Minnesota Sports Forum

AbeVigodaLive wrote:I'm sorta skeptical that having more people carry guns -- including those not adept or really excited about carrying guns -- to solve the gun problem in this country is really the best option.

BizarroJerry wrote:This argument that more guns in the hands of civilians is absurd. That's always their answer. Give people more guns and let the better shooter win.

WolvesFan21 wrote:

monsterpile wrote:

WolvesFan21 wrote:

monsterpile wrote:

WolvesFan21 wrote:The only restriction that makes sense is someone who has been convicted of a violent gun crime already. IE you shoot someone and rob them, murder someone, etc. Other then that, I see no reason why anyone over 18 can get and carry any gun they want.

The threat of a gun is why people are safe, see Chicago or other major places that highly restrict CCW. Which is unconstitutional. They have more gun crime!

The reason the GOV wants to ban guns is they want people dependent on GOV, irresponsible and poor. No threat to the GOV power.

I have no proof but I suspect many of these riots were started by the same people who want to ban guns, increase the police state, expand GOV's power over the population. It's called a false flag. Shoot down your own ship so you can start a war with another country. Operation Northwoods was one proposed false flag under Kennedy by the DoD. The plan was to shoot down an American passenger jet and blame it on Cuba. In order to start a war with Cuba.

Here is a snippet from Wiki-

Operation Northwoods was a proposed false flag operation against the Cuban government that originated within the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) of the United States government in 1962. The proposals called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or other U.S. government operatives to both stage and actually commit acts of terrorism against American military and civilian targets,[2] blaming them on the Cuban government, and using it to justify a war against Cuba. The possibilities detailed in the document included the possible assassination of Cuban immigrants, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas,[2] hijacking planes to be shot down or given the appearance of being shot down,[2] blowing up a U.S. ship, and orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.[3] The proposals were rejected by President John F. Kennedy.[4][5][6]

Fidel Castro had taken power in Cuba in 1959 and began allowing communists into the new Cuban government, nationalizing US businesses and improving relations with the Soviet Union, arousing the concern of the U.S. military due to the Cold War. The operation proposed creating public support for a war against Cuba by blaming it for terrorist acts that would actually be perpetrated by the U.S. Government.[1] To this end, Operation Northwoods proposals recommended hijackings and bombings followed by the introduction of phony evidence that would implicate the Cuban government. It stated:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

That's for clarifying. What about people with mental disorders? What about people with disabilities that would not be physically about to protect themselves with a weapon? Wouldn't that make them even more vulnerable than they already are?

I wouldn't restrict people with mental disorders, because if we went that route, anyone can be considered mentally ill. You post Trump sucks, boom now you are red flagged and mentally ill. "People with physical disabilities" - Having more people carrying guns will make them safer. Because potential robber won't know if they have a weapon or not. The US already has 350+ million guns. It's not like it's hard at all for any criminals that want to rob people to get guns. We need guns easily accessible for the avg person to carry and conceal to make the streets safer for all, even if you choose not to.

Ok. A couple more questions. So what about the 12 year old kid that clearly can't have a gun? What about the 37 year old quadriplegic in a wheel chair?

So what about them? You think if more people are carrying guns that the 12 year old is in more danger or less? Actually it would be less since 99% of people are really morally good and if something was to happen to the 12 year old good people would step in and act.

TheSP wrote:

BizarroJerry wrote:This argument that more guns in the hands of civilians is absurd. That's always their answer. Give people more guns and let the better shooter win.

And yet we're seeing major US cities where their mayor's are pulling the police back and letting violent rioters rule. It's a great irony that the left is against private gun ownership yet act in a manner that promotes private gun ownership. Gun manufacturers are seeing record sales amidst the violent unrest.

While I don't buy into the conspiracy theories being presented here, I do think current events make an excellent case for being armed