Replies

You fell into my more to the point trap Supercat :o)........... Just what I wanted to convey to the debate the individual sought. I have carried in some form or manner now since the age of 17 years old when my grandfather gave me a 1911A1. Only had a need to use it three times in my life, twice in service and once as a retiree/civilian (no bill justifiable by Grand Jury).

I'm told that it is an extreamly rare situation for anyone to ever have to defend themselves in such a manner. Better chance of winning lotto or struck by lightning yada yada.

Well , I play the lotto and ninja beer bunny golf ( with little sucess I may add, darn it) "BUT" have "indeed" encountered the need to use self defense for me and mine and hope to the good lord that I never , ever, ever have to do it again. But at least I'm alive and well and owe it to just having the simple 1911A1 stuffed in my waistband under a baggy shirt.

My Girl Friday aka soft squeezy toy seems to think I wear it , a spare mag and a surefire flashlight just to keep my love handles from spilling over my belt :o)..........I gotta PT more I guess......

Stay Safe

You fell into my more to the point trap Supercat :o)...........

Perhaps you misunderstood me. Doctors and fire departments don't eliminate the need for private ownership of first-aid kits and fire extinguishers. The reason the latter are still needed is that in many cases a layman's response to a situation, executed immediately, is more necessary than a professional's response, executed later. If someone is in a major accident, a layman with a first-aid kit isn't going to eliminate the need for medical attention. If anything, the person with the first-aid kit will 'increase' it [by keeping the patient alive long enough for such attention to be worthwhile].

Police, likewise, do not eliminate the need for armed citizens, but armed citizens are not a substitute for police. Armed citizens, however, can help the police by staying alive so they can give the police the information they need to catch their would-be attackers.

One of the main points that the southern aristocratic supreme court judge said in Dread Scott was that as a citizen he would have the right to be armed wherever he traveled. One of the racist roots of gun control.