User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 12:50:32 PM EDT
[#1]
Why don't we just have pepper spray guns?
Self defense means doing whatever it takes, including taking a life, to protect your own. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 12:51:59 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted: HERRR DERRRR DERRR What about making guns less lethal? There are guns that fire beanbags or rubber bullets, like those sometimes used for crowd control. There are gas pistols, which pack a wollop but which usually aren’t lethal unless you get shot with one at extremely close range. In short, they are effective in disabling or warding off a person than they are in killing a person. If what the Second Amendment guarantees (at least according to Heller) is a self-defense interest, then is there a legal reason we could not limit possession of handguns and ammunition to less lethal types? To avoid interfering excessively with hunting, suppose that we continue to permit hunters to own long guns with normal ammunition, but only using gauges whose ammunition won’t work in the less lethal handguns. Since ultimately I don’t think most gun rights supporters are really concerned with self defense, I suspect most of them would not be satisfied with this, and my question isn’t whether those folks would like this idea. Rather, what I’m wondering is whether legally there is any reason this wouldn’t be feasible under the Second Amendment as currently interpreted? ... The question I asked was whether there’s any legal reason guns have to be lethal in order to satisfy the Second Amendment. I suspect the answer is no, but the fact that so many supporters of gun "rights” would probably be opposed anyway illustrates what’s really going on here, which has nothing to do with self defense. Gun supporters are not dealing on the level of facts and reality, but rather view guns as a matter of faith and power. And that’s just messed up. What do you say in response? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 12:52:16 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted:
What about making guns less lethal? There are guns that fire beanbags or rubber bullets, like those sometimes used for crowd control. There are gas pistols, which pack a wollop but which usually aren’t lethal unless you get shot with one at extremely close range. In short, they are effective in disabling or warding off a person than they are in killing a person.
If what the Second Amendment guarantees (at least according to Heller) is a self-defense interest, then is there a legal reason we could not limit possession of handguns and ammunition to less lethal types? To avoid interfering excessively with hunting, suppose that we continue to permit hunters to own long guns with normal ammunition, but only using gauges whose ammunition won’t work in the less lethal handguns. Since ultimately I don’t think most gun rights supporters are really concerned with self defense, I suspect most of them would not be satisfied with this, and my question isn’t whether those folks would like this idea. Rather, what I’m wondering is whether legally there is any reason this wouldn’t be feasible under the Second Amendment as currently interpreted? ... The question I asked was whether there’s any legal reason guns have to be lethal in order to satisfy the Second Amendment. I suspect the answer is no, but the fact that so many supporters of gun “rights” would probably be opposed anyway illustrates what’s really going on here, which has nothing to do with self defense. Gun supporters are not dealing on the level of facts and reality, but rather view guns as a matter of faith and power. And that’s just messed up. What do you say in response? I say whatever dickbrain came up with that doesn't understand the 2A. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 12:53:08 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
Quoted:
What about making guns less lethal? There are guns that fire beanbags or rubber bullets, like those sometimes used for crowd control. There are gas pistols, which pack a wollop but which usually aren’t lethal unless you get shot with one at extremely close range. In short, they are effective in disabling or warding off a person than they are in killing a person.
If what the Second Amendment guarantees (at least according to Heller) is a self-defense interest, then is there a legal reason we could not limit possession of handguns and ammunition to less lethal types? To avoid interfering excessively with hunting, suppose that we continue to permit hunters to own long guns with normal ammunition, but only using gauges whose ammunition won’t work in the less lethal handguns. Since ultimately I don’t think most gun rights supporters are really concerned with self defense, I suspect most of them would not be satisfied with this, and my question isn’t whether those folks would like this idea. Rather, what I’m wondering is whether legally there is any reason this wouldn’t be feasible under the Second Amendment as currently interpreted? ... The question I asked was whether there’s any legal reason guns have to be lethal in order to satisfy the Second Amendment. I suspect the answer is no, but the fact that so many supporters of gun “rights” would probably be opposed anyway illustrates what’s really going on here, which has nothing to do with self defense. Gun supporters are not dealing on the level of facts and reality, but rather view guns as a matter of faith and power. And that’s just messed up. What do you say in response? I say whatever dickbrain came up with that doesn't understand the 2A. I second that response. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 12:53:12 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
Quoted:
HERRR DERRRR DERRR
... What do you say in response? That was my first response too. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 12:53:41 PM EDT
[#6]
The second is not just about self defense, the founders wanted us to have the means to be able to overthrow a tyrannical government. With that you need a lethal weapon.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 12:53:54 PM EDT
[#7]
"Fuck off you have no clue about what the second amendment means"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 12:54:41 PM EDT
[#8]
Lalala! I can't hear you. That's pretty much what Liberals do.
Seriously, the 2A is primarily for resistance to an oppressive government. You wan't take on soldiers with live ammo using bean bags and pepper spray? Go ahead. You want to take on a methed up tweaker with that, go ahead. I'll keep my .45 ACP, .223, .308, and 9mm. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 12:55:31 PM EDT
[#9]
I will only accept restrictions that the president will accept for his guards too.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 12:55:51 PM EDT
[#10]
Let me know when the cops stop using guns in favor of less lethal. Then I will know it works.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 12:56:39 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: Good too knw that even whilst drunk as hell I Still am more logical thn a antigunnerQuoted: Quoted: HERRR DERRRR DERRR ... What do you say in response? That was my first response too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 12:57:41 PM EDT
[#12]
Short of OC and CS Pepper balls for paintball guns, I'm unaware of any less than lethal munitions that are NOT less than lethal, (meaning, they will kill), unless used EXACTLY as the manufacturer reccomends.
Wooden, rubber rounds, bean bag rounds, will kill unless used at the proper distance, and shot at precisely the proper place. Anyone remember the girl killed by a rubber bullet to the head in San Francisco (IIRC) just a few years ago???? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 12:58:10 PM EDT
[#13]
This is just a wordy variation on the old "Why don't you shoot the gun out of the bad guy's hand?" argument.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 12:58:57 PM EDT
[#14]
Shall not be infringed.
If the founding fathers wanted us to use rubber bullets they would have written it in there. Also, last time I checked, I can't fit "hunting rounds" into a handgun anyway - so when did this become an issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 12:59:05 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: This is just a wordy variation on the old "Why don't you shoot the gun out of the bad guy's hand?" argument. Winner. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 12:59:48 PM EDT
[#16]
Anyone who thinks less-lethal weapons are an effective solution has obviously never used them.
I've had quite a bit of experience with them. I'd say they are maybe 50% effective at deterring an aggressor. We also usually use them when another officer has lethal cover because we have no idea what the suspect may have. There have been several times I've applied a LL tool and still ended up fighting the subject. The only real reason LL tools were developed is because we as LE HAVE to go hands-on with people in order to secure them in custody.I don't carry LL off duty because that is not my job at the time. I'll hold you at gunpoint until uniforms come. LL can be useful to generate time. If you can spray and run or Tase and run you might be able to escape. They are not a substitute for firearms in any way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 1:00:29 PM EDT
[#17]
Five .38 Bullets to the face barely stopped the latest news made attacker.
No more reply needed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 1:03:25 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Good too knw that even whilst drunk as hell I Still am more logical thn a antigunner
Quoted:
Quoted:
HERRR DERRRR DERRR
... What do you say in response? That was my first response too. Why are you drunk as hell at 4pm on Sunday? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 1:03:36 PM EDT
[#19]
If the idiot who wrote that wants to trust their life against a crackhead (or 3) with.a beanbag, by all means go ahead.
America is about choice. Just don't try to limit mine. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 1:04:16 PM EDT
[#20]
Tell them to actually read Heller
The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scru- tiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 1:04:57 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted: What about making guns less lethal? There are guns that fire beanbags or rubber bullets, like those sometimes used for crowd control. There are gas pistols, which pack a wollop but which usually aren’t lethal unless you get shot with one at extremely close range. In short, they are effective in disabling or warding off a person than they are in killing a person. If what the Second Amendment guarantees (at least according to Heller) is a self-defense interest, then is there a legal reason we could not limit possession of handguns and ammunition to less lethal types? To avoid interfering excessively with hunting, suppose that we continue to permit hunters to own long guns with normal ammunition, but only using gauges whose ammunition won’t work in the less lethal handguns. Since ultimately I don’t think most gun rights supporters are really concerned with self defense, I suspect most of them would not be satisfied with this, and my question isn’t whether those folks would like this idea. Rather, what I’m wondering is whether legally there is any reason this wouldn’t be feasible under the Second Amendment as currently interpreted? ... The question I asked was whether there’s any legal reason guns have to be lethal in order to satisfy the Second Amendment. I suspect the answer is no, but the fact that so many supporters of gun "rights” would probably be opposed anyway illustrates what’s really going on here, which has nothing to do with self defense. Gun supporters are not dealing on the level of facts and reality, but rather view guns as a matter of faith and power. And that’s just messed up. What do you say in response? Are these weapons effective enough to replace the gun as we know it for military and law enforcement? If not, why not? And if not, why would you expect me to accept that as my only self-defense option? I tell you what, how about you sweeten the pot. I demand unrestricted access to stingball grenades (no DD, tax, anything) before any further discussion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 1:05:08 PM EDT
[#22]
I say whatever dickbrain came up with that doesn't understand the 2A. +1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 1:06:35 PM EDT
[#23]
When every military in the world is armed only with non-lethal weapons than come talk to me.
The Second Amendment is about protecting the security of a free state by giving the people the means to resist tyranny from a government whether foreign or domestic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 1:06:40 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: No work toniht y not?Quoted: Quoted: Good too knw that even whilst drunk as hell I Still am more logical thn a antigunnerQuoted: Quoted: HERRR DERRRR DERRR ... What do you say in response? That was my first response too. Why are you drunk as hell at 4pm on Sunday? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 1:08:18 PM EDT
[#25]
The 2nd doesn't say a fucking word about hunting. Not. One. Word. No compromise.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 1:09:59 PM EDT
[#26]
Do they realize that the genie is out of the bottle, you cannot un invent what we currently have. 2A is not about hunting but tyranny, as long as elected officials fear the population we have liberty
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 1:12:37 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Good too knw that even whilst drunk as hell I Still am more logical thn a antigunner
Quoted:
Quoted:
HERRR DERRRR DERRR
... What do you say in response? That was my first response too. Why are you drunk as hell at 4pm on Sunday? Uh, its America an he get drunk as Hell at 4:00 on Sunday if he wants to? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 1:12:42 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
What about making guns less lethal? There are guns that fire beanbags or rubber bullets, like those sometimes used for crowd control. There are gas pistols, which pack a wollop but which usually aren’t lethal unless you get shot with one at extremely close range. In short, they are effective in disabling or warding off a person than they are in killing a person.
If what the Second Amendment guarantees (at least according to Heller) is a self-defense interest, then is there a legal reason we could not limit possession of handguns and ammunition to less lethal types? To avoid interfering excessively with hunting, suppose that we continue to permit hunters to own long guns with normal ammunition, but only using gauges whose ammunition won’t work in the less lethal handguns. Since ultimately I don’t think most gun rights supporters are really concerned with self defense, I suspect most of them would not be satisfied with this, and my question isn’t whether those folks would like this idea. Rather, what I’m wondering is whether legally there is any reason this wouldn’t be feasible under the Second Amendment as currently interpreted? ... The question I asked was whether there’s any legal reason guns have to be lethal in order to satisfy the Second Amendment. I suspect the answer is no, but the fact that so many supporters of gun “rights” would probably be opposed anyway illustrates what’s really going on here, which has nothing to do with self defense. Gun supporters are not dealing on the level of facts and reality, but rather view guns as a matter of faith and power. And that’s just messed up. What do you say in response? Tell them when the military and police start issuing rubber bullets and bean bag rounds as a standard combat load out, we'll talk. Until then FOAD. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 1:18:43 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
This is just a wordy variation on the old "Why don't you shoot the gun out of the bad guy's hand?" argument. +100 this is what I was going to say or that it is similar to the "why do you have to kill them, just shoot to wound... shot to disarm...blah blah blah" arguments. As far as arguing for/against less than lethal (and ignoring how the OP argument and 2nd amendment have ZERO to do with hunting, personal defense etc.). "less than lethal" tools like sprays, tasers, beanbag rounds have also proven to be "less than effective" when people are taking certain drugs,suffer from certain conditions or are used in less than ideal situations (distance, weather, thick clothing). Additionally they have been proven to be fatal, in some circumstances circumstances. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 1:20:12 PM EDT
[#30]
Get me a Phaser set on "stun" and I'll go for it...
Tomac |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 1:20:57 PM EDT
[#31]
Tasers are great, IF they work correctly, when they don't you're fucking screwed.
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 1:24:15 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
What about making guns less lethal? There are guns that fire beanbags or rubber bullets, like those sometimes used for crowd control. There are gas pistols, which pack a wollop but which usually aren’t lethal unless you get shot with one at extremely close range. In short, they are effective in disabling or warding off a person than they are in killing a person.
If what the Second Amendment guarantees (at least according to Heller) is a self-defense interest, then is there a legal reason we could not limit possession of handguns and ammunition to less lethal types? To avoid interfering excessively with hunting, suppose that we continue to permit hunters to own long guns with normal ammunition, but only using gauges whose ammunition won’t work in the less lethal handguns. Since ultimately I don’t think most gun rights supporters are really concerned with self defense, I suspect most of them would not be satisfied with this, and my question isn’t whether those folks would like this idea. Rather, what I’m wondering is whether legally there is any reason this wouldn’t be feasible under the Second Amendment as currently interpreted? ... The question I asked was whether there’s any legal reason guns have to be lethal in order to satisfy the Second Amendment. I suspect the answer is no, but the fact that so many supporters of gun “rights” would probably be opposed anyway illustrates what’s really going on here, which has nothing to do with self defense. Gun supporters are not dealing on the level of facts and reality, but rather view guns as a matter of faith and power. And that’s just messed up. What do you say in response? My response? "Let's test this, I'll shoot at you with a gun loaded with normal lethal rounds. Afterwards, I'll let you shoot a non-lethal-loaded gun at me." |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 1:27:05 PM EDT
[#33]
Apparently whomever said this didn't get the part about "shall not be infringed".
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 1:30:34 PM EDT
[#34]
That didn't work out for the agent with the bean bag shotgun killed by Fast adn Furious firearm.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 1:35:31 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
What about making guns less lethal? There are guns that fire beanbags or rubber bullets, like those sometimes used for crowd control. There are gas pistols, which pack a wollop but which usually aren’t lethal unless you get shot with one at extremely close range. In short, they are effective in disabling or warding off a person than they are in killing a person.
If what the Second Amendment guarantees (at least according to Heller) is a self-defense interest, then is there a legal reason we could not limit possession of handguns and ammunition to less lethal types? To avoid interfering excessively with hunting, suppose that we continue to permit hunters to own long guns with normal ammunition, but only using gauges whose ammunition won’t work in the less lethal handguns. Since ultimately I don’t think most gun rights supporters are really concerned with self defense, I suspect most of them would not be satisfied with this, and my question isn’t whether those folks would like this idea. Rather, what I’m wondering is whether legally there is any reason this wouldn’t be feasible under the Second Amendment as currently interpreted? ... The question I asked was whether there’s any legal reason guns have to be lethal in order to satisfy the Second Amendment. I suspect the answer is no, but the fact that so many supporters of gun “rights” would probably be opposed anyway illustrates what’s really going on here, which has nothing to do with self defense. Gun supporters are not dealing on the level of facts and reality, but rather view guns as a matter of faith and power. And that’s just messed up. What do you say in response? Read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights! This person is obviously out of their mind, overly emotional, and has the reading comprehension skills of a turnip. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 2:31:13 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
What about making guns less lethal? There are guns that fire beanbags or rubber bullets, like those sometimes used for crowd control. There are gas pistols, which pack a wollop but which usually aren’t lethal unless you get shot with one at extremely close range. In short, they are effective in disabling or warding off a person than they are in killing a person.
If what the Second Amendment guarantees (at least according to Heller) is a self-defense interest, then is there a legal reason we could not limit possession of handguns and ammunition to less lethal types? To avoid interfering excessively with hunting, suppose that we continue to permit hunters to own long guns with normal ammunition, but only using gauges whose ammunition won’t work in the less lethal handguns. Since ultimately I don’t think most gun rights supporters are really concerned with self defense, I suspect most of them would not be satisfied with this, and my question isn’t whether those folks would like this idea. Rather, what I’m wondering is whether legally there is any reason this wouldn’t be feasible under the Second Amendment as currently interpreted? ... The question I asked was whether there’s any legal reason guns have to be lethal in order to satisfy the Second Amendment. I suspect the answer is no, but the fact that so many supporters of gun “rights” would probably be opposed anyway illustrates what’s really going on here, which has nothing to do with self defense. Gun supporters are not dealing on the level of facts and reality, but rather view guns as a matter of faith and power. And that’s just messed up. What do you say in response? Commie Fucktard |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 4:43:12 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
The second is not just about self defense, the founders wanted us to have the means to be able to overthrow a tyrannical government. With that you need a lethal weapon. This is basically what I said. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 5:05:26 PM EDT
[#38]
If you were attacked by say three NFL linebackers after they'd been drinking and doing coke, or maybe one of the top UFC guys, would you really want to depend on a bean bag round or pepper spray?
Regardless of your choice, I would prefer an RPG or a beltfed, but I'd settle for a regular rifle, or a handgun if I had no other choice. ETA that I suspect shooting someone with a bean bag round would be considered "deadly force" in most places. If you are going to use deadly force then why not go with the real thing? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
