Skip to comments.
What About Personal Protection?
3/14/13
| originalbuckeye
Posted on 03/14/2013 6:37:10 PM PDT by originalbuckeye
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-25 next last
It seems to me that semi-automatics with a useful magazine would be the best deterrent for burglary, home invasion, etc. They NEVER talk about Americans defending themselves. The criminals will NOT be turning in their weapons. Can we sue the Gov't when the criminals are better armed than innocent Americans?
To: originalbuckeye
because they are idiots who constantly declare they would rather die than defend themselves...go for it!
2
posted on
03/14/2013 6:38:43 PM PDT
by
Sioux-san
To: originalbuckeye
Why don't the Big Libs EVER discuss what firearms are needed for personal protection? Why do they only talk about hunting and shooting?Because for personal protection you have 911 to call. You have a doorman at the front door of your high security condo building. You have a gated community with private security guards.
... Wait a minute. You don't have any of that stuff except 911? You must be one of the "little people."
3
posted on
03/14/2013 6:40:56 PM PDT
by
Bryan
To: Bryan
4
posted on
03/14/2013 6:42:39 PM PDT
by
umgud
To: originalbuckeye
Part of it is because Eric Holder's people consider violent crime to be a legitimate career path, and armed victims to be an OSHA violation.
5
posted on
03/14/2013 6:44:37 PM PDT
by
E. Pluribus Unum
("Somebody has to be courageous enough to stand up to the bullies." --Dr. Ben Carson)
To: originalbuckeye
Because their mindset is that Gov’t, even local police, are responsible for taking care of them. To think of defending themselves would like (gasp) taking personal responsibility.
6
posted on
03/14/2013 6:46:11 PM PDT
by
Made In The USA
(I'm not yelling, just... just talking enthusiastically..)
To: originalbuckeye
Liberals won’t discuss personal protection because they believe a woman who is raped and strangled with her own pantyhose in an alley is somehow morally superior to the woman who’s busy explaining to the police how her attacker got that fatal gunshot wound.
I bought my first gun, a Walther .380 with a laser sight, in January. I feel much safer now.
7
posted on
03/14/2013 6:46:30 PM PDT
by
American Quilter
(I will succeed despite the liberals.)
To: originalbuckeye
Liberals don’t know too much about guns. After all, they don’t ever own one. Consequently, they believe in a lot of myths about guns.
Such as. They believe that guns are not useful for personal protection. The criminal will just take it away from you after all.
And, if they can convince the hunters that their guns are safe. then the hunters won’t oppose the gun bans.
To: originalbuckeye
Diminishment of purpose; brainwahsing.
9
posted on
03/14/2013 6:50:51 PM PDT
by
chris37
(Heartless.)
To: originalbuckeye
"...It seems to me that semi-automatics with a useful magazine
would be the best deterrent for burglary, home invasion, etc a tyrannical government..."
There, fixed it for you.
10
posted on
03/14/2013 6:51:04 PM PDT
by
Repeal The 17th
(We have met the enemy and he is us.)
To: umgud
11
posted on
03/14/2013 6:54:23 PM PDT
by
andyk
(I have sworn...eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.)
To: originalbuckeye
I dunno. They always look at me funny when I assure them I don’t want a gun to kill their beloved Bambi. I want one to blow away a human who is trying to kill me first.
12
posted on
03/14/2013 6:55:17 PM PDT
by
Cyber Liberty
(I am a dissident. Will you join me? My name is John....)
To: originalbuckeye
The left can’t admit what the second amendment was intended for.
13
posted on
03/14/2013 6:57:16 PM PDT
by
BerryDingle
(I know how to deal with communists, I still wear their scars on my back from Hollywood-Ronald Reagan)
To: umgud
I call 1911, not 911Love it!
14
posted on
03/14/2013 7:04:37 PM PDT
by
Salvey
To: Bryan
My problem is that when talking about the right to bear arms, it only revolves around either hunting or occasionally protection of yourself and property.
In my readings of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist Papers, it never once mentions hunting or protection of life and property. What is discussed is the right of the people to bear arms to protect themselves from an overly oppressive central government.
I often wonder what would the response from the libs be, were that arguement to be used as a justification for the second amendment. Additionally, if the introduction of evidence were to be made showing our central government can not be trusted and should not be trusted.
15
posted on
03/14/2013 7:05:08 PM PDT
by
cgchief
To: originalbuckeye
they believe your self defense can’t be lethal self defense.
16
posted on
03/14/2013 7:06:27 PM PDT
by
Secret Agent Man
(I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
To: umgud
I call 1911, not 911.
**************************
You certainly get better response time that way!
To: umgud
I don’t seem to have the same numbers on my phone. All I see is 357. Will that work?
18
posted on
03/14/2013 7:12:17 PM PDT
by
jy8z
(From the next to last exit before the end of the internet.)
To: originalbuckeye
Libs have an agenda...and that agenda is to ban bad, scary thoughts.
Violence is scary and so are guns.
If we don't think of them...indeed, if we ban them...maybe they will go away.
And then gun free zones will be safe.
Ya think?
19
posted on
03/14/2013 7:13:06 PM PDT
by
RoosterRedux
(Get armed, practice in the use of your weapons, get physically fit, stay alert!)
To: originalbuckeye
"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used, and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible".(Hubert H Humphrey 1960)
20
posted on
03/14/2013 7:34:15 PM PDT
by
Gay State Conservative
("Progressives" toss the word "racist" around like chimps toss their feces)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-25 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson