I cannot imagine a situation where I’d need to use a gun to protect myself. I don’t hang out with violent criminals and I don’t live in a neighborhood where it’s likely someone will try to harm me in such a way that I’d need to shoot them to protect myself. If I were in a neighborhood that made me feel that way, it would be because of the guns in the neighborhood and the neighborhood being full of people who are violent criminals.
As far as fear mongering goes, in my opinion, people saying they need a gun to protect themselves does more for creating fear than those who say we are in danger because of so many guns being out there.
Misdemeanors can be small potatoes. They can also be reasonably serious, and put people in jail for up to a year of their life.
Your assumption that the government has less burden of proof is incorrect, as is the assumption that you are denied trial by jury for misdemeanors. You may be confusing civil versus criminal court.
Note that folks convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence (a fairly serious crime, for being a misdemeanor) are disallowed to possess firearms. Should that law be repealed?
How about a person who racks up multiple misdemeanor assault and battery convictions? A person who’s spent an aggregate years in jail?
I qualified my statements in this thread. I believe in limiting the number of people with access to firearms, but also expanding (greatly) the lawful use of and the types of firearms available to those who are proven to be low-risk, trustworthy, law-abiding citizens. What do I base that on? Because as I get older and think back on all the absolute untrained, irresponsible, criminal idiots I’ve known who have legally possessed firearms, I have to wonder how much better off we’d be if they had been prevented from possessing them. Don’t think for a second this puts me, with my CCW and dozens of guns and 20+ years of happy shooting experience, on the anti-gun side.
sigh By the time of Dred Scott, slavery was already illegal in most if not all northern states. Dred Scott did not overturn those state laws. Look, you’re just flat out wrong here, why not admit it and move on?
I would say that the instant background check system was the most sensible I have seen. Having a decent database of felons and loonies who have lost their right to own a firearm due to either actions or mental incapacitation is a good idea, and I am glad that the NRA pushed it.
The case was premised on Scott having lived in Illinois and Wisconsin where slavery was illegal. The court ruled that despite this they were still slaves. Essentially the ruling meant you could go to a slave state, buy a slave, then go anywhere you wanted to with that slave…even non-slave states…and he/she would remain your slave.
The ruling made the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional and it took a constitutional amendment to overturn (see the 13th Amendment). The end result was owning slaves was a right and you could not be deprived of them by the legislature, federal or state. All the northern states had to say about it at that point was you could not buy slaves in their state.
That is even more permissive than going somewhere that will sell you a gun then taking it back to Washington D.C. where it is still illegal regardless of where you bought it.
So to follow your ‘logic’ only the very best firearm/long gun should be able to be used as a sporting and target rifle. Say theBarrett 50 I asked earlier. You don’t think that you can target shoot with a hand gun?
Is thisTarget pistol acceptable. Does it bother you that it could also be used as a defensive weapon?
Could you please elaborate? I have no idea what you’re trying to say here.
It declines a bit further every time one of the more perceptive leftists sees Dubya do something stupid and mulls on the fact that, if not for the gun control issue, Al Gore would be there instead…
e.g. If a 250-pound bruiser can be a threat to a 100-pound grandma without a gun, then a 100-pound grandma can be a threat right back to a 250-pound bruiser without a gun.
I think this thread has reached some sort of apotheosis of illogic.
This is an inane argument. As others have stated, the vast majority of people I know have not needed fire extinguishers or seatbelts and somehow they have managed to make it this far just fine, too.
The thing is, you don’t know the intentions of the criminal. Maybe he just wants your TV. Or maybe he wants to rape your wife and daughters, strangle your wife, and burn your house down with your daughters tied to their beds (killing them) like what happened here in Connecticut last year.
Oh, so you do realize this.
And leave your daughter behind?
Not everyone has this option.
Just like drugs are not generally accessible to criminals, right?
Unlike drugs, guns and ammunition stay usable indefinitely. The only people who go through large amounts of ammunition are law-abiding hunters and target shooters. I’d bet that one box of ammo (which if kept dry, does not degrade) would suffice for a lifetime of robberies and holdups (for a criminal). For a law-abiding gun owner no longer allowed to practice, one box of ammo would also last a long, long time.
On what basis do you think think that the number of guns will filter out and dwindle to minimal numbers?
