Let's see what happens this time - gun control

[NBuffaloResident]

Purposefully obtuse?
A "tresspasser in your home" is called a burglar.
How do you stop one? How about "Stop, or I'll shoot!" How about "Freeze!"? How about shooting them in the leg?

If you've broken in to a home and the owner points his gun at you, you'll either stop or get shot at. That's pretty much common sense.

I find it hard to believe you're at all serious with your scenarios and BS.

Let see:

"Stop or I'll shoot"

*BAM*

No, you've just been shot by the burglar. Lot's of good that gun did you.

LOL! Hate to break this to you... but gun skills are a part of ninjutsu training.
There is an old joke going around the Bunkinkan schools that goes, "A karate student was attacked one day and had to defend himself. Later at his dojo, his classmates asked him if he used his karate techniques to defend himself. The student said he did, he used a reverse punch and a straight kick. The same thing happens to a Bunjinkan student, and later his classmates ask him if he used his trainning to defend himself. 'I sure did,' said the Bunjinkan student, 'I pulled out my .357 and shot him!' "

Also, you will never see a ninjutsu person at a martial arts tournament. Why? Because the skills we practice have no sports aspect. They are pretty much down and dirty maiming and killing.

Also, as far as a tresspasser. I'd give them three choices. Turn around and run away now. Lay on the ground and wait for the police. Take another step toward me and die.
Not real complicated.

Ok, ninja...

You guys have me rolling over here... We've got a ninja-body guard, and bunches of people who think they can get the drop on people who have guns pointed them...

And I bet not a single one of you guys have ever even pointed a gun at somebody with the intent to use it...

Man, I am ROFL'ing over here... You guys should post on arfcom. You'd all be a real hoot over there.

"Guns aren't tools to kill! Their tools to stop a trespasser/burglar without intending to kill them!"

"I am quick-draw McGraw, the fastest gun in the West(ern New York)!"

hahahahaha

[FisherRd]

The part that should have you laughing is your made up scenarios where every burglar knows the house better than the home-owner, every burglar is a super genius, and every burglar has some type of Delta Force skills with a roscoe...
You should probably stop supplying your foe's arguments as well. That is basically akin to you waving a white flag.
Acting as if you have all the answers isn't serving you well. I'm pretty sure you're already aware of that, but if you aren't, re-read the thread.

[Save Us]

I wouldn't give any warnings. Just a double tap center of mass. done.
Again I wouldn't let any one decide wether or not I am going to live or get hurt.

[MarkLV]

I'd ask what exactly you think "a well regulated militia" means, or was...but this is getting boring.

I spelled out each clause and explained it to you. All you've said is "you're wrong" without offering much in the way of your own explanation. So not much better than anyone else here.

I'm guilty as charged of not actually typing out the hundreds and hundreds of written statements made by the Founding Fathers as to their reasons behind the Second Amendment (re. Post #53).



I'll let it go because I think you're just trying to run a good debate, which is fine. At least I hope you're just trying to run a good debate?


But please, please dont put your own words into the mouths of the Founding Fathers. There is absolutely no misunderstanding among scholars that the existance of "the militia" was to be in place as a safeguard against their own goverment. This was written in blood during the catalystic confrontations at Lexington and Concord, when the British North American goverment attempted to capture the arms of the Colonists (a.k.a. "the militia").

[Chant]

Let see:

"Stop or I'll shoot"

*BAM*

No, you've just been shot by the burglar. Lot's of good that gun did you.


Ah-huh.... you're assuming too many things in your rather simple scenario... or perhaps you're basing your theory on how you would go about handling such a situation.

1.) You're assuming the burglar can shoot straight and was able to hit the broad side of a barn from 5 paces away.

2.) You're assuming that the burgler isn't looking into the super bright beam of a Sure-Fire flashlight. (I love those things!) Because yeah... homeowners go prowling around their homes for intruders in the pitch dark all the time.

3.) You're assuming the homeowner (with better knowledge of his own home as Fishy has rightfully pointed out.) is going to engage an intruder without first taking cover.

4.) You're assuming even if the homeowner was hit, it was game over for them. Or that just being hit once, they were going to just roll over and give up because they got a boo-boo (which might be your plan in that case, I'm not sure.)

Oh and lets not forget the big topic of the day. You're assume that the homeowner doesn't already have the burgler in their sights before they issue a command. What was that you been spouting all day? You can't outdraw a drawn gun, was it? So which is it? Do you support this theory or not?



Ok, ninja...

You guys have me rolling over here... We've got a ninja-body guard, and bunches of people who think they can get the drop on people who have guns pointed them...

Hate to bust your bubble, but it does happen. The NRA documents hundreds of cases a year when armed citizens have drawn their weapons while under gun point and won. Know what else? It happened to me and I won the altercation to be able to sit here and just shake my head and laugh. The only thing you're insistance on this supposed "no-win situation" tells me is if it even happened to you, you already decided you would just roll over and die instead of even trying to save yourself. It probably just burns your ass to know that there are other people out there that would fight while you cower.

And I bet not a single one of you guys have ever even pointed a gun at somebody with the intent to use it...

Wrong again, Bucko. I've had people at gun point many times, and have had to use it. The first thing anyone should do if you carry a gun, or any other weapon, or even learn self-defense, you decided right from the start that you have the intent on using it to protect yourself if you need to. Otherwise you waste your time. Stop assuming other people are going to do the same thing you would in a given situation.

Man, I am ROFL'ing over here... You guys should post on arfcom. You'd all be a real hoot over there.

Maybe I will check it out if its that much fun.

"Guns aren't tools to kill! Their tools to stop a trespasser/burglar without intending to kill them!"

Are you making a statement, or just being foolish?

"I am quick-draw McGraw, the fastest gun in the West(ern New York)!"

hahahahaha

Congrats quickdraw, how good for you! I timed out at just under a second getting a folder out of my pocket, opened, and into a fight. Handguns I'm across the board with depending on if its a duty-holster or concealment rig. Probably why I kept a .38 snubbie in my jacket pocket in the winter. Just easier to shoot them through the coat instead of slapping leather.

[Chant]

I'm guilty as charged of not actually typing out the hundreds and hundreds of written statements made by the Founding Fathers as to their reasons behind the Second Amendment (re. Post #53).



I'll let it go because I think you're just trying to run a good debate, which is fine. At least I hope you're just trying to run a good debate?


But please, please dont put your own words into the mouths of the Founding Fathers. There is absolutely no misunderstanding among scholars that the existance of "the militia" was to be in place as a safeguard against their own goverment. This was written in blood during the catalystic confrontations at Lexington and Concord, when the British North American goverment attempted to capture the arms of the Colonists (a.k.a. "the militia").

I was once told by a history enthusiast that if you ever wanted to learn the founding fathers' intent and the true meaning behind the 2nd Amendment - read what Andrew Jackson wrote about it... as he was the one who drafted it.

[NBuffaloResident]

The part that should have you laughing is your made up scenarios where every burglar knows the house better than the home-owner, every burglar is a super genius, and every burglar has some type of Delta Force skills with a roscoe...
You should probably stop supplying your foe's arguments as well. That is basically akin to you waving a white flag.
Acting as if you have all the answers isn't serving you well. I'm pretty sure you're already aware of that, but if you aren't, re-read the thread.

Hey, I'm not the one suggesting a person can out-draw a person who has on gun trained on them... And I'm not suggesting that I can wake up from a deep sleep and be totally ready for a burglar in the house ready to shoot me already...

I'm saying you guys are like super ninjas who can take a person who has the initiative on you, and I find it laughable you consider a person pointing a gun at you a "made-up scenario".

I also find it pretty funny that you guys think a gun's purpose is any other purpose than to kill/maim your target.

[zanna vaida]

Guns don't kill; people do.

[Mindcrime]

I fully support the 2nd Amendment. Where's my neutron bomb?

[MarkLV]

I fully support the 2nd Amendment. Where's my neutron bomb?

Where's my elunium pu36 explosive space modulator?

[MarkLV]

Guns don't kill; people do.

My guns have killed less people then Ted Kennedy's car

[Chant]

Hey, I'm not the one suggesting a person can out-draw a person who has on gun trained on them...

Again, there have been document cases where people have done just this. Please don't let the facts get in the way of your argument. Yes, we know its hard for you to believe that someone else might do something you yourself wouldn't have the balls to try if your life depended on it.



And I'm not suggesting that I can wake up from a deep sleep and be totally ready for a burglar in the house ready to shoot me already...

Yes... this I can totally believe after reading your posts. You would fail miserably in this situation because you've already convinced yourself this is what would happen.


I'm saying you guys are like super ninjas who can take a person who has the initiative on you, and I find it laughable you consider a person pointing a gun at you a "made-up scenario".

How is this a made-up scenario? I've already lived through it and I was the one who walked away... or rather, I didn't get the free body bag and the ride to the morgue. Again, you keep telling yourself you're gonna lose, and you damn sure will lose.

And as far as your 'super ninjas'... the last thing you want to screw with is a ninjutsu person. I've trained in several other systems, and bunjinkan is the nastiest system I've ever seen, kickboxing doesn't even hold a candle to what some of these guys can do to 'F' you up. One of my classmates joined the military and became an Army Ranger. We went down for his graduation and they showed videos of the training classes. My classmate wiped the floor with three drill instructors in one of the videos because they didn't believe he knew a better way to defend against a knife attack.
And by the way, some of the techniques I saw demonstrated to strip away a gun from an attacker, would leave you minus a finger or two if you were the one holding the gun.

Its also very funny that you keep trying to mock everyone by calling them "ninjas" when its obvious you have no clue as to who the Shinobi were at all. You fail to realize that practicers of ninjutsu have hundreds of techniques, prefected over hundreds of years, for disarming people who have the "initiative" over them. They had to develope them or they wouldn't have survived till this day. They also needed the skill because it was one of the ways they gathered weapons when they needed them... they took them from others because it wasn't feasible for them to travel around with their own. If you knew anything about the system at all, you would also know that the same techniques they used hundreds of years ago to take away a sword or spear, work just as well on firearms today. But that would require you to actually sit down and learn something honestly, instead of just making your own facts up

I also find it pretty funny that you guys think a gun's purpose is any other purpose than to kill/maim your target.

And you're last statement just goes to prove that you should probably not own a firearm.... but I think we've all figure that out already.

[Chant]

Hey! Ya know what? I think I can kinda get into this name calling thing NBuffalo started.

He can keep calling me, "Super Ninja", cuz I kinda like that. And I shall dubb NBuffalo... "Burglar Meat"... cuz it looks like that's where his skills would be.

Ooooo.... that sounds like comic book super hero stuff! "Super Ninja, and his faithful side-kick... Burglar Meat!" Super Ninja could get into fights, and Burglar Meat could deny he was in one.

We'll need a super villian though...

What's everyone think? Input... anybody???

[NBuffaloResident]

And you're last statement just goes to prove that you should probably not own a firearm.... but I think we've all figure that out already.

I own a gun. I'm not stupid and think I can take somebody who has the drop on me.

I am also aware that when I point a gun at something, I am intending on killing my target. Not to scare them.

Man, you should join spec ops. We need an army of super ninjas like you. Just think, you could show them spec ops how to do things. It would be awesome! You and your buddies should all join as instructors.

Hey! Ya know what? I think I can kinda get into this name calling thing NBuffalo started.

He can keep calling me, "Super Ninja", cuz I kinda like that. And I shall dubb NBuffalo... "Burglar Meat"... cuz it looks like that's where his skills would be.

Ooooo.... that sounds like comic book super hero stuff! "Super Ninja, and his faithful side-kick... Burglar Meat!" Super Ninja could get into fights, and Burglar Meat could deny he was in one.

We'll need a super villian though...

What's everyone think? Input... anybody???

Go ahead. Call me what you like. You're the one who has already (more or less) claimed you are a super ninja, capable of stopping bullets in mid-air, and able to overtake any opponent that faces you.

Me, I know my limits. Burglar wants my wallet and has a gun pointed at me? Well, he can have my wallet. It's easy to cancel my credit cards.

Burglar in my house, well, I'm not going to be grabbing my gun, try to load it, and then, in a half-sleeping state, attempt to aim and keep a perp under control.

I'll just creep on him, and wail on him with either my Louisville Slugger or my machete I keep in secure place. I'll either crush a skull, or sever a neck.

[run4it]

Sorry, I know I said I was done with this thread, but I have to add one more thing. In context of what was meant by "militia." Here are some early drafts of the Amendment:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

The militia was the local group of men who were expected to fight in the event of attack upon the community. It was WELL REGULATED, meaning that the community leaders oversaw training and provisions. That is exactly what the military is today, albeit better organized. This is the "militia" that the authors knew. This is the definition by which they were working.

When they wrote "congrefs shall make no law . . . respecting an establishment of religion" they didn't add "because inevitably fundy whackjobs will try to turn this place into a neo-papal state." When they wrote "no soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house," they didn't add "because they drink all the good booze and fart a lot." When there were general rights for multiple reasons, they let the right stand on its own. And when there was a specific right intended for a very specific reason, they said so as well (a well regulated militia).