Gun Nuts...

You know all this and yet you admit to having guns in your home?

Aren't you afraid that you might become one of your statistics?

 

Your source does not back up your claim, so either back it up or admit that, yes, you are lying.

You statement:

Those appear to be your own conclusions and are definitely not a fact. Your source doesn't even address it.

So , you tell me. Are you lying or simply mistaken?

If not, produce the "statistical facts" you are referring to.

 

In the 30-second commercial, Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke Jr. says personal safety is no longer a spectator sport.

"I need you in the game," he says.

"With officers laid off and furloughed, simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option," he adds. "You can beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you can fight back. ... Consider taking a certified safety course in handling a firearm so you can defend yourself until we get there."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/26/wis-sheriff-urges-residents-to-get-gun-training/#ixzz2JEdXr2FH

 

That's idiotic, and you know it. We're required to have car insurance; however, there are those that don't have it. The rest of us know we could drive without it, but purchase it anyway. Is it because we fear having an accident?

You yourself have admitted to having a gun in your home; yet, you don't seem to fear those same statistics you posted about. Is there a reason you're not afraid that you or someone in your household won't fall victim to the statistics talked about in the article you posted a link to?

BTW -- from the article you posted: "For example, a drawback of these studies is that they do not measure instances in which a gun is used to intimidate a family member or to thwart an intruder." The study admits that it only examined people involved in a shooting; it didn't examine deterrence.

When you set out to prove a point, you can usually prove it.

 

I don't know a single person who is pro-2nd Amendment because of fear. I know some who have suffered violence and were unable to defend themselves and later bought a gun. They did so because they were angry and they learned the hard way that criminals don't care about laws and cops, no matter how well intentioned or how capable they may be, they cannot be everywhere. A cops job is mainly reactionary.

I know many people who are taking a hard look a the 2nd Amendment in the last few weeks. They are getting on board because they see the danger we are in concerning our rights. They are angry. They are not fearful.

To assume this is about fear is either dishonest or just ignorant. There's plenty of both on the side of gun control nuts.

 

Now just wait a hold it.

Obama has said it's about fear so by golly it's about fear! Everyone knows Obama and the democrats would never lie. Well, except about repealing the patriot act and closing Gitmo, and taking our guns, and raising our taxes, and arming Islamic radicals, and the terrorist attack in Benghazi, and running guns to Mexican drugs cartels, and . . .

 

I fear for the person who tries to break into my home.

And I doubt you cannot find any reliable statistics to back up your claim.

 

He can't.

So I doubt we will see him again in this thread.

Certainly not to admit he was wrong. He's a liberal. Not big enough to do something like that.

 

Why would any responsbile gun owner take the time and make the effort to portray gun ownership in such a negative light? Especially with a picture labeled "Reality"? And without any qualifier/limitation on who is being portrayed as a "gun nut".

Isn't it treason to give aid and comfort to the enemy?

 

This may be a repeat: Surf this one--Battle of Athens Tenn. 1946.

Sometimes withering firepower is more than a military tactic.

Dumb questions: How did the American Indians get muskets and later repeaters? Arms dealing is a very lucrative business--up there with crude oil and poppy seeds.

The real question is: Why is our government trying to "water down" the 2nd Amendment? The mystery of iniquity is already at work.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

Nope. He can misrepresent people, call names, etc....

M.P. is one of the more thin-skinned liberals around here. He can dish it out, you know the rest.

Soon he'll complain about the moderators.

 

With the draconian laws on the books in the state of New Jersey, nobody except a law enforcement officer will be allowed to buy a hand gun much less a carry permit. The good Sheriff's recommendation is a mute point here in this "Nanny State"

 

I suspect he believes only the liberal/leftist democrats have sense enough to own guns.

 

One rule for you, another rule for them.

- While Obama claims that semi-automatic assault rifles should only be in the hands of members of the military, the Department of Homeland Security has purchased no less than 7,000 fully automatic assault weapons for the purposes of “personal defense,” in addition to more than 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition over the last 10 months alone.

The agenda-driven and factually bankrupt political arguments of gun control advocates may be somewhat easier to stomach if the people making them were not rampant hypocrites who – while calling for the American people to be stripped of their right to bear arms – are precluding themselves from being subjected to the same treatment.

 

Wow...

...quickly reading through your statement, "C'mon guys don't be so hard on MP he's a good ole comrade" I thought you said, "commie!" I had to go back and make sure I was not seeing what I thought I saw, and I clearly saw I seen the wrong word. :laugh:

 

Come on....

...if you suspect he is "thin skinned" why do you poke at that thin skin? Don't you know that is is wrong to pick on another brother when you know they are down [and thin skin is being down] and out? :laugh: Shame on you Bro. Curtis. You owe this thin skinned brother an apology! :love2:

 

Comrade is an old communist greeting that means "friend", as in "good morning comrade have your parents returned form the gulag yet?"