You live alone ? Do you keep a gun in your residence ?

win231 said:
Nice try, but I would only "let loose" with whatever is needed at the time. I have no use for a bump stock or fully auto. And my shots only go where they belong - which is into an intruder. I use frangible ammo that's unlikely to go through anything else.
Do you have the same criticism of police officers when they indiscriminately spray bullets & kill innocents?
Click to expand...
Lets be clear on this, my only problem with you is your support of the sale of assault rifles and bump stocks(?) to the civilian population. I congratulate you on your use of frangible ammunition, but do all purchasers of ARs and bump stocks share your wisdom? I think we both know the answer to that one. As for cops I have, or had, two in my wife’s side of the family. Only one shot someone in the line of duty, a man holding a knife to a woman‘s throat, and even that was deliberately not fatal. I hope we both can agree that the police Do Not condone their officers indiscriminately spraying civilians with bullets.

Bottom line, I do not support the sale of assault rifles and bump stocks to civilians, but in the end it is not my decision or yours — we will have to leave that to the politicians and courts.
 

IF:
I had a Colt 45 SA, (not admitting I do) since I live alone, I would be more afraid of someone taking it from me while I'm pointing it at them.
I have my doubts that I could ever shoot at a person or an animal anyway.
All my ammo in metal cases has been stolen from my shed.

More important than that, the 2nd amendment must be protected! If that is taken, the first amendment will go as well.
If they go, the entire Constitution will crumble, IMO.
In a presidential speech, 4-28-2021, it was stated, "No amendment to the Constitution is absolute."
That is scary to me. I would actually fight and die to protect the Constitution. (if it would help).
 
Last edited:
I take the fifth🎯
Unless I can get my ear plugs in I don't want to be shooting especially in the house💣
 

Gaer said:
More important than that, the 2nd amendment must be protected! If that is taken, the first amendment will go as well.
If they go, the entire Constitution will crumble, IMO.
In a presidential speech, 4-28-2021, it was stated, "No amendment to the Constitution is absolute."
That is scary to me. I would actually fight and die to protect the Constitution. (if it would help).
Click to expand...
The Constitution is the foundation of America’s greatness, but it is what it is, and it is up to the SC to interpret its meaning, not you nor me.
 
Last edited:
Several of the SCOTUS justices are religious fanatics and interpret the Constitution to fit their religious views. We're living in dangerous times. They've already sent us down that slippery slope with the repeal of Roe vs. Wade. Who knows what's next?
 
SeniorBen said:
Several of the SCOTUS justices are religious fanatics and interpret the Constitution to fit their religious views. We're living in dangerous times. They've already sent us down that slippery slope with the repeal of Roe vs. Wade. Who knows what's next?
Click to expand...
Specifically which members of the Court are religious fanatics? BTW, I am an agnostic so I think I can be objective. Simply believing in a God doesn’t equate to fanatacism, at least not in my book. If it did, every church goer (of which I am not one) would be considered a fanatic.
 
Last edited:
ElCastor said:
Assuming you are correct about Barrett‘s fanaticism, one isn’t Ben’s “several”, so I wonder who the rest of those fanatics are?
Click to expand...
Kavanaugh, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Roberts (and Barrett) all have allowed their religious views to influence their decisions, which makes them "fanatics."
 
The SCOTUS is supposed to be non-political, and above reproach in their ethical conduct, which is obviously not the case with the current bunch. Thomas has refused to recuse himself from cases involving Jan 6th even though his wife was actively involved in trying to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. Along with this, it is now in the news that the justices have been being wined and dined by the religious right, and corporate interests. There really needs to be enforceable ethical restraints applied to the court, and term limits wouldn't be out of place either.
 
Geezer Garage said:
The SCOTUS is supposed to be non-political, and above reproach in their ethical conduct, which is obviously not the case with the current bunch. Thomas has refused to recuse himself from cases involving Jan 6th even though his wife was actively involved in trying to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. Along with this, it is now in the news that the justices have been being wined and dined by the religious right, and corporate interests. There really needs to be enforceable ethical restraints applied to the court, and term limits wouldn't be out of place either.
Click to expand...
Luckily 'the other side' is pure of heart, totally altruistic, with no political leanings/biases whatsoever.
 
Geezer Garage said:
Geezer Garage said:
Never said that, now did I, but follow their careers, and it becomes pretty clear as to who is who.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Ruth Bader Ginsburg made overtly political comments while sitting on SCOTUS, for which she was criticized. She later apologized. She wore her politics on her sleeve, as does Sonia Sotomayor. I don't have any problem with that, as long as they rule objectively on the cases before them.
 
SeniorBen said:
Kavanaugh, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Roberts (and Barrett) all have allowed their religious views to influence their decisions, which makes them "fanatics."
Click to expand...
Just did a little research. Pains me to admit this, but I think you’re right! That word fanatic might be a step too far, but I‘ll buy influenced, and in this case that’s more than enough. Religion should NOT play a role in a Court decision, but in this case it’s hard to believe it didn’t. )-8
 
ElCastor said:
Just did a little research. Pains me to admit this, but I think you’re right! That word fanatic might be a step too far, but I‘ll buy influenced, and in this case that’s more than enough. Religion should NOT play a role in a Court decision, but in this case it’s hard to believe it didn’t. )-8
Click to expand...
And many religious fanatics believe there is never a justification for killing anyone, even in self defense. You are supposed to let anyone hurt or kill you; "It's God's will." That's why they think no one should own a gun.
 
Religion is, of course, a religion....but then again so is ideology....I'd posit that, over the last century or so, the latter has been more problematic/lethal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top