To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 12039
  Re: National vote on handguns?
 
(...) Awww, but it does say that you "believe" they are going to cause you harm. If someone breaks into my house, I'm going to "believe" that they could be there to cause harm to my family or myself. I will not first ask them their intentions, when (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: National vote on handguns?
 
(...) *Reasonable* belief is what the text refers to. I can't make a better case for there needing to be a required course and test on firearm safety and law than the various responses I'm getting. :-) Bruce (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: National vote on handguns?
 
(...) Well Bruce, I'll let you in on the fact that I worked for the Fulton County Sheriff's department for 4 years, and was well trained on how to use my firearm. Also I was very aware of what intruders can do when they break into a person's home, (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: National vote on handguns?
 
(...) Yes, and you get to shoot those kind of people. I wasn't arguing that. Just blasting away is on dangerous legal grounds is what I was talking about. Odds are you can get away with it. Odds are you were right. But there are enough dead innocent (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: National vote on handguns?
 
(...) Well how about this, you go and put a sign in your front yard that say "gun free home", so that way the criminal types will know that they are safe to steal bread from your house, and will stay away from my home and family. jt (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: National vote on handguns?
 
(...) So then what were you arguing? You've just confused me. Where is the distinction? (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: National vote on handguns?
 
(...) Just re-read the previous post. And the light came on, if a little late. Yes, whacking an intruder may put me in the legal spotlight. Yes, I may have broken other laws in the process (1). I'm willing to take that risk if it means that my (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: National vote on handguns?
 
(...) Sigh. You haven't followed the conversation have you? I have a 12 gauge and a rifle. I used to have an assortment of handguns. I've been trained by a police officer and a marine sniper. I have a sword, to boot (and yes, trained in that, too, (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: National vote on handguns?
 
(...) Well, IANAL but the text does treat someone in your domicile as a special case. Still, the class I took in Florida did go into this, and you don't get to just brandish your gun or pop off whenever you feel like, there has to be some (as Bruce (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: National vote on handguns?
 
(...) Sorry, Bruce, but if someone breaks into my dwelling, I'm not going to Debate with him as to his intent. BREAKING IN shows the intent, as far as I'm concerned. They'd better be ready to accept the consequences for their action. -- Tom Stangl (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: National vote on handguns?
 
See, I WAS right - Kalifornia blinders. Bruce, I hate to break this to you, but lots of other states think Kalifornia is a looney bin and so are many of its' laws ;-) (...) -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR