Apart from dedicated huntsmen and sportsmen, anyone who owns a gun contemplates killing someone, and has taken steps to bring that thought about. This is nothing to do with self-defence in a civilised society.

You argue that you have a right to defend your property. Yes I agree that all common-law countries put a greater value on property than on human life, but the law can be an ass sometimes. Frankly, even if you have the law on your side, if you believe you have a right to kill a burglar first and ask questions later, you are no better than a primitive ape-man, and probably far worse.

Besides, you have NO CHANCE if you are faced with a murderous intruder, to go to the safe place where you keep your weapon stored, unlock it and take out the box you keep it in, remove it and then find the ammunition you need, load the gun, and point the weapon at your adversary, before he fires his gun at you. So as a means of defence, it sucks.

Frankly, midnite scares me even without a gun and at 3,000 miles distance. You can sense the self-glorification as he brags that he had a gun - like a throbbing penis - and he couldn't wait to shoot his load. Yes I think that, considering the words he used, he was mentally masturbating with the gun. What on EARTH is the justification for having a pump-action shotgun if it isn't to kill. I mean, if you need to shoot foxes and other vermin, an ordinary single-barrelled shotgun that requires to be broken and reloaded after each shot is perfectly adequate.

Midnite, it seems to me that in the incident described, you were already two onto one. If I were the other guy, I'd be looking for a way out, even without a gun. The gun was not necessary. Thus you weren't saving your friend, you were primarily restating your desire to become a killer some time. I bet you laughed afterwards!

Crazies? Yeah, right!

Thorne says: A militia doesn't necessarily have to fight against foreign invaders. They can also fight to defend against insurgents, criminals and terrorists.

That is true. But your lawmakers were contemplating foreign invaders at the time, not thieves and robbers. Nklion was better able to state what the constitution says than I was, so I repeat what he said: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That does not include criminals, and I haven't heard that US citizens have formed an anti-terrorist militia in any town, city or state. So that's not why they are holding guns, is it?

I would add that individuals who "enforce the law their own way" like Charles Bronson copycats are as bad as the people they go after. Vigilantes do not protect law and order, they ignore it because it does not match up to their personal expectations; and a group of vigilantes is a lynch mob. That was not what the consitution was advocating.

TYWD