Except his argument is full of completely false statements.
Show me the completely false statements. The Constitution guarantees you the right to life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. I have never been to England, but from what I gather, from the things I have read on this board, you aren't even allowed to carry a knife in England, and I THINK I read on this site, from a poster based in England, that if attacked, even in your own home, you are required to retreat. I doubt that any political, or Monarchy figure (if that's the proper term), go through life without a higher degree of rights, then an average citizen. I find it hard to believe that Prince William, is not allowed to carry a pistol for protection...and in this country, if you defend yourself, against an attacker, it is called self defense, and if you can prove you believe your life was in mortal peril, you can use deadly force. As far as the rest goes, I do believe it is true, that I believe, I would rather be judged by 12, then carried by 6...and I do believe I give the young lady credit for helping herself. So..........
What is it completely false about my statements?
titsrock said:
Yeah, juries always get the case/judgment/verdict right every time, huh...
No. Sadly they don't, and I would prefer it never gets to that point...but I would rather roll the dice, then roll over and die, or get hurt. My life is more important to me, then some low life that is trying to do me harm. More importantly, my families life is more important then anything to me.
mrtrebus said:
Good for you. . .I guess?
It is. According to the American history I was taught, the British tried to confiscate guns, at the beginning of the Revolutionary War, and the colonists revolted. It was one of the defining moments of the war. I also seem to recall Adolph Hitler using firearms registration as a way to gather the information necessary to confiscate weapons, and slaughter people.
So yeah...real good for me.