21 Dec

NRA Press Conf — “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

William A. Jacobson @ Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion:

Wayne LaPierre, head of the NRA, conducted a press conference today.

He did not back down on the issue of gun control. He ripped into the media, politicians, the culture and the failure to protect our children. LaPierre called for a police officer in every school, and pledged NRA resources and members for training and implementation.

The line of the press conference was “”The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

The press conference was interrupted twice by Code Pink

Needless to say, Twitter went crazy. Here are some of the more restrained tweets:

One thing is clear from my Twitter feed. Reporters really do not like the NRA:

Read more

       

About Curt

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 24 years.

101 Responses to NRA Press Conf — “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

  1. Hard Right says: 51

    Look greg, tom, and libtard 1, we know you don’t care about those murdered children. You love abortion so much we know you just consider their deaths super late term abortions.
    It’s all about taking away a right you don’t want others to have so your kind will have more control. Just admit it.

    ReplyReply
  2. Tom says: 52

    @Hard Right:
    They have you well trained. The obvious conclusion of the sum total of their positions is that they simply don’t care who buys guns as long as they sell. Their focus is on fighting any measure that will reduce gun sales. Period. Give me one example to the contrary.

    ReplyReply
  3. Tom says: 53

    @Hard Right:

    You’re a person who is selfishly more worried about your gun collection than the lives of children. That’s the first thing you thought about when you heard about the shooting, I guarentee it. On top of that, you’re a mindless stooge for an odious lobby who trade American lives for figures on a sales report. Now why should i care what you think again?

    ReplyReply
  4. Randy says: 54

    @Tom: ted kennedy was on the terrorist watch. Also, the NRA supports background checks. Every dealer to include those at a Gun Show, is required to perform a background check. You fill out a document that includes the serial number of the weapon and the dealer sends the document to the Federal Government who performs the check. You can not get the weapon until the check is approved. If you are on the Terrorist watch list, will Obama’s government approve you for a weapon?

    ReplyReply
  5. Hard Right says: 55

    No tom, unlike you I don’t blame an inanimate object for crime. MADD didn’t go after cars or alcohol. They went after drunk drivers. People.
    When I heard how many kids had been murdered I wanted to throw up. Those poor, innocent kids murdered by a madman.
    I can guarantee your first thought was how you could use this to attack the NRA and those who support our Constitution. You showed what kind of garbage you are during the Tucson shooting. Considering your tendency to blame the victim, I’m surprised you aren’t saying the kids must have deserved it or that the mother is at fault.
    It’s a shame we have to defend our rights so vigorously against opportunistic fascists like you who will do anything to strip rights they don’t like from those they want to control.
    Scratch a liberal, find a fascist. That saying fits you perfectly.
    Whenever one of these shooting happens, it’s your kind that politicizes it entirely for political gain before the bodies are even cold. That makes you lower than dirt.

    ReplyReply
  6. Richard Wheeler says: 56

    Hard Right #51 That’s sinking to a new low even for you.

    Curt What do you think has happened to your authors. Merry Christmas

    ReplyReply
  7. Hard Right says: 57

    @Richard Wheeler:

    I have little desire to be verbally civil to those who try to deny me my rights. You can KMA, rich.
    BTW, considering all the slurs they threw my way directly or indirectly, that was kinder than they deserved. Bet you won’t send Mata those posts, will you douchebag?

    ReplyReply
  8. Hard Right says: 58

    @Randy:

    You are wasting your time. He’s a lunatic who is deeply bigoted against firearms owners. I pointed out how wrong he was about gun shows on another thread and he still repeated the same garbage here.
    He’s more thana “gun grabber”. He’s a rights hater.

    ReplyReply
  9. Randy says: 59

    @Tom: Hard Right, you better make your gun collection behave as well as mine. Tom thinks your gun collection is going to go out to a school and kill children.

    ReplyReply
  10. Richard Wheeler says: 60

    Hard Right No one is trying to deny you your rights you paranoid old fool.lol

    ReplyReply
  11. Randy says: 61

    @Tom: Well, Tom, we gave you many. We can only lead a horse’s ass to water, we can not make him drink. There are many safe guards in place right now. Your liberal government will not enforce them. Look at the “Fast and Furious” campaign Obama’s boys pulled off. People to include children are still being killed. Why don’t we outlaw democtats who started that program? The ACLU prevents medicating and committing adults to institutions unless they prove to be harmful to society. Do you think the Aurora movie killer will go to jail ot finally go to an institution? I guess he proved he is a menace to society.

    Tell you what. You go to a gun store and try to buy a firearm that is not an air rifle/pistol or a muzzle loader. You will see how difficult it is to take it home with you. We will then be able to talk. Until you actually know what laws and procedures are in place, you might want to hide your ignorance.

    ReplyReply
  12. Hard Right says: 62

    @Randy:

    Well some of my collection may have tasted blood. I have some 91/30’s that likely saw action in WWII. What’s that saying? Once you’ve hunted humans you never go back? I’ll make sure they are especially locked up tight. Wouldn’t want tom to wet his panties when they go wandering the streets.

    ReplyReply
  13. Greg says: 63

    @retire05, #50:

    I don’t know how anyone could have totally missed the point of post #46, but you’ve somehow managed it.

    ReplyReply
  14. Curt says: 64

    @Richard Wheeler:

    Curt What do you think has happened to your authors.

    Who? Skye? Mike? Scott? Mata? Aye? Word? Skookum? ChrisG? James? DrJohn? Vince?

    ReplyReply
  15. johngalt says: 65

    @Richard Wheeler:

    No one is trying to deny you your rights

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Do you not understand what the part in bold means, Rich? Don’t tell us that our Second Amendment rights aren’t being denied when your “sensible” gun laws are enacted.

    ReplyReply
  16. johngalt says: 66

    @Greg:

    I don’t know how anyone could have totally missed the point of post #46, but you’ve somehow managed it.

    Oh, now that’s irony, Greg. You talking about someone “missing the point” of your post, which completely missed the point of mine. Genius, I tell you.

    Round for round, weapon for weapon, there is no doubt that “assault” weapons have more destructive power than the typical handgun. I’ve never denied that, and I don’t think anyone else has either.

    But to repeat myself, for what is probably the 6th or 7th time, “assault” weapons make up 2% of all privately owned firearms. They also make up that same percent, 2%, of all murders committed with a firearm. Meaning, if you can follow the simple logic, that they are no more dangerous to the public in general than any other firearm. If they were more dangerous, “assault” weapons would be more prevalent in gun murders than they are.

    ReplyReply
  17. retire05 says: 67

    @Greg:

    No, Greggie, I didn’t miss anything. The point you were trying to make with your comment about the purpose of “military” weapons, didnt’ fly over my head. You were the one who missed the point, and the point was that on that horrible day, when Nidal Hassan decided to kill fellow Americans, particularly fellow soldiers, those soldiers WERE at war with an Islamic jihadist the same way our soldiers are at war with Islamic jihadists in Afghanistan. The only difference is that Clinton decided that they did not need to be armed while they were on American soil. Long barrels are locked up and the wearning of side arms is no longer permitted, on any U.S. military base. And for that stupidity, 13 Americans are dead. And that leaves Bill Clinton with blood on his hands.

    Those soldiers were just big ducks in a shooting gallery as were the children at Newtown. All because some idiot in Washington wanted to be politically correct. You cannot deny (well, YOU will) that if any of those soldiers had been armed, with even standard issue sidearms, Nidal Hassan would not have been able to create such carnage.

    You and the left will whine and cry how guns are responsible for the deaths of children. You refuse to add in the human element, and admit that for every gun death in the United States, that event required human action. The action of pulling the trigger. It is no different that vehicular deaths which also requires human action. Cars don’t kill people, Greggie. People driving cars kill people. No weapon, be it a gun, a knife, a baseball bat, a hammer or a pair of fists, can create harm without human action.

    I, and all other Americans, have the right to defend myself and my family. It is an inalienable right. Not granted by the government, but by a Higher Power. And not you, or any gun grabbing liberal has the right to deny me that ability. I hear the left say all the time “If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one.” Well, if you don’t like guns, if you are so unsure of your own ability to use one properly, don’t have one. But don’t expect someone else to be there for you when your fat winds up in the fire. The police are called “first responders” for a reason. They responde to a crime already in process or already committed. And there is no law on the books that says they are responsible for your personal safety.

    I am sick of the response by the left everytime that something bad happens their first reaction is to gun grab. They are no better than the Brits who, when learning that the colonists had a cannon, were determined to take that canon away from the colonists. The rest is history. Time and time again, oppressive governments tried to removed the ability of the populace to defend itself against them. Any people who are not armed are nothing more than sheep to be herded into the killing fields.

    Why do we not direct our ire where it belongs? Why do we allow those school officials who might buck the P.C. crowd and warn others of a student who has mental problems to be hauled into court and threatened with loss of wealth and freedom? It is a story as old as school shootings themselves. Charles Whitman, just days before he sat on top of the clock tower and started his killing rampage, told the university psychiatrist that he had thoughts of doing exactly what he did. He was ignored. A Newtown school official told the press that he knew the shooter was unbalanced and he make it his purpose to keep an eye on him. Guess that school authority failed, miserably.
    People like you, Tom and Rich, and even Larry, will demand more gun “control” laws. Nevermind that the ones we already have on the books don’t seem to work. Nevermind that most gun crimes are committed with illegally obtained weapons. Nevermind that none of the government entities can seem to get a handle on the illegal gun trade. Just make it harder for law abiding citizens to get guns and all will be well seems to be your attitude. Ignore the fact that our own government engaged in illegal gun running, trying as it could to dump the blame on honest gun dealers.

    When the President no longer needs Secret Service protection, nor does his children, when the government manages to remove weapons from the hands of the gangbangers and drug dealers, when you can guarantee me that some nut case will not be allowed to freely roam the streets of the nation plotting his nefarious deeds that could harm me, or my family, I will talk to you about your idea of gun “control.” Until then, gun control for me is the ability to hold my weapon with both hands.

    ReplyReply
  18. Tom says: 68

    I’m so sick of the “inanimate object” excuse. If guns aren’t inherently dangerous, go drop a loaded one in your grandchild’s crib. You think drowning a country filled with dangerous lunatics with guns is any different? Only an idiot treats a dangerous object like a toy. So who is going to put their money where their mouth is?

    ReplyReply
  19. Randy says: 69

    @retire05: You should also add that gun control should mean a really tight grouping!

    ReplyReply
  20. Randy says: 70

    @Tom: Tom, drop a butcher knife in your childs crib. Drop a can of rat poison in your child’s crib. You just made retire’s point. Your actions made the killing possible. The gun didn’t jump into the crib. You put it there to cause damage. It was just fine in the drawer by my bed. You are sick and tired of the wrong things. You should be sick and tired of those people who want to harm innocent people.

    ReplyReply
  21. Randy says: 71

    Read this site. Then let’s talk again! http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/12/22/10-facts-for-liberals–why-gun-control-cant-stop-another-newtown-massacre-n1472021/page/full/

    Guns aren’t even the most lethal mass murder weapon. According to data compiled by Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections, guns killed an average of 4.92 victims per mass murder in the United States during the 20th century, just edging out knives, blunt objects, and bare hands, which killed 4.52 people per incident. Fire killed 6.82 people per mass murder, while explosives far outpaced the other options at 20.82. Of the 25 deadliest mass murders in the 20th century, only 52 percent involved guns.

    Maybe we should out law arson. Oh, we already did! Did that stop fire from being the most destructive weapon designed for mass murder?

    ReplyReply
  22. Mr. Gray says: 72

    Guns have one purpose. To kill People. So why is it so hard to conceive regulating instruments of death. Yes, the Constitution says we have the right to “Bear Arms” What are “arms” exactly? Sticks? Swords? Muskets? Pistols? Rifles? Machine Guns? Mortars? RPGs? Flamethrowers? Grenades? Chemical Weapons? Nukes? Where do we draw the line?

    Why is everyone in the right wing so afraid of everybody anyway? Have you all been assaulted, robbed or raped before. Maybe you all just watch too many Hollywood movies. Where does this Homicidal paranoia come from? I hear people say “I always have a concealed weapon with me” Why??? I actually feel sorry for people with this mentality. Do you really feel the need to be able to kill someone at any given moment? Am I supposed to trust your judgement to determine when the appropriate time is to draw your weapon and fire? You people are crazy. Remember every violent criminal is a law-abiding citizen just like you until of course they commit a violent crime.

    BTW, Where are all the stories about guns ACTUALLY PREVENTING CRIMES like everyone here seems to believe? Fox News would LOVE to run a Pro-Gun story about a heroic American protecting his family from a criminal or intruder with his trusty gun. The seasoned “journalists” on this website would have it on the front page for the ritual member circle-jerk in 0.5 seconds. But it doesn’t happen. Guns are just a security blanket for the afraid and the paranoid. (that is until their son uses it to shoot up his school)

    I say you want less gun deaths? Do the following:

    All guns outside your home, ILLEGAL with 1 year prison sentence mandatory. You can still “Protect your Family” from the scary bad guy, (or the occasional family murder/suicide, whichever you prefer) but you don’t need a gun at the grocery store or any other public place putting MY family at risk.

    Any gun that you shoot with 2 hands (excluding shotguns and bolt-action hunting rifles) ILLEGAL everywhere, period. You don’t need semi-automatic long range rifles to protect yourself.

    Concealed carry, Banned: Its pointless, it just encourages crazy paranoid gun nuts to buy more guns without the stigma of looking like a crazy gun nut carrying a gun everywhere.

    30 day waiting period to buy a gun: Gives a would be killer time to rethink things before a gun ends up in his hands.

    Start with that and watch how many people get shot next year.

    And if we need to placed armed security at every school in America to prevent your beloved “FREEDOM” from being used to murder our children, Tax the sale of guns, ammo, and firearm related licences and permits to pay for it.

    No by all means, you may commence the hate and name calling in 3…2…1…

    ReplyReply
  23. Tom says: 73

    @ Randy,

    You focus exclusively on the choice made by the perpetrator but make no allowance for the destructive power of a gun versus, say, a knife. Every gun owner is convinced of their own responsibility, so how do guns fall so easily into the wrong hands? Do you think Adam Lanza’s mother thought any differently than you? Gun owners and sellers have had decades to prove to the rest of us that they take our safety seriously and they’ve proven the opposite: they don’t. There are technologies that are not used. There are common practices on storage that could be institutionalized that haven’t been. Clearly you are never going to voluntarily as a group take even the most minimal effort on behalf of our safety. So what choice do you leave us?

    ReplyReply
  24. Tom says: 74

    @ Randy (continued)

    Why don’t private sellers at gun shows insist on background checks? Is that asking too much on behalf of your fellow citizen, who might end up dead if you sell to a criminal ? That’s 40% of all sales.

    ReplyReply
  25. johngalt says: 75

    @Tom:

    You think drowning a country filled with dangerous lunatics with guns is any different

    Tom, if you think that the country is filled with “dangerous lunatics with guns”, then what better reason is there to allow the law-abiding citizens the ability and capacity to protect themselves, in the manner they deem best?

    ReplyReply
  26. Tom says: 76

    @johngalt:

    Or we can try and limit access to guns to those who might use then on the innocent. Unless we’re going to have an armed “good guy” in every room in our country, a veritable police state, that is clearly the better answer. But gun owners refuse to discuss any solution that might minimally impact their happiness and convenience. That’s the depressing conclusion I’ve come to this week.

    ReplyReply
  27. retire05 says: 77

    @Tom:

    How do guns fall into the wrong hands? Well, outside of the fact that the very president you support was dealing them to Mexican drug cartels, ever hear of a crime called “robbery?” Or the fact that Chinese made weapons are finding their way into the United States? Or do you have stats to show that all gun related crimes in the United States are committed using U.S. made firearms?

    There are common practices on storage that could be institutionalized but haven’t been.

    Well do tell us, Tom, what has your years worth of research into how private citizens store their weapons shown? I am sure you have interviewed at least half of all gun owners to gleen that data, right?

    Tell me, what “storage” precautions do you take with your vehicle? Do you not worry about someone stealing it an committing a crime while driving it that may cost the life of another person? Surely, you feel responsible to take all and extreme precautions regarding your multi-ton vehicle, right? And knowing what a cautious person you are, I’m sure you have a solid steel kitchen knife safe, right?

    You want gun owners to be responsible for policing illegal weapons. Did you insist that Ryder Truck Rental or farmers/ranches be responsible for the actions of two men who used fertilizer to kill well over 100 people?

    Stop shooting from the lip. It is better to be thought a fool than to continue to prove you are.

    ReplyReply
  28. Randy says: 78

    @Tom: Well Tom, I read your posts and what you want me to do is to give up my right to protect myself and my family because you do not want to take responsibility to protect yourself and your family. Did you read the “You want a “conversation” about gun control…lets have it” post? It is one of the most comprehensive essays describing how we gun owners feel. We refuse to be victims. You on the other hand and most of the true lefties want everyone to be victims so the government can be your savior.

    If you think gun laws will keep guns out of the reach of criminals, look to Britain and Australia. The liberals there think as you do. After they banned most guns, gun crimes escalated. Where do you think the criminals got their guns? Did the laws do any good? Look at IL. IL Has some of the most stringent guns laws in the country and they have more deaths in a year from gunshot than the US military lost in Iraq during the same time. The solution is a cultural issue. Read the referenced article and refute that with facts.

    ReplyReply
  29. Nan G says: 79

    Although it is NOT an experiment I’d care to try, the manufacturer of each gun I own says it will NOT go off upon hitting the ground.
    Maybe really cheap ”Saturday Night Specials” sold on the streets might.
    @Tom: @Randy: is correct.
    YOU took an action to CAUSE a gun to fire.
    Guns don’t fire all by themselves except if they are loaded and in a fire….then they explode….and the baby has bigger problems from the fire!

    ReplyReply
  30. Tom says: 80

    @ Retire,

    I couldn’t have asked for a more timely example of the abdication of responsibility . Thank you.

    As for storage, remember how you praised Israeli gun laws on a different thread? In Israel you can’t even get a licence to buy a gun without training on proper storage (among other things). And there is a new law that owners must prove they have a gun safe. Of course Israel treats guns with respect, not like toys, collectibles, or status symbols.

    ReplyReply
  31. Tom says: 81

    @Randy:

    So your point is that because others put me in danger through irresponsibility and selfishness, my response should be to join in and become part of the problem?

    ReplyReply
  32. Randy says: 82

    @Tom: Tom, you and those like you are the irresponsible ones. You and your ilk are the people who ski out of bounds and put others in danger to rescue them. You and your ilk are the people who refuse to put criminals behind bars for life for commiting crimes with guns. You and your irresponsibile buddies are why criminals are roaming the streets and why Ineed to protect my family and my self. My statement was that you want me to give up my right to protect myself and my family because you are unwilling to take the responsibility to protect yourself and your family. So using that reasoning, because I can not see more than 10 feet infront of me, I can not drive a car. Using your reasoning, since I can not see to drive a car safely, you should not be able to drive your car either!

    ReplyReply
  33. retire05 says: 83

    @Tom:

    If you leave your personal safety, and the personal safety of your family, up to the police who can only respond to a call once a crime is in progress, you are the problem, not the solution.

    You never want to address questions to you. You simply want to throw sh!t at others for not agreeing with you, never realizing that the sh!t stain is on your hands. Like all liberals, you abdicate your own responsibility, and personal safety, to others. Then when that system fails, you blame those who you gave that responsibility to. I promise you, if some clown who has a crank adrenalin rush going on, wants your large screen TV and your wallet, he is not going to be threated by the phone in your hand as you call 911. And if he has one of Eric Holder’s Fast and Furious guns in his hands, and he wants to rape your wife, well, I suggest you just accept the fact that you are powerless to stop him. Hopefully the police will arrive before he’s through with her.

    ReplyReply
  34. Randy says: 84

    @retire05: Tom is one of those refered to in the article as ignorant. Unfortunatly, the ignorant cry the loadest and are more likely to have their views heard. I refered Tom to the other post that Curt added but Tom will not read it and follow the logic. I have dealt with my share of ignorant people in my life and am getting too old and tired of their continued ignorance that I shall move on. They can drown in their liberalism.

    ReplyReply
  35. Tom says: 85

    @ Randy,

    You have zero basis for most of what you’ve written about me, so i’ll ignore it. I never once said I wanted to limit your ability to protect your family. By the way, where do you live? Damascus? I wonder how dangerous your neighborhood really is, compared to your arsenal. If your neighbor wanted a tamahawk missile to protect his family, I assume you’d have no objection?

    ReplyReply
  36. Tom says: 86

    @retire05:

    Hoping someone is raped to prove your point? You are a classy creature, huh? Might want to schedule an emergency confession. We wouldn’t want your ancient soul meeting its maker with that unaccounted for.

    ReplyReply
  37. Common Sense says: 87

    @Tom: Tom, are your really that stupid or just making a liberal wacho point? Is a video game of violence dangerous? Is the movies of violence and death dangerous? Is abortion 100% fatal for a child? If you really wanted to do something serious I suggest there and leave our 2nd amendment rights as they are!!

    ReplyReply
  38. retire05 says: 88

    @Tom:

    And just where did I say I wanted your wife to be raped? Your delusions know no bounds, do they, with your capacity to read what is not written?

    No, I want you to exercise the God given common sense you should have been born with. Your safety, and the safety of your family, is no one’s responsibility but yours. You would rather subject yourself, and your family, to being victims instead of doing the one thing that could help protect you; own a firearm. You will rely on others to defend you, or save you from a situation that you, and no one else, is responsible for taking control over. You fool yourself that if gun laws are made more stringent, if guns are harder to obtain by everyone, then your logic tells you that the bad guys will have a harder time getting guns. You are not just stupid, you are dangerously foolish. If I were married to someone like you, I would be buying my own personal weapon to protect your sorry ass if necessary and wonder why I married such a coward.

    Tell us, Tom, what ultra safe neighborhood do you live in that never sees crime or never has anyone come from another neighborhood to rob your neighbors? Or is that another one of the many questions you refuse to answer?

    Personally, I am more frightened by people like you who are willing to be victims than I am by a gun-toting gangbanger. At least I know he wants to harm me. You want to remove my ability to harm him in self defense.

    ReplyReply
  39. Tom says: 89

    @retire05:

    We know what you mean, and the ill will you hold for others. That pious exterior sure hides a rotten heart.

    Perhaps one day I will purchase a hand gun and get the proper training on its use and storage. You find anywhere in anything I’ve written where I’ve said i want to ban guns. You simply do not have the intellectual capacity not to reduce an argument into two false extremes.

    ReplyReply
  40. retire05
    yes what you said about the need to protect your family, is also the same need for the schools,
    which is another cell like a family unit coming from each family with children each coming out from a cell of people who protect them.
    that is to say, the schools have a priority to protect those kids, even if they have to let go a teacher to replace him or her by a guardian arm to protect all those which the first cell unit bring to their care,.
    I’M SAYING IT TO ANSWER TO A WRITER FROM THE BEAST PAPER WHO ANSWER THIS IDEA WAS LAUGHABLE WHEN ASK AND SAID THE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION ALL IN THE USA WOULD NOT GET THE FUNDS TO PAY FOR A SECURITY GUARD, SHE JUST SHOVED IT OUT OF HAND,
    there is a way and one teacher less for a guardian is a logic matter,
    why spend so much teachers if the children are never safe, that is the last question to be answer,
    or is that so the children are view as less valuable than the PRESIDENT?
    WHICH HAVE SECURITY TO THE UNLIMITED FUNDS ACQUIRE TO SAVE HIS ASS

    ReplyReply
  41. retire05 says: 91

    @Tom:

    Again, you refuse to answer questions posed to you. One can sumize that it is because your answers would reveal your true intentions of trying to remove guns, or at least making gun ownership painfully hard, for law abiding citizens.

    Now, you are free to ASSume anything you want but frankly, your wife has a better chance of staying safe by owning her own weapon than relying on your to do anything to protect her. What would you do to someone holding a gun on your wife? Rush them with your cell phone?

    If you decide to purchase a firearm, avail yourself of the many classes available in every state. Don’t take it home and shove it in a drawer. Visit a firing range once a month, or at least every couple of months. Learn to be as comfortable with your weapon as you are with a garden hoe or the dead lock bolt on your door. And while you worry about what kind of safe to purchase so you can safely store you weapon, remember this, the bad guy who threatens you is not going to wait while you turn the combination allowing you to open that safe.

    Remember this as well, Tom: bad people can, and will, use anything as a weapon to harm you. Just as a driver can use his vehicle to mow down innocent pedestrians, you use your vehicle as a tool to transport you from point A to point B, with no desire to harm another. And just as you have learned to use your vehicle safely, but engaging the emergency break, not speeding, making sure it is mechanically safe, those rules apply to gun ownership as well.

    You have said a lot here to bash those who support gun ownership as in compliance with the Second Amendment, but there is not one of us that would not help you learn to use a weapon safely. Gun owners are just not as small minded as gun grabbers, it would seem.

    ReplyReply
  42. Mr Gray
    now that you said your part, you can regurgitate on it, or you are among the less gifted humans
    who don’t understand the laws of the land,
    or you are among the nuts going around this NATION SAYING NO GUN TO REPLY TO BAD GUYS GUN WHICH ARE THE ONE KILLING GOOD PEOPLE AND MOST HORRIBLY THE CHILDREN.
    HELL EVEN THE MONKEYS WILL STAND IN FRONT TO PROTECT THEIR LITTLE BABIES MONKEY,
    OH YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND IT, WHY DID THE FRAMERS PUT THAT IN THE LAW OF THE LAND,
    THEY HAD FORSEEN THE UNITED STATES MULTIPLY AND BY THE MANY HATERS, BY THE MANY MENTALY REFRAIN FROM UNDERSTANDING THE WAY TO PROTECT FROM ASSAULTS OF ALL KINDS IS A GOOD PERSON WITH THE ABILTY TO SHOOT THE BAD GUY,
    WHYLE A PERSON LIKE YOU STAND BACK AND LOOK ON.

    ReplyReply
  43. Randy says: 93

    @retire05: Very good answer. The problem is that Tom lacks the motivation and the will to protect his family. He sticks his head in a hole in the ground and tries to ignore violent issues. The Sheriff of El Paso County CO moved here from CA. The first thing he did was to encourage concealed carry permits. Gang Bangers also moved into Colorado Springs. One of the first incidences of a citizen protecting herself was an elderly woman with a cane returning from the corner grocery store. She was attacked by 5 gang members. Her groceries were spread all over the street and they threatened her with a gun. The elderly lady pulled a .38 from her purse and shot two of them to break off the attack. All 5 went to jail (two after spending time in the hospital!)

    People like Mr Gray are good at theory, but lack the ability to consider long term consequences of their actions. You can see people with his thought processes all over in our legislature. They brought us the mortgage crisis, the health care issues, the major national debt, the lack of viability of the Social Security system, the loss of jobs due to taxes on small businesses, trying to make alternative energy viable by using our tax dollars. People like Mr Gray also do not respect the rights of others. Only their own rights should be respected.

    These people are the same ones who wanted President Bush to do something about 9/11 as long as they didn’t have to go to war to accomplish it. Don’t waset your time on those who are information deficient!

    ReplyReply
  44. one more notation for those against guns in the hands of good guys vaut the guns in the hands of guys with a criminal intent,
    you come in with objections and news paper clips that it didn’t work in that situation or that one or that one,
    but you lack of balance is telling on you all in the same bag that it cannot save everyone,
    it cannot kill everyone criminals,
    don’t forget that in the old days, a criminal would end up in the rope under the tree, than on a chair electric,
    which was a better humanly treatment they said,
    now they convict the good guys who kill the bad guys and send them to prison like GEORGE ZIMMERMAN,
    AS EXAMPLE,
    THE POPULATION HAS RISED, THE CRIMINALS ARE MORE NUMEROUS, MORE GET AWAY WITH MURDER,
    AND THE JUDGES AND LAYERS FOR THE COURTS ARE SPENDING WASTEFUL TIME
    AND MONEY TO FINALLY INCARCERATE A CRIMINAL FOR LIFE AT THE COST OF THE GOOD PEOPLE,
    WHO HAS THE RIGHT LOGIC? I say very questionable, and lacking of the suppose WISDOM WE KNEW,
    THE ONE WE LEARNED TO BE JUSTICE.
    would it be part of the problem we as a society who call itself humane in his application of justice,
    for those who commited crimes and are not fairly punish by eradication from the HUMAN KIND,
    just as this kind of WAR IMPOSE TO OUR GOOD SOLDIERS , TO NOT KILL THE ENEMY IN FRONT OF YOU BECAUSE HE DROP HIS WEAPON ON THE GROUND, OR BECAUSE HE IS NOT ARMED BUT DIGGING A HOLE TO BURRY THE CLUSTERD BOMBS TO KILL OUR WARRIORS,
    IS IN IT ALL COME FROM A SICK LEADERSHIP? THE SAME ONE VOTED IN BY
    THE IGNORANTS UNWORTHY TO VOTES, OR THE OTHER WHO VOTE FOR THEIR PERSONAL GAIN.
    WELL IT IS ALL MIX INTO THE BOWL OF DISASTER TO MAKE THE POISONOUS CAKE

    ReplyReply
  45. Greg says: 95

    @retire05, #67:

    When the President no longer needs Secret Service protection, nor does his children, when the government manages to remove weapons from the hands of the gangbangers and drug dealers, when you can guarantee me that some nut case will not be allowed to freely roam the streets of the nation plotting his nefarious deeds that could harm me, or my family, I will talk to you about your idea of gun “control.” Until then, gun control for me is the ability to hold my weapon with both hands.

    I’ve owned one firearm or another for over 40 years. I haven’t felt a need for a military weapon since I was in the military. Conflating any call for tighter control on the private ownership of assault weapons with opposition to firearm ownership in general is either delusional, or deliberately deceptive.

    ReplyReply
  46. retire05 says: 96

    @Greg:

    Do you even know the requirements to be able to purchase an assault weapon? If you do; list them.

    ReplyReply
  47. Randy says: 97

    @retire05: Anyone who ever saw “In Cold Blood” or read the book should be very scared. By the way lefties, it was a true event. Something like that happens every day. We can choose to be a victim or to defend ourselves. Those who have been victims in the past didn’t get another chance to defend themselves.

    You are right Retire, those lefties who continue to call for more gun laws after a tragedy are just parroting those who seek political gain at the expense of others. Their information deficient minions

    ReplyReply
  48. Greg says: 98

    @retire05, #96:

    What federal laws apply specifically with regard to assault weapons? Those would be all I would need to comply with here, assuming I were buying from a federally licensed dealer. Indiana has no additional state restrictions. State law preempts any local restrictions. If I were buying from a private owner in Indiana, I wouldn’t even have to have a routine federal background check.

    ReplyReply
  49. retire05 says: 99

    @Greg:

    What federal law apply specifically with regard to assault weapons?

    Are you saying you have been running your mouth about assault weapons all this time and you have no clue as to what the federal regulations are regarding them?

    Figures.

    ReplyReply
  50. Tom says: 100

    @Mr. Gray:

    I missed this because I’ve been on a mobile all day. Very insightful and very true. There is a disproportionate reaction to fear in this country that accomplishes nothing more than ultimately placing weapons in the hands of murderers. I too would be curious to hear the last time a suburban mother required an AR15 and 90 rounds to fight off a home invasion. You would think this is an every day occurance to listen to the fear mongers of the NRA.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>