# Biden's Thursday Speech On Gun Control, A Bust!



## JimofPennsylvan (Jun 3, 2022)

This Thursday's President Biden's Speech about the spate of mass shootings the nation is seeing and needed gun regulation was an error was an error by a President that is not top notch.  What the nation needs is common sense gun regulation legislation that is going to require legislating skill of threading a needle; this speech by the President did not advance the cause it was offensive to Republicans, it was partisan in its policy promotion and on a couple of issues it was just advocating bad policy.  The Republican base is going to see and here about this speech and they will be clamoring to the Republicans in Congress don't work with these guys they have a bad agenda on the Second Amendment.   Biden should have kept his mouth shut publicly on this issue and let the Bipartisan Senate negotiators complete their task and behind the scenes offering any support that would be helpful, if the negotiators failed then he could deliver his sermon from the White House.  President Biden's fumbling of the ball here makes one wonder what is President Biden's system for how he governs.  Prudent Presidents have a kitchen Cabinet with two to five members that they vet or run by major things before they do them.  If you were to give this Speech to a bunch of Political Science majors that just graduated from college the majority of them would say this is a bad idea to give this speech this will alienate Republicans toward you on this issue; kitchen cabinets don't always get it right but at least they stop Presidents from acting clearly stupid!

President Biden in his Speech criticized the Republicans for letting the assault weapon ban expire in 2004. Hey Joe how about dropping your double standard here, the Democrats had the White House and both chambers of Congress in 2009 and didn't reinstate the ban.  Might it be Joe that the NRA and those Americans that hold the 2nd Amendment dear generate great fear amongst Congressional Office Holders of both parties on gun regulation matters.  Joe your Policies on taking away gun manufacturers legal immunity isn't bipartisan at all in fact it is atrociously bad policy.  Gun manufacturers aren't negligent here it is the shooters that are the bad guys and the sole bad guys here.  The only thing that the incredibly stupid and irresponsible policy of removing tort immunity from gun manufacturers is going to bring is that the price of guns will skyrocket as plaintiff lawyers have a field day extracting humongous judgments from these manufactures, plus, it will promulgate illegal sales of gun bigtime as black market sales of foreign made guns sky rocket as gun buyers in America see this purchase avenue the only means to get an affordable gun which will burden our already overburdened law enforcement system.  President Biden wants to have Federal safe storage laws he wants to make gun owners criminally and civilly liable if they fail to lock up their gun.  Does it ever occur to you Joe that good policy includes not making good law abiding citizens criminals.  Good people make mistakes they forget things the Federal government doesn't need to get into this area, they should let states handle this problem and states should just make it a summary offense for failing to store one's gun properly unless someone gets significantly physically hurt by the mistake then it should be a misdemeanor.  

At this juncture if the bipartisan effort in the Senate fails.  President Biden should have an ally in the Senate and the House enter a bill in their respective chamber called the Common Sense Gun Control Legislation To Respond to Out Of Control Gun Violence in America - this bill will only contain four policies that the vast majority of Americans, Americans heavily representing both parties, support.  It will contain policy provisions that ban assault rifles (largely that mirrors the 1994 law), that bans high capacity magazines,  that closes the gun show and internet purchases loop holes for background checks and that stops the automatic approval if the background check is not completed within three days but rather lets gun sellers use an approved list by the respective federal agencies of internet companies that do automatic background check to do the checking it won't be as good as the FBI system but the public systems are pretty good at identifying a person's criminal record history.  Lastly, the bill should have red flag provisions that flag people that are at high risk of using guns in a violent manner and mirror these provisions after the Manchin/Toomey bill provisions in this area.  With this bill, President Biden and Democrats members of Congress can not only show the public what they support and would make law it would force many Republicans to support the bill because it is impossible to defend against not supporting in districts and states where the majority of people are reasonable on this issue.

One last point, I am an advocate for keeping the sixty vote threshold for ending a filibuster in the Senate and bringing up a bill for votes.  But the Republicans using this protection in our nation's legislating apparatus to prevent legislation the vast majority of the nation support is an abuse of this vital protection for our nation.  The critical purpose of the sixty vote threshold is a recognition that passing laws in America is a very serious business it often has profound impact on many Americans it is a recognition that significant bills should not become laws in America unless they have broad consensus.  Common Sense Gun Regulation like the aforementioned has long had broad bi-partisan support across the country.  As long as the bill was a consensus bill like that outlined and there was a guarantee that there would be no partisan or bad amendments brought up for a vote on the bill, it is completely wrong and disgraceful for Republicans not to vote to end the filibuster and bring the bill up for a vote. Of course these Republicans should not vote for passage on the bill if it bothers their conscience but they are not doing their job to use the filibusters to block the vote on such a bill,  America doesn't have a  supermajority vote requirement to pass bills through Congress the Constitution only requires a majority, Republican members of Congress should let America's democracy work on this issue!


----------



## MarathonMike (Jun 3, 2022)

Biden doesn't give a rat's ass about protecting children. If he did, he would be trying to stop the flow of HAND GUNS into the inner cities. They are being used by gang bangers who kill children like Serenity Broughton (my avatar) on a daily basis. 18 month old De Avry Thomas was killed just days ago in a random drive by shooting.


----------



## theHawk (Jun 3, 2022)




----------



## airplanemechanic (Jun 3, 2022)

As long as they continue to call for "banning" guns, they will get NOTHING done.

As I have said before. I'm not against stopping people who are mentally ill from obtaining a gun, or not keeping one until they can be evaluated and be deemed no threat. But WHO and HOW that happens is what I have a serious problem with because I don't support the loss of ANYONES 2nd amendment right without due process. And I never will. Even if 300 kids are killed.

Sorry, it's just me.


----------



## Rambunctious (Jun 3, 2022)

The country is not the same as it was ten years ago... I see crime in places you never thought crime would be... criminals are getting bold...
I will not be left defenseless....


----------



## candycorn (Jun 3, 2022)

airplanemechanic said:


> As long as they continue to call for "banning" guns, they will get NOTHING done.
> 
> As I have said before. I'm not against stopping people who are mentally ill from obtaining a gun, or not keeping one until they can be evaluated and be deemed no threat. But WHO and HOW that happens is what I have a serious problem with because I don't support the loss of ANYONES 2nd amendment right without due process. And I never will. Even if 300 kids are killed.
> 
> Sorry, it's just me.


So the kid that allegedly shot you.  Lets say he is arrested and gets out on bail.  

He hasn't been convicted of anything yet.

Should he still have access to a gun?  If not..why not?


----------



## Rambunctious (Jun 3, 2022)

candycorn said:


> So the kid that allegedly shot you.  Lets say he is arrested and gets out on bail.
> 
> He hasn't been convicted of anything yet.
> 
> Should he still have access to a gun?  If not..why not?


Being charged with a crime and out on bail makes it illegal for you to buy a gun in every state in the union....


----------



## candycorn (Jun 3, 2022)

JimofPennsylvan said:


> This Thursday's President Biden's Speech about the spate of mass shootings the nation is seeing and needed gun regulation was an error was an error by a President that is not top notch.  What the nation needs is common sense gun regulation legislation that is going to require legislating skill of threading a needle; this speech by the President did not advance the cause it was offensive to Republicans, it was partisan in its policy promotion and on a couple of issues it was just advocating bad policy.  The Republican base is going to see and here about this speech and they will be clamoring to the Republicans in Congress don't work with these guys they have a bad agenda on the Second Amendment.   Biden should have kept his mouth shut publicly on this issue and let the Bipartisan Senate negotiators complete their task and behind the scenes offering any support that would be helpful, if the negotiators failed then he could deliver his sermon from the White House.  President Biden's fumbling of the ball here makes one wonder what is President Biden's system for how he governs.  Prudent Presidents have a kitchen Cabinet with two to five members that they vet or run by major things before they do them.  If you were to give this Speech to a bunch of Political Science majors that just graduated from college the majority of them would say this is a bad idea to give this speech this will alienate Republicans toward you on this issue; kitchen cabinets don't always get it right but at least they stop Presidents from acting clearly stupid!
> 
> President Biden in his Speech criticized the Republicans for letting the assault weapon ban expire in 2004. Hey Joe how about dropping your double standard here, the Democrats had the White House and both chambers of Congress in 2009 and didn't reinstate the ban.  Might it be Joe that the NRA and those Americans that hold the 2nd Amendment dear generate great fear amongst Congressional Office Holders of both parties on gun regulation matters.  Joe your Policies on taking away gun manufacturers legal immunity isn't bipartisan at all in fact it is atrociously bad policy.  Gun manufacturers aren't negligent here it is the shooters that are the bad guys and the sole bad guys here.  The only thing that the incredibly stupid and irresponsible policy of removing tort immunity from gun manufacturers is going to bring is that the price of guns will skyrocket as plaintiff lawyers have a field day extracting humongous judgments from these manufactures, plus, it will promulgate illegal sales of gun bigtime as black market sales of foreign made guns sky rocket as gun buyers in America see this purchase avenue the only means to get an affordable gun which will burden our already overburdened law enforcement system.  President Biden wants to have Federal safe storage laws he wants to make gun owners criminally and civilly liable if they fail to lock up their gun.  Does it ever occur to you Joe that good policy includes not making good law abiding citizens criminals.  Good people make mistakes they forget things the Federal government doesn't need to get into this area, they should let states handle this problem and states should just make it a summary offense for failing to store one's gun properly unless someone gets significantly physically hurt by the mistake then it should be a misdemeanor.
> 
> ...


Some good stuff there.  

As for the filibuster....

make it a true filibuster.  NOTHING happens until a filibuster is either withdrawn or the legislation is withdrawn.  That means that nothing else gets done in the Senate.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 3, 2022)

Rambunctious said:


> Being charged with a crime and out on bail makes it illegal for you to buy a gun in every state in the union....


Why? You haven't been convicted of anything. Aren't you innocent until proven guilty?


----------



## GLASNOST (Jun 3, 2022)

MarathonMike said:


> Biden doesn't give a rat's ass about protecting children. If he did, he would be trying to stop the flow of HAND GUNS into the inner cities. They are being used by gang bangers who kill children ...


Yes. But it's all for the good of the buck, the arms industry, and tax dollar generation.


MarathonMike said:


> ... like Serenity Broughton (my avatar)


I knew you looked familiar.


----------



## GLASNOST (Jun 3, 2022)

airplanemechanic said:


> As long as they continue to call for "banning" guns, they will get NOTHING done.


But as soon as they succeed in getting a ban on guns EVERYTHING will get done. The only thing you've accomplished with your statement is to remind us that NOTHING is getting done now - As is - In this long point of time.


airplanemechanic said:


> I don't support the loss of ANYONES 2nd amendment right without due process.


That's what a repeal is .... the banning of guns by "due process".


----------



## Rambunctious (Jun 3, 2022)

The dems have total control... They can do almost whatever they want... but they won't... they want an issue to run on and to blame republicans.... 
Maybe they can take that 40 billion they want to send to Ukraine and put door and window alarms and cameras in their schools.....


----------



## Esdraelon (Jun 3, 2022)

candycorn said:


> So the kid that allegedly shot you.  Lets say he is arrested and gets out on bail.
> 
> He hasn't been convicted of anything yet.
> 
> Should he still have access to a gun?  If not..why not?


If there is enough evidence to CHARGE the person with a crime then temporary limitations on 2A would be acceptable IMO.  What I'd have a HUGE problem with is such limitations being applied just because of an accusation, especially if it came from an anonymous source.  
Just such a situation caused the death of a citizen in DC, IIRC, when LEOs appeared at his door at 5 AM banging and announcing they were serving a warrant.  He was half awake when he responded and had a pistol in his hand because he didn't know who was banging on his door.  Cops shot him dead in his own home.  THAT is the kind of BS we can expect with "red flag" laws.


----------



## White 6 (Jun 3, 2022)

MarathonMike said:


> Biden doesn't give a rat's ass about protecting children. If he did, he would be trying to stop the flow of HAND GUNS into the inner cities. They are being used by gang bangers who kill children like Serenity Broughton (my avatar) on a daily basis. 18 month old De Avry Thomas was killed just days ago in a random drive by shooting.


He spoke a few days ago about doing something about 9mm with high capacity magazines.  That is when he lost me on the whole effort,  rather than when it went for limits on ARs, AKs, etc.  I have an AR, and still doubt I would be effected, but when he spoke about standard carry 9mm pistols, mine being a full size 9mm PPQ holding 15+1, that is when I knew this whole thing, if they got their way was going to try to go way beyond the pale.  Some of us are licensed, highly trained, highly background checked, with even deeper checks still on file.  I am no lawbreaker, but I would be a lawbreaker before I gave up my AR and service pistol along with it.  I am no gang banger, but I do not plan to be unarmed if I ever have to meet one.  I don't live in a bad neighborhood, but at night especially, it's like American Express.  I don't leave home without it.  I am sorry for your loss or losses, but I had no hand in it.

He could be sabotaging the effort, himself, by bringing other things into discussion, by acting like he would like to do something.  The OP pointed out, the last ban they had ran out in 94 with Republicans in charge, but the Democrats didn't try to put it back in, when they were in charge, 2 years later.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 3, 2022)

Esdraelon said:


> If there is enough evidence to CHARGE the person with a crime then temporary limitations on 2A would be acceptable IMO.


But then we get into the area of politically motivated charges being filed.  At least anytime a republican is accused of anything...that is the reflexive response we hear.  


Esdraelon said:


> What I'd have a HUGE problem with is such limitations being applied just because of an accusation, especially if it came from an anonymous source.
> Just such a situation caused the death of a citizen in DC, IIRC, when LEOs appeared at his door at 5 AM banging and announcing they were serving a warrant.  He was half awake when he responded and had a pistol in his hand because he didn't know who was banging on his door.  Cops shot him dead in his own home.  THAT is the kind of BS we can expect with "red flag" laws.


There was a famous video on the Internet of a guy who drove his truck into a motel.  Some dispute about a bill or something.


Just out of curiosity...should such a guy with obvious anger management issues lose his immediate right to a gun?  What about 2 years down the line?


----------



## cnm (Jun 3, 2022)

‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens


----------



## cnm (Jun 3, 2022)

White 6 said:


> I am sorry for your loss or losses, but I had no hand in it.


Except for creating the society in which those losses occur.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 3, 2022)

JimofPennsylvan said:


> This Thursday's President Biden's Speech about the spate of mass shootings the nation is seeing and needed gun regulation was an error was an error by a President that is not top notch.  What the nation needs is common sense gun regulation legislation that is going to require legislating skill of threading a needle; this speech by the President did not advance the cause it was offensive to Republicans, it was partisan in its policy promotion and on a couple of issues it was just advocating bad policy.  The Republican base is going to see and here about this speech and they will be clamoring to the Republicans in Congress don't work with these guys they have a bad agenda on the Second Amendment.   Biden should have kept his mouth shut publicly on this issue and let the Bipartisan Senate negotiators complete their task and behind the scenes offering any support that would be helpful, if the negotiators failed then he could deliver his sermon from the White House.  President Biden's fumbling of the ball here makes one wonder what is President Biden's system for how he governs.  Prudent Presidents have a kitchen Cabinet with two to five members that they vet or run by major things before they do them.  If you were to give this Speech to a bunch of Political Science majors that just graduated from college the majority of them would say this is a bad idea to give this speech this will alienate Republicans toward you on this issue; kitchen cabinets don't always get it right but at least they stop Presidents from acting clearly stupid!
> 
> President Biden in his Speech criticized the Republicans for letting the assault weapon ban expire in 2004. Hey Joe how about dropping your double standard here, the Democrats had the White House and both chambers of Congress in 2009 and didn't reinstate the ban.  Might it be Joe that the NRA and those Americans that hold the 2nd Amendment dear generate great fear amongst Congressional Office Holders of both parties on gun regulation matters.  Joe your Policies on taking away gun manufacturers legal immunity isn't bipartisan at all in fact it is atrociously bad policy.  Gun manufacturers aren't negligent here it is the shooters that are the bad guys and the sole bad guys here.  The only thing that the incredibly stupid and irresponsible policy of removing tort immunity from gun manufacturers is going to bring is that the price of guns will skyrocket as plaintiff lawyers have a field day extracting humongous judgments from these manufactures, plus, it will promulgate illegal sales of gun bigtime as black market sales of foreign made guns sky rocket as gun buyers in America see this purchase avenue the only means to get an affordable gun which will burden our already overburdened law enforcement system.  President Biden wants to have Federal safe storage laws he wants to make gun owners criminally and civilly liable if they fail to lock up their gun.  Does it ever occur to you Joe that good policy includes not making good law abiding citizens criminals.  Good people make mistakes they forget things the Federal government doesn't need to get into this area, they should let states handle this problem and states should just make it a summary offense for failing to store one's gun properly unless someone gets significantly physically hurt by the mistake then it should be a misdemeanor.
> 
> ...


Biden will be the last democrat President


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 3, 2022)

cnm said:


> ‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens


1 mass shooting in the 1950.


----------



## White 6 (Jun 3, 2022)

cnm said:


> Except for creating the society in which those losses occur.


Not me. I am a responsible owner, handler, have taught weapons safety, support permits, and cracking down on people who are not supposed to have weapons.


----------



## cnm (Jun 3, 2022)

White 6 said:


> Not me.


You're not a member of American society?


----------



## White 6 (Jun 3, 2022)

cnm said:


> You're not a member of American society?


Sure am.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 3, 2022)

candycorn said:


> So the kid that allegedly shot you.  Lets say he is arrested and gets out on bail.
> 
> He hasn't been convicted of anything yet.
> 
> Should he still have access to a gun?  If not..why not?



He shouldn't be out on bail....


cnm said:


> ‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens




We have ways to prevent it that don't include disarming normal people...I enjoyed watching the Australian police beating people because they were outside their homes....then sending them to concentration camps...that was really funny.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 3, 2022)

candycorn said:


> But then we get into the area of politically motivated charges being filed.  At least anytime a republican is accused of anything...that is the reflexive response we hear.
> 
> There was a famous video on the Internet of a guy who drove his truck into a motel.  Some dispute about a bill or something.
> 
> ...




No....... we have actual processes in place.....if he is arrested, then we can talk....till then, you fascists will have to actually obey the law.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 3, 2022)

White 6 said:


> He spoke a few days ago about doing something about 9mm with high capacity magazines.  That is when he lost me on the whole effort,  rather than when it went for limits on ARs, AKs, etc.  I have an AR, and still doubt I would be effected, but when he spoke about standard carry 9mm pistols, mine being a full size 9mm PPQ holding 15+1, that is when I knew this whole thing, if they got their way was going to try to go way beyond the pale.  Some of us are licensed, highly trained, highly background checked, with even deeper checks still on file.  I am no lawbreaker, but I would be a lawbreaker before I gave up my AR and service pistol along with it.  I am no gang banger, but I do not plan to be unarmed if I ever have to meet one.  I don't live in a bad neighborhood, but at night especially, it's like American Express.  I don't leave home without it.  I am sorry for your loss or losses, but I had no hand in it.
> 
> He could be sabotaging the effort, himself, by bringing other things into discussion, by acting like he would like to do something.  The OP pointed out, the last ban they had ran out in 94 with Republicans in charge, but the Democrats didn't try to put it back in, when they were in charge, 2 years later.




He told the truth......they want all guns...they are not going to stop at AR-15s.....the AR-15 is the gateway gun....if they can be given the power to ban the semi-automatic AR-15 on false claims that it is especially dangerous and unusual...then there will be no defense when they come for all the other semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns....they all operate the same way, they have all been used in mass public shootings.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Jun 3, 2022)

airplanemechanic said:


> As long as they continue to call for "banning" guns, they will get NOTHING done.
> 
> As I have said before. I'm not against stopping people who are mentally ill from obtaining a gun, or not keeping one until they can be evaluated and be deemed no threat. But WHO and HOW that happens is what I have a serious problem with because I don't support the loss of ANYONES 2nd amendment right without due process. And I never will. Even if 300 kids are killed.
> 
> Sorry, it's just me.



Ya know, that's a number the Marxist gun grabbers can live with.....as long as their agenda thrives in the end they have a motto..."let's DO this!!"
Hmmm...which school will they choose next ?

Someone wisely said,..."these mass school shootings will never occur where Bidens children/grandchildren, or the children of the rich and powerful attend school".


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Jun 3, 2022)

White 6 said:


> Not me. I am a responsible owner, handler, have taught weapons safety, support permits, and *cracking down on people who are not supposed to have weapons*.



And therein lies the problem.
The people who get to decide this believe that includes everyone but themselves  and their bodyguards.


----------



## Golfing Gator (Jun 3, 2022)

Rambunctious said:


> Being charged with a crime and out on bail makes it illegal for you to buy a gun in every state in the union....


----------



## candycorn (Jun 3, 2022)

2aguy said:


> He shouldn't be out on bail....
> 
> 
> 
> We have ways to prevent it that don't include disarming normal people...I enjoyed watching the Australian police beating people because they were outside their homes....then sending them to concentration camps...that was really funny.


Yet you think convicted murderers--not accused gunmen--should get no jail time....unless they are white women.  Right?  RE: Amber Guyger.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 3, 2022)

candycorn said:


> Yet you think convicted murderers--not accused gunmen--should get no jail time....unless they are white women.  Right?  RE: Amber Guyger.




Again with Amber Guyger?

What is it with you?

When you tell me the motive for her having shot the guy she thought was in her apartment, then we can talk....you refuse to tell me the motive.....even now, after the trial is over....it should be really easy .....

*But in tearful testimony last week, Guyger said she was "scared to death" when she opened what she thought was her own apartment door and saw the silhouette of a man she mistook for an intruder.*
*
"I was scared whoever was inside my apartment was going to kill me," she told the jury. "No police officer would want to hurt an innocent person."

Guyger lived on the third floor of an apartment complex just south of downtown Dallas. Her lawyers said she was in uniform and had just finished a 13-hour workday on Sept. 6th, 2018, when she mistakenly opened Jean's door.

"What was going through Amber's mind was just, 'I'm going home,' " defense lawyer Robert Rogers said. " 'I'm exhausted, and I'm going home.' "

Guyger testified that she had put her key in the door and realized it was unlocked. Thinking someone had broken in, she drew her gun and entered the apartment.

Guyger said she ordered Jean, "Let me see your hands," and that he instead started to move toward her. Prosecutors countered that nobody in the apartment complex heard her instruct Jean to raise his hands.

Within seconds of opening the door, she fired two shots at Jean. One of the bullets struck him in the chest, killing him.

Guyger called 911 and told the operator over and over: "I thought it was my apartment."
------*
*Under Texas law, convicting a defendant of murder requires proving someone intentionally killed another person, as opposed to manslaughter, in which prosecutors have to show someone was killed because of recklessness.*

Ex-Dallas Officer Who Killed Man In His Own Apartment Is Found Guilty Of Murder

*Guyger’s team argued in a brief filed Tuesday that although she did knowingly shoot with the intention of killing Jean, her belief that he was an intruder justified her use of deadly force.

“The evidence was legally insufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Guyger committed murder because (1) through mistake, Guyger formed a reasonable belief about a matter of fact — that she entered her apartment and there was an intruder inside — and (2) her mistaken belief negated the culpability of murder because although she intentionally and knowingly caused Jean’s death, she had the right to act in deadly force in self defense since her belief that deadly force was immediately necessary was reasonable under the circumstances,” court documents read.
-----
Guyger’s defense team has previously argued that the confusing layout of the upper floors at the apartment complex contributed to the situation that led to Jean’s death. Guyger lived on the the fourth floor, and Jean lived directly below her.

In the appeal, Guyger’s defense team mentions that residents of her complex often walk into or enter the wrong apartment or park on the wrong floor. Several residents testified about this at her trial.

Of 71 tenants interviewed, 44% said they had walked into the wrong apartment on the wrong floor before, court documents state. Twenty-three percent of tenants said they had accidentally gone to the wrong door and entered their key into the lock, according to court documents.*

Amber Guyger’s defense team seeks to overturn her murder conviction for killing Botham Jean


----------



## airplanemechanic (Jun 3, 2022)

candycorn said:


> So the kid that allegedly shot you.  Lets say he is arrested and gets out on bail.
> 
> He hasn't been convicted of anything yet.
> 
> Should he still have access to a gun?  If not..why not?



No, because one of his conditions of bond is he cannot possess a firearm, so that is already illegal.

He didn't "allegedly" shoot me. I have 14 bullet holes on my body showing where he shot me 6 times.


----------



## White 6 (Jun 3, 2022)

2aguy said:


> He told the truth......they want all guns...they are not going to stop at AR-15s.....the AR-15 is the gateway gun....if they can be given the power to ban the semi-automatic AR-15 on false claims that it is especially dangerous and unusual...then there will be no defense when they come for all the other semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns....they all operate the same way, they have all been used in mass public shootings.


Hope you are not completely correct, but not certain.  You very well might be.  I didn't see how the 9mm thing came up and don't remember, just remember hearing and thinking "uh-oh, don't go there Joe".  You got to admit, though, my AR has capabilities not found in my 30/30 lever action bush gun/ deer rifle.


----------



## White 6 (Jun 3, 2022)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> And therein lies the problem.
> The people who get to decide this believe that includes everyone but themselves  and their bodyguards.


Wrong again.  Some of us actually are responsible, trained, noted in files, etc.  You don't get put on an international flight, with a loaded weapon in a shoulder holster and  locked briefcase handcuffed to your passive wrist, if you have not been checked, out the wazoo, and they are certain you are not some yokel.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 3, 2022)

White 6 said:


> Hope you are not completely correct, but not certain.  You very well might be.  I didn't see how the 9mm thing came up and don't remember, just remember hearing and thinking "uh-oh, don't go there Joe".  You got to admit, though, my AR has capabilities not found in my 30/30 lever action bush gun/ deer rifle.



Yeah....it is easier for different sized people to shoot, far easier to clean, easy to customize, and easy to use to save lives in a self defense encounter......

It can be hard to use a lever action rifle against more than one attacker as well....especially at closer ranges.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 3, 2022)

airplanemechanic said:


> No, because one of his conditions of bond is he cannot possess a firearm, so that is already illegal.


Oh, I thought you meant due process.  Not bond conditions.  Due process is innocent until proven guilty.  Now you're talking about the accused losing rights.  Which is fine...I have zero problem with the accused losing rights in most cases...


airplanemechanic said:


> He didn't "allegedly" shoot me. I have 14 bullet holes on my body showing where he shot me 6 times.


🥱


----------



## candycorn (Jun 3, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Again with Amber Guyger?
> 
> What is it with you?
> 
> ...


She's a convicted murderer who, you think, should have gotten zero jail time.

Any argument you make about sentencing being too light is complete and utter bullshit.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 3, 2022)

candycorn said:


> She's a convicted murderer who, you think, should have gotten zero jail time.
> 
> Any argument you make about sentencing being too light is complete and utter bullshit.



Still waiting for you to tell us her motive.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 4, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Still waiting for you to tell us her motive.


Okay... I guess since we don't know the motive of the guy who killed all the kids in Uvalde...he should be set free too if convicted of murder?


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2022)

JimofPennsylvan said:


> ...It will contain policy provisions that ban assault rifles (largely that mirrors the 1994 law), that bans high capacity magazines, that closes the gun show and internet purchases loop holes for background checks and that stops the automatic approval if the background check is not completed within three days but rather lets gun sellers use an approved list by the respective federal agencies of internet companies that do automatic background check to do the checking it won't be as good as the FBI system but the public systems are pretty good at identifying a person's criminal record history. Lastly, the bill should have red flag provisions that flag people that are at high risk of using guns in a violent manner and mirror these provisions after the Manchin/Toomey bill provisions in this area....



First of all, any and all federal firearms legislations are totally illegal.
Second is that there is no such thing as an "assault weapon" and ARs are LESS POWERFUL and LESS DEADLY than hunting rifles.
Third is that background checks should already be pre-approved, and anyone who fails a background check likely should already be living in a halfway house, under supervision.
Red flag laws are totally illegal because they are not done through the courts, so deny the right of defense.
You can NEVER make society safer by making objects illegal, since there are infinite means of causing harm, and way too many illegal ways to get harmful objects.
It is harmful people you have to jail, not all the possible means by which they might cause harm.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2022)

cnm said:


> ‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens



It is easy to prevent it, but trying to pass gun control laws is NOT remotely going to help, and will only make it much worse.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2022)

cnm said:


> Except for creating the society in which those losses occur.



The stresses that cause violence are caused by capitalism, that makes everything as expensive as the market will bear.
We have no access to health care, housing security, legal defense, union job security, higher education, good nutrition, etc.
We use schools as boarding as we have forced families to need 2 paychecks in order to just survive.
This is all a built in formula for disaster.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2022)

CrusaderFrank said:


> 1 mass shooting in the 1950.



But there were more school arsons in the past, so if they do pass total gun control, that will ensure even more dead students.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2022)

White 6 said:


> Not me. I am a responsible owner, handler, have taught weapons safety, support permits, and cracking down on people who are not supposed to have weapons.



Yes you, because a "crack down on people" who government decides "are not supposed to have weapons", is bound to greatly increase the death toll.
Crack downs never work, people resent them, and do the opposite.
For example, Prohibition and the War on Drugs both greatly increased what they claimed to want to stop, and increased the murder rate by about a factor of 10 as well.
Improved mental health does not need or imply a "crack down".


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2022)

candycorn said:


> So the kid that allegedly shot you.  Lets say he is arrested and gets out on bail.
> 
> He hasn't been convicted of anything yet.
> 
> Should he still have access to a gun?  If not..why not?



Because giving up gun rights temporarily is a condition he agrees to when he accepts bail.
You can not force someone to lose a right of defense without a judge, but the bail judge can let cooperative people out more than uncooperative.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Again with Amber Guyger?
> 
> What is it with you?
> 
> ...



The problem with Guyger's defense is that confusion over the similarity of different floors, works against her.
What if she had it right and it was the Black guy who had been confused and had gone to the wrong floor?
Did that mean he should have been shot and killed for being confused?
Of course not.
Amber had no reason to shoot, even IF it HAD been her apartment.
I would have convicted her of murder if she had shot an unarmed intruder who was sitting and eating ice cream in her apartment.
You do not execute someone for being confused, and it is even more wrong since it was she who had the floor wrong.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 5, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> The problem with Guyger's defense is that confusion over the similarity of different floors, works against her.
> What if she had it right and it was the Black guy who had been confused and had gone to the wrong floor?
> Did that mean he should have been shot and killed for being confused?
> Of course not.
> ...




The thing is....penelope or candy corn or whichever leftist keeps brining up her case?  Doesn't care about it......they think they have some sort of Gotcha on me because of that case.....

I keep asking the idiot...what was the motive for the murder....a pretty basic....and really important question.....before you convict on a first degree murder charge....

they can't answer that, but still bring up this case...


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 5, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> The stresses that cause violence are caused by capitalism, that makes everything as expensive as the market will bear.
> We have no access to health care, housing security, legal defense, union job security, higher education, good nutrition, etc.
> We use schools as boarding as we have forced families to need 2 paychecks in order to just survive.
> This is all a built in formula for disaster.




No....capitalism brings people out of poverty...it is government action that destroys families, and creates fatherless homes......fatherless homes create crime and poverty, and violence.....


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2022)

2aguy said:


> The thing is....penelope or candy corn or whichever leftist keeps brining up her case?  Doesn't care about it......they think they have some sort of Gotcha on me because of that case.....
> 
> I keep asking the idiot...what was the motive for the murder....a pretty basic....and really important question.....before you convict on a first degree murder charge....
> 
> they can't answer that, but still bring up this case...



I suppose the main motive was fear, but an irrational fear of Blacks, combined with an irrational disregard for the life of the Black man.
That is less than a deliberate murder for the purposes of theft or something though, if that is what you mean.

I would have gone 3rd degree if she was an ordinary person.
But since she was a cop who was supposed to be trained in dealing with situations like that, I would go with 2nd degree. 

And I agree it does not have much bearing here.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2022)

2aguy said:


> No....capitalism brings people out of poverty...it is government action that destroys families, and creates fatherless homes......fatherless homes create crime and poverty, and violence.....



Generally capitalism causes poverty.
That is because a profit motive has no ethical limits, and traditionally tries to use force, extortion, monopolies, etc. to gain the most profits.
The industrial revolution was the beginning of the loss of individual freedom, due to the economic slavery of capitalism.
Everyone had previously supported themselves with cottage industries that suddenly were no longer able to compete, because factories sold good for less than half the price.
The result was massive starvation, child labor, etc.
Competition sounds good in that it tends to increase efficiency, but the reality is that since it is a winner take all, it destroys 10 times what it creates.  Look at all the auto companies destroyed even though they made reasonable products, like American motors, Studebaker, DeSoto, etc.
The natural result of capitalism is always monopolies, and the only way to prevent that is socialist anti-trust laws to prevent things like price fixing.
Capitalism is powerful, but dangerous and needs to be carefully controlled.

As far as "fatherless homes", if people were still living in multi generation homes, that would not be a problem, and the cause of "fatherless homes" is lack of unions and jobs, not government welfare.


----------



## White 6 (Jun 5, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Yes you, because a "crack down on people" who government decides "are not supposed to have weapons", is bound to greatly increase the death toll.
> Crack downs never work, people resent them, and do the opposite.
> For example, Prohibition and the War on Drugs both greatly increased what they claimed to want to stop, and increased the murder rate by about a factor of 10 as well.
> Improved mental health does not need or imply a "crack down".


When New York City was under stop and frisk, a crack down on illegal carry, I was under the impression, shootings and shooting deaths declined.  Am I wrong?
I am in no way, in favor of a confiscation, but a reduction of new  ARs coming into the landscape.
I have no problem with some type check and certification.  Naturally, I am exactly the type of person that would meet all the standards, all boxes checked.  I have no problem with not being allowed to carry one on the streets of a city, especially one in civil unrest.  I have a lot of problems with people coming from out of town, out of state, bringing them into that type situation.  If not allowed on the street, a carrier is identified as a probably bad guy, on sight.  I have no problem with restricting loaded magazines, anywhere but the range or on somebodies private property, in home, etc to a low number.  Even hunting with my shotgun, when hunting I am restricted to a number of rounds in the gun.  I have no problem with all weapons being serial numbered, though figure the upper and barrel would be more effective than the lower.  I am all for improved mental health, but know it is only part of the problem.  All schools need minimum hardening with minor engineering and technology, as well as enforcement of security Standard Operational Procedures in place and rigidly enforced to the point of termination, with two strikes your out.


----------



## Flash (Jun 5, 2022)




----------



## candycorn (Jun 5, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Because giving up gun rights temporarily is a condition he agrees to when he accepts bail.
> You can not force someone to lose a right of defense without a judge, but the bail judge can let cooperative people out more than uncooperative.


Again, I'm all for bond conditions.  I'm playing devils advocate here.

What you're describing is coercion....you either agree to this or stay locked up based on accusations--not a jury verdict...aka "due process".


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 13, 2022)

airplanemechanic said:


> As long as they continue to call for "banning" guns, they will get NOTHING done.
> 
> As I have said before. I'm not against stopping people who are mentally ill from obtaining a gun, or not keeping one until they can be evaluated and be deemed no threat. But WHO and HOW that happens is what I have a serious problem with because I don't support the loss of ANYONES 2nd amendment right without due process. And I never will. Even if 300 kids are killed.
> 
> Sorry, it's just me.


The solution is to put those who are a threat to society under lock and key.  Prison for criminals and hospitalization for the insane.  That worked for nearly 200  years, and school shootings were exceedingly rare.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 13, 2022)

candycorn said:


> So the kid that allegedly shot you.  Lets say he is arrested and gets out on bail.
> 
> He hasn't been convicted of anything yet.
> 
> Should he still have access to a gun?  If not..why not?


A kid out on bail for shooting someone already has access to a gun.  

Since 1% of violent offenders commit 63% of violent crimes, he was going to get another gun, in all likelihood, anyway.  It's not like the kid accused of shooting someone and out on bail was going to go straight.  But, yes, according to his momma he was out at 2 AM working to make money for a new suit of clothes for church on Sunday.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 13, 2022)

candycorn said:


> Why? You haven't been convicted of anything. Aren't you innocent until proven guilty?


You're absolutely correct.  A person out on bail should legally have the means to protect himself and his family and shouldn't be forced into victimhood by the government.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 13, 2022)

White 6 said:


> He spoke a few days ago about doing something about 9mm with high capacity magazines.  That is when he lost me on the whole effort,  rather than when it went for limits on ARs, AKs, etc.  I have an AR, and still doubt I would be effected, but when he spoke about standard carry 9mm pistols, mine being a full size 9mm PPQ holding 15+1, that is when I knew this whole thing, if they got their way was going to try to go way beyond the pale.  Some of us are licensed, highly trained, highly background checked, with even deeper checks still on file.  I am no lawbreaker, but I would be a lawbreaker before I gave up my AR and service pistol along with it.  I am no gang banger, but I do not plan to be unarmed if I ever have to meet one.  I don't live in a bad neighborhood, but at night especially, it's like American Express.  I don't leave home without it.  I am sorry for your loss or losses, but I had no hand in it.
> 
> He could be sabotaging the effort, himself, by bringing other things into discussion, by acting like he would like to do something.  The OP pointed out, the last ban they had ran out in 94 with Republicans in charge, but the Democrats didn't try to put it back in, when they were in charge, 2 years later.



An ex-coworker who had recently left the Army, honorably discharged, was in Army Intelligence so was very highly background checked,  was arrested a couple years ago for child molesting and child porn.  Background checks mean nothing.

And if I recall, you once openly admitted here to committing a felony - something about the cops coming to investigate gunfire at your neighbor's house and you lied to  the police performing an investigation in order to cover up for the neighbor and how much all the neighbors call you first instead of the police.

Less than half of felony arrests at the Federal level are prosecuted.  And that doesn't even account for known felony crimes for which no one is arrested or felony crimes that are not reported.  That means there are tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of violent felons who have no record and can get approved through NICS to purchase a gun.

So, no, background checks don't do a thing.  They only effect the convicted felons,  not the unconvicted felons.  It's a ridiculously minuscule actual effect on crime.  Even those convicted felons who can't pass the background check still get guns.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 13, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> You're absolutely correct.  A person out on bail should legally have the means to protect himself and his family and shouldn't be forced into victimhood by the government.



I disagree completely. I was just quibbling over the "due process" allegation that some made--a bond agreement isn't "due process" as much as it is coercion.


----------



## White 6 (Jun 13, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> An ex-coworker who had recently left the Army, honorably discharged, was in Army Intelligence so was very highly background checked,  was arrested a couple years ago for child molesting and child porn.  Background checks mean nothing.
> 
> And if I recall, you once openly admitted here to committing a felony - something about the cops coming to investigate gunfire at your neighbor's house and you lied to  the police performing an investigation in order to cover up for the neighbor and how much all the neighbors call you first instead of the police.
> 
> ...


I handled the situation regarding the neighbor having too many beers, and emptying his 9 millimeter into the air above his head in celebration, on my own.  The situation was not repeated by him, ever.  You could say, I moderated the situation on my own with no official entanglements.  I guess, I was just lucky to have an existing ongoing relationship with the neighborhood beat cops, being the head of the local neighborhood watch, hosting them in meetings and attending training.  They left reasonably satisfied.

In relation to your comment on background checks, Nothing anywhere, ever works perfectly, every time in any complex system.  Does no mean no attempt should be made.  I'm an 80% solution guy, meaning I know in dealing with attacking a problem or clean up, often 80% of the goal, if started and worked, can be accomplished with 10-15% of the labor.  Progress on the problem is much better than no progress on the problem.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 13, 2022)

candycorn said:


> Why? You haven't been convicted of anything. Aren't you innocent until proven guilty?


And they don't have to let you out on bail either.  Bail is not guaranteed and not.  Only excessive bail is forbidden.  They could keep you in jail until trial if they want.

Conditions of bail include no drinking and a host of other restrictions, in exchange for letting you out of jail.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 13, 2022)

candycorn said:


> I disagree completely. I was just quibbling over the "due process" allegation that some made--a bond agreement isn't "due process" as much as it is coercion.


Bail is not required.  They can keep you locked up until trial.  Bail is a privilege.  You only have the right to non-excessive bail.


----------



## White 6 (Jun 13, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> And they don't have to let you out on bail either.  Bail is not guaranteed and not.  Only excessive bail is forbidden.  They could keep you in jail until trial if they want.
> 
> Conditions of bail include no drinking and a host of other restrictions, in exchange for letting you out of jail.


All bails, include no drinking, even when drinking not part of the arrest problem?  I didn't know.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 13, 2022)

candycorn said:


> I disagree completely. I was just quibbling over the "due process" allegation that some made--a bond agreement isn't "due process" as much as it is coercion.


Yes, I know you were counting on the fact that so many so-called, self-proclaimed, conservatives don't really mean it.  They love the gun control that they love and then they hate the rest.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 13, 2022)

White 6 said:


> I handled the situation regarding the neighbor having too many beers, and emptying his 9 millimeter into the air above his head in celebration, on my own. The situation was not repeated by him, ever. You could say, I moderated the situation on my own with no official entanglements. I guess, I was just lucky to have an existing ongoing relationship with the neighborhood beat cops, being the head of the local neighborhood watch, hosting them in meetings and attending training. They left reasonably satisfied.


You committed a felony.  Period. You took the law into your own hands, and you put your neighbors at risk.  A man fired his gun in public under the influence of alcohol and, not at all surprising based on your posts and attitudes here, you thought you had the right answers more than the community, the law, and the police, and you thought you had the authority to make up the rules.  

You're a felon, even if not convicted.  So when you post in these current threads that you don't break the law so you don't expect to lose your guns, you lie.  In reality, you're a threat to your community and you're a felon.  But if nothing else, I'm consistent and absolute in my defense of the 2nd Amendment.  You should go to prison for 20 years for lying to the police in an investigation but your guns should be waiting for you when you get out.



White 6 said:


> In relation to your comment on background checks, Nothing anywhere, ever works perfectly, every time in any complex system. Does no mean no attempt should be made. I'm an 80% solution guy, meaning I know in dealing with attacking a problem or clean up, often 80% of the goal, if started and worked, can be accomplished with 10-15% of the labor. Progress on the problem is much better than no progress on the problem.


So you're suggesting that background checks stop 80% of crime and that  if they didn't exist, crime would go up by 4 times?   Are you suggesting that crime was reduced by 80% when the Brady Bill was passed?


----------



## White 6 (Jun 13, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> You committed a felony.  Period. You took the law into your own hands, and you put your neighbors at risk.  A man fired his gun in public under the influence of alcohol and, not at all surprising based on your posts and attitudes here, you thought you had the right answers more than the community, the law, and the police, and you thought you had the authority to make up the rules.
> 
> You're a felon, even if not convicted.  So when you post in these current threads that you don't break the law so you don't expect to lose your guns, you lie.  In reality, you're a threat to your community and you're a felon.  But if nothing else, I'm consistent and absolute in my defense of the 2nd Amendment.  You should go to prison for 20 years for lying to the police in an investigation but your guns should be waiting for you when you get out.
> 
> ...


Nope.  Never charged, never convicted. Don't bother telling me.  Try somebody that cares.  You just out of argument on the topic.  The topic, being *Biden's Thursday Speech On Gun Control, A Bust*


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 13, 2022)

White 6 said:


> Nope.  Never charged, never convicted. Don't bother telling me.  Try somebody that cares.  You just out of argument on the topic.  The topic, being *Biden's Thursday Speech On Gun Control, A Bust*


Are you seriously threatening me to threadban me again for proving you wrong in a thread topic?  Did you learn nothing at all the last time you did that and you lost on appeal?  What I got from the other mods is that a moderator threatening members and abusing his authority was not acceptable on USMB.  Now you're going to claim my response was off topic so you think you're going to get away with this thread ban?  

Go to post 14 in this thread, asshole.  You said you're not going to lose your guns because you're not a criminal.  For me to respond to your own post and your own words is certainly as on topic as were your own words to which I responded.  You say you're not a criminal and I simply respond by reminding you are absolutely a criminal and that you openly admitted to committing a felony.  Then you reaffirm your confession while threatening me with being off topic in the same post?  

You really do not have the disposition to be a moderator.  You're a great example, even if only at the Internet forum level, showing that many people who think they have power will abuse that power.  It didn't take you more than a few days for the power to go to your head.  Thank God you're not a cop.  What you might do to someone if you had both a badge and a gun is just scary.    Are you ready to go back to the site staff for more discussion or are you going to drop the threats?


----------



## White 6 (Jun 14, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Are you seriously threatening me to threadban me again for proving you wrong in a thread topic?  Did you learn nothing at all the last time you did that and you lost on appeal?  What I got from the other mods is that a moderator threatening members and abusing his authority was not acceptable on USMB.  Now you're going to claim my response was off topic so you think you're going to get away with this thread ban?
> 
> Go to post 14 in this thread, asshole.  You said you're not going to lose your guns because you're not a criminal.  For me to respond to your own post and your own words is certainly as on topic as were your own words to which I responded.  You say you're not a criminal and I simply respond by reminding you are absolutely a criminal and that you openly admitted to committing a felony.  Then you reaffirm your confession while threatening me with being off topic in the same post?
> 
> You really do not have the disposition to be a moderator.  You're a great example, even if only at the Internet forum level, showing that many people who think they have power will abuse that power.  It didn't take you more than a few days for the power to go to your head.  Thank God you're not a cop.  What you might do to someone if you had both a badge and a gun is just scary.    Are you ready to go back to the site staff for more discussion or are you going to drop the threats?


Don't go paranoid.  This is just another example of your taking a reply and making up what you would like to see, and is a fantasy of your own making.  Certainly not mine.  Feel free to report the thread, if you would like.


----------



## Shawnee_b (Jun 14, 2022)

White 6 said:


> Hope you are not completely correct, but not certain.  You very well might be.  I didn't see how the 9mm thing came up and don't remember, just remember hearing and thinking "uh-oh, don't go there Joe".  You got to admit, though, my AR has capabilities not found in my 30/30 lever action bush gun/ deer rifle.


Here's part of how the 9MM thing got going. Biden says it's a "high caliber weapon, because it will blow a lung out of a person, but with a 22 they can maybe save that person"...... (after he kills you anyway)

Hmmmm, lets have all secret service carry a 22 then? Oh yeah, governments usual "what's good for me is not good for you."

Try about the 2 min mark if you can't stand looking or listening to the completely uninformed idiot, I can't..


Then here is a take on it.


----------



## White 6 (Jun 14, 2022)

Shawnee_b said:


> Here's part of how the 9MM thing got going. Biden says it's a "high caliber weapon, because it will blow a lung out of a person, but with a 22 they can maybe save that person"...... (after he kills you anyway)
> 
> Hmmmm, lets have all secret service carry a 22 then? Oh yeah, governments usual "what's good for me is not good for you."
> 
> ...


Yep.  Commented somewhere else on the blowing the lungs out thing regarding 9mm.  Been a lot of these threads. Lots of confusion on ammo effects, by Joe and a lot of others.  All have to be corrected or at least noted honestly, kind of like public service to the board, or we can become an echo chamber also.
Lol.  Thinking of Secret Service with .22 (ludicrous) brings of thoughts of Russian KGB with silencers for execution. If the Secret Service shoots somebody or cops do either, it needs to stop somebody quick.  .22s are for shooting squirrels and target practice.  Funny thing though, in my permit class there were two people shooting .22 for range qualification.  I think the instructor told them it worked for in would work by the book, for qualification, but unwise for carry.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 14, 2022)

White 6 said:


> Yep.  Commented somewhere else on the blowing the lungs out thing regarding 9mm.  Been a lot of these threads. Lots of confusion on ammo effects, by Joe and a lot of others.  All have to be corrected or at least noted honestly, kind of like public service to the board, or we can become an echo chamber also.
> Lol.  Thinking of Secret Service with .22 (ludicrous) brings of thoughts of Russian KGB with silencers for execution. If the Secret Service shoots somebody or cops do either, it needs to stop somebody quick.  .22s are for shooting squirrels and target practice.  Funny thing though, in my permit class there were two people shooting .22 for range qualification.  I think the instructor told them it worked for in would work by the book, for qualification, but unwise for carry.




It's not confusion.....they throw those statements out there knowing the democrat party media wing will keep playing them over and over again, and uninformed people will absorb them, especially when the hollywood wing of the democrat party makes movies showing exactly that.....


----------



## Flash (Jun 14, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Are you seriously threatening me to threadban me again for proving you wrong in a thread topic?  Did you learn nothing at all the last time you did that and you lost on appeal?  What I got from the other mods is that a moderator threatening members and abusing his authority was not acceptable on USMB.  Now you're going to claim my response was off topic so you think you're going to get away with this thread ban?
> 
> Go to post 14 in this thread, asshole.  You said you're not going to lose your guns because you're not a criminal.  For me to respond to your own post and your own words is certainly as on topic as were your own words to which I responded.  You say you're not a criminal and I simply respond by reminding you are absolutely a criminal and that you openly admitted to committing a felony.  Then you reaffirm your confession while threatening me with being off topic in the same post?
> 
> You really do not have the disposition to be a moderator.  You're a great example, even if only at the Internet forum level, showing that many people who think they have power will abuse that power.  It didn't take you more than a few days for the power to go to your head.  Thank God you're not a cop.  What you might do to someone if you had both a badge and a gun is just scary.    Are you ready to go back to the site staff for more discussion or are you going to drop the threats?


This is the same mod that threatened me last week because I proved him/her/it wrong.

I don't know why USMB allow this person to be a moderator.

Maybe because we are not reporting the abuses?


----------



## White 6 (Jun 14, 2022)

2aguy said:


> It's not confusion.....they throw those statements out there knowing the democrat party media wing will keep playing them over and over again, and uninformed people will absorb them, especially when the hollywood wing of the democrat party makes movies showing exactly that.....


You mean it's just political games?! I'm shocked, shocked, I say! Yes, there is quite a bit of that out there, but honestly, some people just don't know shit. Also, have to mention, not everybody on a pro-gun position argues their point every time in good faith, either, sculpting replies more based on emotional and sometimes half-truth than, facts.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 14, 2022)

White 6 said:


> Yep.  Commented somewhere else on the blowing the lungs out thing regarding 9mm.  Been a lot of these threads. Lots of confusion on ammo effects, by Joe and a lot of others.  All have to be corrected or at least noted honestly, kind of like public service to the board, or we can become an echo chamber also.
> Lol.  Thinking of Secret Service with .22 (ludicrous) brings of thoughts of Russian KGB with silencers for execution. If the Secret Service shoots somebody or cops do either, it needs to stop somebody quick.  .22s are for shooting squirrels and target practice.  Funny thing though, in my permit class there were two people shooting .22 for range qualification.  I think the instructor told them it worked for in would work by the book, for qualification, but unwise for carry.


What are your thoughts on the smallest size ammunition that is reasonable for self-defense and personal carry?


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 14, 2022)

Flash said:


> This is the same mod that threatened me last week because I proved him/her/it wrong.
> 
> I don't know why USMB allow this person to be a moderator.
> 
> Maybe because we are not reporting the abuses?


Why am I not surprised?


----------



## White 6 (Jun 14, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> What are your thoughts on the smallest size ammunition that is reasonable for self-defense and personal carry?


I have never carried anything but Federal 9mm LE/Personal defense 124 Gr. after I started carrying.  My brother-in-law carries a very small automatic .380 pocket pistol, as a "get off me" gun, his round are as close to personal defense rounds as he can find.  I can say, I would never carry a .22.  You could really piss somebody off and they kill or injure you before they succumb to their injuries, but I have no doubt some people do carry them.  I just prefer full size utility weapons, as it was what I carried most of the time, back in the day, and full size is most common among servicemen and law enforcement for it's all around utility.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 14, 2022)

White 6 said:


> I have never carried anything but Federal 9mm LE/Personal defense 124 Gr. after I started carrying.  My brother-in-law carries a very small automatic .380 pocket pistol, as a "get off me" gun, his round are as close to personal defense rounds as he can find.  I can say, I would never carry a .22.  You could really piss somebody off and they kill or injure you before they succumb to their injuries, but I have no doubt some people do carry them.  I just prefer full size utility weapons, as it was what I carried most of the time, back in the day, and full size is most common among servicemen and law enforcement for it's all around utility.


Interesting.  As a weapons expert, would you say that the 9mm round is more weight than a 5.56/.223 or less weight than a 5.56/.223?


----------



## White 6 (Jun 15, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Interesting.  As a weapons expert, would you say that the 9mm round is more weight than a 5.56/.223 or less weight than a 5.56/.223?


Haven't been called that, over 30 years.  You're thinking of Paul Herrel on YouTube. My answer off the top of the head is it is not a good comparison as the 5.56 being a lighter bullet, but leaving the muzzle at a much higher velocity.  The rounds are designed for different purposes, entirely.


----------



## Shawnee_b (Jun 16, 2022)

White 6 said:


> Yep.  Commented somewhere else on the blowing the lungs out thing regarding 9mm.  Been a lot of these threads. Lots of confusion on ammo effects, by Joe and a lot of others.  All have to be corrected or at least noted honestly, kind of like public service to the board, or we can become an echo chamber also.
> Lol.  Thinking of Secret Service with .22 (ludicrous) brings of thoughts of Russian KGB with silencers for execution. If the Secret Service shoots somebody or cops do either, it needs to stop somebody quick.  .22s are for shooting squirrels and target practice.  Funny thing though, in my permit class there were two people shooting .22 for range qualification.  I think the instructor told them it worked for in would work by the book, for qualification, but unwise for carry.



It's never going to be corrected. Take for instance Wapo printing a lie (not that they ever would). They get sued and rescind it. Sooooooooo. 95% of the people already read it, believe it and never even see the redaction.

Where does Joe get his technical information on guns from. Beto? Fienstien, Corn Pop? Are there any dem politicians writing gun laws even know which end of a barrel a bullet comes out of? Possibly but they aren't in the select clique.

94 awb for instance. Stupid little things, flash hider bad, muzzle brake good, pistol grip bad, bayonet lug bad,,,,, 

Look the following up. Use of assaults weapons *went up *when the ban was on. It was not renewed in 2004 because govt sub committees, found it did more harm than good and was totally useless. But the dems are back at it again? Another assaults weapon ban and mag ban, what else? They aren't stopping there, never have since 1934MGA and never will. They simply want total control and think disarming the people will give them that. It's not about the kids. And you wonder why the right is so fed up with idiot dems with their anti gun agenda? Come up with something works.

Thing here I see in Joes vid, we need a 22 for self defense but Govt needs what stops a man, (and that's not a 9mm in my book but a 45acp) Why? Govt is elite, they put their pants on different than we do, they are MORE IMPORTANT than us mere subjects so instead of pissing a perp off with a 22, the govt wants them stopped before they can do further harm.  

How about simply what is good for them is good for us too? All these laws and bans only apply to us. Govt is exempt. Look at the 1958 baloney switchblade act. Couple from NY and 1 from Maine (Pino, Delauncy) watched West side story" and got scared of switchblades. Can't carry a auto over state lines (whether you can own it is your state is state law) but any Govt employee is exempt. Your postman can carry one on a x-country trip but we can't.

From Obama, "leave it to Joe to screw things up". He is and he will again, especially gun regs.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 16, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> What are your thoughts on the smallest size ammunition that is reasonable for self-defense and personal carry?


30 super carry.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 16, 2022)

White 6 said:


> Yep.  Commented somewhere else on the blowing the lungs out thing regarding 9mm.  Been a lot of these threads. Lots of confusion on ammo effects, by Joe and a lot of others.  All have to be corrected or at least noted honestly, kind of like public service to the board, or we can become an echo chamber also.
> Lol.  Thinking of Secret Service with .22 (ludicrous) brings of thoughts of Russian KGB with silencers for execution. If the Secret Service shoots somebody or cops do either, it needs to stop somebody quick.  .22s are for shooting squirrels and target practice.  Funny thing though, in my permit class there were two people shooting .22 for range qualification.  I think the instructor told them it worked for in would work by the book, for qualification, but unwise for carry.




The mob tended to use .22s to kill people too...


----------



## White 6 (Jun 16, 2022)

Shawnee_b said:


> It's never going to be corrected. Take for instance Wapo printing a lie (not that they ever would). They get sued and rescind it. Sooooooooo. 95% of the people already read it, believe it and never even see the redaction.
> 
> Where does Joe get his technical information on guns from. Beto? Fienstien, Corn Pop? Are there any dem politicians writing gun laws even know which end of a barrel a bullet comes out of? Possibly but they aren't in the select clique.
> 
> ...


Remember, front page mistakes are almost never front page retraction, at WAPO, NYT, or anywhere else.  Getting it right the first time is very important, and no outlets in the history of news outlet has a perfect score.  I read all with a filter.
The 1934 MGA will be 100 years old in 12 years.  I'm 67, and not missing the bygone days, when gangster messed up the fun of Tommy Guns for everybody.
You will never see me with a .22 for self-defense.  Lots of fun for plinking targets or hunting squirrel parts of the year.
Get a permit.  I can carry mine to most states I would want to go to, by car and carry concealed.  Thing that surprised me about TN is its acceptance of reciprocity not necessarily a two-way street.  There are states that do not even require range qualification, that permit their citizens, and TN accepts their permits with much less training, while some of those same state, like Illinois and I think Indiana do not accept ours.  I am absolutely not surprise, none permit holders not allowed to carry freely over state lines.  Otherwise you would have would be patriots and vigilantes crossing state line every time one of the liberal Democrat controlled states hosted a riot.


----------



## White 6 (Jun 16, 2022)

2aguy said:


> The mob tended to use .22s to kill people too...


.22 hollow point to the head is very effective and not very loud.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 16, 2022)

White 6 said:


> .22 hollow point to the head is very effective and not very loud.




Yep....


----------



## Shawnee_b (Jun 16, 2022)

White 6 said:


> Remember, front page mistakes are almost never front page retraction, at WAPO, NYT, or anywhere else.  Getting it right the first time is very important, and no outlets in the history of news outlet has a perfect score.  I read all with a filter.
> The 1934 MGA will be 100 years old in 12 years.  I'm 67, and not missing the bygone days, when gangster messed up the fun of Tommy Guns for everybody.
> You will never see me with a .22 for self-defense.  Lots of fun for plinking targets or hunting squirrel parts of the year.
> Get a permit.  I can carry mine to most states I would want to go to, by car and carry concealed.  Thing that surprised me about TN is its acceptance of reciprocity not necessarily a two-way street.  There are states that do not even require range qualification, that permit their citizens, and TN accepts their permits with much less training, while some of those same state, like Illinois and I think Indiana do not accept ours.  I am absolutely not surprise, none permit holders not allowed to carry freely over state lines.  Otherwise you would have would be patriots and vigilantes crossing state line every time one of the liberal Democrat controlled states hosted a riot.


Right, they don't see the redaction. They believe the first thing they saw.

1934 and all the later acts are all unconstitutional. Since 1968 to present the CFR's, atf's rulebook is more than twice as thick. (I have them) No lawmaking process, they just do it, their rules. 

KY has a mandatory 8 hr class for CCW, even while I had 5 permits all valid at the time. KY, Tn share reciprocity. I never worry about it, I'm 30 min from Tn.


----------



## BS Filter (Jun 16, 2022)




----------



## White 6 (Jun 16, 2022)

Shawnee_b said:


> Right, they don't see the redaction. They believe the first thing they saw.
> 
> 1934 and all the later acts are all unconstitutional. Since 1968 to present the CFR's, atf's rulebook is more than twice as thick. (I have them) No lawmaking process, they just do it, their rules.
> 
> KY has a mandatory 8 hr class for CCW, even while I had 5 permits all valid at the time. KY, Tn share reciprocity. I never worry about it, I'm 30 min from Tn.


Ky is a good state.  Natural I'd think so.  Born and grew up wester KY till halfway of junior year HS.


----------

