This is a discussion on Brady Campaign response to recent events... within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by varob Then we would have to call the United States, England. Ha Ha Ha Only difference here would be the Army/Navy/RAF have ...
Dayton, Ohio, at Hara Arena and at the Sharonville Convention Center: "Bill Goodman's Gun and Knife Showwwww...tell a buddyyyyy...bring a friendddd!"
We are gonna spread the word to the undercover spies of NYC Mayor Bloomturd. Mind your owned damned business, unless you've got a budget surplus, and stay the hell away from our gun shows!
I would point out that the one fallacy in our argument is when people of a certain theological persuasion (jihadist) gets their hands on weapons they don't care if they are going down. That being said even though everyone being armed might not be a deterrent to those people it would certainly minimize the casualties.
Natti, that is exactly the point. You nailed. If someone is going to go on a shooting rampage, you are not going to prevent them from doing it. Taking them out early prevents them from doing maximum damage. The more people carrying, the greater the opportunity to minimize the damage.
I like to go to the Brady site to see what weapons are on their watch list as the most dangerous, then buy one. They need to update it more often though.
Edit: I just went to look for their watch list for the most concerning of the dangerous guns and didn't find it. Bummer, it always cracked me up to use them a shopping guide.
That's the most that can be done. No other solution comes close, short of full-body scans every 1000yds.
And, that's ALL that can be expected.
There are two absolute truths in this life: Life is a contact sport; and, There are no guarantees.
So long as we're going to have a relatively free/liberal society where folks aren't subjected to scans and checks and roadblocks everywhere, this solution (of a fully-armed and -prepared populace) is also the solution that provides the maximal opportunity to take out violent criminals as soon as possible. So far as I can tell, nothing else comes close to this in simultaneously (a) maximizing liberties and free movement while (b) minimizing the ramifications from violent crime.
Congress: What's so all-fired heinous about de-criminalizing the people to the point we're able to arm everyone who's willing? What're you afraid of ... that folks will come after you? Well then, get it right, if you're so concerned with that possibility of the sociopaths taking you out. But let's agree on one thing, that the days of trading political favors and protecting your own personal congressional skin at the expense of the lives of tens of thousands of the People (each year) is over.
They don't wanna leave D.C. because they will always need a cause, and a tax-exempt and a judicial government Santa Clause, with their gun-grabbing nagging-nanny hate, except maybe when they stay and play behind nice white D.C. suburbanite gates.
How about the Brady Campaign fighting to keep criminals in jail and fighting to use all the gun laws we already have.[/QUOTE]
Now we're talking common sense!
The Brady campaign, based on the things they have done, seriously feel that more laws with greater scope and reach, will affect the outcome of crimes committed by unlawful citizens…makes no sense logically.
"I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy!" - Dorothy Parker