Armed citizens save lives! Every time some space cadet shoots up a school, military complex, or hospital the gun n**is use the incident to demonize all gun owners and the NRA. It has...

son of witless

Every time some space cadet shoots up a school, military complex, or hospital the gun n**is use the incident to demonize all gun owners and the NRA. It has been pointed out that in many cases an armed private citizen might have been able to stop the gunman. Many of these shootings take place in what i***ts like to create, so called gun free zones. Well some armed citizen just took out a crazy person who was shooting up a gun free zone. Probably saved a lot of lives.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2014/0725/Doctor-shoots-armed-patient-in-Philly-hospital-A-gun-rights-case-is-born-video

jimahrens Loc: California

Statistics prove in every state that allows concealed and carry the crime rate has dropped.

son of witless wrote:

Every time some space cadet shoots up a school, mi... (show quote)

clarkwv Loc: west virginia

jimahrens wrote:

Statistics prove in every state that allows concealed and carry the crime rate has dropped.

without a link to those statistics you post means nothing but a possible statement of your position

jimahrens Loc: California

You want to see them go to Google I see it's working in Chicago and Colorado. Check out Texas Statistics. I don't peddle bulls**t like the liberals around here. If your informed you know the story as well as I do.

clarkwv wrote:

without a link to those statistics you post means nothing but a possible statement of your position

Liberty's Advocate Loc: Cedar Rapids, IA

jimahrens wrote:

You want to see them go to Google I see it's working in Chicago and Colorado. Check out Texas Statistics. I don't peddle bulls**t like the liberals around here. If your informed you know the story as well as I do.

AMEN, jimahrens. If Clark and others like him would remove their heads from their posteriors long enough to think about it, they'd realize that criminals don't generally dissociate themselves entirely from their human motivations, like 'self-preservation' for instance. Further, even the courts have held in Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d 1, D.C. App.181), it is a fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.

As the phrase fundamental principle of American law suggests, this holding is not some legal aberration unique to the District of Columbia. It is universal, being enunciated by formal statute as well as judicial decision in many states. Nor is it simply a cynical ploy for government to avoid just liability. The proposition that individuals must be responsible for their own immediate safety, with police providing only an auxiliary general deterrent, is inherent in a free society.

The point is, when people actually take upon themselves the responsibility for the protection of their lives that is theirs both by Natural right and judgment, good things happen. As an example, the Chief of Police in Detroit over a year ago announced publicly that the citizens of Detroit should arm themselves for protection against those elements of society threatening to destroy it. Crime had risen to a point that was overwhelming law enforcement. In the past 12 months, crime in Detroit has consequently fallen by an incredible 37%.

In his best selling book, "More Guns - Less Crime" (now in its third printing) University of Chicago School of Law Professor John R. Lott, Jr. and his assistant David Mustard used the FBI's own crime statistics for every county in the United States for over 25 years to prove that the presence of guns in the hands of private citizens is a deterrent to crime. Ironically Professor Lott, originally an anti-gun advocate, initially undertook the study to prove the theory of the Left - that the presence of guns leads to more crime. He not only failed to prove this thesis but changed the name of his book to reflect his actual findings. The largest previous study (touted by the anti-gun n**is) examined statistics from only 100 cities for only one year.

The class of people who gain the most protection is women. In those 39 states that have adopted a "shall issue" policy for concealed weapons permits (where the issuing authority - usually the Sheriff - must issue a permit to the applicant or show cause why it was denied) as opposed to the "may issue" policy of Sheriff's discretion that resulted in rejections based on suppositions and feelings, ALL have had reductions in crime - some dramatic - that have improved public safety. Even those women (for example) who DO NOT choose to carry a concealed weapon, have benefited greatly from their sisters who DO carry because potential assailants and rapists don't know who is carrying and who isn't.

But the Liberal naysayers like Clark continue to adopt the "Ostrich-with-its-head-in-the-sand" posture - even when evidence to the contrary is universal. People taking personal responsibility for their own lives and protection? We can't have that!! Pretty soon people will believe they are capable of doing anything and everything for themselves ... that they don't NEED government to manage their lives. Where would that leave government and the socialist/c*******t wet dreams of our leaders?

If it was demonstrated that the people actually NEEDED guns for personal protection, could demonstrate proficiency with them and that it was a social responsibility to carry them not only for your own safety but for the safety of others, the whole concept of government control and protection of the individual yields to the rights and power of the individual. The responsible use of arms by individuals is a microcosm of the philosophy on which this country was founded: That we have the right to do anything we want with our lives as long as we do not do anything that would threaten or deny the right of any other individuals to what they wish with THEIR lives.

The rights of life and personal liberty are natural rights of man. ' to secure these rights,' says the Declaration of Independence, 'governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.' The very highest duty of the States, when they entered into the Union under the Constitution, was to protect all persons within their boundaries in the enjoyment of these 'unalienable rights with which they were endowed by their Creator.' Sovereignty, for this purpose, rests alone with the States. It is no more the duty or within the power of the United States to punish for a conspiracy to falsely imprison or murder within a State, than it would be to punish for false imprisonment or murder itself. U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

Patty

Funny that liberals want links but don't know how to post them. Here is the deal we will be glad to postrs links and will expect the same from your side.

clarkwv wrote:

without a link to those statistics you post means nothing but a possible statement of your position

cant beleve Loc: Planet Kolob

Liberty's Advocate wrote:

AMEN, jimahrens. If Clark and others like him would remove their heads from their posteriors long enough to think about it, they'd realize that criminals don't generally dissociate themselves entirely from their human motivations, like 'self-preservation' for instance. Further, even the courts have held in Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d 1, D.C. App.181), it is a fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.

As the phrase fundamental principle of American law suggests, this holding is not some legal aberration unique to the District of Columbia. It is universal, being enunciated by formal statute as well as judicial decision in many states. Nor is it simply a cynical ploy for government to avoid just liability. The proposition that individuals must be responsible for their own immediate safety, with police providing only an auxiliary general deterrent, is inherent in a free society.

The point is, when people actually take upon themselves the responsibility for the protection of their lives that is theirs both by Natural right and judgment, good things happen. As an example, the Chief of Police in Detroit over a year ago announced publicly that the citizens of Detroit should arm themselves for protection against those elements of society threatening to destroy it. Crime had risen to a point that was overwhelming law enforcement. In the past 12 months, crime in Detroit has consequently fallen by an incredible 37%.

In his best selling book, "More Guns - Less Crime" (now in its third printing) University of Chicago School of Law Professor John R. Lott, Jr. and his assistant David Mustard used the FBI's own crime statistics for every county in the United States for over 25 years to prove that the presence of guns in the hands of private citizens is a deterrent to crime. Ironically Professor Lott, originally an anti-gun advocate, initially undertook the study to prove the theory of the Left - that the presence of guns leads to more crime. He not only failed to prove this thesis but changed the name of his book to reflect his actual findings. The largest previous study (touted by the anti-gun n**is) examined statistics from only 100 cities for only one year.

The class of people who gain the most protection is women. In those 39 states that have adopted a "shall issue" policy for concealed weapons permits (where the issuing authority - usually the Sheriff - must issue a permit to the applicant or show cause why it was denied) as opposed to the "may issue" policy of Sheriff's discretion that resulted in rejections based on suppositions and feelings, ALL have had reductions in crime - some dramatic - that have improved public safety. Even those women (for example) who DO NOT choose to carry a concealed weapon, have benefited greatly from their sisters who DO carry because potential assailants and rapists don't know who is carrying and who isn't.

But the Liberal naysayers like Clark continue to adopt the "Ostrich-with-its-head-in-the-sand" posture - even when evidence to the contrary is universal. People taking personal responsibility for their own lives and protection? We can't have that!! Pretty soon people will believe they are capable of doing anything and everything for themselves ... that they don't NEED government to manage their lives. Where would that leave government and the socialist/c*******t wet dreams of our leaders?

If it was demonstrated that the people actually NEEDED guns for personal protection, could demonstrate proficiency with them and that it was a social responsibility to carry them not only for your own safety but for the safety of others, the whole concept of government control and protection of the individual yields to the rights and power of the individual. The responsible use of arms by individuals is a microcosm of the philosophy on which this country was founded: That we have the right to do anything we want with our lives as long as we do not do anything that would threaten or deny the right of any other individuals to what they wish with THEIR lives.

The rights of life and personal liberty are natural rights of man. ' to secure these rights,' says the Declaration of Independence, 'governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.' The very highest duty of the States, when they entered into the Union under the Constitution, was to protect all persons within their boundaries in the enjoyment of these 'unalienable rights with which they were endowed by their Creator.' Sovereignty, for this purpose, rests alone with the States. It is no more the duty or within the power of the United States to punish for a conspiracy to falsely imprison or murder within a State, than it would be to punish for false imprisonment or murder itself. U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

AMEN, jimahrens. If Clark and others like him woul... (show quote)

All the t***h in the world won't convince the left tards. Sorry.

jimahrens Loc: California

Great Post my Friend.

Liberty's Advocate wrote:

AMEN, jimahrens. If Clark and others like him would remove their heads from their posteriors long enough to think about it, they'd realize that criminals don't generally dissociate themselves entirely from their human motivations, like 'self-preservation' for instance. Further, even the courts have held in Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d 1, D.C. App.181), it is a fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.

As the phrase fundamental principle of American law suggests, this holding is not some legal aberration unique to the District of Columbia. It is universal, being enunciated by formal statute as well as judicial decision in many states. Nor is it simply a cynical ploy for government to avoid just liability. The proposition that individuals must be responsible for their own immediate safety, with police providing only an auxiliary general deterrent, is inherent in a free society.

The point is, when people actually take upon themselves the responsibility for the protection of their lives that is theirs both by Natural right and judgment, good things happen. As an example, the Chief of Police in Detroit over a year ago announced publicly that the citizens of Detroit should arm themselves for protection against those elements of society threatening to destroy it. Crime had risen to a point that was overwhelming law enforcement. In the past 12 months, crime in Detroit has consequently fallen by an incredible 37%.

In his best selling book, "More Guns - Less Crime" (now in its third printing) University of Chicago School of Law Professor John R. Lott, Jr. and his assistant David Mustard used the FBI's own crime statistics for every county in the United States for over 25 years to prove that the presence of guns in the hands of private citizens is a deterrent to crime. Ironically Professor Lott, originally an anti-gun advocate, initially undertook the study to prove the theory of the Left - that the presence of guns leads to more crime. He not only failed to prove this thesis but changed the name of his book to reflect his actual findings. The largest previous study (touted by the anti-gun n**is) examined statistics from only 100 cities for only one year.

The class of people who gain the most protection is women. In those 39 states that have adopted a "shall issue" policy for concealed weapons permits (where the issuing authority - usually the Sheriff - must issue a permit to the applicant or show cause why it was denied) as opposed to the "may issue" policy of Sheriff's discretion that resulted in rejections based on suppositions and feelings, ALL have had reductions in crime - some dramatic - that have improved public safety. Even those women (for example) who DO NOT choose to carry a concealed weapon, have benefited greatly from their sisters who DO carry because potential assailants and rapists don't know who is carrying and who isn't.

But the Liberal naysayers like Clark continue to adopt the "Ostrich-with-its-head-in-the-sand" posture - even when evidence to the contrary is universal. People taking personal responsibility for their own lives and protection? We can't have that!! Pretty soon people will believe they are capable of doing anything and everything for themselves ... that they don't NEED government to manage their lives. Where would that leave government and the socialist/c*******t wet dreams of our leaders?

If it was demonstrated that the people actually NEEDED guns for personal protection, could demonstrate proficiency with them and that it was a social responsibility to carry them not only for your own safety but for the safety of others, the whole concept of government control and protection of the individual yields to the rights and power of the individual. The responsible use of arms by individuals is a microcosm of the philosophy on which this country was founded: That we have the right to do anything we want with our lives as long as we do not do anything that would threaten or deny the right of any other individuals to what they wish with THEIR lives.

The rights of life and personal liberty are natural rights of man. ' to secure these rights,' says the Declaration of Independence, 'governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.' The very highest duty of the States, when they entered into the Union under the Constitution, was to protect all persons within their boundaries in the enjoyment of these 'unalienable rights with which they were endowed by their Creator.' Sovereignty, for this purpose, rests alone with the States. It is no more the duty or within the power of the United States to punish for a conspiracy to falsely imprison or murder within a State, than it would be to punish for false imprisonment or murder itself. U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

AMEN, jimahrens. If Clark and others like him woul... (show quote)

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: