If you carry a gun are you obligated to put your life in danger to stop a shooting?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obligation

Mores
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mores

 

ok. So here is my question, I know you do not carry because you are unable to by law, and apparently gun crimes are down where your at yet overall crime is about the same maybe higher (Yay no guns )

BUT...if It got worst would you carry?
Would you consider going to the range more and practicing?

http://www.ironwordranch.com/
This is one that should make you think. There was a law against carrying your weapon on you in a restraunt at lubys yet thie killer did not abide by it.

 

Suppressing Insurrectionists of Individuals of the People who are specifically unconnected with militia service by infringing their keeping and bearing of Arms, is what the militia of the United States should always be about.

 

you'd post your stuff anywhere...how about posting this regurgitated crap in the humor and jokes section. It sure doesn't belong in this thread.

 

Seriously guy, you are the only one with this train of thought, give it up.

- - - Updated - - -

Seriously guy, you are the only one with this train of thought, give it up.

 

...but .....but ......but............

- - - Updated - - -

...but .....but ......but............

 

Only gun lovers without a Cause, but maybe only a profit motive seem to think that way.

 

directly refuted via supreme court precedent

 

well, you have sure given me cause. Just because of your ignorance on the subject gun lovers..doesn't that mean the gun has emotions? Can't love an inanimate object if it doesn't return the emotion vested in it from people like you.
WE don't need the consent of the governmnet to cast off its chains...how stupid can a person get..........
Insurrection is always against someone's law, that's why the BoR gives us the guns.
I equate your position as one who is trying to talk a lion out of it's freshly killed dinner.....can't be done no matter how hard you stomp your feet and beat your chest.

 

Suppressing Insurrectionists of Individuals of the People who are specifically unconnected with militia service by infringing their keeping and bearing of Arms, is what the militia of the United States should always be about.

 

Nope - would not carry even if it got worse

And where I live we have a large and unfortunately often drunk indigenous community, a large number of single male "FIFO" workers (Fly in Fly out) a rural area where guns ARE available (yes the gun owners are held responsible but the police shut eye about guns in trucks because they have SEEN the size of some of the Feral pigs - not to mention the Crocs and snakes)

But I do not feel endangered, well not beyond crossing a road. Actually given the way some of the old property owners drive (only swerve for full grown bulls and only stop if they think the car is about to fall apart and red lights you slow down for, look both ways for oncoming traffic and keep driving) crossing the road here is WAAAAY more dangerous

But even with the Pigs, Dingoes, Crocs and Snakes we go camping here in tents on the ground - no guns, mind you I am NOT camping in a tent next to the bloody Normanton River for all the tea in China



That is a replica of one of the Crocs they caught in the river up there

 

Not sure what left wing nonsensical point you thought you would make here, but it seems to have blown up in your face. Having rights includes having the right not to act if you feel that is the correct decision, not that I expect you to understand the concept of having rights.

 

Why do we need the expense of a War on Crime?

 

The Bowerbird preferred outcome.

http://www.mail.com/news/us/1958198...d-ny-mall-carjacking.html#.7518-stage-hero1-2

 

yep. Leave yourself defenseless against such acts. Take guns away so the smart ones cannot defend themselves. To those who wear tye-dye and run throught the forest and streams barefooted with colorful streamers in their hair..........life is but a dream, dontcha know..............

 

some people rather deal with life with rose-colored glasses and blinders. they have no Rights in OZ. They are subjects of the crown. But they come by it honestly, They've been bending knees for so many generations, they cannot think for themselves or even begin to understand what the hell a Right is.

 

A well regulated militia is Necessary to the security of a free State; why do gun lovers without a Cause, but potentially a profit motive, have any problem becoming Necessary to the security of a free State?

 

Ayuh,.... For the Millionth time, is this the Only line you've got,..??

It's still irrelevant, 'n it's really gettin' old...

 

Appealing to ignorance regarding our supreme law of the land is worse.

 

many of us have taken to not responding to this drivel. It has become so tiresome.

 

Oh! I made a point and one that a LOT of people did get

It was a counter to the argument "but if more people had guns then shooters would be stopped by and armed citizen". Even THOUGH I left it open for people to tick the box that would allow a CCW holder to stay safe while doing so only one respondent out of 37 ticked that box.

So NEXT time someone comes on claiming that a mass shooter will be stopped by a CCW I will ask whether they truly believe that would help when only one person in 37 thinks they would have an obligation, legal social or moral to do so

- - - Updated - - -

No proof that not owning a gun makes that more likely and substantial proof that owning a gun makes that more likely

 

Again, when people answered this question, the were under the impression that you meant legally obligated. Now you are trying to pull your proof from that? Weak. Therefor you made no point, you simply asked a vague question and twisted the meaning. Nice try.

During a public shooting situation, a concealed carrier is your best bet by far.

 

Persons entitled to "character of a well regulated militia" should have no problem suppressing Insurrections of Individuals of the People who may acquire and possess Arm in a manner that may be indistinguishable from keeping and bearing Arms.

 

The question isn't are they obligated. The question is should they. A lot of CCW folks like to think they can put a bad guy down, but it really is going to depend on the situation. Having someone return fire in a situation like the CO movie shooting is different then a Newtown. Also some bubba who carries because they live in fear versus someone who is trained in law enforcement needs to be taken into account.

 

It was discussed but a long way into the thread and if you read the responses, especially the initial responses most saw this as a social obligation. But I am happy if you want to start another thread with the questions answered differently - remembering that the intent behind the questions was to determine if people with a CCW licence actually would step forward during a mass shooting to try and stop it from occurring