100K Challenge

[Polish-Hammer]

How many intruders have you fought off in your home?

 

[Spartanmack]

Banning guns and invasibly or forcibly taking them away w/o due process or a SCOTUS decision or a bill to do so by Congress and signed into law by a POTUS are two entirely different things. As is conservatives, independents, and liberals interpretation of the Second Amendment, which was conceived by our forefathers long before weapons using gunpowder became more than merely an iron ball tamped down into the barrel of a musket, flintlock, or cannon.

They were aware that all but cannon would or could be used to hunt game, but included the phrase "well regulated militia" so that the states and their cities and townsfolk could readily defend themselves against foreign invaders and New World natives' potential uprisings. It was not written so that individuals and families would or could become a heavily armed and militarized force unto themselves.

No private citizen should own or possess or require any type of WMD, whether legally manufactured or illegally created specifically for the purpose of causing mass casualties. Your previous contention of their need to defend against government tyranny is laughable, especially since you yourself do not own any firearms, so obviously you really don't take that ominous and everpresent "threat" very seriously.

If ammosexuals insist that they would live in constant fear for their and/or their families' security and safety, and would be deprived of their Second Amendment "rights", then I would have no problem with them forming or joining a "well-regulated" militia within their state or community for that purpose, including the use of and practice with semi-auto assault weapons, which would be properly and securely kept in a locked and alarmed room within a locked and guarded/patrolled building designated for that purpose.

it's clear from most of those quotes that the ban also includes confiscation, you're splitting hairs here in an effort to avoid admitting you're wrong.

You're wrong about the constitution - the founders put it in there for those reasons, plus the possibility of our own government becoming tyrannical. Also, gun rights advocates aren't pushing for the rights to militarize families. I think everyone or at least the majority of people are ok with private citizens not owning machine guns, tanks, grenades, rocket launchers, F-16s, aircraft carriers etc. Your tactic of exaggerating the oppositions argument is pretty weak.

I don't think anyone classifies semiautomatic guns as WMDs. But you're right that I don't think the threat of government tyranny at present is a serious one and that's a big reason why I CHOOSE not to own a gun. But that doesn't mean we have the right to disarm anyone who does. Defending that right doesn't require me to also be a gun owner, nor does not owning a gun make me a hypocrite. This argument is weaker than your previous one.

Well, if you support the formation of well regulated militias, then you shouldn't want to infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms - without that right, they can't form a well regulated militia should that need arise.

 

[tomdalton22]

How many intruders have you fought off in your home?

Having the right to do something has nothing to do if you have actually done it. Do you ask a pro choice woman how many abortions she has had?

 

[turok]

the original post made no mention of due process, why is that a qualifier now? Even if it is, do you think a mandatory buy back like the one in Australia is "due process"? It's not.

Also, here are some quotes from Diane Feinstein (pictured below - she's a politician, in case you were wondering)...

“Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.”

“If I could have gotten...an outright ban – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have!”



Some of these quotes don't specifically mention due process but I think it's safe to say you're wrong, plenty of politicians have advocated for taking guns away from people.

The OP was being sarcastic, and that is why he didn't elaborate using due process. I don't entirely agree with banning guns altogether, primarily b/c there are waay too many unregistered guns alone, that would become just another huge black-market problem, driving up their value immensely and causing the creation of more organized crime throughout a country that already has a growing black market for Rx drugs, not to mention the already illegal kind.

I am in favor of private citizens owning registered hunting rifles, and handguns, but CCW only for those whose occupations prove a risk and a need for having one, who undergo documented annual refresher training and practice with them at least once a month.

 

[Spartanmack]

How many intruders have you fought off in your home?

why does that matter? do you think a person should only be allowed to own a gun for protection after their house has been broken into? is one break in enough or does it have to happen multiple times before you can buy the gun?

 

[Gulo Blue]

Don't handguns kills tons more people than rifles anyway? Seems like any gun regulation seriously proposed by anyone in power is really just feel good legislation.

 

[Michchamp]

so you don't feel it's within someone's right to protect his house and family from outside intruders?

you can do that without a gun.

also, how frequently do burglaries of occupied homes happen? is that something you deal with regularly? Ever?

even in Chicago when I lived there they were rare. hardly enough to justify widespread use of assault rifles or handguns.

for the record, a shotgun is going to be the most effective weapon for home defense. unless you're practicing regularly, or a gifted shot, most people aren't going to be able to hit anything with a handgun, even 10 yards away, and especially in a chaotic situation as a burglary.

in theory, shotguns and hunting rifles are all any civilian should be allowed to own.

You also hear people say "I own an assault rifle and shooting it is my hobby."

WELL, GET A NEW HOBBY.

 

[Michchamp]

How many intruders have you fought off in your home?

do not question the fantasies right wing Americans base their policies on.

They've all seen Deathwish and Dirty Harry too many times; they confuse movies with their everyday safe suburban existence.

 

[Michchamp]

Don't handguns kills tons more people than rifles anyway? Seems like any gun regulation seriously proposed by anyone in power is really just feel good legislation.

yes.

and I know you've mentioned this before.

allowing widespread handgun ownership is stupid. only cops and registered security guards should be permitted to carry them.

a person's "right to defend themselves" (good luck coming up with an objective way to define that) is not absolute.

everyone risks an ass beating or mugging when they go in public, however slight that risk can be. we should not have to also bear the risk of getting accidentally shot by some idiot who thinks he's Clint Eastwood, or who "feels threatened" or gets drunk and loses his temper.

I'm not in favor of a "gun ban" as that would obviously trigger gun nuts too much. just phase ownership out... ban new guns. offer buybacks. get the numbers down.

 

[Michchamp]

why does that matter? do you think a person should only be allowed to own a gun for protection after their house has been broken into? is one break in enough or does it have to happen multiple times before you can buy the gun?

This is not complicated, Einstein. it matters because it's stupid to create very real problems (like kids accidentally shooting and killing themselves or their siblings) to deal with an imaginary problem.

 

[turok]

why does that matter? do you think a person should only be allowed to own a gun for protection after their house has been broken into? is one break in enough or does it have to happen multiple times before you can buy the gun?

Those whose homes are burgled most often live in urban areas that are blighted, and who cannot afford to own a handgun or rifle and ammo.
Or they are criminal drug dealers themselves.

But since they are mostly poor and elderly, the items that are often ransacked for, are drugs and liquor, and maybe very small amounts of hidden money and/or old jewelry.

Funny how the most whiny, angry, and upset gun owners who possess obscenely large, if not downright immense caches of arms and ammo, live in the least crime affected and unpopulated areas of the country.

 

[Spartanmack]

This is not complicated, Einstein. it matters because it's stupid to create very real problems (like kids accidentally shooting and killing themselves or their siblings) to deal with an imaginary problem.

this post is what's stupid. yes accidents happen but they happen with other things, like cars and bicycles that kill people at higher rates than guns but we don't try to ban those every time someone dies in an accident. You keep posting things about our rights to not be shot by hotheads who feel threatened, drunks or people who think they're Clint Eastwood - things that never happen or happen so rarely as to be inconsequential then follow up that drivel with other extremely rare cases, hurl some insults and then declare your nonsense to be unassailable logic when it couldn't be further from that.

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away - or cowering in the parking lot as a high school gets shot up. But these are imaginary problems so it's only logical to take away a persons right to defend themselves.

 

[Spartanmack]

you can do that without a gun.

also, how frequently do burglaries of occupied homes happen? is that something you deal with regularly? Ever?

even in Chicago when I lived there they were rare. hardly enough to justify widespread use of assault rifles or handguns.

for the record, a shotgun is going to be the most effective weapon for home defense. unless you're practicing regularly, or a gifted shot, most people aren't going to be able to hit anything with a handgun, even 10 yards away, and especially in a chaotic situation as a burglary.

in theory, shotguns and hunting rifles are all any civilian should be allowed to own.

You also hear people say "I own an assault rifle and shooting it is my hobby."

WELL, GET A NEW HOBBY.

who is spineless? how about you back up your talk with action, practice what you preach and get rid of your hand gun - you said yourself you don't need it. Hypocrite.

By the way, nobody ever says that. And the AR-15 isn't an assault rifle.

 

[Michchamp]

who is spineless? how about you back up your talk with action, practice what you preach and get rid of your hand gun - you said yourself you don't need it. Hypocrite.

By the way, nobody ever says that. And the AR-15 isn't an assault rifle.

I don't own a handgun, Mr. Stupid.

and I keep my gun locked at home, so in the event someone did break into my house while I was home, I'd just have to beat them senseless with my fists, like a real man.

 

[Spartanmack]

I don't own a handgun, Mr. Stupid.

and I keep my gun locked at home, so in the event someone did break into my house while I was home, I'd just have to beat them senseless with my fists, like a real man.

Oh, I feel so stupid for not know what kind of gun you own. didn't you say you owned a handgun when you lived in Chicago? what did you do with it and what kind of gun do you own now? if it's not a shot gun or a deer rifle, you're still a hypocrite. well, the fact that you're a hypocrite is well established so this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

LOL, such bravado - what a badass! Weren't you the one calling me a tough guy just a few posts back? And didn't you say something like gun conservatives get their views on gun control from watching Deathwish? sounds like you've been watching too much Kung Fu Panda - your house would have to get broken into by a seriously wimpy person, maybe even a girl for your scenario to play out, Mr. Roly Poly Pudgy Boy.

 

[turok]

this post is what's stupid. yes accidents happen but they happen with other things, like cars and bicycles that kill people at higher rates than guns but we don't try to ban those every time someone dies in an accident. You keep posting things about our rights to not be shot by hotheads who feel threatened, drunks or people who think they're Clint Eastwood - things that never happen or happen so rarely as to be inconsequential then follow up that drivel with other extremely rare cases, hurl some insults and then declare your nonsense to be unassailable logic when it couldn't be further from that.

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away - or cowering in the parking lot as a high school gets shot up. But these are imaginary problems so it's only logical to take away a persons right to defend themselves.

Again the cars and trucks kill more people crutch...but now "bicycles" too? :hmm:

They are not the same as semi-auto assault WMD, and assault weapons ARE WMD, b/c they are manufactured for just one express purpose, to kill many people rapidly.

An armed assailant can shoot rapidly, wildly, and indiscriminantly within a school, but anyone trying to return fire needs to be very accurate amidst the chaos and panic. If he is not quickly wounded or killed, then he could use a student as a shield and/or take hostages.

 

[tomdalton22]

Those whose homes are burgled most often live in urban areas that are blighted, and who cannot afford to own a handgun or rifle and ammo.
Or they are criminal drug dealers themselves.

But since they are mostly poor and elderly, the items that are often ransacked for, are drugs and liquor, and maybe very small amounts of hidden money and/or old jewelry.

Funny how the most whiny, angry, and upset gun owners who possess obscenely large, if not downright immense caches of arms and ammo, live in the least crime affected and unpopulated areas of the country.

Seems people that lean right can't win with you. I live in an are with very low crime. I don't own a handgun because I don't feel the need to own one. I believe it should be the right of a poor person who lives in an area of high crime to own a gun for their protection. Isn't that what we are talking about? The right for someone that feels they need a handgun for protection to have the ability to own one?

 

[Spartanmack]

Those whose homes are burgled most often live in urban areas that are blighted, and who cannot afford to own a handgun or rifle and ammo.
Or they are criminal drug dealers themselves.

But since they are mostly poor and elderly, the items that are often ransacked for, are drugs and liquor, and maybe very small amounts of hidden money and/or old jewelry.

Funny how the most whiny, angry, and upset gun owners who possess obscenely large, if not downright immense caches of arms and ammo, live in the least crime affected and unpopulated areas of the country.

so nobody should be able to own a gun for protection because most homes that get broken into are poor people or criminal drug dealers? Is there data to support this assertion, I'm curious even though it's irrelevant to whether or not someone should have the right to own a gun for defense.

maybe those areas have such a low crime rate because of the risk of breaking into the home of a well armed homeowners. Also, are they really the most whiny? seems to me the most whiny people in this debate are the gun grabbers.

 

[Spartanmack]

Seems people that lean right can't win with you. I live in an are with very low crime. I don't own a handgun because I don't feel the need to own one. I believe it should be the right of a poor person who lives in an area of high crime to own a gun for their protection. Isn't that what we are talking about? The right for someone that feels they need a handgun for protection to have the ability to own one?

what about your neighbor? do you support his/her right to own a gun if they feel they need one? or simply want one?

 

[tomdalton22]

what about your neighbor? do you support his/her right to own a gun if they feel they need one? or simply want one?

yes