100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: A petition that just might get some attention | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Self Defense Hindered Regulating and banning guns has the effect of disempowering the law-abiding while supplying advantage to the criminal. Try arguing this point with Texas State Representative Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp. In 1991, after leaving a legally owned firearm in her car in compliance with a local “safety” law restricting its carry in certain public places, Suzanna watched helplessly as her parents, along with 21 others, were murdered in a mass shooting at a local restaurant. Suzanna followed the law; the criminal didn't. How might the outcome have been different if the law had not restricted Suzanna’s right to have her firearm with her? One might ask the same question about every mass shooting or terrorist attack that has occurred in recent memory: how might the outcome have been different if one of the victims had been lawfully armed? The inescapable answer to this question is that lives would have been saved. This has been demonstrated in many documented incidents, but the mainstream media refuses to report that lawfully armed citizens have stopped killings before police could arrive. For example, in 1997 in Pearl, Mississippi, a 16-year-old satanist murdered his ex-girlfriend and wounded seven other students at a high school. As he was leaving to kill more children at a nearby junior high school, the assistant principal retrieved a lawfully owned handgun from his car and held the youth for five minutes until police arrived. Not long after, in Edinboro, Pennsylvania, a school rampage ended abruptly when a local merchant lawfully armed with a shotgun convinced the teenage killer to surrender before police could arrive. How many more children would have died if “safety” laws had prevented the assistant principal and the merchant from owning and accessing their firearms? And how many lives would have been saved on 9/11 had a pilot, an air marshall, or a qualified passenger been lawfully armed? http://bachbio.com/gunsavelives.htm how many lives could be saved each year if parents didnt have loaded weapons in their homes? the what ifs are endless which is even more reason for both sides to stop needing to be right, and start figuring out how to do right unlimited access to unlimited weapons of unlimited power is as much nonsense as 'banning' all guns from all people both are extremes that will go nowhere,,,and a balance needs to be struck somewhere Wake up and smell the Coffee! They play for keeps! They are playing the same Game in my Country as they do in yours! Every Country in the past that instituted "reasonable" Guncontrol ended up with Government having all the Guns and a repressed Citizenry! How do you think Hitler got away with his Genocide? How do you think Mao was able to kill 35 million of his Fellow Countrymen? How do you think Stalin was able with murdering 25 million Russians! How do you think the Ottomans,and Ataturk were able to kill 3.5 million Armenians? So-called "reasonable" Guncontrol started it all! Doesn't really matter what you say or think,the evidence is there. Same goes with all the Countries that ended up behind the Iron Curtain! alot of generalizations there,,, politicians are people, I believe there are some who are interested in the best interest of americans and some who arent Hitlers gun control wasnt 'reasonable', he systematically dehumanized and disarmed one SUB GROUP of the population inevitability isnt predicated on the actions of a few thats like trying to blame weed for crackheads plenty are able to indulge in one without ever indulging in the other politicians are people They are?…I thought they were murderous crooks & pirates only out for themselves…I wonder where I got that idea?... I believe there are some who are interested in the best interest of americans and some who aren't The few that are interested in the people tend not to get elected, and if they are, they are marginalized. The vast majority of politicians are IMO just a bunch of thieving, murderous crooks. They are almost as bad as lawyers!…I heard some of them even are lawyers! Hitlers gun control wasnt 'reasonable', he systematically dehumanized and disarmed one SUB GROUP of the population …Like all of Austria and germany? inevitability isnt predicated on the actions of a few Correct; (unfortunately) it is predicated on the actions/omissions of the corrupt/complacent majority. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sat 01/19/13 10:35 AM
|
|
Self Defense Hindered Regulating and banning guns has the effect of disempowering the law-abiding while supplying advantage to the criminal. Try arguing this point with Texas State Representative Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp. In 1991, after leaving a legally owned firearm in her car in compliance with a local “safety” law restricting its carry in certain public places, Suzanna watched helplessly as her parents, along with 21 others, were murdered in a mass shooting at a local restaurant. Suzanna followed the law; the criminal didn't. How might the outcome have been different if the law had not restricted Suzanna’s right to have her firearm with her? One might ask the same question about every mass shooting or terrorist attack that has occurred in recent memory: how might the outcome have been different if one of the victims had been lawfully armed? The inescapable answer to this question is that lives would have been saved. This has been demonstrated in many documented incidents, but the mainstream media refuses to report that lawfully armed citizens have stopped killings before police could arrive. For example, in 1997 in Pearl, Mississippi, a 16-year-old satanist murdered his ex-girlfriend and wounded seven other students at a high school. As he was leaving to kill more children at a nearby junior high school, the assistant principal retrieved a lawfully owned handgun from his car and held the youth for five minutes until police arrived. Not long after, in Edinboro, Pennsylvania, a school rampage ended abruptly when a local merchant lawfully armed with a shotgun convinced the teenage killer to surrender before police could arrive. How many more children would have died if “safety” laws had prevented the assistant principal and the merchant from owning and accessing their firearms? And how many lives would have been saved on 9/11 had a pilot, an air marshall, or a qualified passenger been lawfully armed? http://bachbio.com/gunsavelives.htm how many lives could be saved each year if parents didnt have loaded weapons in their homes? the what ifs are endless which is even more reason for both sides to stop needing to be right, and start figuring out how to do right unlimited access to unlimited weapons of unlimited power is as much nonsense as 'banning' all guns from all people both are extremes that will go nowhere,,,and a balance needs to be struck somewhere Wake up and smell the Coffee! They play for keeps! They are playing the same Game in my Country as they do in yours! Every Country in the past that instituted "reasonable" Guncontrol ended up with Government having all the Guns and a repressed Citizenry! How do you think Hitler got away with his Genocide? How do you think Mao was able to kill 35 million of his Fellow Countrymen? How do you think Stalin was able with murdering 25 million Russians! How do you think the Ottomans,and Ataturk were able to kill 3.5 million Armenians? So-called "reasonable" Guncontrol started it all! Doesn't really matter what you say or think,the evidence is there. Same goes with all the Countries that ended up behind the Iron Curtain! alot of generalizations there,,, politicians are people, I believe there are some who are interested in the best interest of americans and some who arent Hitlers gun control wasnt 'reasonable', he systematically dehumanized and disarmed one SUB GROUP of the population inevitability isnt predicated on the actions of a few thats like trying to blame weed for crackheads plenty are able to indulge in one without ever indulging in the other As usual! You really need to do a bit of reading History! Didn't happen in one or two places! Happened in every place I have mentioned,plus a few more! 1953 Berlin Uprising,People going barehanded at Russian Tanks because that's all they had! 1956 Budapest,Hungary Uprising,crushed by Russian Tanks! Same scenario as Berlin three years before 1968 Russian Tanks crush the Prague Spring,same Scenario as in Germany and Hungary! I'll never forget the helpless anger we felt at the News of each of those events! And it will not happen again as long as I am able to do something about it! In each Instance the People were disarmed beforehand by their respective Government! And you really think it can't happen in the USofA? You really have no idea what you are up against! Stefan Molyneux If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. So it’s not that you are anti-gun. You’ll need the police’s guns to take away other people’s guns. So you’re very Pro-Gun, you just believe that only the Government (which is, of course, so reliable, honest, moral and virtuous…) should be allowed to have guns. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political elite and their minions. different times, different environments, different cultures seriously. times have evolved, I doubt the US government would need to employ tanks or guns to do dirt to americans and would guns stop a tank anyhow?,,,doubtful I understand people are scared of some imminent collective choice of our government to stop hobnobbing in wealth with their wealthy friends and reverse all the benefits by taking out their source of wealth and productivity (the people) , I dont agree with it, but I do understand it is there its just a total lack of logical assessment though, for the reasons given above,, the government wont need guns or be stopped by guns if they ever became insane enough to decide they needed more control over us heck, at this point in our technological 'evolution', all someone really would have to do is take down our grids, our water supplies,,see how fast patriotic americans turn on EACH OTHER when they cant get their money, or drive their cars, or refrigerate their food, or heat their homes, or flush their own crap down the toilet technology is changing things, including how 'wars' are fought,,,guns are not the protection people assume they are when fearing government,,, and I agree, Im for gun control and not anit-gun though its not true that it has to do with only arming an 'elite' its about arming those with the mental and emotional capacity to do no harm |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Sat 01/19/13 10:47 AM
|
|
Self Defense Hindered Regulating and banning guns has the effect of disempowering the law-abiding while supplying advantage to the criminal. Try arguing this point with Texas State Representative Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp. In 1991, after leaving a legally owned firearm in her car in compliance with a local “safety” law restricting its carry in certain public places, Suzanna watched helplessly as her parents, along with 21 others, were murdered in a mass shooting at a local restaurant. Suzanna followed the law; the criminal didn't. How might the outcome have been different if the law had not restricted Suzanna’s right to have her firearm with her? One might ask the same question about every mass shooting or terrorist attack that has occurred in recent memory: how might the outcome have been different if one of the victims had been lawfully armed? The inescapable answer to this question is that lives would have been saved. This has been demonstrated in many documented incidents, but the mainstream media refuses to report that lawfully armed citizens have stopped killings before police could arrive. For example, in 1997 in Pearl, Mississippi, a 16-year-old satanist murdered his ex-girlfriend and wounded seven other students at a high school. As he was leaving to kill more children at a nearby junior high school, the assistant principal retrieved a lawfully owned handgun from his car and held the youth for five minutes until police arrived. Not long after, in Edinboro, Pennsylvania, a school rampage ended abruptly when a local merchant lawfully armed with a shotgun convinced the teenage killer to surrender before police could arrive. How many more children would have died if “safety” laws had prevented the assistant principal and the merchant from owning and accessing their firearms? And how many lives would have been saved on 9/11 had a pilot, an air marshall, or a qualified passenger been lawfully armed? http://bachbio.com/gunsavelives.htm how many lives could be saved each year if parents didnt have loaded weapons in their homes? the what ifs are endless which is even more reason for both sides to stop needing to be right, and start figuring out how to do right unlimited access to unlimited weapons of unlimited power is as much nonsense as 'banning' all guns from all people both are extremes that will go nowhere,,,and a balance needs to be struck somewhere Wake up and smell the Coffee! They play for keeps! They are playing the same Game in my Country as they do in yours! Every Country in the past that instituted "reasonable" Guncontrol ended up with Government having all the Guns and a repressed Citizenry! How do you think Hitler got away with his Genocide? How do you think Mao was able to kill 35 million of his Fellow Countrymen? How do you think Stalin was able with murdering 25 million Russians! How do you think the Ottomans,and Ataturk were able to kill 3.5 million Armenians? So-called "reasonable" Guncontrol started it all! Doesn't really matter what you say or think,the evidence is there. Same goes with all the Countries that ended up behind the Iron Curtain! alot of generalizations there,,, politicians are people, I believe there are some who are interested in the best interest of americans and some who arent Hitlers gun control wasnt 'reasonable', he systematically dehumanized and disarmed one SUB GROUP of the population inevitability isnt predicated on the actions of a few thats like trying to blame weed for crackheads plenty are able to indulge in one without ever indulging in the other As usual! You really need to do a bit of reading History! Didn't happen in one or two places! Happened in every place I have mentioned,plus a few more! 1953 Berlin Uprising,People going barehanded at Russian Tanks because that's all they had! 1956 Budapest,Hungary Uprising,crushed by Russian Tanks! Same scenario as Berlin three years before 1968 Russian Tanks crush the Prague Spring,same Scenario as in Germany and Hungary! I'll never forget the helpless anger we felt at the News of each of those events! And it will not happen again as long as I am able to do something about it! In each Instance the People were disarmed beforehand by their respective Government! And you really think it can't happen in the USofA? You really have no idea what you are up against! Stefan Molyneux If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. So it’s not that you are anti-gun. You’ll need the police’s guns to take away other people’s guns. So you’re very Pro-Gun, you just believe that only the Government (which is, of course, so reliable, honest, moral and virtuous…) should be allowed to have guns. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political elite and their minions. different times, different environments, different cultures seriously. times have evolved, I doubt the US government would need to employ tanks or guns to do dirt to americans and would guns stop a tank anyhow?,,,doubtful I understand people are scared of some imminent collective choice of our government to stop hobnobbing in wealth with their wealthy friends and reverse all the benefits by taking out their source of wealth and productivity (the people) , I dont agree with it, but I do understand it is there its just a total lack of logical assessment though, for the reasons given above,, the government wont need guns or be stopped by guns if they ever became insane enough to decide they needed more control over us heck, at this point in our technological 'evolution', all someone really would have to do is take down our grids, our water supplies,,see how fast patriotic americans turn on EACH OTHER when they cant get their money, or drive their cars, or refrigerate their food, or heat their homes, or flush their own crap down the toilet technology is changing things, including how 'wars' are fought,,,guns are not the protection people assume they are when fearing government,,, and I agree, Im for gun control and not anit-gun though its not true that it has to do with only arming an 'elite' its about arming those with the mental and emotional capacity to do no harm  No Skin off my Nose! Hope some day you and others will realize that your Actions of limiting Firearmpossession by the Civilian Population has exactly the effect described by Molineux! Hope it isn't too late then! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 01/19/13 10:51 AM
|
|
Why am I not surprised that you'd post this? Wasn't it you who posted the petition to deport Piers Morgan, too? This is of course a retort to the senselessness of gun free zones being able to prevent crimes like Sandy Hook, Aurora, Columbine or any of the other such events, but Piers Morgan was a Brit attacking my constitutional rights as an American in a country of which he has no voice except under the same constitution he is attacking, and I fought and bled for..... You bet it was me! Who the hell does Piers Morgan think he is anyway? A spokesman for the Evil Queen of England? Deport the bastard. I was flipping channels last night and he was on the tv again with his rhetoric about guns. FYI a semi automatic gun was NOT used at Sandy Hook anyway. The only semi automatic was found unused in the trunk of a car. Probably it was planted. Lets ban spoons.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and I agree, Im for gun control and not anit-gun People who say this don't realize that there are 2200 gun laws on the books already that the ATF does not enforce. Guns are always controlled. What do you think they are doing, going around shooting people all by themselves? You don't want "gun control" you want "government control" over people. We don't need more laws, we just need to practice some common sense and enforce the laws we currently have on the books. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I grew up in Europe during that time! |
|
|
|
|
