Again....But it's never the guns!

[Napoléon]

No idea what you are talking about.

That is convenient.

You didn't read. They cut the power & phone in the middle of the night & he was with his very pregnant wife. I guess you would have just let the meth heads kill you as you tried to hit them with a stick or something. That's what home invaders generally do over here, no witnesses.

Still not seeing how this means someone has a right to bear arms. My original statement still stands.

Instead of appealing to emotion, or arguing from personal experience, why not try and give me a tangible reason as to why you think guns are a right.

In that circumstance, sure, a gun could've helped. I'm not saying it couldn't (and in this instance it most certainly did). However it could of also gotten both the man, his wife and his unborn baby killed by forcing them into a shootout, which they may not of had the fortune to win.

For the record, if I was in this circumstance, I'd have probably used a gun if it was to hand to protect my wife and kid. Still doesn't mean it's a right to own a gun, nor does it make it the correct and rational decision.

It's simply not a good enough argument to say 'having guns might help in a very rare circumstance, provided you don't get killed first' THEREFORE... GUNS ARE A RIGHT.

And with regards to what home invaders generally do, am I supposed to take your word on that? Or do you know them personally?

We already did. Over here, We the People *are* the government.

Keep telling yourself that mate.