Skip to main content

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014...-shotgun-police-say/

 

Watch for some idiotic liberal DA attempt to 'make an example' out of her.

'The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.'

'When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.'

'And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.'

'An elective despotism was not the government we fought for.' - Thomas Jefferson

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

It's good that she was able to defend herself and property.

She needs better marksmanship training.

How many good guys are killed by a loaded gun in the house?

I'm liberal, I don't want the government to take or ban guns.  Of the rifles, shotguns and pistols that I own, only one of them has the serial numbers registered to me, and I didn't like that.

How do we stop people from taking a gun to a public place and shooting.

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

It's good that she was able to defend herself and property.

She needs better marksmanship training.

How many good guys are killed by a loaded gun in the house?

I'm liberal, I don't want the government to take or ban guns.  Of the rifles, shotguns and pistols that I own, only one of them has the serial numbers registered to me, and I didn't like that.

How do we stop people from taking a gun to a public place and shooting.

Make doing so EXTREMELY unpleasant for anyone contemplating such an act.

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

It's good that she was able to defend herself and property.

She needs better marksmanship training.

How many good guys are killed by a loaded gun in the house?

I'm liberal, I don't want the government to take or ban guns.  Of the rifles, shotguns and pistols that I own, only one of them has the serial numbers registered to me, and I didn't like that.

How do we stop people from taking a gun to a public place and shooting.

------------------

It's apparent she was not trying to hit the man, so her marksmanship doesn't really enter into it. How many good guys are killed by every other thing in the house? You can't stop people from taking a gun to a public place and shooting any more than you can stop them from using other things to kill people.

Originally Posted by mad American:

I read your comments, highly unusual for a liberal to think that law abiding citizens should defend themselves. 

__________________

 

No its not. That's just the lie that some right wingers like to tell. I'm a liberal and I own a gun for protection. I would use it to protect my home and family. I know many liberals that own guns for protection or for sport. Just because we call for sensible gun regulation does not mean we don't think people have the right to protect themselves...

Originally Posted by mad American:

I base my opinion on what I have read on here.  I seem to remember the lefties all upset when a certain law abiding citizen shot a thug that was pounding his head into the concrete was found innocent of murder.  When in fact he should never have been charged.

_______________

 

That's a matter of opinion I guess. Just like the innocence of OJ. Personally I think both should have served life for the murders they committed. I see a huge difference in someone minding their own business, in their home, and someone invading their home and them using deadly force to protect themselves, and some thug stalking down an innocent young man in the dark and then killing him when the young man tries to defend himself. If you have a bias against young black men then you might not be able to see that he was the victim and was only trying to stand his own ground. Sadly he was murdered because he wasn't carrying a gun and the stalker was. 

Originally Posted by Jankinonya:
Originally Posted by mad American:

I base my opinion on what I have read on here.  I seem to remember the lefties all upset when a certain law abiding citizen shot a thug that was pounding his head into the concrete was found innocent of murder.  When in fact he should never have been charged.

_______________

 

That's a matter of opinion I guess. Just like the innocence of OJ. Personally I think both should have served life for the murders they committed. I see a huge difference in someone minding their own business, in their home, and someone invading their home and them using deadly force to protect themselves, and some thug stalking down an innocent young man in the dark and then killing him when the young man tries to defend himself. If you have a bias against young black men then you might not be able to see that he was the victim and was only trying to stand his own ground. Sadly he was murdered because he wasn't carrying a gun and the stalker was. 

There were TWO people present that KNOW what was transpiring when Zimmerman fired his gun.....and NONE of them are present here. 

Originally Posted by dogsoldier0513:
Originally Posted by jtdavis:

How do we stop people from taking a gun to a public place and shooting.

Make doing so EXTREMELY unpleasant for anyone contemplating such an act.

 

Exactly.  How do we stop people from robbing banks?  Or committing any other crime?  We don't.  You don't stop people from committing a crime they are set in committing by passing more laws outlawing something that is already illegal.  I'll never understand that liberal logic.  

 

How do we prevent bank robberies?  We increase the time spent in jail for them (mandatory sentencing), we make it more difficult for them to get away if they attempt to rob the bank (ink packs), we put deterrents in place (video cameras and armed guards).  We surely don't pass additional laws making bank robbery illegal while not enforcing the current laws that do just that.


Banning certain types of 'scary' guns in an attempt to reduce mass shootings is like banning certain types of (get away) cars in an effort to reduce bank robberies....

 

 

 

 

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

Reading the times daily I found that a person was banned from a gun show in Muscle Shoals.  Where is the outrage?  He can't exercise his constutitional rights.

---------------------------

Instead of trying to put your slant on a story why can't you at least put in details if you can't do a simple copy/paste for the link? It was a vendor that had not followed proper safety procedures. Why would there be outrage? He should have been tossed, and if his weapons weren't checked properly the ones responsible for that error should be tossed too.

 

Rifle vendor banned from show

http://www.timesdaily.com/news...50-0017a43b2370.html

 

Last edited by Bestworking

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×