Staff Member
- Messages
- 11,211
- Reactions
- 40,982
The only requirement to be President is being a 35 year old natural-born citizen
End of discussion.
dang, 7 1/2 more years.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The only requirement to be President is being a 35 year old natural-born citizen
End of discussion.
The fact that you do not practice for such instances, does not apply to everyone else.These guys were not untrained, and some were wearing suicide vests. Good luck stopping that with your CCH, as you try to get a clear shot in a crowd of 1200. Grow up.
ISIS retains initiative because they understand us, and we don't bother studying them:
a. We lump all 'mooslims' together and are too lazy to study the battlefield.
b. Our politicians, and especially out defense/security industry constantly use these events for short term political and financial gain.
c. We haven't figured out the most basic fact that if you kill one terrorist and ten civilians, you just created hatred for 10 extended families and all their friends.
Sun Tzu said alot of good thing in The Art of War (written 250BCE). This stands out to me tonight:
"Arms are tools of ill omen - to employ them for an extended period of time will bring about calamity."
Was Trumps comment out of the ordinary and not in keeping with typical stuffed shirt speak -- yes. Is it about time we stop worrying about what's politically correct and start calling things for what they are -- yes.tweet even caught the attention of French ambassador Gérard Araud, who replied from his verified account:
View attachment 263456
If 5% of the people at the concert had CHLs and were carrying there would have been roughly 75 armed individuals among the "sheep". With 75 to 4 odds training wouldn't matter much. Think that's too much to expect? About 5% of the people in Oregon have CHLs. Without the idiocy of gun free zones, like concerts and sporting events, these situations would have a different outcome, at least for Oregon.These guys were not untrained, and some were wearing suicide vests. Good luck stopping that with your CCH, as you try to get a clear shot in a crowd of 1200. Grow up.
ISIS retains initiative because they understand us, and we don't bother studying them:
a. We lump all 'mooslims' together and are too lazy to study the battlefield.
b. Our politicians, and especially out defense/security industry constantly use these events for short term political and financial gain.
c. We haven't figured out the most basic fact that if you kill one terrorist and ten civilians, you just created hatred for 10 extended families and all their friends.
Sun Tzu said alot of good thing in The Art of War (written 250BCE). This stands out to me tonight:
"Arms are tools of ill omen - to employ them for an extended period of time will bring about calamity."
So - I am 27 years too old?The only requirement to be President is being a 35 year old natural-born citizen...
End of discussion.
If 5% of the people at the concert had CHLs and were carrying there would have been roughly 75 armed individuals among the "sheep". With 75 to 4 odds training wouldn't matter much. Think that's too much to expect? About 5% of the people in Oregon have CHLs. Without the idiocy of gun free zones, like concerts and sporting events, these situations would have a different outcome, at least for Oregon.
OK, suppose there had been 20 armed people at the concert...or 10...or even 5. Different outcome? Or two armed people at Sandy Hook? Or 5 armed people in the Colorado theater? My point is that the illusion of safety in "everyone" being unarmed in public is fast evaporating.France is not Oregon and I really doubt that 5% of the population would carry all the time, even if they could.
Then there is the fact that just because 5% of the general population do something, that doesn't mean 5% of a given number of people do that same thing. E.G., 5% of people who don't own guns are unlikely to be carrying a gun, much less a group of people who are anti-gun.
OK, suppose there had been 20 armed people at the concert...or 10...or even 5. Different outcome? Or two armed people at Sandy Hook? Or 5 armed people in the Colorado theater? My point is that the illusion of safety in "everyone" being unarmed in public is fast evaporating.
My point is that the illusion of safety in "everyone" being unarmed in public is fast evaporating.
OK, suppose there had been 20 armed people at the concert...or 10...or even 5. Different outcome? Or two armed people at Sandy Hook? Or 5 armed people in the Colorado theater? My point is that the illusion of safety in "everyone" being unarmed in public is fast evaporating.
OK, wudda, cudda, shudda..... Some will argue that someone having a gun in a mass shooting won't make a difference, some argue it would, some argue that it's impossible to know, and yet others argue it would just make the situation worse and not actually save any lives.
Answer me this: is there a single example of an individual with a CCW in close proximity of a mass shooting (we know they have been close to several incidents) who has been killed by a mass shooter, or actually made the situation worse?
I don't recall hearing anything in the media (who would SURELY laud it to the heavens) if there had been in order to make the case that CCW are pointless and make things worse.
The ENTIRE REASON to have a CCW is for PERSONAL protection, not to be Wyatt Earp "saving" the masses. Making the point that a CCW is no good against a suicide bomb is analogous to making that point about the WTC on 9-11...
Although gun control didn't cause it, the stigma attached to us bitter clingers by the left certainly makes it more likely. How many gun owners now do not carry concealed because they are worried about being looked at as a psycho who needs his gun to feel better about himself? How many are lulled into believing they do not need to worry about such nasty littl inconveniences as terrorism?
Their culture is such that they believe that you do not have the right to defend yourself. That is exactly what did contribute to the numbers, and the belief that you should not have the tools to do so goes hand in hand.
As to people thinking I would try to save the day with my pistol against a rifle wielding terrorist, you are short sighted. My gun is for my families protection, then mine, then anyone else I can help WHILE I am trying to save my children and my wife.
When your life is all group think and live by central planners the thought of thinking and acting as an individual and especially taking personal responsibility makes the left head for there safe places waiting for someone else to take care of them, poor babies
The only minority under assault in America is the "Individual"
That's some tall talkin' but I believe you. With a very good handgun, a good man can hit a grapefruit, every time, at 100 yards.The fact that you do not practice for such instances, does not apply to everyone else.
I for one would feel very confident in myself to place a shot in the face of anyone up to 100yds with my ccw.
Go out, get some practice in, gain some confidence and ability, then maybe you will start to realize others are just as capable. And please don't make assumptions that "we" are all like you.
This is worldwide and present in the statements by the French officials where they indeed talk about the "collective" defense and so on - there were at least a half dozen references to something along these lines in the one statement I read.