My case for open carry

Werbung:
:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:....... the tautological Sarah Palin defence......she would be sooooo proud of you...

Mate, you're an intelligent guy, you have something to say, say it..... come on you can do better than that shite.
You ignore evidence showing that prevelance of an armed populace discourages crime by branding those population as "nutters".
I accept that you do not care for weapons but the main reason the 2nd amendment was installed is to make sure we wouldn't need to rebel against another onerous regime like King George. And because we did others who would seek power made an unarmed populace a cornerstone.
 
..the main reason the 2nd amendment was installed is to make sure we wouldn't need to rebel against another onerous regime like King George. And because we did others who would seek power made an unarmed populace a cornerstone.
Forgive me I'm not sure I understand your point, are you saying that the idea of the armed populace would be a deterent against...what invasion or some form of insurection or a deterent against tyrany?
 
Forgive me I'm not sure I understand your point, are you saying that the idea of the armed populace would be a deterent against...what invasion or some form of insurection or a deterent against tyrany?
The motto on Virginia's state flag is, translated from Latin, death to tyrants. Does that clear it up ?
 
So, Scotty. You don't believe the Pulse body count would have been lower if the bartender had been armed. This is an insane and irrational conclusion. One shot could have stopped Mateen in his tracks.
ONE SHOT.
I guess in the liberal world even 1 shot is a violation of your PC world view.
Once you become a progressive liberal secular humanist it is necessary to look at everything within the liberal and very flawed world view.
An armed bartender could have saved 30 to 40 of the 49 lives lost.
 
Scotty
Why? ONE SHOT would have stopped Mateen permanently.
Instead no one shot back and he killed 49.
I know defending yourself physically is against liberal PC rules but others of us actually think things through rationally.
 
Not Being Familiar With The Bar Layout It's difficult to know if the bartender had a reasonable line of fire much less the skill or courage.
But I think a flat no is unreasonable. And the more patrons that are armed the more likEly the body count goes down.
 
Not Being Familiar With The Bar Layout It's difficult to know if the bartender had a reasonable line of fire much less the skill or courage.
He wasn't in the same room...
He thought the gun shots were part of the music...
He didn't know what was going on...

ONE SHOT would have stopped Mateen permanently.
Yes.
 
Not Being Familiar With The Bar Layout It's difficult to know if the bartender had a reasonable line of fire much less the skill or courage.
But I think a flat no is unreasonable. And the more patrons that are armed the more likEly the body count goes down.


More then likely the body count would go up since you would have numerous weapons being used by people like you who's only desire would be to fire their weapon. People like you would see a person with a gun and not be certain if it was a bad guy, or a good guy. It would just be a target.
 
Scotty
Why? ONE SHOT would have stopped Mateen permanently.
Instead no one shot back and he killed 49.
I know defending yourself physically is against liberal PC rules but others of us actually think things through rationally.


That is an argument based on ignorance of the facts, a typical right wing situation. There was an armed off duty cop (Adam Gruler) acting as security guard that attempted to prevent Mateen from entering the club, and he was joined by another off duty cop. So, you had two off duty, armed cops, trying to stop him, and they failed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-policeman-narrowly-saved-kevlar-helmet.html
 
Werbung:
Back
Top