Next time a gun grabber says " why a gun?" Tell them about this case. - Page 2
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 45

Thread: Next time a gun grabber says " why a gun?" Tell them about this case.

  1. #11
    a long time ago the supremes ruled that the police have no obligation to protect anyone or to respond to a crime.

  2.   
  3. #12
    I'll bet the public there is really proud of that response. Of course that is a liberal state is might be totally acceptable. Not in my state.
    We thought about it for a long time, "Endeavor to persevere." And when we had thought about it long enough, we declared war on the Union.

  4. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by apvbguy View Post
    a long time ago the supremes ruled that the police have no obligation to protect anyone or to respond to a crime.
    Yet a man in Oregon had his weapon seized and was arrested for firing a warning shot at an intruder into his home. I guess in Oregon you aren't protected by the police and can't protect yourself.
    We thought about it for a long time, "Endeavor to persevere." And when we had thought about it long enough, we declared war on the Union.

  5. Yeah, this is sad for her and I hope now that she realize that she have to protect herself from if any future attack.

  6. Quote Originally Posted by ptco911 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by apvbguy View Post
    a long time ago the supremes ruled that the police have no obligation to protect anyone or to respond to a crime.
    Yet a man in Oregon had his weapon seized and was arrested for firing a warning shot at an intruder into his home. I guess in Oregon you aren't protected by the police and can't protect yourself.
    Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

  7. #16
    I live in Medford, and I'm fairly familiar with the Cave Junction area, as well.

    1. They didn't "refuse to send an officer." There are no officers to send. Sometimes there are no state or county road offices on duty, they have to call them into work to respond. When the Feds took over large portions of the forest lands in the western states, they took it out of the tax base and they pretty much stopped logging on it, which was a double whammy to county revenue. (I think the counties should send the feds a tax bill and take the forest land back when they don't pay...) However, when the citizens figure out that there isn't a cop a block away (not there ever was in this location - response time was always ~30 minutes due to the remoteness) it's gonna get reality tough to live to a ripe old age as a criminal around there. And there will be some liberal to conservative conversions, as well.

    2. The guy "defending" himself fired a WARNING ROUND from an AR15 in an apartment complex. Now, what could POSSIBLY go wrong with that??? Where are all the anti-warning shot folks? Where are all of the over-penetration folks? Veteran or not, the guy should never have pulled the trigger in this case, and I believe he knew it, hence the warning shot.
    Lewis - NRA Life - Oregon Firearms Federation - National Assoc. for Gun Rights

    Gun control is NOT about guns, it's about CONTROL.

  8. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by K7lvo View Post
    Where are all the anti-warning shot folks? Where are all of the over-penetration folks?
    Right here. NO, repeat NO warning shots. Especially where there might be other people harmed.

  9. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by SR40c View Post
    Been asked; "Why a gun?" several times. This is how it usually goes...

    Q: Why a gun?
    A: Why not?

    Q: What are you afraid of?
    A: Nothing.

    Q: Have you ever had a gun pulled on you?
    A: Yes, four times in fact.

    That usually ends the conversation right there. It is indeed my own responsibility to protect myself and my home.
    I have only had a gun pulled on me once, but I learn fast. And I would suggest that any woman with a violent ex learn to use a gun.

  10. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Creswell, Oregon
    Posts
    3,865
    No intention of defending public safety, but the blame should be directed at the people we elect to make sure the money we pay in taxes is used to provide the highest priority services first. That's not what happens. Any governments, local or national, highest priority is public safety. Yet when it comes to funding that is usually the hardest hit. I'm getting real tired of being held hostage by government and expected to vote for higher taxes for public safety. While our elected representatives spend money on social programs that buy them votes. The sequester is a classic example. It takes no money away from current budgets. It does reduce the future growth in budgets from 8% to 6%. Yet immediately we wear told we have to have major budget cuts. The first cuts on the chopping block are the ones that hurt the public the most. Total smoke and mirrors.
    "You can get a lot accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit" - Ronald Reagan

  11. #20
    "Create Jobs" Hire more police. I bet that woman will eventually buy a gun. If she had a nice handgun the guy might be in the morgue or intensive care. Own a gun and know how to use and shoot it.


Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast