God bless the NRA. Coming from a Northern VA resident who carries on a regular basis, the only places in my immediate area that I feel the need to carry, like MD and DC, I am prohibited. This is one step closer to giving me the option to defend myself with the same equipment the criminals already have. I'll bet anyone here $10 that B&Es drop by more than 20% in the next year. Its a proven fact, no one likes to get shot at, even criminals.
__________________
'84 Merit 25 # 764
Please contact me if you're looking for a crew member for racing, cruising or daysailing. PM's prefered over email.
On NPR today, they had a couple of police chiefs whining about all their efforts to bring sanity to the cities will be undermined by this ruling and that we'll have Rambos everywhere in the next ten years.
Of course. Note that police chiefs are almost always appointees, and are beholden to their political masters. This is why you end up with dichotomies such as associations of chiefs of police ostensibly being opposed to self-defense rights, while rank-and-file law enforcement organizations are usually pro-self-defense.
I have never, in my entire life, ever met a street cop that was opposed to honest, law-abiding citizens keeping and bearing arms for their defense. Not ever. I have met plenty of cops, over the years, more than willing to discuss with me their views on the pros and cons of various firearms and ammunition, and make recommendations based on their experience and that of their colleagues.
Btw: LAPD Chief Bratton was one of those interviewed. I found his opinion unsurprising. He's from Boston and New York. Both the state of MA and the City of New York are exceedingly anti-gun. Did you notice some of his stretches? For example: He tried to claim trigger locks somehow reduced gun theft. Most of his arguments were similarly inane, IIRC.
All the anti's are shell-shocked atm, so their initial reactions tend to contain some silliness. For example: The Brady Bunch are trying to spin this as good for their cause. Their logic: Pro-gunners have been making the argument that the possibility of wholesale confiscation was why they opposed widespread registration. (Historically, the former has inevitably followed the latter. That's irrefutable.) Now, says the Brady Bunch, pro-gunners can't use that as an "excuse" any more. Say what?
It is exceedingly refreshing to see an opinion from the SC based entirely upon what the words say and an understanding of historical context, rather than on how somebody thinks things ought to be. This is the difference between judges who understand their role and those who think it's legitimate to legislate from the bench.
Jim
__________________
"If fifty million people say a stupid thing, it is still a stupid thing." - Anatole France
1976 Pearson P30 #914 - s/v Abracadabra
That's about the strictest interpretation you can make on this, i.e., sure you can have it for home protection, and only for home protection.
I can live with that.
I hear what you're saying but I don't think a "right" disappears as soon as you walk outside your house. A firearm isn't for home protection, it's for personal protection.
__________________
Ray
S.V. Nikko
1983 Fraser 41
La Conner, WA
I support the law and the right to bear arms. Of course I do, I am from Texas!!!! However, I honestly wonder if a shotgun would not be as good (or better) protection. I question how necessary a handgun really is.
Many of you will obviously dissagree with this. The mobiltiy and abilities of a handgun (in the right hands) against humans in close range is without a doubt superior to a shotgun or rifle. However, I would imagine that most people who own a hangun are not professionals and I bet many would not keep their cool during a break in. I question whether I would. I would be a nervous wreck. It might very well take every bullet in the pistol to stop an intruder as I would miss most of the time. I know many of you are ex-soldiers or have significant experience with a pistol. But I bet most people do not. As such, I would have been very dissapointed in their ruling and would not have agreed with it. However, it would not have been the end of the world for home protection either. They could still own a shotgun, right?
That has been my preference. I have a 4-10 with a short barrel and a semi-automatic 12ga (has a skeet barrel, unfortunately for intrusion... great for dove and skeet!!). Especially with the 410 I can just point in the general direction (like North, South, East, or West) and it is game over for them.
Maybe that is not the point of the ruling, I know. I am just curious what many of the rest of you think (especially those that are soldiers or police)???
It might very well take every bullet in the pistol to stop an intruder as I would miss most of the time.
The mere act of displaying a firearm or letting it be known that you're armed is often all that's needed for the bad guy to choose another victim. Bad guys don't like to get shot, whether it's a pistol or a shotgun.
Having said that, you are correct that pistols don't have the stopping power of rifles or shotguns. It's a compromise.
To me, the right to bear arms comes from the natural right to defend oneself from the criminal element and from a tyranical government. It concerns me greatly that some people would have the government deny good citizens the ability to defend themselves.
That's coming from a career law enforcement officer and firearms instructor (and my wife packs too)
__________________
Ray
S.V. Nikko
1983 Fraser 41
La Conner, WA
To me, the right to bear arms comes from the natural right to defend oneself from the criminal element and from a tyranical government. It concerns me greatly that some people would have the government deny good citizens the ability to defend themselves.
QUOTE]
If you go back some hundres of years... maybe even just a hundred (or less), a man that owned a firearm could stand up to his tyranical government. It would seem to me though that those days are past. You personally could be killed, right now, with the push of a button from half way across the planet. They can shoot a missle at you that you would never even know hit you. They can see you from space.
My argument to that is that if our government (or specifically a military coup) ever wanted to take over this country, there is not a weapon you could posses to stop them. Might as well throw rocks.
A 4-10 scares me a butt load more than a 22 cal pop gun, with a slug load I'd bet a 4-10 will go right thru what we call interior walls today.
Given a choice for home protection, I'd go with a 4-10 anytime.
A 4-10 scares me a butt load more than a 22 cal pop gun, with a slug load I'd bet a 4-10 will go right thru what we call interior walls today.
Given a choice for home protection, I'd go with a 4-10 anytime.
Ever shot one of those slugs?? I have. Got the scars to prove it!! I have shot an old musket rifle (Revolution style) in Boy scouts too. Those babies kick! And incidently, they don't always shoot right when you pull the trigger!!
Here is a side conversation, but a good one. When I was 12, my uncle took me and my cousin to Kentucky for Deer and Turkey hunting. In Kentucky, they hunt from their cars! No kidding. This is back woods stuff, way up in the mountains.
Well, my uncle had a brand new Jeep Cherokee that was his pride and joy. And neeless to say, he did not get too excited about having a 10 & 12 year old "packing" behind him in the back seat. So after picking up his Moonshine buddy to go Wild Turkey Hunting, they decided that we boys should take our shells out of the guns.
The whole thing seemed preposterous to me since (if you have ever been wild turkey hunting) you have very little time to pop one. I will not comment about their intoxication state, but I will say that we turned the corner, we saw the turkeys, and BOOM! The cabin of the jeep filled up with smoke. A gun had fired. Problem was that all the windows were still up. His buddy or relative (I think everyone there is related) got so excited he blew the floor out of the jeep with a slug from his shotgun!! HEHEHE! Reid, my uncle, threw a floor mat over the hole and told us boys that we might as well pack now since there did not seem to be much more damage that could be done.
I actually hit a turket that day (and flying too). Lucky shot. It was not with the slug though, but shot. The 410 I have today is the one Reid gave me before that first (and last... thank God) hunting trip.
Crazy stupid and dangerous story. My dad was NOT happy about it, to say the least. True story though, and not even the strangest thing that happened on that trip!!
It amazes me that the rest of the world gets along just fine without a "2nd amendment" - in fact better. If I were incharge of DC or NYC I'd ban bullets they are not covered under the 2nd amendment as they are not arms.
Linear Mode
