Thread: Reasons Citizens Should Own Guns

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

One wonders how the kids get out of college/university with the ability to discern right & wrong with all the left-wing bullshit those professors feed them..

So you are saying the faculty isn't politically correct enough? And you demand affirmative action to hire people you claim are being discriminated against.

Hey, why not arm US prisoners? That would sort out a few problems.
And why not arm seniors and the unemployed? so they can shoot themselves.

^
Have you gone completely off your rocker?

Do stand your ground laws apply in kindergartens? an armed kindergarten is a polite school.
Only two kinds of people belong in the new world order- the polite and the dead.

Boon Mee seems to be correct on this occasion.

Originally Posted by sabang

do stand your ground laws apply in kindergartens?
an armed kindergarten is full of polite students.

Absolutely!

If a kid backs down from a playground fight he's toast for the rest of his school years.

The all new Dept of Homeland Security gun-



Free with an obamaphone.

In the new world order, can the boss use a flamethrower to fire people? i'm sure that would be tax deductible, or a free gift for joining the NRA.

I wasn't going to post anymore on this thread, as I had realized just how useless it was to try and separate liberals from their rhetoric.

However, I just an update on a case, that, to me, once again proves how vital it is for innocent people to arm themselves.

In this case, a woman was walking down a street in broad daylight pushing a stroller containing her 18-month old child.

A street punk came up and pointed a gun at her demanding money. The mother responded that she didn't have any money. The punk, then deliberately shot the young child in the face, killing the baby instantly.

The street punk was only a few months older than Trayvon Martin and all three individuals were Negro.

So, how could that baby's death have been prevented?

The only realistic scenario I could come up with involved either a bystander being armed and shooting the punk as soon as he pointed the gun at the woman; or; the mother having a loaded gun in her purse, and acting as if she was scared, reaching into the purse to get her wallet, but instead shooting the punk dead, either through the purse, or by just pulling out the gun and blazing away.

If anyone could come up with a more reasonable scenario with a high probability of success I would like to hear it.

RickThai

If the above incident happens to be a regular occurrence in, i assume, the US, then it is hardly likely to dissipate as it is born out of the government's obsession in permitting easy access to firearms. Law enforcement officers shoot an incredible number of criminals in the US simply because more of them are legally able to own firearms prior to the offence.

If this is an isolated incident in the US then it is hardly worth discussing. Arming everyone in order to prevent such an incident would simply lead to an increase in the already extremely embarrassing number of lead induced fatalities in the US.

^^rick you've explained it to us repeatedly.... you want to solve all these crime problems by butchering 15% of the American population.... presumably in some Buddhist compatible holocaust.

most of us just think your a dangerous fool who's probably going to end up on death row or retired without the possibility of parole.

Originally Posted by RickThai

However, I just an update on a case, that, to me, once again proves how vital it is for innocent people to arm themselves.

When are you going to understand that rather than arming everyone it is far wiser to disarm everyone. Currently the ease of obtaining and carrying firearms in the US is the very reason that criminals can get away with the crime you describe.

If it was illegal to carry (and especially concealed carry) then simply having one in possession would be enough to be charged and pulled off the street.

Why fight fire with fire? Far better to use an extinguisher....

Originally Posted by RickThai

I wasn't going to post anymore on this thread, as I had realized just how useless it was to try and separate liberals from their rhetoric.

However, I just an update on a case, that, to me, once again proves how vital it is for innocent people to arm themselves.

In this case, a woman was walking down a street in broad daylight pushing a stroller containing her 18-month old child.

A street punk came up and pointed a gun at her demanding money. The mother responded that she didn't have any money. The punk, then deliberately shot the young child in the face, killing the baby instantly.

The street punk was only a few months older than Trayvon Martin and all three individuals were Negro.

So, how could that baby's death have been prevented?

The only realistic scenario I could come up with involved either a bystander being armed and shooting the punk as soon as he pointed the gun at the woman; or; the mother having a loaded gun in her purse, and acting as if she was scared, reaching into the purse to get her wallet, but instead shooting the punk dead, either through the purse, or by just pulling out the gun and blazing away.

If anyone could come up with a more reasonable scenario with a high probability of success I would like to hear it.

RickThai

Rick, I still await your answer to the question I asked while ago:


May I ask, in which countries did you experience first hand armed combat or the killing of innocent people? Do you think that those experiences, if indeed you had any, have affected your thinking or personal philosophy these days?

Originally Posted by RickThai

A street punk came up and pointed a gun at her demanding money. The mother responded that she didn't have any money. The punk, then deliberately shot the young child in the face, killing the baby instantly.

The street punk was only a few months older than Trayvon Martin and all three individuals were Negro.

Is it not great that they work themselves towards your 15% target? You can't argue both ways.

Originally Posted by Mr Lick

If the above incident happens to be a regular occurrence in, i assume, the US, then it is hardly likely to dissipate as it is born out of the government's obsession in permitting easy access to firearms. Law enforcement officers shoot an incredible number of criminals in the US simply because more of them are legally able to own firearms prior to the offence.

If this is an isolated incident in the US then it is hardly worth discussing. Arming everyone in order to prevent such an incident would simply lead to an increase in the already extremely embarrassing number of lead induced fatalities in the US.

Unfortunately, innocent children get shot on a very regular basis in many of the largest cities in the US. They are generally shot by gangbangers (almost always Negro. but sometimes hispanic) doing a "spray and pray" at another gangbanger's house or car, either as "pay back" or as a result of turf wars involving drugs or other crimes.

Just about all of these individuals do not own the guns legally, but either stole them or purchased them on the black market.

RickThai

Originally Posted by Morden

Originally Posted by RickThai

I wasn't going to post anymore on this thread, as I had realized just how useless it was to try and separate liberals from their rhetoric.

However, I just an update on a case, that, to me, once again proves how vital it is for innocent people to arm themselves.

In this case, a woman was walking down a street in broad daylight pushing a stroller containing her 18-month old child.

A street punk came up and pointed a gun at her demanding money. The mother responded that she didn't have any money. The punk, then deliberately shot the young child in the face, killing the baby instantly.

The street punk was only a few months older than Trayvon Martin and all three individuals were Negro.

So, how could that baby's death have been prevented?

The only realistic scenario I could come up with involved either a bystander being armed and shooting the punk as soon as he pointed the gun at the woman; or; the mother having a loaded gun in her purse, and acting as if she was scared, reaching into the purse to get her wallet, but instead shooting the punk dead, either through the purse, or by just pulling out the gun and blazing away.

If anyone could come up with a more reasonable scenario with a high probability of success I would like to hear it.

RickThai

Rick, I still await your answer to the question I asked while ago:


May I ask, in which countries did you experience first hand armed combat or the killing of innocent people? Do you think that those experiences, if indeed you had any, have affected your thinking or personal philosophy these days?

Morden,

I have given way too much personal information about myself on TD. I fully realize that nothing anyone can say, based upon experience and actual events will have the slightest impact on the liberal/progressive mindset.

My two decades of military experience has led me into a couple different combat zones, and I have always performed my military duties as befitting a soldier (and later an officer) in the US Army.

RickThai

Originally Posted by Rainfall

Originally Posted by RickThai

A street punk came up and pointed a gun at her demanding money. The mother responded that she didn't have any money. The punk, then deliberately shot the young child in the face, killing the baby instantly.

The street punk was only a few months older than Trayvon Martin and all three individuals were Negro.

Is it not great that they work themselves towards your 15% target? You can't argue both ways.

I wonder if you are part of that 15%? Perhaps that would explain why you are so willing to take away the constitutional rights of honest citizens, so that hard-core criminals won't get shot in the commission of their crimes?

The woman and her child were not part of that 10-15% (perhaps that's is why you are so confused, you can't differentiate between honest people and criminals??) of professional criminals.

If only the criminals got shot, then I believe it would be a better world for the decent people to live (but then again I probably wouldn't have you to debate with - right ubermench?).

RickThai

Originally Posted by Troy

Originally Posted by RickThai

However, I just an update on a case, that, to me, once again proves how vital it is for innocent people to arm themselves.

When are you going to understand that rather than arming everyone it is far wiser to disarm everyone. Currently the ease of obtaining and carrying firearms in the US is the very reason that criminals can get away with the crime you describe.

If it was illegal to carry (and especially concealed carry) then simply having one in possession would be enough to be charged and pulled off the street.

Why fight fire with fire? Far better to use an extinguisher....

When are you going to realize, that criminals will always be able to get guns, just like dopers will always be able to get drugs?

It is already illegal in most of the cities with high incidents of gun crime to own or possess a gun. The people committing the crimes could care less about the gun laws. Only law-abiding people would be effected.

Most studies show that allowing honest citizens to carry guns (especially concealed) cuts down on the crime (no more easy pickings).

Last post from me on this topic.

I sincerely hope no one here is ever put in a position where they desperately need a gun to protect their family or themselves (yes, even you hazz).

RickThai

Originally Posted by RickThai

Originally Posted by Rainfall

Originally Posted by RickThai

A street punk came up and pointed a gun at her demanding money. The mother responded that she didn't have any money. The punk, then deliberately shot the young child in the face, killing the baby instantly.

The street punk was only a few months older than Trayvon Martin and all three individuals were Negro.

Is it not great that they work themselves towards your 15% target? You can't argue both ways.

I wonder if you are part of that 15%?
RickThai

how about that railfall your first internet death threat from a forum loony

rick, these are all rather boring rinse and repeat claims that have already been discussed on this thread.

strangly in the UK children being shot in the street is a rarity, almost unheard of. this is a result of generally disrming the general population... which demonstratbly disarms the criminals to the point that even our police do not need to wonder the streets with guns.

And as has been pointed out to you when you bang on about children being killed by guns and the need to arm the arents to protect their children. you are infact promoting gun ownership for people who are responcible for 60% of child murders inorder to protect the children from the people who are responcible for 3% of chilkd murders. clever you are not.

thinking about it I belive that most children who do get shot in the uk, are shot by their father using a legally owned gun

Originally Posted by RickThai

Originally Posted by Rainfall

Originally Posted by RickThai

A street punk came up and pointed a gun at her demanding money. The mother responded that she didn't have any money. The punk, then deliberately shot the young child in the face, killing the baby instantly.

The street punk was only a few months older than Trayvon Martin and all three individuals were Negro.

Is it not great that they work themselves towards your 15% target? You can't argue both ways.

I wonder if you are part of that 15%? Perhaps that would explain why you are so willing to take away the constitutional rights of honest citizens, so that hard-core criminals won't get shot in the commission of their crimes?

The woman and her child were not part of that 10-15% (perhaps that's is why you are so confused, you can't differentiate between honest people and criminals??) of professional criminals.

If only the criminals got shot, then I believe it would be a better world for the decent people to live (but then again I probably wouldn't have you to debate with - right ubermench?).

RickThai

It's Übermensch, silly, and the term has never been used by the Nazis to describe themselves. It's Jewish propaganda. The nazis had the terms Mensch for Aryans and other Nordic people, and Untermensch for Jews and negroes. That's where you and they totally agree. What's the problem, Rick? A black underage single mother was killed, and her child who had no other career ahead than crime. Your own reasoning in this very thread.

Originally Posted by RickThai

When are you going to realize, that criminals will always be able to get guns, just like dopers will always be able to get drugs?

When are you going to learn the numbers game?

Originally Posted by RickThai

Originally Posted by Morden

Originally Posted by RickThai

I wasn't going to post anymore on this thread, as I had realized just how useless it was to try and separate liberals from their rhetoric.

However, I just an update on a case, that, to me, once again proves how vital it is for innocent people to arm themselves.

In this case, a woman was walking down a street in broad daylight pushing a stroller containing her 18-month old child.

A street punk came up and pointed a gun at her demanding money. The mother responded that she didn't have any money. The punk, then deliberately shot the young child in the face, killing the baby instantly.

The street punk was only a few months older than Trayvon Martin and all three individuals were Negro.

So, how could that baby's death have been prevented?

The only realistic scenario I could come up with involved either a bystander being armed and shooting the punk as soon as he pointed the gun at the woman; or; the mother having a loaded gun in her purse, and acting as if she was scared, reaching into the purse to get her wallet, but instead shooting the punk dead, either through the purse, or by just pulling out the gun and blazing away.

If anyone could come up with a more reasonable scenario with a high probability of success I would like to hear it.

RickThai

Rick, I still await your answer to the question I asked while ago:


May I ask, in which countries did you experience first hand armed combat or the killing of innocent people? Do you think that those experiences, if indeed you had any, have affected your thinking or personal philosophy these days?

Morden,

I have given way too much personal information about myself on TD. I fully realize that nothing anyone can say, based upon experience and actual events will have the slightest impact on the liberal/progressive mindset.

My two decades of military experience has led me into a couple different combat zones, and I have always performed my military duties as befitting a soldier (and later an officer) in the US Army.

RickThai

So, may we conclude from that that you have no front line experience?

Perhaps you were a clerk and now, resenting the lack of any opportunity to kill a human being, you play little war games in your head.

Originally Posted by RickThai

My two decades of military experience

I didn't realise that the Playstation had been around that long.

Originally Posted by RickThai

perhaps that's is why you are so confused, you can't differentiate between honest people and criminals?

By your own words you are a former illegal gun owner so it is clearly you who cannot differentiate.

Originally Posted by RickThai

Unfortunately, innocent children get shot on a very regular basis in many of the largest cities in the US. They are generally shot by gangbangers (almost always Negro. but sometimes hispanic) doing a "spray and pray" at another gangbanger's house or car, either as "pay back" or as a result of turf wars involving drugs or other crimes.

Did you conveniently leave out the White Boy school shooters to re-affirm your racist beliefs?

Originally Posted by RickThai

Originally Posted by Troy

Originally Posted by RickThai

However, I just an update on a case, that, to me, once again proves how vital it is for innocent people to arm themselves.

When are you going to understand that rather than arming everyone it is far wiser to disarm everyone. Currently the ease of obtaining and carrying firearms in the US is the very reason that criminals can get away with the crime you describe.

If it was illegal to carry (and especially concealed carry) then simply having one in possession would be enough to be charged and pulled off the street.

Why fight fire with fire? Far better to use an extinguisher....

When are you going to realize, that criminals will always be able to get guns, just like dopers will always be able to get drugs?

It is already illegal in most of the cities with high incidents of gun crime to own or possess a gun. The people committing the crimes could care less about the gun laws. Only law-abiding people would be effected.

Most studies show that allowing honest citizens to carry guns (especially concealed) cuts down on the crime (no more easy pickings).

Last post from me on this topic.

I sincerely hope no one here is ever put in a position where they desperately need a gun to protect their family or themselves (yes, even you hazz).

RickThai

Sure, there will always be illegally held guns. However, the more legally owned ones there are the more illegally held ones there will be.

Referring to your final sentence, I for one am not against legally held guns of a suitable type for self defence at home. What I object to in your utterings is your eagerness to pump bullets into anyone who gets into your home - presumably even a daft kid who has no weapons. In other words, it's your mentality that's dangerous rather than the gun.