What the 2nd Ammendment is for

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by GBBob

It wasn't a non-sequitur...all ammendments are now defined by interpretation. And I'll argue till the end that none of our forefathers thought you should be able to own a semi automatic weapon in case someone wants to steal your TV.

anyway..back to Giant Oak...

GBBob....you're falling apart here.....obviously they had no knowledge of
special weapons..or TV's for that matter. But you seem to be falling on the side of burglars when you make that statement. I wouldn't shoot a guy stealing my TV, but I'd try to stop it. If he escalated that with a weapon, then it's a different scenario. Remember..it is my castle.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

GBBob....you're falling apart here.....obviously they had no knowledge of
special weapons..or TV's for that matter. But you seem to be falling on the side of burglars when you make that statement. I wouldn't shoot a guy stealing my TV, but I'd try to stop it. If he escalated that with a weapon, then it's a different scenario. Remember..it is my castle.

Who are you..Jack Bauer...come on. You just made my case for me. They didn't have knowledge of what weapons would become because I can promise you they wouldn't have wanted you stumbling through the dark with an AK-47

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by GBBob

Who are you..Jack Bauer...come on. You just made my case for me. They didn't have knowledge of what weapons would become because I can promise you they wouldn't have wanted you stumbling through the dark with an AK-47

The premise that you don't have the right to defend yourself in your home
is what's disturbing to me. if you can get the job done with a boomarang that's fine with me. Just don't be a statistic,OK?
As I've stated before, there needs to be limits...


Very kind of you to mention Jack,though!