The guy isn't White, didn't use an "Assault Rifle" and didn't use a large capacity magazine...

[2aguy]

Republicans will fight to the last man to protect the rights of insane mass murderers to own as many guns as they want.

Translation: Republican Congressional representatives will fight to the end to support and defend the Constitution.

Yes, that is correct. Democrats, though, want to rewrite the Constitution into their own image and really, really hate anyone who disagrees with them.

I didn't see in the constitution where insane mass murderers have gun rights. Clearly Republicans do. Unless they are referring to themselves as "insane mass murderers".

yeah....show us where they say that is okay......

 

[Divine Wind]

I didn't see in the constitution where insane mass murderers have gun rights. Clearly Republicans do. Unless they are referring to themselves as "insane mass murderers".

Neither do I and, your straw man argument aside, I never claimed or hinted they do. Clearly your extreme partisanship has caused your mind to see things that are not there.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Some guns do not have a safety.

Most revolvers do not have a safety.

If you took some time to actually learn a little about guns....

Anti-gun loons have no interest in educating themselves on the issue.

A "safety" can be a "button" or a built in mechanism.

Uh-huh. Revolvers do not have them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So....the guy isn't white, according to the left, he may have been a muslim.....he didn't use an "Assault Rifle," he didn't use a large capacity magazine, and the FBI knew about him.....the left wing anti gunners are already having a bad 2017.........

And only killed 5. Why did he have that gun in the first place. With his mental history, why was he allowed to buy it, and why was he allowed to keep it?

Simple: The law did not prohibit him from buying/possessing a gun.

 

[M14 Shooter]

A "safety" can be a "button" or a built in mechanism.

A built in mechanism? Is that like a gadget or a whatchamacallit?

Yes, it's a "mechanism", usually a lever, but could be a slide button.

There is no safety to activate in most revolvers. The hammer is down and must be manually pulled back or, if a double-action, the trigger pulled firmly to the rear both pulling back the hammer and then releasing it. A safety feature of modern revolvers is a little plate that stays between the hammer firing pin and the bullet primer when the hammer is down to prevent accidental discharge by dropping it.

Wow you people are beyond stupid.

Says he who believes revolvers have safeties.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So....the guy isn't white, according to the left, he may have been a muslim.....he didn't use an "Assault Rifle," he didn't use a large capacity magazine, and the FBI knew about him.....the left wing anti gunners are already having a bad 2017.........

Republicans will fight to the last man to protect the rights of insane mass murderers to own as many guns as they want.

Oh look -- another lie from the village useful idiot.

 

[RealDave]

Republicans will fight to the last man to protect the rights of insane mass murderers to own as many guns as they want.

Translation: Republican Congressional representatives will fight to the end to support and defend the Constitution.

Yes, that is correct. Democrats, though, want to rewrite the Constitution into their own image and really, really hate anyone who disagrees with them.

You think that you Founding Fathers wanted crazy people running around armed?

Why not make all guns legal that were in use when the Constitution was signed.

 

[2aguy]

Republicans will fight to the last man to protect the rights of insane mass murderers to own as many guns as they want.

Translation: Republican Congressional representatives will fight to the end to support and defend the Constitution.

Yes, that is correct. Democrats, though, want to rewrite the Constitution into their own image and really, really hate anyone who disagrees with them.

You think that you Founding Fathers wanted crazy people running around armed?

Why not make all guns legal that were in use when the Constitution was signed.

Are you really falling to that level of argument?

 

[RealDave]

Republicans will fight to the last man to protect the rights of insane mass murderers to own as many guns as they want.

Translation: Republican Congressional representatives will fight to the end to support and defend the Constitution.

Yes, that is correct. Democrats, though, want to rewrite the Constitution into their own image and really, really hate anyone who disagrees with them.

You think that you Founding Fathers wanted crazy people running around armed?

Why not make all guns legal that were in use when the Constitution was signed.

Are you really falling to that level of argument?

Are you really falling for the idea that the Constitution can't be interpreted & modernized for today's world.

First you claim you want it exact & then you want to change it to fit your needs. The Founding athers said you can have a musket. Have fun with it.

 

[RealDave]

A "safety" can be a "button" or a built in mechanism.

A built in mechanism? Is that like a gadget or a whatchamacallit?

Yes, it's a "mechanism", usually a lever, but could be a slide button.

There is no safety to activate in most revolvers. The hammer is down and must be manually pulled back or, if a double-action, the trigger pulled firmly to the rear both pulling back the hammer and then releasing it. A safety feature of modern revolvers is a little plate that stays between the hammer firing pin and the bullet primer when the hammer is down to prevent accidental discharge by dropping it.

Wow you people are beyond stupid.

Says he who believes revolvers have safeties.

"Most modern double-action revolvers have an internal safety, either a hammer block or a transfer bar, that positively prevents firing without the trigger being pulled. The only double-action revolvers with external safeties are unusual cases available only on special order or modified through aftermarket conversions."

 

[Skull Pilot]

No, hammer shotguns are a REALLY old design...though a handful of boutique makers to build them. The vast majority of double barrel shotguns have internal hammers and no safety.

Funny chit, mine has a safety.

Some modern ones do. The vast majority made do not.

Not sure why that is funny.

So, there is no mechanism, internal or external, that prevents a trigger pull from firing the weapon? I say bullshit.

Your ignorance is showing. No, in the vast majority of double or single barrel shotguns, the common kind that break open, there is no safety. The safety is breaking open the firearm. When it's loaded and closed, pulling the trigger fires the weapon.

You really shouldn't go on about that which you know little.

But the bill that banned assault rifles had a different definition.

My attitude is that I don't need to tote a gun everywhere I go. We should reinstate a assault rifle ban. Limit magazine/clip size. Anyone with a conceal carry permit be required extensive training. Mental health concerns should be a factor. There is something seriously wrong with a good percentage of those non law enforcement people who tote guns everywhere they go. When you put a gun in your home, it is more likely to harm a person in that home that use it in protecting that home.

Tell you what, you feel free to cower in the corner of the gun free zone waiting for another man, an armed one, to save your ass. Now THAT'S "seriously wrong".

I'll come prepared, just in case, thank you.

As to your other ideas, what in the hell makes you think criminals and crazies are going to follow your rules?

Remember when Gabby Giffords was shot. A man with a concealed gun permit had heard the shots, drew his gun & headed toward the scene. He peaked around the corner, saw a man with a gun & took aim. At the last moment, he realized that it was not the shooter but a bystander picking up the shooter's gun.

The idea that you think you are trained enough is ridiculous. Sure there might be a situation where it is clear but how do you know you're not shooter another toter coming to help?

I know some toters & open carry people. When I am near, I wonder if their safeties are on, if they are properly holstered, what training did they have. And if they are truly concerned for their protection or toting because they think it makes them a tough guy.

I'll take my chances that I might be in range of a mass shooter instead of at risk from dumbass toters who are careless.

and he didn't shoot the guy what the fuck more do you want than an armed citizen showing that kind of restraint?

My attitude on concealed carry is this and it will never change

When I carry it is for the protection of myself and my wife THAT"S IT

If I see someone who chooses not to be able to protect himself I assume that he made the choice of his own free will to put his safety into the hands of the cops. So If I see a person like you getting the absolute shit kicked out of him I will call the cops and an ambulance and hope they show up before you're beaten to death

Leave it to a lefty to use an example of restraint and good judgement as evidence of poor decision making.

Leave it to a NRA nutjob to ignore that the shooter almost killed an innocent person.

He didn't fire his weapon so he didn't almost kill anyone

Leave to the wackjob antigun freak to say that a gun owner showing proper restraint is a danger

 

[Skull Pilot]

Republicans will fight to the last man to protect the rights of insane mass murderers to own as many guns as they want.

Translation: Republican Congressional representatives will fight to the end to support and defend the Constitution.

Yes, that is correct. Democrats, though, want to rewrite the Constitution into their own image and really, really hate anyone who disagrees with them.

You think that you Founding Fathers wanted crazy people running around armed?

Why not make all guns legal that were in use when the Constitution was signed.

Are you really falling to that level of argument?

Are you really falling for the idea that the Constitution can't be interpreted & modernized for today's world.

First you claim you want it exact & then you want to change it to fit your needs. The Founding athers said you can have a musket. Have fun with it.

There was never any mention of what kind of arms in the second. If you want to take that tack then write your reply with a quill pen on parchment and have it delivered to me by a guy on horseback

 

[Skull Pilot]

A "safety" can be a "button" or a built in mechanism.

A built in mechanism? Is that like a gadget or a whatchamacallit?

Yes, it's a "mechanism", usually a lever, but could be a slide button.

There is no safety to activate in most revolvers. The hammer is down and must be manually pulled back or, if a double-action, the trigger pulled firmly to the rear both pulling back the hammer and then releasing it. A safety feature of modern revolvers is a little plate that stays between the hammer firing pin and the bullet primer when the hammer is down to prevent accidental discharge by dropping it.

Wow you people are beyond stupid.

Says he who believes revolvers have safeties.

"Most modern double-action revolvers have an internal safety, either a hammer block or a transfer bar, that positively prevents firing without the trigger being pulled. The only double-action revolvers with external safeties are unusual cases available only on special order or modified through aftermarket conversions."

no gun will fire without the trigger being pulled
a safety in the parlance of gun owners is a device that PREVENTS the trigger from being pulled

 

[Divine Wind]

You think that you Founding Fathers wanted crazy people running around armed?

Why not make all guns legal that were in use when the Constitution was signed.

Are you really falling to that level of argument?

Yes, he is. OTOH, he's exactly the type of crazy person who shouldn't be allowed near firearms.

 

[RealDave]

Funny chit, mine has a safety.

Some modern ones do. The vast majority made do not.

Not sure why that is funny.

So, there is no mechanism, internal or external, that prevents a trigger pull from firing the weapon? I say bullshit.

Your ignorance is showing. No, in the vast majority of double or single barrel shotguns, the common kind that break open, there is no safety. The safety is breaking open the firearm. When it's loaded and closed, pulling the trigger fires the weapon.

You really shouldn't go on about that which you know little.

Tell you what, you feel free to cower in the corner of the gun free zone waiting for another man, an armed one, to save your ass. Now THAT'S "seriously wrong".

I'll come prepared, just in case, thank you.

As to your other ideas, what in the hell makes you think criminals and crazies are going to follow your rules?

Remember when Gabby Giffords was shot. A man with a concealed gun permit had heard the shots, drew his gun & headed toward the scene. He peaked around the corner, saw a man with a gun & took aim. At the last moment, he realized that it was not the shooter but a bystander picking up the shooter's gun.

The idea that you think you are trained enough is ridiculous. Sure there might be a situation where it is clear but how do you know you're not shooter another toter coming to help?

I know some toters & open carry people. When I am near, I wonder if their safeties are on, if they are properly holstered, what training did they have. And if they are truly concerned for their protection or toting because they think it makes them a tough guy.

I'll take my chances that I might be in range of a mass shooter instead of at risk from dumbass toters who are careless.

and he didn't shoot the guy what the fuck more do you want than an armed citizen showing that kind of restraint?

My attitude on concealed carry is this and it will never change

When I carry it is for the protection of myself and my wife THAT"S IT

If I see someone who chooses not to be able to protect himself I assume that he made the choice of his own free will to put his safety into the hands of the cops. So If I see a person like you getting the absolute shit kicked out of him I will call the cops and an ambulance and hope they show up before you're beaten to death

Leave it to a lefty to use an example of restraint and good judgement as evidence of poor decision making.

Leave it to a NRA nutjob to ignore that the shooter almost killed an innocent person.

He didn't fire his weapon so he didn't almost kill anyone

Leave to the wackjob antigun freak to say that a gun owner showing proper restraint is a danger

The man said it was shaken to realize how close he came to killing an innocent man.

If you think I am anti-gun, try to break into my house sometime & you will find out.

Wanting reasonable gun controls is not anti-gun.

 

[2aguy]

Some modern ones do. The vast majority made do not.

Not sure why that is funny.

So, there is no mechanism, internal or external, that prevents a trigger pull from firing the weapon? I say bullshit.

Your ignorance is showing. No, in the vast majority of double or single barrel shotguns, the common kind that break open, there is no safety. The safety is breaking open the firearm. When it's loaded and closed, pulling the trigger fires the weapon.

You really shouldn't go on about that which you know little.

Remember when Gabby Giffords was shot. A man with a concealed gun permit had heard the shots, drew his gun & headed toward the scene. He peaked around the corner, saw a man with a gun & took aim. At the last moment, he realized that it was not the shooter but a bystander picking up the shooter's gun.

The idea that you think you are trained enough is ridiculous. Sure there might be a situation where it is clear but how do you know you're not shooter another toter coming to help?

I know some toters & open carry people. When I am near, I wonder if their safeties are on, if they are properly holstered, what training did they have. And if they are truly concerned for their protection or toting because they think it makes them a tough guy.

I'll take my chances that I might be in range of a mass shooter instead of at risk from dumbass toters who are careless.

and he didn't shoot the guy what the fuck more do you want than an armed citizen showing that kind of restraint?

My attitude on concealed carry is this and it will never change

When I carry it is for the protection of myself and my wife THAT"S IT

If I see someone who chooses not to be able to protect himself I assume that he made the choice of his own free will to put his safety into the hands of the cops. So If I see a person like you getting the absolute shit kicked out of him I will call the cops and an ambulance and hope they show up before you're beaten to death

Leave it to a lefty to use an example of restraint and good judgement as evidence of poor decision making.

Leave it to a NRA nutjob to ignore that the shooter almost killed an innocent person.

He didn't fire his weapon so he didn't almost kill anyone

Leave to the wackjob antigun freak to say that a gun owner showing proper restraint is a danger

The man said it was shaken to realize how close he came to killing an innocent man.

If you think I am anti-gun, try to break into my house sometime & you will find out.

Wanting reasonable gun controls is not anti-gun.

What are these reasonable controls.....and how do they work to stop actual criminals and mass shooters from getting and using guns? Simply stating "reasonable gun control" is the anti gunner way to hide their anti-gun laws....

I insist that you actually explain the mechanics of how the laws you propose will stop criminals and mass shooters from getting guns...as opposed to simply making law abiding citizens into criminals, felons, for errors in paperwork and missing filing dates.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Some modern ones do. The vast majority made do not.

Not sure why that is funny.

So, there is no mechanism, internal or external, that prevents a trigger pull from firing the weapon? I say bullshit.

Your ignorance is showing. No, in the vast majority of double or single barrel shotguns, the common kind that break open, there is no safety. The safety is breaking open the firearm. When it's loaded and closed, pulling the trigger fires the weapon.

You really shouldn't go on about that which you know little.

Remember when Gabby Giffords was shot. A man with a concealed gun permit had heard the shots, drew his gun & headed toward the scene. He peaked around the corner, saw a man with a gun & took aim. At the last moment, he realized that it was not the shooter but a bystander picking up the shooter's gun.

The idea that you think you are trained enough is ridiculous. Sure there might be a situation where it is clear but how do you know you're not shooter another toter coming to help?

I know some toters & open carry people. When I am near, I wonder if their safeties are on, if they are properly holstered, what training did they have. And if they are truly concerned for their protection or toting because they think it makes them a tough guy.

I'll take my chances that I might be in range of a mass shooter instead of at risk from dumbass toters who are careless.

and he didn't shoot the guy what the fuck more do you want than an armed citizen showing that kind of restraint?

My attitude on concealed carry is this and it will never change

When I carry it is for the protection of myself and my wife THAT"S IT

If I see someone who chooses not to be able to protect himself I assume that he made the choice of his own free will to put his safety into the hands of the cops. So If I see a person like you getting the absolute shit kicked out of him I will call the cops and an ambulance and hope they show up before you're beaten to death

Leave it to a lefty to use an example of restraint and good judgement as evidence of poor decision making.

Leave it to a NRA nutjob to ignore that the shooter almost killed an innocent person.

He didn't fire his weapon so he didn't almost kill anyone

Leave to the wackjob antigun freak to say that a gun owner showing proper restraint is a danger

The man said it was shaken to realize how close he came to killing an innocent man.

If you think I am anti-gun, try to break into my house sometime & you will find out.

Wanting reasonable gun controls is not anti-gun.

So what?
And he came close to shooting not killing you do know not all gunshot wounds are fatal don't you?

But the only thing that really matters is that he didn't shoot an innocent person

And I don't believe you have any guns because you obviously don't know shit about guns

 

[2aguy]

Republicans will fight to the last man to protect the rights of insane mass murderers to own as many guns as they want.

Translation: Republican Congressional representatives will fight to the end to support and defend the Constitution.

Yes, that is correct. Democrats, though, want to rewrite the Constitution into their own image and really, really hate anyone who disagrees with them.

You think that you Founding Fathers wanted crazy people running around armed?

Why not make all guns legal that were in use when the Constitution was signed.

Are you really falling to that level of argument?

Are you really falling for the idea that the Constitution can't be interpreted & modernized for today's world.

First you claim you want it exact & then you want to change it to fit your needs. The Founding athers said you can have a musket. Have fun with it.

No, silly person......that is why we have a process....the Amendment process and that is how we actually change the Constitution...but the Bill of Rights....those are not created by the Constitution, and exist without the Constitution......they are inherent to our existence as human beings.

 

[2aguy]

Republicans will fight to the last man to protect the rights of insane mass murderers to own as many guns as they want.

Translation: Republican Congressional representatives will fight to the end to support and defend the Constitution.

Yes, that is correct. Democrats, though, want to rewrite the Constitution into their own image and really, really hate anyone who disagrees with them.

You think that you Founding Fathers wanted crazy people running around armed?

Why not make all guns legal that were in use when the Constitution was signed.

Are you really falling to that level of argument?

Are you really falling for the idea that the Constitution can't be interpreted & modernized for today's world.

First you claim you want it exact & then you want to change it to fit your needs. The Founding athers said you can have a musket. Have fun with it.

I see you have not explained "reasonable gun control laws" yet......please...you can no longer throw that phrase out there and expect that you will be given the higher ground. We know that when you guys throw it out now, you have no intention of explaining it...you just want the credit for sounding reasonable and the ability to atttack us as if we are unreasonable...

But that ain't going to happen no more....

Tell us which gun control laws you want and actually explain how they work to achieve what you say they achieve....

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why not make all guns legal that were in use when the Constitution was signed.

Not a single iota of thought went into the post quoted above.