That's not too far from the truth. I'd put money on South Central LA, Chicago or Atlanta against most countries armys. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
Printable View
That's not too far from the truth. I'd put money on South Central LA, Chicago or Atlanta against most countries armys. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
I'm not arguing that point. While MB was right that I overlooked two reasons for that amendment, I still think that the real issue was "When in the course of human events....etc." My point was simply that that reason is no longer valid because a modern army is far better equipped than an armed citizenry could ever afford to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by demotivater
Frankly, I would prefer a ban on handguns. They aren't much use for hunting (though they are used for certain types of hunting, but there are ways around that), and they are only so-so for self defense. However, they are excellent for crime.
Just a quick point - we are 50 states here - the army (and all other branches of military) are federal. The states do not create armies. Some states would never consider losing gun-rights - some states could care less - but a concensus to amend would be hard to create (in my opinion).Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
True, it would never pass.
That's a good point. a Lot of anti gun activists argue that the states national guard covers that. Yes the national guard is paid by It's own state. For some reason though, they neglect to mention that the National guard Chain of Command ends up at....guess who. The president of the United States. The President trumps the Govenor of a state when It comes to the national guard. The National Guard is not a State Militia! It is a branch of the DOD which is federal. It is no different than the regular army other than the federal government wheasels out of paying the bills.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
and excellent for stopping crimes as well... so-so for self defense? Only if you don't know what your doing, but those people should have guns anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
The gov't doesn't want crime to end, as that's the only way to spend most of it's money. If crime were 0%, then there would be no need for law enforcement, and no reason to spend the money for it.
Not a good situation, but, that is how we adapted the constitution.
Pretty much any situation where a handgun would work for home defense could be handled just as easily with a shotgun.Quote:
Originally Posted by rdove
It ain't the wild west, even out here where it is the wild west. If you don't have your gun out and pointed, you lose! You need a small amount of warning (or else you need to be a paranoid lunatic), because any thief has the initiative (he knows that he's there, you don't initially). If you have sufficient warning for a handgun, you have sufficient warning for a shotgun, and you will be more effective with the shotgun.
That's why I said a handgun was only so-so for self defense. I suppose that isn't accurate. It would be more accurate to say that a handgun isn't superior for self defense.
For self defense, a handgun is the best weapon you can have at close range. The size of a shotgun makes it slower to move around, time means everything in a self-defense situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
You know what I found in the Consitution
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
One could interpret that to mean - only a citizen of the US or natural born citizen - at the time of the Adoption of this constitution - can become president.
It then states at the end "and been fourteen years a resident within the united states" - which I find quite contrary to the opening segment which seems to state no foreigner can become president at all.
Hold on to your hats, but I think its saying Arnold Schwarzenegger could run for president. :(
http://www.archives.gov/national_arc...ranscript.html
If you're that close, I think a knife would be better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maven
I'm having a hard time coming up with a situation where the speed of moving a shotgun is going to make a difference. Are you imagining a Wild West quick-draw competition? What is a realistic scenario?
It's almost silly to add to this debate...
But even those trained in shooting a handgun can barely do it.
The best gun to shot is always a shotgun - something with a long barrel...
Handguns are never raised to "in-front-of-the-eye" for proper alignment - they are shot from the hip and normally hit the floor or ceiling...
I hadn't done any pistol practice until fairly recently. I was astonished by how innacurate they are. Firing a target .22, it was possible to hit a small stationary target at 20 yards, but it wasn't easy. Firing a .44 magnum, it was hard to get off a second shot with any kind of accuracy in reasonable time.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
Firing a double barreled shot gun, it is common to fire at two distinct targets without significant pause. Furthermore, the distance for accuracy is much higher, and the damage done is higher....depending on the load.
yea for home defense...but that requires you to be at home. What if you not? Say one day your leaving the supermarket and someone pulls a knife out and says "gimmie all your money". I think i'd like to have my handgun in that situation...it concealed so he doesn't know I have it...its a little hard to conceal a shotgun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Actually I feel that if someone asked me for all my money at a grocery store, I would just give it to them. Karma will take care of the rest...Quote:
Originally Posted by rdove
Most law enforcement people would say the same thing.
Pulling out a gun in a grocery store is a pretty stupid thing to do - regardless of the situation.
The laws in most of the states effectively tell you to retreat untill retreat is impossible, then you can use lethal force. So, in that situation, a shotgun is your best friend. Preferably a short barrel, or a long barrel with a wide choke. Considering that your field of fire is only going to be 20 feet or so (if you've retreated as far as realisticly possible), you need the shot to spread a bit to make sure you hit whatever you're pointing towards. But, in most situations, a handgun is much easier to grab hold of and make "combat ready". So, a larger caliber handgun with a round that will expand on impact rather than going through a target is your best bet. Personally, I'd recommend one of each. :)
And if you're having trouble hitting a target at the range, spend more time at the range. If you own a gun, it's your responsibility to learn to use it properly. In many areas, there are free firearms safety/training classes offered.
Where I live, I think this is mighty unlikely, but if it does happen, you will get tunnel vision (common reaction to such a situation). How will you avoid collateral damage? You sure won't be claiming self-defense if you clip an innocent bystander.Quote:
Originally Posted by rdove
Also, are you eager to kill somebody? Anybody who pulls a knife on you will not be standing a good safe distance away. When he sees that gun come out, he will probably try to stab you (I sure would, at that point it's him or you). If you draw it, you should be intending to shoot it. Are you? Most people think they are, but few people really enjoy the prospect of killing someone. And don't be just wounding anybody, either.
Eager to kill someone...no. Would I draw my gun with intentions of shooting a possible threat, you bet.
It is obvious that nothing I say is going to change anyone's point of view in this thread, as you already have your minds made up. So I am going to with draw from this thread as I am just wasting my time.
We all are :wave:
Yay, we win :DQuote:
Originally Posted by rdove