and the entire point that after the first couple of shots, any would be burglar is either returning fire or heading for the hills seems to have completely gone over your head. i also doubt most of you (military excluded, obviously) have ever been in anything more combative than a schoolyard fight, so you'll forgive me if I don't take you seriously...
mid 80s, so actually still a pretty good chance of there being an easily accessed gun or seven in the average house... especially out in the hick suburb I was living in that year. no, Spaceturkey pulled some B&Es as a teen on houses that had been staked out and observed to be unoccupied...
Forgotten here is that guns are not solely for personal defense, they are also the arms for the militia. If a (so-called) high-capacity magazine would be useful for militia purposes, it should be protected by the Second Amendment.
Ok, I'm going to guess @oldfella1962 has considerable experience in actually exchanging bullets with someone who doesn't like him much given his background, but how many of our enthusiasts have actually, truthfully, been called on to discharge a gun in anger? I'm going to guess short of people stretching the truth, exaggerating or outright bullshitting it's a distinct minority, though many will know a friend of a cousin's auntie who once felt scared by some teenagers on a train but didn't get murdered because they had one on them. It's amazing really how those of us without guns are still here and not strewn mutilated around the streets by gangs of predatory transgender Iraqi sex offending immigrants. Or cannibals. Actually do be careful of cannibals because they're actually real unlike all the things you are living in fear of. Almost as though the whole thing was a way for people to over compensate for inadequacies and play act being Dirty Harry.
A gun is for self defense, not property defense, legal & firearm genius. If you aren't home your life is not in danger, thus your gun is not part of the equation now is it? Your shine box is calling your name.
if the burglar is returning fire then all the more reason to have a high capacity magazine. Common sense would dictate that the burglar still has rounds remaining - if you run out before he does you are fucked like chuck. Bottom line: it takes a lot of bullets to hit a target under less than ideal conditions, and it usually takes more than one bullet (assuming you hit your target) to completely guarantee that the bad guy is unable to still harm you AKA is no longer a valid threat. But hey, if you don't believe you deserve to end your shift/day/mission in a vertical position more than the bad guy does, load less rounds and see how that works out for you.
The Militia Act of 1792[26] clarified whom the militia consists of: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. Today, as defined by the Militia Act of 1903, the term "militia" is primarily used to describe two groups within the United States: Organized militia – consisting of State militia forces; notably, the National Guard and Naval Militia.[8] (Note: the National Guard is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States.) Unorganized militia – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia So, how does that fit for constitutional?
If someone is coming at you from under 30' and you haven't hit them in the first three shots, odds are you aren't going to get off any more that will do you any good...
1. That's a law, not the Constitution. The age and sex constraints would not pass Constitutional muster today. But, even so, this makes it unambiguously clear that the unorganized militia are armed civilians. The organized militia didn't come into being until more than a century after the 2nd was ratified. 2. Supreme Court rulings have stated unequivocally that the Second Amendment is an individual right that is not dependent on militia service/participation, and have suggested that militia weapons are protected. Simply put: your 2nd amendment rights are secure because you might need to participate in a militia, but your rights exist whether you participate in one or not.
not necessarily. If you're still alive (or at least still in the fight) then his shots won't do him any good either under 30'. Odds are if he's "closing the distance" then he's probably out of ammo. He'll probably try to get a dominant position then take your gun. Now it's hand-to-hand...sort of, if you still have a gun & ammo. Either way try to get some distance fast and the more the better.
So you're telling me the (mostly) same bunch of guys that wrote the constitution breached it within a year? Besides, you guys are the ones saying how it's unalterable, thus an Act to clarify a definition in it should be more than relevant. The only thing unambiguous is that quite clearly militia (indeed any military service) is limited by age and gender No one is arguing how long it took to create organized militias, jsut that once they were created, the appellation only included men of a specific age range. ... while gender inclusion has finally started to happen in your forces, pretty sure some of your 60 year old asses are about as useful/eligible as a triangular wheel.
I'd argue it's more likely that if he's returning fire, he's covering a retreat. no one wants to turn a burglary into a murder. Home invasions are a different thing of course, however, they're generally a result of having made your own bed... the psycho that rushes is likely not carrying/using a gun at all. He is, most likely, cut off from any escape route. No matter as the point was, that under that distance, nobodys' gun makes a lick of difference.
No. Again, the right to bear arms isn't dependent on service in a militia, so even if the government defines militia in a way that excludes someone, it doesn't invalidate that person's right to keep and bear arms. The definition is irrelevant, beyond that it encompasses a large subset of the civilian population no matter how it is defined. It is ordinary people who comprise the militia. Again, irrelevant. Our rights don't turn on the definition of militia, or on our participation in one.
Yes, arguing that people need to have access to high powered weapons so they need to fight their own military definitely makes your side seem sane.
I guess nobody read the analyses of actual gunfights at the Ayoob Files link. We're still doing 'my hypothetical is better than your hypothetical.'
one thing I do know (and you'll never know just from watching TV and movies) no matter how the gun slinging plays out is that discharging guns indoors or in a vehicle is LOUD AS FUCK! I mean it is Spinal Tap cranked up to eleven for your ass! That alone is disorienting, especially to somebody like me who wants to go all "rain man in the airport" over any distracting sounds or even two people talking at the same time.
It's funny how some of the same people say we're descending into fascism also say we have no need to resist the state. Natural disasters, breakdowns in social order, etc.--which do occur--are another great reason to be prepared.
No, I know what the constitution says and against all the odds I'm aware of the case, I just don't care. What I'm saying is you actually believe it's not a load of BS regardless, you genuinely picture yourself as a defender of democracy standing fast against the forces of tyranny baying at the door and buying the idea you can seriously use the constitution to reinforce and legitimise the idea. Let me ask you a question, in your little escapist fantasy do you wear blue and red lycra whilst rescuing the world from communism? Yes there's a real danger you're defending into fascism, but your guns aren't going to help you, they and the lobby supporting them are exactly the political tools the fascists are using and you are lapping it up. It's the fascists egging you on and telling you your rights are under threat, that you're going to need your guns and you should resist the terrible lefties who might have gay sex or something if you can't shoot them out of it.
It's the fascists egging you on and telling you your rights are under threat, that you're going to need your guns and you should resist the terrible lefties who might have gay sex or something if you can't shoot them out of it. - spot you are smart enough (I hope) to realize that being pro-gun rights has ZERO to do with somebody's stance on gay rights......aren't you? You seem to be broad-brushing/pigeonholing people who are passionate about our constitutional right to bear arms as also being anti-gay. Maybe I got my hopes up thinking you were one of the libs who didn't consider gun rights advocates to all be caricatures that the US left would have you believe are so plentiful.
Sorry, I was playing to parody there and hoped it was evident, the parody being of the ridiculousness of the idea that gun ownership is a viable safeguard against tyranny and not simply a business lobby playing on nonsensical fears (and fantasies) in spite of the evidence. Of course you are right not all gun owners are homophobic, much as all gay people won't be anti gun. There is a correlation between the two beliefs though, that much is evident by the fact right wing US platforms consistently aim to appeal on both fronts while left wing platforms do the opposite. That consistency can't be a coincidence, the demographics of one belief clearly do overlap significantly with those of the other and that's how the sorts of stereotype I'm riffing on here develop, with packages of policies which almost inevitably tie disparate ideas under broad and simplistic banners. That tendency isn't new, but it's particularly prominent at the moment and not just in the US.
yes lumping not necessarily similar people into one big group for political reasons is done everywhere but in your country (for example) you don't have the huge gun control/gun rights issue umbrella under which to throw more caricatures & stereotypes.
It's done everywhere, but in the US they're both consistently aspects of the right and that consistency is key, particularly the current iteration of the right. For them both to be such prominent aspects of a platform and for that platform to have been so popular with conservative voters suggests massive overlap between the two voting demographics, else that platform would be much more divisive within grass roots supporters of the party and we'd be looking at a very different world stage right now. At the very least an awful lot of people must be voting for one whilst making a deal with the devil on the other, but that's hard to reconcile really with the fact that both seem to resonate so closely with the same core voting demographic.
One huge problem is there are only two parties. Bizarro ent said in one thread that she wouldn't vote for Bill Clinton if he ran again when I said Democrats can be misogynistic abusers too. She conveniently ignored the fact that Hillary covered up for Bill but I digress..... anyway I must call BULLSHIT! If it was Bill Clinton against a Republican would she vote Republican? Fuck no! She might not vote, which I support but it's kind of like giving 1/2 of your vote away. Most people on both sides hold their nose and vote for the lesser of two evils, but few admit it. So if your mind is already made up years in advance you will rationalize/validate your choice - "See? I told you a Democrat/Republican is fucking this up! Damn there they go again - what a fucking idiot. That party sucks and there's your proof!" while ignoring the weaknesses of their own party. No party/candidate is 100 percent to your tastes. So you tally up the pros and the cons not just of the office (be it governor, president, etc.) but of all the baggage they bring along and the potential advantages/disadvantages of them holding that office and will this best represent your personal needs - then you vote. But bottom line you generally only have two choices for the highest government offices.
What a well thought out piece of legislation! Glad they’re working out all the bugs. However, if the officers were simply as competent as space turkey with their firearms, they wouldn’t need more than a few rounds.
Jeez, Cuomo did the same stupid thing in NY when he shoved the SAFE act down their throats - forgot to allow for police. So instantly every cop in the state with more than 7 rounds in his mage was in violation. Politicians are the stupidest form of life in the universe.
