Originally Posted by BigAls87Z28
First off, no one is above the law and its still illegal to kill someone, no matter what it is. Only in Texas is it ok to protect yourself, and only in your "castle".
it is perfectly legal to kill someone if you are "in fear of your life" within your home. Texas and Florida both have the "castle doctrine". In Texas it can also cover protecting others. For example, in Texas if you saw someone pull a gun on someone else, you are legally allowed to draw and fire on that person.
What if others had guns? So then it turns into a shoot out with untrained amatures with big guns, shooting at eachother? (who's to say the "good guys" are untrained?) whos the bad guy? Whos the good guy? How many MORE people die? No one is above the law, and no one there has the right to kill another human. If my life is in danger, I should be allowed to take whatever action I can to preserve it. I have unalienable rights same as the next person. life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The cops had guns, and the guy killed a half dozen without a single shot fired by trained professionals. So if cops, an organized group of law enforcement officers didnt fire a single round to end it, what gives regular people the right to do so? the police were not in the building with the shooter, they arrived to a possible hostage situation. entering the building would only put the possible hostages at risk. its a very bad situation all around. I'm sure if the police were able to get a shot off at the gunman, they would have. And whos to say that people will be ok mentally about taking another life? COD video games are one thing, but in real life, could you? Sure, you can say it now, but Im sure that anyone here that has taken a life has had training. Your average member here would hesitate at teh moment and would end up dying themselves. that is up to each individual to decide for themselves. if you feel you wouldn't be able to take a life to save your own or someone elses, dont carry a gun. its really that simple. why would someone carry a gun if they had no intention of using it to defend themselves?
Look, Im just playing the aspect of the anti-gun person. I belive that everyoen has the right to own a gun. I dont belive that everyone needs to CARRY the damn thing, or that people need sub machine guns with drums of ammo. I dont see the need to have a .50 sniper rifle be legalized. you're right, not everyone needs to carry a gun, but that shouldn't mean the people that want to should be denied. I dont really have a solid opinion about submachine guns, I dont see the purpose of having one, but who am I to tell someone what they can buy with their money. Same goes for .50 caliber rifles. I do think its pretty trivial to have magazine capacity restrictions for hand guns and semi auto rifles. Mag capacity isn't gonna save anyones life and you're a fool if you think otherwise. it takes seconds to change a mag, and with all the citizens being unarmed, there is no one to shoot at the gunman while their reloading. I belive in a reformed gun control, and that people should be educated and not just be shunned. But gun control is like sex education, there is general idea of how things are done, but not one is really sure what the hell is going on.
It leads to a larger and greater problem.
IMO, if it was Pres Big Al at the podium, gun control would be on the back burner for a long time. Gun contorl is a distraction issue IMO. No one will take them away 100%, but no one is gunna give you 100% access to everything.
It will be in the gray area forever. Education is 10003403284032804 more important then the right to own a AR-15 with a 50 round drum with night vision, supressor, and colapsable stock.whats the big deal about collapsible stocks anyway? it doesnt make the weapon any more lethal than it is with a fixed stock...
|