"Why should anyone have any influence on a law abiding individual's decision what firearm they should protect their family, property, or themselves?""

 I think with the exception of frangible ammo within dwellings like apartments etc. it could be up to the law abiding citizen.  I've seen a lot of "wall shots" over the years where rounds penetrated a wall and hit people in other dwellings, so I'd be ok with local laws indicating that ammunition should be a type that reduces the chance of killing unintended targets.

 Of course bad guys would get body armor so we should be able to have any type of ammo we want, just like how bad guys will get fast cars so we shouldn't have speed limits for law abiding citizens.

Eegore wrote on 12/31/19 at 19:40:36:


Wait a minute....I thought you had a different explanation as to the use/need of laws, their intentions, etc....

"Wait a minute....I thought you had a different explanation as to the use/need of laws, their intentions, etc...."

 My opinion of one law type is not identical to my opinion of every law type.

"Poor lefties..
Use a fifty caliber in an apartment
Bullet goes through the bad guy and ten apartments, killing five others.

Go to jail.."

 Right.  I am stating I think local, as in voted on by humans in the area they are registered to vote, could have some say in the realm of personal responsibility.  Instead of a zero compromise approach where one side says no guns ever, and another says any gun anytime anyplace.

 I see it similar, not exactly like but similar, to having laws against drunk driving.  Is it safer to prosecute someone for driving drunk, or letting them drive and prosecute them only if they are caught damaging property or persons?

I see it similar, not exactly like but similar, to having laws against drunk driving.  Is it safer to prosecute someone for driving drunk, or letting them drive and prosecute them only if they are caught damaging property or persons?

Do you see the irony of what you write above, compared to how you have voiced other opinions re: laws?

It was you who said laws have not proven to be a deterrent .....

Once you enter into this reasoning, how do you ever put the Genie back into the bottle?

Laws will be based upon a majority want, no skirting that, and conflict will ensue....look how its playing out against anybody who would dare wear a MAGA cap, etc.....justified outrage, etc.....look at the reasoning behind sanctuary cities, which flies directly against our legislated laws via our Constitution responsibilities and protocols.

Please don't go.....huh?  

Politico Correctness was promoted to stymie free speech, and not only that, used in punitive manners to rid society of folk in "power positions" from executing their own freedom of conscious and speech, that ran contrary to those entities that used it to further empower themselves....

Exactly as we see in the gun control issue.....
The law breakers are the cause....not a gun, or a bullet that can go through walls, and hurt unintended victims....

Keep the arguments real, and most of all....factual.        

"I've laid out perfect analogies you ignored.
Yours is Bullshit. "

 I keep asking a question you continue to ignore.

 What would you call that?


 Also I am not providing "analogy" I am using real things that actually happen.  People get killed by bullets flying through apartment walls.  That's not an analogy.  We do have laws that protect the public from potential risk, that exists, it is not an analogy.

 Who, on here, has said they want to remove every gun from all US citizens?

But we can treat this like you do my "words on a screen" comment and try to say that any one interpretation must apply equally to every post ever made after, instead of applying it in context to what the sentence was about, if that makes it easier for you.

visa versa

Veras visa  

Nah BULLSHIT,,
Humans are born with the RIGHT to defend themselves.
The constitution Doesn't GIVE us that right.
It tells the government that They don't have the RIGHT to tell US otherwise.
Read the constitution.
Get over it.