Originally posted by stellspalfieI'm saying my or anyone else's desire to own is enough for protection, sport,
you didnt answer any of the questions.
are you saying you need guns because the bad guys have guns? thats what it reads like.
or whatever. You don't get to suggest to me or anyone else that if we are
law bidding we should lose our right carry or own a gun because you don't
like it. If we are obeying the law it is not the law bidding you have to worry
about it is those that will break it if there are laws against owning a gun or
no laws against owning a gun.
Kelly
Originally posted by galveston75Chicago has very strick gun laws...does not seem to stop the crime only the
Unbeleveable.
Just saw this about Chicago:
"The war zone-like statistics are not new. As WBEZ reports, while some 2,000 U.S. troops have been killed in Afghanistan since 2001, more than 5,000 people have been killed by gun fire in Chicago during that time, based on Department of Defense and FBI data."
Not to make light of the soldiers being ki ...[text shortened]... really bad with the gun problems.
Maybe we should send RJH there and let him clean it up?
lawbidding from being able to defend themselves.
Kelly
Originally posted by galveston75The Dem run that place, so it isn't surprising the amount of lawlessness and
Unbeleveable.
Just saw this about Chicago:
"The war zone-like statistics are not new. As WBEZ reports, while some 2,000 U.S. troops have been killed in Afghanistan since 2001, more than 5,000 people have been killed by gun fire in Chicago during that time, based on Department of Defense and FBI data."
Not to make light of the soldiers being ki ...[text shortened]... really bad with the gun problems.
Maybe we should send RJH there and let him clean it up?
crime is there.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJaywhy do you need a gun for protection? is it very dangerous where you live?
I'm saying my or anyone else's desire to own is enough for protection, sport,
or whatever. You don't get to suggest to me or anyone else that if we are
law bidding we should lose our right carry or own a gun because you don't
like it. If we are obeying the law it is not the law bidding you have to worry
about it is those that will break it if there are laws against owning a gun or
no laws against owning a gun.
Kelly
jesus lived in a very dangerous place and time, did he carry a weapon?
Originally posted by apathistThey're kicking down my door when I have a nuke (and a big yellow sign outside saying "Criminals - Beware Of The Portable Nuclear Bomb" )!? are they f***in' crazy!???
Okay, and now say some strangers are kicking down your door.
No I'm being serious, I think people should be equipped with portable nukes...I certainly wouldn't mess with someone holding onto that sort of stuff. Also look at how much good nukes have done - how many times has america been attacked since their demonstration of its power in WW2? None!
Nukes are a serious deterrent to attack and we should all have them. Responsible people would not use them for harm, and it would deter intruders or attackers (possibly lots of them) so what's your issue?
Originally posted by shilohBut surely the moral of that story is that an old firearm was enough to do the job? A semi-automatic rifle was not needed.
I will do you one better. I will give you an example. Many years ago, my Father and Mother (then pregnant) were driving their old truck down some lonly Texas road when a group of Banditos (motorcycle gang) pulled up and around them and tried to start forcing them off the road. Fortunately my Dad pulled an old firearm from somewhere and held it up for them to ...[text shortened]... nce of shooting his way out with multiple assailants than his rusty old bolt action or whatever.
Originally posted by KellyJayI'm yet to understand why you think a semi-automatic military grade rifle is needed for a civilian. Why can't a shotgun or hunting rifle do?
What did you ask me for, I gave you an answer?
Robbery, someone getting forced into anything, it is a point of protection from
people who would do you harm in any maner that is life threatening.
Kelly
Originally posted by Proper KnobI think it's the "my gun is bigger then your guy" issue. The more weapons are developed to kill more in a shorter period of time, it naturally makes them a supposed necessity to have to be able to respond to the attack.
I'm yet to understand why you think a semi-automatic military grade rifle is needed for a civilian. Why can't a shotgun or hunting rifle do?
So where will it end? What will the public eventually have to aim at another human?
Originally posted by galveston75We should all have flame throwers - no need for aiming with those badboys... just pull the "trigger" and watch the bad guys flee in terror. As such we don't even need to train people how to use them - just let everyone have there own SuperScorcher [insert version number], then sit back and relax in a peaceful, joyous, and harmonious world where nobody needs to fear attacks from others.
I think it's the "my gun is bigger then your guy" issue. The more weapons are developed to kill more in a shorter period of time, it naturally makes them a supposed necessity to have to be able to respond to the attack.
So where will it end? What will the public eventually have to aim at another human?
And remember: flamethrowers don't kill people, people kill people - with flamethrowers!
Originally posted by Proper KnobI do not care what you think you need or want, if someone else feels they
I'm yet to understand why you think a semi-automatic military grade rifle is needed for a civilian. Why can't a shotgun or hunting rifle do?
need or want it than they should be able to get it.
Kelly
Originally posted by Proper KnobYea, I'd also like you to put down I'm sorry I'm sounding very harsh with you.
I'll put that down as a - 'don't know'.
Nothing in the world drives me nuts more than kids getting hurt, and I'm feeling
a little raw now. Not a good time for me to debate anyone.
Sorry for my bad humor.
Kelly