Summations Only

Then you might have something wrong with your hearing.

That was an impressively good answer to the question, thanks.

Heh, I meant Mr. Walther PPK in my pocket and I.

Or maybe I can't.Regardless, its my decision to make in how I want to enable my own self-defense, and arming myself is one of the options. Those are terrible weapons for self defense. And "arms" in the context of the 2nd does not mean any conceivable weapon. I can see why you don't get it.

Except for a heavy handicap, I can't see why you couldn't. In that case may I suggest a variety of non-lethal weapons like a taser gun or pepper spray? Landmines are very effective at preventing unwanted intruders in your house. Hand grenades or nuclear weapons are only for the purpose of dissuasion, exactly like your argued earlier. Why not?Seriously now... Don't you see that you're going in circles? You want a gun to defend yourself because people have guns because you want guns?It's like the nuclear race during the cold war.

I will try yet again.It is illegal to sell a handgun to someone who has a physical or mental condition that would make them ineligible for gun ownership, yet we find such folk buying guns. Since the US has no way to track or identify such people the laws get broken.Gun owners are supposed to keep their guns secured yet we find people getting guns from family members.No minor is supposed to ever have a gun unsupervised, yet we find children with loaded guns.In the US you are not allowed to just shoot folk except under specific circumstances yet we find guns being used co commit crimes.It would be nice if I could trust you were done here but I fear that too is just not true.I am always happy to discuss my position on a subject and even try to repeat explanations for those who have difficulty understanding.

Absolutely and a great example of my point and why the idea of banning guns is so utterly stupid.If we want to do something to make the US safer we need to get the drivers that do 90 in a 55MPH zone off the road permanently.

I found it here: Gunned Down: The Power of the NRA | Watch S2015 E4 | FRONTLINE | PBS | Official SiteWatched it already. It's scary and depressing, and it provides some good insight into the mindset of the NRA. They truly do believe that all it takes to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Such platitudinous sloganeering is simple and very effective at convincing those already sympathetic to such views, as grievously false as they may be.--Percy

We've not missed the point. The point you are making is obvious and obviously wrong.The texts you quote are man made. They can be changed if there is an agreed need for society to change them.There is no natural right to own a gun.

Besides physical limitations, a person could be too old, not have the time, or simply just lack the desire. Not after the squirrels and rabbits have taken them all out. Plus, I personally don't have any way of deciding who's hit. I'm not following you. For one, its a weapon than an individual can use. A personal weapon.Artillery existed at the time, but wasn't considered an arm in the context of the 2nd. You need a squad to employ artillery. No, I don't see that.I wanted a gun because its the best self defense weapon available to me.

There's a natural instinct for self-preservation. There's also a natural instinct to grab what you want, even if it belongs to somebody else, but that doesn't make it a right. Actual rights, as opposed to imaginary "natural" rights, don't appear magically from nature. They're whatever society decides they are.

True or false: A person ought to be able to defend their self.

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

False. That's a myth that's popular the US. And it's a dangerous myth which perpetuates violence. It's essentially the talon law of the Old Testament, which was supplanted by the Levitical law. It's society that defends its members, not individual members defending their self-interest.

Okay, I don't see anyway to get past this disagreement.Have a nice day.