If more guns makes a country safer

[2aguy]

America would be the safest country in the world When will Republicans learn the NRA is FOS ?

You're not a deep thinker are ya? There's only "so safe" a country can be... If you want REALLY safe, you shun immigrants and have a unicultural demographic, and a long list of traditions and a govt that values freedom and liberty... INCLUDING gun rights.. Maybe somewhere like Finland or Switzerland..

SPEAKING of the Swiss.. They ALL HAVE MILITARY style weapons.. They don't NEED them for personal protection, so it's hard to tell if there's any correlation there...

But the fact is -- with our fading culture, morals, education system, failing political system, poor results from imprisionment and a deeply immigrated to country --- It would blood shed and mayhem without the deterrent..

All those guns are not being used... They are the personal nuclear arsenal that keeps others from fucking with you...

YES Mr Flacal What we need is a gov't that honors freedom BTW did you get to read the NY Times or Washington Post this morning ??? The 2 trump forbids you and the gov't from reading?? I' am a deep thinker and I can agree with more than one thing you say. What I can't agree with is a man I despise, a racist piece of moronic trash like trump, telling me anything

You mean the two papers that are no longer news papers...but democrat party propaganda tools?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And in Texas, they (like most states) allow stores and malls to be gun-free as an option.

According to ABC News, El Paso law enforcement officials advise that, moments before his killing rampage, the shooter cased the Walmart “looking for Mexicans.” While that may be so, it is nevertheless true that, consistent with his “manifesto,” his recon was also calculated to make sure that he would be attacking in a low-security area. In that regard, the Walmart store had no armed security guard, no police presence, and was located in a shopping mall that was a self-proclaimed “gun-free zone.”

Mass Shootings in Gun-Free Zones | The American Spectator | Politics Is Too Important To Be Taken Seriously.

And of course all those Texans are going to park their guns at the door because guns are NOT ALLOWED in the Walmart. Riiiiiight. You've clearly never been to, or lived in Texas. Guaranteed there were plenty of gun toting 'heroes' in that Walmart all running for the nearest exit as soon as the shooting started. All those guns, I guess in the end they were just cowards after all.

And where were all the gun-toters in Dayton (or was it TOLEDO)? Nobody could have pulled out their weapon in those 32 seconds it took police to take out the shooter? More cowards with guns?

In Dayton, he was outside of a bar early morning where people were obviously drinking. It's against the law for me to carry anywhere with even a drop of alcohol in my system in the state of Ohio.

I don't carry a weapon to be a surrogate police officer until the real police arrive. I carry to defend myself until they arrive. It's also a law (at least in my state) that I must use every available option to escape if possible before using a firearm for self defense. In other words, if I hear a shooting in a store, run to the shooter, gun him down, I technically broke the law. I could be arrested, charged, and of course, have to surrender my carry license.

But even if I was not charged or able to beat the rap, I still have a liability issue to consider. If the attacker belonged to a family of "My baby neva do a ding like dat" they can attack me financially for taking out their family member. While they may not be successful, it's still a very costly process.

Yea but your state is better off without stand your ground. Stand your ground turns fist fights into murders.

I see both sides but I like it that you have to do whatever you can first before deciding to take a life

I think you have no idea what you're talking about. SYG is in consideration in this state. They first drew up a bill years ago, but then the Travon Martin shooting took place in Florida, so they shelved it for obvious reasons. I read where they were debating it a few months ago, but never followed to see where the bill was at.

In any case, SYG does not mean you can settle a fist fight with a gun. It simply means you no longer have the legal obligation to remove yourself from a potentially violent situation.

As the law stands now, if I am carrying a firearm, and somebody starts yelling at me about a parking space he wanted that I took, I have to retreat from the situation even if he was half my size and I could kick his ass from here to Canada. I cannot fuel the fire sort of speak, and then use my firearm if I'm attacked.

If they pass SYG law, I wouldn't have to do that. I could argue with the guy that I seen the parking space first, and he had no specific right to it. If he reaches into his car and comes at me with a billy club, I could still legally use deadly force against him. I can't do that now.

 

[Kentucky_Conservative]

I do not care to live my life afraid of the world and I'm not into paranoia.

Paranoia is EXACTLY what you suffer from. YOU fear other ordinary citizens who OWN and CARRY firearms for self-defense. YOU feel unsafe when I walk into the same store with a gun on my hip or beneath my jacket.

That is the DEFINITION of paranoia.

 

[NotYourBody]

I do not care to live my life afraid of the world and I'm not into paranoia.

Paranoia is EXACTLY what you suffer from. YOU fear other ordinary citizens who OWN and CARRY firearms for self-defense. YOU feel unsafe when I walk into the same store with a gun on my hip or beneath my jacket.

That is the DEFINITION of paranoia.

You are projecting. I'm not afraid of gun owners or gun carriers. I was born and raised in Oklahoma for fuck's sake. In a family of farmers and ranchers. Dang, you know it all don't you, lmao!

Gun nutters carry guns because they are afraid of someone or something. I don't do that level of fear. The level where you need to carry a kill weapon, or five, on your body before you can be brave enough to leave your house.

 

[Kentucky_Conservative]

wow--just went to the news and saw this--another responsible, legal firearm owner:
Man urinates next to couple fishing in Washington, shoots woman after he’s asked to leave

Question: Since the man left the scene and they are still trying to identify him, how are YOU privy to the information that he was a LEGAL FIREARMS OWNER?

I'll bet you thought you could slip that one by us, huh.

 

[NotYourBody]

I think gun nutters should have to take a fear test before they can carry a gun. If the sight of a brown woman and child illegally crossing the border makes them flop sweat and hyperventilate, then they definitely have too much fear to own a gun.

Also, since you value my opinion so highly, I would institute a minimum penis size before a man can own a gun. Girth and length. Despite red state white male uneducated voter belief, a gun is not a substitute for your tiny pecker.

And there you have it.......another anti-gun loon who has a psycho-sexual fixation on guns as a substitute for the penis. This seems to be a common mental disorder with these types....and really needs to be addressed by a psychiatric professional.

I'm not the one who needs to load up on these phallic symbols every time I leave the house.

You are projecting. Medication and therapy can help you accept your physical limitations.

Let me ask: do you have house insurance? If you rent, renters insurance? Do you have healthcare insurance, or car insurance?

Guns are nothing more than insurance. You have it just in case, but never expect to actually use it. Having insurance is not a symbol of anything but responsibility and protection. If you want to drive with no insurance, I don't care, just don't tell me I can't have auto insurance, and please don't drive around me either.

My insurance doesn't kill anyone. And I've said many times, I don't need that kind of insurance. Caravans of vehicles (or even one) have never driven into my driveway and spilled out hordes of home invaders to steal all my shit and kill me. I am not attacked in public because I know how to keep myself from being a target. I have kept myself safe all over the world, and right here on the CA/MX border.

However, if some incel GOP nutter decided to drive out here and shoot the place up and I got caught in the crossfire, well, then that would be that. I will not live my life in fear of crazy people. I do not care to live my life afraid of the world and I'm not into paranoia.

But if I did need a killing weapon, I'd prefer a bomb, or maybe a grenade. Something I can throw in the general direction of the danger. My hand-eye coordination is not that great and if I'm going for the kill, I'll need something that delivers an easier kill shot.

So you think that you throwing a bomb or grenade would be more effective than a bullet that travels at a speed of 2,500 feet per second? Did you ever consider somebody can see you throwing such an object and simply move away? Or shoot you before you even had a chance to pull your arm back?

You know who else thought they were invincible to crime because they knew how to keep themselves from being targets? All the people who were victims of a criminal attack.

Don't get me wrong, I understand how you think. I thought like that too when I was a kid. Then I came home from work one Saturday and found my apartment broken into. I knew the people who did it as well. Very dangerous people. So that's when I purchased my first gun.

Through channels, I let the people who broke into my house know I was armed, and I was ready and waiting for them. I even told them I had a friend come over from time to time to remove my car and take it home with him to give the appearance the apartment was empty just so I could get a chance at putting the robbers in a body bag. They never came back since.

If you ever read any of the hundreds of stories of people using a firearm to protect themselves or others, you'd see they too did what they could to stay out of that situation. Many times these self-defense acts take place during the day, in good neighborhoods or areas not known for criminal attack.

I don't associate with any very dangerous people. It's one of the ways I keep myself safe.

 

[Kentucky_Conservative]

Gun nutters carry guns because they are afraid of someone or something. I don't do that level of fear. The level where you need to carry a kill weapon, or five, on your body before you can be brave enough to leave your house.

Psychological projection on parade. You are projecting YOUR fears onto gun owners. Gun owners carry a gun because they are PREPARED for something or someone.

You know ... I think you should immediately rid your home, your office, your garage or shop and every other place you own of any fire extinguishers, alarms, cameras, smoke or gas detectors, or even door locks. After all, statistically speaking, you will get through the day without the need for ANY of those things.

I believe you should throw away all of your umbrellas, and raincoats and boots. You should also remove any tools , jumper cables, spare fuel etc from your vehicle, and certainly toss that spare tire. Cancel your AAA membership too. Why pay for something month after month when statistically speaking, you will probably NEVER use it?

Cancel ALL of your insurance policies immediately. After all, you get through month after month and year after year without EVER needing your car insurance, or your health insurance, and CERTAINLY you have never used your life insurance. WHY HAVE THEM?

Remove your curtains from your home, unless you can show me evidence of someone actually trying to look through your windows to see what is inside, and by all means, do not remove the keys from your cars or motorcycles and leave the doors unlocked, because you DO need them to run the vehicles, but you DO NOT need them to leave the vehicles, and locks are only needed WHEN someone tries to enter your vehicle without your permission. Don't worry. No one will ever try to steal your vehicles, and you look silly with those jingling keys in your pockets.

Don't do anything as stupid as filling up your car's fuel tank either. You display paranoia when you put 20 gallons of fuel into a car that you KNOW you are only going to drive a few miles in the coming week. Why load up on all of that explosive liquid?

Oh, and cancel and shred all of your credit cards immediately. There is NO REASON to have that financial buffer. You can get through every day with the cash in your pocket. Why carry all of that available credit around, when on most days, YOU NEVER USE IT?

Let me know when you have done all of these things, and then I will discuss the futility of carrying a gun on a daily basis, when truthfully, NOTHING has ever required me to draw my weapon in self defense.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

My ruger 1911 45 only holds 8. You can buy an extended mag that holds 10. Your semi auto handgun holds 15? Yea, I would probably ban the manufacturing of that capacity mag.

For no rational reason whatsoever.

You can keep the ones you have though. I just want to stop a future nut from being able to dole out max carnage.

Absent confiscation of "high capacity" magazines, they will remain available to everyone - thus, your nonsensical ban will accomplish nothing.

What? Just because you were able to buy one in 1980 doesn't mean a crazy gun nut will be able to get their hands on one moving forward. Chances are the gun nut will just go with what he can get his hands on at the gun store. And that will be 10 round mags.

Oh, and it's illegal to sell yours to anyone. So you can keep what you got but not sell it.

You're speculating. Your comment is false. What you are saying is if we don't confiscate what you have then gun nuts will be able to get their hands on them. Not true. Not true at all. Banning the sale of 20 round magazines will take 20 round magazines out of most gun nuts hands.

And banning the sale of 20 round magazines also takes that ability away from the law abiding citizen who may, one day, have to defend himself or herself from somebody with a 20 round magazine.

As we on the right understand, having limits on capacity size is only one step in the long game of virtual gun confiscation. If you don't believe that, I'll tell you what: I'll support your magazine size law, if you can get the Democrats to sign a Contract with America. In that contract, it would state the Democrats will never bring up the issue of guns again win, lose, or draw if we support limits on gun magazine size.

Do you really think the Democrats in the House would go for that? Of course not. Because again, it's one baby step in their long game.

Using your logic, regulating a 20mm anti aircraft gun is just as wrong in case you have to defend yourself from someone with an armored vehicle with a M2 mounted on it. Pardon me if I choose not to live in that neighborhood. You may want to live there. I know of only one place on Earth that has no laws and it would be perfectly legal and that would be Yemen and how is that working out for them.

The only real question here is where do we put the limits. Where do we draw the line. To date, the Federal Courts have drawn the line at 15 rounds. No matter where we place the limit, there is always going to be someone jump up and scream that they demand the next higher number or higher.

Now about that fantasy about your home being invaded by, let's say, 10 bad armed guys. You have an AR with 3 30 round mags. Those 10 bad guys are similarly armed. Maybe in a Rambo movie could you expect the good guy to survive that encounter but it's just a movie. The best outcome by directly confronting those bad guys would be to go down fighting. While that sounds heroic, it's not the best option. Take it from a Military Person, sometimes withdrawal is a better option.

Next you are going to say, they have all the exits covered. No matter what I say, you will come up with a scenario where you will have to fight. We are right back inside that movie. But let's say it happens. If you are that worried I suggest you build a nice little safe room that can't be easily breached and blends in with a wall. They aren't there to probably kill you. They are there to steal from you or kidnap. Sit in that safe room with your defensive weapons and stay quiet. And call the Cops. Let them get shot, it's their job. They have a unit called Swat that does that for a living and they don't have any limits to their weapons.

So we place a limit. limits have to be placed because some moron will go hog wild if they aren't. Again, the only real question is, where will those limits be placed. I agree with the Courts except I might place the limit at 20 because some weapons look might funny with the shorter 15 round mag. And 5 rounds one way or the other really isn't that big a deal. So I don't see the world coming to an end with the limit set at 15. The Sun will come up in the Morning, The Seasons will go on and so will I.

 

[Kentucky_Conservative]

I don't associate with any very dangerous people. It's one of the ways I keep myself safe.

So ... when you are pulling money out of an ATM, the criminals KNOW this? When you are changing a flat on the side of the road, the criminals UNDERSTAND that you stay away from dangerous people?

"Hey Bluto ... let's not rob that guy. He doesn't associate with people like us. Wait for someone we know and we'll rob him..."

 

[2aguy]

My ruger 1911 45 only holds 8. You can buy an extended mag that holds 10. Your semi auto handgun holds 15? Yea, I would probably ban the manufacturing of that capacity mag.

For no rational reason whatsoever.

You can keep the ones you have though. I just want to stop a future nut from being able to dole out max carnage.

Absent confiscation of "high capacity" magazines, they will remain available to everyone - thus, your nonsensical ban will accomplish nothing.

What? Just because you were able to buy one in 1980 doesn't mean a crazy gun nut will be able to get their hands on one moving forward. Chances are the gun nut will just go with what he can get his hands on at the gun store. And that will be 10 round mags.

Oh, and it's illegal to sell yours to anyone. So you can keep what you got but not sell it.

You're speculating. Your comment is false. What you are saying is if we don't confiscate what you have then gun nuts will be able to get their hands on them. Not true. Not true at all. Banning the sale of 20 round magazines will take 20 round magazines out of most gun nuts hands.

And banning the sale of 20 round magazines also takes that ability away from the law abiding citizen who may, one day, have to defend himself or herself from somebody with a 20 round magazine.

As we on the right understand, having limits on capacity size is only one step in the long game of virtual gun confiscation. If you don't believe that, I'll tell you what: I'll support your magazine size law, if you can get the Democrats to sign a Contract with America. In that contract, it would state the Democrats will never bring up the issue of guns again win, lose, or draw if we support limits on gun magazine size.

Do you really think the Democrats in the House would go for that? Of course not. Because again, it's one baby step in their long game.

Using your logic, regulating a 20mm anti aircraft gun is just as wrong in case you have to defend yourself from someone with an armored vehicle with a M2 mounted on it. Pardon me if I choose not to live in that neighborhood. You may want to live there. I know of only one place on Earth that has no laws and it would be perfectly legal and that would be Yemen and how is that working out for them.

The only real question here is where do we put the limits. Where do we draw the line. To date, the Federal Courts have drawn the line at 15 rounds. No matter where we place the limit, there is always going to be someone jump up and scream that they demand the next higher number or higher.

Now about that fantasy about your home being invaded by, let's say, 10 bad armed guys. You have an AR with 3 30 round mags. Those 10 bad guys are similarly armed. Maybe in a Rambo movie could you expect the good guy to survive that encounter but it's just a movie. The best outcome by directly confronting those bad guys would be to go down fighting. While that sounds heroic, it's not the best option. Take it from a Military Person, sometimes withdrawal is a better option.

Next you are going to say, they have all the exits covered. No matter what I say, you will come up with a scenario where you will have to fight. We are right back inside that movie. But let's say it happens. If you are that worried I suggest you build a nice little safe room that can't be easily breached and blends in with a wall. They aren't there to probably kill you. They are there to steal from you or kidnap. Sit in that safe room with your defensive weapons and stay quiet. And call the Cops. Let them get shot, it's their job. They have a unit called Swat that does that for a living and they don't have any limits to their weapons.

So we place a limit. limits have to be placed because some moron will go hog wild if they aren't. Again, the only real question is, where will those limits be placed. I agree with the Courts except I might place the limit at 20 because some weapons look might funny with the shorter 15 round mag. And 5 rounds one way or the other really isn't that big a deal. So I don't see the world coming to an end with the limit set at 15. The Sun will come up in the Morning, The Seasons will go on and so will I.

The actual rule, from Heller, is any Bearable Arm......

and you are just talking out of your ass again with magazine limits.

 

[Kentucky_Conservative]

In El Paso, there were probably a lot of guns there yet the people there fled, ducked, froze, etc.. Not a single on pulled their weapons and confronted the shooter. And don't tell me that there weren't a lot of guns in that Walmart. It's Texas for crying out loud.

You reasoning is flawed.

For what reason do YOU think most of those armed citizens did not pull their weapons?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I had guns before I ever heard of the NRA or voted for any party. The safest place in the world right now is under my roof.

And the Supreme Court agrees with you. Under your roof with reasonable firearms, you should feel reasonably safe. And your should be able to reasonably use them to defend the security of your home as well. Notice the words "Reasonable" and "Home".

So ... when I leave my "home" I should be vulnerable to a deadly attack at the ATM, at a restaurant, while driving in my car or cycling through a public park, etc.?

Don't even PRETEND to be that stupid.

Why would I pretend to be that stupid. You are much more stupid and you don't even need to pretend. Most states have the CCW laws. Even the most regulated states and cities in the nation allows CCW. And it's already been proven that the safest people on the public streets with a gun is the CCW carriers. The most unsafe are the fruitcakes like you.

CCW laws are only as good as the laws that protect the shooter. I don't know if my license is good in the commie states like NY or California. But even if it were, I would be deathly afraid of using a firearm in those states because the laws are written to protect the criminal, and not the victim.

In my state, I have no fear of using my firearm if needed. The laws that were written during and after the CCW laws enacted do protect me when I need to use deadly force. In fact, they are written in my favor.

CCW programs were forced on states that refused to have them by the Supreme Court. But that ruling doesn't mean the state has to be on the side of the victim, or that obtaining a license is guaranteed.

John Stossel Denied Carry Permit in NYC

NYC complied with the Heller V ruling. What he didn't say was the reason he was denied. He just said he was denied. They had to give a reason. What I suggest is that this issue be taken back to the Federal Courts. According to the Heller V ruling, the word "Reasonable" must come into play. If the system is "Unreasonable" then it can be contested in court using the very ruling that they are using too justifying denying and allowing him too have a gun in his home.

The problem I see here is, the NRA and others pick the wrong fights. This sounds like a fight they should pick instead of the frivolous ones they keep picking. Picking the wrong fights is designed to keep you stirred up and angry. IF NYC has an unreasonable system for CCW then pursue it in court hard. Case in point. If some like Rump can get a CCW with his comment about being able to shoot someone on 5th avenue and get away with it then they should NEVER turn Jack the Ripper down for a ccw.

 

[Kentucky_Conservative]

And of course all those Texans are going to park their guns at the door because guns are NOT ALLOWED in the Walmart. Riiiiiight. You've clearly never been to, or lived in Texas. Guaranteed there were plenty of gun toting 'heroes' in that Walmart all running for the nearest exit as soon as the shooting started. All those guns, I guess in the end they were just cowards after all.

And where were all the gun-toters in Dayton (or was it TOLEDO)? Nobody could have pulled out their weapon in those 32 seconds it took police to take out the shooter? More cowards with guns?

So ... the next time some raving lunatic liberal raises the argument "If We Allow Everyone to Carry a Gun, It Would Be a Wild West Shootout!" as the reason people should not be allowed to carry guns, can I count on seeing YOU standing up in a very public way (ala David Hogg) to shout, "THOSE WILD WEST SHOOTOUTS NEVER HAPPEN!!!" ??

I just want to know if I can count on you to be consistent.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

My ruger 1911 45 only holds 8. You can buy an extended mag that holds 10. Your semi auto handgun holds 15? Yea, I would probably ban the manufacturing of that capacity mag.

For no rational reason whatsoever.

You can keep the ones you have though. I just want to stop a future nut from being able to dole out max carnage.

Absent confiscation of "high capacity" magazines, they will remain available to everyone - thus, your nonsensical ban will accomplish nothing.

What? Just because you were able to buy one in 1980 doesn't mean a crazy gun nut will be able to get their hands on one moving forward. Chances are the gun nut will just go with what he can get his hands on at the gun store. And that will be 10 round mags.

Oh, and it's illegal to sell yours to anyone. So you can keep what you got but not sell it.

You're speculating. Your comment is false. What you are saying is if we don't confiscate what you have then gun nuts will be able to get their hands on them. Not true. Not true at all. Banning the sale of 20 round magazines will take 20 round magazines out of most gun nuts hands.

And banning the sale of 20 round magazines also takes that ability away from the law abiding citizen who may, one day, have to defend himself or herself from somebody with a 20 round magazine.

As we on the right understand, having limits on capacity size is only one step in the long game of virtual gun confiscation. If you don't believe that, I'll tell you what: I'll support your magazine size law, if you can get the Democrats to sign a Contract with America. In that contract, it would state the Democrats will never bring up the issue of guns again win, lose, or draw if we support limits on gun magazine size.

Do you really think the Democrats in the House would go for that? Of course not. Because again, it's one baby step in their long game.

Using your logic, regulating a 20mm anti aircraft gun is just as wrong in case you have to defend yourself from someone with an armored vehicle with a M2 mounted on it. Pardon me if I choose not to live in that neighborhood. You may want to live there. I know of only one place on Earth that has no laws and it would be perfectly legal and that would be Yemen and how is that working out for them.

The only real question here is where do we put the limits. Where do we draw the line. To date, the Federal Courts have drawn the line at 15 rounds. No matter where we place the limit, there is always going to be someone jump up and scream that they demand the next higher number or higher.

Now about that fantasy about your home being invaded by, let's say, 10 bad armed guys. You have an AR with 3 30 round mags. Those 10 bad guys are similarly armed. Maybe in a Rambo movie could you expect the good guy to survive that encounter but it's just a movie. The best outcome by directly confronting those bad guys would be to go down fighting. While that sounds heroic, it's not the best option. Take it from a Military Person, sometimes withdrawal is a better option.

Next you are going to say, they have all the exits covered. No matter what I say, you will come up with a scenario where you will have to fight. We are right back inside that movie. But let's say it happens. If you are that worried I suggest you build a nice little safe room that can't be easily breached and blends in with a wall. They aren't there to probably kill you. They are there to steal from you or kidnap. Sit in that safe room with your defensive weapons and stay quiet. And call the Cops. Let them get shot, it's their job. They have a unit called Swat that does that for a living and they don't have any limits to their weapons.

So we place a limit. limits have to be placed because some moron will go hog wild if they aren't. Again, the only real question is, where will those limits be placed. I agree with the Courts except I might place the limit at 20 because some weapons look might funny with the shorter 15 round mag. And 5 rounds one way or the other really isn't that big a deal. So I don't see the world coming to an end with the limit set at 15. The Sun will come up in the Morning, The Seasons will go on and so will I.

You don't assume anything when confronted by armed attackers. They may beat you to death, force you to disclose where valuables are hidden at, and if you don't have enough, kill you because they thought you were holding out on them, or simply because you are a witness that can identify them in court.

Unless you agree to a fight with somebody, and are attacked, you have no idea what their motive is, so you take no chances. It's the same as getting attacked without a weapon. You always expect the worst.

The use of a deadly weapon is the same as not using a deadly weapon. Years ago when I was studying for my blackbelt, I asked my instructor what might happen to me legally if I used one of the five methods to kill another person? With that, he said since I have no idea what their intent is, use them. Because self-defense ends at the point you disabled your attacker from further attack no matter how you did it. Until that point, it's legally self-defense.

If people in my area start to get attacked by airplanes, then I'll look into anti-aircraft weaponry. But thus far, it's been criminals with guns, and yes......big magazines. So I don't think there should be any limit on magazine size because for one, it won't stop one shooting, and two, it won't make any difference in the amount of casualties or deaths. What it does do is advance the commie narrative of virtual gun and ammo confiscation.

 

[JGalt]

I had guns before I ever heard of the NRA or voted for any party. The safest place in the world right now is under my roof.

And the Supreme Court agrees with you. Under your roof with reasonable firearms, you should feel reasonably safe. And your should be able to reasonably use them to defend the security of your home as well. Notice the words "Reasonable" and "Home".

So ... when I leave my "home" I should be vulnerable to a deadly attack at the ATM, at a restaurant, while driving in my car or cycling through a public park, etc.?

Don't even PRETEND to be that stupid.

Why would I pretend to be that stupid. You are much more stupid and you don't even need to pretend. Most states have the CCW laws. Even the most regulated states and cities in the nation allows CCW. And it's already been proven that the safest people on the public streets with a gun is the CCW carriers. The most unsafe are the fruitcakes like you.

CCW laws are only as good as the laws that protect the shooter. I don't know if my license is good in the commie states like NY or California. But even if it were, I would be deathly afraid of using a firearm in those states because the laws are written to protect the criminal, and not the victim.

In my state, I have no fear of using my firearm if needed. The laws that were written during and after the CCW laws enacted do protect me when I need to use deadly force. In fact, they are written in my favor.

CCW programs were forced on states that refused to have them by the Supreme Court. But that ruling doesn't mean the state has to be on the side of the victim, or that obtaining a license is guaranteed.

John Stossel Denied Carry Permit in NYC

NYC complied with the Heller V ruling. What he didn't say was the reason he was denied. He just said he was denied. They had to give a reason. What I suggest is that this issue be taken back to the Federal Courts. According to the Heller V ruling, the word "Reasonable" must come into play. If the system is "Unreasonable" then it can be contested in court using the very ruling that they are using too justifying denying and allowing him too have a gun in his home.

The problem I see here is, the NRA and others pick the wrong fights. This sounds like a fight they should pick instead of the frivolous ones they keep picking. Picking the wrong fights is designed to keep you stirred up and angry. IF NYC has an unreasonable system for CCW then pursue it in court hard. Case in point. If some like Rump can get a CCW with his comment about being able to shoot someone on 5th avenue and get away with it then they should NEVER turn Jack the Ripper down for a ccw.

President Trump does have a concealed carry permit. But he would never shoot someone on 5th Avenue, the Secret Service would do it for him.

Now let's see if you take me literally.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You read the entire page because it agrees with your predetermined views. But if something is contrary to your views you won't get much past the first few words. I read the whole thing regardless. Again, am I a gun grabber? I disagree with much of what you say. Does that make me a gun grabber? Simple question.

No, I read the entire page because it contained real DATA , rather than agenda-driven nonsense.

You sure make a lot of assumptions. You have decided what I will, and will not read. You are wrong, but you have the Right to be wrong.

Are you a gun grabber? I don't know. I haven't read enough of your posts to come to that conclusion. If you support the likes of Obama, Clinton, Sanders, Warren et. al., then yes, you are probably a gun grabber.

Obama never was against guns. Bill Clinton was never against guns and neither was Hillary. I'll give you Sanders and Warren. But you are wrong about everything else. You are just repeating what you handlers are telling you to say without doing any real research for your self. To give you an idea, Rump is more of a gun grabber than the Clintons or Obama. Yet you rave on and on about that fruitcake and how he can do no wrong. \

So you mean DumBama never used victims of violent crime to strike up more Democrat gun control measures?

You are playing Politics. It is the States that are doing it. Now, where are you when Rump does it with his EOs. I guess if Rump does it, it's okay with you but it's okay to make shit up about Obama.

Not making up anything. Watch for yourself.

Not one single EO. What you saw was what Rump can only dream of being. That was a real President. Love him or hate him, Obama shined that day. And he was right. Congress should be ashamed but I don't think any part of Congress has the capacity to feel shame anymore.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

In El Paso, there were probably a lot of guns there yet the people there fled, ducked, froze, etc.. Not a single on pulled their weapons and confronted the shooter. And don't tell me that there weren't a lot of guns in that Walmart. It's Texas for crying out loud.

You reasoning is flawed.

Your silly assumptions are ridiculous. Just because it is Texas, that DOES NOT mean everyone is armed.

This question is for the Texans. Hey Texans, how many Texans are armed in any given public situation? Yelling "Gun Gun Gun" is pretty stupid in Texas since about half of the people there will be armed. Again, lt's hear just from the Texans on this one.

 

[NotYourBody]

In El Paso, there were probably a lot of guns there yet the people there fled, ducked, froze, etc.. Not a single on pulled their weapons and confronted the shooter. And don't tell me that there weren't a lot of guns in that Walmart. It's Texas for crying out loud.

You reasoning is flawed.

For what reason do YOU think most of those armed citizens did not pull their weapons?

Because they are only pretend fierce brave men. In reality they are chicken shit cowards.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

In El Paso, there were probably a lot of guns there yet the people there fled, ducked, froze, etc.. Not a single on pulled their weapons and confronted the shooter. And don't tell me that there weren't a lot of guns in that Walmart. It's Texas for crying out loud.

You reasoning is flawed.

For what reason do YOU think most of those armed citizens did not pull their weapons?

I have already covered this and won't do it again just because you are just trying to play the "Gotcha" game. Human Nature.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I had guns before I ever heard of the NRA or voted for any party. The safest place in the world right now is under my roof.

And the Supreme Court agrees with you. Under your roof with reasonable firearms, you should feel reasonably safe. And your should be able to reasonably use them to defend the security of your home as well. Notice the words "Reasonable" and "Home".

So ... when I leave my "home" I should be vulnerable to a deadly attack at the ATM, at a restaurant, while driving in my car or cycling through a public park, etc.?

Don't even PRETEND to be that stupid.

Why would I pretend to be that stupid. You are much more stupid and you don't even need to pretend. Most states have the CCW laws. Even the most regulated states and cities in the nation allows CCW. And it's already been proven that the safest people on the public streets with a gun is the CCW carriers. The most unsafe are the fruitcakes like you.

CCW laws are only as good as the laws that protect the shooter. I don't know if my license is good in the commie states like NY or California. But even if it were, I would be deathly afraid of using a firearm in those states because the laws are written to protect the criminal, and not the victim.

In my state, I have no fear of using my firearm if needed. The laws that were written during and after the CCW laws enacted do protect me when I need to use deadly force. In fact, they are written in my favor.

CCW programs were forced on states that refused to have them by the Supreme Court. But that ruling doesn't mean the state has to be on the side of the victim, or that obtaining a license is guaranteed.

John Stossel Denied Carry Permit in NYC

NYC complied with the Heller V ruling. What he didn't say was the reason he was denied. He just said he was denied. They had to give a reason. What I suggest is that this issue be taken back to the Federal Courts. According to the Heller V ruling, the word "Reasonable" must come into play. If the system is "Unreasonable" then it can be contested in court using the very ruling that they are using too justifying denying and allowing him too have a gun in his home.

The problem I see here is, the NRA and others pick the wrong fights. This sounds like a fight they should pick instead of the frivolous ones they keep picking. Picking the wrong fights is designed to keep you stirred up and angry. IF NYC has an unreasonable system for CCW then pursue it in court hard. Case in point. If some like Rump can get a CCW with his comment about being able to shoot someone on 5th avenue and get away with it then they should NEVER turn Jack the Ripper down for a ccw.

Using a metaphor is not grounds for refusing a CCW.....but then again, who knows with commie states.

I imagine you can find Stossle's entire process and results in detail if you look for it. I do know it's in one of his books. I also know of the hoops they made him jump through and the costs involved in his attempt to get a license. It is, by design, to discourage people from even trying. I may be wrong, but if I remember correctly, it cost him over a thousand dollars, and he still never got it.

But back to my point: just because the courts said they must allow citizens to carry firearms, doesn't mean they have to make it easy. Nor does it mean the state will protect you in the event you have to use deadly force.