"Humans are born with the RIGHT to defend themselves.
The constitution Doesn't GIVE us that right."

 I've never said we don't have the right to defend ourselves and saying I have is what shall we call it?  Bullsh!t maybe?

 
 So who, on here, has said they want to remove every gun from all US citizens?

Eegore wrote on 01/02/20 at 21:42:09:


Eegore, for myself, I would point to abortion as an example. When it first was discussed and came out, no one dreamed we’d be where we are today. We went from a situation where very specific conditions were to be met to today where I read someone foolishly claiming we’re on the verge of eliminating Downs babies.....  Abortion, especially in poor black neighborhoods, has become birth control which is exactly what was promised would never happen.

So, do I believe more restrictive gun laws are likely to be expanded? Given how things usually go? Yes I do. Imagine this, put Beto O’ROURKE in the White House and that would become a legitimate topic of discussion. Follow it up with 20 years of left leaning judges and bingo, there you go. Turn in your weapons or face a fine. Don’t pay the fine, say hello to your new 10x10 and your roommate.

"So, do I believe more restrictive gun laws are likely to be expanded? Given how things usually go? Yes I do. Imagine this, put Beto O’ROURKE in the White House and that would become a legitimate topic of discussion. Follow it up with 20 years of left leaning judges and bingo, there you go. Turn in your weapons or face a fine. Don’t pay the fine, say hello to your new 10x10 and your roommate."

 I understand the potential risk, and agree.  I bring up constantly that I helped lead the official recall of political leaders in CO for enacting gun laws against the wishes of their constituency.  This did more than any amount of typing on a forum will ever do.

 My question is Who on here has said people should not be armed, or be able to defend themselves?  Who is this thread being directed at?

 Because it looks to me that everyone agrees that what happened in TX  is just fine, but an artificial argument is being made against ideals that have never been proposed.  Its obvious that instead of identifying the actual argument its easier to say "bullshit" over and over.

 MnSpring indicates members here have said no US citizen should ever be armed but I am having trouble finding that information.

 My understanding is that people on this forum do agree that law abiding US citizens should be allowed to carry, and defend themselves.

 I am not aware of anyone that has stated otherwise.

"Not the take away I got.
I've seen lots of
Ban that gun...
Take guns away.
Red flag support"

 
 So my interpretation is this thread is asking why nobody commented on the TX event, which is one where law abiding citizens, who were church security, utilized personally owned firearms to stop an active shooter in a location where firearms carry was allowed by the private owners of that property.

 None of those law abiding private citizens used a high-capacity semi automatic weapon in rapid succession, so why would a "ban that gun" person protest this outcome?

 I've not heard anyone say "Take guns away" meaning in the way you put it, every US citizen has every gun taken away.  Who has said that?

 There is a middle ground, and using an situation like the one in TX, where everyone agrees what happened is good, does nothing.  

 
 

 So am I wrong regarding the following?

  My interpretation is this thread is asking why nobody commented on the TX event, which is one where law abiding citizens, who were church security, utilized personally owned firearms to stop an active shooter in a location where firearms carry was allowed by the private owners of that property.

 What am I missing?

There is not only nothing wrong with citizens having military grade weapons, there is nothing unconstitutional about it.
WTF is a 30-06?
You want to stop crazies from killing indiscriminately?
Allow the people to be armed.
Stop trying to make it WRONG for the average person to be able to at least shoot back.
Okay, I know, I said Joe blow needs a rocket launcher and a tank...

Not..
Though, I personally don't have a problem with that..
Pretty sure by the time they got done with that bg check, he'd be well vetted..

"There is not only nothing wrong with citizens having military grade weapons, there is nothing unconstitutional about it.
WTF is a 30-06?
You want to stop crazies from killing indiscriminately?
Allow the people to be armed.
Stop trying to make it WRONG for the average person to be able to at least shoot back.
Okay, I know, I said Joe blow needs a rocket launcher and a tank...

Not..
Though, I personally don't have a problem with that..
Pretty sure by the time they got done with that bg check, he'd be well vetted.. "


 Maybe you misunderstand my question.  You are asking people here, on this forum, why they are not commenting on the TX event, is this correct?

 My interpretation is this thread is asking why nobody, on this specific forum, commented on the TX event, which is one where law abiding citizens, who were church security, utilized personally owned firearms to stop an active shooter in a location where firearms carry was allowed by the private owners of that property.

 Is this correct?