Topic: Pro gun mom got shot by her 4 years old son (Read 2271 times)
In today's world, impossible to think life without guns.
I like this "pro gun mom got shot" sort of things. Have anybody here seen any such breaking news when a not pro-gun mom got raped/killed/mugged because of the lack of means of self-defence?
Perfectly sums up American way of thinking...
Let's imagine the worst that statistically never happens and let's do something against it. No matter if this something is worst than the original idea.
Well, not so surprising from a country born from the cobra principle.
Let's imagine the worst that statistically never happens and let's do something against it. No matter if this something is worst than the original idea.
Well, not so surprising from a country born from the cobra principle.
Is BADecker even from the USA? BTW It is called "the cobra effect" not the cobra principal.
What is the USA? Is it the government? Is it a chunk of land? Is it a quasi-uniting of a batch of people, none of whom really understands any of the others? Might it simply be some people living on some land?
What do you really think the USA is? Note that different sections of law and legal give it different meanings for their purpose.
Ask my mommy where I'm from.
Nothing more.
Perfectly sums up American way of thinking...
Let's imagine the worst that statistically never happens and let's do something against it. No matter if this something is worst than the original idea.
Well, not so surprising from a country born from the cobra principle.
Let's imagine the worst that statistically never happens and let's do something against it. No matter if this something is worst than the original idea.
Well, not so surprising from a country born from the cobra principle.
Is BADecker even from the USA? BTW It is called "the cobra effect" not the cobra principal.
From what I remember yes he is.
Thanks for correction. I was translating it in a literal way.
Perfectly sums up American way of thinking...
Let's imagine the worst that statistically never happens and let's do something against it. No matter if this something is worst than the original idea.
Well, not so surprising from a country born from the cobra principle.
Let's imagine the worst that statistically never happens and let's do something against it. No matter if this something is worst than the original idea.
Well, not so surprising from a country born from the cobra principle.
Is BADecker even from the USA? BTW It is called "the cobra effect" not the cobra principal.
What is the USA? Is it the government? Is it a chunk of land? Is it a quasi-uniting of a batch of people, none of whom really understands any of the others? Might it simply be some people living on some land?
What do you really think the USA is? Note that different sections of law and legal give it different meanings for their purpose.
Ask my mommy where I'm from.
Perfectly sums up American way of thinking...
Let's imagine the worst that statistically never happens and let's do something against it. No matter if this something is worst than the original idea.
Well, not so surprising from a country born from the cobra principle.
Let's imagine the worst that statistically never happens and let's do something against it. No matter if this something is worst than the original idea.
Well, not so surprising from a country born from the cobra principle.
Is BADecker even from the USA? BTW It is called "the cobra effect" not the cobra principal.
The question then becomes is why wasnt there a safe keeping for the gun? A small safe cost $40 on amazon which requires a passcode.
Like I mean an actual small safe that requires intelligence to get to prevent the issue of the gun even going on the 1st place.
Thats another debate of educational side which should be reinforced to new gun owners and that pick up their license to carry a fire arm.
Like I mean an actual small safe that requires intelligence to get to prevent the issue of the gun even going on the 1st place.
Thats another debate of educational side which should be reinforced to new gun owners and that pick up their license to carry a fire arm.
What was that crash? Oh! A burglar just broke into the house. Let's see. Where did I put the combination for the safe? Is it on that slip of paper in the kitchen cabinet? Is it in my bedroom chest of drawers? Maybe it's the one written on the back side of the wall clock.
"Mr. Burglar, would you please wait until I can locate the combination to my safe? Why? Because I have my loaded gun in there that I need to use to repulse you."
He says that he is going to beat me, and maybe kill me, after he gets done raping me.
I have heard that if a woman can fantasize that it isn't rape, but that she is making love to her best lover, that rape can even be fun. Oh well. Might as well have some fun before I get beaten and murdered.
Wish I had left that gun out for my 4-y-o to play with...
Perfectly sums up American way of thinking...
Let's imagine the worst that statistically never happens and let's do something against it. No matter if this something is worst than the original idea.
Well, not so surprising from a country born from the cobra principle.
The question then becomes is why wasnt there a safe keeping for the gun? A small safe cost $40 on amazon which requires a passcode.
Like I mean an actual small safe that requires intelligence to get to prevent the issue of the gun even going on the 1st place.
Thats another debate of educational side which should be reinforced to new gun owners and that pick up their license to carry a fire arm.
Like I mean an actual small safe that requires intelligence to get to prevent the issue of the gun even going on the 1st place.
Thats another debate of educational side which should be reinforced to new gun owners and that pick up their license to carry a fire arm.
What was that crash? Oh! A burglar just broke into the house. Let's see. Where did I put the combination for the safe? Is it on that slip of paper in the kitchen cabinet? Is it in my bedroom chest of drawers? Maybe it's the one written on the back side of the wall clock.
"Mr. Burglar, would you please wait until I can locate the combination to my safe? Why? Because I have my loaded gun in there that I need to use to repulse you."
He says that he is going to beat me, and maybe kill me, after he gets done raping me.
I have heard that if a woman can fantasize that it isn't rape, but that she is making love to her best lover, that rape can even be fun. Oh well. Might as well have some fun before I get beaten and murdered.
Wish I had left that gun out for my 4-y-o to play with...
Haha perfect. Love this.
You know, guns can do a lot of damage, just like knives can. Except a gun can actually defend you extremely accurately compared to a knife which can just cut cucumbers accurately. Still, they can hurt you.
Why don't we lock those up too?
The question then becomes is why wasnt there a safe keeping for the gun? A small safe cost $40 on amazon which requires a passcode.
Like I mean an actual small safe that requires intelligence to get to prevent the issue of the gun even going on the 1st place.
Thats another debate of educational side which should be reinforced to new gun owners and that pick up their license to carry a fire arm.
Like I mean an actual small safe that requires intelligence to get to prevent the issue of the gun even going on the 1st place.
Thats another debate of educational side which should be reinforced to new gun owners and that pick up their license to carry a fire arm.
What was that crash? Oh! A burglar just broke into the house. Let's see. Where did I put the combination for the safe? Is it on that slip of paper in the kitchen cabinet? Is it in my bedroom chest of drawers? Maybe it's the one written on the back side of the wall clock.
"Mr. Burglar, would you please wait until I can locate the combination to my safe? Why? Because I have my loaded gun in there that I need to use to repulse you."
He says that he is going to beat me, and maybe kill me, after he gets done raping me.
I have heard that if a woman can fantasize that it isn't rape, but that she is making love to her best lover, that rape can even be fun. Oh well. Might as well have some fun before I get beaten and murdered.
Wish I had left that gun out for my 4-y-o to play with...
The question then becomes is why wasnt there a safe keeping for the gun? A small safe cost $40 on amazon which requires a passcode.
Like I mean an actual small safe that requires intelligence to get to prevent the issue of the gun even going on the 1st place.
Thats another debate of educational side which should be reinforced to new gun owners and that pick up their license to carry a fire arm.
Like I mean an actual small safe that requires intelligence to get to prevent the issue of the gun even going on the 1st place.
Thats another debate of educational side which should be reinforced to new gun owners and that pick up their license to carry a fire arm.
I'm just quickly skimming through the replies here and see countless posts about "laws" and who should have a gun and more and more and more.
The facts are that a 4 year old doesn't know what the hell he's doing. If anything this should emphasize gun legalization because we should be teaching kids properly how to use a gun so they don't do anything inappropriate with them. Give them the proper education and they'll learn but it has to be at a young age.
Guns should be totally legal without the government telling me what I can and cannot use. I hate the argument that guns will make everyone less safe. That's wrong. It'll make us more safe. We'll be able to defend ourselves against radicals who are either mentally ill or something else.
It may take the police 15 - 20 minutes just to show up at a door. If someone, who was armed, broke in at the middle of night and tried to hurt someone, just having your arms is not enough.
Guns will make our society safer and better. We need to stop focusing on the petty problems like marijuana and start looking at real issues facing society.
The facts are that a 4 year old doesn't know what the hell he's doing. If anything this should emphasize gun legalization because we should be teaching kids properly how to use a gun so they don't do anything inappropriate with them. Give them the proper education and they'll learn but it has to be at a young age.
Guns should be totally legal without the government telling me what I can and cannot use. I hate the argument that guns will make everyone less safe. That's wrong. It'll make us more safe. We'll be able to defend ourselves against radicals who are either mentally ill or something else.
It may take the police 15 - 20 minutes just to show up at a door. If someone, who was armed, broke in at the middle of night and tried to hurt someone, just having your arms is not enough.
Guns will make our society safer and better. We need to stop focusing on the petty problems like marijuana and start looking at real issues facing society.
Sorry, but I have zero obligation to defend statements I never made. You don't get to speak for me then demand I defend your interpretation of my words.
Sorry to be logical.
You're saying that you refuse the statement "guns make society safer". That means you support the statement "guns make society less safe". It's a closed question, only two answer possible, if you refuse one that means you accept the other.
Sorry, but I have zero obligation to defend statements I never made. You don't get to speak for me then demand I defend your interpretation of my words.
Yeah and we're saying you can't...
Let's imagine one of your neighboor didn't obey a law. He should go to prison. You think the law is dumb. Your whole village gather and decide to protect your "community" from government. So what? You're going to fight the army?
Let's imagine one of your neighboor didn't obey a law. He should go to prison. You think the law is dumb. Your whole village gather and decide to protect your "community" from government. So what? You're going to fight the army?
Hey look more shifting goal posts! Sorry but the Army doesn't enforce domestic law here. Additionally we aren't talking about ignoring laws. I am talking about defending the law, people's lives, and freedoms from criminals within the government, not the entire fucking army, but you gun control freaks love to bring everything to its most extreme possible interpretation don't you?
No you didn't. You didn't gave any argument.
Please prove your claim "guns for everyone is better than no gun and makes the society safer".
Please prove your claim "guns for everyone is better than no gun and makes the society safer".
Actually I did. You tried to state that the people could never resist the government by implying they have such superior weaponry we wouldn't have a chance. I refuted that argument by giving an example of a place where people still live in caves and only have small arms and still managed to hold back the most powerful military on earth. You keep moving those goalposts tho when you have to avoid the flaws in your own arguments. As far as your demand I prove "guns for everyone is better than no gun and makes the society safer", I never actually said that, so I am not going to waste my time. Try picking a statement I actually made instead of speaking for me then expecting me to defend your interpretation of my words.
Easy. Not all representatives of the state are operating within the law, meaning armed civilians could then legally take up arms agains't them. Is steam coming out of your ears trying to contemplate this yet?
Ok please describe me a situation were state representatives aren't obeying the law and where it's safer for people to try to stop them themselves with guns than calling the police. I would like to read a situation like that xD
Quote
So your reply to me pointing out I did not say something is to then make further statements on my behalf that I did not state? Stacking two strawman arguments together doesn't make logic. Sorry.
VICTORY: Police Settle Rutherford Institute Lawsuit Over Activist Held at Gun Point...
Read more at http://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/on_the_front_lines/victory_police_settle_rutherford_institute_lawsuit_over_activist_held_at_gu.
A settlement has been reached in a lawsuit filed by The Rutherford Institute on behalf of a man who was arrested as he was engaged in a First Amendment protest against President Obama while lawfully carrying a rifle. The settlement in Brandon Howard v. John Hunter resolved the lawsuit to the mutual satisfaction of the parties, which included claims that the police violated Howard’s First Amendment right to free speech, Second Amendment right to bear arms, and Fourth Amendment right to be free from a groundless arrest when they confronted him with guns drawn and ordered him to the ground on the unfounded belief that Howard was violating the law by being in public with a rifle slung over his shoulder. Soon after the incident, the City of Hopewell Police Department admitted in writing that the incident involved a violation of department policy. The settlement included an apology by the defendant police officer acknowledging respect for citizens’ First and Second Amendment rights and stating “[it] was not my intention to compromise Mr. Howard’s rights under the Constitution.”
The Rutherford Institute’s complaint in Brandon Howard v. John Hunter is available at www.rutherford.org.
“As this case shows, if you feel like you can’t walk away from a police encounter of your own volition—and more often than not you can’t, especially when you’re being confronted by someone armed to the hilt with all manner of militarized weaponry and gear—then for all intents and purposes, you’re under arrest from the moment a cop stops you,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “Certainly, if you’ve been placed in handcuffs and transported to a police station against your will, that constitutes an arrest.”
The Rutherford Institute’s complaint in Brandon Howard v. John Hunter is available at www.rutherford.org.
“As this case shows, if you feel like you can’t walk away from a police encounter of your own volition—and more often than not you can’t, especially when you’re being confronted by someone armed to the hilt with all manner of militarized weaponry and gear—then for all intents and purposes, you’re under arrest from the moment a cop stops you,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “Certainly, if you’ve been placed in handcuffs and transported to a police station against your will, that constitutes an arrest.”
Read more at http://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/on_the_front_lines/victory_police_settle_rutherford_institute_lawsuit_over_activist_held_at_gu.
I feel like I am having a conversation with a parrot some times when talking with you. You repeat my own words back to me but never really seem to grasp the meaning of them. Hopefully this is just willful ignorance and not brain damage. Why is it you didn't include the entire quote from above? Oh thats right, you need to take statements out of context to try to even appear to have an argument. Here is the entire post:
No, just that I don't want to polute this thread with too much of you
Sadly, it seems like you're like every parasite, you polute where you are :/
Anyway, once I ignore you it'll be a much more logical thread =D
I look forward to not having to try to refute your mental gymnastics, logical fallacies, and insults. Also I am tired of you asking for crackers anyway. Have fun in the safety your birdcage. No one will challenge your ideologies there.
Lol? You're the one talking about insults? xD
And you challenge nothing let's be honest. You just spit with contempt on facts and evidence.
I feel like I am having a conversation with a parrot some times when talking with you. You repeat my own words back to me but never really seem to grasp the meaning of them. Hopefully this is just willful ignorance and not brain damage. Why is it you didn't include the entire quote from above? Oh thats right, you need to take statements out of context to try to even appear to have an argument. Here is the entire post:
No, just that I don't want to polute this thread with too much of you
Sadly, it seems like you're like every parasite, you polute where you are :/
Anyway, once I ignore you it'll be a much more logical thread =D
I look forward to not having to try to refute your mental gymnastics, logical fallacies, and insults. Also I am tired of you asking for crackers anyway. Have fun in the safety your birdcage. No one will challenge your ideologies there.
I feel like I am having a conversation with a parrot some times when talking with you. You repeat my own words back to me but never really seem to grasp the meaning of them. Hopefully this is just willful ignorance and not brain damage. Why is it you didn't include the entire quote from above? Oh thats right, you need to take statements out of context to try to even appear to have an argument. Here is the entire post:
No, just that I don't want to polute this thread with too much of you
Sadly, it seems like you're like every parasite, you polute where you are :/
Anyway, once I ignore you it'll be a much more logical thread =D
Yeah and we're saying you can't...
Let's imagine one of your neighboor didn't obey a law. He should go to prison. You think the law is dumb. Your whole village gather and decide to protect your "community" from government. So what? You're going to fight the army?
Let's imagine one of your neighboor didn't obey a law. He should go to prison. You think the law is dumb. Your whole village gather and decide to protect your "community" from government. So what? You're going to fight the army?
Hey look more shifting goal posts! Sorry but the Army doesn't enforce domestic law here. Additionally we aren't talking about ignoring laws. I am talking about defending the law, people's lives, and freedoms from criminals within the government, not the entire fucking army, but you gun control freaks love to bring everything to its most extreme possible interpretation don't you?
No you didn't. You didn't gave any argument.
Please prove your claim "guns for everyone is better than no gun and makes the society safer".
Please prove your claim "guns for everyone is better than no gun and makes the society safer".
Actually I did. You tried to state that the people could never resist the government by implying they have such superior weaponry we wouldn't have a chance. I refuted that argument by giving an example of a place where people still live in caves and only have small arms and still managed to hold back the most powerful military on earth. You keep moving those goalposts tho when you have to avoid the flaws in your own arguments. As far as your demand I prove "guns for everyone is better than no gun and makes the society safer", I never actually said that, so I am not going to waste my time. Try picking a statement I actually made instead of speaking for me then expecting me to defend your interpretation of my words.
Easy. Not all representatives of the state are operating within the law, meaning armed civilians could then legally take up arms agains't them. Is steam coming out of your ears trying to contemplate this yet?
So your reply to me pointing out I did not say something is to then make further statements on my behalf that I did not state? Stacking two strawman arguments together doesn't make logic. Sorry.
...and even more shifting goal posts! We are arguing you are a hypocrite demanding the use of guns to disarm people. Your inability to have this contradiction enter your brain doesn't invalidate the argument.
No but the fact that you see a contradiction in the idea that representatives of the state on duty might be armed while the population in their daily routine might be unarmed, is a rather good example of how biased and limited your whole "reasoning" (if someone could even call reasoning the fact to insult people while giving neither facts nor stats and no logical argument) is.
I feel like I am having a conversation with a parrot some times when talking with you. You repeat my own words back to me but never really seem to grasp the meaning of them. Hopefully this is just willful ignorance and not brain damage. Why is it you didn't include the entire quote from above? Oh thats right, you need to take statements out of context to try to even appear to have an argument. Here is the entire post:
Giving access to all citizens because of 2nd amendment is just too broad so you allow all people to own guns, people who should not be trusted with screwdrivers, never mind guns.
So you want some people to stop other people from having guns? How would they do it? By using guns?
...
You pass the laws. If someone breaks guns laws, it is a matter for police and courts.
If the existing gun owners don't meet the new legal requirements, their guns would be confiscated by police and sold at auctions. Proceeds can be used to pay off some of US 19T+ debt
You are so focused on your own righteousness that you can't even see the nose on your face. His point is gun control MUST be enforced, you guessed it, by using guns. Armed police with guns will be required to enforce your anti-gun policy, but hey lets not let something minor like hypocrisy get in the way of a good antigun hysteria eh?
Laws are enforced using guns. What is your point?
You pass the laws, if you are on the wrong side, you face a long arm of the law. Not sure what are you arguing? You want to break the law? Go rob a bank with your guns, see what happens.
I'm saying you should screen people and allow gun ownership to sane people who would store and use guns safely. Not give guns to a 4 year old. That family should be banned (forever) from owning guns.
Anything else is just irresponsible.
...and even more shifting goal posts! We are arguing you are a hypocrite demanding the use of guns to disarm people. Your inability to have this contradiction enter your brain doesn't invalidate the argument.
...and even more shifting goal posts! We are arguing you are a hypocrite demanding the use of guns to disarm people. Your inability to have this contradiction enter your brain doesn't invalidate the argument.
No but the fact that you see a contradiction in the idea that representatives of the state on duty might be armed while the population in their daily routine might be unarmed, is a rather good example of how biased and limited your whole "reasoning" (if someone could even call reasoning the fact to insult people while giving neither facts nor stats and no logical argument) is.
Jump to: