Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Arris

NRA PROMOTING VIOLENCE?

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, DumptheTrump said:

I will say that after having what happened to me the other day and also today that the hipocracy is unbelievable with some of these democrat run groups.  Bludog made a good point in another thread (choose more carefully what I share), but I will no longer blindly support or follow groups just because they are supportive of liberal ideas.  OFA is a joke, especially with how low they sank this morning.

 

funny how the NRA seems to be more diverse and accepting than some liberal groups.....

 

You are discovering the same things I have over the years.  A lot of it is deeply frustrating to me, but I'm also becoming more optimistic; as I'm seeing more liberals waking up to these realities and I think it'll be good for us all in the long run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more thing:   I have installed green laser sights on my two home-defense pistols.   Unlike red dots, a bright green dot remains visible during the day (But not in bright sunlight).  Laser sights allow for much faster target acquisition.  They allow for better target retention should holding a dangerous individual at gunpoint become a necessity. And they allow for accurate shooting from the hip or any position at all.

 

Disadvantage:  Laser sights add a layer of maintenance.  Even if the old batteries still work, they might not have much power left in them and so, must be replaced periodically. Also, laser sights, especially green ones, are bulky.   But the advantages of laser sights are well worth the extra effort.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bludog said:

Appendix carry, to me, gets extremely painful when I bend or lean forward.  I know people who do it religiously.  I don't have that much dedication.  I do, however practice a speed draw from the ankle, with the understanding it can never be as fast .

 

I think the comfort of appendix carry is highly dependent upon the holster used, and one's own physiology.  It is a highly comfortable method to me, and I appreciate the speed with which I can access it, as well as how discreet it is.  It doesn't work if someone has any kind of weight around the middle, of course, and a lot of the holsters out there marketed as "appendix carry" are indeed uncomfortable.  My rig is a custom one made by a friend, and comfortable enough I can almost forget it's there.

 

2 hours ago, bludog said:

To each his own.  Even with pistols, using a thumb safety, in the cocked and locked position, trigger-finger discipline should be strictly observed.  I do.  But when I see someone carrying a Glock with a round in the chamber, it makes me leery.  I also know people who carry Glocks and use an empty chamber as a safety ...  Defeating the dubious purpose of placing the safety on the trigger, in the first place.

 

Everything, in carrying a sidearm, requires being conscientious and consistent in your safety practices  I've carried 1911s regularly, and am comfortable with the cocked and locked mode; but I find the Glock a more efficient tool for the job.  I also see no reason to carry a firearm without a round chambered, but I am completely comfortable with carrying a Glock as well.  Trigger finger discipline, proper reholstering, and proper presentation techniques, necessary in carrying any personal defense firearm, make it as safe to carry as any double action revolver.  This simplicity is, after all, ostensibly why so many law enforcement departments transitioned to the Glock when it first came on the scene; though the failings of modern law enforcement training certainly contributed to problems due to mishandling; problems erased by proper training.

 

1 hour ago, bludog said:

 

Again, a slight difference in point of view.  AR rounds can penetrate many walls, and have more chance of hitting the innocent than and ounce of birdshot.  Shotguns, thus loaded, tend to cause devastating wounds, likely to incapacitate or kill at close range.  I could not (do not) imagine myself needing to shoot someone at long range although you have already informed us  there are rare, documented cases where this was necessary for self-defense.

 

The key to using a carbine for home defense is load selection, just as with a shotgun.  There are AR loads that can break up in standard building materials, reducing the risk of overpenetration while offering devastatingly effective terminal ballistics, and offering far greater precision in the event one might have to take a life-saving shot past a loved one to terminate an immediate threat; something impossible with a shotgun. It is the existence of loads such as this which is why so many urban law enforcement agencies are transitioning away from shotguns to tactical carbines.  I'm also afraid you might be misguided in your belief of birdshot being a viable defensive load.  There are any number of stories of people struck with a load of birdshot who walked away from it with only minor injuries.  With the propensity of, shall we say, "recreational stimulants", I won't take that chance, and I tend to keep my house shotgun loaded with #4 buckshot.

 

1 hour ago, bludog said:

That said, I do not favor any long gun for home defense due to the many documented cases of adrenalized homeowners getting immobilized by the weapon while trying to pass through a doorway. doorway ...  A situation which can be as deadly as it sounds embarrassing.  I favor a pistol in .45ACP, .45 Long Colt, or .44S&W, with a 5 to 6 inch barrel, loaded with expanding, self-defense rounds.

 

The key to any long gun being in the home defense battery is being aware of what role it plays.  In my case, I have layered defense.  If I hear a strange noise that raises my concerns but is not obviously an invader, I grab the handgun dedicated for the purpose.  I can clear the house, and have a hand free to open doors, etc., as it's much more maneuverable in tight quarters.  If I KNOW that I've got a home invasion going on, the long gun comes into play; not to take through the house but to secure the safe room.  The long gun is easier to hit with under stress than any handgun and brings far more ballistic impact, and I can keep it trained on the bottleneck of the door while my wife is on the phone calling the constabulary.  As far as handguns are concerned, I spent a lot of years adhering to the idea of larger calibers, but I now know that we don't fight with handguns because they are the best choice, but because they are what we tend to have with us in the moment an unanticipated assault begins.  Any handgun round is relatively underpowered for defensive purposes, and shot placement is far more important than caliber; provided we are talking about normal defensive calibers such as .380 and above instead of inappropriate choices such as .22 LR or .25 ACP.  It is, however, critically important that one selects top-quality, self-defense specific ammunition; just as you noted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Spartan said:

 

You are discovering the same things I have over the years.  A lot of it is deeply frustrating to me, but I'm also becoming more optimistic; as I'm seeing more liberals waking up to these realities and I think it'll be good for us all in the long run.

I feel as if I have been conned and used as a useful idiot.  There is no way those that run or finance these groups can really believe it, can they??? They call the NRA a terror group, but the NRA (to my knowledge) doesn't try to limit people's rights, they try to protect them!  I can't believe I was so gullible before. I even saw the Eddie Eagle thing the NRA does to prevent accidents with children.  Why don't gun control groups ever talk about that (that the NRA promotes safety and teaches kids to not handle firearms unsupervised)?

https://eddieeagle.nra.org/

I never heard about it before.  The NRA DOES NOT want crazy people owning guns and DOES NOT want kids getting killed, they want to prevent it!!!

 

i am just so angry that I've been lied to for so long and blindly listened to what OFA was saying at the meetings.  No wonder they are mad (they know me and know how vocal I am).

 

I was invited by one of the women in the class (a white woman) to go out for happy hour Wednesday after work. Her and a few of her friends are going and I figured what the heck.  It's weird, because I don't think she's being nice to me because of my race, but because we did have some things in common other than just attending the class.  She's actually the one that introduced me to the VP9. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Spartan said:

I think the comfort of appendix carry is highly dependent upon the holster used, and one's own physiology.  It is a highly comfortable method to me, and I appreciate the speed with which I can access it, as well as how discreet it is.  It doesn't work if someone has any kind of weight around the middle, of course, and a lot of the holsters out there marketed as "appendix carry" are indeed uncomfortable.  My rig is a custom one made by a friend, and comfortable enough I can almost forget it's there.

 

So far, they all models I've tried have risen up and poked me in the ribs when I bent or reached ...  Not much padding there.  And they get very uncomfortable during long drives, when you can't immediately do much about adjustment.  With small hips, and relatively flat buns my belt needs to be tight to hold up my pants.  I refuse to surrender and wear suspenders.:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, DumptheTrump said:

I feel as if I have been conned and used as a useful idiot.  There is no way those that run or finance these groups can really believe it, can they??? They call the NRA a terror group, but the NRA (to my knowledge) doesn't try to limit people's rights, they try to protect them!  I can't believe I was so gullible before. I even saw the Eddie Eagle thing the NRA does to prevent accidents with children.  Why don't gun control groups ever talk about that (that the NRA promotes safety and teaches kids to not handle firearms unsupervised)?

https://eddieeagle.nra.org/

I never heard about it before.  The NRA DOES NOT want crazy people owning guns and DOES NOT want kids getting killed, they want to prevent it!!!

 

i am just so angry that I've been lied to for so long and blindly listened to what OFA was saying at the meetings.  No wonder they are mad (they know me and know how vocal I am).

 

I'll start by telling you not to feel like a "useful idiot".  You know the old saying: "You don't know what you don't know", and given the chance you were able to figure out the realities of the issue, where many other people never do.  You have now been introduced to the frustration many of us feel as we try to enlighten others regarding this issue, but I think you have an unusual opportunity to help educate people on a lot of the facts of this.  Clearly, people won't be able to dismiss your experiences and opinions as readily as they might dismiss the arguments presented by others.

 

8 minutes ago, DumptheTrump said:

I was invited by one of the women in the class (a white woman) to go out for happy hour Wednesday after work. Her and a few of her friends are going and I figured what the heck.  It's weird, because I don't think she's being nice to me because of my race, but because we did have some things in common other than just attending the class.  She's actually the one that introduced me to the VP9. 

 

Well, like I told you before; you'll find that people in the shooting and firearms community tend to be far more inclusive and welcoming than many other people you may have encountered in your life.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bludog said:

 

So far, they all models I've tried have risen up and poked me in the ribs when I bent or reached ...  Not much padding there.  And they get very uncomfortable during long drives, when you can't immediately do much about adjustment.  With small hips, a relatively flat buns my belt needs to be tight to hold up my pants.  I refuse to surrender and wear suspenders.:)

 

LOL!!!  Oh, I get what you're saying!  Yeah, I wouldn't want to embrace suspenders either.  I'm lucky to have exactly the right body-type for it.  I can move, run, drive, bend, whatever, without feeling any discomfort.  I know it's there, but that's about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Spartan said:

 

I'll start by telling you not to feel like a "useful idiot".  You know the old saying: "You don't know what you don't know", and given the chance you were able to figure out the realities of the issue, where many other people never do.  You have now been introduced to the frustration many of us feel as we try to enlighten others regarding this issue, but I think you have an unusual opportunity to help educate people on a lot of the facts of this.  Clearly, people won't be able to dismiss your experiences and opinions as readily as they might dismiss the arguments presented by others.

 

 

Well, like I told you before; you'll find that people in the shooting and firearms community tend to be far more inclusive and welcoming than many other people you may have encountered in your life.  

I felt much less awkward at the class and with those women than I did at some of the activist meetings I have attended.  I'll tell you this much, after all I learned, I will not vote for a politician that supports gun control (which means I will no longer be voting in IL since all democrats in my area are heavily for gun control). My big mouth and I should just shout "if you support gun control then You support blacks being disarmed!" 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is my local chapter of OFA.  As you can see, the last 3 posts that were made were all firearm related.

https://m.facebook.com/OrganizingForActionChicagoNorthChapter/

 

The post from July 5th describes perfectly what this chapter is trying to achieve ("you are not safe anywhere if guns are around"). 

 

 

If you look at the pictures that are uploaded, a little bit down there is some of us dressed "This is our Selma" shirts.  I'm  in one of the pics (see if you can guess which one :) ) 

 

anyways, the event was supposed to be about civil rights and race equality, but Father Michael Pflieger got involved and turned the whole thing into a gun protest. What I later found out is that he (and we) received a large contribution from Michael Bloomberg, and with a week to go before the March the whole thing changed from an equal rights march to a anti-gun protest.  I didn't think anything of it and was supportive of it at the time. With these "activist" groups, outside parties can buy them out and change it for whatever they want.  What the hell does anti-gun protesting have to do with Selma????? I feel like a cloud was lifted over my eyes and I can see. My brain is overwhelmed, I'm sorry for the rambling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Spartan said:

The key to any long gun being in the home defense battery is being aware of what role it plays.  In my case, I have layered defense.  If I hear a strange noise that raises my concerns but is not obviously an invader, I grab the handgun dedicated for the purpose.  I can clear the house, and have a hand free to open doors, etc., as it's much more maneuverable in tight quarters.  If I KNOW that I've got a home invasion going on, the long gun comes into play; not to take through the house but to secure the safe room.  The long gun is easier to hit with under stress than any handgun and brings far more ballistic impact, and I can keep it trained on the bottleneck of the door while my wife is on the phone calling the constabulary.  As far as handguns are concerned, I spent a lot of years adhering to the idea of larger calibers, but I now know that we don't fight with handguns because they are the best choice, but because they are what we tend to have with us in the moment an unanticipated assault begins.  Any handgun round is relatively underpowered for defensive purposes, and shot placement is far more important than caliber; provided we are talking about normal defensive calibers such as .380 and above instead of inappropriate choices such as .22 LR or .25 ACP.  It is, however, critically important that one selects top-quality, self-defense specific ammunition; just as you noted.

 

I contend:---  The first fatal shot fired in a one-on-one confrontation puts an end to the action.  Any laser-equipped gun, 9mm or better, (for argument's sake) whether rifle, pistol or shotgun, has a far better chance of delivering the first fatal shot, than any gun, with some other sighting system.  Since a laser-equipped pistol can be picked up, aimed and fired with precision, quicker than any long gun, it is more deadly at close range, and more effective for home defense.  End of story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bludog said:

 

I contend:---  The first fatal shot fired in a one-on-one confrontation puts an end to the action.  Any laser-equipped gun, 9mm or better, (for argument's sake) whether rifle, pistol or shotgun, has a far better chance of delivering the first fatal shot, than any gun, with some other sighting system.  Since a laser-equipped pistol can be picked up, aimed and fired with precision, quicker than any long gun, it is more deadly at close range, and more effective for home defense.  End of story.

I do know that in Chicago you cannot have a laser on a pistol while carrying it (one of the things we lobbied for when the concealed carry bill was passed).  I believe it is illegal to even own one (page 7)

illinois.pdf

i hate to say it, but democrats are at fault for all of the BS regarding these silly laws. At least I will no longer be a part of voicing my support for this rubbish

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, DumptheTrump said:

I do know that in Chicago you cannot have a laser on a pistol while carrying it (one of the things we lobbied for when the concealed carry bill was passed).  I believe it is illegal to even own one (page 7)

illinois.pdf

i hate to say it, but democrats are at fault for all of the BS regarding these silly laws. At least I will no longer be a part of voicing my support for this rubbish

 

I did not know that.  I do know that the Republican Party cynically uses gun rights as a wedge issue to divert attention from their economic policies which are destroying the middle class.  The Democratic Party would do well to deprive the Republicans of this advantage by distancing itself from anti-gun groups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, bludog said:

 

I did not know that.  I do know that the Republican Party cynically uses gun rights as a wedge issue to divert attention from their economic policies which are destroying the middle class.  The Democratic Party would do well to deprive the Republicans of this advantage by distancing itself from anti-gun groups.

I doubt that will happen.  The people I've been acquainted with are so dug in on the issue that, like I said, they want guns banned.  When they initially found out I had my step father's revolver they were horrified and asking me to turn it it to the police (even though I had a FOID card). They do not want stricter laws, they want guns banned

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most Democrats do not feel nearly as negative about gun rights as  "the people" you've "been aquainted with", who "want guns banned".  If the Democratic Party officially abandoned its anti-gun positions and distanced itself from the anti-gun extremists, it would gain more single issue, pro-gun voters who previously voted Republican than it would lose anti-gun Democratic voters, most of whom would not turn into Republicans in any case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, bludog said:

 

I contend:---  The first fatal shot fired in a one-on-one confrontation puts an end to the action.  Any laser-equipped gun, 9mm or better, (for argument's sake) whether rifle, pistol or shotgun, has a far better chance of delivering the first fatal shot, than any gun, with some other sighting system.  Since a laser-equipped pistol can be picked up, aimed and fired with precision, quicker than any long gun, it is more deadly at close range, and more effective for home defense.  End of story.

 

Again, with respect: you've got some misconceptions.  

 

"The first fatal shot fired in a one on one confrontation puts an end to the action."  This is not necessarily true.  Even if the heart is destroyed a person can continue to function for up to thirty seconds before collapse.  This is why people are trained to continue firing until the threat is visibly neutralized.  Without a solid hit to brain or spine an individual can keep fighting even if fatally wounded.  In the infamous Miami Shootout in 1986 Michael Platt took a bullet would that would have ultimately been fatal....and he still killed two FBI agents and wounded five more before the fight was over, despite having blood flowing out of the hole in his chest like water out of a garden hose.

 

"Any laser-equipped gun, 9mm or better, (for argument's sake) whether rifle, pistol or shotgun, has a far better chance of delivering the first fatal shot, than any gun, with some other sighting system."  Again, not necessarily true.  That's one theory I've seen debunked regularly.  A person with a laser-sighted pistol who picks it up and fires loses a moment hunting for the dot on his target; a tendency reduced if the person can assume a proper shooting stance first.  A person picking up a firearm with a reflex sight can usually acquire a sight picture and fire just a hair faster.  I've both seen and been involved in scenario training with electronic timers, and experienced the truth of it.

 

"Since a laser-equipped pistol can be picked up, aimed and fired with precision, quicker than any long gun, it is more deadly at close range, and more effective for home defense.  End of story."  Another absolutist statement that fails to stand up to empirical testing.  ANY long gun is more deadly at close range than any handgun.  This is a simple, unarguable point.  Any properly trained individual who knows a fight is imminent will pick up a long gun over any handgun. Period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DumptheTrump said:

i hate to say it, but democrats are at fault for all of the BS regarding these silly laws. At least I will no longer be a part of voicing my support for this rubbish

 

That's the painful truth I've contended with for some time.

 

22 minutes ago, bludog said:

Most Democrats do not feel nearly as negative about gun rights as  "the people" you've "been aquainted with", who "want guns banned".  If the Democratic Party officially abandoned its anti-gun positions and distanced itself from the anti-gun extremists, it would gain more single issue, pro-gun voters who previously voted Republican than it would lose anti-gun Democratic voters, most of whom would not turn into Republicans in any case.

 

This is very much truth, which is incredibly frustrating as the national Democratic party refuses to acknowledge these simple truths.  I've mentioned several times that we could have pushed through a great many progressive/liberal policies already if only the Democrats had embraced the 2nd Amendment instead of pushing gun control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Spartan said:

Again, with respect: you've got some misconceptions.  

 

"The first fatal shot fired in a one on one confrontation puts an end to the action."  This is not necessarily true.  Even if the heart is destroyed a person can continue to function for up to thirty seconds before collapse.  This is why people are trained to continue firing until the threat is visibly neutralized.  Without a solid hit to brain or spine an individual can keep fighting even if fatally wounded.  In the infamous Miami Shootout in 1986 Michael Platt took a bullet would that would have ultimately been fatal....and he still killed two FBI agents and wounded five more before the fight was over, despite having blood flowing out of the hole in his chest like water out of a garden hose.

 

Farfetched.  The vast majority of people, if hit in the heart, instantly become helpless and immobile.  The case of Michael Platt is one in a million.  It is not useful to use examples which hardly ever apply in life.

 

1 hour ago, Spartan said:

"Any laser-equipped gun, 9mm or better, (for argument's sake) whether rifle, pistol or shotgun, has a far better chance of delivering the first fatal shot, than any gun, with some other sighting system."  Again, not necessarily true.  That's one theory I've seen debunked regularly.  A person with a laser-sighted pistol who picks it up and fires loses a moment hunting for the dot on his target; a tendency reduced if the person can assume a proper shooting stance first.  A person picking up a firearm with a reflex sight can usually acquire a sight picture and fire just a hair faster.  I've both seen and been involved in scenario training with electronic timers, and experienced the truth of it.

 

Not with todays large, bright green laser dots and especially not in dim light, where most gunfights happen.  A laser equipped weapon can be fired from the hip or any other position.  A reflex sight must be lifted to the eye first.  Laser sights represent a revolution in close range sighting. With all due respect, I'm not convinced, in the slightest.

 

1 hour ago, Spartan said:

"Since a laser-equipped pistol can be picked up, aimed and fired with precision, quicker than any long gun, it is more deadly at close range, and more effective for home defense.  End of story."  Another absolutist statement that fails to stand up to empirical testing.  ANY long gun is more deadly at close range than any handgun.  This is a simple, unarguable point.  Any properly trained individual who knows a fight is imminent will pick up a long gun over any handgun. Period

 

Absolutist because it's absolutely true.  The first lethal shot makes power irrelevant.  A solid, non expanding, 9mm slug to the temple makes a .375 H&H rifle useless, in the hands of an adversary who has been hit first.

 

At long range, I would want a scoped rifle.  But at home defense distances, I trust my green laser equipped, Heckler & Koch .45ACP.  It is always loaded with high quality, expanding rounds, by the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, bludog said:

Farfetched.  The vast majority of people, if hit in the heart, instantly become helpless and immobile.  The case of Michael Platt is one in a million.  It is not useful to use examples which hardly ever apply in life.

 

Okay, forgive me if I come across a little exasperated here; I spent a good amount of time  putting together a complete and involved response for you, and when I tried to submit it, it apparently vanished into the ether, never to be seen again.  Any caustic or impatient tone is not aimed at you in any way (no pun intended).  

 

First off, let's not forget that I've carried firearms professionally and trained heavily with the best instructors there are for well over 25 years.  I've studied the realities of, shall we say, "armed interpersonal conflict" for a long time and also dealt with shots fired in anger.  Michael Platt is not a "one in a million" example; just illustrative of how tough the human organism can be.  I attended a lecture on tactics taught by a detective who got into a gunfight, chased down the bad guy, took him down and cuffed him; all after having taken a bullet through the heart she didn't even realize she'd taken until someone else pointed out she had blood on her shirt.  Two weeks after surgery she was back on the job.  Modern tactics are to fire a burst into the upper torso and follow that up with shots to the face, specifically because bad guys regularly absorb massive trauma to the cardiovascular system with no visible affect.  The ONLY way to reliably put down an assailant is with a brain or spine hit.

 

12 hours ago, bludog said:

Not with todays large, bright green laser dots and especially not in dim light, where most gunfights happen.  A laser equipped weapon can be fired from the hip or any other position.  A reflex sight must be lifted to the eye first.  Laser sights represent a revolution in close range sighting. With all due respect, I'm not convinced, in the slightest.

 

I know you're not convinced.  Unfortunately, in scenario after scenario (including real-world combat), conducted with timers and any variation of laser/optic/weapon combination, your position doesn't stand up to empirical analysis.  Lasers have a place, don't get me wrong, but as a supplemental aiming system, not a primary.  If you have to fire from an awkward position where a proper shooting stance is impossible, the laser allows you to aim and hit where you otherwise could not.  But, if you take two individuals - even individuals using identical laser-equipped pistols - the person who fires from the hip will not be as fast or accurate as the person who drives into a stance with proper mechanics.  The exception would be the snap-shooting from the hip which can be done very quickly, but is valid only at near contact distance situations where the sighting system is completely irrelevant. 

 

12 hours ago, bludog said:

Absolutist because it's absolutely true.  The first lethal shot makes power irrelevant.  A solid, non expanding, 9mm slug to the temple makes a .375 H&H rifle useless, in the hands of an adversary who has been hit first.

 

No, sorry.  Real life is not like the movies, and even inflicting an ultimately fatal wound does not mean the bad guy drops like an unstrung marionette; unless the shot hits the brain stem.  This is why police snipers are trained to hit "the credit card"; that point where the bullet transects the skull and smashes the medulla oblongata, turning off the threat like a light switch and preventing even involuntary responses.  All else being equal, a long gun is going to be far more effective in delivering disabling ballistic impact than any handgun.  That's just plain, hard reality.

 

12 hours ago, bludog said:

At long range, I would want a scoped rifle.  But at home defense distances, I trust my green laser equipped, Heckler & Koch .45ACP.  It is always loaded with high quality, expanding rounds, by the way.

 

This is why I have a layered defense battery.  Every situation is different, and there are times when a pistol is the optimum choice, and sometimes not.  The key to surviving a crisis situation is being adaptive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I usually say what I have to say and do not pursue debate beyond a certain point.  I said what I have to say.

 

A few caveats:

 

46 minutes ago, Spartan said:

Real life is not like the movies,

I dislike straw-man setups.

 

Orthodoxies which apply to the most extreme situations known to law enforcement are often not appropriate for the average citizen.  Most people would be much wiser to invest in natural disaster and health insurance than a "layered defense battery".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, bludog said:

I usually say what I have to say and do not pursue debate beyond a certain point.  I said what I have to say.

 

I'm sorry; I wasn't engaging in debate, but attempting to have a reasoned discussion.  I was simply explaining the facts of the issue and using the knowledge and experience I have to enlighten you as to certain important realities I felt you were overlooking or perhaps simply unaware of.

 

39 minutes ago, bludog said:

I dislike straw-man setups.

 

What did I say that you took to be a "straw-man setup"??  I assure you: nothing in what I was saying was in any way intended to be a straw man or any kind of "gotcha".  You made statements I felt were misguided and I simply was trying to explain why.

 

40 minutes ago, bludog said:

Orthodoxies which apply to the most extreme situations known to law enforcement are often not appropriate for the average citizen.  Most people would be much wiser to invest in natural disaster and health insurance than a "layered defense battery".

 

Ah.  I see.  Well, I'm sorry, but that's not how I see it.  There's a philosophy I was indoctrinated with by my grandfather that says, essentially, "live for the best case, plan for the worst case."  So-called "average citizens" have dealt with some pretty extreme situations, after all.  But, that is not how you wish to see it, and I recognize you have zero interest in discussing it further.

 

FYI - I have plenty of insurance, to cover any possible scenario, just so you know.  My layered defense battery is only one aspect of that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DumptheTrump said:

What the heck is this??? Virgin Islands to seize guns from people???

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/6/virgin-islands-poised-irma-preps-seize-guns-fight-/

 

wow, just wow.  Seems like the conservatives were right about this happening

 

Here we see the very kind of situation the Constitution was supposed to prevent, and I am inevitably saddened when any governmental entity chooses to ignore or even openly defy the Constitution for any reason.  That is a bad path that has no good end to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Spartan said:

 

Here we see the very kind of situation the Constitution was supposed to prevent, and I am inevitably saddened when any governmental entity chooses to ignore or even openly defy the Constitution for any reason.  That is a bad path that has no good end to it.

I let my emotions drive me further left, and now I see what happens when you let your emotions rule your mind.  Not good.  If the storm hits there hard how will the people defend themselves from looters and thieves???  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DumptheTrump said:

I let my emotions drive me further left, and now I see what happens when you let your emotions rule your mind.  Not good.  If the storm hits there hard how will the people defend themselves from looters and thieves???  

 

We saw the same thing in New Orleans during Katrina, when the mayor there had door to door searches launched to confiscate guns.  It's like, let me get this straight: you can't call 911, and even if you could police response time is going to be days, if ever..... and you want to take away my only means to defend myself??  What is up with that??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Liberals concentrate most of their attention on gun rights, they play into the hands of the Republicans who use it as a vote-getting wedge issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No holds barred chat

  • By Imgreatagain

    Hey kfools.. does this help? 


  • By Vegas

    Liberals are going to hell.


  • By deezer shoove

    grgle


  • By rippy38

  • By Str8tEdge

    Where’s at @slideman?


  • By Robot88

    Hola


  • By teacher

    I know this one, this new chat thing. I've seen it called the "shoutbox" among other things in my past. Very hard to hide from the chat box. The question is asked, there's no time to go search what other folks think, this is real time. Only seconds should be between chat box replies. This one is made for me. In the chat box one has to be quick on their feet with stuff at the ready. This chat box is the worst nightmare of anyone trying to deal with ol' teach. 


  • By pmurT

    hey @teacher that sounds like too much work for me LOL I need that useless thing called *time* in order to authenticate facts and truths which get posted by deceitful Dems


  • By impartialobserver

    What does the red number refer to? currently, on my screen it says 2

     


  • By kfools

    Where does it say 2?


  • By kfools

    So. In the chat....if you tag a member the text afterwards should be a private message. 


  • By teacher

    How do? I'm teacher. If I'm online and the powers that be can figure out how to make it immediately apparent to me that whatever I've said here has been replied to I'm gonna show up right quick and kick some teeth in. It's the chat box, all this is new and scary. I know this gig. This starts now. 



  • By Duck615

    Hey kfools, did you lose your securtiy cert? On my browser it is saying your site is not secure?


  • By kfools

    Mine too. I'm looking into it.


  • By Imgreatagain

    Mine too. 


  • By Imgreatagain

    I thought it was my location.. 


  • By kfools

    Just gave to renew the security cert. No big deal I'll do it tonight


  • By Duck615

    OK thanks

     


  • By king of the county

    Test


  • By Blue Devil

    Happy Anniversary, America... on your Civil Union.


You don't have permission to chat in this chatroom
×
×
  • Create New...