|
Post by ltdc on May 17, 2013 12:26:04 GMT -6
A very good friend of mine was raped in her own apartment in her own bed. If she would have had a gun within reach where she was most vulnerable, things would have been much different. Can you imagine, waking up to find that you are being assaulted in your own home, in your own bed, with a gun within reach, that for 'safety reasons', is not loaded and has a lock on the trigger? The last line of defense will be a gun. They will want a double action weapon with a surefire light. A weapon where subsequent shots to be done smoother because the hammer and firing mechanism less of trigger pull. The ideal situation .... Now the question. Can someone who is not proficient in firearms be able to act when that day comes to be able to precisely get off multiple rounds and kill the intended target? maybe, maybe not. doesn't change my right to try. now I'm convinced you really don't know of what you speak. been a member forever, can't recall any bible thumping stories. it's about a number of things. study it, don't get "told" about it. primarily at the time is was to garauntee that citizens had their own arms and related gear (regulated) in order to help if needed. as it was in fact needed. could be, so is the third amendment. BUT, but, but, buuuuut, what you anti rights people NEVER seem to understand is that it is entirely irrelevant whether or not they are "outdated", it DOES NOT in any way change the meaning or validity. don't like it change it, but DO NOT tell me what it means. I have never, ever, ever needed the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments. not one time. but their meaning and validity remain intact.
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on May 17, 2013 12:45:32 GMT -6
isn't there a delete post button somewhere?
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on May 17, 2013 15:25:49 GMT -6
Those were things that NRA used to believe. Now they just spam your mailbox with Christian religious bible thumping crap that has nothing to do with weapons and killing criminals. I'm not sure what you've been smoking because I’ve been a member of the N.R.A. for at least 35 years and I have never received any such religious paraphernalia from them.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on May 17, 2013 15:29:33 GMT -6
isn't there a delete post button somewhere? Yes, click your mouse on the button on the far right and a menu will drop down and you will see "delete".
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on May 17, 2013 15:31:52 GMT -6
Keep in mind, even if access to the gun, he still could over power her and the gun used agains't her too... never say never, an ambush is hard to defend buuuuuut, the biggest misconception about women and guns (talk about a war on women) is the myth that the attacker will take the gun away. while anything is possible of course, the correct usage of said gun is IF you can touch the gun you can touch the trigger and therefore as soon as your hand touches the gun bullets should flying downrange and into target. this is not a time for threats, warnings or negotiation. always fight, always An Ambush and she wa already overpowered, yes if no gun scream, bite his face as hard as can, claw his eyes in that second run the heck out of there. In the post Yas placed & the way stated, she had to grab for anything near the bed, or as i said above. Gun was useless obviously in this one of what we know that is. rape is violent so of course no threats, warnings or negotiating Fight like a little hell cat...
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on May 17, 2013 15:38:48 GMT -6
isn't there a delete post button somewhere? Yes, click your mouse on the button on the far right and a menu will drop down and you will see "delete". It was available this morning, I used it but, delete option is not there now
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on May 17, 2013 15:39:52 GMT -6
Yes, click your mouse on the button on the far right and a menu will drop down and you will see "delete". It was available this morning, I used it but, delete option is not there now Now it is back lol wth....
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on May 17, 2013 16:02:14 GMT -6
never say never, an ambush is hard to defend buuuuuut, the biggest misconception about women and guns (talk about a war on women) is the myth that the attacker will take the gun away. while anything is possible of course, the correct usage of said gun is IF you can touch the gun you can touch the trigger and therefore as soon as your hand touches the gun bullets should flying downrange and into target. this is not a time for threats, warnings or negotiation. always fight, always An Ambush and she wa already overpowered, yes if no gun scream, bite his face as hard as can, claw his eyes in that second run the heck out of there. In the post Yas placed & the way stated, she had to grab for anything near the bed, or as i said above. Gun was useless obviously in this one of what we know that is. rape is violent so of course no threats, warnings or negotiating Fight like a little hell cat... actually I wasn't so much commenting on her access to a gun but rather the all too often reference that a women with a gun will just have it taken away from her so women and guns aren't good ideas. where are the feminists when you need one, huh? I think the problem, for both sexes, is that many people believe you cannot shoot an unarmed person. wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. not only can you, but sometimes you damn well better.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on May 17, 2013 16:25:43 GMT -6
An Ambush and she wa already overpowered, yes if no gun scream, bite his face as hard as can, claw his eyes in that second run the heck out of there. In the post Yas placed & the way stated, she had to grab for anything near the bed, or as i said above. Gun was useless obviously in this one of what we know that is. rape is violent so of course no threats, warnings or negotiating Fight like a little hell cat... actually I wasn't so much commenting on her access to a gun but rather the all too often reference that a women with a gun will just have it taken away from her so women and guns aren't good ideas. where are the feminists when you need one, huh? I think the problem, for both sexes, is that many people believe you cannot shoot an unarmed person. wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. not only can you, but sometimes you damn well better. When he is already that close to you, yes the gun could be used agains't her. Yes, I never stated if attacked and they are not armed you cannot shoot them" of course you can, dead. Some women as well as some men, have had the gun taken from them , even some cops........has nothing to do with feminists, training training training, not just on the use of shooting a gun. Defensive.
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on May 17, 2013 16:53:32 GMT -6
actually I wasn't so much commenting on her access to a gun but rather the all too often reference that a women with a gun will just have it taken away from her so women and guns aren't good ideas. where are the feminists when you need one, huh? I think the problem, for both sexes, is that many people believe you cannot shoot an unarmed person. wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. not only can you, but sometimes you damn well better. When he is already that close to you, yes the gun could be used agains't her. Yes, I never stated if attacked and they are not armed you cannot shoot them" of course you can, dead. Some women as well as some men, have had the gun taken from them , even some cops........has nothing to do with feminists, training training training, not just on the use of shooting a gun. Defensive. I think we are passing in the night. I'm not arguing your point of view. I'm simply stating that too many people think a women and a gun will surely be separated. automatically. don't even try. and that simply does not need to be the case.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on May 17, 2013 18:44:52 GMT -6
Majority of Colorado sheriffs file suit against new gun laws By Matthew DeLuca, Staff Writer, NBC News Sheriffs in Colorado filed a federal lawsuit Friday ahead of the implementation of new state gun laws that broaden background checks and limit the size of ammunition magazines, saying that the bills would be nearly impossible to enforce. The laws "severely restrict citizens' rights to own, use, manufacture, sell, or transfer firearms and firearms accessories," the sheriffs said in their complaint in the U.S. district court. "This is a bipartisan effort," said Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith. "These are Democratic sheriffs and Republican sheriffs who came together." The National Shooting Sports Foundation, magazine-maker Magpul Industries, and the Colorado State Shooting Association were among other groups that filed suit alongside sheriffs against the laws, which are set to take effect June 1. Advertise | AdChoices Scarred by some of the deadliest incidents of gun violence in American history, including last year's Aurora movie theater shooting and the 1999 shooting at Columbine High School, the state's gun control bills gained national attention as various states and the federal government debated new gun restrictions. The sheriffs said in the filing that their ability to enforce the laws, particularly the ban on magazines that hold more than 15 rounds, will be constrained by other concerns. "The Sheriffs have limited resources and limited public funds to spend on investigations," they said in the court documents. "They cannot expend those resources to conduct investigations that would be necessary to monitor compliance with the new magazine restrictions. No documentation has ever been required for the retail or private purchase of magazines, making it a practical impossibility for the Sheriffs to determine whether one of the many magazines already in existence was obtained after the effective date." The sheriffs also said that Coloradans would find it difficult to comply with expanded background check regulations that would require transfers between individuals to be conducted through a federally licensed firearms dealer. That's because many licensed firearms dealers in the state "are unwilling to conduct the transfer under such conditions," they argued. Colorado Attorney General John Suthers released a statement on Friday saying that his office would pursue court rulings on the gun legislation “as expeditiously as possible.” “Colorado citizens, and law-abiding gun owners in particular, deserve such clarification,” Suthers said in the statement. Follow @nbcnewsus The state has 64 sheriffs, said Chris Olson, executive director of the County Sheriffs of Colorado. The lawsuit is being brought forth “by individual sheriffs” and his organization is not a party to the suit, he said. At least one lawman has said that deciding which laws are constitutional should stay out of the hands of Colorado’s sheriffs. Arapahoe County Sheriff Grayson Robinson, whose county includes the Aurora movie theater where 12 people were killed last year, released a statement in January pushing back against sheriffs who said they would not enforce new gun laws. “Public safety professionals serving in the executive branch do not have the constitutional authority, responsibility, and in most case, the credentials to determine the constitutionality of any issue,” Robinson said in the statement. “Law enforcement officials should leave it to the courts to decide whether a law is constitutional or not.” Robinson identified himself as a supporter of Second Amendment rights in the statement, and said he would like to see better mental health services and stricter penalties for people who commit gun crimes. usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/17/18323842-majority-of-colorado-sheriffs-file-suit-against-new-gun-laws?lite
|
|
|
Post by starbux on May 17, 2013 19:19:40 GMT -6
No Government has used arms against its own people in the last 211 years. I guess I need to re-read history because I could have sworn that it has been done at least a few times since then. By the way it is not just our Government that the 2nd was put in place for, but since my history is not as current as yours I will check on it. Checked on it and I was right. Well read someones reply to me earlier, apparently according to them it is. Ao I was snarky
|
|
|
Post by starbux on May 17, 2013 19:27:50 GMT -6
Those were things that NRA used to believe. Now they just spam your mailbox with Christian religious bible thumping crap that has nothing to do with weapons and killing criminals. I'm not sure what you've been smoking because I’ve been a member of the N.R.A. for at least 35 years and I have never received any such religious paraphernalia from them. As soon as a friend and I joined, we would get pamphlets from and other material supporting religious right causes in the mail. As soon as my membership lapsed they stopped. I will admit maybe it was coincidence, that I get on a mailing list for fringe political issues for the right. I may have jumped the gun, no pun intended.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on May 27, 2013 17:16:29 GMT -6
I'm not sure what you've been smoking because I’ve been a member of the N.R.A. for at least 35 years and I have never received any such religious paraphernalia from them. As soon as a friend and I joined, we would get pamphlets from and other material supporting religious right causes in the mail. As soon as my membership lapsed they stopped. I will admit maybe it was coincidence, that I get on a mailing list for fringe political issues for the right. I may have jumped the gun, no pun intended. It must have been a coincidence, because you don't get dropped from another organization's mailing list just because you don't belong any longer to the organization that was the earlier source of the address. I doubt that such information is even provided. However, even if such magical actions were to occur, your comment does not support your initial claim.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2013 1:56:37 GMT -6
A lot of the time you hear Australians talking about Port Arthur etc and how gun control after this meant the reduction in crime rate etc.
It may be that I am getting old, but I don't see it. Home invasion is on the rise, child sexual abuse (especially in aboriginal communities) is rampant, 3 murders in one week in Perth..
I'm not pro gun control or anti gun control. I do believe though that even with gun control, criminals can still get access to guns and people will still be at risk.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on May 28, 2013 2:46:53 GMT -6
Totally irrelevant! The point being made is that easy access to firearms does not automatically equate to high homicide rates. Now, pay attention so I don’t have to repeat myself. and my point is that if you live in a nation with big cities, and a great deal of poverty then you need at least a reasonable level of gun control. Even if it only applies to the areas of risk check out washington dc and chicago. two large cities with virtual total gun bans. the gun bans work so well that dc regularly led the nation in gun crime, and chicago only has two gun murders a day, 365 days a year
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on May 28, 2013 8:45:59 GMT -6
and my point is that if you live in a nation with big cities, and a great deal of poverty then you need at least a reasonable level of gun control. Even if it only applies to the areas of risk check out washington dc and chicago. two large cities with virtual total gun bans. the gun bans work so well that dc regularly led the nation in gun crime, and chicago only has two gun murders a day, 365 days a year Chicago police are not protecting the public, this week end shootings 6 dead 11 injured, the good are dying. This is daily in Chicago. In news in TX, many criminals" dead or injured in process of criminal acts to homeowners/business's .
|
|
|
Post by D.E.E. on May 28, 2013 13:23:03 GMT -6
Well read someones reply to me earlier, apparently according to them it is. Ao I was snarky Well regardless of you being snarky the person did not say you were right he did say that it has not been used and not needed. However it seems that in the last 10 years several Governments have taken advantage of their citizens, in this country maybe not. The fact it has not happened in 211 years (that is if you do not clount the War of Northern Aggression) does not mean it will not happen the minute we give up our right to defend ourself against the Government. Self defense was always implied by the founding fathers. You may want to read some of their papers to understand what you are talking about. The NRA has never sent me any religious material, they have asked for donations, but no more so that other gun right groups and pac's.
|
|
|
Post by D.E.E. on May 28, 2013 13:26:55 GMT -6
check out washington dc and chicago. two large cities with virtual total gun bans. the gun bans work so well that dc regularly led the nation in gun crime, and chicago only has two gun murders a day, 365 days a year Chicago police are not protecting the public, this week end shootings 6 dead 11 injured, the good are dying. This is daily in Chicago. In news in TX, many criminals" dead or injured in process of criminal acts to homeowners/business's . The police are not there to protect you. There would have to be one officer for every person for that to be true. They are that to "help" prevent crime, to solve crime and to enforce the laws. A person should never depend on someone else to protect them.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on May 28, 2013 14:24:37 GMT -6
Chicago police are not protecting the public, this week end shootings 6 dead 11 injured, the good are dying. This is daily in Chicago. In news in TX, many criminals" dead or injured in process of criminal acts to homeowners/business's . The police are not there to protect you. There would have to be one officer for every person for that to be true. They are that to "help" prevent crime, to solve crime and to enforce the laws. A person should never depend on someone else to protect them. Exactly. Chicago is # one in gun control yet, # one in gun violence. Pass concealed carry now for "everyone" Allow citizens to protect themselves.
|
|
|
Post by D.E.E. on May 29, 2013 14:25:08 GMT -6
The police are not there to protect you. There would have to be one officer for every person for that to be true. They are that to "help" prevent crime, to solve crime and to enforce the laws. A person should never depend on someone else to protect them. Exactly. Chicago is # one in gun control yet, # one in gun violence. Pass concealed carry now for "everyone" Allow citizens to protect themselves. Totally agree with you. Personally I prefer Constitutional Carry but would be happy with CC.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 24, 2013 14:25:28 GMT -6
check out washington dc and chicago. two large cities with virtual total gun bans. the gun bans work so well that dc regularly led the nation in gun crime, and chicago only has two gun murders a day, 365 days a year Chicago police are not protecting the public, this week end shootings 6 dead 11 injured, the good are dying. This is daily in Chicago. In news in TX, many criminals" dead or injured in process of criminal acts to homeowners/business's . there actually are some good people being murdered in chicago, but, the majority of those dying are gang bangers, which is heartwarming. NO normal person cares when a gang banger dies
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 24, 2013 14:28:51 GMT -6
Chicago police are not protecting the public, this week end shootings 6 dead 11 injured, the good are dying. This is daily in Chicago. In news in TX, many criminals" dead or injured in process of criminal acts to homeowners/business's . The police are not there to protect you. There would have to be one officer for every person for that to be true. They are that to "help" prevent crime, to solve crime and to enforce the laws. A person should never depend on someone else to protect them. only the most abjectly stupid think that the police have any duty to protect any individual. it has been settled law in the u.s. since warren vs district of columbia, and a hundred cases since then, that the police have NO duty to protect private citizens.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 24, 2013 14:29:55 GMT -6
The police are not there to protect you. There would have to be one officer for every person for that to be true. They are that to "help" prevent crime, to solve crime and to enforce the laws. A person should never depend on someone else to protect them. Exactly. Chicago is # one in gun control yet, # one in gun violence. Pass concealed carry now for "everyone" Allow citizens to protect themselves. that is the ONLY intelligent and responsible thing to do
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Sept 24, 2013 20:49:42 GMT -6
I suppose other factors have nothing to do with it such Vermont is number 1 in health. They are 6th in the nation for having a degree or certificate above a high school diploma. They are 5th in terms of employment. The median household income is 55,000 which is high compared to a lot of states. They are 45th in the nation with people who live below the poverty line. They are 48th in terms of families on welfare, 47th with respect to individuals. Contrast that with New Mexico which contrast Vermont in those areas, and has Farley un-restrictive gun laws. We have open carry and conceled carry, Yet our crime is still higher than Vedrmont. Point is there are other factors to a correlation. New Mexico has plenty of gun toting hicks that drive the "Tough Guy" edition super dully diesel Ford F350 Pickups. Ohh merr gerred they commin' to take our gernss. Vermont also has the lowestr percentage of black and brown citizens in the nation. Do you find that relevant?
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Sept 24, 2013 21:32:55 GMT -6
Please explain your "disgruntled" remark. Ok maybe disgruntled is not the right word maybe jaded is. Cylcone didn't beat around the bush and said it perfectly, I didn't Maybe you are jaded at the world because you see time get compressed, as the tyrant your guns won't ward off, will still meet you at your front door, i.e. the Reaper. Maybe you did not set out to do what you aspired to. Possibly, because you had the wrong birthday and got to go to Vietnam instead. I volunteered for the Armed Forces and later went to college on the GI Bill. I am a Masters in American History from a Jesuit university. I had a quite successful career as a business owner, paid myself 150K a year, and had 15 employees. I sold the business in 2001 and retired at age 54. My net worth might surprise you. Later in life, I served two terms as an elected official. I still have my unit's ball cap from Vietnam. I drive 2 Pontiacs, my daily driver and an old convertible. See above. I'm a Buckeye by birth. I like the weather here. Many people think LA and San Francisco are California. They're really not. I live in a nice subdivision in the middle of town, in a comfortable (but not ostentatious) 4 bedroom house with my lady (we're not married, but have been together 28 years) and my current aging Springer spaniel. I've never been a farmer. I used that avatar because I think the show was possibly the funniest ever on television. Nope. KGO, San Francisco. I can stand either Rush or Beck only in short doses. too bombastic for me. I'm a well-known man of the middle. My political philosophy draws from ideas considered both left and right wing. God help us all. And the fact that you're a commissioned officer continues to terrify me for out nation.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Sept 29, 2013 13:59:44 GMT -6
Apparently our budding fascist is too embarrassed to comment on how badly his "intelligence estimate" went awry?
|
|
|
Post by Potassium_Pixie on Oct 1, 2013 3:49:35 GMT -6
there actually are some good people being murdered in chicago, but, the majority of those dying are gang bangers, which is heartwarming. NO normal person cares when a gang banger dies A person is still a person even if they do make wrong decisions. If you kill somebody, even if they are a gang-banger and they are thugs. Its not anybody's right except the state to execute somebody especially if they dissed you and are in a rival gang. People do care, What would you classify the gang-banger's family members as? If you kill somebody unlawfully through murder, you should be punished.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Oct 2, 2013 14:45:23 GMT -6
there actually are some good people being murdered in chicago, but, the majority of those dying are gang bangers, which is heartwarming. NO normal person cares when a gang banger dies A person is still a person even if they do make wrong decisions. If you kill somebody, even if they are a gang-banger and they are thugs. Its not anybody's right except the state to execute somebody especially if they dissed you and are in a rival gang. People do care, What would you classify the gang-banger's family members as? If you kill somebody unlawfully through murder, you should be punished. there's really no argument there. obviously, since EVERY, without exception, gang banger is a murderer, every one of them should be executed. that won't happen though. at any rate, in ninety percent of the cases, the family are all gang bangers. of those that aren't, if they haven't done everything possible to make the worthless piece of *crap* stay away from garbage, they obviously don't care that much anyway. if they did try, and it chose to just defy them, they shouldn't care about it anyway the cops don't even waste any more manpower investigating gang murders than they have to. it's "good riddance" as far as they're concerned too
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Oct 2, 2013 18:10:45 GMT -6
Totally irrelevant! The point being made is that easy access to firearms does not automatically equate to high homicide rates. Now, pay attention so I don’t have to repeat myself. and my point is that if you live in a nation with big cities, and a great deal of poverty then you need at least a reasonable level of gun control. Even if it only applies to the areas of risk We had a reasonable level of control imposed in 1965. The murder rate went up. As more "reasonable" gun laws were imposed, the murder rate continued to go up. After "concealed carry" became law the murder rate went down. Since then, as more and more firearms were purchased by Americans, the murder rate has continued to decline. I actively supported a "reasonable level of gun control" for 50 years as thousands of "reasonable" gun control laws were passed. I was wrong. "Gun control" is not about guns, it is about control.
|
|