Posted on 10/16/2008 11:44:10 AM PDT by chicagolady
Pro-Choice BTTT!!!!
Ha!
Macho.
Hands down!
And by the way, my firing range date went well. She handled the 9mm and the .40 quite well, but the .357 and the .45 were more than she cared to try.
That's wonderful! I wish it were closer to half. I agree with what the author said above - it is too bad many women think "self-defense" classes will save them. They almost certainly won't.
My permit needs to be renewed every five, and the permit needs the class to be within five years, so if I renewed a bit early, I wouldn't have to take it again for another cycle.
I will absolutely take the class again in five, though. You can never be "too safe" or know "too much". In the last class, I learned about a stance which I now use that really improved my aim tremendously.
There was a mother-daughter couple in my class; the mom was my age. There were two ladies who were probably 70 or so, and the rest were all about my age. All of the women were there for new permits (the instructor asked for a show of hands).
I have recommended the class to a couple of friends, both of whom are afraid of weapons; one has decided to go ahead and take it. She thinks that taking the class might reduce her fears - I think she is right.
Did she choose to go out with you again??
Did you tell her you were shooting blanks?
“Our freedoms include the full freedom guaranteed in the Second Amendment.”
Governor Sarah Palin
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Elon, North Carolina rally
I’m not fond of that particular shade of pink so will go with macho.
Good for you. I feel behind the times, I live in Chicago, land of the communist Daley machine. The Elitiest do not want anyone to have guns except the criminals!
Proud owner of a .9mm Beretta, .22 Rueger, .22 long rifle and a .410 shotgun and I’m a member of the NRA.
Yes. Tomorrow evening.
Did you tell her you were shooting blanks?
No. She's old enough to see through that old line anyway. I'm quite certain she knows how to dodge those kinds of bullets.
I carried before it was permitted under the reasoning that I would rather face the police, a judge or jury and explain why I had a gun rather than face a criminal with no way to protect myself.
When the concealed carry law passed in Texas many years ago, one of my favorite stores hung a sign on the door that weapons were not allowed. Apparently there was a stipulation in the law that business establishments could control their premises -- I'm really not sure. But, anyway, I told the manager of the store that if my weapon was not welcome I considered by business not welcome. She knew that I spent quite a few coins in there, and the sign came down a couple of weeks later. I'm sure that I was not the only one to voice my opinion.
Short story: One of the only two times that I have had to even think about using my gun was about 10 years ago in Houston. Two girls on the sidewalk in front of a strip mall apparently felt that I had somehow dissed them and they started talking sh!t and moving toward me. In a friendly voice I said "hold on for a second" as I started reaching into my purse. They stopped in their tracks for a second and then turned around and left, talking in low voices to one another. I think they got the impression that I meant business, although I'll never know for sure.
We went shoopping this weekend and looked at several compact semis thanks to recommendations here. I was glad to see my wife interested (she mentioned it when we were in the area of the gun shop), but she has some misconceptions on the need to carry at all times. We are going to an Eastman show next weekend.
We have settled on a Kel-Tec 380 for her I think. I like a used Sig they had in stock.
The Gun is Civilization
by Marko Kloos of the
Munchkin Wrangler blog
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat—it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.
>In the last class, I learned about a stance which I now use that really improved my aim tremendously.<
Is this stance perfect for punching holes in paper or perfect defending your life from an attacker in the parking lot?
There are only 2 types of people.
Gun owners and moving targets!
LOL!!!
WOOHOO!!
A man wanted to join the Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joe’s force.
The Sheriff said, ‘Your qualifications are first-class but there is one test that you must pass before I can recruit you’.
Sliding a small bag across the desk, he continued ‘Take this gun with 13 bullets and shoot six illegal immigrants, six Obama delegates and a rabbit’.
The man asked, ‘Why the rabbit?’
‘Excellent attitude!’ said Sheriff Joe, ‘When can you start?’
Ping!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.