Explanations above....no...I wouldn't and haven't.

 

No offense to you but that just seems odd. :lol:

 

Not that you don't own a gun. That even if you did, you wouldn't use it to protect yourself against an intruder who has the intent to harm you.

So your "key" point is ??

 

Why am I surprised you're asking?

 

You claimed the following:

 

Rep Obama was against allowing citizens to defend themselves with guns with no caveats.

You then claimed that the law YOU CITED had NOTHING to do with self-defense.

 

The "self-defense" piece that you said it had nothing to do with even though it was clearly cited in the law was the KEY piece of the legislation. Rep Obama said that you cannot override local laws (feel free to disagree as it's a fair question) that prohibit guns. That means that he voted to support local law regardless if it was FOR or AGAINST gun ownership. To make a blanket statement like your first post in this thread was either ignorance of the real issue (I vote for this one) or pure speculation on your part as to his real intent.

 

Despite me pointing out several times that you missed the key point you continued the normal bashing of anyone that doesn't agree with you. Cammando 101.

I own several guns but they are all in my Granddaddy's gun cabinet in rural LaRue County. Here in Louisville I have a big dog that can sound really mean and doesn't sleep through disturbances but no Louisville Slugger.

 

My roommate from time-to-time has hunting rifles and shotguns up here. But not on a consistent basis.

 

You a good marksman?

 

I can count on one hand the number of times I've even shot a gun. I would be about as accurate with it as I am with my jump shot.

Why am I surprised you're asking?

 

You claimed the following:

 

Rep Obama was against allowing citizens to defend themselves with guns with no caveats.

You then claimed that the law YOU CITED had NOTHING to do with self-defense.

 

The "self-defense" piece that you said it had nothing to do with even though it was clearly cited in the law was the KEY piece of the legislation. Rep Obama said that you cannot override local laws (feel free to disagree as it's a fair question) that prohibit guns. That means that he voted to support local law regardless if it was FOR or AGAINST gun ownership. To make a blanket statement like your first post in this thread was either ignorance of the real issue (I vote for this one) or pure speculation on your part as to his real intent.

 

Despite me pointing out several times that you missed the key point you continued the normal bashing of anyone that doesn't agree with you. Cammando 101.

My first post was: "Obama voted AGAINST legislation giving gun owners an affirmative defense when they use firearms to defend themselves and their families against home invaders and burglars. I hope he doesn't try this as one of his "under the radar" tactics of gun control nation wide".. Where did I claim that the law had nothing to do with self-defense ? My only speculation is that Obamas vote falls in line with the rest of his anti-gun stances.

No offense to you but that just seems odd. :lol:

 

Not that you don't own a gun. That even if you did, you wouldn't use it to protect yourself against an intruder who has the intent to harm you.

 

HB, I know myself. There's no way in heck I would keep a loaded gun in the house, nor would I carry one. What would be the purpose of pretending I would? If there was an intruder in my home, I'm honest enough with myself to know that they'd likely have the upper hand, as I wouldn't even have the weapon in question near me, or loaded. It's not that I wouldn't want to protect myself or my loved ones. But there are other ways to protect oneself and others, and that is how I choose to live. It's actually not odd at all. I actually know a lot of people like me.

 

One last thing...I find it equally as odd that people would feel safer with a gun, or that they have such conviction that guns deter crime against them.

No one is exempt if they use a gun to commit a crime. Whats your point ?

 

My point is when people who break the law in the first place by owning a gun, commit an action with said illegal firearm, they should not be exempt from whatever the penalties for owning a weapon illegally are. And if the criminal element is allowed to do so, it will make a difference in getting those people off the street.

My point is when people who break the law in the first place by owning a gun, commit an action with said illegal firearm, they should not be exempt from whatever the penalties for owning a weapon illegally are. And if the criminal element is allowed to do so, it will make a difference in getting those people off the street.

 

So then people who are here illegally, who break the law in the first place by being here illegally, should not be exempt from whatever penalties there are for being here illegally?

So then people who are here illegally, who break the law in the first place by being here illegally, should not be exempt from whatever penalties there are for being here illegally?

 

If people are here illegally and break a law, they shouldn't be exempt from the consequences.

From the article:

 

"The 911 conversation lasted for 21 minutes."

 

21 minutes and still no cops on the scene. This is a prime example of why every city in this country should allow it's law abiding citizens to own firearms and protect themselves with them. The police can't always be expected to be there when you need them, try as they may.

From the article:

 

"The 911 conversation lasted for 21 minutes."

 

21 minutes and still no cops on the scene. This is a prime example of why every city in this country should allow it's law abiding citizens to own firearms and protect themselves with them. The police can't always be expected to be there when you need them, try as they may.

 

I agree with you, but I am curious if you'd agree to a community/city who voted perhaps 80% to disallow guns being allowed to choose to do so.

I agree with you, but I am curious if you'd agree to a community/city who voted perhaps 80% to disallow guns being allowed to choose to do so.

To be completely honest I'd have to say no, I wouldn't agree at all with that. My view would be that the remaining 20% have a constitutional right to protect themselves in their own homes. Good question though.

I agree with you, but I am curious if you'd agree to a community/city who voted perhaps 80% to disallow guns being allowed to choose to do so.

It's not something that anyone should be allowed to vote on.

HB, I know myself. There's no way in heck I would keep a loaded gun in the house, nor would I carry one. What would be the purpose of pretending I would? If there was an intruder in my home, I'm honest enough with myself to know that they'd likely have the upper hand, as I wouldn't even have the weapon in question near me, or loaded. It's not that I wouldn't want to protect myself or my loved ones. But there are other ways to protect oneself and others, and that is how I choose to live. It's actually not odd at all. I actually know a lot of people like me.

 

One last thing...I find it equally as odd that people would feel safer with a gun, or that they have such conviction that guns deter crime against them.

 

Guns don't deter someone from breaking into my house while I am at home. But a gun will keep them from coming back.

If people are here illegally and break a law, they shouldn't be exempt from the consequences.

 

By being here illegally they are breaking the law. By owning a gun illegally they are breaking the law. If the person who owns the gun illegally commits no other crime and then uses the gun to defend him or herself (which is completely legal) should they be prosecuted for owning the gun illegally?

By being here illegally they are breaking the law. By owning a gun illegally they are breaking the law. If the person who owns the gun illegally commits no other crime and then uses the gun to defend him or herself (which is completely legal) should they be prosecuted for owning the gun illegally?

 

I know that you've asked the question of RM, but in forming my own opinion, I wanted to ask, of you or anyone else, does intent have to be part of committing a crime? For example, if I drop a candle by accident in my house and it burns down, I'm not charged with arson, right?