Gun owners should know what they are doing while carrying.
How many BS articles is ABC spewing today trying to promote their Clintonista era rerun tonight ?
If they ban my Hicaps and EBR’s today I just wait till that law is repealed tomorrow......aka 2010 !
Maybe they need to read the webster definition of “criminal” again. They did follow laws yesterday and they won’t tomorrow. Kind of like Presstitutes and Polidiots !
Doom on em all !.......
***Could you protect yourself if you only had a gun? ***
There is nothing worse than knowing you are near death with no way to fight back.
If you survive you will always have the survivor’s guilt of knowing you could have “taken” him if you had not obeyed the law and left your gun at home.
That doesn't mean you shouldn't have one, dumbass liberals.
A gun may not get you out of a shooting, but you have a lot better chance of being alive after the shooting.
Remember "This is a Glock 40. I am the only one here professional enough to... BANG."?
The amount of training required by government is cursory at best.
Whether states require this minimal training, or not, it is incumbent upon the individual gun owner to learn and practice on his/her own, and then to maintain this throughout their lifetime.
We don't need, or WANT, government to tell what we have to do to exercise our 2nd Amendment rights, and to exercise individual responsibility.
I would also say that MANY of us, particularly those of us that have been shooting since we were young, and/or that were in the military for any length of time, are likely BETTER trained than the average police officer that has done neither of those two things.
In short, FU government bureaucrats, and your silly-ass tax collection schemes (requiring law-abiding citizens to PAY to exercise their 2nd Amendment RIGHTS).
And having smoke alarms wouldn’t necessarily save you from a house fire.
Yes. Bullets affect the bad guy's bodies the same way they do anyone else's body.
Kind of a no-brainer.
Wearing a motorcycle helmet and other safety gear is no guarantee that you’ll survive a traffic accident while you’re on a motorcycle.
Wearing your seatbelt while driving in a car is no guarantee that you’ll survive a traffic accident in your car.
Both can increase the chance that you’ll survive.
It’s no different when it comes to having a gun when you need it.
Mark
ABC’s really kicking this dead dog pretty hard, aren’t they?
So: Given a choice of standing at a shooting with your thumb up your butt or shooting back, which would you choose?
No Brainer.
What the anti-gun people never ask themselves is how many murder victims might be alive had they been armed. They focus on all the innocents who were slaughtered by armed nuts but never total the victims who died because they had no weapon. The numbers of people murdered because they had no weapon far outnumbers the people killed in mass shootings. Of course often times it was women who were murdered. On average it’s a lot easier to kill a woman than a man even without a firearm. The moral of the story: more armed women, less dead women.
That argument was settled when the ink dried on the parchment to which the 2nd ammendment was written. Every argument and all legislation to the contrary are overt acts against our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
I can't wait 'till some 'armed' citizen gets to cap some crazed killa who opens-up on innocents before the SWAT team arrives.
"Well, he started shooting at the kids, and I just pulled out my pistol, got into position, gave a quick thought as to what lay behind the target, moved a bit to get a clear shot, and double-tapped him."
it beats throwing your subaru keys and purse at the shooter.
It's my own fault. What else should I have expected from ABC.
This is phrased to make it sound unlikely, but since at Columbine law enforcement stayed outside and at VT, they didn't get there while there was anything to do, the statement is true, no matter how ridiculous they try to make it sound.
Only Liberal media would consider two pistols “armed to the teeth.”