While that's true, you could make the same arguement for seperation of church and state, but that is not in the constitution either. I'm not sure why you're getting hot about it, I don't think stopping law abiding citizens from owning guns solves much, I just don't think the constitution offers much protection for it, if it did, you could own any gun ever made, but you can't. If we can't agree on a subject and have a civil discussion about the things that affect it, what's the point of discussing it?

Of course free speech applies to modern forms of the printing press, but it's not really an apples to apples comparison. But let's not get started about that one, freedom of speech was designed to allow you to speak out against your government and had been perverted along the way!

Please, take a deep breath, I agree with you on this law, my questions are quite sincere.

 

Happened Yesterday...

Grandmother shoots intruder in north Arlington

By BILL MILLER and NATHANIEL JONES

Star-Telegram Staff Writers

A 66-year-old grandmother shot an intruder in her north Arlington home early Wednesday as he grabbed for her gun, she told police.

Susan ******* Buxton said the training she received to earn her concealed-handgun permit saved her life.

"If I didn't have a gun to protect myself, I probably wouldn't be here," she said.

The man, identified as Christopher Lessner, 22, was under police guard Wednesday at Harris Methodist Fort Worth, where he was being treated for a leg wound, said Christy Gilfour, Arlington police spokeswoman.

Buxton said she used a .38-caliber revolver. Gilfour confirmed that the woman has a gun permit.

Lessner was shot sometime after 12:30 a.m. He had initially fled from officers at about 11:15 p.m. Tuesday during a traffic stop on Interstate 30 at Fielder Road, Gilfour said.

Buxton told officers that she was letting her dog out about 12:30 a.m. when she noticed a muddy footprint on her back porch.

Buxton told police that she usually carried her gun because she was afraid of coyotes attacking her dogs.

She said her 28-year-old granddaughter, who was in the house, heard glass breaking. Buxton also noticed that her cats were out of their room and that items in another room had been moved, police said.

When she yanked open the door of her front closet and pulled a coat away, she saw the face of a man, who motioned for her to be quiet, the woman said.

He then "jumped out of there like a jack-in-a-box,'' she said.

She told him to get on the floor or she'd shoot. He fumbled with the front door with one hand and reached for the gun with the other, Buxton said.

She then fired her revolver, which was loaded with hollow-point bullets, she said.

Buxton said she could have killed the man because her concealed-carry instructors taught her to aim for the torso. But she said she aimed for his leg. He was hit in the upper leg, police said.

"He said, 'Ow, you shot me!''' Buxton said.

Police said the woman fired another shot but missed.

Gilfour said officers searching for the suspect heard a gunshot, and dispatchers soon directed them to a 911 caller on Northaven Court, a cul-de-sac southwest of I-30 and Fielder.

"We found him a couple houses to the east, lying on a balcony,'' Gilfour said.

The black Chevrolet pickup Lessner was driving was reported stolen out of Euless, Gilfour said. She did not know his address.

During the traffic stop, Gilfour said, officers tried to pull the truck over for speeding, but it turned north onto Fielder and into a neighborhood north of the interstate.

Officers said Lessner leaped from the moving truck on Parkcrest Terrace, which is just east of Randol Mill Park.

"The suspect climbed an eight-foot fence, jumped over a chain-link fence and ran into a heavily wooded area,'' Gilfour said.

Officers combed the neighborhood for about one hour and 15 minutes, street by street, with a Fort Worth police helicopter overhead and search dogs. At some point the man crossed to the south side of the interstate.

Gilfour said Lessner faces charges of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, evading arrest, criminal mischief and criminal trespass.

She said police "do not anticipate" filing charges against Buxton.

 

and while I agree the Constitution doesn't specify which type of arms it was clear that the framers wanted the private citizen the right to defend themselves with firearms. While there was concern about invaders both domestic and foreign one of their primary goals was to ensure the citizenry was armed to keep the gov't's power in check and to defend against a govt should it turn on the citizens.

It will turn....and we will defend. Maybe not in my lifetime...

 

See my above post. The Supreme Court has ruled that restrictions are ok. I disagree with the rulings but not much can be done.

I agree completely and I love to debate/discuss these issues.

 

Excellent story, about the grandmother, by the way. While I'm not trying to raise any ruffles, simply clarify the point of my question, I realize these things happen, I can also find news stories about people dieing of drug overdoses, but I don't personally know any one that has had that happen, maybe it's the circles I travel in and neighborhood I choose to live in. I still have never met anyone (even online) that has needed a gun to defend themselves. Trust me, if some scum was harming my daughter, I would be more than happy to kill that person, but I can't say I know anyone who has been in a situation even close to that.

 

I believe that you can take a similar case to the Supreme Court and have the issue "re-ruled" upon.....why do you think there is such debate over the appointment of new Judges....especially with the topic of Roe v. Wade.....

 

The fact that most of my neighbors own handguns has had a profound effect on the safety of my neighborhood. The only reason I haven't had to use a gun is because I'm ready, willing and able to use a gun to defend myself and my home.

 

While that is true....you can't come back with the same issue and expect much action by the court.

Most justices believe in Stare decisis and wont review a case just to overturn it. You've got to come at them from another angle.

 

Thus my use of the word SIMILAR.....

 

I'm not getting hot about it, the comment was in jest. Tongue in cheek if you will. I do however take Freedom quite seriously.

The 'Spearation of Church and State' is bunk too. The only thing Congress can not do, without ammending the Constitution is create a national religion ala the Church of England. But that's not the topic of this discussion.

I do believe that the Constitution clearly offers protection;'Shall not be infringed' is a pretty clear statement. It does not state 'subject to reasonable restrictions', nowhere does it define the Militia as the National Guard (which dod not exist at the time), it describes the people, it affirms our inherant right to keep and bear arms.

Of course free speech applies to modern forms of the printing press, but it's not really an apples to apples comparison. But let's not get started about that one, freedom of speech was designed to allow you to speak out against your government and had been perverted along the way!

Slow down a minute, it IS an apples to apples comparison. All rights enumerated in our founding documents are individual rights of the people, and restrictions on the government. People of the day owned cannons for crying out loud. In todays terms I should be allowed to own a fully operational field artillery piece. Persoanlly I don't have a problem with that concept.
As much as the First Amendment is designed to speak out against the government, the second is in place to keep the government in check bythe people. The standing Army was only allowed to be a certain percentage of the population so they could not be used to control the civilians. In the event of a tyranical government it is the duty of the citizens of the United States to overthrow, modify, or wholly replace that government as it is spelled out in the founding documents. It sounds extreeme, but Freedom is that way. Either you have it or you don't.

 

More than once, actually, and it hasn't only been myself that was defended. Further, simply wearing one out in the open in the back country has no doubt kept at least a few losers from taking any action that would have led me to draw in the first place.

But this isn't about safety at all. If it were, the more persuasive argument would be that firearms are inherently unsafe, that there are too many idiots out there who can't be trusted to carry them responsibly, etc (and I’m all for the requirement that you have either received military training or must attend owner/carrier safety courses for concealed permits).

It’s about much, much more than safety. It’s almost to cliché - but worth repeating - that more than one of our founding fathers subscribed to the theory that anyone who would value safety over freedom deserves neither. There are obligations to living in a free land. Living in a less than perfectly safe environment is one of those obligations. In other words, freedom takes *****. Very few people in the history of the world have proven so endowed over the long haul.

 

My life experience is irrelevant? Perhaps to you, but not to me. If you can't raise your hand and say "I did", then don't raise your hand. i just asked a simple question, don't make more out of it than what it is.

Does the gradnmother's story make the original post irrelevent? She didn't need a handgun to defend herself, she could have done the same exact thing with a rifle.

svermill, I like your post, but have a question, if it's not about safety, what is it about? If it's about freedom, military training as requirement is a bit stringent. Carrying your weapons out in the open will only make those out to get you better prepared to do so. You are a law enforcement officer, or were, correct?

PONY_DRIVER, glad no one's ready to fly off the handle, no need for that. It's not like hersh is looking for a best booty again or anything...

vader is dead on about old cases. It seems the people that complain most about liberals wasting the courts time, are the ones that want to keep revisiting RvsW and gun restrictions, even though the decisions have stood well against many attacks. It's time to let them rest.

 

Not really. A hand gun is alot easier to handle, get to, and use than a rifle.


I'd like to see them overturned too and I'd be for using the courts time to do so but courts rightly defer to the past unless there is a pressing reason to review the issue.

 

look what's going on in france.
look what happened after katrina.
i think every home should have a weapon.
you cannot rely on the police or the government to guarantee your safety and protect your property.

oaw

 

Working backwards...

No, never law enforcement, although I have carried a sidearm professionally more than a few times. The few cases I refer to in this thread were as a private citizen, though (that's all that's really relevant, as any law enforcement agent or similar can make a strong case for firearms that doesn't really apply to the greater public).

Carrying a firearm out in the open vs. concealed totally depends on the situation. Sometimes the whole thing about keeping (more or less) honest people (more or less) honest has some validity. Sometimes it doesn't. The former is more often the case than the latter out in the wild, but I sense you don't have much direct experience to guide you in that regard.

As for safety vs. freedom, if you don't get it, you don't get it. I sense that you don't get it at all and that you're simply enjoying yourself playing devil's advocate, pretending to appreciate both sides of the argument when you clearly don't. I'd encourage you to take the stand you stand behind and be out with it.

Finally, if it's still worth discussing, I think I was clear that either a military background or civilian gun safety training was fine. This is the stance that almost all state and local governments (that issue permits) take. If you have either -- you should have one or the other -- you can apply for and be granted a concealed carry permit.