firearm's thread

[CamaroSkooter]

He changed it so he does get protection for life? Ugh

I think the NRA has to make semi-extreme videos just so that they're attention-grabbing in the same way that the anti-gun camp makes extreme videos purely for the purpose of "shock-and-awe."

I think, in the end, the opposing "extremes" just cancel each other out.

What I have noticed, though, is that the anti-gun crowd are typically (not always) folks who have very little experience with firearms in any capacity, even down to BB guns or even slingshots. People are always the most afraid of things they know nothing about.

My mother refused to ever allow any guns in our house. I grew up never having fired, or even held a firearm in my hand. Now that I have purchased multiple handguns in the last year and a half, my mom suddenly understands that guns aren't nearly as "scary" as she thought they were. And her tune has changed dramatically from just a few years ago.

The real problem here is purely educational. People need to be taught exactly what firearms are. They're tools to aid in self-defense, both from individuals who intend to do you harm at the personal level as well as on a governmental level. An armed society capable of defending itself from an oppressive government is a free society.

But anytime a Pro-2A individual brings up the "protection from tyranny" fact, the anti-gunners immediately label that person a loon/conspiracy theorist.

[Iroc2430]

Originally Posted by BullF-16

Im Glad you have a sense of humor about it

You get your car back Bull?? I live right down the street from you. Love to see it sometime.

[PQ]

Originally Posted by kalimus

None? That's dependant completely on your child's school. There are many schools that have armed guards/cops/SRO's. Columbine for instance had them (didn't prevent it, but at least kept it from being worse?). And who should push that anyway? Lawmakers to the school, or parents to the school? I would think the latter. Just my opinion. And that issue was addressed by one of his EO's (number 18 I think?).

I'm speaking of the current drawing board of discussion on capitol hill. They'd have NO armed protectors in our schools. And if they had their way that's how it would be. THEY want to be our protectors. Big money security details on family members of the President I totally get. My only security detail is private guns. The movement is such that my child's school can't have ANY armed security. It is by definition hypocrisy.

[Mr Twisty]

Originally Posted by Camaro_Corvette

I got to be laid back to put up with this shit.

Yeah.... me too ..... just call me 'Bugs'

Originally Posted by PQ

I'm speaking of the current drawing board of discussion on capitol hill. They'd have NO armed protectors in our schools. And if they had their way that's how it would be. THEY want to be our protectors. Big money security details on family members of the President I totally get. My only security detail is private guns. The movement is such that my child's school can't have ANY armed security. It is by definition hypocrisy.

The President and family needs to be protected. No argument.

For him to say arming schools is ineffective is ignorant and hypocritical.

Let him protect his family..... but don't get in the way of me protecting mine.

[skipinminn]

Obama to the NRA. "Don't bring my Children into this"? Didn't this all start about keeping Children SAFE? "O" That's right His Children aren't the same as mine or yours. I'm so glad I can Say I didn't Vote for Him, this time or the Last time. This is probably going to get me Suspended for a little while, but I just feel the Need to say it.

[kalimus]

Originally Posted by PQ

I'm speaking of the current drawing board of discussion on capitol hill. They'd have NO armed protectors in our schools. And if they had their way that's how it would be. THEY want to be our protectors. Big money security details on family members of the President I totally get. My only security detail is private guns. The movement is such that my child's school can't have ANY armed security. It is by definition hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by Mr Twisty

For him to say arming schools is ineffective is ignorant and hypocritical.

Let him protect his family..... but don't get in the way of me protecting mine.

Maybe I'm confused about what you're talking about. The EO that he signed just this week, was to "Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers." These ARE armed security. They're LEOs. Many schools already employ them. This one is to give the school an incentive to hire them. How is that preventing a school from having armed security? That's encouraging it.

Did I miss something, or did you two? There is some confusion going on somewhere, I just want to figure out where it's coming from

[BullF-16]

Originally Posted by Iroc2430

You get your car back Bull?? I live right down the street from you. Love to see it sometime.

Yep, still working some fueling issues but it runs.....kind of nice after 10 months.

[pocketcthulhu]

Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter

He changed it so he does get protection for life? Ugh

I think the NRA has to make semi-extreme videos just so that they're attention-grabbing in the same way that the anti-gun camp makes extreme videos purely for the purpose of "shock-and-awe."

I think, in the end, the opposing "extremes" just cancel each other out.

What I have noticed, though, is that the anti-gun crowd are typically (not always) folks who have very little experience with firearms in any capacity, even down to BB guns or even slingshots. People are always the most afraid of things they know nothing about.

My mother refused to ever allow any guns in our house. I grew up never having fired, or even held a firearm in my hand. Now that I have purchased multiple handguns in the last year and a half, my mom suddenly understands that guns aren't nearly as "scary" as she thought they were. And her tune has changed dramatically from just a few years ago.

The real problem here is purely educational. People need to be taught exactly what firearms are. They're tools to aid in self-defense, both from individuals who intend to do you harm at the personal level as well as on a governmental level. An armed society capable of defending itself from an oppressive government is a free society.

But anytime a Pro-2A individual brings up the "protection from tyranny" fact, the anti-gunners immediately label that person a loon/conspiracy theorist.

very well put, My friend's wife was very anti gun until we took her to the range and I ran her through a full safety / basic usage and had her loading clearing jams and firing, she ended up being scared of my .45 but she Loved the 9mm's and keeps pestering me and her husband to go back.

[family man]

I like how SleepWarz original post where they stated that guns are for pu$$ie$ now reads that guns are for people in gangs = ie pu$$ie$. Gotta love the art of crafty editing.

[TAG UR IT]

All I have to say...if you don't want to talk about guns, DO NOT CLICK ON THE LINK.

You want to talk about Camaro's? Then DO NOT click on "OFF TOPIC SECTION."