After getting into another debate at work about this I feel the need to re-bump this thread for like the 10th time.

The argument basically comes down to defense of yourself.

Now, I personally know two people that both have guns to their name, and neither situation were either of them able to pull their weapon and 'defend' themselves.

One time was a house robbery where 3 masked burgulars stormed this individuals house and pointed their guns at this person while this person could not do anything in time to react, and even more so she said that she would not have done anything because she did not want to get shot. So in that situation the gun was utterly useless and did not persuade the situation one tiny bit.

The other time was an attempted car-jacking in a K-mart parking lot a year or so ago and this individual had a pistol placed to their temple and was asked to step out of the car, after being pulled from the vehicle and the robber looked through the car and found nothing, ended up just running off.

Now imagine either situation where the two people I know reaching for their gun, they most likely would have been shot both times and killed. It's a very weak argument I would say to say anyone has the right to own a pistol, and even more-so ridiculous to say the right to automatic weapons/assault rifles is within the second amendment. Maybe we should all step back and review the context of when it was written.

[quote][16:04] jamer123: GRRR firefox just like quit on me now on internet exploder[quote]
...
[quote=!King_Amazon!]notices he's 3 inches shorter than her son and he's circumcised [quote]