Is protection really protection?
-
People seem to think they need a gun for protection. I know of a lot of people who carry knives for protection. I would like to see people post examples where a gun or knife was ever used to PROTECT someone.
In my experience, no weapon would have improved my situation in any altercation. A weapon would only have exacerbated it. One must assume that the attacker has a better weapon, and is better skilled at using it, and would be more prone to using it. Shit happens.. having a weapon is not likely to avoid the shit.
I wonder how many people who insist they need a gun or knife for protection when they are out on the streets at night wear a bullet proof vest? or carry a flashlight? i bet almost NONE. Yet they have their gun or knife!
-
Because the 2nd amendment ;D No seriously, I think it's about the feeling of safety you get from having the gun.
-
Because the 2nd amendment ;D No seriously, I think it's about the feeling of safety you get from having the gun.
I suppose that weak minded people would feel more secure with a gun - a false sense of security is quite dangerous.
-
Because the 2nd amendment ;D No seriously, I think it's about the feeling of safety you get from having the gun.
I suppose that weak minded people would feel more secure with a gun - a false sense of security is quite dangerous.
It is the view of the Republican party, many in the Democratic party, the NRA and a majority of Americans that having a gun makes you feel more safe. All of those people couldn't possibly be wrong, could they? ;D
-
People seem to think they need a gun for protection. I know of a lot of people who carry knives for protection. I would like to see people post examples where a gun or knife was ever used to PROTECT someone.
In my experience, no weapon would have improved my situation in any altercation. A weapon would only have exacerbated it. One must assume that the attacker has a better weapon, and is better skilled at using it, and would be more prone to using it. Shit happens.. having a weapon is not likely to avoid the shit.
I wonder how many people who insist they need a gun or knife for protection when they are out on the streets at night wear a bullet proof vest? or carry a flashlight? i bet almost NONE. Yet they have their gun or knife!
Frederick, you're speaking truth to power (which, appropriately enough, is a term of early use by the peace-loving Quakers).
http://www.quaker.org/sttp.html
The push to allow guns into stores (!), churches (!!), and bars (triple !!!), etc., in the guise of people feeling "safer," is madness.
-
People seem to think they need a gun for protection. I know of a lot of people who carry knives for protection. I would like to see people post examples where a gun or knife was ever used to PROTECT someone.
In my experience, no weapon would have improved my situation in any altercation. A weapon would only have exacerbated it. One must assume that the attacker has a better weapon, and is better skilled at using it, and would be more prone to using it. Shit happens.. having a weapon is not likely to avoid the shit.
I wonder how many people who insist they need a gun or knife for protection when they are out on the streets at night wear a bullet proof vest? or carry a flashlight? i bet almost NONE. Yet they have their gun or knife!
Frederick, you're speaking truth to power (which, appropriately enough, is a term of early use by the peace-loving Quakers).
http://www.quaker.org/sttp.html
The push to allow guns into stores (!), churches (!!), and bars (triple !!!), etc., in the guise of people feeling "safer," is madness.
Surely it is a sign of the "end of times" that we agree on something!
I would add that nobody without at least a 2 years associate college degree should be permitted to have a gun - that includes POLICE. Around where I live, county police used to be required to have a 4 year college degree. Now, they typically have nothing but a high school diploma or even a GED. That law would certainly take legal guns out of the hands of a lot of people of certain ethnic groups - not mentioning any because I'm not racist. I'm sure mentally retarded people are not allowed to own or carry a gun (with the exception of police). People taking certain medications including marijuana (even medical marijuana) are prohibited from owning or carrying a gun.. as if that law is enforced!
Lastly.. who should be put in prisons? I would say that the priority would be to imprison people who are dangerous - such as those that break the weapon laws. After they are put away, then put the sex offenders away. If there is still room left in the prisons after putting them away, then stick the crooks in there - such as Hillary.
-
Surely it is a sign of the "end of times" that we agree on something!
Well, Frederick, whatever the future holds, please don't stop assigning me that Negative Reputation. While many of my real-world acquaintances know that I have a "long red one," I think a little Internet validation can only help. :cheesy2:
-
Surely it is a sign of the "end of times" that we agree on something!
Well, Frederick, whatever the future holds, please don't stop assigning me that Negative Reputation. While many of my real-world acquaintances know that I have a "long red one," I think a little Internet validation can only help. :cheesy2:
I haven't given you a negative reputation since August 27.. it is now October 12.
You are moderate compared to the other moonbats. -
People seem to think they need a gun for protection. I know of a lot of people who carry knives for protection. I would like to see people post examples where a gun or knife was ever used to PROTECT someone.
I'm not in the mood to go hunting for the names and sources but one great example happened in TX where a man took a diner full of people hostage and started killing them off one by one. Not being able to have their guns there, the people were helpless to the man with the gun.
My sister, little 5'2" thing she is says she feels safest with her gun.
You'll find variations of those stories all 'round. You'll never get rid of guns in the US so the focus is getting rid of the military grade shit already available.
-
You'll find variations of those stories all 'round. You'll never get rid of guns in the US so the focus is getting rid of the military grade shit already available.
It's impossible to focus on getting rid of military grade assault weapons because the NRA controls Republicans and Democrats are split between wanting to ban all guns and wanting to create registries as if we're in a socialist country or something; meanwhile, also not addressing the fact that criminals will get their hands on guns regardless. This is a complex problem and I hate to agree with Bill O'Reilly, but maybe it truly is the cost of freedom. There was a time where I was for making changes to the 2nd Amendment, but I realize that is extremely dangerous. Making new laws is somewhat pointless because the laws on the books are not being properly enforced already. I've heard the argument that the Founding Fathers had no idea how advanced our weaponry would become, but I must call bulls*t on that because Americans have been innovators from Day 1. They meant what they said as it is written in the Constitution. I do have faith that the country will come to an agreement on something, but I have to admit I'm against what many on the left want to do to fix the problems.
-
It's impossible to focus on getting rid of military grade assault weapons because the NRA controls Republicans and Democrats are split between wanting to ban all guns and wanting to create registries as if we're in a socialist country or something;
maybe it truly is the cost of freedom.
Making new laws is somewhat pointless because the laws on the books are not being properly enforced already.
Seems to me the solution is to get the lobbyists out of Washington and do away with that ruling from the Supreme Court that Corporations are People. These would be longterm goals and I don't think American people have the attention span to carry them through, so you might be right: Having guns readily available might be the cost of this version of freedom (there's more than one).
The odd thing to me about present-day America is that there are more restrictions in getting a gym membership and buying medicine in bulk than voting and purchasing a gun. How did that happen?
-
It's impossible to focus on getting rid of military grade assault weapons because the NRA controls Republicans and Democrats are split between wanting to ban all guns and wanting to create registries as if we're in a socialist country or something;
maybe it truly is the cost of freedom.
Making new laws is somewhat pointless because the laws on the books are not being properly enforced already.
Seems to me the solution is to get the lobbyists out of Washington and do away with that ruling from the Supreme Court that Corporations are People. These would be longterm goals and I don't think American people have the attention span to carry them through, so you might be right: Having guns readily available might be the cost of this version of freedom (there's more than one).
The odd thing to me about present-day America is that there are more restrictions in getting a gym membership and buying medicine in bulk than voting and purchasing a gun. How did that happen?
We got here by years and years of both sides not wanting to deal with the problem or finding a way together to make it worse. Neither side seems to want to get rid of lobbyists and other special interests, and that ruling by the Supreme Court is heavily supported by the Republican party who could easily pass legislation to say corporations are not people but refuse to at this time. Remember, it was a 5-4 decision of the more right-leaning justices against the more left-leaning justices that decided corporations are people so in that light one side was the problem. However, overall, we got here because of both sides.
-
It's impossible to focus on getting rid of military grade assault weapons because the NRA controls Republicans and Democrats are split between wanting to ban all guns and wanting to create registries as if we're in a socialist country or something;
maybe it truly is the cost of freedom.
Making new laws is somewhat pointless because the laws on the books are not being properly enforced already.
Seems to me the solution is to get the lobbyists out of Washington and do away with that ruling from the Supreme Court that Corporations are People. These would be longterm goals and I don't think American people have the attention span to carry them through, so you might be right: Having guns readily available might be the cost of this version of freedom (there's more than one).
The odd thing to me about present-day America is that there are more restrictions in getting a gym membership and buying medicine in bulk than voting and purchasing a gun. How did that happen?
We got here by years and years of both sides not wanting to deal with the problem or finding a way together to make it worse. Neither side seems to want to get rid of lobbyists and other special interests, and that ruling by the Supreme Court is heavily supported by the Republican party who could easily pass legislation to say corporations are not people but refuse to at this time. Remember, it was a 5-4 decision of the more right-leaning justices against the more left-leaning justices that decided corporations are people so in that light one side was the problem. However, overall, we got here because of both sides.
Uh.. that is the definition of a corporation.
Having a corporation limits the liability of specific people - and allows a company to continue after the executives die, retire, resign, etc.
There is a downside also.. in that the executives in charge get taxed as a corporation, and again as individuals. If the business was not a corporation - they would only get hit with with a corporate tax.Also, you mentioned that the Supreme Court is packed with republicans. Well, whose fault is that? In the past 24 years.. we had 8 years of Clinton and 8 years of Obama. It's going to get much more republican because the moonbats were so sure that Hillary was going to win, that the senile moonbats such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg did not retire during Obama so they could find another moonbat to replace them. There are 3 moonbat justices that are so old and senile that they won't last the 4 or 8 years of Trump.
