Will You Own Fire Arm Or A Melee Weapon?

[Iacobus]

[quote name='White Knight' date='Aug 17 2004, 09:59 PM'] The Second Admendment "The Right to Bear Arms" is still applied today, because it has a new meaning, to defend ones self from harmful foes. They including this admendment in because of the living habits, Wild, Bears, Wolves, deer etc. while thats a lower strandard of today, it still applies.

But the Second Admendment applies to today, because of the Animal attack, and Human attacks. without guns, if you live out in the country a Wolve can just attack ya, and you'd have no way of defending yourself. Without guns and if you live in the city, if someone broke into your house, how are you going to defend yourself, if you dont have a gun and they do? [/quote]
Ah foolish human. There has never been a document attack of a healthy unprovoked wolf in North America.

Moreover the USSC (the only body who can legally interpet the USC and the Admendments), which put Bush in the White House, thank you very much, has ruled that the admendment refers to defense of the US. Not agaisnt wild animals. If you are smart you won't have a bear in your house. People who go backpacking in bear area don't carry fire arms. They aren't worried about the bears. They do what they do and should have to mess with them. And deer? The only time I have heard of a deer attacking was when it was provoked or confused.

White Knight, do you properly store firearms? Last I recall you are supposed to store the gun in a safe or something on a high shelf, unloaded, with a trigger lock on and the bullets in a different room, also in a safe spot.

So my question is than, if you have your gun in your bedroom and the bullets down the hall in the den and someone breaks in what is there to protect you? You are going to have to get up, open the safe, get the gun, turn off the trigger lock, go into the hall, go into the den, open the other safe or whatever you store the bullets in, load the weapon, than proceed out into the hall to find the person who broke in to your house.

In this time he cannot attack you or leave the house. Also, a killing in self defense is hard to argue if you miss fire. The Courts have ruled that if he is coming into your house or threatening you withing 30 feet with a bladed weapon or has a gun visible you may fire. If he has the intent to leave the house and you shoot at him and hit him, you just broke the law. If you fire at him and he is out of the house, you broke the law. If you shoot him as he tries to leave, you broke the law. And if he dies you have commited homicide.

Moreover, all the training in the world won't stop mistaken idenities. My uncle is an FBI Special Agent in St. Louis and a few years back they had a call. There was a serial killer in the area a few days before and no new reports on his location. He geared up in the bullet proof vests and so did a group of 8 other guys and than sped off to the house where a report said the killer was. The agents arrived and set up around the door. One man knocked and jumped aside. The killers physical discriation was a short (5'5") 130lb hispanic male. A 270 lb, 6'6" black male opened the door to see 9 armed men with guns drawn and aimed at him.

If someone can make a mistake of that big of a nature as to the physical set up of a person what prevents them from doing it again.

A few years back in a Southern CA town a teen was shot and killed. It was dusk and he was lost. He apporched a house for directions and the owner saw him walking up the driveway and got out his gun and went outside and yelled "Stop!" The only problem was the kid didn't speak English. So he (the kid) started to wave his arms and kept on walking. The owner of the house fired and killed the kid.

In Boston area in '99 (I think) a person shot and killed a neigbor from a window because he was mistaken for a fugitive.

Someone posted about the 5 year old in TX who was killed.

Training any of the people killed isn't going to save them or prevent it from happening again. And training the people who fired isn't going to do much.

The UK has a ban on firearms. The British have yet to find a reason to revolt. They havn't have thousands killed like you say would happen because of "wild" animal attacks. Nor have they had issues with people being killed from the "inabilty" to defend theirselves.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

[quote name='White Knight' date='Aug 17 2004, 08:26 PM'] Thanks Ninja.

God Bless You, Brother. [/quote]
ummm... I'm a sister.... and you're very welcome!

And God Bless you too!

[White Knight]

[quote name='Kilroy the Ninja' date='Aug 17 2004, 11:58 PM'] ummm... I'm a sister.... and you're very welcome!

And God Bless you too! [/quote]
My bad, Sister.

[MorphRC]

[quote name='Sinner' date='Aug 18 2004, 01:55 PM'] Ummmmmmm no Robert A. Heinlein said it.

BTW I just love that scene I think in Raiders of the Lost Arc when the Kung fu guy does all his thing to prepare for booty whuppin....... then the guy just shoots him. [/quote]
Missed the point.

[White Knight]

lol MorphRC... you dont remember that scene?

[MorphRC]

Nope..lol but i wasnt worried about the movie LOL

[Paladin D]

[b]Morph[/b], it's pretty illogical to say that swords are honorable and firearms aren't. Weren't there theives back in medieval age who carried swords, axes, and alike? Or barbarians? Or even soldiers? The sword itself is not honorable, it's the one who uses it.

The same is applied to firearms. You have those who use it in an honorable way, and those who do not. Have you forgotten the duels between two gentlemen back in the colonial times (10 paces away, turn, and fire)? I am a fan of both melee and ranged weapons, both have their place, and both have the potential of being used in an honorable fashion.

Another thought Morph, sure it may take months to properly cut someone with a sword (supposely). But I can take a sword and stab someone in the back, who had no idea what was going to happen. While with a gun, I can just walk up to someones back, and pull the trigger. Both are pretty easy to use in that aspect.

But to [b]master[/b] the art of a sword (or most other melee weapons), it takes months or even years to accomplish such a task. The same is said for ranged weapons. Heard of the Delta Force? Army Special Forces? Army Rangers? To use the US Army [b]elite[/b] as an example, these elite groups spend weeks upon weeks training in harsh conditions (Artic, Desert, Forest, etc). They learn how to use weaponry and tactics together to accomplish their goals, the same can be said with swordsmanship. A knight will train and learn tactics with his weapon, same with an elite soldier (or a non-elite at that, but the elite are a better example). Not only that, these soldiers continue on training even when they pass the test.

With swordsmenship, one must have quick reflexes, strength, speed, caculation, and sound judgement (in determining when to strike), and probally other factors that I haven't mentioned... all these elements can be applied to markmenship as well. The only difference? One is ranged, one of melee. Just because you're face-to-face with your opponent, mean that somehow your match is honorable? If so, then this would apply with firearms, face-to-face?

[Kilroy the Ninja]

Great post Paladin!

[Theoketos]

[quote]Let me conclude this by saying that a gun has one purpose so the need to use it must be grave. Having to use a lethal weapon is not of God. No good can come from it even if it protects your life but sometimes those things must happen I guess. [/quote]

I agree, but I also have a gun, and I will have a family. As a Child I did not play with guns.

[livingHimloud]

hmmm, i was about to say that while i would never have one, i won't say that other people shouldn't have them. but um, that's what the pro-choice people say about abortion. the outcome of that is death, and the outcome of this is also death. i am opposed to people being the distruction of each other, so i guess i am opposed to guns.
the greatest love is to lay down your life for a friend, not to take someone else's. but i don't have my own family to protect yet, so maybe, hmmmm, no i still can't justify killing someone else. in courts that may stand up as self-defense, but i wonder what God would say about it, and that's the judgement that i am really concerned about in the end.
in the beginning too i guess.
prayer and contemplation,
melania

[Sinner]

"Happiness is a warm gun...... bang, bang; shoot, shoot."
--The Beatles

(Not Hitler, Not Pol Pot)

In Texas most folks give their kids guns instead of rattles...... that's why our kids always say "Yes Mam" and "No Sir".

[Socrates]

Hitler, Stalin, et al, were all pro-gun control!

Only tyrants fear an armed citizenry!

[geetarplayer]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Aug 18 2004, 09:11 AM'] The same is applied to firearms. You have those who use it in an honorable way, and those who do not. Have you forgotten the duels between two gentlemen back in the colonial times (10 paces away, turn, and fire)? I am a fan of both melee and ranged weapons, both have their place, and both have the potential of being used in an honorable fashion. [/quote]
I hardly think there is ever such thing as killing someone in an "honorable" fashion.

-Mark

[White Knight]

People, just dont get it sometimes, deadly weapons are anything you can get your hands on, and theres more Melee weapons than there are ranged weapons in the world, and nethier one of them are more honorable than the other, and there is no honorable fashion to kill someone ethier, if you have to fight, fight and win.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

White Knight, I just gotta know.... are you a gamer? Just curious. All this talk of ranged and melee weaponry....

[White Knight]

Yes, I am a gamer. I play sports, all though Americans and other Countries band my type of sports, they say there too volient and wrong, when really these sports will teach you the skill to save your own life in battle.

Yes, anyway I like gaming alot. its cool.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

I should have been more specific... like RPG's?

[White Knight]

Yes, Ive played RPG's before. there fun!

[White Knight]

Up with the THREAD!

[MorphRC]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Aug 18 2004, 10:41 PM'] [b]Morph[/b], it's pretty illogical to say that swords are honorable and firearms aren't. Weren't there theives back in medieval age who carried swords, axes, and alike? Or barbarians? Or even soldiers? The sword itself is not honorable, it's the one who uses it.

The same is applied to firearms. You have those who use it in an honorable way, and those who do not. Have you forgotten the duels between two gentlemen back in the colonial times (10 paces away, turn, and fire)? I am a fan of both melee and ranged weapons, both have their place, and both have the potential of being used in an honorable fashion.

Another thought Morph, sure it may take months to properly cut someone with a sword (supposely). But I can take a sword and stab someone in the back, who had no idea what was going to happen. While with a gun, I can just walk up to someones back, and pull the trigger. Both are pretty easy to use in that aspect.

But to [b]master[/b] the art of a sword (or most other melee weapons), it takes months or even years to accomplish such a task. The same is said for ranged weapons. Heard of the Delta Force? Army Special Forces? Army Rangers? To use the US Army [b]elite[/b] as an example, these elite groups spend weeks upon weeks training in harsh conditions (Artic, Desert, Forest, etc). They learn how to use weaponry and tactics together to accomplish their goals, the same can be said with swordsmanship. A knight will train and learn tactics with his weapon, same with an elite soldier (or a non-elite at that, but the elite are a better example). Not only that, these soldiers continue on training even when they pass the test.

With swordsmenship, one must have quick reflexes, strength, speed, caculation, and sound judgement (in determining when to strike), and probally other factors that I haven't mentioned... all these elements can be applied to markmenship as well. The only difference? One is ranged, one of melee. Just because you're face-to-face with your opponent, mean that somehow your match is honorable? If so, then this would apply with firearms, face-to-face? [/quote]
Gun doesnt require you to face to face with your enemy, at all. A Sword does. Of course people will misuse it, but still guns are a cowardly weapon imo.