Maybe we should just step up within hearing, but safely out of reach, and (while recording the video of it on our phones in the event of future litigation) ask the victim, "Excuse me, but I am carrying a firearm and will shoot the person attacking you with it if you want me to......but ONLY if you want me to. Please answer Yes or No. If you answer Yes, you agree to be 100% responsible for the consequences. What was that? You said No? Okay, have a nice day"Charlies.Contingency wrote:Yet if you were the one to save them TAM, and you made the attacker deceased, he/she might be mad at you for killing them. Better yet, they might sue you to pay for their mental therapy crap because they were traumatized by having to witness you killing somebody. Am I being pessimistic, or just realistic?The Annoyed Man wrote:I can't read that tripe. This is the ONLY thing that will change their opinion:
Nothing else will work. Of course, it will require that a significant number of these foolish and feckless airheads die because there was no such 3rd party present and/or available (present ≠ available, since the 3rd party has free will in the matter) at the time to haul their stupid chestnuts out of the fire. But maybe if they either die or are rescued in about equal parts, the survivors will begin to change their minds. Or not. That kind of fecklessness tends to be irredeemable.
- To be trapped in a situation when seconds count and the police (who are NOT constitutionally obligated to protect them... see DeShaney v. Winnebago County, Warren v. District of Columbia and Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales) are minutes away;
- in a situation in which a gun in their hand is the only thing that would save them;
- to not have one available to them directly because of some crap legislation that they supported;
- to make the cognitive connection between their previous legislative agenda and their current circumstances;
- to despair at their own folly;
- and to be rescued by a regular citizen 3rd party with a gun in hand.
Maybe we should push a bill for if the person we saved is ungrateful, we can return them to the situation we saved them from.
Search found 3 matches
Return to “I have subscribed to an anti gun forum, their thoughts here.”
- Thu Oct 29, 2015 9:28 am
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: I have subscribed to an anti gun forum, their thoughts here.
- Replies: 63
- Views: 16853
Re: I have subscribed to an anti gun forum, their thoughts here.
- Wed Oct 28, 2015 12:58 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: I have subscribed to an anti gun forum, their thoughts here.
- Replies: 63
- Views: 16853
Re: I have subscribed to an anti gun forum, their thoughts here.
I can't read that tripe. This is the ONLY thing that will change their opinion:
- To be trapped in a situation when seconds count and the police (who are NOT constitutionally obligated to protect them... see DeShaney v. Winnebago County, Warren v. District of Columbia and Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales) are minutes away;
- in a situation in which a gun in their hand is the only thing that would save them;
- to not have one available to them directly because of some crap legislation that they supported;
- to make the cognitive connection between their previous legislative agenda and their current circumstances;
- to despair at their own folly;
- and to be rescued by a regular citizen 3rd party with a gun in hand.
- Fri Jun 13, 2014 9:57 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: I have subscribed to an anti gun forum, their thoughts here.
- Replies: 63
- Views: 16853
Re: I have subscribed to an anti gun forum, their thoughts h
At Mother Jones, it's more like "Pot, meet pipe."Transplant wrote:Pot, meet kettle.