Dick's and Hypocrites

[Prestor John]

How about fencing?

You can buy chain link fencing and razor wire now. Ringing your property in an 8-foot-high, climb-resistant fence certainly has more to do with self-defense than keeping a gun, right?

And your neighbours would have less justification to ban a fence than a gun: the only complaint about a big ugly fence is aesthetics. It's not like a chain link fence could launch dangerous projectiles at your neighbours.

Do you also demand the right to put up whatever sort of fence you can buy legally?

As long as it is legal, you should be able to put up any kind of fence you want.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As long as it is legal, you should be able to put up any kind of fence you want.

Well, we're talking about what should be legal, so saying "as long as it is legal" is really skirting the issue.

@esmith and others argue - at least when it comes to firearms - they should have pretty free range to use whatever they want to "defend" their homes. What I'm trying to figure out is whether they defend this right only for weapons or if they also think it should apply to other protective measures.

Razor wire can be pretty effective at deterring intruders - and I've never heard of someone using razor wire that was bolted to the top of a fence in a domestic assault - but it's very common for it to be illegal in residential areas.

Same with motion-activated floodlights. Again: effective at deterring intruders and nobody was ever killed by an annoying floodlight shining into their bedroom window.

... but with either of these things, they're often banned on the grounds of nothing more than aesthetics or annoyance. THAT is where the "self-defense" line is for everything but guns.

 

[Curious George]

Well, we're talking about what should be legal, so saying "as long as it is legal" is really skirting the issue.

@esmith and others argue - at least when it comes to firearms - they should have pretty free range to use whatever they want to "defend" their homes. What I'm trying to figure out is whether they defend this right only for weapons or if they also think it should apply to other protective measures.

Razor wire can be pretty effective at deterring intruders - and I've never heard of someone using razor wire that was bolted to the top of a fence in a domestic assault - but it's very common for it to be illegal in residential areas.

Same with motion-activated floodlights. Again: effective at deterring intruders and nobody was ever killed by an annoying floodlight shining into their bedroom window.

... but with either of these things, they're often banned on the grounds of nothing more than aesthetics or annoyance. THAT is where the "self-defense" line is for everything but guns.

I am against federal banning of razor wire for the record.

 

[esmith]

Well, we're talking about what should be legal, so saying "as long as it is legal" is really skirting the issue.

@esmith and others argue - at least when it comes to firearms - they should have pretty free range to use whatever they want to "defend" their homes. What I'm trying to figure out is whether they defend this right only for weapons or if they also think it should apply to other protective measures.

Razor wire can be pretty effective at deterring intruders - and I've never heard of someone using razor wire that was bolted to the top of a fence in a domestic assault - but it's very common for it to be illegal in residential areas.

Same with motion-activated floodlights. Again: effective at deterring intruders and nobody was ever killed by an annoying floodlight shining into their bedroom window.

... but with either of these things, they're often banned on the grounds of nothing more than aesthetics or annoyance. THAT is where the "self-defense" line is for everything but guns.

Depends on your local codes doesn't it. So, barking around the wrong tree are you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Depends on your local codes doesn't it. So, barking around the wrong tree are you.

The fact that it varies should tell you that it's not a universal right to have these things.

 

[esmith]

The fact that it varies should tell you that it's not a universal right to have these things.

Razor wire,motion-activated floodlights, and a host of other type security devices are not protected under the Constitution.
Again barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Foxic]

If someone can't legally drink until the age of twenty one, why are gun nutters getting all upset about a store having raised the legal age of purchase of a firearm to twenty one? The more gun nutters throw tantrums against common sense, the more it seems they want these shootings to continue to happen. As far as the original poster comparing this gun store scenario to gay wedding cakes, learn to logic.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Razor wire,motion-activated floodlights, and a host of other type security devices are not protected under the Constitution.
Again barking up the wrong tree.

I think you may have forgotten that this tangent started with you claiming the right to self defense, which isn't in the Constitution either.

 

[esmith]

I think you may have forgotten that this tangent started with you claiming the right to self defense, which isn't in the Constitution either.

No but it is the law