Unarmed does not equal defenseless. If you bring your wit into battle with you, the tables can easily be turned. That much more so if you have the element of surprise
Correct, but it gives the criminals an advantage, they now know which houses to avoid and which ones to takes guns to , so they can bring guns with them to rob them.
criminals have they tools of the trade and i have my own. Trust me. I can handle myself in a "situation" without a gun, and I think more Americans should be capable of this as well
Where's their families? Those are the ones who should be protecting the women and children. And our whole "American family" is sadly broken down and defunct beyond all hope of repair. And so we live in fear: in fear OF OUR OWN NEIGHBORS. And that to me is no way to live
@ sweetromance2 when people care the crime rate against women goes down 3 or 4 times. Why ? because the criminals arent stupid. They know that there is chance that they may end up eating lead.
There are plenty of unregistered guns out there...the bad guys might get a nasty surprise if they use that list to target some-one. I agree with you though.
Theres no end to the deviciveness of liberals
Thats your media at work.
I think they did it to some how shame those that have guns, but what they did in reality is to post to the criminals which houses to break into that are gun free and which ones to break into when people are away so the criminals can get more guns. Good looking out for public welfare.
your only defenseless if you think you are........in many cases offensive action is needed....& a ba
Right a baseball bat is Great if someone has a .22 .38 ,9mm,357,44, 45. You keep thinking that .
i set de trap mf'er
thought you talkin homeowners.......it's a c rapshoot with firearms....shoot the f'er ...git off/life in prison.......i'll beat the f'er & use im as fertilizer in me garden
This map publishes house *addresses* (or locations) and everything? I don't like that idea at all. Common sense should dictate if they want to talk about concentrations of guns, they should do it by zip code at the very least; not by mapping homes! o_O;
That said, I don't think criminals target people primarily ba
Note: I'm not saying any of the above with an intent to look down on anyone. I just happen to be one of the many people outside the United States who honestly do not get US gun culture.
They should get sued for doing that. But then again if a thug wants to break in a home, how do they know a visitor doesn't have his gun with him? Or some other type of weapon?
It's fúcking idiotic.
Strikes me as an illegal invasion of privacy. But it also means that the maniacs know which houses to shoot first in, before the owner can get his gun.
And that to me is why registration and those that follow the law are DUMB. If I had a weapon I wouldnt register it. the constitution clearly states " shall not be infringed" Claiming that you cannot have a weapon w/o registering is infringing upon that right.
BULL The Bill of Rights clearly states weapons are for the establishment of a "well-regulated militia", in other words something like the state's National Guard units, not a carte blanche for personal ownership
Wrong. you should re read it and it clearly states and I quote "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". Note the words RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE. THey didnt state right of the militia. dont try to interpret it. try applying it.
@ sweetromance2. thats the law of unintended consequences, something that was intended to keep the gov honest is now used as a foil against honest people.
Read your history, the whole reason of the amendment was to make sure militias (like those who fought the British during the US Revolution) could not be banned. And the words "well-regulated" were meant to say just that. It was meant to be the right of a state to raise and train a militia in case they were needed.
Correct--in the sense that there was no US as we know it at the time, the individual states were considering themselves almost as sovereign nations, and they wanted the right to have what would be essentially state armies.
@ sweet Yep. they wanted WE THE PEOPLE just as well armed as the Gov.
using chipmonks view the only ones that have freedom of speech would be the gov .
You do realize that "we the people" at that time mean us rich white guys who are in power, right? It had nothing to do with the people of the country as a whole. Those same "We the people" declared women, white males without land, blacks, and any other none whites weren't worthy of voting or other rights.
OK, thanks for playing. Your mind is closed to the fact that you could be wrong.
No, I'm often wrong, just not in this case. And even if you can justify this crap on some semantic basis, the sign of a healthy society is to grow and change according to changing times and technology.
BTW--thanks for the open-mindedness as expressed in your choice of EP name---a bit out of date and reactionary, perhaps?
ohh ad hominem attack. the last resort then you cannot substantiate your view point.
One could say that you have a furry fetish or are into *********** by your choice of names. so when you live in a glass house you shouldn't through stones.
No, just a logical observation based on the coupling of your POV with you name. It wasn't too hard.
Said the pot to the kettle
"We're both hot?"
I would become unglued.
It's nobody's business what I have in my home.
Correct. I dont care what kind of weapon you have or don't.
Its a strange world you live in that this weighs heavy on your mind.
No! That was wrong.