In San Francisco you can have a gun in your home but it has to be locked up at all times.
We can’t? Are you sure? Because there’s an entire industry built around training people to do that. Not to mention that’s literally what the military does.
I’ve been shooting since I was eight years old, and that was drilled into me from the beginning. I suggest that you take a concealed weapons training course.
Easier said that done. It is different shooting at a target and shooting at a human being.
You just lead them a little more since they’re usually moving
Setting aside legalities, is it wise to bring in a weapon in spite of a spouse’s objections?
This brings us back to the original topic.
I think your average person would find it morally difficult pointing a loaded weapon at another person.
Hardly immoral to defend yourself with deadly force against a perp intent on murder or great bodily harm.
Not as much as you’d think under the right circumstances this 11 year old seems pretty cool with it
“And he started crying, like a little baby.” Wait until perp gets to GenPop!
This woman retreated as far as she could with her kids. The perp kept coming. Then she unloaded on him.
Much more moral to allow someone else to commit a violent crime against you, your children, or some other innocents, right?
“Gun control” is a red herring. Jesus did not disbar Peter from carrying a sword - even at the last supper/first Eucharist.
Where do evil thoughts originate? We have good advice on that. The question to ask is why we have a society increasingly filled with murderers?
That is what needs to be addressed.
“Common sense gun control” you say? Here it is:
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.
It is the only guarantee of the first amendment - and all of the others. It is protection from man’s inclination to tyranny.
The second amendment as a tool preventing government tyranny became irrelevant when the modern battle tank became invented.
Where on a Abrams Main Battle Tank can a bunch of middle aged dudes with AR15s shoot to disable it?
Nowadays there are drones.
They’ll shoot you before you even have the chance to notice it.
So much for the scare tactic which holds that people who carry guns are trigger-happy nut jobs itching for a chance to pop a cap.
Maybe, maybe not, but I think my responses were as on topic as any.
That’s why we need to legalize access to mortars and other crew served weapons and anti tank weapons.
Congrats, you just provided an excellent argument that people should have the right to own a tank. I completely concur with you.
So there’s no point in equipping our soldiers with rifles? I doubt many of them would agree.
Most of the people I know would be perfectly harmless if they owned a fully geared Abrams. Harmless, that is, to anyone but a tyrant.
You don’t have to imagine how that scenario would go. We already have precedent.
Govt officials in Abrams Battle Tanks attempted to take private guns of private citizens in Waco, Texas.
The Tanks injected flammable gas throughout the building and then ignited the flammable gas, burning 76 alive inside including dozens of children in a nursery.