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.
[quote=jamies;41507398]Wrong Natalie. Most break ins occur in daytime when folks are away. Most shootings at home occur at night, cause armed owners are home. As for hiding and wimpering. You might, but I'll be ripping their throat out... And eating it! But it's easier to just shoot the slime in the face.[/QUOTE]
Easy for you to shoot because you wouldn't be able to defend yourself without a gun would you. And not all who break in have guns. Some are just kids not armed
Location: When you take flak it means you are on target
7,646 posts, read 9,944,809 times
Reputation: 16466
Quote:
Originally Posted by natalie469
Easy for you to shoot because you wouldn't be able to defend yourself without a gun would you. And not all who break in have guns. Some are just kids not armed
Sweetie, I'm old and fat. If someone attacks me I'm too tired to fight them. I'll just shoot them in the face.
Google ARS 13-419 - this is why people don't break into homes here, if they are smart.
And how do you get a "Militia," Bobby? Do you suppose arming Citizens makes a Militia, like in every other Country in the World?
A Militia is armed Private Citizens, not in regular Military Service, that are available in times of need, to be called to arms, and regulated by the Military Leadership in those times.
You just scored a point for me with your statement.
You are absolutely correct, the militia was made up of citizens willing to take up arms to defeat the British.
After the war, the FF decided these citizens, who were the militia, should be afforded the right to bear arms, because the time may come when their services would once again be needed.
Nothing in the amendment about the general public, being armed, just ordinary citizens involved as members of a militia.
The militia was the focus of the amendment, not the general public, even though the general public made up the militia.
If a person has no system in place, whether a dog, alarm or both,
to alert them of an intruder, then they are more vulnerable.
A gun in not a one piece, all inclusive security system.
That doesn't make it useless.
If a person has no system in place, whether a dog, alarm or both,
to alert them of an intruder, then they are more vulnerable.
A gun in not a one piece, all inclusive security system.
That doesn't make it useless.
You know what, I can't live in fear where someone will enter my home or I will be robbed on the street so I have to justify having a gun. It's just not something I think about in my day to day life.
Very simple, they have no place in society, except in the hands of the military.
Most would be calling me an ultra liberal for my stand on this issue, but I am just the opposite.
I am a conservative republican.
Perhaps we need to understand the word "conservative" as it applies to some, but not all republicans.
Conservative people tend to want to preserve.
To conserve is to preserve something .
As a staunch defender of disarming the public, I am in fact in favor of preserving human life everywhere.
One way to preserve that life is to rid the country of all guns.
I believe they are nothing but killing machines.
There are many ways to eradicate a human life besides guns, but guns seem to be the predominant weapon of choice, so they must be dealt with first.
As a conservative, I see a problem with society, and it's use of deadly gunfire, and my gut feeling is to lash out at the source.
Look at the problem for what it is, and find the best solution to fix it.
With a tough issue like gun control, one can't please everyone.
Some will have to sacrifice long held beliefs, for the good of all.
As a conservative, do I think the 2nd amendment should be preserved ?
To answer that, it would take the best scholars in the world to interpret just what the founding fathers meant in their ambiguous wording of the amendment.
As it is written, I would re-write it to reflect the world we live in today.
'A well regulated militia, the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed."
It is as if two different subjects were being discussed at the same time, and both made it into the second amendment, even tho they are completely unrelated, unless of course they looked on a militia as being ordinary citizens who voluntarily took up arms in the time of war.
I feel this is the thinking behind the 2nd amendment.
Taking it at that value, the amendment would only allow for citizens to bare arms in time of war, and that right will not be infringed.
I would preserve that meaning of the amendment, and not let it be clouded by the unfounded desire of the public at large to be armed and protected under the amendment.
As a conservative, I feel it necessary to preserve the rule of law written into the constitution, but only if those laws are clear, and unabated, which obviously the 2ndamendment is not.
Bob.
And my stand as a Liberal is that guns are nothing more than tools and anyone that does not feel that they can control or trust themselves around guns probably should not own them. As someone that has been around guns all their lives, including in the military, I see guns as tools and find it ludicrous that others would trust me for years and years to have and use guns believe somehow that I am no longer trustworthy to have a few myself as a civilian. Stop blaming the inanimate object and start dealing with the problem, mankind and his mental health issues.
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.