Most liberal states = least free states

Taichiliberal said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
...



I suggest you do the research work instead of relying on your imagination. In effect, you want to carry a gun with little expense, training or any investigation into your character. Got news for ya, COPS go through far more than what you described in order before their given the right to carry that weapon. So pardon me if I don't see YOU as being given a pass that we wouldn't give our law enforcement....THAT would be "onerous" indeed.



Amazing how you just ignore everything that transpired in previous post to just parrot the same BS as before. Bottom line: we have a police force, you can buy a gun for home protection, and if you want to carry one, there are procedures. The final point was brought forth by YOU in your example....I just merely pointed out that all your whining boils down to YOU wanting to supercede requirements that YOU (the taxpaying citizen) require of candidates for law enforcement. That is just absurd.....much like the contentions of the original article posted. So if all you've got is some BS dodge, I'd say we're done here.
Click to expand...

So are you suggesting that if someone approaches my car with a baseball bat while I'm stopped in traffic, obviously intending to break the window and hijack my vehicle that I call 911? Wouldn't I be more safe drawing my concealed pistol?
 
Taichiliberal said:
Interesting.....I suppose you would have to take into account a more homogenous society, the registration procedures for weapons, what is their historical gov't charters regarding military and citizenry, etc. And then again, you look at geography and population. And the bottom line.....you STILL have crime. Go figure.
Click to expand...

The bottom line is we still have crime every where.

Part of it is cultural. In the UK the beat cops don't carry guns. How well do you think that would work here? Can you see an unarmed policeman in Miami, LA, or Detroit being able to do his job?
 
Taichiliberal said:
]I just merely pointed out that all your whining boils down to YOU wanting to supercede requirements that YOU (the taxpaying citizen) require of candidates for law enforcement. That is just absurd....
Click to expand...

do you have the slightest clue as to WHY we require those extra requirements of law enforcement? Why we demand higher expectations and standards from them?
 
Amazing how you just ignore everything that transpired in previous post to just parrot the same BS as before. Bottom line: we have a police force, you can buy a gun for home protection, and if you want to carry one, there are procedures. The final point was brought forth by YOU in your example....I just merely pointed out that all your whining boils down to YOU wanting to supercede requirements that YOU (the taxpaying citizen) require of candidates for law enforcement. That is just absurd.....much like the contentions of the original article posted. So if all you've got is some BS dodge, I'd say we're done here.

Southern Man said:
So are you suggesting that if someone approaches my car with a baseball bat while I'm stopped in traffic, obviously intending to break the window and hijack my vehicle that I call 911? Wouldn't I be more safe drawing my concealed pistol?
Click to expand...

Right....car jackings usually take place (day or night) with witnesses, while the driver is still in the car and little chance of the thief making a quick get-a-way...a thief armed only with a bat. Oh yeah, it happens all the time...best reason to carry a gun just in case. :rolleyes:

Jeezus, you just can't deal with the fact that you cannot disprove or discredit what I posted...so much so that you're reduced to spewing this NRA paranoid diarrhea. Well, ya got nothing, and there's no sense in wasting more time on you on this thread. You may have the last predictable word.
 
WinterBorn said:
The bottom line is we still have crime every where. But you forget that the original premise of the article that started this thread was that a person is "less free" because some states have stricter gun laws than others. As I pointed out time and again, that's just plain NRA bullshit. Since no one can fault my reasonings to that effect, they've bobbed and weaved all over the place trying to associate anything to do with guns to support their premise...and have failed time and again.

Part of it is cultural. In the UK the beat cops don't carry guns. Not quite...only in certain specific areas is that true. On average cops carry guns. How well do you think that would work here? Can you see an unarmed policeman in Miami, LA, or Detroit being able to do his job?
Click to expand...

Which has NOTHING to do with the original premise of the article that started this whole thing. My point about the Nordic reference was that even with everyone armed, crime still occurs. The whole squawk from the NRA neocons about gun rights is that if they are less required and restricted than our cops to carry guns, then they are more protected against crime....more so, criminals are less likely to strike if they know everyone is strapped. As your Swiss example shows, that is not the case.

Again, "freedom" in America is not severely (if at all) crippled by varying State gun laws. I've explained that several times now, and to date no one has logically proven otherwise.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
]I just merely pointed out that all your whining boils down to YOU wanting to supercede requirements that YOU (the taxpaying citizen) require of candidates for law enforcement. That is just absurd....

SmarterThanYou said:
do you have the slightest clue as to WHY we require those extra requirements of law enforcement? Why we demand higher expectations and standards from them?
Click to expand...

You again! I thought you considered me to ignorant to bother debating with? :rolleyes: Let me dumb it down for you.......the previous poster kept alluding to some shoot out scenario with a criminal or impending criminal act. He just wants to stroll into a shop and buy a gun, no questions asked...and then carry it around with him...no questions asked, no training. Now if we don't even give cops leeway like that (remember, they can carry their guns off duty and when retired), why should we to some yahoo who is in a constant state of paranoia that his chance to defend himself or stop a crime is just around the corner? If he wants to carry a gun and be some sort of pseudo-cop or in constant need of protection against possible threat, then meet the state requirements. It won't kill him to do so, and according to his mindset, it could/will save his life.
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
:rolleyes: Let me dumb it down for you.......the previous poster kept alluding to some shoot out scenario with a criminal or impending criminal act. He just wants to stroll into a shop and buy a gun, no questions asked...and then carry it around with him...no questions asked, no training. Now if we don't even give cops leeway like that (remember, they can carry their guns off duty and when retired), why should we to some yahoo who is in a constant state of paranoia that his chance to defend himself or stop a crime is just around the corner? If he wants to carry a gun and be some sort of pseudo-cop or in constant need of protection against possible threat, then meet the state requirements. It won't kill him to do so, and according to his mindset, it could/will save his life.
Click to expand...

:blah::blah::blah:

you didn't answer the question. don't dumb it down because I don't speak toddler.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Let me dumb it down for you.......the previous poster kept alluding to some shoot out scenario with a criminal or impending criminal act. He just wants to stroll into a shop and buy a gun, no questions asked...and then carry it around with him...no questions asked, no training. Now if we don't even give cops leeway like that (remember, they can carry their guns off duty and when retired), why should we to some yahoo who is in a constant state of paranoia that his chance to defend himself or stop a crime is just around the corner? If he wants to carry a gun and be some sort of pseudo-cop or in constant need of protection against possible threat, then meet the state requirements. It won't kill him to do so, and according to his mindset, it could/will


SmarterThanYou said:
:blah::blah::blah:

you didn't answer the question. don't dumb it down because I don't speak toddler.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, I forgot you neocon's don't have a capacity to think beyond yes/no. And you just shut down if you get an answer that you can't bullshit your way past. That's okay...stamp your widdle feet all you want. You're done, and I won't waste time on your insipid stubborness. Have the last word, bunky...worthless as it is, I know how important it is to you.
 
You again! I thought you considered me to ignorant to bother debating with?

Threedee said:
That is true.
Click to expand...

I was responding to the clown who thinks he's smarter than everyone else....pity he can't prove it in an honest, logical, fact based debate.

As for you.....what are you, his lapdog? If you don't have the stones or the brains to debate the issue with me rationally, then don't waste space acting like a 3 year old throwing stones from behind someone else's legs. If you can't, then I'll just ignore you.
 
Taichiliberal said:
...
Right....car jackings usually take place (day or night) with witnesses, while the driver is still in the car and little chance of the thief making a quick get-a-way...a thief armed only with a bat. Oh yeah, it happens all the time...best reason to carry a gun just in case. :rolleyes:

Jeezus, you just can't deal with the fact that you cannot disprove or discredit what I posted...so much so that you're reduced to spewing this NRA paranoid diarrhea. Well, ya got nothing, and there's no sense in wasting more time on you on this thread. You may have the last predictable word.
Click to expand...

Car-jackers don't necessarily want the car, but what's inside it. Since I'm fully insured they can have the damn thing, but my personal safety and that of my passengers should be sacrosanct, shouldn't it?

Who cares about witnesses if you're getting your head bashed in? I'd rather stop the crime from happening then be maimed or dead while my killer sits in a courtroom.

So again, I predictably ask you: wouldn't I be more safe carry a concealed pistol?
 
Southern Man said:
Onerous in NC for CCW is a 2-day course costing $300, filling out forms at the sheriff's office and paying a fee, waiting three weeks for the State to comb through their files on you including all three mental heath hospitals, then a second visit to the Sheriff to get fingerprinted and photographed, then waiting another two weeks to receive a 3x5 card in the mail that you have to laminate yourself or it will fall apart. Reciprocity is only good in a handful of States and the permit expires in five years and you you have to go through the entire process again.

Then to buy a gun you have to fill out some more paperwork at the sheriff's office, pay a fee, then come back three days later to get the permit to purchase.

I can only imagine the process in Massachusetts or DC.
Click to expand...

Similar to getting a driver's license, and people don't complain about that.
 
Englands cops don't have guns because every right wing conservative nazi wanna bee doesn't have a gun and run around killing abortion dr's like souther tools buddies do.
 
Topspin said:
Englands cops don't have guns because every right wing conservative nazi wanna bee doesn't have a gun and run around killing abortion dr's like souther tools buddies do.
Click to expand...
Violent crime and home invasions are way up in the UK. Why do want Americans to be less safe?
 
Southern Man said:
Run those figures on a per capita basis and get back to me. :)
Click to expand...

You can't be serious souther tool. I'm calling Bullshit on your college education. Your a gun lover and you don't know that England has way lower per capita murders. LOFL
what's your career again?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top