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.
My daughter was diagnosed BiPolar in her early 20's. Took "happy pills" which made her want to commit suicide. Subject for a different thread. She tried to slit her wrists. She said if she had a gun (Daddy's) she would not be alive today 15 years later.
Thank Anti-Gun Mom for making Dad lock up his guns in a combination safe when our kids were young, in their 20's, and even TODAY with just him and me in the household.
Ok, call me Paranoid, but I not want some burglar using my HUSBAND'S gun to shoot ME. Why give them EXTRA weapons if they do not have one already?
Please do not tell me that I need to learn how to shoot. Been there, done that, as Newlywed. Made me very uncomfortable so I decided I was only doing this to please my spouse, not ME. Learned that lesson decades ago, and haven't changed my mind. Keep you 2nd Amendment Rights, but leave me out of it. I have to be true to myself, not anyone else. Again, my Anti-Gun attitude probably saved my daughter life. I CAN live with that. You disagree?
You gun people don't get it. At least after 40+ years of married life, my husband DOES acknowledge my views, and fear. Lock up my guns for my wife's safety.
OK so because you have your hubby's balls in your purse and had an ill child, those are your problems. Nobody elses. That's what you anti gun people don't understand. You don't get to infringe on our hobbies or way of life due to your expiriences and irrational fears of "what if"
Maybe if you weren't irrationally afraid of guns and were proficient with them, or not live in a bad area, which is questionable why anyone would want to live in an area of crime, the burglar wouldn't be an issue you couldn't handle on your own.
I've got my little sister and 70 year old mother more than proficient with their hand guns for every day concealed carry.
My mom's good with an AR and AK as well. If she had the strength to rack the slide on any of my 1911s, which she's surgical with, I'd have no problems leaving one cocked and locked for her.
My sister can one up the range Rambo with a Mossberg Shockwave and she's 5 foot 98 pounds. If she had bigger hands she'd be able to handle any pistol in my collection. Unfortunately she's limited to a little Bersa but somehow can handle my Sig Legion in 357 Sig with surgical precision... Neither will be a victim or another statistic. And neither shoot static targets at 10 feet.
If it's important to you, why not move to a state that will protect your rights?
How about you move to France? They don't allow guns there... their president is standing with open doors and welcoming arms to bring you all in...
I moved to Florida so I could practice my constitutionally granted rights uninhibited. That's okay. NY lost a tax payer and I probably gained years on my life without the constant stress.
It shouldn't take moving to a different state to practice what is a constitutionally protected right...
That's because that's a stupid argument. The purpose of a car isn't to kill people, and eventually driverless technology will eliminate the majority of those accidental deaths.
A stupid argument? Or one that factually has a lot more deaths in every sense than
Deaths related to guns and just blew your argument out of the water...
Word of advice, those autonomous cars... don't expect to see those being viable for another 100 years. They can't get them to take over every facet of control and remain flawless in function for a sustainable amount of time.
Face it. More people die due to car accidents than guns. Fact. Your irrational fear of firearms will not disarm me nor many other law abiding citizens who carry every day.
I point to the northeast with road salt corrosion that hindered the PAM system in fords and caused many a crinkled bumper. That technology has to account for every factor and be borderline autonomous without being compromised. Maybe you'll trust your life in a machines hands. I wont. When the sensors fail or a strand of wire in a circuit changes the resistance and causes that sensor not to see that kid on a bike until it's too late... you won't be able to pass that wrongful death suit up to the manufacturer... just like the owners tried to do when they backed their car into a parked car because the sensors were hindered by corrosion. They were behind the wheel they had a duty to look over their shoulder and into their blind spots. Apparently they didnt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81
?? I was born in the US.
LOL
Then you don't know the constitution bro.
I'll allow you to look up the cryptic meaning behind my answer of being born in America and see if you paid attention in 5th/6th grade American history... or lost it at a liberal indoctrination college.
If it's important to you, why not move to a state that will protect your rights?
I'll stay and fight using the NRA. Even my home state of CO is being overran by liberal bed wetters that are afraid of guns. There are multiple active law suites going in CA.
That's also the equivalent of saying if Trump gets elected I'm leaving the Country.
Come to California, they are confiscating legally owned magazines July 1, unless an injunction is granted.
They have been banning guns for 3 decades here. What is the difference between confiscating and preventing people from buying? The effect is the same, just takes longer to get there.
Come to California, they are confiscating legally owned magazines July 1, unless an injunction is granted.
They have been banning guns for 3 decades here. What is the difference between confiscating and preventing people from buying? The effect is the same, just takes longer to get there.
A ban means they automatically get the gun when you die unless you get creative beforehand. They don't have to come to your door just wait for it to surface somewhere else. Just say NO to registration.
Registration has always led to confiscation. Confiscation without compensation is about as far from the American way as it can get.
Strong Second Amendment advocates have developed this narrative that Democrats, especially under the Obama administration, wanted to confiscate guns from law abiding citizens. The image is typically armies of government agents in black masks going from home to home breaking down doors to take people's weapons. Anybody rational knows that this is paranoia with no basis in reality but the fact of the matter is that the paranoia exists and it was hugely instrumental in getting Trump elected. "Obama wants to take our guns" was the mantra all across rural America. Obama didn't really help the situation when he would use the aftermath of mass shootings to talk about gun control.
Question is, are there Democrats that really want to take it as far as to confiscate guns from law abiding citizens? The things I've heard proposed are things like stricter background checks and bans on certain types of assault rifles, but not the apocalyptic, totalitarian gun grab that the NRA and conservatives fearmonger could happen under Democratic leadership.
What do you think? Is the NRA crowd's paranoia based in reality or is it simply tinfoil hat paranoia? This is important because as I stated, it was hugely instrumental in the election of Trump. A lot of people voted Trump specifically because they feared Obama and/or Hillary wanted to attempt a gun grab.
"Question is, are there Democrats that really want to take it as far as to confiscate guns from law abiding citizens?"
Are you asking out of ignorance because you DON'T know.
Hint, the answer is yes, now go look it up yourself.
" and bans on certain types of assault rifles,"
It is OBVIOUS you know very LITTLE about guns OR the bans proposed.
" Is the NRA crowd's paranoia "
"paranoia" is ONLY in the minds of ant-gunners.
So, I will NOT waste my time educating you.
Do your OWN research and come back when you have some knowledge on the subject.
We can play this then and now game all day, though, and it doesn't always support the idea that the amendment would really support the modern interpretation.
That is why we SCOTUS and they have repeatedly gave decisions enforcing those rights.
I'm not talking about mere criticism of the press. He has made moves to restrict it, particularly in access.
The WH is under no obligations to provide access to the press and considering the way he has been treated I don't blame him. That's not to say he should be treated with kid gloves like Obama was but at some point if your coverage is negative all the time you have crossed the line.
I've lived in Mexico for 6 years and never even heard a gunshot, something that happened many times living in the US.
I live in area where about 90% of households will have a gun, gun shots are frequent and the murder rate has bee 0 in my particular community for decades. In the county with a population of about 300K there is going to be a much higher rate of gun ownership than many places and the murder rates are well below the national average.
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.
and I probably gained years on my life without the constant stress. 
