Recent content by wjustinen

For 40 + years ... :banghead::banghead::banghead:I've been trying to figure out why some firearms owners are comfortable with infringements on their rights, in the vain hope that some "bad guy" my be prevented from doing something bad. The second ammendment was designed to protect the right to...

None. There are appropriate laws about all the things you can do with firearms that are wrong. It is nonsense to believe that laws about who can or can't have a firearm, or about what kind of firearm one can have are of any value in a free society.

"If the police are just "doing as ordered", and have no obligation for protection, then the governing body that has taken that "inalienable right" away, should be liable for any harm to a citizen. Any clarity out there? " We are each responsible to defend not just our persons, but also our...

"- we are still running almost 10% yes ON A PRO-2A board! Amazing." Pro-gun doesn't necessarily over-rule wishful thinking.

I voted .22 only because that is the smallest I have available. However, the correct answer is the largest caliber I can get my hands on.

Some of the news coverage I saw yesterday commented on how difficult it is to coordinate multiple police rescue efforts. Pity that most people live in slave states and aren't trusted to defend themselves.

So, don't carry openly. As for the rest of us, well, the 2nd was meant to protect the right to keep and bear arms. How we do it is up to us.

Sans Authoritas "Hey, the police have a very difficult, thankless job, and they're just following orders. Cut them some slack." I believe that argument was dealt with rather conclusively at the Nuremburg Trials.

Firearms are useful because they are dangerous. They are used as weapons because they are useful. Anyone who thinks they are only useful as weapons has no imagination. Sport is fine, but there is no better reason for any tool than to protect life.

My guess is that it's a pro-gun vote. Certainly pro-freedom. :) http://www.whowouldtheworldelect.com/

Shooting to save your life isn't about lethality. It is about stopping the assault. If you shoot an assailant and you both live, that is a success. If you shoot an assailant and you both die, that is a failure. You want to shoot him with something that will convince him to stop what he is...

If it were my business, employees would be supported if they wished to carry. My policy manual would deal with the matter in an appropriate manner. My personal experiences with mace/pepper spray indicate that the spices (mace and pepper) are more appropriate in a restaurant than the chemical...

The important point When it comes to restricting things, the Bill of Rights is quite clear. The only right that can't be restricted at all is the "right to keep and bear arms." What part of "shall not be infringed" is so difficult for the supposedly educated press to understand...

May I suggest something like:

What do you think of a reply on the order of this to him: Perfect. Put him on the defensive.