Galt's Gulch

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

    -
  • Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 11 months ago
    Foster is a victim of irrational propaganda and unconstitutional gun laws. If not for stupid government laws and idiots like Moms Demand Action leader Shannon Watts, Foster would never have thought someone carrying a gun was a problem. If the world was rational, he wouldn't have had a care in the world because dozens of others would have been carrying guns, too, and anyone using a gun to commit a felony would be committing suicide.

    Sentence Foster to re-education in the Gulch.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by $ winterwind 9 years, 11 months ago
      oh, is he going to be in your class? 'cause I don't take people who initiate violence in my class - they've already demonstrated that he's irremediable.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 11 months ago
        You have never in your life initiated violence? Without proper education adults can be like children. Maybe he is beyond saving. I can't tell from one incident that may be misreported by the media. Most people in this Gulch continue to give the con-men in DC chances to reform. Should all those Gulchers be excluded, too, because they are willing to be misled again? I think the con-gress critters are beyond hope, but imo the people must have a chance to hear and acknowledge the truth if they are willing. There is little chance most will get the truth when the propaganda machine is so pervasive. Where else can they learn?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Turfprint 9 years, 11 months ago
    This is what I posted on her Facebook:
    Shannon Watts you read all the stuff purposely written to infuriate and shock you, that’s how newsies keep ratings up. There is a big picture in the world, such as more children die in swimming pools than with hand guns. You are acting like a mad dog chasing your own tail
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by sfdi1947 9 years, 11 months ago
    Mr. Foster is quite lucky he isn't shot or dead, in most states, excepting some of the communist ones like CA, NY, and CT. an attack, and the restraint of a choke hold is considered 'deadly force.' Watts is a special consideration of herself, fitting Franklin's epithetic statement about surrendering freedom, and deserving none. She should be locked up as a danger to society.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by GaryL 9 years, 11 months ago
    I would not go to my local Walmart without a gun! As far as Foster is concerned I hope he suffers from his victim hiring a great lawyer and good doctors.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Susanne 9 years, 11 months ago
    Moms Demand Action... MDA? Yeah, Watts actions make me think she seems to be on drugs... Bunch of Bloom(berg)an Idiots. Speaking of bunches...

    And Foster? Obviously, the guy went Bananas...

    He's lucky that Mr. Daniels didn't see the attack as a threat to his life... It's an example of another responsible CCW holder showing proper and necessary restraint in what was obviously a dicey situation.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by woodlema 9 years, 11 months ago
    Typical of the blithering morons who are anti-gun.
    Having taken numerous self defense, or let me re-phrase, self-offence classes, been a bouncer in my 20's I can do more damage in close quarters to a person using a simple pen, than you can with a gun.

    And in close quarters, i.e. within 3 feet of a person, given .5 seconds, I and many people who have taken "offensive" classes, training and been in numerous "scuffles", can crush your windpipe, snap your knees and elbows backwards, pretty much rip your head off, in about the same time it takes to pull out your gun, and fire one shot.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-HUxeIx...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzkEvEyN...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjmBPFPT...

    There is a HUGE difference between Self-Offensive" and "Self-Defensive"

    I believe in eliminating your attacker not just stopping him/her.

    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by $ jdg 9 years, 11 months ago
      I'm glad you weren't the target, then. Unnecessary force hurts our cause and is a bad idea, even if you would have prevailed in court.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by woodlema 9 years, 11 months ago
        No such thing as "unnecessary force" in wartime.
        Gen Patton said it best in my opinion. "You don't win a war by dying for your country, you win by making the other poor bastard die for his."

        If someone is stupid enough to attack me and/or my family I must assume this day in age the following:
        1) They intend to harm or kill my family
        2) They are not mentally sound and need put down since you cannot reason with the crazy.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by plusaf 9 years, 11 months ago
          "No such thing as "unnecessary force" in wartime. "

          Was war declared in that Walmart????
          Did I miss the headlines or the 10pm news?
          WAR?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            -
          • Posted by woodlema 9 years, 11 months ago
            I am often disappointed by the lack of understanding of the English language and lack of knowledge of the definitions of words when used in a specific context.

            Words have meanings, differing by context. Please note Merriam Websters definitions of War, in particular 2a and 2 b.

            Full Definition of WAR
            1a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : state of war
            b : the art or science of warfare
            c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war

            2a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism
            b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease>
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by plusaf 9 years, 10 months ago
              Thanks, woodlema, but that's a stretch, still, and when you have to go even a bit beyond Definition #1 to map the situation to the discussion, the ice gets thin. 2a? Antagonizing someone is "war"...?

              Ok, --- if you say so... :)
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 9 years, 11 months ago
    Had Foster been properly educated, he would have been carrying a gun himself. Then he would have winked at the guy, as if to say, "If you're here to do right, I have your back. But if you're here to do wrong...!"
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 11 months ago
    She is a symptom of our descending from reason into irrationality. The arrested (development) guy wanted to be a hero so badly that he was willing to risk his life and that of others, when he could have easily defused the situation with a phone call. To defend such craziness is in itself crazy.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by norman1 9 years, 11 months ago
    the attacker is lucky that he wasn't shot. did he learn something? probably not.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by NealS 9 years, 11 months ago
      He probably would have learned something from me. At my age and in my condition I would be hurt bad if someone tackled me. I even hurt just getting up in the morning. He probably would have been shot in self defense had he tried that on me.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by strugatsky 9 years, 11 months ago
      I am sorry that he wasn't.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by sumitch 9 years, 11 months ago
        How noble of you. What if he had been? The first thing I wondered was if the store had a sign that said no guns allowed.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by strugatsky 9 years, 11 months ago
          First, legalities: Walmart sells guns; they do not have a No Guns policy. Second, had he attacked an undercover cop, the attacker would have been dead and everyone, courts, administrative aggencies and public opinion, would have been in agreeement that the shooting was justified. Third, shouldn't any citizen be afforded the same rights as a cop? Fouth, the attack was intentional, designed to invoke fear and cause harm - are not those reasons enough to protect oneself with a defensive use of a gun? Wouldn't you agree that the above are noble causes?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            -
          • Posted by sumitch 9 years, 11 months ago
            With all the hype on TV about nut job killings it seems that some consideration should be given to the "attacker" doing what he thought might be stopping another mass killing. What would be the screams and breast beatings had the carrier pull out the pistol and killed a few people? I doubt that the man was trying to get his picture on the front page.

            Sure all the above are noble. Why then is a man thinking that he might be protecting others from getting killed noble?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by strugatsky 9 years, 11 months ago
              Allow me to disagree. If you follow the hype created by the Bloomberg organization, including Moms Demand Action, you will instantly recognize their tactic. There is absolutely nothing noble in their actions. In fact, they are designed to bring terror. These creeps have been practicing "swatting" people just because they open carry (still a Constitutional right, I believe) and if, by any chance, this particular creep really wanted to "save" people, he would have been calling the police from the parking lot and not attacking inside Wal-Mart, so as to get maximum media coverage. Personally, I am sorry that the attacked gentleman turned out to be such a gentleman. Hope he gets better advice from his lawyers.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by norman1 9 years, 11 months ago
          if he had been shot it would have been his fault, he ATTACKED THE MAN didn't he! as for the store having a sign no guns allowed that would have been illegal. home depot tried to do that where i live and it lasted less than one day. i do not think it is wise to just attack someone with out justification and not suffer the consequences,
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 11 months ago
          "The first thing I wondered was if the store had a sign that said no guns allowed."
          When I lived in FL, such signs did not affect permit holders' right to carry a gun under FL law.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 9 years, 11 months ago
    Even though I support open carry as a freedom to bear arms, I prefer to fully use my concealed carry permit.
    I'm no longer the show-off teenager of the 60s. Gone is my ability to rock n' roll with state inmates as a corrections officer back in the 80s.
    Now I have arthritis and other getting old issues.
    To attract attention to myself is not part of my self-defense strategy when walking about in public.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 11 months ago
    So now it's OK to attack an individual for exercising their 2nd amendment rights, and legally (albeit constitutionally unnecessary, in my opinion) registered weapon? I wonder when the same will be true for the 1st amendment (or is it already, hard to tell?).
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by sumitch 9 years, 11 months ago
      How was he to know that the man had a legal carry license?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Rocky_Road 9 years, 11 months ago
        "How was he to know that the man had a legal carry license?"

        Let's see: automobiles kill thousands more innocent people annually then handguns do, but how would you know if that driver sitting in front of you at the red light is licensed to be driving that killing machine?

        You could put your car into PARK...walk up to the suspected illegal driver...tap on his window, and try to pull him out of his 'weapon' by his throat, and maybe save the rest of us!

        Or...if that driver is doing something that alarms you, you can report it to someone that has the authority to investigate.

        Same thing here....

        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by sumitch 9 years, 11 months ago
      My point is not that the man didn't have the right to carry the gun. I fully support the 2nd amendment but it seems that there is another side to the discussion.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 11 months ago
        What other side? If you walk down the street reciting the Declaration of Independence, and someone tackled you, wouldn't they be in the wrong just for thinking you might be a "threat?"
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo