Also, your argument does not take into account that in this country your rights are protected against infringement..
You can however, voluntarily suspend your own civil rights for the sake of living a day to day life.
For instance, the Second Amendment is a right. A bank has the right to make it's private property a "Gun-Free" zone. In order to do business in the bank, you must voluntarily suspend you Second Amendment right to carry there.
__________________ The first question should always be, "If it's that bad, why are you still there?
OK, you screwed up, it happens. Now apologize. But apologize just once. Make it loud, clear, short, to the point, and directly to those you trespassed against. Then move on.
Oh, BTW, many home invasions, armed robberies, etc, NEVER make the news unless someone is killed. I know this for a fact because many of the ones I've been on never made the news. It's simply not newsworthy in the larger cities.
No, I don't want a vehicle retasked as a weapon. I want a cruise missile.
If I have the means, should I be able to obtain one? Posted via Mobile Device
No actually because you can't get FAA clearance to use one. You need special clearance for an amateur rocket greater than a given size and the ammonium perchlorate solid propulsion fuel is carefully controlled by both the ATF, and a few other 3 letter agencies. You can't even legally purchase liquid fuel grade H2O2 of sufficient concentration - around 95% or higher. Of course unless you wanted to make a 4.5 Richter explosion in your garage it's hard to understand what the purpose of that would be.
Depends on your point of view, doesn't it? To anti-gunners, she isn't. For just about everyone else, a teen mom who was just widowed, and defending her life and the life of her baby against armed intruders, she's a heroine.
Interesting choice of words, "eerily calm...frighteningly so". What's so frightening about a woman being calm? Is it better to be screaming and panicking? Is it a crime to be level headed in a crisis situation? Kudos to her for keeping her head and not going to pieces, enabled her to save her life and the life of her child. I would hope my wife would be able to react that way given the same situation. But no, I know she would be in a panic and wouldnt know what to do because she did so before when my house burned down years ago.
My choice of words has to do with the fact that, rather than simply sounding cool under pressure and resigned to feeling the need to use deadly force, she sounded not only prepared to do so, but almost as if she was anticipating doing so. May be my own POV coloring it...may have been her instincts surpressing her emotions, maybe a little of both.
And, while I don't begrudge her feeling that was the only option available and exercising it, I'd still stop short of "hero." Call me naive if you like, but I've never much found the taking of a life to be terribly heroic. Posted via Mobile Device
Now you're venturing beyond self defense of life and property into the realm of vigilantiism. If you want to be part of the neighborhood watch,that's fine. Just don't do it while armed with the purpose of stopping crime.
Just getting a bird's eye view of my property. And, since I'm up in the air, can't very well use the guns inside the house to defend that property, now, can I?
Quote:
Those "pesky" intruders. Your choice of words makes it seem that it just some ploy of the gun lobby. I assure you, having worked the street, those "pesky" intruders are no joke.
I don't doubt that they exist. I do doubt that they exist in the numbers and frequency - in fact, as a near-inevitability - that many proponents of increased gun control seem to paint. Their choice of words tends to be "when someone breaks into my house..." Not "if," but "when," painting it as something that everyone will encounter on a frequent, possibly recurring, basis. So, in that respect, yes, I see it as a ploy...one of words designed to instill fear. Posted via Mobile Device
Now, in aquiring larger ones, you would run into issues. Things involving classified technology, "destructive device" regulations, and all kinds of safety, enviromental, and economic factors are controlled.
You would need to get Congress to approve your Letter of Marque and Reprisal.
Once that is done and approved, start picking color.
Hmmm...so, would it be safe to say that you are fine with regulations that might prohibit the average person's access to weapons of more destructive power than they would reasonably require the use of? Posted via Mobile Device
Also, your argument does not take into account that in this country your rights are protected against infringement..
You can however, voluntarily suspend your own civil rights for the sake of living a day to day life.
For instance, the Second Amendment is a right. A bank has the right to make it's private property a "Gun-Free" zone. In order to do business in the bank, you must voluntarily suspend you Second Amendment right to carry there.
No actually because you can't get FAA clearance to use one. You need special clearance for an amateur rocket greater than a given size and the ammonium perchlorate solid propulsion fuel is carefully controlled by both the ATF, and a few other 3 letter agencies. You can't even legally purchase liquid fuel grade H2O2 of sufficient concentration - around 95% or higher. Of course unless you wanted to make a 4.5 Richter explosion in your garage it's hard to understand what the purpose of that would be.
As Mistys dad pointed out, "need" is not a condition of the Second Amendment, which establishes my right to bear arms. I want that to be a cruise missile. I don't even want to go nuclear.
Yet.
Thus, preventing me from getting one - even making it so difficult to do so - is an infringement upon my Second Amendment rights.
Hmmm...so, would it be safe to say that you are fine with regulations that might prohibit the average person's access to weapons of more destructive power than they would reasonably require the use of? Posted via Mobile Device
Nooooo, what I am saying, is that there is a path to ownership if that is what you desire.
The rest is up to you.
Good luck.
And my chances of having an armed break-in at my house. 100%. Already happened.
It was by a chance appointment, made last minute, that my wife is still with me.
__________________ The first question should always be, "If it's that bad, why are you still there?
OK, you screwed up, it happens. Now apologize. But apologize just once. Make it loud, clear, short, to the point, and directly to those you trespassed against. Then move on.
And I stand by my statement, as well. Namely, that, while many objects not designed as weapons (more specifically for this discussion, firearms) can be misapplied as weapons, that there is no practical use for a firearm beyond injury/killing. A car has a practical purpose of transportation. A hammer has a practical purpose of driving nails. Even a knife has other practical purposes as mundane as unsealing a box. A firearm is a unitasker, not a multitasker.
Since the Second Amendment's guarantees are prefaced with the condition of the importance of a well-regulated militia, let me ask the question a different way. If this militia is made up of - potentially - "everyone," many (most?) of whom will never communicate with another gun owner regarding coordination of activities, how does this constitute the well-regulated militia mentioned in the Second Amendment?
Let's face it for what it is. You and I both know that lacking a firearm does not, in and of itself, render a person "defenseless."
And you don't see anything tragic or sad in the least about a mentality that sees others as "targets" rather than people?
There's no "probably" about it. I have absolutely no business with a gun in my possession.
I see what you did there. You once again drew the false conclusion that lack of a firearm automatically renders one "defenseless." Dramatic, if still a fallacy. Posted via Mobile Device
The fact that 2nd A is an individual right is established law so lets move on from it.
Ok, I'll bite. You are faced with the criminal element who is armed with a Glock 23. How will you defend yourself???
The fact that 2nd A is an individual right is established law so lets move on from it.
Let's not. I'll repeat my question: how, exactly, are individuals who don't communicate with one another a "well-regulated militia?"
Quote:
Ok, I'll bite. You are faced with the criminal element who is armed with a Glock 23. How will you defend yourself???
By any means at my disposal. Not carrying a firearm no more renders me defenseless than carrying one guarantees I'd leave the situation you describe unharmed (or at all). Posted via Mobile Device
"Well Regulated" refers to the organized behavior of a group of individuals while in militia service. Specifically stated as to not require drills, training or active service.
"Militia" refers to the armed citizens that may be called upon to form a deputized force under the guidance of local or regional law enforcement. Such as during a time of emergency. Specifically stated as to not require any qualifications of law enforcement other than possession of arms and able to conduct themselves in a "well regulated" way.
While the typical anti-gun argument is to parse words to the point of ridiculous, they always seem to forget "shall not be infringed"
__________________ The first question should always be, "If it's that bad, why are you still there?
OK, you screwed up, it happens. Now apologize. But apologize just once. Make it loud, clear, short, to the point, and directly to those you trespassed against. Then move on.
31Likes
Re: Gun Laws 
