I'll let someone who's actually BEEN THERE make her retort:
She actually went for her gun,but it wasn't there,thanks to the "law".
I'm also sick and tired of hearing about how much better trained cops and the military are then we mere mundanes.
First of all,as dillinger pointed out,thats a bold assed assumption to be making; some people take their **** pretty seriously.
Secondly- has anyone making these claims ever seen the statistics of how well cops really shoot?Have they duly noted that alot of cops consider their guns to be just another tool on their belt that they train only to departmental standards with,and that said standards oftentimes are achieved by training that is nowhere near the level of skill taught by these private training camps around the nation that tens of thousands of private people (including some cops on their off time) go to train?
I'll give the guy this much- no one actually knows what they'll do when their faced with life or death.
You can in fact train for years- but until you actually face it,you don't know how you'll respond.
But to somehow place agents of the state above this reality is alarming.Its alarming because so many people seem to be of the same mentality.
As if,unless someone has had government training,they can't solve a serious problem.
I'm frankly alarmed at the statist notion that we all need our nannies to come wipe our asses for us and we can't take care of ourselves.
This is a totally defeatist idea that likely can handicap people psychologically who might otherwise have the capacity to act under such stress as an active shooter.
If more people understood that we are all responsible for our own safety and acted accordingly,more people would then be prepared to defend themselves.
What the hell happened to the spirit of independence and self reliance in this nation that we have people who worship anyone and anything thats government so readily?
Anyway,Suzanna states that she'd had no training and had no experience with her gun.....but I'd bet you my left testicle if the "law" hadn't illegitimately and wrongly disarmed her that day she'd have shot that mad man dead.
PS-
TDS92A- you can't truly "lose" or have "taken" from you inalienable rights.Look up the definition of the word "inalienable".People who are so dangerous that they cannot be trusted to be able to act on their rights should be in the custody of those that can prevent them from doing so.
Government should otherwise be restricted by the plain intent of the meaning of the words "shall not be infringed".
Agreeing that government can enact "laws" that "take away" said inalienable rights,is,in fact,agreeing to "gun control".
It was not until 1968,with the passing of
the Nazi plagiarized GCA68,that government asserted it could "take" the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms away from certain groups of "prohibited possessors".
In fact,until the turn of the 19th century,it was common practice in some states for a man being released from prison to be issued a gun and a horse.
Also,there are many historical references to criminals in england who were sentenced to "transportation",or the forcible deportation from england to the colonies,who then actually went on to bear arms under Washington in the Colonial Army to fight for the inalienable rights we now allow progressives to claim they can "take" from us.
It is true that you cannot be pro 2A and also accept "gun control."
And that means you have to know what "gun control" really is,and also,you have to know what an inalienable right is.
An Interesting Colorado View - and yet I disagree with most of it
and for your efforts - a little redheaded cookie, enjoy 
Linear Mode
.jpg-1348858740.jpg)
