No, of course not, but if you weren’t armed he wouldn’t have to shoot you. He may also not have felt the need to come to your property carrying a gun.

Many women are raped, too many are raped and murdered.

What is your point.

Now that really is entering new territory; where in the Constitution does it say that?

Not in the Constitution.

. . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . .” (Declaration of Independence)

It would be possible to confiscate most of the guns, it wouldn’t be easy, but it would be possible. I don’t think it is likely, politically it would be suicide (at the moment), but it could be done. And that would be the only way to know for sure what the effect would be on all crime-rates, not just gun-crime.

Maybe in Neverland, but no where else.

Any that might be successfully confiscated would be from legal owners.

Criminals, if they read what you wrote, assuming it referred to them also, would be laughing so hard they would pee in their pants.

The death toll that would result from such a confiscation coup, would dwarf the attack on the Twin Towers in NYC.

[QUOTE=Lincoln 7;1985424]

It seems your straw-man argument has come back to bite you in the buttocks.

As far as an investment, in the past year I sold three fire-arms for a profit of slightly over one thousand dollars.
I did not fire any and did not really intend to.

Thanks for making my point, you didn’t NEED them, I recon you need to get another hobby.
Jim. Lincoln .7

Need– has nothing to do with the Second Amendment, period.
It is a legal RIGHT.

Only or your straw-man argument what to try to insert that bogus term to something to which it has no relation.
So what is your point.

You are chasing shadows.

No one has the Right to kill anyone.—-Wrong, in the USA, people have the full legal right to kill in self-defense, period, The Second Amendment gives them a too to do so.—– Where in the 2nd does it give you that right?.
They should have stated in the 2nd but that RIGHT has been abused.
As for stamp collectors etc as you describe, they collect as a future investment, not to kill anyone.
But no doubt you will come back and state everyone NEEDS an arsenal, when in reality they don’t.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

It seems your straw-man argument has come back to bite you in the buttocks.

As far as an investment, in the past year I sold three fire-arms for a profit of slightly over one thousand dollars.
I did not fire any and did not really intend to.

There are hundreds of gun owners who who literally own ten of thousands of gun that are never fired nor are they intended to be.

The Second Amendment was created to protect the citizenry from the government which is why it does not say: “One person, one gun”

exagerating, i could say that anyone can own a nuke, need or not.

If it is a right in the Constitution of that country, correct.

Hot damn I would move there in the blink of an eye also.

Absolutely a rather silly reply, :rolleyes:

Since when did stamps, paintings etc kill people??
Jim.
Lincoln .7

So what?
Same principle applies..

Need is strictly in the opinion of the owner.
The owner has no NEED, to justify to anyone, for any reason.
His/her opinion of why he/she has x number.
The ones decision over-rides any objection by anyone asking this straw-man argument could ask.

Despite 533 threads, no one as yet, has answered the question I originaly posted, we have had all the facts and figures, but no definitive answer.
Does the Average American need as many weapons as they,(Some own).
It’s a simple enough question.
I see a young child was abducted from a school bus, after the perp shot dead the bus driver. Both perp and child were then known to be in a Tornado shelter in the ground.

Jim.
Lincoln .7

That is a straw-man argument question.

Does an art painting collector “need” all those paintings?
Does a stamp collector…?
Does a car collector…?
Does a family of eight need all those children?

Obviously, the bus-driver needed one more than he had.