Predict how long before????

[ABikerSailor]

I don't get why you guys want smaller capacity magazines, it won't make a bit of difference. The proof of that statement is in what ABS posted.

Are you so fucking lazy you can't reload another clip simply by hitting a button and jamming another in? I can reload a 9mm in less than 2 sec (and that's with the clip in my belt).

If you can do it, so can the nutcase that wants to shoot up a movie theater.

The only way to stop all the nutcases is to rescind the 2nd Amendment and disarm EVERYONE, and even then it won't do the trick. Just like drugs and alcohol have proved in the past, prohibition doesn't work.

Actually, being able to reload that fast was something that came only with repeated practice on the gun range MONTHLY.

 

[GuyPinestra]

I don't get why you guys want smaller capacity magazines, it won't make a bit of difference. The proof of that statement is in what ABS posted.

Are you so fucking lazy you can't reload another clip simply by hitting a button and jamming another in? I can reload a 9mm in less than 2 sec (and that's with the clip in my belt).

If you can do it, so can the nutcase that wants to shoot up a movie theater.

The only way to stop all the nutcases is to rescind the 2nd Amendment and disarm EVERYONE, and even then it won't do the trick. Just like drugs and alcohol have proved in the past, prohibition doesn't work.

Actually, being able to reload that fast was something that came only with repeated practice on the gun range MONTHLY.

Believe me, I'm aware of how much practice it takes to reload THAT fast, but almost anyone can reload in 5 seconds, so what's the real difference?

 

[tjvh]

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

So your willing to piss away your Freedoms and mine, just so you feel safer? I have news for you...More restrictive laws are not going to stop crazy people from going crazy.

You don't have freedom to kill 100 people at a pop

Of course not idiot! Law abiding citizens have the Right to KEEP their Rights and not have those Rights assaulted every time some moron does something stupid. You don't trash the second amendment, and hand away your Freedoms just because an asshole goes on a shooting spree. Unless you are a complete moron. People who want to hand away their Freedoms for a false sense of security always forget that one little detail... Their Freedoms are also the same ones enjoyed by others who might not be so quick to arbitrarily hand them away every time an emotional tragedy comes down the line.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You simply don't want to think, do you?

But you can read. Start with these:

1. Amazon.com: 1776 (9780743226714): David McCullough: Books
www.amazon.com/1776-David-McCullough/dp/0743226712

2..Digital History

3. History On-Line essay by Richard Jensen revised 3-11-2001

Washington took three years to fight a major battle to a draw, and eight years to conduct a campaign in alliance with a French army and a French navy to beat the British professional army. In other words, American victory required a professional standing army and alliance with a major European power to make the war no longer worthwhile for the British.

You have lost everyone's respect who knows anything about American history.

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.

The Continental Army was formed after the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War by the colonies that became the United States of America. Established by a resolution of the Continental Congress on June 14, 1775, it was created to coordinate the military efforts of the Thirteen Colonies in their revolt against the rule of Great Britain. The Continental Army was supplemented by local militias and other troops that remained under control of the individual states. General George Washington was the Commander-in-Chief of the army throughout the war.

If the Army was formed AFTER the start of hostilities, who was doing the fighting prior to it's formation?

After it's formation, who joined?

Under-armed, under-fed, under-trained farmers and shopkeepers, that's who, along with a whole bunch of 15 & 16 year old kids.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I don't get why you guys want smaller capacity magazines, it won't make a bit of difference. The proof of that statement is in what ABS posted.

If you can do it, so can the nutcase that wants to shoot up a movie theater.

The only way to stop all the nutcases is to rescind the 2nd Amendment and disarm EVERYONE, and even then it won't do the trick. Just like drugs and alcohol have proved in the past, prohibition doesn't work.

Actually, being able to reload that fast was something that came only with repeated practice on the gun range MONTHLY.

Believe me, I'm aware of how much practice it takes to reload THAT fast, but almost anyone can reload in 5 seconds, so what's the real difference?

A human being can cover around 15 ft. in 5 seconds or less, so yeah............it WOULD have made a difference if he had to reload, because someone may have been able to stop him.

The only reason someone was able to stop Laughtner was because he had to reload.

But, in a situation where the gunman can fire off 1 round/sec up to 100 rounds is pretty heavy fire, even by combat standards.

 

[Dr Grump]

30 rounds.

So, it's just too much work to change a clip after 15 rounds?

Wow...................talk about a lazy fucker.

BTW.................should AR-15 owners be allowed 100 round clips if they're just target shooting as well?

The point isn't that people are lazy, the point is that dumping more restrictions on Law abiding citizens, and curtailing their Rights when tragedies like the Colorado shooting come along isn't going to stop shootings. It's just going to hand away a few more Rights and Freedoms... WHEN DOES IT END?

No, it's a way of reasonably reducing the chances of something like the Colorado shooting without taking away the right to have your peashooter...

 

[rightwinger]

So your willing to piss away your Freedoms and mine, just so you feel safer? I have news for you...More restrictive laws are not going to stop crazy people from going crazy.

You don't have freedom to kill 100 people at a pop

Of course not idiot! Law abiding citizens have the Right to KEEP their Rights and not have those Rights assaulted every time some moron does something stupid. You don't trash the second amendment, and hand away your Freedoms just because an asshole goes on a shooting spree. Unless you are a complete moron. People who want to hand away their Freedoms for a false sense of security always forget that one little detail... Their Freedoms are also the same ones enjoyed by others who might not be so quick to arbitrarily hand them away every time an emotional tragedy comes down the line.

You have no right to a 100 round magazine. At best, it has been a privledge......a privilege that has been abused

 

[GuyPinestra]

You simply don't want to think, do you?

But you can read. Start with these:

1. Amazon.com: 1776 (9780743226714): David McCullough: Books
www.amazon.com/1776-David-McCullough/dp/0743226712

2..Digital History

3. History On-Line essay by Richard Jensen revised 3-11-2001

Washington took three years to fight a major battle to a draw, and eight years to conduct a campaign in alliance with a French army and a French navy to beat the British professional army. In other words, American victory required a professional standing army and alliance with a major European power to make the war no longer worthwhile for the British.

You have lost everyone's respect who knows anything about American history.

The Continental Army was formed after the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War by the colonies that became the United States of America. Established by a resolution of the Continental Congress on June 14, 1775, it was created to coordinate the military efforts of the Thirteen Colonies in their revolt against the rule of Great Britain. The Continental Army was supplemented by local militias and other troops that remained under control of the individual states. General George Washington was the Commander-in-Chief of the army throughout the war.

If the Army was formed AFTER the start of hostilities, who was doing the fighting prior to it's formation?

After it's formation, who joined?

Under-armed, under-fed, under-trained farmers and shopkeepers, that's who, along with a whole bunch of 15 & 16 year old kids.

Look Jake, I'm well aware of the history of the Revolution. It took France 3 years to join in, and without them we wouldn't have won, but the fact remains that there was NO 'standing army' in the Colonies, other than the British, and America fought them with farmers, shopkeepers and kids. The 'militia'.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You simply don't want to think, do you?

But you can read. Start with these:

1. Amazon.com: 1776 (9780743226714): David McCullough: Books
www.amazon.com/1776-David-McCullough/dp/0743226712

2..Digital History

3. History On-Line essay by Richard Jensen revised 3-11-2001

Washington took three years to fight a major battle to a draw, and eight years to conduct a campaign in alliance with a French army and a French navy to beat the British professional army. In other words, American victory required a professional standing army and alliance with a major European power to make the war no longer worthwhile for the British.

If the Army was formed AFTER the start of hostilities, who was doing the fighting prior to it's formation?

After it's formation, who joined?

Under-armed, under-fed, under-trained farmers and shopkeepers, that's who, along with a whole bunch of 15 & 16 year old kids.

Look Jake, I'm well aware of the history of the Revolution. It took France 3 years to join in, and without them we wouldn't have won, but the fact remains that there was NO 'standing army' in the Colonies, other than the British, and America fought them with farmers, shopkeepers and kids. The 'militia'.

A "standing army" is what we have in today's Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines.

A "militia" would be more closely approximated to the National Guard.

 

[GuyPinestra]

You simply don't want to think, do you?

But you can read. Start with these:

1. Amazon.com: 1776 (9780743226714): David McCullough: Books
www.amazon.com/1776-David-McCullough/dp/0743226712

2..Digital History

3. History On-Line essay by Richard Jensen revised 3-11-2001

Washington took three years to fight a major battle to a draw, and eight years to conduct a campaign in alliance with a French army and a French navy to beat the British professional army. In other words, American victory required a professional standing army and alliance with a major European power to make the war no longer worthwhile for the British.

Look Jake, I'm well aware of the history of the Revolution. It took France 3 years to join in, and without them we wouldn't have won, but the fact remains that there was NO 'standing army' in the Colonies, other than the British, and America fought them with farmers, shopkeepers and kids. The 'militia'.

A "standing army" is what we have in today's Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines.

A "militia" would be more closely approximated to the National Guard.

With the Nat'l Guard pulling multiple overseas deployments I'd think they are part of the 'standing Army'.

The Founders considered the 'militia' to be the whole body of citizens, according to their drafts of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You said the farmers etc won the war.

Now you are admitting that the standing army won the war.

Good.

You simply don't want to think, do you?

But you can read. Start with these:

1. Amazon.com: 1776 (9780743226714): David McCullough: Books
www.amazon.com/1776-David-McCullough/dp/0743226712

2..Digital History

3. History On-Line essay by Richard Jensen revised 3-11-2001

Washington took three years to fight a major battle to a draw, and eight years to conduct a campaign in alliance with a French army and a French navy to beat the British professional army. In other words, American victory required a professional standing army and alliance with a major European power to make the war no longer worthwhile for the British.

If the Army was formed AFTER the start of hostilities, who was doing the fighting prior to it's formation?

After it's formation, who joined?

Under-armed, under-fed, under-trained farmers and shopkeepers, that's who, along with a whole bunch of 15 & 16 year old kids.

Look Jake, I'm well aware of the history of the Revolution. It took France 3 years to join in, and without them we wouldn't have won, but the fact remains that there was NO 'standing army' in the Colonies, other than the British, and America fought them with farmers, shopkeepers and kids. The 'militia'.

 

[GuyPinestra]

You said the farmers etc won the war.

Now you are admitting that the standing army won the war.

Good.

You simply don't want to think, do you?

But you can read. Start with these:

1. Amazon.com: 1776 (9780743226714): David McCullough: Books
www.amazon.com/1776-David-McCullough/dp/0743226712

2..Digital History

3. History On-Line essay by Richard Jensen revised 3-11-2001

Washington took three years to fight a major battle to a draw, and eight years to conduct a campaign in alliance with a French army and a French navy to beat the British professional army. In other words, American victory required a professional standing army and alliance with a major European power to make the war no longer worthwhile for the British.

Look Jake, I'm well aware of the history of the Revolution. It took France 3 years to join in, and without them we wouldn't have won, but the fact remains that there was NO 'standing army' in the Colonies, other than the British, and America fought them with farmers, shopkeepers and kids. The 'militia'.

That's right Jake, because unlike you, I can admit when I make a mistake.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, you were wrong, and you can't admit it graciously, can you?

You said the farmers etc won the war.

Now you are admitting that the standing army won the war.

Good.

Look Jake, I'm well aware of the history of the Revolution. It took France 3 years to join in, and without them we wouldn't have won, but the fact remains that there was NO 'standing army' in the Colonies, other than the British, and America fought them with farmers, shopkeepers and kids. The 'militia'.

That's right Jake, because unlike you, I can admit when I make a mistake.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Yes, you were wrong, and you can't admit it graciously, can you?

You said the farmers etc won the war.

Now you are admitting that the standing army won the war.

Good.

That's right Jake, because unlike you, I can admit when I make a mistake.

Not to you, Jake, because I have to remind you of what a dishonest, chickenshit little worm you are every time I get the chance.

Found anything in Miller or Heller yet?

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

It's already started...
N.J. senator pushes gun-control bill after Colo. shootings

Lautenburg is simply trying to score political points with his liberal base.

 

[MikeK]

And you think the second amendment is solely about protecting ourselves? I believe it is also about first, and foremost keeping the power in the hands of the people, so the progressives don't fly off the handle and decide one day that they want to keep somebody like Obama in charge a bit longer than the Constitution allows for.

Or in case a partisan Supreme Court chooses to install a brain-damaged, elitist fop like George W. Bush in Office and a substantial number of neo-Conservatives are sufficiently brainwashed and/or demented to support such a perversion of democracy rather than resist it.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

This nut on CNN tonight was lamenting about how the Co. tragedy could have been averted with strict gun control laws...............

[...]

I've observed over the years that with very few exceptions people who are strongly opposed to gun ownership know nothing about guns, are afraid of them, are not inclined to defend themselves under any circumstances, or all three.

 

[ABikerSailor]

[...]

This nut on CNN tonight was lamenting about how the Co. tragedy could have been averted with strict gun control laws...............

[...]

I've observed over the years that with very few exceptions people who are strongly opposed to gun ownership know nothing about guns, are afraid of them, are not inclined to defend themselves under any circumstances, or all three.

How about we limit the amount of ammo per clip?

15 rounds/clip sounds about right to me, it's what the cops have.

 

[Dr Grump]

I've observed over the years that with very few exceptions people who are strongly opposed to gun ownership know nothing about guns, are afraid of them, are not inclined to defend themselves under any circumstances, or all three.

Interesting. Most I know like the idea of walking around town without having ot worry if some loon is going to go postal because they didn't get ketchup with their fries...

 

[MikeK]

Just so. The gun crazees and militias can talk all they want, and they can own legal firearms generally. But we will not put up with their nonsense silently.

[...]

I'm trying to follow the flow in this segment of the thread. It clearly is a we vs them situation in which the "militias" and "crazees" are the them -- but there is no mention of a reason for the hypothetical confrontation between U.S. citizens (them)and the U.S. military ("we").

What brought this situation about? What did the "militias" and the "crazees" (who exactly are these "crazees?") do to provoke it? Did they have some good and justifiable reason for their actions? Is there a reason, or does the presumptive "we" vs them define the existing relationship between the U.S. military and the civilian sector with no further specifics being relevant?