It’s because the libs on here have given up I guess.

There were 4 or 5 men in there who drew weapons. Several were suspicious of the guy right away.

Personally, I think this event gives both support for concealed carry and support for not to concealed carry. It was an unusual situation that’s not likely to repeat itself very often. However, that in itself lends support to give people the option to conceal carry whenever and wherever they want.

I’ve been to a few places where I felt like I would’ve preferred to have a gun. But I don’t regularly go to places where I feel that way. And I don’t wanna carry every time I go out. I ran to the store a little while ago, do I want to carry a gun with me? No, I don’t. Maybe it’s like “all the gear all the time” people versus just throw on a helmet, jeans and some boots and you’re good to go, people. Depending on the situation, I do both. I can’t imagine ever caring a gun to church however. I’m glad that Guy did however. and if I were due in New York, I would seriously consider it.

"... Come on lefties,, let's hear it.  ...'

Never will happen, even from the UL, self admited Socalist, and clones.

No way will the, 'gun banners', say something.
(even though they say they have one, proving, 'THEY', should have one. And you, Can NOT !)

"... I wonder how many would have died if dialing 911 ..."

Well of course, had that happened, the UL FDS Socalists would have said: "see see see'.
Then cried for a ban, on the modal of firearm used, then there would NEVER be such a event again, using that banned firearm.

 Who on here has said individuals should not be armed in any capacity?

 I only recall arguments against high capacity weapons.

 Also I have had no comments on certain topics I have posted so it's not like the radio silence on an issue is one-sided.

 Is it any different than me asking why nobody made a thread commenting on how Alex jones was ordered to pay legal fees?

Eegore wrote on 12/31/19 at 14:06:55:


Why should anyone have any influence on an individual's decision how they should protect their family, property, or themselves?

Best regards,

"Why should anyone have any influence on an individual's decision how they should protect their family, property, or themselves?"

 I think in the interest of public safety if someone is using compressed hydrogen cyanide, (yes this has happened in my neighborhood) as part of a home-invasion, local and Federal laws should apply so someone doesn't kill their neighbors.

 Bombs, anthrax, bear traps, shotguns tied to strings that kill First Responders, flamethrowers on cars, all things that have happened, should possibly be considered when saying people should be able to use any means necessary to defend themselves.  

 That being said, the question was Who On Here, on this forum, has said US citizens should have zero access to firearms?

Until you lefties come out in favor of people carrying, you're wrong.
Good Guys protected a congregation from a bad guy.
Period

Absolutely disproving the obvious BULLSHIT that adding guns to the equation is a bad idea.
Are people too stupid to know
That's EXACTLY what cops do?
Except, they arrive after the damage is done.

Okay, let's play
Except when they were already there..

People been killing for a while.
Only since idiots decided removing the sheep's teeth was how to protect them from wolves have we seen such indiscriminate killing.
It's time for people to wake up and realize making guns illegal isn't gonna work out in America.


See my posts above.