If more guns makes a country safer

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well those people are all brown, according to Humpty Trumpty.

So, you agree; restricting peoples' rights because they -might- commit a crime is inane.
Good to hear.

I think gun nutters should have to take a fear test before they can carry a gun. If the sight of a brown woman and child illegally crossing the border makes them flop sweat and hyperventilate, then they definitely have too much fear to own a gun.

Also, since you value my opinion so highly, I would institute a minimum penis size before a man can own a gun. Girth and length. Despite red state white male uneducated voter belief, a gun is not a substitute for your tiny pecker.

And there you have it.......another anti-gun loon who has a psycho-sexual fixation on guns as a substitute for the penis. This seems to be a common mental disorder with these types....and really needs to be addressed by a psychiatric professional.

I'm not the one who needs to load up on these phallic symbols every time I leave the house.

You are projecting. Medication and therapy can help you accept your physical limitations.

There it is again.....the fixation on the penis....

Guns are not a penis...you need to learn this quickly before you do something really stupid to the plastic doll you own.....

Again, attempted reverse psychology. The comparison is an attempt to inflict guilt or humiliation on gun owners. They use it all the time. It never works of course, but we won't tell them that.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Of course we make decisions for the masses. Do we want one person to have the fire power that when he snaps he can go out and kill hundreds of people? No we do not. So we are going to make decisions that are good for the masses. Sorry you don't have the FREEDOM to commit mass murder. Or you still do but you're going to have to use a car or bomb. And if you decide to use a gun you'll have to reload after 10 shots. That'll give us some time to run away from you or tackle you.

Oh, right. Because it takes so long to change out a magazine.

And this guy is no magician. This is something most anybody can do with a little practice. If a shooter is counting their shots, you don't even have to put another round in the chamber to continue firing.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

This is what I've learned overall relating to Leftists and Gun Control.

Many leftists believe that Human Utopia can only exist where decisions are made for the masses. That people need guidance and direction in order to live civilized lives. In some ways, they are correct. Look at all the people in America dying of drug overdoses and the amount of crime. I have always thought that not everyone "deserves" freedom. Some humans cannot handle freedom or lack the intelligence to live in a society and respect the privacy and rights of others. Those who drive around with excessively loud car stereos that vibrate the windows of nearby homes are a perfect example. They have freedom to do these things, but lack the self control or respect for others to understand that others have the right not to have their space invaded. I've always thought that people like this do not deserve to be as free as those who do.

Same with people who drive recklessly or intoxicated, putting the lives of others in danger. We have laws to deal with this, but they are largely ineffective as is obvious by how large the problem remains. Again, the left is willing to overlook the shortcomings of the individual in favor of a strong Government control system over everyone. It is explains why many on the Left see "mob rule" as acceptable.....and a Democracy, the majority rules, more appealing than a Republic, which focuses on INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

The point is that many Leftists believe that in order to achieve a more perfect society, that a few should dictate how the rest may live their lives. China does this as do most Communist countries. Socialism is a step in that direction.

The fatal flaw is that in their quest for Utopia, Leftists often put aside the fact that concentrating power into a few almost always leads to corruption and human rights abuse. But they largely see this as an acceptable trade off.

In terms of guns, this is why they MUST disarm a population. Because an armed population is not easily put under the control of the few.

Of course we make decisions for the masses. Do we want one person to have the fire power that when he snaps he can go out and kill hundreds of people? No we do not. So we are going to make decisions that are good for the masses. Sorry you don't have the FREEDOM to commit mass murder. Or you still do but you're going to have to use a car or bomb. And if you decide to use a gun you'll have to reload after 10 shots. That'll give us some time to run away from you or tackle you.

So tell me, how many of our mass shootings ended when the shooter was changing a magazine and somebody tackled them at that split second?

In other words, let's say you are at a park, and this guy is a mass shooter. He shoots eight or nine people, but you're 5 feet in front of him and are one of the people he didn't shoot yet. Tell me you are going to tackle this guy while he's changing magazines.



You people on the left watch way too many movies to get your ideas. In reality, if you are not armed and somebody is committing a mass shooting, the only thing you are thinking of is getting as far away from him as you can, not sit there hoping for a magazine change opportunity.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And most states have a "Reasonable" method for you to be armed in public. It's called Licensed CCW. And that is perfectly constitutional.

I believe that conservatives should remove the liberals' constitutional Right to VOTE, and only allow them to vote after they have successfully jumped through a series of hoops WE would create, to determine whether or not they are QUALIFIED to vote. We would then give them a laminated Voter Permit that they would have to renew every five years in order to continue exercising their Right to vote.

It is not Constitutional to FORCIBLY VOID someone's Constitutional Right, and then SELL that right back to them in the form of a permit they can only obtain after passing a set of arbitrary pre-qualifications. You know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about what is or is not Constitutional.

Okay, as long as the Rumpsters have to pass an equally difficult test to vote. Can you imagine them trying to take any written test at all? Now, make it oral and make it public. That would make a new Reailty TV show that many of us would watch for the comedy aspect.

OMG, would I love to see that. My assessment of political parties is that when it comes to political knowledge, Republicans beat Democrats at the very least two to one. Granted, I'm not saying all Democrats are politically ignorant, but look at where most of their votes come from. They come from lower income inner-city folks. You don't find many conservatives or Republican in those areas. In fact, there were some inner-city districts where Mitt Romney didn't have on single vote. One of those districts was here in Cleveland.

So let's say that Republicans take total charge of the federal government, and require an extremely simple test in order for ALL to vote. Do you think the Democrats would welcome that with open arms? Who gets the poor vote? Who gets the inner-city vote? Why do you suppose that liberal talk radio was a complete failure, because those folks are so into politics like we on the right?

Just a reminder of what your typical Democrat voter is like.

Just a reminder what a hard core Rumpster looks like

 

[Daryl Hunt]

This is what I've learned overall relating to Leftists and Gun Control.

Many leftists believe that Human Utopia can only exist where decisions are made for the masses. That people need guidance and direction in order to live civilized lives. In some ways, they are correct. Look at all the people in America dying of drug overdoses and the amount of crime. I have always thought that not everyone "deserves" freedom. Some humans cannot handle freedom or lack the intelligence to live in a society and respect the privacy and rights of others. Those who drive around with excessively loud car stereos that vibrate the windows of nearby homes are a perfect example. They have freedom to do these things, but lack the self control or respect for others to understand that others have the right not to have their space invaded. I've always thought that people like this do not deserve to be as free as those who do.

Same with people who drive recklessly or intoxicated, putting the lives of others in danger. We have laws to deal with this, but they are largely ineffective as is obvious by how large the problem remains. Again, the left is willing to overlook the shortcomings of the individual in favor of a strong Government control system over everyone. It is explains why many on the Left see "mob rule" as acceptable.....and a Democracy, the majority rules, more appealing than a Republic, which focuses on INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

The point is that many Leftists believe that in order to achieve a more perfect society, that a few should dictate how the rest may live their lives. China does this as do most Communist countries. Socialism is a step in that direction.

The fatal flaw is that in their quest for Utopia, Leftists often put aside the fact that concentrating power into a few almost always leads to corruption and human rights abuse. But they largely see this as an acceptable trade off.

In terms of guns, this is why they MUST disarm a population. Because an armed population is not easily put under the control of the few.

Of course we make decisions for the masses. Do we want one person to have the fire power that when he snaps he can go out and kill hundreds of people? No we do not. So we are going to make decisions that are good for the masses. Sorry you don't have the FREEDOM to commit mass murder. Or you still do but you're going to have to use a car or bomb. And if you decide to use a gun you'll have to reload after 10 shots. That'll give us some time to run away from you or tackle you.

So tell me, how many of our mass shootings ended when the shooter was changing a magazine and somebody tackled them at that split second?

In other words, let's say you are at a park, and this guy is a mass shooter. He shoots eight or nine people, but you're 5 feet in front of him and are one of the people he didn't shoot yet. Tell me you are going to tackle this guy while he's changing magazines.



You people on the left watch way too many movies to get your ideas. In reality, if you are not armed and somebody is committing a mass shooting, the only thing you are thinking of is getting as far away from him as you can, not sit there hoping for a magazine change opportunity.

In El Paso, there were probably a lot of guns there yet the people there fled, ducked, froze, etc.. Not a single on pulled their weapons and confronted the shooter. And don't tell me that there weren't a lot of guns in that Walmart. It's Texas for crying out loud.

You reasoning is flawed.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

My ruger 1911 45 only holds 8. You can buy an extended mag that holds 10. Your semi auto handgun holds 15? Yea, I would probably ban the manufacturing of that capacity mag.

For no rational reason whatsoever.

You can keep the ones you have though. I just want to stop a future nut from being able to dole out max carnage.

Absent confiscation of "high capacity" magazines, they will remain available to everyone - thus, your nonsensical ban will accomplish nothing.

What? Just because you were able to buy one in 1980 doesn't mean a crazy gun nut will be able to get their hands on one moving forward. Chances are the gun nut will just go with what he can get his hands on at the gun store. And that will be 10 round mags.

Oh, and it's illegal to sell yours to anyone. So you can keep what you got but not sell it.

You're speculating. Your comment is false. What you are saying is if we don't confiscate what you have then gun nuts will be able to get their hands on them. Not true. Not true at all. Banning the sale of 20 round magazines will take 20 round magazines out of most gun nuts hands.

And banning the sale of 20 round magazines also takes that ability away from the law abiding citizen who may, one day, have to defend himself or herself from somebody with a 20 round magazine.

As we on the right understand, having limits on capacity size is only one step in the long game of virtual gun confiscation. If you don't believe that, I'll tell you what: I'll support your magazine size law, if you can get the Democrats to sign a Contract with America. In that contract, it would state the Democrats will never bring up the issue of guns again win, lose, or draw if we support limits on gun magazine size.

Do you really think the Democrats in the House would go for that? Of course not. Because again, it's one baby step in their long game.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

My gun makes me safer under specific conditions.

I'm not really concerned with making you safer.

We’re interested in what makes us all safer. Background checks and maybe we don’t allow people to buy assault weapons and wmds

All guns are weapons of mass destruction. The problem is people with very little knowledge of guns don't understand that.

No, people with guns don't understand that us people who want common sense gun legislation aren't trying to ban 10 round magazines just 20 round magazines.

I have a lot of knowledge about guns. I own about 5 guns.

Maybe it's you who has very little knowledge about what our knowledge is?

About 5?

So what is that 4.5?

And you are also trying to ban 15 round magazines, you know the ones that are standard size when you buy a handgun.

I have to think about it. 450 bushmaster, muzzleloader, 410, 45, 22. Does the crossbow count? So I have 5.5 guns. LOL.

Judging by our comments here, and no offense, but it seems like you never even shot a gun yet alone own multiple weapons.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Murderer, rapist, prostitute, pedophile, terrorist - whatever.

Well those people are all brown, according to Humpty Trumpty.

So, you agree; restricting peoples' rights because they -might- commit a crime is inane.
Good to hear.

I think gun nutters should have to take a fear test before they can carry a gun. If the sight of a brown woman and child illegally crossing the border makes them flop sweat and hyperventilate, then they definitely have too much fear to own a gun.

Also, since you value my opinion so highly, I would institute a minimum penis size before a man can own a gun. Girth and length. Despite red state white male uneducated voter belief, a gun is not a substitute for your tiny pecker.

And there you have it.......another anti-gun loon who has a psycho-sexual fixation on guns as a substitute for the penis. This seems to be a common mental disorder with these types....and really needs to be addressed by a psychiatric professional.

I'm not the one who needs to load up on these phallic symbols every time I leave the house.

You are projecting. Medication and therapy can help you accept your physical limitations.

Let me ask: do you have house insurance? If you rent, renters insurance? Do you have healthcare insurance, or car insurance?

Guns are nothing more than insurance. You have it just in case, but never expect to actually use it. Having insurance is not a symbol of anything but responsibility and protection. If you want to drive with no insurance, I don't care, just don't tell me I can't have auto insurance, and please don't drive around me either.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

My gun makes me safer under specific conditions.

I'm not really concerned with making you safer.

We’re interested in what makes us all safer. Background checks and maybe we don’t allow people to buy assault weapons and wmds

All guns are weapons of mass destruction. The problem is people with very little knowledge of guns don't understand that.

No, people with guns don't understand that us people who want common sense gun legislation aren't trying to ban 10 round magazines just 20 round magazines.

I have a lot of knowledge about guns. I own about 5 guns.

Maybe it's you who has very little knowledge about what our knowledge is?

Sorry, but there is no possible way you know anything about guns if you believe that changing magazines will reduce casualties or stop a mass shooter. It doesn't make any difference. Earlier you came here claiming that people who miss their targets are bad shooters, when in fact, missing your target, especially under pressure, is quite normal, even for police officers.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I had guns before I ever heard of the NRA or voted for any party. The safest place in the world right now is under my roof.

And the Supreme Court agrees with you. Under your roof with reasonable firearms, you should feel reasonably safe. And your should be able to reasonably use them to defend the security of your home as well. Notice the words "Reasonable" and "Home".

So ... when I leave my "home" I should be vulnerable to a deadly attack at the ATM, at a restaurant, while driving in my car or cycling through a public park, etc.?

Don't even PRETEND to be that stupid.

Why would I pretend to be that stupid. You are much more stupid and you don't even need to pretend. Most states have the CCW laws. Even the most regulated states and cities in the nation allows CCW. And it's already been proven that the safest people on the public streets with a gun is the CCW carriers. The most unsafe are the fruitcakes like you.

CCW laws are only as good as the laws that protect the shooter. I don't know if my license is good in the commie states like NY or California. But even if it were, I would be deathly afraid of using a firearm in those states because the laws are written to protect the criminal, and not the victim.

In my state, I have no fear of using my firearm if needed. The laws that were written during and after the CCW laws enacted do protect me when I need to use deadly force. In fact, they are written in my favor.

CCW programs were forced on states that refused to have them by the Supreme Court. But that ruling doesn't mean the state has to be on the side of the victim, or that obtaining a license is guaranteed.

John Stossel Denied Carry Permit in NYC

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You read the entire page because it agrees with your predetermined views. But if something is contrary to your views you won't get much past the first few words. I read the whole thing regardless. Again, am I a gun grabber? I disagree with much of what you say. Does that make me a gun grabber? Simple question.

No, I read the entire page because it contained real DATA , rather than agenda-driven nonsense.

You sure make a lot of assumptions. You have decided what I will, and will not read. You are wrong, but you have the Right to be wrong.

Are you a gun grabber? I don't know. I haven't read enough of your posts to come to that conclusion. If you support the likes of Obama, Clinton, Sanders, Warren et. al., then yes, you are probably a gun grabber.

Obama never was against guns. Bill Clinton was never against guns and neither was Hillary. I'll give you Sanders and Warren. But you are wrong about everything else. You are just repeating what you handlers are telling you to say without doing any real research for your self. To give you an idea, Rump is more of a gun grabber than the Clintons or Obama. Yet you rave on and on about that fruitcake and how he can do no wrong. \

So you mean DumBama never used victims of violent crime to strike up more Democrat gun control measures?

You are playing Politics. It is the States that are doing it. Now, where are you when Rump does it with his EOs. I guess if Rump does it, it's okay with you but it's okay to make shit up about Obama.

Not making up anything. Watch for yourself.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

This is what I've learned overall relating to Leftists and Gun Control.

Many leftists believe that Human Utopia can only exist where decisions are made for the masses. That people need guidance and direction in order to live civilized lives. In some ways, they are correct. Look at all the people in America dying of drug overdoses and the amount of crime. I have always thought that not everyone "deserves" freedom. Some humans cannot handle freedom or lack the intelligence to live in a society and respect the privacy and rights of others. Those who drive around with excessively loud car stereos that vibrate the windows of nearby homes are a perfect example. They have freedom to do these things, but lack the self control or respect for others to understand that others have the right not to have their space invaded. I've always thought that people like this do not deserve to be as free as those who do.

Same with people who drive recklessly or intoxicated, putting the lives of others in danger. We have laws to deal with this, but they are largely ineffective as is obvious by how large the problem remains. Again, the left is willing to overlook the shortcomings of the individual in favor of a strong Government control system over everyone. It is explains why many on the Left see "mob rule" as acceptable.....and a Democracy, the majority rules, more appealing than a Republic, which focuses on INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

The point is that many Leftists believe that in order to achieve a more perfect society, that a few should dictate how the rest may live their lives. China does this as do most Communist countries. Socialism is a step in that direction.

The fatal flaw is that in their quest for Utopia, Leftists often put aside the fact that concentrating power into a few almost always leads to corruption and human rights abuse. But they largely see this as an acceptable trade off.

In terms of guns, this is why they MUST disarm a population. Because an armed population is not easily put under the control of the few.

Of course we make decisions for the masses. Do we want one person to have the fire power that when he snaps he can go out and kill hundreds of people? No we do not. So we are going to make decisions that are good for the masses. Sorry you don't have the FREEDOM to commit mass murder. Or you still do but you're going to have to use a car or bomb. And if you decide to use a gun you'll have to reload after 10 shots. That'll give us some time to run away from you or tackle you.

So tell me, how many of our mass shootings ended when the shooter was changing a magazine and somebody tackled them at that split second?

In other words, let's say you are at a park, and this guy is a mass shooter. He shoots eight or nine people, but you're 5 feet in front of him and are one of the people he didn't shoot yet. Tell me you are going to tackle this guy while he's changing magazines.



You people on the left watch way too many movies to get your ideas. In reality, if you are not armed and somebody is committing a mass shooting, the only thing you are thinking of is getting as far away from him as you can, not sit there hoping for a magazine change opportunity.

In El Paso, there were probably a lot of guns there yet the people there fled, ducked, froze, etc.. Not a single on pulled their weapons and confronted the shooter. And don't tell me that there weren't a lot of guns in that Walmart. It's Texas for crying out loud.

You reasoning is flawed.

And in Texas, they (like most states) allow stores and malls to be gun-free as an option.

According to ABC News, El Paso law enforcement officials advise that, moments before his killing rampage, the shooter cased the Walmart “looking for Mexicans.” While that may be so, it is nevertheless true that, consistent with his “manifesto,” his recon was also calculated to make sure that he would be attacking in a low-security area. In that regard, the Walmart store had no armed security guard, no police presence, and was located in a shopping mall that was a self-proclaimed “gun-free zone.”

Mass Shootings in Gun-Free Zones | The American Spectator | Politics Is Too Important To Be Taken Seriously.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And most states have a "Reasonable" method for you to be armed in public. It's called Licensed CCW. And that is perfectly constitutional.

I believe that conservatives should remove the liberals' constitutional Right to VOTE, and only allow them to vote after they have successfully jumped through a series of hoops WE would create, to determine whether or not they are QUALIFIED to vote. We would then give them a laminated Voter Permit that they would have to renew every five years in order to continue exercising their Right to vote.

It is not Constitutional to FORCIBLY VOID someone's Constitutional Right, and then SELL that right back to them in the form of a permit they can only obtain after passing a set of arbitrary pre-qualifications. You know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about what is or is not Constitutional.

Okay, as long as the Rumpsters have to pass an equally difficult test to vote. Can you imagine them trying to take any written test at all? Now, make it oral and make it public. That would make a new Reailty TV show that many of us would watch for the comedy aspect.

OMG, would I love to see that. My assessment of political parties is that when it comes to political knowledge, Republicans beat Democrats at the very least two to one. Granted, I'm not saying all Democrats are politically ignorant, but look at where most of their votes come from. They come from lower income inner-city folks. You don't find many conservatives or Republican in those areas. In fact, there were some inner-city districts where Mitt Romney didn't have on single vote. One of those districts was here in Cleveland.

So let's say that Republicans take total charge of the federal government, and require an extremely simple test in order for ALL to vote. Do you think the Democrats would welcome that with open arms? Who gets the poor vote? Who gets the inner-city vote? Why do you suppose that liberal talk radio was a complete failure, because those folks are so into politics like we on the right?

Just a reminder of what your typical Democrat voter is like.

Just a reminder what a hard core Rumpster looks like

This guy is the worst actor I've ever seen. Got anything else......something not so obvious?

 

[Kentucky_Conservative]

In El Paso, there were probably a lot of guns there yet the people there fled, ducked, froze, etc.. Not a single on pulled their weapons and confronted the shooter. And don't tell me that there weren't a lot of guns in that Walmart. It's Texas for crying out loud.

You reasoning is flawed.

Your silly assumptions are ridiculous. Just because it is Texas, that DOES NOT mean everyone is armed.

 

[Kentucky_Conservative]

Just a reminder of what your typical Democrat voter is like.

If you believe this guy wasn't ACTING, there is no hope for you.

"Would you look at that!? Just LOOK at that! ... "

 

[NotYourBody]

And in Texas, they (like most states) allow stores and malls to be gun-free as an option.

According to ABC News, El Paso law enforcement officials advise that, moments before his killing rampage, the shooter cased the Walmart “looking for Mexicans.” While that may be so, it is nevertheless true that, consistent with his “manifesto,” his recon was also calculated to make sure that he would be attacking in a low-security area. In that regard, the Walmart store had no armed security guard, no police presence, and was located in a shopping mall that was a self-proclaimed “gun-free zone.”

Mass Shootings in Gun-Free Zones | The American Spectator | Politics Is Too Important To Be Taken Seriously.

And of course all those Texans are going to park their guns at the door because guns are NOT ALLOWED in the Walmart. Riiiiiight. You've clearly never been to, or lived in Texas. Guaranteed there were plenty of gun toting 'heroes' in that Walmart all running for the nearest exit as soon as the shooting started. All those guns, I guess in the end they were just cowards after all.

And where were all the gun-toters in Dayton (or was it TOLEDO)? Nobody could have pulled out their weapon in those 32 seconds it took police to take out the shooter? More cowards with guns?

 

[flacaltenn]

America would be the safest country in the world When will Republicans learn the NRA is FOS ?

You're not a deep thinker are ya? There's only "so safe" a country can be... If you want REALLY safe, you shun immigrants and have a unicultural demographic, and a long list of traditions and a govt that values freedom and liberty... INCLUDING gun rights.. Maybe somewhere like Finland or Switzerland..

SPEAKING of the Swiss.. They ALL HAVE MILITARY style weapons.. They don't NEED them for personal protection, so it's hard to tell if there's any correlation there...

But the fact is -- with our fading culture, morals, education system, failing political system, poor results from imprisionment and a deeply immigrated to country --- It would blood shed and mayhem without the deterrent..

All those guns are not being used... They are the personal nuclear arsenal that keeps others from ******* with you...

 

[Markle]

And in Texas, they (like most states) allow stores and malls to be gun-free as an option.

According to ABC News, El Paso law enforcement officials advise that, moments before his killing rampage, the shooter cased the Walmart “looking for Mexicans.” While that may be so, it is nevertheless true that, consistent with his “manifesto,” his recon was also calculated to make sure that he would be attacking in a low-security area. In that regard, the Walmart store had no armed security guard, no police presence, and was located in a shopping mall that was a self-proclaimed “gun-free zone.”

Mass Shootings in Gun-Free Zones | The American Spectator | Politics Is Too Important To Be Taken Seriously.

And of course all those Texans are going to park their guns at the door because guns are NOT ALLOWED in the Walmart. Riiiiiight. You've clearly never been to, or lived in Texas. Guaranteed there were plenty of gun toting 'heroes' in that Walmart all running for the nearest exit as soon as the shooting started. All those guns, I guess in the end they were just cowards after all.

And where were all the gun-toters in Dayton (or was it TOLEDO)? Nobody could have pulled out their weapon in those 32 seconds it took police to take out the shooter? More cowards with guns?

You just insist on looking stupid, don't you?

Why?

 

[NotYourBody]

Well those people are all brown, according to Humpty Trumpty.

So, you agree; restricting peoples' rights because they -might- commit a crime is inane.
Good to hear.

I think gun nutters should have to take a fear test before they can carry a gun. If the sight of a brown woman and child illegally crossing the border makes them flop sweat and hyperventilate, then they definitely have too much fear to own a gun.

Also, since you value my opinion so highly, I would institute a minimum penis size before a man can own a gun. Girth and length. Despite red state white male uneducated voter belief, a gun is not a substitute for your tiny pecker.

And there you have it.......another anti-gun loon who has a psycho-sexual fixation on guns as a substitute for the penis. This seems to be a common mental disorder with these types....and really needs to be addressed by a psychiatric professional.

I'm not the one who needs to load up on these phallic symbols every time I leave the house.

You are projecting. Medication and therapy can help you accept your physical limitations.

Let me ask: do you have house insurance? If you rent, renters insurance? Do you have healthcare insurance, or car insurance?

Guns are nothing more than insurance. You have it just in case, but never expect to actually use it. Having insurance is not a symbol of anything but responsibility and protection. If you want to drive with no insurance, I don't care, just don't tell me I can't have auto insurance, and please don't drive around me either.

My insurance doesn't kill anyone. And I've said many times, I don't need that kind of insurance. Caravans of vehicles (or even one) have never driven into my driveway and spilled out hordes of home invaders to steal all my shit and kill me. I am not attacked in public because I know how to keep myself from being a target. I have kept myself safe all over the world, and right here on the CA/MX border.

However, if some incel GOP nutter decided to drive out here and shoot the place up and I got caught in the crossfire, well, then that would be that. I will not live my life in fear of crazy people. I do not care to live my life afraid of the world and I'm not into paranoia.

But if I did need a killing weapon, I'd prefer a bomb, or maybe a grenade. Something I can throw in the general direction of the danger. My hand-eye coordination is not that great and if I'm going for the kill, I'll need something that delivers an easier kill shot.

 

[NotYourBody]

And in Texas, they (like most states) allow stores and malls to be gun-free as an option.

According to ABC News, El Paso law enforcement officials advise that, moments before his killing rampage, the shooter cased the Walmart “looking for Mexicans.” While that may be so, it is nevertheless true that, consistent with his “manifesto,” his recon was also calculated to make sure that he would be attacking in a low-security area. In that regard, the Walmart store had no armed security guard, no police presence, and was located in a shopping mall that was a self-proclaimed “gun-free zone.”

Mass Shootings in Gun-Free Zones | The American Spectator | Politics Is Too Important To Be Taken Seriously.

And of course all those Texans are going to park their guns at the door because guns are NOT ALLOWED in the Walmart. Riiiiiight. You've clearly never been to, or lived in Texas. Guaranteed there were plenty of gun toting 'heroes' in that Walmart all running for the nearest exit as soon as the shooting started. All those guns, I guess in the end they were just cowards after all.

And where were all the gun-toters in Dayton (or was it TOLEDO)? Nobody could have pulled out their weapon in those 32 seconds it took police to take out the shooter? More cowards with guns?

You just insist on looking stupid, don't you?

Why?

That's all you got? Lame.