Derek 2.0

Protection of ones own self..... Sure, but they involve an element of fear.......you've already admitted that you would defend yourself to the best of your ability if you were attacked.

Likewise. To add, the further enforcement of current laws would also reduce violent crime...........for example, the tens of thousands of people that go through the background check process and are rejected. If said people being rejected are breaking court orders over obtaining a firearm, they are committing an open and shut felony.

Has the FBI stormed the refuge as you suggested? If not, why?

Call it what you will. Sure, like being fearful of theft or our homes burning down.......even though statistically neither feared events will ever impact the vast majority of society.

Any law abiding citizen that felt the need. But both are courses of action you follow based on a fear encompassed within your own psyche......like the majority of people (myself included).

You're assertion is devoid of reality.

Where did I say that? Do you lock your doors at night? Do you have insurance for your home? etc

Exactly, look no further than a company like Glock, that first responded to the market needs of law enforcement, then built upon its success to meet the needs of the (concealed) personal defense market.

If you felt so inclined, but I would assume, based on sales for the last ~20 years, that most holders down South carry compact versions of larger handguns. Am I correct in assuming, if you were attacked in public or at home, regardless if it were likely to happen or not, you would attempt to defend yourself?

Sure, and in both countries the majority of break-ins occur during the day when thieves think there is nobody present, and when they are confronted with an alarm, yappy dog or a person they bugger off.....the ones that do break into a house at night, when the home owners are likely home, one must call into question their mentality, be it extreme mental illness, influence of hard drugs or the presumption of a score that they feel outweighs a potential conflict (i.e. a grow-op). I assume you lock your doors of your house, likewise have fire/flood insurance......despite the risk of actually being broken into being quite low, likewise having a fire or major flood in your home. I don't know that the majority of any US States have CHL/CCW permits, but it is an option for law abiding citizens that don't wish to partake in gambling with their own protection........you can replace stolen, burnt and water logged property.....its a little harder to resolve being the victim of a violent assault. If someone attacked you or a family member on the street, I would feel safe in assuming that you would attempt to defend yourself or the lives of your family members to the best of your ability......

In your later example, focusing on the OP subject of Texan law, there is nothing "magical" about the laws of a Democratic State.....they are quite real.

The killing of Japanese people wasn't predicated on the use of Atomic weapons........no cause for war, no deaths....simple concept.

I don't know that millions would rise up, but the Oklahoma City Bombing (or 9/11) was only carried out by a relatively few people.......no civil society can sustain losing hundreds or thousands of people at the hands of enough people to fill-up a Ryder Truck. Not at all, this is a far more nuanced issue........these Bundy guys having a hillbilly Burning Man aren't dangerous, but in martyrdom their ideals could become very dangerous to a State seen as repressive by the people...........just as the Occupy Movement could have been if it were actually organised.

Have you ever been to parts of the United States like Detroit or Oakland? Cess Pool is a fitting description. I never said it was young Black gangs exclusively causing gun violence across the United States, they just represent the highest rates of it........one could suggest if poverty and drugs were addressed wholesale, the issue of gun violence among these groups would also be reduced. I just did exactly that with the provided stats from the DoJ........... My retort........the causes of violence among man predates smokeless powder........address those causes today and with that you will reduce violence.

The head of the Oath Keepers, who protested with Cliven Bundy, has called for these guys to pack it in.............the two tenants of a successful protest, up to an actual armed insurgency, are money and local public support........these guys have neither.

In some instances I would agree, but in this example the Bundy Clan doesn't have leverage to warrant a response. Unlike say Oka, where the Mohawks killed a QPP officer and set-up a roadblock on one the major routes into Montreal, where public pressure forced a response to contain their protest.......these guys are holed up in the middle of nowhere..... In this case, with the locals actually coming out opposed to Bundy Clan, I doubt many more will be emboldened by this protest.......mostly if this group ends up leaving with their tails between their legs........now if Goliath goes in there and guns down the lot, maybe kill a few of the children there with hydrogen cyanide, like they did at Mt Carmel, they only create more emboldened Davids, and turn this groups into Martyrs.......martyrs can't be locked up or killed.

Exactly, and to my understanding, they are letting the Bundy Clan come and go as they please.......and law enforcement doesn't even have a presence outside the refuge, so that should indicate how much of a threat they are considered. Simply put, if the FBI HRT went in there like they did at Waco, they'd probably kill the works of them, but then would only fan the flames with the millions of their supporters across the United States.....with some groups, like the Oath keepers, made up of currently serving LEOs and military across the country.

I never said that I do or that I am.........you asked the benefits of a handgun versus a long gun......I (and bc2004) repeated a common debate among self defense proponents....I fail to see why you are attempting to make this personal with snide remarks. One thing is for certain, an adult that gets so upset, so easily and starts slinging off insults, in a discussion over the internet, shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a firearm.

How long did it take for you to be removed? If the Bundy gang was unarmed, they'd likely have been pepper sprayed and put in zip cuffs by local deputies and/or US Park Rangers as soon as their presence was known.........and outside local media attention, we probably wouldn't be talking about this story.......

It could do......they did it before over taxation.

Of course not, but if someone broke into my home well I slept, on the chance of them being armed, I wouldn't advertise my position either..........and is the reason they invented night sights, lasers and weaponslights.

Decriminalization wouldn't equate to making pot more dangerous then it already is illegal, but would halt criminal convictions until it became legal.

That's the point. Like it does presently?

How does removing the possibility of criminal charges, in the interim, effect any of that?

Why would I do that? I have no dog in this fight, but I could understand the displeasure from any pot users that get charged in the interim.