P
Pfaffenhoffen
Guest
Sorry, just out of curiosity, what pleasure do you get in insulting people?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Do you really believe the number of gun owners in the US is the same as the number of guns?Interesting Web site … more guns than cars:
To enforce the law.I have seen this sentence written often. Then why does police exist?
Because those that violate the law may well be armed.Why are they armed?
Because it is a dangerous job.Why they are killed every year?
Generally speaking, criminals are cowards.Guns make you feel safe. But are really safe if everybody has got guns? The other will shoot you before you have time to think on taking your gun…That is what I do not understand why people do not see this, what can be seen in the News everyday…
They will not chance an encounter with an armed victim when they know another to be unarmed.
C
Corki
Guest
Good point. Most gun owners that have protection in mind are trying to protect home and family at home. It is very rare that someone breaks into a house intending bodily harm. Break-ins are almost always for the purpose of theft but a thief will hurt anyone that they see as a threat during the commission of a crime. However, if given the chance, a thief will almost always run rather than fight if faced with an armed homeowner.Generally speaking, criminals are cowards.
They will not chance an encounter with an armed victim when they know another to be unarmed.
J
jwinch2
Guest
None. But I do enjoy pointing out hypocrisy such as that of you calling people stupid, etc. and then later complaining about being insulted.Sorry, just out of curiosity, what pleasure do you get in insulting people?
I also enjoy pointing out logical fallacies when they are proposed as you have done repeatedly. Overwhelmingly, the scientific data on this subject fails to support your conclusions yet you continue to spout them and create informal fallacies and straw man arguments in a blatant attempt to misrepresent the position you are trying to counter.
Finally, your arguments and positions are not even supported by Church teaching which is quite clear that individuals have the right of self defense and in some cases an ethical obligation to take non-innocent life in the defense of innocent life. The simple fact that you fail to counter my or anyone else’s arguments, despite the fact that you distort the opinions you are attempting to refute, is a ringing testament to your lack of knowledge on the subject at hand.
I cannot decide whether or not: A) you do this intentionally, in which case you are behaving like a spoiled child and I am done conversing with you; B) you do this intentionally, in which case we are wasting our time as you are obviously not capable of grasping the situation at hand and I am done conversing with you; or C) you don’t care either way and have not bothered to look and critically analyze any of the significant amount of data that has been presented refuting your claims, in which case you are trolling the forum and I am done conversing with you.
Either way, the engagement of conversation between you and I is finished. I am blocking your account from my view. You may reply all you like, it will fall on deaf ears as I will never see it.
G
George_Stegmeir
Guest
I thought you were not going to further embarass yourself on this thread. I do not enjoy insulting people who know what they are talking about, only those who argue for arguments sake and who are prejudiced and abysmally ignorant about the subject.Sorry, just out of curiosity, what pleasure do you get in insulting people?
I only insult idiots only when they earn it. There is an old Bavarian expression: “Ein schmuck bleibt ein schmuck”—Once a schmuck, always a schmuck.
P
Pfaffenhoffen
Guest
An example of pure hate. What can you do? Nothing.None. But I do enjoy pointing out hypocrisy such as that of you calling people stupid, etc. and then later complaining about being insulted.
I also enjoy pointing out logical fallacies when they are proposed as you have done repeatedly. Overwhelmingly, the scientific data on this subject fails to support your conclusions yet you continue to spout them and create informal fallacies and straw man arguments in a blatant attempt to misrepresent the position you are trying to counter.
Finally, your arguments and positions are not even supported by Church teaching which is quite clear that individuals have the right of self defense and in some cases an ethical obligation to take non-innocent life in the defense of innocent life. The simple fact that you fail to counter my or anyone else’s arguments, despite the fact that you distort the opinions you are attempting to refute, is a ringing testament to your lack of knowledge on the subject at hand.
I cannot decide whether or not: A) you do this intentionally, in which case you are behaving like a spoiled child and I am done conversing with you; B) you do this intentionally, in which case we are wasting our time as you are obviously not capable of grasping the situation at hand and I am done conversing with you; or C) you don’t care either way and have not bothered to look and critically analyze any of the significant amount of data that has been presented refuting your claims, in which case you are trolling the forum and I am done conversing with you.
Either way, the engagement of conversation between you and I is finished. I am blocking your account from my view. You may reply all you like, it will fall on deaf ears as I will never see it.
P
Pfaffenhoffen
Guest
No, they are not. They just use a heavier weaponry that the peron in the house has got.Generally speaking, criminals are cowards.
They will not chance an encounter with an armed victim when they know another to be unarmed.
P
Pfaffenhoffen
Guest
I understood. thanksI thought you were not going to further embarass yourself on this thread. I do not enjoy insulting people who know what they are talking about, only those who argue for arguments sake and who are prejudiced and abysmally ignorant about the subject.
I only insult idiots only when they earn it. There is an old Bavarian expression: “Ein schmuck bleibt ein schmuck”—Once a schmuck, always a schmuck.
P
Pfaffenhoffen
Guest
The question comes from behind.To enforce the law.
Because those that violate the law may well be armed.
Because it is a dangerous job.
If the police is not there to defend people but people have to defend themselves the police is useless and what they are doing makes no sense. The armed forces either according to the 2nd amendment, which states clearly to defend the state.
P
Pfaffenhoffen
Guest
Where people are unarmed, and I point out that I am talking about the States, there is less of the scenario you described.Good point. Most gun owners that have protection in mind are trying to protect home and family at home. It is very rare that someone breaks into a house intending bodily harm. Break-ins are almost always for the purpose of theft but a thief will hurt anyone that they see as a threat during the commission of a crime. However, if given the chance, a thief will almost always run rather than fight if faced with an armed homeowner.
Historic record shows that not to be the case.No, they are not. They just use a heavier weaponry that the peron in the house has got.
Where people are unarmed, the criminal element is not.Where people are unarmed, and I point out that I am talking about the States, there is less of the scenario you described.
?The question comes from behind.
As was stated, the police are there to enforce the law.If the police is not there to defend people but people have to defend themselves the police is useless and what they are doing makes no sense.
This enforcement may or may not include defending the people.
Further, a police response is reactive, not proactive.
In dealing with criminals, I would much rather a proactive response then a reactive one.
You do not believe defending the free people of a free state is defense of the state?The armed forces either according to the 2nd amendment, which states clearly to defend the state.
M
marine13
Guest
I really wasn’t intending to jump into this thread but your posts are becoming more and more illogical and ridiculous that I now feel compelled to address what you are saying.The question comes from behind.
If the police is not there to defend people but people have to defend themselves the police is useless and what they are doing makes no sense. The armed forces either according to the 2nd amendment, which states clearly to defend the state.
I am a cop and “former” Marine and I believe that every law abiding citizen of the US should own a gun if they so chose. You say that if the police are not there to defend people then they serve no purpose. Have you thought that statement through? Police can’t be everywhere at once. Surely you know this. While it would be great to have a personal police officer guarding every street 24 hours a day it simply isn’t reality. In my county the officer to citizen ratio is about 1 per every 1500. And that is a pretty good ratio. How can you realisitically believe that one officer can be at each of those homes at once in order to actively defend them from a potential criminal attack. They can’t. Police, here in the USA and in your country and everywhere else in the world are a reactionary force. They receive a call for service and they respond. It is very rare for us to catch a criminal in the act. Because of this I believe it is very wise for individual citizens to arm themselves in order to protect themselves and the people they love and care for.
But according to you if they police can’t be everywhere at once then they should be disbanded… okay, fine. If that is want you want then you tell your police that they should never respond to your home or place of business because they serve no purpose. You don’t believe in gun ownership and don’t believe in police… I would hate to see what would happen to you if you were attacked by someone.
2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (emphasis added)
This does not simply mean that only the state, as a political body has the right to defend itself. This means that the state has the right to organize and regulate a militia if they choose and that the people (individual citizens) have the right to own weapons (specifically guns).
You clearly show a lack of understanding of the US constitution, law enforcement, and why we believe we have the right to defend ourselves. If you want to be taken seriously in this forum and regain some credibility I suggest you educate yourself on these topics before posting here again.
J
Jeremiah1278
Guest
Marine13, thanks for your thoughts.
Pffafenhoffen, the meaning of the Second Amendment and this debate over whether it is an individual right had been going on for a very long time without guidance from the Supreme Court. Recently, the Supreme Court finally weighed in on the topic and has settled this debate. The Second Amendement includes an individual right to bear arms and to use the arms for lawful purposes such as defending yourself in your home. The Heller case has settled this. The clause in the 2d Amendment that Marine13 discusses clearly defines an individual right. And the Supreme Court looked very closely at that clause to determine that the Founders intended to protect the individual’s right to keep their own firearms. As they were drawing up the the Bill of Rights they were worried that the a Federal Government could pass laws disarming a citizen’s militia. To prevent that from every happening the included this 2d Amendment to ensure that the individual will always have the right to be armed and could form a citizen’s militia with other individuals. They also looked at the writings of scholars and courts and legislators immediately after the 2d Amendment and determined that all of those folks discussed it as an individual right. Just to be clear: it’s not saying you can own a gun if you form a citizen’s militia. It’s saying you have an individual right to bear arms—a right that is ancient. But also, if you wanted to form a citizen’s militia, don’t worry—you will always be able to because you each have an individual right to possess the means to defend yourselves and the government can make no law to infringe that right. So you can form those militias if you need to, because you have this fundamental individual right.
If you look at how this was applied to the handgun ban in Heller, you will see better whay the amendment means. In Heller, Washington D.C. banned all handguns. The Court determined that this violated the 2D Amendment because (1) all individuals have the right to bear arms for lawful purposes; (2) defending yourself in your home is a lawful purpose; and (3) the handgun is a class of arm that is most overwhelmingly useful in defending yourself in the home. Passing a law that bans the one type of firearm that is most useful to the most lawful use of a firearm (defending yourself in your home) goes against everything the individual right is about.
To even better understand this individual right, you should view this right as ancient and necessary for survival of humans. If we were in a post-apocalyptic zombie world and lived in a state where we had no right to bear arms, you would be in violation of the law if you obtained a gun to protect yourself from zombies. That should, in your gut, be absolutely ridiculous. How could you not let your citizenry arm themselves from the Hoard in their own homes? It’s basic to their human existence. They cannot enjoy their liberty without this individual right because the Hoard would consume them as there is no working police or military to protect the individual. It would be an unjust law leading to the deaths of all the law-abiding citizens. Only the law-breaking citizens would be able to survive. Now, zombies are not real. But really terrible, gang filled neighborhoods in Chicago and Washington D.C., etc. are real. People should be able to defend themselves in their homes from these criminals. There are many examples in my neck of the woods of law-breaking citizens (Chicago had a gun-ban on the books too) protecting themselves successfully with handguns. They shouldn’t need to risk imprisonment just to act on the basic instinct to protect themselves from the gangs and the other criminals in these neighborhoods. In fact, I find it sort of elitist to suggest that “we” don’t need protection because the police is there for us. That’s only possibly true for those of us living in well-off communities. The truth is, there are areas of Chicago that the police don’t even stroll through. Those folks are on their own.******
Pffafenhoffen, the meaning of the Second Amendment and this debate over whether it is an individual right had been going on for a very long time without guidance from the Supreme Court. Recently, the Supreme Court finally weighed in on the topic and has settled this debate. The Second Amendement includes an individual right to bear arms and to use the arms for lawful purposes such as defending yourself in your home. The Heller case has settled this. The clause in the 2d Amendment that Marine13 discusses clearly defines an individual right. And the Supreme Court looked very closely at that clause to determine that the Founders intended to protect the individual’s right to keep their own firearms. As they were drawing up the the Bill of Rights they were worried that the a Federal Government could pass laws disarming a citizen’s militia. To prevent that from every happening the included this 2d Amendment to ensure that the individual will always have the right to be armed and could form a citizen’s militia with other individuals. They also looked at the writings of scholars and courts and legislators immediately after the 2d Amendment and determined that all of those folks discussed it as an individual right. Just to be clear: it’s not saying you can own a gun if you form a citizen’s militia. It’s saying you have an individual right to bear arms—a right that is ancient. But also, if you wanted to form a citizen’s militia, don’t worry—you will always be able to because you each have an individual right to possess the means to defend yourselves and the government can make no law to infringe that right. So you can form those militias if you need to, because you have this fundamental individual right.
If you look at how this was applied to the handgun ban in Heller, you will see better whay the amendment means. In Heller, Washington D.C. banned all handguns. The Court determined that this violated the 2D Amendment because (1) all individuals have the right to bear arms for lawful purposes; (2) defending yourself in your home is a lawful purpose; and (3) the handgun is a class of arm that is most overwhelmingly useful in defending yourself in the home. Passing a law that bans the one type of firearm that is most useful to the most lawful use of a firearm (defending yourself in your home) goes against everything the individual right is about.
To even better understand this individual right, you should view this right as ancient and necessary for survival of humans. If we were in a post-apocalyptic zombie world and lived in a state where we had no right to bear arms, you would be in violation of the law if you obtained a gun to protect yourself from zombies. That should, in your gut, be absolutely ridiculous. How could you not let your citizenry arm themselves from the Hoard in their own homes? It’s basic to their human existence. They cannot enjoy their liberty without this individual right because the Hoard would consume them as there is no working police or military to protect the individual. It would be an unjust law leading to the deaths of all the law-abiding citizens. Only the law-breaking citizens would be able to survive. Now, zombies are not real. But really terrible, gang filled neighborhoods in Chicago and Washington D.C., etc. are real. People should be able to defend themselves in their homes from these criminals. There are many examples in my neck of the woods of law-breaking citizens (Chicago had a gun-ban on the books too) protecting themselves successfully with handguns. They shouldn’t need to risk imprisonment just to act on the basic instinct to protect themselves from the gangs and the other criminals in these neighborhoods. In fact, I find it sort of elitist to suggest that “we” don’t need protection because the police is there for us. That’s only possibly true for those of us living in well-off communities. The truth is, there are areas of Chicago that the police don’t even stroll through. Those folks are on their own.******
- Status
- Not open for further replies.