5 Home Invaders Stopped by AR-15

[hunarcy]

Yes, guns dont stop home invaders, people do. Fkn moron.

"whoosh" is right......it went right over her head the reason for the 2nd .....yours too?

You know what that stupid circular argument is? A deceptive way you try to justify your fears and put criminals on the same plane as law abiding gun owners.

Criminals don't need guns to be criminals. Plenty proof of that. It's not the gun.
Your stupid argument is like saying criminals wouldn't commit crimes if they didn't have a gun. CRIMINALS COMMIT CRIMES. It's what they do.

But law abiding people DO need guns to protect themselves from crazed mentally ill Lefties who commit the vast majority of aggravated crimes.
Also plenty proof of that. GUNS are the only way MANY single 100lb moms protect their families at night.

The question is why do YOU want to make sure women and children especially, become victims and easy targets for criminals? What's wrong with you?
Do you like criminals THAT much?

Ironically...this whole debate is pointless.

The 2nd Amendment is not about self protection. It's about not becoming the next Venezuela. Or Russia or China.
Of course, your kind is so stupid you think those are model societies.

Also, criminals would not comply with a law banning any or all guns.

Of course not. Just like they comply with other laws. Why have any laws?

To punish those who break it.

 

[Coyote]

Yes, guns dont stop home invaders, people do. Fkn moron.

"whoosh" is right......it went right over her head the reason for the 2nd .....yours too?

You know what that stupid circular argument is? A deceptive way you try to justify your fears and put criminals on the same plane as law abiding gun owners.

Criminals don't need guns to be criminals. Plenty proof of that. It's not the gun.
Your stupid argument is like saying criminals wouldn't commit crimes if they didn't have a gun. CRIMINALS COMMIT CRIMES. It's what they do.

But law abiding people DO need guns to protect themselves from crazed mentally ill Lefties who commit the vast majority of aggravated crimes.
Also plenty proof of that. GUNS are the only way MANY single 100lb moms protect their families at night.

The question is why do YOU want to make sure women and children especially, become victims and easy targets for criminals? What's wrong with you?
Do you like criminals THAT much?

Ironically...this whole debate is pointless.

The 2nd Amendment is not about self protection. It's about not becoming the next Venezuela. Or Russia or China.
Of course, your kind is so stupid you think those are model societies.

Also, criminals would not comply with a law banning any or all guns.

Of course not. Just like they comply with other laws. Why have any laws?

To punish those who break it.

That's circular...we have laws to punish those who break them?

 

[GHook93]

17 kids killed by an AR-15.

Kids that burst through the door and fired shots!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[hunarcy]

It is a lot more polite than Britain, Australia and Sweden these days....Those poor Swedish Bikini team members.....



We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...



--------
-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

You can’t really compare crime rates between countries due differences in

And the term meant "in good working order" in the age that it was written. You MUST use the definitions that were in use at the time of the writing.

and consider weaponry in those times as well...

i have many times

there had been several multiple shot firearms and weapons at the time

the framers did not exclude them when they wrote the 2nd amendment


they did not write

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 except for the Girandoni

They also didn't write that libel, slander, and yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre was to be excluded from free speech either but it is.

I think they expected some common sense from their descendents. Otherwise - let citizens have rocket launchers, nukes and landmines.

you can yell fire in a crowded theater however there may be consequences for doing so

fine a better example this one was a pointless dead end

You can do anything illegal and there will be consequences. But it serves to make the point, none of those rights are unlimited. 2nd Amendmenters are the only folks I've seen who seem to think there should be no limits, regulation of or "infringement" of a right that is rather vaguely stated in an amendment.

Today's military grade armenents do not belong in civilian hands any more than nukes, landmines and rocket launchers. A good handgun is effective for defense. If you are such a poor shot you need high capacity magezine in a semi-automatic rifle to spray your home invader you have no business handling a gun.

Clearly, that is your OPINION. Sadly for you, your opinion isn't worth a lot.

 

[hunarcy]

Yes, guns dont stop home invaders, people do. Fkn moron.

"whoosh" is right......it went right over her head the reason for the 2nd .....yours too?

You know what that stupid circular argument is? A deceptive way you try to justify your fears and put criminals on the same plane as law abiding gun owners.

Criminals don't need guns to be criminals. Plenty proof of that. It's not the gun.
Your stupid argument is like saying criminals wouldn't commit crimes if they didn't have a gun. CRIMINALS COMMIT CRIMES. It's what they do.

But law abiding people DO need guns to protect themselves from crazed mentally ill Lefties who commit the vast majority of aggravated crimes.
Also plenty proof of that. GUNS are the only way MANY single 100lb moms protect their families at night.

The question is why do YOU want to make sure women and children especially, become victims and easy targets for criminals? What's wrong with you?
Do you like criminals THAT much?

Ironically...this whole debate is pointless.

The 2nd Amendment is not about self protection. It's about not becoming the next Venezuela. Or Russia or China.
Of course, your kind is so stupid you think those are model societies.

Also, criminals would not comply with a law banning any or all guns.

Of course not. Just like they comply with other laws. Why have any laws?

To punish those who break it.

That's circular...we have laws to punish those who break them?

What other purpose is there?

 

[Coyote]

You can’t really compare crime rates between countries due differences in
and consider weaponry in those times as well...

i have many times

there had been several multiple shot firearms and weapons at the time

the framers did not exclude them when they wrote the 2nd amendment


they did not write

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 except for the Girandoni

They also didn't write that libel, slander, and yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre was to be excluded from free speech either but it is.

I think they expected some common sense from their descendents. Otherwise - let citizens have rocket launchers, nukes and landmines.

you can yell fire in a crowded theater however there may be consequences for doing so

fine a better example this one was a pointless dead end

You can do anything illegal and there will be consequences. But it serves to make the point, none of those rights are unlimited. 2nd Amendmenters are the only folks I've seen who seem to think there should be no limits, regulation of or "infringement" of a right that is rather vaguely stated in an amendment.

Today's military grade armenents do not belong in civilian hands any more than nukes, landmines and rocket launchers. A good handgun is effective for defense. If you are such a poor shot you need high capacity magezine in a semi-automatic rifle to spray your home invader you have no business handling a gun.

Clearly, that is your OPINION. Sadly for you, your opinion isn't worth a lot.

This entire thread is opinions. Or haven't you figured out that part yet?

 

[Coyote]

"whoosh" is right......it went right over her head the reason for the 2nd .....yours too?

You know what that stupid circular argument is? A deceptive way you try to justify your fears and put criminals on the same plane as law abiding gun owners.

Criminals don't need guns to be criminals. Plenty proof of that. It's not the gun.
Your stupid argument is like saying criminals wouldn't commit crimes if they didn't have a gun. CRIMINALS COMMIT CRIMES. It's what they do.

But law abiding people DO need guns to protect themselves from crazed mentally ill Lefties who commit the vast majority of aggravated crimes.
Also plenty proof of that. GUNS are the only way MANY single 100lb moms protect their families at night.

The question is why do YOU want to make sure women and children especially, become victims and easy targets for criminals? What's wrong with you?
Do you like criminals THAT much?

Ironically...this whole debate is pointless.

The 2nd Amendment is not about self protection. It's about not becoming the next Venezuela. Or Russia or China.
Of course, your kind is so stupid you think those are model societies.

Also, criminals would not comply with a law banning any or all guns.

Of course not. Just like they comply with other laws. Why have any laws?

To punish those who break it.

That's circular...we have laws to punish those who break them?

What other purpose is there?

Public safety and order.

 

[BlackSand]

and consider weaponry in those times as well...

The weaponry can change over time ... The intended use does not.
The Second Amendment doesn't say anything about self-defense, hunting nor sport.

.

 

[hunarcy]

i have many times

there had been several multiple shot firearms and weapons at the time

the framers did not exclude them when they wrote the 2nd amendment


they did not write

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 except for the Girandoni

They also didn't write that libel, slander, and yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre was to be excluded from free speech either but it is.

I think they expected some common sense from their descendents. Otherwise - let citizens have rocket launchers, nukes and landmines.

you can yell fire in a crowded theater however there may be consequences for doing so

fine a better example this one was a pointless dead end

You can do anything illegal and there will be consequences. But it serves to make the point, none of those rights are unlimited. 2nd Amendmenters are the only folks I've seen who seem to think there should be no limits, regulation of or "infringement" of a right that is rather vaguely stated in an amendment.

Today's military grade armenents do not belong in civilian hands any more than nukes, landmines and rocket launchers. A good handgun is effective for defense. If you are such a poor shot you need high capacity magezine in a semi-automatic rifle to spray your home invader you have no business handling a gun.

Clearly, that is your OPINION. Sadly for you, your opinion isn't worth a lot.

This entire thread is opinions. Or haven't you figured out that part yet?

Many have shared FACTS with you, but you ignore them.

 

[Crepitus]

View attachment 189217
More lives saved.

Home Invasion Victims Use AR–15 To Defend Themselves Against Five Armed Intruders

Related:

CDC, in Surveys It Never Bothered Making Public, Provides More Evidence that Plenty of Americans Innocently Defend Themselves with Guns

Not quite the whole story there pardner. The two groups knew each other, had a grudge, and escalated it through social media. If they had been black you would have called it gangbangers killing each other.

 

[hunarcy]

Also, criminals would not comply with a law banning any or all guns.

Of course not. Just like they comply with other laws. Why have any laws?

To punish those who break it.

That's circular...we have laws to punish those who break them?

What other purpose is there?

Public safety and order.

And to achieve that, we use the laws to punish those who break them.

 

[BlackSand]

You can do anything illegal and there will be consequences. But it serves to make the point, none of those rights are unlimited. 2nd Amendmenters are the only folks I've seen who seem to think there should be no limits, regulation of or "infringement" of a right that is rather vaguely stated in an amendment.

Today's military grade armenents do not belong in civilian hands any more than nukes, landmines and rocket launchers. A good handgun is effective for defense. If you are such a poor shot you need high capacity magezine in a semi-automatic rifle to spray your home invader you have no business handling a gun.

It's not vaguely stated ... It's clearly written.

It's not up to the federal government to grant themselves power the Constitution strictly denies.
No one is asking for your permission nor approval of what you think is fine to do whatever you think is necessary.
You weren't granted the power to infringe on the People's rights either.

.​

 

[Coyote]

You can do anything illegal and there will be consequences. But it serves to make the point, none of those rights are unlimited. 2nd Amendmenters are the only folks I've seen who seem to think there should be no limits, regulation of or "infringement" of a right that is rather vaguely stated in an amendment.

Today's military grade armenents do not belong in civilian hands any more than nukes, landmines and rocket launchers. A good handgun is effective for defense. If you are such a poor shot you need high capacity magezine in a semi-automatic rifle to spray your home invader you have no business handling a gun.

It's not vaguely stated ... It's clearly written.

It's not up to the federal government to grant themselves power the Constitution strictly denies.
No one is asking for your permission nor approval of what you think is fine to do whatever you think is necessary.
You weren't granted the power to infringe on the People's rights either.

.​

I am allowed my opinion just as freely as YOU are allowed YOURS. No one proclaimed you an expert on the Constitution either so your opinion is no more or less valid then mine.

 

[Coyote]

Of course not. Just like they comply with other laws. Why have any laws?

To punish those who break it.

That's circular...we have laws to punish those who break them?

What other purpose is there?

Public safety and order.

And to achieve that, we use the laws to punish those who break them.

Yes, but that is not the purpose of laws. If we had no laws, there would be no need to punish law breakers.

 

[Coyote]

and consider weaponry in those times as well...

The weaponry can change over time ... The intended use does not.
The Second Amendment doesn't say anything about self-defense, hunting nor sport.

.

It also says "well regulated" - there are a lot of scholarly/historian interpretations over the second amendment.

It is not an unlimited right. You can not have a nuke.

 

[BlackSand]

I am allowed my opinion just as freely as YOU are allowed YOURS. No one proclaimed you an expert on the Constitution either so your opinion is no more or less valid then mine.

Nothing I stated was an opinion ... It's in writing (or isn't where I duly noted).

.​

 

[BlackSand]

It also says "well regulated" - there are a lot of scholarly/historian interpretations over the second amendment.

It is not an unlimited right. You can not have a nuke.

You can propose to legislate whatever you want as far as a regulated militia is concerned.
But ... What you are trying is to infringe upon the individual's (People's) right to bear arms.

It doesn't take a historian to read and understand the fact it strictly limits the federal government's ability to infringe upon the rights of the People. ... It's what it says.
If you have a problem with it ... And a PhD in history ... It's because you want it mean something it doesn't actually state.

I didn't ask you if I could have a nuke ... There's no need for you to discuss it with me.

.​

 

[Coyote]

It also says "well regulated" - there are a lot of scholarly/historian interpretations over the second amendment.

It is not an unlimited right. You can not have a nuke.

You can propose to legislate whatever you want as far as a regulated militia is concerned.
But ... What you are trying is to infringe upon the individual's (People's) right to bear arms.

It doesn't take a historian to read and understand the fact it strictly limits the federal government's ability to infringe upon the rights of the People. ... It's what it says.
If you have a problem with it ... And a PhD in history ... It's because you want it mean something it doesn't actually state.

I didn't ask you if I could have a nuke ... There's no need for you to discuss it with me.

.​

I can discuss anything I want. You don't control this conversation. You are talking about arms, inclusively and are very specifically claiming nothing is excluded. Nukes are arms.

 

[BlackSand]

I can discuss anything I want. You don't control this conversation. You are talking about arms, inclusively and are very specifically claiming nothing is excluded. Nukes are arms.

If you want to waste your time you can ... I am sorry if you still feel the need to discuss it.
I simply stated that I have no concern over what you think about me having nukes ... Babble on if you feel so compelled ...

.​

 

[Pop23]

If you want to waste your time you can ... I am sorry if you still feel the need to discuss it.
I simply stated that I have no concern over what you think about me having nukes ... Babble on if you feel so compelled ...

.​

Babbling is what they do best