[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by ALadysMom

There are three little words that troublemakers fear most in Florida

Stand Your Ground

And some troublemakers use as an excuse. It's just the same trouble from the other end of the door.

Your ex-wife shows up asking for her late alimony check? Shoot her and tell everyone she was threatening you and you were standing your ground.

Some random guy you don't recognize comes onto your property hoping to find someone to help him find an address because he's hopelessly lost and the GPS isn't giving him Villages directions? Shoot him - and claim he was threatening you so you stood your ground.

It's an excuse to kill people, nothing more or less. The only interpretation involved is the REASON you took advantage of that excuse to kill someone. The end result is the same - someone is dead, and someone is holding the weapon that killed the corpse.

Do I think people shouldn't protect their property? Nope, absolutely not. I feel that people SHOULD have the right to protect their property.

But I call it what it is, not what sounds good in an NRA or anti-NRA video clip. It is "ending the life of another human being with a firearm."

Apply whatever justification you want to it, but the result is the same.

[Byte1]

We probably should not divert from the subject of this thread, BUT a comment was made about "military style" weapons. I respect the fact that some fear what they might not fully comprehend, and "military style" or "automatic weapons" or "assault weapons" is definitely a subject that can be argued until .........the cows come home? When the Constitution was created, what constituted a "military style" or "assault weapon?" Not being a historian, I would still suggest that any weapon that could be picked up and used against the enemy, would fit the definition. Now, an interesting thought comes to mind. The second amendment was written to protect against Gov. tyranny, right? Wouldn't that mean, we should have military style weapons? Does it say anywhere in that Amendment that everyone should have a "hunting" weapon? Is the Amendment written to protect hunters, so that they may always have a hunting rifle?
I have absolutely no fear of anyone owning a military style rifle. I personally own a MILITARY rifle that was used in a war. It's an M1 semiautomatic rifle, capable of loading an 8 round (30-06) clip into the magazine. If I was to be limited to a military style weapon from the time the Constitution was written, I guess I would have to have a musket, right? Could you defend yourself from a rogue gov military force with a musket, today?
If a person is mature and sensible, a military style weapon is not dangerous. No nut case should own a firearm, sword, hunting knife or even a butter knife.
Someone correctly said that there are tens of thousands of military style weapons legally owned in this country. I am glad. The bad guys have the best weapons and our police forces can't even sustain a defensive posture with their limited armament, thanks to pacifists. I have seen city gangs with fully automatic Uzis, and MAC-11 machine pistols. Guess what? Those are illegally owned. You can own a fully automatic weapon IF you first obtain a special Federal permit, which the last time I checked about 20 years ago, cost $500.
Anyway, I apologize for diverting from the subject. I understand those that believe it is possible to get rid of all the guns in America, but that is not even realistic. Even the UK is finding out the hard way. And now the Bobbies that once used only a baton or billy to enforce laws, now carry concealed pistols.
But, I do respect those that WISH that we could live in a Utopia where guns were not needed or even existed. But, some of us live in reality and know what happens when citizens have no means of controlling or equalizing a rogue government. I have heard those that say that guns are not needed. Thank goodness not everyone agrees on that view. When the SHTF, there will be enough of us to protect the families of those that don't think that guns are necessary. Hope it never happens though.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by JoMar

Legislating against military type guns is a black market opportunity for gun manufacturers in other parts of the world. When the bad guys want a weapon they will find that weapon.

That's one NRA rationalization. They are just profiting off of male testosterone and bias. There are 10 other talking point rationalizations that someone will probably list. Bit, I appreciate that someone took the time to read and analyze my post. Thank you.

[ALadysMom]

Originally Posted by kanoa1kale2

Quite honestly, anyone who complains about what happens when the Leos have to take down a criminal should be required to go through the police training course on situational responses. There have been a few activists who took the course and came out with a completely different attitude. Their job is very difficult and decisions made in milliseconds have profound effects on peoples lives.Those who have not been in a similar situation have no clue regarding the stress and consequences of both action and inaction.

That’s a great idea! Kinda like Scared Straight or the driving-while-drunk simulation training. When can we round them up & get started?

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by ALadysMom

I don’t care about Nixon. I care very much about not allowing this socialist revolution to hide inside their senile Trojan Horse.

About gun ownership: The 2nd Amendment specifically allows for American people to own them so we will not fall victim to tyrannical leaders.

Do you know there are thousands, if not millions, of those firearms which are currently legally owned. All of them would still exist even if new ones were no longer made. How did banning alcohol work out during Prohibition? A very lucrative black market would be guaranteed.

Firearms that are currently legally sold do not fire more than one bullet automatically.

Obviously, most guns are NEVER used to hunt—nor are they, thankfully, ever used to protect oneself. If that “need” were required for all new firearms purchased then the animals would need a lot more protections & we would need a lot less restraining orders. It doesn’t matter WHY any American thinks he/she wants to own a firearm, they are entitled to it if they follow the rules.

How do you think the law-abiding citizens who are in no-gun areas like Chicago feel when they are threatened with mob violence yet they have no means of protection? Why do you think slashing a have been occurring in England? The citizens are unarmed & so are many of the British police!

I will happily become a pacifist in Heaven where there is no evil.

Semi-auto does NOT mean auto as in automatic firing. Semi-auto means auto LOADING after each trigger pull. The Las Vegas sniper used a quasi-LEGAL accessory to achieve his automatic firing. Hopefully, that cleared something up. Visit your NRA quasi-military recruitment web page for further clarification.

[ffresh]

Originally Posted by Byte1

We probably should not divert from the subject of this thread, BUT a comment was made about "military style" weapons. I respect the fact that some fear what they might not fully comprehend, and "military style" or "automatic weapons" or "assault weapons" is definitely a subject that can be argued until .........the cows come home? When the Constitution was created, what constituted a "military style" or "assault weapon?" Not being a historian, I would still suggest that any weapon that could be picked up and used against the enemy, would fit the definition. Now, an interesting thought comes to mind. The second amendment was written to protect against Gov. tyranny, right? Wouldn't that mean, we should have military style weapons? Does it say anywhere in that Amendment that everyone should have a "hunting" weapon? Is the Amendment written to protect hunters, so that they may always have a hunting rifle?
I have absolutely no fear of anyone owning a military style rifle. I personally own a MILITARY rifle that was used in a war. It's an M1 semiautomatic rifle, capable of loading an 8 round (30-06) clip into the magazine. If I was to be limited to a military style weapon from the time the Constitution was written, I guess I would have to have a musket, right? Could you defend yourself from a rogue gov military force with a musket, today?
If a person is mature and sensible, a military style weapon is not dangerous. No nut case should own a firearm, sword, hunting knife or even a butter knife.
Someone correctly said that there are tens of thousands of military style weapons legally owned in this country. I am glad. The bad guys have the best weapons and our police forces can't even sustain a defensive posture with their limited armament, thanks to pacifists. I have seen city gangs with fully automatic Uzis, and MAC-11 machine pistols. Guess what? Those are illegally owned. You can own a fully automatic weapon IF you first obtain a special Federal permit, which the last time I checked about 20 years ago, cost $500.
Anyway, I apologize for diverting from the subject. I understand those that believe it is possible to get rid of all the guns in America, but that is not even realistic. Even the UK is finding out the hard way. And now the Bobbies that once used only a baton or billy to enforce laws, now carry concealed pistols.
But, I do respect those that WISH that we could live in a Utopia where guns were not needed or even existed. But, some of us live in reality and know what happens when citizens have no means of controlling or equalizing a rogue government. I have heard those that say that guns are not needed. Thank goodness not everyone agrees on that view. When the SHTF, there will be enough of us to protect the families of those that don't think that guns are necessary. Hope it never happens though.

WELL SAID!

Fred

[nututv]

I consider myself to be rather well informed. It really surprised me the other day when my son told me tear gas isn't allowed in war due to the Geneva convention but police use it against the citizenry nearly daily.
I gave that a lot of thought, it's spooky.

[ALadysMom]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

And some troublemakers use as an excuse. It's just the same trouble from the other end of the door.

Your ex-wife shows up asking for her late alimony check? Shoot her and tell everyone she was threatening you and you were standing your ground.

Some random guy you don't recognize comes onto your property hoping to find someone to help him find an address because he's hopelessly lost and the GPS isn't giving him Villages directions? Shoot him - and claim he was threatening you so you stood your ground.

It's an excuse to kill people, nothing more or less. The only interpretation involved is the REASON you took advantage of that excuse to kill someone. The end result is the same - someone is dead, and someone is holding the weapon that killed the corpse.

Do I think people shouldn't protect their property? Nope, absolutely not. I feel that people SHOULD have the right to protect their property.

But I call it what it is, not what sounds good in an NRA or anti-NRA video clip. It is "ending the life of another human being with a firearm."

Apply whatever justification you want to it, but the result is the same.

If my ex-wife shows up looking for alimony she’s stark raving mad.

Stand Your Ground restates the obvious: each person has a right to defend his/her own life using lethal force with any means available. Unfortunately, not all states or jurisdictions honor, protect & defend that right, thus the need for FL to spell it out

Sure, it can be misused but there have also been cases where that has been attempted without success.

Those who are considering locations for misdeeds might choose an alternate location if they know the residents and property owners have the right to defend themselves & are not afraid to do it.

[nututv]

"Those who have not been in a similar situation have no clue regarding the stress and consequences of both action and inaction."

I've drawn a weapon on an individual 3 times in my life. The last time fairly recently. The adrenaline, the stone in your chest feeling, the sound of your own heartbeat pounding in your ears. It was the same each time. It's something you will NEVER forget. And I forgot, the feeling of time standing still.

[Taltarzac725]

List of riots - Wikipedia

Sure have been a lot of riots in the 2000s and 2010s all over the world.

Also looks like some sections of ancient Rome were often places for riots. Probably not the houses of the rich and famous though as they could afford to hire guards of different kinds and/or bribe some Roman Army official.

[ALadysMom]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Ok, you are saying would protesters and looters come to TV? Looters would be repeal with strong, deadly force as stated in many other posts. Peaceful protests MIGHT? be tolerated here if they were mostly locals and did NOT get out of control. But, WHAT I WORRY ABOUT HERE FOR TV is the one, lone crazy radicalized expert bomb maker. Or the lone, unaffiliated machine-gun wielding sniper like the one in Las Vegas. For those 2 situations, every place in the US is vulnerable, and especially a soft target like TV, and especially if entertainment were to return to the TV squares.

Fortunately for Villagers, the worst radical drops F-bombs on the golf course and the highest perch is probably atop a palm tree.

The ‘protests’ always start out peaceful. The thugs are cowards who hide within the crowds of people. Many of the people who march actually believe they are the voice of freedom from tyranny. But later, things get ugly and the tyrannical thugs rule the night. These are not a sit-in peace rally, folks.

BLM is enabling thug rioters

And we are being duped into quiet submission by BLM claims of desiring racial justice while they ignore or even facilitate chaos, destruction & lawlessness.

We are being tricked. We are too easily distracted by racial & political divisions to see what’s really going on. As long as we are busy squabbling with each other, we miss the real problem—one which we don’t disagree about. Socialism and a tyrannical government would be vehemently fought by both political parties & all races of American people.

It’s the old adage:
Divide & Conquer

[nututv]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Probably not the houses of the rich and famous though as they could afford to hire guards of different kinds and/or bribe.

Tell that to the Czars, Mussolini, Ceaușescu.

[Keeferinspace]

This might be a good place to ask where the closest shooting range is. Is there a gun club in The Villages? I don’t own a firearm but want to purchase one. It’s been over 30 years since I picked up a weapon—Marine Corps. Would enjoy picking up the hobby again.

[charlieo1126@gmail.com]

Massachusetts and Hawaii are the 2 hardest states to get a gun period they alternate between the lowest murder rates by guns Florida is 19th makes you wonder

[ALadysMom]

Originally Posted by charlieo1126@gmail.com

...No guns for me anymore , don’t even lock my door here , let the police and insurance protect me lol

There’s more reasons than fear of theft to lock your doors. What if someone enters them locks you out? If an insane druggie enters, how are you going to get him out? You could also be liable if someone enters & claims injury. The possibilities are nearly endless.

And I’ve never seen a horror movie where the bloodied victim calls in breathless terror, “Hello. Allstate?”