Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

When defending your illegal activity by violence, that is the line.

Think about it this way. You are a criminal and don't care about other peoples privacy or their property rights. You wish to steal something to pawn or somehow make money. You have a choice between 2 homes. One is occupied by a little old lady that has not ability to fight back. The other is occupied by a former Marine that is well armed. Which home do you invade?

Now consider that ALL of the homes are occupied by well armed people, well trained in how to use those arms. How likely are you to want to break into any home?

THIS

You don't discern a difference between legal and illegal activity? That could be your problem.

I, of course, do discern a difference. The idea that that is an easy and quick justification or analysis is incredibly naïve. It's one of those things people have debated and debated to death with no real answers. Further, it is always bizarre when people who tell me the government is often unnecessary and does a lot of overreach suddenly think the most important thing is what the government thinks about any particular action.

As to your comment about excessive police enforcement, where did I mention that? Having adequate law enforcement available in areas where crime is prevalent, is a good thing. YOU are the one that seems to be equating that to excessive police enforcement.

As to gun control laws, I feel that any gun control law is unconstitutional. The 2nd Amendment clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms, shall NOT be infringed. Therefore, any law that states that I cannot have and carry a firearm is NOT in compliance with the Constitution.

A large part of policing in cities (and I mean a LARGE part) is trying to locate guns, arrest people with guns, etc. Wouldn't you consider that excessive considering you think their actions are unconstitutional?

I, of course, do discern a difference. The idea that that is an easy and quick justification or analysis is incredibly naïve.

I don't know, but breaking into a home or property, stealing someone else's property or causing harm to another person without justification (self defense) is pretty straight forward. Also, I don't have to shoot someone from preventing a crime. Just the simple implication that lethal force is an option may be enough to stop the crime in question. This is always the preferred outcome. Hold the suspect until law enforcement is able to take control of the scene. At that point, it is up to the LEO or the courts to sort out the situation.

 It's one of those things people have debated and debated to death with no real answers. Further, it is always bizarre when people who tell me the government is often unnecessary and does a lot of overreach suddenly think the most important thing is what the government thinks about any particular action.

I have not seen anyone claim that government is unnecessary. There is a difference between some government and excessive government. What we are experiencing now is a push to excessive government. 

But your original point was that you appeared to side with the notion that we should do away with law enforcement. While I stated that it would most likely not affect me, that was not to say that I agreed with it. My implication was that it would be less harmful to me than it would be to those in the urban areas that are generally much more at risk. 

Personally, my version of the world is a government that is constrained by our Constitution where the only job of our government is to protect our rights. That is how the founders envisioned this nation. It is the duty of the citizens to provide for and take care of themselves and their neighbors. Most of us in rural areas live that way as much as possible. Therefore a reduction is law enforcement would not affect us nearly as bad as it would those in urban areas that are unable to defend or care for themselves. 

Wouldn't you consider that excessive considering you think their actions are unconstitutional?

Not if an offender has commited felonies

A large part of policing in cities (and I mean a LARGE part) is trying to locate guns, arrest people with guns, etc. Wouldn't you consider that excessive considering you think their actions are unconstitutional?

That is a pretty broad and open ended description of what is going on. WHY are they looking for these guns? As far as I know, there are very few laws on the books that prevent people without felony convictions of possessing firearms in their homes. So who's guns are LEO looking for? Are they going to felons homes looking for guns? Do they have a warrant to look? Who tipped them off to look? Why are they looking? Was this person identified as potentially committing a crime with a gun?

I don't know why this is happening or how often to have an opinion on whether or not it is excessive. 

Wandering away from overreach territory and meandering towards tyranny. 

But if we call in the National Guard to police protests, that isn't tyranny?