Are we a "gun-sick" nation?

Posted by johnpe1 9 years ago to News
37 comments | Share | Flag

Geraldo Rivera kicks up a fuss about "universal"
background checks,,, and then admits that he
is a member of the NRA. . what logic is this? -- j
.
SOURCE URL: http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/geraldo-rivera-slams-nra-then-admits-im-a-member/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by RobMorse 9 years ago
    We are not gun sick, but most people have not carefully thought through the issue of armed self-defense. There is a lot to learn and it is not obvious. Unfortunately, there is a lot of opinion mixed in with the facts. They mistake Geraldo's confidence and passion for authority.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by MinorLiberator 9 years ago
    And no, we are not a "gun-sick" nation. That cliche is older and more tiresome than "the 1%-ers"...in truth, I've never actually fired a gun. I don't feel, where I live at the moment, I need one, and unfortunately, it also happens to be illegal here. However, if I were to move back to in or near my native Detroit, which is always possible, and where a CCW permit has gradually become almost trivial to acquire, I would have a firearm ASAP. My brother and a young nephew, two of the most genteel and reasonable people I know, who live just outside The D, are both well-trained and own handguns for protection. IMO, they are not "sick", but quite, well, rational.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 9 years ago
    Yesterday I did a "gun sick" thing.
    I had a hideaway pistol in my pocket while I had some paperwork "medallion stamped" by a credit union branch manager.
    An armed security guard was there along with a sign that told me not to carry. So I'm a bad boy.
    My thinking is that one or more bank robbers would not feel threatened if they managed to neutralize the security guard.
    (Due to retired dino's past professions, I've been trained and NRA qualified 23 times and sometimes with multiple weapons).
    But I'm also thinking that if robbers did a quick rob and run from the counter without hurting anyone, I would do nothing, The risk to others and myself would not be worth it.
    Nevertheless, I view a "gun free zone" as a zone with easy targets of opportunity.
    A robber is not the only armed criminal who can come into a credit union or a bank. Some nut could have a big fat issue with the place.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by strugatsky 9 years ago
      "Gun Free" is an advertisement for easy hunting. The least that the government could do would be to limit the number of heads, er, I meant, sheeple, that could be taken and perhaps limit the hunting to seasons - you know, give the children a chance to grow up a bit first.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 9 years ago
    Geraldo wants everyone to love him. Too bad he is so extremely unlovable. One of the sickest of the FOX commentators is Rivera. He'll go anywhere, do anything to make himself look heroic in his reporting. Since he is a lawyer, we'd all be better off if he'd stick to writing up wills and chasing ambulances.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 9 years ago
    The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to protect US from an out of control government. If the populace was armed, the government could only go so far before uprisings would happen and the government would be forcibly toppled. The government is the biggest looter around today, far exceeding anything that two-bit thieves get breaking into my house. If others had been armed in Oregon, the whole thing would have ended quickly with a dead perp.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo