They would still have the right to defend their life and property, but they relinquished their right to do so using a gun. A crossbow is still highly effective for that purpose.
Call it whatever you want...
but the Left is using the exact same logic of altering the Constitution to deprive us of our gun rights.
With a crossbow? Yes, defending yourself against group of armed men is entirely realistic with a crossbow. :roll:
There was, and is, legally, for felons. Your concession is accepted.
I assure you, I am not using any equivalence premise, despite your delusional claims otherwise.
1. A crossbow DOES NOT SUFFICE for home or carry defense.
This is not Dungeons and Dragons world, this is modern America.
2. A felon can't have a crossbow, currently.
Eco, you'll also note that I am not simply talking about felons (a general term). If you aren't rebutting my argument, you are simply engaging in mental masturbation.
I support concealed gun rights for some gun criminals.
I do not equivocate crossbows and firearms, for whatever purpose.
The result (and, when conscious, purpose) of doing such is, obviously, anti-gun rights.
It's not much less realistic than using a gun to defend yourself against a group of armed men.
There is no equivocation. One doe snot need to make an equivalence in order to acknowledge reality that they both work as defensive weapons. Your argument seeks to ignore reality by falsely claiming that an equivalency was made when one was not made.
We're talking about crossbows? You really think they are sufficient for home defense?
I think you've been watching too much Home Alone.
Utterly irrelevant. Crossbows will protect one's person and home. Not as well as a firearm, but far better than nothing or a non-projectile weapon would.
:lamo Really?
Considering the rarity of such a need coupled with the typical home protection situation and the efficacy of the weapon, absolutely, yes. If it's sufficient for taking down a full grown deer, it'll take down an intruder.
I think you underestimate the efficacy of the crossbow.
A crossbow is not meant for this kind of combat.
Can you imagine the results of accepting "both work as defensive weapons" as the premise for the 2nd?
Look, I got news for you, Tucker. My Ninja sword would defeat your crossbow.
Why would I imagine that? I'm not making an equivalence argument (despite your incessant refusal to acknowledge that fact).
Yes, as in if there is a group of armed men and you are on your own, you're probably ****ed regardless.
We're talking about crossbows? You really think they are sufficient for home defense? I think you've been watching too much Home Alone.
I accept your concession.
Look, I got news for you, Tucker. My ninja sword would defeat your crossbow.
A Katana would be better than a crossbow too, but would take a bit more skill to wield in a closed space such as a home.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?