CDZ Women should embrace both owning and carrying guns as acts of personal empowerment.

[koshergrl]

Here is another story of a girl who was savagely attacked by an ex boyfriend, stabbed so many times they thought she may never walk or talk again, who now carries a gun because, as she states, she will never be a victim again...

Of course, since she wasn't 21 at the time, democrats would prefer she face the attacker without a gun...

48 Hours Live to Tell: Melissa Dohme's story of survival - CBS News

According to the Centers for Disease Control, women between the ages of 18 and 24 experience the highest rate of relationship violence of any age group ... and never is it more dangerous than when they try to leave. It's a disturbing trend known as "breakup violence."

Melissa Dohme, just 20 years old at the time, was viciously stabbed 32 times outside her Clearwater, Fla., home --simply for ending a relationship. Some of the images in this story are tough to look at, but Melissa wants you to see them. With violence against women dominating the headlines, she says we can't afford to turn away. This is her story.

----

And another survivor who helped her recover....

Audrey Mabrey | Survivor: I believe Melissa and I met for a very special purpose. I wanted to mentor and guide her through part of her journey that I knew she was going to face.

I knew because I had lived through it myself. ... I was attacked in 2009 when I was 26 years old.

I was separated from my husband Chris, who's a retired New York City detective ... we had two sons together.

Chris ... did not use a knife or a gun. He used a hammer to bludgeon me in the head, and then a candle and gasoline to set me on fire. ... I was burned over 80 percent of my body.

And then she started dating one of the men who helped save her life.......they started shooting together...

Melissa Dohme: Cameron showed my mom and I around the station. I tried on his uniform, and his hat, and his big, you know, jacket.

And he let me sit in the truck. And, you know, it was just like-- I mean, (laughs) I felt like-- my first crush all over again.

We started talking and we realized we have a lot in common. ...and we found out that we both enjoy shooting. And that was how he kinda, you know, asked me out on our first date. And he said, "'you and I should go shooting sometime'" and I was like hands down, "I would love to go shooting with you," you know and we've been shooting together ever since.

I will never ever be defenseless again in my life. ... Under any circumstances I will be able to defend myself.

The WHO maintains that the fact that an attacker KNOWS you are armed stimulates them to attack you even more viciously.

No, I am not making this up. This is how they justify their schizophrenic rejection of the right to defend one's self.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Here is another story of a girl who was savagely attacked by an ex boyfriend, stabbed so many times they thought she may never walk or talk again, who now carries a gun because, as she states, she will never be a victim again...

Of course, since she wasn't 21 at the time, democrats would prefer she face the attacker without a gun...

48 Hours Live to Tell: Melissa Dohme's story of survival - CBS News

According to the Centers for Disease Control, women between the ages of 18 and 24 experience the highest rate of relationship violence of any age group ... and never is it more dangerous than when they try to leave. It's a disturbing trend known as "breakup violence."

Melissa Dohme, just 20 years old at the time, was viciously stabbed 32 times outside her Clearwater, Fla., home --simply for ending a relationship. Some of the images in this story are tough to look at, but Melissa wants you to see them. With violence against women dominating the headlines, she says we can't afford to turn away. This is her story.

----

And another survivor who helped her recover....

Audrey Mabrey | Survivor: I believe Melissa and I met for a very special purpose. I wanted to mentor and guide her through part of her journey that I knew she was going to face.

I knew because I had lived through it myself. ... I was attacked in 2009 when I was 26 years old.

I was separated from my husband Chris, who's a retired New York City detective ... we had two sons together.

Chris ... did not use a knife or a gun. He used a hammer to bludgeon me in the head, and then a candle and gasoline to set me on fire. ... I was burned over 80 percent of my body.

And then she started dating one of the men who helped save her life.......they started shooting together...

Melissa Dohme: Cameron showed my mom and I around the station. I tried on his uniform, and his hat, and his big, you know, jacket.

And he let me sit in the truck. And, you know, it was just like-- I mean, (laughs) I felt like-- my first crush all over again.

We started talking and we realized we have a lot in common. ...and we found out that we both enjoy shooting. And that was how he kinda, you know, asked me out on our first date. And he said, "'you and I should go shooting sometime'" and I was like hands down, "I would love to go shooting with you," you know and we've been shooting together ever since.

I will never ever be defenseless again in my life. ... Under any circumstances I will be able to defend myself.

The WHO maintains that the fact that an attacker KNOWS you are armed stimulates them to attack you even more viciously.

No, I am not making this up. This is how they justify their schizophrenic rejection of the right to defend one's self.

The WHO can maintain any damned thing it wants, but unless it's planning to provide a personal bodyguard 24/7 for me, I'm not really interested in their opinion on the subject.

Furthermore, "he'll attack you even more viciously" presupposes that I'm planning to allow him to have the opportunity, which tells me they don't understand the concept and purpose of being armed.

 

[koshergrl]

Here is another story of a girl who was savagely attacked by an ex boyfriend, stabbed so many times they thought she may never walk or talk again, who now carries a gun because, as she states, she will never be a victim again...

Of course, since she wasn't 21 at the time, democrats would prefer she face the attacker without a gun...

48 Hours Live to Tell: Melissa Dohme's story of survival - CBS News

According to the Centers for Disease Control, women between the ages of 18 and 24 experience the highest rate of relationship violence of any age group ... and never is it more dangerous than when they try to leave. It's a disturbing trend known as "breakup violence."

Melissa Dohme, just 20 years old at the time, was viciously stabbed 32 times outside her Clearwater, Fla., home --simply for ending a relationship. Some of the images in this story are tough to look at, but Melissa wants you to see them. With violence against women dominating the headlines, she says we can't afford to turn away. This is her story.

----

And another survivor who helped her recover....

Audrey Mabrey | Survivor: I believe Melissa and I met for a very special purpose. I wanted to mentor and guide her through part of her journey that I knew she was going to face.

I knew because I had lived through it myself. ... I was attacked in 2009 when I was 26 years old.

I was separated from my husband Chris, who's a retired New York City detective ... we had two sons together.

Chris ... did not use a knife or a gun. He used a hammer to bludgeon me in the head, and then a candle and gasoline to set me on fire. ... I was burned over 80 percent of my body.

And then she started dating one of the men who helped save her life.......they started shooting together...

Melissa Dohme: Cameron showed my mom and I around the station. I tried on his uniform, and his hat, and his big, you know, jacket.

And he let me sit in the truck. And, you know, it was just like-- I mean, (laughs) I felt like-- my first crush all over again.

We started talking and we realized we have a lot in common. ...and we found out that we both enjoy shooting. And that was how he kinda, you know, asked me out on our first date. And he said, "'you and I should go shooting sometime'" and I was like hands down, "I would love to go shooting with you," you know and we've been shooting together ever since.

I will never ever be defenseless again in my life. ... Under any circumstances I will be able to defend myself.

The WHO maintains that the fact that an attacker KNOWS you are armed stimulates them to attack you even more viciously.

No, I am not making this up. This is how they justify their schizophrenic rejection of the right to defend one's self.

The WHO can maintain any damned thing it wants, but unless it's planning to provide a personal bodyguard 24/7 for me, I'm not really interested in their opinion on the subject.

Furthermore, "he'll attack you even more viciously" presupposes that I'm planning to allow him to have the opportunity, which tells me they don't understand the concept and purpose of being armed.

They understand it, and they know that they are promoting an ideology that does not increase safety, but diminishes it.

In other words, they're LYING in order to trick people into thinking that the very act of protecting one's self from violent attack MAKES THE ATTACK WORSE. They are advocating that we don't protect ourselves.

That's what leftists do. They convince everybody that they must not defend themselves from criminals. Then they kill them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Here is another story of a girl who was savagely attacked by an ex boyfriend, stabbed so many times they thought she may never walk or talk again, who now carries a gun because, as she states, she will never be a victim again...

Of course, since she wasn't 21 at the time, democrats would prefer she face the attacker without a gun...

48 Hours Live to Tell: Melissa Dohme's story of survival - CBS News

According to the Centers for Disease Control, women between the ages of 18 and 24 experience the highest rate of relationship violence of any age group ... and never is it more dangerous than when they try to leave. It's a disturbing trend known as "breakup violence."

Melissa Dohme, just 20 years old at the time, was viciously stabbed 32 times outside her Clearwater, Fla., home --simply for ending a relationship. Some of the images in this story are tough to look at, but Melissa wants you to see them. With violence against women dominating the headlines, she says we can't afford to turn away. This is her story.

----

And another survivor who helped her recover....

Audrey Mabrey | Survivor: I believe Melissa and I met for a very special purpose. I wanted to mentor and guide her through part of her journey that I knew she was going to face.

I knew because I had lived through it myself. ... I was attacked in 2009 when I was 26 years old.

I was separated from my husband Chris, who's a retired New York City detective ... we had two sons together.

Chris ... did not use a knife or a gun. He used a hammer to bludgeon me in the head, and then a candle and gasoline to set me on fire. ... I was burned over 80 percent of my body.

And then she started dating one of the men who helped save her life.......they started shooting together...

Melissa Dohme: Cameron showed my mom and I around the station. I tried on his uniform, and his hat, and his big, you know, jacket.

And he let me sit in the truck. And, you know, it was just like-- I mean, (laughs) I felt like-- my first crush all over again.

We started talking and we realized we have a lot in common. ...and we found out that we both enjoy shooting. And that was how he kinda, you know, asked me out on our first date. And he said, "'you and I should go shooting sometime'" and I was like hands down, "I would love to go shooting with you," you know and we've been shooting together ever since.

I will never ever be defenseless again in my life. ... Under any circumstances I will be able to defend myself.

The WHO maintains that the fact that an attacker KNOWS you are armed stimulates them to attack you even more viciously.

No, I am not making this up. This is how they justify their schizophrenic rejection of the right to defend one's self.

The WHO can maintain any damned thing it wants, but unless it's planning to provide a personal bodyguard 24/7 for me, I'm not really interested in their opinion on the subject.

Furthermore, "he'll attack you even more viciously" presupposes that I'm planning to allow him to have the opportunity, which tells me they don't understand the concept and purpose of being armed.

They understand it, and they know that they are promoting an ideology that does not increase safety, but diminishes it.

In other words, they're LYING in order to trick people into thinking that the very act of protecting one's self from violent attack MAKES THE ATTACK WORSE. They are advocating that we don't protect ourselves.

That's what leftists do. They convince everybody that they must not defend themselves from criminals. Then they kill them.

Let me just clarify, for the thinking-impaired (read: leftists) in the audience.

If a man attacks me, I do not need to worry about him not letting me survive because I'm armed; HE needs to worry about ME not letting HIM survive, because I am armed.

 

[candycorn]

I get so tired of the endless, nitpicking equivalency arguments over these flawed analogies. I do not want guns treated like cars. I do not want them treated like nukes, surface to air missiles, cell phones, ice cream cones, or whatever other dumbass thing people want to liken them to.

You know what I want guns treated like?

I want them treated like self-defense tools to which I have an explicit Constitutional right.

The end.

If you’re in a militia; as it says so in the 2nd Amendment.

The right to keep and bear belongs to the people as it says in the Second Amendment

If they are in a militia. You do know it says that right…?

The word "if" does not appear anywhere in the second amendment.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Never said it did. The word militia shows up though.

 

[candycorn]

If you’re in a militia; as it says so in the 2nd Amendment.

The right to keep and bear belongs to the people as it says in the Second Amendment

If they are in a militia. You do know it says that right…?

Nope. Learn to read

Quote the amendment…

Google it whack job

I know what it says. You are the ignorant one.

 

[candycorn]

I get so tired of the endless, nitpicking equivalency arguments over these flawed analogies. I do not want guns treated like cars. I do not want them treated like nukes, surface to air missiles, cell phones, ice cream cones, or whatever other dumbass thing people want to liken them to.

You know what I want guns treated like?

I want them treated like self-defense tools to which I have an explicit Constitutional right.

The end.

If you’re in a militia; as it says so in the 2nd Amendment.

No, it really doesn't. Exposing your illiteracy in what is presumably your mother tongue will win you no points.

Exposing your face never won you any which is why you’re on a message board. The word militia is there for a reason. Please tell us why.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I get so tired of the endless, nitpicking equivalency arguments over these flawed analogies. I do not want guns treated like cars. I do not want them treated like nukes, surface to air missiles, cell phones, ice cream cones, or whatever other dumbass thing people want to liken them to.

You know what I want guns treated like?

I want them treated like self-defense tools to which I have an explicit Constitutional right.

The end.

If you’re in a militia; as it says so in the 2nd Amendment.

The right to keep and bear belongs to the people as it says in the Second Amendment

If they are in a militia. You do know it says that right…?

The word "if" does not appear anywhere in the second amendment.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Never said it did. The word militia shows up though.

So what? It is not a condition placed on the right of the people to keep and bear arms

 

[candycorn]

Again, if you want to place the same restrictions on gun owners that we place on car owners sign me up.

This means you have to take your gun to a mechanic once a year for inspection
Register your gun
Carry liability insurance
etc….

Sound good to you 2aguy?

If you equate a car to a gun?

When you come up with the smog control limitations for a gun, we will talk about that aspect.

As stated before. A car only needs ANY license, registration or inspection if driven on publicly funded roads.

If you want the same treatment, guns treated equally to cars, then guns would only require inspection, registration, license or insurance when used on a publicly funded shooting range.

You good with that, or you going to change the goal post?

Smog control? You’ve gone crazy.

More nonsense about “publicly funded shooting range”….gosh you’re stupid.

Your fantasy got blowed up?

Funny as hell ain’t it

I’m Not sure what you’re talking about….but then again, neither are you.

When you attempt to understand your own argument, or understand the concept of equivalency, Get back to us.

So far, you’ve stated quite nicely that you Believe that guns should not require a license, registration, insurance or be subject to an age limit, unless used on a publicly funded shooting range.

We appreciate that

Never said any such thing; I was agreeing with you the it does.

 

[candycorn]

If you’re in a militia; as it says so in the 2nd Amendment.

The right to keep and bear belongs to the people as it says in the Second Amendment

If they are in a militia. You do know it says that right…?

The word "if" does not appear anywhere in the second amendment.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Never said it did. The word militia shows up though.

So what? It is not a condition placed on the right of the people to keep and bear arms

If your position is that the words have no meaning; we can apply that stance to any word in the document. I’ll apply it to “infringed”….

 

[Skull Pilot]

The right to keep and bear belongs to the people as it says in the Second Amendment

If they are in a militia. You do know it says that right…?

The word "if" does not appear anywhere in the second amendment.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Never said it did. The word militia shows up though.

So what? It is not a condition placed on the right of the people to keep and bear arms

If your position is that the words have no meaning; we can apply that stance to any word in the document. I’ll apply it to “infringed”….

I never said it had no meaning I said it is not a condition placed on the right that belongs to the people.

The founders though the people should be able to not only defend themselves but the people were also expected to take up arms to defend the republic

The militia was (at the time) considered to be the entire male population. And since we still all have to sign up for the draft it can be said to still be true

 

[candycorn]

If they are in a militia. You do know it says that right…?

The word "if" does not appear anywhere in the second amendment.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Never said it did. The word militia shows up though.

So what? It is not a condition placed on the right of the people to keep and bear arms

If your position is that the words have no meaning; we can apply that stance to any word in the document. I’ll apply it to “infringed”….

I never said it had no meaning I said it is not a condition placed on the right that belongs to the people.

The founders though the people should be able to not only defend themselves but the people were also expected to take up arms to defend the republic

The militia was (at the time) considered to be the entire male population. And since we still all have to sign up for the draft it can be said to still be true

Women don’t have to sign up. So they are excluded from ownership. Thanks.

Open mouth, insert foot.

The draft is different than the militia and the (entire male population) since there is an age stipulation on the draft as well.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I get so tired of the endless, nitpicking equivalency arguments over these flawed analogies. I do not want guns treated like cars. I do not want them treated like nukes, surface to air missiles, cell phones, ice cream cones, or whatever other dumbass thing people want to liken them to.

You know what I want guns treated like?

I want them treated like self-defense tools to which I have an explicit Constitutional right.

The end.

If you’re in a militia; as it says so in the 2nd Amendment.

The right to keep and bear belongs to the people as it says in the Second Amendment

If they are in a militia. You do know it says that right…?

The word "if" does not appear anywhere in the second amendment.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Never said it did. The word militia shows up though.

Yes, if a word shows up, that MUST be a directive of some sort.

 

[candycorn]

If you’re in a militia; as it says so in the 2nd Amendment.

The right to keep and bear belongs to the people as it says in the Second Amendment

If they are in a militia. You do know it says that right…?

The word "if" does not appear anywhere in the second amendment.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Never said it did. The word militia shows up though.

Yes, if a word shows up, that MUST be a directive of some sort.

No, it must be there for some reason though…. When you start ignoring words out of convenience, you open yourself up to others ignoring words as well. That’s all.

Earlier you decried all of this minutia and false equivilances (sp?). I’m with you on that. It’s gotten silly. The 2nd Amendment isn’t going anywhere and you’ll be able to buy as many guns as you want. I tend to think that it’s probably unnecessary but if it makes you “feel” safer…great and more power to you. Stats show that you’re much more likely to suffer because of the decision to arm yourself than not though.

This was All I was stating.

 

[koshergrl]

I get so tired of the endless, nitpicking equivalency arguments over these flawed analogies. I do not want guns treated like cars. I do not want them treated like nukes, surface to air missiles, cell phones, ice cream cones, or whatever other dumbass thing people want to liken them to.

You know what I want guns treated like?

I want them treated like self-defense tools to which I have an explicit Constitutional right.

The end.

If you’re in a militia; as it says so in the 2nd Amendment.

The right to keep and bear belongs to the people as it says in the Second Amendment

If they are in a militia. You do know it says that right…?

The word "if" does not appear anywhere in the second amendment.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Never said it did. The word militia shows up though.

Just because the word shows up does not insinuate in any way that the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS is the right of the MILITIA but not the individual.

Again, because you're stupid...the constitution does not define rights, it protects them. Just because they used a word doesn't mean a right is limited to the parameters of YOUR UNDERSTANDING. The constitution in no way limits rights.



Do you see the commas?

Do you not know what commas mean?

"Use a comma before any coordinating conjunction (and, but, for, or, nor, so, yet) that links two independent clauses.

"Example: "I went running, and I saw a duck."

"You may need to learn a few grammatical terms to understand this one.

"An independent clause is a unit of grammatical organization that includes both a subject and verb and can stand on its own as a sentence. In the previous example, "I went running" and "I saw a duck" are both independent clauses, and "and" is the coordinating conjunction that connects them. Consequently, we insert a comma."

So...let us apply this lesson to the following, an excerpt from the 2nd Amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

The commas indicate TWO INDEPENDENT CLAUSES that can stand alone, and which are not meant to be dependent upon each other (thus the term "independent clauses"), and one DEPENDENT CLAUSE which you know is dependent because it cannot stand on its own, which is dependent upon "A well regulated militia" as it describes the militia with the next clause ("being necessary to the security of a free State").

You are welcome.

13 Rules For Using Commas Without Looking Like An Idiot

 

[Cecilie1200]

I get so tired of the endless, nitpicking equivalency arguments over these flawed analogies. I do not want guns treated like cars. I do not want them treated like nukes, surface to air missiles, cell phones, ice cream cones, or whatever other dumbass thing people want to liken them to.

You know what I want guns treated like?

I want them treated like self-defense tools to which I have an explicit Constitutional right.

The end.

If you’re in a militia; as it says so in the 2nd Amendment.

No, it really doesn't. Exposing your illiteracy in what is presumably your mother tongue will win you no points.

Exposing your face never won you any which is why you’re on a message board. The word militia is there for a reason. Please tell us why.

Oooh, an insult about my appearance. THAT certainly wins the argument.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . ." is what is known as a prefatory clause, or an explanatory clause. It announces a stated purpose for the operative clause, which is to establish the right of the people of the United States to keep and bear arms.

Or, to put it in language you can understand, the Founders were saying, "This is the reason we are about to protect this right, and this is the right and the protection we're giving it."

There is nothing about an explanatory clause that changes or modifies the meaning of the operative clause. It merely gives insight.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The right to keep and bear belongs to the people as it says in the Second Amendment

If they are in a militia. You do know it says that right…?

The word "if" does not appear anywhere in the second amendment.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Never said it did. The word militia shows up though.

Yes, if a word shows up, that MUST be a directive of some sort.

No, it must be there for some reason though…. When you start ignoring words out of convenience, you open yourself up to others ignoring words as well. That’s all.

Earlier you decried all of this minutia and false equivilances (sp?). I’m with you on that. It’s gotten silly. The 2nd Amendment isn’t going anywhere and you’ll be able to buy as many guns as you want. I tend to think that it’s probably unnecessary but if it makes you “feel” safer…great and more power to you. Stats show that you’re much more likely to suffer because of the decision to arm yourself than not though.

This was All I was stating.

It is there for a reason. That reason is explanation (hence the phrase "explanatory clause"). I have ignored nothing except your flawed interpretation of the words based on a faulty understanding of English. That's all.

As for "the stats show", see above re: flawed interpretation based on faulty understanding.

 

[Pop23]

The right to keep and bear belongs to the people as it says in the Second Amendment

If they are in a militia. You do know it says that right…?

Nope. Learn to read

Quote the amendment…

Google it whack job

I know what it says. You are the ignorant one.

Cuz a moron like you says so?

Good one lil fella

 

[Pop23]

If you equate a car to a gun?

When you come up with the smog control limitations for a gun, we will talk about that aspect.

As stated before. A car only needs ANY license, registration or inspection if driven on publicly funded roads.

If you want the same treatment, guns treated equally to cars, then guns would only require inspection, registration, license or insurance when used on a publicly funded shooting range.

You good with that, or you going to change the goal post?

Smog control? You’ve gone crazy.

More nonsense about “publicly funded shooting range”….gosh you’re stupid.

Your fantasy got blowed up?

Funny as hell ain’t it

I’m Not sure what you’re talking about….but then again, neither are you.

When you attempt to understand your own argument, or understand the concept of equivalency, Get back to us.

So far, you’ve stated quite nicely that you Believe that guns should not require a license, registration, insurance or be subject to an age limit, unless used on a publicly funded shooting range.

We appreciate that

Never said any such thing; I was agreeing with you the it does.

Sure you did. I demonstrated how it works and you’ve never disputed it.

You lost, and lost bigly

 

[koshergrl]

The word "if" does not appear anywhere in the second amendment.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Never said it did. The word militia shows up though.

So what? It is not a condition placed on the right of the people to keep and bear arms

If your position is that the words have no meaning; we can apply that stance to any word in the document. I’ll apply it to “infringed”….

I never said it had no meaning I said it is not a condition placed on the right that belongs to the people.

The founders though the people should be able to not only defend themselves but the people were also expected to take up arms to defend the republic

The militia was (at the time) considered to be the entire male population. And since we still all have to sign up for the draft it can be said to still be true

Women don’t have to sign up. So they are excluded from ownership. Thanks.

Open mouth, insert foot.

The draft is different than the militia and the (entire male population) since there is an age stipulation on the draft as well.

This is why I have candycorn on ignore.
He's hopelessly ignorant.