lord forgive me for what I am about to do….
I think that this has to be the most incredibly stupid thing I have seen:
District Gun Registration Starts Tomorrow
D.C. police will start the gun registration process at 7 a.m. tomorrow, when it opens an office at police headquarters at 300 Indiana Ave. NW.
It is the start of the 180-day amnesty period in which residents may register handguns they have had illegally, or guns from other states.An officer from the gun unit will meet the applicant at the door and take temporary possession of the gun to ensure safety at headquarters.
Officers will tag the gun and run ballistics tests before returning it to the owner. Paperwork indicating that registration is in process will be provided.
About 14 days later, after an FBI background check, the gun will be officially registered.
Come on now! What should they do instead?
Do you think anyone will show?
I thought you liberals who don’t like the 2nd amendment, would be pleased by this?
Do you think anyone will show?
At least one person. The guy who won that recent court case.
I’m sure at least a few will turn in their gun and get busted for a crime.
Bear in mind, in a lot of cases you have family members who inherited an illegal weapon, don’t know what to do with it and are reluctant to call the police for fear that they will be punished. For instances like that, or if there is some other factor at play amnesties make sense.
“At least one person. The guy who won that recent court case.”
Actually the police knew about his gun, he was required to leave it at work and was suing for the right to be able to bring it home.
The big thing here is the out of state purchases, seeing as how DC has (as far as I know) no firearm distributors people who now want to purchase firearms will be doing so from other states and the DC police want folks to register them.
Isn’t the ballistics for gun registration pretty unusual? What if you bring your gun with a trigger lock on and leave the key at home?
The only people who are going to show up and register are those who have committed no crime other than possessing their illegal gun.
No violent criminal is going to voluntarily come forward for registration, because if they do then the felony will come up in the background check and they will be guilty of a Federal crime. A felon in possession of a firearm is a crime anywhere in the country. Unless they’re extending the “amnesty” to EVERYONE, even those prohibited under federal law. If the amnesty does apply to everyone, even guys with long, violent rap sheets then the D.C. government really is crazy.
“Isn’t the ballistics for gun registration pretty unusual? What if you bring your gun with a trigger lock on and leave the key at home?”
Actually MD has a ballistics registry for every new gun legally bought in the state. It has cost millions and has yet to solve a single crime.
And Tom, DC had better change their zoning restrictions and allow some FFL’s to setup in town or they’re going to have another lawsuit on their hands.
My thoughts on D.C.’s registration policies.
http://anothergunblog.blogspot.com/2008/06/dcs-gun-registration-pamphlet.html
So, Mike, if you were a D.C. resident who had owned guns in defiance of the ban, would you register them now?
From the DC gun laws:
(10) “Machine gun” means any firearm which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily converted or restored to shoot:
(A) Automatically, more than 1 shot by a single function of the trigger;
(B) Semiautomatically, more than 12 shots without manual reloading.
Revolvers only. Any other handgun you can think of is classified by DC as a “machinegun”. The Berettas, SIGs and S&Ws most cops carry are classified as machineguns in DC.
I wonder how many dumbass felons will show up anyway?
Seriously, DTB? SERIOUSLY?!?!? When will you have had enough? WHEN?!?!?
that’s what she said
honk, honk
“From the DC gun laws:
(10) “Machine gun” means any firearm which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily converted or restored to shoot:
(B) Semiautomatically, more than 12 shots without manual reloading.”
Freaking ridiculous. That means my Sig P228, a pistol made in 1991 and currently carried by NCIS agents and several other gov/military agents is a “Machine Gun.” That’s quite possibly the craziest definition of “machine gun” I’ve ever seen.
a gun is a “projectile launcher” is a pretty crazy definition
nycuk, nyuck, nyuck
grrrr
a woob, woob,woob, woob, woob…woooobbb……roof!
Crazy, but true. Welcome to the anti-gunners world.
“In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable—what then?”
Common handgun = machinegun if we say it does. And what are you gonna do about it, gun loving fanatic loser? We are the law.
DTB,
Dare I ask what your definition of a “gun” is?
In your world what exactly does a gun do?
Even funnier Vero, is that my other Sigs, P225s are the most widely produced police sidearm in Europe but are not “machine guns” since they’ve got only 8 round mags. Unless they consider the ability to reload as constituting “more than 12 rounds…”
Read the law exactly as written. Most semi-autos have aftermarket extended magazines made for them. That seems a good definition of “readily converted”.
Under the current law, all semi-autos are banned.
No you may not. Go ask questions on your own blog and write thousand word essays answering them. You already know the answer anyway so why should I bother.
night night
v,
do you have like a word doc with those things at the ready? or do you type them out by memory?
serious question by the way.
My kung fu is strong.
Google is a ready made PhD in literature.
didn’t think an Officer was that smart.
😛
time to hit the rack my man.
I was enlisted for 5 years prior to crossing over to the dark side. I had way more fun as a private than as a field grade.
Lights out here as well.
“No you may not. Go ask questions on your own blog and write thousand word essays answering them. You already know the answer anyway so why should I bother.”
Cool, DTB runs away from debate yet again.
Part of the overthrow of the DC gun laws, was the depth of the laws, that in effect rendered gun ownership and use for self defense impossible.
This new version is just another attempt to make it impossible to own a weapon, and to have it readily available for use when NECESSARY.
Excpect another CASE, and perhaps the SCOTUS might be more specific about he right to bear arms.
Read my comments in the Protack Article on Guns in Wilmington.
The Problem in Wilmington is IDENTIFIABLE. IT is not a plague in all of Wilmington. It is Localized.
Apply a solution that addresses the criminals, criminal behavior and gun control laws that punishes “Persons prohibited to own or possess a weapon”.
Yes I said it.
Well, if we are going to install Shotspotter, let’s at least make sure we purchase the “Auto Return Fire” module.
Let’s see now: Jump Out Squads, Cameras on every corner, Shotspotter, RFID, electronic chips in every resident, exchange of a water pistol for your personal gun, data base at the Police Station ability to see you walk down the street, your chidren playing, walking your dog….how far do you think we can go…to make everyone “feel safe”. Its an expensive “smoke screen” that will not solve the problem.
Glad some of you feel that once your shot, dead, your shooter might be caught or at least the gun was found…..go Shotspotter.
Perhaps some have forgotten that Wilmington was a “police state”, national guards on street corners not so long ago.
What the hell did we fight so hard in Wilmington, Newark, Arden to “ban the patriot act” and, in 2008 permit this high tech crap to steal more of rights.
Damn glad I am not a liberal!
“What the hell did we fight so hard in Wilmington, Newark, Arden to “ban the patriot act” and, in 2008 permit this high tech crap to steal more of rights.
Damn glad I am not a liberal!”
It’s only a violation of civil liberties if Bush or Cheney are somehow involved. If it’s “The Messiah” or some other liberal then they can do no wrong. After all, “hope & change” can’t be bad.
I feel safe by avoiding the bad parts of town.
As someone who knows many LEO’s in this state I can tell you that violent crime doesn’t contain itself to only the “bad parts of town.”
Not to mention not everyone has the luxury of avoiding the “bad parts” 100% of the time.
Hell do any of you remember Charlie Cohen? He didn’t live in a “bad part of town”
Look, the liberals on this site haven’t been promoting the ShotSpotter technology blindly. We haven’t signed up for it, and the guy that proposed it has as much chance of winning the Governors race as I do.
It is an interesting technology. It requires some research. It has huge civil liberties concerns. It may not lower crime rates. We get it.
But no one has answered my comment yesterday about whether there could be a palatable way to implement the technology if it really worked. Some way to ensure that “The State” couldn’t abuse the system.
Geez, LG, what sort of answer were you expecting beyond guns are great and liberals suck?
Sorry, P. I can’t talk to you. You’re not trashy enough…
Unless you want to go shooting on Saturday! Then you’re trashy enough for me. We can invite Dom.
Those comments had me thinking, and you know what? I have NEVER met a single woman “into” guns. I’ve never met a woman who shoots for pleasure. I know plenty of men who own, shoot and love guns, but not one woman. Doesn’t that seem odd since they’re obviously so many of them?
And hey, I can be trashy in a very classy way. I’m also planning on winning the DHB title! 😉
Not without guns, you won’t!
We could pass the Castle Laws that state a mans home is his castle, and that with this comes the right to self defense, any place a person has a right to be.
It prevents the family and relatives and the perpetrator of crimes to sue the DEFENDER.
I worry about the worth of a person.
BUT If the thief believes his life is worth what he is about to steal – that is his decision.
If he wants to get shot for stealing a bicycle out of my gated back yard, so be it. He has no right to be there, and I know it. The jury might want to listen to his excuse, if he survives.
With all the fear generated by the thugs and their reckless abandon of respect, no one can blame a defender for NOT TAKING any CHANCES. I won’t.
You do not belong here. “Good Bye”. BAM.
BAM, BAM, BAM, BAM, BAM.
CLICK, CLICK, CLICK, …
Lift shovel, SMACK, SMACK, SMACK, …
( Sunrise…) … SMACK, SMACK, SMACK,
( Noon) 911 … Hello, I’d like to report a trespass, burglary, B&E, and threat of assault.
And a broken shovel.
Paul – That’s a law that reallly needs to be passed here in DE. Without it the criminals family can sue even after I am cleared of all wrongdoing.
You’re such a boy! And since the odds are with me – since most bloggers are male and I’m gonna hold you to the underwear voting booth – you’re going to need to be packing more than a gun!
I am thinking since DC lost the data from 1976 registrations that many law abiding will not bother. Why when the law will be changed again in 90 days? Too much hassle, ballistic test, eye tests, written test , another fee and please only do one gun every 90 days. What if they had several and can not get then registered in the 6 months amnesty. No just forget aabot registering the guns. Registration is wrong anyway and probably will be thrown out.
“Those comments had me thinking, and you know what? I have NEVER met a single woman “into” guns. I’ve never met a woman who shoots for pleasure. I know plenty of men who own, shoot and love guns, but not one woman. Doesn’t that seem odd since they’re obviously so many of them?”
we swim in different circles, if you ever take up my offer (still open to anyone who meets the conditions) to go shooting some time I can introduce you to plenty of Delaware women who shoot for sport.
Pandora, just because you have never met a female who enjoys shooting, that does not mean they do not exist. In fact, as has already been pointed out in another comment on this weblog, some of them even blog themselves!
http://www.squeakywheelseeksgrease.com/blog/
http://www.thebitchgirls.us/
http://thebredafallacy.blogspot.com/
http://twowheeledmadwoman.blogspot.com/
http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/
Add to that my wife (and many wives of many other male gun enthusiasts), my mother, my mother-in-law, and countless other females, and they most certainly are out there.
I have met all but one of the women bloggers listed above and not one is “trashy”
I’m not claiming that female gun enthusiasts don’t exist, merely pointing out that I have never met one. I have lived a pretty diverse existence, have traveled extensively, and never really thought about female shooters. When I did (due to this post) I realized that I’d never met a woman into guns. Just an observation.
@ CJO
What if you happen to LIVE in a “bad part” of town? What then?
“liberalgeek // Jul 16, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Look, the liberals on this site haven’t been promoting the ShotSpotter technology blindly. We haven’t signed up for it, and the guy that proposed it has as much chance of winning the Governors race as I do.
It is an interesting technology. It requires some research. It has huge civil liberties concerns. It may not lower crime rates. We get it.
But no one has answered my comment yesterday about whether there could be a palatable way to implement the technology if it really worked. Some way to ensure that “The State” couldn’t abuse the system.”
If you know it doesn’t work, and are willing to admit that it has no place in practice, and that there are civil liberties concerns….then do you also feel the same way about gun bans?
I posted a link to a video of my wife shooting…. where’d that go?
http://www.vimeo.com/1357268
@Pandora….
Have a look a this group of ladies…
http://www.pinkpistols.org/
http://www.pinkpistols.org/
http://www.pinkpistols.org/
http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/5.0/GunFacts5-0-screen.pdf
@Pandora…
Have a look at this group of gun loving ladies…
http://www.pinkpistols.org/
Hey Jason, could you post the article on England under total surveilance, and their police state! Also the article on knives being the biggest killer in England?
It would help people to understand the “slippery slope” England got into, incrementally and under the guise of “protecting the citizens”. I think we should take a hint from the citizens of England where America is headed, if we don’t get on onboard to stop it in its tracks.
These police state tactics are coming right out of ‘Homeland Security” who are very involved in running our Police Depts, and have access to legislators convincing them for the “sake of security” we must enact these fascist measures.
Liz – the doctrine of “political correctness” is also destroying the UK.
Well I was right no one showed with a gun this morning. Heller did show up but since his gun was unregistered he did not bring it for fear of arrest.
There were lots of police and reporters but no residents who decided to register with DC stupid laws.
Why bother?All the guns can stay unregistered.
DC residents are not stupid.
If you know it doesn’t work, and are willing to admit that it has no place in practice, and that there are civil liberties concerns….then do you also feel the same way about gun bans?
The answer is “perhaps.” I have never said that there should be a ban, nor have I said that ShotSpotter shouldn’t be used. I am basically saying that the devil is in the details. I don’t want cameras on every corner, I don’t want Police to be unable to gather evidence on murderers. I don’t think that we should repeal the 2nd Amendment and I don’t think that people should be acting like this is some sort of post-apocalyptic “defend my backyard against invading 14 year olds” wild west.
On a technical level, let me say that if you have a few URL’s in your comment, it will likely be flagged for moderation. Give it some time and we will post it, even if we don’t like the content.
“DC residents are not stupid.”
I’m not entirely sure of that… I tend to think you get the government you deserve…… and just look at the D.C. government.
Ah, that explains why the netroots are acclaiming OBama as the new messiah.
Pandora,
My mistake for misinterpreting your post, but, that said, the women gun enthusiasts are certainly out there. If nothing else, check out this webpage: http://www.peopleofthegun.com/ . Sure, its pictures are predominantly of males (including yours truly), but there are a fair number of females buried in there as well.
LibGeek,
Thanks for the assurance that they’ll get posted. I think I did post the pinkpistols.org address three times in one post…so it would be seen.
What I do wonder, however, is there, then, an age at which criminals should be thwarted? Is a 14 year old killer any less of a killer than a 40 year old one?
I don’t care how old someone that comes onto my property is…..they still came onto my property and are probably willing to do harm to me or my loved ones or even my hard earned possessions/property.
We work hard for what we have and it’s worth protecting.
Pandora,
Many people that enjoy gun sports, women and men, do not talk about it except among other enthusiasts. The reason is easy if they do talk about at work or with gun hating liberal friends they get treated like MikeW was treated by Jason.
I will never forget the expression that the Director of a company had, when a young women enthused over the Glock she just bought with the company bonus check,that was given out. He said that he would need to be careful. He was not being snarky just he was surpised that this woman went and bought a gun and he had more respect.
Think about the terms and disparagement that was poured on Mike for his views on gun rights from many posters here. That is a good reason that women and men do not talk about their sports with others who do not understand.
Most would gladly take you to a range and introduce you to the sport.
Just a caveat; you shoot someone, even on your property or in your house, you might not go to jail but you’ll be in debt close to six figures for legal fees. The State seriously doesn’t like people shooting other people, and claiming an affirmative defense such as defense of self and/or others is VERY expensive. You can be right and still be broke.
As far as I’m concerned there’s no difference between a 25 year old who’s an imminent threat to my life and a 15 year old who is.
Remember, when some 15 year old thug tries to rob someone at gunpoint and ends up dead everyone screams “he was just a kid.” Why does that matter? He still chose to rob someone knowing full well that it was WRONG. If he picks an armed victim, then he suffers the consequences.
@Disbelief
I’d rather be right and broke than dead or at the funeral of a loved one.
As they say, I’d rather be judged by 12 than carried by six.
DJK; I’m just saying, consider very hard the ‘duty to retreat’. Delaware law says there is no duty to retreat in your home or place of business, but that doesn’t mean you won’t pay $450/hour in Superior Court explaining yourself (and taking off work while doing so). It is good to be right. It is good to be unharmed and alive. But that doesn’t mean it still sucks to be broke. Furthermore, you shoot someone in self defense and get off, you pretty much can never use a gun again; the State would absolutely ruin your life for two self-defense killings by the same person.
Shooting someone is the ultimate last resort, only considered if there are NO other alternatives.
Funny, I heard a coworker say that exact statement when he had to travel to DC on business; he rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6.
It implied that he carried when he felt it was needed. Many did and they were in company cars against company rules plus DC laws.
It is so easy to make the lawabiding to be criminals, just make everything illegal.
I agree…. Last resort. I don’t WANT to shoot someone. I don’t WANT to be robbed either. But if it happens, I’m not going to be the victim, if I can help it.
DJK, replace the word “robbed” with “killed”. There is nothing in anyone’s home, purse, or wallet worth dying for… or killing for.
People do turn over the wallet when robbed but robbers do not just steal. Too many cases where they murder the victims for a few bucks in the wallet. No one knows if they are being robbed, if it will stop at robbery.
So why assume that the robber will only take money? Better to be armed so you don’t take that chance. Many times a victim showing they are armed deters the prospective robber.
People who have chosen to get a CCW chose not to be a victim. Others takes their chances it will not happen to them. Most of the time it doesn’t and people are fine.
“DJK, replace the word “robbed” with “killed”. There is nothing in anyone’s home, purse, or wallet worth dying for… or killing for.”
I absolutely disagree. If CRIMINALS weren’t out robbing, assaulting, burgling etc. they wouldn’t be in a position to be shot by an armed potential victim. If they end up getting shot, then it is their actions, not those of their intended target, which lead to their demise.
Also, aren’t your possessions an extension of your life? You spent time working (time that could have been spent doing something else) in order to acquire those possessions and now some thief has taken them from you by force. Property rights are fundamental to ones life, liberty, and happiness. To say that defense of ones property is not worth using deadly force is to empower societies most immoral thugs who are willing to use force to get what they want.
We should all be legally free to make our own moral choices regarding the use of deadly force in defense of property. What authority does the government have to tell me I must hand over my property to the 1st asshole who decides I have something he wants? Why should the law constrain the defensive actions of the victims of violent crime?
“There is nothing in anyone’s home, purse, or wallet worth dying for… or killing for.”
Why surrender to the bad guys? Why is it a virtue to allow someone to take whatever they want from you as long as they don’t hurt you (maybe, if they are feeling generous). What a weak and spineless response to danger.
Giving in to a bully means he does it again because you give him a sense of impunity. In your surrender, you are partially responsible for the next victim.
Robbery and burglary are crimes of violence. Often a rape or murder start as a robbery or burglary. In a truly free society, the person sneaking into your house, with your family inside, gives up his rights to life.
If enough 15 year old amateur burglars end up at room temperature, the alure of breaking and entering wanes. But if the more “enlightened” among us implore us to understand their plight and snuggle the little thugs and offer them more community centers and suspended sentences, you only encourage their behavior.
The penalty for threatening an independent citizen’s life, family or property through threat of force should be death.
MikeW,
I disagree with your last sentance. It should not be penalty but the risk. I would be very unhappy if the courts started executing people for assault( check the definition of assault) and robbery.
I agree that keeping order is every persons duty. That means I should resist a criminal attempts to assault, kill or steal .Beside it is in my self interest to protect myself.
The criminal takes the risk of death.
The penalty for threatening an independent citizen’s life, family or property through threat of force should be death.
“Property?”
If enough 15 year old amateur burglars end up at room temperature, the alure of breaking and entering wanes
I rest my case people. How do you argue with that sort of logic.
The penalty for threatening an independent citizen’s life, family or property through threat of force should be death.
“Threatening?”
I think we have a new murderboy.
RAH, Paul F. seems a little upset. Why don’t you go over his place and see if he’s OK. The door is unlocked.
What authority does the government have to tell me I must hand over my property to the 1st asshole who decides I have something he wants?
so I guess you don’t pay taxes then
But if it happens, I’m not going to be the victim, if I can help it.
translated in neanderthal to mean:
grrrrrr
Why should I go over to PaulF place without an invitation from PaulF?
No thanks.
So your answer to someone in your house, in the middle of the night, with a blunt object ready to bash, is:
“Take what you want, just don’t hurt me.”
That is pathetic.
“I rest my case people. How do you argue with that sort of logic.”
You cannot argue with such logic. Look at the Connecticut family that burglars decided to rape the mother and daughters (the youngest only 12) and then burn them to death. Up to that crime, they had merely been burglars with dozens of criminal convictions between them. But the enlightened citizenry decided that they were merely burglars and should be given just one more chance after parole.
The burden of proof of lack of harmful intent is on the guy prying open your window. A 9mm response is appropriate unless you have some better “progressive” solution, like a sing-a-long or a hug.
and if they had a gun all would be saved.
hooray, guns.
again, you can’t argue with you. You feel that a gun solves the problem. I disagree. That doesn’t mean I don’t think you CANNOT own a gun, but at the same time I don’t think a gun is the ANSWER to the problem.
in your mind how does a gun go from some “projectile launcher” to preventer of all things evil?
“The burden of proof of lack of harmful intent is on the guy prying open your window. A 9mm response is appropriate unless you have some better “progressive” solution, like a sing-a-long or a hug.”
Agreed. If someone breaks into my home I’ll assume he’s there to do me harm. Putting the burden of proof on me, the VICTIM of a home invasion is insane. I’ve got a guy breaking in in the middle of the night and I’m burdened with making the determination of whether he intends to harm me or just steal my TV? I’m not a mind reader.
C’mon, he broke into my home! I think it’s safe to say he’s not there for milk & cookies.
‘in your mind how does a gun go from some “projectile launcher” to preventer of all things evil?’
It’s not a “preventer of all things evil” but it does increase my odds of avoiding harm via employment of an immediate & effective means of self-defense that launches lead projectiles at the person trying to harm me or my family.
A gun is a tool of defense among many.
In rules of engagement there is a continum of force. Iraqi flips you off, you wave. Iraqi tosses grenade, you throw down.
Same in self defense. I am more than willing to give a loud pushy drunk his face saving victory when I say, “you were right, I am sorry I looked at you funny”. No need for anyone to get scuffed up.
I have years of martial arts training with an intent to avoid a conflict, or use a minimum of force to stop it. No need to shoot or stab a doofus who thinks I need a rearrangement of facial features.
And I have home defense weapons, starting with a loud dog and a can of mace the size of a fire extinguisher.
But I reserve the right to defend my home from invasion with deadly force. If you are breaking in it is your choice. Everyone in the house sleeps upstairs. If you avoid coming to the second floor, you live. If not…
The gun is an answer, depending on what the question is.
All of that being said, I stand by my original statement.
Bad guys threatening you with harm so they can rob you or worse, deserve a lethal response.
Making citizens responsible for running away or giving up whatever the bad guy wants (like in Conneticut, they wanted the daughters) leads to the situation we have now.
Giving up your wallet to an armed robber is not an act of gallantry. Submission to rape to avoid harm only allows it to happen again to the next woman. When people decide it is better to fight back, we win. We outnumber the bad guys by a factor of 1000.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/homicidereport/2008/05/the-store-was-a.html
She gave the bad guys what they wanted. They shot her anyway.
If the next person shot back, maybe we would eventually run out of bad guys. Or we can try to understand their anger, give them job skills training and try being nice to them and see if that works.
No matter how badly the “progressives” want to believe otherwise, evil exists:
One day, a scorpion looked around at the mountain where he lived and decided that he wanted a change. So he set out on a journey through the forests and hills. He climbed over rocks and under vines and kept going until he reached a river.
The river was wide and swift, and the scorpion stopped to reconsider the situation. He couldn’t see any way across. So he ran upriver and then checked downriver, all the while thinking that he might have to turn back.
Suddenly, he saw a frog sitting in the rushes by the bank of the stream on the other side of the river. He decided to ask the frog for help getting across the stream.
“Hellooo Mr. Frog!” called the scorpion across the water, “Would you be so kind as to give me a ride on your back across the river?”
“Well now, Mr. Scorpion! How do I know that if I try to help you, you wont try to kill me?” asked the frog hesitantly.
“Because,” the scorpion replied, “If I try to kill you, then I would die too, for you see I cannot swim!”
Now this seemed to make sense to the frog. But he asked. “What about when I get close to the bank? You could still try to kill me and get back to the shore!”
“This is true,” agreed the scorpion, “But then I wouldn’t be able to get to the other side of the river!”
“Alright then…how do I know you wont just wait till we get to the other side and THEN kill me?” said the frog.
“Ahh…,” crooned the scorpion, “Because you see, once you’ve taken me to the other side of this river, I will be so grateful for your help, that it would hardly be fair to reward you with death, now would it?!”
So the frog agreed to take the scorpion across the river. He swam over to the bank and settled himself near the mud to pick up his passenger. The scorpion crawled onto the frog’s back, his sharp claws prickling into the frog’s soft hide, and the frog slid into the river. The muddy water swirled around them, but the frog stayed near the surface so the scorpion would not drown. He kicked strongly through the first half of the stream, his flippers paddling wildly against the current.
Halfway across the river, the frog suddenly felt a sharp sting in his back and, out of the corner of his eye, saw the scorpion remove his stinger from the frog’s back. A deadening numbness began to creep into his limbs.
“You fool!” croaked the frog, “Now we shall both die! Why on earth did you do that?”
The scorpion shrugged, and did a little jig on the drownings frog’s back.
“I could not help myself. It is my nature.”
Then they both sank into the muddy waters of the swiftly flowing river.
Self destruction – “Its my Nature”, said the Scorpion…
the fact that you cut and paste your points is well, pretty weak man
I guess I just don’t understand mr tough guy (verofitas) is how just because you have a gun you won’t be robbed, raped or murdered? Explain that one to me. The way you make your point so defiantley that IF you have said gun, well case closed you won’t be a victim.
Why do you need a gun to feel that way?
Have a gun, have more options.
No gun, I hope your combative skills are up to par.
There is no assured safety. Plenty of people still get attacked, even when armed. Cops die often even though they are armed. But being armed gives you more options. Anti-gunners want to deny people the option of being armed.
What if’s are a part of risk mitigation. Having the appropriate tool gives you a better chance of dealing with a situation. In North Carolina I had a hurricane kit with food, water and essential gear. That gave me better options than the people scrambling to the grocery store when the warnings went out.
If your risk mitigation does not include armed self defense, good for you. Mine does. The law should recognize that right, rather than trying to impede it.
On the contrary, self defense should be encouraged. Hard targets (people not willing to roll over and submit) makes the bad guy’s job harder. If more people were responsible for their own defense, perhaps there might be less need.
Why do you feel I should not have a gun?
Bottom line, who’s side are you on, the criminal or the law abiding citizen.?
If you think we should all be disarmed and rely on our inherent strength of arm or on the timely intervention of the police, then I have your answer. Bad guys love the idea of unarmed and passive victims.
Bottom line, who’s side are you on, the criminal or the law abiding citizen.?
You are wrong to frame the issue like that. It is a dishonest arguement. Who thinks like you do? wait, you do.
that is not the bottom line. Gee, take away your powers of cut/paste and you can’t even make an a salient point.
imagine after everything I say and ask, your comment is “oh yeah….well whose side are you on?” pretty weak especially for a mustang.
do you live in a constant state of fear or something. “watch out! the BAD GUYS are going to get you…boogity, boogity!”
“I guess I just don’t understand mr tough guy (verofitas) is how just because you have a gun you won’t be robbed, raped or murdered? Explain that one to me. The way you make your point so defiantley that IF you have said gun, well case closed you won’t be a victim. ”
Answered that point.
“Why do you need a gun to feel that way?”
Answered that point as part of the above answer (no assured safety).
“do you live in a constant state of fear or something. “watch out! the BAD GUYS are going to get you…boogity, boogity!”
Answered that in the concept of risk mitigation. You do not have to live in fear to prepare for danger.
What is your point?
“and if they had a gun all would be saved.
hooray, guns.
again, you can’t argue with you. You feel that a gun solves the problem. I disagree. That doesn’t mean I don’t think you CANNOT own a gun, but at the same time I don’t think a gun is the ANSWER to the problem.”
Again, a gun is one solution to a set of problems. There are other solutions, and guns are not a panacea. The actual panacea is citizens putting on their big girl panties and saying no to the worst of our society. That can be with actual punishments, shunning those who act in an anti-social manner, or shooting back. Simply saying here, take what you want is clearly not the answer to making the issue better.
And I was out of line with my either/or snark. We have different attitudes about the solution, but I am sure we both see criminality as a problem that must be dealt with. Nobody is on the side of the guy prying open the windows.
And an interesting note on the original topic of the posting, Heller’s pistol permit was rejected because DC says his 7 round semi-auto is a machinegun.
And people wonder why the guns guys like me are cranky. We have to deal with the bizzaro parallel universe SOME of the people on the other side live in.
Again, a gun is one solution to a set of problems. There are other solutions, and guns are not a panacea. The actual panacea is citizens putting on their big girl panties and saying no to the worst of our society. That can be with actual punishments, shunning those who act in an anti-social manner, or shooting back. Simply saying here, take what you want is clearly not the answer to making the issue better.
or rehab, but that’s just me, I also don’t think
throwing all of them in Jail is the solution…
also, can i call that a ‘non-apology’, post it on my blog, make fun of you in front of all my “anti’s in panties’ friends? 😛
kidding, no problem man. Its in your Officer DNA to talk down to people. 🙂
yes, I agree that is a stupid law…which is why I posted the thing. Dumb, pure stupidity.
Feel free to mock the Army guy. I know you still hurt from the 14-13 Army victory in ’95. Criminy what a game!
As for rehab, I am a firm believer in legalization and voluntary rehab. The drug war is stupid.
Were there a President “Veroferitas” my first executive order would be to end the war on drugs, immediately release all non-violent drug offenders, expunge their records and say we’re sorry.
Did we not learn anything from the Volstead Act?
I find it ironic that a registration scheme that is so much hassle has/will not encourage all the existing guns to be registered. Now the DC gov’t will not have any records of the existing guns
since there is no President V I take it there isn’t a mrs. v I take it…
There is a Mrs. V. I’m too old and too strait to be unmarried. I have to keep up my end of the carpool.
“Also, aren’t your possessions an extension of your life? You spent time working (time that could have been spent doing something else) in order to acquire those possessions”
Not only that but the time/effort you have to put back into replacing them…So really, you’re having to do at least twice the work/time for the same thing…
Sometimes the risk ends up being the penalty….that’s what risk is.
@DelawaresMostGivingInToCriminalsBlogger
“Delaware’s Toughest Blogger // Jul 17, 2008 at 2:34 pm
If enough 15 year old amateur burglars end up at room temperature, the alure of breaking and entering wanes
I rest my case people. How do you argue with that sort of logic.”
That is sound logic, you don’t argue with it.
@Vero…
Well done… I enjoyed reading every word. THEY can’t argue because they have no leg to stand on. Inside they new we’re right but just can’t bring themselves to admit it because that would be to admit that their entire ideology (or idiocy) is flawed.
Mustang eh…congrats on your switch to the dark side.
You’re absolutely right. It’s as stupid as registering keyboards. If you have a right, a right that can’t be infringed, why are they allowed to infringe on it? The politicians, police, and city government officials should all be arrested and charged with civil rights violations. It’s the same as if they reinstituted slavery and claimed it was ok, they were exempt from the Constitution.
I’ve asked them a few questions that they fail to answer..
1. Do you believe a life is worth protecting?
2. What would you do if a Bad Guy broke into your house and started to rape, stab, beat, etc. your son/daughter?
Simple questions. Still no answers.
DJK – The issue that I have been seeing here is not necessarily one of B & E. It is what do you do in a non-life-threatening situation. If someone is breaking into my home, I am going to fight them (to the death, if necessary).
But if I catch them breaking into my car to steal a radio, not so much.
What kind of radio do you have?
“DJK – The issue that I have been seeing here is not necessarily one of B & E. It is what do you do in a non-life-threatening situation. If someone is breaking into my home, I am going to fight them (to the death, if necessary).
But if I catch them breaking into my car to steal a radio, not so much.”
And shouldn’t you trust yourself (and your fellow citizens) to make those decisions on their own?
I guarantee you those who carry for protection in DE and other states know that you can’t shoot someone over property. Instructors do go over State self-defense laws in CCW classes.
2. What would you do if a Bad Guy broke into your house and started to rape, stab, beat, etc. your son/daughter?
Which daughter?
You would fight them? What if they had a gun? Wouldn’t you want to have the upper hand in your own home?
http://obama-exposed.blogspot.com/
“But if I catch them breaking into my car to steal a radio, not so much.”
You’ll just let them have those things. Then, they’re on to bigger and better….next it it’s a car. Next it’s a TV out of a house. Next it’s your wallet. Next it’s your life. If these scumbags go unchecked……it only gets worse. Stand up for yourselves. Property IS worth protecting.
Charlie Bronson was an actor, not a way of life.
I’m sure this wacko had the same feelings and beliefs.
Y’all talk about protection, which is all well and good, but the fervor appears to conflate into a wanting to kill.
Just because I am not going to use deadly force on the guy stealing my radio, doesn’t mean I’m going to sit idly by and let him do it. I am going to call the police and let the justice system do its job.
Now, let me guess your response… The justice system will just put them back on the street and they can then move up the chain from car burglar to BTK Killer, no?
Blah Blah Blah…He was the greatest kid…. My johnny would never do ***….
One of his heroes was Fifty Cent, a scumbag who makes his living talking about killing, raping, stealing, etc. But, everyone is willing to overlook any of that. He’s just a good wholesome kid, the greatest friend, etc. That’s because he wasn’t terrorizing those people.
We’re only getting one side of the story here. Maybe this kid didn’t need to get shot, maybe he did, we weren’t there. But, when/where does the disrespect of normal law abiding people stop??? Why is it ok for all these scumbag gangster kids to go around harassing and terrorizing and vandalizing?? Why is that all ok but protecting my house with force isn’t?
Von – A handful of such cases aren’t indicative of the attitudes or actions of the other 99.99% of gun owners.
And DJK – Many times what starts out as a simply burglary / home invasion turns worse. The criminal may just be there to steal your TV, but if you happen to see him you’re now a witness who’s dramatically increased his chances of being caught.
I always remember the interview John Stossel did with a group of violent inmates. One was in jail for multiple murders during a burglary. When stossel asked why he killed the whole family his answer was “Cuz they wuz home.”
All of those interviewed seemed pretty adamant that the thing that most worried them was the possibility of being shot by an intended victim, and many said they knew at least one colleague who had been shot by an intended victim.
Mugrage was shot while standing in the middle of the street in front of Martin’s house, with the first round grazing his chest area and the second round hitting him in the side and back, he said.
What “other side of the story” are you looking for? What could the kid have possibly said or done in the middle of the street that warranted his murder?
“Just because I am not going to use deadly force on the guy stealing my radio, doesn’t mean I’m going to sit idly by and let him do it. I am going to call the police and let the justice system do its job.”
The problem is this. In DE, since you can’t use deadly force to protect property you cannot even use your weapon in order to detain someone for stealing property. I could be wrong, but that’s my interpretation of Delaware Law, since drawing your weapon constitutes “deadly force.”
My point is that people are willing to let go all sorts of crimes that are committed by, “our greatest friend” or “My little Johnny”. As I said, this case might be wrongful, but that doesn’t take away that for whatever reason, these kids were on his property harassing him…. WHY DO THEY THINK THAT’S OK? Why has it gotten to the point where that is ok? I am acquainted with someone in background investigations…that person told me that they saw a case where a man committed aggravated rape on a minor and with a foreign object. Sentenced to 6 years……..suspended. WTF?? How do you walk on something like Aggravated Rape….on a minor…..with an object??
WHY ARE AMERICANS STANDING FOR THIS SHIT?? Where are the spines and the red blood of Americans anymore???
LG,
If you saw someone breaking in your car, the most likely response would be to yell at the burglar. If you did not have a weapon to hold in case he rushed you, you probably have baseball bat. Most people do yell and try to encourage the robber to flee. You may then call police, but the robber is long gone to prey on another.
Delaware law does not approve of deadly force for car theft. Now car jacking is considered a threat to your life so deadly force may be warranted.
People have caught a robber in their car and held him for police. The robber may have been roughed up.
The issue is whether we the citizens should take a proactive role in protecting our property or not. That depends on the person robbed. I would not recommend an 80 year old lady to confront a robber. A 35 year old man in good shape would have less risk.
Self defense with a weapon is mainly for home invasion and personal defense not property crimes.
Crime gets to be a problem when thieves get away with little or no risk. Each thief does many robberies so a single thief has a multiplier effect on crime. IF a single robber is locked up then that reduces dozens of crimes.
How apropos…
http://www.apple.com/trailers/magnolia/red/trailer/
Yes, there is bad stuff happening. My point is that shooting them in your front yard isn’t OK. You get no argument from me that a guy invading your home is asking for it. A guy invading your backyard is not.
We have guys here that want to stake out the backyard and sniper the guy stealing their shovels. I have issues with that. We can debate that all we want, but I’m inflexible on this point. I cannot be swayed.
Is Brian Cox in every movie these days?!?
😉
“What would you do if a Bad Guy broke into your house and started to rape, stab, beat, etc. your son/daughter?”
I’d say, “How did I wander into a gun-rights nut’s fantasy world?”
On the other hand, the one time someone did walk into my house, I didn’t have a gun. I walked out of the bedroom to find an extremely drunken young man who had entered the wrong apartment. Not having a gun, I dealth with him as best I could, explaining he was in the wrong apartment, etc., and after five minutes of cajoling (and holding him up), sent him on his way.
Had I had a gun, I imagine this “confrontation” might have gone far differently, because I have no idea how he might have reacted. Because I didn’t have one, I didn’t treat it as a confrontation at all.
It’s one thing to defend your right to own guns, which I uphold. It’s another to espouse your own paranoia about crime as a reasonable way for everyone else to live. To advise people to confront criminals goes beyond foolhardiness.
Al – you could have been the first guy in your building with a confirmed kill. Opportunity lost…
And my point is, it all starts somewhere.
And my point is that the death penalty, as meted out by individuals, should be defensive and not offensive.
Al – If you’d had a gun in that situation and the drunk, upon seeing you armed, had decided to try to attack you you would be within your legal rights to shoot him.
If some drunk ends up in my house by mistake I’m not going to shoot him just because he ended up in my doorway by mistake. By the way, how’d he get in? Did you just leave your door unlocked?
Had the guy who came into your house not been a disoriented drunk but some belligerent guy high on crack you might not be alive right now.
And if he had shot the guy, he might be a depressed alcoholic for killing an innocent man who had made an innocent, albeit drunken, mistake.
“And my point is that the death penalty, as meted out by individuals, should be defensive and not offensive.”
Agreed. 99.99% of the time it is defensive. For the extremely rare times where it’s not defensive……. well that’s what juries and the criminal justice system is for.
The Fear runs deep….
OH boy…paranoia?
Had I been in the same situation, my gun would have been tucked back into my pocket or waistband. I assume that was late at night. I wouldn’t answer my door at night without my gun in my pocket. They don’t know it’s there… but I do. Not paranoia, just preparedness.
Nobody EVER said to just shoot anyone that comes into your house!! But, we did say, BE PREPARED for the eventuality that someone chooses your home to burglarize, rob, or worse.
That youngster very well could have feigned drunkenness to get your guard down and then shot you. HE WAS IN YOUR HOUSE, BE PREPARED, that’s all.
If criminals aren’t confronted, they’ll keep on being criminals and their crimes will get worse and worse. Don’t go around bent on vigilantism, just be prepared. It’s simple.
There’s some sort of disconnect here where the liberals think that by “protecting our homes and loved ones” we mean, shoot anyone that looks at us funny.
“And if he had shot the guy, he might be a depressed alcoholic for killing an innocent man who had made an innocent, albeit drunken, mistake.”
Anyone who has to kill in self-defense is going to have serious difficulty dealing with the fact that they took the life of another, no matter how justified their actions were.
But in that hypothetical situation the drunk did not make an “innocent mistake” Mistakenly entering his home was an “innocent mistake” for the drunk. Attacking the homeowner would not be an “innocent mistake” and being drunk would not excuse such action.
liberalgeek // Jul 18, 2008 at 11:16 am
And if he had shot the guy, he might be a depressed alcoholic for killing an innocent man who had made an innocent, albeit drunken, mistake.
Are you kidding me?
But, why would he have shot him? surely not for no reason…if the guy attacked him or drew a gun on him….
MOST people don’t shoot other people for no reason…and surely I don’t advocate that at all…
But the courts sure seem to, as criminals walk every day after having shot someone or done a drive by or whatever…
“MOST people don’t shoot other people for no reason…and surely I don’t advocate that at all… ”
Those who do usually fit into 2 classes – Violent Criminals and Psychopaths. Psychopaths account for around 1% of the population, and they’re the types who would kill someone with a garden hose, or gas and a match just the same as they would with a gun. They also show no empathy or remorse when they kill other human beings, a trait that isn’t normal for the rest of humanity.
So… The drunk, upon seeing Al in what he assumes is his (the drunks kid) apartment, would have been within his perceived rights to attack Al, right?
Now, we certainly agree that the kid would have been wrong, but he didn’t know that. I’m chuckling right now thinking about the South Park episode when they go hunting. “He’s coming right at us! Bang!”
“That youngster very well could have feigned drunkenness to get your guard down and then shot you. HE WAS IN YOUR HOUSE, BE PREPARED, that’s all. ”
I was prepared. I don’t need a gun to be prepared. My point is that, unlike all your hypotheticals, this one actually happened. I also have chased down a drunk who cut the roof of my convertible on Main Street in Newark once, too. I was unarmed, he had a knife, but I chased him and stayed near him until police arrived. The next day he showed up at my door, sober, apologetic, with cash for me to repair the torn ragtop.
If you need a gun, fine. I’ll take my chances unarmed, thanks.
You’re not really saying it’s ok that the kid was in someone else’s house….because he was drunk? That isn’t excusable…and it’s certainly not anybody else’s fault. Now, it because someone else’s problem when he goes into their home whether he thinks it’s his own house or not.
In no instance would it have been within his (drunk kid) rights to attack anyone.
Al, I’m glad that your actual occurrences turned out ok… It isn’t always so. Sometimes people do bad things for the sake of doing bad things.
It’s nice to know that someone realized the err of their ways and had the balls to apologize and even pay reparations. But those are a minuscule amount of criminals, just like the rapacious shooters are a minuscule portion of CCW holders and other gun owners.
So now it’s OK to commit crimes, including entering someone else’s house and attacking them, as long as the excuse is “sorry, I was drunk?”
So if a drunk beats his wife half to death he can just use drunkeness as an excuse? How about rape? Is “sorry I was drunk” an excuse for that too? Man I wonder about some of you guys.
@MikeW. See…and they think our logic is flawed..
No. I’ll try to turn it around for you. Let’s assume that you are unarmed and you go out drinking. You come home and accidentally get off on the wrong floor, but you don’t know that…
So you go to the door that you think is yours and start to unlock it and realize that it is already unlocked! Oh my. Now you think someone must have broken into your apartment. So you walk in and there is 250 pounds of Al Mascitti standing in what you think is your living room. Would you attack him? Perhaps.
LG
There are cases where that has happened and the homeowner shot the intruder and it was declared self-defense, which it is. Personally I call it death by stupidity. It is a tragic, but it happens. If the situation can be handled without violence then that is great.
People die every day from stupidity. I have little sympathy for the drunken idiot who enters the wrong home and attacks the real homeowner.
I am glad AL has been successful in his anticrime activities. Really it is just a mindset that a person is not going to be a victim and put up with crime if he can help it. Not that you look out to police crime or be a superhero by looking for criminals. Just that if it happens where you happen to be, that you can take appropriate action. Like the English women that hit the robbers with a broom
I actually had it happen to me in college. I’d left my apartment door unlocked because my roommate was out and had left his keys at our place.
About 2AM the door opens and someone goes into the bathroom. I just assumed it was my roommate. It was not, some drunk chick had wandered into my room. She walked(kind of) right past me, mumbling and laid down in my bed. I finally had to call public safety because she was getting very uncooperative and loud, and wouldn’t leave. I felt bad but she was so incredibely drunk that I was worried about her.
At no time did I feel the least bit threatened by her, thus even if I’d had a gun in the situation I would not have been in danger of shooting her. but had it been a 250 lb. guy who had become violent and attacked me then yes, I would have feared for my life and acted accordingly.
Liberal Geek – can you cite ONE TIME where the hypothetical you suggest has EVER happened? There are plenty of armed folks living in collge towns, and yet somehow this doesn’t happen. Might it be that the homeowners/gun owners are perfectly capable of making rational decisions about the use of deadly force in defensive situations?
Do you not trust fellow citizens to make any decisions on their own behalf? And for that matter, if we’re uncapable of making the correct decisions what makes cops so special? They arrive, armed with guns, to volatile scenes where they have far less info on the situation than the victim, yet they’re able to make sound decisions on the use of deadly force.
AL MASCITTI WEIGHS 250?
you better watch it or you are gonna get sued
Al and the guy in my hypothetical weigh the same! OH MY GOD, I’M GONNA GET SUED NOW!…….for what exactly?
I am sure that it would be self-defense. Not exactly the point. My point is that there are quite logical reasons that people can make mistakes that can be misinterpreted. If Al had been living the “be prepared to use lethal force” life, that mistake would have gone from “My bad. Sorry, dude.” to “He’s coming right at me! Bang!”
And if you start at “It all starts somewhere” you end up with a dead guy on the floor of your living room. Because it is your job to teach all of the bad guys what the price of crime is.
Sheesh, this conversation is wearing me out. I’m not anti-gun. I’m anti-shootout-at-the-OK-Corral.
“If Al had been living the “be prepared to use lethal force” life, that mistake would have gone from “My bad. Sorry, dude.” to “He’s coming right at me! Bang!”
not WOULD have, COULD have. It’s called discretion.
“prepared to use deadly force” is not the same as “prepared to go on shootouts and be gung-ho about shooting people”
Also, liberty involves risk. Risk includes the possibility of making mistakes, even fatal ones.
What I’m saying is that it should be up to me, a citizen, to make that decision on my own….not to have to call the police, wait 30 minutes, and then maybe get it all figured out. I might not be alive anymore to do any figuring. I can be counted on to be rational in my decision to use lethal force or any force at all.
What we’re seeing is that the government doesn’t think we can make those choices on our own and need their enlightened assistance to do so. Why can’t I choose for myself? If I shoot someone or punch someone and it’s not warranted….rest assured that I’ll get punished far worse than some career criminals get punished for worse.
http://fortworthdrinkspecials.blogspot.com/2005/10/home-invasion-downgraded-to-drunken.html
That seemed pretty close…
http://www.wkyt.com/home/headlines/18361444.html
And that may be the real thing, but it is a little different.
Close, but he didn’t shoot the guy.
Are you saying that my scenario is implausible? I don’t see why it would be. It is no less plausible than some of the very scenarios that have been presented. Mine just shows how one man’s home invasion can be another man’s foiled robbery.
If you start with:
You end up shooting the guy.
DJK,
It is up to you. The concept of self-defense is accepted in most states. There will be an investigation to verify if it is a valid self-defense. LG agrees with self-defense. He is just concerned about using self-defense to go Rambo.
DC is one of the few that did not allow handguns in the home. Most states have no issue with castle doctrine. A lot of states have affirmed that with the “stand my ground” laws. I would like more states to do that to protect victims from being sued by the criminals and the presumption of self-defense unless the investigation shows otherwise.
I am sure you agree that we do not want to use deadly force for innocent transgressions.
We reserve that for when we truly need it. The fear that deadly force will be used or abused is real. That is why all the cries of “blood will run in the streets” when CCW was debated in the states. Reality has shown that CCW holders are much more circumspect and that CCW people do not shoot people inappropriately.
I agree with you DJK but LG is not an opponent by his postings. He just has a few questions.
Shit can go wrong in any situation. You could pull over to change a flat, get hit by a car and die, but that doesn’t mean you forgo being prepared. You still carry the tools to change a flat.
You could die trying to put out a fire in your house. That doesn’t mean you don’t keep a fire extinguisher in the house or that you don’t bother trying to put out the fire if one occurs.
Wearing a seatbelt could trap you in the car and prove deadly in a crash, but most of the time It’ll save your life. You don’t forgo wearing one because of the miniscule chance it’ll hurt you rather than help you when you need it.
We expose ourselves to risk all the time, understanding that in some really screwed up situation things could go wrong. That’s life.
Gotcha RAH. I just don’t know where the RAMBO shit comes from. You know, they always say that the Pro Gunners are gonna “go rambo” or “Blood will run in the streets”. But, it’s just not true.
Blood is already running in the streets and it’s because of robbers, thieves, killers, rapists, gangsters, drug dealers, etc. etc…. Not because of lawful gun owners or CCW holders.
Risk is part of life. Criminals risk injury,imprisonment and death from their actions. We have lots of risk but we can manage that risk .
I know DJK but we are trying to convince those who suffer from PSH to trust Americans who carry are not going to go Rambo. I am not sympathetic to criminals. On the other hand I will not seek them out. They try to invade my home they may get a rude surprise. I have a shephard who thinks it her duty to guard everything. That is my first line of defense.
If a drunk stranger came into my house uninvited he would probably run from the dog first . That would give me plenty of time to be armed and ready.
LG is sympathetic to self defense just checking out scenarios.
That is why it is tragic stupidity that a drunk invades a house. He can get attacked by dogs and the homeowner even if it is an innocent stupidity.
The obvious solution to the issue of drunken wanderers is to ban alcohol. After all:
a. Banning things works so well and
b. I happen to be anti-alcohol and I think fewer drunks is a swell idea (around half of all car fatalities and murders are alcohol related). Banning alcohol, in theory, should cut down violent death by way more than a gun ban.
Hooray for banning.
A criminal cannot be charged with failure to comply with registration law since such compliance would violate his 5th Amendment rights.
The dirty little secret in DC is that the really smart honest folks have been ignoring the gun law for decades. It is a rare cop who will worry about such ‘crimes’. While the odds favor the ‘good guys’, should we trust to the arbitrary and capricious judgement of a police officer? While arrests for simple ‘illegal possession’ are rare, they can occur when there is an act of successful self defense and a zealous prosecutor wants to score some points.
How many remember the case when liberal columnist Carl Rowan shot a kid skninny-dipping in his pool in an upscale neighborhood? Liberal hypocrisy is not a crime and the gun was provided by a dutiful and caring son (who was an FBI agent and did not share many of his father’s views).
Note that soon after the District passed its silly gun laws, it went to court to claim that individuals should not expect the police to protect them from criminals and that was an individual responsibility.
Check Warren v District of Columbia if you doubt the claim.
“A criminal cannot be charged with failure to comply with registration law since such compliance would violate his 5th Amendment rights.”
An extremely good point that I’d failed to mention. Then again, those unsympathetic towards one Constitutional right generally aren’t sympathetic towards others either. I’ve seen many “liberals” eager to throw other Constitutional rights under the bus when the cause is “getting guns off the streets.”
Oh look. The murder rate is up 18% in “Gun Free” Chicago in the last 7 months. IMPOSSIBLE! They banned handguns, and no one in the state can carry a weapon legally!
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-chicago-murders-upaug07,0,260187.story