Second Amendment Repeal / Gun Control

[Vitaphone Racing]

lol what

how do you even do this?

How do you shoot to wound? Is that what you are asking

Please enlighten us on your exceptional aim and insight into bodily organs.

[Kernen]

That's a big chunk of your side. Reconsider that statement. But yes, a minority should not be taken to represent a majority.
Just as the handful of total ban advocates does not represent the large swath of America in favor of mild regulation.

Like your opinions on the Supreme Court decision regarding the interpretation of the Second Amendment, right?

[Wallenburg]

I'll offer my stance, shoot to wound

lol what

how do you even do this?

But it all happens so fast!

[Korva]

lol what

how do you even do this?

How do you shoot to wound? Is that what you are asking

Considering a shot to the leg, groin, arm, etc all have the potential to be fatal and/or cause lifelong disability, yes that is what I am asking.

If you are justified in "shooting to wound" you can "shoot to kill".

If you aren't, then you will probably face the same criminal charges anyways.

[Post 9-11 Iraq]

No, and repealing the Second Amendment wouldn't take away my right to keep and bear arms anyway. The Constitution grants no such right; it merely protects the right that I already have as a free human.

[Autonomous Titoists]

Potentially 33% (of a very limited sample) of potential gun owners (or just random kids on the internet who found a gun-related thread) could hardly be considered a scientific study.

I'm not making assumptions of figures for the wider community, I'm making assumptions about the forum. I can only hope. In all seriousness, gun owners on these forums are seriously under-represented by the typical pro-gun crowd.

They are horribly underrepresented

[Bezkoshtovnya]

That's a big chunk of your side. Reconsider that statement. But yes, a minority should not be taken to represent a majority.
Just as the handful of total ban advocates does not represent the large swath of America in favor of mild regulation.

Make up your mind, you have stated you want them banned , to you want severe restriction, and now you are reeling it in further and saying only mild regulation.

[Prezelly]

How do you shoot to wound? Is that what you are asking

Considering a shot to the leg, groin, arm, etc all have the potential to be fatal and/or cause lifelong disability, yes that is what I am asking.

If you are justified in "shooting to wound" you can "shoot to kill".

If you aren't, then you will probably face the same criminal charges anyways.

Shooting to wound and shooting to kill are different. To stop someone from fleeing the scene, like I said, shooting the foot or leg is enough to slow the perpetrator down so that you can detain and have the police arrest them. Yes it could potentially kill them, but that's the risk you take when you commit a crime against a gun wielding citizen

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Considering a shot to the leg, groin, arm, etc all have the potential to be fatal and/or cause lifelong disability, yes that is what I am asking.

If you are justified in "shooting to wound" you can "shoot to kill".

If you aren't, then you will probably face the same criminal charges anyways.

Shooting to wound and shooting to kill are different. To stop someone from fleeing the scene, like I said, shooting the foot or leg is enough to slow the perpetrator down so that you can detain and have the police arrest them. Yes it could potentially kill them, but that's the risk you take when you commit a crime against a gun wielding citizen

If they are fleeing, it is best not to shoot them at all, lest you do kill them. I doubt the self defence will hold when the supposed assailant was fleeing.

[Korva]

No, and repealing the Second Amendment wouldn't take away my right to keep and bear arms anyway. The Constitution grants no such right; it merely protects the right that I already have as a free human.

this reminds me of those crazy sovereign citizens who come to court thinking the law doesnt apply to them

it always ends badly

[Kernen]

Considering a shot to the leg, groin, arm, etc all have the potential to be fatal and/or cause lifelong disability, yes that is what I am asking.

If you are justified in "shooting to wound" you can "shoot to kill".

If you aren't, then you will probably face the same criminal charges anyways.

Shooting to wound and shooting to kill are different. To stop someone from fleeing the scene, like I said, shooting the foot or leg is enough to slow the perpetrator down so that you can detain and have the police arrest them. Yes it could potentially kill them, but that's the risk you take when you commit a crime against a gun wielding citizen

Expert marksmen cannot shoot to wound reliably, let alone a private citizen. That is a myth supported by Hollywood. There are no bullet wounds that cannot become lethal. Firearms are not and should never be considered weapons with which to wound. A shot to the leg could easily sever the femoral artery. Only the uninformed support shooting to wound.

[Sevvania]

Shooting to wound and shooting to kill are different.

The four cardinal rules of gun safety are:
"Assume every firearm is loaded.
"Never point a firearm at anything unless you intend to destroy it."
"Keep your finger off the trigger and out of the trigger guard until ready to fire."
"Be sure of your target and what is beyond it."

tl;dr: Never try to "shoot to wound". Shoot to deter (as in, firing a round in a safe direction), or shoot to kill, but never shoot to wound.

[Southern Hampshire]

I think that's a good stance ^

If someone is attacking or will attack you, shoot to kill
If someone is fleeing, shoot legs
If someone is surrendered, call police

If someone wants to take the life of my gun through legislation, their life will go with my gun.

[Kernen]

As a general, undirected note, here is a great resource as to why shooting to wound is bad.

Here.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Shooting to wound and shooting to kill are different.

The four cardinal rules of gun safety are:
"Assume every firearm is loaded.
"Never point a firearm at anything unless you intend to destroy it."
"Keep your finger off the trigger and out of the trigger guard until ready to fire."
"Be sure of your target and what is beyond it."

tl;dr: Never "shoot to wound".

This.

[Prezelly]

Shooting to wound and shooting to kill are different.

The four cardinal rules of gun safety are:
"Assume every firearm is loaded.
"Never point a firearm at anything unless you intend to Shoot it."
"Keep your finger off the trigger and out of the trigger guard until ready to fire."
"Be sure of your target and what is beyond it."

tl;dr: Never "shoot to wound".

Fixed

[Kernen]

I think that's a good stance ^

If someone is attacking or will attack you, shoot to kill
If someone is fleeing, shoot legs
If someone is surrendered, call police

If someone wants to take the life of my gun through legislation, their life will go with my gun.

I direct you to my previous post.

As a general, undirected note, here is a great resource as to why shooting to wound is bad.

Here.

[Wallenburg]

That's a big chunk of your side. Reconsider that statement. But yes, a minority should not be taken to represent a majority.
Just as the handful of total ban advocates does not represent the large swath of America in favor of mild regulation.

Like your opinions on the Supreme Court decision regarding the interpretation of the Second Amendment, right?

You know, when someone recognizes your argument, you usually should try to do the same with them. That way you don't come across as a complete ass.

Once again, I recognize gun ownership as necessary for some people, and as a responsible preference for others. But in my opinion, again, rights are universal. If you deny rights to someone that hasn't ceded them by committing a crime, then they are no longer universal.
Driving is considered a privilege. You need a license for it. You also need a permit to own guns. Why would you need a permit to exercise your rights?
I continue to believe that the Second Amendment does not defend gun rights for all, regardless of Republican corruption in the Supreme Court. I believe it protects the right of gun ownership given you pledge to defend your nation in the event the militia is called up. The militia is half-dead, so the Second Amendment has little power. Therefore, gun ownership is a privilege, one that you may exercise as long as you don't fuck with it or don't commit a crime that suggests you cannot handle that privilege responsibly.

I expect no less than 3 hateful, illogical responses to this post. Happy hunting!

[Kernen]

The four cardinal rules of gun safety are:
"Assume every firearm is loaded.
"Never point a firearm at anything unless you intend to Shoot it."
"Keep your finger off the trigger and out of the trigger guard until ready to fire."
"Be sure of your target and what is beyond it."

tl;dr: Never "shoot to wound".

Fixed

No, you didn't. The correct term is destroy.

[Sevvania]

If someone is fleeing, shoot legs.

If someone is fleeing, you don't shoot them at all. They cannot hurt you while running away.

The four cardinal rules of gun safety are:
"Assume every firearm is loaded.
"Never point a firearm at anything unless you intend to Shoot it."
"Keep your finger off the trigger and out of the trigger guard until ready to fire."
"Be sure of your target and what is beyond it."

tl;dr: Never "shoot to wound".

Fixed

That's like editing "Assume every firearm is loaded" into "Assume every firearm is loaded unless it probably isn't."

[Wallenburg]

I think that's a good stance ^

If someone is attacking or will attack you, shoot to kill
If someone is fleeing, shoot legs
If someone is surrendered, call police

If someone wants to take the life of my gun through legislation, their life will go with my gun.

Your gun has no rights beyond that of common property. Your property may be seized in an arrest or by warrant, and you must comply by law with your nation's laws. To resist legislation is to break the law. It has no life. What the heck are you talking about!?

[To Quoc Duc]

I have reason to doubt that the post that says "god given right to an AR-15" is serious. Because, where in the Bible does it say "Thou shall not take away thou neighbor's AR-15?" Genesis?

As far as I know the bible doesn't say a thing as far as ones ability to own a weapon of any kind.

Actually, it does. Though indirectly. It does however discuss the necessity of a nation in arms, mostly in one of two contexts: Israel killing anyone who occupies the land they want, or Israel killing anyone who attacks the land they occupy. In fact, and I believe it is in I Kings (Though I admit I could be incorrect on this, but the point is the same) it stresses that a major cause of the diaspora and the destruction of Israel, Judea, and Edom, were because of the unwillingness of the Jews to commit genocide.

[Korva]

You also need a permit to own guns. Why would you need a permit to exercise your rights?

what

[Ifreann]

I think that's a good stance ^

If someone is attacking or will attack you, shoot to kill
If someone is fleeing, shoot legs
If someone is surrendered, call police

If someone wants to take the life of my gun through legislation, their life will go with my gun.

So what you're saying is that you will murder elected legislators who pass gun control laws you have a problem with. That sounds like terrorism to me.

[Wallenburg]

I think that's a good stance ^

If someone is attacking or will attack you, shoot to kill
If someone is fleeing, shoot legs
If someone is surrendered, call police

If someone wants to take the life of my gun through legislation, their life will go with my gun.

So what you're saying is that you will murder elected legislators who pass gun control laws you have a problem with. That sounds like terrorism to me.

Top shelf!