Another Mall shooter finds his destiny... A good guy with a gun...

220718184052-jonathan-douglas-sapirman-super-169.jpg
 
And should only those who take it serious enough to study for a test be allowed to vote? (I sure wish it were so). Should only lawyers get a lawyer? Should there be a test/certification process for the free press? Hillary sure thought so; do you?


Good point.......that is why Poll Taxes, and Literacy tests are unConstitutional.....therefore tests to own and carry a gun are unConstitutional as well.....
 
There are no limits to the extent of gun control. You've given the government permission to operate outside of the Constitution. All that's left is for you to beg them to let you keep some of your guns. They won't, of course; in the end they'll take them all.

When they take them all, you won't have a valid complaint because you said it was OK for them to ignore "shall not be infringed" because it made you feel good - and you can't even tell which gun control laws actually saved lives - because none do.

It doesn't matter what I say or want, it's what judges rule on. Given I've voted Republican most of my life, and the most conservative Republican in the primaries, I can't do much more than that. They ruled we have the right to bear arms, but not unconditionally. It's like yelling fire and causing a panic. Your rights end when what you believe can bring harm to me or my family.
 
Once again, you're not willing to answer which of the gun control laws that you support and defend actually prevent crime and make the world safer.

While you're answering, if you'll answer, please define constitutional carry.

Constitutional carry is allowing any citizen legally allowed to possess a firearm to carry concealed in public. But your question is stupid. What law ever stopped murder in this country? What law ever stopped rape or armed robbery? What law stopped illegals from sneaking in? There is no such thing as a law that stopped any crime. All laws do is give the capacity to government to punish those that break our laws.
 
I never had a toy gun with an orange tip. It wasn't until 1992 that toy guns were required to have orange tips.

Many bad guys also put orange tips on their guns to slow down police reactions when they see them.

Tip or no tip should not be the decision maker for the cops to shoot. The cops need to evaluate the behavior and actions of the person. Far too many times, the police shoot people for simply being close to a gun, in cases where they claim fear for their life but admit to never seeing a gun.

I remember many stories, including video on TV, when the police talked down a man with a gun rather than shot them. Now cops who talk down a man with a gun get fired for not shooting them.

What has increased the number of police killing is the made up concept of qualified immunity. It's one of very few legal topics that bring together the very extremes of Justices, Thomas and Sotomayor, agreeing that there is no constitutional or legal basis for it.



Thomas is right, there is no basis for qualified immunity. But of all the government officials who should NOT have it, it is the police. They are the government officials, more than any others, who can do the most harm, and interact the most, with the people.

Without qualified immunity, the police will go back to trying to solve problems without the use of their guns; they used to be good at it.

Without qualified immunity, you won't be able to find people to take the job of a police officer. In fact it's happening already. Nobody wants to be a cop any longer and cities in our country are suffering for it. We've allowed the left to demonize police officers like the one here in Cleveland so bad and people just say F-it. I'll set my goals on something else.

I'm unaware of any situation where a criminal put an orange tip on a real gun. It's the first I ever heard of it. Officer Loehmann didn't have time to evaluate anything. As soon as he got out of his car, Rice was already pulling the gun out. I'm sure he was just having fun to scare the officers, but it was a joke he played on himself. And his fat pig mother who wasn't watching her child ended up with 5 million bucks so the Mayor could keep his job, the same Mayor now being sued because he kept getting breaks for his grandson who is now charged with murder.
 
So you're going to argue that Dicken didn't actually save any lives; that the shooter was done anyway? You're a fucking moron.
The shooter may have been done and maybe not, but he got his mass shooting and there was no way of preventing that.

That's the reason why I'm suggesting that american needs vigilantes who can spot a potential shooter and then shoot first. Sort of like the police do in a limited way.
 
The shooter may have been done and maybe not, but he got his mass shooting and there was no way of preventing that.
That's the reason why I'm suggesting that american needs vigilantes who can spot a potential shooter and then shoot first. Sort of like the police do in a limited way.
Why do you hate the fact Dicken stopped this shooter?
 
You fucking removed the picture because you didn't like it? Let it be a lesson to anyone that thinks they can go on a shooting rampage and not get shot. One more time this is what a leftist will look like
View attachment 672699
Look at that worthless little piece of shit staining the floor.

I'm glad that motherfucker is dead, and I hope we kill 1000 more of them.
 
Right, so why is your Canadian ass telling Americans that we must give up our guns to stop mass shootings?
You got the wrong impression if you think I want you all to give up your guns. For nearly a month now I've been saying it's the American culture of war and killing people that's the problem.

Having said that, there's still the issue of being able to stop a mass shooter before he goes off and starts.

We need to get on to the idea of vigilantes and them being granted second amendment privileges that will allow them to be proactive.

The term 'proactive' needs to be examined more closely. It doesn't have to mean murdering a shooter on a hunch. The Rittenhouse incident can promise some possibilities!
 
Isn’t Ahmaud Arbery an example of that?
If you are being attacked you have the right to defend yourself using the appropriate amount of force. You can use lethal force if you serious believe you’re attack intends to put you in the hospital for an extended period of time or six feet under and has the means and ability to do so.

If your attacker stops his attack or runs away your right to defend yourself ends.

I remember a gun store employee who told me about a man who smacked him in the head with a gun while the cash drawer of the store register was open. The man then grabbed the cash in the drawer and ran out the door.

The employee followed with a pistol in his hand until he realized he no longer could justify using lethal force. In fact had he chased the robber down and threatened him with his pistol, the robber could have used lethal force and claimed he was defending himself.
 
Why do you hate the fact Dicken stopped this shooter?
Actually I'm sort of disappointed in the fact that he didn't stop the shooter before he got his mass shooting.
Aren't we missing a critical point in not discussing the idea of vigilantes with special 2a rights, who could have prevented over 300 mass shootings in 22 so far.

It doesn't have to allow them to murder on mere suspicion. It's in the details on how it's become only active vigilantes can lower the stats. (score)

The new JR-15 for kids could become an asset in this respect too. Children can be taught how to recognize a good guy with a gun, minutes before he becomes the 'bad' guy with a gun.
 
The Rittenhouse incident can promise some possibilities!
You keep saying this. Do you know what happened in the Kenosha that night?

The first guy to get shot ran up behind Rittenhouse and attempted to grab his rifle WHILE another idiot fired a handgun in to the air -- an action almost CERTAIN to cause a shooting (and did cause a shooting). That guy was never charged with a crime, even though his actions STARTED the shooting.

From there came a chain of events where leftist assholes were trying to get vengeance on Rittenhouse, who was obviously not attacking but fleeing, trying to surrender to police.

Rittenhouse ONLY engaged hostile targets to PERFECTION.

So, I don't know what point you are trying to make with that example.
 

Forum List

Back
Top