Various Stances on Gun Control Policy

[Capellini]

An alarm system.

say he disabled it with say... his gun.

What ARE you talking about?

If someone was able to break into my house, get into my bedroom, go through all my possessions, and then stand over my bed before I even knew he was there, the only thing that would have helped me was not being ASLEEP.

What you want me to say is, I wish I had a gun. However, how exactly does a gun help in that situation? Is the robber standing over your bed going to give you a minute to go and get it?

Don't try and out snark me, its rude, and pointless.

[LibraLabRat]

An alarm system.

say he disabled it with say... his gun.

What ARE you talking about?

If someone was able to break into my house, get into my bedroom, go through all my possessions, and then stand over my bed before I even knew he was there, the only thing that would have helped me was not being ASLEEP.

What you want me to say is, I wish I had a gun. However, how exactly does a gun help in that situation? Is the robber standing over your bed going to give you a minute to go and get it?

Don't try and out snark me, its rude, and pointless.

I agree with you. However, unless you are sleeping under the influence of Ambien, you will most likely notice another person riffling through your belongings. I would recommend either waiting for the guy to leave the room and dial 911, or try to get to a safe room with the phone ( bathroom off the master bedroom) and hope.

In the case in my house where I heard the people break into my house, I had an oppurtunity to arm myself and put myself between the would be assailants and my family. Not everyone has that luxury.

[Qwertyuiopasd]

yeah, I'm sorry Cap. I'm not sure what I was thinking.

although if I were LIbraLabRat in the position where I have the gun, and theres a guy with a crowbar trying to steal my TV, and he dosen't disist, I'd first shoot a warning shot at the ground or something. or one of those non-lethal shots to the foot or something.

[Tickle]

yeah, I'm sorry Cap. I'm not sure what I was thinking.

although if I were LIbraLabRat in the position where I have the gun, and theres a guy with a crowbar trying to steal my TV, and he dosen't disist, I'd first shoot a warning shot at the ground or something. or one of those non-lethal shots to the foot or something.

And get a bullet hole in the carpet?

[LibraLabRat]

yeah, I'm sorry Cap. I'm not sure what I was thinking.

although if I were LIbraLabRat in the position where I have the gun, and theres a guy with a crowbar trying to steal my TV, and he dosen't disist, I'd first shoot a warning shot at the ground or something. or one of those non-lethal shots to the foot or something.

Sorry qwerty, but warning shots are not part of armed self defense. And shots to wound are a guaranteed one way ticket to jail time.

I have been through more than a few armed self defense classes in the Army. You do not shoot over the head, or in the foot. IF you must shoot, aim center of mass ( chest/stomach) and let fly. Head shots are very Hollywood, due to the odd ballistic characteristics of the skull, bullets may travel around the orbit of the skull under the scalp, or actually bounce off. Not that this wouldnt incapacitate your attacker, but trust me, head shots are a bad idea.

[Qwertyuiopasd]

Sorry qwerty, but warning shots are not part of armed self defense.

I just would rather not kill someone. A warning shot would show them that I mean business. although, if I knew what I was doing and barked "lay down on your stomach!" or whatever, I suppose I could be intimidating enough.

thanks for the warning about wound-shots.

[LibraLabRat]

You dont have to kill someone to get your point across. Just pointing the gun at them is enough to get them to leave or lie down.

[Capellini]

You dont have to kill someone to get your point across. Just pointing the gun at them is enough to get them to leave or lie down.

If that were true, bullets would be unnecessary.

[Qwertyuiopasd]

You dont have to kill someone to get your point across. Just pointing the gun at them is enough to get them to leave or lie down.

but like you said, if he dosen't desist, you'll shoot him right then and there. he might not think you have the guts. of course, you're from the army. I'm talking someone more like me or something. in 10 or 20 years of course.

If that were true, bullets would be unnecessary.

if we didn't have bullets, guns wouldn't be intimidating.

"what are you gonna do, pistol whip me?"

so maybe you say get the gun, but not the bullets. what if someone calls your bluff?

[LibraLabRat]

My point exactly. Every time I have pointed a gun at another living thing, I intend to shoot to kill.


A gun without bullets is a complicated paperweight.

A gun with bullets is a force equalizer. It is what allows a 98 pound woman defeat a 225 pound rapist.

[LibraLabRat]

Warning, LONG article to be found at this link:

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

/snip/
Yet another jurist, Justice Story (appointed to the Supreme Court as an Associate Justice by James Madison in 1811), wrote a constitutional commentary in 1833 ("Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States"). Regarding the Second Amendment, he wrote (source):

The next amendment is: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

As the Tennessee Supreme Court in Andrews v. State (1871) explains, this "passage from Story, shows clearly that this right was intended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed to, and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights."
/snip/

Let me break it down:

We have the right to defend ourselves, and our families, and our homes, and those unable to defend themselves.

And no one can take the right to self defense away from you.

[FireFox]

one thing that occured to me:
realising that this removes a lot of the 'street' aspect of self defence
in gun control debates has anyone thought of 'site' licences for handguns.
basically you can keep a handgun on the listed site (e.g. your land) or move it to a regustered firearms range (if you are a member) other than that hand gun carrying is strongly discouraged

Steve

[Capellini]

Warning, LONG article to be found at this link:

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

/snip/
Yet another jurist, Justice Story (appointed to the Supreme Court as an Associate Justice by James Madison in 1811), wrote a constitutional commentary in 1833 ("Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States"). Regarding the Second Amendment, he wrote (source):

The next amendment is: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

As the Tennessee Supreme Court in Andrews v. State (1871) explains, this "passage from Story, shows clearly that this right was intended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed to, and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights."
/snip/

Let me break it down:

We have the right to defend ourselves, and our families, and our homes, and those unable to defend themselves.

And no one can take the right to self defense away from you.

FROM THE GOVERNMENT.

IN DEFENSE SOLELY OF YOUR POLITICAL RIGHTS.

because it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers

[Qwertyuiopasd]

I'm not sure what you mean Cap. what are pollitical rights? rights to go into pollitics or something? and I really don't get the bolded statement. as far as I can tell, its saying that the 2nd ammendment is just a guideline or warning for usurpers or something. I know I'm interperting that wrong.

but his point is, the SUPREME FREAKING COURT says that the SECOND AMMENDMETN to the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA says that YOU CAN HAVE A GUN!!!!

whatever your interpretation, its apparently not the supreme courts interpretation. and whose job is it to interpret the law?

[LibraLabRat]

one thing that occured to me:
realising that this removes a lot of the 'street' aspect of self defence
in gun control debates has anyone thought of 'site' licences for handguns.
basically you can keep a handgun on the listed site (e.g. your land) or move it to a regustered firearms range (if you are a member) other than that hand gun carrying is strongly discouraged

Steve

IT is an unconstitutional restriction, that is why. Who would you have to notify if you wanted to move your guns? What if you decide to move and change addresses?

I am having a hard time understanding why it is so difficult to understand that a large amount of the current firearms related law is unconstitutional, and you want to add more?

For what?

The assault weapons ban expired. Where are the bodies in the streets that the anti gun lobby promised? Nowhere, because the overall crime rate has been dropping for the past ten years.