This is a hero?

[^_^ 5,021]

Poor people aren't victims of violent crime??

if they're worried about violent crime, they should avoid violent people

[Peikko 1,575]

Yes, they do.

I don't think a body guard would help much if you accidentally got caught in a shooting that had nothing to do with you - might give you a slight edge I guess. Not many people are truly in need of any form of protection and those that do are either rich and famous and can afford a body guard, or are nobodies who need advice on how to escape an abusive relationship, not a body guard.

[^_^ 5,021]

I don't think a body guard would help much if you accidentally got caught in a shooting ...

A good bodyguard would.

[Peikko 1,575]

A good bodyguard would.

Are good bodyguards psychic? Nothing can guarantee your safety, not even a good body guard. However, if people are that concerned about poor people's right as pertaining to body guards, perhaps the government should provide us all with one?

[^_^ 5,021]

Are good bodyguards psychic?

No but they are more situationally aware.

[Peikko 1,575]

No but they are more situationally aware.

True - and you are right. The constitution needs to be changed from right to bear arms to right to have a personal body guard.

[^_^ 5,021]

True - and you are right. The constitution needs to be changed from right to bear arms to right to have a personal body guard.

No, the constitution needs to be changed to outlaw attempts by states to deter people from exercising their right to bear arms.

[Peikko 1,575]

No, the constitution needs to be changed to outlaw attempts by states to deter people from exercising their right to bear arms.

Bring back conscription!

[^_^ 5,021]

Bring back conscription!

Let's not.

[Peikko 1,575]

Let's not.

, but we'd all be well trained in tactical combat and target shooting, no one would ever dare commit a crime again. It's for the greater good!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yeah...

Sometimes people should just come out and admit that some posted opinions, like the one about how more guns in the hands of more shopkeepers would result in fewer armed robberies, ate just ridiculous. It would save a good deal of time.

[slim 1,533]

If someone walks into your home or place of business and threatens you with deadly force, you morally have no responsibility for his or her safety. If he is already dead, a couple extra bullets to the chest won't hurt anything. If he is still alive, his actions are unpredictable and considering he was prepared to kill you before, he may be willing to do so now.

I'm not disagreeing with you but that's not the law. The law clearly states that once the threat is gone so is your right to shoot.

I'm 100% for killing violent criminals during the act of the crime. However, once someone is "taken out" of the crime, they're no longer a violent criminal, they're a non-combatant and should be dealt with as such. Nurse 'em back to health and put 'em on trial. Then execute 'em.

One of the huge problems in our society today is we don't execute people for things like armed robbery and attempted murder. This "kid" probably would've been released in less than two years to commit more crimes. We need to change the system. If you believe it's OK to execute criminals who are incapacitated on the floor, change the law! But, don't break the law to prove a point because then you become a criminal yourself.

Really, the bad guys are training and practicing firearms and various tactics and techniques like the MILITARY and POLICE?

Yes.

Let's suppose for a minute that they weren't and were just "kids" with guns robbing stores. Why aren't the military and police - with all their training - stopping these kids from robbing places?

in urban areas and cities having random civilians armed and trained is pointless.

You mean having random civilians armed and trained in the places where the most robberies and murders occur is pointless... yet having folks who live way out in the boonies, where this stuff hardly ever happens, is OK?

It sounds to me like that's what you're saying. Please, before you argue, step back from this for a minute and try to look at it logically.

No, the constitution needs to be changed to outlaw attempts by states to deter people from exercising their right to bear arms.

I don't think it needs to be changed to do that. It's very clearly worded already that states can't do anything to infringe upon the right.

, but we'd all be well trained in tactical combat and target shooting, no one would ever dare commit a crime again. It's for the greater good!

Crime would still happen, but it would go way, way down. When you look at places in the US with a high proportion of legally armed citizens, there's hardly any crime.

Where you get really high crime rates is places where citizens are denied their right to be armed and can't put good training to use.

Sometimes people should just come out and admit that some posted opinions, like the one about how more guns in the hands of more shopkeepers would result in fewer armed robberies, ate just ridiculous. It would save a good deal of time.

I'm sure if it was true someone would come out and say it.

Edited August 24, 2010 by slim

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It is true.

[^_^ 5,021]

It's very clearly worded already that states can't do anything to infringe upon the right.

In NJ, you can apply for a permit and then have your application collect dust for months and years until you take the initiative to be a pest. You literally have to dog them to get that stuff moved. You shouldn't have to. I see that as a violation of the right.

[SMR 368]

The role of the police is to maintain law and order not protect me personally. If I felt my life was in danger I would hire a body guard.

Would the bodyguard carry a gun?

If he wouldn't, I think you'd be rather disappointed at his effectiveness. If he would, what are you arguing about? Bodyguards are not police officers but just civilians trained to prevent crime against certain people.

What do you see as the huge difference between someone being trained to protect other people and carrying a weapon to do so and someone trained to protect him or herself and friends and family? If I say that I'm my wife's bodyguard, is it okay that I carry a gun? What if I chose to be a bodyguard for those around me? What if I chose to be a bodyguard for myself?

I think that's the point. People that have money hire other people to do their dirty work. People that don't do it themselves. Why are you discriminating?