How is the later unlike the former? :2razz:
How is the later unlike the former? :2razz:
Sadly, it seems that people who are poor judges of “self defense” and somewhere on the angry side of life are prone to choose that firearms possession.
Good news, that hasn’t happened either yet!
To what, be a violence prone jackass? Well yes, up to a point.
Even “fundamental enumerated rights” are not unlimited, particularly when they start bumping into each other.
To what, be a violence prone jackass? Well yes, up to a point.
Even “fundamental enumerated rights” are not unlimited, particularly when they start bumping into each other.
P.S. If you want the fuller access to the 2nd Amendment, sign up for the National Guard.
We have 240+ years of precedence that says your interpretations are pure bull****. But I will accept there is a LEGAL recourse for those that seek to take firearms from the citizens of the United States. It involves amending the Constitution. Until you do that, when you have elected representatives stating that they will seize weapons, by force if necessary, you have elected representatives that are advocating for the violation of the Constitutional rights of law abiding US citizens. And if anyone is such a moron that they would not only tolerate the abandonment of the constitutional rights of citizens but in fact cheer them on while encouraging the creation of a police state because it suits their ideological fancy...well...that speaks volumes for those types as well.
A rigorous sampling and assessment of firearm use for “self defense” found that it wasn’t, even when the firearm possessor claimed it was.
The truth of the matter is that any given firearm is more likely to be used against (EDIT: or injuring) someone living in the home rather than some stranger/intruder.
