i live in houston, and i cannot remember the last time i drove by a school and didn't see 1-2 sheriffs cars parked there...

Msharmony:


For you to say "I agree" with the above jab at anti-gun legislation is either a ploy to fog the issue or you don't really get the point.

It says absolutely nothing about guns being in the hands of untrained, impulsive or paranoid people.

If you have no gun, and someone breaks into you home, you are defenseless. You are then at the mercy of God, and the Police, who by the time they get there, -- you could be dead.

As America gets broker and broker, there is less money to pay police and military. There will come a time when it could take two or more hours for help to arrive.

Home invasions are getting more frequent.

The point is, people should not have to depend on the police to protect them, they should have a gun in their home to protect them self.

If you want to depend on God, that's your choice. You may see him sooner than you think if you get killed.

actually, I dont live an all or nothing life or have all or nothing opinions

I agree, that if someone breaks in I will call someone with a gun

THE POLICE,, who are trained and disciplined (in general) to protect life,,,,


or a family member whom I know has undergone the training and has the mental stability to protect


I would not call the mentally unstable teen across the street and ask him to grab a gun,,,,,,

actually, I dont live an all or nothing life or have all or nothing opinions

I agree, that if someone breaks in I will call someone with a gun

THE POLICE,, who are trained and disciplined (in general) to protect life,,,,


or a family member whom I know has undergone the training and has the mental stability to protect


I would not call the mentally unstable teen across the street and ask him to grab a gun,,,,,,


I believe in God AND I believe rational people should be able to have reasonable weapons of protection,,,,

That's all so non specific and vague.
But the message of the image still seems to have gone over your head.

Here is what I got from the message:

1. anti-gun people will call a person WITH A GUN to protect them.

2. People who "don't believe in God" will pray... that they get there in time.

So the message is... they are basically hypocrites.

1. They are not peace loving anti-gun gandi's, because they called a person with a gun to save them.

2. They do apparently believe in something like a God because they prayed.



And you said you agree. So you agreed that those people are basically hypocrites.

nope, my reading comprehension is pretty strong

the implication was that there is somehow an inconsistency in not liking and utilizing the services of those with guns

I was merely pointing out the flaw in the attempt to belittle such a combination of opinions

someone can not personally like to dRIVE cars, and still enjoy riding in them with others who do

similarly, people can not like to have guns, but still be drawn to the protection of those who do

the debate always blurs the lines, as if any support of gun regulation equates to a blatant and all inclusive 'dislike for guns'

and nothing is further from a true portrayal of the issue,,,,


tools are only as useful as their owner is trained , tools created to maim and kill are especially harmful in the hands of just ANYONE who can afford them, and therefore it is reasonable to regulate the conditions upon which people own them and the types that are sold to citizens,,,,

There are to types of anti-gun proponents. There are those who are "non-violent" peace promoting people like Gandhi.

and there are those who are for guns, but think that only the police and the swat teams and the military (government folk) should have them.

Everyone one else must have permission, and allow their personal and private mental health records be examined after getting finger printed and had a background check before they are allowed to own a gun to protect them self.

In other words, owning a gun becomes a 'privilege' that can be regulated and controlled by government rather than a right.

there are many more 'types' of 'anti-gun' proponents

police and swat and military are also subject to examination and permissions, and some of us think that is how it should be for ALL who are going to possess tools of death,,,,


its not about being against the gun, its about being FOR the responsible sale and distribution of those guns,,,

We have plenty of laws about that already, they just are not being enforced at all. It will do no good to pass more laws when the current laws are just not being enforced anyway. Its all a bunch of yap yap yap.


Republicans Pushing For More Aggressive Enforcement of Current Gun Laws, Not New Gun Control

On Tuesday, former Rep. Asa Hutchinson, R-Ark., who leads a National Rifle Association-backed task force on school safety, called for expanded background checks. On Wednesday, President Obama visited Denver to applaud the state's recent passage of tough new gun laws, and urged Congress to follow suit. And on Thursday, neither of those efforts is likely to have moved the needle because Republicans have a ready-made response to both.
"I'll be happy to look at any piece of legislation that anybody brings forward as it relates to federal gun control—when the administration begins to enforce the current laws," Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., recently told National Journal Daily.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/republicans-pushing-for-more-aggressive-enforcement-of-current-gun-laws-not-new-gun-control-20130403

Nice thought, but it won't keep you safe when someone is coming after you.....just saying. Sometimes you have to be prepared for the worst even if you hope for the best. That's just a reality of the world we live in, people do bad things and we need to be prepared to handle those things. Lack of it will kill us.

Agreed, fact is Police only come AFTER something has happened, by then it's too late to stop whatever has occured. If you really wanna protect yourself, you need to be prepared to take things into your own hands, reliance on others to save you will leave you hurting or dead.

fact is we are going from general to specific

yes, HELP generally means whatever is available,, though I would be hoping it was not the teen with a mental instability who intends to help me but ends up shooting me instead,,,,

wanting help in general doesnt require anyone to be a lover of guns,

and police come at all stages of crimes, we have had police come to our house and interrupt an intrusion before,,,,

but the system will never be perfect, crime will nnever be stopped completely and the details can make alot of difference,,,

really doesn't matter what you or any one like or dislike!
The Constitution states clearly what the RIGHTS of the People are,and no Obfuscation can change that!

best statement in here so far...

right on the Button!

it doesnt state too clearly, considering the history of legal argument surrounding it

there is a right to bear arms

thats undebatable

whats debatable is , as long as you have arms (one weapon) is that right already fulfilled, or is it the right to own endless supplies of any kind of weapon

as long as you have access to arms, does it mean there has to therefore be made available any and every type of arms possible?

and, being that a well 'regulated' militia is mentioned as the reason for said access, should everyone owning a gun be considered a part of a 'regulated' militia? and whose role is it to regulate it.....

,,ya see, its not so clear

its clear that there could never be a BAN on citizens owning weapons AT ALL

but beyond that,, there is plenty left to debate...