|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Helpless-Victim Myth “If I Had A Gun A Crook Would Just Take It”
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
If this myth had any serious grain of truth we’d be in a world of hurt, because guns would be useless oxymorons and we’d be defenseless slaves by now. Everyone would be slaves, even the slave masters. This myth could never work. It’s circular logic that never ends. Lookit:
If you had a gun to protect yourself, but the crook could just take it from you, you wouldn’t need a gun. You could just take the crook’s gun and use that.
Folks, guns just don’t work that way. If they did, guards could never guard anyone, slaves could simply shoot their masters, the masters could then just shoot the slaves, it’s absurd. The one with the gun gets things done son. |
Comment by:
jac
(6/25/2016)
|
Probably true for some people. If you don't have the mindset to shoot someone, then don't get a gun.
But don't project your deficiencies onto me and others that have the proper training and mindset. |
|
|
QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms... — Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850). |
|
|