Bats, crowbars (See what Dr. Freeman can do with his. You wont laugh), drivers, etc. Hell, most anything will fend off a burglar. They want an easy target, not someone who will fight back.
I find it amusing we have so many quick-draw McGraw's here, who think they can out-draw a burglar with a weapon at the ready. Hell, the only instances where a homeowner did anything with his gun to prevent it was with the "surprise" effect, which could be done with any weapon (ie creep up on the guy, and bludgeon the crap out of him with a bat).
Raptor Jesus: He went extinct for your sins.
Is that your opinion, or did you read that somewhere?
I've also heard people say the purpose behind the 2nd Amen. was to allow the police to quickly increase their ranks in event of hostile Indian attacks. However, a police force did not exist in the Colonies until after 1845.
My friend, let me state in no uncertain terms exactly what the purpose of the 2nd is. It is to arm the population against the tyranny of the goverment.
I could quote Washington, Jefferson, Mason, Madison, Admas, etc. with hundreds upon hundreds of direct quotes they published before, during, and after the ratification of the BOR. Most of it has nothing to do with target shooting, hunting, indian attacks, house robberies, etc....
And another thing: You are 100% correct that the ultimate purpose of a firearm is to destroy its target. I dont see how anyone, pro-gun or anti-gun, could argue that fact. Its no different than an arrow, slingshot, spear, blowgun, etc.
Mark, read the 2nd Amendment. Focus on the first half. Here, I'll help:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state
It has to do with the military (what would now be the state chapters of nat'l guard) protecting against outside forces (which could well be indians, yes). It says necessary to the security OF a free state, not to the security AGAINST the state.
I agree that the amendment is in place and so is in force. But dont' try to make it sound like it was intended for something it wasn't.
~WnyresidentBut your being a dick
Why approach them? Bullets normally have some range to them unlike a golf club which has about a 3 foot range Unless you throw it them. Just like that rapier thingy you wanted wear.
Buffalo Web Hosting and Graphic Design
www.onlinemedia.net - www.vinyl-graphics.com
Web hosting / Web Design - Signs, Banners, Vehicle Graphics
~WnyresidentBut your being a dick
If you fire on someone, who doesn't have a gun trained on you, and isn't directly threatening you, and has no idea you're there; you'll have a hard time with your defense. Even in Texas that would be a hard defense to prove in court, and Texas is THE most lenient on the "Stand and Fight" laws.
Hell, in most instances you have every right to shoot/kill/etc anyone on your property after saying,"Git off mah land!" But you have to say "Git off mah land" (Or something similar) before shooting them.
Raptor Jesus: He went extinct for your sins.
~WnyresidentBut your being a dick
Those of you that are "anti-gun" (I know, very broad, and perhaps not accurate, but you catch my drift), what exactly is your problem with them? Why not just continue to not own one? What is your objection to others owning them? How does that affect you in any way?
~WnyresidentBut your being a dick
No doubt about it.
I figured that's where 99% of the "anti-gun" crowd is coming from.
I belong to the NRA (simply because it tweeks people), and the phone calls are worth the 3 year membership cost! I get calls telling me Hillary Clinton, the UN, and other "despots" are going to come for my guns. I occasionally tell them they're crazy and give the NRA a bad name with such hysteria, but that just invites even more scripted crazy talk.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)