NRA Commentary Admits The Odds Of Needing A Gun To Defend Yourself Are Infinitesimal

Maybe you wouldn't but I really believe that the majority of people don't put such value on their weapons that they are willing to risk breaking the law or even suffer a great deal of public opprobium to keep them. And there is the fact that in order for these laws to be passed the people with the guns are going to have to be the ones supporting them. Most people have very little sympathy with psychopathic murderers, and they will eventually turn the guns in themselves if they believe they are supporting such.

 

That's just another little liberal fantasy that makes you feel better even though it not even close to reality.

 

I think a lot of US citizens (at least I hope) value their Civil Rights...

Of course when the government thinks they can come for our rights that issue will have to be addressed...

 

Vast majority of cases the victim is unarmed. So you can't and shouldn't assume that owning a gun can't help you. If you choose not to own a gun that is your business. But homeowners and lawful people have successfully defended themselves with a gun

 

I carry so as have the ability to at least be able to attempt to defend my family and myself should something awful happen. Now that is my choice and not anyone else's. If someone decides not to that is their choice and once again theirs alone. I have no obligation to defend the sheep.

 

You did not answer the question.
Do you believe there is never a need to use deadly force in self-defense?

 

None of the people who wrote and/or ratified argued that the 2nd amendment protected a right to arms exclusively within the context of the militia.
None.
That's why they protected the right of the people.
Not the militia, not the people in the militia, but the people.

Indeed -- that's why 'assault weapons' fall under the protection of the 2md.

 

First: your odds of defending yourself and others is much great in your favor if you are armed and know how to use your weapon. That is why cops have guns.

Second; that our cowardly criminal element knows that their target may be armed gives them something to think about when looking for a target. Making the liberal horde better targets.

 

I answered it. It has never been necessary and I didn't hear of anyone who needed to.
If you do kill someone in self defence you better be able to prove you feared for your life or you will go to jail.
In Denmark you will go to jail if you kill someone who breaks into your house. You will go to jail if you beat the senses out of him too.

 

Sounds like a great place for German 'tourism'.

 

That's your answer?
Because YOU have never had to use deadly force and because no one you know has ever had to use deadly force,. you believe that none one has or will ever have to use deadly force in self defense?


Thanks for playing, son- get back to me when you grow some intellectual honesty.

- - - Updated - - -

Europe has always been bass-ackward when it comes to common sense and the rights of the law-abiding.

 

Simple answer to all your questions....NOPE! I pointing out how Noir contradicts himself by trying to substitute his fear factor for facts while insinuating that any control is a guarantee that YOU will be a victim, as your gun will be denied.

Hogwash.

If you are denied a gun, then you did NOT meet the individual state and subsequent federal standards for one. If you are a law abiding citizens, you can obtain one (barring extenuating circumstances). Also, I would suggest you do some research beyond gun advocate websites, as having a gun is NO guarantee that you won't be a victim of crime or violence.

- - - Updated - - -

Here's a good response that I agree with: http://www.politicalforum.com/429585-nra-commentary-admits-odds-needing-gun-defend-yourself-infinitesimal-post1065522532.html#post1065522532

 

1. How do I fit the definition of "troll", as I am creating thread and then discussing/debating with responders point for point using valid documentation and references when needed? Get your definitions straight, son.

2. What you quote is a QUESTION, NOT A STATEMENT. Please brush up on American English composition ( i.e., the difference between a declarative and a question).

3. Yes, I stand corrected on the spelling of moniker.

4. Go back to the post where you got the quote, read comprehensively, and then answer the question. If you can't or won't, then I won't waste any more time on you.

 

Any cop worth their salt will tell you that a good alarm system is a deterrent in and of itself, as criminals do NOT want to wake up the neighborhood, their intended target, or a direct alarm to local cops. If what you say were true, then home invasions and most break-ins while folk are home wouldn't happen at all....yet they STILL do,

 

Not only do the court interpretations bear witness to the fact that we have an individual Right to keep and bear Arms, but we have many documents from the founding fathers that clarify each point.

The militia IS we the people, NOT the government - NOT the military - NOT the police.

 

A lot of supposition and conjecture on your part, but you STILL have not produced the federal law regarding confiscation as you state. Period. And FYI, you should check into the rules and regulations for various militia during the time of the Founding Fathers.

Essentially, you repeat the same screed as rabid gun rights advocates.....that ANY REGULATION (state or federal) regarding type of weapon ownership or regulations (locks, storage clips) is on par with confiscation. Research WHY those laws came into effect, and you may not be so quick to repeat NRA talking points. Bottom line: law abiding people can get their guns, and Noir's silly little screed is fooling no one.

 

Our government isn't completely totalitarian because THE PEOPLE, whether in law enforcement or not, won't stand for it. Ghandi showed the way with the simple logic that a few thousand well armed Brits cannot control a few million unarmed and uncooperative Indians.

Think it through: if the military wanted to stage a coupe, they have the superior fire power and trained personnel. Yes, armed citizens would make it difficult, but not impossible (as the average citizen does NOT have a tank or Apache helicopter or fighter jet). But nothing unites Americans faster than a common threat by a bully or tyrant. A UNITED STATES OF AMERICA can withstand tyranny. But since we are not united through and through, a police force and law abiding citizens who can obtain guns meeting state and federal standards will have to do.

- - - Updated - - -

But his conclusion is simply stupid and enforcing a paranoia for justification.

- - - Updated - - -

When you're done chuckling, please explain how Noir's video is NOT self defeating and contradictory.

 

When all is said and done, Noir (who is NRA sponsored) solution is this: any gun regulation is akin to confiscation/denial, and any regulation can impede your defending yourself. But since law abiding citizens can get guns abiding by state/federal laws, Noir's screed is dubious at best!

 

We've never had a tyrannical gov't, yet we have a history of civil unrest right up to the moment. Arming everyone to the teeth is NOT the solution, but exacerbates the problem.

- - - Updated - - -

A silly question, as what you site falls into the same category and deserves the same answer as above.

 

Ahh, so what's been going on in America in the last 1years doesn't matter to you because the tragedies didn't hit a set number in your mind? Gee, the folks at Columbine or Virginia Tech should be pleased to hear that. do your homework regarding Virginia tech, please.

- - - Updated - - -

how so? As everyone is getting a gun who isn't a criminal or mentally ill?

 

Your government currently listens to every phone call, in the country, and send the IRS to prosecute anyone who donates to the wrong political party. They prosecute people who don't show enough deference to perverts. They are taking in 10,000 refugees from a country which has a "Convert or Die" religion. What more do you need!

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/11/w...ion-to-accept-10000-syrian-refugees.html?_r=0

 

No one forces anyone to live here.

 

`
Thanks for your opinion.

 

Actually what is needed is less

Less conspiracy theory

 

Less focus on facts, corruption, reality?