Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/national/article/74-year-old_n.c._state_senator_shoots_wounds_intruder_at_his_home/287987/P10/

Long time Anti-Gun Advocate State Senator R.C. Soles, 74, shot one of two intruders at his home just outsideTabor City, N.C. about 5 p.m. Sunday, the prosecutor for the politician's home county said.

The victim, Kyle Blackburn, was taken to a South Carolina hospital, but the injuries were not reported to be life-threatening, according to Rex Gore, district attorney for Columbus, Bladen and Brunswick counties.

The State Bureau of Investigation and Columbus County Sheriff's Department are investigating the shooting, Gore said. Soles, who was not arrested, declined to discuss the incident Sunday evening.

"I am not in a position to talk to you," Soles said by telephone. "I'm right in the middle of an investigation."

Soles, a top-ranking Democrat and the longest-serving member of the legislature, already was the subject of an SBI investigation over sexual misconduct allegations with former male clients. (FHW - Now, that sounds more like a liberal to me).

The Senator, who has made a career of being against gun ownership for the general public, didn't hesitate to defend himself with his own gun when he believed he was in immediate danger and he was the victim.

In typical hypocritical liberal fashion, the "Do As I Say And Not As I Do" Anti-Gun Activist Lawmaker picked up his gun and took action in what apparently was a self-defense shooting. Why hypocritical you may ask? It is because his long legislative record shows that the actions that he took to protect his family, his own response to a dangerous life threatening situation, are actions that he feels ordinary citizens should not have if they were faced with an identical situation.

Isn't it ironic, don't you think?

Lordhat wrote:Why hypocritical you may ask? It is because his long legislative record shows that the actions that he took to protect his family, his own response to a dangerous life threatening situation, are actions that he feels ordinary citizens should not have if they were faced with an identical situation.

I have my doubts. If this actually were hypocritical one would have expected the citation of a specific piece of legislation which banned the possession of firearms for the purposes of home defense. Supporting the regulation of firearms does not mean that you oppose the ability to possess firearms.

First up, why is this being reported as news? It happened in August. Have you only just read this story, as it slowly worked its way through rightwing blogs and chain emails?

Second up, this story has been around a while now and I've never seen anyone provide a single piece of legislation that Soles promoted a restriction on keeping a firearm in the house for personal protection? If not, how is he a hypocrit? Is this just a case of Democrat shoots a guy therefore hypocrit am I right fellow true thinking Americans yeah he's a hypocrit wait what's a fact no I don't have any of those but I've done fine so far without them.


However, "sexual misconduct allegations with former male clients. (FHW - Now, that sounds more like a liberal to me)" is just plain awesome. Turns out Mark Foley, Ted Haggard and Larry Craig were Democrats all this time.

sebster wrote:Is this just a case of Democrat shoots a guy therefore hypocrit am I right fellow true thinking Americans yeah he's a hypocrit wait what's a fact no I don't have any of those but I've done fine so far without them.

wat

Ah yes. Because the MSM is run by the Conservatives so every story gets skewed to be anti-left........errr wait, last I checked the Liberals controlled majority of the MSM.

Anyone supporting gun regulation supports the gak that the liberal side supports (registering, stricter laws, limited guns, limiting assault weapons (which is funny as uneducated liberals think a semi-auto pistol is an assault weapon) which ultimately is an excuse to make gun ownership impossible for non-militants)). I've even heard as much from the more liberal (or extreme liberal) posters here on dakka.

So yes, it is in a roundabout way hypocritical for someone all for making it harder for the average citizen to defend himself and his home to be defending HIS use of a handgun to defend himself.

Fateweaver wrote:Ah yes. Because the MSM is run by the Conservatives so every story gets skewed to be anti-left........errr wait, last I checked the Liberals controlled majority of the MSM.

Anyone supporting gun regulation supports the gak that the liberal side supports (registering, stricter laws, limited guns, limiting assault weapons (which is funny as uneducated liberals think a semi-auto pistol is an assault weapon) which ultimately is an excuse to make gun ownership impossible for non-militants)). I've even heard as much from the more liberal (or extreme liberal) posters here on dakka.

So yes, it is in a roundabout way hypocritical for someone all for making it harder for the average citizen to defend himself and his home to be defending HIS use of a handgun to defend himself.

Look, here it is straight... what you've posted there is drivel. You start out with a vague complaint about Liberal control of the MSM... I don't know why. There was no complaint about right or left coverage of this issue... in fact there was no comment on media coverage at all. Bizarre.

Then you go on to claim that 'anyone supporting gun regulation supports the gak that the liberal side supports'. The first problem is that's nonsense, as there are many, many different approaches to gun control depending on what individuals believe are the primary dangers. This is why gun control within the US and in comparison to other countries varies so much... the left is not a monolithic block.

The second and bigger problem is that you haven't in any way established that Soles supported any of that. You haven't provided any gun control legislation at all, let alone a piece that would actually restrict his ability to fire on an invader as he did.

So far, all you appear to have is 'Democrat' and 'shot a dude'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orkeosaurus wrote:wat

Exactly!

I'm pretty sure Fateweaver was responding to this Sebster.

sebster wrote:First up, why is this being reported as news? It happened in August. Have you only just read this story, as it slowly worked its way through rightwing blogs and chain emails?

Anyway, as far as I can tell Soles doesn't have half bad marks from the NRA.

http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=5930

So this shouldn't outrage anyone.

sebster wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:Ah yes. Because the MSM is run by the Conservatives so every story gets skewed to be anti-left........errr wait, last I checked the Liberals controlled majority of the MSM.

Anyone supporting gun regulation supports the gak that the liberal side supports (registering, stricter laws, limited guns, limiting assault weapons (which is funny as uneducated liberals think a semi-auto pistol is an assault weapon) which ultimately is an excuse to make gun ownership impossible for non-militants)). I've even heard as much from the more liberal (or extreme liberal) posters here on dakka.

So yes, it is in a roundabout way hypocritical for someone all for making it harder for the average citizen to defend himself and his home to be defending HIS use of a handgun to defend himself.

Look, here it is straight... what you've posted there is drivel. You start out with a vague complaint about Liberal control of the MSM... I don't know why. There was no complaint about right or left coverage of this issue... in fact there was no comment on media coverage at all. Bizarre.

Then you go on to claim that 'anyone supporting gun regulation supports the gak that the liberal side supports'. The first problem is that's nonsense, as there are many, many different approaches to gun control depending on what individuals believe are the primary dangers. This is why gun control within the US and in comparison to other countries varies so much... the left is not a monolithic block.

The second and bigger problem is that you haven't in any way established that Soles supported any of that. You haven't provided any gun control legislation at all, let alone a piece that would actually restrict his ability to fire on an invader as he did.

So far, all you appear to have is 'Democrat' and 'shot a dude'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orkeosaurus wrote:wat

Exactly!

I don't know of any Liberals that aren't against stricter gun laws. There might be a few but I'm sure I can safely say majority of liberals are anti-gun (or pro-making it hard as feth to get guns) and most, if not all, conservatives are for tightening up the laws we do have without limiting people and their 2nd amendment rights but that there are probably some conservatives who agree with liberals on gun control. Though I see those people as a stain on conservative thinking.

Sad truth is the most anti-gun people I've seen are liberals/democrats and so therefore overshadow any liberal that isn't anti-gun legislation.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Scrabb wrote:I'm pretty sure Fateweaver was responding to this Sebster.

sebster wrote:First up, why is this being reported as news? It happened in August. Have you only just read this story, as it slowly worked its way through rightwing blogs and chain emails?

Anyway, as far as I can tell Soles doesn't have half bad marks from the NRA.

http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=5930

So this shouldn't outrage anyone.

Yeah, just noticed that. Kudos to him for having a pair of balls (and I'd say this if he was anti-gun). Even more kudos for being a liberal that values our Amendment rights (not many of them out there either).

Fateweaver wrote:
Anyone supporting gun regulation supports the gak that the liberal side supports (registering, stricter laws, limited guns, limiting assault weapons (which is funny as uneducated liberals think a semi-auto pistol is an assault weapon) which ultimately is an excuse to make gun ownership impossible for non-militants)). I've even heard as much from the more liberal (or extreme liberal) posters here on dakka.

That's nice and all, but it doesn't mean anything beyond "some liberals don't know things about weapons, and blindly fear them." Some, not all. That's not a difficult distinction to make.

Fateweaver wrote:
So yes, it is in a roundabout way hypocritical for someone all for making it harder for the average citizen to defend himself and his home to be defending HIS use of a handgun to defend himself.

No, it isn't hypocritical at all. Simply being liberal does not mean that you support all things supported by all people who label themselves as liberal. That is a massive fallacy which borders on willful ignorance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:First up, why is this being reported as news? It happened in August. Have you only just read this story, as it slowly worked its way through rightwing blogs and chain emails?

He was indicted a few days ago.

Lord hat posts an old, contrived, non sensical, doggedly biased, and utterly trashy conservative infotainment article he got in his email box today.
Fateweaver defends on thin poorly thought out grounds.

News at 11.

I'm all for the right to own weapons for self-defence and hunting and what not, but what practical purpose is there for allowing citizens to have sniper rifles, assault rifles, etc?

It's quite hard to write a tight definition of an assault rifle or sniper rifle which might not include some other innocent weapon like a high power, scope equipped hunting rifle.

Not to mention that a lot of Americans want to have guns to defend themselves against their government, in which case you need the best weapons you can get.

Most crimes are probably committed with pistols anyway -- just a guess, I don't have any figures on it.

ShumaGorath wrote:Lord hat posts an old, contrived, non sensical, doggedly biased, and utterly trashy conservative infotainment article he got in his email box today.
Fateweaver defends on thin poorly thought out grounds.

News at 11.

And Shuma won the thread.

Lordhat wrote:http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/national/article/74-year-old_n.c._state_senator_shoots_wounds_intruder_at_his_home/287987/P10/

Long time Anti-Gun Advocate State Senator R.C. Soles, 74, shot one of two intruders at his home just outsideTabor City, N.C. about 5 p.m. Sunday, the prosecutor for the politician's home county said.

The victim, Kyle Blackburn, was taken to a South Carolina hospital, but the injuries were not reported to be life-threatening, according to Rex Gore, district attorney for Columbus, Bladen and Brunswick counties.

The State Bureau of Investigation and Columbus County Sheriff's Department are investigating the shooting, Gore said. Soles, who was not arrested, declined to discuss the incident Sunday evening.

"I am not in a position to talk to you," Soles said by telephone. "I'm right in the middle of an investigation."

Soles, a top-ranking Democrat and the longest-serving member of the legislature, already was the subject of an SBI investigation over sexual misconduct allegations with former male clients. (FHW - Now, that sounds more like a liberal to me).

The Senator, who has made a career of being against gun ownership for the general public, didn't hesitate to defend himself with his own gun when he believed he was in immediate danger and he was the victim.

In typical hypocritical liberal fashion, the "Do As I Say And Not As I Do" Anti-Gun Activist Lawmaker picked up his gun and took action in what apparently was a self-defense shooting. Why hypocritical you may ask? It is because his long legislative record shows that the actions that he took to protect his family, his own response to a dangerous life threatening situation, are actions that he feels ordinary citizens should not have if they were faced with an identical situation.

Very loaded OP. There is a huge middle ground between 'ban-all-guns' and a 'crapshoot free for all'. Many anti-gun lobbyists want guns restricted rather than outright bans. A gun in your home, fair enough, but when every trigger happy redneck has a 'right' to a gun its something else. Some people should not be armed. The police and local authorities should have the right to refuse gun licenses to at risk persons and certain types of weaponry should be outlawed. Gun lobbyists hide behind the US Constution which was written at a time which didn't envision the current age. Back then there was an adjacent native population and a slave community that didn't count as citizens, and had no rights under law, no matter what the founding Fathers claimed to say, but they did count as potential hostiles. They were also concerned about Redcoats appearing over the horizeon and needed an armed populace out of self interest. To compound this the right to bear arms accounted for single shot weaponry with a low rate of fire. If assault rifles existed back then, or even envisioned there might well have been different wording. Because the text is regarded as sacred people forget we are not in the 18th century anymore. Its time to move on.
I am glad the UK has resisted calls for a written constitution and relies instead on common law it allows for a greater degree of flexibility.

Lordhat wrote:
In typical hypocritical liberal fashion

You can have a heavy machine gun (because its your right), but not a black water pistol, that is the hypocrasy.

RustyKnight wrote:I'm all for the right to own weapons for self-defence and hunting and what not, but what practical purpose is there for allowing citizens to have sniper rifles, assault rifles, etc?

I understand the basis of your statement,the thing is a 30-06 with a good scope (a hunting rifle) could easily be used for a sniper rifle,and the term "assault rifle" has become some what meaningless in definition in so much as it seems to encompess "any wepon seen in an action movie",when in fact that is not the case.
However,I do agree that living in a country where everyone (hypotheticly) would be packing an Ak-47 isn't high on my "things to do "list.

I'll post my 2 cents.

On topic, I agree with those saying that there is a big middle ground in views on this issue. Some people don't seem to be able to tell the difference from "regulate" and "ban". Also, you have to remember that when that constitution was made the US was still under threat from invasion from Canada, or other wars at home, such as the previously mentioned indians.

Off topic,

I honestly don't know why anyone needs a gun. Lets specify rifles (I.E long barrels and usually high power), what need do you have of a weapon like that when at most the range in your house (unless you have an obscenely large one) is around 20ft. The only reason I see for owning one is hunting, and even then, why not just rent one from the establishment? much safer than keeping it in your own home.

Now for assault rifles. This seems to say that any intruder into your home would be so well armed that you need to pump out 30 rounds from a 5.56 or 7.62mm weapon. That says a lot about the equipment available to these criminals doesn't it? Seems like you need to crack down on weapons in the wrong hands rather than put more weapons in the "right" (and I use that term loosely) hands.

Pistols, possibly. One at most, where it is accessible to use I could MAYBE agree with, if the ammo is kept next to it and not IN it. More than one just seems to be overkill. If a robber is coming into your home and searching drawers, do you really want him to find one of your weapons, loaded, in it?

I was on holiday in Florida, well away from miami etc, when a 2 yr old shot himself with his mothers gun. To me this epitomises the stress placed on guns in the US if a toddler can find and use one. I havent even SEEN a gun in the UK, and i would tentatively say most others havent either.

(I learnt most of what I know from textbooks and historical books on WW2, but afaik it still applies.)

The happy reaper wrote:
I honestly don't know why anyone needs a gun. Lets specify rifles (I.E long barrels and usually high power), what need do you have of a weapon like that when at most the range in your house (unless you have an obscenely large one) is around 20ft. The only reason I see for owning one is hunting, and even then, why not just rent one from the establishment? much safer than keeping it in your own home.

Now for assault rifles. This seems to say that any intruder into your home would be so well armed that you need to pump out 30 rounds from a 5.56 or 7.62mm weapon. That says a lot about the equipment available to these criminals doesn't it? Seems like you need to crack down on weapons in the wrong hands rather than put more weapons in the "right" (and I use that term loosely) hands.

Pistols, possibly. One at most, where it is accessible to use I could MAYBE agree with, if the ammo is kept next to it and not IN it. More than one just seems to be overkill. If a robber is coming into your home and searching drawers, do you really want him to find one of your weapons, loaded, in it?

I was on holiday in Florida, well away from miami etc, when a 2 yr old shot himself with his mothers gun. To me this epitomises the stress placed on guns in the US if a toddler can find and use one. I havent even SEEN a gun in the UK, and i would tentatively say most others havent either.

(I learnt most of what I know from textbooks and historical books on WW2, but afaik it still applies.)

Again, it's hard to make distinctions between civilian ports of tactical rifles and hunting rifles legalistically.
Furthermore, the idea with something chambered in 5.56 or 7.62 is that, unlike a 9mm or some similar, you don't have to drain the mag to take down your target. 3-4 rounds of 5.56 at 20ft will take down anyone, same with 2-3 rounds of 7.62. If there are multiple assailants, this leaves you with plenty of ammunition to continue the engagement with immediately. With a 9mm pistol, you'd have to put about half a clip into someone to down them immediately. Then you'd have to do it again to a second assailant. Then you'd have to reload. Then possibly repeat. This takes a lot longer than a few simple 3 round bursts to high center mass, time that matters when people with weapons are running around in your house.
And anyone who keeps their weapon(s) sitting around loaded is an idiot. No one should ever come across a loaded weapon in a house-it's just an accident waiting to happen.

Iron_Chaos_Brute wrote:

The happy reaper wrote:
I honestly don't know why anyone needs a gun. Lets specify rifles (I.E long barrels and usually high power), what need do you have of a weapon like that when at most the range in your house (unless you have an obscenely large one) is around 20ft. The only reason I see for owning one is hunting, and even then, why not just rent one from the establishment? much safer than keeping it in your own home.

Now for assault rifles. This seems to say that any intruder into your home would be so well armed that you need to pump out 30 rounds from a 5.56 or 7.62mm weapon. That says a lot about the equipment available to these criminals doesn't it? Seems like you need to crack down on weapons in the wrong hands rather than put more weapons in the "right" (and I use that term loosely) hands.

Pistols, possibly. One at most, where it is accessible to use I could MAYBE agree with, if the ammo is kept next to it and not IN it. More than one just seems to be overkill. If a robber is coming into your home and searching drawers, do you really want him to find one of your weapons, loaded, in it?

I was on holiday in Florida, well away from miami etc, when a 2 yr old shot himself with his mothers gun. To me this epitomises the stress placed on guns in the US if a toddler can find and use one. I havent even SEEN a gun in the UK, and i would tentatively say most others havent either.

(I learnt most of what I know from textbooks and historical books on WW2, but afaik it still applies.)

Again, it's hard to make distinctions between civilian ports of tactical rifles and hunting rifles legalistically.
Furthermore, the idea with something chambered in 5.56 or 7.62 is that, unlike a 9mm or some similar, you don't have to drain the mag to take down your target. 3-4 rounds of 5.56 at 20ft will take down anyone, same with 2-3 rounds of 7.62. If there are multiple assailants, this leaves you with plenty of ammunition to continue the engagement with immediately. With a 9mm pistol, you'd have to put about half a clip into someone to down them immediately. Then you'd have to do it again to a second assailant. Then you'd have to reload. Then possibly repeat. This takes a lot longer than a few simple 3 round bursts to high center mass, time that matters when people with weapons are running around in your house.
And anyone who keeps their weapon(s) sitting around loaded is an idiot. No one should ever come across a loaded weapon in a house-it's just an accident waiting to happen.

If a 9mm bullet does not have stopping power, why are most special forces armed with mp3 submachine guns?

Because, a 7.62mm round will go through multiple targets, a danger in a hostage situation (i.e the robber grabs one of your family etc.).

It obviously has enough power to disarm and stop terrorists, why not an intruder?

It's not (really) the 9mm round that's the problem, it's the 9mm pistol.
An MP5 has an 8.5 inch barrel. A 9mm pistol will have about a 4-5 inch barrel, depending on manufacturer, etc.
Longer barrel length = more bullet energy = greater effect on target.
The quasi-problem with the 9mm round is that it's a pistol round, which is inherently less powerful due to shape and grain.
One of the reasons SF teams are often armed with MP5s in that the MP5SD (the silenced version) is one of the quietest weapons in the world, and there's an operator familiarity issue.

All in all, an MP5 will have to put out more rounds to drop someone than an M4 or similar.

And in a hostage situation, if you need to shoot, it's one round, one kill. 5.56 or 7.62 increases your chances of this.
Of course, you can always teach your family some practical martial art (MCMAP, Krav Maga, etc) that includes hostage pistol and knife disarms

EDIT: BTW, SF and LEOs are moving away from the MP5 to the MP7. The MP7 is chambered in 4.6x30mm, a tactical-rifle style round, to give it more power and effect on target.

ShumaGorath wrote:Lord hat posts an old, contrived, non sensical, doggedly biased, and utterly trashy conservative infotainment article he got in his email box today.
Fateweaver defends on thin poorly thought out grounds.

News at 11.

Shuma trolls.

News at 10.

Kindly take a look at my post saying that I retracted my initial observation when it was pointed out he can't be anti-gun as the NRA gave him a good grade as far as gun legislation.

Also, as far as infotainment trash I'll watch CBS or NBC or The Daily Show if I want to watch biased tv (left wing biased tv anyway). Liberals lie more than any other political platform, people believe it because if Jon Stewart says it's true or NBC says it's true than it must be true.

Fateweaver wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Lord hat posts an old, contrived, non sensical, doggedly biased, and utterly trashy conservative infotainment article he got in his email box today.
Fateweaver defends on thin poorly thought out grounds.

News at 11.

Shuma trolls.

News at 10.

Kindly take a look at my post saying that I retracted my initial observation when it was pointed out he can't be anti-gun as the NRA gave him a good grade as far as gun legislation.

Also, as far as infotainment trash I'll watch CBS or NBC or The Daily Show if I want to watch biased tv (left wing biased tv anyway). Liberals lie more than any other political platform, people believe it because if Jon Stewart says it's true or NBC says it's true than it must be true.

Shuma doesn't always read the whole thread before posting and Jon Stuarts show is on comedy central and has more cred than O'Rielly.

Catch the rest of the story on asiacast, podcasts from around the world!

Saying a guys a hypocrit for using a gun to defend himself even though he supports better gun regulations is rediculous. there is a big difference in saying 'why do we allow people to own AK47, uzis and military level assault rifles' and 'ban all guns'.

the 2nd amendment says you have a legal right to a fire arm, not a legal right to any type of fire arm. you only need to/could have
shotgun-for hunting
rifle-for hunting
hand gun- home defence

you don't need an assault rifle or machine gun cos no matter how dangerous the streets of detroit can be you don't live in Uganda, the wild west or the western front during WW2

The happy reaper wrote:I'll post my 2 cents.

On topic, I agree with those saying that there is a big middle ground in views on this issue. Some people don't seem to be able to tell the difference from "regulate" and "ban". Also, you have to remember that when that constitution was made the US was still under threat from invasion from Canada, or other wars at home, such as the previously mentioned indians.

Off topic,

I honestly don't know why anyone needs a gun. Lets specify rifles (I.E long barrels and usually high power), what need do you have of a weapon like that when at most the range in your house (unless you have an obscenely large one) is around 20ft. The only reason I see for owning one is hunting, and even then, why not just rent one from the establishment? much safer than keeping it in your own home.

Now for assault rifles. This seems to say that any intruder into your home would be so well armed that you need to pump out 30 rounds from a 5.56 or 7.62mm weapon. That says a lot about the equipment available to these criminals doesn't it? Seems like you need to crack down on weapons in the wrong hands rather than put more weapons in the "right" (and I use that term loosely) hands.

Pistols, possibly. One at most, where it is accessible to use I could MAYBE agree with, if the ammo is kept next to it and not IN it. More than one just seems to be overkill. If a robber is coming into your home and searching drawers, do you really want him to find one of your weapons, loaded, in it?

I was on holiday in Florida, well away from miami etc, when a 2 yr old shot himself with his mothers gun. To me this epitomises the stress placed on guns in the US if a toddler can find and use one. I havent even SEEN a gun in the UK, and i would tentatively say most others havent either.

(I learnt most of what I know from textbooks and historical books on WW2, but afaik it still applies.)

The problem with regulation like that is that 1) It cannot be proven that such regulations will lower gun crime or gun-based homicides and 2) More regulation just means the anti-gun nut jobs are one step closer to getting what they want. Things like Columbine and V-tech did not happen because of your average everyday citizen obtaining assault rifles and sem-auto shotguns and owning more than one pistol. Those happened because those guns were most likely obtained illegally either through buying from an unlicensed gun dealer or through stealing them.

Read my sig. Stricter gun laws will make the criminals lives easier and their job safer. Who's safety should come first? A person sitting in their home watching tv or the douche bag junkie who feels he needs to steal from that homeowner for his next drug fix?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BluntmanDC wrote:Saying a guys a hypocrit for using a gun to defend himself even though he supports better gun regulations is rediculous. there is a big difference in saying 'why do we allow people to own AK47, uzis and military level assault rifles' and 'ban all guns'.

the 2nd amendment says you have a legal right to a fire arm, not a legal right to any type of fire arm. you only need to/could have
shotgun-for hunting
rifle-for hunting
hand gun- home defence

you don't need an assault rifle or machine gun cos no matter how dangerous the streets of detroit can be you don't live in Uganda, the wild west or the western front during WW2

Why stop at guns?

The average citizen does not need to own a Dodge Viper (fastest production car in the world) or a Lambo or a Ferrari. In the hands of an incompetent driver they are more dangerous than any gun in the world. I accidentally shoot myself in the leg or foot I probably will survive (odds are good). I hit somebody doing 140 in a Viper that person WILL NOT live, in fact they'll be no more than a blood stain on my windshield, hood and the pavement on the highway plus if I don't have experience driving a car that will do 0-60 in under 4 seconds the odds are good I'll kill myself.

Knives?

Most households only need 3 or 4 kinds of knives; butter knife, paring knife, butcher knife and maybe an all purpose knife. So lets make butterfly knives and rambo-esque knives and machetes illegal. I mean, afterall if the intruder is unarmed a simple paring knife should suffice shouldn't it?

Your sig seems to think that guns make the world so round.

Pssst.

The threat of violence is the ________ way to maintain peace.

A) best
B) worst

Kanluwen wrote:Pssst.

The threat of violence is the ________ way to maintain peace.

A) best
B) worst

The answer is (c) all of the above.

Ding ding.

Why stop at guns?

The average citizen does not need to own a Dodge Viper (fastest production car in the world) or a Lambo or a Ferrari. In the hands of an incompetent driver they are more dangerous than any gun in the world. I accidentally shoot myself in the leg or foot I probably will survive (odds are good). I hit somebody doing 140 in a Viper that person WILL NOT live, in fact they'll be no more than a blood stain on my windshield, hood and the pavement on the highway plus if I don't have experience driving a car that will do 0-60 in under 4 seconds the odds are good I'll kill myself.

Prove to me that you can drive your gun to work or accurately shoot the leg off of a turkey for thanksgiving dinner and you're arguments will mean something.

I want to drive my gun to work. It'd be like sledding.