American Gun Law

[Meat-Head]

He didn't buy the weapons, his Mum did and it was fully legal under American law for home defence..
So how much firepower do you need to defend a home, a mean who s breaking into your house,, the Terminator?
.

Firearms are used in self-defense approximately two million times each year

Armed homeowner shoots intruders while children have sleepover - Little Rock Top News | Examiner.com
 
Woman, 86, pulled gun before intruder killed her, documents say | StarNewsOnline.com
 
Mississauga Article: Homeowner lauded for killing armed intruder

DAMM IT

Can't find the story looking for - some Emerican woman was on her cell phone to 911 (the pop group?) - saying somebody is kicking the door in - so she said he they get in, guy will be off line.

Theif got the door open and before he got one foot in, got written off with a 12 gauge

[dustymech]

Armed homeowner shoots intruders while children have sleepover - Little Rock Top News | Examiner.com
 
Woman, 86, pulled gun before intruder killed her, documents say | StarNewsOnline.com
 
Mississauga Article: Homeowner lauded for killing armed intruder

DAMM IT

Can't find the story looking for - some Emerican woman was on her cell phone to 911 (the pop group?) - saying somebody is kicking the door in - so she said he they get in, guy will be off line.

Theif got the door open and before he got one foot in, got written off with a 12 gauge

Try this link: 911 Tells Mom 'Do What You Have To Do': Okla. Mom Sarah McKinley Kills Intruder Justin Martin (UPDATE)

Notice the update at the bottom where the accomplice to the break-in is charged with murder.

I bet he would not have went if he even thought she could be armed or he would be charged with murder.

Imagine what may have happened to this woman and her child if she were NOT armed.

For those of you who say people do not need / should not have guns in their homes....I say, what if it was YOUR DAUGHTER?

[Rodbouy]

For those of you who say people do not need / should not have guns in their homes....I say, what if it was YOUR DAUGHTER?

That works 2 ways that statement on gun laws.

Your happy to arm every one, and we are not.

If i was given the option in this country,

Do you want to keep a firearm in the house, I would say NO.

That would make a interesting poll.

[dustymech]

Your happy to arm every one, and we are not.

I would not say I am happy to arm everyone. I support background checks. I would also support a waiting period for firearm purchases. I support any move that would provide better screening of ALL gun owners. If that means everyone needs to obtain a license (like I have to carry a concealed pistol) which has to be renewed every few years great. Limiting the number of rounds in a magazine will not stop gun violence or mass killings.

Will these keep mentally unstable people from getting guns....NO. But even if it keeps one person from being exposed to gun violence it works.

You may ask why I support gun ownership. If for no other reason, our founding fathers saw fit to provide it as one of our rights to deter oppression from the government as well as to defend ourselves.

As has been stated previously we would not think of banning automobiles but they kill people. NO we blame it on the driver not the auto, same applies to guns....it is the person not the gun that kills. When someone drives into a crowd of people NO ONE says if they didn't own such a large car or if they didn't own a car at all this would not have happened.

[Rodbouy]

I would not say I am happy to arm everyone. I support background checks. I would also support a waiting period for firearm purchases. I support any move that would provide better screening of ALL gun owners. If that means everyone needs to obtain a license (like I have to carry a concealed pistol) which has to be renewed every few years great. Limiting the number of rounds in a magazine will not stop gun violence or mass killings.

That would be a good step in the right direction and cant disagree with that. Good points

Will these keep mentally unstable people from getting guns....NO. But even if it keeps one person from being exposed to gun violence it works.

This is where the problem comes that a nut can get a hold of firearms from a house, where if the guns where not located within the house then its less likely for them to get hold of them.

You may ask why I support gun ownership. If for no other reason, our founding fathers saw fit to provide it as one of our rights to deter oppression from the government as well as to defend ourselves.

I dont agree with that, just because generations prior said it was fine means its ok? Christ our predecessors said it was ok to have black people as slaves?

I could go on but I think you get my point on the mentalities of yesteryears. Times move one, we as a race need to move on from greed and destruction.

As has been stated previously we would not think of banning automobiles but they kill people. NO we blame it on the driver not the auto, same applies to guns....it is the person not the gun that kills. When someone drives into a crowd of people NO ONE says if they didn't own such a large car or if they didn't own a car at all this would not have happened.

Mate, seriously you use that as a argument?

1 - Car was designed for travel

2 - Gun was designed to kill.

Thats got to be the single worst comparison people make (not just you) it really is.

[Hoppy01]

I would not say I am happy to arm everyone. I support background checks. I would also support a waiting period for firearm purchases. I support any move that would provide better screening of ALL gun owners. If that means everyone needs to obtain a license (like I have to carry a concealed pistol) which has to be renewed every few years great. Limiting the number of rounds in a magazine will not stop gun violence or mass killings.

Will these keep mentally unstable people from getting guns....NO. But even if it keeps one person from being exposed to gun violence it works.

You may ask why I support gun ownership. If for no other reason, our founding fathers saw fit to provide it as one of our rights to deter oppression from the government as well as to defend ourselves.

As has been stated previously we would not think of banning automobiles but they kill people. NO we blame it on the driver not the auto, same applies to guns....it is the person not the gun that kills. When someone drives into a crowd of people NO ONE says if they didn't own such a large car or if they didn't own a car at all this would not have happened.

The automobile comparison is pretty weak mate, yes like anything it can be used for bad intentions but its primary function is to transport people from one place to another, you could use the same example for endless items like a computer, microwave, box of matches etc.
A guns primary function is to injure or kill weather it be in self defence or as a act of aggression, yes i accept its used for sporting purposes but it wasn't invented for sport.

I agree with the first part of your post, i think initial strict background checks followed by a revaluation for licence renewal would save lives.
There will be people who will slip through the net and maybe people who will flip between renewal periods but it will reduce the risk.

If its genuine reason is for home defence then why would you need multiple guns or automatics with extended clips, are people really that paranoid that they only feel safe with that kinda firepower.
That's just unthinkable in Britain, if our culture came to that level i would leave tomorrow.

If someone did go on a killing spree there would be a lot less victims if they were restricted by gun type and amount of ammo, that's simple common sense, the more bullets the more victims, the more powerful the more damage is done.

As for the Founding Fathers,, well a think the South Park creators explain it well..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLzo9pOXa-s]American History - YouTube[/ame]

[Rodbouy]

Pmsfl perfectly fckn illustrated

[BigfatPaulie]

Never has a nutshell been so far "in"

Sent using Tapatalk

[firemouth]

Ok, here is one for you

The Second Amendment does not mention weapons for personal defence.

it says

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

or

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[8]

The original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights, approved by the House and Senate, was prepared by scribe William Lambert and resides in the National Archives.

OK so only the punctuation differs. but neither version makes any comment about weapons being help for personal defence!!!!!!!!!!!!

I do know the "right" has been upheld by the Supreme Court. but there is no indication the "Founding Fathers" had any intention for people to own an carry arms, for anything but state defence.

[alex33009]

bad guys dont respect "Gun Laws"