Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As there is an increasingly obvious effort to restrict and ultimately abolish the second amendment, I certainly think we'll see more and more people arming themselves on the fear that they will not be able to do so in the near future. That's not even considering the increasing criminal element in many major cities, where people feel the need to arm up to defend themselves.
As there is an increasingly obvious effort to restrict and ultimately abolish the second amendment, I certainly think we'll see more and more people arming themselves on the fear that they will not be able to do so in the near future. That's not even considering the increasing criminal element in many major cities, where people feel the need to arm up to defend themselves.
I would say a lot more than that own guns. Not everyone is going to blab out that information to some clown taking polls. If the Liberal "anti-gun" cult ever tries to abolish out Gun Rights, the will see how many really do own guns.
So in a "Conflict" who wins? The Guys with the Guns, or the Guys without the Guns? Take your time, I know its a tough question.
I would imagine it will depend on how one resolves conflicts. If you're like the waiter in Texas that shoots at customers, the gun wins but only in the short term.
That said, my point was the OP was implying that a majority own guns when 56% don't.
I would say a lot more than that own guns. Not everyone is going to blab out that information to some clown taking polls. If the Liberal "anti-gun" cult ever tries to abolish out Gun Rights, the will see how many really do own guns.
And there are probably far, far more illegal firearms out there than are considered.
The continued increase in gun ownership is a statement that there is a continued decrease in the trust of the government to protect it's citizens or uphold the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution/Bill of Rights.
Last edited by Mack Knife; 08-28-2016 at 09:11 PM..
I would imagine it will depend on how one resolves conflicts. If you're like the waiter in Texas that shoots at customers, the gun wins but only in the short term.
How about in Texas down the street from me where a man with a knife jumps into a woman's car right after she gets gas and she retrieves her gun quickly and shoots him?
Sure, the police might have arrested him after finding her raped lifeless body in the woods, but I'm guessing her and her family were happy she had the option of shooting him.
If 56% of the population wants to rely on the police to protect them, that's their choice.
When seconds count, the cops are only a few minutes away.
The Police can't protect you in an emergency where your life is in Danger from a Criminal element. They can only clean up the mess, and call the coroner, after the fact, and fill in the Neighbors on what happened.
Actually, it may be a good thing that some folks are anti-gun. Keeps the Criminals busy, and saves lives. While they are messing with an anti-gun person, they don't have time to mess with armed people, and by messing with anti-gun folks, they won't be shot, so it saves lives too. After all, that's what Gun grabbers want.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
