Because when large groups of people need things to get done, it requires a group effort. You need local government, and taxes, to support professional police and fire departments. You need a government to build roads. In order for a government to be effective you have to give it power. The problem is that once someone has that power the chance arises for abuse, and if the abuser can get the weight of the law behind him he can control how the abuse is applied.

This was best stated by the man we Americans refer to as "The Father of The Constitution", political thinker, statesman and fourth President of the United States, James Madison.

And just like Ducimas destroying his "I want no restrictions" arguement with a "but I do want restrictions" follow up you undermine your own arguement very quickly.
Any long arm would suit your stability issue wouldn't it. A shotgun would be heavy enough to deal with your shakes.

So with the war between the states, the mormon wars, the internment of the japanese...all those and many more either didn't happen or those involved on the wrong side didn't have the 1st/2nd/4th to protect them.
Well that can't be true can it, so.....
Maybe their view of government tyranny didn't fit the bill? :hmmm:
But more likely it just demonstrates that the whole line of arguement you are usng simply does not work.

Buzz killer. :O:

So will the government. Wait, are they the criminals? :hmmm:

I used to work with a a retired county sherrif from Wyoming. His take on the whole thing was "When guns are outlawed, only the cops will have guns. Do you feel safer now?"

I feel fairly safe now. :hmmm: I guess it depends on what neighborhood one lives.

I would never feel safe in a society where only the police were armed.

And I believe it is this very thought that produces the passion we see concerning the 2nd Amendment.

Since there has never been such a society and there has never been any serious proposal to create such a society then you can feel safe, or you can worry about the sky falling on your head as it is just as much of a threat.

Indeed, but since the thought makes no sense the passion makes no sense either.

I would agree.

A shotgun wouldn't be my preference of defense, nor would my 30.06 bolt action rifle. My AR is perfect. A shotgun might be handy, but if a murderer grabs my wife or kid or line of fire becomes an issue, I want something I can aim very well with and not worry about a blast pattern. A lot depends where you live, I live in the woods.

We're talking a total gun ban of the people, you last paragraph is silly.

Riot/shot gun. Point in general direction. Better chance of striking target. I do not see me or my wife being very proficient with a handgun in a situation like being confronted by a intruder. I understand that a family member might be in line of fire. Best if no gun is involved at all in that situation. Your family member is effectively a human shield. Also, if said hand gun or rifle is powerful enough to go through a wall and possibly striking a passerby or neighbor you are liable. This is how I understand it in the state of MD.

Really?
I thought you were initialy claiming you needed exactly the same as what a SWAT officer needs when he is working.
But OK on your new arguement lets make it simple
Provide some proof.
I have asked people before and they have completely failed to provide any proof no matter how wide I set the parameters to allow them leeway.
If there is nothing even resembling a total gun ban then your whole arguement is as you put it, rather silly.

Government and group effort in one sentence.

Had you said "coordination", i could have agreed.
My life tells me that within a government, there is more fighting than grouping up and efforting together.:har:

Government: They aint no wingmen. They be dogfighters!

A shotgun would certainly be best in many situations, close in home invasion as long as line of sight isn't an issue. Any normal person would be nervous, so aiming doesn't matter as much.

As for a human shield, there have been many cases of that happening, a person gave up there gun, usually a pistol and the entire family ended up dead. It's a tough call, but with the right rifle, at least you're in a stand off. The question is, are you willing to lay down your gun and trust the criminal holding your family hostage. Cops are taught never to lay down their gun or give them up for a reason. The majority of human shield cases are taken out by a sniper, never a shotgun.

In apts, most walls are mere sheetrock, two layers, a 22 cal bullet could go through.

No situation with a gun is good, sure things could go wrong, but it's the same old same old, would you rather be in a position to defend yourself or not. Many liberals seem to think with love and talk, you can get a criminal to lay his gun down and wait for the cops.......

Well, if I wanted it and could afford it, I could have basically every thing a SWAT officer has. I never claimed I needed what they have, but I want the right to a legal semi auto rifle.

The fact is, all this gun contol is political. The majority of gun deaths, about 80% are in inner cities with cheap handguns, yet you don't hear a ban on handguns. Liberals simply want to do away with the NRA and other gun groups that are pro GOP. Our highest crime districts have the most gun control, solved nothing. The problem isn't guns, it's criminals that don't obey laws.

No one said anything about giving up the gun in a human shield situation. I to believe the intruder is going to off the entire family plus the dog if I lay down the weapon. Either way, the family member held captive is screwed. So what to do? I would shoot for the legs. Family member gets it as well but good chance of surviving. Intruder also down. Finish the job quickly. He is confused, in pain and going into shock. Sounds good on paper but true to life can be very different.

Yes, but your neighbours would think you a bit of a TWAT if you dressed like that to go for coffee at the local store.

Is it?
So all team D want one thing and all team R want the opposite?

You know that doesn't make sense, besides which even the NRA can't get a consensus view from their membership (plus their current leadership seems to be aiming for policies which are directly at odds with the views of the majority of NRA members)

So is your arguement for more expensive guns now?
BTW havn't you heard the brady bunch? they rabbit on about handguns all the time and have done for years, how can you possibly have missed that?

So its nothing to do with guns and is simply a matter of attacking lobby groups that throw money at candidates who failed to get elected.

The problem is complex, but at its core is the easy accesibility criminals have to firearms and the loopholes and lack of regulation which enables them to buy them directly from publicly advertised gun sales.

Never said you said that, just said it's stupid to do. Let's face it, a human shield situation is tough, your call on what to do would be based on the situation, but give me an AR anytime. The best you could do is hope to calm it and get the guy to leave. Hard thing is many of these instances involve multiple intruders.

There is a tool for every job. To say which weapon is the best home defense weapon depends on a lot of different factors and situations. My "home" starts at my fence line, abouy 1/2 mile from my house. My AR is the tool I prefer outside. Inside my house, I would probably pull my shotgun. In my vehicle or person, a 45.

I mainly like the AR for shooting critters, coyotes, feral cats, etc....

We have two corner stores across from each other about 5 miles away. One night I was at one of them, when mass gun fire erupted at the other across the street. All I had was my 30.06 bolt rifle in the truck. I got it out and scoped, but couldn't figure what was up, who was shooting who.
Turned out to be a peod fired employee, went in shot the owner, two customers, went Rambo shooting the store up, then shot himself. I could've easily chosen that store over the other....Honestly can't say what I would've done, but had I been in the parking lot, would've rather had my AR.

Interesting article in the Boston Globe (local liberal rag).

Crime has soared in Massachusetts since passage of the states AW ban.

http://bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/...kEM/story.html