Kennedy 0 #101 March 29, 2011 QuoteThe best way to prevent mentally unstable people like Cho from going on shooting sprees is to make it very difficult for them to get guns. Despite a history of mental problems, Cho just bought a gun over the counter. That is ABSURD. reply] So tell us how you would make it harder for Cho to buy a gun without making it harder for every to buy a gun. What would you change. Stop throwing around soundbyte slogans and propose a solution for once. QuoteEasy, Cho's guns should not have been allowed on the VT campus, then there would have been no shooting at all and no one dead. Really, just not allow him on campus. OK. And how would you enforce that? Ten foot concrete walls topped with razor wire and watch towers? Post campus police every fifty feet? If he's so freaking crazy that he plans to shoot people, what is going to stop him from walking onto campus?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #102 March 29, 2011 QuoteQuoteThe best way to prevent mentally unstable people like Cho from going on shooting sprees is to make it very difficult for them to get guns. Despite a history of mental problems, Cho just bought a gun over the counter. That is ABSURD. reply] So tell us how you would make it harder for Cho to buy a gun without making it harder for every to buy a gun. What would you change. Stop throwing around soundbyte slogans and propose a solution for once. QuoteEasy, Cho's guns should not have been allowed on the VT campus, then there would have been no shooting at all and no one dead. Really, just not allow him on campus. OK. And how would you enforce that? Ten foot concrete walls topped with razor wire and watch towers? Post campus police every fifty feet? If he's so freaking crazy that he plans to shoot people, what is going to stop him from walking onto campus? You keep asking QUESTIONS... yet YOU as a SECURITY EXPERT...... have not provided ANY viable way other than unfettered access to EVERYONE with just the ability to acquire weapons, and to top it off NO TRAINING. Gotta love those Gunfight at the OK Campus scenarios you and Mike and DaVinci are advocating... DUUUDE do you really believe that is a usefull answer?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #103 March 29, 2011 Quote You keep asking QUESTIONS... yet YOU as a SECURITY EXPERT...... have not provided ANY viable way other than unfettered access to EVERYONE Gotta love those Gunfight at the OK Corral scenarios you and Mike and DaVinci are advocating... DUUUDE do you really believe that is a usefull anwser?? Seeing as Cho is the only example being used here...the guy came on campus, shot some sheep, left, and CAME BACK AGAIN to shoot some more. I think it's pretty clear that other armed students could only have improved the outcome. How you think violating the Constitutional rights of citizens is a useful answer is the true mystery. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #104 March 29, 2011 Quote So you admit that I haven't suggested preventing stable law abiding citizens from getting guns. I guess that's progress. Maybe you can tell that to kelpdiver and rushmc, both of whom seem to have comprehension problems. No, I comprehend you and your constant lying perfectly well. There's no way to achieve your perceived success in preventing mentally suspect people from buying guns without simultaneously denying "stable" citizens from doing so as well. You know it, but don't care because you have little respect for the rights of others in a country you immigrated into. This is demonstrated often by you in discussions of the TSA ("buy your own plane"). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #105 March 29, 2011 QuoteQuote You keep asking QUESTIONS... yet YOU as a SECURITY EXPERT...... have not provided ANY viable way other than unfettered access to EVERYONE Gotta love those Gunfight at the OK Corral scenarios you and Mike and DaVinci are advocating... DUUUDE do you really believe that is a usefull anwser?? Seeing as Cho is the only example being used here...the guy came on campus, shot some sheep, left, and CAME BACK AGAIN to shoot some more. I think it's pretty clear that other armed students could only have improved the outcome. How you think violating the Constitutional rights of citizens is a useful answer is the true mystery. SOOOO are you really advocating.... that anyone... should be allowed to obtain weapons... recieve no training... not have any permitting ...Carry openly... just so they can play hero.. the next time some other untrained whack a doodle doo shows up... FREEFIRE ZONE for ALL..... COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL Just like the old west... Do we get to have a Hangin tree on Campus too??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #106 March 29, 2011 Quote SOOOO are you really advocating.... that anyone... should be allowed to obtain weapons... recieve no training... not have any permitting ...Carry openly... just so they can play hero.. the next time some other untrained whack a doodle doo shows up... FREEFIRE ZONE for ALL..... COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL Just like the old west... Do we get to have a Hangin tree on Campus too??? This is the same bullshit that Brady trumpets out for every state that considers a CCW change. And yet, despite dozens of times that they/you tell us it will be the old west, it has yet to happen. Can't you come up with a new fantasy to sell us? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #107 March 29, 2011 QuoteQuote SOOOO are you really advocating.... that anyone... should be allowed to obtain weapons... recieve no training... not have any permitting ...Carry openly... just so they can play hero.. the next time some other untrained whack a doodle doo shows up... FREEFIRE ZONE for ALL..... COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL Just like the old west... Do we get to have a Hangin tree on Campus too??? This is the same bullshit that Brady trumpets out for every state that considers a CCW change. And yet, despite dozens of times that they/you tell us it will be the old west, it has yet to happen. Can't you come up with a new fantasy to sell us? SO.. you enter a classroom with 4 people holding guns and shooting at each other.. WHO are YOU going to shoot??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DougH 270 #108 March 29, 2011 None of them unless they point a gun at me. Same thing as if I come across some one who looks like a bum shooting at a guy in a fancy suit. I am going to take cover and call the police. How do I know who is the bad guy in this situation? There were concealed carry holders at the Arizona shooting. They didn't stop Laughner but they didn't shoot up the crowd or each other either. Lets change your question to something more representative of what went down. You heard there was a shooting in a campus dorm earlier that morning. You are in a lecture hall and an armed gunman comes in and starts shooting people. Your four gunman scenario is a Strawman! "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #109 March 29, 2011 Quote None of them unless they point a gun at me. Same thing as if I come across some one who looks like a bum shooting at a guy in a fancy suit. I am going to take cover and call the police. There were concealed carry holders at the Arizona shooting. They didn't stop Laughner but they didn't shoot up the crowd or each other either. Let change your question to something more representative of what went down. You heard there was a shooting in a campus dorm earlier that morning. You are in a lecture hall and an armed gunman comes in and starts shooting people. Your four gunman scenario is a Strawman! Nope.. not at all because THEN.. a bunch of probably untrained idiots stand up and start shooting. Then again.. I have a feeling.. that many of the usual suspects here that are always advocating all those rights without any responsibility ... like actually training.. if they want to be part of " A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" would probably just hide as did those in Arizona.... and wet themselves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #110 March 29, 2011 QuoteYou keep asking QUESTIONS... yet YOU as a SECURITY EXPERT...... have not provided ANY viable way other than unfettered access to EVERYONE with just the ability to acquire weapons, and to top it off NO TRAINING. 1. There are plenty of laws in place... Yet we have found out time after time that a person intent on doing harm will just ignore them. Do you really think a criminal intent on killing as many people as he can will not take a gun on a campus because it is illegal? 2. Training should be up to the person. I have no issue with States requiring training to get a CHL... In fact, you are ignoring that most States require training to get a CHL. QuoteGotta love those Gunfight at the OK Campus scenarios you and Mike and DaVinci are advocating... DUUUDE do you really believe that is a usefull answer?? You really think gun bans on a campus works? I know you will not bother with facts.... But I'll present them anyway. The top three (by body count) school shootings are: 1. VT- 32 2. UT- 16 3. Columbine- 13 In two of those case, guns were not allowed on campus. That did not seem to stop the shooters. In the VT case: * they had strict gun laws in place (one every 30 days) that proved useless * the shooter was already (By law) not allowed to own guns, but reporting failed. * he committed suicide after an armed resistance. In the UT case: * CIVILIANS did help: "once Whitman began facing return fire from the authorities and armed civilians who had brought out their personal firearms to assist police, he used the waterspouts on each side of the tower as gun ports, allowing him to continue shooting largely protected from the gunfire below but also greatly limiting his range of targets. Ramiro Martinez, an officer who participated in stopping Whitman's rampage, later stated that the civilian shooters should be credited as they made it difficult for him to take careful aim. * Austin Police Department (APD) Officers Ramiro Martinez, Houston McCoy and Jerry Day, plus civilian Allen Crum, were the first to reach the tower's observation deck In the Columbine case: * they were not old enough to buy weapons. * they had constructed bombs * they committed suicide after armed resistance. Heck you can look at each school shooting and see many cases of hero's trying to save lives... Unfortunately, the current situation means they are unarmed facing an armed opponent. With your military training you should admit that an armed man will kill and unarmed man with monotonous regularity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DougH 270 #111 March 29, 2011 Quote Nope.. not at all because THEN.. a bunch of probably untrained idiots stand up and start shooting. Compared to a lecture hall of unarmed students that just had to wait for Cho to take their lives? I would rather take my chance with a group of "probably untrained idiots" than be in a group of defenseless individuals. Especially in my state since at least my "probably untrained idiots" would have had to receive some base training including live fire to get their CCW permits. Most CCW permit holders get to the gun range way more on average than our police officers in this country that only have to qualify on occasion but don't have to go to the range reguarly."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #112 March 29, 2011 Quotehen again.. I have a feeling.. that many of the usual suspects here that are always advocating all those rights without any responsibility ... like actually training.. if they want to be part of " A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" would probably just hide as did those in Arizona.... and wet themselves. Ah, so your BS claim of people shooting up the place only can have two possible outcomes. 1. A guy shoots and kills everyone cause he is an idiot. 2. A guy runs and wets himself. Never mind the FACTS do not support you. Heck i todays internet age it should be easy for you to find example after example of a CHL holder shooting people by accident in the middle of a situation.... Give that a try and report back. Joseph Zimudie was in AZ at the time of the shooting. He did NEITHER of your two fallacious scenarios. Joseph was at a nearby Walgreens when he heard the shooting start. Instead of running away, Joseph headed *toward* the sound of gunfire (so much for hiding and wetting his pants). Joseph had his CCW on him and had flipped off the safety, prepared to use it in the defense of others. He did not draw his weapon (so much for shooting indiscriminately) , but had his hand on it, ready. When he arrived at the scene, Loughner had been preparing to reload. Another man stepped in and wrestled away Loughner's gun. Zimudie saw the man with the gun and commanded he "drop it." Zimudie still did not draw(So much for shooting indiscriminately) because he saw the slide locked back, Loughner's glock clearly empty. The other man dropped the gun and Zimudie was informed that the shooter was the guy being wrestled to the ground. Zimudie placed his weapon back on safe and proceeded to help restrain Loughner until law enforcement arrived. (So much for running or shooting like crazy) Zimudie demonstrated responsible restraint in a chaotic situation. He demonstrated fearlessness by rushing toward the action instead of away. He demonstrated that the first armed responder to a mass murder could very well be a simple citizen. So once again you have no facts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #113 March 29, 2011 Quote Then again.. I have a feeling.. that many of the usual suspects here that are always advocating all those rights without any responsibility ... like actually training.. if they want to be part of " A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" would probably just hide as did those in Arizona.... and wet themselves. Hiding is a perfectly appropriate step for a CCW holder to take in such a situation. CCW is used for self defense. It is not a license to play SWAT team, and much of the CCW training talks about when not to get involved. So again, you're giving us bullshit fantasy scenarios. No one is going to enter a room with 4 people shooting guns. If you're not in that room, you're going the opposite direction - to safety. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #114 March 29, 2011 Yup.. Ok I am convinced... Your overwhelming arguements have convinced me that EVERYONE should carry.. and nothing bad will ever happen again. Until it does Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DougH 270 #115 March 29, 2011 Quote Yup.. Ok I am convinced... Your overwhelming arguements have convinced me that EVERYONE should carry.. and nothing bad will ever happen again. Until it does Where did he say that everyone should carry..."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #116 March 29, 2011 Quote Quote Yup.. Ok I am convinced... Your overwhelming arguements have convinced me that EVERYONE should carry.. and nothing bad will ever happen again. Until it does Where did he say that everyone should carry... That appears to be the jist of ALL of your arguements.. Hey I am convinced... GO FOR IT Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #117 March 29, 2011 QuoteYup.. Ok I am convinced... Your overwhelming arguements have convinced me that EVERYONE should carry.. and nothing bad will ever happen again. Until it does It is not about preventing anything bad from happening.... We have learned that it is just not 100% possible. But more gun laws only stop those that try to follow them. "No guns on campus" did not stop Cho, it did not stop Harris and Klebold, laws against murder did not stop them or Whitman. If there was a shooter in your office building blasting your coworkers. Do you wish that you were armed, or unarmed? If it was me, I'd wish to be armed. If it was you, I'd wish you to be armed. I'd want Kallend to be armed. I'd rather each of you have a chance of survival rather than just watch your co-workers be killed and wait for your turn. If you decided to fight, I'd want you to have the better chance that having a firearm can bring. I never said *everyone* should have a gun. I also never said training should not be required to *carry* a gun.... These are positions you have attributed to me that I have not taken. Again.... A lunatic is shooting up your office... would you rather be armed or unarmed? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #118 March 29, 2011 See all those laws in place have not prevented the lunatic from getting a weapon.. Why are you so adamant about protecting lunatics??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #119 March 29, 2011 QuoteSee all those laws in place have not prevented the lunatic from getting a weapon.. Why are you so adamant about protecting lunatics??? Find where I said I am for protecting lunatics. You will not be able to. Why are you OK with preventing law abiding citizens from the rights in the BoR's???? and you avoided this question: Again.... A lunatic is shooting up your office... would you rather be armed or unarmed? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #120 March 29, 2011 It's very hard to divorce your rantings here from your stance that since you live in the country far from police response, it's important that you have a gun to protect yourself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #121 March 29, 2011 QuoteQuoteSee all those laws in place have not prevented the lunatic from getting a weapon.. Why are you so adamant about protecting lunatics??? Find where I said I am for protecting lunatics. You will not be able to. Why are you OK with preventing law abiding citizens from the rights in the BoR's???? and you avoided this question: Again.... A lunatic is shooting up your office... would you rather be armed or unarmed? I just wish you and those with the same mind set would FOLLOW the BoR " A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" I do not see that as every Tom Dick or Harry having the right to buy anything for personal use to blow everyone else away in this country. The more those who are responsible.. protect those who are not... we will lose ground to those who wish to ban them all... capiche??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #122 March 29, 2011 Quote It's very hard to divorce your rantings here from your stance that since you live in the country far from police response, it's important that you have a gun to protect yourself. R E S P O N S I B I L I T Y !!!!!!!!! I know its hard for those UBBER PARANOIDS that see everone coming to try to get their guns..... but... I tire of argueing with people who are incapable of seeing beyond their narrow BELIEF. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #123 March 29, 2011 QuoteI just wish you and those with the same mind set would FOLLOW the BoR " A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" And you will notice that the SC has ruled that it is an individual right, not connected to military service. QuoteI do not see that as every Tom Dick or Harry having the right to buy anything for personal use to blow everyone else away in this country. The Founding Fathers disagreed. Care to find ONE comment where they say the individual should not be armed? The SC in Miller stated that the 2nd protected "Arms suitable for use in the Militia". QuoteThe more those who are responsible.. protect those who are not... we will lose ground to those who wish to ban them all... capiche??? So who is to d3ecide who can own what? you???? And you have STILL avoided answering this question... I really wish you would: Again.... A lunatic is shooting up your office... would you rather be armed or unarmed? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #124 March 29, 2011 Quote Quote It's very hard to divorce your rantings here from your stance that since you live in the country far from police response, it's important that you have a gun to protect yourself. R E S P O N S I B I L I T Y !!!!!!!!! I know its hard for those UBBER PARANOIDS that see everone coming to try to get their guns..... but... I tire of argueing with people who are incapable of seeing beyond their narrow BELIEF. like your own? don't understand the answer. Isn't it responsible for 21yo students to arm themselves? Just as you do? What's the difference? Or is it merely hypocrisy? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #125 March 29, 2011 There is no answer to that question that you and Kennedy and Kelp and John Rich will find suitable... So... I will just keep what MY response would be to myself. Thanks for trying to play though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next Page 5 of 12 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Amazon 7 #102 March 29, 2011 QuoteQuoteThe best way to prevent mentally unstable people like Cho from going on shooting sprees is to make it very difficult for them to get guns. Despite a history of mental problems, Cho just bought a gun over the counter. That is ABSURD. reply] So tell us how you would make it harder for Cho to buy a gun without making it harder for every to buy a gun. What would you change. Stop throwing around soundbyte slogans and propose a solution for once. QuoteEasy, Cho's guns should not have been allowed on the VT campus, then there would have been no shooting at all and no one dead. Really, just not allow him on campus. OK. And how would you enforce that? Ten foot concrete walls topped with razor wire and watch towers? Post campus police every fifty feet? If he's so freaking crazy that he plans to shoot people, what is going to stop him from walking onto campus? You keep asking QUESTIONS... yet YOU as a SECURITY EXPERT...... have not provided ANY viable way other than unfettered access to EVERYONE with just the ability to acquire weapons, and to top it off NO TRAINING. Gotta love those Gunfight at the OK Campus scenarios you and Mike and DaVinci are advocating... DUUUDE do you really believe that is a usefull answer?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #103 March 29, 2011 Quote You keep asking QUESTIONS... yet YOU as a SECURITY EXPERT...... have not provided ANY viable way other than unfettered access to EVERYONE Gotta love those Gunfight at the OK Corral scenarios you and Mike and DaVinci are advocating... DUUUDE do you really believe that is a usefull anwser?? Seeing as Cho is the only example being used here...the guy came on campus, shot some sheep, left, and CAME BACK AGAIN to shoot some more. I think it's pretty clear that other armed students could only have improved the outcome. How you think violating the Constitutional rights of citizens is a useful answer is the true mystery. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #104 March 29, 2011 Quote So you admit that I haven't suggested preventing stable law abiding citizens from getting guns. I guess that's progress. Maybe you can tell that to kelpdiver and rushmc, both of whom seem to have comprehension problems. No, I comprehend you and your constant lying perfectly well. There's no way to achieve your perceived success in preventing mentally suspect people from buying guns without simultaneously denying "stable" citizens from doing so as well. You know it, but don't care because you have little respect for the rights of others in a country you immigrated into. This is demonstrated often by you in discussions of the TSA ("buy your own plane"). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #105 March 29, 2011 QuoteQuote You keep asking QUESTIONS... yet YOU as a SECURITY EXPERT...... have not provided ANY viable way other than unfettered access to EVERYONE Gotta love those Gunfight at the OK Corral scenarios you and Mike and DaVinci are advocating... DUUUDE do you really believe that is a usefull anwser?? Seeing as Cho is the only example being used here...the guy came on campus, shot some sheep, left, and CAME BACK AGAIN to shoot some more. I think it's pretty clear that other armed students could only have improved the outcome. How you think violating the Constitutional rights of citizens is a useful answer is the true mystery. SOOOO are you really advocating.... that anyone... should be allowed to obtain weapons... recieve no training... not have any permitting ...Carry openly... just so they can play hero.. the next time some other untrained whack a doodle doo shows up... FREEFIRE ZONE for ALL..... COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL Just like the old west... Do we get to have a Hangin tree on Campus too??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #106 March 29, 2011 Quote SOOOO are you really advocating.... that anyone... should be allowed to obtain weapons... recieve no training... not have any permitting ...Carry openly... just so they can play hero.. the next time some other untrained whack a doodle doo shows up... FREEFIRE ZONE for ALL..... COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL Just like the old west... Do we get to have a Hangin tree on Campus too??? This is the same bullshit that Brady trumpets out for every state that considers a CCW change. And yet, despite dozens of times that they/you tell us it will be the old west, it has yet to happen. Can't you come up with a new fantasy to sell us? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #107 March 29, 2011 QuoteQuote SOOOO are you really advocating.... that anyone... should be allowed to obtain weapons... recieve no training... not have any permitting ...Carry openly... just so they can play hero.. the next time some other untrained whack a doodle doo shows up... FREEFIRE ZONE for ALL..... COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL Just like the old west... Do we get to have a Hangin tree on Campus too??? This is the same bullshit that Brady trumpets out for every state that considers a CCW change. And yet, despite dozens of times that they/you tell us it will be the old west, it has yet to happen. Can't you come up with a new fantasy to sell us? SO.. you enter a classroom with 4 people holding guns and shooting at each other.. WHO are YOU going to shoot??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DougH 270 #108 March 29, 2011 None of them unless they point a gun at me. Same thing as if I come across some one who looks like a bum shooting at a guy in a fancy suit. I am going to take cover and call the police. How do I know who is the bad guy in this situation? There were concealed carry holders at the Arizona shooting. They didn't stop Laughner but they didn't shoot up the crowd or each other either. Lets change your question to something more representative of what went down. You heard there was a shooting in a campus dorm earlier that morning. You are in a lecture hall and an armed gunman comes in and starts shooting people. Your four gunman scenario is a Strawman! "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #109 March 29, 2011 Quote None of them unless they point a gun at me. Same thing as if I come across some one who looks like a bum shooting at a guy in a fancy suit. I am going to take cover and call the police. There were concealed carry holders at the Arizona shooting. They didn't stop Laughner but they didn't shoot up the crowd or each other either. Let change your question to something more representative of what went down. You heard there was a shooting in a campus dorm earlier that morning. You are in a lecture hall and an armed gunman comes in and starts shooting people. Your four gunman scenario is a Strawman! Nope.. not at all because THEN.. a bunch of probably untrained idiots stand up and start shooting. Then again.. I have a feeling.. that many of the usual suspects here that are always advocating all those rights without any responsibility ... like actually training.. if they want to be part of " A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" would probably just hide as did those in Arizona.... and wet themselves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #110 March 29, 2011 QuoteYou keep asking QUESTIONS... yet YOU as a SECURITY EXPERT...... have not provided ANY viable way other than unfettered access to EVERYONE with just the ability to acquire weapons, and to top it off NO TRAINING. 1. There are plenty of laws in place... Yet we have found out time after time that a person intent on doing harm will just ignore them. Do you really think a criminal intent on killing as many people as he can will not take a gun on a campus because it is illegal? 2. Training should be up to the person. I have no issue with States requiring training to get a CHL... In fact, you are ignoring that most States require training to get a CHL. QuoteGotta love those Gunfight at the OK Campus scenarios you and Mike and DaVinci are advocating... DUUUDE do you really believe that is a usefull answer?? You really think gun bans on a campus works? I know you will not bother with facts.... But I'll present them anyway. The top three (by body count) school shootings are: 1. VT- 32 2. UT- 16 3. Columbine- 13 In two of those case, guns were not allowed on campus. That did not seem to stop the shooters. In the VT case: * they had strict gun laws in place (one every 30 days) that proved useless * the shooter was already (By law) not allowed to own guns, but reporting failed. * he committed suicide after an armed resistance. In the UT case: * CIVILIANS did help: "once Whitman began facing return fire from the authorities and armed civilians who had brought out their personal firearms to assist police, he used the waterspouts on each side of the tower as gun ports, allowing him to continue shooting largely protected from the gunfire below but also greatly limiting his range of targets. Ramiro Martinez, an officer who participated in stopping Whitman's rampage, later stated that the civilian shooters should be credited as they made it difficult for him to take careful aim. * Austin Police Department (APD) Officers Ramiro Martinez, Houston McCoy and Jerry Day, plus civilian Allen Crum, were the first to reach the tower's observation deck In the Columbine case: * they were not old enough to buy weapons. * they had constructed bombs * they committed suicide after armed resistance. Heck you can look at each school shooting and see many cases of hero's trying to save lives... Unfortunately, the current situation means they are unarmed facing an armed opponent. With your military training you should admit that an armed man will kill and unarmed man with monotonous regularity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DougH 270 #111 March 29, 2011 Quote Nope.. not at all because THEN.. a bunch of probably untrained idiots stand up and start shooting. Compared to a lecture hall of unarmed students that just had to wait for Cho to take their lives? I would rather take my chance with a group of "probably untrained idiots" than be in a group of defenseless individuals. Especially in my state since at least my "probably untrained idiots" would have had to receive some base training including live fire to get their CCW permits. Most CCW permit holders get to the gun range way more on average than our police officers in this country that only have to qualify on occasion but don't have to go to the range reguarly."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #112 March 29, 2011 Quotehen again.. I have a feeling.. that many of the usual suspects here that are always advocating all those rights without any responsibility ... like actually training.. if they want to be part of " A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" would probably just hide as did those in Arizona.... and wet themselves. Ah, so your BS claim of people shooting up the place only can have two possible outcomes. 1. A guy shoots and kills everyone cause he is an idiot. 2. A guy runs and wets himself. Never mind the FACTS do not support you. Heck i todays internet age it should be easy for you to find example after example of a CHL holder shooting people by accident in the middle of a situation.... Give that a try and report back. Joseph Zimudie was in AZ at the time of the shooting. He did NEITHER of your two fallacious scenarios. Joseph was at a nearby Walgreens when he heard the shooting start. Instead of running away, Joseph headed *toward* the sound of gunfire (so much for hiding and wetting his pants). Joseph had his CCW on him and had flipped off the safety, prepared to use it in the defense of others. He did not draw his weapon (so much for shooting indiscriminately) , but had his hand on it, ready. When he arrived at the scene, Loughner had been preparing to reload. Another man stepped in and wrestled away Loughner's gun. Zimudie saw the man with the gun and commanded he "drop it." Zimudie still did not draw(So much for shooting indiscriminately) because he saw the slide locked back, Loughner's glock clearly empty. The other man dropped the gun and Zimudie was informed that the shooter was the guy being wrestled to the ground. Zimudie placed his weapon back on safe and proceeded to help restrain Loughner until law enforcement arrived. (So much for running or shooting like crazy) Zimudie demonstrated responsible restraint in a chaotic situation. He demonstrated fearlessness by rushing toward the action instead of away. He demonstrated that the first armed responder to a mass murder could very well be a simple citizen. So once again you have no facts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #113 March 29, 2011 Quote Then again.. I have a feeling.. that many of the usual suspects here that are always advocating all those rights without any responsibility ... like actually training.. if they want to be part of " A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" would probably just hide as did those in Arizona.... and wet themselves. Hiding is a perfectly appropriate step for a CCW holder to take in such a situation. CCW is used for self defense. It is not a license to play SWAT team, and much of the CCW training talks about when not to get involved. So again, you're giving us bullshit fantasy scenarios. No one is going to enter a room with 4 people shooting guns. If you're not in that room, you're going the opposite direction - to safety. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #114 March 29, 2011 Yup.. Ok I am convinced... Your overwhelming arguements have convinced me that EVERYONE should carry.. and nothing bad will ever happen again. Until it does Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DougH 270 #115 March 29, 2011 Quote Yup.. Ok I am convinced... Your overwhelming arguements have convinced me that EVERYONE should carry.. and nothing bad will ever happen again. Until it does Where did he say that everyone should carry..."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #116 March 29, 2011 Quote Quote Yup.. Ok I am convinced... Your overwhelming arguements have convinced me that EVERYONE should carry.. and nothing bad will ever happen again. Until it does Where did he say that everyone should carry... That appears to be the jist of ALL of your arguements.. Hey I am convinced... GO FOR IT Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #117 March 29, 2011 QuoteYup.. Ok I am convinced... Your overwhelming arguements have convinced me that EVERYONE should carry.. and nothing bad will ever happen again. Until it does It is not about preventing anything bad from happening.... We have learned that it is just not 100% possible. But more gun laws only stop those that try to follow them. "No guns on campus" did not stop Cho, it did not stop Harris and Klebold, laws against murder did not stop them or Whitman. If there was a shooter in your office building blasting your coworkers. Do you wish that you were armed, or unarmed? If it was me, I'd wish to be armed. If it was you, I'd wish you to be armed. I'd want Kallend to be armed. I'd rather each of you have a chance of survival rather than just watch your co-workers be killed and wait for your turn. If you decided to fight, I'd want you to have the better chance that having a firearm can bring. I never said *everyone* should have a gun. I also never said training should not be required to *carry* a gun.... These are positions you have attributed to me that I have not taken. Again.... A lunatic is shooting up your office... would you rather be armed or unarmed? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #118 March 29, 2011 See all those laws in place have not prevented the lunatic from getting a weapon.. Why are you so adamant about protecting lunatics??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #119 March 29, 2011 QuoteSee all those laws in place have not prevented the lunatic from getting a weapon.. Why are you so adamant about protecting lunatics??? Find where I said I am for protecting lunatics. You will not be able to. Why are you OK with preventing law abiding citizens from the rights in the BoR's???? and you avoided this question: Again.... A lunatic is shooting up your office... would you rather be armed or unarmed? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #120 March 29, 2011 It's very hard to divorce your rantings here from your stance that since you live in the country far from police response, it's important that you have a gun to protect yourself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #121 March 29, 2011 QuoteQuoteSee all those laws in place have not prevented the lunatic from getting a weapon.. Why are you so adamant about protecting lunatics??? Find where I said I am for protecting lunatics. You will not be able to. Why are you OK with preventing law abiding citizens from the rights in the BoR's???? and you avoided this question: Again.... A lunatic is shooting up your office... would you rather be armed or unarmed? I just wish you and those with the same mind set would FOLLOW the BoR " A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" I do not see that as every Tom Dick or Harry having the right to buy anything for personal use to blow everyone else away in this country. The more those who are responsible.. protect those who are not... we will lose ground to those who wish to ban them all... capiche??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #122 March 29, 2011 Quote It's very hard to divorce your rantings here from your stance that since you live in the country far from police response, it's important that you have a gun to protect yourself. R E S P O N S I B I L I T Y !!!!!!!!! I know its hard for those UBBER PARANOIDS that see everone coming to try to get their guns..... but... I tire of argueing with people who are incapable of seeing beyond their narrow BELIEF. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #123 March 29, 2011 QuoteI just wish you and those with the same mind set would FOLLOW the BoR " A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" And you will notice that the SC has ruled that it is an individual right, not connected to military service. QuoteI do not see that as every Tom Dick or Harry having the right to buy anything for personal use to blow everyone else away in this country. The Founding Fathers disagreed. Care to find ONE comment where they say the individual should not be armed? The SC in Miller stated that the 2nd protected "Arms suitable for use in the Militia". QuoteThe more those who are responsible.. protect those who are not... we will lose ground to those who wish to ban them all... capiche??? So who is to d3ecide who can own what? you???? And you have STILL avoided answering this question... I really wish you would: Again.... A lunatic is shooting up your office... would you rather be armed or unarmed? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #124 March 29, 2011 Quote Quote It's very hard to divorce your rantings here from your stance that since you live in the country far from police response, it's important that you have a gun to protect yourself. R E S P O N S I B I L I T Y !!!!!!!!! I know its hard for those UBBER PARANOIDS that see everone coming to try to get their guns..... but... I tire of argueing with people who are incapable of seeing beyond their narrow BELIEF. like your own? don't understand the answer. Isn't it responsible for 21yo students to arm themselves? Just as you do? What's the difference? Or is it merely hypocrisy? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #125 March 29, 2011 There is no answer to that question that you and Kennedy and Kelp and John Rich will find suitable... So... I will just keep what MY response would be to myself. Thanks for trying to play though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next Page 5 of 12 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
kelpdiver 2 #103 March 29, 2011 Quote You keep asking QUESTIONS... yet YOU as a SECURITY EXPERT...... have not provided ANY viable way other than unfettered access to EVERYONE Gotta love those Gunfight at the OK Corral scenarios you and Mike and DaVinci are advocating... DUUUDE do you really believe that is a usefull anwser?? Seeing as Cho is the only example being used here...the guy came on campus, shot some sheep, left, and CAME BACK AGAIN to shoot some more. I think it's pretty clear that other armed students could only have improved the outcome. How you think violating the Constitutional rights of citizens is a useful answer is the true mystery. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #104 March 29, 2011 Quote So you admit that I haven't suggested preventing stable law abiding citizens from getting guns. I guess that's progress. Maybe you can tell that to kelpdiver and rushmc, both of whom seem to have comprehension problems. No, I comprehend you and your constant lying perfectly well. There's no way to achieve your perceived success in preventing mentally suspect people from buying guns without simultaneously denying "stable" citizens from doing so as well. You know it, but don't care because you have little respect for the rights of others in a country you immigrated into. This is demonstrated often by you in discussions of the TSA ("buy your own plane"). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #105 March 29, 2011 QuoteQuote You keep asking QUESTIONS... yet YOU as a SECURITY EXPERT...... have not provided ANY viable way other than unfettered access to EVERYONE Gotta love those Gunfight at the OK Corral scenarios you and Mike and DaVinci are advocating... DUUUDE do you really believe that is a usefull anwser?? Seeing as Cho is the only example being used here...the guy came on campus, shot some sheep, left, and CAME BACK AGAIN to shoot some more. I think it's pretty clear that other armed students could only have improved the outcome. How you think violating the Constitutional rights of citizens is a useful answer is the true mystery. SOOOO are you really advocating.... that anyone... should be allowed to obtain weapons... recieve no training... not have any permitting ...Carry openly... just so they can play hero.. the next time some other untrained whack a doodle doo shows up... FREEFIRE ZONE for ALL..... COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL Just like the old west... Do we get to have a Hangin tree on Campus too??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #106 March 29, 2011 Quote SOOOO are you really advocating.... that anyone... should be allowed to obtain weapons... recieve no training... not have any permitting ...Carry openly... just so they can play hero.. the next time some other untrained whack a doodle doo shows up... FREEFIRE ZONE for ALL..... COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL Just like the old west... Do we get to have a Hangin tree on Campus too??? This is the same bullshit that Brady trumpets out for every state that considers a CCW change. And yet, despite dozens of times that they/you tell us it will be the old west, it has yet to happen. Can't you come up with a new fantasy to sell us? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #107 March 29, 2011 QuoteQuote SOOOO are you really advocating.... that anyone... should be allowed to obtain weapons... recieve no training... not have any permitting ...Carry openly... just so they can play hero.. the next time some other untrained whack a doodle doo shows up... FREEFIRE ZONE for ALL..... COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL Just like the old west... Do we get to have a Hangin tree on Campus too??? This is the same bullshit that Brady trumpets out for every state that considers a CCW change. And yet, despite dozens of times that they/you tell us it will be the old west, it has yet to happen. Can't you come up with a new fantasy to sell us? SO.. you enter a classroom with 4 people holding guns and shooting at each other.. WHO are YOU going to shoot??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #108 March 29, 2011 None of them unless they point a gun at me. Same thing as if I come across some one who looks like a bum shooting at a guy in a fancy suit. I am going to take cover and call the police. How do I know who is the bad guy in this situation? There were concealed carry holders at the Arizona shooting. They didn't stop Laughner but they didn't shoot up the crowd or each other either. Lets change your question to something more representative of what went down. You heard there was a shooting in a campus dorm earlier that morning. You are in a lecture hall and an armed gunman comes in and starts shooting people. Your four gunman scenario is a Strawman! "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #109 March 29, 2011 Quote None of them unless they point a gun at me. Same thing as if I come across some one who looks like a bum shooting at a guy in a fancy suit. I am going to take cover and call the police. There were concealed carry holders at the Arizona shooting. They didn't stop Laughner but they didn't shoot up the crowd or each other either. Let change your question to something more representative of what went down. You heard there was a shooting in a campus dorm earlier that morning. You are in a lecture hall and an armed gunman comes in and starts shooting people. Your four gunman scenario is a Strawman! Nope.. not at all because THEN.. a bunch of probably untrained idiots stand up and start shooting. Then again.. I have a feeling.. that many of the usual suspects here that are always advocating all those rights without any responsibility ... like actually training.. if they want to be part of " A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" would probably just hide as did those in Arizona.... and wet themselves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #110 March 29, 2011 QuoteYou keep asking QUESTIONS... yet YOU as a SECURITY EXPERT...... have not provided ANY viable way other than unfettered access to EVERYONE with just the ability to acquire weapons, and to top it off NO TRAINING. 1. There are plenty of laws in place... Yet we have found out time after time that a person intent on doing harm will just ignore them. Do you really think a criminal intent on killing as many people as he can will not take a gun on a campus because it is illegal? 2. Training should be up to the person. I have no issue with States requiring training to get a CHL... In fact, you are ignoring that most States require training to get a CHL. QuoteGotta love those Gunfight at the OK Campus scenarios you and Mike and DaVinci are advocating... DUUUDE do you really believe that is a usefull answer?? You really think gun bans on a campus works? I know you will not bother with facts.... But I'll present them anyway. The top three (by body count) school shootings are: 1. VT- 32 2. UT- 16 3. Columbine- 13 In two of those case, guns were not allowed on campus. That did not seem to stop the shooters. In the VT case: * they had strict gun laws in place (one every 30 days) that proved useless * the shooter was already (By law) not allowed to own guns, but reporting failed. * he committed suicide after an armed resistance. In the UT case: * CIVILIANS did help: "once Whitman began facing return fire from the authorities and armed civilians who had brought out their personal firearms to assist police, he used the waterspouts on each side of the tower as gun ports, allowing him to continue shooting largely protected from the gunfire below but also greatly limiting his range of targets. Ramiro Martinez, an officer who participated in stopping Whitman's rampage, later stated that the civilian shooters should be credited as they made it difficult for him to take careful aim. * Austin Police Department (APD) Officers Ramiro Martinez, Houston McCoy and Jerry Day, plus civilian Allen Crum, were the first to reach the tower's observation deck In the Columbine case: * they were not old enough to buy weapons. * they had constructed bombs * they committed suicide after armed resistance. Heck you can look at each school shooting and see many cases of hero's trying to save lives... Unfortunately, the current situation means they are unarmed facing an armed opponent. With your military training you should admit that an armed man will kill and unarmed man with monotonous regularity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #111 March 29, 2011 Quote Nope.. not at all because THEN.. a bunch of probably untrained idiots stand up and start shooting. Compared to a lecture hall of unarmed students that just had to wait for Cho to take their lives? I would rather take my chance with a group of "probably untrained idiots" than be in a group of defenseless individuals. Especially in my state since at least my "probably untrained idiots" would have had to receive some base training including live fire to get their CCW permits. Most CCW permit holders get to the gun range way more on average than our police officers in this country that only have to qualify on occasion but don't have to go to the range reguarly."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #112 March 29, 2011 Quotehen again.. I have a feeling.. that many of the usual suspects here that are always advocating all those rights without any responsibility ... like actually training.. if they want to be part of " A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" would probably just hide as did those in Arizona.... and wet themselves. Ah, so your BS claim of people shooting up the place only can have two possible outcomes. 1. A guy shoots and kills everyone cause he is an idiot. 2. A guy runs and wets himself. Never mind the FACTS do not support you. Heck i todays internet age it should be easy for you to find example after example of a CHL holder shooting people by accident in the middle of a situation.... Give that a try and report back. Joseph Zimudie was in AZ at the time of the shooting. He did NEITHER of your two fallacious scenarios. Joseph was at a nearby Walgreens when he heard the shooting start. Instead of running away, Joseph headed *toward* the sound of gunfire (so much for hiding and wetting his pants). Joseph had his CCW on him and had flipped off the safety, prepared to use it in the defense of others. He did not draw his weapon (so much for shooting indiscriminately) , but had his hand on it, ready. When he arrived at the scene, Loughner had been preparing to reload. Another man stepped in and wrestled away Loughner's gun. Zimudie saw the man with the gun and commanded he "drop it." Zimudie still did not draw(So much for shooting indiscriminately) because he saw the slide locked back, Loughner's glock clearly empty. The other man dropped the gun and Zimudie was informed that the shooter was the guy being wrestled to the ground. Zimudie placed his weapon back on safe and proceeded to help restrain Loughner until law enforcement arrived. (So much for running or shooting like crazy) Zimudie demonstrated responsible restraint in a chaotic situation. He demonstrated fearlessness by rushing toward the action instead of away. He demonstrated that the first armed responder to a mass murder could very well be a simple citizen. So once again you have no facts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #113 March 29, 2011 Quote Then again.. I have a feeling.. that many of the usual suspects here that are always advocating all those rights without any responsibility ... like actually training.. if they want to be part of " A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" would probably just hide as did those in Arizona.... and wet themselves. Hiding is a perfectly appropriate step for a CCW holder to take in such a situation. CCW is used for self defense. It is not a license to play SWAT team, and much of the CCW training talks about when not to get involved. So again, you're giving us bullshit fantasy scenarios. No one is going to enter a room with 4 people shooting guns. If you're not in that room, you're going the opposite direction - to safety. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #114 March 29, 2011 Yup.. Ok I am convinced... Your overwhelming arguements have convinced me that EVERYONE should carry.. and nothing bad will ever happen again. Until it does Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #115 March 29, 2011 Quote Yup.. Ok I am convinced... Your overwhelming arguements have convinced me that EVERYONE should carry.. and nothing bad will ever happen again. Until it does Where did he say that everyone should carry..."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #116 March 29, 2011 Quote Quote Yup.. Ok I am convinced... Your overwhelming arguements have convinced me that EVERYONE should carry.. and nothing bad will ever happen again. Until it does Where did he say that everyone should carry... That appears to be the jist of ALL of your arguements.. Hey I am convinced... GO FOR IT Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #117 March 29, 2011 QuoteYup.. Ok I am convinced... Your overwhelming arguements have convinced me that EVERYONE should carry.. and nothing bad will ever happen again. Until it does It is not about preventing anything bad from happening.... We have learned that it is just not 100% possible. But more gun laws only stop those that try to follow them. "No guns on campus" did not stop Cho, it did not stop Harris and Klebold, laws against murder did not stop them or Whitman. If there was a shooter in your office building blasting your coworkers. Do you wish that you were armed, or unarmed? If it was me, I'd wish to be armed. If it was you, I'd wish you to be armed. I'd want Kallend to be armed. I'd rather each of you have a chance of survival rather than just watch your co-workers be killed and wait for your turn. If you decided to fight, I'd want you to have the better chance that having a firearm can bring. I never said *everyone* should have a gun. I also never said training should not be required to *carry* a gun.... These are positions you have attributed to me that I have not taken. Again.... A lunatic is shooting up your office... would you rather be armed or unarmed? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #118 March 29, 2011 See all those laws in place have not prevented the lunatic from getting a weapon.. Why are you so adamant about protecting lunatics??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #119 March 29, 2011 QuoteSee all those laws in place have not prevented the lunatic from getting a weapon.. Why are you so adamant about protecting lunatics??? Find where I said I am for protecting lunatics. You will not be able to. Why are you OK with preventing law abiding citizens from the rights in the BoR's???? and you avoided this question: Again.... A lunatic is shooting up your office... would you rather be armed or unarmed? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #120 March 29, 2011 It's very hard to divorce your rantings here from your stance that since you live in the country far from police response, it's important that you have a gun to protect yourself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #121 March 29, 2011 QuoteQuoteSee all those laws in place have not prevented the lunatic from getting a weapon.. Why are you so adamant about protecting lunatics??? Find where I said I am for protecting lunatics. You will not be able to. Why are you OK with preventing law abiding citizens from the rights in the BoR's???? and you avoided this question: Again.... A lunatic is shooting up your office... would you rather be armed or unarmed? I just wish you and those with the same mind set would FOLLOW the BoR " A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" I do not see that as every Tom Dick or Harry having the right to buy anything for personal use to blow everyone else away in this country. The more those who are responsible.. protect those who are not... we will lose ground to those who wish to ban them all... capiche??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #122 March 29, 2011 Quote It's very hard to divorce your rantings here from your stance that since you live in the country far from police response, it's important that you have a gun to protect yourself. R E S P O N S I B I L I T Y !!!!!!!!! I know its hard for those UBBER PARANOIDS that see everone coming to try to get their guns..... but... I tire of argueing with people who are incapable of seeing beyond their narrow BELIEF. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #123 March 29, 2011 QuoteI just wish you and those with the same mind set would FOLLOW the BoR " A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" And you will notice that the SC has ruled that it is an individual right, not connected to military service. QuoteI do not see that as every Tom Dick or Harry having the right to buy anything for personal use to blow everyone else away in this country. The Founding Fathers disagreed. Care to find ONE comment where they say the individual should not be armed? The SC in Miller stated that the 2nd protected "Arms suitable for use in the Militia". QuoteThe more those who are responsible.. protect those who are not... we will lose ground to those who wish to ban them all... capiche??? So who is to d3ecide who can own what? you???? And you have STILL avoided answering this question... I really wish you would: Again.... A lunatic is shooting up your office... would you rather be armed or unarmed? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #124 March 29, 2011 Quote Quote It's very hard to divorce your rantings here from your stance that since you live in the country far from police response, it's important that you have a gun to protect yourself. R E S P O N S I B I L I T Y !!!!!!!!! I know its hard for those UBBER PARANOIDS that see everone coming to try to get their guns..... but... I tire of argueing with people who are incapable of seeing beyond their narrow BELIEF. like your own? don't understand the answer. Isn't it responsible for 21yo students to arm themselves? Just as you do? What's the difference? Or is it merely hypocrisy? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #125 March 29, 2011 There is no answer to that question that you and Kennedy and Kelp and John Rich will find suitable... So... I will just keep what MY response would be to myself. Thanks for trying to play though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
