Intruder shot, killed after kicking in door, charging occupant with a knife

seems like 1 would get the job done.

We dont own 20 hammers. Just 1 when we need to do some pounding.

Or 20 broom & dust pans. We dont own 20 of them either, just 2, 1 for sweeping the kitchen and the other I use for flying around at night ;)

The problem with this analogy is if I think I need 20 different hammers (big, small, light, heavy, sledge, etc) or brooms (push, sweep, hand, etc) there is no law stating I can’t, no matter how dumb you think it is.

With guns, it’s even a step up, because not only is there no law stating I can’t own as many as I want, there is a constitutional law explicitly saying it is legal. I can own a .22, .40, .45, 9mm, .380, pistols, rifles, etc..

Again, no matter how dumb you or anyone else thinks it is, it is my constitutional right, one that the founding fathers evidently found to be the second most important.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
you are correct, the smaller one is more powerful and deadly but perfectly acceptable for carry. the larger one needs to be banned because it looks scary but is considerably less powerful

it gets to your "have to draw the line somewhere" - presumably said line drawing would be based on lethality rather than scary looks.

neither is anything like a nuke
It could be based on both. Same with what is legally permissible to carry outside of your own property.
 
My response was in response to InVOL's response to my first post.
Had he let my original post stand...............
So? And?

Your post got some likes and it got a question. The answer and the way you carefully constructed the answer is what got the bees-a-buzzin.

You know it. I know it. Bob Dole knows it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol
For me the difference is the radiation. I am completely fine with a bomb with the same output, it's just the fallout that's the issue for me. There is almost zero way to control who will wander into that area afterwards.
Same way we would control the mine field at the border that we should have built.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
So? And?

Your post got some likes and it got a question. The answer and the way you carefully constructed the answer is what got the bees-a-buzzin.

You know it. I know it. Bob Dole knows it.
Sure.
Which means my first post led the question which was actually more of an accusation, which then led to all of the crazy derailed debate, which is what I claimed in the first place, which means that I was not.......


disingenuous, revisionist, or incorrect.

Which was your hurtful accusation.
 
The problem with this analogy is if I think I need 20 different hammers (big, small, light, heavy, sledge, etc) or brooms (push, sweep, hand, etc) there is no law stating I can’t, no matter how dumb you think it is.

With guns, it’s even a step up, because not only is there no law stating I can’t own as many as I want, there is a constitutional law explicitly saying it is legal. I can own a .22, .40, .45, 9mm, .380, pistols, rifles, etc..

Again, no matter how dumb you or anyone else thinks it is, it is my constitutional right, one that the founding fathers evidently found to be the second most important.

cool. I wasn't advocating for more laws. I was simply expressing my misunderstanding about why someone would ever 'need' 20 guns. I still don't think its ever a need, but rather a want. And thats fine, do what you want.

...again, if you aren't a felon anyway
 
seems like 1 would get the job done.

We dont own 20 hammers. Just 1 when we need to do some pounding.

Or 20 broom & dust pans. We dont own 20 of them either, just 2, 1 for sweeping the kitchen and the other I use for flying around at night ;)
You don’t need to use a sledgehammer when you’re hanging a picture frame. You don’t use a finish hammer when you’re busting concrete. Firearms are tools and there is no one style or caliber that works for every situation.
 
.

Again, no matter how dumb you or anyone else thinks it is, it is my constitutional right, one that the founding fathers evidently found to be the second most important.

I've never heard anyone tell me that the Constitutional amendments are numbered in order of importance. I dont believe that's true at all
 
Sure.
Which means my first post led the question which was actually more of an accusation, which then led to all of the crazy derailed debate, which is what I claimed in the first place, which means that I was not.......


disingenuous, revisionist, or incorrect.

Which was your hurtful accusation.
I don't mean to hurt. I'm sorry, baby. I still love, you.
 
Personally I'm glad she had a gun in her house and was able to defend herself. That's precisely why I so fervently support the right of gun ownership for home defense and protection.
Except she would have been stabbed while going to the safe, getting out the musket balls, the powder, the patches, loading the musket.......you see how this goes. You don't fervently support anything that shoots more than once per manual reload.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
This man was just trying to get in to show her that he'd just adopted 5 kids, was starting a new bible study class at church, and was getting his culinary degree and she shot him smh.
 
Did you just accuse a poster on a message board of butting in on your conversation?

He's adorable like that. The guy is perfectly happy to come in with absolute obfuscation (like nukes and biologicals have squat to do with carrying the same acceptable weapon in public vs in the home) and wonder why anyone might posit such interjections might be far outside the context being discussed. The troll is strong with him so it's not like it's a big deal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
What are your favorite types of guns to carry?
iu
 

VN Store



Back
Top