 |
I think you may be a little ignorant of the way the Web (and the Internet) works. You may also have noticed that I never bashed your 2nd amendment - nice try at baiting me though. Please realize that the USA isn't the only country in the world and doesn't run the show.Quote:
Originally Posted by rd68
Have a great day with your room full of guns, I'm happy it gives you the comfort you need.
Who's "bashing" anyone?Quote:
Originally Posted by rd68
First, As I pointed out the 2nd Amendment does NOT give an absolute right to keep and bear arms. There is the qualification of a "well ordered militia".
Second, you are missing the issue that J 9 raised. Whether gun control laws affect violent crime. What would happen if you fired to "scare off" a trespasser? Lets say that trespasser thought he was being attacked and decided to fire back! Where would you be? Another violent crime statistic!
This is where I would be if he/she started shooting back I would be calling the police and have them come with a corner cause their sorry butts will be layng dead after I shot back couse I don't miss.and nothing would be done to me seeing that I have NO TRESSPASSING signs up and they were BREAKING & ENTERING.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
So yes I think I would shoot someone to protect my family.So don't mess with me or the gun rights of every gun owner in the states.As far as I'm concernd you can move to canada if you think guns should be band here.I've killed to protect my country and I'll kill to protect my family.
I'm going to guess that you live alone and don't host a lot of parties at your place. :D
:D No I don't live alone but if my wife sees this I might.:DQuote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Not necessarily. You shoot in the air, they react. Maybe they don't miss either so you don't get a second chance.Quote:
Originally Posted by rd68
You might also try reading what I've said. At no time did I ever say that guns should be BANNED in the US. What I did say is that they should be under reasonable control. I'm not messing with anyone's ACTUAL gun rights. I'm proposing that those rights be upheld with reasonable controls.
Also the laws about justifiable homicide (which is what you are talking about) have been tightened in many jurisdictions. Firing on a trespasser without any indication of danger to yourself, might not get you the pass you think it might. In fact, if you fired first, they might have a better case of justifiable homicide if they killed you.
Okay, folks, no need to fight here. This is not what this thread was started for. We all have our own opinions and we have a RIGHT to our own opinions.
Yes, the second amendment states a "well ordered militia" which we here in the states as well as many other countries do have. But it also states that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
I knew this would start a debate, but I did not want it to start a fight.
And, Scott, yes you seem to be bashing everyone who does not share your viewpoint.
Excuse me? Who and how?Quote:
Originally Posted by J_9
I have not bashed ANYONE! I may have disagreed with some points being made, but I have not said anything personal about anyone.
Yes I know what the 2nd Amendment says. You seem to want to treat it as two separate parts. I disagree, I believe it has to be treated as a whole.
Ok I admit that if I do shoot in the air and they react.the only thing about this is my wife has another gun pointed right at them from a window.so one way or another they won't be leaving.And if they do shoot me they will be the ones going to jail not me that's why they have NO TRESSPASSING LAWS And no BREAKING & ENTERING LAWS to. But if I'm going to shoot someone it's to protect my family or to protect my country.You want to know why they want to band the 2nd it's because of stuped street gangs.If they want to shoot someone ship them of to Afganistan to find Bin Laden then we will see how long they last with a gun over their.They and you would toss your weapons and run I Guarantee it.And to me You have got to be one big... Well I won't say it on here but J 9 knows what I'm talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
Yes, Scott, you disagreed with what many have said, and I am sure that will not stop. However, the way you "disagree" comes across to some as bashing. I wish everyone would keep this civil, as I said before, we all have our own opinions whether others share them or not, they are opinions.
Yes there are no Trespassing laws and laws against breaking and entering. But they are not always what you seem to think they are. The mere act of trespassing does NOT give you the right to use a firearm, even to scare them off. You actually could be cited for reckless endangerment in some areas.
You would have to show imminent danger to justify your use of firearms. And let me make it clear, that if there was a case of immient danger, I would support your use of firearms to protect your family.
However, my opinion is that using firearms tends to begat more violence. That in case of a use of firearms the honest citizen is, at least equally, likely to become the victim as the dishonest one.
When, at least in this thread, have I not been civil? Please point out one instance or retract the accusation.Quote:
Originally Posted by J_9
You are very right about the Tresspassing Laws Scott. In many areas you may not use any kind of violence when involved in, let's say, a home invasion. If so, when the cops arrive you must be able to PROVE without the shadow of a doubt that you were in fear of your life.
I will not reatract any accusation. I also refuse to let someone bully me on this board. I am my own person with my own views, just as we all are on here.
I am taking the gun class tomorrow night and will let you know how it goes, if interested. Not meant to be contentious Scott but for the record, "shooting into the air" or anything else you cannot guarantee is dangerous because of how it can ricochet or pass through walls. They say you should take aim and fire at only that which you mean to harm, outside of target practice. That part has already been impressed on me by both my firearms happy friend Frank and the range instructor. I am taking gun ownership very seriously here.
Views are one thing. But you talk about being civil and not bashing then you bash me with false accusations. Either back up your accusations with evidence or retract them. That's only fair. I'm not trying to bully anyone, I'm simply asking for fair treatment. Either prove what you say or retract it.Quote:
Originally Posted by J_9
Anything I say here I believe I can back up. If I can't I will retract it. I do no less than I expect of others.
Scott<>
I agree with your instructors. I actually started to say something similar, but didn't want to give anyone ideas. If one is going to use a firearm for protection, then one has to be serious about doing so. The romantic notion of shooting a gun out of someone's hand is just movie stuff. I recall reading somewhere that police are trained to fire in minimum three shot groups for effectiveness.Quote:
Originally Posted by valinors_sorrow
A person must the take the responsibly for their action requarding firearms. I personally own weapons for protection. I know the police cannot protect me from home invasions, simply for the distant they must travel. Each state is different regarding that. But when it comes to my life and my family I will protect them, I will do so without regard to what the law states..
ScottGem, I do understand what my states law states, but if I don't protect myself, how will the law help me after I am dead?
I would rather deal with the law which in my state (Maryland) states you must give the intruder and chance to leave before deadly force can be use.
I see that the law in MAryland does not protect the home owner at all, and I have voiced my opinion to the state representatives, who doesn't understand the problem.
If a intruder is in your home, breaking, shots or stabs you, because you must give them a chance to leave, before deadly force is used, how does the law protect you?
My only option is to protect me and the family with whatever will be deemed necessary at that time.
For what its worth, its been a long road to arrive here at gun ownership for me. Much thought and discussion and research went into it. Along the way, I have reconciled myself to a full awareness that if I take aim at anyone, it will be as immediately as possible followed by firing. It will be with the intention to kill. If the circumstances didn't warrant this, I would not begin the sequence at all. I would not have bought the gun unless it was to be used for what its intended. This is not a balance of power or a means to intimidate or negotiate, but a tool, a method for stopping an event. That is all.
I feel I am realistic in my understanding of home invasions. I have already experienced fighting for my life and know well the accompanying terror/panic that it brings. It is, for those who don't know, an event that simply won't provide enough time or opportunity for much else. That tends to be the real shocker for so many. For many years afterwards, I could not fight back, so you are seeing the tail end of a big journey here.
If I end up taking a life, there will be profound feelings afterwards. There is no question of that. But I will be secure in my understanding that I was defending myself. I continue to learn and tomorrow night I seek to gain an understanding of all the laws pertaining to responsible home protection and gun ownership in order to be legal. I would suggest any gun owner out there do likewise.
This is serious stuff.
I understand what you are saying, but which is more important, loss of property or loss of life? From what I've read, most such burglaries do not involve violence.
If you use a weapon there is at least an equal likelihood of you losing your life. You have to make your own decisions.
Again, I was agreeing with you in that you, at least understand the decisions you are making.
So how do you propose I take a survey of which one he is? Trust me, this isn't about property in an occupied dwelling and if it was, the thief should have done better homework. I am not being flip here.
I hope that is the point of Americans having the right to bear arms or whatever it says. Most Americans are responsible citizens who take their guns seriously and they aren't the problem in the US criminals are!!
So let's get this straight.
In the U.S. I can presume that the great majority of the population if not actually owning firearms are probably familiar with them.
With this vast knowledge of firearms can anyone explain how come, when they get dressed in uniform they manage to shoot more of their allies than the enemy does??
"Friendly fire" isn't! ;)
OMG, Magpie, you are way too funny!!
"over sexed, overfed, and over here"
hmmm... guess if I'm 2 out of 3 that isn't bad. =)
Exactly J-9 - that is why I "presumed" rather than "assumed" :D
My reasoning is that someone who is familiar with the "equipment" should, by rights, be confident with that "equipment" and less prone to "hair-trigger"
OK - call me a whining Brit - but ( reaches for his wooden spoon ;) ) - in a recent "confab" didn't that helicopter have a Maple Leaf on it?? :p :D
I firmly agree mr.yet Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by mr.yet
I agree with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
One question?What is a dog going to do if the intruider has a gun and all you have is a dog.The dog is more than likely going to be shot and their you are with no other protection. That would be like bringing a knife to a gun fight.I've seen this to many times over in Afganistan some of the rag heads wouldn't be armed with a gun it would be either with a dog or knife or anything else but a gun.and their we stand with our guns locked and loaded aimed right for them.Lucky for them we could not fire being they were not armed to shoot.(But sometimes you have to make adjustments).Quote:
Originally Posted by ndx
I have 3 dogs, 2 of which are rather frightening in looks only. While dogs may deter some people they will not stop someone who is doped up on crack or the big drug here is Meth. This county in my state is one of the biggest counties for making Meth cause of the remote areas.
So, dogs will not solve the problem.
So why don't you make a plan to find another job in a safer area?
I would say that you are right on the money.It's the same here to eccept crack is the biggest problem Meth is not a huge one here yet but I'm waiting for it to be.My sister in law is on the crack bad she has already stole from me and my other brother.So I informed her about stealing from me next time she does it there won't be a next time.Never the less she denied it like all crack heads do.My brother on the other hand he made a diff. one,He walks up to her very calm and says if you do it again I'll kick your butt.Now wheres my money.Then he smacks her upside her nappy head.Quote:
Originally Posted by J_9
Guns are not for everyone and up until recently they certainly weren't for me. But like it or not, people can, and do, threaten each other's very existence, rare though that may be for any one of us. For a long time, I told myself that if I am threatened to that degree - I'll move. So I moved a lot. Until moving didn't work anymore (I am married to a lovely man who won't move out of the US). Then I told myself so if I am threatened to that degree - I will temporarily run, hide or lose the fight and cease to exist. Valid options certainly. But one day something changed for me and I can't actually say what. I am willing to fight back, if I am ever faced with that sort of threat. And in that willingness, I believe I had best meet force with force. It is a skill I hope to never use. Like my aikido instructor said at the first class: "The best fight to have is NO fight but that may be easier to manage if you know you can defend in a way you believe you'll survive".
The fight or threat among human exists whether guns are in the picture or not. It has to do with we really haven't come along far enough collectively on this planet to realise that violence of any kind (with or without guns) is not the answer.
In the meantime, I choose to respond to certain threats in this manner. But don't decieve yourself that the threat is spawned by anything other than people. It is up to each person to determine how great it seems and how they care to meet it.
Preach it sista preach it. I do have to say you made a point.Diff. People have diff. ways to go about violence. But me I think I'm in my own little area (Land).If you pass my boundries They will be dealt with in more ways than one.I'm not saying I'll kill someone and I'm not saying I won't. All I'm saying is if they mess with me or my family I'm not responsible for what happens next.Quote:
Originally Posted by valinors_sorrow
Actually you are. You are responsible for all your actions. Jus' sayin'...Quote:
Originally Posted by rd68
Guns won't "solve" the problem either.Quote:
Originally Posted by J_9
Let me try and make this clear. I am not against gun ownership. While its not for me, I can appreciate others who feel they want to own them. Either for sport and/or for protection. I am for reasonable gun control laws that can help keep guns out of the hands of people who are not responsible or honest enough to use them responsibly.
Nor do I think that will "solve" the problem either. The solution, as I see it is a utopian society where there are no have nots, who will try to take from the haves. But we are a vey long way from such a society.
Getting back to dogs. No they aren't the solution, but they can help. Thieves want things easy, otherwise they probably wouldn't have become thieves. If they hear a dog, see a burglar alarm protection sticker, note the area has a neighborhood watch or other forms of protection, they are more likely to go elsewhere.
But if one does encounter someone doped up with a gun, having their own weapon makes them at least as likely to get hurt as the doper.
There was a story on the news this morning about an 11 yr old shooting a 5 yr old (he died) while playing with a gun. They didn't give all the details so I don't know whether the gun was licensed or what. But there are stories about such tragedies frequently.
We don't allow people to get behind the wheel of a car without making sure they have some competence. Should we do no less with a device designed to kill?
Just what I've been saying. The Wild West mentality should have died out long ago. We do not live in a vacuum. Everyone needs to step up and take responsibility for their actions and how those actions might affect others.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
That's just a saying,I know I would be responsible for what I do.But they would make me be responsible for what I do to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
If your not against it then why are you saying that we the people of the states should have no rights to have guns.Criminals should not have them,gangs should not have them.And whoever leaves a gun out for a child to get a hold of it doesn't need one either That was eresponsible and ignorant on their part.Land owners and people that have a permmit and police should have guns They are the cautious ones.Land owners = HUNTING,Permits = RIGHTS, police = PROTECTION.Armed forces = Keeping Your American butt safe.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
Ok I'll bite - where in this thread did he say that?Quote:
Originally Posted by rd68
WAKE UP!! He's been saying that this whole time but not just in them words.Yep your pure canadian you can't see what's going on.Sorry for that remark I'm just speaking my mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Please show me anyplace where I have ever said Americans should have no rights to have guns! I strongly suggest you read things more carefully before you have another case of foot in mouth disease. You are the one who needs to wake up. I have NOT been saying that at all. My position has always been that we need REASONABLE gun control legislation. Not the banning of gun ownership.Quote:
Originally Posted by rd68
Here I agree. But this begs the question of how do we keep them out of the hands of gangs and other criminals. How do we keep them out of the hands of irresponsible and ignorant users?Quote:
Originally Posted by rd68
The answer is effective and reasonable gun control legislation.
Oh, so he's saying it but not using words... I see. http://boards1.wizards.com/images/smilies/crazy.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by rd68
I believe my being Canadian has nothing to do with it, unless you're a redneck. Sorry for that remark I'm just speaking my mind.
:D Touché good comeback [Applause].Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Even though you don't write it in.But that what your really saying.I might be a little dumb but I'm not plumb dumb. I can see where your going with all your little remarks about gun control.You might have some people like NeedKarma fooled with your thing about gun control but not me.I see the hidden messages your writing down.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:47 PM. |