[Rob Instigator]

falling in your bathroom kills more people than guns, each year.

I believe the 2nd amendment is an admission that each and every one of us has the INALIENABLE right to defend ourselves, our loved ones, our property, and our state.

My ex-wife and I were burglarized one month after purchasing a home, years ago. The fuckers broke in, let our cats free outside, trashed our home, stole everything of value, including emotionally priceless jewelry, and heirlooms, and basically shattered our home. We lived there for years afterwards in fear that every single fucking day we would come home from work to find the front door open, and our shit gone, and it happened 3 MORE FUCKING TIMES, even after I had Brinks install an alarm system. HORRIBLE.

After the first time the pigs showed up, did nothing except take a report, and sent a guy to fingerprint the broken windows only after we demanded they do so, because they KNEW no one was going to bother checking on our "minor" crime. The fucking cop that took our statements gave us a piece of advice. he said, "get a gun, or a shotgun, and shoot them next time, but wait until they are inside your home so that the courts do not screw you. Hell, the sound of you cocking he shotgun will likely scare them away." Literal quote. I will never forget it.

what kind of fucking advice is that to tell someone in shock?

Once we had the alarm installed, we had three break-ins, and in all three occasions, I left work when notified, and arrived at my house BEFORE the pigs.

I never saw anyone.

I do not own a gun, never have, but when a policeman tells you that your only recourse is to get a gun and stay at home all day in case someone breaks in? that is fucked up right?

Thank Mario they broke in when we were gone. I cannot imagine the terror to have someone break in while you are there (home invasion style) I no longer own that home. It was tainted from the get-go.

no reason for this tale except to say that the cops are not there to protect you, nor are they there to "punish" those that hurt you. They are there to 'Police" you, meaning control you. They don't give a FUCK. Your defense is in your own hands.

If my wife and I ever buy a home, I will purchase a handgun, and a shotgun, and learn to use them, and properly care for and store them, and if anyone tries to break in my home while I am there I will not hesitate to use the right tool for the job.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

If my wife and I ever buy a home, I will purchase a handgun, and a shotgun,

an ar-15 with suppressor and flashlight, loaded with frangible ammo, is much more suitable for home defense than handguns or shotguns (more accurate+less recoil, hence easier to aim; less overpenetration than some handgun calibers or shotgun slugs, you won't be deafened by the report, availability of large magazines, etc.)

[EVOLghost]

Damn....3 more times afterwards? When they stole from you while you had the security system, did they still steal anything or did the system fufill its purpose and scare away the thieves...

[jon boy]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

I actually do not. This is just common sense. the world does not only progress, but it also regresses, and quite often.

when it regresses, those with the means to defend themselves and theirs will be in a much better position.

wow you are right the only way gun violence will stop is if there are more guns. didn't think of that.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by tesla69

the arrogance of the antigunners is enraging, its not enough to make themselves helpless, but they need to make everyone helpless too.

Maybe we feel the same fucking away about "Second Ammendmenters", its not enough that they want to make their own households dangerous, they want to endanger the community at large

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

an ar-15 with suppressor and flashlight, loaded with frangible ammo, is much more suitable for home defense than handguns or shotguns (more accurate+less recoil, hence easier to aim; less overpenetration than some handgun calibers or shotgun slugs, you won't be deafened by the report, availability of large magazines, etc.)

Yeah, maybe if you life in some kind of militarized compound or a Sinaloan cartel mansion

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

falling in your bathroom kills more people than guns, each year.

Yes, but those are honest accidents, bathrooms are not specifically designed to hurt or kill people. Further, even honest accidents when involving firearms are ALL the MORE dangerous than banyos, because again, guns are specifically designed to be dangerous to humans and animals. By the way, there are very specific zoning ordinances and laws which regulate the safety of bathroom products and fixtures, both at the manufacturing level and also the in-home instillation

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

I just thought it was funny.

The idea that we are all advanced and past the time when individuals needed to defend their lives, families, and property with weapons is laughable to me.

laws do not stop crime. Police do not stop crime. why make it harder on a law-abiding citizen to try and stop crime when they see it happening to them?

.

But Rob, you are not thinking logically here. I agree completely, the police do not prevent or stop crime, they are an after-the-fact reaction. HOWEVER, think about this, who is MORE armed than the police? NOBODY, period. So if the fully armed police don't stop or prevent crime, why would you suppose less trained, less proficient, and less experienced citizens in general could do any better exactly? Further, if the police "accidentally" kill and maim HUNDRED if not THOUSANDS of people a year, do you honestly trust citizens with the same privileges? I don't

[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by EVOLghost

Damn....3 more times afterwards? When they stole from you while you had the security system, did they still steal anything or did the system fufill its purpose and scare away the thieves...

There was nothing of value for them to steal in the house, but they stole my lawnmower and mowing equipment from the garage. The two other times they ran away stealing nothing, but we only realized that after having to comb through the disheveled house for hours. horrible.

[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by jon boy

wow you are right the only way gun violence will stop is if there are more guns. didn't think of that.

the only way to stop violence in any meaningful way is education and proper medical/mental/psychological care.

There is not a separate thing called "gun violence." that is tagline for media. there is just violence.

[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

But Rob, you are not thinking logically here. I agree completely, the police do not prevent or stop crime, they are an after-the-fact reaction. HOWEVER, think about this, who is MORE armed than the police? NOBODY, period. So if the fully armed police don't stop or prevent crime, why would you suppose less trained, less proficient, and less experienced citizens in general could do any better exactly? Further, if the police "accidentally" kill and maim HUNDRED if not THOUSANDS of people a year, do you honestly trust citizens with the same privileges? I don't

I would. cops are not trained just to handle firearms, they are trained, as you very well know, to treat the populace like militaristic enemies, to be ordered around, feared, and corralled.

The fully armed police do not stop or prevent crime because they are not TASKED to do so. Detectives, which account for maybe 10% of a total police force, are tasked with finding culprits and arresting them. The rest of the cops are there to control the population, and a large part of that exerted control is the passive knowledge that a cop can kill you with THEIR weapon, at any time.

You know the drill man, where do you find the most patrol cars doing their thing? In poor blighted dangerous neighborhoods? Hell NO. You find them patrolling the relatively safe streets of rich neighborhoods, protecting the wealthy and their property, the very same wealthy that hire private security, and are themselves armed to the teeth. It makes no sense.

[Rob Instigator]

and Texan citizens are more armed than the police like a motherfucker. Theer are 3,500 cops in Houston. There are 4-5 million people living in the Houston Metro area. That is at least 750,000 armed citizens.(very low estimate) The secret that those in power do not want to have everyone realize is that they are FAR outnumbered, in manpower, and in weapon power.

[h8kurdt]

Originally Posted by tesla69

the arrogance of the antigunners is enraging, its not enough to make themselves helpless, but they need to make everyone helpless too. Its amusing how they project their fear onto others. They think everyone with a gun is bad. Car accidents and doctor mistakes kill more people than guns.

And yet the pro-gunners are the ones who rant and rave about how if they get their guns taken off them then the government WILL TRY SUPRESSING PEOPLE EVEN MORE!! Get a fucking grip retards.

What possible reason would there be for an assault rifle that can fire 30 bullets in a few seconds? None. The government have never said they want to ban all guns yet that's what pro-gun nuts seem to hear.
There's a difference between someone actually saying "look we need to stop being stupid and actually think about the weapons we can now own".

As for that second amendment bullcrap. Times have changed dramatically since that was written. Do you really think they would say the same thing considering what weapons can do now? I find it hard to believe they will.

[Rob Instigator]

the reason is to KILL. Sadly, there has yet to be a time, and will likely never be a time, when the need to kill someone is outdated. Horrible, but true. weapons are weapons.

The weapons at the time the 2nd amendment was written were the top notch killing machines of their day, just like a Glock with hollow point bullets now, or a submachine gun with armor piercing rounds.

The rights of the people shall not be infringed by the Feds when it comes to personal arms, that is the full extent of the 2nd amendment, as certified by the US supreme court several times already.

remember history, nothing happens all at once. first they take away your heavy weapons, then your regular weapons. first they take away your privacy in public, then they take away your rights in private. it is a slippery slope.

No one has the right to tell another person how to protect themselves, especially not the federal government.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by h8kurdt

What possible reason would there be for an assault rifle that can fire 30 bullets in a few seconds?

i don't know what the hell is an "assault rifle" since that's a politically manufactured neologism just like "death tax" or "partial-birth abortion" or "saddam's weapons of mass destruction," but the advantages of a 30-round magazine in a home-defense carbine are clear from a tactical standpoint.

assume a 5-man home invasion (it's common, just google, but see for example here) and a lone defender. an old-fashion revolver will get you a mere 1.2 rounds per attacker, which is shit. a 10-round magazine like they want to set up as limit will give you jus 2 rounds per perp. again, easy to miss. a 30-round magazine on the other hand gives you a full six rounds per attacker, which gives you a good chance to repel and/or kill the attackers before you get raped & brutalized.

in case of riots/looting like LA in 92 or new orleans in 2006 (this shit happens in 'merica i'm afraid) again the advantage of a large capacity magazine vs. a mob is evident.

anyway, don't worry, you're safe on the other side of the atlantic.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

i don't know what the hell is an "assault rifle" since that's a politically manufactured neologism just like "death tax" or "partial-birth abortion" or "saddam's weapons of mass destruction," but the advantages of a 30-round magazine in a home-defense carbine are clear from a tactical standpoint.

Thanks for being as misleading as FOX News but we already discussed this. It is NOT a media conspiracy. Assault weapon means a weapon designed for FORWARD MILITARY COMBAT OPERATIONS, also called an assault (like the assault on Iwo Jima or the Surge in Iraq). EVEN THE MANUFACTURERS OWN WEBSITES DOCUMENT THE HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE AR/M RIFLES BY THE MILITARY SPECIFICALLY FOR COMBAT, PERIOD.

By the way, Saddam really did have WMD, just twenty years ago. How do we know this? Uncle Sam has the receipts from when America armed Iraq against the Iranians

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

in case of riots/looting like LA in 92 or new orleans in 2006 (this shit happens in 'merica i'm afraid) again the advantage of a large capacity magazine vs. a mob is evident.

.

You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. In the Riots the only armed people killing anybody were the Korean merchants who ended up killing many unarmed people which only further antagonized the situation here in LA, and two decades later there is still animosity and mistrust between Black and Brown folks and Koreans. People didn't need carbine rifles to defend themselves, people were actually rioting in reaction and retaliation to the RISE in gun violence in LA which peaked in 1991/92 just before the Uprising. It wasn't a blood thirsty mob, it was mass civil disobedience and political protest. Only the LAPD and the National Guard who occupied LA for several months ascribe to the narrative that it was a dangerous mob or cabal. If MORE people had been trying to "defend" themselves with firearms like those Koreans, the riot would have escalated into a Rwanda type situation. IS THAT WHAT WE WANT IN OUR COMMUNITIES? VIOLENT DIVISIONS, INCREASED HOSTILITIES, AND MORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR KILLING?

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

I would. cops are not trained just to handle firearms, they are trained, as you very well know, to treat the populace like militaristic enemies, to be ordered around, feared, and corralled.

The fully armed police do not stop or prevent crime because they are not TASKED to do so.

Agreed completely, but again, they are the least trained proficiently in shooting. So how are citizens and the public trained ANY better to prevent crime if law enforcement aren't? While indeed many gun owners are also well trained and practiced, many others are not exactly enthusiasts. Further, half of the current homicides in this country are "crimes of passion" or spur of the moment over-reactions. IF THE POLICE OVERREACT AND KILL PEOPLE, WHY SHOULD WE TRUST THE PUBLIC IN GENERAL? I mean come on, there are people driving around with bumper stickers saying, "Where is Lee Harvey Oswald when you need him?" There are people who honestly support Zimmerman in the Trayvon killing. There are even worse people who are just planed deranged assholes who get off on harming other human beings like sadistic fucks. Do we want to trust these people with firearms in general? Again, I DON'T

[!@#$%!]

for h8kurdt--

this is the kind of situation where you don't want to find yourself unarmed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshir...vasion_murders

http://www.ksla.com/story/18767426/r...home-invasions

some newspaper in your country says that "your home is your dungeon"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/p...s-dungeon.html

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Bytor Peltor

Again, per the Constitution, it doesn't matter what you want.

That is debatable at every level, as again, the Second Amendment is purposefully ambiguous and yet complicated. The exact legal definition of "arms" is determined by the Courts, as also specified by the Constitution. Further, lets be honest, the Constitution has many flaws and problems, for example slavery was initially enshrined through the 3/5 compromise and even after the 13th Amendment, it was legally preserved in the Jim Crow "vagrancy laws". So you can't just say, "Its the Second Amendment." That amendment is more complicated than that simplistic interpretation, and thankfully the Courts are Constitutionally framed to interpret the laws, NOT YOU

February 27, 2013, 7:38 a.m.

PARIS -- A gunman opened fire on colleagues at a Swiss wood-processing plant Wednesday morning, an attack that left three people dead, including the assailant, and seven others wounded.
The gunman walked into the staff canteen at the Kronoswiss wood-processing factory at Menznau, near Lucerne in central Switzerland, about 9 a.m. during a staff breakfast break and began shooting.
Police said the 42-year-old suspect, who was not named, had worked at the plant for a decade and did not fire at random but picked off specific colleagues with a handgun.
A spokesperson for Kronoswiss, which employs about 450 workers, said the gunman had always been “very calm” and “somebody you would not notice” during the time he worked for the company.
It wasn't immediately clear how the gunman died.
Gun ownership is widespread in Switzerland due to a long-standing tradition of allowing those who complete their compulsory military service to keep their rifles and weapons. Many serving in the military are reservists allowed to store weapons at home.

LA Times

[Rob Instigator]

The Courts have sided with the 2nd amendment time and time again.

Jim Crow laws were not part of the Constitution,a nd when challenged, were found to be unconstitutional.

the fact remains that we are all living in the safest time that has ever existed for a human to live in history. The horrors we hear about have always been there, and were actually far far worse in the past. we just hear about it more because of the interconnectedness of the information sources we have.

to use any one horrid act to control the innocent masses is reprehensible in teh extreme, but it is what tyrants do.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

The Courts have sided with the 2nd amendment time and time again.

Jim Crow laws were not part of the Constitution,a nd when challenged, were found to be unconstitutional.

the fact remains that we are all living in the safest time that has ever existed for a human to live in history. The horrors we hear about have always been there, and were actually far far worse in the past. we just hear about it more because of the interconnectedness of the information sources we have.

to use any one horrid act to control the innocent masses is reprehensible in teh extreme, but it is what tyrants do.

Can we have a discussion which DOESN'T lead to hyperbole and emotional exaggeration? Tyranny over the innocent masses? Hardly. A great deal of Americans SUPPORT gun restrictions, so who is tyrannizing whom exactly?


You misunderstand me. The Courts DEFINE specifically what the Second Amendment means, they interpret WHICH kinds of arms are legally permissible and in which circumstances. The Amendment does NOT read "any, every, and all kinds of arms" it just reads "arms" which then is up to the Courts to interpret. Federal Courts have supported federal, state, county, and municipal gun regulations and restrictions since literally the 18th century!! Further, Jim Crow was the result of the "separate but equal" interpretation of the Constitution, and "vagrancy laws" were specifically adapted around the 13th Amendment loophole which allows for slavery in the instance of incarceration. Vagrancy laws incarcerated black folks in order to force them into forced labor through the outsourcing of the prison system. You live in Texas, you should know this history, Texas was the second largest user of "convict labor" behind only Mississippi. Today, the reality that upwards of 1 in 3 black men is currently incarcerated is a DIRECT legacy of the vagrancy laws which were in full effect even until the 1960s

[Rob Instigator]

I would die to defend your, and our, right to own a gun bro. Just sayin'. I think most so-called "gun nuts" would do the same.

and remember I do not own a gun, but I will defend your right to own one should the need arise.

This argument is not about nuts though. It is about regular normal, healthy people who, because of the actions of mentally ill, or violent assholes, are being slowly relieved of their civil liberties, as specified in our nation's constitution.

[Rob Instigator]

BTW, a lot of the "Jim Crow" laws were also used to keep freed slaves from owning guns, because a man who cannot defend himself, is not FREE

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

I would die to defend your, and our, right to own a gun bro. Just sayin'. I think most so-called "gun nuts" would do the same.

and remember I do not own a gun, but I will defend your right to own one should the need arise.

This argument is not about nuts though. It is about regular normal, healthy people who, because of the actions of mentally ill, or violent assholes, are being slowly relieved of their civil liberties, as specified in our nation's constitution.

Dude, I am not suggesting to repeal the Amendment entirely, after all, you can't exactly put 3 BILLION guns back into Pandora's Box can you? What is being debated and suggested in our national dialogue is the concept of more specifically interpreting the Second Amendment, what exactly the term "bear arms" implies. The premise behind gun control and restriction, is that the Second Amendment did not intend a carte-blanche. The Constitution is not self-revealing Gospel truths, it didn't arrive by the Holy Spirit, it is interpreted and enacted by the Federal government which is defined by the Constitution and yet dually is solely empowered to enact and interpret it as well. Plus and again, considering the history of hypocrisy, double-standards, codified racism, and other gross inequities and iniquities, couldn't we agree that the Constitution isn't exactly the most trust-worthy of documents? Our American history has as many examples of the Constitution being used to ENSLAVE, DISENFRANCHISE, and even KILL other Americans as much as it supposedly defends the rights of Americans. Currently the President has an unapologetic "hit-list" of Americans which can be summarily executed minus any kind of due-process, which all the Constitutional lawyers seem to assure is us perfectly legal.

Me, I don't think its worth the paper to wipe my fucking ass with, but if you feel so strongly you'd die for it, at the least, make sure you are quite clear as to which time period and interpretation, because the enactment of the Constitution is not static, it is a process.