It's ok if you don't own a handgun, or any gun for that matter. As long as the scum bag criminals understand that they'll never know which house is packing and which one isn't, it makes us all safer.
3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Of course, a smart criminal could just target any house with democrat political signs posted in the yard and know his chances of getting shot dead have decreased. Actually, a smart democrat could just post republican signs in his yard and decrease the chances of a home invasion by a smart and savvy criminal.
I have A democrat sign ****e on over !
0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
"a smart democrat could just post republican signs in his yard and decrease the chances of a home invasion by a smart and savvy criminal."
Who would lower them self to post a sign in the yard.
Come on in watch out for the flash!
First you'd have to find a smart democrat.
2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
I like the sign that says, "This door is locked for YOUR protection, not mine."
4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
I don't own a handgun, I own a defense weapon and few pairs of high heels, does that count? LOL
145,000? Wow and did you see that death trail of destruction that followed? LOL, oh these dumb liberals, do you think they will ever get it?
A friend has his latest used target on their front window with a note that they don't need a security system...seems to work!
"Of course, a smart criminal could just target any house with democrat political signs posted in the yard and know his chances of getting shot dead have decreased." That would be a big mistake for them. I own several hand guns, rifles, and a shotgun. I do not count the black powder stuff.
1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
notSocialist, Maybe you and Dick Cheney should go quail hunting together, I will supply the beer.
0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
I have no problem with going hunting with Dick Cheney... Ok, maybe I'll make sure to stay behind him at all times.
Who are you kidding? Ted Kennedy would have never gone driving with you. What ever else you can say about him the man had standards.
Sorry notS, you must not be a young hot chick.
Let's look at the tale of the tape. On the one hand we have... Edward Moore "Ted" Kennedy (February 22, 1932 – August 25, 2009) was the senior United States Senator from Massachusetts and a member of the Democratic Party. He was the second most senior member of the Senate when he died and was the fourth-longest-serving senator in United States history, having served there for almost 47 years. In the other corner we have nutSocialist. A man who likes to live in the past still clinging to the idea that the Democratic party is the home of racism. I also heard somewhere that he polishes golf balls for a living. Yes it is a tough choice between a man who had written many of the laws our nation lives under today and a ball polisher. R.O.T.F. L.M.A.O.
0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
I don't think all the "good" he did can make up for that death.
And I may be nutty too, but I don't think he was innocent of it. (And at the time, you probably didn't either.)
questioner, I think Edward was the least admirable of the Kennedy brothers, but nutSocialist has pulled out every stop to justify his mad dog rants. I find the very idea that someone should target a democratic household because they may not be able to defend themselves totally repugnant remark. If you are really honest about it I am sure you do too, but I do not see you posting about that. When I gave the honest example of myself, nutSocialist used some made up trash about Vice President Biden shooting through the door at an unidentified target and suggested that I might do the same. So do not try to switch this to a debate over Chappaquiddick. The question here is whether it is acceptable to encourage the criminal element to target democratic households.
0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Yeah, I normally stay out of posting on the gun questions.
I'm more of a "militia, it says militia" sort of person.
It's an area I totally break ties with the republicans on. I'm for more gun control, more checks, less certain types of weapons, bullets, etc.
I was that way before I lost a family member to a handgun--granted it was suicide, but he shouldn't have been allowed a gun either.
(Just saying that so no one tries to tell me why I should believe otherwise--isn't gonna happen on this subject.)
But, since I'm here--I'm sure you all read we're close to having death by gun wielder as the leading cause of death for young people.
0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
And any conservative who asks on other issues "what would the founding fathers have said" has to acknowledge that the founding fathers would not have been okay with where we are not with guns.
oops. now, not not.
The question here is whether it is acceptable to encourage the criminal element to target democratic households.
No one is encouraging criminals to do that. But my point (actually more of a joke) still stands. A smart criminal would know that lots of democrats think guns are evil, should just be banned, and likely don't own any. Whereas, a conservative is more likely to keep guns in the house and be well practiced in their use. So as far as I'm concerned, a liberal sign in the yard is a target for a home invasion. Lucky for liberals though, most criminals aren't necessary bright and probably don't follow politics anyways.
"Lucky for liberals though, most criminals aren't necessary bright and probably don't follow politics anyways."
That is why we can't afford to have the bleeding heart liberals empowering them even more.
You know what stands out like a sore thumb in all of this 2nd amendment rhetoric?
They are pitching the fight real hard to disarm law abiding citizens, but, do not have not one PLAN to protect us after they do so.
Not even from the criminals nor the tyranny of Government. In some levels of interpertations, it is all one in the same!
"The question here is whether it is acceptable to encourage the criminal element to target democratic households."
Maybe you need to ask your own party that question TripleD. They are the only ones working on opening the door for the criminal element to target ANY household, party affiliation or not.
"I was that way before I lost a family member to a handgun--granted it was suicide, but he shouldn't have been allowed a gun either."
questioner, I am sorry for your loss of that family member. I want you to know that straight up and I am sincere about that.
BUT, here comes the BUT, please forgive me, I don't want to hurt you, you didn't lose the family member because of the gun. If that family member was suicidal, it was the issues that contributed to suicide and that is what killed that person. If you couldn't have known or stopped the suicide, taking away the gun wouldn't have stopped that suicide. That family member would have found a way regardless.
questioner, your acting on the emotion, as much as it hurt you, the emotion is what is making you against guns. You are blaming the gun and not what caused it.
Please, just something for you to think about.
"They are pitching the fight real hard to disarm law abiding citizens, but, do not have not one PLAN to protect us after they do so." So you believe its like the Republicans trying to repeal Obamacare without anything to replace it? If only that were the case.
No one is trying to take away your guns. Once again Watchdog, you allowing right wing rhetoric to make a fool of you. The only pitch I have seen is for expanded background checks. I really do not have a problem with that and most law abiding Americans agree with me. We need to keep as many of the guns as we can out of the hands of criminals. Unfortunately the Republican Party made sure no expanded background checks were passed. Yes I know a few democrats voted against it also but the majority of votes that stopped expanded background checks came from the Republican party.
1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
161 North Lincoln , Salem, OH 44460 |