If more guns makes a country safer

[sealybobo]

And banning the sale of 20 round magazines also takes that ability away from the law abiding citizen who may, one day, have to defend himself or herself from somebody with a 20 round magazine.

As we on the right understand, having limits on capacity size is only one step in the long game of virtual gun confiscation. If you don't believe that, I'll tell you what: I'll support your magazine size law, if you can get the Democrats to sign a Contract with America. In that contract, it would state the Democrats will never bring up the issue of guns again win, lose, or draw if we support limits on gun magazine size.

Do you really think the Democrats in the House would go for that? Of course not. Because again, it's one baby step in their long game.

Using your logic, regulating a 20mm anti aircraft gun is just as wrong in case you have to defend yourself from someone with an armored vehicle with a M2 mounted on it. Pardon me if I choose not to live in that neighborhood. You may want to live there. I know of only one place on Earth that has no laws and it would be perfectly legal and that would be Yemen and how is that working out for them.

The only real question here is where do we put the limits. Where do we draw the line. To date, the Federal Courts have drawn the line at 15 rounds. No matter where we place the limit, there is always going to be someone jump up and scream that they demand the next higher number or higher.

Now about that fantasy about your home being invaded by, let's say, 10 bad armed guys. You have an AR with 3 30 round mags. Those 10 bad guys are similarly armed. Maybe in a Rambo movie could you expect the good guy to survive that encounter but it's just a movie. The best outcome by directly confronting those bad guys would be to go down fighting. While that sounds heroic, it's not the best option. Take it from a Military Person, sometimes withdrawal is a better option.

Next you are going to say, they have all the exits covered. No matter what I say, you will come up with a scenario where you will have to fight. We are right back inside that movie. But let's say it happens. If you are that worried I suggest you build a nice little safe room that can't be easily breached and blends in with a wall. They aren't there to probably kill you. They are there to steal from you or kidnap. Sit in that safe room with your defensive weapons and stay quiet. And call the Cops. Let them get shot, it's their job. They have a unit called Swat that does that for a living and they don't have any limits to their weapons.

So we place a limit. limits have to be placed because some moron will go hog wild if they aren't. Again, the only real question is, where will those limits be placed. I agree with the Courts except I might place the limit at 20 because some weapons look might funny with the shorter 15 round mag. And 5 rounds one way or the other really isn't that big a deal. So I don't see the world coming to an end with the limit set at 15. The Sun will come up in the Morning, The Seasons will go on and so will I.

You don't assume anything when confronted by armed attackers. They may beat you to death, force you to disclose where valuables are hidden at, and if you don't have enough, kill you because they thought you were holding out on them, or simply because you are a witness that can identify them in court.

Unless you agree to a fight with somebody, and are attacked, you have no idea what their motive is, so you take no chances. It's the same as getting attacked without a weapon. You always expect the worst.

The use of a deadly weapon is the same as not using a deadly weapon. Years ago when I was studying for my blackbelt, I asked my instructor what might happen to me legally if I used one of the five methods to kill another person? With that, he said since I have no idea what their intent is, use them. Because self-defense ends at the point you disabled your attacker from further attack no matter how you did it. Until that point, it's legally self-defense.

If people in my area start to get attacked by airplanes, then I'll look into anti-aircraft weaponry. But thus far, it's been criminals with guns, and yes......big magazines. So I don't think there should be any limit on magazine size because for one, it won't stop one shooting, and two, it won't make any difference in the amount of casualties or deaths. What it does do is advance the commie narrative of virtual gun and ammo confiscation.

Okay, if it won't make any difference on way or the other, what is wrong with placing a limit of 15 rounds for the mag? If the odds are overwhelming, withdraw. Tactical Withdrawal is a sound Military Tactic. And since you actually painted a Military Scenario then one would think using sound military tactics would be the best option.

You used that fact you earned a Black Best, Babyson. Here are some tips you missed.

When your enemy is hitting you here, don't be there
Control the Situation
Avoid the Confrontation if possible

Use only enough force to end the situation. That is part of controlling the situation. If you have no control over the situation then get away from the situation. The person that imparted that to me was a 3rd Don with enough awards and accolades to fill a wall in a decent sized living room.


Then there is Kelvinkis Rules from the New Centurian
If a bad guy picks up his hands, you pick up a knife
If a bad guy picks up a knife, you pick up a club
If a bad guy picks up a club, you pick up a gun
If a bad guy picks up a gun, you pick up your feet and get the hell out of dodge.

I suggest you get a copy of "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu. If you are going to prepare for war, II suggest you learn from the Brightest and the Best.

But if your home is in a potential war zone then use your Martial Arts training and remove yourself and you family from a situation you really have no control over.

So should a police officer pick up a knife if someone comes at him with their fist?

Should he or she deploy a billy club if someone comes at them with a knife?

If someone produces a firearm, is a police officer going to run away?

Being a citizen, I don't have the option of arresting a threat. Nor is it mandatory that I use a non-lethal weapon, such as pepper spray. Do you even know what the "21-foot rule" is, and why law enforcement officers qualify at 7 yards with their service weapons? A person armed with a knife and intent on using it, can cover 21 feet in approximately 1.5 seconds and cut the living fuck out of you.

Very few police officers I know of would even attempt to disarm a person armed with a knife. I also seriously doubt that any criminals spend their time reading Sun Tzu. The fact is, police officers do not carry firearms to protect you or I: They carry weapons to protect their own lives. In 1981, the Supreme Court ruled in Warren vs. District of Columbia that police officers have no "duty to protect." In other words, we are responsible for out own safety.

And if police officers are entitled to have 15-round magazines in their handguns and AR-15 rifles with 30-round magazines, we are entitled to have them as well. Probably more entitled, as a criminal is more likely to perpetrate a more vicious attack on a mere citizen, as they would on a law-enforcement officer.

I quoted a book written by a retired cop. That's a cops views, not mine. And you don't get the meaning, do you. What it means is, always have the upper hand. If you don't have the upper hand disengage until you do have the upper hand.

You are still bring more Bull Crap to the Ball Game. You are still looking for the supreme "Gotcha". What you are really accomplishing is showing that you are just crying and throwing a temper tamptrum over nothing. And more guns or even less guns have zero affect over gun crime in the United States.

But there is a point where too many guns do reach a saturation point and it does increase the violent nature for the US. Learn from History or be prepared to repeat history.

Republicans talk about not being outgunned by the government but that’s exactly what happens every time they leave their home. Maybe they have the same gun the cop has but it better stay concealed. The cop will whip his gun out if you put your hand near your gun. And republicans here will defend the cop for shooting.

Weird huh?

 

[JGalt]

Using your logic, regulating a 20mm anti aircraft gun is just as wrong in case you have to defend yourself from someone with an armored vehicle with a M2 mounted on it. Pardon me if I choose not to live in that neighborhood. You may want to live there. I know of only one place on Earth that has no laws and it would be perfectly legal and that would be Yemen and how is that working out for them.

The only real question here is where do we put the limits. Where do we draw the line. To date, the Federal Courts have drawn the line at 15 rounds. No matter where we place the limit, there is always going to be someone jump up and scream that they demand the next higher number or higher.

Now about that fantasy about your home being invaded by, let's say, 10 bad armed guys. You have an AR with 3 30 round mags. Those 10 bad guys are similarly armed. Maybe in a Rambo movie could you expect the good guy to survive that encounter but it's just a movie. The best outcome by directly confronting those bad guys would be to go down fighting. While that sounds heroic, it's not the best option. Take it from a Military Person, sometimes withdrawal is a better option.

Next you are going to say, they have all the exits covered. No matter what I say, you will come up with a scenario where you will have to fight. We are right back inside that movie. But let's say it happens. If you are that worried I suggest you build a nice little safe room that can't be easily breached and blends in with a wall. They aren't there to probably kill you. They are there to steal from you or kidnap. Sit in that safe room with your defensive weapons and stay quiet. And call the Cops. Let them get shot, it's their job. They have a unit called Swat that does that for a living and they don't have any limits to their weapons.

So we place a limit. limits have to be placed because some moron will go hog wild if they aren't. Again, the only real question is, where will those limits be placed. I agree with the Courts except I might place the limit at 20 because some weapons look might funny with the shorter 15 round mag. And 5 rounds one way or the other really isn't that big a deal. So I don't see the world coming to an end with the limit set at 15. The Sun will come up in the Morning, The Seasons will go on and so will I.

You don't assume anything when confronted by armed attackers. They may beat you to death, force you to disclose where valuables are hidden at, and if you don't have enough, kill you because they thought you were holding out on them, or simply because you are a witness that can identify them in court.

Unless you agree to a fight with somebody, and are attacked, you have no idea what their motive is, so you take no chances. It's the same as getting attacked without a weapon. You always expect the worst.

The use of a deadly weapon is the same as not using a deadly weapon. Years ago when I was studying for my blackbelt, I asked my instructor what might happen to me legally if I used one of the five methods to kill another person? With that, he said since I have no idea what their intent is, use them. Because self-defense ends at the point you disabled your attacker from further attack no matter how you did it. Until that point, it's legally self-defense.

If people in my area start to get attacked by airplanes, then I'll look into anti-aircraft weaponry. But thus far, it's been criminals with guns, and yes......big magazines. So I don't think there should be any limit on magazine size because for one, it won't stop one shooting, and two, it won't make any difference in the amount of casualties or deaths. What it does do is advance the commie narrative of virtual gun and ammo confiscation.

Okay, if it won't make any difference on way or the other, what is wrong with placing a limit of 15 rounds for the mag? If the odds are overwhelming, withdraw. Tactical Withdrawal is a sound Military Tactic. And since you actually painted a Military Scenario then one would think using sound military tactics would be the best option.

You used that fact you earned a Black Best, Babyson. Here are some tips you missed.

When your enemy is hitting you here, don't be there
Control the Situation
Avoid the Confrontation if possible

Use only enough force to end the situation. That is part of controlling the situation. If you have no control over the situation then get away from the situation. The person that imparted that to me was a 3rd Don with enough awards and accolades to fill a wall in a decent sized living room.


Then there is Kelvinkis Rules from the New Centurian
If a bad guy picks up his hands, you pick up a knife
If a bad guy picks up a knife, you pick up a club
If a bad guy picks up a club, you pick up a gun
If a bad guy picks up a gun, you pick up your feet and get the hell out of dodge.

I suggest you get a copy of "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu. If you are going to prepare for war, II suggest you learn from the Brightest and the Best.

But if your home is in a potential war zone then use your Martial Arts training and remove yourself and you family from a situation you really have no control over.

So should a police officer pick up a knife if someone comes at him with their fist?

Should he or she deploy a billy club if someone comes at them with a knife?

If someone produces a firearm, is a police officer going to run away?

Being a citizen, I don't have the option of arresting a threat. Nor is it mandatory that I use a non-lethal weapon, such as pepper spray. Do you even know what the "21-foot rule" is, and why law enforcement officers qualify at 7 yards with their service weapons? A person armed with a knife and intent on using it, can cover 21 feet in approximately 1.5 seconds and cut the living fuck out of you.

Very few police officers I know of would even attempt to disarm a person armed with a knife. I also seriously doubt that any criminals spend their time reading Sun Tzu. The fact is, police officers do not carry firearms to protect you or I: They carry weapons to protect their own lives. In 1981, the Supreme Court ruled in Warren vs. District of Columbia that police officers have no "duty to protect." In other words, we are responsible for out own safety.

And if police officers are entitled to have 15-round magazines in their handguns and AR-15 rifles with 30-round magazines, we are entitled to have them as well. Probably more entitled, as a criminal is more likely to perpetrate a more vicious attack on a mere citizen, as they would on a law-enforcement officer.

I quoted a book written by a retired cop. That's a cops views, not mine. And you don't get the meaning, do you. What it means is, always have the upper hand. If you don't have the upper hand disengage until you do have the upper hand.

You are still bring more Bull Crap to the Ball Game. You are still looking for the supreme "Gotcha". What you are really accomplishing is showing that you are just crying and throwing a temper tamptrum over nothing. And more guns or even less guns have zero affect over gun crime in the United States.

But there is a point where too many guns do reach a saturation point and it does increase the violent nature for the US. Learn from History or be prepared to repeat history.

Republicans talk about not being outgunned by the government but that’s exactly what happens every time they leave their home. Maybe they have the same gun the cop has but it better stay concealed. The cop will whip his gun out if you put your hand near your gun. And republicans here will defend the cop for shooting.

Weird huh?

Since when did Republicans have an issue with law-enforcement? My County Sheriff thinks concealed carry is a good thing, as do most of his deputies.

 

[Markle]

Then you vote for kavanaugh and all those other abusive men.

That, as you well know, is a flat out, ugly, LIE of the worst type. I am not surprised you are so desperate that you would stoop this low!

 

[Markle]

Civilians don't vote for Supreme Court judges

Actually we do. We vote for President of the United States. Elections have consequences.

In the relatively civil past, both parties respected that fact and confirmed justices nominated by the President.

Drunk murderer Sen. Ted Kennedy changed all that by viciously and wrongly attacking Robert Bork. One of many low points for Sen. Kennedy.

The vile, disgusting, false accusations against the superior nominee Brett Kavanaugh will long be looked on as a low point for the formerly great Democrat Party.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You don't assume anything when confronted by armed attackers. They may beat you to death, force you to disclose where valuables are hidden at, and if you don't have enough, kill you because they thought you were holding out on them, or simply because you are a witness that can identify them in court.

Unless you agree to a fight with somebody, and are attacked, you have no idea what their motive is, so you take no chances. It's the same as getting attacked without a weapon. You always expect the worst.

The use of a deadly weapon is the same as not using a deadly weapon. Years ago when I was studying for my blackbelt, I asked my instructor what might happen to me legally if I used one of the five methods to kill another person? With that, he said since I have no idea what their intent is, use them. Because self-defense ends at the point you disabled your attacker from further attack no matter how you did it. Until that point, it's legally self-defense.

If people in my area start to get attacked by airplanes, then I'll look into anti-aircraft weaponry. But thus far, it's been criminals with guns, and yes......big magazines. So I don't think there should be any limit on magazine size because for one, it won't stop one shooting, and two, it won't make any difference in the amount of casualties or deaths. What it does do is advance the commie narrative of virtual gun and ammo confiscation.

Okay, if it won't make any difference on way or the other, what is wrong with placing a limit of 15 rounds for the mag? If the odds are overwhelming, withdraw. Tactical Withdrawal is a sound Military Tactic. And since you actually painted a Military Scenario then one would think using sound military tactics would be the best option.

You used that fact you earned a Black Best, Babyson. Here are some tips you missed.

When your enemy is hitting you here, don't be there
Control the Situation
Avoid the Confrontation if possible

Use only enough force to end the situation. That is part of controlling the situation. If you have no control over the situation then get away from the situation. The person that imparted that to me was a 3rd Don with enough awards and accolades to fill a wall in a decent sized living room.


Then there is Kelvinkis Rules from the New Centurian
If a bad guy picks up his hands, you pick up a knife
If a bad guy picks up a knife, you pick up a club
If a bad guy picks up a club, you pick up a gun
If a bad guy picks up a gun, you pick up your feet and get the hell out of dodge.

I suggest you get a copy of "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu. If you are going to prepare for war, II suggest you learn from the Brightest and the Best.

But if your home is in a potential war zone then use your Martial Arts training and remove yourself and you family from a situation you really have no control over.

So should a police officer pick up a knife if someone comes at him with their fist?

Should he or she deploy a billy club if someone comes at them with a knife?

If someone produces a firearm, is a police officer going to run away?

Being a citizen, I don't have the option of arresting a threat. Nor is it mandatory that I use a non-lethal weapon, such as pepper spray. Do you even know what the "21-foot rule" is, and why law enforcement officers qualify at 7 yards with their service weapons? A person armed with a knife and intent on using it, can cover 21 feet in approximately 1.5 seconds and cut the living fuck out of you.

Very few police officers I know of would even attempt to disarm a person armed with a knife. I also seriously doubt that any criminals spend their time reading Sun Tzu. The fact is, police officers do not carry firearms to protect you or I: They carry weapons to protect their own lives. In 1981, the Supreme Court ruled in Warren vs. District of Columbia that police officers have no "duty to protect." In other words, we are responsible for out own safety.

And if police officers are entitled to have 15-round magazines in their handguns and AR-15 rifles with 30-round magazines, we are entitled to have them as well. Probably more entitled, as a criminal is more likely to perpetrate a more vicious attack on a mere citizen, as they would on a law-enforcement officer.

I quoted a book written by a retired cop. That's a cops views, not mine. And you don't get the meaning, do you. What it means is, always have the upper hand. If you don't have the upper hand disengage until you do have the upper hand.

You are still bring more Bull Crap to the Ball Game. You are still looking for the supreme "Gotcha". What you are really accomplishing is showing that you are just crying and throwing a temper tamptrum over nothing. And more guns or even less guns have zero affect over gun crime in the United States.

But there is a point where too many guns do reach a saturation point and it does increase the violent nature for the US. Learn from History or be prepared to repeat history.

Republicans talk about not being outgunned by the government but that’s exactly what happens every time they leave their home. Maybe they have the same gun the cop has but it better stay concealed. The cop will whip his gun out if you put your hand near your gun. And republicans here will defend the cop for shooting.

Weird huh?

Since when did Republicans have an issue with law-enforcement? My County Sheriff thinks concealed carry is a good thing, as do most of his deputies.

So does the Sheriff here. But most of us do have a problem with Open Carry. Too many fruitcakes out there making a Fashion Statement.

 

[JGalt]

Okay, if it won't make any difference on way or the other, what is wrong with placing a limit of 15 rounds for the mag? If the odds are overwhelming, withdraw. Tactical Withdrawal is a sound Military Tactic. And since you actually painted a Military Scenario then one would think using sound military tactics would be the best option.

You used that fact you earned a Black Best, Babyson. Here are some tips you missed.

When your enemy is hitting you here, don't be there
Control the Situation
Avoid the Confrontation if possible

Use only enough force to end the situation. That is part of controlling the situation. If you have no control over the situation then get away from the situation. The person that imparted that to me was a 3rd Don with enough awards and accolades to fill a wall in a decent sized living room.


Then there is Kelvinkis Rules from the New Centurian
If a bad guy picks up his hands, you pick up a knife
If a bad guy picks up a knife, you pick up a club
If a bad guy picks up a club, you pick up a gun
If a bad guy picks up a gun, you pick up your feet and get the hell out of dodge.

I suggest you get a copy of "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu. If you are going to prepare for war, II suggest you learn from the Brightest and the Best.

But if your home is in a potential war zone then use your Martial Arts training and remove yourself and you family from a situation you really have no control over.

So should a police officer pick up a knife if someone comes at him with their fist?

Should he or she deploy a billy club if someone comes at them with a knife?

If someone produces a firearm, is a police officer going to run away?

Being a citizen, I don't have the option of arresting a threat. Nor is it mandatory that I use a non-lethal weapon, such as pepper spray. Do you even know what the "21-foot rule" is, and why law enforcement officers qualify at 7 yards with their service weapons? A person armed with a knife and intent on using it, can cover 21 feet in approximately 1.5 seconds and cut the living fuck out of you.

Very few police officers I know of would even attempt to disarm a person armed with a knife. I also seriously doubt that any criminals spend their time reading Sun Tzu. The fact is, police officers do not carry firearms to protect you or I: They carry weapons to protect their own lives. In 1981, the Supreme Court ruled in Warren vs. District of Columbia that police officers have no "duty to protect." In other words, we are responsible for out own safety.

And if police officers are entitled to have 15-round magazines in their handguns and AR-15 rifles with 30-round magazines, we are entitled to have them as well. Probably more entitled, as a criminal is more likely to perpetrate a more vicious attack on a mere citizen, as they would on a law-enforcement officer.

I quoted a book written by a retired cop. That's a cops views, not mine. And you don't get the meaning, do you. What it means is, always have the upper hand. If you don't have the upper hand disengage until you do have the upper hand.

You are still bring more Bull Crap to the Ball Game. You are still looking for the supreme "Gotcha". What you are really accomplishing is showing that you are just crying and throwing a temper tamptrum over nothing. And more guns or even less guns have zero affect over gun crime in the United States.

But there is a point where too many guns do reach a saturation point and it does increase the violent nature for the US. Learn from History or be prepared to repeat history.

Republicans talk about not being outgunned by the government but that’s exactly what happens every time they leave their home. Maybe they have the same gun the cop has but it better stay concealed. The cop will whip his gun out if you put your hand near your gun. And republicans here will defend the cop for shooting.

Weird huh?

Since when did Republicans have an issue with law-enforcement? My County Sheriff thinks concealed carry is a good thing, as do most of his deputies.

So does the Sheriff here. But most of us do have a problem with Open Carry. Too many fruitcakes out there making a Fashion Statement.

I seldom carry open. But it doesn't bother me in the least when someone else does, because it's a small town and everyone knows everyone else.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

So should a police officer pick up a knife if someone comes at him with their fist?

Should he or she deploy a billy club if someone comes at them with a knife?

If someone produces a firearm, is a police officer going to run away?

Being a citizen, I don't have the option of arresting a threat. Nor is it mandatory that I use a non-lethal weapon, such as pepper spray. Do you even know what the "21-foot rule" is, and why law enforcement officers qualify at 7 yards with their service weapons? A person armed with a knife and intent on using it, can cover 21 feet in approximately 1.5 seconds and cut the living fuck out of you.

Very few police officers I know of would even attempt to disarm a person armed with a knife. I also seriously doubt that any criminals spend their time reading Sun Tzu. The fact is, police officers do not carry firearms to protect you or I: They carry weapons to protect their own lives. In 1981, the Supreme Court ruled in Warren vs. District of Columbia that police officers have no "duty to protect." In other words, we are responsible for out own safety.

And if police officers are entitled to have 15-round magazines in their handguns and AR-15 rifles with 30-round magazines, we are entitled to have them as well. Probably more entitled, as a criminal is more likely to perpetrate a more vicious attack on a mere citizen, as they would on a law-enforcement officer.

I quoted a book written by a retired cop. That's a cops views, not mine. And you don't get the meaning, do you. What it means is, always have the upper hand. If you don't have the upper hand disengage until you do have the upper hand.

You are still bring more Bull Crap to the Ball Game. You are still looking for the supreme "Gotcha". What you are really accomplishing is showing that you are just crying and throwing a temper tamptrum over nothing. And more guns or even less guns have zero affect over gun crime in the United States.

But there is a point where too many guns do reach a saturation point and it does increase the violent nature for the US. Learn from History or be prepared to repeat history.

Republicans talk about not being outgunned by the government but that’s exactly what happens every time they leave their home. Maybe they have the same gun the cop has but it better stay concealed. The cop will whip his gun out if you put your hand near your gun. And republicans here will defend the cop for shooting.

Weird huh?

Since when did Republicans have an issue with law-enforcement? My County Sheriff thinks concealed carry is a good thing, as do most of his deputies.

So does the Sheriff here. But most of us do have a problem with Open Carry. Too many fruitcakes out there making a Fashion Statement.

I seldom carry open. But it doesn't bother me in the least when someone else does, because it's a small town and everyone knows everyone else.

There for awhile, we have a whole bunch of people open carrying. Public pressure put an end to it. It's still legal and it doesn't take any special license but it's considered bad manners. The Cult has been broken. Not with new laws but with Public pressures.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So should a police officer pick up a knife if someone comes at him with their fist?

Should he or she deploy a billy club if someone comes at them with a knife?

If someone produces a firearm, is a police officer going to run away?

Being a citizen, I don't have the option of arresting a threat. Nor is it mandatory that I use a non-lethal weapon, such as pepper spray. Do you even know what the "21-foot rule" is, and why law enforcement officers qualify at 7 yards with their service weapons? A person armed with a knife and intent on using it, can cover 21 feet in approximately 1.5 seconds and cut the living fuck out of you.

Very few police officers I know of would even attempt to disarm a person armed with a knife. I also seriously doubt that any criminals spend their time reading Sun Tzu. The fact is, police officers do not carry firearms to protect you or I: They carry weapons to protect their own lives. In 1981, the Supreme Court ruled in Warren vs. District of Columbia that police officers have no "duty to protect." In other words, we are responsible for out own safety.

And if police officers are entitled to have 15-round magazines in their handguns and AR-15 rifles with 30-round magazines, we are entitled to have them as well. Probably more entitled, as a criminal is more likely to perpetrate a more vicious attack on a mere citizen, as they would on a law-enforcement officer.

I quoted a book written by a retired cop. That's a cops views, not mine. And you don't get the meaning, do you. What it means is, always have the upper hand. If you don't have the upper hand disengage until you do have the upper hand.

You are still bring more Bull Crap to the Ball Game. You are still looking for the supreme "Gotcha". What you are really accomplishing is showing that you are just crying and throwing a temper tamptrum over nothing. And more guns or even less guns have zero affect over gun crime in the United States.

But there is a point where too many guns do reach a saturation point and it does increase the violent nature for the US. Learn from History or be prepared to repeat history.

Republicans talk about not being outgunned by the government but that’s exactly what happens every time they leave their home. Maybe they have the same gun the cop has but it better stay concealed. The cop will whip his gun out if you put your hand near your gun. And republicans here will defend the cop for shooting.

Weird huh?

Since when did Republicans have an issue with law-enforcement? My County Sheriff thinks concealed carry is a good thing, as do most of his deputies.

So does the Sheriff here. But most of us do have a problem with Open Carry. Too many fruitcakes out there making a Fashion Statement.

I seldom carry open. But it doesn't bother me in the least when someone else does, because it's a small town and everyone knows everyone else.

I've never open carried, and we have been an open carry state before we instituted our CCW program. To be honest, I don't think I've ever seen anybody open carry here.

 

[JGalt]

I quoted a book written by a retired cop. That's a cops views, not mine. And you don't get the meaning, do you. What it means is, always have the upper hand. If you don't have the upper hand disengage until you do have the upper hand.

You are still bring more Bull Crap to the Ball Game. You are still looking for the supreme "Gotcha". What you are really accomplishing is showing that you are just crying and throwing a temper tamptrum over nothing. And more guns or even less guns have zero affect over gun crime in the United States.

But there is a point where too many guns do reach a saturation point and it does increase the violent nature for the US. Learn from History or be prepared to repeat history.

Republicans talk about not being outgunned by the government but that’s exactly what happens every time they leave their home. Maybe they have the same gun the cop has but it better stay concealed. The cop will whip his gun out if you put your hand near your gun. And republicans here will defend the cop for shooting.

Weird huh?

Since when did Republicans have an issue with law-enforcement? My County Sheriff thinks concealed carry is a good thing, as do most of his deputies.

So does the Sheriff here. But most of us do have a problem with Open Carry. Too many fruitcakes out there making a Fashion Statement.

I seldom carry open. But it doesn't bother me in the least when someone else does, because it's a small town and everyone knows everyone else.

I've never open carried, and we have been an open carry state before we instituted our CCW program. To be honest, I don't think I've ever seen anybody open carry here.

I've seen a total of eight different people carrying open in the Walmart Super Center. That was before they supposedly banned it, but I haven't seen a sign on the door yet.

 

[Blues Man]

Civilians don't vote for Supreme Court judges

Actually we do. We vote for President of the United States. Elections have consequences.

In the relatively civil past, both parties respected that fact and confirmed justices nominated by the President.

Drunk murderer Sen. Ted Kennedy changed all that by viciously and wrongly attacking Robert Bork. One of many low points for Sen. Kennedy.

The vile, disgusting, false accusations against the superior nominee Brett Kavanaugh will long be looked on as a low point for the formerly great Democrat Party.

No we do not since it is never known if a Supreme Court Judge will be appointed by any president

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Republicans talk about not being outgunned by the government but that’s exactly what happens every time they leave their home. Maybe they have the same gun the cop has but it better stay concealed. The cop will whip his gun out if you put your hand near your gun. And republicans here will defend the cop for shooting.

Weird huh?

Since when did Republicans have an issue with law-enforcement? My County Sheriff thinks concealed carry is a good thing, as do most of his deputies.

So does the Sheriff here. But most of us do have a problem with Open Carry. Too many fruitcakes out there making a Fashion Statement.

I seldom carry open. But it doesn't bother me in the least when someone else does, because it's a small town and everyone knows everyone else.

I've never open carried, and we have been an open carry state before we instituted our CCW program. To be honest, I don't think I've ever seen anybody open carry here.

I've seen a total of eight different people carrying open in the Walmart Super Center. That was before they supposedly banned it, but I haven't seen a sign on the door yet.

I guess it depends on where you live. There was a story several years ago about a guy who open carried at a Wendy's nearby. Some old lady freaked out and called the cops. They sent five cars to the restaurant.

He was from Arizona, and claimed many people walk around open carry where he's from. Before he came here, he looked up our laws, and yes, we were an open carry state as well, so he didn't think anything of it. He apologized for all the hysteria he caused, and told the police he will not carry while visiting our state.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Civilians don't vote for Supreme Court judges

Actually we do. We vote for President of the United States. Elections have consequences.

In the relatively civil past, both parties respected that fact and confirmed justices nominated by the President.

Drunk murderer Sen. Ted Kennedy changed all that by viciously and wrongly attacking Robert Bork. One of many low points for Sen. Kennedy.

The vile, disgusting, false accusations against the superior nominee Brett Kavanaugh will long be looked on as a low point for the formerly great Democrat Party.

No we do not since it is never known if a Supreme Court Judge will be appointed by any president

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Plus we really don't know who the President will pick until they choose. Face it, Roberts has been a huge disappointment. Kavanaugh is not all that far behind him. You can't expect a Republican to pick a true conservative every time.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Too many keep demanding that the Justices rule the way that they think they should. Just not going to happen. When you get saddled to be a Justice, you go through a mini boot camp and it changes the new Justice in many ways. They become more a Constitutionalist like they should. The Courts take on the constitution may differ from any one elses.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Too many keep demanding that the Justices rule the way that they think they should. Just not going to happen. When you get saddled to be a Justice, you go through a mini boot camp and it changes the new Justice in many ways. They become more a Constitutionalist like they should. The Courts take on the constitution may differ from any one elses.

The problem is you seldom if ever see a leftist appointed judge take the conservative side. It's always the reverse unless it's not a debatable issue or the complaint doesn't reflect politics on either side.

Trump didn't know these judges he selected. He got a lot of help from his administration and the Heritage Foundation.

 

[edward37]

Too many keep demanding that the Justices rule the way that they think they should. Just not going to happen. When you get saddled to be a Justice, you go through a mini boot camp and it changes the new Justice in many ways. They become more a Constitutionalist like they should. The Courts take on the constitution may differ from any one elses.

The problem is you seldom if ever see a leftist appointed judge take the conservative side. It's always the reverse unless it's not a debatable issue or the complaint doesn't reflect politics on either side.

Trump didn't know these judges he selected. He got a lot of help from his administration and the Heritage Foundation.

Did Trump know Gen Mattis and Gen Kelly ??? 2 men who look upon the trump skunk with disdain

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Too many keep demanding that the Justices rule the way that they think they should. Just not going to happen. When you get saddled to be a Justice, you go through a mini boot camp and it changes the new Justice in many ways. They become more a Constitutionalist like they should. The Courts take on the constitution may differ from any one elses.

The problem is you seldom if ever see a leftist appointed judge take the conservative side. It's always the reverse unless it's not a debatable issue or the complaint doesn't reflect politics on either side.

Trump didn't know these judges he selected. He got a lot of help from his administration and the Heritage Foundation.

Did Trump know Gen Mattis and Gen Kelly ??? 2 men who look upon the trump skunk with disdain

Okayyyyy.......and that's relevant to my reply, how????

 

[edward37]

Too many keep demanding that the Justices rule the way that they think they should. Just not going to happen. When you get saddled to be a Justice, you go through a mini boot camp and it changes the new Justice in many ways. They become more a Constitutionalist like they should. The Courts take on the constitution may differ from any one elses.

The problem is you seldom if ever see a leftist appointed judge take the conservative side. It's always the reverse unless it's not a debatable issue or the complaint doesn't reflect politics on either side.

Trump didn't know these judges he selected. He got a lot of help from his administration and the Heritage Foundation.

Did Trump know Gen Mattis and Gen Kelly ??? 2 men who look upon the trump skunk with disdain

Okayyyyy.......and that's relevant to my reply, how????

You said he didn't know the judges I'm trying to tell you with all those leaving his employ ,he can't pick his nose Like I said before ,,he's lucky his father was born first

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Too many keep demanding that the Justices rule the way that they think they should. Just not going to happen. When you get saddled to be a Justice, you go through a mini boot camp and it changes the new Justice in many ways. They become more a Constitutionalist like they should. The Courts take on the constitution may differ from any one elses.

The problem is you seldom if ever see a leftist appointed judge take the conservative side. It's always the reverse unless it's not a debatable issue or the complaint doesn't reflect politics on either side.

Trump didn't know these judges he selected. He got a lot of help from his administration and the Heritage Foundation.

Did Trump know Gen Mattis and Gen Kelly ??? 2 men who look upon the trump skunk with disdain

Okayyyyy.......and that's relevant to my reply, how????

You said he didn't know the judges I'm trying to tell you with all those leaving his employ ,he can't pick his nose Like I said before ,,he's lucky his father was born first

Sorry, I still can't see the relationship between picking judges and what some Generals think of Trump. Maybe it's your lack of punctuation or something, but I simply don't understand.

 

[edward37]

Too many keep demanding that the Justices rule the way that they think they should. Just not going to happen. When you get saddled to be a Justice, you go through a mini boot camp and it changes the new Justice in many ways. They become more a Constitutionalist like they should. The Courts take on the constitution may differ from any one elses.

The problem is you seldom if ever see a leftist appointed judge take the conservative side. It's always the reverse unless it's not a debatable issue or the complaint doesn't reflect politics on either side.

Trump didn't know these judges he selected. He got a lot of help from his administration and the Heritage Foundation.

Did Trump know Gen Mattis and Gen Kelly ??? 2 men who look upon the trump skunk with disdain

Okayyyyy.......and that's relevant to my reply, how????

You said he didn't know the judges I'm trying to tell you with all those leaving his employ ,he can't pick his nose Like I said before ,,he's lucky his father was born first

Sorry, I still can't see the relationship between picking judges and what some Generals think of Trump. Maybe it's your lack of punctuation or something, but I simply don't understand.

Trump picked the generals trump picked the SC judges trump picked Barr

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The problem is you seldom if ever see a leftist appointed judge take the conservative side. It's always the reverse unless it's not a debatable issue or the complaint doesn't reflect politics on either side.

Trump didn't know these judges he selected. He got a lot of help from his administration and the Heritage Foundation.

Did Trump know Gen Mattis and Gen Kelly ??? 2 men who look upon the trump skunk with disdain

Okayyyyy.......and that's relevant to my reply, how????

You said he didn't know the judges I'm trying to tell you with all those leaving his employ ,he can't pick his nose Like I said before ,,he's lucky his father was born first

Sorry, I still can't see the relationship between picking judges and what some Generals think of Trump. Maybe it's your lack of punctuation or something, but I simply don't understand.

Trump picked the generals trump picked the SC judges trump picked Barr

Yes, he chose them, but what did he really know about any of these people? He's never been in politics before. Barr? The best in the business. An honorable man doing honorable work even today.

When the Democrats are deathly afraid of somebody, you know they are good people.