Who do you think would have needed a hospital?
The take I see this is what if the nut job had a gun? I am sure Me Pelosi was asleep when his house was broken in to. What would have happened if the nut job had a gun. Also, why didn't they have burgeler alarms?
The take I see this is what if the nut job had a gun? I am sure Me Pelosi was asleep when his house was broken in to. What would have happened if the nut job had a gun. Also, why didn't they have burgelar alarms?
pegw wrote:
The take I see this is what if the nut job had a gun? I am sure Me Pelosi was asleep when his house was broken in to. What would have happened if the nut job had a gun. Also, why didn't they have burgelar alarms?
They had burglar alarms...
Those don't go off when you invite your gay lover into your house...
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
His gay lover???
Your pathetic, trying to change the course of the assault? How do you know the assailant was a male, maybe a woman dressed as a man? He was still assaulted, right?
Tiptop789 wrote:
And you know this how?
they are telling just so much, you have to read between the lines.It came out yesterday that they knew each other.
I'd bet a dollar they had a fling and the old man didn't want to pay for the services.
vernon wrote:
they are telling just so much, you have to read between the lines.It came out yesterday that they knew each other.
I'd bet a dollar they had a fling and the old man didn't want to pay for the services.
Yup and married to Nancy I’m sure causes him to look elsewhere to get his jollies!
You know there’s more to the story than they are telling us or would ever admit to.
I mean we know the Pelosi’s are corrupt crooks that I’m sure have protection but where were they? Guessing Paul was doing something he shouldn’t have.
They get to reap what they sew. Their democratic policies are responsible for all the high crime and apparently they got a dose of reality it puts America at risk and now them!
Guessing they probably won’t let that guy out the next day like they do all the other criminals. And of course naturally like we thought they try to tie him to Trump and bring up the J****** 6 i**********n because of who they are🤮👎🏻
What if Republicans tried to prop him up like the stupid Democrats did with G****e F***d and make him out to be a choir boy? Can you imagine the outrage! G****e F***d was a six time loser and hopefully he is roasting on the spit in hell
pegw wrote:
The take I see this is what if the nut job had a gun? I am sure Me Pelosi was asleep when his house was broken in to. What would have happened if the nut job had a gun. Also, why didn't they have burgeler alarms?
They couldn't afford it. Nancy is barely getting by on a speaker's salary.
Gatsby wrote:
Who do you think would have needed a hospital?
If Paul Pelosi had armed himself with a gun then there would be a greater likelihood that somebody would die, either in this incident or at other times.
If both Paul Pelosi and his attacker had armed themselves with guns, then this incident would almost surely have ended worse than it did.
_Any_ fool can pull a trigger really fast. That's why I call the guns an "equalizer" -- a difference in intelligence matters less, when both sides have guns. In an armed conflict, there's a lot of power in the gun, such that power of mind has relatively less effect than it would in an unarmed encounter.
The stupider a person is, the more likely he or she is to shoot quickly without regard for whether it's unnecessary or a wrong thing to do. So it may even be true that in mutually armed situations the less ethical or less intelligent person actually gains a slight advantage over the more ethical (and therefore more intelligent) person.
But, in a lesser-armed situation (as with an unarmed Paul Pelosi and an assailant with only a hammer), intelligence still counts for something. Mr. Pelosi was able to outwit his attacker (with the phone call) and also buy a little time with physical resistance.
If they had both had guns then I think one of them would be dead and it would probably be Mr. Pelosi (who, after all, had less chance to prepare for the encounter than his attacker had).
robertv3 wrote:
_Any_ fool can pull a trigger really fast. That's why I call the guns an "equalizer" -- a difference in intelligence matters less, when both sides have guns. In an armed conflict, there's a lot of power in the gun, such that power of mind has relatively less effect than it would in an unarmed encounter.
The stupider a person is, the more likely he or she is to shoot quickly without regard for whether it's unnecessary or a wrong thing to do. So it may even be true that in mutually armed situations the less ethical or less intelligent person actually gains a slight advantage over the more ethical (and therefore more intelligent) person.
But, in a lesser-armed situation (as with an unarmed Paul Pelosi and an assailant with only a hammer), intelligence still counts for something. Mr. Pelosi was able to outwit his attacker (with the phone call) and also buy a little time with physical resistance.
If they had both had guns then I think one of them would be dead and it would probably be Mr. Pelosi (who, after all, had less chance to prepare for the encounter than his attacker had).
_Any_ fool can pull a trigger really fast. That's... (
show quote)
How much experience do you have with firearms?
Are you a well-regulated shooter?
Have you successfully completed any kind of firearm self defense course?
Reason I ask is because it appears you don't know WTF you are talking about.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.