Blaserbuds; the worlds superlative information source, for these products

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34714389/ns ... _news-life

About halfway or 2/3rds of the way down the first page of the story is a link to vote in a poll about concealed carry that you may wish to participate in.

It's truly amazing to me that MSNBC was able to report on the 2nd Amendment in such a non-biased fashion.

Great that you found that. I can't believe MSNBC has a story on concealed carry that's not dead set against people defending themselves!

Thanks for posting!

When the media comes to center on gun issues, it truly shows that anti firearms advocates are in the minority.

chriso wrote:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34714389/ns ... _news-life

About halfway or 2/3rds of the way down the first page of the story is a link to vote in a poll about concealed carry that you may wish to participate in.

It's truly amazing to me that MSNBC was able to report on the 2nd Amendment in such a non-biased fashion.

The tide has pretty much turned against the anti-gunners. Make no bones about it they're still there and poised to do whatever damage they can. However when the Kenyan got elected and we all knew how he, Billary Clintonista and his AG felt about the commoners having guns people were aptly worried. I saw several small stories that a lot of the democrats who won formerly Republican held seats were not in favor of gun control and sent word to Pelosi to LEAVE IT ALONE! There are quite a few democrats that realize and remember well that Al Gore was primarily defeated because of his stance on the 2nd Amendment. Their pursuit of taking over America is more important than this issue - as of today anyway. There are 60+ Senators who are pro 2nd Amendment and well over 50% of the House is of the same belief. As long as we vote and make it known that our 2nd Amendment rights are going to be defended to the death if need be we should be ok.

The public was terrorized by the left after Columbine and other school shootings to believe that we needed more stringent gun laws. As time has progressed they have realized that those things are going to happen, no matter how tightly controlled things are. At the same time as this incident proved, the public is realizing that if you want to protect yourself you need to be armed. Incidents such as the one on the Indian reservation where the killer executed the ‘unarmed’ security guard went a long way to convincing the general public that you need a gun to combat someone wanting to use a gun against you.

Of course there are those who believe that we need to increase the number of police officers and that they would keep you safe. The police are USELESS if you're in trouble. I always told people that we're real good at coming out and drawing a pretty chalk line around your body and taking pictures and collecting evidence to hopefully bring your killer to 'justice'. BUT that isn't going to bring YOU back! Law enforcement can only do so much. And the last thing we really need is more cops. Most departments could lose 25% of their organization and never miss a lick. In fact they might actually be more efficient if that were to happen! We can't afford enough cops to truly be 'safe' and secondly we don't want to live in a 'police state'. Martial law isn't a lot of fun.

One great law that many states have adopted is the Castle Doctrine. They mention it in the article. It has been a kick in the nutts to any criminal and his/her family. Finally something on the books that really does protect the homeowner. If you go onto somebody else's property with the intent to harm or steal from them you should be taking your life into your own hands. If you get killed, then obviously that was the price you were willing to pay to be there and commit your deeds!

I believe that the castle doctrine is very effective at preventing the crimminals families from sueing the potential victum that defended themselves. I believe that any family that would sue someone over shooting thier family member while he was commiting a crime, is the lowest form of worthless people breathing good air, that they do not deserve.

Corjack wrote:I believe that the castle doctrine is very effective at preventing the crimminals families from sueing the potential victum that defended themselves. I believe that any family that would sue someone over shooting thier family member while he was commiting a crime, is the lowest form of worthless people breathing good air, that they do not deserve.

True, however usually the families of vermin are vermin and will seize any opportunity to enrichen themselves over the loss of their 'loved one' who was just trying to steal your chit! And yes they are the lowest critters on the human food chain! And should be killed right along with their other kin that got executed....

thechamp wrote:

chriso wrote:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34714389/ns ... _news-life

About halfway or 2/3rds of the way down the first page of the story is a link to vote in a poll about concealed carry that you may wish to participate in.

It's truly amazing to me that MSNBC was able to report on the 2nd Amendment in such a non-biased fashion.

The tide has pretty much turned against the anti-gunners. Make no bones about it they're still there and poised to do whatever damage they can. However when the Kenyan got elected and we all knew how he, Billary Clintonista and his AG felt about the commoners having guns people were aptly worried. I saw several small stories that a lot of the democrats who won formerly Republican held seats were not in favor of gun control and sent word to Pelosi to LEAVE IT ALONE! There are quite a few democrats that realize and remember well that Al Gore was primarily defeated because of his stance on the 2nd Amendment. Their pursuit of taking over America is more important than this issue - as of today anyway. There are 60+ Senators who are pro 2nd Amendment and well over 50% of the House is of the same belief. As long as we vote and make it known that our 2nd Amendment rights are going to be defended to the death if need be we should be ok.

The public was terrorized by the left after Columbine and other school shootings to believe that we needed more stringent gun laws. As time has progressed they have realized that those things are going to happen, no matter how tightly controlled things are. At the same time as this incident proved, the public is realizing that if you want to protect yourself you need to be armed. Incidents such as the one on the Indian reservation where the killer executed the ‘unarmed’ security guard went a long way to convincing the general public that you need a gun to combat someone wanting to use a gun against you.

Of course there are those who believe that we need to increase the number of police officers and that they would keep you safe. The police are USELESS if you're in trouble. I always told people that we're real good at coming out and drawing a pretty chalk line around your body and taking pictures and collecting evidence to hopefully bring your killer to 'justice'. BUT that isn't going to bring YOU back! Law enforcement can only do so much. And the last thing we really need is more cops. Most departments could lose 25% of their organization and never miss a lick. In fact they might actually be more efficient if that were to happen! We can't afford enough cops to truly be 'safe' and secondly we don't want to live in a 'police state'. Martial law isn't a lot of fun.

One great law that many states have adopted is the Castle Doctrine. They mention it in the article. It has been a kick in the nutts to any criminal and his/her family. Finally something on the books that really does protect the homeowner. If you go onto somebody else's property with the intent to harm or steal from them you should be taking your life into your own hands. If you get killed, then obviously that was the price you were willing to pay to be there and commit your deeds!

Well said