Colorado Dem to Rape Survivor: A Gun Wouldn’t Have Helped You

**noonwitch** · 03-07-2013, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Reb

I'm always amazed by the so called 'reasoning' of the libtard. The implication above being, "well, golly gee, since you can't always see the treat coming then it's really just a big fat waste of time to be armed". That so called'reasoning' is patently absurd and another example of the liberal tactic of using the straw man argument when they can't logically counter during a debate.

"Arguing with a liberal is like playing chess with a pigeon: they'll knock over all the pieces, shit on the board and then declare victory." --- unknown

I have personal experience with not seeing the threat coming but because I was armed with a gun I was able to neutralize the perp before he neutralized me. Your so called 'reasoning' is naive and doesnt' pass the smell test. If you personally don't want to arm yourself then, fine, risk being a victim but don't question or try to deny others their natural right to bear arms and defend themselves.

And, yes, it is better to be armed than to become a rape/murder victim, or any other kind of victim. Always.

You insist on misinterpreting everything I say so that you can justify your hatred. Fine. I never said that she shouldn't have had a gun, or that she wouldn't have been able to use it to protect herself. What I said is that I don't know whether it would have helped this woman or not, but that neither did the representative in question. I am admitting my ignorance about guns. I've never claimed to know anything about guns, which is one of many reasons I don't take an anti-gun stand (the 2nd Amendment being the main reason).

**Odysseus** · 03-07-2013, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by noonwitch

You insist on misinterpreting everything I say so that you can justify your hatred. Fine. I never said that she shouldn't have had a gun, or that she wouldn't have been able to use it to protect herself. What I said is that I don't know whether it would have helped this woman or not, but that neither did the representative in question. I am admitting my ignorance about guns. I've never claimed to know anything about guns, which is one of many reasons I don't take an anti-gun stand (the 2nd Amendment being the main reason).

While we accept that you are not personally anti-gun, you do vote for Democratic politicians who are vehemently anti-gun. Given that it's not an issue of major concern for you, that is understandable, but you also understand that if you vote for the dogs, you end up with the fleas.

**Unreconstructed Reb** · 03-07-2013, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by noonwitch

You insist on misinterpreting everything I say so that you can justify your hatred. Fine. I never said that she shouldn't have had a gun, or that she wouldn't have been able to use it to protect herself. What I said is that I don't know whether it would have helped this woman or not, but that neither did the representative in question. I am admitting my ignorance about guns. I've never claimed to know anything about guns, which is one of many reasons I don't take an anti-gun stand (the 2nd Amendment being the main reason).

First, I didn't misinterpret your response but perhaps you yourself are a little fuzzy about the issue. Exactly what was the point of your statement that a gun might not have helped her? We know the representative is a gun control advocate so she can't make any other argument than the weak one that she did. If you're not a gun control advocate then why would you position yourself similarly to the Colorado rep? It's a lame argument. If you can produce some emperical data that shows that women wielding guns are just as likely to be raped as women without guns, then fine. But when you jumped in with the weak and naive "it might not have helped her" dribble you, perhaps unwittingly, aligned yourself with the Colorado gun controller.

Second, don't project your hatred on me. I may find 0bama butt kissing liberals disgusting but I don't hate anybody. I refuse to waste the energy. If you feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel hatred from me or any other conservative then it's simply that you're trying to justify your hatred for me and, perhaps, others, via some misguided emotional equivalency.

**Molon Labe** · 03-07-2013, 01:50 PM

Years ago, I witnessed a shooting. A guy was laying next to my car with a bullet wound in his side. A day later we find that the guy was down the street in a laundry mat in an apartment complex, on top of a girl trying to rape her. She had a 38 in her pocket and was able to put a round in his side. Guy didn't die, but he stopped messing with her.

I'd rather her have the opportunity to have one than not.

**Jim54** · 03-07-2013, 06:12 PM

"...chances are that if you had had a gun, then he would have been able to get that from you and possibly use it against you...”

IMHO the the chances are very high that this Senator Hudak is lacking in the area of common sense. Any edge beats no edge or chance. Of course the good Senator has professional security, i'll wager.

**ReinMan** · 03-07-2013, 06:57 PM

Strange though, that no one advocates taking guns away from the police using the same logic....

There are no national statistics on how many times officers' guns are taken away. But the FBI says that of the 616 law enforcement officers killed on duty by criminals from 1994 through 2003, 52 were killed with their own weapon, amounting to 8 percent.

Source:PoliceOne.Com

**stsinner** · 03-12-2013, 09:30 AM

Evidently, self-help is discouraged. Just wet your pants or vomit on yourself or tell the man you have AIDS, according to the Dems..

**Odysseus** · 03-12-2013, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by stsinner

Evidently, self-help is discouraged. Just wet your pants or vomit on yourself or tell the man you have AIDS, according to the Dems..

In all fairness, people who wet themselves (especially when they see anything that looks like a gun), vomit on cue (all of those models/Hollywood starlets) or have AIDS are major Democratic constituencies.