Do as I say?
If you are looking for hypocrites, my guess is that republicans and democrats have plenty to offer. On the other hand, as my pastor says, we always have room for one more.
Absolutely. Guns are too dangerous for people to own, even those opposed to guns.
I’m convinced. I’m a convert.
This story about someone who once advocated for gun regulation committing murder with a gun proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that we shouldn’t have gun regulation. And that anyone advocating for stronger gun regulation is a hypocrite.
We could start by disarming federal, state, and local law enforcement. Once people see how much safer they are with all those guns off the streets, they’ll be a lot more willing to surrender their own firearms.
So by that logic are kitchen knives, power tools and household chemicals. Being non-American I don’t really have a dog in this fight and I support tight control over criminals or the mentally unstable obtaining access to firearms. However I don’t have any issues with people actually owning firearms in general if they understand the responsibilities inherent in owning them and take such ownership seriously. I have no interest in owning one myself but do not see ownership of firearms as intrinsically problematic.
Unfortunately not at this point possible with the US system for a variety of reasons, I am however glad that the British police have always themselves resisted any moves to make them a force where arms are customarily carried. A certain percentage do use and carry weapons but it’s always been a minority and usually those on special duty such as airport patrols, protecting high risk individuals or S013 members attending call outs for events involving firearms. When Ireland became independent there were calls to arm our police force, looking back I’m glad we copied the British model and only a minority of officers are armed. Although ironically a higher percentage of Irish police have firearms training than in the UK overall.
None of us know what we are capable of until we are faced with the situation.
The woman may have been truly convinced of the danger of guns and had good motives for promoting more gun control.
But for some reason, she and her campaign treasurer had a conflict–we don’t know what it was (I’m sure the news media will dig until they find out), and she couldn’t deal with it by just using words and non-violent actions. In a dark part of her soul, she made a decision to kill the man–it may have been during an explosion of anger, or it could have happened as she brooded over the bad situation between herself and the treasurer.
Even at that point, she could have stopped herself from killing him. But there comes a point when we make a decision that cannot be taken back, and in this case, her decision was to pull the trigger.
Perhaps one reason she was against guns is that killing someone with a gun has always been a temptation for her, something that lurked in her mind, and she was trying to stop not just society, but herself, from giving in to that temptation.
We don’t know what we can do in a time of difficult temptation. We have to be on our guard.
I would agree with that. I don’t trust government bureaucrats and I trust bureaucrats with guns even less. There are plenty of dead people due solely to trigger happy government workers with big egos.
Lefties are unable to control themselves … THEREFORE NO ONE SHOULD HAVE A GUN.
I am fine with disarming government bureaucrats.
The killing potential of guns is much higher than the things you list.
Legitimately good idea, I support your proposal.
This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.