By opting out of owning guns, you're giving us a power monopoly.

For reasons you cannot explain.
You bore me. Back into the pit.

 

So the only difference between a gun inside clothes and a gun outside clothes is your perception.

Agreed.

But why can you not then alter your response with the logic that just because you can see it doesnt mean you're in any more danger?

 

The government giveth.... the government can taketh away.

 

I remember hearing about a case in Indiana where a guy tried to bring a weapon into a shop where the sign clearly said no firearms allowed.

The shop owner told him to leave, and the man refused, saying that his second amendment right allowed him to carry the weapon. The shopkeeping pointed out and the second amendment applies only to public property, and that private property owners have the right to refuse service or entry to anyone carrying a weapon. He told the many to leave again, and the man said that if he tried to violate his second amendment rights, he would defend it by force, and placed his hand on his gun. The owner's brother then pulled out a pistol they keep behind the counter in case of robber and shot the man 5 times in the chest, killing him.

The police reviewed the footage, which includes audio, and determined that the shop employees had acted in self defense. The man had made an obvious threat to them, when he told him he would "defend his rights" by force if the shop owner tried to force him to leave. In Indiana making a direct threat of violence is no different than physically provoking someone. If you clearly have intent to committ violence, you have already done so. The fact that the man also placed his hand on his weapon proved that he was intending to use it, and was an imimemt threat.

 

I agree. It shouldn't be anyone's business. It's no ones business what someone else chooses to do regarding owning guns or when it comes to a persons body.

 

The simple act of carrying a firearm does not put anyone at risk of harm. The matter is as simple as that.

 

Sounds justified.

When on private property, obey the owner or leave.

 

And if true: So?

 

None of which would ultimately serve to address the problem of individuals who engage in reckless or otherwise negligent behavior with a firearm, which will continue unabated even under the proposal being presented by yourself. Law enforcement officers are routinely subjected to such, and they still cannot safely handle a firearm in the line of duty.

 

Except for when such is not a choice made voluntarily but rather is a need that must be fulfilled.

 

Yes, that's what I said, as your link said.

 

That doesn't change the fact that carrying a gun is still a choice.

 

So exactly why would people be put in arms way, because someone is lawfully carrying a gun?

Now take your reasoning, and apply it to a knife, a baseball bat, a hammer......

Why would someone carrying a gun pose anymore of a threat than someone who is carrying any of the other 'tools' listed?

 

I was going to say: watch out for the "Mosin-Nagant Bug" but it sounds like you've already got it. Any Mosin Nagant marked in arshini is especially rare. I think an arshin is equal to 2 1/3 feet.
Just imagine the stories those old rifles could tell if they could talk.

 

The united state supreme court has already ruled, in absolute terms no less, than the second amendment is not subject to a judicial interest balancing test where it is weighed against vague, intangible concepts such as public safety.

 

Except for those circumstances and cases where it is not actually a choice, but rather a necessity.

 

The government did not 'give', and cannot 'take away'....

 

Fear... danger.... is something a wise person is always aware of and prepared.

People who go around unaware of danger and unprepared to deal with it aren't brave, they are stupid and vulnerable. Also the predator's preferred victims.

You have no reason to fear guns. It's people who pull triggers and use weapons to kill people that present threats. The choice of weapons is secondary.
Guns are the most effective weapon as well as the weapon most practical for an individual to defend against a larger threat, so they are popular.
At least, among people that are aware enough to be prepared.

 

I'm afraid that in some neighborhoods being unarmed is not an option.

Unfortunately, this reality is lost on those who have never lived in rough neighborhoods and have the good fortune to have armed bodyguards, gated communities, "nice" neighborhoods etc.

There are many decent, ethical and hard working people who are stuck living in neighborhoods that you wouldn't think of walking through at dark.

Why would you deny them their most basic right...
....the right to self defense against the thugs & thieves who prey on them & their families?

 

So is paying my insurance premium doesn't mean I haven't needed insurance.

 

Nice. Just took this one out for the first time last week.

 

I have been planning on building something for long range in 6.5mm. I’m debating between the Creedmoor and the .280 rem.

 

No, I don't make the country a more dangerous place to live in. It does the opposite. I keep my guns secure, and I am not going to use them recklessly. Me owning guns is a net positive to the country.

 

It's a liberal mantra based on specious statistics that combines the stats of law-abiding citizens with gang members. People with legal concealed carry permits are less likely to commit a violent crime with a gun than a police officer (and this takes into account the low number of times that policemen are actually charged with a violent crime).

 

And your point is? I see nothing wrong with what the shop owner did. The customer should have left, and never done business with the shop owner again.