what the hell is ROHS

No, in many areas *most* decent citizens have guns. There are something like 200M handguns in the US. Someone owns them.

You start with a false assumption and logic gives you a false result. Something on the order of 750K to 2M crimes per year are stopped because the victim has a gun.

That's what they mean. In theory, reality matches theory. In reality...

...and the lawful citizen is now easy pickings because the perp

All useless, other than to waste money.

Which part of "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

Thanks, Rich

It seems he's pointing out that it no longer serves its original purpose.

Graham

And as usual, you're both wrong.

It's original pupose was to facilitate crime ?

Graham

Some people do have those signs, but they are lying. In wait. ;-)

Damn! Rich got it right for once, instead of "The right to keep armed bears."

Defend one's life and property, as well as find food. All are still valid reasons to own firearms.

Of course not. Don't be so foolish. Notwithstanding there's no apostrophe in the possive "its", the original purpose of Article 2 is to guarantee the people's ability to protect themselves from self-appointed despots.

Unfortunately, there seems to be somewhat of a dearth of citizens who Love Liberty these days - they all seem to want the illusion of "security" instead.

Sigh, Rich

What part of "A well regulated militia..." do you not understand?

(Sorry...I don't really believe in the validity of this argument. I'm just being a troll's advocate. (Personally, I think guns should only be permitted to trained members of the militia, and also that all citizens should be required to undergo militia training.))

But elected despots are ok?

Cue Franklin.

I agree, that it's a good idea to learn how to use your gun. As it happens, I'm a surprisingly good shot.

But rules and regulations are in opposition to Free Will, which is my banner for the crusade _I'm_ on: Restore the Constitution and hang all of the traitors!

Actually, just tarring and feathering them and running them out of town on a rail would suffice - I also advocate not killing except as a last- ditch, no options left, last resort when you can't even shoot to disarm. If I were really in that situation, I think I'd first aim for his gun itself, to shoot it out of his hand - I have a pretty good chance of getting his gun arm or shoulder that way. If I hit him and he's still threatening me, I'd then go for the knees, and if that doesn't stop him, then one mid-chest and one between the eyes.

Cheers! Rich

Yeah - the Joy of Democracy: It doesn't matter how wrong you are, as long as you have a lot of company!

Thanks! Rich

When was the last time you shot your dinner ?

Do I need to point out that if the criminals didn't have guns you wouldn't need them either btw.

Graham

Why don't you slaughter the House and Senate then ?

Graham

Pooh Bear's far too soft for that kind of thing.

Eeeyore ( Pooh's depressive mate )

That does at least have a ring of common sense to it. If you feel you need a militia that is !

Graham

That is just the point, though. The criminals are heavily armed, including military grade assault weapons. Why don't you come over here and disarm all of them, then we can talk about the rest of the guns.

All nations need a well trained militia, but some governments are afraid of their citizens.