Leftards Beware When Assaulting Trump Fans

[Daryl Hunt]

A walking risk to others because you think it is funny.

So why don't you show us these stories of innocents getting hurt or killed because a CCW holder shot them by accident.

So you claim no one ever got killed because a CCW mishandled their gun or had it taken.

Carrying a gun is for self-defense of yourself and in some cases, others. You claim that us doing so brings potential harm to you. I don't know of any case where that happened. And if there are, very few and far between. In other words, the chances of you being harmed by a CCW carrier is higher than hitting the lotto.

Cops make more mistakes than citizens carrying a gun.

.

And that is documented as well. CCW holders have been accused and convicted of gun crimes less than our police officers in the US. They are statistically more law abiding than the average citizen. So the lefts claims that they are at risk by having CCW holders in the US is absolutely false. They make false accusations instead of digging up the facts about us.

Sure wish you would stick with facts instead of the Rush alternate universe. CCW holders have NOT been accused of crimes. In fact, only one, to the best of my knowledge, has done a crime with one. And that was first reported by a Florida local newspaper. It was a blip in the national news cycle. The Left are not hammering CCW holders specifically. So stop this nonsense.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The mall is a gun free zone! The rumpy butt should have been arrested for that.
As for tezass you may prefer a .40 but I love me some 22 inch biceps.

I carry in gun free malls. Just for the reason of the OP - self defense from crazies.

All they can do is to ask you to leave.

A walking risk to others because you think it is funny.

So why don't you show us these stories of innocents getting hurt or killed because a CCW holder shot them by accident.

So you claim no one ever got killed because a CCW mishandled their gun or had it taken.

How about sticking with something worth arguing about. CCW Holders are NOT a problem and never have been. The CCW program has been a resounding success in safety. And only one documented case of a CCW holder shooting an unarmed person out of anger in the last 30 years has been recorded. For gun handling, the CCW holder is much safer than the non CCW holder. In fact, you can be around a CCW Holder and not even be aware you are in their presence. So stop with this nonsense. There are enough other issues for you to take up rather than inventing one that doesn't exist like those fruitcakes that want to parade around showing off their small manhoods out in the open for us all to see thinking we all will fear and respect them.

 

[OKTexas]

The mall is a gun free zone! The rumpy butt should have been arrested for that.
As for tezass you may prefer a .40 but I love me some 22 inch biceps.

I carry in gun free malls. Just for the reason of the OP - self defense from crazies.

All they can do is to ask you to leave.

A walking risk to others because you think it is funny.

So why don't you show us these stories of innocents getting hurt or killed because a CCW holder shot them by accident.

So you claim no one ever got killed because a CCW mishandled their gun or had it taken.

How about sticking with something worth arguing about. CCW Holders are NOT a problem and never have been. The CCW program has been a resounding success in safety. And only one documented case of a CCW holder shooting an unarmed person out of anger in the last 30 years has been recorded. For gun handling, the CCW holder is much safer than the non CCW holder. In fact, you can be around a CCW Holder and not even be aware you are in their presence. So stop with this nonsense. There are enough other issues for you to take up rather than inventing one that doesn't exist like those fruitcakes that want to parade around showing off their small manhoods out in the open for us all to see thinking we all will fear and respect them.

Well you should inform your commie brethren of those facts, including many politicians and presidential candidates. Many cried about the security in the TX church that took out a shooter. They said they don't want people around them with guns. Of course they have no problems with their own armed security.

.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So why don't you show us these stories of innocents getting hurt or killed because a CCW holder shot them by accident.

So you claim no one ever got killed because a CCW mishandled their gun or had it taken.

Carrying a gun is for self-defense of yourself and in some cases, others. You claim that us doing so brings potential harm to you. I don't know of any case where that happened. And if there are, very few and far between. In other words, the chances of you being harmed by a CCW carrier is higher than hitting the lotto.

Cops make more mistakes than citizens carrying a gun.

.

And that is documented as well. CCW holders have been accused and convicted of gun crimes less than our police officers in the US. They are statistically more law abiding than the average citizen. So the lefts claims that they are at risk by having CCW holders in the US is absolutely false. They make false accusations instead of digging up the facts about us.

Sure wish you would stick with facts instead of the Rush alternate universe. CCW holders have NOT been accused of crimes. In fact, only one, to the best of my knowledge, has done a crime with one. And that was first reported by a Florida local newspaper. It was a blip in the national news cycle. The Left are not hammering CCW holders specifically. So stop this nonsense.

Well, your facts are incorrect. We had two incidents in my area alone where a CCW holder did kill innocent people. One was a kid that shot a garage attendant at a Cavs game downtown over a parking spot, and the other was a Twinsburg Ohio police officer that was killed while trying to handcuff a CCW holder. I'm sure Google will quickly pick them up if you type in the proper key words I gave you. If not, let me know, and I'll find the news stories for you.

However again, CCW holders have less convictions of gun crimes than police officers. So the cases I stated are anomalies and far from the norm.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

So you claim no one ever got killed because a CCW mishandled their gun or had it taken.

Carrying a gun is for self-defense of yourself and in some cases, others. You claim that us doing so brings potential harm to you. I don't know of any case where that happened. And if there are, very few and far between. In other words, the chances of you being harmed by a CCW carrier is higher than hitting the lotto.

Cops make more mistakes than citizens carrying a gun.

.

And that is documented as well. CCW holders have been accused and convicted of gun crimes less than our police officers in the US. They are statistically more law abiding than the average citizen. So the lefts claims that they are at risk by having CCW holders in the US is absolutely false. They make false accusations instead of digging up the facts about us.

Sure wish you would stick with facts instead of the Rush alternate universe. CCW holders have NOT been accused of crimes. In fact, only one, to the best of my knowledge, has done a crime with one. And that was first reported by a Florida local newspaper. It was a blip in the national news cycle. The Left are not hammering CCW holders specifically. So stop this nonsense.

Well, your facts are incorrect. We had two incidents in my area alone where a CCW holder did kill innocent people. One was a kid that shot a garage attendant at a Cavs game downtown over a parking spot, and the other was a Twinsburg Ohio police officer that was killed while trying to handcuff a CCW holder. I'm sure Google will quickly pick them up if you type in the proper key words I gave you. If not, let me know, and I'll find the news stories for you.

However again, CCW holders have less convictions of gun crimes than police officers. So the cases I stated are anomalies and far from the norm.

Then I guess there are three. The Retired Sheriff that snapped at some idiot eating Popcorn too loud in a movie theater. But it's too rare to even worry about. The Training is exactly what many of us want to see and we get called Gun Grabbers. CCW just backs up that if you want to carry a weapon in public, a little training should be necessary.

If you haven't figured out yet, I am completely against the Open Carry.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Carrying a gun is for self-defense of yourself and in some cases, others. You claim that us doing so brings potential harm to you. I don't know of any case where that happened. And if there are, very few and far between. In other words, the chances of you being harmed by a CCW carrier is higher than hitting the lotto.

Cops make more mistakes than citizens carrying a gun.

.

And that is documented as well. CCW holders have been accused and convicted of gun crimes less than our police officers in the US. They are statistically more law abiding than the average citizen. So the lefts claims that they are at risk by having CCW holders in the US is absolutely false. They make false accusations instead of digging up the facts about us.

Sure wish you would stick with facts instead of the Rush alternate universe. CCW holders have NOT been accused of crimes. In fact, only one, to the best of my knowledge, has done a crime with one. And that was first reported by a Florida local newspaper. It was a blip in the national news cycle. The Left are not hammering CCW holders specifically. So stop this nonsense.

Well, your facts are incorrect. We had two incidents in my area alone where a CCW holder did kill innocent people. One was a kid that shot a garage attendant at a Cavs game downtown over a parking spot, and the other was a Twinsburg Ohio police officer that was killed while trying to handcuff a CCW holder. I'm sure Google will quickly pick them up if you type in the proper key words I gave you. If not, let me know, and I'll find the news stories for you.

However again, CCW holders have less convictions of gun crimes than police officers. So the cases I stated are anomalies and far from the norm.

Then I guess there are three. The Retired Sheriff that snapped at some idiot eating Popcorn too loud in a movie theater. But it's too rare to even worry about. The Training is exactly what many of us want to see and we get called Gun Grabbers. CCW just backs up that if you want to carry a weapon in public, a little training should be necessary.

If you haven't figured out yet, I am completely against the Open Carry.

I'm not crazy about open carry myself, even though my state allows it. Until this day, outside of police officers, I haven't seen anybody actually doing it.

In our state, class time is 10 hours, mostly learning about situations and law, and then there are a couple of hours at the shooting range to pass the test. They are talking about doing away with CCW''s, and allowing all citizens legally allowed to possess a firearm the ability to carry without a license. I'm against that. They also want to get rid of mandated alerting a police officer that you are carrying in some capacity. I'm against that as well. I believe that an officer in the presence of an armed citizen should be aware of that.

I'm also sure there are more than three cases of a CCW holder involved in an illegal or criminal shooting. But the percentage is so small nobody need to worry about it. Like I told Fake Dave, your chances of being harmed or killed by a CCW holder is greater than hitting the lotto.

 

[ChrisL]

Dear ChrisL and ThisIsMe
I agree that it isn't going to work to try to exclude, oppress or change all Liberals/Leftist/Democrats.
That's like trying to solve problems of Christianity by banning all religions.
I see people propose this, thinking that will solve the problem. But people FORM groups around
their beliefs, both religious and political, so they will always use bigger groups to leverage their interests.

Instead of the Left and Right competing to vote each other out of office or overrule the other side,
what we could do is start recognizing political beliefs, parties and religions the same way
we respect other religious organizations, where they are expected to fund their own policies.
NOT compete to get "majority rule" or judges on the bench to IMPOSE such beliefs on others!

When we get to the point we both recognize political beliefs as equal,
and see the advantages of defending these interests equally without compromise or conflict with the other,
then we might finally realize true pluralism, inclusion of diversity, and equal freedom, justice
and protections of the laws for all people. If we are going to achieve equal justice under law,
that isn't "equal" if one group amasses more power to censor or remove the other group.

Longterm solutions would likely involve mutual input and participation by all groups affected.
I believe the language, structure and process in our Constitution serve as a key framework in that process.

I've had the thought that political parties need to go away. What was the whole point of a political party anyway? Sounds to me like the very idea has division built in by its inherent nature.

It would be great if peoples ideology was never even known. Not every dem and repub agree party line, but most will vote party line because of the letter after their name.

What would it be like if instead of people voting for a letter, we declare that political affiliation is never shown, instead, we all have to look at each candidate, and vote based on what we think of their platform.

I know some do this, but a lot just vote for their party, and even if they dont like what the candidate has to say, they say "well, I'll vote dem because I sure dont want a repub in office".

Also the media, I think the media is instrumental in creating division. Maybe if more people watched cspan, instead of cnn or fox, that would probably help a little.

Chances are you don't agree with your party or candidate on some things. You vote for your party because they are the closest to your beliefs.

I'm sure that does exist, but I'm pretty sure also that people are so hard core on being tied to a "party", that they would vote against what could be a great candidate just because they have the wrong letter at the end

Or, they vote against a candidate because their views are totally opposite of theirs. Take Hillary for instance. I voted for Trump because his border message. Hillary is an open borders person. Then there's DumBama. I don't care for McCain, but I hated Obama. Same thing with Romney. I have no good words for him, but anybody was better than Obama.

So you are correct that we vote more against somebody than for our own candidate, but again, it's because the opposing candidates has totally opposite views of yours, not because of the party so much.

Now Ray From Cleveland
Imagine a system where the minute you vote yes or no to a policy or person not representing you,
you automatically are protected from having to fund or be under that policy or person.

You can even change your mind, instead of waiting 2, 4 or 6 years for the next election or vote.
With nonprofits running programs, you can choose to donate or invest or change your mind if they change policies to something you don't agree with. We vote with our dollars we donate.

What if we didn't have to wait to get 51% majority rule or a court ruling to be able to say NO
to one policy and YES to another. What if we could approve funding to go where we agree is a solution,
and either direct taxes there or put our own donations/investments there and get a tax write-off where it's basically the same
except we control which process to use to direct funding to that program or policy we believe in supporting.

What if we didn't need to "vote the other party" out of office in order to start funding what we believe in
without fear of being forced to fund or follow otherwise?

This sounds great but will never be because each party demonizes the other party, no matter what. It seems as if in the past we were much more adult about disagreeing. Now, we are like a bunch of children, and our parties are our mommies and daddies.

Whoever came up with the "party" idea should have been shot.