joether
Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
Where were all the NRA types with their guns? Racing towards the scene of the crime to defend Americans from terrorism? That's right, they were fleeing with everyone else!
It appears that the shooting started when the police spotted the guy outside.
The gun owners (and Colorado doesn't have loose gun laws) did what they were suppossed to do, stayed out of the cops way. Nobody, but nobody, says armed citizens should shove in to help the large number cops already on the scene. This is a absolutly absurd comment.
Compared to Massachusetts, Colorado is VERY loose with firearm laws!
I agree, no one is forcing private gun owners to step in and help law enforcement. Yet, we hear on these boards and in the news in general of conservative gun owners stating they would have engaged the hostile target(s) had they been there. Not only engaged but been the winner of the contest of wills. An it is all bullshit. There was one gun with a CCW at the community college in Oregon when it was attacked. He didn't engage because he believed he would be mistaken as the active shooter and killed without question.
The right states it needs guns to defend themselves against hostile attackers. Yet, when confronted with hostile targets, they flee with everyone else. What is the point of having a gun if your not going to....STAND YOUR GROUND....like all the political propaganda being dumped from the NRA and like organizations? Isn't that why so many activists want open carry laws? To carry onto schools, courts, and even hospitals? As the bullshit argument goes, to whip it out and gun down the hostile target should it present itself?
That in observation and study, when the person with the gun ran away (not part of a well regulated militia) they lived. It is completely opposite of the NRA's message and political viewpoint. That one with a gun might get lucky, but often its a very brave/fool-hardy task to undertake. Colorado is open carry except by local law that prohibits it.
If your going to argue open carry, anywhere, then its fair to say you hold a responsibility to engage all hostile targets when things like this happen. Just like any other member of "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...". That is why firearms exist in our society.....to protect the civilian population from danger. Foreign and domestic! If your not ready (physically, mentally, emotionally) to handle that sort of responsibility with a firearm in open society; then dont carry!
Gun nuts want to open carry but not have any responsibility to society. Founding fathers did not have that in mind when they created the 2nd. 'Thugs with guns' was not the concept they were going. But rather, civilians engaging hostile targets in as organized manner as possible, thereby protecting the civilian population from danger. In the 18th century they did not have local, state, and federal law enforcement. Nor a standing, professional, and quick ass-kicking military. If they had all those things in place, would there be a need for the 2nd amendment? Hard to say. But the purpose for the 2nd, was to allow common citizens firearms, but are duty bound to use those arms in defense not swagger around thinking they are bigshots.
So I ask....where were all the gun nuts? Why didn't they engage rather than flee?
|
RE: 3 dead 8 injured at PP In Colorado springs - 
Profile
RE: 3 dead 8 injured at PP In Colorado springs - 
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread