I Support The NRA

Talk about a mind numb robot...If obama approves and says it's so, you follow in lock step. You walked right into that one

This is my response to the 13 year old below....I didn't think I would have to explain it to a military man. I'm sorry you were wounded in the service...Did you fall on your head

[i"]I understand where you are coming from and I respect that.

Think of it this way....How many terrorist attacks would have happened, if the terrorists knew that their targets were capable of fighting back?

I have to admit, I feel a lot safer going out with a guy who is "Licensed" to carry a concealed weapon.

If the government simply enforced the laws already on the book, there would be a lot less loony tunes on the street. No one with a criminal record should be allowed to own a gun"[/i]

You insult one because their politics are different than yours.

Most Hawks like yourself haven't served in the military and yes there are liberals that have protected your right to be paranoid.

Who cares that you feel more protected when someone carries an automatic weapon of war.
They need to be taken off the street.

The NRA needs to take its fall.

@Pfuzylogic:

Of course the terrorists should be coddled as obama does

I'll ask you the same question....How many terrorists attack do you think there would be if the terrorist knew the victim could respond. Even the suicide attackers wouldn't have gone far if people could protect themselves.

I'm curious, What did you do in the military? Sit behind a desk?

For someone that never served but had others serve for her you have a lot of off the wall insults.

I was with the Seabees (civil engineering i.e. Bridges, roads, buildings) that supported an Indian Ocean deployment way before you. We supported the Marines in Lebanon after the terrorist bombing there.

You might want to get your eyes checked for tunnel vision.

@Pfuzylogic:

[b]One more time....How many terrorists attack do you think there would be if the terrorist knew the victim could respond. Even the suicide attackers wouldn't have gone far if people could protect themselv[/b]

Disrespectful
What is up with you?
People normally respond to you in all caps?
I hope you never carry an automatic weapon, ever.

@Pfuzylogic:

You need glasses. [u] It's not all caps[/u]. it's in bold letters because you seem to keep missing it or you are afraid to answer.

You know I'm right, so you continue to avoid the question.

Yawn!

Your parents could have done a much better job
You have an unruly temper and a sense of entitlement.

You would have to know what you are talking about to be considered right.

YIKES!! Insulting my parents now.

Look, if you want to call me names, I have no problem with that. My parents and family are out of bounds....Understand?

You've done nothing but demean me and then call me names under the guise of disrespecting you. Typical liberal..

One simple question....just one. It's not complicated. One simple question and we can end it here.

How many terrorists attack do you think there would be if the terrorist knew the victim could respond. Even the suicide attackers wouldn't have gone as far if people could protect themselves.

Chill little one
You are who you are; it is much too late to change now.
I don't expect you to change any opinions spoon fed you.

@Pfuzylogic:

It's no use talking with you. You realize you are wrong. You can't answer one simple question and all you want to do is call me names and demean me.

Unless you answer the question, this conversation is over.
It's your call.

You don't define anything.

@Pfuzylogic:

I Just Did. Good Bye

@lov2smile: He served in the military. That should be enough. Every single military role is crucial. Going into Beirut, in October of 1983, was not a picnic. I was there, about 4 weeks before the suicide bombing, and know that there was a target on every single service member's back. If you want to blame someone, blame Reagan. The cost was very heavy, but we learned a lot from that suicide attack.

Now, back to your claim that no suicide or terrorist attacks can occur, if people are armed. I can sit here, all night typing, but let's start with a few:

- Dozens of suicide attacks in Israel.

- Hundreds of suicide attacks, in Iraq and Syria, targeting heavily armed installations. Targets included police academies, military schools.

- One of the suicide bombers favorite attack tactics, is when they are on the offensive, against heavily defended targets (tanks, missiles, fixed position automatic weapons, etc.), is to send suicide bombers in, to explode themselves.

- Suicide attacks on airports in Rome, and Istanbul, airports that were protected by elite security forces, armed to the teeth.

.....etc.

Can't get more defended, or armed than this.

@Pfuzylogic: answer her question!!!!!!!

@Angelica What are you?

I'm just curious of one thing..

Would anyone in their right mind attack someone that they knew had a weapon ready and cocked??

@Northwest:

Okay I appreciate your response, but would you please read my responses more carefully. I never said: [i]"your claim that [u]no suicide[/u] or terrorist attacks can occur"[/i]

That's not the first time you've done that. I overlooked it in the past for the bigger picture.

I'm talking about America. This conversation is about what sneaky obama is doing to control guns.

@Pfuzylogic: I hate politics..and never debate so don't even go there...

Im just curious!

@Angelica
Did you ever serve in the United States service.
Are you voting in the Presidential election?
These are specifically US election issues at this time.

@lov2smile: You said:

[quote]How many terrorists attack do you think there would be if the terrorist knew the victim could respond. [b][u]Even the suicide attackers wouldn't have gone as far if people could protect themselves[/u][/b].[/quote]

Your statement cannot be any clearer on this issue: you're saying that suicide attackers wouldn't have gone as far. This means none. When someone answers your question, don't blame them if they address it properly.

You said: "That's not the first time you've done that". Where have I done that? Provide a link to your claim.

Then you say "I'm talking about America.". Then you should have been clear. It however makes no difference. Your intent was clear: if there are armed people, then suicide bombers will not go as far (your own words). This claim would apply universally, unless you think human beings in America, are not cut out of the human race, or something like that.

I will however indulge you. The attacks on cops, in Dallas and Louisiana: in the first one, the attacker, went after a very well armed group of police officers, and the same thing happened, in the second attack.

Having weapons in the hands of the populace, does not prevent terrorists from attacking.

Obama has not done a single thing to curb gun ownership, and I am really disappointed. I think that when King George had muskets, and the Patriots had Muskets, there was a balance. Today, the government has airplanes, and drones. The only thing that makes sense, if for people to stop loving guns, and join humanity. I will however read about this ban. I don't seem to be able to find details yet.

@Northwest:

You said: [i]"This means none"[/i]. HUH? REALLY? How on earth did you come up with that. you have a different concept of the english language.

I'm sorry, you are off the rail on that one. You are wrong. It doesn't mean [u]none[/u].

That's a question, not an answer.

If you read the post from the beginning, and not jumped in the middle, you could have easily discern the meaning, I'm talking in America.

As far as the other time you misquoted me: I said: "It was a couple years ago. It took me months to read the obamacare law."

You wrote you: [i] "It shouldn't have taken two years to read"[/i]

That's just off the top of my head. I really can't be bothered searching when someone like you twists people's words to bolster their argument.

@lov2smile:

[quote]Even the suicide attackers wouldn't have gone as far if people could protect themselves.[/quote]

[quote] How on earth did you come up with that. you have a different concept of the english language.[/quote]

They [b][u]WOULDN'T HAVE[/u][/b]

Well, this means they would not have. As none. As in nada. As in none.

There's nothing wrong with my English. And, your reference was general. You, and your friend, kept harassing him to answer the strwaman, er, question. Nevertheless, I provided examples of where it happened in the US. Plenty more where that came from. Here's another one: a terrorist, started a suicide attack on a US military based in Texas. Most suicide attacks in the US were committed by people, who knew the party they're attacking is well armed. Your argument is not valid.

"It was a couple years ago. It took me months to read the obamacare law."

How many months would that be? 24? Also, this is what you're taking issue with? If I were you, I would be more embarrassed about your claim, that you came up with that list on your own, when you have actually coped it from an article that's been circulating since March of 2006. It was copied Verbatim.

But, that's also like your claim that teenage pregnancy is at an all time high, when it's at its lowest since 1990. You stated that like it was a fact.

The fact, is that you fabricate stuff, or you copy it, without investigating it.

@Northwest:

Let me be clear, so as to show your folly. [b]Terrorists that walk into a theater shooting people, and then blowing themselves up....kills not only the people they shoot but everyone close to them when the bomb explodes.[/b]

In other words, as soon as the shooting starts, someone is shooting back, thereby, the attacker.....[b]IF [/b]he is lucky enough to be alive pulls the cord and he explodes along with the people around him.

Northwest, you seem like an intelligent person, what I don't understand is, why an explanation (above) is so difficult for you to understand.

Is it because you cannot debate the merits of the subject?
Is it because you would rather diminish the credibility of the author?
Is it because you want me to go away and you think by attempting to embarrassing me that will stop me from trying to educate the unwashed?

In a previous post:
I said it was a couple years ago, that I read the bill...you misinterpreted that to mean...it took two years to read it...two different things, but then again, that does appear to be your modus operandi.

Nothing for me to be embarrassed about...that's the way the bill was written two years ago. There may have been some changes, but for the most part it's in tact.
The e-mail that you claim to have seen...it must have been right.

Ha, the opening paragraph... maybe it deserves a separate post, if there are other liberals out there that don't understand.

Thanks for the idea.

@lov2smile:
[quote]Let me be clear, so as to show your folly. Terrorists that walk into a theater shooting people, and then blowing themselves up....kills not only the people they shoot but everyone close to them when the bomb explodes.

In other words, as soon as the shooting starts, someone is shooting back, thereby, the attacker.....IF he is lucky enough to be alive pulls the cord and he explodes along with the people around him.
[/quote]

I have no idea how you're showing "my folly". I don't know what all of this means, and how it related to your claim [quote]Even the suicide attackers wouldn't have gone as far if people could protect themselves.[/quote]

You're parroting the NRA: if people have guns, then no attacks would occur, and then you add to that even suicide attacks would be prevented. Speaking of "folly", do you know how out of touch with reality that statement of yours is? It's a suicide attack. It does not matter if it's in America, or anywhere else. It's a suicide attack. Repeat that one more time. How is an armed civilian, going to scare off someone who already made the decision to die, and take as many as they can with them?

[quote]Northwest, you seem like an intelligent person, what I don't understand is, why an explanation (above) is so difficult for you to understand. [/quote]

Because what you're saying makes no sense, and I don't need to be intelligent to realize that.

As to the rest of your post... You were the one who claimed that you researched the ACA, two years ago, and spent several months doing so. Yes, perhaps I misstated 2 years and several months (and how many months was that?), but the real point, is that you claimed to be an expert, and then you came back with a canned answer, picked from tea party propaganda. Not a single point of original input (as you promised). It was VERBATIM from the tea party. It was propaganda, and none of it was factual, including and up to the so-called death panels.

If you want to be treated with politeness, then you should start that way. You don't respond to my original post, with things like "naive". When you open up with that, don't expect to be taken seriously, or be treated politely. You also continue that trend, with every single post.

I said that you should embarrassed, and you completely skirt the issue that you posted unfounded propaganda, in fact proven to be false. It's like your claim that the New Yorker, posting something it did not. Instead, you think that the only thing that matters, is whether you spent 2 years, or several months reading the ACA.

This is like the Usher at the Ford Theater: "Well, Mrs. Lincoln, other than that one thing, how was the play?"

If you want to be treated with respect, then treat others with respect, especially when you post opinions, and propaganda. The reason people respond to it, is NOT because they're naive, it's because, well it's propaganda.

I was in an attempted airjacking once, on a flight from Tel Aviv to Cairo. I was hoping that we would land back in Tel Aviv, because I did not want the Egyptians to handle it, like they did the previous time (almost all the hostages dead). Guns in the wrong hands, can be deadlier than the attackers themselves.