Why citizens must own and carry firearms

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Bro. Curtis, Jul 12, 2006.

  1. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,264
    Likes Received:
    4
    At 2 a.m. on Sunday, 27-year-old Alan Senitt was murdered. Senitt, an aspiring British politician, Jewish activist and Democratic volunteer, was walking home a female companion in the Georgetown area of Washington, D.C. when he was accosted by Christopher Piper, 25, Jeffrey Rice, 22, and a 15-year-old. Piper, who had a gun, immediately grabbed Senitt's female companion and pulled her away to rape her. Rice, who had stated earlier in the night that he was desperate to "cut" someone, slit Senitt's throat. The three thugs then hopped into a getaway car driven by Olivia Miles, 26, and sped off into the night.
    Only hours later, the police arrested the four suspects. Apparently, two of the suspects matched the descriptions of perpetrators of two recent robberies, and the police had already obtained an address for those two suspects. So why did Alan Senitt have to die in order for these animals to be arrested? "I can give you my 100 percent word everything was done within the confines of the law," Lt. Robert Glover of the police department's violent crimes branch told the Washington Post. "We cannot make an arrest without probable cause."....

    ....
    Our Constitution mandates that citizens may not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. One of the requirements of due process of law is that arrests not be arbitrary. It is likely true that the D.C. police did everything within the confines of the law to pursue the suspects. What the murder of Alan Senitt demonstrates is that the confines of law cost lives when citizens are unable to protect themselves....

    .....
    Citizens are left with two choices. They can either rely on the kindness of criminals, or they can protect themselves. The choice is obvious. Yet liberal cities continue to rely on the kindness of criminals.
    Washington, D.C. is famous for its insanely restrictive anti-gun laws. It has been illegal since 1976 to have an assembled and loaded firearm, even in your home, in D.C. Carrying a handgun for self-protection is against the law. For some reason, Democrats seem to be unable to explain the dramatic 72 percent rise in the D.C. homicide rate between 1976 and 2001, even as the national homicide rate plummeted 36 percent over the same period. Certainly Christopher Piper had no problem carrying a gun and using it to rape Senitt's female companion. Criminals, it seems, engage in crime. And law-abiding citizens pay the price....


    http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BenShapiro/2006/07/12/why_citizens_must_own_and_carry_firearms
     
  2. TaterTot

    TaterTot
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Yes, carrying a firearm could have prevented the whole thing. Its sad that its even the case. I know some people would never dream of owning or carrying a firearm because of potential dangers or maybe because they just have never been around them. Around here, everyone has one, everyone knows it, and crime rate is low.
     
  3. fromtheright

    fromtheright
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/2844.JPG>

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,772
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks, BC, for posting this!
     
  4. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,264
    Likes Received:
    4
    Hi, Tater Tot. I sure like reading the VERY rare post from you, in these here parts.:type:

    The murder rate in Montana is also very low. You may say that it's because of the low population, here, but home invasions, and car-jackings are almost non-existant. I think it's because of the possibility of armed victims.
     
  5. PastorSBC1303

    PastorSBC1303
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    Messages:
    15,125
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have always been curious about this topic. In the above situation can you share with me how having a firearm would have stopped the event? Or is it more the thought that a person "might" be carrying that would stop it?
     
  6. TaterTot

    TaterTot
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    lol, Bro. Curtis, I didnt even notice I was in the forbidden POLITICS forum!!! I do usually avoid this place. But I think you are correct about the reason for the low crime rates. All people who have guns are not irresponsible nor crazy criminals!! (MMWWWWOOOOOOAAAAAAAA!!!!!) :saint:
     
  7. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,264
    Likes Received:
    4
    I don't quite know what it is, but I always considered you one of the most mature Christians on the board. You do have an ability to wade in here and come out with no stink on you. You set a great example.

    Pastor, I don't know what you mean. Yes, I believe if a criminal thinks his victim could be armed, he/she may think twice about following thru. However, if they aren't the thinking type, a snub-nosed .38 has quite a bit of stopping power.
     
  8. PastorSBC1303

    PastorSBC1303
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    Messages:
    15,125
    Likes Received:
    0
    Curtis, I am sorry I was not clear. I am just curious how if a person here was carrying a gun this situation would have been different. If someone grabs someone at gunpoint how are you going to have time to grab your gun and make any difference? Will it not end up in both people shooting, etc?

    I can see how an attacker would be less likely to strike if they thing you might be armed.

    I am not discounting what you and others are saying, I just have never fully understood the concept. I hope this was clearer, if not let me know.
     
  9. TaterTot

    TaterTot
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Well, Bro Curtis, thats such a compliment. I always have enjoyed reading your posts too.
    As for SBC's question, imagine walking your girlfriend home at night in Washington D.C., and this group of thugs comes up to you and takes her. You got a pistol concealed in your waisteband. I am sure you have played rock papaer scissors enough to realize that pistol beats knife, lol. Once they realize you got that and aint askeered to use it, they're gone. Thugs are usually wimps anyway.
    I have never had to use mine, thankfully, but I do feel safer knowing that when I am in my car or home alone at night, I can at least have a fighting change at protecting myself and family if my husband is away. And there have been times that I have had my hand actually on it when I felt threatened in the past.
     
  10. TaterTot

    TaterTot
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    The article implied that a knife was the weapon used by the attackers. When a gun is used, then there could be a problem, but why go unhanded in the first place? You have zero chance that way.
     
  11. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,264
    Likes Received:
    4
    So we can add "Responsible Gun Owner" to your many accolades.:thumbs:

    Larry Elder wrote a book, "Ten Things you Can't say in America", where he breaks down the documented times guns have stopped violent crime. The stats are pretty revealing.

    And the gun laws in D.C. guarantee I won't be bringing my family on vacation there, any time soon.
     
  12. PastorSBC1303

    PastorSBC1303
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    Messages:
    15,125
    Likes Received:
    0
    If it is a knife I can see where it would be effective. But as I read the article it mentions one of the guys had a gun as well. I just fail to see how me having a gun and him having a gun is going to be effective in any way other than both of us shooting, etc. Maybe I just don't get it.
     
  13. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    I Salute the NRA.
     
  14. genesis12

    genesis12
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2005
    Messages:
    799
    Likes Received:
    1
    The other night, for the first time in my life, I felt genuine fear. I went to an all-night grocery, a Wal-Mart "Neighborhood Market", for OTC meds. It was the first day of the month. The parking lot and inside the grocery was crowded with persons who get paid by the state, live in Section 8 housing, etc. I noted that I was the only older, white person present, including cashiers, and that I was being observed by several. One approached. I reached for my sidearm, only to find my empty holster, sidearm left at home. However, reaching for it was all I needed to do to avoid an incident, where I would have certainly been the loser.
     
  15. TaterTot

    TaterTot
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    true, gun to gun conflict would be difficult, but why give up just because the other guy has one. Maybe you'd be the better shot. Maybe he wouldnt be sober. Maybe he'd be faking you out with a fake or unloaded weapon. I just prefer to at least have a chance.
    Take someone coming into your home at night armed. You hear him, so you automatically grab your pistol or gun. you will most likely see him before he sees you. If you are just an easy victim without any way to defend yourself, what ya gonna do? Call 911?
     
  16. PastorSBC1303

    PastorSBC1303
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    Messages:
    15,125
    Likes Received:
    0
    ok I will quit pulling yall's chain for now. :)

    I see how in situations it could be effective to carry a firearm.

    I just fail to see in the story of the OP how carrying a firearm would have stopped the situation all together.
     
  17. TaterTot

    TaterTot
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    (...and he sleeks out, because he knows he cant win...;) ) :tongue3:
     
  18. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    David,

    2 points:

    1. Most thugs are cowards and prey on the weakest in society and take the path of least resistence. If a thug knows you have a gun, he is more likely to go after someone who doesn't. Why? The risks are higher for him. No, owning a gun is not a guarantee of safety anymore than wearing a seatbelt. But it at least gives you a fighting chance.

    2. Which brings us to point 2: Even if it is a gun on gun deal, you owning a gun is at least leveling the playing field. It is the great equalizer. When you live in a society that devalues life, simply submitting and hoping they don't kill you isn't going to work too well.

    It is always better to have a gun and not need it than it is to need a gun and not have it.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  19. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,264
    Likes Received:
    4
    Pop quiz.

    Say Joe Home-breakin' Miscreant is out looking fer trouble. Sees two homes, one with "NRA" & "Protected by Smith & Wesson" stickers all over the front door, the other with a "gun-free household" sign in the front.......(same situation for cars)

    Who is the better steward of God's gifts of family & home ? The gun owner, or the dude who hopes he's never broken into ?
     
  20. PastorSBC1303

    PastorSBC1303
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    Messages:
    15,125
    Likes Received:
    0
    You know what they say about opinions... :smilewinkgrin:
     

Share This Page

Loading...