Gun control is being able to hit your target...

That's a great image. If only more people looked at it that way, bad guys would think twice.

Then again, there are stupid girls out there that nobody can protect because they have no desire to protect themselves. Good experiences from the past lead them to ignore threats.

That part worries me a lot.

The kenyan wants your guns.

As a reminder: http://www.a-human-right.com/introduction.html

And if you have any doubts: http://www.a-human-right.com

I'd love that on a t-shirt!

Bullet Hole? If she is smart, there are three in the x ring, and a third eye for good measure. As Peter Capstick put it, when they are comin at ya they can never be too dead.

Nice! I'd love to see the gun grabbing liberals try and explain that. I wonder if Sally owns one of those shirts? BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!

notice the night sights. that gun will do well at night. a lot of my friends and family are a bit bent out of shape that I got my CHL. I don't care though.

Ya think things are bad in America regarding "gun control"?

Check out this bit of political bullshit from the land of many of your ancestors:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0619/1224249120046.html

If you spend time on GlockTalk or some of the other firearms forums you start to think that carrying a gun is normal and going around naked is nuts. Then, back in the real world, when you realize that you are the only one among your friends and family that carries a firearm you begin to think that you are nuts..... and then the local news comes on..... and you realize the naked people are nuts.

Yea - guns really protect us ---

1 dead, 4 hurt in SoCal dental office shooting

SIMI VALLEY, Calif. – A gunman opened fire inside a busy dental office in an apparent domestic dispute Wednesday, killing one woman and critically wounding three others, police said. A fourth person was grazed by a bullet.

The suspect — wearing shorts, no shirt and with a shaved head — barricaded himself inside the Family Dental Care office, police Sgt. Karl Becker said. He surrendered after a hostage negotiator coaxed him out about an hour after the shootings.

Detectives did not release a motive or identify the suspect. But the Ventura County Star newspaper reported that a dental office worker said the gunman was married to the slain victim.

In the minutes after the attack, police evacuated more than a dozen people from the dentist's office and a chiropractic office next door, including two children who witnessed the shooting.

Carley Hodgson, an X-ray technician intern working next door, said she heard three shots in quick succession and huddled in the back room with six co-workers behind a locked door for about 30 minutes.

Shawn Peloquin, a mechanic who owns an auto repair shop behind the dentist's offices, saw people running out the back and into his driveway, including a man who had a stomach wound.

Peloquin said the injured man told him that his sister had been shot several times.

Peloquin and Becky Brown, a volunteer EMT, tried to stop the bleeding by applying pressure to the wound.

Simi Valley is about 35 miles northwest of Los Angeles.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090702/ap_on_re_us/us_simi_valley_shooting

So, "non-mentally challenged democrat" (Isn't that the classic definition of "oxymoron"?) guns are bad because some whackjob went postal. Again.

If one of the patients had been carrying and nailed this bozo, thereby saving the other three folks being wounded, you'd STILL be against guns, wouldn't you.

Your story makes me feel a little less weird about carrying when I go to the dentist.

My policy is if I'm not at home (where a loaded gun is rarely more than an arm's reach away) or at work (where the commie pinko fags at corporate in Kalifornika have made it a firing offense) I'm carrying.

I sincerely hope I can spend the rest of my life wondering if I'm paranoid, and not have to find out that I'm not.

40ish.
guns are a tool. that said they are a dangerous tool. no question.

Here is a question though. Did that gunmen in your story break any laws?

We are a country of laws. Those who break them are to be punished. There is much lamenting in our society about "big time corporate fat cats breaking laws". yes they are. they are criminals. many many of them (Rigas, fastow, skilling, ebbers, Madoff etc etc) are in jail. Gun owners who break the law go there too. or in Texas they are put to death. Thing is that be it financial malfeasance or gunning down your innocent wife, some people don't care about the law and do not have a working moral compass.

My guns do protect me. they protect me from law breakers who'd wish to do me or my family harm. They are dangerous tools. I get it. They are and always will be in the hands of bad people. putting them in the hands of good people is a great equalizer.

Patrick, thank you. You said what I was trying to say, but managed it in a logical, non-threatening way.

I tend to come off as a survivalist militia member whackjob when I get off on my Second Amendment rants.

Fawteen- and that's a bad thing? At least they know where you stand. I'd rather have you at my back than "big, bad Ahnold" and the RINOs and libs in this state.

Rob J

So a CRIMINAL (and I'll bet the suspect had priors) commits a CRIME and it's the gun's fault? Only an addle-brained moonbat thinks like this.

Oxymoron 40ish, there were two people who could have stopped that incident. 1. The perp. He could have decided not to do the crime. 2. Anyone with a CCP.
Unfortunately, in the land of fruits and nuts, its neigh on impossible to get a CCP, and then you have a maze of places that bar entry to those who do carry.
When a business places the distinct 1911 shadow with the red circle and slash on their door, it declares the premisis to be a target rich environment.
Some day, I hope that such a business has an altercation while a law biding CCP holder is present, and that the CCP holder then sues the business because he was traumatized by said perp because he could have prevented the escallation of violence had he been allowed to carry.

Reasonably happy non-mentaly challenged 40ish Democrat......

I noticed you miss-spelled "mentally"...... see above where I left it as you posted it.This is a common failing for stupid leftwing idiot`s.

It is a shame that the Constitution & Bill of Right`s pose such problems for non-challenged but reasonably happy Democrat`s such as yourself.I presume you are a citizen of Mexifornia......I suggest you head south across the border to Mexico where ownership of firearms by private citizens is prohibited, you will be quite happy even not accepted by native Mexican citizens.....of course there are a whole lot of things you will have to do without but no guns in private hand`s.....We all know how the peace loving Mexican gangs & thug`s feel about that. Good luck to you!

Here is a tiny sample of how guns DO protect us:
http://www.nrapublications.org/ac/

Of course, just as police don't fire their sidearm every time they stop a crime, 99% of the times a homeowner uses a gun to protect her family, she doesn't actually fire the weapon, so it never makes the news and the LSM sheep never hear about it.

Reasonably happy non-mentaly challenged 40ish Democrat-

You are fucking completely mentally challenged and just happen to be a 40ish ignorant liberal tool. Big surprise!

Your only rebuttle to this thread is some article about some asshole who went ape-shit and shot up an office? That's all you have? You need to do some research before you rattle off something as pathetic as that.

I'd like to see the follow-up article that tells us the important facts about this asshole and the facts in the case. How was the firearm obtained? Did he steal it? Did he trade dope for it? Did he have priors? Did he vote Democrap?

You feel-good liberals never really look into things before you rattle off your bullshit rhetoric with nothing to back it up. It's all emotional garbage. Some prick in Simi Valley goes on a rampage and your opening line is, "Yea - guns really protect us ---". WTF is that?

Can you explain the shirt for us? Can you rebut it with anything besides some lame opening sentence that's all but five words and a copy and paste of some article from another leg of the liberal LSM? I'm all ears...

If not, lemme suggest that you go sit in the corner, suck your thumb and STFU! Leave adult topics to the adults.

Fawteen - thank you. When and if I am the voice of reason though we are in a world o' hurt. You did just fine by the way.

Dudley1 - excellent as usual.

Hey Mental... Thanks for amplifying my point.
Turn on the news and there it is, good reason to carry a firearm everywhere I go. (exception for those few places prohibited by statute)

The naked people are the nutjobs.

If you can carry and choose not to, you have made the choice to rely on the mercy of evil people.

That is a stupid choice.

Most of you stand on your right to bear arm because it's in your constitution.
But could you admit that maybe (maybe !) a 18th century text could not be relevant anymore on some (just a few !) points ?
(you all know the example of slavery approved in old testament).

If you can admit that simple principle, maybe you can ask yourself if carrying a weapon was not more relevant in a less civilized society. And I don't say that the answer is yes, but here is (or could be) the debate.

I have heard that there is much debate about where guns can and can't be carried. Obviously you are breaking the law when you carry one into a school. (As state law provides), but just because a bar or restaurant owner places the sign up there, it doesn't mean you are breaking the law if you carry it anyway.

Prosper......

You are usually in over your head when it comes to rhetorical questions or debate regarding American philosophy, law or life.

If you really want to enter into the right to keep & bear arms arena, remember! standing on your tiptoes will not allow you to keep your head above water.

The right to keep & bear arms is considered most important of all of the rights given to us by our creator. Strong statement but one which has been affirmed by Supreme Court Justices , President`s & Senators at various time`s down through the years. Hubert H. Humphrey former Vice President & Senator who by political definition was very Liberal also recognized the Second Amendment to be of paramount importance as it provided to the people the means by which to keep the rest of the Bill of Rights intact.

Today some people say this right is not an individual right but one which collectively belongs to the people & lies within the National Guard. However if one reads the bill of rights it refers to the militia which by definition is all the people. Second the National Guard is a constituted military organization which if we read what our forefather`s wrote & discussed is something they did not want as a control over our civil liberties & third the National Guard was formed more then 100 years after the War for independence & recognition of our Bill of Right`s.

The right to keep & bear arms is not about hunting or target shooting which are privileges subject to controls or seasons as proscribed by the states but is about the right for protection from tyranny both domestic & foreign & not to be abridged by any legislative body.

Most American`s interpret & understand the right of freedom is only viable when people have the means to protect & defend that right.....fortunately for the most part we have have to defend that off of our shore`s elsewhere in the world. To that end , we here have supplied weapons to allies down thru the year`s who have confiscatory policies for personal weapon ownership when they were faced with threats from aggressor`s. Think America, The Arsenal Of Freedom!

Freedom is more then a word , Freedom is an God Given right which all men are entitled to .....But there are always those who challenge ones individuality & by definition their right to freedom. The first attack always comes to the means by which one can maintain or defend that freedom.....The Right to keep & bear Arms. We must always be vigilant, we must always be prepared, we must always have the ability to defend ourselves & if neccessary we must be prepared to use those arms to protect our freedom.

Prosper, you might think the Right to Keep & Bear Arms has no place in today`s society but event`s domestic even in France should give you cause to think a bit.As liberal in political orientation as most colleges are....85% of constitutional Scholars recognize the Right to Keep & Bear Arms as valid. While I like to discuss or argue this right , I suggest further reading`s of those more versed would certainly enforce what I have posted here.

Dudley1- you done hit the bullseye. Should be the end of the discussion.

Rob J

The argument that upsets me is "we have this right because 200 years ago some people thought so".
Now if you tell me that your fellow citizens (or their representatives) regularly confirm the validity of this text, that's fine by me.
"They thought so and we still validate their choice" is a lot more defensible.
(it's just that I didn't think your constitution had evolve a lot, and so I assumed it was like the Bible, you know : you take some and you throw the rest).
As for this right itself, the more people use it, the more you have to use it for yourself too. It's a chain.

Prosper - Spoken like a true liberal and a cafeteria Catholic. "you take some and you throw the rest". Our Constitution is the law of the land (even tho' many of our politicians, Dimocrats and RINOs, ignore it). If the populace wants to eliminate private gun ownership, they will have to amend the Constitution. That is a long and difficult process. And the American public, despite the horror stories constantly being presented in the LSM, does not want to eliminate the Second Amendment. Many anti-gun Dimocrat politicians have been voted out of office. Many Dimocrats realize that that is a losing issue.

Prosper......

Two hundred years, two thousand years or it just came to you in a flash of comprehension....Some truth`s never change.

As for our Constitution evolving.....this is something our forefather`s who were among the most gifted men in the cvilized world at the time pondered about before & during the process of establishing our Constitution.

It is possible to amend our Constitution , that is why we have more then the original Bill of Right`s. To do so however is difficult & requires considerable effort going thru the House,Senate with a 2/3 approval in each & a ratification process which requires a 3/4 ratification of all state legislatures. The reason is quite simple....No frivilous changes.

There have been literally thousands of proposals but only 33 ever got the neccessary 2/3 approvals of both the Senate & Congress with only 27 having been ratified including the original Bill of rights.

A second method of having 2/3 of the state legislatures requesting a Constitutional Convention is possible but has never been done.

When our Nation was established , it was the intent to creat something special , something unique which held self evident truth would be guaranteed for it`s citizen`s & protected from political intrigue or devious change. I would say it has worked well,thankfully most American`s are of a mindset not fix something which is not broke.

"If you can admit that simple principle, maybe you can ask yourself if carrying a weapon was not more relevant in a less civilized society. And I don't say that the answer is yes, but here is (or could be) the debate."

When one considers the criminal element that exists in todays society, from the cold-blooded murderers idolized by the left to deranged mental patients who for some reason are given the right to walk free among us to terrorists and their adherents committing atrocities for the sake of their warped ideology to a whole host of just plain sick and cruel subhumans, who's to say our society is any more civilized? Sure we have laws and courts and police, but their establishment, existence, refinement and employment over the years have not removed the criminal element from our midst. We might be safer than 200 years ago, but we're not entirely safe from those who prey upon law-abiding society and have no intention of following its laws. Therefore I support my right as stated in my Constitution to own and carry a firearm. And I will exercise my right to use it whenever the need arises.

If you can admit that simple principle, maybe you can ask yourself if carrying a weapon was not more relevant in a less civilized society.

I don't believe we are any more "civilized" than we were then. Currently, there is a manhunt for a serial killer in South Carolina. On any given day across the country, people violate restraining orders. Just a couple of examples. The only "amendment" I would make is that the biggest threat of all, overreaching government, will not be deterred by simple guns. We should be able to upgrade our weapons list to keep up with technical advances. ;)

Bravo PeggyU and everyone else here who has more than two brain cells to rub together :)

Damn, the lib trolls are seriously weak sauce. Did Ahrnold give you the day off?

prosper said:

"The argument that upsets me is "we have this right because 200 years ago some people thought so".
Now if you tell me that your fellow citizens (or their representatives) regularly confirm the validity of this text, that's fine by me."

Its in the constitution. The constitution can be changed and has been amended 27 times. The US is ruled by law. The constituion is the law. This is a damned simple concept. wow.

Prosper, Prosper, Prosper...

As for this right itself, the more people use it, the more you have to use it for yourself too. It's a chain.

What's the problem here? I don't see the problem with having to 'use it' myself to defend myself and/or my family. That is my liberty and my freedom. It's in The Constitution dude. You write like it's a bad thing to be able to defend yourself Prosper. Have you never taken yer boy to the range for some quality time with a rifle?

You don't know what yer missin' out on man...

It's a chain? The only chain is some ignorant gun grabber with no clue as to how it works yet tries to convince someone with the facts that the problem is in the gun, not the criminal. You have some serious corners to round Prosper. The only chain that bothers me is the chain of ignorance that you have holding you down. I know you like to accuse dudley1 of bringing up WWII when he shuts you down and that's okay. Frogs grasping at straws is pretty funny.

Hitler confiscated firearms too! That's where it starts. It's really sad that ignorance is bliss and people tend to ignore the obvious?

You'll prolly accuse me of the WWII reference too. That's okay Prosper.

Do you see the relevance yet?