Is This the Kind of America Libs Want? · Page 2

Free Fall
Auctions

Specials
Auctions

QuickBuy
Auctions

Newly Added
Auctions

Ending Soon
Auctions

Welcome Guest

Forum Terms & Conditions | My Topics

ZRX1200
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#21

I thought it was a good read.

DadZilla3
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#22

is the clever-flailing Nigerian chef a muslim..?? 😕

DrafterX wrote:

He'll more than likely claim to be a prince from the Nigerian royal family...

Edited by user 13 years ago | Reason: Not specified

HockeyDad
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#23

Statisically speaking, superior firepower is better than inferior firepower. It is understandable that those with inferior firepower waited for the police.

ZRX1200
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#24

At least the French HAD a rifle to drop!!!!

wheelrite
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#25

Statisically speaking, superior firepower is better than inferior firepower. It is understandable that those with inferior firepower waited for the police.

HockeyDad wrote:

to summarize,,,
Size does matter to you...8-[

dpnewell
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

13 years ago

#26

OK folks, in hind sight, I entitled the piece incorrectly. I should have used the words "gun prohibitionists" instead of liberal, but from what I see today, the two usually go hand in hand.

What would have happened in WWII England, if civilians had seen one of their solders attacked on the streets? They would have come to his aid. So, what has changed? The Brits have been disarmed by their government. Folks who attempt to defend themselves against attackers have been prosecuted and jailed, while in many cases, their attackers receive a slap on the wrist. The people have been told to take no action and call the police. Seems to me it's the same crap being preached today in America by the gun prohibitionists.

Kids are being taught today that guns are bad. Self defense is bad. Just talk it out. Call the police. They'll eventually show up after the deed is done to take a statement. Violence is NEVER an option. Hate to break it to them, but sometimes (not always) when you are confronting evil, violence is the ONLY option. Sure, in today's America, this scenario would probably never happen. Continue to brainwash our children in passive helplessness, and give it a couple generations, and this same scenario could easily take place in a future America.

Again, I used poor judgement and insensitivity in using the label "Libs" when I was referring to the anti self defense crowd (again, from what I see, they for the most part, but not always, seem to go hand in hand). I didn't mean to step on so many toes, and cause so many hissy fits. But, what I posted is what I posted, and I'm not going to go back and change it now, just because I was attacked and some folks feelings where hurt. Deal with it.

teedubbya
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#27

So guns are the only variable that has changed. Got it.

You are making something fit your view.

teedubbya
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#28

It's a bad fit by the way. A stretch. Also a shame for the poor gentleman that got carved up. Basically the poster for hack job politics.

teedubbya
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#29

Other than that its cool and very well thought out.

Lmao

dpnewell
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

13 years ago

#30

All the OP has said is that he believes one must have superior firepower in order to be willing to "bravely" stop a horrendous crime from being committed.

By disarming our populace, no one will be able to "bravely" shoot a person with a cleaver.

(again, standard disclaimer, I support the second amendment. I do not support bad arguments.)

victor809 wrote:

No Victor, it is not required that someone have superior firepower to come to the aid of someone else. It is wiser to have at least equal firepower, and you have a much better chance of being successful in your endeavor, but it is not a pre-requisite.

dpnewell
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

13 years ago

#31

So guns are the only variable that has changed. Got it.

You are making something fit your view.

teedubbya wrote:

No, you dim whit. It's the whole "citizens have no right to defend themselves or anyone else" mentality. "Be a good little sheep, and let the police handle it", philosophy.

BTW, dude, your dog looks ill. Better get him to the vet.

Edited by user 13 years ago | Reason: Not specified

victor809
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#32

dpnewell wrote:

You missed the sarcasm...

Bravery would be running in to help even in the face of a low chance of success.

Simply shooting the cleaver wielding ass from 15 feet away is just good timing/good fortune for everyone involved.

I'm just bothered by your assumption that without a gun, no one would help. You seem to believe that if every single gun were taken away from every single citizen in the USA, we would suddenly be willing to watch someone with a knife slaughter people in front of us.... that makes no sense.

Example - Flight 93.
All people on that flight were disarmed... it's a microcosm of what you believe the liberals are trying to do to the US. Once they figured out what was being planned, it doesn't seem that they were so willing to sit around and wait for authorities...

DadZilla3
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#33

Example - Flight 93.
All people on that flight were disarmed... it's a microcosm of what you believe the liberals are trying to do to the US. Once they figured out what was being planned, it doesn't seem that they were so willing to sit around and wait for authorities...

victor809 wrote:

But what if there would have been an armed air marshal on that plane? Or an armed passenger, flight attendant, or pilot? Very different survival options would have been available other than simply rushing the cockpit unarmed, however brave that was.

Edited by user 13 years ago | Reason: Not specified

victor809
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#34

DadZilla3 wrote:

The discussion isn't about survival options.
The statement made is that without our guns, we will apparently be willing to let someone with a cleaver chop people up, and just stand around and watch.

Increased opportunity of survival shouldn't really be a factor if you think the crime needs to be stopped so badly.

wheelrite
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#35

victor809 wrote:

you are full of chit....

with all due,,,

whatever

dpnewell
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

13 years ago

#36

victor809 wrote:

Come on Victor. If that is what you've taken away from all that I've written here, then I guess I'm a total idiot with no ability to articulate my thoughts. One last time before I throw in the towel and give up for good.

It's not just about weapons, but a combination of things. England first disarmed their citizens, then turned them into passive sheep through years and years of conditioning, and prosecutions of anyone who dared to defend themselves. Thankfully that has not happened here yet, but there are some on the left who are pushing this same agenda.

As for now, most Americans are willing to step up when the SHTF. Flight 93 is a great example. So was Fort Hood, where unarmed men rushed the shooter. I'm very concerned that if things here are allowed to follow the same path as England, then Americans 40 - 60 years from now will be just as helpless and passive as the Brits where during this murder. It probably won't happen in my lifetime, but I'm concerned for my kids and grandkids.

HockeyDad
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#37

Never trust the British

DadZilla3
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#38

victor809 wrote:

Actually, it is all about survival options.

I agree that evaluating the opportunity of survival before getting involved beforehand shouldn't be a factor but in reality it usually is. We are hard wired for 'fight or flight'. If the 'fight' scenario playing in your mind's eye in the split seconds you are facing the choice involves you rushing an attacker when you are unarmed and probably getting hacked to pieces with a cleaver, most people would opt for 'flight'. Or in this case, stand around at a reasonably safe distance and film the action on a cell phone and wait for help.

An armed individual would have a greatly increased chance of survival in contrast to facing the near-inevitability of personal harm when deciding to face an attacker unarmed.

You and I might probably jump in to help regardless but to be perfectly honest I'd rather be the guy bringing a gun to a knife fight any day.

Edited by user 13 years ago | Reason: Not specified

rfenst
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#39

What is the per capita murder rate in GB. What percentage of murder and death in GB is gun-related?

Also, why is it we are allowed to bear arms? Defense from tyranny, self-protection, protection of others, subduing criminals, etc.?

Just wondering because I think that is lacking in this thread...

rfenst
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#40

Edited by user 13 years ago | Reason: Not specified

Users browsing this topic

Important Information: