Armed citizen saves life of Police officer

[JakeStarkey]

militia weapons are not dangerous weapons you fucking troll they are protected under the second amendment as per Miller.

Reported. I said nothing about militia weapons, but thank you for reminding us that Heller recognizes SCOTUS right and duty to regulate gun ownership and ban dangerous and unusual weapons.

HEY there Jake.

I was wondering about something, what happened to your prediction that an assault weapons ban would pass right after the Newtown shooting? Did the Republicans not get the message that only extremist fringe elements have a problem with it?

I thought there was a real chance, but the fringe elements managed to beat it back so far.

 

[idb]

In order to feel 'outrage', I would first need to respect your comments. Since you fail to gain my respect, there is no 'outrage'. Comments are not 'outrage', they are just comments. Only hysterical fools mistake the two.

I don't accept PMs from idiots. That is true - to a large degree, at least. There are some idiots that I cannot opt out of PMs from - I would if I could.

I have yet to see any comment from BigRed that supports your claim about him. Again, hysteria is not 'evidence'. If you cannot comprehend his comments, that doesn't make him an idiot... but it really does raise a question about your intellectual capacity.

Now, stop whining.

Yet you still feel compelled to take the time to send me a rep with a comment, and reply to me here - I appreciate you taking time out of your busy day when you have so little respect for my comments, I really do.

I never mentioned or presented 'hysteria' as evidence of anything.
It's your word, not mine.
It's a clever way to win an argument though - kudos to you.

It seems that this is the first thread that you've come across bigrednec in.
I've seen enough of him over the years to understand where he's coming from.

If you've run out of ideas that's fine but when that happens it's better just to shut up.

I pass the whiney stick back to you...

Board software prohibits sending neg reps without comments, idiot.

I've never sent one so I wouldn't know, idiot.

 

[OKTexas]

Reported. I said nothing about militia weapons, but thank you for reminding us that Heller recognizes SCOTUS right and duty to regulate gun ownership and ban dangerous and unusual weapons.

I know your intent when you said dangerous weapons you fucking troll

Reported. My intent is to point out the citizen did great without dangerous and unusual weapons.

You will never win this point, never.

Not dangerous, tell that to the dead guy. All weapons are dangerous, otherwise they wouldn't be weapons.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yet you still feel compelled to take the time to send me a rep with a comment, and reply to me here - I appreciate you taking time out of your busy day when you have so little respect for my comments, I really do.

I never mentioned or presented 'hysteria' as evidence of anything.
It's your word, not mine.
It's a clever way to win an argument though - kudos to you.

It seems that this is the first thread that you've come across bigrednec in.
I've seen enough of him over the years to understand where he's coming from.

If you've run out of ideas that's fine but when that happens it's better just to shut up.

I pass the whiney stick back to you...

Board software prohibits sending neg reps without comments, idiot.

I've never sent one so I wouldn't know, idiot.

You have gotten a few, they all have a comment, even though most pos resp do not. One would think an intelligent person would notice.

Idiot.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I know your intent when you said dangerous weapons you fucking troll

Reported. My intent is to point out the citizen did great without dangerous and unusual weapons.

You will never win this point, never.

Not dangerous, tell that to the dead guy. All weapons are dangerous, otherwise they wouldn't be weapons.

The point is that SCOTUS in Heller recognized the right to ban "unusual and dangerous" weapons. Tell your point to the justices not me.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I know your intent when you said dangerous weapons you fucking troll

Reported. My intent is to point out the citizen did great without dangerous and unusual weapons.

You will never win this point, never.

He didn't use a grenade launcher? Are you sure? Do you want to comment on the odds that the weapon he did use had a magazine with more that 7 bullets in it?

Immaterial unless he used an "unusual and dangerous" weapon. You could argue all handguns are dangerous, but I doubt that very few are considered "unusual and dangerous."

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Reported. I said nothing about militia weapons, but thank you for reminding us that Heller recognizes SCOTUS right and duty to regulate gun ownership and ban dangerous and unusual weapons.

HEY there Jake.

I was wondering about something, what happened to your prediction that an assault weapons ban would pass right after the Newtown shooting? Did the Republicans not get the message that only extremist fringe elements have a problem with it?

I thought there was a real chance, but the fringe elements managed to beat it back so far.

You thought wrong as usual

 

[JakeStarkey]

HEY there Jake.

I was wondering about something, what happened to your prediction that an assault weapons ban would pass right after the Newtown shooting? Did the Republicans not get the message that only extremist fringe elements have a problem with it?

I thought there was a real chance, but the fringe elements managed to beat it back so far.

You thought wrong as usual

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Reported. My intent is to point out the citizen did great without dangerous and unusual weapons.

You will never win this point, never.

He didn't use a grenade launcher? Are you sure? Do you want to comment on the odds that the weapon he did use had a magazine with more that 7 bullets in it?

Immaterial unless he used an "unusual and dangerous" weapon. You could argue all handguns are dangerous, but I doubt that very few are considered "unusual and dangerous."

Live them learn them and understand them

http://ncja.ncdoj.gov/getdoc/a18f57fc-d990-43f0-8982-feb1f4c72deb/NC-Firearms-Laws-Pub-2011.aspx

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Reported. My intent is to point out the citizen did great without dangerous and unusual weapons.

You will never win this point, never.

Not dangerous, tell that to the dead guy. All weapons are dangerous, otherwise they wouldn't be weapons.

The point is that SCOTUS in Heller recognized the right to ban "unusual and dangerous" weapons. Tell your point to the justices not me.

Miller the only protected firearm are those suitable for militia useage and in common use supplied by the citizen.

 

[idb]

Board software prohibits sending neg reps without comments, idiot.

I've never sent one so I wouldn't know, idiot.

You have gotten a few, they all have a comment, even though most pos resp do not. One would think an intelligent person would notice.

Idiot.

Some positive reps have a comment some don't, I have way more positive than negative, the sample size is too small for an intelligent person to draw a conclusion from.
I'm sure that you'd be able to though.

Idiot.

 

[Godboy]

Let's give the OP the benefit of the doubt and say we know 100% that this is true and correct.

What's the point that he's trying to make unless the gun that the citizen used was on the list to be banned?

NOBODY is trying to take anyones guns or repeal CC laws. So that leaves the question...

What's the point of the OP?

When you ban "assault rifles", suddenly shot guns and hunting rifles will become the most deadly weapon, then you will want to ban those. Once youve done that, the pistol will become the most deadly weapon (which technically it already is), then you will want to ban those.

The government loves to take our rights away, but when have you ever seen them give any back? Quit handing our rights away, please.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Let's give the OP the benefit of the doubt and say we know 100% that this is true and correct.

What's the point that he's trying to make unless the gun that the citizen used was on the list to be banned?

NOBODY is trying to take anyones guns or repeal CC laws. So that leaves the question...

What's the point of the OP?

When you ban "assault rifles", suddenly shot guns and hunting rifles will become the most deadly weapon, then you will want to ban those. Once youve done that, the pistol will become the most deadly weapon (which technically it already is), then you will want to ban those.

The government loves to take our rights away, but when have you ever seen them give any back? Quit handing our rights away, please.

Some pistols are attached to the latest installment of firearms ban.

 

[editec]

I have no respect for gun queers whatever.

I think they'[re nuts.

However...I do not think the antigun crowd makes much sense either.

In fact, I think they're rather stupid people, too.

For instance, they've gotten themselves hung up on "assault weapons" and have allowed their MASTERS to frame the DEBATE on an issue that truly makes NO DIFFERENCE.

Were the REALLY interested in gun voilence, they'd be looking at GUN OWNERS rather than what type of weapon they have.

I think both tet gun queers and anti-gun queers are TOOLS of both parties.

I think BOTH PARTIES want this debate to NEVER be resolved.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I have no respect for gun queers whatever.

I think they'[re nuts.

However...I do not think the antigun crowd makes much sense either.

In fact, I think they're rather stupid people, too.

For instance, they've gotten themselves hung up on "assault weapons" and have allowed their MASTERS to frame the DEBATE on an issue that truly makes NO DIFFERENCE.

Were the REALLY interested in gun voilence, they'd be looking at GUN OWNERS rather than what type of weapon they have.

I think both tet gun queers and anti-gun queers are TOOLS of both parties.

I think BOTH PARTIES want this debate to NEVER be resolved.

You've shown yourself to be a faggot with the gun queer comment.
When you start to be less hostile we'll talk

 

[editec]

I have no respect for gun queers whatever.

I think they'[re nuts.

However...I do not think the antigun crowd makes much sense either.

In fact, I think they're rather stupid people, too.

For instance, they've gotten themselves hung up on "assault weapons" and have allowed their MASTERS to frame the DEBATE on an issue that truly makes NO DIFFERENCE.

Were the REALLY interested in gun voilence, they'd be looking at GUN OWNERS rather than what type of weapon they have.

I think both tet gun queers and anti-gun queers are TOOLS of both parties.

I think BOTH PARTIES want this debate to NEVER be resolved.

You've shown yourself to be a faggot with the gun queer comment.
When you start to be less hostile we'll talk

Queer is the best term I can think of that best suits someone who is SO focused on this issue.

On both sides of this debate I find people whose OBSESSIONAL interest and affection (or disaffection) for guns is queer.

If using a word (that has many meanings) offends you personally, then by all means feel free not to respond.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I have no respect for gun queers whatever.

I think they'[re nuts.

However...I do not think the antigun crowd makes much sense either.

In fact, I think they're rather stupid people, too.

For instance, they've gotten themselves hung up on "assault weapons" and have allowed their MASTERS to frame the DEBATE on an issue that truly makes NO DIFFERENCE.

Were the REALLY interested in gun voilence, they'd be looking at GUN OWNERS rather than what type of weapon they have.

I think both tet gun queers and anti-gun queers are TOOLS of both parties.

I think BOTH PARTIES want this debate to NEVER be resolved.

You've shown yourself to be a faggot with the gun queer comment.
When you start to be less hostile we'll talk

Queer is the best term I can think of that best suits someone who is SO focused on this issue.

On both sides of this debate I find people whose OBSESSIONAL interest and affection (or disaffection) for guns is queer.

If using a word (that has many meanings) offends you personally, then by all means feel free not to respond.

again you have nothing to offer you are politically dishonest and disingenuous

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not dangerous, tell that to the dead guy. All weapons are dangerous, otherwise they wouldn't be weapons.

The point is that SCOTUS in Heller recognized the right to ban "unusual and dangerous" weapons. Tell your point to the justices not me.

Miller the only protected firearm are those suitable for militia useage and in common use supplied by the citizen.

Heller's decision overrides Miller and recognizes the court can make changes including those involving unusual and dangerous weapons.

You can't have a TOW missile system.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The point is that SCOTUS in Heller recognized the right to ban "unusual and dangerous" weapons. Tell your point to the justices not me.

Miller the only protected firearm are those suitable for militia useage and in common use supplied by the citizen.

Heller's decision overrides Miller and recognizes the court can make changes including those involving unusual and dangerous weapons.

You can't have a TOW missile system.

Heller's decision overrides Miller

No heller does not overrides Miller
Exactly when did that happen?
Board rules state you must submit links of proof. if not your post will be report for rules violation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Let us see you post Miller where it supports your claim. Then I will post Heller 1(F) that overrides that claim.

Get to it, buddy.