Why A "Good Guy with a Gun" is Bullshit

[Wry Catcher]

Looks like you're not a conservative. Holding view of liberals wrong is a necessary and sufficient requirement to be a 21st Century conservative.

well I must not be a liberal either because I am against the arbitrary denial of all constitutionally protected rights and you so called liberals sure the hell aren't

Really? So do you support the right of men to marry men, and women to marry women, a women's right to choose, the absolute right to vote unless denied by due process, the right of the LGBT community to serve in our military, a progressive federal income tax, age appropriate sex education in a comprehensive health care curriculum in public schools, contraceptives supplied as are all prescriptions as part of health care and a fiscally responsible Congress, not one which uses tax cuts to take away freedoms from our citizens?

The Bill of Rights are supported by men and women on both sides of the aisle, don't pretend only Libertarians support the Bill of Rights, the Libertarian Platform is far from pragmatic, realistic, democratic or fair.

You know I think we've been through this before but I'll answer you because I like seeing the heads of 2 dimensional thinkers like you explode

I have absolutely no problem with gay marriage. I'll go one better and say no marriage performed in a church should be recognized as legal by the state
I have no problem with abortion
If a person is a citizen and not prohibited by law to vote no problem
Gays in the military don't care at all. I used to know a gay guy that could kick most men's asses in the ring. If a woman canmeet the same standards as all other soldiers no problem with combat
Sex ed doesn't bother me
No problem with contraception in fact I wish more of you idiots would use it

I also think the second amendment is equal to all the other rights. You don't.

Cool, you have some progressive instincts, and to admit shall not infringe doesn't mean shall not infringe is enlightening. Other rights are not absolute and the 2nd A. is no exception.

What makes me two dimensional, in your opinion? Examples please.

Funny how you asked those question with the presumption of my answers

THAT makes you 2 dimensional because a guy who supports the 2nd can't be for gay marriage right?

Why do you think the "shall not be infringed" clause was not included in any of the other enumerated rights?

I think that because the New Right, the 21st Century conservative opposes gun control and votes in lockstep against the entire progressive movement, i.e. gays in marriage and the military, age appropriate SexEd, health car reform, the progressive income tax, etc. etc.

Good for you, you write that you have an open mind, something I didn't believe and will be sure to evaluate in your future posts.

I think the Shall not infringe clause was included because the small states feared the large states and needed the security of a well regulated militia under their command and control. No sane, sober and unimpaired mentally person believes every person should own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a gun. That is true today, and was true in the 18th Century.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

well I must not be a liberal either because I am against the arbitrary denial of all constitutionally protected rights and you so called liberals sure the hell aren't

Really? So do you support the right of men to marry men, and women to marry women, a women's right to choose, the absolute right to vote unless denied by due process, the right of the LGBT community to serve in our military, a progressive federal income tax, age appropriate sex education in a comprehensive health care curriculum in public schools, contraceptives supplied as are all prescriptions as part of health care and a fiscally responsible Congress, not one which uses tax cuts to take away freedoms from our citizens?

The Bill of Rights are supported by men and women on both sides of the aisle, don't pretend only Libertarians support the Bill of Rights, the Libertarian Platform is far from pragmatic, realistic, democratic or fair.

You know I think we've been through this before but I'll answer you because I like seeing the heads of 2 dimensional thinkers like you explode

I have absolutely no problem with gay marriage. I'll go one better and say no marriage performed in a church should be recognized as legal by the state
I have no problem with abortion
If a person is a citizen and not prohibited by law to vote no problem
Gays in the military don't care at all. I used to know a gay guy that could kick most men's asses in the ring. If a woman canmeet the same standards as all other soldiers no problem with combat
Sex ed doesn't bother me
No problem with contraception in fact I wish more of you idiots would use it

I also think the second amendment is equal to all the other rights. You don't.

Cool, you have some progressive instincts, and to admit shall not infringe doesn't mean shall not infringe is enlightening. Other rights are not absolute and the 2nd A. is no exception.

What makes me two dimensional, in your opinion? Examples please.

Funny how you asked those question with the presumption of my answers

THAT makes you 2 dimensional because a guy who supports the 2nd can't be for gay marriage right?

Why do you think the "shall not be infringed" clause was not included in any of the other enumerated rights?

I think that because the New Right, the 21st Century conservative opposes gun control and votes in lockstep against the entire progressive movement, i.e. gays in marriage and the military, age appropriate SexEd, health car reform, the progressive income tax, etc. etc.

Good for you, you write that you have an open mind, something I didn't believe and will be sure to evaluate in your future posts.

I think the Shall not infringe clause was included because the small states feared the large states and needed the security of a well regulated militia under their command and control. No sane, sober and unimpaired mentally person believes every person should own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a gun. That is true today, and was true in the 18th Century.

"No sane, sober and unimpaired mentally person believes every person should own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a gun. That is true today, and was true in the 18th Century."""

Amen.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Herein is an article of interest on the issue at hand:
Gun Control's Complicated History | RealClearPolitics
Gun Control: Founding Fathers vs. Today's Lawmakers | RealClearPolitics
Gun Control: Public Opinion and the Firearms Paradox | RealClearPolitics

 

[2aguy]

well I must not be a liberal either because I am against the arbitrary denial of all constitutionally protected rights and you so called liberals sure the hell aren't

Really? So do you support the right of men to marry men, and women to marry women, a women's right to choose, the absolute right to vote unless denied by due process, the right of the LGBT community to serve in our military, a progressive federal income tax, age appropriate sex education in a comprehensive health care curriculum in public schools, contraceptives supplied as are all prescriptions as part of health care and a fiscally responsible Congress, not one which uses tax cuts to take away freedoms from our citizens?

The Bill of Rights are supported by men and women on both sides of the aisle, don't pretend only Libertarians support the Bill of Rights, the Libertarian Platform is far from pragmatic, realistic, democratic or fair.

You know I think we've been through this before but I'll answer you because I like seeing the heads of 2 dimensional thinkers like you explode

I have absolutely no problem with gay marriage. I'll go one better and say no marriage performed in a church should be recognized as legal by the state
I have no problem with abortion
If a person is a citizen and not prohibited by law to vote no problem
Gays in the military don't care at all. I used to know a gay guy that could kick most men's asses in the ring. If a woman canmeet the same standards as all other soldiers no problem with combat
Sex ed doesn't bother me
No problem with contraception in fact I wish more of you idiots would use it

I also think the second amendment is equal to all the other rights. You don't.

Cool, you have some progressive instincts, and to admit shall not infringe doesn't mean shall not infringe is enlightening. Other rights are not absolute and the 2nd A. is no exception.

What makes me two dimensional, in your opinion? Examples please.

Funny how you asked those question with the presumption of my answers

THAT makes you 2 dimensional because a guy who supports the 2nd can't be for gay marriage right?

Why do you think the "shall not be infringed" clause was not included in any of the other enumerated rights?

I think that because the New Right, the 21st Century conservative opposes gun control and votes in lockstep against the entire progressive movement, i.e. gays in marriage and the military, age appropriate SexEd, health car reform, the progressive income tax, etc. etc.

Good for you, you write that you have an open mind, something I didn't believe and will be sure to evaluate in your future posts.

I think the Shall not infringe clause was included because the small states feared the large states and needed the security of a well regulated militia under their command and control. No sane, sober and unimpaired mentally person believes every person should own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a gun. That is true today, and was true in the 18th Century.

Yeah...and who does.....no one on the Civil Rights side of the issue thinks that violent felons and the dangerously mentally ill should have guns.........you guys....create laws that fail to keep them from getting guns, pat yourselves on the back...and then normal people find it more and more difficult to exercise their Right.....that is the problem....twit.

 

[2aguy]

I support the innocence project. You know why? Because I believe that all rights should be protected for all people.

You obviously think it's just fine to arbitrarily deny people their rights and yet you claim to support the innocence project

Seems like a conflicted view to me

Looks like you're not a conservative. Holding view of liberals wrong is a necessary and sufficient requirement to be a 21st Century conservative.

well I must not be a liberal either because I am against the arbitrary denial of all constitutionally protected rights and you so called liberals sure the hell aren't

Really? So do you support the right of men to marry men, and women to marry women, a women's right to choose, the absolute right to vote unless denied by due process, the right of the LGBT community to serve in our military, a progressive federal income tax, age appropriate sex education in a comprehensive health care curriculum in public schools, contraceptives supplied as are all prescriptions as part of health care and a fiscally responsible Congress, not one which uses tax cuts to take away freedoms from our citizens?

The Bill of Rights are supported by men and women on both sides of the aisle, don't pretend only Libertarians support the Bill of Rights, the Libertarian Platform is far from pragmatic, realistic, democratic or fair.

You know I think we've been through this before but I'll answer you because I like seeing the heads of 2 dimensional thinkers like you explode

I have absolutely no problem with gay marriage. I'll go one better and say no marriage performed in a church should be recognized as legal by the state
I have no problem with abortion
If a person is a citizen and not prohibited by law to vote no problem
Gays in the military don't care at all. I used to know a gay guy that could kick most men's asses in the ring. If a woman canmeet the same standards as all other soldiers no problem with combat
Sex ed doesn't bother me
No problem with contraception in fact I wish more of you idiots would use it

I also think the second amendment is equal to all the other rights. You don't.

Cool, you have some progressive instincts, and to admit shall not infringe doesn't mean shall not infringe is enlightening. Other rights are not absolute and the 2nd A. is no exception.

What makes me two dimensional, in your opinion? Examples please.

You guys keep saying that the 2nd amendment is not absolute as if you are saying something wise and clever.......no one has ever said that.....you can't use a gun for a criminal act...felons can't buy, own or carry guns and adjudicated mentally ill can't have them either.......

What you morons do is you extend those common sense gun control laws and keep pushing for laws that actually do infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens not in those categories......and then you act shocked when normal people resist you.....

You are totalitarian assholes......and you will be opposed every step of the way.

 

[2aguy]

Your premise is wrong at the most basic level. The correct mode of action for a CCW holder is to hold in place, and if the shooter tries to enter the area he controls, take him out.

Private CCW holders can be compared to a minefield, what you are hoping for is the active shooter doesn't expect armed resistance and the CCW holder can get some shots in before the active shooter realizes he is being confronted.

No, you are being stupid here. The OP nailed the situation, and in very few active shooter situations did a civilian with a conceal carry permit ever stop the shooter. 99% of the time it's law enforcement AFTER the fact. Guns don't help. They are the problem.

How many of these shooting occurred at locations that declared themselves "gun free zones" but did nothing to assure that?

You can't say "CCW's do nothing" when most of these shootings take place in areas CCW's are either disarmed by law, or by the desire of the property owner.

Until recently all public areas were gun free zones.
People were being shot in them long before that stupid name was slapped on them.
Making the term meaningless .
Then you assholes have since attempted to
Make a false correlation between the gun toting zone and gun free zones

Your premise is wrong at the most basic level. The correct mode of action for a CCW holder is to hold in place, and if the shooter tries to enter the area he controls, take him out.

Private CCW holders can be compared to a minefield, what you are hoping for is the active shooter doesn't expect armed resistance and the CCW holder can get some shots in before the active shooter realizes he is being confronted.

No, you are being stupid here. The OP nailed the situation, and in very few active shooter situations did a civilian with a conceal carry permit ever stop the shooter. 99% of the time it's law enforcement AFTER the fact. Guns don't help. They are the problem.

How many of these shooting occurred at locations that declared themselves "gun free zones" but did nothing to assure that?

You can't say "CCW's do nothing" when most of these shootings take place in areas CCW's are either disarmed by law, or by the desire of the property owner.

Until recently all public areas were gun free zones.
People were being shot in them long before that stupid name was slapped on them.
Making the term meaningless .
Then you assholes have since attempted to
Make a false correlation between the gun toting zone and gun free zones

Nope...nuts and terrorists started attacking gun free zones.......and you guys want them to stay gun free for law abiding people......the ones who actually obey the law, and the ones being murdered in your gun free zones...

 

[2aguy]

Your premise is wrong at the most basic level. The correct mode of action for a CCW holder is to hold in place, and if the shooter tries to enter the area he controls, take him out.

Private CCW holders can be compared to a minefield, what you are hoping for is the active shooter doesn't expect armed resistance and the CCW holder can get some shots in before the active shooter realizes he is being confronted.

No, you are being stupid here. The OP nailed the situation, and in very few active shooter situations did a civilian with a conceal carry permit ever stop the shooter. 99% of the time it's law enforcement AFTER the fact. Guns don't help. They are the problem.

Bravo!

Suck up, and also, see my response, twat-waddle.

Perhaps you think being snide and snarky will stop a shooter, too? What if the active shooter never was able to get that gun, to begin with? Wouldn't that be more effective and address the issue? And how do we do THAT, you may ask. You fill in the blanks. It may involve everything gun huggers and the NRA fears.

You mean like in France...where fully automatic rifles are completely illegal......they still got them.....

Yes...it will require a police state......and that you don't realize that shows how stupid you are.

 

[2aguy]

Your premise is wrong at the most basic level. The correct mode of action for a CCW holder is to hold in place, and if the shooter tries to enter the area he controls, take him out.

Private CCW holders can be compared to a minefield, what you are hoping for is the active shooter doesn't expect armed resistance and the CCW holder can get some shots in before the active shooter realizes he is being confronted.

No, you are being stupid here. The OP nailed the situation, and in very few active shooter situations did a civilian with a conceal carry permit ever stop the shooter. 99% of the time it's law enforcement AFTER the fact. Guns don't help. They are the problem.

Your post has basis in fact or reality.......civilians with guns stop mass shooters when they are actually at the location of a mass shooting......we have actual stories, they are not made up...the only reason there are so few of them is that you nuts have made so many public spaces gun free zones.....


Tim and again we have shown you actual stories of people with little training stopping these guys....3 church shootings stopped by armed parishioners, an uber driver, a hospital psychiatrist, two guys at a walk mart last week a guy at another night club last Sunday...........

You guys have to lie...reality shows you are wrong.......

 

[2aguy]

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

Good...you found it...study it...learn it....and you will leave your stupid anti gun ways.......

I had it all along and it confirms my pov.
Fail.

Moron...knife murders.....2009-2013.....

2009----1,836
2010----1,933
2011----1,611
2012---1,769
2013---1.956

Rifle murder....

2009---351
2010---367
2011---332
2012---298
2013---285

How does that confirm what you said...did you think people wouldn't go to your link...moron...

Still dodging ,

Actual numbers show you are an idiot........

 

[martybegan]

Private CCW holders can be compared to a minefield, what you are hoping for is the active shooter doesn't expect armed resistance and the CCW holder can get some shots in before the active shooter realizes he is being confronted.

LMAO. You really have no business with a gun.
"What you are hoping is the active shooter......".
You gotta be kidding. Hoping isn't a plan. Today's criminals don't expect to encounter someone with a gun eh?

It is claimed that over 4000 DGUs per day happen. I think criminals don't have any problem with you having a gun. The crazed shooters expect to die anyway. So what difference does it make to them?

So people always need to have a plan? Again, you expect perfection from people in this situation, where the best you can hope for is good enough to stop the situation.

The difference is the chance they may die 5 minutes into the situation instead of 30 minutes to 3 hours into the situation, i.e. when the police are able to gun the guy down or get him contained.

 

[daws101]

Bravo!

Suck up, and also, see my response, twat-waddle.

Your lame as always one?

Lol, "lame"

Are you capable of more than a 2-3 sentence or word response, or does that tax the empty space in your head you call a brain?

Lame and pretentious.
Communication is most accurate when it's concise .
Blathering on like you do, is what stupid people do to appear intelligent.

Ooohhh! Three sentences. No content though. So go get yourself a cookie, but a meh cookie, like oatmeal raisin.

Best you could do?

 

[daws101]

Perhaps you think being snide and snarky will stop a shooter, too? What if the active shooter never was able to get that gun, to begin with? Wouldn't that be more effective and address the issue? And how do we do THAT, you may ask. You fill in the blanks. It may involve everything gun huggers and the NRA fears.

So to stop gun violence your solution is only government actors should get guns? And when that impossible event happens, do you propose on confiscating every type of machine tool that could produce guns? because if you ban people from buying them, and there is still a demand from criminals, people will figure out how to make them.

Another over the top conspiracy theory.
No matter what is suggested you'll spew the same comin' to take out guns bullshit.

For me its a prevent me from getting a gun with bullshit laws designed to make it as difficult and expensive as possible

Try to keep up.

Bullshit !
You are like a spoiled child who got everything they ever wanted and is abruptly taking in hand.

It's the only obvious answer. Why does NYC take 3-6 months and $1000 to issue a license for a handgun?

To you yes, in reality no.
The only logical answer for someone to need immediate access to firearms is imminent threat.
Not the imagined need .

 

[daws101]

Says the Queen of trolls.

I think you don't know the definition of a troll.

You do know what a mouth breathing oxygen thief is, as long as you own a mirror.

Best you could do?

Why use the best this early? I'd rather keep you strung along with some base level insults, it only adds to my post count.

I'll take that as a yes, that's your best .
The rest is rationalizing.

Ah the progressives 2nd favorite word, "rationalizing", right after any word with ist,ism, or ic at the end.

And like the latter, you don't really know what it means, or how to properly use it.

More rationalizing!

 

[daws101]

This is the reality of being in an active shooting situation, whether it's a crowded store or a building with hallways and several levels.

So say you actually pull your gun out and stay in place until you are found? You have a lot of explaining to do when the cops arrive, and explain very quickly.

The Clinton Foundation has done more to harm our nation than people with guns.

yawn.

 

[daws101]

Your premise is wrong at the most basic level. The correct mode of action for a CCW holder is to hold in place, and if the shooter tries to enter the area he controls, take him out.

Private CCW holders can be compared to a minefield, what you are hoping for is the active shooter doesn't expect armed resistance and the CCW holder can get some shots in before the active shooter realizes he is being confronted.

No, you are being stupid here. The OP nailed the situation, and in very few active shooter situations did a civilian with a conceal carry permit ever stop the shooter. 99% of the time it's law enforcement AFTER the fact. Guns don't help. They are the problem.

How many of these shooting occurred at locations that declared themselves "gun free zones" but did nothing to assure that?

You can't say "CCW's do nothing" when most of these shootings take place in areas CCW's are either disarmed by law, or by the desire of the property owner.

Until recently all public areas were gun free zones.
People were being shot in them long before that stupid name was slapped on them.
Making the term meaningless .
Then you assholes have since attempted to
Make a false correlation between the gun toting zone and gun free zones

Not really people have been carrying concealed weapons with permits for decades

Irrelevant.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Your premise is wrong at the most basic level. The correct mode of action for a CCW holder is to hold in place, and if the shooter tries to enter the area he controls, take him out.

Private CCW holders can be compared to a minefield, what you are hoping for is the active shooter doesn't expect armed resistance and the CCW holder can get some shots in before the active shooter realizes he is being confronted.

No, you are being stupid here. The OP nailed the situation, and in very few active shooter situations did a civilian with a conceal carry permit ever stop the shooter. 99% of the time it's law enforcement AFTER the fact. Guns don't help. They are the problem.

How many of these shooting occurred at locations that declared themselves "gun free zones" but did nothing to assure that?

You can't say "CCW's do nothing" when most of these shootings take place in areas CCW's are either disarmed by law, or by the desire of the property owner.

Until recently all public areas were gun free zones.
People were being shot in them long before that stupid name was slapped on them.
Making the term meaningless .
Then you assholes have since attempted to
Make a false correlation between the gun toting zone and gun free zones

Not really people have been carrying concealed weapons with permits for decades

Irrelevant.

All public areas are not now nor have they ever been gun free zones
I carry concealed in public areas all the time and I will even if there is a gun free zone sign

 

[daws101]

Your premise is wrong at the most basic level. The correct mode of action for a CCW holder is to hold in place, and if the shooter tries to enter the area he controls, take him out.

Private CCW holders can be compared to a minefield, what you are hoping for is the active shooter doesn't expect armed resistance and the CCW holder can get some shots in before the active shooter realizes he is being confronted.

No, you are being stupid here. The OP nailed the situation, and in very few active shooter situations did a civilian with a conceal carry permit ever stop the shooter. 99% of the time it's law enforcement AFTER the fact. Guns don't help. They are the problem.

How many of these shooting occurred at locations that declared themselves "gun free zones" but did nothing to assure that?

You can't say "CCW's do nothing" when most of these shootings take place in areas CCW's are either disarmed by law, or by the desire of the property owner.

Until recently all public areas were gun free zones.
People were being shot in them long before that stupid name was slapped on them.
Making the term meaningless .
Then you assholes have since attempted to
Make a false correlation between the gun toting zone and gun free zones

Your premise is wrong at the most basic level. The correct mode of action for a CCW holder is to hold in place, and if the shooter tries to enter the area he controls, take him out.

Private CCW holders can be compared to a minefield, what you are hoping for is the active shooter doesn't expect armed resistance and the CCW holder can get some shots in before the active shooter realizes he is being confronted.

No, you are being stupid here. The OP nailed the situation, and in very few active shooter situations did a civilian with a conceal carry permit ever stop the shooter. 99% of the time it's law enforcement AFTER the fact. Guns don't help. They are the problem.

How many of these shooting occurred at locations that declared themselves "gun free zones" but did nothing to assure that?

You can't say "CCW's do nothing" when most of these shootings take place in areas CCW's are either disarmed by law, or by the desire of the property owner.

Until recently all public areas were gun free zones.
People were being shot in them long before that stupid name was slapped on them.
Making the term meaningless .
Then you assholes have since attempted to
Make a false correlation between the gun toting zone and gun free zones

Nope...nuts and terrorists started attacking gun free zones.......and you guys want them to stay gun free for law abiding people......the ones who actually obey the law, and the ones being murdered in your gun free zones...

False there is no evidence of planned attacks on so called gun free zones because they are "gun free".
That's a lie you clowns tell youselves .

 

[PredFan]

This is the reality of being in an active shooting situation, whether it's a crowded store or a building with hallways and several levels.

So say you actually pull your gun out and stay in place until you are found? You have a lot of explaining to do when the cops arrive, and explain very quickly.

How many times does this idiotic idea have to be debunked? That's the difference between genius and stupidity; genius has it's limits. Stupid shit like this has no limit at all.

 

[daws101]

No, you are being stupid here. The OP nailed the situation, and in very few active shooter situations did a civilian with a conceal carry permit ever stop the shooter. 99% of the time it's law enforcement AFTER the fact. Guns don't help. They are the problem.

How many of these shooting occurred at locations that declared themselves "gun free zones" but did nothing to assure that?

You can't say "CCW's do nothing" when most of these shootings take place in areas CCW's are either disarmed by law, or by the desire of the property owner.

Until recently all public areas were gun free zones.
People were being shot in them long before that stupid name was slapped on them.
Making the term meaningless .
Then you assholes have since attempted to
Make a false correlation between the gun toting zone and gun free zones

Not really people have been carrying concealed weapons with permits for decades

Irrelevant.

All public areas are not now nor have they ever been gun free zones
I carry concealed in public areas all the time and I will even if there is a gun free zone sign

Thanks for making my point for me .
The term gun free is meaningless.

 

[yiostheoy]

I will be happiest when the USA looks like Israel each morning with people going to work carrying their own assault carbines with them.

The only thing that can stop a bad guy (or bad gal) with an assault weapon is a good guy with an assault carbine.

For God and Country.