Homeowner shoots two of three invaders

Forums: Politics, Guns
Email this Topic • Print this Page

http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/homeowner-shoots-2-of-3-home-invaders-1-in-chest-1-in-head/

As the commentator notes, a magazine-size limit could have cost this guy his life.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,843 • Replies: 24

[+3] - farmerman - 07/19/2014[quote] Our ancient rights of self defense are hardly stupid [/quote] You should read "The Second Amendment-A Biography". our "Ancient rights"...
[+3] - farmerman - 07/19/2014I know one thing. People only visit sites that agree with their preconceived notions, whether fact or not. That's why the ED Dobbs or the Glenn Becks have these hairburning fans
[+3] - MontereyJack - 07/19/2014oralloy says: [quote] MontereyJack wrote: Ofcourse we COULD try to reduce the number of guns to a sane level in this country. Your request to violate the Constitution is denied. [/quote]...

@gungasnake,

"magazine" is kind of an error in definition. It was a revolver he used no?
Had he a speed loader?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

The photo clearly shows a revolver, but who knows. The reporter may have just pulled up a stock photo labeled "Gun". Anything's possible.

1 Reply

@roger,

Also, despite the "magazine whine", autos have a habit of jamming only when you need them not to.

be as best a marksman as you can be.

1 Reply

What the commentator notes is that burglaries involving two or three intruders are becoming more common and that magazine size limits are not helpful.

1 Reply

@gungasnake,

gunga says:

Quote:

What the commentator notes is that burglaries involving two or three intruders are becoming more common and that magazine size limits are not helpful.

So are mass murders at schools, malls, public gatherings, bars, political rallies, any place where there are lots of people, where the number of shots the murderer can fire before he (and it always seems to be a "he") has to reload has often given people a chance to tackle him. Nice try, gunga, stupid rationaleon your part, as always. Ofcourse we COULD try to reduce the number of guns to a sane level in this country.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

You'll only take away my guns over over my cold dead body!!!! Drunk

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Also, despite the "magazine whine", autos have a habit of jamming only when you need them not to.

They're good enough for police and military it seems.

Revolvers can also mess up when reloading, especially if they've been dropped and have landed the wrong way.

I suppose one of those 8-shot .357 magnums might be reasonable firepower for most situations. But the .357 is only at its best in a longer barrel, and if you are limiting your firepower you'll want to make sure you get the most out of every single shot. Not exactly going to be a compact gun.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Nice try, gunga, stupid rationaleon your part, as always.

Our ancient rights of self defense are hardly stupid.

MontereyJack wrote:

Ofcourse we COULD try to reduce the number of guns to a sane level in this country.

Your request to violate the Constitution is denied.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Our ancient rights of self defense are hardly stupid

You should read "The Second Amendment-A Biography".
our "Ancient rights" aren't really that ancient and have been mostly coopted by market forces, not patriots.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

You should read "The Second Amendment-A Biography".

If it's true, I already know it.

If it's untrue, I already know that it's false.

farmerman wrote:

our "Ancient rights" aren't really that ancient

Our right to defend ourselves dates to the dawn of life.

Our right to carry guns adequate for self defense whenever we go about in public dates to the 1600s.

farmerman wrote:

and have been mostly coopted by market forces, not patriots.

Nonsense.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

I know one thing. People only visit sites that agree with their preconceived notions, whether fact or not.
That's why the ED Dobbs or the Glenn Becks have these hairburning fans

1 Reply

oralloy says:

Quote:

MontereyJack wrote:
Ofcourse we COULD try to reduce the number of guns to a sane level in this country.
Your request to violate the Constitution is denied.

Read the majority opinion in Heller, oralloy. Your request that we accept your false interpretation of the second amendment is denied.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

I know one thing. People only visit sites that agree with their preconceived notions, whether fact or not.

Visiting sites is for people who are still learning. This is one of the subjects where I've attained 100% knowledge.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Ah-hahahahahahahahahahaha . . .

The unintentional comedy around here is amazing.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Read the majority opinion in Heller, oralloy.

No need. I know it by heart.

I participated in the case, remember? Yes it was a minor role, but I still know everything about the ruling.

You would have told Albert Einstein to go read a book about physics if you'd had the chance.

MontereyJack wrote:

Your request that we accept your false interpretation of the second amendment is denied.

Your failure to point out a single thing that is incorrect about my interpretation is as conspicuous as ever.

0 Replies

The majority opinion in Heller asserted a right to keep and bear arms for purposes of self-defense in the home is implicit in the second amendment. There is no mention of self-defense in the home by individuals in the second amendment. That is clearly a case of conservative legislation from the bench.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

The majority opinion in Heller asserted a right to keep and bear arms for purposes of self-defense in the home is implicit in the second amendment. There is no mention of self-defense in the home by individuals in the second amendment. That is clearly a case of conservative legislation from the bench.

The Second Amendment does not define the right that it protects. It merely protects a preexisting right from infringement.

English Common Law gave people the right to carry guns suitable for self defense, both at home and when they went about in public, so that is clearly protected by the Constitution. If it doesn't emanate from the penumbra of the Second Amendment, then it's covered by the Ninth Amendment.

The main problem with the Heller Ruling is that they pretended that "guns for self defense" were the sum total of the right, rather than one facet of a multifaceted right. That undercuts the possibility of us ever having state militia with much heavier military weapons like bazookas and machine guns.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

These statements are absolutely false. The first clause of the second amendment clearly defines the purpose of the right it discusses: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . .

Your appeal to English common law is a product of ignorance. As the American commentatro, St. George Tucker noted in 1803:

Quote:

Whoever examines the forest, and game laws in the British code, will readily perceive that the right of keeping arms is effectually taken away from the people of England. The commentator himself informs us, "that the prevention of popular insurrections and resistence [sic] to government by disarming the bulk of the people, is a reason oftener meant than avowed by the makers of the forest and game laws."

The Dick Act of 1903 provides for a heavily armed state militia. It is immaterial that gun nuts like to assert that the National Guard is not a miliita body.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

This is one of the subjects where I've attained 100% knowledge

How much of it correct?

1 Reply

Homeowner shoots two of three invaders

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know