Hip Hip Happy Concealed Carry day for me.

[stevew443]

Takes more than a license for a gun.

Takes extensive training, coaching, drill, and practice.

Otherwise she will just be wetting her panties during an actual confrontation.

Of course if she gets angry enough she can now likely shoot you.

That's all that you have really accomplished.

I have accomplished getting my wife interested in learning more and she is willing to go to the range with me for more training, drill and practice. That is why a having her as my range partner is such a good thing.

 

[Reba]

Takes more than a license for a gun.

Takes extensive training, coaching, drill, and practice.

Otherwise she will just be wetting her panties during an actual confrontation.

Of course if she gets angry enough she can now likely shoot you.

That's all that you have really accomplished.

Oh, please.

Everyone has to start somewhere.

You don't know the woman and you've judged her already.

If she gets to enjoy her shooting range experiences at the beginning stages, she'll be more likely to continue with further training and practice.

I doubt his best friend for the past 45 years is suddenly going to become enraged and shoot her husband just because she's learned how to use a gun.

 

[Reba]

For what is is worth, my wife just completed her concealed carry class today and she is thrilled to have taken the class. She is now agreeable to going to the range with me to try out my pistols and we are considering saving up for a .22 caliber pistol for her to take target shooting (she fell in love with the .22 she was using in class). She will be filling out her application for her permit although she may never carry. At least she will have the option to carry should she ever decide she wants to. All in all she had a blast at the class and now I may just have found that my best friend for the past 45 years may be my new range partner.

It's good she applies for the permit even if she doesn't yet plan to carry. In some places it takes a long time to process permits, so it's not something you can obtain on the spur of the moment. If she gets the permit, it will be ready when she wants/needs it without a delay.

 

[HKS]

Oh, please.

Everyone has to start somewhere.

You don't know the woman and you've judged her already.

If she gets to enjoy her shooting range experiences at the beginning stages, she'll be more likely to continue with further training and practice.

I doubt his best friend for the past 45 years is suddenly going to become enraged and shoot her husband just because she's learned how to use a gun.

Women murder men all the time.

They use guns or poison.

They do it for the insurance money or because they have a new lover or both.

Teaching your spouse to shoot is a liability in my opinion.

 

[HKS]

It's good she applies for the permit even if she doesn't yet plan to carry. In some places it takes a long time to process permits, so it's not something you can obtain on the spur of the moment. If she gets the permit, it will be ready when she wants/needs it without a delay.

The permit has nothing to do with learning how to shoot and developing the mentality to actually do it.

 

[HKS]

I have accomplished getting my wife interested in learning more and she is willing to go to the range with me for more training, drill and practice. That is why a having her as my range partner is such a good thing.

If we see you on Justice Files or Cold Case Files we will know exactly what you actually accomplished.

 

[Reba]

Women murder men all the time.

They use guns or poison.

They do it for the insurance money or because they have a new lover or both.

Teaching your spouse to shoot is a liability in my opinion.

:sarcastic:

 

[Reba]

The permit has nothing to do with learning how to shoot and developing the mentality to actually do it.

Didn't say that it did. Merely addressing the inconvenience of the time it takes to administratively process a permit.

 

[HKS]

Women murder men all the time, Dear Reba.

You can laugh all you want.

 

[FNWylde]

Teaching your spouse to shoot is a liability in my opinion.

That might be the stoopidest concept posted here this year. Let's make the year a 12 month rolling year, it could be a winner in 2018 too.

 

[Reba]

Women murder men all the time, Dear Reba.

You can laugh all you want.

I laughed because I couldn't believe anyone could make such a post with serious intent, it was that ridiculous.

More women are killed by men in domestic violence situations. The man is much more likely to shoot the woman.

If a woman wants to kill a man she doesn't have to wait until he teaches her how to shoot. Give me a break.

BTW, I was taught how to shoot before I even met my husband. We have plenty of guns available. We've been married over 40 years and I haven't had the urge to shoot my Hubby even once.

 

[HKS]

I laughed because I couldn't believe anyone could make such a post with serious intent, it was that ridiculous.

More women are killed by men in domestic violence situations. The man is much more likely to shoot the woman.

If a woman wants to kill a man she doesn't have to wait until he teaches her how to shoot. Give me a break.

BTW, I was taught how to shoot before I even met my husband. We have plenty of guns available. We've been married over 40 years and I haven't had the urge to shoot my Hubby even once.

More women are killed by men than are men killed by women, that is indeed true.

But it has nothing to do with training a woman particularly your spouse how to shoot.

Unfortunately your statement is irrelevant.

You are just a pretty little feminist that lets feminist issues cloud your logic.

Women kill men. That is a fact.

Women use guns and poison. That is also a fact.

Now the hip hop happy O/P has 2 things to worry about not just one.

 

[Reba]

More women are killed by men than are men killed by women, that is indeed true.

But it has nothing to do with training a woman particularly your spouse how to shoot.

Exactly. Just because a husband teaches a wife to shoot, she is no more likely to kill him.

Unfortunately your statement is irrelevant.

You are just a pretty little feminist that lets feminist issues cloud your logic.

No need to call names. If you don't call me a feminist, I won't call you a misogynist.

I'm not a pretty little feminist (unless you think I really look like my avatar). I'm a 65-year-old conservative Christian lady with Parkinson's Disease who has paid her dues. I'm a pro-life granny and political independent who didn't support the ERA and believes that God created everything in six days. One thing I've never been called is a "feminist," pretty and little or otherwise (although I am petite).

Women kill men. That is a fact.

Women use guns and poison. That is also a fact.

So? That has nothing to do with husbands teaching their wives to shoot.

Now the hip hop happy O/P has 2 things to worry about not just one.

Pshaw! He doesn't have anything to worry about.

 

[HKS]

Exactly. Just because a husband teaches a wife to shoot, she is no more likely to kill him.


No need to call names. If you don't call me a feminist, I won't call you a misogynist.

I'm not a pretty little feminist (unless you think I really look like my avatar). I'm a 65-year-old conservative Christian lady with Parkinson's Disease who has paid her dues. I'm a pro-life granny and political independent who didn't support the ERA and believes that God created everything in six days. One thing I've never been called is a "feminist," pretty and little or otherwise (although I am petite).


So? That has nothing to do with husbands teaching their wives to shoot.


Pshaw! He doesn't have anything to worry about.

Ok sorry, maybe you are not a feminist after all.

I have mixed feelings about teaching a female to shoot.

First question is whether there is any real need? Does she work or live in a dangerous neighborhood?

The traditional historic role of the male is to guard and protect the female and the kids.

If she has a need then sure, makes sense.

If she has no need then this is simply another unnecessary risk.

And any unnecessary risk is foolishness.

My view.

 

[HKS]

We are pretty sure that God(s) did not create the Earth in 6 days.

We are pretty sure it took 4 billion years.

I am not sure why Moses invented that whole story about the 6 days.

If each day equals 1 billion years then it makes sense. Otherwise it does not.

Remember the sun and moon were not created until the 3rd or 4th day. So what is a day anyway?

While I do not doubt at all the Moses existed and led the Hebrews out of Egypt, I don't know why he did not just start his story with his own birth as related to him by his Hebrew parents? That would have been much more factual.

Why did Moses have to come up with faerie tales about Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Abraham, etc.?? By so doing he has given the atheists a lot of ammo.

 

[Reba]

Are you for real?

Ok sorry, maybe you are not a feminist after all.

I have mixed feelings about teaching a female to shoot.

First question is whether there is any real need? Does she work or live in a dangerous neighborhood?

Ever hear of the Second Amendment? Would you ask a man if he had a real need or work/live in a dangerous neighborhood? No? Then why ask a woman? Is her life less valuable?

The traditional historic role of the male is to guard and protect the female and the kids.

And what male is present with the female and kids at all times?

One aspect of a man's protecting his wife and children would be to give them the tools for safe living. That means not just giving them a safe place to live but could include teaching them self-defense techniques.

We also have single women in this world who have no man to "protect" them. Would you leave them defenseless?

If she has a need then sure, makes sense.

She needs a gun as much as any man does. No one is exempt from violent attack.

If she has no need then this is simply another unnecessary risk.

What risk? To guys' egos?

And any unnecessary risk is foolishness.

The unnecessary risk that is foolish is that of leaving a woman defenseless.

My view.

OK.

 

[HKS]

Are you for real?


Ever hear of the Second Amendment? Would you ask a man if he had a real need or work/live in a dangerous neighborhood? No? Then why ask a woman? Is her life less valuable?


And what male is present with the female and kids at all times?

One aspect of a man's protecting his wife and children would be to give them the tools for safe living. That means not just giving them a safe place to live but could include teaching them self-defense techniques.

We also have single women in this world who have no man to "protect" them. Would you leave them defenseless?


She needs a gun as much as any man does. No one is exempt from violent attack.


What risk? To guys' egos?


The unnecessary risk that is foolish is that of leaving a woman defenseless.


OK.

What you are forgetting Reba my dear Sailor friend is when the Constitution and the Amendments were written the Founding Freemasons were not thinking about women, blacks, nor Indians. See -- you need to think clearly.

Now in 1920 when women were given the right to vote, that may have changed everything from that point on. But you still have a big anachronism in your thinking even so.

And practically speaking, there are really very few women who have the constitution to kill. There were a few Russians and VC sure who were women. But for the most part this instinct is male only. Sure there are a few women murderers -- you yourself pointed out above how very few there are. These females are psycho animals however and the exception not the rule. They did not play with dolls and high heels as girls -- they got raped by their fathers and brothers.

Like I said, if a woman needs a gun, she should learn to shoot and develop the mind set to do so. But just having a gun is not going to do anything for anybody, and especially not for a woman, brought up playing with dolls, dressing in high heels, etc.

 

[Reba]

What you are forgetting Reba my dear Sailor friend is when the Constitution and the Amendments were written the Founding Freemasons were not thinking about women, blacks, nor Indians. See -- you need to think clearly.

Chief Petty Officer Reba.

Anyway, it doesn't matter what you believe that they were "thinking." It matters what they wrote down. You need to read more clearly. It says "people" not women or men.

Now in 1920 when women were given the right to vote, that may have changed everything from that point on. But you still have a big anachronism in your thinking even so.

Nope.

And practically speaking, there are really very few women who have the constitution to kill. There were a few Russians and VC sure who were women. But for the most part this instinct is male only.

Depends on the circumstances. What is your point? That people need to prove a propensity to kill before they're allowed to exercise their Second Amendment rights?

Besides, aren't the same poster who claimed it was dangerous to teach women to shoot because they'll kill their husbands? If it's only "very few women" who have the constitution to kill, what's there to worry about?

Like I said, if a woman needs a gun, she should learn to shoot and develop the mind set to do so. But just having a gun is not going to do anything for anybody, and especially not for a woman, brought up playing with dolls, dressing in high heels, etc.

You are so funny! :lol:

Sure, I played with dolls. I never could get the hang of high heels.

I also rode bikes, go carts, roller skated, ice skated, snow sledded, and skate-boarded. I wore my cowboy hat and a pair of Maverick six-shooters, with a cap derringer belt buckle, and carried an air rifle. I played marbles, jump rope and mumblety-peg. We built forts and went exploring and rock climbing. I borrowed my brother's GI Joes. My first two-wheel bike was a boy's bike. We played pirates with wooden swords. I loved building structures with plastic bricks (pre-Lego), Lincoln Logs, and Erector sets. I enjoyed going to Radio Shack and buying parts and gadgets. I had a paper route when I was a kid.

I never really worried about whether or not it was a girl or boy toy or activity. I just did what interested me. Just because a girl plays with dolls doesn't mean she can't also play with toy guns. It's no big deal.

 

[HKS]

Chief Petty Officer Reba.

Anyway, it doesn't matter what you believe that they were "thinking." It matters what they wrote down. You need to read more clearly. It says "people" not women or men.


Nope.


Depends on the circumstances. What is your point? That people need to prove a propensity to kill before they're allowed to exercise their Second Amendment rights?

Besides, aren't the same poster who claimed it was dangerous to teach women to shoot because they'll kill their husbands? If it's only "very few women" who have the constitution to kill, what's there to worry about?


You are so funny! :lol:

Sure, I played with dolls. I never could get the hang of high heels.

I also rode bikes, go carts, roller skated, ice skated, snow sledded, and skate-boarded. I wore my cowboy hat and a pair of Maverick six-shooters, with a cap derringer belt buckle, and carried an air rifle. I played marbles, jump rope and mumblety-peg. We built forts and went exploring and rock climbing. I borrowed my brother's GI Joes. My first two-wheel bike was a boy's bike. We played pirates with wooden swords. I loved building structures with plastic bricks (pre-Lego), Lincoln Logs, and Erector sets. I enjoyed going to Radio Shack and buying parts and gadgets. I had a paper route when I was a kid.

I never really worried about whether or not it was a girl or boy toy or activity. I just did what interested me. Just because a girl plays with dolls doesn't mean she can't also play with toy guns. It's no big deal.

"People" meant precisely "the men" in 1789. You may not like that, but it is history.

It was extended to include black former slaves in 1868 by the 14th Amendment as long as they had been born in the US.

It was extended to include women in 1920 by the 19th Amendment as long as they had been born in the US or naturalized.

But it would be a circular argument (begging the question) to say the 2nd Amendment gave women the right to keep and bear arms. It did not. The 19th Amendment did that.

And none of that changes the nature of women. They are not born aggressive. They must be trained to be aggressive, as are men.

A license for a gun does not change anything.

 

[HKS]

So you became a tomboy. That still does not teach you how to kill. It teaches you to run with the boyz. But even the boyz need to be taught how to kill, although they tend to pick up that teaching much more readily and naturally than a woman would. More testosterone. Hunters, not gatherers. Not all men -- just most.