The Right To Bear Arms

[Esmeralda]

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right. Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities. I think it is a disgrace that such people have the right to own guns. Being able to own a gun is something that should be earned and that privilge should maintained by specific behavior. I remember, some years ago, a guy telling me he accidently shot his roommate's cat which was sitting on the couch next to him. He thought it was funny. Such a moron should not have the right to own a gun.

According to the US Constitution, the right to bear arms is absolutely absolute It shall not be infringed. It is more of a protected right than voting and just as fundamental.
Yes, convicted felons, the mentally deficient and children should not possess firearms. They should not vote either.
I am a pro-2nd Amendment poster here that is far from hysterical and about 60 IQ points ahead of you from the look of the uninformed drivel you post here.
As for your guy with the cat.... Perhaps the guy shouldn't have a gun. He did a stupid thing. Maybe he should lose his right to vote too?

How about that? How about we have "reasonable voting control"? You walk in to your polling place and the proctor asks you 10 questions about government. If you can't answer them and prove who you are, you don't vote.
That's reasonable, isn't it?

You people's arguments are so stupid and are generally always logical failures: there is no comparison between voting and owning a gun. Voting is not the same thing as having a firearm, which kills people or animals, in your possession. There is no comparison between voting and having a gun.

Owning guns protects the right to vote....just look at any dictatorship......they all vote....North Korea, Iraq under sadaam, Iran.........and no freedom......what protects freedom........free people with guns.....that protects the vote..........

Lots of countries with few guns have the right to vote.

Absolutely. Owning a gun does not have anything to do with or protect your right to vote. All the countries of Europe have far stricter gun laws than the US, and in all those countries, the citizens have voting rights. Saying guns are connected to voting is a red herring.

 

[ChrisL]

Let's put this into perspective so that everyone can SEE how retarded the anti-rights crowd is. The Second Amendment was drafted to protect us from, not only foreign invaders, but also our OWN government to prevent government tyranny! Now we have some tards who want the government to REGULATE the right! Oh good Lord, people cannot be so stupid, can they?

 

[2aguy]

Brain357

Here is the link to the story I had posted on the other thread about the man who used more than 10 rounds in self defense that you think is "made up."

Gun Training Report 34 Interview with a Gunfighter

And here is the news report to corroborate his story. The man in the video is property owner Billy Jackson.

Police Shooting Was Self-Defense WLKY Home - WLKY Home

I recommend everyone watch the Interview with a Gunfighter video. It is just fascinating. Eleven rounds he used with a TEC 9 with a high capacity magazine. He ended up killing both perpetrators though. Post #2619, I believe.

I also find it interesting when certain posters claim that they are not "gun banners," yet if you check out their posting history, they ONLY post on anti-gun threads. Hmmm. Lol.

All you have to do is learn both sides.

The (far) Left that fixate on no guns don't own one and see stories every day about killings with them. They think that guns are bad. And the idiotic Right has the worst response possible due to lack of education. The (far) Left thinks there will be no gun killings without guns and the (far) Right says guns will kill people if we ban guns so why ban guns............not exactly creating the best argument. Creating a fear that people with guns will kill us if we don't have guns drives the topic. The ONLY people that create that fear today is the NRA AND THE RIGHT WING and the ones who can profit.

The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.

I say lack of regulation will lead to bans. But that's just an individuals predications based on collective information.

Obviously you have a very poor understanding of the issue.

sorry Chris....this didn't happen...I have it on expert psychic authority (Brain) that no one ever, ever, ever, ever, has needed or will ever, ever, ever need more that 2 bullets in any violent criminal attack..........besides, with what Brain says about Kleck....this gentleman is obviously a criminal King pin since only criminals use guns for self defense........

 

[Jackinthebox]

I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right. Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities. I think it is a disgrace that such people have the right to own guns. Being able to own a gun is something that should be earned and that privilge should maintained by specific behavior. I remember, some years ago, a guy telling me he accidently shot his roommate's cat which was sitting on the couch next to him. He thought it was funny. Such a moron should not have the right to own a gun.

According to the US Constitution, the right to bear arms is absolutely absolute It shall not be infringed. It is more of a protected right than voting and just as fundamental.
Yes, convicted felons, the mentally deficient and children should not possess firearms. They should not vote either.
I am a pro-2nd Amendment poster here that is far from hysterical and about 60 IQ points ahead of you from the look of the uninformed drivel you post here.
As for your guy with the cat.... Perhaps the guy shouldn't have a gun. He did a stupid thing. Maybe he should lose his right to vote too?

How about that? How about we have "reasonable voting control"? You walk in to your polling place and the proctor asks you 10 questions about government. If you can't answer them and prove who you are, you don't vote.
That's reasonable, isn't it?

You people's arguments are so stupid and are generally always logical failures: there is no comparison between voting and owning a gun. Voting is not the same thing as having a firearm, which kills people or animals, in your possession. There is no comparison between voting and having a gun.

Owning guns protects the right to vote....just look at any dictatorship......they all vote....North Korea, Iraq under sadaam, Iran.........and no freedom......what protects freedom........free people with guns.....that protects the vote..........

Lots of countries with few guns have the right to vote.

Absolutely. Owning a gun does not have anything to do with or protect your right to vote. All the countries of Europe have far stricter gun laws than the US, and in all those countries, the citizens have voting rights. Saying guns are connected to voting is a red herring.

This is a Republic, not a democracy.

 

[Wildman]

I also find it interesting when certain posters claim that they are not "gun banners," yet if you check out their posting history, they ONLY post on anti-gun threads. Hmmm. Lol.

All you have to do is learn both sides.

The (far) Left that fixate on no guns don't own one and see stories every day about killings with them. They think that guns are bad. And the idiotic Right has the worst response possible due to lack of education. The (far) Left thinks there will be no gun killings without guns and the (far) Right says guns will kill people if we ban guns so why ban guns............not exactly creating the best argument. Creating a fear that people with guns will kill us if we don't have guns drives the topic. The ONLY people that create that fear today is the NRA AND THE RIGHT WING and the ones who can profit.

The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.

I say lack of regulation will lead to bans. But that's just an individuals predications based on collective information.

<><><><><><><><><>
regulation ?? ""The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation."" regulations leads to banning and confiscation !!

you know that to be true, but you will lie about facts till your dying day !!

 

[Jackinthebox]

Brain357

Here is the link to the story I had posted on the other thread about the man who used more than 10 rounds in self defense that you think is "made up."

Gun Training Report 34 Interview with a Gunfighter

And here is the news report to corroborate his story. The man in the video is property owner Billy Jackson.

Police Shooting Was Self-Defense WLKY Home - WLKY Home

I recommend everyone watch the Interview with a Gunfighter video. It is just fascinating. Eleven rounds he used with a TEC 9 with a high capacity magazine. He ended up killing both perpetrators though. Post #2619, I believe.

I also find it interesting when certain posters claim that they are not "gun banners," yet if you check out their posting history, they ONLY post on anti-gun threads. Hmmm. Lol.

All you have to do is learn both sides.

The (far) Left that fixate on no guns don't own one and see stories every day about killings with them. They think that guns are bad. And the idiotic Right has the worst response possible due to lack of education. The (far) Left thinks there will be no gun killings without guns and the (far) Right says guns will kill people if we ban guns so why ban guns............not exactly creating the best argument. Creating a fear that people with guns will kill us if we don't have guns drives the topic. The ONLY people that create that fear today is the NRA AND THE RIGHT WING and the ones who can profit.

The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.

I say lack of regulation will lead to bans. But that's just an individuals predications based on collective information.

Obviously you have a very poor understanding of the issue.

sorry Chris....this didn't happen...I have it on expert psychic authority (Brain) that no one ever, ever, ever, ever, has needed or will ever, ever, ever need more that 2 bullets in any violent criminal attack..........besides, with what Brain says about Kleck....this gentleman is obviously a criminal King pin since only criminals use guns for self defense........

I think too few people in this conversation have ever shot a man dead.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

Since Paris, French Jews working security are asking for Europe's laws restricting guns be loosened so security forces can arm themselves against terrorists. I'm surprised pro-gun people here aren't citing this as an example of when having legal access to weapons is justified. When Europeans are wanting to arm up, maybe it's time to accept the reality of the human animal as a violent species and just accept guns instead of trying to make the world better outlawing them when doing so only ensures criminals (and terrorists) will have them.

 

[2aguy]

I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right. Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities. I think it is a disgrace that such people have the right to own guns. Being able to own a gun is something that should be earned and that privilge should maintained by specific behavior. I remember, some years ago, a guy telling me he accidently shot his roommate's cat which was sitting on the couch next to him. He thought it was funny. Such a moron should not have the right to own a gun.

According to the US Constitution, the right to bear arms is absolutely absolute It shall not be infringed. It is more of a protected right than voting and just as fundamental.
Yes, convicted felons, the mentally deficient and children should not possess firearms. They should not vote either.
I am a pro-2nd Amendment poster here that is far from hysterical and about 60 IQ points ahead of you from the look of the uninformed drivel you post here.
As for your guy with the cat.... Perhaps the guy shouldn't have a gun. He did a stupid thing. Maybe he should lose his right to vote too?

How about that? How about we have "reasonable voting control"? You walk in to your polling place and the proctor asks you 10 questions about government. If you can't answer them and prove who you are, you don't vote.
That's reasonable, isn't it?

You people's arguments are so stupid and are generally always logical failures: there is no comparison between voting and owning a gun. Voting is not the same thing as having a firearm, which kills people or animals, in your possession. There is no comparison between voting and having a gun.

Owning guns protects the right to vote....just look at any dictatorship......they all vote....North Korea, Iraq under sadaam, Iran.........and no freedom......what protects freedom........free people with guns.....that protects the vote..........

Lots of countries with few guns have the right to vote.

Absolutely. Owning a gun does not have anything to do with or protect your right to vote. All the countries of Europe have far stricter gun laws than the US, and in all those countries, the citizens have voting rights. Saying guns are connected to voting is a red herring.

Yes...and they had the right to vote in nazi Germany and communist Russia as well....as well as modern North Korea, and Iraq under sadaam Hussein, and in Modern Iran, and in all those tin pot African dictatorships....they all have the right to vote........but it means nothing since they have no freedom.....and freedom is only secured by free people armed with guns.........Europe has shown us that......

again...libs like you don't understand history, and that what happened in the past can happen again because for you libs, history only begins each morning when you wake up.....all of the rest of that "history" stuff the pro 2nd amendment types talk about is just fairy tales to you......

 

[Wildman]

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right. Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities. I think it is a disgrace that such people have the right to own guns. Being able to own a gun is something that should be earned and that privilge should maintained by specific behavior. I remember, some years ago, a guy telling me he accidently shot his roommate's cat which was sitting on the couch next to him. He thought it was funny. Such a moron should not have the right to own a gun.

According to the US Constitution, the right to bear arms is absolutely absolute It shall not be infringed. It is more of a protected right than voting and just as fundamental.
Yes, convicted felons, the mentally deficient and children should not possess firearms. They should not vote either.
I am a pro-2nd Amendment poster here that is far from hysterical and about 60 IQ points ahead of you from the look of the uninformed drivel you post here.
As for your guy with the cat.... Perhaps the guy shouldn't have a gun. He did a stupid thing. Maybe he should lose his right to vote too?

How about that? How about we have "reasonable voting control"? You walk in to your polling place and the proctor asks you 10 questions about government. If you can't answer them and prove who you are, you don't vote.
That's reasonable, isn't it?

You people's arguments are so stupid and are generally always logical failures: there is no comparison between voting and owning a gun. Voting is not the same thing as having a firearm, which kills people or animals, in your possession. There is no comparison between voting and having a gun.

Owning guns protects the right to vote....just look at any dictatorship......they all vote....North Korea, Iraq under sadaam, Iran.........and no freedom......what protects freedom........free people with guns.....that protects the vote..........

Lots of countries with few guns have the right to vote.

<><><><><><><><>
sooooo.., at this point in time, what fucking difference does it make ......,

 

[2aguy]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

Since Paris, French Jews working security are asking for Europe's laws restricting guns be loosened so security forces can arm themselves against terrorists. I'm surprised pro-gun people here aren't citing this as an example of when having legal access to weapons is justified. When Europeans are wanting to arm up, maybe it's time to accept the reality of the human animal as a violent species and just accept guns instead of trying to make the world better outlawing them when doing so only ensures criminals (and terrorists) will have them.

haven't gotten around to it though I have seen the story......and it is only those Europeans who actually are currently under actual threat........the rest of the French population haven't wised up yet.....

 

[2aguy]

Brain357

Here is the link to the story I had posted on the other thread about the man who used more than 10 rounds in self defense that you think is "made up."

Gun Training Report 34 Interview with a Gunfighter

And here is the news report to corroborate his story. The man in the video is property owner Billy Jackson.

Police Shooting Was Self-Defense WLKY Home - WLKY Home

I recommend everyone watch the Interview with a Gunfighter video. It is just fascinating. Eleven rounds he used with a TEC 9 with a high capacity magazine. He ended up killing both perpetrators though. Post #2619, I believe.

I also find it interesting when certain posters claim that they are not "gun banners," yet if you check out their posting history, they ONLY post on anti-gun threads. Hmmm. Lol.

All you have to do is learn both sides.

The (far) Left that fixate on no guns don't own one and see stories every day about killings with them. They think that guns are bad. And the idiotic Right has the worst response possible due to lack of education. The (far) Left thinks there will be no gun killings without guns and the (far) Right says guns will kill people if we ban guns so why ban guns............not exactly creating the best argument. Creating a fear that people with guns will kill us if we don't have guns drives the topic. The ONLY people that create that fear today is the NRA AND THE RIGHT WING and the ones who can profit.

The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.

I say lack of regulation will lead to bans. But that's just an individuals predications based on collective information.

Obviously you have a very poor understanding of the issue.

sorry Chris....this didn't happen...I have it on expert psychic authority (Brain) that no one ever, ever, ever, ever, has needed or will ever, ever, ever need more that 2 bullets in any violent criminal attack..........besides, with what Brain says about Kleck....this gentleman is obviously a criminal King pin since only criminals use guns for self defense........

I think too few people in this conversation have ever shot a man dead.

I have never experienced a house fire either....but that doesn't mean I don't understand the concept of what that is like........

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Thankfully, I've never taken another's life. Have been shot at however.

 

[Jackinthebox]

Brain357

Here is the link to the story I had posted on the other thread about the man who used more than 10 rounds in self defense that you think is "made up."

Gun Training Report 34 Interview with a Gunfighter

And here is the news report to corroborate his story. The man in the video is property owner Billy Jackson.

Police Shooting Was Self-Defense WLKY Home - WLKY Home

I recommend everyone watch the Interview with a Gunfighter video. It is just fascinating. Eleven rounds he used with a TEC 9 with a high capacity magazine. He ended up killing both perpetrators though. Post #2619, I believe.

I also find it interesting when certain posters claim that they are not "gun banners," yet if you check out their posting history, they ONLY post on anti-gun threads. Hmmm. Lol.

All you have to do is learn both sides.

The (far) Left that fixate on no guns don't own one and see stories every day about killings with them. They think that guns are bad. And the idiotic Right has the worst response possible due to lack of education. The (far) Left thinks there will be no gun killings without guns and the (far) Right says guns will kill people if we ban guns so why ban guns............not exactly creating the best argument. Creating a fear that people with guns will kill us if we don't have guns drives the topic. The ONLY people that create that fear today is the NRA AND THE RIGHT WING and the ones who can profit.

The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.

I say lack of regulation will lead to bans. But that's just an individuals predications based on collective information.

Obviously you have a very poor understanding of the issue.

sorry Chris....this didn't happen...I have it on expert psychic authority (Brain) that no one ever, ever, ever, ever, has needed or will ever, ever, ever need more that 2 bullets in any violent criminal attack..........besides, with what Brain says about Kleck....this gentleman is obviously a criminal King pin since only criminals use guns for self defense........

I think too few people in this conversation have ever shot a man dead.

I have never experienced a house fire either....but that doesn't mean I don't understand the concept of what that is like........

Pray you don't have to. I have done that too though. I was a firefighter for a few years. Of course, that doesn't mean you should be banned from having a fire extinguisher either.

 

[2aguy]

Let's put this into perspective so that everyone can SEE how retarded the anti-rights crowd is. The Second Amendment was drafted to protect us from, not only foreign invaders, but also our OWN government to prevent government tyranny! Now we have some tards who want the government to REGULATE the right! Oh good Lord, people cannot be so stupid, can they?

ChrisL..do you have any more links to actual gunfight interviews?

 

[Wildman]

I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right. Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities. I think it is a disgrace that such people have the right to own guns. Being able to own a gun is something that should be earned and that privilge should maintained by specific behavior. I remember, some years ago, a guy telling me he accidently shot his roommate's cat which was sitting on the couch next to him. He thought it was funny. Such a moron should not have the right to own a gun.

According to the US Constitution, the right to bear arms is absolutely absolute It shall not be infringed. It is more of a protected right than voting and just as fundamental.
Yes, convicted felons, the mentally deficient and children should not possess firearms. They should not vote either.
I am a pro-2nd Amendment poster here that is far from hysterical and about 60 IQ points ahead of you from the look of the uninformed drivel you post here.
As for your guy with the cat.... Perhaps the guy shouldn't have a gun. He did a stupid thing. Maybe he should lose his right to vote too?

How about that? How about we have "reasonable voting control"? You walk in to your polling place and the proctor asks you 10 questions about government. If you can't answer them and prove who you are, you don't vote.
That's reasonable, isn't it?

You people's arguments are so stupid and are generally always logical failures: there is no comparison between voting and owning a gun. Voting is not the same thing as having a firearm, which kills people or animals, in your possession. There is no comparison between voting and having a gun.

Owning guns protects the right to vote....just look at any dictatorship......they all vote....North Korea, Iraq under sadaam, Iran.........and no freedom......what protects freedom........free people with guns.....that protects the vote..........

Lots of countries with few guns have the right to vote.

Absolutely. Owning a gun does not have anything to do with or protect your right to vote. All the countries of Europe have far stricter gun laws than the US, and in all those countries, the citizens have voting rights. Saying guns are connected to voting is a red herring.

<><><><><><><><>

I DISAGREE !

 

[Jackinthebox]

Thankfully, I've never taken another's life. Have been shot at however.

Ya know, this is kind of a side note here. But I have killed a lot of people. And it doesn't phase me in the least. I always hear how about it should do this or that to your mind your soul whatever. The thing that breaks my heart the most is a stupid stray cat I had to abandon.

 

[Jackinthebox]

Let's put this into perspective so that everyone can SEE how retarded the anti-rights crowd is. The Second Amendment was drafted to protect us from, not only foreign invaders, but also our OWN government to prevent government tyranny! Now we have some tards who want the government to REGULATE the right! Oh good Lord, people cannot be so stupid, can they?

ChrisL..do you have any more links to actual gunfight interviews?

I been in a gunfight.

 

[ChrisL]

Let's put this into perspective so that everyone can SEE how retarded the anti-rights crowd is. The Second Amendment was drafted to protect us from, not only foreign invaders, but also our OWN government to prevent government tyranny! Now we have some tards who want the government to REGULATE the right! Oh good Lord, people cannot be so stupid, can they?

ChrisL..do you have any more links to actual gunfight interviews?

I just found those by using Google. I posted a couple of others somewhere in the thread. One where a man killed 5 gang members who were trying to rob his store. Here is one that I posted earlier. Video is embedded in link.

The Store Owner Who Killed 5 Gang Members

 

[2aguy]

Let's put this into perspective so that everyone can SEE how retarded the anti-rights crowd is. The Second Amendment was drafted to protect us from, not only foreign invaders, but also our OWN government to prevent government tyranny! Now we have some tards who want the government to REGULATE the right! Oh good Lord, people cannot be so stupid, can they?

ChrisL..do you have any more links to actual gunfight interviews?

I just found those by using Google. I posted a couple of others somewhere in the thread. One where a man killed 5 gang members who were trying to rob his store. Here is one that I posted earlier. Video is embedded in link.

The Store Owner Who Killed 5 Gang Members

I saw this back when it first aired back in the 90s....great story.......but again....according to Brain....he is probably a criminal kingpin.....since only criminals use guns for self defense.....

Thanks, ChrisL...

 

[Jackinthebox]

Let's put this into perspective so that everyone can SEE how retarded the anti-rights crowd is. The Second Amendment was drafted to protect us from, not only foreign invaders, but also our OWN government to prevent government tyranny! Now we have some tards who want the government to REGULATE the right! Oh good Lord, people cannot be so stupid, can they?

ChrisL..do you have any more links to actual gunfight interviews?

I just found those by using Google. I posted a couple of others somewhere in the thread. One where a man killed 5 gang members who were trying to rob his store. Here is one that I posted earlier. Video is embedded in link.

The Store Owner Who Killed 5 Gang Members

I saw this back when it first aired back in the 90s....great story.......but again....according to Brain....he is probably a criminal kingpin.....since only criminals use guns for self defense.....

Thanks, ChrisL...

My brother and I winged a man with broad tips. Tracked him for a day. Found him bleeding out. Well, not going to incriminate myself. But I will say that I prefer .45 rounds even if there are less in the mag.