Gun Rights Upheld in the US

[cutiebutie]

A car is as much a necessary evil as a gun is. You need the vehicle to get around with efficiently. You need the guns to provide sustenance efficiently so you CAN get around.

Dear oh dear, surely you can't be serious.

[sundaymorningstaple]

Now you're just being facetious SMS. You're in Singapore with no guns. Yet you are able to put food on the table, no?

Might be for SE but not for me. I am an avid hunter. I hunt for the table. Take away my gun and I no longer can provide for the table or at least not as much. This, like your statement, is a ridiculous assumption in today's world, but at the same time, just as valid as well.

Want to reread my much earlier post a wee bit more carefully?

[sundaymorningstaple]

I suggest you go to a large abattoir to see how they slaughter beef. Or for that matter, maybe you prefer the clubbing of baby seals.........

[cutiebutie]

I suggest you go to a large abattoir to see how they slaughter beef.

And they do it so you don't have to.

We have passed the hunter/gatherer stage of evolution and I doubt you'd find more than a squirrel to blow away in Singapore anyway.

[sundaymorningstaple]

But just drive across the causeway and you may well do......

But then this particular topic wasn't about Singapore or our neighbour here was it. It was about the US. I still say they got it right. Maybe you would rather just use knives, swords, spears, rocks and clubs made out of gnarly tree branches.....

[cutiebutie]

haha, do you identify with the word 'gnarly'?

[banana]

I suggest you go to a large abattoir to see how they slaughter beef. Or for that matter, maybe you prefer the clubbing of baby seals.........

Don't they use high powered air guns instead of regular firearms? And the fact that you can put bring home the bacon without a gun in Singapore should indicate the same in the US. Unless you're saying the only people who are eating well are those with guns. In which case, you can't really blame the criminal element for doing what they do, can you?

sundaymorningstaple wrote:
Might be for SE but not for me. I am an avid hunter. I hunt for the table. Take away my gun and I no longer can provide for the table or at least not as much. This, like your statement, is a ridiculous assumption in today's world, but at the same time, just as valid as well.

Want to reread my much earlier post a wee bit more carefully?

Which statement might that be? That we might as well live with guns since we can't un-invent it? That's not an assumption, ridiculous as it may be, that's a supposition.

Or perhaps the statement about bear arms. That's really cruel don't you think? How about arming bears instead? That'll really equalise things!

[Plavt]

But just drive across the causeway and you may well do......

Leave the Malaysians alone.

[Global Citizen]

Very interesting controversy now being discussed on CNN about guns and rights.

This incident involves a Texan, Joe Horn, who shot at 2 burglars in the back who were at his neighbour's house in the midst of a burglary, in spite of being told to hold off in a 911 call by the operator. Mind you, a plain clothes police detective was already at the scene, before the shootings took place and in his report stated that Mr Horn did indeed shoot both in the rear.

Google for more info and here's a wiki link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_s ... ontroversy

Question for all here but especially SMS and SE: Do you think Mr Horn was justified in shooting the 2 burglars despite being told to hold off and with a policeman being present at the scene or was he merely upholding his rights as an American citizen? A vigilante who took the law into his own hands or a hero?

It is also worth noting that a Grand Jury cleared Mr Horn of any charges but this decision has (no surprise) generated much discussion and controversy.

[familyof5]

here is another link to that story. the online poll is an eye opener. if the majority of americans think this way then i'd hope not too many of its citizens have guns....

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/texan-clea ... 3609990001

[sundaymorningstaple]

Question for all here but especially SMS and SE: Do you think Mr Horn was justified in shooting the 2 burglars despite being told to hold off and with a policeman being present at the scene or was he merely upholding his rights as an American citizen? A vigilante who took the law into his own hands or a hero?

Frankly, I disagree with the outcome. While I am pro-gun, what happened there should never have happened. First of all, I have to agree that he ackted as a vigilante and secondly, he shot them both in the back. He had no business even going outside with the shotgun in the first place. They weren't on his property and it wasn't his property that they were on. Therefore the defending his property doesn't wash. Additionally there was no mention of being tasked by the neighbour to defend his home. Of course, after they came on 'his' property he got scared but as far as I'm concerned, he baited them so that they came on his property (where he 'could' shoot them legally in the eyes of Texas State Law).

Being a responsible gun owner does not mean being a vigilante or exposing yourself to danger. He would have been better placed to take a picture of them with a camera from the safety of his home. If they then came across his threshold, fair enough, blow their butts to kingdom come.