100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Liberals prefer Women be Unarmed and Raped | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
If you haven't watched this video,watch it....because............... "THIS MAY BE THE BEST ARGUMENT FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT".... http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/32514-this-may-be-the-best-argument-for-the-second-amendment/ Great post. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If a woman is confronted with rape and she maintains her nerves to reach into a pocket or purse or handbag for a pistol of some sort, then she could also be reaching for a straight razor...in lieu of being able to have a pistol in any 'gun free zone' such as a college campus. Straight razors once flicked open holds more terror than a pistol which may misfire, jam or miss the target altogether or simply wound them from which they more than likely will recover from and try it again at a later date. After being sliced by a razor, he won't have anything to ever rape another woman with...besides, razors are quiet; guns are loud and attract attention. Double barreled derringers are a nice gun for women to carry,(not loud), plus a straight razor... great liberal thinking there... how many women do you know that could use a straight razor without hurting themselves? just because it doesn't have a flying projectile doesn't mean safe or effective, just means they have to get closer to their attacker to use it... a gun is point and shoot, not much to that... and they don't have to be close... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If a woman is confronted with rape and she maintains her nerves to reach into a pocket or purse or handbag for a pistol of some sort, then she could also be reaching for a straight razor...in lieu of being able to have a pistol in any 'gun free zone' such as a college campus. Straight razors once flicked open holds more terror than a pistol which may misfire, jam or miss the target altogether or simply wound them from which they more than likely will recover from and try it again at a later date. After being sliced by a razor, he won't have anything to ever rape another woman with...besides, razors are quiet; guns are loud and attract attention. Double barreled derringers are a nice gun for women to carry,(not loud), plus a straight razor... great liberal thinking there... how many women do you know that could use a straight razor without hurting themselves? just because it doesn't have a flying projectile doesn't mean safe or effective, just means they have to get closer to their attacker to use it... a gun is point and shoot, not much to that... and they don't have to be close... Actually 2; one I saw slice his cock off when he pulled it out and waved it in her face as she was sitting down. This was on a public transit bus in Washington DC...one woman that I did know was attacked on a street by a mugger who wanted her purse. She had the razor out, open and slit his neck open when he lunged at her again. Point and shoot won't work for most people; they miss from even 2 feet away. If the person knows how to shoot, it is best to have fitted with a 'silencer'. Doesn't scare any others around you. It was a good lesson learned by a shooting coach I had at the DC NRA; he also taught me the basics about sniping. Ex Marine, bless his homicidal heart.... liberal thinking , my ***. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If a woman is confronted with rape and she maintains her nerves to reach into a pocket or purse or handbag for a pistol of some sort, then she could also be reaching for a straight razor...in lieu of being able to have a pistol in any 'gun free zone' such as a college campus. Straight razors once flicked open holds more terror than a pistol which may misfire, jam or miss the target altogether or simply wound them from which they more than likely will recover from and try it again at a later date. After being sliced by a razor, he won't have anything to ever rape another woman with...besides, razors are quiet; guns are loud and attract attention. Double barreled derringers are a nice gun for women to carry,(not loud), plus a straight razor... great liberal thinking there... how many women do you know that could use a straight razor without hurting themselves? just because it doesn't have a flying projectile doesn't mean safe or effective, just means they have to get closer to their attacker to use it... a gun is point and shoot, not much to that... and they don't have to be close... Actually 2; one I saw slice his cock off when he pulled it out and waved it in her face as she was sitting down. This was on a public transit bus in Washington DC...one woman that I did know was attacked on a street by a mugger who wanted her purse. She had the razor out, open and slit his neck open when he lunged at her again. Point and shoot won't work for most people; they miss from even 2 feet away. If the person knows how to shoot, it is best to have fitted with a 'silencer'. Doesn't scare any others around you. It was a good lesson learned by a shooting coach I had at the DC NRA; he also taught me the basics about sniping. Ex Marine, bless his homicidal heart.... liberal thinking , my ***. thanks for your opinion, but if someone can't hit something as big as a person from 2 feet away, then they don't need a gun at all... but the whole point of this thread is not whether they are a good or bad shot, it's about our rights to have a gun to begin with. for people that don't like guns or don't want one, then don't try to but your beliefs on the people that do... i don't need a democratic society to tell me they can protect me better than i can protect myself... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who exactly is saying they want women to be raped? the liberals... didn't you read the headline? and it didn't say "wanted", it said prefer... there is a difference Clearly I'm asking for a specific example. Give me the name and specific quote of the person you're accusing of wanting (or preferring) women to be raped. oh quit, you know what exactly what he's saying... liberals want gun control, and you know that... by saying you can't have a gun, they prefer you get raped rather than have a gun to defend yourself... you can try the who, what, where questioning, but it won't work... equating a desire for better gun control to a desire for no guns is like equating a desire for a balanced diet, to a desire to starve there is plenty of common sense middle ground to be covered |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who exactly is saying they want women to be raped? the liberals... didn't you read the headline? and it didn't say "wanted", it said prefer... there is a difference Clearly I'm asking for a specific example. Give me the name and specific quote of the person you're accusing of wanting (or preferring) women to be raped. oh quit, you know what exactly what he's saying... liberals want gun control, and you know that... by saying you can't have a gun, they prefer you get raped rather than have a gun to defend yourself... you can try the who, what, where questioning, but it won't work... equating a desire for better gun control to a desire for no guns is like equating a desire for a balanced diet, to a desire to starve there is plenty of common sense middle ground to be covered |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who exactly is saying they want women to be raped? the liberals... didn't you read the headline? and it didn't say "wanted", it said prefer... there is a difference Clearly I'm asking for a specific example. Give me the name and specific quote of the person you're accusing of wanting (or preferring) women to be raped. oh quit, you know what exactly what he's saying... liberals want gun control, and you know that... by saying you can't have a gun, they prefer you get raped rather than have a gun to defend yourself... you can try the who, what, where questioning, but it won't work... equating a desire for better gun control to a desire for no guns is like equating a desire for a balanced diet, to a desire to starve there is plenty of common sense middle ground to be covered equating a desire for better gun control to a desire for no guns is like equating a desire for a balanced diet, to a desire to starve there is plenty of common sense middle ground to be covered REPOSTED FOR COMPREHENSION |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
thanks for your opinion, but if someone can't hit something as big as a person from 2 feet away, then they don't need a gun at all... but the whole point of this thread is not whether they are a good or bad shot, it's about our rights to have a gun to begin with. for people that don't like guns or don't want one, then don't try to but your beliefs on the people that do... i don't need a democratic society to tell me they can protect me better than i can protect myself... After Sandy Hook, I participated in a few "gun" threads...It didn't take long to realize the issue was not about what is best for America, it's about what is best for party platform/agenda...Sad state of affairs for sure!...As stated in the article I posted, the problem is a mindset...I totally agree with this evaluation...Public resolve to increase government control is a mindset and, as an Independent, this is troubling to me as it should be to everyone regardless of strong beliefs tied to party affiliation...If gun control could do what activists in favor of it claim it can do, there would not be the division we are witnessing AND more importantly, Executive Order would not even need to be mentioned, let alone used!...The article has it right when it says the issue should not focus on the tired argument that government control will diminish freedom, the argument should only be concerned with taking a strand for our rights as citizens of The United States of America....The more we allow ANY entity to whittle away at those rights, the closer we come to seeing American, land of the free, cease to exist.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
thanks for your opinion, but if someone can't hit something as big as a person from 2 feet away, then they don't need a gun at all... but the whole point of this thread is not whether they are a good or bad shot, it's about our rights to have a gun to begin with. for people that don't like guns or don't want one, then don't try to but your beliefs on the people that do... i don't need a democratic society to tell me they can protect me better than i can protect myself... After Sandy Hook, I participated in a few "gun" threads...It didn't take long to realize the issue was not about what is best for America, it's about what is best for party platform/agenda...Sad state of affairs for sure!...As stated in the article I posted, the problem is a mindset...I totally agree with this evaluation...Public resolve to increase government control is a mindset and, as an Independent, this is troubling to me as it should be to everyone regardless of strong beliefs tied to party affiliation...If gun control could do what activists in favor of it claim it can do, there would not be the division we are witnessing AND more importantly, Executive Order would not even need to be mentioned, let alone used!...The article has it right when it says the issue should not focus on the tired argument that government control will diminish freedom, the argument should only be concerned with taking a strand for our rights as citizens of The United States of America....The more we allow ANY entity to whittle away at those rights, the closer we come to seeing American, land of the free, cease to exist.... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who exactly is saying they want women to be raped? the liberals... didn't you read the headline? and it didn't say "wanted", it said prefer... there is a difference Clearly I'm asking for a specific example. Give me the name and specific quote of the person you're accusing of wanting (or preferring) women to be raped. oh quit, you know what exactly what he's saying... liberals want gun control, and you know that... by saying you can't have a gun, they prefer you get raped rather than have a gun to defend yourself... you can try the who, what, where questioning, but it won't work... equating a desire for better gun control to a desire for no guns is like equating a desire for a balanced diet, to a desire to starve there is plenty of common sense middle ground to be covered equating a desire for better gun control to a desire for no guns is like equating a desire for a balanced diet, to a desire to starve there is plenty of common sense middle ground to be covered REPOSTED FOR COMPREHENSION And that particular occurrence shows again that Guncontrol is detrimental! The Right to Life,but no Right to defend it? Those rotten Politicians ought to be ashamed of themselves! But what do they have to worry about? Bodyguards and Concealed Carry,while they forbid the same to the Citizens! Sick Vermin! No better than the other Predators! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
thanks for your opinion, but if someone can't hit something as big as a person from 2 feet away, then they don't need a gun at all... but the whole point of this thread is not whether they are a good or bad shot, it's about our rights to have a gun to begin with. for people that don't like guns or don't want one, then don't try to but your beliefs on the people that do... i don't need a democratic society to tell me they can protect me better than i can protect myself... After Sandy Hook, I participated in a few "gun" threads...It didn't take long to realize the issue was not about what is best for America, it's about what is best for party platform/agenda...Sad state of affairs for sure!...As stated in the article I posted, the problem is a mindset...I totally agree with this evaluation...Public resolve to increase government control is a mindset and, as an Independent, this is troubling to me as it should be to everyone regardless of strong beliefs tied to party affiliation...If gun control could do what activists in favor of it claim it can do, there would not be the division we are witnessing AND more importantly, Executive Order would not even need to be mentioned, let alone used!...The article has it right when it says the issue should not focus on the tired argument that government control will diminish freedom, the argument should only be concerned with taking a strand for our rights as citizens of The United States of America....The more we allow ANY entity to whittle away at those rights, the closer we come to seeing American, land of the free, cease to exist.... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sat 03/09/13 08:56 AM
|
|
Who exactly is saying they want women to be raped? the liberals... didn't you read the headline? and it didn't say "wanted", it said prefer... there is a difference Clearly I'm asking for a specific example. Give me the name and specific quote of the person you're accusing of wanting (or preferring) women to be raped. oh quit, you know what exactly what he's saying... liberals want gun control, and you know that... by saying you can't have a gun, they prefer you get raped rather than have a gun to defend yourself... you can try the who, what, where questioning, but it won't work... equating a desire for better gun control to a desire for no guns is like equating a desire for a balanced diet, to a desire to starve there is plenty of common sense middle ground to be covered equating a desire for better gun control to a desire for no guns is like equating a desire for a balanced diet, to a desire to starve there is plenty of common sense middle ground to be covered REPOSTED FOR COMPREHENSION And that particular occurrence shows again that Guncontrol is detrimental! The Right to Life,but no Right to defend it? Those rotten Politicians ought to be ashamed of themselves! But what do they have to worry about? Bodyguards and Concealed Carry,while they forbid the same to the Citizens! Sick Vermin! No better than the other Predators!
gun control is not detrimental, it is an attempt to give a damn throwing the hands up with an anyone who wants one should have one mentality seems more detrimental a philosophy in this fast driven materialistic western culture, to me again, believing in using common sense about the types of weapons we produce and in whose hands we ALLOW them to be in is a far cry from believing women should be unarmed and raped,, and I say this as a two time survivor of sexual assault myself (of course people will always break laws and do whats not allowed, but at least starting with it not being allowed gives some legal standing to prosecute without a bunch of red tape and loopholes) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
thanks for your opinion, but if someone can't hit something as big as a person from 2 feet away, then they don't need a gun at all... but the whole point of this thread is not whether they are a good or bad shot, it's about our rights to have a gun to begin with. for people that don't like guns or don't want one, then don't try to but your beliefs on the people that do... i don't need a democratic society to tell me they can protect me better than i can protect myself... After Sandy Hook, I participated in a few "gun" threads...It didn't take long to realize the issue was not about what is best for America, it's about what is best for party platform/agenda...Sad state of affairs for sure!...As stated in the article I posted, the problem is a mindset...I totally agree with this evaluation...Public resolve to increase government control is a mindset and, as an Independent, this is troubling to me as it should be to everyone regardless of strong beliefs tied to party affiliation...If gun control could do what activists in favor of it claim it can do, there would not be the division we are witnessing AND more importantly, Executive Order would not even need to be mentioned, let alone used!...The article has it right when it says the issue should not focus on the tired argument that government control will diminish freedom, the argument should only be concerned with taking a strand for our rights as citizens of The United States of America....The more we allow ANY entity to whittle away at those rights, the closer we come to seeing American, land of the free, cease to exist....
Good morning! ..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who exactly is saying they want women to be raped? the liberals... didn't you read the headline? and it didn't say "wanted", it said prefer... there is a difference Clearly I'm asking for a specific example. Give me the name and specific quote of the person you're accusing of wanting (or preferring) women to be raped. oh quit, you know what exactly what he's saying... liberals want gun control, and you know that... by saying you can't have a gun, they prefer you get raped rather than have a gun to defend yourself... you can try the who, what, where questioning, but it won't work... equating a desire for better gun control to a desire for no guns is like equating a desire for a balanced diet, to a desire to starve there is plenty of common sense middle ground to be covered equating a desire for better gun control to a desire for no guns is like equating a desire for a balanced diet, to a desire to starve there is plenty of common sense middle ground to be covered REPOSTED FOR COMPREHENSION And that particular occurrence shows again that Guncontrol is detrimental! The Right to Life,but no Right to defend it? Those rotten Politicians ought to be ashamed of themselves! But what do they have to worry about? Bodyguards and Concealed Carry,while they forbid the same to the Citizens! Sick Vermin! No better than the other Predators!
gun control is not detrimental, it is an attempt to give a damn throwing the hands up with an anyone who wants one should have one mentality seems more detrimental a philosophy in this fast driven materialistic western culture, to me again, believing in using common sense about the types of weapons we produce and in whose hands we ALLOW them to be in is a far cry from believing women should be unarmed and raped,, and I say this as a two time survivor of sexual assault myself (of course people will always break laws and do whats not allowed, but at least starting with it not being allowed gives some legal standing to prosecute without a bunch of red tape and loopholes) Nope! 
The Lady ought to have the Right to defend her Life by any means necessary,and so has everyone else! Unless,of course,you believe your Life has no value,and any Thug having the Right to violate it! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who exactly is saying they want women to be raped? the liberals... didn't you read the headline? and it didn't say "wanted", it said prefer... there is a difference Clearly I'm asking for a specific example. Give me the name and specific quote of the person you're accusing of wanting (or preferring) women to be raped. oh quit, you know what exactly what he's saying... liberals want gun control, and you know that... by saying you can't have a gun, they prefer you get raped rather than have a gun to defend yourself... you can try the who, what, where questioning, but it won't work... equating a desire for better gun control to a desire for no guns is like equating a desire for a balanced diet, to a desire to starve there is plenty of common sense middle ground to be covered equating a desire for better gun control to a desire for no guns is like equating a desire for a balanced diet, to a desire to starve there is plenty of common sense middle ground to be covered REPOSTED FOR COMPREHENSION And that particular occurrence shows again that Guncontrol is detrimental! The Right to Life,but no Right to defend it? Those rotten Politicians ought to be ashamed of themselves! But what do they have to worry about? Bodyguards and Concealed Carry,while they forbid the same to the Citizens! Sick Vermin! No better than the other Predators!
gun control is not detrimental, it is an attempt to give a damn throwing the hands up with an anyone who wants one should have one mentality seems more detrimental a philosophy in this fast driven materialistic western culture, to me again, believing in using common sense about the types of weapons we produce and in whose hands we ALLOW them to be in is a far cry from believing women should be unarmed and raped,, and I say this as a two time survivor of sexual assault myself (of course people will always break laws and do whats not allowed, but at least starting with it not being allowed gives some legal standing to prosecute without a bunch of red tape and loopholes) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who exactly is saying they want women to be raped? the liberals... didn't you read the headline? and it didn't say "wanted", it said prefer... there is a difference Clearly I'm asking for a specific example. Give me the name and specific quote of the person you're accusing of wanting (or preferring) women to be raped. oh quit, you know what exactly what he's saying... liberals want gun control, and you know that... by saying you can't have a gun, they prefer you get raped rather than have a gun to defend yourself... you can try the who, what, where questioning, but it won't work... equating a desire for better gun control to a desire for no guns is like equating a desire for a balanced diet, to a desire to starve there is plenty of common sense middle ground to be covered equating a desire for better gun control to a desire for no guns is like equating a desire for a balanced diet, to a desire to starve there is plenty of common sense middle ground to be covered REPOSTED FOR COMPREHENSION And that particular occurrence shows again that Guncontrol is detrimental! The Right to Life,but no Right to defend it? Those rotten Politicians ought to be ashamed of themselves! But what do they have to worry about? Bodyguards and Concealed Carry,while they forbid the same to the Citizens! Sick Vermin! No better than the other Predators!
gun control is not detrimental, it is an attempt to give a damn throwing the hands up with an anyone who wants one should have one mentality seems more detrimental a philosophy in this fast driven materialistic western culture, to me again, believing in using common sense about the types of weapons we produce and in whose hands we ALLOW them to be in is a far cry from believing women should be unarmed and raped,, and I say this as a two time survivor of sexual assault myself (of course people will always break laws and do whats not allowed, but at least starting with it not being allowed gives some legal standing to prosecute without a bunch of red tape and loopholes) Nope!
The Lady ought to have the Right to defend her Life by any means necessary,and so has everyone else! Unless,of course,you believe your Life has no value,and any Thug having the Right to violate it! no, I believe all life has value, including a criminals thats why im in no detrimental need to be able to shoot an offender or have anyone with hands holding a gun 'in case' they become a victim too many people are not stable enough to tell a true threat from a perceived threat, too many situations are capable of ending with no lives lost for me to just uses guns as some fix all scapegoat for 'defemding life' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who exactly is saying they want women to be raped? the liberals... didn't you read the headline? and it didn't say "wanted", it said prefer... there is a difference Clearly I'm asking for a specific example. Give me the name and specific quote of the person you're accusing of wanting (or preferring) women to be raped. oh quit, you know what exactly what he's saying... liberals want gun control, and you know that... by saying you can't have a gun, they prefer you get raped rather than have a gun to defend yourself... you can try the who, what, where questioning, but it won't work... equating a desire for better gun control to a desire for no guns is like equating a desire for a balanced diet, to a desire to starve there is plenty of common sense middle ground to be covered equating a desire for better gun control to a desire for no guns is like equating a desire for a balanced diet, to a desire to starve there is plenty of common sense middle ground to be covered REPOSTED FOR COMPREHENSION And that particular occurrence shows again that Guncontrol is detrimental! The Right to Life,but no Right to defend it? Those rotten Politicians ought to be ashamed of themselves! But what do they have to worry about? Bodyguards and Concealed Carry,while they forbid the same to the Citizens! Sick Vermin! No better than the other Predators!
gun control is not detrimental, it is an attempt to give a damn throwing the hands up with an anyone who wants one should have one mentality seems more detrimental a philosophy in this fast driven materialistic western culture, to me again, believing in using common sense about the types of weapons we produce and in whose hands we ALLOW them to be in is a far cry from believing women should be unarmed and raped,, and I say this as a two time survivor of sexual assault myself (of course people will always break laws and do whats not allowed, but at least starting with it not being allowed gives some legal standing to prosecute without a bunch of red tape and loopholes) how many women dont have that right exactly does not having a gun in certain areas prevent one from 'defending' themself,,,? why dont we fashion a bomb for everyone too, so they can 'defend' theself? defending oneself does not start or stop with whether one owns or carries a gun |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who exactly is saying they want women to be raped? the liberals... didn't you read the headline? and it didn't say "wanted", it said prefer... there is a difference Clearly I'm asking for a specific example. Give me the name and specific quote of the person you're accusing of wanting (or preferring) women to be raped. oh quit, you know what exactly what he's saying... liberals want gun control, and you know that... by saying you can't have a gun, they prefer you get raped rather than have a gun to defend yourself... you can try the who, what, where questioning, but it won't work... equating a desire for better gun control to a desire for no guns is like equating a desire for a balanced diet, to a desire to starve there is plenty of common sense middle ground to be covered equating a desire for better gun control to a desire for no guns is like equating a desire for a balanced diet, to a desire to starve there is plenty of common sense middle ground to be covered REPOSTED FOR COMPREHENSION And that particular occurrence shows again that Guncontrol is detrimental! The Right to Life,but no Right to defend it? Those rotten Politicians ought to be ashamed of themselves! But what do they have to worry about? Bodyguards and Concealed Carry,while they forbid the same to the Citizens! Sick Vermin! No better than the other Predators!
gun control is not detrimental, it is an attempt to give a damn throwing the hands up with an anyone who wants one should have one mentality seems more detrimental a philosophy in this fast driven materialistic western culture, to me again, believing in using common sense about the types of weapons we produce and in whose hands we ALLOW them to be in is a far cry from believing women should be unarmed and raped,, and I say this as a two time survivor of sexual assault myself (of course people will always break laws and do whats not allowed, but at least starting with it not being allowed gives some legal standing to prosecute without a bunch of red tape and loopholes) how many women dont have that right exactly does not having a gun in certain areas prevent one from 'defending' themself,,,? why dont we fashion a bomb for everyone too, so they can 'defend' theself? defending oneself does not start or stop with whether one owns or carries a gun A gun ban didn't seem to mater to the rapist mentioned in OP... in chicago, the gun violence went up after they made the strictest gun laws in the country... and if you watched the video that leigh posted, that womans parents would still be alive if Texas wasn't so dumb back then... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sat 03/09/13 10:28 AM
|
|
Who exactly is saying they want women to be raped? the liberals... didn't you read the headline? and it didn't say "wanted", it said prefer... there is a difference Clearly I'm asking for a specific example. Give me the name and specific quote of the person you're accusing of wanting (or preferring) women to be raped. oh quit, you know what exactly what he's saying... liberals want gun control, and you know that... by saying you can't have a gun, they prefer you get raped rather than have a gun to defend yourself... you can try the who, what, where questioning, but it won't work... equating a desire for better gun control to a desire for no guns is like equating a desire for a balanced diet, to a desire to starve there is plenty of common sense middle ground to be covered equating a desire for better gun control to a desire for no guns is like equating a desire for a balanced diet, to a desire to starve there is plenty of common sense middle ground to be covered REPOSTED FOR COMPREHENSION And that particular occurrence shows again that Guncontrol is detrimental! The Right to Life,but no Right to defend it? Those rotten Politicians ought to be ashamed of themselves! But what do they have to worry about? Bodyguards and Concealed Carry,while they forbid the same to the Citizens! Sick Vermin! No better than the other Predators!
gun control is not detrimental, it is an attempt to give a damn throwing the hands up with an anyone who wants one should have one mentality seems more detrimental a philosophy in this fast driven materialistic western culture, to me again, believing in using common sense about the types of weapons we produce and in whose hands we ALLOW them to be in is a far cry from believing women should be unarmed and raped,, and I say this as a two time survivor of sexual assault myself (of course people will always break laws and do whats not allowed, but at least starting with it not being allowed gives some legal standing to prosecute without a bunch of red tape and loopholes) how many women dont have that right exactly does not having a gun in certain areas prevent one from 'defending' themself,,,? why dont we fashion a bomb for everyone too, so they can 'defend' theself? defending oneself does not start or stop with whether one owns or carries a gun A gun ban didn't seem to mater to the rapist mentioned in OP... in chicago, the gun violence went up after they made the strictest gun laws in the country... and if you watched the video that leigh posted, that womans parents would still be alive if Texas wasn't so dumb back then... no. laws dont matter to criminals but they do set apart the criminals from the 'law abiding' citizens and in florida, more 'justiried' shootings happened after stand your ground laws were passed but both issues are smoke screens which dont negate the need for common sense laws about weapon manufacturing and sales to save lives,, those taken from full out illegal assults to those taken from innocents mistken for a 'threat' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who exactly is saying they want women to be raped? the liberals... didn't you read the headline? and it didn't say "wanted", it said prefer... there is a difference Clearly I'm asking for a specific example. Give me the name and specific quote of the person you're accusing of wanting (or preferring) women to be raped. oh quit, you know what exactly what he's saying... liberals want gun control, and you know that... by saying you can't have a gun, they prefer you get raped rather than have a gun to defend yourself... you can try the who, what, where questioning, but it won't work... equating a desire for better gun control to a desire for no guns is like equating a desire for a balanced diet, to a desire to starve there is plenty of common sense middle ground to be covered equating a desire for better gun control to a desire for no guns is like equating a desire for a balanced diet, to a desire to starve there is plenty of common sense middle ground to be covered REPOSTED FOR COMPREHENSION And that particular occurrence shows again that Guncontrol is detrimental! The Right to Life,but no Right to defend it? Those rotten Politicians ought to be ashamed of themselves! But what do they have to worry about? Bodyguards and Concealed Carry,while they forbid the same to the Citizens! Sick Vermin! No better than the other Predators!
gun control is not detrimental, it is an attempt to give a damn throwing the hands up with an anyone who wants one should have one mentality seems more detrimental a philosophy in this fast driven materialistic western culture, to me again, believing in using common sense about the types of weapons we produce and in whose hands we ALLOW them to be in is a far cry from believing women should be unarmed and raped,, and I say this as a two time survivor of sexual assault myself (of course people will always break laws and do whats not allowed, but at least starting with it not being allowed gives some legal standing to prosecute without a bunch of red tape and loopholes) how many women dont have that right exactly does not having a gun in certain areas prevent one from 'defending' themself,,,? why dont we fashion a bomb for everyone too, so they can 'defend' theself? defending oneself does not start or stop with whether one owns or carries a gun A gun ban didn't seem to mater to the rapist mentioned in OP... in chicago, the gun violence went up after they made the strictest gun laws in the country... and if you watched the video that leigh posted, that womans parents would still be alive if Texas wasn't so dumb back then... correction, 'may' still be alive... |
|
|
|
|
