Yes, if the handgun is of a certain length, and you have a firearms certificate to comply with the law, and it's shown in court that you used it as reasonable force as per the law.
Handgun ownership has been banned in the UK.
No they haven't. Handguns 12 inch, 30 cms, in length are legal to own. You utter thick mong.
If a handgun has to be longer than a rifle, then it isn't a handgun.
I doubt that.
Facts remain facts even when those facts are inconvenient to serfs.
Are your armed police officers willing to shoot people?
Our gun stats are fine.
Sorry, you are ignorant and full of shit. Handguns and rifles in the UK have certain dimensions etc.. not just just willful crap you follow. Look at American gun stats v Brit stats instead of guessing, per capita (assuming you know what that's means, your ilk often doesn't).
Brits should have zero gun deaths
You've been a subject so long, you're totally dependent on the government for everything, even your own personal protection.
They should have zero murders, according to Captain Caveman's logic.
That's correct
Actually, the people have no such responsibility.
Liar
www.cbsnews.com
Actually, many conservatives say just that.
Hunter Biden lied
There is nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that codifies insurrectionist dogma; the Second Amendment does not ‘authorize’ private citizens to take up arms against a lawfully elected government predicated on the subjective, incorrect, and wrongheaded notion that the government has become ‘tyrannical’:The founders had just overthrown their British government and so valued the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government if the government they created failed to represent them fairly. In order to be able to do so they realized they needed to own firearms.
Home - Untamed
In a world of filters and facades, we create a space where authenticity thrives, empowering bold voices and unleashing real perspectives. No filters. No fear. Just truth.conservative-daily.com
***snip***
The Second Amendment is our last defense against tyranny. The right to keep and bear arms is a doomsday provision to be used as a last resort when all other rights fail. The founders saw firearm ownership as so necessary that they enumerated this right second in the Bill of Rights, immediately after defining the right to free speech.
***snip***
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects your right to keep and bear arms not so that you can grant the government consent, but so that, if necessary, you can act on your dissent!
John Locke writes that free men are obligated to dissolve tyrannical governments. He explains that when all earthly courts fail to uphold the rights of man, the citizen has the obligation and duty to take up arms against tyranny and make an “appeal to heaven.”
The Founders didn’t enshrine the right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution so that you could go hunting, nor did they explicitly focus on carrying firearms in public for self-defense. For years, politicians have strayed away from the true purpose of the Second Amendment because, quite frankly, it threatens their very existence! The Second Amendment exists because tyranny, corruption, and abuse of power are unfortunate parts of the human experience.
We are 80 million gun owners endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, one of which is the right to keep and bear arms. This is a natural right given to all men and the Constitution merely protects it. We gave our government power and we reserve the right to take that authority away when it becomes destructive to our liberty!
The Second Amendment wasn’t designed to protect our right to hunt deer… it protects our right to “hunt” tyrants!
How The Second Amendment Works To Prevent Tyranny
The Second Amendment was supposed to protect us from government by dispersing its coercive power among the people. We still adhere to that system today.thefederalist.com
The notion of possessing guns to ‘defend against’ government is as ridiculous as it is wrong and devoid of merit.
Whiskey rebellionThere is nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that codifies insurrectionist dogma; the Second Amendment does not ‘authorize’ private citizens to take up arms against a lawfully elected government predicated on the subjective, incorrect, and wrongheaded notion that the government has become ‘tyrannical’:
‘Justice Scalia, writing in Heller, acknowledged that modern circumstances had severed the substantive protections of the Second Amendment from their original militia purpose, and by modern circumstances, he meant the preposterousness of insurrectionism. He said that "our standing army is the pride of our Nation" and stated (earlier in the opinion) that "it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks."’
The Resurrection of Second Amendment Insurrectionism is "Ted Cruz Crazy"
By Mike Dorf As I reported here , a few months ago I debated gun rights advocate Alan Gura about the future of gun regulation in the U.S....www.dorfonlaw.org
The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense – not to ‘deter crime,’ not to act in the capacity of law enforcement, and not to ‘overthrow’ the Federal government.
That is the purpose of the second amendment.
He’s a conservative.
You're a lying sack of shit
