Page 7 of 7
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:44 pm
by iflyabeech
Right2Carry wrote:RPBrown wrote:[quote
I have asked several times for statistics that prove service personel are at a high risk of being attacked in a homeowners house, so far nothing. Well there was one person on here who was robbed in a parking lot of a business over 30 years ago, not sure that qualifies as being robbed inside a residence..
Read the whole post please. As stated, I was also robbed outside a customers HOME in broad daylight as well. This happened only 5 years ago. Now, I admit that it WAS NOT in the house, it was close enough for me.
Again, if posted or verbally informed, I will comply of course.
Did the homeowner rob you? My guess is no.
iflyabeech wrote:Its not only in the house, its back and forth to the truck!
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:46 pm
by mrbug
This thread was interesting in the beginning. I found all the different takes on carry in or not carry in informative. Over the last couple of days it has become less and less so. Seems there is a person or two who after voicing their opinion in an eloquent fashion have taken it upon themselves
to continue espousing their views to the point of irritation. To those who had something to add and did so, thank you. To those who felt it necessary to thump their chest and beat us to death with their viewpoint, no thank you.
Signing off of this thread notification.
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:46 pm
by Crossfire
I think it's time to introduce the "rule of 3".
1. You make your point.
2. You get to rebut an objection.
3. One last chance to rebut the rebuttal.
That's IT! After 3 times, we don't want to hear from you about this again!
No more
Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 2:59 am
by KBCraig
(quoting fixed)
Right2Carry wrote:RPBrown wrote:
I have asked several times for statistics that prove service personel are at a high risk of being attacked in a homeowners house, so far nothing. Well there was one person on here who was robbed in a parking lot of a business over 30 years ago, not sure that qualifies as being robbed inside a residence..
Read the whole post please. As stated, I was also robbed outside a customers HOME in broad daylight as well. This happened only 5 years ago. Now, I admit that it WAS NOT in the house, it was close enough for me.
Again, if posted or verbally informed, I will comply of course.
Did the homeowner rob you? My guess is no.
Has a service man robbed
you? My guess is no.
But if a service man obeys your "notice" (to keep your kid from grabbing his gun), and is robbed between your house and his truck, I guess that's just his tough luck, eh?
Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 5:40 am
by Right2Carry
KBCraig wrote:(quoting fixed)
Right2Carry wrote:RPBrown wrote:
I have asked several times for statistics that prove service personel are at a high risk of being attacked in a homeowners house, so far nothing. Well there was one person on here who was robbed in a parking lot of a business over 30 years ago, not sure that qualifies as being robbed inside a residence..
Read the whole post please. As stated, I was also robbed outside a customers HOME in broad daylight as well. This happened only 5 years ago. Now, I admit that it WAS NOT in the house, it was close enough for me.
Again, if posted or verbally informed, I will comply of course.
Did the homeowner rob you? My guess is no.
Has a service man robbed
you? My guess is no.
But if a service man obeys your "notice" (to keep your kid from grabbing his gun), and is robbed between your house and his truck, I guess that's just his tough luck, eh?
You must have me confused with someone else, I said nothing about my kid grabbing anyones gun nor in any of my posts did I use that for an argument. My sole responsiblity is to provide safety for my family in their own house.
Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 5:48 am
by Right2Carry
double post
Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 5:49 am
by Right2Carry
Right2Carry wrote:llwatson wrote:I think it's time to introduce the "rule of 3".
1. You make your point.
2. You get to rebut an objection.
3. One last chance to rebut the rebuttal.
That's IT! After 3 times, we don't want to hear from you about this again!
No more
It appears that you are wrong on this. After all when somones uses my quotes and then asks a question, it would appear they want a response. If you are tired of looking at this discussion I would suggest avoiding it.
After 3 times, we don't want to hear from you about this again!
Have you been empowered by the whole forum to speak for everyone? After 3 times
you may not want to hear about it again, but since questions are being asked and my quotes are being used, I don't think that you speak for everyone.
Nice try though.
Just because
you don't like what is being dicussed doesn't mean
you can
try to limit a persons right to free speech.
Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 7:38 am
by stevie_d_64
llwatson wrote:I think it's time to introduce the "rule of 3".
1. You make your point.
2. You get to rebut an objection.
3. One last chance to rebut the rebuttal.
That's IT! After 3 times, we don't want to hear from you about this again!
No more
You ever notice that the right rear hoof of that "dead" horse keeps twitching???
Somehow I equate that twitching to some exotential meltdown in reasonable discussion and debate over the issue(s)...
And sometimes thats inevitable with such a great group of patriotic, passionate, opinionated and experienced people in this forum...
What is ironic is that we all would end up on the same team when the right we cherish comes under attack...
This fact keeps wiping me out over the years I've been involved in these forums...
I think we all need to step back off this one and call it a day...Just my opinion...
I just don't have a "Zot" button to push...
Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 8:25 am
by phddan
I'm not to keen on the idea of 3, but there does come a time when discussing a subject, that it's time to leave it there, and agree to disagree.
However I do find it rather interesting that the people who don't want law abiding, licensed CHLers in their home will not answer to the suggestion of :
1) Installing a 30.06 sign.
2) Giving verbal notice BEFORE a service person enters.
Those points have been ignored this whole thread.
Dan
Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 8:50 am
by Sailor
Right2Carry,
No one agrees with you. I do see "anti" behavior in your writings. Liberals and "antis" are always trying to qualify, quantify, and then dictate. You will also find the words "reasonable" or "sensible" or "responsible" attached to their argument because it cannot stand on its own. Please consider the phrase "Responsible gun ownership" touted time and again by Sarah Brady, John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein, and of course Mrs. Bill Clinton. These terms promote the "incrementalism" doctrine of gun control. The express purpose of carrying is protection from deadly harm....anytime, anywhere, and from anyone.
Cody