hopelessjoe
Member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2008
- Messages
- 84
It may have been covered before...maybe not.
AARP is anti-gun, but they are pro "old people''. (Don't bash me, my father is well on his way to being a senior citizen. Mom didn't make it that far. She died at 55)
Now, here is what I don't get.
As a general rule of thumb there are two classes of people that really need the defense that a handgun will provide.
This would be single females and ''old folks''. And, to top it off, there are lots of single female ''old folks'' in this country.
We have seen that there have been numerous times when an old single woman has defended herself from the scum of the Earth with a handgun (usually a revolver) and been the victor after "combat".
Where do do the AARP morons get off on trying to say that ''old folks'' should be disarmed, BUT they should be able to drive without having to requalify for their drivers license after a certain age.
(My father is anti-gun and he believes that mandatory testing for driving skills after a certain age should be required.)
I am not trying to mix one subject with the other, but owning guns for defense is a right and driving is not. (Let's not get into semantics about what is a right...The founding fathers never anything about a right to chose your method of travel...the only said that you have the right to not be unduly questioned while making your way to your destination)
I believe that one group needs guns the most, and that is ''old folks''. And the AARP idiots want them disarmed.
Remember the saying about a building built on a foundation of sand?
AARP is anti-gun, but they are pro "old people''. (Don't bash me, my father is well on his way to being a senior citizen. Mom didn't make it that far. She died at 55)
Now, here is what I don't get.
As a general rule of thumb there are two classes of people that really need the defense that a handgun will provide.
This would be single females and ''old folks''. And, to top it off, there are lots of single female ''old folks'' in this country.
We have seen that there have been numerous times when an old single woman has defended herself from the scum of the Earth with a handgun (usually a revolver) and been the victor after "combat".
Where do do the AARP morons get off on trying to say that ''old folks'' should be disarmed, BUT they should be able to drive without having to requalify for their drivers license after a certain age.
(My father is anti-gun and he believes that mandatory testing for driving skills after a certain age should be required.)
I am not trying to mix one subject with the other, but owning guns for defense is a right and driving is not. (Let's not get into semantics about what is a right...The founding fathers never anything about a right to chose your method of travel...the only said that you have the right to not be unduly questioned while making your way to your destination)
I believe that one group needs guns the most, and that is ''old folks''. And the AARP idiots want them disarmed.
Remember the saying about a building built on a foundation of sand?