Colorado Gun Demand Jumps 41%

[VonMessa]

have you ever met a guy who's wife and children cost him 17% of his income?

Hi,

My name is Dan.  Throughout the course of a 5 year marriage I managed to help create 2 wonderful children.

The wife turned out to be the incorrect choice.

Now I get to pay her $350/week, after taxes are taken out, roughly 30% of my income.  This does not include the health insurance.  Guess the 50% of the braces that they both wear should be taken into account, as well.  Gonna go re-check that 30%

Nice to meet you.

[Widewing]

have you ever met a guy who's wife and children cost him 17% of his income?

I'll introduce you to my brother, Deputy Sheriff John Jordan... He pays 22% of his gross salary to support two of his three kids (one lives with him).

[Silat]

Just a couple points here. If you wish to make a statement, please do so but leave out the derogatory names or the entire thing simply looks like the rant of an immature person and has no real value.

Second point. Neither of the two situations you mention have anything to do with the other and do not equate to a valid comparison regarding rights. The NRA does not espouse the owning of destructive devices such as the ground to air system. Please confine yourself to the real issues and don't expand into sarcasm as it lends no credence to your position.

I'm all for women having control over their reproductive systems. I am also all for them having the take full  responsibility for not being proactive in regards to birth control. An abortion should not be considered a "right" in order to correct a mistake in judgement because the woman and her partner did not use a good method of birth control. If it is a case of rape, incest or impregnation against her will then it should be a given that she could terminate any pregnancy that ensues from said activity. However, if the pregnancy results from an activity she was a full willing participant in and she and he, to be fully proper, did not take reasonable precautions to prevent an unwanted pregnancy that is a different situation. Don't want the baby, fine there are lots of folks who do want a baby and will gladly raise your offspring. No one forces a mother to keep their child. If the woman was not forced / coerced into the reproductive activity she and the father should bear responsibility for that activity.

Being sexually active is a choice. Birth control is another choice. Birth control by abortion should not be a choice because of voluntary poor choices in the other two decisions. If you decide to engage in sexual activity you should do so with the idea that you are entering a contract with each other for the results of that activity. If you cannot fiscally / mentally afford the consequences of that activity then both of you should keep it in your pants until you are a fully responsible adult instead of a child playing at adult games. That goes for both parties involved, fatherhood is just as important as motherhood. If you are not ready to be responsible for your actions, don't step up to the plate.

When I get derogatory you will know it. But the post you refer to did not have any derogatory name calling. So bite me.

[Silat]

I'll introduce you to my brother, Deputy Sheriff John Jordan... He pays 22% of his gross salary to support two of his three kids (one lives with him).

Then he got off very cheap indeed.

[Silat]

Ah... the old reproductive rights argument..

I like to equate this to a very simple analogy...

Who needs the protective equipment, the pitcher or the catcher?  If the pitcher crosses up the catcher with an unexpected pitch, clocking the catcher in the noodle, the pitcher bares the bulk of the responsibility. However, if the catcher has the proper protective equipment, there's no harm done.. So it is in the debate relative to reproductive rights.

People choose their lifestyles, and those lifestyles have consequences, sometimes positive, more often, negative. It boils down to behavior.

I raised two girls and I taught them that they ultimately have to be responsible for their decisions. As they approach their 30s (28 and 29), no unplanned children, no out of marriage pregnancies. Why? Because they took to heart the concept that they are responsible for their own selves.

The Constitution charges the government with the task of protecting the right to bear arms, and the SCOTUS has affirmed that to be a common citizen's right. There is no right to an abortion, not even the most wild exaggeration of the Bill of Rights can be construed to say that. This is why Roe v Wade will eventually be overturned. Maybe not within the next 10 years, but it's coming. A recent national poll shows that more than 60% of the American people believe that abortion is wrong.

I won't judge people on their life choices. I will, however, insist that they accept responsibility for those choices. To repeat the John Wayne quote I posted above; "Life's tough. It's tougher when you're stupid".

WW can you point out where in this constitution you speak of it states that you do not have a right to control your body and what is in it? I will wait.........

[Silat]

How about not grouping me into your stereotypical preconceptions about people?  You think you know everything about my beliefs simply because I support gun rights?  I can't begin to explain how incredibly naive and childish that is.

Did I mention you by name? Did I call you out? Did I say all gun owners? I own guns (many) and I do not think it is my business to decide what a woman does with her body or what is in it.

[Silat]

and about half of them are men. what do fertile women say? you know, since this really only concerns them

I love when people throw out popular opinions as a validation.
A majority of GOP members think the President is not one of us. LOL

[Jayhawk]

Did I mention you by name? Did I call you out? Did I say all gun owners? I own guns (many) and I do not think it is my business to decide what a woman does with her body or what is in it.

Neither do I, but what does that have to do with this thread at all?  Why even bring it up?

[Maverick]

When I get derogatory you will know it. But the post you refer to did not have any derogatory name calling. So bite me.

Oh you were derogatory in your post and in this one I quoted. I also noticed you did not respond to the post at all other that to say to bite you. No thanks, apparently unlike you, I am heterosexual.

[RTHolmes]

so to bring it back on-topic, a bunch of people just got shot by a guy at the empire state in NY. the gunman was taken down by police. why wasnt he taken down by a civilian? come to that, why are these nutters never taken down by a armed civilian? what % of gun-related crimes are prevented or stopped by armed civilians?

[jimson]

so to bring it back on-topic, a bunch of people just got shot by a guy at the empire state in NY. the gunman was taken down by police. why wasnt he taken down by a civilian? come to that, why are these nutters never taken down by a armed civilian? what % of gun-related crimes are prevented or stopped by armed civilians?

Uh, because NYC has strict gun control preventing armed civilians? See how well that worked out.

[Maverick]

so to bring it back on-topic, a bunch of people just got shot by a guy at the empire state in NY. the gunman was taken down by police. why wasnt he taken down by a civilian? come to that, why are these nutters never taken down by a armed civilian? what % of gun-related crimes are prevented or stopped by armed civilians?

You do realise the location of the incident do you not? NYC has some of the most draconian anti gun laws in the nation, along with large sugary drink control.

[Nathan60]

not a percentage but http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farticle-2175170%2FHarrowing-moment-elderly-internet-cafe-goer-guns-robbers-chases-door.html&ei=qZ43UP2JK8Hp6wHXw4HQCg&usg=AFQjCNF3iMkRvSd1rDDhKyee1G23ELNWmw is first story when you google

[RTHolmes]

I know people in NY that legally own guns, can you not carry in NY?

what about other places where you can get a CCP, presumably most crimes are prevented by armed civilians there (since theres more civvies than cops)?

[jimson]

The likelihood of a CCP holder just happening to be at the right place and right time during these massacres isn't all that great.

In the Colorado shooting incident the movie theater prohibited guns, even legally carried ones.

I don't necessarily subscribe to the "If only someone there had a gun" idea. No way to know when someone could have or would have stopped the gunman.

There are numerous occasions where armed civilians have stopped armed gunmen though, a recent one happened in a Florida internet cafe.