How NOT to deal with unwanted guests

This is distorting and misinterpreting both the events and the role of 2A. Why did you do this?

These are not mistakes, they are criminal acts. Criminals do not care about the law and would have guns even if you curtailed 2A, abolished 2A entirely, confiscated all guns and jailed all law-abiding gun owners.
In fact, I know of no cost that the govt. or we, the people, bear due to 2A. If you do - please share.
I also don’t see how 2A is held superior to other amendments or the rest of the US Constitution. Do you know any case when civil rights are sacrificed because of 2A? Please share.


The government could mandate we all have to give up our vehicles and rely on whatever inefficient public transportation system they set up. Suspect there won’t be big numbers of politicians putting that up for vote anytime soon

Just because I don’t use something every day doesn’t mean it will not be vital for my survival or my family’s survival some day. Guess I should throw out my medical supplies and emergency medications because someone somewhere might misuse those things?


No, there is no need to go to work or food store by personal 2 ton gas-guzzling vehicle. There is public transportation available, electric buses even. You can work remotely. You can subscribe to Amazon Prime and have food delivered. In fact, there is little need for modern humans to go anywhere by vehicle.

You need to care for the planet more.


No I mean a national push to point out people dying from common things like speeding and making a national call for change to save those literally thousands of lives that could be saved if we just enforced existing laws

I don’t suppose there is a national news article about those speed cameras?


Other voters fail to to understand (and are in fact told incorrectly otherwise) that more guns save lives.

More restrictions, more hoops, more red tape, fewer lawful citizens armed, is a net negative.

What explicitly protected from infringement Constitutional Right would be walked on by enforcing speed limits, putting top speed limiters on cars, restrictive car’s power, etc? (none)


There is no need to outright ban vehicle ownership. You can still own a vehicle (not that that is a Right protected explicitly from infringement by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights as in the RKBA)

But you can still own a car. It will just be a weak, slow, limited fuel tank capacity, speed limited car. And you will have times and places you can’t drive it because you don’t need to be there. To phrase it how it would go, nobody is saying you can’t have a 90 hp Civic to drive to church and work

Unless you live within an area that has public transit that reaches where you work then you can take public transit, and employers will be incentavized to require work from home and they will be held liable if you injure someone driving to work when you shouldn’t have had to (or the car manufacturer will be held liable for drunk drivers, take your pick to parody gun manufacturers being sued)


Any of us could at any time suddenly require a gun to stay alive and need it within seconds to not die.


Ok Let go, the right to vote, there are all sorts of arguments that all sorts of restrictions that ought to be placed upon that right, photo-id etc etc that never should be applied to the 2nd. By predominance, I argue that it’s held to strict scrutiny to any sort of restrictions.

1 Like

Humm, sure in the world that we want, people would travel via bike, public etc etc,

But that is not the world we live in. And then to claim that we should compare gun regulation in the world we live in to cars in the world that we want, its goal post moving of great skill…

Not positive what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that the 2A is or isn’t very restricted? As the only right in the Constitution that says it shall not be infringed, there sure does seem to be a lot of restrictions on it from the 20k+ firearm related laws on the books in this country. How many more do we need to stop “gun violence”? Another 20k, 40k?? Or will “just one more” “common sense” infringement make it all magically go away?


Has anyone argued that guns should be sold to people without ids? Fact is, every time I buy a firearm, they demand a valid DL! This is OK with me, though I hope it won’t escalate to become DNA collection or cavity search. I know people who argued for that.

By same token I don’t see why presenting a valid photo id should impede voting. Obtaining some form of photo id (not same as DL) is a trivial task, less or equally difficult than the act of casting a ballot.

OMG, did you just concede that driving cars is not a constitutionally guaranteed right, and the govt does not have same latitude in licensing ownership, restricting technical specs, or taxing guns, as they do with cars?


That is a very real possibility, however the youths in the car that pulled in the wrong driveway appeared to be white. All I’m saying is the media needs to give the whole story, which they never do. And there really needs to be mental and physical training to own a firearm. If the media would wait for all the facts before jumping on the evil gun owner bandwagon, this country wouldn’t be so divided. And like the title to this forum says–This is not the way to deal with unwanted guests, no matter what race, religion. stature, etc. These two homeowners are definatly in deep excrement.


But can you really convince people to not open the door? how about a security camera to communicate to the person at the door.


In this case, if the homeowner thought his life was in danger, he could have simply not opened the door. And if, upon opening the door, he discovered that his life was in danger, he could have closed the door. (I presume this was an option since he fired through the storm door, implying that there was still a door between the home owner and the visitor.) So he didn’t even need a security camera, he just needed to do literally anything except shoot the teenager on his front porch.


I live in a very safe place but even so I wouldn’t feel comfortable opening the door if I couldn’t see who was on the other side. Either a peephole, camera or window that covers the view. Ideally you could see the visitors without them seeing you in case they want to use a firearm to introduce themselves.

1 Like

You kinda missed the comment’s point, it was about the dangers of “what if” conjecture.

Sure, 2nd amendment rights are greater than the privilege of driving.

But they are not greater than voting rights. So, having to register a gun as you do to vote seems to treating each right equally.

I try.

Training and education is the most important thing, and I try very hard to impress on people that if you don’t know who is on the other side of your locked residential door, and you feel threatened enough to have a gun in your hand while answering the door, it is a very unwise untacticallysound unsafe decision to open the door.

We are conditioned to “oh someone knocked I better open the door” but that’s not how it should be.

If we get the word out enough we can reverse that conditioning


But the right to self defense has significantly greater protections under the constitution. And Registration of arms usually, maybe always eventually leads to confiscation. Just look at Australia and New Zealand for recent examples. So registration is clearly a dangerous infringement that will protect few if any and will most likely threaten everyone.