Either way, if one of Dr Hupp's parents or Dr Hupp herself would have been armed perhaps the 43 people who were killed or injured would have made it home in time for a football game on TV.
Rude is being shot to death during lunch.
Rude is not being able to defend your family.
Rude is having to sit there and watch 43 people be shot.
Rude is people thumbing down this video in a robotic liberal knee jerk anti-gun spasm.
@hammerogod I didn't say that I thought Hupp didn't have a valid, realistic point. I just think it's ugly to say that when you probably don't really mean it and I think you know that's sinking to a new low too. Either way, it's not helping the argument for the second.
If the 9 people who gave this video, and/or Dr. Hupp's stand on gun control, a thumbs down had witnessed the helplessness of those people in Luby's or V.T. I sincerely doubt that they would have been so quick to dislike this video.
I strongly believe it that the anti-gun group(s) automatically thumb down ALL pro-self defense videos and ALL reasonable arguments for an armed citizenry.
@bcourter82 "I dont need a gun to protect my family. Guns are for pussies. "
LOL YOU FUCKING RETARD. You would NOT be able to "kick someone's ass" if they had a gun pointed at you from 20 feet away, but you sound like a god damn republican with that "tough guy/i'm so tough" bullshit, please shut the fuck up.
If you shoot someone who has a black belt in martial arts, guess what? The black belt is going DOWN no matter HOW good he is at throwing a damn punch. DO YOU NOT GET BASIC PHYSICS?
@KingRadbadical1988 hey there King...gun rights are heavily supported by the republican party....dunno where you're going with that part of your argument, but the rest of it hits the nail on the head.
@dart1285 bingo. Also, I never said that republicans didn't support gun rights. I just compared the person I was arguing with TO a republican. Most republicans are "tough guys" or tough guy wannabes.
I'm a liberal on most issues but all for gun rights.
And P.S....also, moron, what if an elderly grandmother wants to use a gun to protect herself from an intruder? Is she also a "pussy" for not "just whooping his ass"? Your comment reflects a lack of maturity and that you are obviously very short-sighted, unintelligent and uneducated.
@bcourter82 - 3 years ago, in DC vs Heller the US Supreme Court held that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms - and though the right to bear arms also helped preserve the citizen militia, "the activities [the Amendment] protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia."
"A year ago the Irelan's began receiving a small stipend from Veterans Affairs because Lana had to take over the family's finances. The V.A. declared Wayne Irelan incompetent and now his right to own a gun is gone."
Sound reasonable to be deemed mentally incompetent because your wife pays the bills? It's a slippery slope indeed.
@AndyCinDallas If that is the sole reason for his mental incompetence then that is absurd. A line must be drawn somewhere in every case. Now if he is missing half his brain, has PTSD, and has contemplated suicide in the past, then I think it would be rational to assume that putting a firearm in his hands isn't the best idea. I'm not suggesting a Freudian investigation into one's mind, just a simple check for obvious indicators of mental disturbances that can result in violent behavior.
@HearingEveryRhyme - It's already a question on the ATF form 4473 which one has to complete when buying a firearm from an FFL at their store or gun-show.
"Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes a determination by a court, board, commission or other lawful authority that you are a danger to yourself or to others or are incompetent to manage your own affairs) OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?"
@AndyCinDallas Is this true? he was deemed "mentally incompentent" because his wife supported the family? what the fuck? are we living in the 1950s or something?
@HearingEveryRhyme we should be able to have full auto weapons , rocket launchers, grenade launchers, and every weapon the military has. THAT is what our forefathers say we should have. everything our military has, our citizens should have. PERIOD. our right has been infringed and the liberals all need to be killed for infringing it. they are not american. they are a tyranical force that needs to be taken out. call me crazy, but hey they called our founders crazy too. look what they accomplished
@HearingEveryRhyme "The founders weren't gods. TJ owned slaves and totally opposed the Hamiltonian economic system. He was the Alex Jones of their time."
That may be true, but what does Mr. Jefferson's opinions and beliefs on matters unrelated to the 2nd Amendment have to do with the argument over gun rights?
The problem with an ad hominem argument against the forefathers over the 2nd Amendment is that it evades the topic while trying to discredit it by discrediting the people behind it.
Is there reason to demand an examination for someone wishing to obtain a permit?
Here's what I mean: an examination can have implications directly affecting ones civil rights under law, and not just gun rights. In addition, an examination ordered by the state can have privacy implications.
There must be justifiable cause established through due process for such an examination to be compulsory to an individual, such as an available history of abhorrent behavior that is harmful to the individual and/or the public proving the individual as unqualified.
If one's record is clean, there's no justification for demanding a psychological examination.
By insisting on an examination merely because one desire to exercise a recognized civil right is essentially asking the citizen to prove he is qualified.
The citizen should not have to prove his qualification whereas it's supposed to be the state's responsibility to prove a disqualifying condition exists.
@HearingEveryRhyme its still not about that though really. Think about the frame of mind of the people who founded the constitution. They also wanted us to have guns to protect ourselfs from government if need be.Now, the government has any weapon they want, butt we dont have alot of those weapons so they will always have the advantage. i personnaly, dont really want a fully automatic weapon, butt if i was against people who had one, i would need one to
@candyrapper14578 There has to be a limit to the arms race between citizen and state. Our Founding Father's could not imagine TNT, let alone nuclear fission. The Constitution was written by men who had lived under radical tyranny, so the document they crafted was designed to radically limit the powers of the state. It was reactionary, but it was not their fault, and it is a genius document for the most part. The bureaucracy has crippled the state, so tyranny is the least of our worries.
@HearingEveryRhyme yeah butt most of us normal people dont want nuke stuff or TNT, and some could say we have a tyrannical government now. That is all in the eyes of the beholder. Peoples rights are violated all the time, by our own politicians or court systems. You ever see a story like that in the news and wonder how some judge could actually take the side of a robber or something like that? I've seen it happen and its just amazing. I still can't believe some of this stuff thats happening.
The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with personal protection up to and including preventing government tyranny.
Our founding fathers understood that there could come a point in time where the government could become tyrannical and evil. At that point the democratic process would no longer work, and the only possible way to secure liberty would be for the populace to take up arms against their own government.
@GoldDiggerGetDown And we should take up arms if that ever happens, but that doesn't mean that there should a militia that controls a nuclear arsenal and owns tanks. The most common devastating weapon of their day was the cannon. I'm fine with people arming themselves as a safeguard against tyranny, but there has to be a limit for the safety of society.
True. Nuclear weapons should not be in the hands of a Militia. However, the 2nd Amendment is about civilians owning every terrible device that is provided to individual soldiers.
@HearingEveryRhyme You support what you consider sensible. Who carries an automatic for defence? I have never heard of anyone who does. Whats an expo? Semi autos lead to a culture of fear? Im so confused..
@rb2112002 A lot of people nowadays are not comfortable with firearms because they've been repeatedly told that 911 is your self defense and that guns kill people. When they see a law abiding citizen carrying one, they get on edge. At the same time, I'd rather have people be on edge than getting raped and murdered.
Well only collectors can afford auto now so they're reserved for those outdoor shooting extravaganzas.
@HearingEveryRhyme I agree, let them get on edge. If they choose to be victims, that is their choice. I could not care less what they think, or if they are afraid. This is America, and everyone has a right to be murdered in their own home while waiting for the cops. Sorry for pouncing on you, but when people say "sensible", I wonder whose definition of sensible are using. The Brady bunch has been preaching "sensible gun laws" for years. This included registration and confiscation..
@HearingEveryRhyme in complete contrast to your inane statements, id rather we have no checks for anything at all relating to firearms. before all these idiotic regulations, and taxes, their were hardly any mass shootings. i do not count the gangs cause they killed eachother, which i say good reddens. explosives are already illegal. the fact a gun has a fun switch does not make it more lethal, just faster to shoot.
@copperjarhead and second, who are you to say that i, or someone has no need for something if it does not relate, or matter to you. their are hundreds, if not thousands of legally owned full auto guns, and non of those owners have committed a crime.
lastly, what do you people, the anti gun, gun control people, not understand about "shall not be infringed"? stop using emotion, cause no one cares for how you feel (aside from these tragedy's) and use fact, logic. it works better.
@HearingEveryRhyme None of the mass shooters had CCW permits, the VT shooter committed a Felony by lying on the gun purchase form about his past Mental History. That question has been on that form for the last 30+ years
Plus, mandatory psych evals ordered by the government without prior history of instability or crimes is 100% illegal, especially without probable cause or evidence
There is NO way to predetermine someone's potential for criminal acts, especially not without violating their rights
@HearingEveryRhyme "A well regulated being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the PEOPLE to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS shall NOT BE INFRINGED" - the 2nd amendment of the united states constitution. the government is so corrupt theyll deem everyone that opposes them as insane and have them disarmed.
The 2nd amendment clearly states that only well regulated militias are allowed to bear arms. The government should seize all weapons and destroy them. Yes, even your ol' grandpappy's huntin' rifile that he taught you to shoot with.
As for why training and discipline are NOT requirements:
1. Having a state requirement that must be satisfied reduces a right to a privilege. Rights are not privileges.
2. As rights have inherent responsibilities, it's the person's responsibility to get training and discipline so he can use force properly and wisely should he decide to exercise his 2nd Amendment right. He's free not to get training and discipline, but he'll be subject to the potential consequences of that choice.
How hard is it to understand that a criminal with a gun has a tremendous amount of power when nobody else has a one? Does anyone really believe we are better off disarming all of the good people because it might be a bit harder for a crazed killer to get a gun? What happens when that crazed killer does get one? Are you willing to give your life for an ideology? Your family? Me? My family?
AND she is attractive, that helps a lot in getting her point across. We should be allowed to carry on campus!
It is sad to say that her word is better heard because she is attractive, that people wouldn't listen to me, a white typical male, but I'm glad that we have her out there saying these things consistently since the 1990's. Good for her!
Columbus NM, Elected Mayor and Police Chief used Bureaucratic privileges to collect/distribute to drug dealers in Mexico, firearms. Now is that 'illegal', or blame guns? Texas the same types of 'illegal' transfer of weapons occured. In both cases, Federal Authorities silently ignored arrests, allowing thousands of 'illegal' weapon transfers, 'Before' bringing 'case' to court. Countless lives lost due to 'legal antics' of Bureaucrats'?? Trust Your 2nd amendment, NOT Politicians/Bureaucrats.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The 2nd amendment clearly states that only well regulated militias are allowed to bear arms. The government should seize all weapons and destroy them. Yes, even your ol' grandpappy's huntin' rifile that he taught you to shoot with.
@bcourter82 - the US Supreme Court disagreed with your interpretation in the DC vs Heller case:
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm UNCONNECTED WITH SERVICE IN A MILITIA, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
@AndyCinDallas And if you look at the federalist papers the right to bare arms has nothing to do with self defense in your home its so we the people can abolish the government if it becomes tyranicly which it has for the last 100 years, we just have to wait for the government to fire the first shot like our founding fathers waited for the british to fire the first shot!!
@AndyCinDallas "This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future." Adolf Hitler, 1935
@bcourter82 There is no disputing the Bill of Rights. It clearly states “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” If you don’t like guns or support concealed carry that is fine and dandy…just don’t try to infringe upon the rights of other law-abiding citizens. I bet you have absolutely no idea how/why we are able to enjoy all of the wonderful freedoms that we are today.
@manageablerecoil Don't you know the Bill of Rights are irrelevant these days? Your guns will all be seized and destroyed very soon by Obama himself! Just this week he came out in support of denying gun rights to people on the terrorist watch list. Can you imagine the arrogance?
Yeah, the Bill of Rights is really out of date. Well then, I guess Newton's 1st, 2nd, and 3rd laws don't matter since they were written hundreds of years ago.
Obama will seize and destroy MY guns? Yeah, over my dead body. Tell that to the other 10 million gun owners out there and see what they say.
If Obama's men tried to take my guns away, then I would gun them down. Along with the other 10 million gun owners. There would be a revolution my friend.
I'd tell him, "Get off my Lawn!" If he didn't, I'd let him take my gun. Then go to the courts and have him impeached for violating his oath that he swore. Which is to up hold and protect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Why, yes, I would. Shooting the president would really be bad for the press and view of conservatives. If it were him, the courts would be the way to go. The event would make national news and everyone would know about it. La Via Revolution.
There's no need to be an idiot, or in your point of view, a "tough guy". If it were Obama's men, they would face down the barrel of my 9mm.
@bcourter82 Are you retarded or just trolling? it says the right of the people in contrast to the militia it doesn’t say the right of the militia it says the right of the people why do you ask? Because the people who wrote this spend 2 years fighting a war against a tyrannical state militia, they knew the time might come where they would have to do that again so they made the possession of weapons a right that the militia could never take away. rights are mute without the means to protect them.
@bcourter82 The second amendment says the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. The people not the militia for the reason I stated I.e they spent 2 years fighting a tyrannical one. Try looking it up before crying propaganda.
@bcourter82 you really are stupid aren't you? Yeah, calling you stupid sounds immature...keyword 'sounds'...if you and I were in a restaurant, and some asshole decided to go postal and shoot as many people as he could, would you rather I stood up, took aim, and put a hole in his forehead? or would you rather we sat there huddling in a corner waiting for him to get to us? you'd be just as dead as Dr. Hupp's parents, thinking the way you do. Use your brain
@bcourter82 1.. COME GET MY GUNS! 2.... guns kill people just like SPOONS make Rosie O'Donnell FAT! 3... the 2nd Amendment ALSO says that it is the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE... PEOPLE.... to keep and BEAR arms. that means own AND carry them. The Constitution is our right to carry and protect ourselves and those in need. Sheepdogs protect the ignorant.
@bcourter82 Stupid, stupid, stupid. My wife has her masters in US History and has taught at some of PA and DE's most prestigious schools. Even she knows what the second ammendment means even though she doesn't like guns. Its the RIGHT of the PEOPLE , to form a milita and the right to bear arms. They aren't combined, its two separate statments. Read the history prior to the writting of the Constitution and you will understand why this is an INDIVIDUAL right. the stupidity of Americans is crazy.
I own several guns, all legal, and I have never even pointed one at anybody. I carry a .45 with me most of the time and I feel safe almost anywhere I go. If I must go into a gun free zone I will lock my gun in my trunk and obey the laws regarding the carrying of my firearm. If ,while in the gun free zone, I am robbed, molested, or injured in any way due to an act of violence, the owner of the gun free zone should be responsible. If I can't protect myself then who will.
@n4uwt And that is how I would treat it. Hawaii, where I currently live, is essentially one big Gun free zone except for going to a range, a gun shop, gunsmith, or the police station. I do not want to sue people, but if I survived a incident where my 9mm pistol would have stopped the violence, I'd sue the Chief of Police for not issuing a concealed carry license(Hawaii is a May Issue state, which has been in practice NO ISSUE), the Mayor and city council of the City and County of Honolulu....
The Governor and Legislature for not compelling the change....so many of our visitors get attacked here, more than most would accept. A recent incident was of a three car group of Japanese visitors going to a popular lookout ended up in the valley below it and got robbed by a punk. He ended up stabbing one or two of them. I am one that also has no problem with honest, law-abiding visitors from other countries carrying to defend themselves too.
@n4uwt you are correct we should be assured of our safety and they shoulb be liable... now watch they just did this in california as of jan 2012 we cant carry an unloaded fire arm lawfully.. id like to organize and get jerry brown out and get guns back in.... ms hupp if your out there please help they completely opened up california to illegals and took our guns on the same sheet of paper thanks to law enforcement and gov jerry brown.... WE OWE MEG WHITMAN AN APOLOGY.
When I was in college and yes I was in college when the VT shooting happened, I carried my pistol on me everyday to class. So F*ckin What!! I have a CWL and I felt like I would be damned if some coward came into my class, full of sitting ducks except for me and started shooting. BS, I would have shot the fucker and saved lives.
@NoMAIG "When I was in college ... carried my pistol ... I would have shot the fucker and saved lives."
You definitely would, I know outstanding people of your type. You also could go to jail if that was braking carry law ("gun free zone") no matter how ridiculous the law is. The only thing left to us to get out of this crap is to vote, and to attempt to convince those of anti gun folks who still have some mental abilities.
@yuowatcher As the saying goes, "I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6." I understand the law is the law, but, I was willing to face the consequences if need be. As it turned out, I never had to use my pistol while in college and I graduated with a 3.85 gpa and at the time I had 2 children. A lot was on the line, not only for myself, but, for others as well. Hell, our security guards at my college, were, unarmed WTF? So, therefore, I felt obligated. Peace and gun grease!
How is this a controversial issue. Gun's don't kill people, people kill people, period. If you prove to me in an moment where a gun killed by its own will i will gladly support gun banns and the pressure on gun control. Just prove to me, this miracle of a live inanimate object killing people. It's just people losing it and going crazy mental. Cure the people or help them at least and there will be less meaningless debates.
@vbigboi Most gun control advocates blame the guns. Its seems so simple to them. Take away guns, how can you have gun violence? There has been crime long before guns were invented. Guns allow honest people to defend themselves. As long as guns are used for crime, people should be able to use them for defence too. I don't try to force people to own a gun, why do they insist on telling me that I shouldn't? BTW, look at zain844s comments. He should not own a gun. I think he may be nuts.
Yeah, I can't argue with the fact that it would have changed the odds in that particular case. The real fact is that people are emotional and that is the problem with allowing people to carry. Everybody points to these tragedies and says "if only someone had a gun". What about that innocent bystander who is killed because joe blow tried to be a hero and take down the bank robber, not to mention how difficult things become for law enforcement when people are licensed to carry.
@JHorvathCinema You have to use guns to save lives. If that makes you a hero, then I guess you're a hero . But as for the danger that law enforcement faces with people carrying guns, that's the risk of being a police officer.
@n310ea You are saying law enforcement have problems with people carrying guns legally.
1. Majority of cops do not have problem (that is what THEY say); some localities encourage citizens get armed (and sheriffs are the first ones who gives convincing arguments to do so);
2. if that is correct for some of cops, they definitely should change career and become politicians: no need to risk ones own life and 24/7 protection by gunmen at taxpayer's expense.
PLEASE PASS THIS ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We need as many tools as we can get to fight the media's ignorant, misleading and misguided propaganda about firearms, brainwashing society basically.
It's martial law or keep our arms, they both serve the elite. Martial law: messy, only if the elite think they will never lose control. Keep arms: Elite lose control, protect themselves in a worse case scenario and let the population shoot each other, thinning the population which will be much easier and cheaper to be re-controlled. Yes, no blah, blah, no rants, no BS... just reality. But if your mentality is tribal (local) then get all upset...
@Zain844 so, you think that any one of your classmates is likely to just shoot you any time if they had a gun? if our fellow citizens were so inclined to violence, they wouldn't need to use a gun. someone on campus might stab you with a knife too.
all of the mass murders involving crazed gunmen occurred in "gun-free" zones. if some of your classmates carried guns, the chances of a Virginia Tech style execution happening on your campus would be greatly reduced.
@demoskunk The difference is with a knife you actually have to get close enough to your victim to actually use it. With a gun you just point and shoot. You can kill much easier and kill more people with a gun then you can with a knife.
If everyone was allowed to carry guns then we'd be living in the wild west again. If a fight breaks out in a bar instead of getting a black eye you'd get a bullet in your head Society wouldn't be any safer and we'd be more paranoid then ever.
@Fallout3Follower I agree. 6 month back round investigation (just like police) take a proper class, and regulate what kinds of guns and how many. Just my opinion.
Not to mention it wouldnt matter for the criminals If everyone carried guns. They'd just find more creative ways to kill people and carry out their crimes. Like resorting to explosives if a criminal wants to kill alot of people and doesnt care if he dies in the process, he'll find a way whether his victims are armed or not.
@Zain844 You moron. "They'd just find more creative ways to kill people and carry out their crimes", yes, sure they would. You have no idea about what concealed carry is, nor what sort of people carry guns legally.
We'll do an experiment. Allow some states to be concealed and open carry states, then compare the crime rate, and mass shooting occurrence rate, to that of states where your right to bear arms has been taken away from you...
@Zain844 You are a douchebag of the highest order. Nobody said "everyone" should be allowed to carry weapons. You have to get a gun licence, you have to undergo tests and training, you have to have references, etc.etc.
Just look at the shootings in the U.S. and see how many are crimes committed by criminals without gun licences - 99% probably.
@packoftwenty If you disagree with me that's fine, however if you want me to take your arguments seriously You should refrain from namecalling. As soon as I saw "you are a douchebag" and "you moron" I didn't bother reading the rest of your paragraphs. I couldn't care less what you have to say at that point. I am willing to admit I'm wrong but I don't respond to flamebait.
If you are willing to address me with respect. I'll listen to you. If you throw more insults, you will be blocked.
How do you know I feel no empathy are you a telepath?
You are saying I don't feel any empathy (which is just another way of calling me a bad person) Then you're pretty much saying you don't care about my feelings. So apparently it's okay for you to be unempathetic but not me.
@Zain844 You should never visit Switzerland then. They have a militia system and everyone is required to serve for two years. It is MANDATORY for every male 22 years of age and older to have an assault rifle. Yes, the Swiss government actually issues its citizens with assault weapons.
"An armed society is a polite society"
Banning guns because of the acts of a few psychopaths is like banning airplanes because of 9/11, cars because of drunk drivers and cutlery because of stabbings.
@StuPedassle711 I'm not saying guns should be banned I'm saying not every Joe Schmoe should have be allowed to have one.
I don't live in Switzerland and have no desire to go there so what goes on there is of no concern to me.
and who cares what the Swiss do? South Korea has very strict gun laws, In England patrolmen don't even carry guns, Does that mean you have to follow suite as well? Just because one country does it doesn't make it right and it doesnt mean you have to do it.
@Zain844 I don't live in Canada, nor do I desire to.
How about you compare the crime rates of Switzerland, South Korea and England. Switzerland is, hands down, the safest of the three and has the lowest crime rate.
@StuPedassle711 Do you make it a habit of answering questions no one has asked you? I couldn't care less if you live in Canada or desire to.
I also couldn't care less what the crime rates of England and South Korea are compared to Switzerland. That's not the point. A system like what the Swiss have would never work in the U.S Americans are very trigger happy and they have a really bad habit of abusing the system. They cannot be trusted.
@StuPedassle711 being able to carry concealed guns in publics produces WAY too many what ifs and variables for me to support it. All it takes is ONE irresposible person.
and just because it worked in Switzerland does not mean it will work in the US it's a different culture over there and Americans are the most trigger happy people on the planet.
@Zain844 Well, the people on college and high school campuses are , as a constant, unarmed.
People who go on shooting sprees just want to kill as many people as they possibly can. Massacres always happen on school campuses because everyone is unarmed and defenseless.
@StuPedassle711 Then why not have Armed Security? or special security systems? Why does every student or teacher have to carry a firearm? A shopkeeper having a gun under his counter to protect himself, if someone tries to rob him or even someone having a gun at home for personal safety that i can understand, but ANYONE being able to carry a concealed weapon in public? Anywhere you go?
I will not support that I don't care if it worked for the Swiss it will not work in U.S
@Zain844 Are you going to pay for the security? Not everyone has to carry, just those who want to and get the license. You think its ok to defend yourself if your business or home gets robbed, but not while you are outside? You dont care that criminals have guns, but honest people should not?
@rb2112002 Why not? You're already paying for your weapons? are you not? You're already pissing away money on a meaningless war in Iraq. Pissing away money is what you Americans do best. You Americans also don't exactly have the greatest track record either when comes to the responsible use of weapons.
@Zain844 I choose to buy my guns. I have chosen that as my method of security. You choose what you think will work for you. Unless you plan on beating a criminal with a video camera, what good is it? After you are dead, they can find the killers? We are not talking about global politics, although Im sure you feel qualified to run the whole planet. besides, its none of your business. Another foreigner with an opinion. Was your grandfather a friend to criminals too? Is that why he was shot?
@rb2112002 It is very much my business pal, I have dual citizenship in the U.S and Canada.
My grandafather was shot by someone like you who thought it was his "right" to be able to carry a gun anywhere he wants wthout impunity all over a fender bender and because he felt "threatened" yet my grandfather was not armed, and he survived the shooting. For a trigger happy nation you people don't have very good aim. How do I know you won't shoot me, just because i made you angry?
@Zain844 It is our right to own and carry guns. If you dont like it, stay away. That goes for your grandfather too. You commented on security systems. What did you mean? Metal detectors to detect the scumbag with the wooden bat or ceramic knives? You just dont get it. I have one way to stop criminals. Its a PT-145 loaded with 230 gr JHP. It costs $350 and will last forever. It also protects me wherever I go. Again, you are just another foreigner whose opinion means nothing in America.
@rb2112002 You didn't answer my question son, and why are you telling me what kind of gun you have? or the ammo it uses? Why should I care? Are you trying to impress me or intimidate me? You think a PT-145 makes you big and scary? All you are doing is magnfying your own weakness and insecurity. I couldn't care less what gun you have. and I am a legal citizen of your nation son, and if my opinion means nothing why are you responding to me still?
@Zain844 First, Im not your son, if I was, I probably would have run away from home by now. Are we having the same conversation? I carry not to be scary, I carry for protection. I realise you are kind of dense, but stop changing the subject. I dont really care about a killing spree, but like I say, dont bring a knife to a gun fight. I don't believe I shot anyone, what are you saying now? You may live here, but you belong somewhere else. Mexico has gun control, go live there and be "safe".
@Zain844 I cant believe Im responding to you either. Its obvious that you not only decided to be a victim, but want everyone else to be one too. You are a sheep. I have no weakness or insecurity. I protect myself and my family. I dont depend on anyone else. You wait for the cops, or the army or whatever group of strangers to protect you. When they get to my house, the bad guy will be dead, and not me. It seems to me that you are just not smart enought to handle owning a gun.
@rb2112002 Son... I am asking you a simple question would you shoot an unarmed man if he did something to upset you? but is not threatening your life? Would you shoot someone because they vandelized your car? would you shoot someone because they insulted your wife? would you shoot someone because they slept with your wife? would you shoot a man for stealing your cable?
@rb2112002 and son... i invite anyone to try and break into my home they'd have to get pass the armed security guard first.. that greets you as you enter the building :) and he can frisk anyone he wants
Try it son...just TRY to get in here... you won't even be able to get into my building with your Pee shooter you'll have to face me man to man.
@Zain844 You never asked me that question. Of course I wouldn't. Listen junior, you need to get a grip on reality. Also little guy, please remember that most of us don't have armed guards to defend us. Got that kid? BTW, in the US we call security guards rent-a-cops, and most are not even allowed to carry guns. You have truly missed the point. Now, go ask your dad for some money so you can go to a movie. You seem to prefer fantasy to reality anyway. See ya junior..
@rb2112002 and how is someone with a wooden bat and ceramic knives going to go on a killing spree? What nonsense is that? Grow up boy, and shooting an unarmed man makes YOU a criminal and i ask you again son, how do I know you won't do that?
@nandottt I do. What are you going to do? Rely on people like me to save your ass?
By the way, if you want to make an argument it helps to write in a way that at least makes it appear that you are not some text messaging 13 year old girl.
@nandottt 'YEA' THE ASS I MIGHT SAVE MIGHT BE YOURS. From the beginning of time man has carried a weapon for protection and the weapon has always been the best he could make of find . God made man, guns made them equal
@barstoolguru i would feel less safe if i knew everyone was carrying a gun than i do now knowing there is very small chance some lunatic can go crazy and start shooting people.
@R0undAboutMidnight WHY? The police carry them wherever they go. What makes one person so special over another? The right to defend ones life, liberty and property is part of life itself. If I can't carry the responsibility to defend myself, why should I think that someone else should defend my life?
@courageouslion Typical gun nut strawman. I'm not saying that people should not be allowed to carry guns, but if you honestly think you need to be armed whereever you go, you are one paranoid fuck.
@R0undAboutMidnight. 1,000 years ago, men went around everywhere with sword and concealed knives. In the history of man, if there is a large concentration of people, you will find a criminal element. Criminals are as old as time. There will always be crime. Wether by sword or by the gun, those of us who choose not to be victims, but to be those who fight back and say "NO" to the criminal, are simple ordinary men and women, who have had enough of politicians telling us what to do and how to live.
IT's ALL Rothschilds Illuminati The Trilaterals NWO and Bilderbergs PRESCOTT BUSH owned a steel CO in Auschwitz Jew Slaves made TANKS and RAIL for HITLER he CREATED Senators out of HITLERS Henchmen THEE TRILATERALS Socialist AntiAmericans CALLED THE FEDS Bush was charged as WAR CRIMINAL in 1945 ROCKEFELLER gave HITLER all the OIL for WW2 Look up Trilateral Members(& IG FARBEN) they are in EA State, Mccain Obambam Bush DO NOT VOTE TRILATERAL AntiAmerican. Rothschild owns the FED RES and WALL ST
Gun Control laws? Aren't home made bombs illegal? Didn't the Columbine shooters have those also?(However, the failed to blow) Look at how well drug laws work as a template for how well stricter gun laws will work. If you were to ban guns the only people who would have them would be criminals. The HONEST people would (grudgingly) give up theirs.Obviously they don't care about laws if they intend to commit crimesin the first place, so why would they care to break more by obtaining a gun?
scoremanga- you are an idiot. Dont talk about American rights when your on the outside. Criminals not only in the us but every where will always find ways to get their hands on ILLEGAL firearms so what can we do as citizens to protect ourselves? BUY A GUN AND USE IT IF WE HAVE TO. if someone broke into ur house with a gun would you rather have a phone to call the police or a gun to protect yourself? I own a gun and i am not afraid because i know i can protect myself
@MorrisonC2 ok young fella - im the idiot. i have lived in different parts of the world and im wonderin if ya have been anywhere outside the u.s. is the only thing your concerned about are guns, oil for your cars. thats why has the opinion of the u.s that it does. if someone broke into my house- he wouldn have a gun cos there aint many in ireland- so id just beat the crap out of him
@courageouslion im no idiot man. read up on the ira. they were at war with the protestant brits, im an irish catholic in the south not the north. so an ira dude would have reason to come near me. i dont think someone deserves to be shot for breaking into a house anyway. every situation is different. most burglaries here would be junkies after cash, they wouldnt be lookin to kill ya and then take valuables.
Many people do not realize that police have no duty to rescue citizens, especially if doing so might expose police to danger. Police service is completely different from military service in this respect. During the Columbine massacre, police refused to confront the shooters until hours after they were dead. Outraged parents complained at the time that the police response was cowardly. Police officials explained that what is considered cowardice in the military is official police policy.
(contd). At VA Tech, police entered the building and reached the shooter's floor just after he shot himself. Police performance at VA Tech was better than at Columbine, though still to late to change the outcome. My point? Knowing the difference between police and military service, some citizens might with to think about protecting themselves.
Too many people fail to understand that police have NO duty to defend you. The police at Columbine refused to enter the school until the gunmen had been dead for an hour or more. Many parents complained that the police were cowards at Columbine. They failed to understand that military men or firemen would consider such behavior cowardly, but it is nevertheless official police policy. Military men are expected to risk their lives to save civilians, as are firemen. Police, however, are not.
This woman is my hero. The strength is awe inspiring.
cshgeo 3 days ago
9 people should have been eating lunch at Luby's in Killeen Texas on October 16, 1991 between 12:35 p.m. – 12:51 p.m.
hammerogod 2 months ago 2
@hammerogod That's just rude.
superflyenglishvegan 1 month ago
@superflyenglishvegan
It was mildly rude...or it was bluntly truthful.
Either way, if one of Dr Hupp's parents or Dr Hupp herself would have been armed perhaps the 43 people who were killed or injured would have made it home in time for a football game on TV.
Rude is being shot to death during lunch.
Rude is not being able to defend your family.
Rude is having to sit there and watch 43 people be shot.
Rude is people thumbing down this video in a robotic liberal knee jerk anti-gun spasm.
hammerogod 1 month ago
@hammerogod I didn't say that I thought Hupp didn't have a valid, realistic point. I just think it's ugly to say that when you probably don't really mean it and I think you know that's sinking to a new low too. Either way, it's not helping the argument for the second.
superflyenglishvegan 1 month ago
@superflyenglishvegan
You are probably right.
But allow me to defend my statement.
If the 9 people who gave this video, and/or Dr. Hupp's stand on gun control, a thumbs down had witnessed the helplessness of those people in Luby's or V.T. I sincerely doubt that they would have been so quick to dislike this video.
I strongly believe it that the anti-gun group(s) automatically thumb down ALL pro-self defense videos and ALL reasonable arguments for an armed citizenry.
And, therefore, reality.
hammerogod 1 month ago
@hammerogod Well, now that is a much more intelligent way of making your case. I would have have to agree with you there!
superflyenglishvegan 1 month ago
people have killed each other for as long as we have been on the earth gun or no gun it will coninue till the end of time
cankiller1000 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
RON PAUL'BIRTHDAY' MONEYBOMB IS ON SATURDAY, AUG 20, PLEASE SPREAD THE WORD AND HELP DONATE TO THE CAMPAIGN ON - AUG 20, 2011
theleemeister 5 months ago
shes hot...still
AntBanks2626 6 months ago 7
@souyun I dont need a gun to protect my family. Guns are for pussies.
bcourter82 7 months ago
@bcourter82 Wow, you just catch the bullets in your teeth, huh? Toughguy?
rb2112002 6 months ago
@bcourter82 "I dont need a gun to protect my family. Guns are for pussies. "
LOL YOU FUCKING RETARD. You would NOT be able to "kick someone's ass" if they had a gun pointed at you from 20 feet away, but you sound like a god damn republican with that "tough guy/i'm so tough" bullshit, please shut the fuck up.
If you shoot someone who has a black belt in martial arts, guess what? The black belt is going DOWN no matter HOW good he is at throwing a damn punch. DO YOU NOT GET BASIC PHYSICS?
KingRadbadical1988 5 months ago
@KingRadbadical1988 hey there King...gun rights are heavily supported by the republican party....dunno where you're going with that part of your argument, but the rest of it hits the nail on the head.
dart1285 4 months ago
@dart1285 bingo. Also, I never said that republicans didn't support gun rights. I just compared the person I was arguing with TO a republican. Most republicans are "tough guys" or tough guy wannabes.
I'm a liberal on most issues but all for gun rights.
KingRadbadical1988 3 months ago
And P.S....also, moron, what if an elderly grandmother wants to use a gun to protect herself from an intruder? Is she also a "pussy" for not "just whooping his ass"? Your comment reflects a lack of maturity and that you are obviously very short-sighted, unintelligent and uneducated.
KingRadbadical1988 5 months ago
@KingRadbadical1988 The elderly grandmother is not a "well-regulated militia" either so of course she can't have a gun.
bcourter82 5 months ago
@bcourter82 - 3 years ago, in DC vs Heller the US Supreme Court held that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms - and though the right to bear arms also helped preserve the citizen militia, "the activities [the Amendment] protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia."
AndyCinDallas 5 months ago
@bcourter82 With any luck your "family" is not as mentally disabled as you are. However they are fucked none the less.
pjicleanair420 3 months ago
OH WHY DID IT HAVE TO HAPPEN AT A LUBY'S?
LordWildhawke 8 months ago
ühm_í_feël_sÓ_lõÑËly_tÖÐÂý
LunaiaRobertae834 8 months ago
Comment removed
HearingEveryRhyme 9 months ago
@HearingEveryRhyme - Google "Sgt. Wayne Irelan"
"A year ago the Irelan's began receiving a small stipend from Veterans Affairs because Lana had to take over the family's finances. The V.A. declared Wayne Irelan incompetent and now his right to own a gun is gone."
Sound reasonable to be deemed mentally incompetent because your wife pays the bills? It's a slippery slope indeed.
AndyCinDallas 9 months ago 3
@AndyCinDallas If that is the sole reason for his mental incompetence then that is absurd. A line must be drawn somewhere in every case. Now if he is missing half his brain, has PTSD, and has contemplated suicide in the past, then I think it would be rational to assume that putting a firearm in his hands isn't the best idea. I'm not suggesting a Freudian investigation into one's mind, just a simple check for obvious indicators of mental disturbances that can result in violent behavior.
HearingEveryRhyme 9 months ago
@HearingEveryRhyme - It's already a question on the ATF form 4473 which one has to complete when buying a firearm from an FFL at their store or gun-show.
"Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes a determination by a court, board, commission or other lawful authority that you are a danger to yourself or to others or are incompetent to manage your own affairs) OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?"
It's a felony to lie on that form, by the way.
AndyCinDallas 9 months ago
@AndyCinDallas Is this true? he was deemed "mentally incompentent" because his wife supported the family? what the fuck? are we living in the 1950s or something?
Zain844 8 months ago
@HearingEveryRhyme we should be able to have full auto weapons , rocket launchers, grenade launchers, and every weapon the military has. THAT is what our forefathers say we should have. everything our military has, our citizens should have. PERIOD. our right has been infringed and the liberals all need to be killed for infringing it. they are not american. they are a tyranical force that needs to be taken out. call me crazy, but hey they called our founders crazy too. look what they accomplished
joshkkv 9 months ago
@joshkkv The founders weren't gods. TJ owned slaves and totally opposed the Hamiltonian economic system. He was the Alex Jones of their time.
HearingEveryRhyme 9 months ago
@HearingEveryRhyme "The founders weren't gods. TJ owned slaves and totally opposed the Hamiltonian economic system. He was the Alex Jones of their time."
That may be true, but what does Mr. Jefferson's opinions and beliefs on matters unrelated to the 2nd Amendment have to do with the argument over gun rights?
The problem with an ad hominem argument against the forefathers over the 2nd Amendment is that it evades the topic while trying to discredit it by discrediting the people behind it.
Watcher3223 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@joshkkv "they are a tyranical force that needs to be taken out."
Yeah, I can't see any reason as to why they wouldn't let you have fully automatic weapons or rocket launchers.
rgmztxy 8 months ago
@HearingEveryRhyme "I say demand a psychological examination..."
Is there reason to demand an examination for someone wishing to obtain a permit?
Here's what I mean: an examination can have implications directly affecting ones civil rights under law, and not just gun rights. In addition, an examination ordered by the state can have privacy implications.
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@HearingEveryRhyme
There must be justifiable cause established through due process for such an examination to be compulsory to an individual, such as an available history of abhorrent behavior that is harmful to the individual and/or the public proving the individual as unqualified.
If one's record is clean, there's no justification for demanding a psychological examination.
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@HearingEveryRhyme
Presumption of innocence applies.
By insisting on an examination merely because one desire to exercise a recognized civil right is essentially asking the citizen to prove he is qualified.
The citizen should not have to prove his qualification whereas it's supposed to be the state's responsibility to prove a disqualifying condition exists.
Watcher3223 9 months ago 2
@HearingEveryRhyme its still not about that though really. Think about the frame of mind of the people who founded the constitution. They also wanted us to have guns to protect ourselfs from government if need be.Now, the government has any weapon they want, butt we dont have alot of those weapons so they will always have the advantage. i personnaly, dont really want a fully automatic weapon, butt if i was against people who had one, i would need one to
candyrapper14578 7 months ago
@candyrapper14578 There has to be a limit to the arms race between citizen and state. Our Founding Father's could not imagine TNT, let alone nuclear fission. The Constitution was written by men who had lived under radical tyranny, so the document they crafted was designed to radically limit the powers of the state. It was reactionary, but it was not their fault, and it is a genius document for the most part. The bureaucracy has crippled the state, so tyranny is the least of our worries.
HearingEveryRhyme 7 months ago
@HearingEveryRhyme yeah butt most of us normal people dont want nuke stuff or TNT, and some could say we have a tyrannical government now. That is all in the eyes of the beholder. Peoples rights are violated all the time, by our own politicians or court systems. You ever see a story like that in the news and wonder how some judge could actually take the side of a robber or something like that? I've seen it happen and its just amazing. I still can't believe some of this stuff thats happening.
candyrapper14578 7 months ago
@HearingEveryRhyme
The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with personal protection up to and including preventing government tyranny.
Our founding fathers understood that there could come a point in time where the government could become tyrannical and evil. At that point the democratic process would no longer work, and the only possible way to secure liberty would be for the populace to take up arms against their own government.
GoldDiggerGetDown 7 months ago
@GoldDiggerGetDown And we should take up arms if that ever happens, but that doesn't mean that there should a militia that controls a nuclear arsenal and owns tanks. The most common devastating weapon of their day was the cannon. I'm fine with people arming themselves as a safeguard against tyranny, but there has to be a limit for the safety of society.
HearingEveryRhyme 7 months ago
@HearingEveryRhyme
True. Nuclear weapons should not be in the hands of a Militia. However, the 2nd Amendment is about civilians owning every terrible device that is provided to individual soldiers.
GoldDiggerGetDown 6 months ago
@HearingEveryRhyme You support what you consider sensible. Who carries an automatic for defence? I have never heard of anyone who does. Whats an expo? Semi autos lead to a culture of fear? Im so confused..
rb2112002 6 months ago
@rb2112002 A lot of people nowadays are not comfortable with firearms because they've been repeatedly told that 911 is your self defense and that guns kill people. When they see a law abiding citizen carrying one, they get on edge. At the same time, I'd rather have people be on edge than getting raped and murdered.
Well only collectors can afford auto now so they're reserved for those outdoor shooting extravaganzas.
Guns don't kill people, the laws of physics do :)
HearingEveryRhyme 6 months ago
@HearingEveryRhyme I agree, let them get on edge. If they choose to be victims, that is their choice. I could not care less what they think, or if they are afraid. This is America, and everyone has a right to be murdered in their own home while waiting for the cops. Sorry for pouncing on you, but when people say "sensible", I wonder whose definition of sensible are using. The Brady bunch has been preaching "sensible gun laws" for years. This included registration and confiscation..
rb2112002 6 months ago
@HearingEveryRhyme Not to smart. Auto firearms are great for HOME self defense. There is so much wrong with your post it's ridiculous.
mcp3ed 5 months ago
@HearingEveryRhyme in complete contrast to your inane statements, id rather we have no checks for anything at all relating to firearms. before all these idiotic regulations, and taxes, their were hardly any mass shootings. i do not count the gangs cause they killed eachother, which i say good reddens. explosives are already illegal. the fact a gun has a fun switch does not make it more lethal, just faster to shoot.
copperjarhead 5 months ago
@copperjarhead and second, who are you to say that i, or someone has no need for something if it does not relate, or matter to you. their are hundreds, if not thousands of legally owned full auto guns, and non of those owners have committed a crime.
lastly, what do you people, the anti gun, gun control people, not understand about "shall not be infringed"? stop using emotion, cause no one cares for how you feel (aside from these tragedy's) and use fact, logic. it works better.
copperjarhead 5 months ago
@HearingEveryRhyme None of the mass shooters had CCW permits, the VT shooter committed a Felony by lying on the gun purchase form about his past Mental History. That question has been on that form for the last 30+ years
Plus, mandatory psych evals ordered by the government without prior history of instability or crimes is 100% illegal, especially without probable cause or evidence
There is NO way to predetermine someone's potential for criminal acts, especially not without violating their rights
NinjaRider777R 5 months ago
@HearingEveryRhyme A culture of fear? You are a fool..
rb2112002 4 months ago
@HearingEveryRhyme
BullyChicken 3 months ago
@HearingEveryRhyme "A well regulated being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the PEOPLE to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS shall NOT BE INFRINGED" - the 2nd amendment of the united states constitution. the government is so corrupt theyll deem everyone that opposes them as insane and have them disarmed.
Grunt922 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The 2nd amendment clearly states that only well regulated militias are allowed to bear arms. The government should seize all weapons and destroy them. Yes, even your ol' grandpappy's huntin' rifile that he taught you to shoot with.
bcourter82 9 months ago
@bcourter82
The "well-regulated militia" part says WHY the right exists, not who can have it or how.
"The right of the People, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" states clearly that the right unconditionally belongs to THE PEOPLE.
Plus, civilians are the "unorganized militia" according to federal law (U.S. Code: title 10, section 311).
This is because people who have guns and know how to use them ("well-regulated" by ones own discipline and training) safeguards the free state.
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@bcourter82
As for why training and discipline are NOT requirements:
1. Having a state requirement that must be satisfied reduces a right to a privilege. Rights are not privileges.
2. As rights have inherent responsibilities, it's the person's responsibility to get training and discipline so he can use force properly and wisely should he decide to exercise his 2nd Amendment right. He's free not to get training and discipline, but he'll be subject to the potential consequences of that choice.
Watcher3223 9 months ago 13
@Watcher3223 That's an ignorant opinion. All guns will be outlawed sooner than you think. Better go out an buy more while you still can.
bcourter82 8 months ago
@bcourter82
WHY is it ignorant?
It's one thing to declare something, it's another thing to back it up.
Therefore, I ask you to explain your position, especially as I've taken time to explain mine rather than just say that you were wrong.
Assertions make poor arguments if you can't explain and prove your position.
Watcher3223 8 months ago
@Watcher3223 I fully support your postition.
DaSticksanStonesClub 4 weeks ago
How hard is it to understand that a criminal with a gun has a tremendous amount of power when nobody else has a one? Does anyone really believe we are better off disarming all of the good people because it might be a bit harder for a crazed killer to get a gun? What happens when that crazed killer does get one? Are you willing to give your life for an ideology? Your family? Me? My family?
shananagans5 10 months ago 2
You go Dr. Hupp!! What a great person
sonick808 10 months ago
@sonick808
AND she is attractive, that helps a lot in getting her point across. We should be allowed to carry on campus!
It is sad to say that her word is better heard because she is attractive, that people wouldn't listen to me, a white typical male, but I'm glad that we have her out there saying these things consistently since the 1990's. Good for her!
LibertarianAtheistDR 10 months ago
Columbus NM, Elected Mayor and Police Chief used Bureaucratic privileges to collect/distribute to drug dealers in Mexico, firearms. Now is that 'illegal', or blame guns? Texas the same types of 'illegal' transfer of weapons occured. In both cases, Federal Authorities silently ignored arrests, allowing thousands of 'illegal' weapon transfers, 'Before' bringing 'case' to court. Countless lives lost due to 'legal antics' of Bureaucrats'?? Trust Your 2nd amendment, NOT Politicians/Bureaucrats.
Blogengezer 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The 2nd amendment clearly states that only well regulated militias are allowed to bear arms. The government should seize all weapons and destroy them. Yes, even your ol' grandpappy's huntin' rifile that he taught you to shoot with.
bcourter82 10 months ago
@bcourter82 - the US Supreme Court disagreed with your interpretation in the DC vs Heller case:
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm UNCONNECTED WITH SERVICE IN A MILITIA, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Sorry - try again.
AndyCinDallas 10 months ago 7
@AndyCinDallas And if you look at the federalist papers the right to bare arms has nothing to do with self defense in your home its so we the people can abolish the government if it becomes tyranicly which it has for the last 100 years, we just have to wait for the government to fire the first shot like our founding fathers waited for the british to fire the first shot!!
greygoosevodka1 10 months ago
@greygoosevodka1 - I'm just quoting what the Supremes said; I'm quite familiar with the Federalist Papers.
AndyCinDallas 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AndyCinDallas "This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future." Adolf Hitler, 1935
outlawracer2229 9 months ago
@bcourter82 There is no disputing the Bill of Rights. It clearly states “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” If you don’t like guns or support concealed carry that is fine and dandy…just don’t try to infringe upon the rights of other law-abiding citizens. I bet you have absolutely no idea how/why we are able to enjoy all of the wonderful freedoms that we are today.
manageablerecoil 10 months ago
@manageablerecoil Don't you know the Bill of Rights are irrelevant these days? Your guns will all be seized and destroyed very soon by Obama himself! Just this week he came out in support of denying gun rights to people on the terrorist watch list. Can you imagine the arrogance?
bcourter82 10 months ago
@bcourter82
Yeah, the Bill of Rights is really out of date. Well then, I guess Newton's 1st, 2nd, and 3rd laws don't matter since they were written hundreds of years ago.
Obama will seize and destroy MY guns? Yeah, over my dead body. Tell that to the other 10 million gun owners out there and see what they say.
GoldDiggerGetDown 10 months ago
@GoldDiggerGetDown So what would you do to Obama if he tried to take your guns from your puny hands?
bcourter82 10 months ago
@bcourter82
If Obama's men tried to take my guns away, then I would gun them down. Along with the other 10 million gun owners. There would be a revolution my friend.
GoldDiggerGetDown 10 months ago
@GoldDiggerGetDown Not Obama's men. What if he tried to take your guns personally. What would you do to Obama?
bcourter82 10 months ago
@bcourter82
I'd tell him, "Get off my Lawn!" If he didn't, I'd let him take my gun. Then go to the courts and have him impeached for violating his oath that he swore. Which is to up hold and protect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
GoldDiggerGetDown 10 months ago
@GoldDiggerGetDown You'd let him punk you like that? Way to stand up for your beliefs tough guy.
bcourter82 10 months ago
@bcourter82
Why, yes, I would. Shooting the president would really be bad for the press and view of conservatives. If it were him, the courts would be the way to go. The event would make national news and everyone would know about it. La Via Revolution.
There's no need to be an idiot, or in your point of view, a "tough guy". If it were Obama's men, they would face down the barrel of my 9mm.
Nuff said..
GoldDiggerGetDown 10 months ago
@bcourter82 Are you retarded or just trolling? it says the right of the people in contrast to the militia it doesn’t say the right of the militia it says the right of the people why do you ask? Because the people who wrote this spend 2 years fighting a war against a tyrannical state militia, they knew the time might come where they would have to do that again so they made the possession of weapons a right that the militia could never take away. rights are mute without the means to protect them.
darkblood626 10 months ago
@darkblood626 The 2nd amendment doesn't say any of that right-wing propaganda. Enjoy your guns while you still can son.
bcourter82 10 months ago
@bcourter82 The second amendment says the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. The people not the militia for the reason I stated I.e they spent 2 years fighting a tyrannical one. Try looking it up before crying propaganda.
darkblood626 10 months ago
@bcourter82
I'm not your son.
GoldDiggerGetDown 10 months ago
@bcourter82 you really are stupid aren't you? Yeah, calling you stupid sounds immature...keyword 'sounds'...if you and I were in a restaurant, and some asshole decided to go postal and shoot as many people as he could, would you rather I stood up, took aim, and put a hole in his forehead? or would you rather we sat there huddling in a corner waiting for him to get to us? you'd be just as dead as Dr. Hupp's parents, thinking the way you do. Use your brain
dart1285 10 months ago
@bcourter82 1.. COME GET MY GUNS! 2.... guns kill people just like SPOONS make Rosie O'Donnell FAT! 3... the 2nd Amendment ALSO says that it is the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE... PEOPLE.... to keep and BEAR arms. that means own AND carry them. The Constitution is our right to carry and protect ourselves and those in need. Sheepdogs protect the ignorant.
StrengthFromAbove83 9 months ago
@bcourter82 well because you dont have guns, you could be seized and destroyed. Ever heard of the Holocaust?
savage495 9 months ago
@bcourter82 Stupid, stupid, stupid. My wife has her masters in US History and has taught at some of PA and DE's most prestigious schools. Even she knows what the second ammendment means even though she doesn't like guns. Its the RIGHT of the PEOPLE , to form a milita and the right to bear arms. They aren't combined, its two separate statments. Read the history prior to the writting of the Constitution and you will understand why this is an INDIVIDUAL right. the stupidity of Americans is crazy.
FuchsTone66 9 months ago 2
I own several guns, all legal, and I have never even pointed one at anybody. I carry a .45 with me most of the time and I feel safe almost anywhere I go. If I must go into a gun free zone I will lock my gun in my trunk and obey the laws regarding the carrying of my firearm. If ,while in the gun free zone, I am robbed, molested, or injured in any way due to an act of violence, the owner of the gun free zone should be responsible. If I can't protect myself then who will.
n4uwt 11 months ago 24
@n4uwt WELL SAID!!!!! I've always said, if they take away our right to protect yourself, then they have assumed the liability for our protection!!!
jakryan 8 months ago
@n4uwt
Well said.
AlesandrosX 8 months ago
@n4uwt And that is how I would treat it. Hawaii, where I currently live, is essentially one big Gun free zone except for going to a range, a gun shop, gunsmith, or the police station. I do not want to sue people, but if I survived a incident where my 9mm pistol would have stopped the violence, I'd sue the Chief of Police for not issuing a concealed carry license(Hawaii is a May Issue state, which has been in practice NO ISSUE), the Mayor and city council of the City and County of Honolulu....
ScottACNohea 4 months ago
The Governor and Legislature for not compelling the change....so many of our visitors get attacked here, more than most would accept. A recent incident was of a three car group of Japanese visitors going to a popular lookout ended up in the valley below it and got robbed by a punk. He ended up stabbing one or two of them. I am one that also has no problem with honest, law-abiding visitors from other countries carrying to defend themselves too.
ScottACNohea 4 months ago
@n4uwt you are correct we should be assured of our safety and they shoulb be liable... now watch they just did this in california as of jan 2012 we cant carry an unloaded fire arm lawfully.. id like to organize and get jerry brown out and get guns back in.... ms hupp if your out there please help they completely opened up california to illegals and took our guns on the same sheet of paper thanks to law enforcement and gov jerry brown.... WE OWE MEG WHITMAN AN APOLOGY.
jnixongo00 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How about a law that makes murder illegal? Ah thats right criminals keep forgetting to follow the rules.
savage495 11 months ago
''Criminals obey the law, therefore gun control works'' the ''logic'' of gun control. Or lack there of
SexyArcanine666 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If guns kill people, mine is definitely defective.
yuowatcher 1 year ago
When I was in college and yes I was in college when the VT shooting happened, I carried my pistol on me everyday to class. So F*ckin What!! I have a CWL and I felt like I would be damned if some coward came into my class, full of sitting ducks except for me and started shooting. BS, I would have shot the fucker and saved lives.
NoMAIG 1 year ago
@NoMAIG "When I was in college ... carried my pistol ... I would have shot the fucker and saved lives."
You definitely would, I know outstanding people of your type. You also could go to jail if that was braking carry law ("gun free zone") no matter how ridiculous the law is. The only thing left to us to get out of this crap is to vote, and to attempt to convince those of anti gun folks who still have some mental abilities.
yuowatcher 1 year ago
@yuowatcher As the saying goes, "I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6." I understand the law is the law, but, I was willing to face the consequences if need be. As it turned out, I never had to use my pistol while in college and I graduated with a 3.85 gpa and at the time I had 2 children. A lot was on the line, not only for myself, but, for others as well. Hell, our security guards at my college, were, unarmed WTF? So, therefore, I felt obligated. Peace and gun grease!
NoMAIG 1 year ago
How is this a controversial issue. Gun's don't kill people, people kill people, period. If you prove to me in an moment where a gun killed by its own will i will gladly support gun banns and the pressure on gun control. Just prove to me, this miracle of a live inanimate object killing people. It's just people losing it and going crazy mental. Cure the people or help them at least and there will be less meaningless debates.
vbigboi 1 year ago
@vbigboi Or maybe they should create laws that actually limit criminals, and not law abiding citizens. I would vote for those..
rb2112002 1 year ago
@rb2112002
I agree with you on this. Maybe more research is need on my part, but the logical thing to do is simple here.
vbigboi 1 year ago
@vbigboi Most gun control advocates blame the guns. Its seems so simple to them. Take away guns, how can you have gun violence? There has been crime long before guns were invented. Guns allow honest people to defend themselves. As long as guns are used for crime, people should be able to use them for defence too. I don't try to force people to own a gun, why do they insist on telling me that I shouldn't? BTW, look at zain844s comments. He should not own a gun. I think he may be nuts.
rb2112002 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Free Energy is real and it's here! The Big Oil companies r doing everything they can to stop this
information. If you want a Free energy magnet motor , get the blueprints at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM , Join the energy revolution!
glennjgd 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The big bad Oil corporations r trying their best to stop free energy technology from spreading to common ppl.
We need to put an end to this corruption ,start generating ur own electricity now.
Visit LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM and get the blueprints . Join the Revolution!!
breeannaqktjbl 1 year ago
Yeah, I can't argue with the fact that it would have changed the odds in that particular case. The real fact is that people are emotional and that is the problem with allowing people to carry. Everybody points to these tragedies and says "if only someone had a gun". What about that innocent bystander who is killed because joe blow tried to be a hero and take down the bank robber, not to mention how difficult things become for law enforcement when people are licensed to carry.
JHorvathCinema 1 year ago
@JHorvathCinema You have to use guns to save lives. If that makes you a hero, then I guess you're a hero . But as for the danger that law enforcement faces with people carrying guns, that's the risk of being a police officer.
n310ea 1 year ago 11
@n310ea You are saying law enforcement have problems with people carrying guns legally.
1. Majority of cops do not have problem (that is what THEY say); some localities encourage citizens get armed (and sheriffs are the first ones who gives convincing arguments to do so);
2. if that is correct for some of cops, they definitely should change career and become politicians: no need to risk ones own life and 24/7 protection by gunmen at taxpayer's expense.
yuowatcher 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Cars kill 64 TIMES MORE THEN GUNS!!!!
>>>> Google "WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports"
PLEASE PASS THIS ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We need as many tools as we can get to fight the media's ignorant, misleading and misguided propaganda about firearms, brainwashing society basically.
glenbjack 1 year ago
Local gun laws only obscure the national agenda.
It's martial law or keep our arms, they both serve the elite. Martial law: messy, only if the elite think they will never lose control. Keep arms: Elite lose control, protect themselves in a worse case scenario and let the population shoot each other, thinning the population which will be much easier and cheaper to be re-controlled. Yes, no blah, blah, no rants, no BS... just reality. But if your mentality is tribal (local) then get all upset...
UnitedCorpOfAmerica 1 year ago
If more law-abiding citizens carried guns, less lunatics would be able to execute innocent people like a bunch of sheep.
demoskunk 1 year ago
So everyone should be allowed to carry weapons?
sorry but i'd feel less safe knowing that anyone anytime on my campus could just shoot me if they wanted.
Zain844 1 year ago
@Zain844 so, you think that any one of your classmates is likely to just shoot you any time if they had a gun? if our fellow citizens were so inclined to violence, they wouldn't need to use a gun. someone on campus might stab you with a knife too.
all of the mass murders involving crazed gunmen occurred in "gun-free" zones. if some of your classmates carried guns, the chances of a Virginia Tech style execution happening on your campus would be greatly reduced.
demoskunk 1 year ago
@demoskunk The difference is with a knife you actually have to get close enough to your victim to actually use it. With a gun you just point and shoot. You can kill much easier and kill more people with a gun then you can with a knife.
If everyone was allowed to carry guns then we'd be living in the wild west again. If a fight breaks out in a bar instead of getting a black eye you'd get a bullet in your head Society wouldn't be any safer and we'd be more paranoid then ever.
Zain844 1 year ago
@Zain844 I kind of agree, NOT. Everyone should be allowed to carry guns, as long as they are declared of sound mind and pass the class.
Fallout3Follower 1 year ago
@Fallout3Follower I agree. 6 month back round investigation (just like police) take a proper class, and regulate what kinds of guns and how many. Just my opinion.
mastro82mp 1 year ago
@demoskunk
Not to mention it wouldnt matter for the criminals If everyone carried guns. They'd just find more creative ways to kill people and carry out their crimes. Like resorting to explosives if a criminal wants to kill alot of people and doesnt care if he dies in the process, he'll find a way whether his victims are armed or not.
Zain844 1 year ago
@Zain844 You moron. "They'd just find more creative ways to kill people and carry out their crimes", yes, sure they would. You have no idea about what concealed carry is, nor what sort of people carry guns legally.
We'll do an experiment. Allow some states to be concealed and open carry states, then compare the crime rate, and mass shooting occurrence rate, to that of states where your right to bear arms has been taken away from you...
packoftwenty 1 year ago
@Zain844 You are a douchebag of the highest order. Nobody said "everyone" should be allowed to carry weapons. You have to get a gun licence, you have to undergo tests and training, you have to have references, etc.etc.
Just look at the shootings in the U.S. and see how many are crimes committed by criminals without gun licences - 99% probably.
packoftwenty 1 year ago
@packoftwenty If you disagree with me that's fine, however if you want me to take your arguments seriously You should refrain from namecalling. As soon as I saw "you are a douchebag" and "you moron" I didn't bother reading the rest of your paragraphs. I couldn't care less what you have to say at that point. I am willing to admit I'm wrong but I don't respond to flamebait.
If you are willing to address me with respect. I'll listen to you. If you throw more insults, you will be blocked.
Zain844 1 year ago
@Zain844 Who cares what you feel. You probably don't feel any empathy anyway.
tiecuando 1 year ago
@tiecuando
How do you know I feel no empathy are you a telepath?
You are saying I don't feel any empathy (which is just another way of calling me a bad person) Then you're pretty much saying you don't care about my feelings. So apparently it's okay for you to be unempathetic but not me.
*cough* hypocrite.
Zain844 1 year ago
@Zain844 Fock you. :)
tiecuando 1 year ago
@tiecuando
"Fock" you to.
Zain844 1 year ago
@Zain844 You should never visit Switzerland then. They have a militia system and everyone is required to serve for two years. It is MANDATORY for every male 22 years of age and older to have an assault rifle. Yes, the Swiss government actually issues its citizens with assault weapons.
"An armed society is a polite society"
Banning guns because of the acts of a few psychopaths is like banning airplanes because of 9/11, cars because of drunk drivers and cutlery because of stabbings.
StuPedassle711 1 year ago
@StuPedassle711 I'm not saying guns should be banned I'm saying not every Joe Schmoe should have be allowed to have one.
I don't live in Switzerland and have no desire to go there so what goes on there is of no concern to me.
and who cares what the Swiss do? South Korea has very strict gun laws, In England patrolmen don't even carry guns, Does that mean you have to follow suite as well? Just because one country does it doesn't make it right and it doesnt mean you have to do it.
Zain844 1 year ago
@Zain844 I don't live in Canada, nor do I desire to.
How about you compare the crime rates of Switzerland, South Korea and England. Switzerland is, hands down, the safest of the three and has the lowest crime rate.
StuPedassle711 1 year ago
@StuPedassle711 Do you make it a habit of answering questions no one has asked you? I couldn't care less if you live in Canada or desire to.
I also couldn't care less what the crime rates of England and South Korea are compared to Switzerland. That's not the point. A system like what the Swiss have would never work in the U.S Americans are very trigger happy and they have a really bad habit of abusing the system. They cannot be trusted.
Zain844 1 year ago
@Zain844 Trigger happy? Cannot be trusted? Youre an arrogant little prick, aren't you..
rb2112002 1 year ago
@rb2112002 My grandfather told me never trust an American He should know he was shot by one.
Zain844 1 year ago
@StuPedassle711 being able to carry concealed guns in publics produces WAY too many what ifs and variables for me to support it. All it takes is ONE irresposible person.
and just because it worked in Switzerland does not mean it will work in the US it's a different culture over there and Americans are the most trigger happy people on the planet.
Zain844 1 year ago
@Zain844 Well, the people on college and high school campuses are , as a constant, unarmed.
People who go on shooting sprees just want to kill as many people as they possibly can. Massacres always happen on school campuses because everyone is unarmed and defenseless.
StuPedassle711 1 year ago
@StuPedassle711 Then why not have Armed Security? or special security systems? Why does every student or teacher have to carry a firearm? A shopkeeper having a gun under his counter to protect himself, if someone tries to rob him or even someone having a gun at home for personal safety that i can understand, but ANYONE being able to carry a concealed weapon in public? Anywhere you go?
I will not support that I don't care if it worked for the Swiss it will not work in U.S
Zain844 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Zain844 You really are fucking stupid.
StuPedassle711 1 year ago
@Zain844 Are you going to pay for the security? Not everyone has to carry, just those who want to and get the license. You think its ok to defend yourself if your business or home gets robbed, but not while you are outside? You dont care that criminals have guns, but honest people should not?
rb2112002 1 year ago
@rb2112002 Why not? You're already paying for your weapons? are you not? You're already pissing away money on a meaningless war in Iraq. Pissing away money is what you Americans do best. You Americans also don't exactly have the greatest track record either when comes to the responsible use of weapons.
Zain844 1 year ago
@Zain844 I choose to buy my guns. I have chosen that as my method of security. You choose what you think will work for you. Unless you plan on beating a criminal with a video camera, what good is it? After you are dead, they can find the killers? We are not talking about global politics, although Im sure you feel qualified to run the whole planet. besides, its none of your business. Another foreigner with an opinion. Was your grandfather a friend to criminals too? Is that why he was shot?
rb2112002 1 year ago
@rb2112002 It is very much my business pal, I have dual citizenship in the U.S and Canada.
My grandafather was shot by someone like you who thought it was his "right" to be able to carry a gun anywhere he wants wthout impunity all over a fender bender and because he felt "threatened" yet my grandfather was not armed, and he survived the shooting. For a trigger happy nation you people don't have very good aim. How do I know you won't shoot me, just because i made you angry?
Zain844 1 year ago
@Zain844 It is our right to own and carry guns. If you dont like it, stay away. That goes for your grandfather too. You commented on security systems. What did you mean? Metal detectors to detect the scumbag with the wooden bat or ceramic knives? You just dont get it. I have one way to stop criminals. Its a PT-145 loaded with 230 gr JHP. It costs $350 and will last forever. It also protects me wherever I go. Again, you are just another foreigner whose opinion means nothing in America.
rb2112002 1 year ago
@rb2112002 You didn't answer my question son, and why are you telling me what kind of gun you have? or the ammo it uses? Why should I care? Are you trying to impress me or intimidate me? You think a PT-145 makes you big and scary? All you are doing is magnfying your own weakness and insecurity. I couldn't care less what gun you have. and I am a legal citizen of your nation son, and if my opinion means nothing why are you responding to me still?
Zain844 1 year ago
@Zain844 First, Im not your son, if I was, I probably would have run away from home by now. Are we having the same conversation? I carry not to be scary, I carry for protection. I realise you are kind of dense, but stop changing the subject. I dont really care about a killing spree, but like I say, dont bring a knife to a gun fight. I don't believe I shot anyone, what are you saying now? You may live here, but you belong somewhere else. Mexico has gun control, go live there and be "safe".
rb2112002 1 year ago
@Zain844 I cant believe Im responding to you either. Its obvious that you not only decided to be a victim, but want everyone else to be one too. You are a sheep. I have no weakness or insecurity. I protect myself and my family. I dont depend on anyone else. You wait for the cops, or the army or whatever group of strangers to protect you. When they get to my house, the bad guy will be dead, and not me. It seems to me that you are just not smart enought to handle owning a gun.
rb2112002 1 year ago
@rb2112002 Son... I am asking you a simple question would you shoot an unarmed man if he did something to upset you? but is not threatening your life? Would you shoot someone because they vandelized your car? would you shoot someone because they insulted your wife? would you shoot someone because they slept with your wife? would you shoot a man for stealing your cable?
Zain844 1 year ago
Comment removed
rb2112002 1 year ago
@rb2112002 and son... i invite anyone to try and break into my home they'd have to get pass the armed security guard first.. that greets you as you enter the building :) and he can frisk anyone he wants
Try it son...just TRY to get in here... you won't even be able to get into my building with your Pee shooter you'll have to face me man to man.
Zain844 1 year ago
@Zain844 You never asked me that question. Of course I wouldn't. Listen junior, you need to get a grip on reality. Also little guy, please remember that most of us don't have armed guards to defend us. Got that kid? BTW, in the US we call security guards rent-a-cops, and most are not even allowed to carry guns. You have truly missed the point. Now, go ask your dad for some money so you can go to a movie. You seem to prefer fantasy to reality anyway. See ya junior..
rb2112002 1 year ago
@rb2112002 and how is someone with a wooden bat and ceramic knives going to go on a killing spree? What nonsense is that? Grow up boy, and shooting an unarmed man makes YOU a criminal and i ask you again son, how do I know you won't do that?
Zain844 1 year ago
@rb2112002 and I didn't say anything about video cameras being the only way to stop criminals stop talking out of your ass
Zain844 1 year ago
Heck yeah they'd be safer! I'd be the first to carry on my campus!
BlueCollarSurvival 1 year ago
I'm keeping my gun to protect me from the evil liberals who want to take it away.
melardkey 1 year ago
What BuffaloWarrier said times 1000. Repeat and repost.
WildlyOptimistic1 1 year ago
Gun laws take weapons away from lawful citizens not criminals.
BuffaloWarrior7 1 year ago
wtf r u gonna carry a gun everywhere u go?
nandottt 1 year ago
@nandottt I do. What are you going to do? Rely on people like me to save your ass?
By the way, if you want to make an argument it helps to write in a way that at least makes it appear that you are not some text messaging 13 year old girl.
wye4379 1 year ago
@nandottt 'YEA' THE ASS I MIGHT SAVE MIGHT BE YOURS. From the beginning of time man has carried a weapon for protection and the weapon has always been the best he could make of find . God made man, guns made them equal
barstoolguru 1 year ago
@barstoolguru i would feel less safe if i knew everyone was carrying a gun than i do now knowing there is very small chance some lunatic can go crazy and start shooting people.
nandottt 1 year ago
@nandottt I do.
courageouslion 1 year ago
Yes guns should be legal, but it's a sad indictment of society that people feel the need to carry them everywhere they go.
R0undAboutMidnight 1 year ago
@R0undAboutMidnight WHY? The police carry them wherever they go. What makes one person so special over another? The right to defend ones life, liberty and property is part of life itself. If I can't carry the responsibility to defend myself, why should I think that someone else should defend my life?
courageouslion 1 year ago
@courageouslion Typical gun nut strawman. I'm not saying that people should not be allowed to carry guns, but if you honestly think you need to be armed whereever you go, you are one paranoid fuck.
R0undAboutMidnight 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@courageouslion
because they are the law and you are not.
Zain844 1 year ago
@R0undAboutMidnight. 1,000 years ago, men went around everywhere with sword and concealed knives. In the history of man, if there is a large concentration of people, you will find a criminal element. Criminals are as old as time. There will always be crime. Wether by sword or by the gun, those of us who choose not to be victims, but to be those who fight back and say "NO" to the criminal, are simple ordinary men and women, who have had enough of politicians telling us what to do and how to live.
centurion205 1 year ago
IT's ALL Rothschilds Illuminati The Trilaterals NWO and Bilderbergs PRESCOTT BUSH owned a steel CO in Auschwitz Jew Slaves made TANKS and RAIL for HITLER he CREATED Senators out of HITLERS Henchmen THEE TRILATERALS Socialist AntiAmericans CALLED THE FEDS Bush was charged as WAR CRIMINAL in 1945 ROCKEFELLER gave HITLER all the OIL for WW2 Look up Trilateral Members(& IG FARBEN) they are in EA State, Mccain Obambam Bush DO NOT VOTE TRILATERAL AntiAmerican. Rothschild owns the FED RES and WALL ST
mastior 1 year ago
Gun Control laws? Aren't home made bombs illegal? Didn't the Columbine shooters have those also?(However, the failed to blow) Look at how well drug laws work as a template for how well stricter gun laws will work. If you were to ban guns the only people who would have them would be criminals. The HONEST people would (grudgingly) give up theirs.Obviously they don't care about laws if they intend to commit crimesin the first place, so why would they care to break more by obtaining a gun?
marineguy86 1 year ago
scoremanga- you are an idiot. Dont talk about American rights when your on the outside. Criminals not only in the us but every where will always find ways to get their hands on ILLEGAL firearms so what can we do as citizens to protect ourselves? BUY A GUN AND USE IT IF WE HAVE TO. if someone broke into ur house with a gun would you rather have a phone to call the police or a gun to protect yourself? I own a gun and i am not afraid because i know i can protect myself
MorrisonC2 1 year ago
@MorrisonC2 ok young fella - im the idiot. i have lived in different parts of the world and im wonderin if ya have been anywhere outside the u.s. is the only thing your concerned about are guns, oil for your cars. thats why has the opinion of the u.s that it does. if someone broke into my house- he wouldn have a gun cos there aint many in ireland- so id just beat the crap out of him
scoremanga 1 year ago
@scoremanga IF someone broke into your house HOW DO YOU KNOW he wouldn't have a gun? Didn't the IRA have guns? Come on, don't be an idiot.
courageouslion 1 year ago
@courageouslion im no idiot man. read up on the ira. they were at war with the protestant brits, im an irish catholic in the south not the north. so an ira dude would have reason to come near me. i dont think someone deserves to be shot for breaking into a house anyway. every situation is different. most burglaries here would be junkies after cash, they wouldnt be lookin to kill ya and then take valuables.
scoremanga 1 year ago
Many people do not realize that police have no duty to rescue citizens, especially if doing so might expose police to danger. Police service is completely different from military service in this respect. During the Columbine massacre, police refused to confront the shooters until hours after they were dead. Outraged parents complained at the time that the police response was cowardly. Police officials explained that what is considered cowardice in the military is official police policy.
Skeptic121 1 year ago
(contd). At VA Tech, police entered the building and reached the shooter's floor just after he shot himself. Police performance at VA Tech was better than at Columbine, though still to late to change the outcome. My point? Knowing the difference between police and military service, some citizens might with to think about protecting themselves.
Skeptic121 1 year ago
Dr. Hupp, please come and live in California. We the people need you.
ustfu 1 year ago
Random shootings aside. We need our guns to protect ourselves from corrupt bureaucrats.
Ramshobraja 1 year ago
Too many people fail to understand that police have NO duty to defend you. The police at Columbine refused to enter the school until the gunmen had been dead for an hour or more. Many parents complained that the police were cowards at Columbine. They failed to understand that military men or firemen would consider such behavior cowardly, but it is nevertheless official police policy. Military men are expected to risk their lives to save civilians, as are firemen. Police, however, are not.
Skeptic121 1 year ago