Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why are they called "felons?" Because of what should be illegal and unconstitutional maneuvers by the government to limit one of our rights? So, in some states, people are not allowed to use their guns outside of their homes/businesses, but happened to anyways when faced with what they perceived as a life-or-death situation? So now these people who were lucky enough to be armed when attacked by a criminal are now considered criminals themselves? For protecting their lives or the lives of their loved ones because, according to the government in some states, we cannot practice our 2nd amendment right outside of our homes? Ridiculous. This is why I believe the government should NOT be able to put such restrictions on citizens. The criminals face NO SUCH restrictions.
Ok then why would it be illegal to defend your home with a gun if you are not a felon? Certainly the vast majority of law abiding gun owners can legally defend themselves at home with a gun. So Bills examples would only effect a small minority of defenses.
Brainless . . . Bill is trying to explain to you that some of the self defense shooters might be considered "felons" because of an illegal weapon possession charge during said self defense shooting, such as in a state where you are ONLY allowed stand your ground option if you are protecting your home.
However, say you have a gun on your person, and you are with your children, and a gunman comes up to your car and demands you get out of the car because he is going to take it! Are you going to use that gun to protect your children, regardless of any stupid laws?
And you are saying that would be the case in the majority of gun defenses? Really? Most gun owners are felons? Because unless it does then he's just explaining a small minority of defenses which does very little. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
I never said that. That is what YOU were saying.
You sure are amazingly dense. Well unless bills example covers what would be the majority of defenses he really has nothing. Like I've already said he's trying to explain the majority with something that would only effect a small minority.
Well, I just hope everyone can just see how dishonest brainless and the other anti rights posters are.
If someone tries to ban screwdrivers, the constitution doesn't get in their way.We all have as much right to a gun as a screwdriver.
Well, I just hope everyone can just see how dishonest brainless and the other anti rights posters are.
Well, I just hope everyone can just see how dishonest brainless and the other anti rights posters are.
I spent time in state prison for a several violent felonies. I changed my ways, granted, but I also had political friends and a lot of money to get my permit back.
Well, I just hope everyone can just see how dishonest brainless and the other anti rights posters are.
There is nothing dishonest. It's just you aren't smart enough to get very simple concepts. Kleck says the majority of defenses are by people involved in criminal activity. If you believe in Kleck's numbers for defensive uses then you have to accept this also. Bill is trying to candy coat what Kleck said, but his example still would only effect a small minority of Kleck's defenses. So the vast majority must be involved in some sort of actual criminal activity or be a felon who can't own a gun. It's all really very simple.
Well, I just hope everyone can just see how dishonest brainless and the other anti rights posters are.
There is nothing dishonest. It's just you aren't smart enough to get very simple concepts. Kleck says the majority of defenses are by people involved in criminal activity. If you believe in Kleck's numbers for defensive uses then you have to accept this also. Bill is trying to candy coat what Kleck said, but his example still would only effect a small minority of Kleck's defenses. So the vast majority must be involved in some sort of actual criminal activity or be a felon who can't own a gun. It's all really very simple.
You keep saying this, but yet NOBODY has seen you link to this data. Supply a link to this claim of your's or else it isn't true.
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.
The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.
Sorry, this is untrue.....the majority of the left want guns banned but don't know how to get it done....so they settle for baby steps..."universal background checks" which make it har
Kleck refers to the situation when the study was done...it isn't surprising that gun grabbers don't understand the history of gun control....they don't understand any history really, that is why they believe in big government, and disarming good people.......history for gun grabbers and the other liberals starts when they wake up in the morning.....
In the 90s, you didn't have the concealed carry laws that we have today....it took Florida to start that ball rolling....but....criminals still existed and still preyed on innocent people....remember when tourists in Florida were being killed....because the criminals knew they couldn't carry guns in Florida....and the criminals just followed the new tourists from the airport? So law abiding citizens who carried guns for defense against criminals, who then displayed that gun, drew that gun but did not shoot the gun....would not want to tell cops they were carrying a weapon "illegally" because thanks to the anti gunners, that would be a felony.......back in the 90s....
Today....not a problem like it was back then....my state...Illinois....we now have concealed carry.....so those law abiding citizens can now carry "legally"......which in and of itself stupid, since even back in the 90s the 2nd Amendment existed and any law barring the ability to carry a weapon for self defense was unconstitutional......but Brain will still beat that drum with that quote....I keep hoping to find the passage he found it in...to get the whole context....but other things Kleck has stated pretty much points out the opposite of what Brain says......
Let me explain this again bill. Kleck is talking about all DGUs, not just people carrying. Since mosts defenses happen at home, concealed carry laws don't really matter. It has never been illegal to defend your home with a gun. Good try though. But as Kleck says in most defenses the defender is involved in criminal activity. You have yet to post anything that points in the opposite direction.
Yes Brain.....he is talking about most defensive gun uses, in the home and carrying, and if you read the study most uses occur in the home, fewer while people are carrying.....it is the people carrying outside the home where the "illegal weapon possession" occurs. And having a gun can in some instances, in the home be illegal and until you actually talk to the man and see what he means you are not being honest.....
So you are trying to explain something that happens with the majority of defenses with something that effects only a minority. You can't see how that doesn't work mathematically?
They are called felons.
Why are they called "felons?" Because of what should be illegal and unconstitutional maneuvers by the government to limit one of our rights? So, in some states, people are not allowed to use their guns outside of their homes/businesses, but happened to anyways when faced with what they perceived as a life-or-death situation? So now these people who were lucky enough to be armed when attacked by a criminal are now considered criminals themselves? For protecting their lives or the lives of their loved ones because, according to the government in some states, we cannot practice our 2nd amendment right outside of our homes? Ridiculous. This is why I believe the government should NOT be able to put such restrictions on citizens. The criminals face NO SUCH restrictions.
Ok then why would it be illegal to defend your home with a gun if you are not a felon? Certainly the vast majority of law abiding gun owners can legally defend themselves at home with a gun. So Bills examples would only effect a small minority of defenses.
Ok then why would it be illegal to defend your home with a gun if you are not a felon? Certainly the vast majority of law abiding gun owners can legally defend themselves at home with a gun. So Bills examples would only effect a small minority of defenses.
Well, I just hope everyone can just see how dishonest brainless and the other anti rights posters are.
There is nothing dishonest. It's just you aren't smart enough to get very simple concepts. Kleck says the majority of defenses are by people involved in criminal activity. If you believe in Kleck's numbers for defensive uses then you have to accept this also. Bill is trying to candy coat what Kleck said, but his example still would only effect a small minority of Kleck's defenses. So the vast majority must be involved in some sort of actual criminal activity or be a felon who can't own a gun. It's all really very simple.
You keep saying this, but yet NOBODY has seen you link to this data. Supply a link to this claim of your's or else it isn't true.
Wow I just posted a link to it for you last night. Talk about dishonest. And it was originally posted by Bill so yes people have seen it.
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.
The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.
Sorry, this is untrue.....the majority of the left want guns banned but don't know how to get it done....so they settle for baby steps..."universal background checks" which make it har
Let me explain this again bill. Kleck is talking about all DGUs, not just people carrying. Since mosts defenses happen at home, concealed carry laws don't really matter. It has never been illegal to defend your home with a gun. Good try though. But as Kleck says in most defenses the defender is involved in criminal activity. You have yet to post anything that points in the opposite direction.
Yes Brain.....he is talking about most defensive gun uses, in the home and carrying, and if you read the study most uses occur in the home, fewer while people are carrying.....it is the people carrying outside the home where the "illegal weapon possession" occurs. And having a gun can in some instances, in the home be illegal and until you actually talk to the man and see what he means you are not being honest.....
So you are trying to explain something that happens with the majority of defenses with something that effects only a minority. You can't see how that doesn't work mathematically?
They are called felons.
Why are they called "felons?" Because of what should be illegal and unconstitutional maneuvers by the government to limit one of our rights? So, in some states, people are not allowed to use their guns outside of their homes/businesses, but happened to anyways when faced with what they perceived as a life-or-death situation? So now these people who were lucky enough to be armed when attacked by a criminal are now considered criminals themselves? For protecting their lives or the lives of their loved ones because, according to the government in some states, we cannot practice our 2nd amendment right outside of our homes? Ridiculous. This is why I believe the government should NOT be able to put such restrictions on citizens. The criminals face NO SUCH restrictions.
Ok then why would it be illegal to defend your home with a gun if you are not a felon? Certainly the vast majority of law abiding gun owners can legally defend themselves at home with a gun. So Bills examples would only effect a small minority of defenses.
Ok then why would it be illegal to defend your home with a gun if you are not a felon? Certainly the vast majority of law abiding gun owners can legally defend themselves at home with a gun. So Bills examples would only effect a small minority of defenses.
Because some states don't have the "Castle Doctrine" which means that you are still required to prove you were justified in shooting someone in your home if you had the ability to retreat from the threat.....another case, you shoot the criminal as he is moving and hit him somewhere other than the front of this body....that can be used by a prosecutor to take you into court for murder, not self defense since his back was to you when you shot him and therefore did not pose a threat....a situation that has happened in the past....ask Massad Ayoob.....
You anti gunners have made it very difficult for law abiding citizens to protect themsleves from criminals.....and you have done this specifically to discourage the use of guns.......
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.
The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.
Sorry, this is untrue.....the majority of the left want guns banned but don't know how to get it done....so they settle for baby steps..."universal background checks" which make it har
Let me explain this again bill. Kleck is talking about all DGUs, not just people carrying. Since mosts defenses happen at home, concealed carry laws don't really matter. It has never been illegal to defend your home with a gun. Good try though. But as Kleck says in most defenses the defender is involved in criminal activity. You have yet to post anything that points in the opposite direction.
Yes Brain.....he is talking about most defensive gun uses, in the home and carrying, and if you read the study most uses occur in the home, fewer while people are carrying.....it is the people carrying outside the home where the "illegal weapon possession" occurs. And having a gun can in some instances, in the home be illegal and until you actually talk to the man and see what he means you are not being honest.....
So you are trying to explain something that happens with the majority of defenses with something that effects only a minority. You can't see how that doesn't work mathematically?
They are called felons.
Why are they called "felons?" Because of what should be illegal and unconstitutional maneuvers by the government to limit one of our rights? So, in some states, people are not allowed to use their guns outside of their homes/businesses, but happened to anyways when faced with what they perceived as a life-or-death situation? So now these people who were lucky enough to be armed when attacked by a criminal are now considered criminals themselves? For protecting their lives or the lives of their loved ones because, according to the government in some states, we cannot practice our 2nd amendment right outside of our homes? Ridiculous. This is why I believe the government should NOT be able to put such restrictions on citizens. The criminals face NO SUCH restrictions.
Ok then why would it be illegal to defend your home with a gun if you are not a felon? Certainly the vast majority of law abiding gun owners can legally defend themselves at home with a gun. So Bills examples would only effect a small minority of defenses.
Ok then why would it be illegal to defend your home with a gun if you are not a felon? Certainly the vast majority of law abiding gun owners can legally defend themselves at home with a gun. So Bills examples would only effect a small minority of defenses.
Because some states don't have the "Castle Doctrine" which means that you are still required to prove you were justified in shooting someone in your home if you had the ability to retreat from the threat.....another case, you shoot the criminal as he is moving and hit him somewhere other than the front of this body....that can be used by a prosecutor to take you into court for murder, not self defense since his back was to you when you shot him and therefore did not pose a threat....a situation that has happened in the past....ask Massad Ayoob.....
You anti gunners have made it very difficult for law abiding citizens to protect themsleves from criminals.....and you have done this specifically to discourage the use of guns.......
Sorry, this is untrue.....the majority of the left want guns banned but don't know how to get it done....so they settle for baby steps..."universal background checks" which make it har
Yes Brain.....he is talking about most defensive gun uses, in the home and carrying, and if you read the study most uses occur in the home, fewer while people are carrying.....it is the people carrying outside the home where the "illegal weapon possession" occurs. And having a gun can in some instances, in the home be illegal and until you actually talk to the man and see what he means you are not being honest.....
So you are trying to explain something that happens with the majority of defenses with something that effects only a minority. You can't see how that doesn't work mathematically?
They are called felons.
Why are they called "felons?" Because of what should be illegal and unconstitutional maneuvers by the government to limit one of our rights? So, in some states, people are not allowed to use their guns outside of their homes/businesses, but happened to anyways when faced with what they perceived as a life-or-death situation? So now these people who were lucky enough to be armed when attacked by a criminal are now considered criminals themselves? For protecting their lives or the lives of their loved ones because, according to the government in some states, we cannot practice our 2nd amendment right outside of our homes? Ridiculous. This is why I believe the government should NOT be able to put such restrictions on citizens. The criminals face NO SUCH restrictions.
Ok then why would it be illegal to defend your home with a gun if you are not a felon? Certainly the vast majority of law abiding gun owners can legally defend themselves at home with a gun. So Bills examples would only effect a small minority of defenses.
Ok then why would it be illegal to defend your home with a gun if you are not a felon? Certainly the vast majority of law abiding gun owners can legally defend themselves at home with a gun. So Bills examples would only effect a small minority of defenses.
Because some states don't have the "Castle Doctrine" which means that you are still required to prove you were justified in shooting someone in your home if you had the ability to retreat from the threat.....another case, you shoot the criminal as he is moving and hit him somewhere other than the front of this body....that can be used by a prosecutor to take you into court for murder, not self defense since his back was to you when you shot him and therefore did not pose a threat....a situation that has happened in the past....ask Massad Ayoob.....
You anti gunners have made it very difficult for law abiding citizens to protect themsleves from criminals.....and you have done this specifically to discourage the use of guns.......
This is WHY I do not go out of my way to try and be pleasant or kind to these kind of people. It is a useless waste of time, and you might as well treat them like the trashy POS that they are. He doesn't care about how civil you are when presenting your point, nor does he care if your points make good sense. He has an agenda.
Well, I just hope everyone can just see how dishonest brainless and the other anti rights posters are.
I spent time in state prison for a several violent felonies. I changed my ways, granted, but I also had political friends and a lot of money to get my permit back.
I've heard that it's very difficult and expensive to "buy" back your right. I've actually had a conversation on another forum with a poster who was allegedly convicted with at least one felony charge too.
I don't see the point of revoking the 2nd Amendment rights of a person who is considered a "felon" unless their crime has to do with a firearm. In some instances, writing a bad check can be considered a "felony."
Sorry, this is untrue.....the majority of the left want guns banned but don't know how to get it done....so they settle for baby steps..."universal background checks" which make it har
Yes Brain.....he is talking about most defensive gun uses, in the home and carrying, and if you read the study most uses occur in the home, fewer while people are carrying.....it is the people carrying outside the home where the "illegal weapon possession" occurs. And having a gun can in some instances, in the home be illegal and until you actually talk to the man and see what he means you are not being honest.....
So you are trying to explain something that happens with the majority of defenses with something that effects only a minority. You can't see how that doesn't work mathematically?
They are called felons.
Why are they called "felons?" Because of what should be illegal and unconstitutional maneuvers by the government to limit one of our rights? So, in some states, people are not allowed to use their guns outside of their homes/businesses, but happened to anyways when faced with what they perceived as a life-or-death situation? So now these people who were lucky enough to be armed when attacked by a criminal are now considered criminals themselves? For protecting their lives or the lives of their loved ones because, according to the government in some states, we cannot practice our 2nd amendment right outside of our homes? Ridiculous. This is why I believe the government should NOT be able to put such restrictions on citizens. The criminals face NO SUCH restrictions.
Ok then why would it be illegal to defend your home with a gun if you are not a felon? Certainly the vast majority of law abiding gun owners can legally defend themselves at home with a gun. So Bills examples would only effect a small minority of defenses.
Ok then why would it be illegal to defend your home with a gun if you are not a felon? Certainly the vast majority of law abiding gun owners can legally defend themselves at home with a gun. So Bills examples would only effect a small minority of defenses.
Because some states don't have the "Castle Doctrine" which means that you are still required to prove you were justified in shooting someone in your home if you had the ability to retreat from the threat.....another case, you shoot the criminal as he is moving and hit him somewhere other than the front of this body....that can be used by a prosecutor to take you into court for murder, not self defense since his back was to you when you shot him and therefore did not pose a threat....a situation that has happened in the past....ask Massad Ayoob.....
You anti gunners have made it very difficult for law abiding citizens to protect themsleves from criminals.....and you have done this specifically to discourage the use of guns.......
So then you would have to show that someone gets shot in the majority of defenses. You have spent a lot of time trying to prove the opposite so we both know that isn't true. Try again.
So you are trying to explain something that happens with the majority of defenses with something that effects only a minority. You can't see how that doesn't work mathematically?
They are called felons.
Why are they called "felons?" Because of what should be illegal and unconstitutional maneuvers by the government to limit one of our rights? So, in some states, people are not allowed to use their guns outside of their homes/businesses, but happened to anyways when faced with what they perceived as a life-or-death situation? So now these people who were lucky enough to be armed when attacked by a criminal are now considered criminals themselves? For protecting their lives or the lives of their loved ones because, according to the government in some states, we cannot practice our 2nd amendment right outside of our homes? Ridiculous. This is why I believe the government should NOT be able to put such restrictions on citizens. The criminals face NO SUCH restrictions.
Ok then why would it be illegal to defend your home with a gun if you are not a felon? Certainly the vast majority of law abiding gun owners can legally defend themselves at home with a gun. So Bills examples would only effect a small minority of defenses.
Ok then why would it be illegal to defend your home with a gun if you are not a felon? Certainly the vast majority of law abiding gun owners can legally defend themselves at home with a gun. So Bills examples would only effect a small minority of defenses.
Because some states don't have the "Castle Doctrine" which means that you are still required to prove you were justified in shooting someone in your home if you had the ability to retreat from the threat.....another case, you shoot the criminal as he is moving and hit him somewhere other than the front of this body....that can be used by a prosecutor to take you into court for murder, not self defense since his back was to you when you shot him and therefore did not pose a threat....a situation that has happened in the past....ask Massad Ayoob.....
You anti gunners have made it very difficult for law abiding citizens to protect themsleves from criminals.....and you have done this specifically to discourage the use of guns.......
This is WHY I do not go out of my way to try and be pleasant or kind to these kind of people. It is a useless waste of time, and you might as well treat them like the trashy POS that they are. He doesn't care about how civil you are when presenting your point, nor does he care if your points make good sense. He has an agenda.
Actually me and Bill have lots of civil discussions. I actually like Bill and think he makes a lot of good points. You on the other hand can make good points but prefer to be trashy.
Well, I just hope everyone can just see how dishonest brainless and the other anti rights posters are.
I spent time in state prison for a several violent felonies. I changed my ways, granted, but I also had political friends and a lot of money to get my permit back.
I've heard that it's very difficult and expensive to "buy" back your right. I've actually had a conversation on another forum with a poster who was allegedly convicted with at least one felony charge too.
I don't see the point of revoking the 2nd Amendment rights of a person who is considered a "felon" unless their crime has to do with a firearm. In some instances, writing a bad check can be considered a "felony."
I pistol whipped a man and robbed him of a large amount of cash and goods.
So you are trying to explain something that happens with the majority of defenses with something that effects only a minority. You can't see how that doesn't work mathematically?
They are called felons.
Why are they called "felons?" Because of what should be illegal and unconstitutional maneuvers by the government to limit one of our rights? So, in some states, people are not allowed to use their guns outside of their homes/businesses, but happened to anyways when faced with what they perceived as a life-or-death situation? So now these people who were lucky enough to be armed when attacked by a criminal are now considered criminals themselves? For protecting their lives or the lives of their loved ones because, according to the government in some states, we cannot practice our 2nd amendment right outside of our homes? Ridiculous. This is why I believe the government should NOT be able to put such restrictions on citizens. The criminals face NO SUCH restrictions.
Ok then why would it be illegal to defend your home with a gun if you are not a felon? Certainly the vast majority of law abiding gun owners can legally defend themselves at home with a gun. So Bills examples would only effect a small minority of defenses.
Ok then why would it be illegal to defend your home with a gun if you are not a felon? Certainly the vast majority of law abiding gun owners can legally defend themselves at home with a gun. So Bills examples would only effect a small minority of defenses.
Because some states don't have the "Castle Doctrine" which means that you are still required to prove you were justified in shooting someone in your home if you had the ability to retreat from the threat.....another case, you shoot the criminal as he is moving and hit him somewhere other than the front of this body....that can be used by a prosecutor to take you into court for murder, not self defense since his back was to you when you shot him and therefore did not pose a threat....a situation that has happened in the past....ask Massad Ayoob.....
You anti gunners have made it very difficult for law abiding citizens to protect themsleves from criminals.....and you have done this specifically to discourage the use of guns.......
So then you would have to show that someone gets shot in the majority of defenses. You have spent a lot of time trying to prove the opposite so we both know that isn't true. Try again.
Why do I have to show that? How is that relevant?
Well, I just hope everyone can just see how dishonest brainless and the other anti rights posters are.
I spent time in state prison for a several violent felonies. I changed my ways, granted, but I also had political friends and a lot of money to get my permit back.
I've heard that it's very difficult and expensive to "buy" back your right. I've actually had a conversation on another forum with a poster who was allegedly convicted with at least one felony charge too.
I don't see the point of revoking the 2nd Amendment rights of a person who is considered a "felon" unless their crime has to do with a firearm. In some instances, writing a bad check can be considered a "felony."
I pistol whipped a man and robbed him of a large amount of cash and goods.
What's your deal? What point are you trying to make here?
