An Opportunity? - Page 2
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 34

Thread: An Opportunity?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    The Lowcountry of South Carolina
    Posts
    2,039
    Constitutionally I disagree with ANY gub'ment restrictions or requirements. The fact that they have made so many inroads into defeating the Constitution has brought nutjobs like this into the equation. If there were no one questioning our inalienable rights, this lady would never have thought about purchasing a gun.
    -
    All that aside, we are where we are right now. The best way to defeat leftists like this would be to find an open minded author that wanted to provide a written account of the same experience when performed correctly, with a mentor, training, etc. I think that when most people shoot a gun at a target for the first time, it is like trying to throw a dart in the bullseye. If you miss, you want to try again to get closer. If you hit you wonder "wow, am I that good or was I lucky" so you want to try again to be sure. I''d bet that even this liberal whacko, if taken to the range and given proper instruction, would probably feel that same urge.

  2.   
  3. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,419
    In the dumb broad's article from the OP, she goes straight from having an adrenalin dump from just looking at a weapon with the magazine in it, to flagging down a cop who confirmed that it was, indeed, unloaded, to sitting in Starbucks surrounded by five year olds with the gun on her hip. At no point in the write-up does she document having loaded the weapon.

    Now, think about this; is there a single male experienced shooter who has ever taught an inexperienced female how to shoot that has encountered one that could rack the slide of a pistol without quite a bit of advice on technique followed by a lot of practice? My bet is that the gun is still unloaded, and she's no more of a threat to a potential attacker than if she was carrying a good-sized rock around in a holster.

    To answer the OP's question, no, there's no opportunity here. She's trying as hard as she can to demonstrate perceived flaws in the system, when the fact is, the words "shall not be infringed" expose that the system itself is a flaw in the system. Even having to get a permit is demonstrative of that flaw. She will never get it. The 2nd Amendment is one of 10 specified (among infinite unspecified ones) fundamental rights that the words were intended to prohibit government from touching in any regulatory way for law abiding citizens. Unless this pabulum-puking, bleeding-heart leftist is taught what a fundamental right is, she will never even have the potential to be an ally to gun owners.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  4. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,355
    Quote Originally Posted by Firefighterchen View Post
    Training would be good, just like it is for everyone else...but training isn't the answer for this problem. I'm fine with citizens carrying with no training, but most citizens aren't as mentally unfit as she is.

    No amount of training can help her mentality. She seriously can't trust herself to not spontaneously start shooting people.
    But the bad thing is... in her arrogance... she believes everyone else is just as unreliable and unable to control their emotions as she is.

    And I agree.. I also am fine with citizens owning/carrying guns with no training.

    While having training is a good thing requiring training is a very bad thing because..............just like "gun control isn't about guns but is about control" so is requiring training not about making gun owners/carriers better equipped to handle their guns... it really is about giving other people the illusion that they will be "safe" because only those who have training will be "allowed" to have/carry guns... and actually is nothing more than yet another method to control who has, and who hasn't, permission to have guns.

    Yet criminals don't care what laws or required training there might be in order to have permission to carry a gun because criminals don't ask permission.

    So... those who are in favor of required training (including gun owners) are actually in favor of............ gun control. And for the very same reason a pure anti gunner is in favor of gun control. And that reason is... to force their opinion of what criteria is "reasonable", "appropriate", and "acceptable", for people to meet/adhere to before being (and here is the most important word) allowed to have/carry a gun.

  5. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,419
    Ijust posted the following in the comments section of the linked blog-post. It is "awaiting moderation" at this time, and my bet is that it will be awaiting that moderation for what's left of time on Earth. Thanks to Navy for the link and quote.


    Many of y’all are correct that the author is trying to make a “point.” The point being, she is a pabulum-puking, bleeding-heart leftist who described having an adrenaline dump just from looking at a weapon. Nowhere in the above installment does she even say she ever figured out how to load her weapon, so chances are, she’s walking around with a holstered “weapon” no more dangerous than having a rock in that holster that she can throw at an attacker. She will never know the feeling of being the “good guy with a gun” because she doesn’t believe there’s any such thing!

    The Brady Bunch has done everything it can to disarm Americans, and has contributed nothing to making the sport of shooting, or the use of weapons for self defense, safer. ONLY pro-gun, pro-2nd-Amendment, and pro-CONSTITUTION organizations participate in such programs.

    The “point” that would be made if this “experiment” were to garner the results the author hopes it does, would be only that the Framers of the Constitution got it wrong. She hopes her “experiment,” that has a clear and unambiguous PRECONCEIVED conclusion, so it’s not really an experiment at all, will convince enough anti-gun, constitutionally-ignorant (or Constitution-adverse) Americans to vote in anti-gun legislators so the Brady Bunch can realize their wet dream of repealing the Bill of Rights.

    For a small sample of real research on the dangers of guns in all facets of society, go here:

    GUNS - The Untold Truth

    From that link:

    “Don’t think that just because the police are trained in the use of firearms that they are less likely to kill an innocent person. A University of Chicago Study revealed that in 1993 approximately 700,000 police killed 330 innocent individuals, while approximately 250,000,000 private citizens only killed 30 innocent people. Do the math. That’s a per capita rate for the police, of almost 4000 times higher than the population in general. OK, that is a little misleading. Let’s just include the 80,000,000 gun owning citizens. Now the police are down to only a 1200 times higher accidental shooting rate than the gun-owning population in general.

    That still sounds high. So let’s look at it in a different light. According to a study by Newsweek magazine, only 2% of civilian shootings involve an innocent person being shot (not killed). The error rate for police is 11%. What this means is that you are more than 5 times more likely to be accidentally shot by a policeman than by an armed citizen. But, when you consider that citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as do police every year, it means that, per capita, you are more than 11 times more likely to be accidentally shot by a policeman than by an armed citizen. That is as low as I can get that number.”


    This so-called “experiment” is not real research at all. It’s phony from beginning to end. It’s agenda-driven tripe that is a prime example of the kind of mentality that our Founders separated themselves from in a war that created a society that has provided more freedom, more prosperity, and more justice than any other civilization in the history of man. The idiocy in the author’s phony experiment is intended only to do her part to defeat that, and go back to a more British-like unarmed society.


    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  6. #15
    The issue is not lack of training, per se; it is lack of giving a **** about what she is taking on - it is childish naiveté, it is motivated ignorance. She is less than untrained - she is already trained to be stupid and doesn't even realize it. She is on a mission to be ignorant and terrified. She hates the firearm, thinks it is an instrument of evil and indiscriminate death and that it has a mind of its own - she wants to be scared to death of it - she does not really want it, want to understand it, or be comfortable with it; she does not want to know about it or why someone might want to own it, what it takes to be a responsible owner. She prefers to be untrained and scared that it might decide to start killing people without her consent.

    Getting training and learning about it requires motivation - beyond her desire to trash it. What responsible person who is truly interested in having a firearm for the right reasons, in potentially being "the good guy with the gun", would approach this awesome responsibility in the manner she has? She lacks even a rudimentary understanding or motivation. She thinks all she need do is buy it and it will do the rest. If she had any true interest in understanding she would have educated herself and asked questions. If she really wanted to explore this, she would have asked someone knowledgeable to guide her through this process. One can only hope she will do so as her "month" progresses and perhaps, in so doing, reveal her initial stupidity for what it was.

    This sad display only serves to show us how badly such people misperceive and misunderstand what being a gun owner is all about. It is impossible to trust her observations or report given this basic lack of understanding.
    Si vis pacem para bellum

  7. #16
    Nothing less than an agenda driven pseudo-journalistic farce.

  8. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    The Lowcountry of South Carolina
    Posts
    2,039
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    The 2nd Amendment is one of 10 specified.

    Blues
    Blues, great post and I agree with everything, except there are only 8. (Check 9&10)
    Chief

  9. #18
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    2,837
    Is this what she sees in her minds eye...?
    An Opportunity?-imageuploadedbytapatalk-21371607644.996830.jpg


    Sent from behind enemy lines.

  10. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by CharlesMorrison View Post
    Is this what she sees in her minds eye...?
    An Opportunity?-imageuploadedbytapatalk-21371607644.996830.jpg


    Sent from behind enemy lines.
    C'mon now, she has every right to be scared. This is a totally plausible situation. Her completely unloaded gun could very easily jump out its holster, fire itself into the gas tank of her car making it explode in a fireball and killing her son...Duh.


    Comment awaiting moderation. It'll be a cold day in hell..

  11. #20
    If just the sight of her gun gives her an adrenalin rush, she would be orgasmic on an actual firing range. I would really hate to see someone harmed but, at the end of her month, when she leaves her gun at home, it would be nice if she had a situation arise that would give her a real understanding of why guns are used for self-protection. Nothing harmful, just scare her enough to wet her panties. Then she might see things in a very different light.

Page 2 of 4 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