Originally posted by 2shameless
View Post
So I am less likely to have my home robbed than shoot someone accidentally?
But the fact is that as a gun owner you are more likely to injure or kill someone accidentally than you are to use your weapon legitimately defending your home from a violent attack.
In 2011 the homicide rate was 4.7 per 100,000 people in the United States. The firearms death rate was more than double, 10.3 per 100,000. Conclusion? You're more likely to be killed by firearms than you are to be the victim of a homicide!
Ah so now you know who Dianne Feinstein is? When that video was shot she had just helped lead the push for the "assault" weapons ban and in a moment of candor, let her true intentions be known.
Now she is pushing, has in fact authored, a far more draconian piece of legislation. One that proposes to ban the manufacture, sale and transfer of 150 specific weapons and a whole slew more of types that accept a magazine, even if it is less than 10 rounds. Only this one is permanent, doesn't have an expiration like her last ineffectual law.
I find the idea that a government could never turn tyrannical to be ludicrous.
My particular firearms are for defense, plinking and hunting. In that order. None of those scary "assault" types.
The Constitution gives me the right to own firearms, more specifically restricts the Federal Government from taking them away. What I choose to use them for is my business.
I suggest you look up the word infringe.
If you agree that private ownership of ICMBs should be outlawed then you agree that the right to bear arms should be "infringed" and we're arguing about where the line is drawn.
Forgetting for a minute that the militia included everyone back in those days, lets not pretend that what comes after the comma refers exclusively to what precedes it. Or what the Supreme Court has determined that it means.
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."
So there is precedent in the Supreme Court for restricting weapons or requiring registration of firearms of a specific type.
Yet it's still significantly higher than those killed in spree shootings.
You're rambling again.
Are you saying that a majority of Germans elected Hitler to be their dictator?
Hitler was popular. The Nazis were a popular movement. The notion that if the German citizenry had access to weapons Hitler would never have come to power is a fantasy.
Nonsense.
Which is why our Constitution is so important, it prohibits tyranny of the majority. Like Apartheid, for instance.
Who's drawing a line?
An owner caught at home with eight or more bullets in a magazine could face a misdemeanor charge.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2472275.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2472275.html
What do you think I mean?
You can talk about self defense all you like but as a private citizen, even in the US, unless you are involved in criminal activity, you will not use a gun to prevent yourself from being a victim of a crime. Ever.
A particularly powerful piece of testimony, for those that watch Youtube videos.
Comment