Hillary: Guns Don't Make You Safer

[westwall]

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.

I have no problem with background checks so long as there is no gun registration scheme tied to it. How about we shake on that.

 

[westwall]

..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.

That's because you all want to register the guns we own which is none of your business. Like I said, I have no problem with background checks, and as I own machineguns I have passed far more stringent background checks than you ever have.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Find the one person in this picture who is not carrying a gun.
View attachment 69699

Another Boko Haram Attack Repelled By Armed Women - Counter Current News

but leftist think they should have peed themselves.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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

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

Think about it.

/thread

So we can't enforce illegal immigration and deportation because that's assuming all Hispanics are breaking the law, let's not take a tougher stand on those possible extremists trying to bring their devistation to the United States as that would be labeling all Muslims as terrorists, however we can enforce stricter government oversight on gun ownership under the presumption everyone purchasing a firearm must be doing so strictly to go on a killing spree?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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

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

Think about it.

/thread

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

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

Think about it.

/thread

You're dumber than a bag of hammers.

So ---- you read it TWICE and still didn't get it?

Did I use too-big words?

Where nonsense is, there's nothing to get.

But there is where logic is.

Look, if you really insist on playing so stupid that you can't comprehend this..... look at the first sentence:

IF "Guns don't kill people; people kill people" --- the person, not the object, is the actor.

THEN: "Guns don't keep people safe; people keep people safe --- SAME THING.

GET IT YET HUNIOR? YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

Fucking retard.

Neither can liberals have it both ways using the logic that further government oversight and background checks on gun ownership is meant to keep others safe, but government oversight and investigation into a possible terrorist suspect is not protecting our nation from terrorism as much as it amounts to harassment, seen as unfairly labeling those who are otherwise living here peacefully, and exploiting fear.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

..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.

It's one step towards it.

Democrats are very patient people. Look at their past record when they said they only want X, but X was just the starting point to something much larger. It's how they plan and work.

The only thing stopping Democrats from taking our guns away is the US Constitution. Once we get enough liberals on the court, that will change and we will lose our right to own and carry a firearm in this country.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

You bet we are, and we have the statistics to prove it.

Look up some charts on gun violence and violence in general in this country. What you will find is that it's been on the decline since the mid 90's or so. It's proportional to more states adopting CCW's and giving citizens the laws we need to legally defend ourselves with guns.

Carrying a gun doesn't make you safe. The idea that you can be carrying a gun does. And if you don't believe my theory, then have a huge sign made for your front porch. The sign should say WE HAVE NO FIREARMS IN THIS HOME and get back to us in a few months and let us know how that worked out for you.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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".

Then he's in for a rude awakening. My ex-girlfriend used to be a corrections officer before she fell to illness. Trust me, there are plenty of surprises and injuries.

Like I said, MOST states require training and passing a test before getting a CCW.

 

[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.

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).

Not really. The argument is for people to have the legal ability to defend themselves against any threat. You won't find one pro-gun person that believes criminals should have guns, so this point of yours that "everybody" should have access to guns is moot.

The problem is you can't stop bad guys from getting guns. Legally? Sure you can. But how many criminals go to the gun store and legally buy a firearm to kill with? They all get their weapons in many other ways such as a stolen gun or perhaps get somebody that can legally buy one get a gun for them.

All more gun laws would do is make it harder for law abiding citizens to obtain a firearm. There is no gun law that would affect a criminal in the least bit. That's the point.

 

[amrchaos]

Ray has a point

A leftist can look at the word 'cat' and claim it means whatever they wish. Gun rights will erode under a liberal court

 

[rightwinger]

[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?

A person gets killed every day in Chicago, sometimes two a day. Crime is all over this country.

If the President feels he needs protection with firearms then so do other Americans.

However, President Shit for Brains wants to keep his protection with firearms and take the right to keep and bear arms away from all other Americans even though there is a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Hypocritical as hell.

There are plenty of guns in Chicago...that's the problem

There are plenty of criminals with illegal guns

THAT"S the problem

Good...now show us how to get rid of illegal guns without pissing off the NRA

 

[frigidweirdo]

Find the one person in this picture who is not carrying a gun.
View attachment 69699

No, guns don't make you safer, having 10 men surrounding you might stop a bullet though.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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?

A person gets killed every day in Chicago, sometimes two a day. Crime is all over this country.

If the President feels he needs protection with firearms then so do other Americans.

However, President Shit for Brains wants to keep his protection with firearms and take the right to keep and bear arms away from all other Americans even though there is a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Hypocritical as hell.

There are plenty of guns in Chicago...that's the problem

There are plenty of criminals with illegal guns

THAT"S the problem

Good...now show us how to get rid of illegal guns without pissing off the NRA

I don't think you can get rid of illegal guns which is why we have to make it easier for law abiding citizens to buy arms

 

[Geaux4it]

Who made Hillary an expert on gun safety?

-Geaux

 

[TooTall]

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

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

Think about it.

/thread

I thought about it, and the good guys with guns make people safer, so you inadvertently got it right.

 

[Rozman]

Nothing better then having Liberalism on your side instead of a few guns when homey and his
buddies are taking turns going up to the kids bedroom at 3 AM....

 

[Geaux4it]

Me and the old lady are off to IHOP, Walmart then Lowes, And my Taurus 38sp snubbie in jeans pocket

-Geaux

 

[TooTall]

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

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

Think about it.

/thread

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

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

Think about it.

/thread

You're dumber than a bag of hammers.

So ---- you read it TWICE and still didn't get it?

Did I use too-big words?

Tell Hillary, she's the one surrounded by 30 guns.

My post isn't about "Hillary".

It's about the logic in the OP.

STILL over your head?
I ain't trying to be lofty here Shorty.

The first word in the thread title is "HILLARY." Why can't you stay on topic?

 

[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.

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..

History is full of examples of where a lesser armed citizenry defeated a more heavily armed government military. Our Revolution is a great example. For all you know that Abrams tank crew may side with the patriots and go against the government thugs.

Without the right to keep and bear arms we have no chance at all against the tyranny of government.

By the way, here is a real example of firearms being used to defeat government thuggery as our Founding Fathers intended.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Me and the old lady are off to IHOP, Walmart then Lowes, And my Taurus 38sp snubbie in jeans pocket

-Geaux

I like my Springfield Armory .45 XDS . I usually carry it in an inside the waistband rig