Quoted, because we do not have a LIKE button.
The burden of proof is on the accuser.
Pro-gun people, relying on the Constitution as their support, habitually leave out “…maintain a well-regulated militia.” Isn’t that ODD? They sort of clip the amendment, then pretend it says what they WANT it to say. Amazing stuff, no? Now, since that amendment was passed The United States of America has formalized its militia. It’s called The National Guard. And, guess what! Its members are PROVIDED weapons! YES! They’re kept in an armory and issued at need. Even MORE amazing, no?
This, then, takes care of this need for the (then) Minuteman to come running with his musket! Get a pro-gun person to admit to this and I have a bridge in San Francisco I’ll give you. (It’s orange!) My hometown has a law on ITS books. It’s illegal to spit on the deck of a steamboat! There are no steamboats in my hometown, and there hasn’t been for a century or more! STILL, there that law sits, unrevised to account for time’s forward movement and the obsolescence it brings.
By the way, so you don’t get the wrong idea here, I have a National Rifle Association marksmanship rating. Even MORE amazing, EH?? I can shoot the eye out of a sparrow at 300 yards. Though, believe me, I would NEVER actually DO IT. The thing is, I know a lot of guys who fancy themselves great gun owners. They want to parade around with their loaded weapons like nobody has a say in it. Oddly enough, when they drive they think they’re the current Mario Andretti. They think they should be able to drive any damned way they want to! Amazing, NO?
What’s even more amazing is, these self-same people want flying cars. They want FLYING cars! They can’t even drive on a flat surface without running into something, and they want to fly over YOUR house in an automobile…without a pilot’s license!
Needless to say, I don’t listen to a whole lot of what these guys have to say - for obvious reasons. I suggest you do the same, folks.
And yet , you couldn’t actually quote it correctly.
Amazing no?
And that you ignore the 2008,2010, and 2016 supreme Court rulings on it’s interpretation.
Littleman’s experience is plausible to me. I have personally witnessed several hundred people being sprayed as part of their certification to carry OC. Some details about the certification course they had to run are in one of my older posts. He underplays it some but his experience is limited. Some people do basically respond like his claims, though.
Only a small chunk respond as badly as you seem to expect from your own limited experience. From a position of broader experience, it’s somewhere in between your positions and his although he’s closer. Overwhelmingly, people retain some ability to take violent actions against someone else after being sprayed. There’s a broad distribution of how reduced their abilities are. Some show only small reductions in ability and some are severely limited. Some will not have the motivation to continue or escalate the fight after being sprayed which effectively stops them. That’s probably the key practical difference between my experience and a typical home defense situation. The Soldiers we were spraying were motivated to complete the course…and not be sprayed a second time if they failed and had to retest. 
Make no mistake though, someone strongly motivated will very likely be able to keep fighting after being sprayed. Anyone who contemplating OC as a self-defense tool absolutely needs to understand that. Ignoring that reality is dangerous IMO.
There’s some important information about how OC is delivered that affects usage for home defense. The most commonly marketed products use a liquid based delivery system. When the stream strikes the splash produces a cloud of fine mist. That’s useful outdoors because the cloud is hopefully right in the targeted persons face. It can be breathed in and get in the eyes even if the spray doesn’t directly strike eyes or mouth. In confined spaces like a typical home or apartment that is problematic for the sprayer. In typical home and apartment rooms, people deploying OC will probably get a decent dose themselves.
There are also gel or foam based delivery systems. They aerosolize less on striking causing fewer issues for other people in the room. That also makes accuracy more important. There’s less running down into eyes or cloud to settle. That can make them gel/foam based systems less effective in real world use. The trade off is the defender is more likely to be able to defend themselves without suffering from their own significant OC exposure. If I was going to use OC at home, I’d go through the extra effort to find a gel or foam based product.
There are also foggers that spray a more dispersed cone of relatively fine mist. That’s great for crowd and riot control applications. Many OC products marketed as bear spray are also foggers. The broad spray makes accuracy less important when hand are shaking because a giant freaking bear is coming to eat you. I’d strongly suggest that nobody plan to use a fogger in their living room for pretty obvious reasons. 
Leave the bear spray with the outdoor gear and buy something else for home defense.
There are minimum safe ranges for non-lethal rounds. IIRC from the multiple systems we trained troops on that was generally between 5-7 meters. Inside that range, you are effectively still using a lethal weapon not a “potentially lethal if you hit them wrong” weapon. Aside from some open floor plans for home defense we’re likely looking at most people being inside the minimum safe range. A prosecutor has a solid argument for treating shooting someone with a beanbag in most living rooms exactly the same as if you shoot them with a load of 00 buckshot. It’s not as lethal as buckshot but then neither is shooting them with a 32 caliber pistol round.
True, in close range and possibly even beyond , a good argument could be made that way.
Though I think in most cases a bat or frying pan would still be considered a deadly weapon too?
Ok. What would be your nonlethal deterrent of choice? If you say none, only a firearm will do, what percentage of gun owner’s fire arms prevent rather than facilitate deaths of people homeowners care about?
Keep in mind, the OP asked each of us. I have a 5 and 8 year old.
Yeah, turns out even conservative textualists cannot read the amendment correctly. I guess you can own a gun cause that’s important and yet not be regulated, and not be in a militia.
I live in downtown Baltimore. My zip code is 21201 if you want to look up the crime statistics. I don’t own a gun, and can’t think of a reason I ever would. I have lived here 15 years, and no one has ever tried to break into my home. I’ve never been mugged. My wife had a necklace stolen by a junky more than ten years ago, and she punched him in the mouth before he ran away. I don’t understand the fantasy of mad-man-tries-to-break-in.
Thank you for showing one and all the total uselessness of conversing with you about this topic.
Mindboggling how ironic it is to make this comment in a thread that is based on the unevidenced fantasy that our lives are in immense danger from home invaders.
Given your concern over saving lives, I assume you also keep a defribilator and epipen close at hand for the much more likely eventualities?
Sent from my RNE-L23 using Tapatalk
I don’t constantly fear that my life is in danger, but I’d like to be prepared for it, however unlikely.
It makes much more sense if you see it as a rationalization rather than a true reason - an answer to “What can I say I will do with a gun that others will accept?” rather than “What risks do I most realistically face and how can I best protect myself from them?”. To embrace that fantasy also requires denying the humanity of the “bad guy”, permitting the part of the fantasy where he gets killed to be accepted. The same goes for the related rationalization fantasy of joining a neighborhood gang, er, “militia” resisting the jackbooted minions of tyranny. They’re not human either.
So you acknowledge that OP’s fearmongering is delusional fantasy, and that it’s not a rational reason to want to own a gun. But you want one anyway. Well, at least that’s more honest than the OP.
No, I know that it is unlikely that someone will break into my house.
It is also fun to poke holes in paper targets.
The odds of a citizen of my city being in a violent crime are 1 to 124, less than 1%.
Isn’t that pretty much what I said?
If the majority of people in the U.S. favor relaxed rules about private gun ownership, I’m not seeking to impose my own preferences on you, just to continue the debate in hopes that one day sentiment may shift. My bone of contention is with Urbanredneck presenting fallacious justifications for gun ownership.
I wasn’t spitting teeth when I said it. 
If you got to the car, why would you just sit in it and not drive away?
If they want to get you out, you think some glass is going to stop them?
Allow me;
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state , a citizens right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
This statement is inclusive of a militia, not exclusive to a militia.
But let’s for the sake of argument say it’s interpreted as exclusive to …or that 2A doesn’t exist or is repealed.
Then the US Constitution does not address the issue and certainly doesn’t forbid it outside of a militia. Leaving it to the states.
The vast majority of state Constitutions are far more explicit, for example Ohio;
The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.
Furthermore revised code says this;
**The individual right to keep and bear arms, being a fundamental individual right that predates the United States Constitution and Ohio Constitution,**and being a constitutionally protected right in every part of Ohio, the general assembly finds the need to provide uniform laws throughout the state regulating the ownership, possession, purchase, other acquisition, transport, storage, carrying, sale, or other transfer of firearms, their components, and their ammunition. Except as specifically provided by the United States Constitution, Ohio Constitution, state law, or federal law, a person, without further license, permission, restriction, delay, or process, may own, possess, purchase, sell, transfer, transport, store, or keep any firearm, part of a firearm, its components, and its ammunition.
(B) In addition to any other relief provided, the court shall award costs and reasonable attorney fees to any person, group, or entity that prevails in a challenge to an ordinance, rule, or regulation as being in conflict with this section.