Federal agents hunt for guns, one house at a time

[Chewbacca]

Originally Posted by John D Harris Chewwie Chewwie have you ever heard of the U.S. Constitution? please show me were in the U.S. Constitution is says anything about playing poker, growing a righteous plant (which if you bothered to look up the word righteous you would see it has something to do with religeon and we know we can't have any of that kind of stuff going around ) or Marryin' But you canbet your sweat little pippy I can sure as Hale is were Sherman ended up for what He did to Atlanta, SHOW YOU WERE I HAVE THE RIGHT TO BARE ARMS. It's In there read it.

Why are you so mocking and condesending? It is because essentially your argument is weak and shallow so you compensate with chest-thumping and ridicule. FAIL!

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by Firestormalpha Well, there's the whole idea that if you own a gun you'll be more prepared to stop a criminal from burglarizing your home, self-defense, etc. There are issues with this mentality, and if you don't train extensively in the use of firearms under high-stress conditions, you could potentially put yourself in more danger for having one than you would have been without it. If a criminal sees you have a gun, you just became his first target, are you ready to defend yourself?

Yes, I am.

I've been in the situation when a stranger with a gun ended up at our house late at night (he was running from the police). If a criminal approaches (or enters) my home with a gun, he just became MY first target and I will absolutely take the first shot.

[Firestormalpha]

Then I see no problem with you having a firearm.

The problem I tried to address there is that many people think that merely possessing the weapon = effective defense.

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by Chewbacca Why are you so mocking and condesending? It is because essentially your argument is weak and shallow so you compensate with chest-thumping and ridicule. FAIL!

The argument is not weak or shallow at all. The Right to Bear Arms is written directly into the Constitution. The issues you mentioned are not.

While the other issues may be worthy of discussion, gun ownership comes with a Constitutional guarantee they simply cannot match.

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by Firestormalpha Then I see no problem with you having a firearm. The problem I tried to address there is that many people think that merely possessing the weapon = effective defense.

That's a valid point. Nobody knows for certain how they will react until they are actually placed in that situation. I was fortunate to face that situation without having to take the action, but when the criminal pulled the rifle out of his truck and looked at our house, I knew for certain what that action would be if he came towards the house.

For the record, though, I no longer keep my guns in the open. Now that I have three boys in the house (at least part time), I keep my guns locked in a cabinet. When they are old enough, I will teach them how to handle and shoot the guns safely.

[Ilander]

...Well...I'm just going to go out on a limb here and say that I'm fine with banning handguns, just like we banned automatics. They're only for killing people anyway. If you debate that...well, tell me what kind of silhouettes you shoot at the gun range.

The day you keep me from owning a shotgun or rifle...well...I'll be unhappy. Not crestfallen, provided there's a voted-for amendment to the constitution...but unhappy.

Dictating the type of weapon people are allowed to have doesn't infringe upon their right to have a weapon of some sort.

Further, increasing regulations lowers the amount of guns on the market, as supply and demand dictate (since people are lazy, and don't want to register, demand decreases...and guns aren't going to get that much cheaper, so supply will decrease).

Decreasing overall supply WILL decrease gun-crime.

[John D Harris]

Originally Posted by Chewbacca Why are you so mocking and condesending? It is because essentially your argument is weak and shallow so you compensate with chest-thumping and ridicule. FAIL!

LOL you're the one that brought those things up, and then made the statement about liberties. Cerek Noted what my point was.

Condesending? Which is more condesending elevating things beyond thier position, thier legal position then avoiding the truth with smoke and mirrors and trying to make a personal attack that has nothing to do with the positions? Fortify your argument

By the way Cerek how are you doing bro ?

[John D Harris]

Originally Posted by Ilander ...Well...I'm just going to go out on a limb here and say that I'm fine with banning handguns, just like we banned automatics. They're only for killing people anyway. If you debate that...well, tell me what kind of silhouettes you shoot at the gun range. The day you keep me from owning a shotgun or rifle...well...I'll be unhappy. Not crestfallen, provided there's a voted-for amendment to the constitution...but unhappy. Dictating the type of weapon people are allowed to have doesn't infringe upon their right to have a weapon of some sort. Further, increasing regulations lowers the amount of guns on the market, as supply and demand dictate (since people are lazy, and don't want to register, demand decreases...and guns aren't going to get that much cheaper, so supply will decrease). Decreasing overall supply WILL decrease gun-crime.

Agreed, If the Consitution is legally admended then they can take the guns.

[Ilander]

And you and I both know that in America, that won't happen for a very long time.

By the way, since we're on the subject, here's a glorious celebration of our 2nd Amendment.

[Chewbacca]

Originally Posted by Cerek The argument is not weak or shallow at all. The Right to Bear Arms is written directly into the Constitution. The issues you mentioned are not. While the other issues may be worthy of discussion, gun ownership comes with a Constitutional guarantee they simply cannot match.

The argument is weak and wrong in a variety of ways, begining with the mis-quoting of the constitution.