Parrot saying 'hello' wakes man who shoots burglar

[BgMc31]

Godfather,

Have you been to DC? And I'm not talking about the tourist attraction areas? None of the affluent live in DC. Most, if not all, reside in Virginia or Maryland. If you've ever been to these areas I'm sure you wouldn't support arming complete housing projects where law enforcement can barely patrol as it is.

[thegodfather]

Godfather,

Have you been to DC? And I'm not talking about the tourist attraction areas? None of the affluent live in DC. Most, if not all, reside in Virginia or Maryland. If you've ever been to these areas I'm sure you wouldn't support arming complete housing projects where law enforcement can barely patrol as it is.

So because many of the people there are of lower socioeconomic backgrounds they aren't entitled to defend their lives? I have no problem with arming any of those people so long as they have a clean criminal background and would therefore be able to legally posess,own, and carry a firearm. I think it is naive to assume only the affluent should be able to be armed. The people living in those projects have just as much of a right to the 2nd amendment as any other person. They live in high crime areas and should be able to defend themselves if need be. The police are obviously not doing a good enough job, and that is pretty much universal, the police cannot be everywhere at everytime and there are circumstances when citizens need to be able to defend their lives. As stated previously, "outlawing" guns does not take them out of the criminals hands, only out of the law abiding citizens.

[kfrost06]

So because many of the people there are of lower socioeconomic backgrounds they aren't entitled to defend their lives? I have no problem with arming any of those people so long as they have a clean criminal background and would therefore be able to legally posess,own, and carry a firearm. I think it is naive to assume only the affluent should be able to be armed. The people living in those projects have just as much of a right to the 2nd amendment as any other person. They live in high crime areas and should be able to defend themselves if need be. The police are obviously not doing a good enough job, and that is pretty much universal, the police cannot be everywhere at everytime and there are circumstances when citizens need to be able to defend their lives. As stated previously, "outlawing" guns does not take them out of the criminals hands, only out of the law abiding citizens.

Very well put. Race or income should have zero bearing on your rights. I say if anything they are even more entitled to level the playing field. They live in high crime and poor policing, let them have guns and watch how quickly the criminals retreat. The crooks already carry them why not let the hard working families that want to protect their homes have one?

[DeputyLoneWolf]

Because then there would be more guns in one area for children and theves to steal and commit more crimes. More guns in those areas means more problems no matter how you look at it.

Wow that was about the most ignorant and stupid sentence I have ever heard. This is totally not true. I rarely take a case for a stolen gun. I have responded to a lot more instances when law abiding people have merely displayed one and stopped a violent situation before it started.

You need to talk to the people that know the facts and don't just listen to the media and anti gunners.

[BgMc31]

So because many of the people there are of lower socioeconomic backgrounds they aren't entitled to defend their lives? I have no problem with arming any of those people so long as they have a clean criminal background and would therefore be able to legally posess,own, and carry a firearm. I think it is naive to assume only the affluent should be able to be armed. The people living in those projects have just as much of a right to the 2nd amendment as any other person. They live in high crime areas and should be able to defend themselves if need be. The police are obviously not doing a good enough job, and that is pretty much universal, the police cannot be everywhere at everytime and there are circumstances when citizens need to be able to defend their lives. As stated previously, "outlawing" guns does not take them out of the criminals hands, only out of the law abiding citizens.

Typical conservative, taking what I said out of context! NO THE MORE AFFLUENT SHOULDN'T BE THE ONLY ONES WHO SHOULD BE ARMED! What I'm saying is this. If you arm inner city project developments or any ghettos, barrio, or any other high crime area, you are asking for regular gun violence. Criminals in those areas don't care if others have guns or not. More guns in those areas (whether legal or otherwise) will mean more gun violence. That's just common sense.

[BgMc31]

So because many of the people there are of lower socioeconomic backgrounds they aren't entitled to defend their lives? I have no problem with arming any of those people so long as they have a clean criminal background and would therefore be able to legally posess,own, and carry a firearm. I think it is naive to assume only the affluent should be able to be armed. The people living in those projects have just as much of a right to the 2nd amendment as any other person. They live in high crime areas and should be able to defend themselves if need be. The police are obviously not doing a good enough job, and that is pretty much universal, the police cannot be everywhere at everytime and there are circumstances when citizens need to be able to defend their lives. As stated previously, "outlawing" guns does not take them out of the criminals hands, only out of the law abiding citizens.

Typical conservative, taking what I said out of context! NO THE MORE AFFLUENT SHOULDN'T BE THE ONLY ONES WHO SHOULD BE ARMED! What I'm saying is this. If you arm inner city project developments or any ghettos, barrio, or any other high crime area, you are asking for regular gun violence. Criminals in those areas don't care if others have guns or not. More guns in those areas (whether legal or otherwise) will mean more gun violence. That's just common sense.

Of course you don't mind arming those areas because you don't live in those areas. I guarantee if you ask the vast majority of those living in those areas they will tell you they would prefer no guns at all to having guns of their own. Why? Because these people have seen the direct results of gun violence on a regular basis.

[gixxerboy1]

What I'm saying is this. If you arm inner city project developments or any ghettos, barrio, or any other high crime area, you are asking for regular gun violence. Criminals in those areas don't care if others have guns or not. More guns in those areas (whether legal or otherwise) will mean more gun violence. That's just common sense.
.

Maybe just get them parrots instead