The Right To Bear Arms

[danielpalos]

No one practices carrying handcuffs. That is the problem.

 

[Skull Pilot]

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

Thank God the 2nd Amendment is not "obsolete" and never will be. An officer's life was saved the other day because most people aren't as ignorant as you are...

Watch: Cellphone footage captures armed citizen saving deputy by shooting his attacker

more, rather than less, well regulated militia in the crowd could have simply rushed the guy, with no Arms use.

yeah why don't you lead the charge ?

i wasn't there; there were plenty of people with cell phone cameras.

so if it happens when you happen to be outside and not in Mommy's basement jerking off you'll be the first guy to charge a shooter right?

 

[danielpalos]

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

Thank God the 2nd Amendment is not "obsolete" and never will be. An officer's life was saved the other day because most people aren't as ignorant as you are...

Watch: Cellphone footage captures armed citizen saving deputy by shooting his attacker

more, rather than less, well regulated militia in the crowd could have simply rushed the guy, with no Arms use.

yeah why don't you lead the charge ?

i wasn't there; there were plenty of people with cell phone cameras.

so if it happens when you happen to be outside and not in Mommy's basement jerking off you'll be the first guy to charge a shooter right?

it depends on the situation. however, from a, hypothetical "tactical" perspective, simply "diving into the guy" would probably knock the guy off of the officer and give the officer enough time to recover; and proceed with any further, coercive use of force of the State.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Thank God the 2nd Amendment is not "obsolete" and never will be. An officer's life was saved the other day because most people aren't as ignorant as you are...

Watch: Cellphone footage captures armed citizen saving deputy by shooting his attacker

more, rather than less, well regulated militia in the crowd could have simply rushed the guy, with no Arms use.

yeah why don't you lead the charge ?

i wasn't there; there were plenty of people with cell phone cameras.

so if it happens when you happen to be outside and not in Mommy's basement jerking off you'll be the first guy to charge a shooter right?

it depends on the situation. however, from a, hypothetical "tactical" perspective, simply "diving into the guy" would probably knock the guy off of the officer and give the officer enough time to recover; and proceed with any further, coercive use of force of the State.

More than likely it will get both you and the Officer killed. You need to allow the Officer to control the situation.

 

[danielpalos]

more, rather than less, well regulated militia in the crowd could have simply rushed the guy, with no Arms use.

yeah why don't you lead the charge ?

i wasn't there; there were plenty of people with cell phone cameras.

so if it happens when you happen to be outside and not in Mommy's basement jerking off you'll be the first guy to charge a shooter right?

it depends on the situation. however, from a, hypothetical "tactical" perspective, simply "diving into the guy" would probably knock the guy off of the officer and give the officer enough time to recover; and proceed with any further, coercive use of force of the State.

More than likely it will get both you and the Officer killed. You need to allow the Officer to control the situation.

wouldn't a gun, potentially do the same thing?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

yeah why don't you lead the charge ?

i wasn't there; there were plenty of people with cell phone cameras.

so if it happens when you happen to be outside and not in Mommy's basement jerking off you'll be the first guy to charge a shooter right?

it depends on the situation. however, from a, hypothetical "tactical" perspective, simply "diving into the guy" would probably knock the guy off of the officer and give the officer enough time to recover; and proceed with any further, coercive use of force of the State.

More than likely it will get both you and the Officer killed. You need to allow the Officer to control the situation.

wouldn't a gun, potentially do the same thing?

There is a better than average chance that it will just mess things up. You decide to draw your weapon, the bad guy shoots the cop (or civilian) and then turns it on you. A drawn weapon is faster than one coming out of the holster. There is a better than 50% chance that you just got the cop and yourself (and maybe others) killed in the process.

Heroes normally get others killed around them. According to an old retired LA Chief of Police, the bad guy is probably better with his weapon than you will be. And he won't care if innocents die in the process so he won't hesitate.

 

[Clementine]

Time to rewrite the crazy old 2nd Amendment.

Only to make it clear that we have the right not to die at the hands of home invaders or anyone who seeks to harm us.

If I hear someone kick my door in during the night, I will shoot them. I know libs would rather I have no means to defend myself but you guys are incapable of thinking things through.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Thank God the 2nd Amendment is not "obsolete" and never will be. An officer's life was saved the other day because most people aren't as ignorant as you are...

Watch: Cellphone footage captures armed citizen saving deputy by shooting his attacker

more, rather than less, well regulated militia in the crowd could have simply rushed the guy, with no Arms use.

yeah why don't you lead the charge ?

i wasn't there; there were plenty of people with cell phone cameras.

so if it happens when you happen to be outside and not in Mommy's basement jerking off you'll be the first guy to charge a shooter right?

it depends on the situation. however, from a, hypothetical "tactical" perspective, simply "diving into the guy" would probably knock the guy off of the officer and give the officer enough time to recover; and proceed with any further, coercive use of force of the State.

 

[P@triot]

it depends on the situation. however, from a, hypothetical "tactical" perspective, simply "diving into the guy" would probably knock the guy off of the officer and give the officer enough time to recover; and proceed with any further, coercive use of force of the State.

It is always wise to rely on "probably" in life and death situations...

Let me ask you something snowflake - what if the officer is incapacitated? What if he is unconscious? Or if his arm is broken? You knock the guy off (idiotic to say the least), the officer can't help you, the guy gets up and stabs you to death. Then what, snowflake?

 

[P@triot]

i wasn't there; there were plenty of people with cell phone cameras.

Exactly. And not one of them intervened on the officers behalf other than the armed citizen. Why? Because they are all a bunch of pussies like you.

 

[P@triot]

No one practices carrying handcuffs. That is the problem.

Do you? So you are admitting that you are part of the problem? Shocking...

 

[P@triot]

i vote women should be able to bare their Arms and their breasts, in public.

Including your mother? Including your daughter? Typical left-wing dirt-bag turning women into nothing but sexual objects. You're pathetic danielpalos. This is so immature.

And spare us the even more immature "I was only kidding" crap. That's what you hatriots say every time someone points out how disgusting you people are.

i won't complain; i will try to be, Patriotic.

So by your own admission - you won't complain about your mother and your daughter bearing their breasts in public? Tell us again just how sick and disturbed you are? Your scree name should be Norman Bates.

 

[P@triot]

Only gun lovers who have to shoot and maybe kill someone?

To save an officer's life? Yeah. Hell yeah. That's why the law permits it, you dumb-ass.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Time to rewrite the crazy old 2nd Amendment.

Only to make it clear that we have the right not to die at the hands of home invaders or anyone who seeks to harm us.

If I hear someone kick my door in during the night, I will shoot them. I know libs would rather I have no means to defend myself but you guys are incapable of thinking things through.

And I don't know of one single "Liberal......spit on floor" that has tried to take that right away from. Protecting your home and family shall not be taken, period.

But walking around with your weapon on the street is NOT protecting your home and family. You think that afternoon you spent to get your permit is training enough. Not even close. The Bad Guy is still more qualified with his gun than you are. He has one real big advantage. He won't hesitate. The normal american (you do claim to be normal don't you) will hesitate. If you don't have that built in hesitation then you are more dangerous to those around you than the bad guy.

I just love the new insult, "Snowflake". You nutcases can do better than that.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

it depends on the situation. however, from a, hypothetical "tactical" perspective, simply "diving into the guy" would probably knock the guy off of the officer and give the officer enough time to recover; and proceed with any further, coercive use of force of the State.

It is always wise to rely on "probably" in life and death situations...

Let me ask you something snowflake - what if the officer is incapacitated? What if he is unconscious? Or if his arm is broken? You knock the guy off (idiotic to say the least), the officer can't help you, the guy gets up and stabs you to death. Then what, snowflake?

What Ifs are a wonderful thing. Whatif you he is armed with a deadman's switch on a pocket nuke. You can whatif until the cows come home. Especially if you call anyone just north of an Axe Murder a snowflake.

 

[Clementine]

And I don't know of one single "Liberal......spit on floor" that has tried to take that right away from. Protecting your home and family shall not be taken, period.

But walking around with your weapon on the street is NOT protecting your home and family. You think that afternoon you spent to get your permit is training enough. Not even close. The Bad Guy is still more qualified with his gun than you are. He has one real big advantage. He won't hesitate. The normal american (you do claim to be normal don't you) will hesitate. If you don't have that built in hesitation then you are more dangerous to those around you than the bad guy.

I just love the new insult, "Snowflake". You nutcases can do better than that.

You assume a lot and know so little.

Hillary was clear about her feelings toward the second amendment. She doesn't believe it gives people the right to own guns. And she intended to fight against it every chance she got.

So, yes, some Dems want to take our guns away. Period. So, we would not have them to protect our homes, which is how most would use them.

Criminals are experienced with guns. And they will always have them. There have been instances, most recently at a church, where concealed carry was allowed because it was not a gun-free zone (as if that exists in the eyes of criminals), where people with concealed guns managed to save lives. Two people were shot outside the church but the gunman was immediately taken down when he entered the church. Look it up yourself since the liberal media never reports the positive when it comes to legal gun owners.

 

[2aguy]

i wasn't there; there were plenty of people with cell phone cameras.

so if it happens when you happen to be outside and not in Mommy's basement jerking off you'll be the first guy to charge a shooter right?

it depends on the situation. however, from a, hypothetical "tactical" perspective, simply "diving into the guy" would probably knock the guy off of the officer and give the officer enough time to recover; and proceed with any further, coercive use of force of the State.

More than likely it will get both you and the Officer killed. You need to allow the Officer to control the situation.

wouldn't a gun, potentially do the same thing?

There is a better than average chance that it will just mess things up. You decide to draw your weapon, the bad guy shoots the cop (or civilian) and then turns it on you. A drawn weapon is faster than one coming out of the holster. There is a better than 50% chance that you just got the cop and yourself (and maybe others) killed in the process.

Heroes normally get others killed around them. According to an old retired LA Chief of Police, the bad guy is probably better with his weapon than you will be. And he won't care if innocents die in the process so he won't hesitate.

Wow....you don't know what you are talking about....in any way shape or form....

In most self defense....it doesn't happen the way you described...at all...the robber...has to decide the moment he sees you drawing your weapon if he is going to go from robbery to murder....you on the other hand are simply executing a physical motion after having made the decision which he can't see......he suffers from the same thing someone on defense suffers, a mental pause....

And the odds are...he isn't better than you with your weapon...at worst, you are at the same level, more than likely he is less effective since as a criminal, with a criminal record, his options for actually practicing with his weapon are extremely limited....and he isn't a criminal because he likes doing work...and training with a gun is actual work

Heroes don't normally get the people around them killed...that is talking out of your ass.......

You have no idea what you are talking about...please...do some research into actual self defense with guns....you will learn how much you don't know...

 

[2aguy]

And I don't know of one single "Liberal......spit on floor" that has tried to take that right away from. Protecting your home and family shall not be taken, period.

But walking around with your weapon on the street is NOT protecting your home and family. You think that afternoon you spent to get your permit is training enough. Not even close. The Bad Guy is still more qualified with his gun than you are. He has one real big advantage. He won't hesitate. The normal american (you do claim to be normal don't you) will hesitate. If you don't have that built in hesitation then you are more dangerous to those around you than the bad guy.

I just love the new insult, "Snowflake". You nutcases can do better than that.

You assume a lot and know so little.

Hillary was clear about her feelings toward the second amendment. She doesn't believe it gives people the right to own guns. And she intended to fight against it every chance she got.

So, yes, some Dems want to take our guns away. Period. So, we would not have them to protect our homes, which is how most would use them.

Criminals are experienced with guns. And they will always have them. There have been instances, most recently at a church, where concealed carry was allowed because it was not a gun-free zone (as if that exists in the eyes of criminals), where people with concealed guns managed to save lives. Two people were shot outside the church but the gunman was immediately taken down when he entered the church. Look it up yourself since the liberal media never reports the positive when it comes to legal gun owners.

Hilary had a plan to use court decisions to get her way by suing gun makers ...and getting them to settle in court and limit themselves.....I have posted this plan which is documented at the Clinton Library....

 

[2aguy]

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

Two funny things about this case:

1.) It ruled that military-style weapons are definitely protected by the 2nd amendment. But the government has spent vast amounts of time trying to restrict or ban exactly those kinds of weapons (so-called "assault weapons") for years, in direct violation of the US v. Miller ruling... and are still trying today!

2.) When US v. Miller was heard by the Supreme Court, no one showed up for the defense. Miller didn't show up, his lawyer didn't show up, nobody wrote any "Friends of the court" briefings or anything else for Miller's side. (Miller was found dead in a stream bed a few weeks later, with four pistol bullets in his chest). Only the government prosecutors showed up. The other side of the Courtroom was completely empty.

The prosecutors took advantage of this huge windfall, and read several flat lies into the record ( a. The 2nd protects only military-style weapons, b. Miller's short-barreled shotgun was not similar to a military weapon, c. The 2nd only protected members of the military or militia etc.). Since nobody was there to refute them, the Justices rubber-stamped these lies into an Opinion that ruled against the absent Miller.

US v. Miller was one of the most complete miscarriages of justice ever seen in the history of the U.S.

In case you were wondering why the government has been so careful to NEVER re-examine the Miller case, now you know. If the Miller case were ever brought up for re-examination, with both sides present this time, it would be overturned in five minutes. And all the court rulings that used it as a basis, would quickly fall like dominos... and that's nearly all of the "gun control" cases.

If you read the story on Miller...at the time.....the short barreled shot gun was used by soldiers guarding prisoners during World War 1...so even there they got it wrong.....

Miller was wrong in most everything...

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And I don't know of one single "Liberal......spit on floor" that has tried to take that right away from. Protecting your home and family shall not be taken, period.

But walking around with your weapon on the street is NOT protecting your home and family. You think that afternoon you spent to get your permit is training enough. Not even close. The Bad Guy is still more qualified with his gun than you are. He has one real big advantage. He won't hesitate. The normal american (you do claim to be normal don't you) will hesitate. If you don't have that built in hesitation then you are more dangerous to those around you than the bad guy.

I just love the new insult, "Snowflake". You nutcases can do better than that.

You assume a lot and know so little.

I am retired Military. And I have that hesitation. It took a bit to get it back. We don't need killers walking the streets. Without that hesitation you would be a killer if you walked around armed all the time.

Hillary was clear about her feelings toward the second amendment. She doesn't believe it gives people the right to own guns. And she intended to fight against it every chance she got.

You said the same thing for 8 years under Clinton and then 8 more years under Obama. Fewer and fewer people aren't buying your BS every day. You are using Fear Tactics. Don't you think we have had enough of the fear and hate already?

So, yes, some Dems want to take our guns away. Period. So, we would not have them to protect our homes, which is how most would use them.

And some Reps want to arm and kill everyone that doesn't agree with them. What's your point?

Criminals are experienced with guns. And they will always have them. There have been instances, most recently at a church, where concealed carry was allowed because it was not a gun-free zone (as if that exists in the eyes of criminals), where people with concealed guns managed to save lives. Two people were shot outside the church but the gunman was immediately taken down when he entered the church. Look it up yourself since the liberal media never reports the positive when it comes to legal gun owners.

You want to hear something funny? Gunshows are gun free zones. If a school can't be a gun free zone then we need to make all gun shows where all can carry loaded weapons. I wonder why your own kind force Gun Shows to be guns free? Again, the Hate and Fear tactics have been unmasked.