Gun story not in the news (page 4)

Deputy Dog

Sir

I think the phrase should be "not in the mainstream news,"

I stand corrected.

B-Rock

What a vile woman, to coldly shoot a man without even asking about his undoubtedly troubled past, his fears, his weaknesses. Life is so cheap.

You gotta be kidding. I've seen enough bad shit happen to unarmed sheeple to remove any shred of pity for this piece of human trash breaking in. I hope he died, and that's no lie. Saves the taxpayers a dime.

mouthy

OOPs!!! what happened? No I couldnt get the 911 call

B-Rock

In the UK she would have been arrested for murder.

keyser soze

So despite what gun-control advocates say, their policies make it harder for women like this to weild a shotgun in her own home, depending on the state.

I don't agree with all gun laws myself. But despite what gun advocates say, it isn't the agenda of gun-control advocates to disarm law-abiding citizens. That was my point. I agree that sometimes legislation goes too far, and the wrong people are punished.

keyser soze

What a vile woman, to coldly shoot a man without even asking about his undoubtedly troubled past, his fears, his weaknesses. Life is so cheap.

Exactly. All he wanted was a hug, someone to tell him he was special. That's all he was after when he broke into her home. Did he deserve to be shot because of it?

leavingwt

But despite what gun advocates say, it isn't the agenda of gun-control advocates to disarm law-abiding citizens.

Keyser,

Please, let's be more specific. It most certainly IS the agenda of SOME gun-control advocates in the United States.

Members of this forum have personally testified that in their home countries the intent of existing laws is to disarm law-abiding citizens. Several have expressed the opinion that such laws are superior to our laws. They prefer a country in which private citizens are unarmed. I respect their opinions. I would prefer to live in a world in which firearms were unnecessary. Sadly, that is not the position in which I find myself, today.

Several high-profile cases in the U.S., such as Heller in D.C., have highlighted laws on the books that did prevent law-abiding citizens from having handguns.

In his (Heller) dissent, Justice Stevens was joined by three other judges, in stating that he does not believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right.

The Stevens dissent seems to rest on four main points of disagreement: that the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended; that the "militia" preamble and exact phrase "to keep and bear arms" demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only; that many lower courts' later "collective-right" reading of the Miller decision constitutes stare decisis, which may only be overturned at great peril; and that the Court has not considered gun-control laws (e.g., the National Firearms Act) unconstitutional. The dissent concludes, "The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.... I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice."

Summary: Four Supreme Court Justices were not particularly interested in protecting the right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms.

Now, I understand your point. As you say, there are many folks who simply want to make it more difficult for criminals to acquire firearms. This is a noble goal. I agree.

-LWT

keyser soze

Please, let's be more specific. It most certainly IS the agenda of SOME gun-control advocates in the United States.

Yes, there are extremists in every group of people. It is also the agenda of SOME anti-abortionists to kill as many abortion doctors as they can. But these are not representative of the majority who hold these views. The majority of gun-control advocates want tougher gun laws, not the abolition of them. In fact many are gun owners themselves.

HappyGuy

Home invasions are unheard of in Switzerland. There is a pretty good reason why. All Swiss males of legal age are required to own a rifle and ammunition and must put in a certain number of hours on the firing range each year. THey also have to train as part of the military reserve.

So, anyone considering doing a home invasion in Switzerland knows that they will be met by a trained marksman armed with a rifle.

Gun story not in the news

Share this