Very well said!

What a shame that the shooter was able to ignore the "no guns" policy and walk right in and hurt others.

The other shame is that NO ONE in the audience was allowed to defend their own life. Every time something like this happens, the only one who has a gun is the guy who ignores any law about a gun.

Ft. Hood, Columbine, Virginia Tech - ALL were designated "no gun zones". So the only one who had one was the shooter.

The police cannot be everywhere. why have we taken away a law abiding citizen's right to save their own life, or the lives of others? What have we created?

SV

Apart of having to fight the OC, the confusion, the dark, you'd have to penetrate that. Do you carry a riffle with you?

Delusional.

Apart from the OC (which I suffered through repeated in the military) and the confusion (oh there was that during warfare) and a flak jacket (which only stops BB's) - that is exactly what people like me and thousands of others are trained to do.

Imagine which of those sad losses of life would be walking around right now if only one person had shot back.

How many would be saved from a needless and senseless death?

We (our society) allowed this to happen by tying the hands of the citizens to protect themselves.

SV

That said, according to Tje cops who detained him, no son, a short arm was just going to tickle him... So you pack a rifle often?

According to the reports, he had a gas mask and flak jacket. No gas mask or flak jack is going to stop even a 22 round. No rifle needed just a simple small caliber would have ended the massacre.

Just one person could have stopped so many needless deaths.

We (read as OUR society) stopped it and allowed this tragedy to happen.

SV

From head to toe, take it with the chief of the Aurora police department, all Tje way to groin protection

So, do you pack a rifle often?

I don't pack a rifle (anymore) but I'm still capable.
As to his "armor" is was NOT bullet-proof armor like the Hollywood bank robbery. Any small caliber would have stopped him. And even if he had a vest that was bullet-proof, his gas mask isn't.

It could have been stopped. That's the crying shame.

Our society allowed it to happen.

SV

And take your word on this?

Okie dokie...I guess you know more than the Chief of the responding primary PD.

Free hint, I will take Chief Oates statement. I think he has a smidgen more of a clue than you do, nothing personal.

You can choose to believe what you will. That is your right. I would guess you've never been in a situation anywhere close to this. I would hope for you that you never are.

Mine choice would be to defend my life and others, regardless. My original statement stands, we as a society created the opportunity for a lunatic to get away with killing people. When are we going to stop it?

SV

And funny thing, I still don't have a need.

Yet, here is what is exceptional, you are asking me to take your word on this, instead of the police officers actually on scene, and their police chief. I find that remarkable that your sources are better than those actually on scene.

Sorry, I don't buy your word that you have any more than you take mine on what the lunatic was actually wearing or what a single small gun in the right hands could have done to stop the insane needless loss of life.

I find your remarkable belief in what the police tell the media.... refreshing. We both know the police NEVER lie or color the real facts.

SV

I guess you got some magical sources somewhere that are better than the actual primary response agency.

By the way, you want to live that fantasy, go for it...it is a fantasy.

And yes, been in a few shoot outs...so whatever.

Enjoy your stay, and you will be far more welcomed in the gungeon by the way.

Enjoy your stay too.
My magical source (as you call it) is over 40 years of dealing with police forces (some good and some bad) and experience in both the military and law.

I choose to defend my life and those I've sworn to protect. I can do no less.

SV

So again, you are asking me to take your word, over the primary response agency?

So they made this story out of whole cloth? I want motives because you are laying serious charges.

Now go live your fantasy, seriously. There are RARE, and I mean this RARE situations where having a gun makes a difference. Whether is my local store owner that actually drives the perps away, or send them to the hospital or morgue. If you are what you claim, you know how much more often those stories don't quite have that ending. And yes, the case you mentioned just the other day, is also rare as nails.

But go on...live that fantasy..you will be the hero and save the day.

Another piece of data, let's assume I was packing, there is zero obligation for me to take that gun out and defend others, that also goes for off duty LEO's who are at times advised to leave and request backup. If you are what you claim you KNOW THAT. From your comments, I doubt you are...

A child was saved by a bystander with a gun. (Who sacrificed his own life.)


How much armor was the theater shooter wearing on his face? Enough to stop a .45?

You had one small weak point, eye glasses. Those even a 9 mm could go through, it's a very small target.

And the point I made is for every story we have of CCW holder saves life, commendable yes, we have far more of that story not ending that way...many end with holes everywhere with nobody hurt. Others end with gun owner injured or killed with his or her fire arm.

I wish it was different and the reasons vary from shooting to shooting.

But that is the reality...in this case, IMO due to chaos, unless you got extremely lucky, it would have added to the casualties.

He was wearing a gas mask. It couldn't stop a .22.

Now, one question would be how well you could see his head in a dark theater, I'll grant that.

"Others end with gun owner injured or killed with his or her fire arm."

This is complete nonsense. If you think the number of CPL holders ending violent attacks is low, try looking for people who have their weapon taken away and used against them. Vanishingly small. In all my time in the gungeon, i've seen ONE instance of this posted.

Even if he was wearing armor, hitting him would still likely rock his world. In countless other instances, if you go down the list of mass shootings on wikipedia, the number of innocent people shot drops off IMMEDIATELY after the shooter encounters armed resistance, police or otherwise. Yeah, shitty odds, the guy has a rifle, and armor, you're probably going to die if you shoot back with a pistol in your moviegoing clothes, but others can and do escape. The guy that ended up in a wheelchair at the tacoma mall shooting, because he tried to get the gunman to drop his weapon, and got shot instead, no one else was shot after that exchange, because all the bystanders were able to get away. He got shot but he delayed the shooter.

As to those incidents...I will have to call the pio and scold them I guess.

And according to the police chief he was wearing body armor from head to toe. take it up with Chief Colmes, since he was making shit up too.

At some point you can't even move. Our best equipped soldiers are not proof against pistol fire from all directions, in all body parts.

They may have said that, but it was an error.

I'd like to see these 'numbers' from your 'local PD'. NATIONALLY a firearm taken out of a victim's hand and used against them is incredibly rare.

Not with me, and I mean the chief.

Have a wonderful life

Sorry if that bothers you, but on this planet, there is no such condition. If there were, it is how we would equip our soldiers.

Yeah, after you've been in a few, it just becomes "whatever".
I salute you!
Thank you for all of your service!

The police chief says something that "You can choose to believe what you will" as for some reason we have that right, according to you. And you have the right to make up stuff out of thin air and then take on Nadin. Heh.

For some reason, you choose to follow without question and believe what others say. And yet you choose not to believe others. Gee, now who's being droll?

SV

Quite a pie to eat.

Perhaps a crow pie is more to your liking. What some believe is false are others truths. That's the nice thing about choice. I say, freedom of choice is what we've taken away.

I'm listening for your solution to stop it. All I've heard are insults and innuendos Care to pony up?

thank the chief of police on the scene. Care to pony up and answer rather than "All I've heard are insults and innuendos"?

Do let the interviewer know your pie preference during the exit interview.

protect themselves and who is simply shooting at other people who are also shooting.

and shoot all of them? More than likely the culprit gets away because of the added confusion.

Armed people from shooting back. Also some would have died. Do you have any suggestion on how the death count could be 0?

Do u have any ideas on how the kill count could have bee 0? Or are the dozen people who would have been hit in the first second of an automatic weapon firing unimportant to u?

And then all the other armed idiots would have shot in his direction.

saves a whole lot of confusion

What was preventing the audience from doing the same? Check out Colorado's gun laws. Oh right. There aren't any.

I can't think of a time in my life where a gun would have solved a problem.

It has never happened that way. In fact, at the Giffords' shooting, someone with a gun decided not to use it because he thought he could be mistaken for an accomplice.

She'd be alive today.

I swear some people just can't seem to connect the dots.

I thought you had run screaming off that cliff.

There's this idea that if everyone has a gun, there'd always be someone to take the person out. But really you'd just have shootouts all over with people getting caught in the crossfire.

And that doesn't address the question of whether this particular style of gun should be available.

No one said everyone should have a gun. What's sad is that it would only have taken ONE to stop this carnage.
We in society prevented anyone from stopping the lunatic from killing innocent people.

Aside from the obvious 6-yr old and 3-month old sarcasm, I do not believe everyone should carry a gun. But I do believe that if those who are willing, able and trained (like thousands of those of us who defended our country) then why do we tie their hands and allow lunatics to get away with killing people indiscriminately?

SV

in a dark, smoky, chaotic, noisy theater have stopped him? Please stop spewing the same talking points and look at the reality of the situation.

By your name and your post I would say it's more than likely you vote republican.

I'd have to say your obviously assuming and incorrectly.

Believe it or not, there are a large number of Democrats who serve honorably.

And yes, it's my first day. I don't hold back regardless of what day it is...by the way, it's also Saturday.

SV

Believe it or not? Since we know the GOP elite is loaded with Chicken Hawks who never served, that statement would apply to them.

And yet you accuse others.

Thanks but we're obviously NOT alike in other ways other than serving or voter registration.

SV

http://www.upnorthlive.com/news/story.aspx?id=755120#.UAt4SmFfF2o

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/lake/hammond/atf-deb-s-gun-range-in-hammond-robbed-of-firearms/article_34412edf-2e03-59da-a59d-6cd8b42fd79b.html

http://arcadia.patch.com/articles/woman-sentenced-in-shooting-range-robbe-arcadia-shooting-helicopter-gun-range-robberyry-and-chase

and 1,920,000 other results when you Google "gun range robbed."

How else may I help?

could have brought him down? Seriously, you joined Du today to spew gun shit..Bye bye

Why don't people rob hospitals? Why don't people rob day care centers? Why don't people rob farmer's markets?

... a newbie with 8 posts, running the NRA propaganda line.

Tell us more.

Enjoy your stay.

I guess the Colonel has not asked cops why many prefer the .40

You know FOLLOW THROUGH.

but I find your approach really disturbing. The answer is not to arm everyone. The answer is to regulate and I mean highly regulate gun ownership. Anyone who owns one needs to have liability insurance and pass tests, why is it only those driving cars that need to do this?

Tests, insurance, continuation classes.

The highly profitable munitions industry needs to pay for all this- just like the tobacco industry needs to pay for it's damages.

A nutty person with a knife does way less damage than one with these weapons.

I never said everyone should be armed. Always with the absolutes. Not everyone should be armed. Not everyone should sing. Not everyone should drive.
No one should have a gun to defend themselves if needed.

Enough of the absolutes.

We allowed the lunatic to do what he did. How are we going to stop the next one? Talk him to death?

SV

what are yours?

http://www.usacarry.com/colorado_concealed_carry_permit_information.html

Colorado Concealed Carry Permit Information

Click here to view Colorado’s Concealed Carry Permit Map at the bottom of the page.

If you would like to contribute to this page, please post the information in the Colorado State Forums.


Concealed Permit:

Shall Issue to Residents only.

Example Resident Permit:



Issuing Authority:
You can apply to the sheriff of your home county, the sheriff of the county in which you own or rent real property to operate a business, or the sheriff of the county in which you currently hold a permit.

NICS/Background Check:
Yes

Permit Valid For:
Permits are valid for five years.

Processing Time:

Cost:
Initial Applications: TOTAL $52.50
CCIC Fingerprint check $17.50
InstaCheck $13.00
FBI Fingerprint check $22.00

Temporary Emergency Permits: TOTAL $30.50
CCIC Fingerprint check $17.50
InstaCheck $13.00

Renewals: (Fingerprints previously sent to CBI) TOTAL $13.00
InstaCheck $13.00

Renewals: (Fingerprints NOT previously sent to CBI) TOTAL $52.50
CCIC Fingerprint check $17.50
InstaCheck $13.00
FBI Fingerprint check $22.00

Requirements:
1. Colorado resident
2. Age 21 or older
3. Not precluded by state or federal law from owning or possessing a firearm (e.g. felony conviction, mentally incompetent)
4. Does not chronically or habitually abuse alcohol
5. Is not an unlawful user of or addicted to controlled substances
6. Is not the subject of a civil or criminal restraining order
7. Complete background check, including fingerprint verification by FBI/CBI
8. Demonstrates competence with a handgun by one of the following means:
a. evidence of experience with a firearm through participation in organized shooting competitions or current military service
b. certified firearms instructor
c. honorable discharge from the Armed Forces within past three yearss
d. proof of pistol qualification in Armed Forces within past ten years, if discharged
e. retired law enforcement with pistol qualification within past ten years
f. proof of completion of a handgun training class within the past ten years

Required Documents:
1. Completed application
2. Copy of your training certificate
3. Cop0y of your driver’s license
4. State ID Card or Passport photo
5. Application Fee

Renewal Information:
Permit may be renewed as early as 120 days before expiration or as late as six months after expiration. Renewal fee is $25; an additional late fee of $15 must be paid if the permit has expired.

Change of Name or Address:
You need to notify the issuing sheriff of your change of address within thirty days after you move.

Lost, Stolen, or Damaged Permits:

Informing Law Enforcement of Carry:

Automobile carry:
You may carry concealed in an automobile for protection while traveling or for any other lawful purpose while lawfully engaged in hunting.

Places off-limits when carrying:
1. Any place prohibited by federal law (e.g. federal offices or courthouse)
2. Any property of public school grades kindergarten through 12, unless the firearm remains inside a container in a locked vehicle
3. Any public building that prohibits ALL weapons which posts guards and permanent metal detectors at all entrances and requires all entrants to surrender handguns to security personnel before entry

Alcohol and Drugs:
It is unlawful to possess a firearm while under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances.

Deadly Force / Castle Doctrine:
Colorado is a Castle Doctrine state and does have a stand-your-ground law.

Open Carry:
Unrestricted under state law; localities may regulate this aspect independently.



Are you suggesting that the movie theater there has guards and permanent metal detectors at all entrances and requires all entrants to surrender handguns to security personnel before entry? Nope.

So why wasn't anybody armed? Could it be because they were going to a MOVIE?

The failure of society here was allowing someone to take 90 deliveries in two months of ammunition to their address without anyone questioning it. He bought more than 15,000 rounds in all, and nobody takes an interest? Not one of those weapons is suitable for hunting animals, even if someone were so crude as to want to do that. These are all man-killers.

A simple alarm on the exit door would have prevented someone from propping it open long enough to put on their tac gear and grab their weapons and return. They have those here, not to prevent killers, but to keep our local high schoolers from letting dozens of their friends in for free. But it works.

Yeah, that's a tactical every member of the armed forces has been thoroughly trained to deal with. That's a tactical that would make a SEAL or Ranger think twice. Now if jacking the body count isn't a problem, then maybe the perp could be taken out; otherwise what's the point?

Reagan had the secret service. all armed to the hill and he still got shot .
.

What does that tell you?

SV

Tells me maybe you need secret service protection

You of course know Reagan had that round this close to a vital major artery. And you know Brady hung between live and death for months.

Both, it wasn't true secret service, as capable as they are, but two, very capable trauma teams and a level I trauma center.

...but still, no investigation.

Kind of like when the Bush family friends and business partners, the Saudis, flew planes into the WTCs.

Yes, someone else with a gun could have shot at and maybe killed the shooter...however, until we declare war on our society, we need to look at wether or not we want to go back to living in a cowboy world. Violence begets violence..it's that simple...period...

Who has "taken away a law abiding citizen's right to save their own life, or the lives of others"? Seems there were plenty trying to save their own lives and helping others also.

"no one was allowed" "taken away right to save their own life". Bull. Puckey. Or are you that unimaginative?

No one was allowed in that theater to have a gun - except of course the lunatic that killed everyone. The local law said it wasn't allowed. So how do you save your life or the others in such a situation ? Talk him to death? Society tied the hands of those capable of stopping someone like this. What would your better solution be?

SV

a gun.

"No one was allowed"? Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

No one was "allowed" to save their own lives. Yet some did. And some saved the lives of others. I guess they should be prosecuted for doing what they weren't "allowed" to do.

Colorado concealed carry regs didn't prevent anyone from having a gun in there.

The Century 16 Movie Theater where Holmes allegedly opened fire does not allow anyone to carry firearms on the premises even if they have a concealed handgun permits, said Dudley Brown, the executive director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, which lobbies against gun control laws.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/bloomberg-obama-romney-act-prevent-colorado-style-massacres/story?id=16819968&page=2

NOTE: Cinemark also owns Tinseltown, Cinearts, and Century Theatres




http://www.vcdl.org/static/gue.html#Cinemark

with no force of law (very similar to "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" - no, you don't), but that nobody will obey the actual laws restricting these weapons.

Odd dichotomy, isn't it?

Seen anyone actually espousing that view here? Feel free to point one out. Otherwise, you're just saying it to attack percieved opponents.

Second, Its pretty clear, that the "gun free zone", something that that "further gun control" proponents seem to be really big on, has failed yet again.

And in the whole time all these discussions have gone on, I've seen exactly one of those people express any thought what so ever, on how to actually ensure those "gun free zones" were actually "gun free".

And even that was lukewarm, in comparison to that posters desire for more gun control. i\In fact, that poster was using the failure of the gun free zone, to call for gun control which wouldn't have stopped or caught the colorado shooter.

Pretty telling, IMO.

I'd support a law that would require any place that deems itself "gun free" to actually take measure such as metal detectors and monitored doors, to actually ensure such a "gun free result.


Would you?

I posted it uplink. That little sign posted by the theater has no force of law in Colorado.

It's similar to the "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" signs. Mean nothing at all legally.

You know, or should, that naming another DUer or calling them out is grounds for tombstoning, so I won't do that. But you don't have to look far in any of these threads to find people advocating absolutely no restriction on ownership of firearms, including the idea that you shouldn't need a background check, a waiting period, or any permit at all as long as you used any gun on private property.

"WHO SAID EVERYONE?" YEW ASKS!
I'LL TELL YEW WHO SAID EVERYONE!!!
GOP Rep. Allen West Says All Americans Should Be Mandated to Buy a \'Glock 9mm\'
WHICH IS WHY I WILL VOTE FOR HIM AGAIN!



Poster says all Americans should be mandated to buy a Glock 9mm.

I accept your apology.

First of all, that post appears to me made by a disruptor.

Second, As soon as posters espousing the viewpoints that "you shouldn't need a background check, a waiting period, or any permit at all as long as you used any gun on private property" come anywhere near the number of those that express the "ban them all" sentiment - they might actuallty be representative of something.

Lets both just do a count and see how many of each we come up with here on DU.

I'm willing if you are. You game? Or will you simply concede that people espousing that viewpoint are not representative of pro-gun posters by and large here at DU, and that you were misrepresenting "those folks" as if they were.




"I posted it uplink. That little sign posted by the theater has no force of law in Colorado."

Are you really inferring that the theater can not lawfully tell someone to leave because they're breaking the establishments rules, and have them arrested for tresspassing if they don't?

Really? That MUST be the case for what you claim to be truth.

Is it?

"It's similar to the "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" signs. Mean nothing at all legally."

Oh, you mean a business in general, can't just decide to tell someone to leave their property and have that person arrested for tresspassing when they refuse

Really?

Really? That MUST be the case for what you claim to be truth.


Is it?

And finally, you didn't answer the question:

I'd support a law that would require any place that deems itself "gun free" to actually take measure such as metal detectors and monitored doors, to actually ensure such a "gun free result.


Would you?


In case you don't realise it, this is a pro-gun poster advancing an idea to prevent just the sort of tragedy that happened in colorado from happening.

Are you gonna sign on with it, or at least comment on it, or would you rather be like so many others on the anti-gun side of this debate, and rail against those unreasonable gun folks that wont budge an inch to do anything to stop tragedys like this?

1. That post was made in this forum, and that was your requirement.
2. Colorado guidelines for no-gun zones are exact, and that theater sign in no way meets that, so no, they cannot get someone arrested who violates their sign and yet breaks no law.
3. I thought everyone knew about the refuse service gimmick used by racists has been illegal for half a century or more. No, you cannot call the police to arrest "anyone" you simply want to refuse service to.
4. Your personal feelings and identity are of no interest to me.
5. I own guns.

The whole point and what I would like to do:

Keep a nut from buying 6,000 rounds of ammunition to go into a 100 shot magazine without needing more than a credit card, Internet access, and a delivery address.

Clear?

Seriously?

Scratching your car is a real shame. Someone who loves animals flunking out of their last semester in veteranary school is a real shame. Sleeping through your senior prom would be a real shame.

Mass murder, basically warfare on our own citizens, is not just a shame, it's a horrendous crime, and following the seemingly endless stream of these events that have cost so many of our people's lives, it needs to END.

Regarding concealed carry: nothing like crossfire in a dark, packed theater. There's a great idea. Do you think we should all be able to walk around with concealed assault weapons, I wonder?

There is no rational self defense use for automatic and semi-automatic weapons. Limiting them in no way interferes with a real sportsman or person interested in self and family defense.

A rifle or a pistol can't kill as many of our citizens as fast.

The right to bear arms is certainly valid, but what about the rights for the rest of us (and you) not to be victims of mass homicide?

And welcome to DU.

When law enforcement shows up, how do they differentiate between the criminal and the "good citizens" trying to shoot the shooter? You've seen way too many bullshit action movies.

Thanks for one more example of why we need gun control in America. I've seen several of these action movie wannabe fantasies on this supposedly progressive website.

If you think you can accurately engage a moving target in a dark movie theater with CS gas in the air, you're utterly delusional and have no business owning a gun.

http://lonelymachines.org/mall-ninjas/

The guy was in head to toe body armor. One guy with a pistol wasn't going to take him out, or two, or three or four. He had a huge advantage with the element of surprise in a dark movie theater into which he tossed some kind of tear gas or smoke bomb or both. It's disingenuous to say that all of the places you mentioned have a no gun policy. That goes without saying. Maybe we should limit the amount of ammo a person can buy. How much does one person need?

This isn't a weapon people need to protect themselves.

I refer one to Federal Paper 29. Quoting, it means, "A tolerable expertness in military movements".

It goes on to conclude, of the well regulated militia, "Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped."

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_29.html

Militias were supposed to be "properly armed and equipped" for military engagement with our country's enemies, like invading Brits.

All enemies foreign and domestic. Does this movie theater killer count as a domestic enemy?

You're defending the right of people like the Aurora shooter to have any damn arms they want.

he used an IED the like Oklahoma City bomber did? Lets assume that gun control could possibly work to thwart such an attack as this. And also suppose that for what ever reason black market weapons just became unavailable in the post 2A America. hasn't worked for illegal drugs, but lets say that it will with guns. In fact it hasn't work for anything else in the history of the world, but lets figure with firearms there won't be any illegal trade. But there still will be murderers in America. So what then? will people like this guy stop killing because he can't use the now abolished firearm? Will he say to himself "I really want to commit this horrible crime, but without a gun I just can't do it. I guess I'll just spam their e mail accounts instead."

I'm thinking he would had used an explosive. Do you think he would have still killed people? Or would he have become not a killer and just returned to sound mental health? You know, became not a.... what ever state of mind it is that enables a person to do something like this.

I don't think that not having a firearm is the cure for what ever this killer has going on in his mind. I can't imagine that the method of killing really has any effect on the persons desire and willingness to carry out such an act. It seems to me that this fellow might have been capable of building a bomb. Do you think that with his apparent mindset that had he not had a firearm that he would have just not killed people?

Firearm restrictions are very high in Mexico. Yet there are 50,000 murders a year there. How can this be? Doesn't gun restrictions stop people from wanting to kill other people?

Help me understand how not having a gun somehow heals the demented mind of a murder.

I don't like the way my neighbor's cat is looking at my rose bush. Why are there "restrictive laws" which prevent me from getting one?

Even some military experts would argue against the effectiveness of nuclear weapons. Besides the fact that no thinking person believes in private nuclear arms defense of self or property, it's not a personal weapon, it's an area effect weapon.

It's a weapon for mass murder.

FBI Firearms Training Unit doesn't think much of handguns.

http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf

Nor is any of the text you quote.

And as I'm sure you know, the Federalist papers were written before the Constitution was ratified, and the authors did not reveal their identities. It is now believed that three of the founders wrote the Federalist Papers while trying to persuade people to support the Constitution.

Interestingly, the Federalist papers also argued against a Bill of Rights.

The real question is ... what did the founders consider "arms"? Why is a rocket launcher not a "arm" under the US constitution? Can I buy one? Can I buy mortars? How about a tank?

The term "arms" remains undefined. Clearly there is a line.

... then nuclear weapons, tanks, and aircraft carriers would seem to be out.

Jay is believe to have played a small part, with Hamilton writing the bulk of the papers.

We don't need to rustle up farmers and blacksmiths to defend the country, we have created a government job for that.

9-0 opinion that the militia is separate from the National Guard and regular Army.

He has a pistol, a six-shot revolver, for home defense. He put it succinctly: "If I need more than six shots to defend myself or my home, no amount of ammunition is going to save me."

If your father is defending against 1 or 2 then I can agree.

No six shooter is going to protect against more. What then?
I'd still prefer to have one more bullet than I have to - just in case.

SV

In self defense, of course.

The bigger question is - how many times will you not have it and need it?

My wish is to never need it. My reality is there are evil people in this world and the police cannot be everywhere. (I refer you to the 74 y.o. in Florida who stopped to black young men from robbing and potentially killing a group of senior citizens at an internet cafe.)

Like insurance, you don't want it but you may need it - one day.

SV

Actually involves a 71 year old man. Unlike all the regular media that carried the story, but very much like Stormfront, a neo-nazi site, you seem to think the race of the perpetrators is an important aspect. Do you read much neo-nazi racist literature and web sites, Southeast Voter?