Government Orders 7000 "Personal Defense Weapons."

[homersapien 11,353]

Break into my house and I hope you're prepared to meet your maker.

I used to think like that. I have no right to tell you what to do on your property, but I'm going to make every effort to avoid killing the poor fool.

The fool made the choice to put his/her life in their own hands when they crossed the threshold. How I determine what happens next could easily save the lives of my kids and wife. If they can't see their life as worthy of living as I do of my own, they deserve what happens next. Your choice, though.

Correct. How you determine what happens next could easily save the life of one of your own.

http://kstp.com/arti.../s2862578.shtml

[selias 2,398]

With all that said, even if i had an assault weapon and yes i would actually like to have one, it would not be my choice for home defense. They are OFFENSIVE guns. This is why i am for banning them. I cant see a logical use, other than hog hunting. I do hunt. I like guns have several, and don't feel the least bit threatened by any of the proposed control measures. Im also aware that we will not fix all gun crimes and the parts we can fix will take time. I just dont get the people that say we have to accept it as a constitutional right that we can be mown down when we least expect it, by a stranger with a military setup.

I'll concede that auto-loading rifles are offensive weapons if you'll concede that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with home defense and/or hunting.

[AUDub 11,131]

I'll concede that auto-loading rifles are offensive weapons if you'll concede that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with home defense and/or hunting.

The Supreme Court in 2008 ruled that the Second Amendment applies to self-defense, which I assume also applies to home defense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

...It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

[autigeremt 6,569]

I'll concede that auto-loading rifles are offensive weapons if you'll concede that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with home defense and/or hunting.

The Supreme Court in 2008 ruled that the Second Amendment applies to self-defense, which I assume also applies to home defense.

http://en.wikipedia....umbia_v._Heller

...It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

Self defense can mean more than a one on one encounter.

[autigeremt 6,569]

Break into my house and I hope you're prepared to meet your maker.

I used to think like that. I have no right to tell you what to do on your property, but I'm going to make every effort to avoid killing the poor fool.

The fool made the choice to put his/her life in their own hands when they crossed the threshold. How I determine what happens next could easily save the lives of my kids and wife. If they can't see their life as worthy of living as I do of my own, they deserve what happens next. Your choice, though.

Correct. How you determine what happens next could easily save the life of one of your own.

http://kstp.com/arti.../s2862578.shtml

• Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859 were killed in 2011. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm/
  

[AUDub 11,131]

Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859 were killed in 2011. http://www.cdc.gov/n...stats/lcod.htm/

1. All guns are always loaded.
   
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
   
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
   
4. Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.
   —Colonel Jeff Cooper
   

That's all I want to emphasize.

Self defense can mean more than a one on one encounter.

True. But I'm afraid your point flew right over my head. My point was that the Second Amendment applies in home defense situations.

I happen to agree with Alexava. Assault weapons are better suited as offensive weapons.

[selias 2,398]

Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859 were killed in 2011. http://www.cdc.gov/n...stats/lcod.htm/

1. All guns are always loaded.
   
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
   
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
   
4. Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.
   —Colonel Jeff Cooper
   

That's all I want to emphasize.

Self defense can mean more than a one on one encounter.

True. But I'm afraid your point flew right over my head. My point was that the Second Amendment applies in home defense situations.

I happen to agree with Alexava. Assault weapons are better suited as offensive weapons.

Offensive weapons are what the Second Amendment is about.

[AUDub 11,131]

Offensive weapons are what the Second Amendment is about.

Matter of opinion concerning an arbitrary definition. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[AUGradinTX 0]

Boys,

You better stockpile your ammo and guns while you can.. Obama is doing everything he can to make us a defenseless society..

I don't know much, but I know that this will never happen.

Maybe not Obama, but how can you be certain this will never happen?

I'm not a gun owner, but I am of the opinion that the hysteria surrounding "assault weapons" has been over blown. It's actually a bit suspicious IMO. If you are truly honest with yourself, ARs are not being used to commit mass amounts of crimes. Stats show this and there is no denying it. More people are killed every year by handguns in Chicago than killed by rifles (not just ARs, rifles of any type) in the entire country. What's more, nearly every single person committing these mass murders have/had some mental illness. Why do we disregard what seems to clearly be the root cause? Why should we infringe on the rights of the overwhelmingly majority (which is millions of Americans) to protect themselves because a few mentally unstable persons crack and commit a crime? Now, I'm with you, what happened in Newtown (and other places) was tragic. I just need to know why it is justifiable to tell millions of Americans they can no longer choose to protect themselves in the manner they feel necessary solely because a few mentally unstable individuals commit crimes with the tool that makes them feel secure or has saved their lives. I know some of you don't understand or refuse to acknowledge that when a person sets out to kill others they will do so by whatever means necessary. I understand your argument against that. If he can't pull the trigger 20 times in a row he can't kill as efficiently. That makes sense in theory, but it isn't reality. They Va Tech shooter was able to kill more people with two handguns than the Newtown shooter with an AR. Yes, he barricaded doors preventing people from escaping, but doesn't that enforce my position that if someone wants to kill, they will find a way to kill as many as possible with whatever tool at his disposal regardless of the tool? Gun laws in the UK are extremely strict. Murders are all too common, though. If England was a US state, they would place 15th in murders. Scotland would place 9th. They aren't committed with guns, but they are still committed. That should tell you. Take away guns from crazy people will not stop them from killing. It will, however, make it more difficult for the average person to protect themselves from those crazy people. That is not the way to address this issue.

It could happen.. Problem is, if people keep crying wolf just to play politics, when it really is does happen, there maybe no one left willing to listen.

Crying wolf to play politics? What does people speaking out in order to preserve their rights have to do with this? The second amendment gives (we) the people the right to bear arms and protect ourselves from potential tyranny. Yet when those rights may potentially be in jeopardy, people are not allowed to bring that up?

An estimated 260 million people were killed in the 20th century by way of democide. That's five times more people killed in wars during the same period.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

[AUDub 11,131]

Crying wolf to play politics? What does people speaking out in order to preserve their rights have to do with this? The second amendment gives (we) the people the right to bear arms and protect ourselves from potential tyranny. Yet when those rights may potentially be in jeopardy, people are not allowed to bring that up?

An estimated 260 million people were killed in the 20th century by way of democide. That's five times more people killed in wars during the same period.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

I'm not icanthearyou, but I'll answer in his stead. Such language as you're using is in fact playing on the fears of the ignorant. The idea of the government confiscating all of the guns is silly. We (gun owners, myself included) know that isn't going to happen. Statistics on global democide have no bearing on the debate at hand. This is America, not communist Russia.

The debate is about reasonable restrictions, like the ones we have now concerning fully automatic weaponry, not prohibition. Your Second Amendment rights aren't being threatened.

[alexava 6,973]

Or maybe they have already been infringed. Fully auto machine guns, explosives, mortars, surface to air missles, tanks, nukes. Damn we are oppressed.

[telling tiger 156]

Crying wolf to play politics? What does people speaking out in order to preserve their rights have to do with this? The second amendment gives (we) the people the right to bear arms and protect ourselves from potential tyranny. Yet when those rights may potentially be in jeopardy, people are not allowed to bring that up?

An estimated 260 million people were killed in the 20th century by way of democide. That's five times more people killed in wars during the same period.

http://www.hawaii.ed...rkills/20TH.HTM

I'm not icanthearyou, but I'll answer in his stead. Such language as you're using is in fact playing on the fears of the ignorant. The idea of the government confiscating all of the guns is silly. We (gun owners, myself included) know that isn't going to happen. Statistics on global democide have no bearing on the debate at hand. This is America, not communist Russia.

The debate is about reasonable restrictions, like the ones we have now concerning fully automatic weaponry, not prohibition. Your Second Amendment rights aren't being threatened.

This post is far too rational to be here.

[AUGradinTX 0]

Crying wolf to play politics? What does people speaking out in order to preserve their rights have to do with this? The second amendment gives (we) the people the right to bear arms and protect ourselves from potential tyranny. Yet when those rights may potentially be in jeopardy, people are not allowed to bring that up?

An estimated 260 million people were killed in the 20th century by way of democide. That's five times more people killed in wars during the same period.

http://www.hawaii.ed...rkills/20TH.HTM

I'm not icanthearyou, but I'll answer in his stead. Such language as you're using is in fact playing on the fears of the ignorant. The idea of the government confiscating all of the guns is silly. We (gun owners, myself included) know that isn't going to happen. Statistics on global democide have no bearing on the debate at hand. This is America, not communist Russia.

The debate is about reasonable restrictions, like the ones we have now concerning fully automatic weaponry, not prohibition. Your Second Amendment rights aren't being threatened.

A lot of you spill the same thing, "This is America. It can't happen here." I understand that. There is no way that happens here in the next 10-15 years. But I can't say it couldn't happen in the next 20, 30, or 40 years. Things change over time and I prefer to take the stance that thinks ahead rather than buy into media driven hysteria and jump on board with a knee-jerk reaction. Stats show there is no AR problem in this country. I'll believe reality, you can believe Piers Morgan.

I'm not saying it will happen. I think the chances are slim to none. However, I'd rather the population have the guns and not need them than need them and not have them.

[telling tiger 156]

The population has an estimated 400 million to 500 million guns. In all sincerity, who do you think has a force large enough to confiscate that number of weapons? I don't think anyone does, but that is both the fear of the far right rhetoric and the stated goal of some others. Either case, people here are within reason free to say what they like. That doesn't mean it will be be based in reality from either end of the rhetorical spectrum.

[AUGradinTX 0]

I'm curious. What is the reason we need to ban an AR?

I'll ignore the tanks, missiles and mortars. That's just senseless.

[telling tiger 156]

It wouldn't hurt my feelings to see them banned at all. On a personal level I have no need for one or desire for one. AT THE SAME TIME, I wouldn't and don't see the need to ban them. I do see the need for registration of EVERY gun sale in the US. If it offends some at gun shows, then they can just consider themselves offended. Every citizen should have to prove their worthiness both criminally and mentally to own a gun. OF COURSE, it will not stop all criminals from getting a gun. There have been enough people refused gun sales to prove it's effectiveness even if just at that level.

Having regulated gun dealers across the southwest in numbers equal enough to avg 3 stores per mile of Mexican border doesn't stop gun trafficking by all these fine upstanding gun sellers. There is a cottage industry of straw gun purchasers. Those are just the ones within a 3 hour drive of the border.

[AUDub 11,131]

A lot of you spill the same thing, "This is America. It can't happen here." I understand that. There is no way that happens here in the next 10-15 years. But I can't say it couldn't happen in the next 20, 30, or 40 years. Things change over time and I prefer to take the stance that thinks ahead rather than buy into media driven hysteria and jump on board with a knee-jerk reaction. Stats show there is no AR problem in this country. I'll believe reality, you can believe Piers Morgan.

This would be a good time to state that I don't watch TV and I don't particularly like Piers Morgan. I don't have cable. My point of view is shaped by two things. My own perception and my faith in our country. I don't believe we'll ever be as bad off as you suspect.

I'm not saying it will happen. I think the chances are slim to none. However, I'd rather the population have the guns and not need them than need them and not have them.

The guns aren't going anywhere. I object to any actual infringement of our Second Amendment rights.

[AUGradinTX 0]

The population has an estimated 400 million to 500 million guns. In all sincerity, who do you think has a force large enough to confiscate that number of weapons? I don't think anyone does, but that is both the fear of the far right rhetoric and the stated goal of some others. Either case, people here are within reason free to say what they like. That doesn't mean it will be be based in reality from either end of the rhetorical spectrum.

http://www.examiner.com/article/ny-democrat-begs-republican-to-keep-gun-confiscation-proposal-from-public

When NY proposed confiscating guns, they weren't coming for your pistols, shotguns, and squirrel shooters (which make up more than 90% of the numbers you state).

[AUGradinTX 0]

A lot of you spill the same thing, "This is America. It can't happen here." I understand that. There is no way that happens here in the next 10-15 years. But I can't say it couldn't happen in the next 20, 30, or 40 years. Things change over time and I prefer to take the stance that thinks ahead rather than buy into media driven hysteria and jump on board with a knee-jerk reaction. Stats show there is no AR problem in this country. I'll believe reality, you can believe Piers Morgan.

This would be a good time to state that I don't watch TV and I don't particularly like Piers Morgan. I don't have cable. My point of view is shaped by two things. My own perception and my faith in our country. I don't believe we'll ever be as bad off as you suspect.

I'm not saying it will happen. I think the chances are slim to none. However, I'd rather the population have the guns and not need them than need them and not have them.

The guns aren't going anywhere. I object to any actual infringement of our Second Amendment rights.

I don't suspect. Just think of it as an insurance policy for my children and grandchildren and so on.

[telling tiger 156]

Proposed......................kind of the operative word there.

I can propose that people get over the fear that the government is somehow going to attack Auburn, Alabama as well, that doesn't mean it will happen.

[AUDub 11,131]

I'm curious. What is the reason we need to ban an AR?

AR's are already banned. You mean assault weapons. It's because they work really well if you want to kill a lot of people without putting much effort into it.

I don't suspect. Just think of it as an insurance policy for my children and grandchildren and so on.

Well, if you want to believe that, I can't stop you.You have no faith in our country's ability to endure. I hope I'm never that pessimistic.

[AUGradinTX 0]

Proposed......................kind of the operative word there.

I can propose that people get over the fear that the government is somehow going to attack Auburn, Alabama as well, that doesn't mean it will happen.

So we should wait until it actually happens before we speak out against it? That's not a very good plan.

Politicians in this country trying to pass legislation to confiscate guns means absolutely nothing, I guess. I keep hearing some say, "nobody is coming for your guns." Well, some are trying. Luckily they haven't succeeded.

I'm not sure of the point of your second sentence. To my knowledge, no one is worried about a government attack on Auburn. And I'm also not sure what body with the power to create laws you are a member of. The elected officials in NY responsible for the proposal are in that position. The comparison doesn't really work...

[autigeremt 6,569]

Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859 were killed in 2011. http://www.cdc.gov/n...stats/lcod.htm/

1. All guns are always loaded.
   
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
   
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
   
4. Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.
   —Colonel Jeff Cooper
   

That's all I want to emphasize.

Self defense can mean more than a one on one encounter.

True. But I'm afraid your point flew right over my head. My point was that the Second Amendment applies in home defense situations.

I happen to agree with Alexava. Assault weapons are better suited as offensive weapons.

The founders are quoted numerous times about the intent of the amendment.

I say leave it up to the states. Many of them have already enacted their own gun laws.

[AUGradinTX 0]

I'm curious. What is the reason we need to ban an AR?

AR's are already banned. You mean assault weapons. It's because they work really well if you want to kill a lot of people without putting much effort into it.

I believe we are talking about two different things. AR-15s are not banned. Also, If you want to kill a lot of people, you should be in a mental institution. That would solve that problem without forcing ones views of guns on the rest of the people in this country.

I don't suspect. Just think of it as an insurance policy for my children and grandchildren and so on.

Well, if you want to believe that, I can't stop you.You have no faith in our country's ability to endure. I hope I'm never that pessimistic.

There are a lot of things one can believe or have faith in that he cannot, at the same time, guarantee.

[AUGradinTX 0]

Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859 were killed in 2011. http://www.cdc.gov/n...stats/lcod.htm/

1. All guns are always loaded.
   
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
   
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
   
4. Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.
   —Colonel Jeff Cooper
   

That's all I want to emphasize.

Self defense can mean more than a one on one encounter.

True. But I'm afraid your point flew right over my head. My point was that the Second Amendment applies in home defense situations.

I happen to agree with Alexava. Assault weapons are better suited as offensive weapons.

The founders are quoted numerous times about the intent of the amendment.

I say leave it up to the states. Many of them have already enacted their own gun laws.

Agreed. It should be left to the states.