Hi Midnight, i think Barry has found a away around all this it's called 'Super Congress' . Reid was standing at a microphone saying: “[On the ‘Super Congress’] there are no constraints….They can look at any program we have in government, any program. … It has the ability to look at everything.”Did you catch that folks? The “Super Congress” can look at any program and “at everything.”So......First there were Tsars ,then came the Super Sovjet ....Finally the Gulags were filled?The day America turned in to a communist dictatorship .
I know that gun-culture and your Ammendment keeps it but frankly speaking the statistics and social evidence makes it clear. Simply put, having legalised and easy access to weapons in a society causes more dangers and thus perpetuates the myth that you need them. If all guns were banned except for law-enforcement, the military, reservists and farmers (if need is shown) then fatal crimes would drop dramatically.
Your reason for having guns is historic and that is a good reason why Constitutions are a living-breathing document that can change. The only other reasons for having guns is because you have guns.
Europe and Australia are perfect examples, the two European countries with a gun culture (Norway and Switzerland) have violent crimes with weapons far more than in percentage than all the others and of course we know Norway now, right?). Australia banned gun culture after the Port-Arthur Massacre and within 12 months a 67 per cent drop in violent crimes happened.
Of course there could be the those that will argue that it is for the reds' under the bed, the islamist invasion or the lack of trust of their own law enforcement and military (the threat within).
Morocco, an Arab North African country some 12 miles from my bedroom window has not only banned guns of all sorts but you will be arrested for carrying in the street anything larger than a butter-knife and violent weapon based crime is lower than any other European nation minus Monaco and Lichtenstien (and the Vatican of course).
I know you will all disagree of course, but what the heck, you guys seem to be bagging traditions in other countries so live with it.
Ah, Damien Charles, not only are you a n Islamist Apologist Troll you also appear to be a hoplophobic liberal euroweenie.
Well, as such, I know you'll not be swayed in your opinion (nor will I be in mine) so I will just say I hope you're OUTSIDE pulling your pud while helplessly and hopelessly listening to the screams when the mayhem erupts the police are on the way and the media is breathlessly reporting every agonizing moment (OH! That sounded like a shot! AND ANOTHER! Do you think he is using a 9mm or a .45?).
As to your statistics I include a few links of my own which will not likely agree with yours
And finally I'll just note that a great any crimes stopped by a handgun go unreported because the gun is merely brandished and not fired because the dumbass punk comes to the realization that he has just suffered a potentially catastrophic failure of the vicitm selection process and alters his immediate career plans. Which is the way any armed citizen hopes it ends.
And that you can take directly from me because I have been there as have a few friends of mine.
It's the four who were not armed when the violent attack began that are now dead.
MR, so many choices as to how to respond. CNS news, youtube and so on......
Probably the simplist element to start with is your ability to actually read.
Yes if there is gun violence you need guns, my comment said that without guns (ie prohibited) then the entire story is different. But then since your regular sources are anything but, I can undestand that in a "limited" environment such as yours that you will come to such a conclussion.
By the way, there are a thousand ways to intepret data from the FBI and others, so do please do not fall down to the lame excuse that it is "yeah but it is quoting the FBI", no it is not, it is interpreting FBI data releases.
A last comment, name calling only discribes your qualities, nothing else (let alone rediculously wrong) and in particular when it is a red-neck excuse for illogic.
I have no problem with logical arguments for the owning guns and why it could be right, but there has to be at least logic and maturity in it.
The guns are not protected so citizens can run amok shooting criminals willy nilly, altho they do come in handy for that (as they would have most recently in Norway, WOULDN'T THEY?) .. the guns are to ENSURE THE GOVT LIVES IN FEAR OF THE CITIZENS.
As TJ says, either the govt fears the citizens, or its the other way around, baby.
That is EXPRESSLY the reason for teh 2nd amendment, you really SHOULD read the Federalist papers ..you can download them free.
The "fear factor" I think is an excuse for one side of the argument. In the end, stability in society and low level crime and violence comes from unity and confidnce, nothing more. As mentioned, there are countless examples of weapon free societies that work well enough and most certainly "fear" has nothing to do with it. Redneck, used to mean a poor white southern farmer, but these days it means an ignorant, bigoted, noisy and pig-headed lout. Go figure which one I meant.
" In the end, stability in society and low level crime and violence comes from unity and confidnce"
Damien, the entire american founding structure is the result of SUPREME CYNICS, who, with an unsurpassed understanding of human nature created a govt, and a public which pitted human weaknesses against each other.
Supreme Court, Legislature, Executive.
Powers limited by the people, ULTIMATELY based in forced of arms if the consent of the governed is lost.
American democracy, the republic built upon it is based on cynical mistrust of every single institution, and every single institution mistrusting each other.
How can you have missed this?
And the best part is... THAT is what has created the ONLY truly revolutionary society on the planet.
35 years ago my best friend in Phoenix wrote an op-ed that was printed in the Ariz. Republic called "The Case For The Preventive Handgun" in which he commented on the number of accidental killings, murders, etc that are reported annually. He then wrote that there are no statistics to record the number of times the presence of a handgun in plain view may have prevented a crime. This is the thrust of his op-ed, that statistics say what someone wants them to say, not necessarily all of the facts.
In my case I have had four friends murdered in cold blood. In only one case was a gun used (and that a shotgun not a handgun).
1. A recruit home on leave from Basic Training was beaten to death and robbed by 3 others.
2. A career Navy woman was brutally raped and strangled, but she did put up a fight.
3. A piano tuner was beheaded during a home invasion robbery gone bad.
4. A housewife murdered when her boyfriend fired a 12 guage at her head point blank then turned the gun on himself.
In all four cases, even the last, the victim would have had a far better chance at surviving if they had a firearm, because in each case they were overpowered either by size or numbers. And possibly with no violence to either party. Get Out! backed up by a .38 is far stronger than Get Out! backed up by an angry snarl.
These are stories I talk about rarely. Saying much more than this would reveal too much of who I am. They are painful to remember although I do far too often and it only reinforces my decision that I, and opinion that everyone who legally can, ought to be armed.
God made man and God made woman. Sam Colt made sure they were equal.
For man also knoweth not his time: as the fishes that are taken in an evil net, and as the birds that are caught in the snare; so [are] the sons of men snared in an evil time, when it falleth suddenly upon them. -- Ecclesiastes 9:12 --
You know Damien Charles, there are few countries in the world that enjoy the freedoms we have (for the time being) in the US.
The UK, Australia, France and Germany have experienced a significant uptick in violent crime. Its not being publicly reported because the governments are not bound by demands for transparency that American culture requires. When you look at each state's crime numbers they are significantly lower than what the Interpol Public Ministry indicates.
To compare European and Arab street crime to American Crime ins not an apples to apples comparison. This isn't a debate I care to have, though because I have found that anti-gun liberals, no matter how many facts and figures thrown at them, their not going to agree.
For me, it is all about "what" the people decide...As in the U.S., in the last 25 years, states have expanded gun laws with only about six places left where there is an absolute ban on weapons. The question I then ask, are so many people so un-enlightened?
And lets talk about one other little factoid. The jurisdictions with the highest violent crime rates in the U.S also happen to be about the most violent places in the U.S. more gun crimes in those locations than anywhere else. So, knowing that little conventionality, it is clear that gun bans simply do not work.
But you know? Despite our loose gun laws that support and enhance a citizens right to be armed, we still have no shortage of the requisite Prune-picking, Pablum puking hoplophobes caterwauling about our "draconian" gun laws....my response is always the same: "You anti-gunners will get over it with time, medication and counseling so kiss my ass...here's a gem from Monday:
Rick, with all due respect, your comment that "Its not being publicly reported because the governments are not bound by demands for transparency that American culture requires" is in fact not the case at all. You are talking about countries that have equal and in fact in the case of the UK and Australia even greater transparancy laws than in the US.
Well, that is why there are national boundaries, or used to be, so that you can live where you wish D, I just wish that you would take the others that feel the same way with you. Aren't there enough commie states/countries that you folks can move to, without having to screw ours up?
Saturday, August 06, 2011 5:28:00 am
Anonymous said...
pretty sure you could outlaw guns all you want but that's not gonna make a difference... my bet would be that your typical gang member isn't "allowed" to have a gun anyway.
we have several guns in the house, but don't carry because we keep doing home improvement projects instead of buying a gun :-) and crime-wise, we live in a ridiculously safe area. in the two years we've lived here, ONE person has been killed (ha! that used to be PER NIGHT before I moved here!). three years ago or so an ex-employee went nuts in the local hospital and shot some employees, but I'm pretty sure you can't carry one into a hospital anyway... and I *think* (not sure) a hospital security guard ended up shooting the guy anyway
as soon as we stop coming up with new home improvement projects, though, we are planning on a handgun for bear protection... even on our property we need to be careful, let alone going on hikes (especially with your grandbaby!). In the past few weeks, not only was there the 10' grizzly wandering around town, but also a 10 year old your son-in-law treated because on a hike with her mom and sister on the bike path in town, a black bear and its cub came out and the mama attacked the 10 year old... she wasn't hurt badly but still! i can't imagine they'd EVER outlaw guns in AK. yet another argument for getting you up here ;)
#1
Sunday, September 11, 2011 7:23:00 pm
In the next day or so Uncle Barry and his buddies plan to release a new report on how to combat violent extremism. It concludes local communities are best suited to first combat homegrown "violent extremists"..
They really need to form a group to take a year to come up with this conclusion? We didn't already know that?
I'll take it one step further.
The first line of defense is We The People.
Specifically, those of us who have chosen to be armed.
As for myself, I've been a card carrying member of the NRA since the early 90s. But what may surprise many who know me is I only decided to start carrying a gun after Virginia Tech and the realization that so many lives could have been saved had a student or faculty member been armed at the time.
Since then I have been armed at all times as long as I was able to legally be so. In Pennsylvania that's a fairly broad swath. And it includes at all times in my own home (as I type this with my trusty summer carry Sig 230 by my side).
The number of people who walk around armed in the United States is hard to even guess at. Yo can start with the statistics by state on how many carry licenses or permits are issued. But this is far from accurate. It does not take into account states that have Constitutional Carry (something I strongly support). It does not account for the number of those who carry but don't bother to get a license. And it does not account for those who are licensed but don't carry.
Which is something I never understood. My wife and daughter # 2 both have licenses but choose to carry rarely if at all. Daughter #1 and her husband live in Constitutional Carry state but don't do so, either.
Regardless, it is my opinion that the more people that train (important!) and carry a firearm regularly, the safer our communities will be.
Because when the shooter goes active it doesn't matter whether it's Abdullah in a mall, Joe Green in a park or some dumbass punk in your home, it is the armed citizen that is going to save lives until the first responders can arrive.
Human Events:
The Second Amendment and Terrorism Being An Armed Citizen Is A Responsibility by Richard Johnson Too many people see the Second Amendment merely as a freedom. However, all of our rights, including those described in the Second Amendment, bear significant responsibilities.
Those Second Amendment responsibilities become more obvious when tragedies like the terrorist attack in Norway or the mass murder at Virginia Tech occur. In both of those incidents, a madman had free reign to slaughter innocent people because none of his victims had a simple tool: a firearm.
I argue that it is the responsibility of all free citizens to have firearms close at hand to defend themselves and others against vicious attack.
“Active Shooters”
The term “active shooter” became part of the law enforcement lexicon after two students entered Columbine High School with murder on their minds. Nearly 40 students and teachers were shot, and more than a dozen were killed.
Since that time, police trainers have evaluated and changed training to respond to these spree murderers. Several things have become clear about these mass killers. The most important is this: once engaged by an armed person, the slaughter of innocents stops.
Let me rephrase that so everyone understands this critical point. When an active shooter is walking around killing innocent people, he or she will not stop until an armed person engages them. Once engaged, the killer will stop killing innocent people.
When confronted by an armed citizen or law enforcement officer, the spree killer will typically do one of three things: give up immediately, commit suicide or engage in a shootout with the confronter. Regardless, the slaughter of innocents stops.
In the terrorist incident in Norway, the suspect walked an island killing unarmed teenagers for about 90 minutes but surrendered immediately when confronted by armed police.
In the 2007 Trolley Square mall shooting, a spree killer walked through a mall randomly shooting shoppers. The killing ended as soon as the gunman was engaged by an off-duty police officer. A short time later, responding on-duty officers were able to kill the murderer, but the take-away is no more innocents were injured once the suspect was confronted by an armed citizen.
Also in 2007, a madman attacked and killed worshippers at two different Colorado Springs churches. When he went to a third church to kill more innocents, an armed citizen who was acting as an informal security guard at the church confronted him. During the engagement, the murderer was shot several times by the citizen, and he ultimately committed suicide.
In each of these cases, the killing continued until an armed citizen intervened. Once engaged by an armed good guy, the killers were unable to murder another.
Another key point in each of these incidents is the on-duty police personnel were not on scene when the killing began. During the second and third incidents, on duty police responded quickly, but the armed citizens (one an off-duty officer) are the ones who stopped the killing.
In the Norway incident, the on-duty police stopped the killing, but it took them an hour and a half to reach the scene. How many kids died while waiting for the police to arrive? How many people could have been saved if adults on the island had access to firearms?
Terrorism: Mumbai
Many Americans picture the 9/11 attacks when they think of terrorism. Few remember Mumbai and fewer still know of Beslan.
In 2008, ten terrorists spread out through Mumbai, India. Working in two-man teams, the terrorists murdered at least 165 people at mostly high profile targets including a train station, a children’s hospital, a college, a theater, a restaurant and several hotels. One team targeted Jews in a very low-profile center, clearly indicating their anti-Jewish sentiments.
These two-man teams worked death and destruction throughout Mumbai for three days until government forces were able to regain control. All but one of the terrorists was killed.
These men did not stop killing until they were killed. An unarmed populace was powerless to resist. Nothing short of killing these terrorists is a viable option for survival.
Many Americans feel safely removed from this type of ciolence. However, did you know an American citizen was arrested in Chicago for his role in the planning and scouting of the Mumbai terror attacks? He pled guilty in 2010. Don’t tell me that this same kind of attack isn’t going to happen here.
Terrorism: Beslan
Nothing could be more agonizing for a parent than to have his or her children placed in peril. In 2004, Islamic terrorists took over a Russian school, taking some 1,100 people, including more than 750 children, hostage. The police attempted for three days to negotiate with the terrorists for the safe release of the hostages.
The police, though, could not imagine what was going on inside. The terrorists had no intention of releasing hostages. Instead, they pressed the men and boys into forced labor to build blockades and strong points inside the school to prevent and slow the inevitable attack by government forces. As the men and boys completed the projects, they were executed.
Meanwhile, the women and girls were repeatedly raped. When the terrorists tired of a girl, she was killed. After several days, government units attempted a rescue of the remaining hostages. Booby traps and barricades slowed the police and military units while the terrorists wildly killed hostages.
At the end, 338 people were killed and 700 were wounded. Of the children, 172 were killed.
When a child is killed in a community, it affects every family. What happens to a community that has 172 young children killed by terrorists?
Anti-gun laws here in the US only serve to protect the terrorist. When teachers and parents are denied the right to carry firearms on a school campus, they are denied the ability to defend their children.
The hard truth is that our schools are not impenetrable fortresses, impervious to enemy attack. When terrorists show up to your child’s school, would you rather that some of the teachers were armed? Or would you rather another tragedy like the one in Beslan?
Self Defense is a Responsibility
Most people talk about the Second Amendment as a right. I say it is a responsibility.
You are responsible for your safety. You are responsible for your family’s safety. You are responsible for your neighborhood and community.
When you abrogate your responsibility, relying instead on the government to provide a facade of security, you willfully forfeit your rights to living a peaceful, free existence. [Image] [Image]
17 Comments
Close this window Jump to comment formHi Midnight, i think Barry has found a away around all this it's called 'Super Congress' .
Reid was standing at a microphone saying: “[On the ‘Super Congress’] there are no constraints….They can look at any program we have in government, any program. … It has the ability to look at everything.”Did you catch that folks? The “Super Congress” can look at any program and “at everything.”So......First there were Tsars ,then came the Super Sovjet ....Finally the Gulags were filled?The day America turned in to a communist dictatorship .
Wednesday, August 03, 2011 6:09:00 pm
I know that gun-culture and your Ammendment keeps it but frankly speaking the statistics and social evidence makes it clear. Simply put, having legalised and easy access to weapons in a society causes more dangers and thus perpetuates the myth that you need them. If all guns were banned except for law-enforcement, the military, reservists and farmers (if need is shown) then fatal crimes would drop dramatically.
Your reason for having guns is historic and that is a good reason why Constitutions are a living-breathing document that can change. The only other reasons for having guns is because you have guns.
Europe and Australia are perfect examples, the two European countries with a gun culture (Norway and Switzerland) have violent crimes with weapons far more than in percentage than all the others and of course we know Norway now, right?). Australia banned gun culture after the Port-Arthur Massacre and within 12 months a 67 per cent drop in violent crimes happened.
Of course there could be the those that will argue that it is for the reds' under the bed, the islamist invasion or the lack of trust of their own law enforcement and military (the threat within).
Morocco, an Arab North African country some 12 miles from my bedroom window has not only banned guns of all sorts but you will be arrested for carrying in the street anything larger than a butter-knife and violent weapon based crime is lower than any other European nation minus Monaco and Lichtenstien (and the Vatican of course).
I know you will all disagree of course, but what the heck, you guys seem to be bagging traditions in other countries so live with it.
Wednesday, August 03, 2011 7:11:00 pm
Ah, Damien Charles, not only are you a n Islamist Apologist Troll you also appear to be a hoplophobic liberal euroweenie.
Well, as such, I know you'll not be swayed in your opinion (nor will I be in mine) so I will just say I hope you're OUTSIDE pulling your pud while helplessly and hopelessly listening to the screams when the mayhem erupts the police are on the way and the media is breathlessly reporting every agonizing moment (OH! That sounded like a shot! AND ANOTHER! Do you think he is using a 9mm or a .45?).
As to your statistics I include a few links of my own which will not likely agree with yours
here
here
here
here
here
And finally I'll just note that a great any crimes stopped by a handgun go unreported because the gun is merely brandished and not fired because the dumbass punk comes to the realization that he has just suffered a potentially catastrophic failure of the vicitm selection process and alters his immediate career plans. Which is the way any armed citizen hopes it ends.
And that you can take directly from me because I have been there as have a few friends of mine.
It's the four who were not armed when the violent attack began that are now dead.
Wednesday, August 03, 2011 7:58:00 pm
MR, so many choices as to how to respond. CNS news, youtube and so on......
Probably the simplist element to start with is your ability to actually read.
Yes if there is gun violence you need guns, my comment said that without guns (ie prohibited) then the entire story is different. But then since your regular sources are anything but, I can undestand that in a "limited" environment such as yours that you will come to such a conclussion.
By the way, there are a thousand ways to intepret data from the FBI and others, so do please do not fall down to the lame excuse that it is "yeah but it is quoting the FBI", no it is not, it is interpreting FBI data releases.
A last comment, name calling only discribes your qualities, nothing else (let alone rediculously wrong) and in particular when it is a red-neck excuse for illogic.
I have no problem with logical arguments for the owning guns and why it could be right, but there has to be at least logic and maturity in it.
Wednesday, August 03, 2011 8:36:00 pm
Damien, Damien, Damien, there u go again!
The guns are not protected so citizens can run amok shooting criminals willy nilly, altho they do come in handy for that (as they would have most recently in Norway, WOULDN'T THEY?) .. the guns are to ENSURE THE GOVT LIVES IN FEAR OF THE CITIZENS.
As TJ says, either the govt fears the citizens, or its the other way around, baby.
That is EXPRESSLY the reason for teh 2nd amendment, you really SHOULD read the Federalist papers ..you can download them free.
Wednesday, August 03, 2011 8:37:00 pm
Red-neck? Does this dude even know the definition?
Wednesday, August 03, 2011 9:27:00 pm
Epa . I completely agree"either the govt fears the citizens, or its the other way around,".
Anyone taking a bet that the 'super congress' will go around the second, to remove arms from the public.
Wednesday, August 03, 2011 9:31:00 pm
The "fear factor" I think is an excuse for one side of the argument. In the end, stability in society and low level crime and violence comes from unity and confidnce, nothing more. As mentioned, there are countless examples of weapon free societies that work well enough and most certainly "fear" has nothing to do with it.
Redneck, used to mean a poor white southern farmer, but these days it means an ignorant, bigoted, noisy and pig-headed lout. Go figure which one I meant.
Wednesday, August 03, 2011 10:01:00 pm
WOW,,,, HOW DIFFERENT IS EUROPE?
" In the end, stability in society and low level crime and violence comes from unity and confidnce"
Damien, the entire american founding structure is the result of SUPREME CYNICS, who, with an unsurpassed understanding of human nature created a govt, and a public which pitted human weaknesses against each other.
Supreme Court, Legislature, Executive.
Powers limited by the people, ULTIMATELY based in forced of arms if the consent of the governed is lost.
American democracy, the republic built upon it is based on cynical mistrust of every single institution, and every single institution mistrusting each other.
How can you have missed this?
And the best part is... THAT is what has created the ONLY truly revolutionary society on the planet.
Wednesday, August 03, 2011 10:19:00 pm
Cynic is as cynic does I guess is what Forrest Gump would say if he was here.
Wednesday, August 03, 2011 10:40:00 pm
Ayuh
Wednesday, August 03, 2011 10:46:00 pm
35 years ago my best friend in Phoenix wrote an op-ed that was printed in the Ariz. Republic called "The Case For The Preventive Handgun" in which he commented on the number of accidental killings, murders, etc that are reported annually. He then wrote that there are no statistics to record the number of times the presence of a handgun in plain view may have prevented a crime. This is the thrust of his op-ed, that statistics say what someone wants them to say, not necessarily all of the facts.
Wednesday, August 03, 2011 11:39:00 pm
Precisely my point, Loopy.
In my case I have had four friends murdered in cold blood. In only one case was a gun used (and that a shotgun not a handgun).
1. A recruit home on leave from Basic Training was beaten to death and robbed by 3 others.
2. A career Navy woman was brutally raped and strangled, but she did put up a fight.
3. A piano tuner was beheaded during a home invasion robbery gone bad.
4. A housewife murdered when her boyfriend fired a 12 guage at her head point blank then turned the gun on himself.
In all four cases, even the last, the victim would have had a far better chance at surviving if they had a firearm, because in each case they were overpowered either by size or numbers. And possibly with no violence to either party. Get Out! backed up by a .38 is far stronger than Get Out! backed up by an angry snarl.
These are stories I talk about rarely. Saying much more than this would reveal too much of who I am. They are painful to remember although I do far too often and it only reinforces my decision that I, and opinion that everyone who legally can, ought to be armed.
God made man and God made woman. Sam Colt made sure they were equal.
For man also knoweth not his time: as the fishes that are taken in an evil net, and as the birds that are caught in the snare; so [are] the sons of men snared in an evil time, when it falleth suddenly upon them.
-- Ecclesiastes 9:12 --
Thursday, August 04, 2011 12:16:00 am
You know Damien Charles, there are few countries in the world that enjoy the freedoms we have (for the time being) in the US.
The UK, Australia, France and Germany have experienced a significant uptick in violent crime. Its not being publicly reported because the governments are not bound by demands for transparency that American culture requires. When you look at each state's crime numbers they are significantly lower than what the Interpol Public Ministry indicates.
To compare European and Arab street crime to American Crime ins not an apples to apples comparison. This isn't a debate I care to have, though because I have found that anti-gun liberals, no matter how many facts and figures thrown at them, their not going to agree.
For me, it is all about "what" the people decide...As in the U.S., in the last 25 years, states have expanded gun laws with only about six places left where there is an absolute ban on weapons. The question I then ask, are so many people so un-enlightened?
And lets talk about one other little factoid. The jurisdictions with the highest violent crime rates in the U.S also happen to be about the most violent places in the U.S. more gun crimes in those locations than anywhere else. So, knowing that little conventionality, it is clear that gun bans simply do not work.
But you know? Despite our loose gun laws that support and enhance a citizens right to be armed, we still have no shortage of the requisite Prune-picking, Pablum puking hoplophobes caterwauling about our "draconian" gun laws....my response is always the same: "You anti-gunners will get over it with time, medication and counseling so kiss my ass...here's a gem from Monday:
http://www.nhinsider.com/richard-olson-jr/2011/8/2/another-noisy-anti-gun-publication-heard-from-seacoast-on-li.html
Friday, August 05, 2011 4:37:00 am
Rick, with all due respect, your comment that "Its not being publicly reported because the governments are not bound by demands for transparency that American culture requires" is in fact not the case at all. You are talking about countries that have equal and in fact in the case of the UK and Australia even greater transparancy laws than in the US.
Try again.
Friday, August 05, 2011 12:50:00 pm
Well, that is why there are national boundaries, or used to be, so that you can live where you wish D, I just wish that you would take the others that feel the same way with you. Aren't there enough commie states/countries that you folks can move to, without having to screw ours up?
Saturday, August 06, 2011 5:28:00 am
pretty sure you could outlaw guns all you want but that's not gonna make a difference... my bet would be that your typical gang member isn't "allowed" to have a gun anyway.
we have several guns in the house, but don't carry because we keep doing home improvement projects instead of buying a gun :-) and crime-wise, we live in a ridiculously safe area. in the two years we've lived here, ONE person has been killed (ha! that used to be PER NIGHT before I moved here!). three years ago or so an ex-employee went nuts in the local hospital and shot some employees, but I'm pretty sure you can't carry one into a hospital anyway... and I *think* (not sure) a hospital security guard ended up shooting the guy anyway
as soon as we stop coming up with new home improvement projects, though, we are planning on a handgun for bear protection... even on our property we need to be careful, let alone going on hikes (especially with your grandbaby!). In the past few weeks, not only was there the 10' grizzly wandering around town, but also a 10 year old your son-in-law treated because on a hike with her mom and sister on the bike path in town, a black bear and its cub came out and the mama attacked the 10 year old... she wasn't hurt badly but still! i can't imagine they'd EVER outlaw guns in AK. yet another argument for getting you up here ;)
#1
Sunday, September 11, 2011 7:23:00 pm