Was it someone posted? Or something i read?
cannae member....
but somewhere i read that the creature that made Bowling for Columbine decided to interview two pro gun people. Heston and that other chap that was w/ mcviegh... my mind ain't working right now...
at any rate - thier responses to the question - do you have loaded weapons in your house and why were from heston (who he portrayed as living in a gated secure location in beverly hills) as a "because i can" and from the other fellow was... gawd... like i said mind failing me atm... something to the effect of he though it was neat and liked it. Don't quote me - i'd have to find the article again to re-read it - was prolly from one of the gun mags i read.
The point being that it was portraying these people in a light of "they are highly unlikely to be attacked in that way at thier home"... so why do they need firearms.
So i guess what i'd like to know is... how many "attacks at the home" are we allowed before we would like to defend ourselves? For me - its none - i pray i'm able to defend myself should the attack come - that i've got the ability and the chance to do so. But even if i'm suprised and just taken out - i lowered the chances of it being successful - vs. someone who never took the time to try.
Personally - i'd LIKE to NEVER be attacked at my home - never have my house broken into, never have my car broken into, never worry about a car-jacking, never worry about getting mugged, never worry about being a customer in a mcdonalds that gets some wacko nutjob shooting people, never be in a post office that gets a dif kind of wack nutjob shooting people, never be in a school that gets another kind of wacko nutjob shooting kids/teachers, etc etc etc....
I'd LIKE to never even think .... "G" DAMNIT! why did i forget the pistol at home?
I'd LIKE to never think .... If i had had.....i might have been able to....
I'd LIKE to never think that i'd EVER NEED a firearm to defend myself.
I'd LIKE to never wonder if this govt's goals 50 years after de-arming people will be the same as some other historical example.
I KNOW people like fienstien don't want to hurt people... i know thats hard to swallow - but i truely believe they think that removing guns will remove the danger of getting shot by one. And to a limited extent i bet they are right. Limited cause criminals will still get guns, the only dif in THOSE circumstances is that they have MUCH more power then. Then there are the other really big thugs... or even a group of really small thugs - who can take just about any one down w/ a bat or a knife, who aren't worried that the person might have an equalization...
Point being in that last bit that while the current political storm might be about protection - does that mean it will be the same in 50 years when they are done disarming us... what of the next group who goes... "hey - of course we are gonna do this - what they gonna do... SHOOT US??? (much laughing in the high seats of aristocratic heavy weights in govt.) Think it can't happen - some people on these boards have made it VERY vocal about Germany's dis-arming of the jews... and SEVERAL other less famous disarmaments in the past....
I'd like to think ALL of it ain't true... that it won't happen to me - but "not likely" is NOT "ain't gonna happen"
Thus - so long as i can - i'll remain armed... even after its illegal if it comes to pass... after all - i'll just need a few pigs and or some tires/diesel to take care of the mess after i'm done protecting myself....
Congrats on another convert - i wish they all understood that sticking thier heads in the sand is NOT a defense... and any chance of protecting yourself is like having an airbag in yer car - sure the seatbelt may work fine (running upstairs/to locked room - calling cops on cel phone) - but don't you want as much chance of success at living as possible? I know we all gotta die eventually - but i'd prefer that it happen of natural causes... heh
J/Tharg!
