Posted on 01/30/2006 10:00:41 AM PST by Jotmo
...First, owning a gun means you're the first line of defense for your family and home...
Amen, brother, like these folks found out...
There are tools, units, and meat, but no guns!
Thanks for your input, Ozzy.
;O)
Bump!
Er....
I was going to say something too, but your eloquence far out weighs anything I could post...
Appears to be hollow points. Good choice.
Ahh...yeah. I have long believed that American liberal politics provide a cover for cowardly males. Anti-gun males are mostly cowards squared IMO. Better men and now women protect their right to be wussies.
No safetys per se on resolvers my friend.
But most newer weapons have transfer bars that move into place to transfer the hammer blow to the firing pin when the trigger is pulled - this prevents a weapon from discharging by accident if dropped on the exposed hammer.
Most new SA & DA's have this feature.
An acquaintence of mine teaches rape prevention. He offered concealed carry as a solution since he lives in a concealed carry state. One student insisted that she could never shoot a potential rapist. He asked his class who wouldn't shoot a rapist and maybe 1/3rd to half the class raised their hands. He then asked who would shoot someone wanting to rape their children and all but one or two raise their hands. While I'll agree that some people are born victims, I do not think it is a very large number.
Finally, I disagree with your usage of the term 'meek'. 'Meekness' does not equate wimpiness. Many of the quite, meek people I know are quite tough, but sometimes the biggest 'tough guys' are in reality the biggest wimps.
Sorry, I disagree with your friend. A lot of people who think they could shoot an intruder find they can't. Not everyone is cut out for physical conflict, armed or unarmed, period. Nothing you can say will ever change my mind on this, as I've come to this conclusion after years of first had experience.
The same arguments apply to the embracing of pacifism.
Perhaps you are right. My own first hand experience is fairly limited.
It seems I read this years ago. What is the original publication?
Heard this same arguement from the diminutive Mitch Albom. The left's weakness is their irrationality.
Perhaps you're right, perhaps not.
Regardless, I think the key point of the article was directed at those men who feel that they must restrict and/or eliminate the 2nd Amendment rights of ALL citizens, based upon their own decision against keeping and bearing arms.
I certainly believe that some number of people might have a "flight" vs "fight" reaction, when confronted with a given situation.
However, I don't believe that such individuals, having failed to "fight" in one situation will forever fail to "fight" in every situation. The intended victim might not fight a robbery, but might fight a brutal attack on a family member.
A most important point, to me, however is that when every citizen has the right to kba, those who would do harm to the innocent citizen doesn't know: a) whether his intended victim is/isn't armed, or b) whether this situation will bring out the "fight" reaction vs the "flight" situation in the intended victim.
[Of course, I hope that an armed citizen would, and by law could, react in the "fight" mode to defend himself, his family, and his property.]
elk....not stag...and blue steel vaqueros with parkarized 1911
american elk.....
http://eaglegrips.com/materials.htm
Revolvers don't have safeties, in the normal sense of something that you need to put "off" before the gun can be fired.
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.