Posted on 07/02/2008 7:44:56 AM PDT by green iguana
A NARROWLY divided Supreme Court ruled last week that the Second Amendment gives Americans the right to keep a loaded gun at home for their personal use. Presumably, citizens can use these weapons to defend themselves from intruders. But given the growing effectiveness and availability of less lethal weapons, it is likely that state laws will increasingly keep people from actually using their guns for self-defense.
...
Of course, anyone who uses a gun in self-defense may argue that he would have used a less lethal weapon if he had had one at hand, but there was only the firearm. The problem with this argument is that the limited option is the person’s choice, and the law may not be blind to that choice.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Yep. We’re almost done.
They never, ever, give up, do they?
Fail to vote for McCain, and watch it start to come true.
One gun club in mid-Missouri offered classes which I took years ago when I purchased.
There are some gun clubs and shooting ranges that will teach you how to use, albeit, you do have to search around.
Gun does have a safety on it and you need to be sure it’s charged up if you don’t use it regularly.
Also, some self-defense classes for women will offer a course in self-defense, including using a tazer, pepper spray, etc. All of which are becoming more and more illegal “weapons” to use. Guess it’s a case of a Criminal’s Bill of Rights.
Oh, wait a minute - sorry, I forgot. I should have called 911 first and waited for the duly constituted authorities to arrive and handle the problem. We don't want The Wild West around here.
The NYT is filled to the brim with morons.
Your listing left out the great state of Texas. SB 378, dubbed “Castle Doctrine” or “Stand your ground” was passed last year, signed by Gov. Perry and went into effect September 1, 2007.
I’ve been on the receiving end of a “stungun” (in training); I twitched, broke contact, and promptly dumped 17 rounds into a target.
Flip side: notice that half the phrase “less lethal” is “lethal”, and the first half is not “not”. The impact required to make “less lethal” arms effective is awfully close to what makes others “lethal”, which all to many people have found out the hard way.
There was an old lady who lived in my home town, or really just outside of it. She lived alone, in the house she grew up in, and kids would taunt, shine lights in her windows, etc. She used rock salt in her shotgun, although at least once she put out the light with a .22.
However, she apparently changed out the rock salt loads for something more effective when she went down for the night. One intruder, one from out of town who had obviously never heard of "Bloody Mary", found that out the hard way. He tried to break in through the window at the bottom of the stairs to the upper floor where Mary slept. His head was found outside in the yard, with the rest of his body part way through that window.
Don't mess with someone whose nickname involves the use of the word "Bloody". (Mary was her real name. Nice old gal, if sort of quiet. At least she was the one time I met her when my Dad gave her ride into town when I was with him).
Of course, anyone who uses a gun in self-defense may argue that he would have used a less lethal weapon
Nothing to back up this idiotic assessment. Typical of the antigunners, they want you to feel sympathy that a perp had to be shot to stop his activity.
Remember also that 2 of the 4 who voted to "interpret" the second amendment out of existence,(Souter (Bush I) and Stevens (Ford) plus the one (Kennedy (Reagan)) who probably made the decision less encompassing than it was, were appointed by Republican Presidents. The other two, Ginsburg and Breyer, were appointed by the Impeached One.
There are no guarantees with Republican appointees, especially those of moderate/centrist/liberal Republicans.
Yes, it was too close for comfort.
Elections matter. Keep reminding your Freeper Friends who plan on sitting this one out come November. ;)
That’s too damn bad, the NY Times can go shove it.
A firearm is the most effective and efficient means of self-defense.
Now all of my children are grown (all survived w/o shooting each other or the doggy), I now train defensive handgun professionally after having served 23+ years as a Solider in the US Army; all my offspring are quite proficient at arms and defense; they are on their own now and I would feel less than responsible if I did not insure they had the tools and training to survive a lethal force encounter.
A family that shoots together survives together; just as surely as one that “prays together, stays together”!!!!
Why would one trust their precious youngsters to a single shot non-lethal tool? Could you live with having only one shot and missing or failing to stop the threat to them?
Ah, yes; because guns are bad and children shoot each other with them-nonsense-”train your child up as they should go and when they are old they will not depart from it”. Children learn quite well and logically at a young age.
The most important aspect of training a toddler anything is to allow it, with parameters-in the case of a firearm, let them help you clean and care for your arms, discuss the danger associated with them and the safety aspects as well. As they mature, they must know that you trust them enough to allow them to shoot a pellet gun, a 22 and full sized rifle/pistol/shotgun etc as they are able, but ALWAYS ALWAYS under supervision and with deliberate focus on safety and simply step by step guidance ONE AT A TIME!!!!
Do you think leaving a TASER around is any less safe than a firearm? (I now you don't) I'd tend to think that a toddler would be seriously injured if not killed by a TASER just as by a firearm.
I recommend you get the Massad Ayoob booklet “Firearms Primer” from the Police Bookshelf, Concord NH (search the web for online ordering).
Nonlethal is a non-starter for self-defense!
God Bless and MOLON LABE!
They’re like a psychotic in the throes of a hallucination. The farther they get from reality, the more they believe in their fantasies. If I cared about them, I would find this sad, but I don’t, and I think it’s hilarious.
I expect them to endorse Stephen Douglas for president this year.
I’d rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6!
Shoot to kill!
The other really good one I heard a long time ago is a story about an interview a reporter had with a Texas Ranger...
The reporter noticed the “gun” the Ranger had holstered on his hip, and asked him...
“Why do you carry that .45?”
The Ranger replied...
“Because they don’t make a .46!”
McCain will probably appoint another Kennedy or Stevens.
Obamama will appoint someone who is even more of a left wing socialist than Ginsburg or Breyer. How does Justice John Edwards or Justice Chuck Schumer sound to you? It makes me want to barf.
Either way, we are screwed. It is just a question of how screwed.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
The most likely replacee is Ginzberg herself. She's hanging on by her fingernails, hoping for an Obama victory.
But you are most likely correct about McCain appointing a Kennedy or Stevens. But he might suprise us.
Even worse than a Justice Edwards or Schummer (and I loathe the very thought of the man) is Justice Clinton, him or her.
Oh God, what a thought. The Obamaiac could appoint BOTH of them to the High Court! (Although the Impeached One would seem to be doing his best to see that he at least does not get that sort of position, or any sort at all).
The most likely replacee is Ginzberg herself. She's hanging on by her fingernails, hoping for an Obama victory.
But you are most likely correct about McCain appointing a Kennedy or Stevens. But he might suprise us.
Even worse than a Justice Edwards or Schummer (and I loathe the very thought of the man) is Justice Clinton, him or her.
Oh God, what a thought. The Obamaiac could appoint BOTH of them to the High Court! (Although the Impeached One would seem to be doing his best to see that he at least does not get that sort of position, or any sort at all).
BTTT!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.