yeah but where do you draw that legal line? can you shoot the guy as soon as you see him, even if he hasn't noticed you yet? can you shoot him while he is running away from you, but still in your house? recently a jeweller here got convicted after shooting and killing a burglar in the back after the robbery, and claiming it as self-defence.

*edit - to hevusa

that is a defeatist attitude, and exactly what the MAN would have you believe.

"You are just a powerless drone, a simple cog in society, just one man among millions, worthelss really, just enough worth for a vote, and even that is unnecesary."

think about how the untrained vietcong defeated the highly skilled/trained/armed USA army.


think about how the Afghanis fought against a highly trained and armed and rich russian army

think about how the poorly trained and outfitted revolutionaries in the colonies defeated the rich, better armed, better trained military of mother england.

In Texas you can shoot ANY intruder into your home, or even yr property. you may face charges but it will be taken into account that you were protecting your home. It is NOT the home/business owner's job to determine why someone is breaking into their home/business, but it is their job to defend it and the people within..

I find it impossible to get past the fact that guns are essentially the most efficient way to put a cunting great hole in something. Cars are responsible for traffic accidents, but their main purpose isn't traffic accidents. This argument's popped up on this board before, and I always get the impression that guns are just something that a lot of Americans have a blind spot towards. Unlike anything else that causes death - say, smoking, red meat, cars or whatever - the solitary purpose of a gun is putting holes in things that probably don't need holes in them.

I feel I should have every right to shoot someone that has managed to break into my home. This is where I'm supposed to feel safe. This is my corner. I should have the right to keep things that way. There is no line to be drawn.

people should not be breaking into homes/businesses.

people should be defending themselves and their own.

it is as simple as that.

the anti-gun people should go yell their tired rhetoric at criminals/gangbangers/thugs, and see where that gets them

then that person will probably have a gun and so it goes around and around and around. i for one feel safer walking down the street knowing people are not carrying guns.

its like us foreign policy.

why is it the us sells guns to people with mental health problems?

l o v e

:)

guns are for killing.

so is bug spray.

so is a mousetrap

so are knives, swords, etc.

so is poison

all these things are widely available because it is not what an item is FOR but how and why it is used that makes it a horrible thing.

No, it's like everything.

Bug Spray is for killing bugs
Mousetraps are for killing mice.
Knives are for cutting things, such as fruit, veg or meat.
Poison is for killing vermin, such as rats.

I can't see any purpose that a gun serves other than putting holes in things; and, just a bug spray is the most efficient way of killing bugs, or a pneumatic drill (jackhammer) are the most efficient way of putting holes in concrete, guns' primary purpose are to put holes in living things; handguns are primarily for putting holes in people. I know a few gun sports people, so I'm not saying they're not a lot of fun (I have been on the range, it is a good laugh) but specialist, minority uses of guns aren't quite the same as their general purpose.

I can see what you're getting at, but I percieve a massive difference between the mis-application of rat poison and the precise application of a gun's primary purpose.

it's the roberts court that has decreed that. in the past, the militia argument was the prevailing one to uphold local gun bans, and still in the dissenting opinions the judges who voted no maintained the militia argument. so just because it was 5-4 and people voted along ideological lines it doesn't mean the text is clear-cut. it isn't.

i'd rather side with ruth bader ginsburg than with dog-fuckers scalia, alito, robers and the other retrograde fuckers whose name i can't think off the top of my head.

then again, remember that DC is under federal rule, so while the lifting of the ban might apply to the federal area, the issue is still being contested in the states.

even then, try walking into the halls of congress with a sidearm and see what happens to you.

then again, like i said, when i go to the cabin i sleep with a rifle next to me. fuck yes. 911 would take 1/2 hour to arrive. i'm not taking any chances.

There can't be a "movement" if it's intended to maintain things that are already in place... durrrr! call it "conservation", "rights activists", whatever... but "movement" is a jaded (seemingly intimidated) way to put it.

I hear guns can be useful against idiots.

Well, why would you have a swimming pool if you can't swim?

The stats related to crimes obviously aren't related to guns only, there are lots of factors: economy, society, population, presence of criminal organisations, drug trafficking, social exclusion etc etc etc etc.

The point we're trying to make is not that owning a gun makes someone a murderer, but the fact that stats show that vey rarely they can help someone defend themselves, in fact it makes it worse most of the time.

And it really increases the chances of accidents, husbands killing wives, neighbors killing neighbors,idiots killing other idiots because of road rage, people commiting suicide - all those types of "death" that make up for the majority of murders, not to mention accidents.

All guns used by crime were one legally manufactured as well, the less control the more they'll get hold of them.

So, guns are POTENTIALLY dangerous things. You can hurt yourself and others with them... so based on that principle why can't I purchase crack legally and eventually offer it to my friends - it's potentially dangerous too, in fact less dangerous if you analyse it well.

It's nec to have guns as a means of self defense against idiots with guns.

People often forget most people don't want to (or at least follow through...) with killing anyone.

The majority should win.

I don't own a gun, but people deserve the right to carry one if they feel safer owning one. I probably would, I've considered purchasing one. Look mighty sexy sitting on my night stand.

yeah sorry
this is wrong in a thousand levels

i missed this.
i guess nothing else needs to be said.

they need to defend themselves from imaginary evils.

This post and your avatar made me laugh in a nervous way.