>You see Dan, at any time, the argument is always brought into the defense of one's home. FWIW, unless you can be sure that the Trespasser is going to put you in fear of your life, there is such a thing as unreasonable force. Do you remember the Japanese exchange student that knocked on the guy's door in Louisiana. The kid got shot because the guy thought that somebody was trying to break into his house. I believe he was criminially convicted. I don't know about a civil action.
>
>The deal is this Dan. If your right was THAT much etched in stone, seems to me that all attempts at gun regulation and leglistation would fall flat on it's face. The fact is, you have to register your firearms. You have to be licsensed to carry a concealed weapon.
>

Different states, different laws. Texas does not require firearms registration. Texas allows the use of deadly force in the protection of property.

The case of the Japanese exchange student that was shot was a truly tragic incident. Was the use of deadly force in that instance unreasonable? That's an issue for the courts to decide, but the fact of the matter is that the homeowner is the ONLY person that can truly say what he felt (or feared) at the time. On the other hand, there are many, many documented instances of crimes being stopped or prevented thru the use of firearms. I've lived in The Big City all of my life, and have seen firsthand some of this. I believe, and the state of Texas believes, that the 2nd Amendment gives me the right bear arms in the defense of my home.


>If your rights really did flow from the 2nd amendment - that one clause the NRA has continually misinterpreted - there would not be much of an issue. Yet, there is.
>
Look at the amendment on it's face. Kinda vague, don't you think? THAT is why there is an issue. The founding fathers left it up to succeeding generations to determine how to put the amendments into practice, and that is why we have varying degrees of gun legislation. Never mind the balancing act between anti- and pro-firearms groups. To me the amendment is pretty clear; I've done some reading on the early debates surrounding it's adoption, granted not nearly enough to be considered a constitutional scholar, but enough to convince myself of the meaning of it. Have you?


>How about the Brady Law? Boy the NRA fought over that? How about their stupid million mom march in Washington. Those women got played like grand pianos in their (NRA's) propoganda scheme.
>
>Here is the deal with the NRA. They come from one premise - FEAR. Their real fear is that their membership will stop believing the rhetoric. So, they have to continue to dial it up a notch.
>
The Brady Bill was, IMO, a worthless piece of legislation that has thankfully been phased out in favor of instant background checks, which the NRA supported from the beginning. Again, it seems that your beef is with the NRA and their tactics. I'll admit that I'm not overly fond of Wayne LaPierre and his clique, but for me the fundamental mission of the NRA is sound. And - not only do they fight anti-gun legislation, but they sponsor firearms safety classes, research for police, child safety training, and much much more. So my dues have gone not only into the political side of the debate but the practical side as well.


>I am not a bleeding heart liberal by any stretch. At the same time, I am not from the right-wing faction that thinks the government should totally stay out of my business.
>
>There is such a thing as a balancing act. Balancing your rights against what is good for the nation - for society.
>
I'm not that much of a right-winger either, but look at things like OSHA's recent ruling regarding the prevention of repetative stress injuries in the work place. Or the recent EPA decision regarding top-loading vs. front-loading clothes washers. These decisions come of of the bureaucracy with little regard for the impact they will have on society. These may be minor examples (although I think there will be a huge fight over the OSHA ruling) but nonetheless it illustrates how the "gummint" sometimes just acts, and why there is a need for watchdog groups like the NRA.


>Look - you want to hunt, go to the pistol range - fine. Be responsible.
Tell me Dan, do you mandatory favor gun locks? The NRA doesn't. They say they would be ineffective. Even the manufacturers have said thay would help.
>
I think I am a responsible gun owner but I don't support mandatory gun locks. Under whose definition does that make me irresponsible? And to say that the manufacturers have said they would help is patently false.

I also firmly believe that if more people attended firearms safety courses that we would have fewer problems with accidents. Trigger locks can help, and to that end Texas has started a giveaway program (unfortunately, the locks they decided to issue turned out to be defective - and weren't the locks that the NRA recommended). But they are just one component, not the whole answer.


>THe deal is that the NRA can't stand to have ANY part of their base erroding away. They see that losing the battle means losing the war. Of course, I ask, where is the war? Why does there need to be one?
>
There is a war - "struggle" would be a better term - because there is a section of the population that wants to impose on the entirety of the population their belief that no one should own firearms. The NRA exists to prevent what has happened in England, Australia, Brazil, and so many other countries: the wholesale confiscations of all types of firearms, not just handguns.


>The simple fact of the matter is that groups like the NRA - like many lobbying organizations - over-simplify the matter. Why? Because it pays them to do so - to keep the status quo....
>
I won't argue that point because it contains an element of truth. But remember that truth applies to ALL lobbying organizations, from the NRA to the NAACP. And again, I'd like to point out that the NRA does a LOT more than just lobby in defense of the 2nd Amendment. Perhaps you should find out a little bit more about the group AS A WHOLE before calling us clueless assholes.

>< JVP >