Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

(5,917 posts)

13. that's a good argument - if bats and hammers and cars are just as dangerous then you dont need an

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 12:35 PM

Jan 2013

ar just carry a hammer or a bat. they dont cost as much

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

17 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

"Home protected by Smith & Wesson" -- NOT! [View all] pnwmom Jan 2013 OP

How ironic is that?!? Hmmm....must not have been an S&W AR. jmg257 Jan 2013 #2

Apparently not protected from big pharma n/t blazeKing Jan 2013 #3

What does big pharma have to do with it? pnwmom Jan 2013 #6

I think that's a reference to mental health. progressoid Jan 2013 #8

I agree. n/t progressoid Jan 2013 #11

+1 uponit7771 Jan 2013 #12

Smith and Wesson had an alarm company/security division at one time... ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #5

But... but... he coulda used a hammer too! Silent3 Jan 2013 #7

We're not in the 50s anymore ecstatic Jan 2013 #14

The thing that struck me LibertyLover Jan 2013 #16