Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 12/27/2001 11:36:42 AM EDT
Has anyone ever sued their state after they were attacked? Lets say that Joe shmoe lives in some commie state where he can't carry a gun. And one day he is beaten up and robbed. Why couldn't he sue the state he lived in for not allowing him to defend himself. Maybe this has already been done but it would be interesting.
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 11:41:03 AM EDT
No - I believe the "victim" is negligent for remaining in said communist state.
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 11:42:12 AM EDT
Similiar along those lines was a law suit a few years ago against a local police dept after someone was attacked and/or robbed. The US Supreme Court ruled that the police have NO obligation to prevent crime or words to that effect. IOW, the local police depts are immune to any law suit about them not preventing crime. States would fall into that same catagory as far as legal entities go, IMO.
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 11:47:31 AM EDT
What state has made it illegal to defend one's self???? Why do you need a gun to defend yourself? I know that I am never "defenseless" armed or not.
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 11:52:34 AM EDT
I know, everyones a badass on the internet.
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 11:56:39 AM EDT
Originally Posted By flapjack: I know, everyones a badass on the internet.
View Quote
ROTFLMAO!!!! I don't normally do this so early in the contest but, I believe we have a winner!
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 12:00:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 1GUNRUNNER:
Originally Posted By flapjack: I know, everyones a badass on the internet.
View Quote
ROTFLMAO!!!! I don't normally do this so early in the contest but, I believe we have a winner!
View Quote
Well invite him out and give him a trophy. Of course if he sees his shadow he might think it is about to attack him and have to shoot it, and change his diaper, after all it was following him for some time............
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 12:05:28 PM EDT
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: What state has made it illegal to defend one's self???? Why do you need a gun to defend yourself? I know that I am never "defenseless" armed or not.
View Quote
Pretty much any state that doesn't have some type of provisions for carrying a firearm has denied a basic right to self defense, in my opinion anyways. While true that you may never be completely "defenseless", even without a firearm, should you have a run in with someone who is armed and even moderately proficient with yourself being completely unarmed, I would say you are definately [b]defense handicapped[/b]. Like my pappy always said, "Never bring a knife to a gun fight".
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 12:06:19 PM EDT
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: What state has made it illegal to defend one's self???? Why do you need a gun to defend yourself? I know that I am never "defenseless" armed or not.
View Quote
Man, is that ever a stupid thing to say... good for you tough guy. Did you have to register those fists of fury with the government? How about a 5' tall 90 pound woman? How about an 80 year old grandmother? Jackass.
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 12:06:50 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 12:09:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/27/2001 12:15:28 PM EDT by OLY-M4gery]
Originally Posted By Ponyboy:
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: What state has made it illegal to defend one's self???? Why do you need a gun to defend yourself? I know that I am never "defenseless" armed or not.
View Quote
Pretty much any state that doesn't have some type of provisions for carrying a firearm has denied a basic right to self defense, in my opinion anyways. While true that you may never be completely "defenseless", even without a firearm, should you have a run in with someone who is armed and even moderately proficient with yourself being completely unarmed, I would say you are definately [b]defense handicapped[/b]. Like my pappy always said, "Never bring a knife to a gun fight".
View Quote
And if you are carrying, and just about to put the key in the car door, and someone pops up behind you gun already out, aren't you just as defenseless?? More important then what weapons you have is mindset, and awareness. And on a side note, you wonder where the "nanny state" comes from? This is exaclty the socialist, I ain't responsible BS mentality that is responsible for it. How is the state responsible for the acts of a miscreant tell me tell me please! I really want to know. I don't want the nannny state, everytime something bad happens to you it is not societies fault. Where would it end? Should you sue the state when you are involved in a traffic crash because it was on a state road. What if a pigeon poops on your car?? Should the state be responsible for the clean up cost??? After all they could have put up giant pigeon proof nets. I bet if anyone of us here got hit with a BS lawsuit we would be incensed, this is BS.
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 12:14:36 PM EDT
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: And if you are carrying, and just about to put the key in the car door, and someone pops up behind you gun already out, aren't you just as defenseless?? More important then what weapons you have is mindset, and awareness.
View Quote
Definately not. I have a much better chance of defending myself when carrying a firearm than when not. If you feel comfortable being armed with your mindset and awareness, then that is great for you. I'll take comfort in a Glock on my hip.
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 12:18:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/27/2001 12:19:09 PM EDT by zoom]
Has anyone ever sued their state after they were attacked?
View Quote
No, but I'm considering it. I was illegally denied a CCW by the state of South Carolina. I've been mugged three times in the past 13 months. If I get mugged again and get hurt, then I think I might have a case. Probably not, but I do have a lawyer that has volunteered to take that on contingency (meaning, it wouldn't cost me anything out of pocket).z
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 12:21:03 PM EDT
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: And on a side note, you wonder where the "nanny state" comes from? This is exaclty the socialist, I ain't responsible BS mentality that is responsible for it. How is the state responsible for the acts of a miscreant tell me tell me please! I really want to know. I don't want the nannny state, everytime something bad happens to you it is not societies fault.
View Quote
No, I [b]want[/b] to be responsible for my own safety. I don't want to have to rely on the state/police to protect me. Fortunately, I live in a state where I can legally carry a firearm and I have the ability to offer myself better protection. If I lived in California, for example, where I would not be allowed to legally carry, I would believe that the state would be responsible for my not being allowed to properly defend myself. This has nothing to do with the state being responsible for someone attacking me. It has everything to do with the state not allowing me ample means to defend myself from many kinds of attack.
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 12:21:44 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 12:22:28 PM EDT
OLY-M4gery Yout would sue to get your right to bear arms back. Not money. And if you think it is socialist to try to get the right to Concealed carry law. Then I think your wires are crossed.
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 12:25:22 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 12:25:24 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Ponyboy: No, I [b]want[/b] to be responsible for my own safety. I don't want to have to rely on the state/police to protect me. Fortunately, I live in a state where I can legally carry a firearm and I have the ability to offer myself better protection. If I lived in California, for example, where I would not be allowed to legally carry, I would believe that the state would be responsible for my not being allowed to properly defend myself. This has nothing to do with the state being responsible for someone attacking me. It has everything to do with the state not allowing me ample means to defend myself from many kinds of attack.
View Quote
Even if I follow that arguement, the person that caused you the harm should be made responsible for "repairing" the harm. I'm sorry but this is the mindset that I see as reponsible for giving the "nanny state" power. Because I know the "nanny state" answer to that challenge would be to try to ban firearms, or make them more difficult to get. The Caliban are working from this mindset, and it annoys me.
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 12:29:12 PM EDT
I believe the second amendment has something to say about it.
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 12:39:58 PM EDT
Originally Posted By flapjack: OLY-M4gery Yout would sue to get your right to bear arms back. Not money. And if you think it is socialist to try to get the right to Concealed carry law. Then I think your wires are crossed.
View Quote
No I don't think the RKBA, even CCW is socialist, or reasonable attempt to legally obtain it. But I think making the "State" somehow responsible for your safety is socialist. We have a victim fund in WI, if you are injured in a serious crime you can get money from the fund. The funds are generated from traffic citations. I think it is a good idea generally. Of course the Gov't is involved......... One person I know, got involved in a bar fight, as a result he got a skull fracture. When his vitim money came through it was deposited on his acoount in the WI prison system. You see he had killed a person in a drunk driving crash before that and was awaiting sentencing on that when he DECIDED to get in a DRUNKEN BRAWL. He wouldn't have recieved a skull fracture if he hadn't gotten into a fight, he chose to, in fact he was trying to ambush some of the people who were trying to flee the bar........ My point is the "nanny state" no matter how noble always goofs up. The sue cause I can't carry concealed, is just basically saying the "state" wasn't acting "nanny state" enough. I have also learned that about 75% of our victims know there assailants. We repeatedly see the same people over and over again. This week there a victim 2 weeks from now there the suspect and in between the were a witness. I think we actually have fewer crimes and criminals now then 10 or 20 years ago. But there are a few "super criminals" that care nothing about anyone else and will kill you for $.05 in a heart beat. I'd pay higher taxes to keep them locked up longer. Of course the "nanny state" would also care that they have their Rights protected in prison........ sorry i'm rambling, but I have several points in there.
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 12:40:48 PM EDT
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:
Originally Posted By Ponyboy: No, I [b]want[/b] to be responsible for my own safety. I don't want to have to rely on the state/police to protect me. Fortunately, I live in a state where I can legally carry a firearm and I have the ability to offer myself better protection. If I lived in California, for example, where I would not be allowed to legally carry, I would believe that the state would be responsible for my not being allowed to properly defend myself. This has nothing to do with the state being responsible for someone attacking me. It has everything to do with the state not allowing me ample means to defend myself from many kinds of attack.
View Quote
Even if I follow that arguement, the person that caused you the harm should be made responsible for "repairing" the harm. I'm sorry but this is the mindset that I see as reponsible for giving the "nanny state" power. Because I know the "nanny state" answer to that challenge would be to try to ban firearms, or make them more difficult to get. The Caliban are working from this mindset, and it annoys me.
View Quote
I'm not talking about someone "repairing" anything. I [b]do not want[/b] someone to be responsible for "repairing" a bullet hole in my head, or a stab wound in my belly. I want to be responsible for my own safety so that there is no "repairing" that needs to take place. Look at it this way. What if a state government made the use of seatbelts illegal? They were still installed in every car, but it was illegal to put it on. Wouldn't you think the state would have to accept a little responsibility for people that were injured in automobile accidents where the use of a seatbelt would have prevented the injury? Now change it around and put firearms in place of seatbelts and muggings in place of accidents. Now do you catch what I'm throwin?
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 12:45:09 PM EDT
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:
Originally Posted By flapjack: OLY-M4gery Yout would sue to get your right to bear arms back. Not money. And if you think it is socialist to try to get the right to Concealed carry law. Then I think your wires are crossed.
View Quote
No I don't think the RKBA, even CCW is socialist, or reasonable attempt to legally obtain it. But I think making the "State" somehow responsible for your safety is socialist. We have a victim fund in WI, if you are injured in a serious crime you can get money from the fund. The funds are generated from traffic citations. I think it is a good idea generally. Of course the Gov't is involved......... One person I know, got involved in a bar fight, as a result he got a skull fracture. When his vitim money came through it was deposited on his acoount in the WI prison system. You see he had killed a person in a drunk driving crash before that and was awaiting sentencing on that when he DECIDED to get in a DRUNKEN BRAWL. He wouldn't have recieved a skull fracture if he hadn't gotten into a fight, he chose to, in fact he was trying to ambush some of the people who were trying to flee the bar........ My point is the "nanny state" no matter how noble always goofs up. The sue cause I can't carry concealed, is just basically saying the "state" wasn't acting "nanny state" enough. I have also learned that about 75% of our victims know there assailants. We repeatedly see the same people over and over again. This week there a victim 2 weeks from now there the suspect and in between the were a witness. I think we actually have fewer crimes and criminals now then 10 or 20 years ago. But there are a few "super criminals" that care nothing about anyone else and will kill you for $.05 in a heart beat. I'd pay higher taxes to keep them locked up longer. Of course the "nanny state" would also care that they have their Rights protected in prison........ sorry i'm rambling, but I have several points in there.
View Quote
Dude, you are looking at this from the complete opposite direction that I am. I'm saying the "nanny state" has already over stepped its bounds by restrictin the ability to carry a weapon. In that sense, it is taking upon itself the duty to protect it's citizens, which as we all know, it does a very poor job of. Besides, it is not the duty of the state to protect anyone in the first place, that is the responsibility of each individual and the state is restricting that ability by not allowing the bearing of arms.
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 12:49:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/27/2001 12:55:04 PM EDT by OLY-M4gery]
Originally Posted By Ponyboy: I'm not talking about someone "repairing" anything. I [b]do not want[/b] someone to be responsible for "repairing" a bullet hole in my head, or a stab wound in my belly. I want to be responsible for my own safety so that there is no "repairing" that needs to take place. Look at it this way. What if a state government made the use of seatbelts illegal? They were still installed in every car, but it was illegal to put it on. Wouldn't you think the state would have to accept a little responsibility for people that were injured in automobile accidents where the use of a seatbelt would have prevented the injury? Now change it around and put firearms in place of seatbelts and muggings in place of accidents. Now do you catch what I'm throwin?
View Quote
Oh, your throwing stuff Ok [;)] And when we mandate seat belt usage everyone would voluntarly comply with the law........... Also I would point out if following your seatbelt law....... If you were driving drunk and ran off the road, would the lack of a seatbelt be responsible for the injuries or your own behvior? What if you were injured in a 2 car crash, in which the other driver blew through a stop sign? Would the injuries be the States fault for not letting you wear a seatbelt or the other driver's fault?? I saw a thing a women was suing a car company saying her SUV's roof wasn't strong enough to withstand a roll over crash. She had been drving 75 mph on wet hilly interstate and rolled the truck, and was paralyzed. She said it was the SUV roof's fault for not being strong enough. Why do we have to expend so much energy protecting people from themselves??
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 12:50:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/27/2001 12:53:20 PM EDT by Maynard]
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 12:53:25 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Ponyboy: Dude, you are looking at this from the complete opposite direction that I am. I'm saying the "nanny state" has already over stepped its bounds by restrictin the ability to carry a weapon. In that sense, it is taking upon itself the duty to protect it's citizens, which as we all know, it does a very poor job of. Besides, it is not the duty of the state to protect anyone in the first place, that is the responsibility of each individual and the state is restricting that ability by not allowing the bearing of arms.
View Quote
I agree to that, but I don't agree that a firearm is intregral to self defense. I get your point I just have gotten tired of the "sue 'em when they move and if they stop moving, sue'em for not moving" stuff.
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 1:05:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: Oh, your throwing stuff Ok [;)] And when we mandate seat belt usage everyone would voluntarly comply with the law........... Also I would point out if following your seatbelt law....... If you were driving drunk and ran off the road, would the lack of a seatbelt be responsible for the injuries or your own behvior? What if you were injured in a 2 car crash, in which the other driver blew through a stop sign? Would the injuries be the States fault for not letting you wear a seatbelt or the other driver's fault??
View Quote
I would have to say, in both cases the injuries sustained would be the states fault, while the damages to the car would be the respective persons fault. The way I see it, if I have a legitimate way to protect myself, be it by carrying a weapon or wearing my seatbelt or brushing my teeth, if the state makes whatever it is illegal it should take full responsibility for any damages incurred do to the device-END Of Object Attempt-
/whatever not being used.
I saw a thing a women was suing a car company saying her SUV's roof wasn't strong enough to withstand a roll over crash. She had been drving 75 mph on wet hilly interstate and rolled the truck, and was paralyzed. She said it was the SUV roof's fault for not being strong enough.
View Quote
This really has nothing to do with the state/weapon discussion. This is a case of blaming someone for something that wasn't their fault. It is rediculous to think that a car manufacturer can build a car to protect you against every type of accident. However, if you would like to relate it to the state/handgun discussion, if the state were the car manufacturer then you could not get [b]any[/b] roof on the automobile and your car would be impounded if you improvised one yourself.
Why do we have to expend so much energy protecting people from themselves??
View Quote
We shouldn't have to. Everyone should be responsible for their own safety. Hence, everyone should be allowed to carry the weapon of their choice in order to defend themselves.
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 1:10:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/27/2001 1:13:44 PM EDT by OLY-M4gery]
Originally Posted By Maynard:
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: My point is the "nanny state" no matter how noble always goofs up. The sue cause I can't carry concealed, is just basically saying the "state" wasn't acting "nanny state" enough.
View Quote
I don't understand your point here. I want to carry legally so I have the ability to defend myself and my family as well as possible from any attack. My State currently prohibits me from carrying at the risk of a possible felony and the permanent loss of my legal gun ownership rights. The State has said ,in not so many words contrary to our State Constitution, that I do not have a right to defend myself with a firearm if I leave my humble abode. Edit for clarity Do you advocate that I carry illegally?
View Quote
No do not violate the law My point is the "nanny state" mindset repsonse would be 1) all guns are bad, they should all be banned, then no one will have them protect yourself with your "crime whistle". 2) If you want to be protected we should assign a cop to you 24 hrs a day?? You were speeding twice on the way to work.......
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 1:11:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/27/2001 1:21:01 PM EDT by the_survivalist]
i feel that it is the time for lawsuits to be braught against the imperial states. they have denied the right to keep and bear armes, anywhare but in the home, yet they can't (or won't) protect the citizens in public. so by disarming them they should be able to guarantee the safety of the citizenry, right? whong they cant and wont so, what this means is they must allow the citizenry to defend themselves with whatever means possable, or they violate the rights of those citizens by preventing them from doing what the gov't cant do. that the individual has a right to defend themselves, OR BE DEFENDED BY THE STATE, is undisputed. what is happening is that very basic right is being violated by the state that refuses to allow them to do what the state cant. its no win for the citizenry, untill someone is affected and sues, and wins. the pretext shouldnt be that the state is responsable for the safety of the people, but that the state has denied that ability to the very people that they have deemed solely responsable for there safety. the(itsreallyquiteelementary)_survivalist
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 1:12:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: I agree to that, but I don't agree that a firearm is intregral to self defense. I get your point I just have gotten tired of the "sue 'em when they move and if they stop moving, sue'em for not moving" stuff.
View Quote
I think it's kind of shitty to have to sue everybody constantly as well, but in our society it is really the only way to get anything done anymore. Nobody really cares whether you get hurt or not using their product, they do all of the researching and testing so they won't get sued. McDonalds doesn't put a "Warning- HOT Coffee" label on their cups so you won't burn yourself, they do it because not doing it already came back and bit them in the ass once and it cost them some money. In many cases, the money isn't really the object of the suit, it is only a means of getting something changed. And in todays world of multi-billion dollar companies the claims must be gigantic to make them even notice. Many people will tell you the biggest business in the US is the insurance industry, but in reality it is government. And just like any other business the only way to get the governments attention focused on its shortcommings is $$$. That is why I agree with suing the state over stuff like this.
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 1:13:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/27/2001 1:15:14 PM EDT by OLY-M4gery]
Originally Posted By Ponyboy: Why do we have to expend so much energy protecting people from themselves?? We shouldn't have to. Everyone should be responsible for their own safety. Hence, everyone should be allowed to carry the weapon of their choice in order to defend themselves.
View Quote
Well if everyone is carrying pistols, I can't be safe, what if 2 guys with pistols attack me?? I need a fully automatic pistol. Wait if someone attacks me and they have a machine pistol, I would need a sub-machine gun..........
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 1:15:17 PM EDT
BTW there is an effort to make the states and other organizations responsable for there actions (or lack therof) here. [url]www.assaultweb.net/ubb/Forum1/HTML/218381-2.html[/url] its embryonic but growing, and we need yore help. the(joinmeinthebattleforfreedom)_survivalist sorry, i had to do it a little.
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 1:24:06 PM EDT
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: I agree to that, but I don't agree that a firearm is intregral to self defense.
View Quote
I would say a firearm is integral to self defense if the person you are facing is armed with a knife/firearm or any other weapon. A calm head and good looks can only get you so far. I'm not a little guy and I've been in my fair share of fights over the years. If somebody disagrees with me and tries to get me to take it outside I'm not the kind of guy to back down, but.....if somebody pulls a knife on me I'm gonna shoot em. I've seen knives pulled out in fist fights and in the real world without specific/intense training I can attest that the guy with the knife is gonna win. I held a friend of mine in my arms one night as he almost bled to death after getting cut around the side of his neck and about halfway down his back right outside of a local bar. I've had guns pulled on me and pointed in my face for no reason (mistaken identity), I've had knives pulled on me and about a billion other things, many of which I had absolutely nothing to do with other than being the near victim. Nowdays, you'll rarely find me without a firearm of some kind. I want to make it home everyday just like everybody else, and a firearm is just another little insurance policy to make sure that happens.
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 1:27:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:
Originally Posted By Ponyboy: Why do we have to expend so much energy protecting people from themselves?? We shouldn't have to. Everyone should be responsible for their own safety. Hence, everyone should be allowed to carry the weapon of their choice in order to defend themselves.
View Quote
Well if everyone is carrying pistols, I can't be safe, what if 2 guys with pistols attack me?? I need a fully automatic pistol. Wait if someone attacks me and they have a machine pistol, I would need a sub-machine gun..........
View Quote
So you are saying you would be safer without a handgun? If two guys attack you what makes you think they would comply with a ban on the carrying of weapons? If everyone is safer without a weapon then why do all of the police carry them? With all of the laws in California then shouldn't even need guns in their squad cars. The arguement you are using here has been used by the antis for years.
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 1:36:19 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Ponyboy:
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:
Originally Posted By Ponyboy: Why do we have to expend so much energy protecting people from themselves?? We shouldn't have to. Everyone should be responsible for their own safety. Hence, everyone should be allowed to carry the weapon of their choice in order to defend themselves.
View Quote
Well if everyone is carrying pistols, I can't be safe, what if 2 guys with pistols attack me?? I need a fully automatic pistol. Wait if someone attacks me and they have a machine pistol, I would need a sub-machine gun..........
View Quote
So you are saying you would be safer without a handgun? If two guys attack you what makes you think they would comply with a ban on the carrying of weapons? If everyone is safer without a weapon then why do all of the police carry them? With all of the laws in California then shouldn't even need guns in their squad cars. The arguement you are using here has been used by the antis for years.
View Quote
The arguement is a ludicrous for firearms as it is against it, that is my point. To the anti's you can never be sure that every on will be "disarmed". To the people that "need" a gun they will never be satisfied that whatever their gun is is powerful enough or holds enough ammo................ What if I'm attacked by a cougar, a jaguar, and a boy scout troop all at the same time, in my garage........... I need hi-caps and explosive bullets...... no seriously it could happen.
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 1:38:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By the_survivalist: i feel that it is the time for lawsuits to be braught against the imperial states. they have denied the right to keep and bear armes, anywhare but in the home, yet they can't (or won't) protect the citizens in public. so by disarming them they should be able to guarantee the safety of the citizenry, right? whong they cant and wont so, what this means is they must allow the citizenry to defend themselves with whatever means possable, or they violate the rights of those citizens by preventing them from doing what the gov't cant do. that the individual has a right to defend themselves, OR BE DEFENDED BY THE STATE, is undisputed. what is happening is that very basic right is being violated by the state that refuses to allow them to do what the state cant. its no win for the citizenry, untill someone is affected and sues, and wins. the pretext shouldnt be that the state is responsable for the safety of the people, but that the state has denied that ability to the very people that they have deemed solely responsable for there safety. the(itsreallyquiteelementary)_survivalist
View Quote
If you feel that way about it, why not start by suing some police departments for that "PROTECT AND SERVE" false advertising. It'd look kinda funny just being"SERVE".
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 1:58:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By rabbit: If you feel that way about it, why not start by suing some police departments for that "PROTECT AND SERVE" false advertising. It'd look kinda funny just being"SERVE".
View Quote
it would wouldn't it.but it about sums it up for what the gov't says about there responsabilities..
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 2:20:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Ponyboy:
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: I agree to that, but I don't agree that a firearm is intregral to self defense.
View Quote
I would say a firearm is integral to self defense if the person you are facing is armed with a knife/firearm or any other weapon. A calm head and good looks can only get you so far. I'm not a little guy and I've been in my fair share of fights over the years. If somebody disagrees with me and tries to get me to take it outside I'm not the kind of guy to back down, but.....if somebody pulls a knife on me I'm gonna shoot em.
View Quote
Thanx for clearing that up I forgot to mention if you decide to get in a bar brawl and someone pulls a knife...... Of course most states have laws prohibiting CCW holder from carrying in bars, or while intoxicated. Why not try to avoid drunken brawls........
I've seen knives pulled out in fist fights and in the real world without specific/intense training I can attest that the guy with the knife is gonna win. I held a friend of mine in my arms one night as he almost bled to death after getting cut around the side of his neck and about halfway down his back right outside of a local bar.
View Quote
I'm sorry your friend was injured. But see my point above, if it applies......... when you play with fire expect to get burned.
I've had guns pulled on me and pointed in my face for no reason (mistaken identity), I've had knives pulled on me and about a billion other things, many of which I had absolutely nothing to do with other than being the near victim. Nowdays, you'll rarely find me without a firearm of some kind. I want to make it home everyday just like everybody else, and a firearm is just another little insurance policy to make sure that happens.
View Quote
If all the stuff happens to you, you might want to aks why.
Top Top