• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Teen shot to death during home invasion

a777pilot said:
That is, in all likelihood, what he means. Maybe he carries a Ruger(.380) LCP.


p.s., There is no such thing as a "small gun" that has the capability to kill.
Click to expand...

I should have said "compact" :mrgreen:
 
a777pilot said:
That is, in all likelihood, what he means. Maybe he carries a Ruger(.380) LCP.


p.s., There is no such thing as a "small gun" that has the capability to kill.
Click to expand...



There are a lot of dead people, shot with .22s and .380s, who would disagree with you there. A .38 snub is a small gun and can certain kill with correct shot placement.

Having said that, I favor a .38+P or 9mm as a minimum and prefer calibers that start with .40; I have a .40 compact pocket gun that has served me well.

In my state, if someone breaks into your house you have the legal right to shoot them dead, and normally the police won't even take you downtown afterward if it looks like a rightous shoot.

If someone breaks into my house, they've pretty much signed their death warrant. I have no notion of asking them their intentions or waiting to ascertain whether they mean me harm...the B&E is sufficient. Waiting to see what they really want is a good way to get your loved ones killed.

I live my life within arm's reach of a gun, at home or away, usually a pistol though I have rifles and shotguns also. I've seen the aftermath of too many violent crimes to trust to the benevolence of my fellow man and the forebearance of reptiles, let alone to luck.





G.
 
Goshin said:
There are a lot of dead people, shot with .22s and .380s, who would disagree with you there. A .38 snub is a small gun and can certain kill with correct shot placement.

Having said that, I favor a .38+P or 9mm as a minimum and prefer calibers that start with .40; I have a .40 compact pocket gun that has served me well.

In my state, if someone breaks into your house you have the legal right to shoot them dead, and normally the police won't even take you downtown afterward if it looks like a rightous shoot.

If someone breaks into my house, they've pretty much signed their death warrant. I have no notion of asking them their intentions or waiting to ascertain whether they mean me harm...the B&E is sufficient. Waiting to see what they really want is a good way to get your loved ones killed.

I live my life within arm's reach of a gun, at home or away, usually a pistol though I have rifles and shotguns also. I've seen the aftermath of too many violent crimes to trust to the benevolence of my fellow man and the forebearance of reptiles, let alone to luck.





G.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you at all. Please re-read my post.

I have a very nice Ruger (380) LCP. I like it. But for my ultimate home defense, other than my attitude, I have a Remington 20 inch barrel pump 12 guage shotgun loaded with seven rounds of flechettes. I am a Marine and believe fully in the over use of extreme force......if force is to be used at all.
 
a777pilot said:
I don't disagree with you at all. Please re-read my post.

I have a very nice Ruger (380) LCP. I like it. But for my ultimate home defense, other than my attitude, I have a Remington 20 inch barrel pump 12 guage shotgun loaded with seven rounds of flechettes. I am a Marine and believe fully in the over use of extreme force......if force is to be used at all.
Click to expand...


I like my 12-gauge too, and my assault rifles. Given a few seconds to pop open the gunsafe, that's what I'd go for to repel home invaders. (Overpenetration doesn't worry me much, I live out in the woods.) Pistols are handy, though, because they're handy. I can carry a compact 9 or .40 on me all the time...but for some reason people get excited when I go to Wal-Mart with an M4 on my shoulder. :mrgreen:

Not to start an argument, but your statement was:

That is, in all likelihood, what he means. Maybe he carries a Ruger(.380) LCP.


p.s., There is no such thing as a "small gun" that has the capability to kill.
Click to expand...

If you were getting philosophical and meant "guns don't kill, people do", okay then. It sounded literally like you were saying you can't kill someone with a .380ACP, which is patently erroneous.

Don't get me wrong, a .380 isn't much of a weapon and I don't care for anything smaller than a .38sp+P Hydroshock, but you can kill someone with small caliber pistols.

How did I misunderstand you, then? :shrug:
 
Dav said:
I'm sorry but how do you turn

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Into

"Drug use is a right; drugs can't be illegal."

?
Click to expand...

The Ninth Amendment states that the BoR is not an exhaustive listing of rights. No where in the Constitution is the government given the authority to dictate what people are allowed to ingest. Pretty simple.

The Ninth Amendment was put there to ensure that CONSTITUTIONAL rights are not the ONLY rights.
Click to expand...

No, the Ninth Amendment was created so people wouldn't try to "disparage or deny other rights retained by the people." AKA unenumerated rights.

It's funny how it's been interpreted to be the reverse of what was intended- now, apparently, all rights are Constitutional, and the judicial branch can make up any BS "right" it wants to and say it is "unenumerated". It even makes clear that the rights are "retained by the people"- not the Federal Government.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, could you explain the difference between a Constitutional right and a non-Constitutional right?

I understand the rationale against Federal drug laws, but for drug use to be a right that even state and local laws can't restrict?
Click to expand...

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819.

Jefferson on Politics & Government: Inalienable Rights
 
Ethereal said:
The Ninth Amendment states that the BoR is not an exhaustive listing of rights. No where in the Constitution is the government given the authority to dictate what people are allowed to ingest. Pretty simple.

Jefferson on Politics & Government: Inalienable Rights
Click to expand...


During alcohol Prohibition of the 20's and 30's, the government knew and admitted that they had no such authority and had to pass a Constitutional Amendment to give theirself that power.

Nowadays they just ignore the Constitution whenever it is inconvenient.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
Most notably, while the 9th states that there are rights other than those noted in the Constitution, it does NOT prescribe any degree of protection for those rights.
Click to expand...

Rights are rights. They are inalienable by their very nature.

And so, while yo may very well have some right to use drugs, nothing in the Constitution prevents the government from restricting that right.
Click to expand...

Only to a certain extent. Regulating the use thereof is a reasonable assumption, but criminalizing the act in its most basic form is certainly an unjust infringement that falls outside the bounds of acceptable government conduct.
 
Last edited:
Ethereal said:
The Ninth Amendment states that the BoR is not an exhaustive listing of rights. No where in the Constitution is the government given the authority to dictate what people are allowed to ingest. Pretty simple.
Click to expand...

The constitution doesn't say anything about wearing clothing either. Yet there are all sorts of laws banning nudity, both in public and on private property.

..
 
Goshin said:
I like my 12-gauge too, and my assault rifles. Given a few seconds to pop open the gunsafe, that's what I'd go for to repel home invaders. (Overpenetration doesn't worry me much, I live out in the woods.) Pistols are handy, though, because they're handy. I can carry a compact 9 or .40 on me all the time...but for some reason people get excited when I go to Wal-Mart with an M4 on my shoulder. :mrgreen:

Not to start an argument, but your statement was:



If you were getting philosophical and meant "guns don't kill, people do", okay then. It sounded literally like you were saying you can't kill someone with a .380ACP, which is patently erroneous.

Don't get me wrong, a .380 isn't much of a weapon and I don't care for anything smaller than a .38sp+P Hydroshock, but you can kill someone with small caliber pistols.

How did I misunderstand you, then? :shrug:
Click to expand...


I meant Exactually what I said: There is no such thing as a small gun that has the capability to kill. I've been on the receiving end of a few weapons in my day. I am here to tell you that a .45 looks like an eight inch naval gun when it is close and pointed at you. Even a .22 is a "big" gun when it is pointed right at you.

What I said I meant. What I was referring to is that the poster had meant to say compact weapon vice small gun. Even my LCP is a formidable weapon in the right hands.

I have no problems with guns. Lived with and by them all my life. I was referring to a choice of a word....not the choice of the weapon.
 
Grateful Heart said:
The constitution doesn't say anything about wearing clothing either. Yet there are all sorts of laws banning nudity, both in public and on private property.

..
Click to expand...


True enough, but now show me where there is a Federal Law that out laws nudity on private property. I doubt there is any Federal Law that tells a State what they can or cannot do within their on borders with regards to nudity.

Am I wrong?
 
a777pilot said:
I meant Exactually what I said: There is no such thing as a small gun that has the capability to kill. I've been on the receiving end of a few weapons in my day. I am here to tell you that a .45 looks like an eight inch naval gun when it is close and pointed at you. Even a .22 is a "big" gun when it is pointed right at you.

What I said I meant. What I was referring to is that the poster had meant to say compact weapon vice small gun. Even my LCP is a formidable weapon in the right hands.

I have no problems with guns. Lived with and by them all my life. I was referring to a choice of a word....not the choice of the weapon.
Click to expand...


Bro, I've been on the recieving end of fire myself, and I know whereof you speak. I don't care if it's a crappy little HiPoint .22, I don't want to get shot with it. :mrgreen:

I don't really get why "small" vs "compact" was such an important distinction, but okay.
 
Grateful Heart said:
The constitution doesn't say anything about wearing clothing either. Yet there are all sorts of laws banning nudity, both in public and on private property.

..
Click to expand...

Regulation in the public domain is perfectly acceptable. It's when the government tries to insert itself into the private life of individuals that such actions become unacceptable.
 
Goshin said:
Bro, I've been on the recieving end of fire myself, and I know whereof you speak. I don't care if it's a crappy little HiPoint .22, I don't want to get shot with it. :mrgreen:

I don't really get why "small" vs "compact" was such an important distinction, but okay.
Click to expand...

No big deal. The word "small" sort of gave the connotation of a "toy". Besides that I am home alone and needed something to argue about this fine hot afternoon.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
:lol: sarcasm is lost on this one.....
Click to expand...

Yeah I was actually trying to have a decent discussion. Wrong time, wrong place for for sarcasm, especially since sarcasm doesn't come across well through text.
 
Jerry said:
Yeah I was actually trying to have a decent discussion. Wrong time, wrong place for for sarcasm, especially since sarcasm doesn't come across well through text.
Click to expand...




:lol: you'll get over it. :ssst:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Stupid hurts.... This time it cost this kid his life. The homeowner I am sure is feeling like crap, but he did the right thing.... This is a sad story all around...
Click to expand...

To think some people here are calling for these things to be legalized...personally im sickened by the thought.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Stupid hurts.... This time it cost this kid his life. The homeowner I am sure is feeling like crap, but he did the right thing.... This is a sad story all around...
Click to expand...

If the kid thought he was in his own home then I doubt the gun wielding home owner was in much danger. All we have here is another example of how misunderstandings become tragedies when firearms are involved.
 
WillRockwell said:

If the kid thought he was in his own home then I doubt the gun wielding home owner was in much danger. All we have here is another example of how misunderstandings become tragedies when firearms are involved.
Click to expand...

However, the home owner didn't know that. Are you suggesting that a home owner's first reaction to a break in is that the person breaking in made an honest mistake?

We have to cleanse the gene pool somehow. We can't keep crating laws to keep dumbasses safe and poluting the gene pool even more than they aleady are.
 
apdst said:
However, the home owner didn't know that. Are you suggesting that a home owner's first reaction to a break in is that the person breaking in made an honest mistake?

We have to cleanse the gene pool somehow. We can't keep crating laws to keep dumbasses safe and poluting the gene pool even more than they aleady are.
Click to expand...

Hitler was trying to "cleanse the gene pool".
This guy had plenty of time to call the police, but he decided he didn't need the police because he had a gun. He was untrained, inexperienced in the behavior of home intruders, and knew nothing except how to pull a trigger. Do you ever get drunk? You yourself are a dumbass at that moment, and could stumble into a life or death situation without being aware of it. The more freedom people have to take the law into their hands, the more mistakes will be made. Congratulations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom