Gun control

It's amazing how many people actually fear being victimized, especially on the forum. I think that's just an overused excuse.

I tend to be sympathetic to not being sympathetic towards intruders.  BUT - don't underestimate the tactical advantages of non-lethal measures.  With a firearm you have to be (or at least should be) really really sure who you are shooting at.  With Mace (or w/e) you have no such concern.  Mace first, ask later.  Significant advantage in confusing situations.

In addition, check google for "oops, I thought you were an intruder" shootings.  The numbers are quite tragic.

Generally speaking, last time I checked (been a while), the number of "used mah gun to defend myself" incidents aren't even close to the number of incidents where guns bought for that purpose end up resulting in accidental deaths, suicides, or murder.  Not even close.

Clark Kent wrote: Mack wrote: The right to bear arms ... is about keeping the ultimate right of veto in the hands of the average citizen.  It is about the militia (colonial definition-white male landowners; commonly accepted current definition-citizens over the age of 18) being equipped to get the attention of an unresponsive/tyranical government the same way the colonies got the attention of the British back in the 1700s.  That's your opinion, but I am not sure that it is correct.

It's not an opinion, it's an accepted fact (even by academic liberal elites) and it is based upon the personal papers of the founding fathers of this country.  Since I know how much you love quotes I have a couple from Thomas Jefferson.  (Author of the Declaration of Independence and a member of the Continental Congress.)

• "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."  (Jefferson Papers, page 334, C.J. Boyd, 1950)
• "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."  (Thomas Jefferson Papers, p. 334 1950)
• "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance?  Let them take arms...The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. (Jefferson, on Democracy, p. 20, 1939, Padover, editor; excerpt from a letter to William S. Smith, 13 Nov 1787)

I've read both and I've come to the conclusion that you live in a fantasy world untouched by reality and debating with you is a waste of my time as you will merely dismiss anything you disagree with rather than give it a moments consideration.  Hopefully any info/opinions I post will be useful to others (whichever way they decide) in making up their minds.

Edited Note:

Article 1 U.S. Constitution

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I included this since CK mentioned it.  I've always wondered what makes people think that if one part of the Bill of Rights is taken away, the rest won't be soon to follow.

Clark Kent wrote: Then you should also read my posts. I am not saying that you are wrong - I am saying that your position is not "widely accepted" as "fact".

With that in mind I will reread your posts to see if that is what you actually said.  And, I may to a certain extent agree with that.  I will admit that some of the staunchest second amendment defenders I know refuse to argue this point because of the inherent political baggage it carries with it.  They prefer instead to argue the self-defense side of the issue.  Actually, I have a friend who is rabidly anti-gun, and while he acknowledges the original intent of the second amendment, he will not address it in his arguments either.  When I force him to do so his general response is "it's not needed in today's society."

It is almost like the "establishment" on both sides of the issue would rather set up off-topic points than deal with the historical realities of the situation.  Hmmmmm.

Edited Notes: 

• My apologies for the "fantasy world" statement by the way, that was uncalled for.
• This is off-topic but I should have included it earlier:  My position is that no government (democrat/republican, liberal/conservative, red/blue, whatever) should be trusted to far when given the opportunity to infringe upon the rights/freedoms of those they represent.