15 of 17
15
Guns
Posted: 31 July 2012 10:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 211 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  7
Joined  2012-07-30
Thevillageatheist - 30 July 2012 07:36 PM

If one believes that there is a legitimate purpose for the 2nd Amendment, one must admit WHY there is a 2nd Amendment…....And that is not to own your grand pa’s bird gun.

What specific weapons were protected by the 2nd Amendment?  Infanty small arms, expressly…......That is why there is a 2nd Amendment, to insure that the arms used by the individual military soldier are in the hands of the private citizen, who the founders intended to BE the militia.

Now there has a been a side step from the original opposition to the 2nd Amendment, that it defended State National Guards…......Once that argument was lost, now the argument is that it only means squirrel guns and .22 bolt action rifles for sport….....But any reading of the words of the founders clearly says otherwise…......As the founders were distrustful of standing armies separate from the people…........One does need to ‘join a militia’ as the founders considered the militia every able bodied citizen.


First of all, in view of what just happened in Colorado you are advocating for the availability of automatic weapons for the general public? The assassin used an AR 15 with drum clip to kill and wound 70 innocent people and they just captured another potential killer in MD. Who was about to do the same thing. That being said the intention of the 2nd Amendment was to allow for the organization of a national militia in times of need. As to military small arms we manufactured only a small number for this purpose until the Whitney musket was invented. Most militia used their own squirrel guns as they were commanded to due to a lack of proper military small arms and there was no national guard organization. And no, laws don’t ban most weapons relegating us to using bolt action 22s.That is pure hyperbole. As to today’s militia groups, the founders didn’t mean that everyone should join the so-called militia clubs of today with their specific agendas, some hate fueled and racist. We now have a national guard fully tied into the regular military and don’t need the antiquated “militia” any longer. And BTW, American is becoming a safer place to live but it’s not because we are allowed to shoot anyone who invades our homes. In fact many Americans don’t even own a firearm. We have law enforcement officials to protect us when needed so I don’t need to set on my porch cradling granpappys shootin’ iron to fend off the heathens. If gun laws were more strictly enforced then maybe Holmes would have been captured sooner and this slaughter with an automatic weapon might not have happened.

 

Cap’t Jack

First of all, if you cannot differentiate between terms, semi-automatic is not synonymous with automatic…........Such misnomers are often intentionally confused in order to muddy the waters…..I am advocating for the fact that what is currently legal continuing to be legal as there isn’t a rational argument that any further gun regulations will remotely have any net effect on the homicide rate, which has been declining for 25 years, and is now lower than any time since pre-1960.

As to your own hyperbole, any law banning ‘semi-automatics’ would ban virtually 50% or more of the guns currently in private hands…....So your facts are in error.

And the absurd notion that we needed a citizen militia because we didn’t have government full time controlled standing army is made absurd by the very statements of James Madison himself.

“The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms….....The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.” -James Madison

That is because they understood that government controlled standing armies were as often used for domestic tyranny as foreign defense.

And finally, we get to the meat of the matter…...You base your entire argument on what you imagine might not have happened with the right combination of laws….....Forgetting that these incidents occur as often in Western Europe, with far tighter regulations….......And further, that as horrifying as these incidents are, they are statistical anamolies that, like fear of Ebola, is so remote that living in constant fear of it is irrational.

The common homicides in the US are not to rooted in the easy availability of guns….......They are rooted in the prohibitionist policies of the last 40 years.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 July 2012 11:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 212 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  7
Joined  2012-07-30
Write4U - 30 July 2012 08:58 PM

What I find most peculiar that every healthcare field worker (RNs, CNAs) has to have a background check before they can practice NURSING!  Voters have to get picture IDs before they can exercise their right to VOTE! I thought that was also a Constitutional Right.

But buying a gun, an instrument designed to kill living things? Nooooo problem! Any nutcase can buy a gun (any gun) without having to show identification or competency or even a simple background check.

How many rounds would you like for that semi automatic? 6000 ? Noooo problem. Here, we’ll throw in an extra box for a good customer.

That is fundamentally disingenuous…....Not only does one have to show ID, one must pass a NICS background check….....But thank you for playing.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 July 2012 11:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 213 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  7
Joined  2012-07-30
mid atlantic - 31 July 2012 04:25 AM

And BTW, American is becoming a safer place to live but it’s not because we are allowed to shoot anyone who invades our homes. In fact many Americans don’t even own a firearm. We have law enforcement officials to protect us when needed so I don’t need to set on my porch cradling granpappys shootin’ iron to fend off the heathens. If gun laws were more strictly enforced then maybe Holmes would have been captured sooner and this slaughter with an automatic weapon might not have happened.

Cap’t Jack

Law enforcement actually has a bad record of protecting citizens from harm.

L.E. arrives after the damage is done; it would be better to arm yourself in most cases than wait for police response.

As a former LE of 15 years, I can assure you that we do a very good job of showing up and putting up pretty yellow tape around your body and finding your murderer. wink

There is a very simplisitic type of logic that says ‘Less legal guns MUST equal less violence/crime’.........Reality, however, tends to refute that argument…....Despite more guns, more CCW holders, more people ‘packing heat’......The homicide rate and crime rate have declined to pre-1960 levels….........A case where reality trumps theory.

[ Edited: 31 July 2012 11:04 AM by sgtmac_46 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 July 2012 05:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 214 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6001
Joined  2009-02-26
sgtmac_46 - 31 July 2012 10:47 AM
Write4U - 30 July 2012 07:02 PM

As far as I saw, nobody is arguing for banning guns, that is your strawman argument.  Are you advocating that we all have a right and responsibility to carry semi-automatic weapons in order to make our society safer?

You also seem to forget that a well regulated militia has been replaced by a standing army and the well regulated militia is now our military reserves. When this document was written there were no semi or fully automatic weapons.  The Constitution is a living and evolving document and can certainly be amended (as it has before) in consideration of new and much more destructive weapons designed to kill large numbers of people. Why can we not carry hand grenades? They are very effective in killing large numbers of people.

The problem is one of control. Are you against any control of any weapon?  Cars are potentially dangerous to the public. This is why we have strict regulations of type of vehicles that can be driven in public, traffic laws to regulate traffic, licensing, testing, and INSURANCE in case you screw up and become liable. i say every gun owner should have liability insurance. Let the insurance companies evaluate the fitness of the person owning the guns, they would have a stake in game and they are very thorough in record keeping and tracking.

A semi-automatic weapon is one that fires a round everytime a trigger is pulled…..I suspect you don’t have a firm grasp of some serious pre-requisite distinctions before engaging in an intelligent conversation about the subject.

I live in Northern Idaho (hunting country) and I own several guns myself. I am well aware what semi-automatic means and I also know that many semi autonatic weapons can easily be converted to fully automatic.

And asking if i’m against the control of any weapons is creating a strawman of your own….....‘So called assault weapons’ are used in .2% of crimes involving guns, so a fixating on them is more emotional knee jerk reaction that rational problem solving….....Moreover, the vast majority of the population will not commit a violent crime….....Meaning the more LEGAL guns in circulation, the more guns in the hands of the same good folks…....

You did not answer the question. Are you in favor of certain gun control laws or not?
Less than .2% of convicted and executed murderers are innocent. Should we try and do something about that? Or are those things “acceptable” occurrences? 

As to the canard about equating guns to cars, anyone can own any car they want, without registration, and drive them as fast as they want, on their own property….....You seek to register private property kept on one’s own property, please do find an analogy to that.

First using the word “canard” here is wholly out of context.
Second, again you are avoiding the question. You speak of owning things and keeping them on your own property. What does that have to do with a nutcase entering a theatre and mowing down 70 people? How do we prevent this, that is the question, isn’t it?
I cringe (from personal experience) when I see a political rally with people bearing semi automatics (maybe converted). I cringe when I hear someone say, “if only all the people in the theatre were armed this could have been avoided.  Yes, we’d have a proper shootout in the OK Corral, with hundreds of people shooting every which way.
And here in Idaho there are definite laws controlling the use of firearms on private property, as it should be.
You can speak about handling guns because of your military back ground. But how many people have military experience? 2%?

Further, the Constitution specifically refers to the possession of infantry small arms…....In the day of the founders, the musket and rifle…....Today, the equivalent, the M4/M16…....The very gun you claim it does not protect…......Why was that so?  Because the founders sought to ensure that the arms commonly only found in the hands of infanty troops of oppression of European armies be spread out among the population as ‘the militia’.

A musket or a black powder longrifle is equivalent to an M4/M16?  Give me a break.

Wiki,
The M4 Carbine achieves over 80 percent commonality with the M16A2 Rifle and was initially to replace all M3A1 .45 caliber submachine guns

The smaller calibers such as .223 are useless for game such as deer, elk, moose, bear, hog, wolf. But they are good for killing people.

As for your liability insurance canard, it is only one where you wish to cost those who seek to own a gun money in order to try and convince people not to own them…....The shear number of guns in circulation compared to the numbers of accidents is so small as to make your suggestion absurd compared to automobile insurance, and the number of accidents involving private property every year….....So that is merely a scheme.

Then the insurance wouldn’t cost much would it? You seem to forget that having your liability insurance raised is a greater deterrent to car accidents than buying a 3 ton tank (car).

Now, there were founders who believed that the 2nd Amendment extended not just to infantry small arms like the rifle and musket….....But to cannon and warships…....I’m a common sense guy who is willing to compromise and accept restrictions on fighter aircraft and cannon over a certain size. wink

At last a compromise.!  As I said before, I have not heard anyone advocate the “banning” of guns for hunting and self protection.
Your problem is seeing things in black and white.  A compromise that makes it difficult for “unreliable” minds to possess guns is a good thing.  No one wants to take your guns away!! 
I am advocation a system of registration of ownership, criminal background check of the individual, ser# of the weapon and lot numbers on ammunition, requirement (on penalty of law) to report theft or loss, liability insurance (just so Cheney (the former vice-president) would think twice before shooting someone in the face), child proof trigger locks to protect children (as we do with caustic kitchen cleaners), a demonstration of competency or a mandatory introduction to gun ownwership and maintenance. Is that not the literal interpretation of the term “a well regulated militia”.

Until those requirements are met, no gun should change hands, privately or commercially. They are designed to kill, it makes no difference if it is an aggressive act or for self-defense.

[ Edited: 01 August 2012 03:34 AM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 July 2012 06:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 215 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3060
Joined  2011-08-15

First of all, if you cannot differentiate between terms, semi-automatic is not synonymous with automatic…........Such misnomers are often intentionally confused in order to muddy the waters…..I am advocating for the fact that what is currently legal continuing to be legal as there isn’t a rational argument that any further gun regulations will remotely have any net effect on the homicide rate, which has been declining for 25 years, and is now lower than any time since pre-1960.

As to your own hyperbole, any law banning ‘semi-automatics’ would ban virtually 50% or more of the guns currently in private hands…....So your facts are in error.

And the absurd notion that we needed a citizen militia because we didn’t have government full time controlled standing army is made absurd by the very statements of James Madison himself.

“The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms….....The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.” -James Madison

That is because they understood that government controlled standing armies were as often used for domestic tyranny as foreign defense.

And finally, we get to the meat of the matter…...You base your entire argument on what you imagine might not have happened with the right combination of laws….....Forgetting that these incidents occur as often in Western Europe, with far tighter regulations….......And further, that as horrifying as these incidents are, they are statistical anamolies that, like fear of Ebola, is so remote that living in constant fear of it is irrational.

The common homicides in the US are not to rooted in the easy availability of guns….......They are rooted in the prohibitionist policies of the last 40 years.


Point 1: yes I know the difference between full auto and semi as I have shot both types. the reference was to a weapon whose firepower was greater than a bolt action rifle or pistol with limited range and firepower. I won’t even go into detail about the carrying capacity of handguns as you obviously know their characteristics as well. Antithes point is moot in view of recent happenings. Semi-automatic weapons can kill more people.
Point 2: Your contention is hyperbole as even the NRA figures put assault weapons at 10 million as opposed to 360 million total weapons owned in the U S today, hardly 50%.
Point 3: Your Madison quote does not match your contention concerning a standing, fully equipped, fully trained army. The first government issued weapon, the Whitney musket wasn’t even invited until 1798 as a threat against the French during the Quasi-War. Ex. Washington had to rely on state militias to fill his ranks in order to put down the Wiskey Rebellion at that time. What “army” we had was getting it’s butt kicked by the Miami Confederacy here in Ohio. So how does history bear out your contention that my assertion is absurd?
Point 4: Your final statement about restrictive laws actually makes no sense in view of the statistics that most violent crimes, both domestic and street are caused by guns not knives nor lead pipes. Most of them by handguns to be sure but the easy availability of weapons in the wrong hands will continue to generate the violent slaughter we’ve seen in the past ten years. Tighter gun laws could have prevented all of them.  Write stated, no one is advocating a national campaign to outlaw all weapons, but background checks and restrictions such as ex criminals being banned from their possession would certainly help. And BTW, I still trust law enforcement for protection. Overworked and underpaid, their still our first line of defense against the bad guys.


Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 July 2012 10:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 216 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  775
Joined  2009-07-17
Thevillageatheist - 31 July 2012 06:55 PM

<snip>And BTW, I still trust law enforcement for protection. Overworked and underpaid, their still our first line of defense against the bad guys.

Cap’t Jack

To me, they rarely seem to protect. <shrug> They seem to… Well, mop up. (This should not be considered an endorsement of using firearms for personal protection or not, it’s just an observation.) I’d be interested in any statistics where L.E. actually thwarted a crime vs. catching the perpetrator after the crime was committed vs. not catching the perpetrator.

On topic, whether one thinks they should be available to the public, assault weapons were/are designed for one purpose, aren’t they? They are anti-personnel; nothing more, nothing less. Regardless, I don’t think that should preclude someone from owning one. But shouldn’t they have to pass the ‘best’ background checks we can design to legally obtain them? Is making buying a particular weapon a bit more lengthy a process really a problem?

Then again, how effective are background checks? Sure… DON’T sell to a convicted felon. (But firearms are accessible on the black market…) I wonder… How many ‘Holmes’ out there would pass a background check?

Take care,

Derek

 Signature 

“It is noble to be good; it is still nobler to teach others to be good—and less trouble.”—Mark Twain

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2012 04:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 217 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  256
Joined  2011-09-13

Yes, the topic is always fiery but asking, just for or against is much too simplistic because there is a grey area.  I am against guns as so far ruled today but I am also against with doing away with guns totally so I’m somewhere in that grey area.  So yes, I’m siting on the fence and exactly where in the grey area we should build a fence I don’t know so I’m open to ideas but I truly believe the best answer.  for or against, is grey.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2012 08:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 218 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3060
Joined  2011-08-15

To me, they rarely seem to protect. <shrug> They seem to… Well, mop up. (This should not be considered an endorsement of using firearms for personal protection or not, it’s just an observation.) I’d be interested in any statistics where L.E. actually thwarted a crime vs. catching the perpetrator after the crime was committed vs. not catching the perpetrator.


You do have a point Derek unfortunately the police aren’t omnipresent, That’s an impossibility especially in rural areas or small towns. Ex. Our village has three patrol cars and most of the police are part timers. The cars are outdated and local law enforcement relies on the state and county cops to assist. The only way, I suppose that police could actually thwart crime is to 1. Be in the area at the time the crime was about to be committed (by coincidence) or 2. set up a sting operation and catch the criminals in the act. A big part of the problem is that people want the protection but don’t want the taxes raised to pay for it. More funds equates to a better trained and prepared LE. And it obviously depends on the area. Downtown LA is a whole lot different than say, a small town in Ohio. Also, the legalities of gun ownership and how you may defend yourself with one varies from state to state. In some areas you can’t even own a handgun without a special permit issued by the state. In other states you can’t shoot anyone until they enter your home and assault you. So I guess you could say, if you own a gun for protection then you had better take a course in firing it and know the state laws before you’ll the trigger.


Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2012 10:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 219 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  775
Joined  2009-07-17
Thevillageatheist - 01 August 2012 08:21 AM

To me, they rarely seem to protect. <shrug> They seem to… Well, mop up. (This should not be considered an endorsement of using firearms for personal protection or not, it’s just an observation.) I’d be interested in any statistics where L.E. actually thwarted a crime vs. catching the perpetrator after the crime was committed vs. not catching the perpetrator.


You do have a point Derek unfortunately the police aren’t omnipresent, That’s an impossibility especially in rural areas or small towns. Ex. Our village has three patrol cars and most of the police are part timers. The cars are outdated and local law enforcement relies on the state and county cops to assist. The only way, I suppose that police could actually thwart crime is to 1. Be in the area at the time the crime was about to be committed (by coincidence) or 2. set up a sting operation and catch the criminals in the act. A big part of the problem is that people want the protection but don’t want the taxes raised to pay for it. More funds equates to a better trained and prepared LE. And it obviously depends on the area. Downtown LA is a whole lot different than say, a small town in Ohio. Also, the legalities of gun ownership and how you may defend yourself with one varies from state to state. In some areas you can’t even own a handgun without a special permit issued by the state. In other states you can’t shoot anyone until they enter your home and assault you. So I guess you could say, if you own a gun for protection then you had better take a course in firing it and know the state laws before you’ll the trigger.


Cap’t Jack

Just to be clear, this isn’t a complaint against LE. Until we have supernatural powers to see who will commit crimes before they actually commit them, LOL I don’t know how LE can do much better. (Although legalizing some/all recreational drugs I think would go a long way. wink But that’s still not LE, that’s politicians.) Society on the other hand by investing in education, after school programs, mentoring programs, et al, might improve things. But as you mentioned, that takes money, i.e. taxes.

Take care,

Derek

 Signature 

“It is noble to be good; it is still nobler to teach others to be good—and less trouble.”—Mark Twain

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2012 04:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 220 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1071
Joined  2007-06-20
Thevillageatheist - 30 July 2012 07:36 PM

We have law enforcement officials to protect us when needed…


This is one of the biggest misconceptions out there.  The job of the police is NOT to provide protection to anyone.  Their job is to enforce laws. 

In the 1981 case Warren v. District of Columbia, 3 women sued the police after they were raped, robbed and beaten for 14 hours in their home by intruders.  The police drove by the house once without stopping, came back a second time and knocked on the door (the women were hiding on the roof from intruders at the time) and the women called a 3rd time and were assured police were on the way.  The police never came back.  The court ruled police do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals, even if a dispatcher promises help to be on the way.
—Source.

And in 2005 the Supreme Court ruled police do not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
—Source.

I am not, in any way, disparaging the police, I know they have a tough job.  And I have no doubt that most police officers would protect a citizen—if they were capable of it.  But by the very definition, they will almost always arrive after the crime has happened.

The government is not there to protect people from bad things.  People’s lives belong to them, not the government.  People need to start showing some repsonsiblity instead of turning to the government as some sort of benevolent god asking it to take care of every aspect of their lives. 

If JFK were alive today, modern lefties would run him out of the Democratic Party for his, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country” speech.

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2012 05:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 221 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1191
Joined  2011-08-01
Rocinante - 01 August 2012 04:51 PM

If JFK were alive today, modern lefties would run him out of the Democratic Party for his, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country” speech.

Bullshit. I have that quote on my wall. You just went from a very specific situation (the legal role of a police officer) to a reckless generalization about the liberal view of government.

 Signature 

Free in Kentucky
—Humanist
“I am patient with stupidity but not with those who are proud of it.”—Edith Sitwell

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2012 05:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 222 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1071
Joined  2007-06-20

Truth hurts, doesn’t it?

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2012 05:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 223 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5500
Joined  2010-06-16

No, the truth would set you free, if you ever admitted to recognizing it.  And the way both the Democratic and Republican parties have been moving far to the right, Kennedy would be kicked out for being too liberal, just as Eisenhower, Nixon, and probably even Reagan would be kicked out of the Republican party by the Tea Party group for being too liberal. 

I thought the Tea Party contingent wouldn’t amount to much, but I see that in Texas the T.P. candidate won over the moderate Republican so is a shoo in to be elected to congress.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2012 07:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 224 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3060
Joined  2011-08-15

This is one of the biggest misconceptions out there.  The job of the police is NOT to provide protection to anyone.  Their job is to enforce laws. 

And by that very nature they ARE protecting us. Enforcing the laws connotes protection, as the laws were passed to prosecute criminal action. The only alternative is a vigilante system and we saw how that worked out with the Travon Martin case. Neither is arming citizens to wound or kill alleged robbers or rapists. The solution as I mentioned is increased police presence in high crime areas who are professionally trained with the most modern equipment available and that takes money. And money means higher taxes or subsides from the national government which the right would howl down in the halls of Congress. one example is New York City. We were walking in Times Square at 2 in the morning and I never felt safer. There is a police station, well lit right in the middle and beat cops casually walking in the crowd. We never felt safer. The police are on hand day and night, sometimes just out of sight. Plus there are cameras everywhere and everyone knows it. Now that’s a little spooky but it seems to work.


Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2012 07:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 225 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2634
Joined  2011-04-24
Thevillageatheist - 01 August 2012 07:14 PM

This is one of the biggest misconceptions out there.  The job of the police is NOT to provide protection to anyone.  Their job is to enforce laws. 

And by that very nature they ARE protecting us. Enforcing the laws connotes protection, as the laws were passed to prosecute criminal action.


Cap’t Jack

Overly simplistic.

If someone is intent on harming you, the police can only do very little without crossing the line into police brutality. Also, who cares if your killer is arrested and charged after the fact, you’re still dead.  Arming yourself at least gives you a chance to not be totally pinned against the wall.

 Signature 

Raise your glass if you’re wrong…. in all the right ways.

Profile
 
 
   
15 of 17
15