I rencently posted a blog on this site intitled: Love on the Wake of Tragedy regarding the massacre in Colorado. I received a response by a woman who made reference to gun control being the answer to prevent such atrocities. Here is a little perspective for the misinformed woman with good intentions... Wow, where do I start? First of all, guns are for self defense, defense of LIFE not just property.
But here is the rub, this complacent, mis informed little girl doesn't know that guns save lives because she has never heard that they have. Fact is guns save lives on average, 25 times a day, in nice neighborhoods all over the US. It's just that it doesn't get reported, you don't hear about it on the news because 99% of the time, when one presents a gun to the would be rapist/criminal, they run away, life saved, without a shot. But, you can't deny it happens, guns save lives every day, here are two examples:
Samual Williams, 71-year-old concealed carry holder that was minding his own business in a convenience store last week when two thugs, took a couple of shots into the store and came in to rob, certainly had the opportunity to kill. Purely and simply, they were caught off guard. Old man Sam chased those boys out of a crowded store, guns blazing from both sides. Thank goodness, he had surprise (and adrenaline) on his side. Only reason we know about it is because the store caught it on video. Do you think those people in the store are glad Sam was there? Do you think the result would have been the same without Sam? Do you think that 71-year-old would have been able to protect himself and the others is in store against two, big, young thugs if all he had was a knife? Chew on this: You never need a gun until you REALLY need a gun, and then you need it more than anything else in the world! One old man against two young thugs, your better have a gun.
If you still actually believe that there is no need to be able to defend yourself, then what do you think would have happened to young Sarah McKinley? Just weeks after loosing her husband to cancer, all alone with a month old baby boy, this 18-year-old mom found herself confronted by a monster that was stalking her, he was planning his assault, even went to Sarah's husband's funeral to check her out, he knew she was alone, he thought an easy target. What he didn't know is that Sarah knew how to defend herself and when he crawled though that doggy door to assault her and worse, she shot him. Here is what Sarah said about that: "It's not an easy decision to make, but it was either going to be him or my son. And it wasn't going to be my son."
You see, most women will use deadly force to protect their children, the analogy is the cornered mama cat, ever see one? You don't want to run in to one, trust me. Too bad there are not more cornered mamma cats, so many are complacent defenseless young women like your writer, we'd have a lot fewer raped and murdered women.
It figures she thinks cops should be the only ones to have a gun, most helpless victims/holophobes (fear of guns) feel that way. Fact is LE's average response time to a crime is 16 minutes (varies depending on your location).
The bad guy could break down your door, assault you (or kill you), load up a large van with everything you own and be at the corner pub before the cops arrived. A recent study of repeating violent criminals revealed that they have a goal, this is a quote from the study: "My goal is to be in your house and have the barrel of my gun down your throat in 5 seconds." That is their goal, and let this sink in, they are repeat criminals because they are not being stopped, they know they can do it over and over again, because too many people allow themselves to be defenseless victims. Our homes, by-the-way, are where they want to get us, because we feel "safe," we let our guard down. I'm sleeping with my .45 tonight and my dogs, no criminal wants to be confronted by either of those two things, and I know it.
It's funny about that that little 5-second-rule the criminals use, it keeps coming up in pro-self defense world too, we have a 5-seond rule too. This has been proven in real confrontations involving defense with a firearm and is a national average: the confrontation will occur when you are within about 5 feet of your attacker, it will last about 5 seconds, and you will have expended about 5 bullets when it is over. It is also known that it takes about 7 seconds for an average person to travel the distance of 15 feet and be able to hit, stab, grab, bludgeon you with ANY weapon. I'd rather have my gun out and be defending myself, in 5 seconds, before the guy got to me, I'd rather be able to drop the guy in 5 seconds, leaving that extra little 3-5 feet left between us for him to stop dead in his tracks and fall to my feet. Which, by the way, is when I would use that sixth bullet. Double tap.
She wants cops to be the only ones with guns because she has had the same crap shoved down her throat since she was a little girl that all of us have: call 911, the cops will be there, little girl, you have nothing to worry about. Most women actually think all they need to defend themselves is a cell phone. But sadly, I hate to dash little girl's dreams, cops have no duty to protect us, throw that one at her, she won't believe it, but it is true.
The Courts have ruled that cops have no duty to protect, and in fact, cops carry guns to protect themselves, not you, if you don't believe that: when was the last time a cop jumped in front of you, or anybody for that matter, they don't, they take cover, they shoot to save themselves. Which is exactly what you should do too, by the way, what you should be able to do is defend yourself. Cops have no duty.
Still, most people believe, somebody else will save them, the cops are there to protect you, you don't need to be able to protect yourself. Here is the truth, it's the Warren versus District of Columbia case, the case that resulted in the No Duty Ruling:
3 young girls living together in a nice DC neighborhood were awakened one morning. The two girls sleeping up stairs heard their friend, who slept downstairs (with her 3-year-old daughter), screaming. Frightened and not able to defend themselves (it is DC, after all), they called 911. The operator assured them the cops would be there, and they were, in about 12 minutes. Problem is, the call was given a Code 2, not a Code 1: crime in progress. Code 2 is "investigate" to the best of your ability.
The best that the 4 police cruisers that responded to the Code 2 had to do was a drive-by "investigation" first, then a knock on the door. Surprise, no answer when they knocked, the screams stopped, the cops didn't see or here anything, "investigation" over. The two girls upstairs thought the cops were there, they crept downstairs to check on their friend, the guy was still there.
For 14 hours he brutally raped, sodomized and beat all three women and left only after he got tired and thought they were dead. When the girls took it to court, complaining: "I called 911, why wasn't I saved?" The court ruled that the cops have no duty to protect, point blank, they have no duty. And this is a precident, the court
I rencently posted a blog on this site intitled: Love on the Wake of Tragedy regarding the massacre in Colorado. I received a response by a woman who made reference to gun control being the answer to prevent such atrocities.
Here is a little perspective for the misinformed woman with good intentions...
Wow, where do I start? First of all, guns are for self defense, defense of LIFE not just property.
But here is the rub, this complacent, mis informed little girl doesn't know that guns save lives because she has never heard that they have. Fact is guns save lives on average, 25 times a day, in nice neighborhoods all over the US. It's just that it doesn't get reported, you don't hear about it on the news because 99% of the time, when one presents a gun to the would be rapist/criminal, they run away, life saved, without a shot. But, you can't deny it happens, guns save lives every day, here are two examples:
Samual Williams, 71-year-old concealed carry holder that was minding his own business in a convenience store last week when two thugs, took a couple of shots into the store and came in to rob, certainly had the opportunity to kill. Purely and simply, they were caught off guard. Old man Sam chased those boys out of a crowded store, guns blazing from both sides. Thank goodness, he had surprise (and adrenaline) on his side. Only reason we know about it is because the store caught it on video. Do you think those people in the store are glad Sam was there? Do you think the result would have been the same without Sam? Do you think that 71-year-old would have been able to protect himself and the others is in store against two, big, young thugs if all he had was a knife? Chew on this: You never need a gun until you REALLY need a gun, and then you need it more than anything else in the world! One old man against two young thugs, your better have a gun.
If you still actually believe that there is no need to be able to defend yourself, then what do you think would have happened to young Sarah McKinley? Just weeks after loosing her husband to cancer, all alone with a month old baby boy, this 18-year-old mom found herself confronted by a monster that was stalking her, he was planning his assault, even went to Sarah's husband's funeral to check her out, he knew she was alone, he thought an easy target. What he didn't know is that Sarah knew how to defend herself and when he crawled though that doggy door to assault her and worse, she shot him. Here is what Sarah said about that: "It's not an easy decision to make, but it was either going to be him or my son. And it wasn't going to be my son."
You see, most women will use deadly force to protect their children, the analogy is the cornered mama cat, ever see one? You don't want to run in to one, trust me. Too bad there are not more cornered mamma cats, so many are complacent defenseless young women like your writer, we'd have a lot fewer raped and murdered women.
It figures she thinks cops should be the only ones to have a gun, most helpless victims/holophobes (fear of guns) feel that way. Fact is LE's average response time to a crime is 16 minutes (varies depending on your location).
The bad guy could break down your door, assault you (or kill you), load up a large van with everything you own and be at the corner pub before the cops arrived. A recent study of repeating violent criminals revealed that they have a goal, this is a quote from the study: "My goal is to be in your house and have the barrel of my gun down your throat in 5 seconds." That is their goal, and let this sink in, they are repeat criminals because they are not being stopped, they know they can do it over and over again, because too many people allow themselves to be defenseless victims. Our homes, by-the-way, are where they want to get us, because we feel "safe," we let our guard down. I'm sleeping with my .45 tonight and my dogs, no criminal wants to be confronted by either of those two things, and I know it.
It's funny about that that little 5-second-rule the criminals use, it keeps coming up in pro-self defense world too, we have a 5-seond rule too. This has been proven in real confrontations involving defense with a firearm and is a national average: the confrontation will occur when you are within about 5 feet of your attacker, it will last about 5 seconds, and you will have expended about 5 bullets when it is over. It is also known that it takes about 7 seconds for an average person to travel the distance of 15 feet and be able to hit, stab, grab, bludgeon you with ANY weapon. I'd rather have my gun out and be defending myself, in 5 seconds, before the guy got to me, I'd rather be able to drop the guy in 5 seconds, leaving that extra little 3-5 feet left between us for him to stop dead in his tracks and fall to my feet. Which, by the way, is when I would use that sixth bullet. Double tap.
She wants cops to be the only ones with guns because she has had the same crap shoved down her throat since she was a little girl that all of us have: call 911, the cops will be there, little girl, you have nothing to worry about. Most women actually think all they need to defend themselves is a cell phone. But sadly, I hate to dash little girl's dreams, cops have no duty to protect us, throw that one at her, she won't believe it, but it is true.
The Courts have ruled that cops have no duty to protect, and in fact, cops carry guns to protect themselves, not you, if you don't believe that: when was the last time a cop jumped in front of you, or anybody for that matter, they don't, they take cover, they shoot to save themselves. Which is exactly what you should do too, by the way, what you should be able to do is defend yourself. Cops have no duty.
Still, most people believe, somebody else will save them, the cops are there to protect you, you don't need to be able to protect yourself. Here is the truth, it's the Warren versus District of Columbia case, the case that resulted in the No Duty Ruling:
3 young girls living together in a nice DC neighborhood were awakened one morning. The two girls sleeping up stairs heard their friend, who slept downstairs (with her 3-year-old daughter), screaming. Frightened and not able to defend themselves (it is DC, after all), they called 911. The operator assured them the cops would be there, and they were, in about 12 minutes. Problem is, the call was given a Code 2, not a Code 1: crime in progress. Code 2 is "investigate" to the best of your ability.
The best that the 4 police cruisers that responded to the Code 2 had to do was a drive-by "investigation" first, then a knock on the door. Surprise, no answer when they knocked, the screams stopped, the cops didn't see or here anything, "investigation" over. The two girls upstairs thought the cops were there, they crept downstairs to check on their friend, the guy was still there.
For 14 hours he brutally raped, sodomized and beat all three women and left only after he got tired and thought they were dead. When the girls took it to court, complaining: "I called 911, why wasn't I saved?" The court ruled that the cops have no duty to protect, point blank, they have no duty. And this is a precident, the court
HI MACH!! I understand what you are saying regarding ramifications etc.. However, I'd rather live with the regret of something I DID.. than to die regretting doing nothing at all ... OORAH! SEMPER FI!!
HI MACH!!
I understand what you are saying regarding ramifications etc.. However, I'd rather live with the regret of something I DID.. than to die regretting doing nothing at all ...
OORAH! SEMPER FI!!
i would like to remind everyone of the empire shooting. instead of one or two people being shot the police ended up shooting what 9 more people. do we really need to argue this anymore. instead of gun laws it should be gun education and the elimination of our systems which will make greed and hatred obsolete.
i would like to remind everyone of the empire shooting. instead of one or two people being shot the police ended up shooting what 9 more people. do we really need to argue this anymore. instead of gun laws it should be gun education and the elimination of our systems which will make greed and hatred obsolete.
I can see this has become a very lively debate. In fact, it has brought me out of the witness protection program into the light of day, just kidding. I just want to share a couple of things, my two cents so to speak. As an investigator for more than twenty years of service, I carried a handgun every single day. I would say that as far as labels I lean left on many issues. Since I retired I have no longer own a single weapon, despite the fact that New York State allows me to carry a concealed weapon by law as a former Law Enforcement Officer. Having said that I unequivocally support the right of citzens to own guns. I do not believe that the government has any business in trying to take away a fundemental right guaranteed under the Constitution. I agree that the events in both Colorado and Wisconsin are tragic however to say gun control is the way to address is not accurate. @arakalee I thought your post was very well done. I would only take issue with one very minor point. In speaking to my own training as a Law Enforcement Officer. I was authorized to use deadly physical force to protect my life and the lives of others. When you look at the events in Wisconsin the record reflects that the first Officer on the scence put HIMSELF in harms way to draw the fire of the gunman and was subsequently shot several times. That is how I was trained, in fact, it is standard for all Officers. Officers will do everything in their power to protect those we are SWORN to protect. The final point I would like to make is this. The taking of a life even when justified has consequences that will have impact for the shooter long after the fact. In being very candid it's one my reasons I do not carry today. There are some others but it is an individual choice for me. I do believe in the adage that it is better to have a gun and not need it, than to need and not have it. If I had a family to protect I would definitely own a firearm, or two, maybe more. Don't anyone fool themselves the world is a very, very dangerous place. In fact it is becoming more dangerous every day. In the coming months and years it will get much worse I see the signs.
I can see this has become a very lively debate. In fact, it has brought me out of the witness protection program into the light of day, just kidding. I just want to share a couple of things, my two cents so to speak. As an investigator for more than twenty years of service, I carried a handgun every single day. I would say that as far as labels I lean left on many issues. Since I retired I have no longer own a single weapon, despite the fact that New York State allows me to carry a concealed weapon by law as a former Law Enforcement Officer. Having said that I unequivocally support the right of citzens to own guns. I do not believe that the government has any business in trying to take away a fundemental right guaranteed under the Constitution. I agree that the events in both Colorado and Wisconsin are tragic however to say gun control is the way to address is not accurate. @arakalee I thought your post was very well done. I would only take issue with one very minor point. In speaking to my own training as a Law Enforcement Officer. I was authorized to use deadly physical force to protect my life and the lives of others. When you look at the events in Wisconsin the record reflects that the first Officer on the scence put HIMSELF in harms way to draw the fire of the gunman and was subsequently shot several times. That is how I was trained, in fact, it is standard for all Officers. Officers will do everything in their power to protect those we are SWORN to protect. The final point I would like to make is this. The taking of a life even when justified has consequences that will have impact for the shooter long after the fact. In being very candid it's one my reasons I do not carry today. There are some others but it is an individual choice for me. I do believe in the adage that it is better to have a gun and not need it, than to need and not have it. If I had a family to protect I would definitely own a firearm, or two, maybe more. Don't anyone fool themselves the world is a very, very dangerous place. In fact it is becoming more dangerous every day. In the coming months and years it will get much worse I see the signs.
OK for self defence and hunting but do you really need Automatic and semi automatic weapons, pump action shotgund etc? Just seems to me that guns have got out of control
It is like this.
If someone is shooting with you with a machine gun, do you want to shoot back with a single shot? Would it be smart to bring a knife or club or a cell phone or a prayer book to a gun fight? You need whatever you can afford that will give you and your family the best chance of survival.. It is all about survival, survival from evil people, and unfortunately many peace loving people don't seem to get that. Good peple all want peace, but evil people don't. They want what you have or they simply may just love hurting others.. Study the physchopaths, including the sucessful ones to better understand.
Quoting optimyst:
OK for self defence and hunting but do you really need Automatic and semi automatic weapons, pump action shotgund etc? Just seems to me that guns have got out of control
It is like this.
If someone is shooting with you with a machine gun, do you want to shoot back with a single shot? Would it be smart to bring a knife or club or a cell phone or a prayer book to a gun fight? You need whatever you can afford that will give you and your family the best chance of survival.. It is all about survival, survival from evil people, and unfortunately many peace loving people don't seem to get that. Good peple all want peace, but evil people don't. They want what you have or they simply may just love hurting others.. Study the physchopaths, including the sucessful ones to better understand.
OK for self defence and hunting but do you really need Automatic and semi automatic weapons, pump action shotgund etc? Just seems to me that guns have got out of control
OK for self defence and hunting but do you really need Automatic and semi automatic weapons, pump action shotgund etc? Just seems to me that guns have got out of control
I have control over the "rats" at my home. I'd buy a bunch of cats ( cats = bigger guns) and kill the rats or scare them out of Dodge. I have little to no control over the world's rat problem. And I'm not willing to invest my money with people that don't know how to kill rats and may not even want to.
Dak~ Hmmm....fair enough. But I was actually thinking of the metaphor: House and barn = Our Country.
*sigh* I guess I just thought this issue might have something to do with the sanctity of life.
Quoting Dakota35:
I have control over the "rats" at my home. I'd buy a bunch of cats ( cats = bigger guns) and kill the rats or scare them out of Dodge. I have little to no control over the world's rat problem. And I'm not willing to invest my money with people that don't know how to kill rats and may not even want to.
Dak~ Hmmm....fair enough. But I was actually thinking of the metaphor: House and barn = Our Country.
*sigh* I guess I just thought this issue might have something to do with the sanctity of life.
Well, next time I see a cougar [puma] I will contact you!! Except, of course, I can't email you since I'm not a paying member, so contact between us could take a lot longer to establish than would be practical.
Puma definitely do not belong in our territory--and yet they are here for sure. Establishing themselves very slowly indeed. I suspect many of the last few years' offspring have been hunted down by Black Bears and destroyed. Nothing else could explain the absence from our woods of puma cubs when we know the adults are here.
Quoting Voyager54:
~Pat~...out of 370 million Americans , there are only a small, very small percentage of psychos and peopole with mental issues that somehow get their hands on a weapon. It could be any weapon. It could even be their car. A can of soup...plenty of things can be weapons. There is no way guns will ever be gone from our culture. No way. I'll hide mine before I ever bow to that.
On another note...for those of you with Bear or Cougar problems..please, don't shoot the poor things!...get large animal mace. It's so rare to see creatures like that. It really is.
I live in the largest park in the USA...it is so big that you can put the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, Yosemite, Glacier National And White Sands into our Adirondack PArk and still have room left over...and I have still to ever see a Bear here. Or a Cougar...except the few Canadian ones that drive down from Montreal looking to pick up some country boys.
This area is so vast...I urge you to capture any Cougar or nuisance bear and ship it to the northern region of the Adirondack Mountains. Wolves too! We need them!
Quoting Voyager54:
~Pat~...out of 370 million Americans , there are only a small, very small percentage of psychos and peopole with mental issues that somehow get their hands on a weapon. It could be any weapon. It could even be their car. A can of soup...plenty of things can be weapons. There is no way guns will ever be gone from our culture. No way. I'll hide mine before I ever bow to that.
On another note...for those of you with Bear or Cougar problems..please, don't shoot the poor things!...get large animal mace. It's so rare to see creatures like that. It really is.
I live in the largest park in the USA...it is so big that you can put the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, Yosemite, Glacier National And White Sands into our Adirondack PArk and still have room left over...and I have still to ever see a Bear here. Or a Cougar...except the few Canadian ones that drive down from Montreal looking to pick up some country boys.
This area is so vast...I urge you to capture any Cougar or nuisance bear and ship it to the northern region of the Adirondack Mountains. Wolves too! We need them!
Well, next time I see a cougar [puma] I will contact you!! Except, of course, I can't email you since I'm not a paying member, so contact between us could take a lot longer to establish than would be practical.
Puma definitely do not belong in our territory--and yet they are here for sure. Establishing themselves very slowly indeed. I suspect many of the last few years' offspring have been hunted down by Black Bears and destroyed. Nothing else could explain the absence from our woods of puma cubs when we know the adults are here.
I have control over the "rats" at my home. I'd buy a bunch of cats ( cats = bigger guns) and kill the rats or scare them out of Dodge. I have little to no control over the world's rat problem. And I'm not willing to invest my money with people that don't know how to kill rats and may not even want to.
I have control over the "rats" at my home. I'd buy a bunch of cats ( cats = bigger guns) and kill the rats or scare them out of Dodge. I have little to no control over the world's rat problem. And I'm not willing to invest my money with people that don't know how to kill rats and may not even want to.
To Diana: Gotta disagree: You said: "...I have no concern for any legitimate civilian ownership of normal guns. No one does..." Actually, many left leaning people DO want to limit ownership of guns to no one but the military and the police. And that's why so many of us gun owners are half beside ourselves with fury. Second, to reiterate a point made here over and over again, banning any guns, be they semi's or auto's or anything else, is not going to reduce crime one tiny bit. First, if it hadn't been so easy for Holmes to purchase the weapons and other accoutrements he purchased, he would have found another way to cause mass murder/mayhem/destruction because clearly he was hell-bent on that objective. Nothing would have stopped him from doing so. Nothing at all. It's also been proven over and over and over again--although the Liberal media will deny it; will never report on it--that in those parts of our great USA where concealed carry is fully allowed, gun crime is lower than in those parts of our great USA where concealed carry is not allowed--where NO carry is the law. That's just a fact. A plain and simple fact.
When criminals--burglars, driveby-ers, other lunatics of whatever stripe, think that the other guy, the guy they're intent on harming with bullets, just might be packing, they always think twice because they don't want to die by lead! And when these bullies--because that's what they are, bullies--think they might get attacked with the same firepower they intend to inflict on others, they whimper away.
To Diana: Gotta disagree: You said: "...I have no concern for any legitimate civilian ownership of normal guns. No one does..." Actually, many left leaning people DO want to limit ownership of guns to no one but the military and the police. And that's why so many of us gun owners are half beside ourselves with fury. Second, to reiterate a point made here over and over again, banning any guns, be they semi's or auto's or anything else, is not going to reduce crime one tiny bit. First, if it hadn't been so easy for Holmes to purchase the weapons and other accoutrements he purchased, he would have found another way to cause mass murder/mayhem/destruction because clearly he was hell-bent on that objective. Nothing would have stopped him from doing so. Nothing at all. It's also been proven over and over and over again--although the Liberal media will deny it; will never report on it--that in those parts of our great USA where concealed carry is fully allowed, gun crime is lower than in those parts of our great USA where concealed carry is not allowed--where NO carry is the law. That's just a fact. A plain and simple fact.
When criminals--burglars, driveby-ers, other lunatics of whatever stripe, think that the other guy, the guy they're intent on harming with bullets, just might be packing, they always think twice because they don't want to die by lead! And when these bullies--because that's what they are, bullies--think they might get attacked with the same firepower they intend to inflict on others, they whimper away.
Dak~ Thank you for your comment. :)) But let me just ask you.....if your house and barn had rats....would you just throw up your arms and say, "Oh well, no use in trying to get rid of them, they are just going to keep breeding and more rats will come." No, if you care about your home and family...you would work to get rid of them...and then monitor the effectiveness of your actions...and then take more action if you saw that you still had rats. Additionally, you wouldn't get rid of all your barnyard animals, in an attempt to get rid of the rats. You would utilize a focused attack on the rats.
Analogy: An AR15 = Rats!!! It is a totally different class of gun from a semi-automatic hunting rifle. In truth, it is a very lethal weapon....not just a gun.
Dak~
Thank you for your comment. :)) But let me just ask you.....if your house and barn had rats....would you just throw up your arms and say, "Oh well, no use in trying to get rid of them, they are just going to keep breeding and more rats will come." No, if you care about your home and family...you would work to get rid of them...and then monitor the effectiveness of your actions...and then take more action if you saw that you still had rats. Additionally, you wouldn't get rid of all
your barnyard animals, in an attempt to get rid of the rats. You would utilize a focused attack on the rats.
Analogy: An AR15 = Rats!!! It is a totally different class of gun from a semi-automatic hunting rifle. In truth, it is a very lethal weapon
....not just a gun.
I KNEW you had to mean only "certain" weapons cuz hey.. AREN'T YOU A TEXAS GAL? LOLOL
DI.... I feel, as with MOST issues... People become so infused with their thoughts.. that passion takes over and gets in the way of something so simple...
So let me see if I get this right about you...
******
I, Your Lady DI, President and CEO of "I am for the people, the innocent and sometimes even people who don't deserve my loving kindness... and that's why I became a nurse.. cuz I love caring about people!" .... am here to state...
I BELIEVE in our RIGHT to bear arms... I BELIEVE in FREEDOM for mankind and I follow and admire the letter of the laws set by our forefathers... BUT.. I feel allowing weapons of such mass destruction to the general public should be abolished as I feel this will create more difficulty in bad guys doing bad... and too many innocent individuals are suffering due to the action of lunatics parading around like Rambo on a hell mission!
BUT.. KNOW THIS... If you dare come step up in my home thinking you will cause pain or destruction without consequence...... think again!! Cuz this little Texas lassie is packin.. and I'm a pretty darn good shot!! So dont think you're gonna come up on me cuz I'm cocked and loaded.. Just not with a machine gun... Cuz Texas gals only need ONE SHOT!
***** LOLOLOL... Well, That's MY take on you... ;)
So.. What I would ask you in short is...
1) Is it not better idea to FIRST staunchly ENFORCE laws that are already on the books? I mean.. if you give children "more rules" but you don't even enforce the ones you have... does it really serve any purpose than to piss the other kids off?
2) If your idea became the wave of future... Do you not think the "bad gun seekers" will find what they want .. regardless.. just as they are already determined to break the law? I mean hell, in reality.. THIS ISN'T EVEN ABOUT BREAKING LAWS.. It's about crazy people hurting others.. :( Drug people find their drugs... PERIOD.. So for me that means.. if this law passes.. (stay with me here) But IF this law passes.. Won't that in affect TAKE THE GUNS OUT OF THE GOOD GUYS HANDS.. and the bad guys will still have what they want.. CUZ BAD GUYS ALWAYS FIND WHAT THEY WANT..
3) LAWS... Laws have NEVER detoured BAD PEOPLE. In reality... Laws are made for good people. And our laws are already so screwed up we have rapist and child molesters roaming the street to inflict more harm.. while someone who sells marijuana still sits behind bars.. So I do question how the government and "our laws" .. work.. Do you not have concern over how the government handles our laws?
4) Now I realize your views are far more liberal than mine.. BUT.. DI, Do you see any probems with how the laws are enforced, or not enforced.. and see THIS may very well be a cause to MOST of these horrific issues... and should they ever enforce them properly, things would be much different?
5) Can you see how many ppl are left with feeling their "rights" / "freedoms" are being attacked and they are concerned the government will try and take it further as time moves on? (Give them an inch.. they take a mile concept!) They don;t care of heavy round weapons are necessary.. there are collectors out there who just "collect" cuz they love guns! I'd be pretty peeved if the government tried to take away my Madem Alexander dolls! LOLOL...
I am PRO-CHOICE for ONE REASON ALONE... Because I believe the government has NO RIGHT to interfere with anyone on what to do with their bodies in this manner... NOT because I think abortion is "good".. or "right"....... And I also believe as far as many "Christians" think posting all their ANTI stuff.. that RELIGION nd the LAW are SEPARATE. When the government allows religious beliefs to stand in the way of the law.. we, in another realm.. lose further freedom..
Now go grab yer gun Annie! It's time for a good ole TEXAS SHOOT OUT! STACK UP THE BEER CANS PEOPLE!
I'm grabbing the BEE-BEE'S!! Heehee~
HI Lady DI...
I KNEW you had to mean only "certain" weapons cuz hey.. AREN'T YOU A TEXAS GAL? LOLOL
DI.... I feel, as with MOST issues... People become so infused with their thoughts.. that passion takes over and gets in the way of something so simple...
So let me see if I get this right about you...
******
I, Your Lady DI, President and CEO of "I am for the people, the innocent and sometimes even people who don't deserve my loving kindness... and that's why I became a nurse.. cuz I love caring about people!" .... am here to state...
I BELIEVE in our RIGHT to bear arms... I BELIEVE in FREEDOM for mankind and I follow and admire the letter of the laws set by our forefathers... BUT.. I feel allowing weapons of such mass destruction to the general public should be abolished as I feel this will create more difficulty in bad guys doing bad... and too many innocent individuals are suffering due to the action of lunatics parading around like Rambo on a hell mission!
BUT.. KNOW THIS... If you dare come step up in my home thinking you will cause pain or destruction without consequence...... think again!! Cuz this little Texas lassie is packin.. and I'm a pretty darn good shot!! So dont think you're gonna come up on me cuz I'm cocked and loaded.. Just not with a machine gun... Cuz Texas gals only need ONE SHOT!
***** LOLOLOL... Well, That's MY take on you... ;)
So.. What I would ask you in short is...
1) Is it not better idea to FIRST staunchly ENFORCE laws that are already on the books? I mean.. if you give children "more rules" but you don't even enforce the ones you have... does it really serve any purpose than to piss the other kids off?
2) If your idea became the wave of future... Do you not think the "bad gun seekers" will find what they want .. regardless.. just as they are already determined to break the law? I mean hell, in reality.. THIS ISN'T EVEN ABOUT BREAKING LAWS.. It's about crazy people hurting others.. :( Drug people find their drugs... PERIOD.. So for me that means.. if this law passes.. (stay with me here) But IF this law passes.. Won't that in affect TAKE THE GUNS OUT OF THE GOOD GUYS HANDS.. and the bad guys will still have what they want.. CUZ BAD GUYS ALWAYS FIND WHAT THEY WANT..
3) LAWS... Laws have NEVER detoured BAD PEOPLE. In reality... Laws are made for good people. And our laws are already so screwed up we have rapist and child molesters roaming the street to inflict more harm.. while someone who sells marijuana still sits behind bars.. So I do question how the government and "our laws" .. work.. Do you not have concern over how the government handles our laws?
4) Now I realize your views are far more liberal than mine.. BUT.. DI, Do you see any probems with how the laws are enforced, or not enforced.. and see THIS may very well be a cause to MOST of these horrific issues... and should they ever enforce them properly, things would be much different?
5) Can you see how many ppl are left with feeling their "rights" / "freedoms" are being attacked and they are concerned the government will try and take it further as time moves on? (Give them an inch.. they take a mile concept!) They don;t care of heavy round weapons are necessary.. there are collectors out there who just "collect" cuz they love guns! I'd be pretty peeved if the government tried to take away my Madem Alexander dolls! LOLOL...
I am PRO-CHOICE for ONE REASON ALONE... Because I believe the government has NO RIGHT to interfere with anyone on what to do with their bodies in this manner... NOT because I think abortion is "good".. or "right"....... And I also believe as far as many "Christians" think posting all their ANTI stuff.. that RELIGION nd the LAW are SEPARATE. When the government allows religious beliefs to stand in the way of the law.. we, in another realm.. lose further freedom..
Now go grab yer gun Annie! It's time for a good ole TEXAS SHOOT OUT! STACK UP THE BEER CANS PEOPLE!
Yes, I am defintely inclined to believe a large amount of guns are purchased through unscrupulous sellers seeking the almighty dollar!! Perhaps the government needs to start checking inventory better.. I mean.. If someone buys 100 guns for their gun shop.. and only have 5 left in the shop.. but has only recorded 20 sells... Well, I'm no math magician.. But in my little blonde brain... those numbers don't add up!
It's funny to me.. but it appears "BIG BROTHER" keeps trying to step in places they don't belong.. and fails to go where they need be..
My old BF said he had customers complain due to fact EVEN AT WAL-MART.. they had to "wait" for background check.. It would seem to me a "waiting period" should be in affect due to this, as when you go to Humane Societies.. they make you "sleep on it" to purchase / adopt an animal..
PAT.. Let me ask you.. How do YOU feel about the ammunition being sold? (I am thinking in reading thoughts here AMMUNITION is NOT treated same? Is this correct?) And how do you feel about DI's thoughts on "some guns aren't necessary for the general public?" Do you feel there is merit in regular citizens NOT being allowed to purchase "weapons of mass destruction?" Is there ANY need for any individual to purchase such fire power? I can see where some people would feel... "Well, we don't need cars that drive 180 MPH either.. but we make them..." (I kind of feel like htis BTW..... Do we put "goveners" on vehicles now? Black Beauty would be steamed! LOL....
Where SHOULD goverenment interference BEGIN and END?
And I am asking EVERYONE these questions to broaden the thoughts here.. MOVE BEYOND GUNS OR NO GUNS.. Cuz that isn't the real issue IF it be true they only wish to take away "certain" guns... Do we need a cap? Would a cap assist in limiting deaths? Or would the whacko come in with a bomb instead.. find a bigger and badder weapon.. and destroy the entire theater room? I am CERTAIN beyond any doubt the "bad guy" will still find what he/she seeks for mass destruction?
I'm very much aligned with V's view of ..better to have one and not need it.. then to need it.. and not have one..
I am typically more aligned on the right.... BUT.. I do feel Lady DI has earned some respect around here to be heard (not that anyone here would be disrespectful to her) But DOES LIMITING ACCESS TO CERTAIN "TYPES" OF GUNS WARRANT CONSIDERATION? What about gun collectors? Would following the bullet be more productive than following the gun?
As I drove 285 today and glanced down, I realized I was going 85.. HEY! BLACK BEAUTY IS GETTING GEARED TO HOTLANTA! LOL.. Well, it made my little blonde brain spin.. and I thought.. "Is it her HEMI engine that is at fault here.. or I am the one with my foot on the pedal?" And no.. I wasn't being unsafe.. (You'd have to know Atlanta traffic to know ppl were STILL passing me!! LOL)
But .. It just seems to me.. BEFORE we implement NEW LAWS... We might want to REGULATE the laws we already have.. Cuz you just can't take proper "inventory" of what is necessary for change... if you aren't follwing the "change" that was already designed for improvement long ago..
JMHO...
HI PAT.... (and anyone reading) ...
Yes, I am defintely inclined to believe a large amount of guns are purchased through unscrupulous sellers seeking the almighty dollar!! Perhaps the government needs to start checking inventory better.. I mean.. If someone buys 100 guns for their gun shop.. and only have 5 left in the shop.. but has only recorded 20 sells... Well, I'm no math magician.. But in my little blonde brain... those numbers don't add up!
It's funny to me.. but it appears "BIG BROTHER" keeps trying to step in places they don't belong.. and fails to go where they need be..
My old BF said he had customers complain due to fact EVEN AT WAL-MART.. they had to "wait" for background check.. It would seem to me a "waiting period" should be in affect due to this, as when you go to Humane Societies.. they make you "sleep on it" to purchase / adopt an animal..
PAT.. Let me ask you.. How do YOU feel about the ammunition being sold? (I am thinking in reading thoughts here AMMUNITION is NOT treated same? Is this correct?) And how do you feel about DI's thoughts on "some guns aren't necessary for the general public?" Do you feel there is merit in regular citizens NOT being allowed to purchase "weapons of mass destruction?" Is there ANY need for any individual to purchase such fire power? I can see where some people would feel... "Well, we don't need cars that drive 180 MPH either.. but we make them..." (I kind of feel like htis BTW..... Do we put "goveners" on vehicles now? Black Beauty would be steamed! LOL....
Where SHOULD goverenment interference BEGIN and END?
And I am asking EVERYONE these questions to broaden the thoughts here.. MOVE BEYOND GUNS OR NO GUNS.. Cuz that isn't the real issue IF it be true they only wish to take away "certain" guns... Do we need a cap? Would a cap assist in limiting deaths? Or would the whacko come in with a bomb instead.. find a bigger and badder weapon.. and destroy the entire theater room? I am CERTAIN beyond any doubt the "bad guy" will still find what he/she seeks for mass destruction?
I'm very much aligned with V's view of ..better to have one and not need it.. then to need it.. and not have one..
I am typically more aligned on the right.... BUT.. I do feel Lady DI has earned some respect around here to be heard (not that anyone here would be disrespectful to her) But DOES LIMITING ACCESS TO CERTAIN "TYPES" OF GUNS WARRANT CONSIDERATION? What about gun collectors? Would following the bullet be more productive than following the gun?
As I drove 285 today and glanced down, I realized I was going 85.. HEY! BLACK BEAUTY IS GETTING GEARED TO HOTLANTA! LOL.. Well, it made my little blonde brain spin.. and I thought.. "Is it her HEMI engine that is at fault here.. or I am the one with my foot on the pedal?" And no.. I wasn't being unsafe.. (You'd have to know Atlanta traffic to know ppl were STILL passing me!! LOL)
But .. It just seems to me.. BEFORE we implement NEW LAWS... We might want to REGULATE the laws we already have.. Cuz you just can't take proper "inventory" of what is necessary for change... if you aren't follwing the "change" that was already designed for improvement long ago..
You've fired at targets with a .45 and do not like them? What does this mean, Mac. I'm not being facitious, or sarcastic; I honestly don't know what you mean. You don't like the .45 cal., or you don't like the targets? It's not at all clear. If you have cougars where you live, I'd hope you would have at the very least a 22.LR shooter handy. Nothing, no caliber out there now, is too small too kill a cougar. You just have to put the bullet right between it's eyes. No scope on your handgun, no laser beam for better aim--let it get within 20 feet and go for that brain. You'll do it. You'll hit it. Down that cat will go like lead. We have cougars in our area as well. Not many, no yet. But we know they are here. I myself saw a juvenile about 5 years ago. Haven't seen another one since then, but with one juvenile, you gotta figure there's a second one. And a mating pair who created that juvenile. YIKES! Many credible people around here have seen adult cougars. Rarely, but still, they've seen them. Hence, I never walk my dog along the lonely, foliage-ly gorgeous country road I favor without my .38 SP at my side. Not a ton of killing power, but I'm a pretty good shot, so one or two bullets well-placed would drop a cougar--or a black bear--in nothing flat. Gotta stay safe out here in the boonies. And that means carrying a gun! Thank God I live in a country where I can still do that. Otherwise, I--and my dog--would be confined to about a 10' by 10' safe square of property where no wild critters can possiby get in. And even that isn't guaranteed for sure.
Quoting rmac22:
Most of us are not going to make a weapon, even if we can. The ease with which an ordinary citizen can purchase a weapon necessary only for killing lots of people is distressing. Restricting the clip or magazine size to something sensible for self-defense would seem reasonable to me.Five is probably enough.Ten is a reasonable compromise.I think that fits California and Massachusetts law although the strict number seems to vary with the caliber; probably with the weapon as well.Yes I know good machinists can extend or make their own.Most of us do not know we could do so, and most of us would not do so even if we could.
As I have said I am considering buying a nine millimeter, probably a Ruger.I probably also will go ahead and get a concealed carry permit.This so I will not distress people when they see an armed person walking around.I am tired of being harassed and/or attacked by unleashed dogs when I take a walk.I don’t plan on shooting on sight or any such nonsense – only when it becomes necessary to prevent harm to me.
Also, a friend has told me that there are more and more sightings of cougars in our area.It is unlikely that they would attack a person.They do not need to, too many deer.The road kill alone probably would sustain them.Likely a nine mil would be a bit small for a cougar, but it beats a walking sick and a pocket knife.I have fired at targets with a forty five and I do not like them.
rmac
Quoting rmac22:
Most of us are not going to make a weapon, even if we can. The ease with which an ordinary citizen can purchase a weapon necessary only for killing lots of people is distressing. Restricting the clip or magazine size to something sensible for self-defense would seem reasonable to me.Five is probably enough.Ten is a reasonable compromise.I think that fits California and Massachusetts law although the strict number seems to vary with the caliber; probably with the weapon as well.Yes I know good machinists can extend or make their own.Most of us do not know we could do so, and most of us would not do so even if we could.
As I have said I am considering buying a nine millimeter, probably a Ruger.I probably also will go ahead and get a concealed carry permit.This so I will not distress people when they see an armed person walking around.I am tired of being harassed and/or attacked by unleashed dogs when I take a walk.I don’t plan on shooting on sight or any such nonsense – only when it becomes necessary to prevent harm to me.
Also, a friend has told me that there are more and more sightings of cougars in our area.It is unlikely that they would attack a person.They do not need to, too many deer.The road kill alone probably would sustain them.Likely a nine mil would be a bit small for a cougar, but it beats a walking sick and a pocket knife.I have fired at targets with a forty five and I do not like them.
rmac
You've fired at targets with a .45 and do not like them? What does this mean, Mac. I'm not being facitious, or sarcastic; I honestly don't know what you mean. You don't like the .45 cal., or you don't like the targets? It's not at all clear. If you have cougars where you live, I'd hope you would have at the very least a 22.LR shooter handy. Nothing, no caliber out there now, is too small too kill a cougar. You just have to put the bullet right between it's eyes. No scope on your handgun, no laser beam for better aim--let it get within 20 feet and go for that brain. You'll do it. You'll hit it. Down that cat will go like lead. We have cougars in our area as well. Not many, no yet. But we know they are here. I myself saw a juvenile about 5 years ago. Haven't seen another one since then, but with one juvenile, you gotta figure there's a second one. And a mating pair who created that juvenile. YIKES! Many credible people around here have seen adult cougars. Rarely, but still, they've seen them. Hence, I never walk my dog along the lonely, foliage-ly gorgeous country road I favor without my .38 SP at my side. Not a ton of killing power, but I'm a pretty good shot, so one or two bullets well-placed would drop a cougar--or a black bear--in nothing flat. Gotta stay safe out here in the boonies. And that means carrying a gun! Thank God I live in a country where I can still do that. Otherwise, I--and my dog--would be confined to about a 10' by 10' safe square of property where no wild critters can possiby get in. And even that isn't guaranteed for sure.
Great Post, Voyager. I love your line about "it's better to have a gun and not need it than it is to need a gun and not have it. Very smart indeed. Goes along well with that old line that "It's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6." In other words, better to use a firearm to defend your own life, legally or illegally, and be judged by a jury of 12 than it is to not have a firearm to defend your own life and thus have the need for 6 pallbearers at your funeral.
Pat
Quoting Voyager54:
~ALL~...The long and short of gun control is this...It's better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it.
...I can attest first hand to that fact. Up close, and personal...and a lot of people died that night. And almost Including me! I had no gun on me, but I could have saved some people that night. Reno, November, 1972...Mayfair market, and the Greyhound Bus station. 6 people.
Quoting Voyager54:
~ALL~...The long and short of gun control is this...It's better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it.
...I can attest first hand to that fact. Up close, and personal...and a lot of people died that night. And almost Including me! I had no gun on me, but I could have saved some people that night. Reno, November, 1972...Mayfair market, and the Greyhound Bus station. 6 people.
Great Post, Voyager. I love your line about "it's better to have a gun and not need it than it is to need a gun and not have it. Very smart indeed. Goes along well with that old line that "It's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6." In other words, better to use a firearm to defend your own life, legally or illegally, and be judged by a jury of 12 than it is to not have a firearm to defend your own life and thus have the need for 6 pallbearers at your funeral.
Quoting Dakota: Curious, you once got on my case about spacing out my paragraphs, which you were totally correct! What I wrote was in humor and I rarely take offense to anything.
Thanks for clearing that up, Dakota. I was feeling quite badly. Now I'm fine.
Quoting Dakota: Curious, you once got on my case about spacing out my paragraphs, which you were totally correct! What I wrote was in humor and I rarely take offense to anything.
Thanks for clearing that up, Dakota. I was feeling quite badly. Now I'm fine.
There is a big difference between doing a background check and law enforcement monitoring/tracking weapon sales in an effort to identify potential inappropriate acquisition of guns and/or suspicious behavior.While gun dealers and shops are required to do a background check, private sellers are not.A private citizen without a record can go into a shop, buy a weapon and then turn around and sell it to anyone they want.This happens on the internet all the time and probably in many parking lots too.
While it is nice to say, “Let’s enforce the laws that we have”.... there are just too many loopholes.Additionally, our politicians are seeking to weaken the laws we already have.Currently there are two competing Senate bills (pending) that would gut state authority to set basic eligibility requirements for people who want to carry concealed, loaded guns in public.
Under current law, some states refuse to grant concealed carry permits to people convicted of violent crimes, to people younger than 21, or to applicants who haven't completed basic gun safety training. Other states have lax requirements or none at all. These bills would override those local decisions and force states to allow non-residents to carry concealed, loaded guns in public even if they would not qualify for a permit under local law.
We hear a lot about states' rights from Congress, until some special interest (The NRA lobby) pushes a different tune.
There is a big difference between doing a background check and law enforcement monitoring/tracking weapon sales in an effort to identify potential inappropriate acquisition of guns and/or suspicious behavior.While gun dealers and shops are required to do a background check, private sellers are not.A private citizen without a record can go into a shop, buy a weapon and then turn around and sell it to anyone they want.This happens on the internet all the time and probably in many parking lots too.
While it is nice to say, “Let’s enforce the laws that we have”.... there are just too many loopholes.Additionally, our politicians are seeking to weaken the laws we already have.Currently there are two competing Senate bills (pending) that would gut state authority to set basic eligibility requirements for people who want to carry concealed, loaded guns in public.
Under current law, some states refuse to grant concealed carry permits to people convicted of violent crimes, to people younger than 21, or to applicants who haven't completed basic gun safety training. Other states have lax requirements or none at all. These bills would override those local decisions and force states to allow non-residents to carry concealed, loaded guns in public even if they would not qualify for a permit under local law.
We hear a lot about states' rights from Congress, until some special interest (The NRA lobby) pushes a different tune.
Build your Millionaire dating site / affiliate
