disrespectful to whom?Originally Posted by Sinfix_15
she could slow him down enough to make a getaway. Yes.could your wife fight off this guy?
disrespectful to whom?
she could slow him down enough to make a getaway. Yes.could your wife fight off this guy?
So, lets say your girl carries a knife and youve given her some instruction on using it.......
If your wife pulls a knife out instantly.... that's no guarantee that she will be able to fight off her attacker and not only that, being engaged might provoke the attacker to kill or severely injure her.
Lets say you told your wife to appear weak until an opportune moment to sneak in a knife attack when the guy doesnt expect it, like when hes pulling his pants down or something like that.... what if hes holding her down on her stomach or pins her arms. You think a woman is going to be crafty enough to fatally stab someone while laying on her stomach with someone on top of her? even if she successfully stabs them, if it isnt fatal, he may kill her to retaliate.
What if he doesnt just attempt to hold her down and rape her, what if in the process of holding her down he's violent and knocks her out? that takes the surprise option away....
so, seriously.... present your ideas to be critiqued, if theyre good ideas then theyre good ideas....
Both of you, i wouldnt insult anyone by challenging their wife to anything like that. Even if she was a navy seal or whatever, still rude.
tell me how then?
She doesn't carry a knife. Or pepper spray. Or a gun.
So you arm your woman with nothing more than her physical ability?
If she wanted any of that stuff, she is more than welcome to get it. She hasn't yet.
The world is ending, I'm with Sinfix on this one.
So be it. Lol
As long as this is your wife blank, she's safe................... as long as her attacker doesnt have a weapon.
No, but she does look like a girl I once messed around with a while back.As long as this is your wife blank, she's safe................... as long as her attacker doesnt have a weapon.
Last edited by Sinfix_15; 02-23-2013 at 06:02 PM.
Dear Veterans, thanx for your service, but you can no longer enjoy the freedom you risked your lives for.
Signed - Obama
Obama Deems American Veterans Unfit To Own Firearms - The Free Patriot
That video perfectly highlights why shotguns without a butt stock are moronic. Biden is absolutely correct in that a shotgun is a better home defense weapon than an AR.
One of my ex girlfriends got all "Neo-conservative" on me and posted this video in her Facebook wall just today and called Biden un-qualified and un-American and what not. After I asked a series of questions, I got to the root of the issue. I asked her "so, to you, does easier mean less recoil?" Even through Facebook I could see the "ahhhhhhhhh" moment and the hamster wheel start turning when she stopped responding.
I will say that, without a doubt, Biden is an idiot, but anyone that thinks an amateur with an AR is a good choice for home defense is even dumber than Biden is.
^^^ I agree with all of the above, I have a 12ga for the house and my wife is more than capable using it.
I just thought is was funny.
Later this year I am going to be in the market for either a rifle or shotgun. I havent decided which way I am going yet.
Looked at a Remington 700 today and would absolutely love to get into long range shooting. I would really like a shotgun for the house though.
Sent from my S3 using Tapatalk 2.
I mean honestly a 20 gauge will do the job too... or some variant of the judge (harder to aim, needs more training than a long gun).
for your shotgun, rem 870 is the way to go.
I just have the old 9-shot Mossberg 500. Has never failed to cycle or fire once after hundreds and hundreds (and more hundreds) of shells.
The safety on top drives me nuts.
watching gun control hearing on cspan, senator Grassley just compared banning assault rifles to banning cars that were capable of exceeding 55 mph.
God, if you're listening...... please make Dianne Feinstein have a stroke. Thank you. Amen.
So with that we can assume that Grassley should not stay in office for being about as bright as night.
You should be thankful that someone is attempting to talk sense into the left wing radicals and defend your freedoms. You've made it more than clear that you're too soft to do so. You eat whatever the government puts on your plate.
I'm too soft?
....lol You don't even know me, I stand up for what I believe.
You stand up for what you believe in but sit down when your government seeks to strip you of your right to stand up for anything.
I believe he's sitting down because he knows his government isnt seeking to strip him of anything.
You're a moron.
...Says you
You either do not think owning a firearm to defend yourself is a right or do not think anyone is trying to remove your ability to own firearms. Either way, you are a moron. Just another sheep in the growing flock of democrats.
So if I do not think anyone is trying to remove my ability to own firearms, and since, indeed, no one is trying to remove my ability to own firearms, then what does that make me?
Seems like you're speaking of firearms.
Let me make it easy, I have the right to bear arms. It doesn't specify what weapons I have a right to. I feel no threat from the government at this time, nor do I feel that they're stripping me of any rights.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I'm sorry but banning assault weapons does not break this right, which I'm sure is the point you're making. It simply sucks, but doesn't effect our rights or break the constitution. If they start literally speaking of banning all guns, then get back to me.
I'm curious though, aside from posting on Import Atlanta, what are you doing that makes you so hardcore in this matter but makes me so weak?
A delusional moron.
Banning "assault weapons" is stripping you of one of your rights, you're just too stupid to realize it.
Theoretically speaking, if/when they did start talking about banning all guns, what would you suggest we do?
Disguising themselves as anti-gun violence, they seek to strip people of a gun used in less than 1% of criminal activity. It's no coincidence at all that the guns they seek to strip you of 1st are the guns that would prevent them from coming for the rest.
I completely disagree. I don't have a right to own assault weapons, I have a right to bear arms, it doesn't specify what weapons, how many bullets, or anything else. You can't tell me how that's stripping me of a right so I guess you're just too stupid to form a legitimate argument.
If the government literally said all weapons must be turned over? I would suggest we fight until the last man is standing. That won't ever happen though, no politician is stupid enough to think there wouldn't be a civil war if that really happened.
Ok, so if the government allowed you to have beanbag shotguns..... they didnt strip you of your right to bear arms. They can "limit" as they see fit.
Good answer..... "fight until the last man standing"... is what most people would say. In the event it came to a point where people had to "fight until the last man standing"..... what type of gun would you chose to defend yourself?
Theyre not seeking to ban guns used in crime, guns used by criminals...... theyre seeking to ban the gun that you would pick up if they ever decided to come take your guns.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
