5 Home Invaders Stopped by AR-15

[Coyote]

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 ...

.​

Good, I will leave you to talk to yourself then since you don't appear do be willing to do much else

 

[hunarcy]

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.

True. And, there's no reason to punish people who have not broken any laws. I'm glad we agree on this and you'll stop calling for legal gun owners to be limited in the exercise of their rights.

 

[BlackSand]

Good, I will leave you to talk to yourself then since you don't appear do be willing to do much else

Well ... If weapons of mass destruction are the only thing you have left in your tool box ... Good luck with that, maybe someone cares to debate it ...
I post about what I think warrants a comment ... You do what you feel like doing ... Sorry if you made the mistake of thinking I give a damn.

Otherwise you don't have to tell me you are through ... You can leave of your own free will ...

.​

 

[idb]

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

Why didn't the homeowner use a car, or knife, swimming pool...apparently they're way more deadly than guns?
I'm pretty sure I've read that argument used somewhere.

 

[Coyote]

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.

True. And, there's no reason to punish people who have not broken any laws. I'm glad we agree on this and you'll stop calling for legal gun owners to be limited in the exercise of their rights.

They already are. They can't own nukes for example.

 

[Pop23]

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

Why didn't the homeowner use a car, or knife, swimming pool...apparently they're way more deadly than guns?
I'm pretty sure I've read that argument used somewhere.

^^^^^ saving face rarely looks this stupid

 

[hunarcy]

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.

True. And, there's no reason to punish people who have not broken any laws. I'm glad we agree on this and you'll stop calling for legal gun owners to be limited in the exercise of their rights.

They already are. They can't own nukes for example.

That's a stupid argument, as nukes are not "arms". Since you are reduced to silliness, I'll bid you adieu for the evening.

 

[MaryL]

When guns start being our defense, we are dead as a culture.

 

[Pop23]

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.

True. And, there's no reason to punish people who have not broken any laws. I'm glad we agree on this and you'll stop calling for legal gun owners to be limited in the exercise of their rights.

They already are. They can't own nukes for example.

Can you produce a picture of the nuke gun you speak of?

 

[Pop23]

When guns start being our defenses, we are dead as a culture.

Our culture died over 200 years ago?

Drama much?

 

[Pop23]

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.

True. And, there's no reason to punish people who have not broken any laws. I'm glad we agree on this and you'll stop calling for legal gun owners to be limited in the exercise of their rights.

They already are. They can't own nukes for example.

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

Learn the meaning of “arms”. You look silly

 

[Coyote]

...

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.

True. And, there's no reason to punish people who have not broken any laws. I'm glad we agree on this and you'll stop calling for legal gun owners to be limited in the exercise of their rights.

They already are. They can't own nukes for example.

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

Learn the meaning of “arms”. You look silly

Learn the meaning of “arms”. You look silly[/QUOTE]


hmmm.."It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated."

 

[hunarcy]

When guns start being our defense, we are dead as a culture.

People have been defending themselves for hundreds of years. You would want to call a man/woman with a gun if you were the victim of a crime. Your thought is silly.

 

[Pop23]

...

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.

True. And, there's no reason to punish people who have not broken any laws. I'm glad we agree on this and you'll stop calling for legal gun owners to be limited in the exercise of their rights.

They already are. They can't own nukes for example.

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

Learn the meaning of “arms”. You look silly

Learn the meaning of “arms”. You look silly

hmmm.."It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated."[/QUOTE]

Yes, nukes will continue to be regulated.

You read that continued regulation is much more than the court intended.

 

[Coyote]

...

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

True. And, there's no reason to punish people who have not broken any laws. I'm glad we agree on this and you'll stop calling for legal gun owners to be limited in the exercise of their rights.

They already are. They can't own nukes for example.

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

Learn the meaning of “arms”. You look silly

Learn the meaning of “arms”. You look silly

hmmm.."It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated."

Yes, nukes will continue to be regulated.

You read that continued regulation is much more than the court intended.[/QUOTE]

That is not what I understand...

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. Due to Washington, D.C.'s special status as a federal district, the decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment's protections are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states,[1] which was addressed two years later by McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) in which it was found that they are. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]​

 

[Dan Stubbs]

17 kids killed by an AR-15.

Yes, and the sheriffs department, and the school admin are complicit based on the fact that the killer was a KNOWN entity. Had commited dozens of violent acts against his family and against teachers, and had the negligent sheriffs dept arrested him ONE time out of those dozens, he would have been precluded from purchasing the rifle legally. You want to hurl invective at some one, or some thing, hurl it at the asshole who did the shooting, and the GOVERNMENT that ALLOWED it (hell they practically begged him to do it) to happen.

 

[MaryL]

When guns start being our defense, we are dead as a culture.

People have been defending themselves for hundreds of years. You would want to call a man/woman with a gun if you were the victim of a crime. Your thought is silly.

Well, ok. I am an idiot, My input here means nothing. Ok.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Look for the real cause:

 

[Crepitus]

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.

.​

Even constitional scholars say it's vaguely written.

 

[Crepitus]

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).

.​

Of course it is. You do know that the 2nd wasn't considered and individual right until it was reinterpreted in 2008 right?