Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Utter nonsense.
The guy came prepared, armored, and drove the crowd into a frenzy wtih a smoke bomb and a shot into the air.
The CCW would have shot each other.
The police responded in 90 seconds.
Nothing would have changed in this case.
The "nuts" are right. The problem is the gun-shy are incapable of understanding that.You're a little late. On another forum, this morning, the 'nuts were already posting that if everyone there had carry permits the guy wouldn't have been able to do what he did.
If they wanted to curb government oppression through force, they would have made more provisions for it
They had just curbed English government oppression by force, come on.
Not by an armed population they didn't. They beat the British with a standing Army and an alliance with France
You, the militias, and the sovereignistas are totally out of touch with reality and the vast majority. You are a breed on extinction mode.
Nope, and your opinion is a steadily dwindling minority. By the election of 2020, your type of thinking will involve almost no one.
Sheesh Jake, why don't you go read something. Maybe the Wiki article on the 2nd Amendment. It's not as thorough as iy could be, but it's better than the COMPLETE lack of knowledge that you currently possess.
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Conflict and compromise in Congress produce the Bill of Rights
James Madison's initial proposal for a bill of rights was brought to the floor of the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, during the first session of Congress. The initial proposed passage relating to arms was:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[81]
On July 21, Madison again raised the issue of his Bill and proposed a select committee be created to report on it. The House voted in favor of Madison's motion,[82] and the Bill of Rights entered committee for review. The committee returned to the House a reworded version of the Second Amendment on July 28.[83] On August 17, that version was read into the Journal:
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.[84]
The Second Amendment was debated and modified during sessions of the House on in late August 1789. These debates revolved primarily around risk of "mal-administration of the government" using the "religiously scrupulous" clause to destroy the militia as Great Britain had attempted to destroy the militia at the commencement of the American Revolution. These concerns were addressed by modifying the final clause, and on August 24, the House sent the following version to the Senate:
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
The next day, August 25, the Senate received the Amendment from the House and entered it into the Senate Journal. When the Amendment was transcribed, the semicolon in the religious exemption portion was changed to a comma by the Senate scribe:
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[85]
There is a lot more, but I doubt you will read it.
Utter nonsense.
The guy came prepared, armored, and drove the crowd into a frenzy wtih a smoke bomb and a shot into the air.
The CCW would have shot each other.
The police responded in 90 seconds.
Nothing would have changed in this case.
The "nuts" are right. The problem is the gun-shy are incapable of understanding that.
Do you get paid to post this drivel, Fakey? CCW holders are well-trained in the use of their weapons, and while vests and body armor will keep one from getting killed, it doesn't stop one from getting incapacitated. A couple of rounds center mass would have dropped that punk like a bad habit, and the police would have still been 'on the way'.
Don't believe me? Count down 15 seconds, and then add 75 more for the cops to show up.
You, the militias, and the sovereignistas are totally out of touch with reality and the vast majority. You are a breed on extinction mode.
Sheesh Jake, why don't you go read something. Maybe the Wiki article on the 2nd Amendment. It's not as thorough as iy could be, but it's better than the COMPLETE lack of knowledge that you currently possess.
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There is a lot more, but I doubt you will read it.
That's what they said about the Founders, too.
Guy, are you CCW. I am, a vet (infantry, airborne), and I know what I am talking about. Our silly CCW training would be enough to get you guys hurt or killed, either by this guy or each other or the cops.
In the Denver case, anyone would have been shot who tried tell the police, "You have to understand!" if they kept a gun in their hands.
You are stupid.
Utter nonsense.
The guy came prepared, armored, and drove the crowd into a frenzy wtih a smoke bomb and a shot into the air.
The CCW would have shot each other.
The police responded in 90 seconds.
Nothing would have changed in this case.
Do you get paid to post this drivel, Fakey? CCW holders are well-trained in the use of their weapons, and while vests and body armor will keep one from getting killed, it doesn't stop one from getting incapacitated. A couple of rounds center mass would have dropped that punk like a bad habit, and the police would have still been 'on the way'.
Don't believe me? Count down 15 seconds, and then add 75 more for the cops to show up.
The North Hollywood shootout was an armed confrontation between two heavily armed and armored bank robbers and officers of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) in the North Hollywood district of Los Angeles on February 28, 1997. Both robbers were killed, eleven police officers and seven civilians were injured, and numerous vehicles and other property were damaged or destroyed by the nearly 2,000 rounds of ammunition fired by the robbers and the police.[2]
At 9:17 am, Larry Phillips, Jr. and Emil Mătăsăreanu entered and robbed the North Hollywood Bank of America branch. Phillips and Mătăsăreanu were confronted by LAPD officers when they exited the bank and a shootout between the officers and robbers ensued. The two robbers attempted to flee the scene, Phillips on foot and Mătăsăreanu in their getaway vehicle, while continuing to engage the officers. The shootout continued onto a residential street adjacent to the bank until Phillips was mortally wounded, including by a self-inflicted gunshot wound; Mătăsăreanu was killed by officers three blocks away. Phillips and Mătăsăreanu are believed to have robbed two other banks using virtually identical methods by taking control of the entire bank and firing automatic weapons for control and entry past 'bullet-proof' security doors, and are possible suspects in two armored vehicle robberies.[3]
Local patrol officers at the time were typically armed with their personal 9 mm or .38 Special pistols, with some having a 12-gauge shotgun available in their cars. Phillips and Mătăsăreanu carried illegally modified fully automatic AKMs and an AR-15 rifle with high capacity drum magazines and ammunition capable of penetrating police body armor. They also wore body armor of their own. Since the police handguns could not penetrate the bank robbers' body armor, the patrol officers' bullets were ineffective. SWAT eventually arrived with rifles powerful enough to penetrate the body armor. Several officers also appropriated AR-15 rifles from a nearby firearms dealer. The incident sparked debate on the need for patrol officers to upgrade their capabilities in similar situations in the future.[4]
Because of the large number of injuries, rounds fired, weapons used, and overall length of the shootout, it is regarded as one of the longest and bloodiest events in US police history.[5] This incident would later lead to California enforcing a highly restrictive law on firearms, including the controversial "10-round magazine-only" law for most firearms owned by state residents.
If they wanted to curb government oppression through force, they would have made more provisions for it
They had just curbed English government oppression by force, come on.
Not by an armed population they didn't. They beat the British with a standing Army and an alliance with France
The Continental Army consisted of troops from all 13 colonies, and after 1776, from all 13 states. When the American Revolutionary War began at the Battles of Lexington and Concord in April 1775, the colonial revolutionaries did not have an army. Previously, each colony had relied upon the militia, made up of part time citizen-soldiers, for local defense, or the raising of temporary "provincial regiments" during specific crises such as the French and Indian War. As tensions with Great Britain increased in the years leading up to the war, colonists began to reform their militia in preparation for the potential conflict. Training of militiamen increased after the passage of the Intolerable Acts in 1774. Colonists such as Richard Henry Lee proposed creating a national militia force, but the First Continental Congress rejected the idea.[1]
The minimum enlistment age was 16 years of age, or 15 with parental consent.
On April 23, 1775, the Massachusetts Provincial Congress authorized the raising of a colonial army consisting of 26 company regiments, followed shortly by similar but smaller forces raised by New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. On June 14, 1775, the Second Continental Congress decided to proceed with the establishment of a Continental Army for purposes of common defense, adopting the forces already in place outside Boston (22,000 troops) and New York (5,000). It also raised the first ten companies of Continental troops on a one-year enlistment, riflemen from Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware and Virginia to be used as light infantry, who later became the 1st Continental Regiment in 1776. On June 15, the Congress elected George Washington as Commander-in-Chief by unanimous vote. He accepted and served throughout the war without any compensation except for reimbursement of expenses.
Four major-generals (Artemas Ward, Charles Lee, Philip Schuyler, and Israel Putnam) and eight brigadier-generals (Seth Pomeroy, Richard Montgomery, David Wooster, William Heath, Joseph Spencer, John Thomas, John Sullivan, and Nathanael Greene) were appointed in the course of a few days. Pomeroy declined and the position was left unfilled.
General George Washington was appointed Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army on June 15, 1775.
As the Continental Congress increasingly adopted the responsibilities and posture of a legislature for a sovereign state, the role of the Continental Army was the subject of considerable debate. There was a general aversion to maintaining a standing army among the Americans; but, on the other hand, the requirements of the war against the British required the discipline and organization of a modern military. As a result, the army went through several distinct phases, characterized by official dissolution and reorganization of units.
Soldiers in the Continental Army were citizens who had volunteered to serve in the army (but were paid), and at various times during the war, standard enlistment periods lasted from one to three years. Early in the war, the enlistment periods were short, as the Continental Congress feared the possibility of the Continental Army evolving into a permanent army. The army never reached over 17,000 men. Turnover was a constant problem, particularly in the winter of 1776-77, and longer enlistments were approved. Broadly speaking, Continental forces consisted of several successive armies, or establishments:
The Continental Army of 1775, comprising the initial New England Army, organized by Washington into three divisions, six brigades, and 38 regiments. Major General Philip Schuyler's ten regiments in New York were sent to invade Canada.
The Continental Army of 1776, reorganized after the initial enlistment period of the soldiers in the 1775 army had expired. Washington had submitted recommendations to the Continental Congress almost immediately after he had accepted the position of Commander-in-Chief, but these took time to consider and implement. Despite attempts to broaden the recruiting base beyond New England, the 1776 army remained skewed toward the Northeast both in terms of its composition and geographical focus. This army consisted of 36 regiments, most standardized to a single battalion of 768 men strong formed into eight companies, with a rank and file strength of 640.
The Continental Army of 1777-80 was a result of several critical reforms and political decisions that came about when it was apparent that the British were sending massive forces to put an end to the American Revolution. The Continental Congress passed the "Eighty-eight Battalion Resolve", ordering each state to contribute one-battalion regiments in proportion to their population, and Washington was subsequently given authority to raise an additional 16 battalions. Also, enlistment terms were extended to three years or "the length of the war" to avoid the year-end crises that depleted forces (including the notable near collapse of the army at the end of 1776 which could have ended the war in a Continental, or American, loss by forfeit).
The Continental Army of 1781-82 saw the greatest crisis on the American side in the war. Congress was bankrupt, making it very difficult to replenish the soldiers whose three-year terms had expired. Popular support for the war was at its all-time low, and Washington had to put down mutinies both in the Pennsylvania Line and New Jersey Line. Congress voted to cut funding for the Army, but Washington managed nevertheless to secure important strategic victories.
The Continental Army of 1783-84, was succeeded by the United States Army, which persists to this day. As peace was closed with the British, most of the regiments were disbanded in an orderly fashion, though several had already been diminished.
In addition to the Continental Army regulars, local militia units, raised and funded by individual colonies/states, participated in battles throughout the war. Sometimes, the militia units operated independently of the Continental Army, but often local militias were called out to support and augment the Continental Army regulars during campaigns. (The militia troops developed a reputation for being prone to premature retreats, a fact that was integrated into the strategy at the Battle of Cowpens.)
The fact is, Britain was defeated by a bunch of under-armed, under-fed, under-trained farmers and shopkeepers.
Guy, are you CCW. I am, a vet (infantry, airborne), and I know what I am talking about. Our silly CCW training would be enough to get you guys hurt or killed, either by this guy or each other or the cops.
In the Denver case, anyone would have been shot who tried tell the police, "You have to understand!" if they kept a gun in their hands.
You are stupid.
Do you get paid to post this drivel, Fakey? CCW holders are well-trained in the use of their weapons, and while vests and body armor will keep one from getting killed, it doesn't stop one from getting incapacitated. A couple of rounds center mass would have dropped that punk like a bad habit, and the police would have still been 'on the way'.
Don't believe me? Count down 15 seconds, and then add 75 more for the cops to show up.
Really? Your pistol would take down someone in full body armor with a ballistic helmet?
I think this example begs to differ.......................
The North Hollywood shootout was an armed confrontation between two heavily armed and armored bank robbers and officers of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) in the North Hollywood district of Los Angeles on February 28, 1997. Both robbers were killed, eleven police officers and seven civilians were injured, and numerous vehicles and other property were damaged or destroyed by the nearly 2,000 rounds of ammunition fired by the robbers and the police.[2]
At 9:17 am, Larry Phillips, Jr. and Emil Mătăsăreanu entered and robbed the North Hollywood Bank of America branch. Phillips and Mătăsăreanu were confronted by LAPD officers when they exited the bank and a shootout between the officers and robbers ensued. The two robbers attempted to flee the scene, Phillips on foot and Mătăsăreanu in their getaway vehicle, while continuing to engage the officers. The shootout continued onto a residential street adjacent to the bank until Phillips was mortally wounded, including by a self-inflicted gunshot wound; Mătăsăreanu was killed by officers three blocks away. Phillips and Mătăsăreanu are believed to have robbed two other banks using virtually identical methods by taking control of the entire bank and firing automatic weapons for control and entry past 'bullet-proof' security doors, and are possible suspects in two armored vehicle robberies.[3]
Local patrol officers at the time were typically armed with their personal 9 mm or .38 Special pistols, with some having a 12-gauge shotgun available in their cars. Phillips and Mătăsăreanu carried illegally modified fully automatic AKMs and an AR-15 rifle with high capacity drum magazines and ammunition capable of penetrating police body armor. They also wore body armor of their own. Since the police handguns could not penetrate the bank robbers' body armor, the patrol officers' bullets were ineffective. SWAT eventually arrived with rifles powerful enough to penetrate the body armor. Several officers also appropriated AR-15 rifles from a nearby firearms dealer. The incident sparked debate on the need for patrol officers to upgrade their capabilities in similar situations in the future.[4]
Because of the large number of injuries, rounds fired, weapons used, and overall length of the shootout, it is regarded as one of the longest and bloodiest events in US police history.[5] This incident would later lead to California enforcing a highly restrictive law on firearms, including the controversial "10-round magazine-only" law for most firearms owned by state residents.
North Hollywood shootout - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not by an armed population they didn't. They beat the British with a standing Army and an alliance with France . . . The fact is, Britain was defeated by a bunch of under-armed, under-fed, under-trained farmers and shopkeepers.
How long before the Tragedy of the Batman Movie shooting will be twisted Politically into another Anti gun Campaign by the Democrats? I'm thinking Monday Morning the pro gun ban people will be in high gear. I think that they will use the weekend to plan their strike which will commence at 9AM Monday morning on all of those usual suspect shows. They will wait until the majority of people who aren't Democrats do what they do best... Go to WORK.
I've got no problem with people owning guns. Matter of fact, I don't even care how many guns a person has.
However....................................
Don't you think that being able to fire 100 rounds before having to reload is a bit over the top?
I thought it was bad last year when Laughtner had 30 round magazines in his 9mm.
ABS, I would have been willing to try, but I think Guy is full of 17 year old testosterone here. He would have died.
Guy, are you CCW. I am, a vet (infantry, airborne), and I know what I am talking about. Our silly CCW training would be enough to get you guys hurt or killed, either by this guy or each other or the cops.
In the Denver case, anyone would have been shot who tried tell the police, "You have to understand!" if they kept a gun in their hands.
You are stupid.
Really? Your pistol would take down someone in full body armor with a ballistic helmet?
I think this example begs to differ.......................
The North Hollywood shootout was an armed confrontation between two heavily armed and armored bank robbers and officers of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) in the North Hollywood district of Los Angeles on February 28, 1997. Both robbers were killed, eleven police officers and seven civilians were injured, and numerous vehicles and other property were damaged or destroyed by the nearly 2,000 rounds of ammunition fired by the robbers and the police.[2]
At 9:17 am, Larry Phillips, Jr. and Emil Mătăsăreanu entered and robbed the North Hollywood Bank of America branch. Phillips and Mătăsăreanu were confronted by LAPD officers when they exited the bank and a shootout between the officers and robbers ensued. The two robbers attempted to flee the scene, Phillips on foot and Mătăsăreanu in their getaway vehicle, while continuing to engage the officers. The shootout continued onto a residential street adjacent to the bank until Phillips was mortally wounded, including by a self-inflicted gunshot wound; Mătăsăreanu was killed by officers three blocks away. Phillips and Mătăsăreanu are believed to have robbed two other banks using virtually identical methods by taking control of the entire bank and firing automatic weapons for control and entry past 'bullet-proof' security doors, and are possible suspects in two armored vehicle robberies.[3]
Local patrol officers at the time were typically armed with their personal 9 mm or .38 Special pistols, with some having a 12-gauge shotgun available in their cars. Phillips and Mătăsăreanu carried illegally modified fully automatic AKMs and an AR-15 rifle with high capacity drum magazines and ammunition capable of penetrating police body armor. They also wore body armor of their own. Since the police handguns could not penetrate the bank robbers' body armor, the patrol officers' bullets were ineffective. SWAT eventually arrived with rifles powerful enough to penetrate the body armor. Several officers also appropriated AR-15 rifles from a nearby firearms dealer. The incident sparked debate on the need for patrol officers to upgrade their capabilities in similar situations in the future.[4]
Because of the large number of injuries, rounds fired, weapons used, and overall length of the shootout, it is regarded as one of the longest and bloodiest events in US police history.[5] This incident would later lead to California enforcing a highly restrictive law on firearms, including the controversial "10-round magazine-only" law for most firearms owned by state residents.
North Hollywood shootout - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
How long before the Tragedy of the Batman Movie shooting will be twisted Politically into another Anti gun Campaign by the Democrats? I'm thinking Monday Morning the pro gun ban people will be in high gear. I think that they will use the weekend to plan their strike which will commence at 9AM Monday morning on all of those usual suspect shows. They will wait until the majority of people who aren't Democrats do what they do best... Go to WORK.
I've got no problem with people owning guns. Matter of fact, I don't even care how many guns a person has.
However....................................
Don't you think that being able to fire 100 rounds before having to reload is a bit over the top?
I thought it was bad last year when Laughtner had 30 round magazines in his 9mm.
High capacity magazines are already regulated by individual States, N.J. has a max capacity of 10 rounds. The problem (as I see it) is that 30 round magazines have flooded the country for decades due to the fact that many are Military Surplus. If you regulate magazine capacities, odds are good that future psychos already have them, or can get them quite easily due to their great numbers, and the only people that are going to get screwed are the people that purchased them legally that do not commit psychotic criminal acts. They purchased them legally, and now some bureaucrat is going to tell them to turn in their personal property simply because someone decided for them that they weren't responsible enough?
How long before the Tragedy of the Batman Movie shooting will be twisted Politically into another Anti gun Campaign by the Democrats? I'm thinking Monday Morning the pro gun ban people will be in high gear. I think that they will use the weekend to plan their strike which will commence at 9AM Monday morning on all of those usual suspect shows. They will wait until the majority of people who aren't Democrats do what they do best... Go to WORK.
I've got no problem with people owning guns. Matter of fact, I don't even care how many guns a person has.
However....................................
Don't you think that being able to fire 100 rounds before having to reload is a bit over the top?
I thought it was bad last year when Laughtner had 30 round magazines in his 9mm.
High capacity magazines are already regulated by individual States, N.J. has a max capacity of 10 rounds. The problem (as I see it) is that 30 round magazines have flooded the country for decades due to the fact that many are Military Surplus. If you regulate magazine capacities, odds are good that future psychos already have them, or can get them quite easily due to their great numbers, and the only people that are going to get screwed are the people that purchased them legally that do not commit psychotic criminal acts. They purchased them legally, and now some bureaucrat is going to tell them to turn in their personal property simply because someone decided for them that they weren't responsible enough?
I've got no problem with people owning guns. Matter of fact, I don't even care how many guns a person has.
However....................................
Don't you think that being able to fire 100 rounds before having to reload is a bit over the top?
I thought it was bad last year when Laughtner had 30 round magazines in his 9mm.
High capacity magazines are already regulated by individual States, N.J. has a max capacity of 10 rounds. The problem (as I see it) is that 30 round magazines have flooded the country for decades due to the fact that many are Military Surplus. If you regulate magazine capacities, odds are good that future psychos already have them, or can get them quite easily due to their great numbers, and the only people that are going to get screwed are the people that purchased them legally that do not commit psychotic criminal acts. They purchased them legally, and now some bureaucrat is going to tell them to turn in their personal property simply because someone decided for them that they weren't responsible enough?
So................exactly why do you need 30-100 round magazines for?
The only reason I can see is to start a war.
I've got no problem with people owning guns. Matter of fact, I don't even care how many guns a person has.
However....................................
Don't you think that being able to fire 100 rounds before having to reload is a bit over the top?
I thought it was bad last year when Laughtner had 30 round magazines in his 9mm.
High capacity magazines are already regulated by individual States, N.J. has a max capacity of 10 rounds. The problem (as I see it) is that 30 round magazines have flooded the country for decades due to the fact that many are Military Surplus. If you regulate magazine capacities, odds are good that future psychos already have them, or can get them quite easily due to their great numbers, and the only people that are going to get screwed are the people that purchased them legally that do not commit psychotic criminal acts. They purchased them legally, and now some bureaucrat is going to tell them to turn in their personal property simply because someone decided for them that they weren't responsible enough?
So................exactly why do you need 30-100 round magazines for?
The only reason I can see is to start a war.
A person does not have to reload as often when shooting targets. And that is a good enough reason for me, as the magazine was purchased legally by that person, and no crime was committed.
I've got no problem with people owning guns. Matter of fact, I don't even care how many guns a person has.
However....................................
Don't you think that being able to fire 100 rounds before having to reload is a bit over the top?
I thought it was bad last year when Laughtner had 30 round magazines in his 9mm.
High capacity magazines are already regulated by individual States, N.J. has a max capacity of 10 rounds. The problem (as I see it) is that 30 round magazines have flooded the country for decades due to the fact that many are Military Surplus. If you regulate magazine capacities, odds are good that future psychos already have them, or can get them quite easily due to their great numbers, and the only people that are going to get screwed are the people that purchased them legally that do not commit psychotic criminal acts. They purchased them legally, and now some bureaucrat is going to tell them to turn in their personal property simply because someone decided for them that they weren't responsible enough?
Yup....you invested in high capacity magazines and some psychos have ruined it for you
If it becomes harder for psychos to kill people by the dozen.....I'm cool with it
High capacity magazines are already regulated by individual States, N.J. has a max capacity of 10 rounds. The problem (as I see it) is that 30 round magazines have flooded the country for decades due to the fact that many are Military Surplus. If you regulate magazine capacities, odds are good that future psychos already have them, or can get them quite easily due to their great numbers, and the only people that are going to get screwed are the people that purchased them legally that do not commit psychotic criminal acts. They purchased them legally, and now some bureaucrat is going to tell them to turn in their personal property simply because someone decided for them that they weren't responsible enough?
So................exactly why do you need 30-100 round magazines for?
The only reason I can see is to start a war.
A person does not have to reload as often when shooting targets. And that is a good enough reason for me, as the magazine was purchased legally by that person, and no crime was committed.
And how exactly do you think making it is going to make it harder when the magazines are already out there in nearly limitless numbers? Oh, yeah... By trampling upon the Rights of Law Abiding Citizens who have committed no crime.
