T Nation

Boston Lockdown and Being Un-Armed

I can’t imagine being without a way to defend myself in Boston with the order of a city lockdown WHILE a terrorist is running away from SWAT teams like a RAT.

Can you imagine hearing a window breaking IN YOUR HOME DURING THIS TIME?

Can you imagine LETTING whiny liberals just take away your lawful rights and succeeding in outlawing YOUR ability to defend yourself then suddenly YOUR CITY IS UNDER SIEGE?

It CAN’T happen can it?

DON’T LET THE RACHEL MADDOWS & AL SHARPTONS TELL YOU WHAT YOU CAN HAVE.

There is a law on your side to allow you to defend yourself from terrorists and from dictators that wish YOU WERE UNARMED.

DON’T LET MOB MENTALITY DESTROY YOUR RIGHT TO DEFEND YOURSELF WITH LITTLE MORE THAN A COUPLE OF SHOTGUN SHELLS OR SIX OR SEVEN ROUNDS WHEN THOSE THAT WISH TO TAKE YOURS AWAY HAVE PLENTY OF GOVERNMENT PROTECTION.

But, but who needs assault rifles?

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
But, but who needs assault rifles?[/quote]

What’s an assault rifle? Assault is a behavior and any weapon used in an assault is a weapon of assault. I would enjoy owning one.

Because a gun would stop a bomb. Soldiers have guns…big guns. They have armored vehicles. Yet, how many died or were crippled from IEDs?

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
http://reason.com/archives/2011/12/16/get-a-medical-marijuana-card-lose-your-s[/quote]

This has nothing to do with anything.
For the record, I’d be more trusting of a pot head with a gun than a drunk.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
http://reason.com/archives/2011/12/16/get-a-medical-marijuana-card-lose-your-s[/quote]

This has nothing to do with anything.
For the record, I’d be more trusting of a pot head with a gun than a drunk.[/quote]

We agree , it is gun control all the same

[quote]conservativedog wrote:
I can’t imagine being without a way to defend myself in Boston with the order of a city lockdown WHILE a terrorist is running away from SWAT teams like a RAT.

Can you imagine hearing a window breaking IN YOUR HOME DURING THIS TIME?

Can you imagine LETTING whiny liberals just take away your lawful rights and succeeding in outlawing YOUR ability to defend yourself then suddenly YOUR CITY IS UNDER SIEGE?

It CAN’T happen can it?

DON’T LET THE RACHEL MADDOWS & AL SHARPTONS TELL YOU WHAT YOU CAN HAVE.

There is a law on your side to allow you to defend yourself from terrorists and from dictators that wish YOU WERE UNARMED.

DON’T LET MOB MENTALITY DESTROY YOUR RIGHT TO DEFEND YOURSELF WITH LITTLE MORE THAN A COUPLE OF SHOTGUN SHELLS OR SIX OR SEVEN ROUNDS WHEN THOSE THAT WISH TO TAKE YOURS AWAY HAVE PLENTY OF GOVERNMENT PROTECTION.[/quote]

If lived there, I would certainly be locked and loaded. Sucks most citizens there cannot defend themselves from a well armed crazy.
We could do without the caps, we get it.

The world has gone mad.

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Because a gun would stop a bomb. Soldiers have guns…big guns. They have armored vehicles. Yet, how many died or were crippled from IEDs? [/quote]

It’d stop a man with a bomb.

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Because a gun would stop a bomb. Soldiers have guns…big guns. They have armored vehicles. Yet, how many died or were crippled from IEDs? [/quote]

Amazing!!

Soldiers, don’t need guns… Notify congress we can same billions by not arming our army.

Guns do stop lots of bombs. It even sounds like the guy they killed today was strapped with explosives, but got killed (by guns) before setting them off.

Seat belts don’t stop car accidents, so lets just get rid of them.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]conservativedog wrote:
I can’t imagine being without a way to defend myself in Boston with the order of a city lockdown WHILE a terrorist is running away from SWAT teams like a RAT.

Can you imagine hearing a window breaking IN YOUR HOME DURING THIS TIME?

Can you imagine LETTING whiny liberals just take away your lawful rights and succeeding in outlawing YOUR ability to defend yourself then suddenly YOUR CITY IS UNDER SIEGE?

It CAN’T happen can it?

DON’T LET THE RACHEL MADDOWS & AL SHARPTONS TELL YOU WHAT YOU CAN HAVE.

There is a law on your side to allow you to defend yourself from terrorists and from dictators that wish YOU WERE UNARMED.

DON’T LET MOB MENTALITY DESTROY YOUR RIGHT TO DEFEND YOURSELF WITH LITTLE MORE THAN A COUPLE OF SHOTGUN SHELLS OR SIX OR SEVEN ROUNDS WHEN THOSE THAT WISH TO TAKE YOURS AWAY HAVE PLENTY OF GOVERNMENT PROTECTION.[/quote]

If lived there, I would certainly be locked and loaded. Sucks most citizens there cannot defend themselves from a well armed crazy.
We could do without the caps, we get it.

The world has gone mad.[/quote]
How do you know MOST citizens there cannot defend themselves? Even armed citizens would have trouble dealing with a well armed crazy.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Because a gun would stop a bomb. Soldiers have guns…big guns. They have armored vehicles. Yet, how many died or were crippled from IEDs? [/quote]

Amazing!!

Soldiers, don’t need guns… Notify congress we can same billions by not arming our army.

Guns do stop lots of bombs. It even sounds like the guy they killed today was strapped with explosives, but got killed (by guns) before setting them off.

Seat belts don’t stop car accidents, so lets just get rid of them.[/quote]
Amazing how you got all of that from my post. I’m simply pointing out that the notion that a gun is the answer is wrong. It is who is holding the gun that matters. A gun is not some magic device that offers guaranteed protection from all threats. There were cops at the marathon yet those armed citizens were unable to stop the bombs.

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]conservativedog wrote:
I can’t imagine being without a way to defend myself in Boston with the order of a city lockdown WHILE a terrorist is running away from SWAT teams like a RAT.

Can you imagine hearing a window breaking IN YOUR HOME DURING THIS TIME?

Can you imagine LETTING whiny liberals just take away your lawful rights and succeeding in outlawing YOUR ability to defend yourself then suddenly YOUR CITY IS UNDER SIEGE?

It CAN’T happen can it?

DON’T LET THE RACHEL MADDOWS & AL SHARPTONS TELL YOU WHAT YOU CAN HAVE.

There is a law on your side to allow you to defend yourself from terrorists and from dictators that wish YOU WERE UNARMED.

DON’T LET MOB MENTALITY DESTROY YOUR RIGHT TO DEFEND YOURSELF WITH LITTLE MORE THAN A COUPLE OF SHOTGUN SHELLS OR SIX OR SEVEN ROUNDS WHEN THOSE THAT WISH TO TAKE YOURS AWAY HAVE PLENTY OF GOVERNMENT PROTECTION.[/quote]

If lived there, I would certainly be locked and loaded. Sucks most citizens there cannot defend themselves from a well armed crazy.
We could do without the caps, we get it.

The world has gone mad.[/quote]
How do you know MOST citizens there cannot defend themselves? Even armed citizens would have trouble dealing with a well armed crazy. [/quote]

Well, I know the gun laws there are really restrictive, I don’t know if people are actually armed or not. I do know, despite the fact that dealing with said well armed crazy would still be difficult, I like my chances better with a gun than without.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Because a gun would stop a bomb. Soldiers have guns…big guns. They have armored vehicles. Yet, how many died or were crippled from IEDs? [/quote]

It’d stop a man with a bomb.[/quote]
No, it COULD.

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Because a gun would stop a bomb. Soldiers have guns…big guns. They have armored vehicles. Yet, how many died or were crippled from IEDs? [/quote]

It’d stop a man with a bomb.[/quote]
No, it COULD. [/quote]

Like I said, I like my chances better armed. There are never guarantees.

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
There were cops at the marathon yet those armed citizens were unable to stop the bombs. [/quote]

These cats are so incompetent that they will just shoot any suspect and declare the case closed.

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Because a gun would stop a bomb. Soldiers have guns…big guns. They have armored vehicles. Yet, how many died or were crippled from IEDs? [/quote]

Amazing!!

Soldiers, don’t need guns… Notify congress we can same billions by not arming our army.

Guns do stop lots of bombs. It even sounds like the guy they killed today was strapped with explosives, but got killed (by guns) before setting them off.

Seat belts don’t stop car accidents, so lets just get rid of them.[/quote]
Amazing how you got all of that from my post. I’m simply pointing out that the notion that a gun is the answer is wrong. It is who is holding the gun that matters. A gun is not some magic device that offers guaranteed protection from all threats. There were cops at the marathon yet those armed citizens were unable to stop the bombs. [/quote]

And an air bag COULD save your life in a crash, but they are mandatory in all cars. Not doing it once doesn’t mean it doesn’t offer protection. Guns most certainly offer a better margin of safety against a terrorist trying to break into your home with guns and explosives than being unarmed.

Taking guns is the equivalent of telling someone who is being raped to just lie there and enjoy it.

Pittbulll, how can you be so pro-government at times and so anti-government at others? Do you not see that the government derives its power to legislate drug use from its ability to legislate other victimless activities? Anytime we ask the government to save us from ourselves, we invite it to do so in all area of our lives.

[quote]pat wrote:

Well, I know the gun laws there are really restrictive, I don’t know if people are actually armed or not. I do know, despite the fact that dealing with said well armed crazy would still be difficult, I like my chances better with a gun than without.[/quote]

Same here. I’d be at the front door locked and loaded with my gf at the back door ready to yell to me. A shotgun would do though.

Hope everybody living around Mass. is staying safe.

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Taking guns is the equivalent of telling someone who is being raped to just lie there and enjoy it.

Pittbulll, how can you be so pro-government at times and so anti-government at others? Do you not see that the government derives its power to legislate drug use from its ability to legislate other victimless activities? Anytime we ask the government to save us from ourselves, we invite it to do so in all area of our lives. [/quote]

I am not pro government , I think Government is a necessary EVIL. I am for any liberty that does not harm others .

We agree about other victimless activities .

I also do not believe all the clap trap about Corporations being people , it is Fascism . Our Corporations control us almost as much as our GOV. and Corporations almost totally control our GOV.