The worst part is that even if that DID happen... would we be safer? Would disarmed women be safer from those very thugs pictured if they were disarmed? Hell no! Put those three (or even just ONE) of those thugs against a woman smaller than them (and, face it, most are, certainly when it comes to upper-body strength) and what would happen? She's as good as raped and/or dead. Give her a gun, though, and regardless of whether or not they're armed she's able to defend herself.Getting rid of guns would lead to a more dangerous society. That isn't conjecture, it's based on the reality of the entirety of human history where the young, the many, the strong and the able have always (ALWAYS) victimized the old, the few, the weak and the infirm. The ONLY thing that stops this is a firearm in the hand of the would-be victims. Period. Laws don't. Strong-men in tribal systems don't (in fact they're some of the worst victimizers there are!). Liberalism sure as hell doesn't. Guns do, hence why we have a right to them that must be defended at all costs. And no, there's no distinction between different types of firearms. We have a right to ALL of them whether libtards think we "need" them or not. Frankly they're too incompetent to even judge that anyway, and whenever they do they're wrong.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar<