Gun "Logic" , The "Right" to Bear Arms?

That's not what I am saying. Everyone assumes that to stop someone who wants to kill you, it is necessary to kill them. But that's not the case. All that is really necessary is to temporarily incapacitate them, which is something that can be achieved with non-lethal force.

 

Not a pipe dream at all. Nothing I proposed cannot be done. Just because it would not be effective in the short term does not mean it should not be done. Lack of a perfect solution does not equate to doing nothing or not even trying.

 

hmmmmmmmmmmmmm, well, since I have no problem with shooting a crim trying to violate my Rights with extreme predjudice, I will use the same force (and I have), I am under no such constraints or obligation as you. Since they injected themselves that way,,too bad for them.

 

My wife and I were accosted by two young me on a walk one night. I carry, When we ordered the two men to back off, one pulled ot a very large knife. When I pulled my firearm out, one took off like he'd be goosed with a cattle prod. The other one, however began running at my wife swinging the knife trying to cut her. I put two rounds, dead center mass. He did not die, but is currently serving a total of ten years, after time off for good behavior. The judge advised him that he should probably NOT look me up [for revenge] when he got out. The young man said, and I quote..." I don't ever want to see those people again."
Self defense works like a charm.

 

I'm glad that situation worked out well for you. Truly I am. But you encountered some criminals who were dumb enough to bring a knives to a gun fight. There's a very good chance the outcome would have been quite different had they too been armed with guns. I just don't understand people who want to see everyone armed so that when there's disagreements, there's gun fights and people die. Much better to be in a fist fight than a gun fight, no? Even if you lose a fist fight you can recover from it with usually no permanent harm done. Once the criminals have guns, how do you ensure you'll be victorious? It doesn't matter how much bigger your weapon is than theirs if theirs can still kill you, especially when they can ambush and kill you with no warning and your gun never comes in to play.

 

You do realize how brutal fights can be, right? Muggings rarely, if at all, become boxing matches. Using a baseball bat is about as brutal as it gets. Take a melon outside and give it a real good pop with a bat. Go cruise the internet for images of knife wounds. Can you imagine getting run through with a sword?
There are no guarantees in Life, Well, one, anyway. Life is about risks. I could have a jumbo jet fall onto my house. I could be struck by lightening. If one chooses to live life in such a parnoid state, they will never move out of their houses.
I will clue you in, there are evil people out there, and I will not be their sacrifice.

 

Not for the weak it's not... People take negative actions towards other people if they feel/know they're going to be able to do it and/or get away with it. I've lived in the city and I did "Recover" from being pummeled by 3+ people at a time kicking me once they forcefully brought me down. Do you know what I learned that day? Never leave home without a weapon... They're all using the same types of weapons I was using but, the thought of being bashed in the face with the 3ft pole I carried was enough for them to keep their distance. Now you have criminals with guns... Are they going to fear someone who is carrying a knife? Of course not. When the populace they're surrounded with is all carrying weapons similar to their own they're not going to attack prey of equal or stronger power. Why do these people do mass shootings in the least protected areas? Because it's easier prey...

 

Who is "we"? The poster I was responding to most certainly was proposing "no guns". He even concluded his argument with "no guns = no threat"

 

Not only would it not be effective in the short term, it would actually cause innocent people to lose their lives. Furthermore, it is a pipe dream because neither the political nor the public will is there for the draconian measures that you proposed. If you think that your proposal has a snowball's chance then I have to wonder if you even live in the US.

 

Only a well regulated militia is specifically enumerated as being necessary to the security of a free State.

 

still........
[video=youtube;kxig2AF1-gw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpag e&v=kxig2AF1-gw[/video]

 

How does one start the slow demise of a Right? Do you do it instantly or nibble away at it until it is gone?
It is done by erosion. It is done by applying little measures. Once any Right becomes regulated by government, it merely becomes a privilege. It is less than a Right.
If we rely upon the government to "explain" what our Rights are, allow them to regulate it in any way, then it is no longer a Right, but a matter of convenience.
How insane is it to trust the government to define what our God -given Rights are, that is akin to seeking permission to do what is Right for the Individual. Historically, anything taken by the government is seldom returned without a fight.
Do you really think this administration has the Individual's Right at heart? It appears that the the people running the government are only thinking about themselves. They are excluded from the gun ban and exempt from punishments from violating the ban.

 

Can you demonstrate that an individual needs a rocket launcher or gunship to defend their person from aggression initiated against them?

 

The 2nd Amendment doesn't "grant" anything. It serves to protect a preexisting natural right.

As for felons and the mentally unstable:

Felons: I believe that once a person has served their time, all of their rights should be restored. If it is reasonable to believe that they are still a threat to society then they shouldn't have been let out to begin with.

The mentally unstable is too broad of a category to address.

They do once the government starts having Jews or blacks register themselves. I'm not even wholly opposed to background checks when going through a federally licensed gun dealer but I don't think my neighbor should have to have a background check run in order for me to sell him one of my guns. If there is one thing that history has taught us, it is that government will infringe on the natural rights of citizens, so giving them ultimate authority to determine who can and cannot exercise their rights would clearly be folly.

Right, so we essentially agree that limiting ammunition greatly diminishes the ability to effectively defend oneself.

Yes, no right is absolute. One person's right to life is counterbalanced by every other person's right to life. If you can demonstrate how 11 round magazines infringe on anyone else's right to life I'd love to hear it. Quite frankly, the limiting of ammunition being proposed is completely arbitrary. As a side note, the only reason I can think of that the number 10 was chosen is because that is how many fingers the monkeys who are proposing the legislation have. That's the same reason that our number system is base10 and it is completely arbitrary. Why not limit it to 1 round? Or 9, or 12?

Also, it is interesting to note that your statement above actually relies on the common conception of "natural rights" as opposed to the fabricated definition you suggested earlier. Why do you think that "everyone has the right to life"?

 

The Militia of the United States may keep and bear those Arms which may be necessary to suppress insurrections and repel invasions; any questions?

 

"It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. ...It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon." — Justice Joseph Bradley - United States Supreme Court (1886)

Where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.— United States Supreme Court (1966)

 

Outstanding......I could not agree more with you. cudos and a rep coming your way.......

 

To an extent yes. I don't think anyone should own a nuclear weapon for instance because it is impossible to use without violating the rights of others. I suppose the argument could be made that people should be allowed to own rocket launchers or gunships. Are you making that argument?

Btw, you know you're stretching when you have to bring up explosives and such to argue against owning weapons for self defense.