Gun control is our gravest national security threat
 

cross border firefight

Your government forces will NOT protect you. If/WHEN this invasion occurs, it will be swift, sudden, and brutal and you will be on your own. What chance will you have against the invading drug gangs against their automatic weapons when your government has capitulated to the anti gun socialists and denied you your right to bear arms?

I'm confused. Are you saying that when the mexican drug cartels inevitably invade texas our government won't lift a finger at all?

Maybe this belongs in Tilited Paranoia instead. The statement that the US Armed Forces won't protect the United States against the first armed incursion of our soil in over a century is pretty out there.

Dk, are you off your meds again? :p Seriously, are you saying that we need to have the armed forces sitting on the Mexican border ready to respond instantly to someone shooting at a couple of morons? If you remove the border aspect, this is virtually identical to something that happened in the mountains of East TN about 3 months ago, where a couple of drug dealers ran into the arms of the cops with other drug dealers in hot pursuit. This was a 10-minute exchange of fire - how close would the military have to be to respond in time?

you people scare the crap out of me. millions of people a year, who we don't know are violent or not, cross our border and the government is barely lifting a finger to do anything about it. I bring this up because it doesn't have to be an armed and armored convoy trucking across the US in full invasion, yet you always bring it to that and I think you do that to avoid the logical aspects of the argument.

How many illegals COULD have crossed the border in the last 5 years?
How many of those MIGHT have carried several guns, like machine guns, with them?
How many of those COULD be conspiring to bring about the kind of mass carnage like what happened on 9/11?
IF a large gang of people intend on launching shootups across some of the southern cities, with machine guns, how long do you think it would take ANY government agency to respond with any kind of effectiveness? (think LA riots)

Better watch out for those goobacks dude...
http://images.southparkstudios.com/m...6_image_12.jpg

dk this incident doesn't say anything about gun control in the US. it happend in mexico not the US, there is no mention of if these Americans had guns and if they used them (if they had they'd be dead now i'm sure), more than likely these men living in mexico were doing something shady that got the attention of these other guys (perhaps moving in on their drug territory?)

How is this a threat to national security?

And you scare the crap out of me. Why do you assume that these people are armed and dangerous? What evidence do you have that the illegals crossing the border are after anything other than a higher standard of living?

If a group large enough to shoot up a city launched an attack large enough to warrant a military response, it would almost certainly take a day or two for an appropriate response in almost every Southern city besides Atlanta due to the proximity of the military. If you have a complaint about that, I suggest you start working on a device to instantly transport men and material from one place to another since its a logistics problem, not a political one.

And for the record, I do NOT want you or any of your armed neighbors acting as vigilanties on my behalf.

Right back atcha. I can't believe this is the foremost worry on your mind.
A big bunch. Someone could probably research that. I'm not going to.
100%. How many DID carry several guns? Well less than 1%, I'd guess.
Again, 100%, and I COULD be doing that as well. However, I'd call the ones who ARE conspiring a vanishingly-small percentage.

Your original story appears to be about a fight amongst rival drug factions. Note that the American citizens with a ranch on the Mexican side "are suspects in other criminal investigations". I don't think you can draw any conclusions from this story, especially the conclusions that you are drawing.

did we assume that nobody would fly airplanes in to buildings? assumption is the mother of all fuckups. Assuming that the millions a year crossing the border are ONLY looking for a higher standard of living is naive, foolhardy, and potentially devestating.

so we should be at the mercy of a gang of killers with automatic weapons until the military shows up?
how about MY behalf? Why should MY family have to be defenseless because You're afraid of guns or don't like guns? What gives YOU the right to keep me defenseless? I'm sure that if you just put a sign up in front of your house that says "I don't want you vigilantes protecting me or my family", we can certainly leave you to your own devices.

If only 1% of a million carried guns, that would be 10,000. Does that put your mind at ease? Lets say that only .1% brought automatic weapons and bombs...that would only be 1,000 people. Are you even more at ease?

The conclusions that i'm drawing stem from many things besides this story.
1) The border patrol is stretched too thin
2) the military is barely there
3) local law enforcement can't do much about it either

conclusion #1 - we are dangerously vulnerable to any criminal/terrorist element that chooses to come in from the south

conclusion #2 - because it takes more than two days to organize any national guard/military/law enforcement that would have any chance at all of stopping a mass shooting, should that happen, the people in whichever towns are targeted are going to pay a heavy price because they would not be able to defend themselves or their town.

conclusion #3 - Because people like jazz think that police and military are the 'only ones' trained and competent enough to handle a gun and that us lowly serfs should just hide in a locked room and wait for the proper authorities to handle anyone 'evil', we'll stay in dire straits and immense danger because of it.

That is why I am saying that gun control is our gravest threat to national security. WE, the people, are the main AND last line of defense of our towns/cities/country....it's a shame that some people consider themselves unworthy of the responsibility

Our world views are very different. Different enough that I'm not going to attempt to debate this any further.

meaning that your world view is one of non violent utopia where we are safe and secure with our heads in the sand and my view is one where we should be always watchful of danger and be prepared for anything?

you're right, there is no debate with those not in touch with reality.

I'm pretty sure that's a matter of perspective - many may feel that you are out of touch with their reality.

Hey, I'm being civil about this. What one can see as vigilance, another can see as paranoia. I see similarity between your argument and the Bush administration's "1% doctrine".

I'm confused. Are you not allowed to bear arms, DK? I don't believe I've seen ANYone on this board say that we should take 100% of your guns away. What's to stop everyone on the border from having whatever you see as an appropriate number of guns?

Seems like you're getting all riled up about something that isn't even an issue. If your intent is to convince people that are against guns to go get 'em, you might tone down the rhetoric and doomsday scenarios. Pretty counter-productive for me. For whatever it's worth, I read the OP and become MORE inclinced to try to take guns away from people. :D

The gravest? I doubt that. One of the threats, maybe, but hardly the gravest. The biggest threat right now is probably another republican president in 2008. Aisde from that, the budget is pretty serious. I'd like to know how we plan on paying that back. another would be the consolidation of power in the executive branch. While the right to bear arms may be on the top 100, or maybe top 50, it's not #1.

Besides, the Mexicans are a clean, industrious people who are an important part of our economy. While drug dealers aren't always fun, they do know that their biggest source of money is the American people. If they want to make money off us, they need to appear to be a far away threat, at the very least. Killing people here will shock us from apathy and into action. They don't want that. Sales would fall, and we could send a lot of military their way.

you're correct and I apologize for any appearance of incivility.

Dksuddeth, while I do not agree with your interpretation of gun laws, I do recognise the importance of an armed populace. If I really felt that that level of power shift was taking place, the power to defend one's self from threats foreign and doestic, I'd be right there with you. In the mein time, I still think *some* of your gun control threads are alarmist ... and consider that this is coming from someone who thinks that the government orchestrated and carried out the attacks on 9/11 and thinks that we should start a new government (or at least replace most of the people leading our current government).

Goign back to the OP, I read it to mean that the US police would not enter into a cross border fire-fight.

I'd have thought that the jurisdiction of US police doesn't extend into Mexico, even if they are being shot at - it would certainly spark an international incident if an Irish policeman fired across the border at a British citizen on our onyl land border.

Had the Mexicans set foot in the US, I expect the police would have responded more vigorously.

I'm not seeing how this is in any way related to US gun control laws, or how such laws could possibly have had any negative effect on this situation. The gunfight originated in Mexico and the people firing were apparently still in Mexico at the time.

Gilda

If the guys doing the firing didn't have guns then this incident wouldn't have happened, so it's equally justifiable to say that the state of gun control in Mexico is a risk to US national security. You could even say that keeping the drug trade illegal is a threat!

For me, the "anti gun socialists" comment removes what little credibility the post may have had. Gun control isn't an economics issue, it's a libertarian/authoritarian issue. If you let your bigotry haze your judgement then you'll end up fighting the wrong group. Your enemies, DK, are the anti-gun free-marketeers, as they're the only ones with a chance of forming a government.

While I don't quite understand your Mexican border analogy, I do agree that we must have the means to protect ourselves when the system breaks down. It seems that sometimes in the past when there have been riots that the police will not go into harms way to protect us but instead will stay on perimeter and try to contain the anarchy. Inside the riot zone it's every man for himself.

*walks into room, looks around, creeps back out quietly ...*

Jesus freaking Christ man, what is it that you expect? Should all citizens of border towns be skilled in combay weaponry, tactics, and have 50-cal machine gun nests in their front yards?

close.
shouldn't limit it to border towns.
all citizens should be skilled in firearms and their usage/maintenance.
tactics wouldn't hurt, but at least don't be afraid of them and learn to handle/shoot them.
50 cals are great, the nest would look cheesy though(half serious on that)

I think if we're going to specify things all citizens should be skilled in, first aid might go at the top of the list, because accidental injuries are a lot more common than firefights in the America of this universe.

That is way too logical for this thread.

first aid should most certainly be a learned skill....the top of the list is an issue though. You can't give anyone first aid if you've been shot.

I think back on the ocean life guard lessons I received a long time ago. If impact with an object is imminent, always put the person you're rescuing between you and the object because you can't save anyone if you're unconcious yourself.

Many people, such as me, are ill suited to the use of firearms. Requiring that everyone have them is going to be putting them into the hands of a great many more people who shouldn't have them than already do.

Gilda

My sister thought she was ill suited to use a firearm. We kept one in the house growing up and she was told to not touch it at all. She was taught rudimentary gun handling of "it's dangerous, don't point it at anyone ever, and don't touch it."

She was always afraid of guns, and one day I took her to the shooting range, rented some guns and bought some ammo. A couple hours later she was informed enough to handle a gun if need be, meaning she's familiar with the way it operates, how to handle it, aim it, and pull the trigger. She's familiar with the recoil, the smell of gunpowder, the sound of the blast.

She's not a large girl, she's small 5'4 102lbs, and she fired a .44. She did quite well at aiming at the paper targets on both targets and body form.

What about pacifists? Should we have guns duct taped to our hands because some people think everyone should be armed?

The right to bear arms is a right of choice, not a requirement. Even though I 'think' everyone should be armed, it certainly doesn't mean that everyone HAS to be armed. If one chooses not to be armed, that is their choice, it should NOT, however, give them the option of choosing to have anyone ELSE go unarmed. That is the beauty of rights. We can choose to exercise them or not.

Fair enough.

Seems a reasonable thing to teach children in those homes that have firearms. It will never be an issue in ours.

Good for her. It turns out she wasn't ill suited to using guns.

Neither aiming at targets nor at people appeals to me, I don't like them, and I won't have a gun in my home, so I think I'd rather just stick with avoiding them altogether. It's worked for me so far.

Gilda

I have to agree that you might be a little paranoid, or you might just be showing support for your strange political party. The republicans believe in being all up in arms, which is unusual since they control the administration, congress, etc.... in regarrds to your comments about the government. They do not want to do away with personal "weapons". Defending yourself against the drug cartel is O.K. under strange circumstances, such as drug lords threatening the lives of your children or yourself, but of course, we should not be given the "right" of going on a killing spree. The right to bear arms is not a right to unmercifully murder!

Sounds to me like illegal immigration is the biggest threat to national security, if one were to respond logically to your arguments (which I'm kind of struggling to do.....with a straight face, anyway).

BTW, I will now be using you as one of my arguments for stricter gun control.

please explain.

I'm more afraid of delusional paranoid people getting drunk and shooting someone in a heated argument or a child shooting a sibling or friend by accident, than some mythical invading army.

I agree with others, maybe this blongs in Tilted Paranoia.

dksuddeth, you don't work for postal service do you?

yeah, because people always get drunk, get in arguments, start shooting up the place, and kill people a hell of alot more often than people being mugged, raped, and murdered by gangbangers and drug crazed murderers. :rolleyes:

maybe all of those 'reconquista' and illegal immigration protest marches were just a figment of my imagination.

no, but I do recognize the standard tactic of using claims of paranoia and delusions to discredit something/someone people aren't comfortable in approaching realistically. :thumbsup:

All right, I have two questions I'd like you to answer honestly.

1. How many situations have you experienced which required the use of a gun to resolve? I'm asking in your civilian life, and I'll acept your judgement on whether it was required or not. I also recognize "that's not the point"; I'm just curious.

2. You live in the Dallas/Ft Worth area, approximately, what, 300 miles from the Mexican border? Your major metropolitan area has a substantial police force. Fort Hood, Fort Sam Houston, and several other military bases are between you and the oncoming horde of reconquistas. Are you actually afraid of them, or is your behavior just posturing?

I think you are the one not approaching this realistically, but I think you are doing it deliberately.

Luckily, to this point anyway, I have never HAD to use a gun to resolve anything and I hope that it stays that way for the rest of my life.

Having been in the marines for 6 years and having seen how it takes DAYS for the military to actually organize and then deploy for any issue, I am telling you that IN THE EVENT of any substantial attack (whether it comes from the border OR within any city limits) the population there will be ON THEIR OWN for almost a week. It won't matter that there is a military base right next to the city or IN the city. It won't matter that there will be thousands of marines or soldiers within walking distance of any attack. The commander of that base will first see to the security of that installation, THEN will wait for an order from the president to filter down to him, THEN will organize the units and equipment to venture out and confront the situation. During that time, every citizen who has found themselves in the 'combat' area WILL BE ON THEIR OWN.
It's not that the government doesn't WANT to protect them, they will simply be unable to for almost a week. Does that make me afraid of the oncoming horde? No, quite honestly. I don't fear for myself, but I do fear for my family and all of those around me who will be defenseless because those who wish to disarm everyone because of their own fears or insecurities, put us all at risk.
Will we ever be invaded? we already have, in my opinion.
Will the illegals ever attack us violently and try to take back what they think is theirs? I don't know and I don't think anyone else does either.
Should we accept the fact that it's possible and prepare for it or do we naively believe that something like that would never happen? We either take steps to protect ourselves and our country or we change the constitution by de facto.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, much as I am entitled to mine thinking that you, and those who think like you, would rather keep your head in the sand than to approach issues with any 'big picture' rationale. It's people that think like you do that clamor for government protection because you don't want to deal with the responsibility yourself, but then whine and cry when it doesn't happen the way you want it to. So you clamor for even better protection because you STILL won't accept the responsibilities that the founding fathers gave you, so we end up with even MORE big government and LESS actual rights.

Could this thread be a wind-up? I don't think I've ever seen one on the TFP before, but I'm sure there's a first time for everything. You know, like the first time all the illegal immigrants in the US, all high on crack, simutaneously reach under their beds for their Uzis and gather at the local Dairy Queen, ready to overthrow the government and reclaim the San Andreas fault.

yep, just one more crazy lunatic spouting conspiracy theories that we should all ignore. :rolleyes:

What really disappoints me about people like you is that you've seen examples of what even TWO people can do with automatic weapons yet 10 or 20 is just TOO FAR FETCHED to be believable. It's that or you're so cemented in your complacency and belief that you can stop all crime by making laws banning guns that you couldn't possibly see anything insidious by people to destroy your newfound utopia of a crime free city. :thumbsup:

I guess that a couple hundred deaths would be nothing to you, except to scream about MORE government protection.

well, since some people seem to think that i'm delusional on this southern border thing, let's have a little fun, shall we?

what do we think of this?

Rosarito officers beheaded

curiously, the US congress had hearings on CSPAN for this and then tried to have the hearing 'removed'.
a copy of that hearing can be found here titled 'Impact of Mexico's Presidential Election on the U.S.'

Isn't 'beheading' something that terrorists do? shouldn't THAT make us nervous?

DK, I am inclined to agree with the premise that gun control is a concern, although I might not place it at the top of national security concerns list.

I thought that you might be interested in this article from US NEWS and World Report within the last two weeks:

Regardless of the prevailing sentiment on this board, the issue of gun control, which sees a record of dismal failure, is a political looser. If anything along the lines of the worst case scenarios you provided sees the light of day, I suspect any and all existing gun control measures will be scaled back significantly.

This makes ~me~ less concerned about gun control.

-bear

I did read that one, it's heartening, but there are still many democrats (and even a few republicans) who continually put forth bills to restrict the right to keep and bear arms and I fear that if democrats get hold of congress again that they will just pass more.

I believe in the right to keep and bear arms. I have a .22 rifle, that's it. I don't see the point in owning anything heavier. I can defend myself as effectively with a .22 as I could with a higher caliber gun. (Unless we're talking about combating tanks, which is beyond unlikely) Others lack the skill and/or confidence to do the same, so they require higher caliber or automatic weapons. As long as they don't try to use them unlawfully I see no problem with them owning them.

Didn't the 9/11 terrorists cross through the canadian border?

where ever they came from, they are getting in their practice. we'll see that urban warfare real soon.

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/24846.html

Sigh. I don't quite comprehend your need to feel utterly safe from any and all potential threats, real or imagined. It's impossible. It would be impossible even under a police state, which none of us would want. You are seriously asking us to be more worried about an eventuality that, as DJ Happy has pointed out, is almost comically absurd.

Why would immigrants try so hard and risk so much to get out of Mexico only to make their adopted home ... once again part of Mexico?

I also am having a really hard time buying that it would take an entire week for the US government to respond to a direct attack on its soil. What did our response - both municipal and military - look like on 9/11?

Finally, the article linked in the OP mentions neither gun control nor a possible 'invasion' of Mexicans. You're really grasping at straws here.

The British are not coming, and you are not Paul Revere.

The gravest threat to this nation's security is its own government. THAT is what we need to be armed to protect ourselves from, not crop-picking/house-cleaning Mexican illegals. Keep focusing on practically irrelevant external factors and you will completely miss the gradual erosion of our individual rights by those who we vote into government positions. Eminent domain. The draft. The PATRIOT act. Hillary Clinton. (I kid.) These are the gravest threats which face us today.

I've been preaching all along that there is absolutely no possible way to be safe in this world. What I've been trying to tell people is that IF your safety, and that of your loved ones, are important to you then you need to be prepared, i.e. also carrying a gun. Also, why is it that things are always so 'absurd', until they actually happen. 3 weeks ago people thought it would be 'absurd' to think that a student could protect themselves with a gun on campus.....now we know differently, don't we?

Once again, I'm not speaking solely of mexicans, but those that come up from mexico or down from canada...as we've heard about many times over the last 6 years.

Coming from a military background I can assure you that the government WILL NOT RESPOND IMMEDIATELY TO PROTECT YOU. They WILL respond immediately to protect military and government assets though, then once THOSE are secure, they will come to protect the rest of us. Our 9/11 response was great if we're talking only of the WTC rescue effort, but what did the rest of the gov do? Not much other than ground aircraft, put fighter jets in the air, and start putting bases on alert. Look at the LA riot response, katrina, and our border issues. I repeat, YOU and YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD are just not that important in the gov and mil priority list.

right, but later on in the post there is talk of civilians actually having to fight to defend their cities from invasion or terrorism. When I put this out there, someone told me I should tighten the tinfoil on my head.

I predict that there will be massive urban deaths and casualties due to terror attacks by jihadists using automatic weapons and most people will be helpless against it because of left wing wacko gun control who fear their own people more than anything else.

When have automatic weapons been the MO of jihadists?

How will carrying your gun protect you from someone near you in a crowd with a bomb strapped to his body...or from a car bomb?

Maybe you should read the last article I posted.

dk...I read the article and I am just not as impressed with the Northeast Intelligence Network and Douglas J. Hagmann's "facts and conclusions" as you:

"One case, however, can serve as an example of what is taking place all across the U.S. involving the procurement and disbursement of weapons to Muslim ‘jihadists.’ On Tuesday, May 2, 2007, a federal indictment was unsealed in the U.S. federal court in St. Louis naming eight Islamic men as defendants in a case involving the buying, selling or hiding of automatic weapons, an anti-personnel mine and other explosives.

Where is your/his evidence that this "is taking place all across the U.S. involving the procurement and disbursement of weapons to Muslim ‘jihadists?"

Why didnt he mention above that the charges in the unsealed indictmen say it was a crime for profit but do not specify who the ultimate customers would have been. (St Lous Today) Do you have any evidence that these guys have ties to any "jihadists"?

BTW, Douglas Hagmann was also the guy who said on the Coast-to-Coast radio show that the marketing stunt by Comedy Central in Boston and other cities several months ago was really a terrorist plot.

More on Douglas Hagmann, the "phony "terrorism expert" --who is positive that UFOs and Bigfoot exist but knows little else" (link)

And you still didnt answer my question....when have automatic weapons been the MO of jihadists rather than the more dramatic and destructive other weapons of choice?

We do? Imagine if we were armed ;)

Hey, I don't know if you're violent either. Let's lock you up until I know for sure that you're 100% safe.

Why, though, is it solely up to the citizens to take care of the problem. You say the government won't stop them. OK. Change the government. Elect people that will.

And space aliens COULD be scanning your brain right now, but that doesn't mean you have to go put on a tinfoil hat.


Ya know what the problem with your pro-gun stance is? Your arguments just don't hold water. For what seems like years now you've been preaching that we must be armed in case the government becomes tyrannical and stops doing what the people want it to do. Beyond the obvious arguments that you still don't seem to understand that a few farmers with rifles won't stop a tank, that argument still doesn't make sense. After all, over 70% of the people want us out of Iraq, and the government is refusing to comply with that desire, all while suppressing freedoms and rights at an astonishing rate. In short, the situation that you claim we need our guns for is here, right now, and I don't see anyone shooting.

Could it be that this has occurred to you and that's why you're suddenly switching to the "damn evil foreigners and their scary weapons" tactic?

Here is another article from Doug Hagmann's Northeast Intelligence Network (NEIN):
These NEIN guys cry "islamists" at the drop of a pin.

The only reason you have let the thread drift from anti-mexican near-racism into VA Tech is that you have no proof or statistics or complicated logic to prove that you are not paranoid. The brain has an area called self-defence mechanism and the more people that say this thread is paranoia, the more you will say that you are right. The fact that you mentioned 9/11 also points to your instability of staying on topic. But since you probably need a clue by four. Here ya go...

1. VA Tech was caused by there not being a link between the judge declaring a young man insane and then not allowing that young man to purchase weapons or bullets. Period. Ronald Reagan gutted the budget for the insane assylums and therapy for those poor people and the large homeless and disturbed walking around today are due to Reagan's stupid choices. Yes, the young man at VA Tech was bullied for over a decade, but that does not justify his killing people. Anyway, a sensible logical approach would be to offer students training on how to non-lethally disarm a man with a gun with martial arts. Even making the classroom doors lockable and give teachers and janitors keys, would be sensible. Also adding an intercom system for the admin staff to use in an emergency would be logical. Arming all kids on campus who wish to be is not logical knowing how hormonal boys and girls are at that age. More bullets being fired from even more guns and from more angles means more friendly fire and deaths. You should have learned that in the military. I suspect that you might be carrying over knowledge, war instincts, and good combat paranoia into the private sector where many people who disagree with you live in safe homes and communities. Another option to use before arming college students with guns, would be to let the students be able to carry stun guns, mace, or tazers instead of guns. Heck, even rubber bullets would be fine to have teachers carry if they got proper training. But the fact that you jumped first to arming the college kids with the choice of real bullets proves you are a knee jerk gun paranoid in my book.

2. 9/11 was caused by two things. Corporate greed of airlines who told the pilots that they did not need strong door into the cockpit. The pilots asked for the doors for years and weight and cost was the issue and the doors would have stopped 9/11. Also Bush got the memo that 9/11 was going to happen and did nothing about terrorists taking pilot classes. Bush should be impeached for that and shipped away to Saudi Arabia with his oil friends. Bush did not read the memo or act on it because in his first term, he went on vacation more than any other president in history.

3. There are thousands of peaceful americans who own ranches in mexico and none of them are getting lots of gunfire and being chased off of their land. This has drug purchase/dealing gone bad written all over it. You wanna stop gun fights on the border of mexico ? Legalize drugs, get the gov to regulate them just like alcohol, and tobacco. As someone who supports choice so much, I am sure you agree with me. Or do you ?

4. I used to work at a gun range in wa state. We had wheel chair ramps everywhere. Because it was required by law ? Nope, the range has had them for decades before the laws required them. The ramps are for the "safe" gun users who accidentally shoot each other (like Cheney VP did) and you can bet Cheney was drunk at the time. We might not know what really happened out there for a few more years or maybe if someone who was there finally tells all. But Cheny was purposefully not tested for alcohol levels and most hunting accidents are kept well hidden. Many wheel chair stories were told to me during the 3 years I worked there. Many "cleaning gun" stories where the cleaner dropped the gun and it went off and they shot themselves in the leg. Seeing a man with a fake leg was a daily sighting on the days I worked. One guy had a war wound and he had a flag on his fake leg. His type was a rare sight. There was even a woman in a wheelchair who was shot by a fellow hunter as she was "making noise in the brush like a deer". So you go ahead and keep guns all you want, and you can shoot yourself accidentally some day or you might shoot your friend like Cheney did, but I will avoid places with lots of gun owners and avoid the forest areas during hunting season. I have purchased my non-lethal forms of home protection and have been trained in non-lethal martial arts. If Texas is that bad, then sorry it has gotten that way.

Jonathan

I've not let anything 'drift', but I see that you are not unlike any other hoplophobe in the world and resort to labeling and name calling when you don't agree with the truth of the message.

You can sit there and blame a dead president, the government, republicans, conservatives, or anybody else you'd like to blame and you can sit there and spout all these BS liberal 'love' messages that sound great but have ZERO realistic capability in accomplishing anything you'd like to wish to see happen, and in the end it won't make a damn bit of difference.

You go with the kumbaya crowd and stay away from me and my guns while I make sure THIS sadistic depravity does not happen to me and mine. Tell me how much you THINK your 'non-lethal' self defense would prevail in this situation.

and as an afterthought, tell me which you prefer....being paranoid and carrying a gun or driving around carefree, unarmed, and having to watch your loved one suffer like those above!

Irony, thy name is dksuddeth.