Saturday's Garage Sale
-
I didn't escalate anything. They cam onto my property.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
You know, I find it interesting that sitting in one's yard is some sort of escalation. In any event, for those of you in denial about random violence here's an example for you: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20110927_Chased_home__Mob_attacks_man_in_his_house.html?c=r[^] A "crowd" kicks in his door. He has 4 children in the house. One "citizen" has a gun. They are very lucky this man was not trained in the use and had at his disposal a firearm. If you knock on my door, need dinner, I will feed you. You kick my door in and threaten my family, you have forfeited any benefit of the doubt. Anyone want to bet the armed-perp is not licensed? As for the thought of handing over your valuables, you better get a reality check. 20 years ago, the police use to recommend this, then they noticed that the burglaries became more violent. The predators learned you've been taught not to resist. Same attitude and conditioning that let a handful of killers hijack 4 airliners.
Charlie Gilley You're going to tell me what I want to know, or I'm going to beat you to death in your own house. "Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783 “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
A good argument for guns as deterrents to violence is examples of situations where guns are successfully used as deterrents for violence. Not, as you've posted, incidences of violence where gun advocates use their imagination to speculate on a better outcome if the victim was armed.
- F
-
John threw the law in their faces instead of doing anything about what was making them feel uncomfortable. Why should they not do the same if John violates the law in some trivial way in future?
It's not about John violating the law. It's about them laying a trap, or setting up a false situation and then making a huge deal about it when John really did nothing. It happens.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
Like a free American. How'd it make you feel?
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997i would never be in that situation, so probably would never know.
-
I don't think anyone can stop you from doing that.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
A good argument for guns as deterrents to violence is examples of situations where guns are successfully used as deterrents for violence. Not, as you've posted, incidences of violence where gun advocates use their imagination to speculate on a better outcome if the victim was armed.
- F
No, you misunderstand my point. Consistantly it has been shown that those who would harm you are typically not motivated to avoid the situation. The purpose of a firearm in self-defense is only margianlly based on deterence, more so to simply stay alive. Whether or not it deters a bad person is secondary to that point. Note the article - it wasn't until they had been struggling for minutes that the police arrived. He's very lucky he isn't dead. And, armed, trained citizens have demonstrated again and again that when you need it, it's nice to have. You just won't read about it that often... sort of runs counter culture to the main stream media.
Charlie Gilley You're going to tell me what I want to know, or I'm going to beat you to death in your own house. "Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783 “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
-
That's an interesting interpretation. Where, exactly, does the Constitution grant us the right to own whatever we want? Not trying to turn this into SB material, but it is an interesting debate so far. :)
It's all through the constitution, you can't be a free, prosperous people without being able to own things.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
It's all through the constitution, you can't be a free, prosperous people without being able to own things.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von BraunYour statement is trueish as far as it goes, but it doesn't answer the question of where in the constitution you're granted the right to own anything you want. For example, the federal government has decided that you don't have the right to own cannabis plants. Is that unconstitutional and if you believe so, why? Provide the reference to the constitution that you believe gives you the right to own the aforementioned plants or that denies the government the right to make ownership illegal. The government does not have the right to take your property without due process, but they can determine that certain things are illegal to own. Have a great day!
-
No, you misunderstand my point. Consistantly it has been shown that those who would harm you are typically not motivated to avoid the situation. The purpose of a firearm in self-defense is only margianlly based on deterence, more so to simply stay alive. Whether or not it deters a bad person is secondary to that point. Note the article - it wasn't until they had been struggling for minutes that the police arrived. He's very lucky he isn't dead. And, armed, trained citizens have demonstrated again and again that when you need it, it's nice to have. You just won't read about it that often... sort of runs counter culture to the main stream media.
Charlie Gilley You're going to tell me what I want to know, or I'm going to beat you to death in your own house. "Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783 “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
So you're suggesting that the benefit of having a gun is the ability to shoot someone in self defense and save your own life (and not to prevent violence) but you don't really have any statistics or evidence for it because nobody documents it? That puts those of us who like guns as a hobby but who would like to weigh the seemingly minimal benefits of carrying/owning a gun against the significant, proven risks of available impulsive lethality (accidents, homicides, suicides) in a pretty difficult position.
- F
-
Your statement is trueish as far as it goes, but it doesn't answer the question of where in the constitution you're granted the right to own anything you want. For example, the federal government has decided that you don't have the right to own cannabis plants. Is that unconstitutional and if you believe so, why? Provide the reference to the constitution that you believe gives you the right to own the aforementioned plants or that denies the government the right to make ownership illegal. The government does not have the right to take your property without due process, but they can determine that certain things are illegal to own. Have a great day!
LOL. Your analysis is correct. And I didn't mean to imply that one can own *anything* without restriction. And yes, you're correct, the gov't can proscribe ownership of certain things if it shows specific "state interest" in doing so. However, the right to property ownership is one of those inalienable human rights. In addition, the 10th and 9th Amendments reserves all rights and powers not granted specifically to the Federal Gov't to the States and the People.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
Your statement is trueish as far as it goes, but it doesn't answer the question of where in the constitution you're granted the right to own anything you want. For example, the federal government has decided that you don't have the right to own cannabis plants. Is that unconstitutional and if you believe so, why? Provide the reference to the constitution that you believe gives you the right to own the aforementioned plants or that denies the government the right to make ownership illegal. The government does not have the right to take your property without due process, but they can determine that certain things are illegal to own. Have a great day!
In addition, the 3rd Amendment proscribes the quartering (or housing) of soldiers without the owner's consent. This certainly protects the ownership rights of the house's owner. Further, the 4th Amendment also protects a the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizure". Certainly, someone can't be protected from having something searched or seized if he or she does not own it. Additionally, the 5th Amendment prevents the gov't from depriving a person "of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Private property ownership is the very basic assumption of the U.S. Constitution.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
LOL. Your analysis is correct. And I didn't mean to imply that one can own *anything* without restriction. And yes, you're correct, the gov't can proscribe ownership of certain things if it shows specific "state interest" in doing so. However, the right to property ownership is one of those inalienable human rights. In addition, the 10th and 9th Amendments reserves all rights and powers not granted specifically to the Federal Gov't to the States and the People.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von BraunYup, I know that about the amendments mentioned here and in your second response to my last message. I agree with you on the subject of property ownership being a basic right. My issue was with the idea that a particular type of property (in this case, a car) was something that we are guaranteed the right to own when that isn't the case, technically. In contrast, the second amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, thus specifying a type of property that the government can't outlaw, in theory at least. In practice, they try to do just that, of course. And in Illinois, where I live, the state government infringes on both halves of that right every day. Thanks again for the opportunity to chat about this! It has been a nice mind-stretching exercise and a pleasant conversation, where it could have become acrimonious.
-
Yup, I know that about the amendments mentioned here and in your second response to my last message. I agree with you on the subject of property ownership being a basic right. My issue was with the idea that a particular type of property (in this case, a car) was something that we are guaranteed the right to own when that isn't the case, technically. In contrast, the second amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, thus specifying a type of property that the government can't outlaw, in theory at least. In practice, they try to do just that, of course. And in Illinois, where I live, the state government infringes on both halves of that right every day. Thanks again for the opportunity to chat about this! It has been a nice mind-stretching exercise and a pleasant conversation, where it could have become acrimonious.
Ah, I see your point. Yeah, there's nothing guaranteeing the right to own a specific type of property, other than the 2nd Amendment.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun