Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by GeorgiaGlocker, Aug 5, 2020.
But the rest of you peasants aren't important.
How many death threats do you routinely get?
Straw man argument...
I can conceal carry. Who cares about that bill?
You can leousa carry in all 50 states? Lucky you. Not all citizens are created equal.
How so? Judges and prosecutors, and heck, even some defense attorneys are routinely threatened and targeted buy "unhappy clients," to say the least.
I love it when politicians or whoever say they need substantial armed protection because "they face more of a threat." Why? Because of these undeniable, provable facts:
VASTLY more non-politicians, non-prosecutors, non-judges, etc. are murdered every year, by orders of magnitude, than politicians, etc.
So if the armed security is so freaking good that it provides protection on the order or 100 or 1000 times, then all of us should get the protection.
Since the great unwashed taxpayers are not worthy of getting taxpayer funded protection, they should certainly be allowed to pay for it themselves via armed guards or ...
Their own weapons, which the data seem to show prevent those protected from getting killed by orders of magnitude.
Correct? If you think not, let's debate the point further.
Um, the flaw in your argument is that there are vastly FEWER judicial officials than the general public.
"A 1999 survey of 1,029 Pennsylvania state judges found that 51.8 percent reported being the target of an IC&C sometime during the previous year. In addition, more than 25 percent of the 1,029 state judges were physically approached, 1.2 percent were assaulted, and—more disturbing—more than one third admitted that they had changed their judicial conduct as a result of the experience."
The "average" homicide victim is killed by someone they know, during a domestic assault or acquaintance assault, hence the rest of your argument is moot. No one has said that the average person should be denied ccw rights.
A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, meanwhile the proper idea of argument under discussion was not addressed or properly refuted. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
Clear enough for you?
To be honest it seems daily watching the news the last few months cause I am White, Christian, Employed (well, retired), stand for my anthem, salute my flag, know I am a male etc etc etc
I can carry in every state I want to or will ever go to. All citizens are not my problem. If morons want to live in or venture to states where they can’t carry that is their problem, not mine. They get the state government they deserve.
I thought this was already in place.
Well then if the vast amount of murders are of someone you know then they shouldn't need a gun. They should pick who they know better.
All the time. The leftists are threatening the normal people every day.
For Christ's sake, just make a bill granting concealed carry reciprocity to all 50 states and be done with this.
And that is why we lose. California creep coming your way soon enough. Then what
Get ready for it. Americans are embracing marxists.
The question I have , is the new LEOSA reform act going to pass and what is in the bill. The “old” LEOSA reform bill that seemed to get stalled in committee had new provisions that would overrule some of the restrictions that local and state governments ( some private commercial properties too) put on LEOSA carry. I think that’s why it wasn’t going anywhere before the new push .
Does the new “push” take more restrictions off of LEOSA carry? Or does it just include judges to the list of LEOSA qualified people?
I think that depends if he voices his opinion on the internet. Apparently saying silly things like "my life matters" can get you death threats on the internet.
My initial thought is it's a good thing for the judges/prosecutors......and, will be arrows in our quiver for getting the rest of us peasants the same allowance.....