Hillary: Guns Don't Make You Safer

[Ray From Cleveland]

IF:
"Guns don't kill people; people kill people"...

THEN:
"Guns don't make one safer; people make one safer".

Think about it.

/thread

Good Lord, fascinating liberal logic on display right here. And to think he called "/thread" and some people actually thanked him. Stunning. smh LOL God this forum is entertaining!

This is literally the extent of the gun control advocates. Gun control advocates are idiots or ignorant Europeans who have never seen a gun in their life.

Correct. One of my tenants met a girl online from Australia. She spent a summer here a few years back. She was pretty liberal and we got into the gun discussion. I told her what it was all about here in Ohio.

I don't know if she didn't understand what I told her or what, but one day as the sun was going down, I was passing by my tenants apartment and she was outside. I dropped my car keys and when I went to pick them up, it exposed my gun in my back holster.

You would have thought she seen a ghost. LOL! She asked "You're not really going out with that, are you?" LOL!

She was in total disbelief that I had the authority from the government to carry and use a firearm if needed.

 

[Vandalshandle]

[Q
The president has the most dangerous job in the country

A nutjob or a criminal is a threat to the President the same as he is a threat to anybody else.

If the President of the US has to have firearms to protect his family from nutjobs why isn't my family afforded the same protection?

What makes him so special and my family has to be at the mercy of the nutjob or criminal or whoever it is that wants to do my family harm?

If the President needs firearms to protect him so does my family.

The only difference being that in his case the American people will provide the firearms and the men to carry them for the President but in my case I have to provide them myself and have to learn to use them.

Screw elitism. My family is just as important as the President's family.

10% of our Presidents have been killed, 20% have been shot at

Do you have the same level of risk?

Yes, NEARLY 10% of our Presidents have been killed. That boils down to 4 US Presidents since the founding of this country.

Your figures stack up, only because people are such lousy shots. The following presidents survived firearm assassination attempts:

Andrew Jackson
FDR
Teddy Roosevelt,
Gerald Ford
Ronald Reagan.

I suspect that there were more, but those are from the top of my head.

So your point is that because there have been assassination attempts on US Presidents, common folk should not be protected? How does that make any sense at all?

I remember when Rosie O'donnell tried to make the same argument when she shot her mouth off about disarming America, and then was asked about her armed security.

She said she stood a greater chance at getting attacked by a person with a firearm than common folk. But for the life of me, I can't remember the last time an actress or comedian was assassinated.

I do know this: here in Cleveland, people in the ghetto live with gunfire all night long at times. It doesn't mean that people are killed every night, but would you want to live in such an environment with no protection at all?

Two shifts per week, I patrol in my uniform and a patrol car. As a member of the Sheriff's Auxiliary Volunteers, I am not allowed to carry a firearm on duty. I patrol with a radio. Before I moved to AZ, I lived in New Orleans, and never carried a gun. New Orleans makes Cleveland seem like Disneyland, in comparison. I am more concerned about getting in a crossfire between a bad guy and a citizen Rambo, than I am about being shot by a bad guy.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There's been posted stories on how guns are not allowed . Google it .

They voted against open carry. There will be plenty of guns, sploogy.

Soros was lying to the stupid again, and you swallowed it all, again.

Then why the petition to allow guns ?

Petition To Allow Guns At Republican Convention Grows – Now Over 35,000

Because that's what some people want. That doesn't mean they will get it.

Remember that we have to deal with violent Democrats at the convention. They are a threat to normal people.

 

[Flash]

[Q

Two shifts per week, I patrol in my uniform and a patrol car. As a member of the Sheriff's Auxiliary Volunteers, I am not allowed to carry a firearm on duty. I patrol with a radio. Before I moved to AZ, I lived in New Orleans, and never carried a gun. New Orleans makes Cleveland seem like Disneyland, in comparison. I am more concerned about getting in a crossfire between a bad guy and a citizen Rambo, than I am about being shot by a bad guy.

The purpose of the right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with hunting or recreation or even defense, which has been mostly the subject of this threat.

It is about making the American people strong enough to resist the tyranny of government.

There is hypocrisy in that the ruling elite thinking they should be protected but not the common citizen but that is not the real reason they want to take firearms away from the people. It is simple. They don't want a threat to the government. Our Founding Fathers felt that threat was a necessary check on government abuse but the ruling elite doesn't like it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

A nutjob or a criminal is a threat to the President the same as he is a threat to anybody else.

If the President of the US has to have firearms to protect his family from nutjobs why isn't my family afforded the same protection?

What makes him so special and my family has to be at the mercy of the nutjob or criminal or whoever it is that wants to do my family harm?

If the President needs firearms to protect him so does my family.

The only difference being that in his case the American people will provide the firearms and the men to carry them for the President but in my case I have to provide them myself and have to learn to use them.

Screw elitism. My family is just as important as the President's family.

10% of our Presidents have been killed, 20% have been shot at

Do you have the same level of risk?

Yes, NEARLY 10% of our Presidents have been killed. That boils down to 4 US Presidents since the founding of this country.

Your figures stack up, only because people are such lousy shots. The following presidents survived firearm assassination attempts:

Andrew Jackson
FDR
Teddy Roosevelt,
Gerald Ford
Ronald Reagan.

I suspect that there were more, but those are from the top of my head.

So your point is that because there have been assassination attempts on US Presidents, common folk should not be protected? How does that make any sense at all?

I remember when Rosie O'donnell tried to make the same argument when she shot her mouth off about disarming America, and then was asked about her armed security.

She said she stood a greater chance at getting attacked by a person with a firearm than common folk. But for the life of me, I can't remember the last time an actress or comedian was assassinated.

I do know this: here in Cleveland, people in the ghetto live with gunfire all night long at times. It doesn't mean that people are killed every night, but would you want to live in such an environment with no protection at all?

Two shifts per week, I patrol in my uniform and a patrol car. As a member of the Sheriff's Auxiliary Volunteers, I am not allowed to carry a firearm on duty. I patrol with a radio. Before I moved to AZ, I lived in New Orleans, and never carried a gun. New Orleans makes Cleveland seem like Disneyland, in comparison. I am more concerned about getting in a crossfire between a bad guy and a citizen Rambo, than I am about being shot by a bad guy.

Well if you really are in that line of work, I suggest you do some studying. Because you are more likely to get shot by a bad guy than a "Rambo" as you say. In fact since we started our CCW program, I don't recall one incident of a licensed citizen protecting themselves and accidentally shooting an innocent.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

IF:
"Guns don't kill people; people kill people"...

THEN:
"Guns don't make one safer; people make one safer".

Think about it.

/thread

And the liberals with money and power seem to agree that people with guns make them safer. If the bad people have guns regardless of the law, don't the good guys need them, too? I thought equality was important to the left.

"Folks, liberals have two sets of rules: one set for them, and another set for the rest of us."
Rush Limbaugh

 

[Vandalshandle]

10% of our Presidents have been killed, 20% have been shot at

Do you have the same level of risk?

Yes, NEARLY 10% of our Presidents have been killed. That boils down to 4 US Presidents since the founding of this country.

Your figures stack up, only because people are such lousy shots. The following presidents survived firearm assassination attempts:

Andrew Jackson
FDR
Teddy Roosevelt,
Gerald Ford
Ronald Reagan.

I suspect that there were more, but those are from the top of my head.

So your point is that because there have been assassination attempts on US Presidents, common folk should not be protected? How does that make any sense at all?

I remember when Rosie O'donnell tried to make the same argument when she shot her mouth off about disarming America, and then was asked about her armed security.

She said she stood a greater chance at getting attacked by a person with a firearm than common folk. But for the life of me, I can't remember the last time an actress or comedian was assassinated.

I do know this: here in Cleveland, people in the ghetto live with gunfire all night long at times. It doesn't mean that people are killed every night, but would you want to live in such an environment with no protection at all?

Two shifts per week, I patrol in my uniform and a patrol car. As a member of the Sheriff's Auxiliary Volunteers, I am not allowed to carry a firearm on duty. I patrol with a radio. Before I moved to AZ, I lived in New Orleans, and never carried a gun. New Orleans makes Cleveland seem like Disneyland, in comparison. I am more concerned about getting in a crossfire between a bad guy and a citizen Rambo, than I am about being shot by a bad guy.

Well if you really are in that line of work, I suggest you do some studying. Because you are more likely to get shot by a bad guy than a "Rambo" as you say. In fact since we started our CCW program, I don't recall one incident of a licensed citizen protecting themselves and accidentally shooting an innocent.

..and I, on the other hand, knew one of our deputies who, when on a call by a citizen about a prowler in his back yard, one night, was shot through the head by the citizen with a 30-30 from his window, who mistook him in the dark for said prowler.

 

[Vandalshandle]

[Q

Two shifts per week, I patrol in my uniform and a patrol car. As a member of the Sheriff's Auxiliary Volunteers, I am not allowed to carry a firearm on duty. I patrol with a radio. Before I moved to AZ, I lived in New Orleans, and never carried a gun. New Orleans makes Cleveland seem like Disneyland, in comparison. I am more concerned about getting in a crossfire between a bad guy and a citizen Rambo, than I am about being shot by a bad guy.

The purpose of the right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with hunting or recreation or even defense, which has been mostly the subject of this threat.

It is about making the American people strong enough to resist the tyranny of government.

There is hypocrisy in that the ruling elite thinking they should be protected but not the common citizen but that is not the real reason they want to take firearms away from the people. It is simple. They don't want a threat to the government. Our Founding Fathers felt that threat was a necessary check on government abuse but the ruling elite doesn't like it.

And you want me to believe that the main purpose of your having a gun is to fight off Abrams tanks sent by the government? Either you have one powerful, bitchin' weapon, or you are delusional, or you are not being honest about why you have a gun..

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes, NEARLY 10% of our Presidents have been killed. That boils down to 4 US Presidents since the founding of this country.

Your figures stack up, only because people are such lousy shots. The following presidents survived firearm assassination attempts:

Andrew Jackson
FDR
Teddy Roosevelt,
Gerald Ford
Ronald Reagan.

I suspect that there were more, but those are from the top of my head.

So your point is that because there have been assassination attempts on US Presidents, common folk should not be protected? How does that make any sense at all?

I remember when Rosie O'donnell tried to make the same argument when she shot her mouth off about disarming America, and then was asked about her armed security.

She said she stood a greater chance at getting attacked by a person with a firearm than common folk. But for the life of me, I can't remember the last time an actress or comedian was assassinated.

I do know this: here in Cleveland, people in the ghetto live with gunfire all night long at times. It doesn't mean that people are killed every night, but would you want to live in such an environment with no protection at all?

Two shifts per week, I patrol in my uniform and a patrol car. As a member of the Sheriff's Auxiliary Volunteers, I am not allowed to carry a firearm on duty. I patrol with a radio. Before I moved to AZ, I lived in New Orleans, and never carried a gun. New Orleans makes Cleveland seem like Disneyland, in comparison. I am more concerned about getting in a crossfire between a bad guy and a citizen Rambo, than I am about being shot by a bad guy.

Well if you really are in that line of work, I suggest you do some studying. Because you are more likely to get shot by a bad guy than a "Rambo" as you say. In fact since we started our CCW program, I don't recall one incident of a licensed citizen protecting themselves and accidentally shooting an innocent.

..and I, on the other hand, knew one of our deputies who, when on a call by a citizen about a prowler in his back yard, one night, was shot through the head by the citizen with a 30-30 from his window, who mistook him in the dark for said prowler.

Okay, and this goes on all the time like the bad guys shooting police or other citizens? Where the hell do you live anyhow?

The better question is: did this citizen have a CCW and operating under your CCW laws? Probably not. Most states don't just give out gun licenses. There is a training course in most states that teach you to understand "downrange" and properly identifying your threat.

 

[Vigilante]

Perhaps MORE GUNS would have made a big difference in Belgium!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

[Q

Two shifts per week, I patrol in my uniform and a patrol car. As a member of the Sheriff's Auxiliary Volunteers, I am not allowed to carry a firearm on duty. I patrol with a radio. Before I moved to AZ, I lived in New Orleans, and never carried a gun. New Orleans makes Cleveland seem like Disneyland, in comparison. I am more concerned about getting in a crossfire between a bad guy and a citizen Rambo, than I am about being shot by a bad guy.

The purpose of the right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with hunting or recreation or even defense, which has been mostly the subject of this threat.

It is about making the American people strong enough to resist the tyranny of government.

There is hypocrisy in that the ruling elite thinking they should be protected but not the common citizen but that is not the real reason they want to take firearms away from the people. It is simple. They don't want a threat to the government. Our Founding Fathers felt that threat was a necessary check on government abuse but the ruling elite doesn't like it.

And you want me to believe that the main purpose of your having a gun is to fight off Abrams tanks sent by the government? Either you have one powerful, bitchin' weapon, or you are delusional, or you are not being honest about why you have a gun..

He didn't say that. He explained why our founders thought citizens should be armed when citizens had equal firepower to the government.

 

[Dragonlady]

So, why do the Democrats so virulently oppose the only method that has actually worked to reduce mass shootings: Letting everybody carry who wants to? Most people still wouldn't bother, of course, but a few would. And the nutcase wanting to shoot up the next school or shopping mall or post office (or French concert hall or California office party of Belgian airport), would know there's a probably a few armed people in the crowd he's about to attack. And he won't know which ones they are, or what direction a bullet might come from. And a number of the recent mass shooters have carefully avoided places where there might be armed people on the premises, choosing so-called "gun free zones" where the liberals' laws are in full effect.

Why do these leftist fanatics keep pushing their failed "solutions" after it has become obvious they don't work, and avoiding the solutions that do work?

Carry guns doesn't work yet Americans are convinced it does.

 

[westwall]

[Q
The president has the most dangerous job in the country

A nutjob or a criminal is a threat to the President the same as he is a threat to anybody else.

If the President of the US has to have firearms to protect his family from nutjobs why isn't my family afforded the same protection?

What makes him so special and my family has to be at the mercy of the nutjob or criminal or whoever it is that wants to do my family harm?

If the President needs firearms to protect him so does my family.

The only difference being that in his case the American people will provide the firearms and the men to carry them for the President but in my case I have to provide them myself and have to learn to use them.

Screw elitism. My family is just as important as the President's family.

10% of our Presidents have been killed, 20% have been shot at

Do you have the same level of risk?

Yes, NEARLY 10% of our Presidents have been killed. That boils down to 4 US Presidents since the founding of this country.

Your figures stack up, only because people are such lousy shots. The following presidents survived firearm assassination attempts:

Andrew Jackson
FDR
Teddy Roosevelt,
Gerald Ford
Ronald Reagan.

I suspect that there were more, but those are from the top of my head.

Yes, Presidents are always going to be targets and should be protected. Why then do you wish to deny me the ability to defend my family?

 

[westwall]

So, why do the Democrats so virulently oppose the only method that has actually worked to reduce mass shootings: Letting everybody carry who wants to? Most people still wouldn't bother, of course, but a few would. And the nutcase wanting to shoot up the next school or shopping mall or post office (or French concert hall or California office party of Belgian airport), would know there's a probably a few armed people in the crowd he's about to attack. And he won't know which ones they are, or what direction a bullet might come from. And a number of the recent mass shooters have carefully avoided places where there might be armed people on the premises, choosing so-called "gun free zones" where the liberals' laws are in full effect.

Why do these leftist fanatics keep pushing their failed "solutions" after it has become obvious they don't work, and avoiding the solutions that do work?

Carry guns doesn't work yet Americans are convinced it does.

Care to bet? Just go up on youtube, there are loads of videos of people defending themselves.

 

[ChrisL]

So, why do the Democrats so virulently oppose the only method that has actually worked to reduce mass shootings: Letting everybody carry who wants to? Most people still wouldn't bother, of course, but a few would. And the nutcase wanting to shoot up the next school or shopping mall or post office (or French concert hall or California office party of Belgian airport), would know there's a probably a few armed people in the crowd he's about to attack. And he won't know which ones they are, or what direction a bullet might come from. And a number of the recent mass shooters have carefully avoided places where there might be armed people on the premises, choosing so-called "gun free zones" where the liberals' laws are in full effect.

Why do these leftist fanatics keep pushing their failed "solutions" after it has become obvious they don't work, and avoiding the solutions that do work?

Carry guns doesn't work yet Americans are convinced it does.

Of course it does. Do you wish that only criminals had guns?

 

[Clementine]

..and I, on the other hand, knew one of our deputies who, when on a call by a citizen about a prowler in his back yard, one night, was shot through the head by the citizen with a 30-30 from his window, who mistook him in the dark for said prowler.

There will always be stupid people. There are far more incidents where homeowners saved their lives when they shot home invaders. There would be more victims of crime if not for citizens having the right to defend themselves.

The case you mentioned is not typical. Usually, the person is supposed to stay on the phone with 911 till police arrive and the dispatch would tell the person that the cop(s) are at their home.

How can you ignore all the times that guns saved lives and only focus on a few random cases? Also, none of the libs around here discuss the rampant violence in Chicago and other cities where there are strict gun laws. Why are you guys forever going after legal gun owners when the problem is criminals who don't care about laws or human life?

 

[Vandalshandle]

Your figures stack up, only because people are such lousy shots. The following presidents survived firearm assassination attempts:

Andrew Jackson
FDR
Teddy Roosevelt,
Gerald Ford
Ronald Reagan.

I suspect that there were more, but those are from the top of my head.

So your point is that because there have been assassination attempts on US Presidents, common folk should not be protected? How does that make any sense at all?

I remember when Rosie O'donnell tried to make the same argument when she shot her mouth off about disarming America, and then was asked about her armed security.

She said she stood a greater chance at getting attacked by a person with a firearm than common folk. But for the life of me, I can't remember the last time an actress or comedian was assassinated.

I do know this: here in Cleveland, people in the ghetto live with gunfire all night long at times. It doesn't mean that people are killed every night, but would you want to live in such an environment with no protection at all?

Two shifts per week, I patrol in my uniform and a patrol car. As a member of the Sheriff's Auxiliary Volunteers, I am not allowed to carry a firearm on duty. I patrol with a radio. Before I moved to AZ, I lived in New Orleans, and never carried a gun. New Orleans makes Cleveland seem like Disneyland, in comparison. I am more concerned about getting in a crossfire between a bad guy and a citizen Rambo, than I am about being shot by a bad guy.

Well if you really are in that line of work, I suggest you do some studying. Because you are more likely to get shot by a bad guy than a "Rambo" as you say. In fact since we started our CCW program, I don't recall one incident of a licensed citizen protecting themselves and accidentally shooting an innocent.

..and I, on the other hand, knew one of our deputies who, when on a call by a citizen about a prowler in his back yard, one night, was shot through the head by the citizen with a 30-30 from his window, who mistook him in the dark for said prowler.

Okay, and this goes on all the time like the bad guys shooting police or other citizens? Where the hell do you live anyhow?

The better question is: did this citizen have a CCW and operating under your CCW laws? Probably not. Most states don't just give out gun licenses. There is a training course in most states that teach you to understand "downrange" and properly identifying your threat.

Arizona requires no licence or training, either open carry or concealed. You don't even have to know where the safety is. Not that it would have mattered. The citizen shot the officer with a rifle from inside his house. His partner had a nervous breakdown, and left the force to be a prison guard, because, as he worded it, "In prison, there are no surprises. Everybody is a bad guy".

 

[Vandalshandle]

[Q

Two shifts per week, I patrol in my uniform and a patrol car. As a member of the Sheriff's Auxiliary Volunteers, I am not allowed to carry a firearm on duty. I patrol with a radio. Before I moved to AZ, I lived in New Orleans, and never carried a gun. New Orleans makes Cleveland seem like Disneyland, in comparison. I am more concerned about getting in a crossfire between a bad guy and a citizen Rambo, than I am about being shot by a bad guy.

The purpose of the right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with hunting or recreation or even defense, which has been mostly the subject of this threat.

It is about making the American people strong enough to resist the tyranny of government.

There is hypocrisy in that the ruling elite thinking they should be protected but not the common citizen but that is not the real reason they want to take firearms away from the people. It is simple. They don't want a threat to the government. Our Founding Fathers felt that threat was a necessary check on government abuse but the ruling elite doesn't like it.

And you want me to believe that the main purpose of your having a gun is to fight off Abrams tanks sent by the government? Either you have one powerful, bitchin' weapon, or you are delusional, or you are not being honest about why you have a gun..

He didn't say that. He explained why our founders thought citizens should be armed when citizens had equal firepower to the government.

It appears to me that his argument for everyone having unfettered access to guns is to protect themselves from the government. That makes as much sense as David Koresh had in his defiance of the feds (with the same, predicable results).

 

[Vandalshandle]

[Q
The president has the most dangerous job in the country

A nutjob or a criminal is a threat to the President the same as he is a threat to anybody else.

If the President of the US has to have firearms to protect his family from nutjobs why isn't my family afforded the same protection?

What makes him so special and my family has to be at the mercy of the nutjob or criminal or whoever it is that wants to do my family harm?

If the President needs firearms to protect him so does my family.

The only difference being that in his case the American people will provide the firearms and the men to carry them for the President but in my case I have to provide them myself and have to learn to use them.

Screw elitism. My family is just as important as the President's family.

10% of our Presidents have been killed, 20% have been shot at

Do you have the same level of risk?

Yes, NEARLY 10% of our Presidents have been killed. That boils down to 4 US Presidents since the founding of this country.

Your figures stack up, only because people are such lousy shots. The following presidents survived firearm assassination attempts:

Andrew Jackson
FDR
Teddy Roosevelt,
Gerald Ford
Ronald Reagan.

I suspect that there were more, but those are from the top of my head.

Yes, Presidents are always going to be targets and should be protected. Why then do you wish to deny me the ability to defend my family?

Since all I am saying is that no one should be able to buy a gun without a background check, I must assume that you would lose your right to protect your family is due to your failure to pass a background check. That being the case, I suggest that you buy a sword on E-Bay.

 

[Vandalshandle]

..and I, on the other hand, knew one of our deputies who, when on a call by a citizen about a prowler in his back yard, one night, was shot through the head by the citizen with a 30-30 from his window, who mistook him in the dark for said prowler.

There will always be stupid people. There are far more incidents where homeowners saved their lives when they shot home invaders. There would be more victims of crime if not for citizens having the right to defend themselves.

The case you mentioned is not typical. Usually, the person is supposed to stay on the phone with 911 till police arrive and the dispatch would tell the person that the cop(s) are at their home.

How can you ignore all the times that guns saved lives and only focus on a few random cases? Also, none of the libs around here discuss the rampant violence in Chicago and other cities where there are strict gun laws. Why are you guys forever going after legal gun owners when the problem is criminals who don't care about laws or human life?

Clem, why do you guys get your panties in a wad just because others believe that no one should be able to buy a firearm without a background check? I own 5 guns, and I passed a back check for that, as well as part of my induction into the Sheriff's Auxiliary. All one has to do is to say, "tighten up gun regulations", and the Right starts wetting their pants that someone is going to come in the middle of the night and take your gun away.