Dear God, please protect my family...


December 1, 2008, 09:51 PM
I know the moderators will lock this thread, but I've got to get it off my chest.

<Photo caption on>
The 2-year-old orphan found drenched in the blood of his parents at the besieged Jewish center in Mumbai left India on Monday on an Israeli Air Force jet, accompanied by the Indian woman who rescued him.

How can you see a photo like this and not feel crushed? This child will grow up without parents because of hateful Islamic terrorists, and what did he do to deserve this? Nothing. His Jewish family was trying to make life better for people in Mumbai, India.

What about the students and faculty gunned down at Virginia Tech? They didn't deserve to die, either. Maybe you can't stop an attack like 9/11 as an individual, but one law-abiding person with a concealed carry permit could have stopped the VT tragedy. Maybe they don't have that kind of freedom in India or the UK, but we should all embrace the rights affirmed by the Second Amendment.

God does not instruct anyone to commit such horrible acts of violence in His name. God did not protect this boy and his family. Protect yourself and your family. Support permissive concealed carry laws, because some day it may save the life of someone YOU love.

If you enjoyed reading about "Dear God, please protect my family..." here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
Grandpa Shooter
December 1, 2008, 10:05 PM
You hit it on the head. It is not the responsibility of anyone to protect you. It is only your duty to yourself and those you love. Expecting any outside agency to be available when you need them is just plain nuts.

December 1, 2008, 10:12 PM
Your statement is the essence of my feelings concerning gun ownership. It's my life !!! Who better to protect my life ??? Me of course............

December 2, 2008, 10:33 AM
You'll notice that all of the mainstream media are referring to the terrorists as "A Pakistani' militant group"?

They are afraid to use the "I" word anymore I guess. These guys were targeting American's, Brit's, Hindus and Jews exclusively with the targets they chose. I find it hard to believe they just "happened" on the Jewish center that was 8 to 10 blocks away from all their other carefully chosen targets.

Maybe with a new administration coming in we won't be hearing the phrase "Islamic Terrorists" anymore and the whole "War on Terror" descriptive is going to disappear too, since we're going back to treating it as a criminal matter instead of a military issue.

The great fear I have is that doing the same thing, in several US shopping malls wouldn't be that hard with the open border policies we still seem to have in place. Bringing men, guns and explosives in, the way Tom Clancy described in "Teeth of the Tiger" wouldn't be all that hard to do in real life.

His prediction of an attack by a fully fueled jetliner (Sum of All fears?) on the US Capitol during a State of the Union address proved all too prophetic.

December 2, 2008, 10:54 AM

This could never happen in American shopping malls. Most of the malls I have been in don't allow weapons. Haven't you seen the signs? The terrorists that infiltrate this country are well-educated and can read English, so we have nothing to worry about.

sarcasm off...

Just One Shot
December 2, 2008, 11:11 AM

I agree with you that both incidents you mentioned are horrible and we should embrace our second admendment rights. I also agree we should be prepared to defend those we love but true protection can only come from God. You can carry a bazooka around and without God's protection you have no hope!

I hope you weren't blaming God when you said that He didn't protect this family. Sin and death came into the world because man disobeyed God. The fault does not belong to God, it belongs to man.

Thin Black Line
December 2, 2008, 11:12 AM
...a short while ago in a place called the FRY there were villages with
people of two religions. Things started to get bad. Members of one
religion began killing those who were of the other. Survivors ran to
a different village with more of their own. They came back and killed
the ones who had attacked them and destroyed what was left of
their old village. They returned to their new village. People from a
different village came over and started attacking them and then the
whole cycle went tit-for-tat with various internal government factions
throwing in on one side of the other. These factions attempted to
disarm the other side that they didn't agree with and the situation
resulted in open "war between the states". Outsiders came in --some
wearing blue helmets, some under the banner of a big 4-pointed star--
and said everyone must be disarmed. Those who agreed were allowed
to move to "safe havens" which were then attacked and killed by those who
had either refused to disarm and/or were recognized by the blue helms
and 4-stars as "legit" military and police forces. After much hand-wringing
and global-speech making, those in power in foreign cities decided that
the solution was for EVERYONE there to be disarmed. This was enforced
at the barrel of a tank. But by then most of the really evil scary stuff was
already over anyway.

There is a similar story about a different country where the peoples called
the hutus and tutsis, but you have to add in a bunch of 4 bit machetes as

The story of India and Pakistan is one that is similar but on a longer slower

Then there's Iraq and I could go on for way too long on that.

What all four stories would have in common is pure hatred in the peoples'

And then the Thin Black Line went asleep under a tree for another 20 years,
waiting for the world to change....and it didn't....TBL decided he needed to
defend his family from the evil hating @-holes of the world. He prayed that
he would never be tempted with vengeance and tested for a weak spot
leading to the same hatred as well. But God knew TBL's heart was...

December 2, 2008, 11:54 AM
Hey DonP

Have you noticed that the MSMedia and BHO refer to this as a Tragedy instead of a Terrorist attack.

The Word "tragedy" makes it sound like something unavoidable like a Hurricane or tornadoes.

What it is, is a Terrorist Attack on Unarmed Citizens.....

I say come over here and try that you Terrorist, Guess what they are not going to try it here cuz they know we are armed..

Sam Adams
December 2, 2008, 06:14 PM
The great fear I have is that doing the same thing, in several US shopping malls wouldn't be that hard with the open border policies we still seem to have in place. Bringing men, guns and explosives in, the way Tom Clancy described in "Teeth of the Tiger" wouldn't be all that hard to do in real life.

Not that this is news, but "Great, just great." I live in San Antonio, first big city north of Mexico, home to many shopping malls. I don't go to any of them very willingly (I hate them, and only go because SWMBO makes me), and never unarmed...but this will make me doubly sure to be packing.

One good result is that maybe I can persuade her not to go so often....

Izaak Walton
December 2, 2008, 06:19 PM
God not allowed, sounds like a govt I know.

December 2, 2008, 06:28 PM
O.M.W.!!! Plaaaaaaease don't get me started. Hmmm. Lordy, don't get me started. :D

Good thread, and I do agree that this is a fact with which we the people must deal. We must protect ourselves. When the seconds counted, the rescue specialists were just 60 hours away!

I'm just sayin'


December 2, 2008, 10:34 PM
hmm... Some thoughts.

I do feel very sad. I feel afraid even more. I feel the need to have the tools to protect myself and my beloved. I suppose you feel the same feelings.

Thus, by "Dear God" you must mean "High Precision High Capacity Handy Semi-Automatic Rifle"

It won't 100% guarantee your safety, but it will almost certainly make you and your family safer.

Just Jim
December 2, 2008, 10:46 PM
Maybe you can't stop an attack like 9/11 as an individual, but one law-abiding person with a concealed carry permit could have stopped the VT tragedy.

Nope, I ain't going to go there:what: Some hero will come along and get the thread locked:neener::D:D

Hope everthing goes the way you want.


December 3, 2008, 12:53 AM
For the past seven years, the terrorists haven't been able to get anything off the US government but an ass-whuppin. Attacking America has been counterproductive and there wasn't anybody with whom to negotiate anyway.

On January 20th, this will change. There will be a US administration with which the terrorists will be able to negotiate.

Their problem is that their negotiating position is currently very weak. The Democrats don't think the terrorists are a problem. They think Bush is the problem.

With the Obama administration running the Executive branch, the terrorists will have an opportunity to get something from America other than a beating, but first they must improve their negotiating position. The best way to do this is to commit high-profile attacks inside the US.

Their ability to do this at the moment is unknown. They've been taking a serious beating for the past seven years. But as soon as they can, it's what they need to do.

December 3, 2008, 02:27 AM
The problem is, Liberals tend to gravitate towards the Arts. Writing is part of the Arts so many many Liberals study Mass Media Communications because, they tend to gravitate towards the Arts.
Now, Non-Liberals (notice I did NOT write Conservatives) tend to gravitate towards Hands-On Applications, not necessarily blue-collar, usually something that has to do with Technology, Engineering, Manufacturing etc.
Liberals, like to talk, discuss, share ideas and emotions. N.L's (Non-Liberal's) like to work with their hands, create, explore, be self sufficiient, work on solving tangable problems.
So, what we have is one group of people who are doing it, and the other group who are writing about the first group doing it. What do you want them to write about, the wonderful day they spent at Starbucks sipping an extra hot Latte? They write exciting things that happen to others, and by writing about these things, they feel that they are a part of it, without the danger or gory details of course.
Liberals were the ones that demanded something be done 9/12/01, NL's didn't need to demand anything, they knew they were going to go do something about it. Once it was being done, this left the Liberals out, so they found new stuff to write about, like Abu-Graib and Guentanamo.
Someone once wrote that Liberals have a homo-erotic affair with danger, but they only want to think about it, not actually do it.

December 3, 2008, 02:55 AM
Where's the peace movement and peace activist? Why aren't they blogging, emailing, and texting each other for a worldwide march and demonstration against terrorism? If they advocate peace so much, why is it so unilateral? Why are they silent when thugs kill but they pour out into the streets worldwide when governments attempt to do something about it?


December 3, 2008, 10:10 AM
"Where's the peace movement and peace activist? Why aren't they blogging, emailing, and texting each other for a worldwide march and demonstration against terrorism?"

I've noticed over the years (since the '60's in fact) that "peace" activists have a marked tendency to protest in nice, safe enclaves where the worst they have to worry about is a tear gas canister down the block and ACLU lawyers waiting to bail them out that afternoon, in time for the 6 PM news cycle.

They are far more interested in staging a protest outside a Mormon church in Anaheim these days, about the right to gay marriage, then they are going to Saudi Arabia, Iran or any number of other Islamic countries to protest the status of women as chattel. Losing a hand (or their head) for heresy is not a part of their commitment playbook.

They would much rather protest pretty much anything Bush has done, close to the nearest Starbucks of course, than fly to Karachi and march up into the mountains along the Afghan border with a bunch of flowers in their hair and peace posters.

One is safe and the other alternative involves some degree of real risk and commitment.

December 3, 2008, 10:54 AM
These mass murders by armed terrorists are avoidable and preventable by allowing armed citizens to police ourselves. It is impossible to put guards on every corner - and even in 'gun free' zones badguys get guns and cause mass murder.

Concealed carry is the answer to preventing these crimes.

December 3, 2008, 11:26 AM
Imagine a world where every single person you know carried a holstered pistol, if I were a criminal I wouldn't want to do anything more than go to school and learn, being a criminal would be too dangerous.

But how do we prevent the immature few from holding weapons while allowing the most law abiding citizens rights? It gets very hard to segregate the two.

December 3, 2008, 11:58 AM
I haven't been able to get that little boy's face out of my mind since I saw that picture. My wife and I both immediately said that he looked just like our youngest son - the curly hair, the face... everything. My heart literally aches to look at that picture.

I won't allow myself to enable evil to perpetrate such heinous acts as that which deprived that beautiful little boy of his mommy and daddy. I am even more firmly resolved to make certain that I keep and bear the means to protect my family. This kind of tragedy will not happen to my family - not without a fight.

December 4, 2008, 07:32 AM
Amen to that. I heard audio of that little boy wailing at his parents funeral yesterday. As a father, it hits me in the pit of my stomach to see and hear that poor little child.

December 4, 2008, 08:02 AM
Don't get me wrong, I think concealed or open carry will deter common criminals, but I'm not so certain it will deter "suicide" bomber terrorists.

December 4, 2008, 09:19 AM
This was in my mail this morning, don't know origin or published date:

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.
The first year results are now in:
List of 7 items:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are 'citizens'.

Without them, we are 'subjects'.

Comment by Kiawahman: Perhaps the Australian government would have spent their money more wisely by issuing a new firearm to every law abiding citizen - instead of taking them away.

December 4, 2008, 12:07 PM
Ha. I just read that the British Police Armed Response Units are now responding to over 2,000 calls in London alone. Before their Gun Control Act, the armed Unit was responding to a dozen calls a year.

December 4, 2008, 12:16 PM
Britain may call on foreign armed police

By Ben Leapman, Home Affairs Correspondent
Last Updated: 12:50AM BST 10 Jun 2007
Foreign Armed police may be needed to guard the London Olympics because too few British officers are trained to use guns, Scotland Yard has admitted.
Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, said the cost of training recruits to use guns may be prohibitive.
The Olympics are considered a prime terrorist target and the Government has estimated the cost of security at 600 million out of a total Olympics budget of 9 billion. Armed officers will be required to guard visiting dignitaries, athletes, the main Olympic Park and remote sports venues.
Britain is the only wealthy country in the world where police are not routinely armed and only about 6,000 out of 140,000 officers in England and Wales are trained to use guns.
Some competing nations may want to bring their own security teams, who could refuse to work in Britain unless they are allowed to carry weapons.
Sir Ian has now raised the prospect of "borrowing" foreign armed officers.
"The principle must be that we don't want armed foreign police, but there's a 'but' - and the 'but' is twofold," he told a meeting of the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA).
"One, you may not be able to get any foreign police unless they are armed, because they won't feel easy being unarmed in public scenarios like that. Two, do we actually have, in this case, sufficient capacity to have enough armed officers to do the job? If we don't, then we are talking about a training requirement of very significant expenditure for a period of eight weeks.
"We can't close the door, but we probably have to make that decision within the next 12 months."
The use of foreign armed police on British streets would raise serious questions over who would be held responsible if something went wrong.
Critics condemned the proposal and called for extra funds to ensure enough British officers are trained by 2012.
Damian Hockney, a member of the MPA, said: "We should not be reliant in any way on police officers from other countries. What if one of these foreign officers shoots somebody? It's amazing to suggest that we cannot train enough armed officers of our own. We should start now."
Traditionally there have been strict curbs on police operating outside their home countries. When unarmed British officers were deployed in Germany during last year's World Cup, they had to be "sworn in" as temporary German officers.
The Metropolitan Police, Britain's biggest force, has 2,600 firearms-trained officers. Many are routinely deployed to protect key buildings, such as Parliament, Buckingham Palace and foreign embassies.
They cannot be redeployed to the Olympic zone during the Games because security at sensitive buildings will need to be maintained, or even strengthened, while the games are on.
The Met will be able to borrow armed officers from provincial British police forces during the Olympics, but even this may not provide enough strength.

December 4, 2008, 01:36 PM

Didn't we once lend Britain thousands and thousands of firearms for their protection during trying times?

Didn't they then dump the lot of them into the English Channel rather than returning them?

So, if we send them armed police . . . can we expect the same result? Wouldn't it be a little over-the-top to dump several hundred armed police -- on loan, mind you -- into the channel when they're done with them?

I dunno. I'm not sure this is such a great idea.

Perhaps we could send them a few thousand lawyers?

December 4, 2008, 08:14 PM
People need to stop being extream on both sides of the firearms issues. No less horribile is this insane news;_ylt=ApM8417JWYDRoNnG_8gv2EYDW7oF

tasco 74
December 4, 2008, 08:21 PM

life is short.......

December 4, 2008, 08:35 PM
No less horribile is this insane news

I hope they fry those involved. Stupid gun owners only hurt everyone.

life is short.......

and unfair........

December 5, 2008, 07:46 AM
Sad story.
This is A-1 cannon fodder for Obama's Attorney General who believes that private citizens do not have the right to bear arms.

December 5, 2008, 08:38 AM
That london olympics story is sad, its like Lend-Lease 2.0, won't they ever learn?

December 5, 2008, 10:29 AM
Take no offense
What amazes me is that people look at those pictures.... and then "Pray to god" not to let it happen to them. Where was god in the first place? Did those people just not pray hard enough? Did they not pray to the right god?

If god were on top of this stuff we wouldn't need guns.....
When SHTF I will take myself and a Rugar over a Prayer and the Gov't any day!

Thin Black Line
December 5, 2008, 10:36 AM
Didn't we once lend Britain thousands and thousands of firearms for their protection during trying times?

Yes. Don't forget lending troops.

And we protected the French, too.

December 5, 2008, 06:20 PM
People need to stop being extream on both sides of the firearms issues. No less horribile is this insane news

The anti's are going to have a hard time with this one, isn't it the liberal media anti gun people that scream that only the Police are experts and should be the only ones to handle / be around guns?

Dear god, a full auto UZI is not a toy. I will do my best to not put myself in the dad's position of witnessing his sons death.

December 5, 2008, 07:06 PM
I truly do not understand why there are people who don't want me to be armed in this day and age.

December 5, 2008, 11:00 PM
Support permissive concealed carry laws, because some day it may save the life of someone YOU love.

Get involved and do all you can to educate people about firearms. Then vote the anti's out of office. With the economy as bad as it is (and it will get worse), now, if any, is the time to be prepared to protect yourself and your loved ones. Crime will only increase and the police will not be able to handle it. It would not surprise me one bit if the National Guard will be necessary and curfews imposed.

December 6, 2008, 07:29 PM
The guys who do this kind of horrible thing should be punished severely.

If you enjoyed reading about "Dear God, please protect my family..." here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!