If someone broke into your house

[Scruffy]

id beat his ass,
and only shoot him if he tried to do sumthing to my family

implying that you, a 14 year old (?), could 'beat his ass'.

[Insomniac]

i can kill someone and be fine with it
its just the results (like going to prison) which would make me pause
@Scruffy im 16 now thank you

[Scruffy]

i can kill someone and be fine with it
its just the results (like going to prison) which would make me pause
@Scruffy im 16 now thank you

If he was trespassing on your property, you have every right to end his life.
and okay. However, my statement applies. The way I remember it, you're pretty skinny and lack the physique to handle a fight with any robber that I can think of. Not to mention, most robbers go in with a weapon of some sorts (switchblade, gun, bat, tire iron, etc.)

In a 1on1 open room fight, even if you got the drop on him, in most cases, you would lose.

[[MPGH]Disturbed]

i can kill someone and be fine with it
its just the results (like going to prison) which would make me pause
@Scruffy im 16 now thank you

The south FTW.

Florida has a law statute called "Stand your ground". It basically states that if you feel threatened, the average citizen has the right to use deadly force. Etc, if someone is stalking you, breaks into your house, a store robbery, you can defend yourself and not face any charges.

Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” Law has been controversial since Governor Jeb Bush signed it into law on April 26, 2005.

The Protection of Persons/Use of Force Bill (the Judiciary Committee’s Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 436) expanded an individual’s legal right to use force in self-defense, including deadly force, without fear of criminal or civil consequences.
In doing so, the law abrogated “the common
law duty to retreat when attacked before using force, including deadly
force in self-defense or defense of others.”


Twenty three states have followed Florida’s lead in passing similar legislation, including Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas.

https://www.law.miami.edu/studentorg/...no1/MIA102.pdf

[blacksaber]

i can kill someone and be fine with it
its just the results (like going to prison) which would make me pause
@Scruffy im 16 now thank you

Unless you're fit/get the jump on the attacker (if he breaks into your house chances are he'll have the jump on you) he's going to beat the shit out of you. A lot of people even have their own "personal defense" firearm turned on them by home invaders. Guns are pretty expensive, and thieves definitely steal/look for them


Also, for the most part, the 2nd amendment really shouldn't be around anymore.

[Insomniac]

im from the north

[Scruffy]

Also, for the most part, the 2nd amendment really shouldn't be around anymore.

It pretty much isn't thanks to this:

In a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer, Justice John Paul Stevens said:
The Amendment’s text does justify a different limitation: the “right to keep and bear arms” protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia. Had the Framers wished to expand the meaning of the phrase “bear arms” to encompass civilian possession and use, they could have done so by the addition of phrases such as “for the defense of themselves”

[blacksaber]

It pretty much isn't thanks to this:

In a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer, Justice John Paul Stevens said:
The Amendment’s text does justify a different limitation: the “right to keep and bear arms” protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia. Had the Framers wished to expand the meaning of the phrase “bear arms” to encompass civilian possession and use, they could have done so by the addition of phrases such as “for the defense of themselves”

And with a standing army, and no militia, do we really need firearms to overthrow our government (what the amendment was originally written to enable)

[[MPGH]arunforce]

It pretty much isn't thanks to this:

In a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer, Justice John Paul Stevens said:
The Amendment’s text does justify a different limitation: the “right to keep and bear arms” protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia. Had the Framers wished to expand the meaning of the phrase “bear arms” to encompass civilian possession and use, they could have done so by the addition of phrases such as “for the defense of themselves”

Yeah, of course they had no intention of civilians carrying guns, I mean it's not like America has it's origin from revolting against a tyrannic government or anything. Not like they didn't plan that it would be needed in case of our own government, or anything. Idiot(s).

[Krypton1x]

I could easily do it.

[Scruffy]

And with a standing army, and no militia, do we really need firearms to overthrow our government (what the amendment was originally written to enable)

Government only exists by the consent of the governed. If the majority of the population boycotted the government, eventually, it would cease to exist. So no, firearms are not necessarily needed.
also, in any case of government overthrow, the group overthrowing the existing government didn't exactly care to practice good civic virtue

Yeah, of course they had no intention of civilians carrying guns, I mean it's not like America has it's origin from revolting against a tyrannic government or anything. Not like they didn't plan that it would be needed in case of our own government, or anything. Idiot(s).

Not my statements. However, I agree that not every civilian should have the right to carry a gun.

Also, in the case of revolutions, who cares about common law? Rebelling is against the law as it is. So, in a rebellion against the government, no one will be considering the 2nd amendment as they do not believe in the rest of what the government symbolizes.

[[MPGH]arunforce]

Not my statements. However, I agree that not every civilian should have the right to carry a gun.

Also, in the case of revolutions, who cares about common law? Rebelling is against the law as it is.

Lets say that the US government repeals the second amendment. Ok, now you don't have the right to bear arms. Now, they say since you don't have the need to bear guns, lets remove all guns from the USA. If the government takes all the guns, destroys them, blocks imports, etc, till the scarcity is incredibly high, the cost of obtaining them in a revolution or any particular matter becomes increasingly hard. Where's your gun(s) now? Ok, now we got a Libya on our hands. The only guns we can get our hands on maybe the very few soldiers we can kill, with the limited supply of ammo we can pick off them.

Let the slaughter begin.

So, those are big what ifs, right? Say that the government just bans guns and removes them. So we got an England on our hands. Sure, less gun related deaths, but more robberies now that guns are banned, the people who have them are already breaking the law, so they don't care about having guns. Easier to rob someone defending themselves with a kitchen knife. It sure is easier to rob someone knowing they don't have a gun.

Great idea.

[blacksaber]

Lets say that the US government repeals the second amendment. Ok, now you don't have the right to bear arms. Now, they say since you don't have the need to bear guns, lets remove all guns from the USA. If the government takes all the guns, destroys them, blocks imports, etc, till the scarcity is incredibly high, the cost of obtaining them in a revolution or any particular matter becomes increasingly hard. Where's your gun(s) now? Ok, now we got a Libya on our hands. The only guns we can get our hands on maybe the very few soldiers we can kill, with the limited supply of ammo we can pick off them.

Let the slaughter begin.

So, those are big what ifs, right? Say that the government just bans guns and removes them. So we got an England on our hands. Sure, less gun related deaths, but more robberies now that guns are banned, the people who have them are already breaking the law, so they don't care about having guns. Easier to rob someone defending themselves with a kitchen knife. It sure is easier to rob someone knowing they don't have a gun.

Great idea.

The robberies would only be on a 1 on 1 or home level though? Which is very low risk when compared to say... a bank robbery or holding up a 7-11?

[Scruffy]

Lets say that the US government repeals the second amendment. Ok, now you don't have the right to bear arms. Now, they say since you don't have the need to bear guns, lets remove all guns from the USA. If the government takes all the guns, destroys them, blocks imports, etc, till the scarcity is incredibly high, the cost of obtaining them in a revolution or any particular matter becomes increasingly hard. Where's your gun(s) now? Ok, now we got a Libya on our hands. The only guns we can get our hands on maybe the very few soldiers we can kill, with the limited supply of ammo we can pick off them.

Let the slaughter begin.

So, those are big what ifs, right? Say that the government just bans guns and removes them. So we got an England on our hands. Sure, less gun related deaths, but more robberies now that guns are banned, the people who have them are already breaking the law, so they don't care about having guns. Easier to rob someone defending themselves with a kitchen knife. It sure is easier to rob someone knowing they don't have a gun.

Great idea.

Now you're just making random arguments. I said not every citizen should have the right. For instance, I believe that the background checks on those applying for firearms should be more rigorous and the person should take a 1 week course on gun safety and pass a test at the end of said course. Also, convicted felons and those who are classified as mentally unstable or retarded should be denied that right as well.
Not to mention all you just did was present the extremes of a situation no one brought up until you just did.

[MC²]

hmmm that depends if im in a good mood that day lol