Thread: Need i say more

Originally Posted by Walleye

She would have had at least a fighting chance. the end result may or may not have been the same. but there's a very high probability that it would have ended differently. he attacked there on the assumption that everybody was unarmed. if one person had been armed without his knowledge, they could have easily shot him in the back or something. it's not like he had the time or inclination to strip-search everybody before killing em...

This is why I said had she studied the way of the ninja she would have had a fighting chance too. It's PURE speculation. Maybe had she purchased a light infantry tank instead of her Honda Accord, should could have stopped the situation before it started too. I see what you are saying, but it's all specualtion and second guessing.

Originally Posted by Walleye

umm...

i've actually read their newsbreifs... have you? they didnt object to the NIBC in order to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals. the people who introduced the "waiting period" was HCI and Clinton's signing in the "Brady Law".

Yes, it was, that is why I don't understand how they object to the waiting period and not the background check. It's two methods working towards the same purpose. To keep guns out of the hands of criminals. I think the waiting period does two things, allows for a more thorough check, and give people time to cool down if they are purchasing a gun 'in the heat of the moment'. I guess I just dont understand why they object to a waiting period.

Originally Posted by Walleye

Are you some kind of moron?

One more time and this thread is gone.

"Moron" isn't too bad, but you know how it goes after this.

Originally Posted by Walleye

Are you some kind of moron?

The gun is often called "the great equalizer" for a reason. because it EVENS the ODDS. A handgun is the most practical way.

No I am not a 'a mildly mentally retarded person' (Frodo that is the dictionary's definition. ) I'm not saying gun's can't be helpful in situations. I'm not saying guns should be banned. I am saying that you cannot say that her having a firearm on her person would have changed what happened for the positive. It is IMPOSSIBLE to determine that. She could be a lousy shot, therefore possible raising the death toll. She could have accidently shot herself. She coulda, woulda, shoulda... That's all Im saying.

As I mentioned way way waaay earlier, the whole reason this got started, is that I don't feel it is right to judge a presidental candidate by groups that support him. It's illogical..... spock.

I also said that I would give up my right to bear arms if it would make things safer. Please re-read the word if in that sentence, because we both know that right will never be taken away. My point is, everyone wants things to be merry, and if it takes a little bit of self sacrifice on my behalf to get the ball rolling I'm willing to do it. For the end goal of the common good.

Arguing about whether this Texan gal had her gun or not will get us no where.

Is there any part of "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." that is ambiguous at all? I mean common people. It is just as clear as "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech."

I also said that I would give up my right to bear arms if it would make things safer

When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns!

If you were somehow able to talk every law abiding citizen to give up their weapons then only the criminals would be left.

Look at Washington DC. Guns are not allowed but it has the highest murder rate in the entire country! Give up your RIGHTS but i will not!