Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rd68

If you can't deal with it then don't look at this site.

---

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.

Have a great day with your room full of guns, I'm happy it gives you the comfort you need.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rd68

You Canadians need to stop the bashing on J 9 and our Americas rites. I to support the 2nd.If you can't deal with it then don't look at this site.I have a room full of guns but you don't see me killing a human just animals to eat. yes i might occasionaly fire in the air to scare of tresspassers but i don't shoot them.I been in the Armed forces protecting your butts and all you want to to is bash our way of living.I'm sorry but your Government needs a wake up call.I'm sorry if this offended anyone but thats how i feel.And J 9 Keep up the good work.

---

Who's "bashing" anyone?

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

Who's "bashing" anyone?

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.
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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

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.:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rd68

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.
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 for my country and i'll kill for my family.

---

Not necessarily. You shoot in the air, they react. Maybe they don't miss either so you don't get a second chance.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J_9

And, Scott, yes you seem to be bashing everyone who does not share your viewpoint.

---

Excuse me? Who and how?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

Not necessarily. You shoot in the air, they react. Maybe they don't miss either so you don't get a second chance.

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J_9

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.

---

When, at least in this thread, have I not been civil? Please point out one instance or retract the accusation.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J_9

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.

---

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.

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<>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valinors_sorrow

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 aim and shoot at only that which you mean 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.

---

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.

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!!