shoot someone don't typically have the desire to do so.
Hunters can give you some good easy advice on what weapon to use for hunting wild boars. Got no problem with that either...
Criminals will choose a house with no dog over a house with a dog pretty much every time. Wouldn't you?
If, however, you are in a secluded area where no one is around to hear even a dog barking, then no, dog can't do much other than maybe give the intruder some trouble for as long as possible before getting shot (if intruder has a gun). In that case, I'd probably have a few dogs. Either way, having a dog as a system of alert for you there is worth having if it's intruders while you are home that you are worried about...
Reminds me of another question. If there is no woman in a forest to hear a man speak, is he still wrong?
I don't know who you are addressing, but I'm not in favor of banning guns, like I have commented too many times already...
What is truly a test of one's patience is the misrepresentation of opposing opinion.
Argue that we should not allow poison spices to be sold on store shelves, and along comes someone who will insist that means all spices of any kind...
I was addressing all who wish to ban any type of firearm. If they can ban semi automatic firearms they can ban them all. Who are you to decide which ones should be banned and which ones should not?
The Supreme Court already ruled in Heller/McDonald that the 2nd Amendment applies to weapons that are in "common use".
Quote:
They also ruled that it is an individual right unrelated to service in a militia and applies to weapons that are in "common use". Semi automatic firearms and their high capacity magazines are ubiquitous and are indeed in "common use". Scalia in writing for the majority elaborated in that it did not protect bazooka's, RPG's or things like that. It applies to firearms that are hand held.
You may not like that but it is what it is. No amount of BS propaganda will change that.
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.
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.
