No announcement yet.

Law abiding citizen.....


300x250 Mobile

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • If your only argument is that Klecks numbers are too high then fine, I'll accept that. I don't care if they are off by a factor of ten and I don't believe most other people do either. It carries no weight in an authentic debate about our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

    So, let's get on with the real reason you decided to come onto this forum in defense of your "cousin" Tinkertoy. What are you attempting to prove?[/QUOTE]

    First off, he is actually my cousin, and I came to this forum because he asked me to.

    Anyhow, I will not be on for a while, as I will be joining relatives for vacation tomorrow.

    Regards, ryan


    • Ryan, in my previous arguements I've cited websites where I got my proof.

      You have yet to cite a website or specific book. I don't know who this Kleck character is so for all I know he sat next to you in High School.

      Either post the proof to your claims, or bow out. I can't debate made-up "facts".
      You have no right to not be offended.-Neal Boortz


      • Originally posted by NumbersGuy
        No, I have no opinion either way.
        Lie to me all you want. Hell, lie to yourself all you want. But don't insult my intellegence. Your agenda is more obvious than Michael Jackson's at Summer Camp.
        You have no right to not be offended.-Neal Boortz


        • Tinkertoys:

          The moment the gun is fired, it is being used in an offensive manner, even if reacting to another offense.
          This is ludicrous. It obscures the obviously legitimate distinction between offensive and defensive use of weapons.

          Shooting a person can arbitrarily be called an offensive act, if you want to use language that way; however, it is nonetheless important that the motivation for shooting someone not be ignored.

          A person who points a gun at someone and says "give me your wallet, or I'll ice you", is using the weapon offensively.

          If I put 2 rounds through the nose of a bad guy to stop him when he's about to murder me, I'm defending myself. That's not offensive; it's defensive.

          If you don't, upon reflection, recognize the extremely important difference between using a gun unjustly, and using a gun for self-defense (or in defense of another person who's not doing anything wrong), you're probably beyond the reach of discourse.




          • Originally posted by NumbersGuy
            "Centurion44]Fair enough. So, since my odds of surviving a violent attack increase exponentially when I'm armed with a handgun, does that mean you are against the banning of firearms?"

            No, I have no opinion either way. Your chances of committing suicide with a gun are many times higher than using one to defend yourself. That's a fact, not an opinion.

            Regards, Ryan
            Ryan, that is not a fact either. Think about the forum you are in. Knowing that most of us are armed would dispute that assertion. The guy on that T.V. show Numbers has probably influenced you in the same way CSI has influenced the general public in their undersatnding of investigations. Kleck has made some good arguments, but like most things, can be debated. I actually believe that criminals will chose an unarmed victim over an armed victim, just as a burglar will chose a home with no alarms, lights or locks over a home that is secured.
            "If all else fails, stop using all else!"


            • Let it go. Their position is weaker than the Mexican space program.
              You have no right to not be offended.-Neal Boortz


              • http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html

                Here's a comprehensive breakdown of the grammar of the 2nd amendment by a leading usage expert, politically objective as he was given no information as to the use of his analysis.
                "I carry a gun, because a cop is too heavy..."

                Huckabee '08!!!sigpic


                • Originally posted by Tinkertoys
                  What does that have to do with gun control? IF you had no gun, you would have slugged him, same result.
                  I was just going to read these postings and not give any input. But. The level of ignorance in this statement is mind boggling.
                  With what you said I find it very hard to believe you are a police officer. If you really believe your statement then you have lived a very sheltered life. I have been punched hard in the throat and was able to press on with the fight and win.

                  And to answer why the man brought a gun to the bank?! Well for someone with common sense the answer is quite obvious. Thankfully he did bring a gun to the bank at night, probably poorly lit, while carrying a large sum of cash.
                  Prov 17:17 A friend loveth at all times, and a brother is born for adversity.


                  • Originally posted by zap
                    OH...and don't forget to pat yourself on the back there Tink
                    Kind of hard to do with his head up his arse.
                    "You know, marriage is between a man and a woman, and I don't believe judges ought to come along and change that."

                    "I'm against gun control generally. You know, you check my record. You'll find I'm pretty consistent on that issue."

                    "The court [by overturning the D.C. gun ban] basically said the Constitution means what it says, and I agree with that."

                    Fred Thompson


                    MR300x250 Tablet


                    What's Going On


                    There are currently 3861 users online. 260 members and 3601 guests.

                    Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

                    Welcome Ad