Share This With Your Liberal Friends

Deserteagle

New member
If any of you have liberal friends who are against carrying guns, or if you know anyone on the fence about it, email this link to them.

This is an article about the Denver, Colorado police response times, but it is pretty safe to say every large city across the country has similar or even worse response times.

If your liberal friends think calling 911 will save their life, show them the 2012 average Denver Police response time of 15.75 minutes for high priority calls. Then remind them that the average response time for your gun is around 1100 feet per second.

I dont blame the police one bit though. Big cities like Denver havent hired new police in years due to budget cuts, and at the same time, they have growing populations and outdated equipment.

This is why we carry guns.

Link Removed
 
You might want to share it with "conservative" Bill Kristol, who supports a new AWB and wants to ban concealed carry. Maybe "conservative" Bill O'Reilly too.

I'm a liberal and read "Dial 911 and Die". Of course I generally knew what the author was going to say in the first place. But it was said very well and all in one place.
 
I guess I don't have anyone to share it with either. Even my friends who are Democrats, and yeah I'm working on them, are strong 2nd Amendment supporters. They just seem to overlook the contradiction between personal belief and party stance.
 
In a home invasion, during which my wife escaped out the back door making a phone to call 911, the sheriff arrived in less than 3 minutes. Turned out to be time enough for the BG to rifle through all bathroom drawers and cabinets looking for drugs, and still make off with a brand new 26" LED flatpanel that I was about to hang on the wall the next day. 12 squads eventually responded, including K-9, and the guy still got away. She carries a Glock 19 now (instead of the telephone), and is an excellent shot under stress.
 
What do we really need to share?

It's not a big secret but Law Enforcement provides exactly what there name implies law enforcement. They can not protect anyone at any given time from harm, it is impossible on a perfect day, given the fact that most forces are under staffed, that makes protection near impossible.
Those of the public who choose to protect themselves and their families are showing the true spirit of the founding fathers intent of bearing arms.
Our continued intent of bearing arms can only grow if we truly demonstrate proper ownership and handling of firearms. New generations are getting involved and buying firearms at greater rate than any previous generation, we must help in any way we can to promote this trend in a positive manner. Only then will we succeed in winning over those who are on the edge, those who just aren't quite sure, those who just haven't made up their minds, those who need proof that they will be doing the right for their own good. We know the responsibility that comes with gun ownership and are all ready and willing to accept that responsibilty otherwise we would be back with that group that just isn't quite sure. So think about it, What do we really need to share?
 
I found a show the other day called Panic 911.
I have watched two episodes. It is absolutely chilling to sit and listen to a woman getting rapped while the 911 operator is on the line with her, while waiting on the cops to arrive.

In another episode the lady inside the house had a gun. The 911 operator is begging her to put the gun down so that she does not mistakenly hit one of the cops when they get there.
The cops arrived, set up a perimeter and held on for the negotiator to take over. Meanwhile the guy come at here and she dropped him.

In no way am I slamming the cops for there response, I am just saying that the only real protection is being armed and knowing how to use it.
 
I found a show the other day called Panic 911.
I have watched two episodes. It is absolutely chilling to sit and listen to a woman getting rapped while the 911 operator is on the line with her, while waiting on the cops to arrive.
The Bob Costas response:
  • "A gun would have 'escalated the violence'!"
  • "A gun would have only made things worse!"
  • "If she'd had a gun, somebody [besides the victim] might have been hurt!"
  • "If she shot the rapist, she'd 'lower herself to his level'!"!

I imagine you'd be surprised how MANY times I've heard drooling imbeciles claim shooting the rapist to prevent the rape is worse than the rape itself.
 
I don't have any liberal friends, i have no use for anyone who is liberal or anti gun.

I was just about to reply and, wallah, cjs beat me to it. I have no use for stupidity, I have no use for anyone who cannot see the disintegration and destruction of the USA that I grew up in, and I have no use for anyone who has voted to turn what is now becoming an asylum run by its inmates into a piece of garbage that my grandchildren will inherit. This goes for relatives and friends. As long as they do not discuss "politics" in any way shape or form, I will be polite but make excuses for further interraction; if they insist on "telling me the truth", I will politely and firmly tell them to shove it up their yada yada.
 
My uncle that I only see once or twice a year is one of those really looney brain washed liberals.

When he starts spewing his garbage I have to shut him down or risk puking in public...

Recently he said Obummer balanced the budget...

Der Herp Derp :rolleyes:
 
The Bob Costas response:
  • "A gun would have 'escalated the violence'!"
  • "A gun would have only made things worse!"
  • "If she'd had a gun, somebody [besides the victim] might have been hurt!"
  • "If she shot the rapist, she'd 'lower herself to his level'!"!

I imagine you'd be surprised how MANY times I've heard drooling imbeciles claim shooting the rapist to prevent the rape is worse than the rape itself.

I wonder if Bob Costas was about to be raped, do you think he would want a gun?:sarcastic:
I really wonder! :lol:
 
I don't have any liberal friends, i have no use for anyone who is liberal or anti gun.

You have no use for someone that is willing to give you an opposing view on any given political topic? Don't get me wrong, I understand your view. It's just, if we continue to surround ourselves with people that agree with what we thing, do and say, we won't learn how to win the battles against liberalism.

JMHO of course.
 
You have no use for someone that is willing to give you an opposing view on any given political topic? Don't get me wrong, I understand your view. It's just, if we continue to surround ourselves with people that agree with what we thing, do and say, we won't learn how to win the battles against liberalism.

JMHO of course.

Along the same lines as Walt, I dont discriminate in who I call a friend based on their politics. I have liberal and conservative friends. I find that trying to get a person who doesnt like guns to understand my view on guns is much easier when I am friends with them versus enemies with them. People listen to what friends have to say, which helps our cause.

If you refuse to be friends with different people, they will never be willing to listen to you and your opinions, and it makes it that easier for them to vote for legislation that attacks the other side.

Time to lose the "us versus them" mentality.
 
You have no use for someone that is willing to give you an opposing view on any given political topic? Don't get me wrong, I understand your view. It's just, if we continue to surround ourselves with people that agree with what we thing, do and say, we won't learn how to win the battles against liberalism.

JMHO of course.

Thats why you work with them, they still dont have to be your close friends.
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,525
Messages
610,668
Members
74,995
Latest member
tripguru365
Back
Top