Water guns banned, REAL guns, OK....

1…810121314

Comments

  • Posts: 14,010
    catefrances wrote:
    show previous quotes

    but you cant be surprised it turned that way, right?

    actually, cate, I was surprised at that.
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • Posts: 14,010
    pandora wrote:
    It is a logical conclusion, the one holding the gun has the upper hand in a situation.
    Those who are proactive and own a gun realize this is their fighting chance,
    as the case of my neighbor and the home invasion. If he had not had a gun,
    his wife and kids would have been terrorized or worse.
    He also saved many future victims with his bravery.
    Can anyone argue that?

    there are just as many examples of guns actually making the situation worse for the potential victim as there are examples of them saving the potential victims, so it's pointless to draw conclusions based on one specific scenario.

    in this particular situation, yes, it looks as if the gun saved him and his family from potential harm.
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,662
    pandora wrote:
    just another personal attack

    It's that love thing you talk about so much but sorry, I thought you had that Jesus connection and I was trying to point out some irony here. The point is I don't see any love here.

    I'm not the only one that thinks your statement about some of us "allowing crime to be B.S. but you don't want to address this. That was a personal attack as well.

    But the bottom line is this whole thing has degrading into a typical derailment. The rule is not personal stuff on the train and this is going nowhere but personal so it's time for me to move on.
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • Posts: 21,855
    brianlux wrote:
    show previous quotes

    It's that love thing you talk about so much but sorry, I thought you had that Jesus connection and I was trying to point out some irony here. The point is I don't see any love here.

    I'm not the only one that thinks your statement about some of us "allowing crime to be B.S. but you don't want to address this. That was a personal attack as well.

    But the bottom line is this whole thing has degrading into a typical derailment. The rule is not personal stuff on the train and this is going nowhere but personal so it's time for me to move on.
    it is an opinion of mine and it appears perhaps others here as well,
    it is not an attack it is a opinion
    that we must fight we have the right and in the case of my neighbor a must
    and a duty because if we don't then we do nothing to stop the criminal from future attacks.

    As far as love ...
    no, I do not love people who prey on innocent people they are parasites.

    Many here have shared personal situations experiences, including you,
    that is not derailing and believe that is ok when discussing bearing arms
    because it influences our opinions on the subject.
  • Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,662
    Moving on, moving on, moving on, moving on, moving on, moving on.... :fp: ... :lol:
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • Posts: 21,855
    brianlux wrote:
    Moving on, moving on, moving on, moving on, moving on, moving on.... :fp: ... :lol:
    another put down instead of rationale debate I guess... :?
    I wonder why the need to do this to others ... a little superior :nono:

    but yes we agree to disagree on the bearing of arms and the result of that on crime
  • Posts: 517
    comes down to if you are willing to die to save someone or if you are willing to kill to save
    someone some of us are willing to do that some are not thats cool those not can hope a hero is around
    when they need one
  • Posts: 14,010
    very interesting perspective.

    telling someone they are directly responsible for crime rates because they choose not to carry a gun is an opinion and not a personal attack.

    someone saying they are moving on from a thread is then considered a personal attack.

    :fp:
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • Posts: 14,010
    Tritone wrote:
    comes down to if you are willing to die to save someone or if you are willing to kill to save
    someone some of us are willing to do that some are not thats cool those not can hope a hero is around
    when they need one

    so am I reading this correctly that you equate carrying a gun with being a hero?
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,078
    brianlux wrote:
    show previous quotes

    Thank you, redrock! I'm rather amazed and quite miffed myself. I suspect when I go into work this afternoon there will be wanted posters all over Main St:

    WANTED
    For allowing crime to happen:
    brianlux
    BatOnionCreek-2.jpg
    Warning, this man is unarmed
    And should be considered
    A danger to society.
    i have been away from this thread for a few days. mostly because of the blatant accusatory posts from some posters that somehow unarmed people allowed crimes to happen. there may be no greater outright judgement that i have read on this forum, and i have been here a long time. to assume that i am allowing a crime to happen by choosing to remain unarmed and fight with the weapons god gave me, my fists, elbows, knees, and my mind, is the same thing as saying i am somehow guilty of allowing war crimes when i did not participate in the war and i did not sit in a chamber of congress and push the button to vote "aye" on the resolution authorizing pre-emptive war...it is frankly fucking offensive...where is the tolerance and love with this line of thought??? i think said posters have exposed themselves for who they are. and i am not surprised.

    i did not want this thread to turn into this, rather i wanted to debate the absurdity of allowing real guns into a convention and determine when does the second amendment trump the first amendment of the protestors??

    i only came back to give brianlux's post a :lol: and a :clap:
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Posts: 517
    not fighting back and being a victim the asshole is free to victimize
    the next guy this is a fact a consequence of the outcome of being submissive the criminal is not stopped this is not brain surgery and yeah it is an opinion thats what everyone is doing telling their opinion :roll: men should step up girls are carrying guns to protect themselves does the anti gun club think they shouldn't or is that ok?cause that would be even more pathetic if a guy said yeah they should but i won't
    we got a name for that
  • Posts: 517
    Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:
    show previous quotes

    so am I reading this correctly that you equate carrying a gun with being a hero?
    nope just being responsible and not a submissive i am willing to do both die or kill
    to save someone or myself are you?
  • Posts: 18,341
    Tritone wrote:
    not fighting back and being a victim.....
    ......being submissive....

    While you're fumbling for a gun that you will, most probably, not even get to, your brains will be blown out by the person mugging/attacking you.

    Not brandishing (or trying to) a gun DOES NOT make you a victim or submissive or the 'cause' of future crime - that is quite offensive what you are saying. As gimme said...
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    ....choosing to remain unarmed and fight with the weapons god gave me, my fists, elbows, knees, and my mind...

    Your body and your mind are your first 'weapons' and often your best.
  • St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,078
    Tritone wrote:
    not fighting back and being a victim the asshole is free to victimize
    the next guy this is a fact a consequence of the outcome of being submissive the criminal is not stopped this is not brain surgery and yeah it is an opinion thats what everyone is doing telling their opinion :roll: men should step up girls are carrying guns to protect themselves does the anti gun club think they shouldn't or is that ok?cause that would be even more pathetic if a guy said yeah they should but i won't
    we got a name for that
    what name is that? what am i for not wanting to carry a gun? what am i?

    fighting back does not equal shooting someone...

    when does the second amendment trump the first one? you can't shoot someone for not liking what they say...that is why the second amendment is not the first one...
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Posts: 517
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    i did not want this thread to turn into this, rather i wanted to debate the absurdity of allowing real guns into a convention and determine when does the second amendment trump the first amendment of the protestors??

    i only came back to give brianlux's post a :lol: and a :clap:

    you're in the antigun club we all know why the thread was started lol
    you guys want to take guns away wtf and like another great poster said
    thank you forefathers for the second amendment and the right to protect myself my property my loved ones
    other citizens too like you lmao
  • Posts: 14,010
    Tritone wrote:
    nope just being responsible and not a submissive i am willing to do both die or kill
    to save someone or myself are you?

    not carrying a deadly weapon does NOT equal being submissive. there are way more people in this world that are quite capable of disarming someone without brandishing a gun and then kicking the living shit out of them.

    I wouldn't call that being submissive, would you?

    If I was being attacked, yes, I would do what I had to do to save my family. but I'm not going out to buy weapons in case that might happen.
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,078
    Tritone wrote:
    show previous quotes

    you're in the antigun club we all know why the thread was started lol
    you guys want to take guns away wtf and like another great poster said
    thank you forefathers for the second amendment and the right to protect myself my property my loved ones
    other citizens too like you lmao
    you don't know why i started this thread.

    can you answer my questions?

    why is it the first amendment is being trampled? the protestors are going to have to be moved to a "free speech zone" way away from the convention. but they can have a shit ton of real guns inside the convention.

    i will not give up my right to speech and my right to protest the fact that somehow toys are a threat when the only reason guns exist are to hunt and kill people and animals...
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Posts: 517
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    show previous quotes
    what name is that? what am i for not wanting to carry a gun? what am i?

    fighting back does not equal shooting someone...

    when does the second amendment trump the first one? you can't shoot someone for not liking what they say...that is why the second amendment is not the first one...
    fighting back does equal shooting someone not for you you're going to knee them lmao again
    did anyone say that shoot someone over words wtf are you talking about you can shoot someone
    to protect yourself your property and another human life and should so they do not go hurt someone else
  • Posts: 517
    Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:
    show previous quotes

    not carrying a deadly weapon does NOT equal being submissive. there are way more people in this world that are quite capable of disarming someone without brandishing a gun and then kicking the living shit out of them.

    I wouldn't call that being submissive, would you?

    If I was being attacked, yes, I would do what I had to do to save my family. but I'm not going out to buy weapons in case that might happen.
    cool man your hands registered then huh
  • Posts: 517
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    show previous quotes
    you don't know why i started this thread.

    can you answer my questions?

    why is it the first amendment is being trampled? the protestors are going to have to be moved to a "free speech zone" way away from the convention. but they can have a shit ton of real guns inside the convention.

    i will not give up my right to speech and my right to protest the fact that somehow toys are a threat when the only reason guns exist are to hunt and kill people and animals...
    yeah messed up to conveniently move protestors where no one can see or hear them
    this for occupy what that got us now could see that coming
    but yeah real guns are here to stay get over it you might need them to protect your first amendment hell all of them someday unless you submit
    to having your rights taken away i'm not gonna i'm ok with dying for what i believe in thats how i was raised
This discussion has been closed.

Quick Links

Categories