The only gun control needed.

[The Rabbi]

"idiotic second amendment" This statement brought to you by the 1st Amendment.

And?

As far as I know, they (the framers) were the smartest people of their time. However, no group of people, regardless of motives, education, or luck can foresee the societal, technological, or international threat changes wrought in the ensuing 237 years. It's not their fault but they missed on this one.
In the prism of 1789 when there were few police forces, a paltry standing army, and little organization between the state militia's to provide for a common defense, it made sense to have weaponry available to citizenry since sharks were circling the fledgling nation. In the 2016 prism, it's ridiculous. They were equally worried about opposition armies forcing you to house their soldiers....is that a clue as to the mindset of the framers?

The framers didn't miss a beat. Of course they expected firearms to be more advanced as the years passed. They knew that society might change entirely. That's why they included an amendment process in our Constitution. Of course there would have to be a strong consensus for it to change, but they didn't want to see such changes in our Constitution based on a simple majority of opinion one way or the other.

Oh please...

The 3rd Amendment is totally irrelevant and it was thought of (at the time) to be important enough to be in the bill of rights???

Adding an amendment process is required in every agreement; there was no brilliance exhibited by that. Frankly, they made it too easy as was illustrated by prohibition and the repeal of it 11 years later.

Well if it's so easy, then the solution to your problem is already there: amend the Constitution.

No, I was simply showing where national hysteria can overturn the founders intent. Like when some fools want to have the government weigh in on marriage, change the rules that make people born here Americans, etc....

Irony!
States set criteria for marriage. Until the Supreme Court overturned the Founders' intent.

 

[candycorn]

So if a mass murderer kills 13 people instead of 14, that makes it better?

If you our your 10 year old daughter are the 14th person...you tell me.
Obviously fewer deaths are preferable to more deaths.

I carry a high capacity magazine when I'm armed. Why? Because experience tells me that you don't hit your target all the time. The farther away you are, the less likely you are to hit your target, and two, you may be defending yourself from several attackers instead of one. There have been people that been shot with several bullets and continued their attack. The police officer in Philadelphia is a prime example. He was shot three times, ran after the shooter and apprehended him. Do you think police should have limited magazines too?

No. Police should have access to superior firepower in my view. I don't get bent out of shape when I see the tactical vehicles deployed like some liberals do either so save your argument.

When you take firearms training, you are taught that shooting at cardboard is much different than shooting at another human being who is shooting back. There is no real training for how to react to that so you just do the best you can with the information you were given.

Funny,earlier you were saying that Rampage killers were prepared. Now it's "no real training".

You stated:

Furthermore is the fact the suspect is prepared for commotion unlike the victims who were not anticipating an attack.

Obviously, when you add that factor of resistance environmentally, mentally, or in terms of ballistics into the mix, the time it takes to change magazines will lengthen considerably. Don't pretend otherwise.

It's the same way for police officers. Nobody is trained with live human beings shooting at them. The best you can do is prepare.

Which is why I trust a cop whose minutes away much more than some armed, untrained yahoo who happens to be closer by. The cop's job is to prepare.

That being said, with the 2nd Amendment and it's fortified place in the culture, I accept that there will be people close by who are likely carrying firearms. Do I trust them? No. I think they are almost as big a threat as the original assailant like this dope from the Twin Peaks video 32 second mark.



Still, let's say Adam Lanza was on the receiving end of that shot being fired wildy in his direction. That'll give you a second or two to pause and probably duck behind something instead of continuing your rampage. So net benefit perhaps (unless the wildly fired round hit someone).

No, because most of these clowns are suicidal. They know they are going to die and likely by their own hands. It's one of the reasons they choose gun free zones. They don't want to be hit and injured. They don't want to serve any time in jail. They want to kill as many people as they can, and then kill themselves.

Again, whether they want to live or die, bedlam is bedlam, someone turning off the lights unexpectedly, pulling the fire alarm unexpectedly, simply turning over a table or throwing something at the guy is stuff that they may have gone over in their mind but expecting and being prepared are different things.

Also, what you said is that a few seconds to change magazines makes a real difference but waiting for police for a couple of minutes won't?

Obviously, I was speaking for myself and that I would rather wait a few moments for cops to arrive than to put my faith in some yahoo who doesn't know what they are doing.

In any scenario, I would put as much space between me and the gunman as possible...changing magazines allows people to escape because he's not firing the weapon while he's reloading.

What I said earlier is that the attacker is prepared for all the commotion.

College Quarterbacks often talk about not being prepared for noise...hard to imagine some "retard" or "clown" (your words) would be more prepared. Most are loners or social outcasts...and you're telling me that they are suddenly prepared to be the center of attention? Nonsense.

 

[candycorn]

And?

As far as I know, they (the framers) were the smartest people of their time. However, no group of people, regardless of motives, education, or luck can foresee the societal, technological, or international threat changes wrought in the ensuing 237 years. It's not their fault but they missed on this one.
In the prism of 1789 when there were few police forces, a paltry standing army, and little organization between the state militia's to provide for a common defense, it made sense to have weaponry available to citizenry since sharks were circling the fledgling nation. In the 2016 prism, it's ridiculous. They were equally worried about opposition armies forcing you to house their soldiers....is that a clue as to the mindset of the framers?

The framers didn't miss a beat. Of course they expected firearms to be more advanced as the years passed. They knew that society might change entirely. That's why they included an amendment process in our Constitution. Of course there would have to be a strong consensus for it to change, but they didn't want to see such changes in our Constitution based on a simple majority of opinion one way or the other.

Oh please...

The 3rd Amendment is totally irrelevant and it was thought of (at the time) to be important enough to be in the bill of rights???

Adding an amendment process is required in every agreement; there was no brilliance exhibited by that. Frankly, they made it too easy as was illustrated by prohibition and the repeal of it 11 years later.

Well if it's so easy, then the solution to your problem is already there: amend the Constitution.

No, I was simply showing where national hysteria can overturn the founders intent. Like when some fools want to have the government weigh in on marriage, change the rules that make people born here Americans, etc....

Irony!
States set criteria for marriage. Until the Supreme Court overturned the Founders' intent.

Quote founder's views on gay marriage.

 

[candycorn]

Thank God we have a President that is actually doing something--it is--and is offering something other than thoughts and prayers to the victims.

You have to be kidding. Nobody says something as stupid as that.

That list of things that President Shit for Brains had the other day was worthless. Nothing on that list would have stopped any of the tragedies we have had nor will they stop the 500 shootings in Chicago every year or any place else.

Two of the more substantive items on the list were things that were included in the Grassley Cruz bill that the Senate Democrats voted down.

The worst thing on that list are the background checks. Not only do they do nothing to prevent crime but why does an American citizen have to get permission from the filthy ass government in order to enjoy a right that is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and specifically says that it can not be infringed? Because that is what background checks are. Permission from the filthy ass government.

I find you humorous.

DO you think the public should have belt-fed weapons, attack choppers with missiles, or atomic weapons?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So if a mass murderer kills 13 people instead of 14, that makes it better?

If you our your 10 year old daughter are the 14th person...you tell me.
Obviously fewer deaths are preferable to more deaths.

I carry a high capacity magazine when I'm armed. Why? Because experience tells me that you don't hit your target all the time. The farther away you are, the less likely you are to hit your target, and two, you may be defending yourself from several attackers instead of one. There have been people that been shot with several bullets and continued their attack. The police officer in Philadelphia is a prime example. He was shot three times, ran after the shooter and apprehended him. Do you think police should have limited magazines too?

No. Police should have access to superior firepower in my view. I don't get bent out of shape when I see the tactical vehicles deployed like some liberals do either so save your argument.

When you take firearms training, you are taught that shooting at cardboard is much different than shooting at another human being who is shooting back. There is no real training for how to react to that so you just do the best you can with the information you were given.

Funny,earlier you were saying that Rampage killers were prepared. Now it's "no real training".

You stated:

Furthermore is the fact the suspect is prepared for commotion unlike the victims who were not anticipating an attack.

Obviously, when you add that factor of resistance environmentally, mentally, or in terms of ballistics into the mix, the time it takes to change magazines will lengthen considerably. Don't pretend otherwise.

It's the same way for police officers. Nobody is trained with live human beings shooting at them. The best you can do is prepare.

Which is why I trust a cop whose minutes away much more than some armed, untrained yahoo who happens to be closer by. The cop's job is to prepare.

That being said, with the 2nd Amendment and it's fortified place in the culture, I accept that there will be people close by who are likely carrying firearms. Do I trust them? No. I think they are almost as big a threat as the original assailant like this dope from the Twin Peaks video 32 second mark.



Still, let's say Adam Lanza was on the receiving end of that shot being fired wildy in his direction. That'll give you a second or two to pause and probably duck behind something instead of continuing your rampage. So net benefit perhaps (unless the wildly fired round hit someone).

No, because most of these clowns are suicidal. They know they are going to die and likely by their own hands. It's one of the reasons they choose gun free zones. They don't want to be hit and injured. They don't want to serve any time in jail. They want to kill as many people as they can, and then kill themselves.

Again, whether they want to live or die, bedlam is bedlam, someone turning off the lights unexpectedly, pulling the fire alarm unexpectedly, simply turning over a table or throwing something at the guy is stuff that they may have gone over in their mind but expecting and being prepared are different things.

Also, what you said is that a few seconds to change magazines makes a real difference but waiting for police for a couple of minutes won't?

Obviously, I was speaking for myself and that I would rather wait a few moments for cops to arrive than to put my faith in some yahoo who doesn't know what they are doing.

In any scenario, I would put as much space between me and the gunman as possible...changing magazines allows people to escape because he's not firing the weapon while he's reloading.

What I said earlier is that the attacker is prepared for all the commotion.

College Quarterbacks often talk about not being prepared for noise...hard to imagine some "retard" or "clown" (your words) would be more prepared. Most are loners or social outcasts...and you're telling me that they are suddenly prepared to be the center of attention? Nonsense.

Well let me tell ya, if you were a student in a classroom with one door on the third floor, you can throw whatever you want, but you're going to die waiting for the police and I don't care how many times he installs a new magazine. Are you going to be the first one to rush that armed gunman? I doubt it, and I doubt anybody would be. They would just be praying to God---some for the first time in their lives. Me, I would definitely want another student or teacher with a firearm gunning the attacker down well before he points that gun at me.

A gunman who planned his course of action still isn't prepared enough, but victims who were stunned by such an attack would be by reacting heroically and tackling the attacker. LOL! You watch too many movies.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Ray are you wanting students to be carrying as well?
You do know that teachers are not in the classroom 100% of the time.
What if the shooter shoots the teacher first?

So should students be carrying as well? And at what age would it be ok for the kids to be carrying? 12? 15? What is the magic number?

You know some schools are just grade school. Some are jr. high. And of course high schoolers.

I think it a great idea that some hormone laden boy with an attitude problem should be able to carry a gun to school. Dont you think that a great idea?

If not, why not? teachers and security guards will be the first shot. You gonna leave them kids not able to defend themselves?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ray are you wanting students to be carrying as well?
You do know that teachers are not in the classroom 100% of the time.
What if the shooter shoots the teacher first?

So should students be carrying as well? And at what age would it be ok for the kids to be carrying? 12? 15? What is the magic number?

You know some schools are just grade school. Some are jr. high. And of course high schoolers.

I think it a great idea that some hormone laden boy with an attitude problem should be able to carry a gun to school. Dont you think that a great idea?

If not, why not? teachers and security guards will be the first shot. You gonna leave them kids not able to defend themselves?

Yeah, I want 11 year olds carrying in school.

Let me ask a question: why is it when liberals are confronted with common sense, you automatically resort to extremes? Not just you, all liberals. You can't have a reasonable discussion without making it ridiculous.

 

[candycorn]

So if a mass murderer kills 13 people instead of 14, that makes it better?

If you our your 10 year old daughter are the 14th person...you tell me.
Obviously fewer deaths are preferable to more deaths.

I carry a high capacity magazine when I'm armed. Why? Because experience tells me that you don't hit your target all the time. The farther away you are, the less likely you are to hit your target, and two, you may be defending yourself from several attackers instead of one. There have been people that been shot with several bullets and continued their attack. The police officer in Philadelphia is a prime example. He was shot three times, ran after the shooter and apprehended him. Do you think police should have limited magazines too?

No. Police should have access to superior firepower in my view. I don't get bent out of shape when I see the tactical vehicles deployed like some liberals do either so save your argument.

When you take firearms training, you are taught that shooting at cardboard is much different than shooting at another human being who is shooting back. There is no real training for how to react to that so you just do the best you can with the information you were given.

Funny,earlier you were saying that Rampage killers were prepared. Now it's "no real training".

You stated:

Furthermore is the fact the suspect is prepared for commotion unlike the victims who were not anticipating an attack.

Obviously, when you add that factor of resistance environmentally, mentally, or in terms of ballistics into the mix, the time it takes to change magazines will lengthen considerably. Don't pretend otherwise.

It's the same way for police officers. Nobody is trained with live human beings shooting at them. The best you can do is prepare.

Which is why I trust a cop whose minutes away much more than some armed, untrained yahoo who happens to be closer by. The cop's job is to prepare.

That being said, with the 2nd Amendment and it's fortified place in the culture, I accept that there will be people close by who are likely carrying firearms. Do I trust them? No. I think they are almost as big a threat as the original assailant like this dope from the Twin Peaks video 32 second mark.



Still, let's say Adam Lanza was on the receiving end of that shot being fired wildy in his direction. That'll give you a second or two to pause and probably duck behind something instead of continuing your rampage. So net benefit perhaps (unless the wildly fired round hit someone).

No, because most of these clowns are suicidal. They know they are going to die and likely by their own hands. It's one of the reasons they choose gun free zones. They don't want to be hit and injured. They don't want to serve any time in jail. They want to kill as many people as they can, and then kill themselves.

Again, whether they want to live or die, bedlam is bedlam, someone turning off the lights unexpectedly, pulling the fire alarm unexpectedly, simply turning over a table or throwing something at the guy is stuff that they may have gone over in their mind but expecting and being prepared are different things.

Also, what you said is that a few seconds to change magazines makes a real difference but waiting for police for a couple of minutes won't?

Obviously, I was speaking for myself and that I would rather wait a few moments for cops to arrive than to put my faith in some yahoo who doesn't know what they are doing.

In any scenario, I would put as much space between me and the gunman as possible...changing magazines allows people to escape because he's not firing the weapon while he's reloading.

What I said earlier is that the attacker is prepared for all the commotion.

College Quarterbacks often talk about not being prepared for noise...hard to imagine some "retard" or "clown" (your words) would be more prepared. Most are loners or social outcasts...and you're telling me that they are suddenly prepared to be the center of attention? Nonsense.

Well let me tell ya, if you were a student in a classroom with one door on the third floor, you can throw whatever you want, but you're going to die waiting for the police and I don't care how many times he installs a new magazine. Are you going to be the first one to rush that armed gunman? I doubt it, and I doubt anybody would be. They would just be praying to God---some for the first time in their lives. Me, I would definitely want another student or teacher with a firearm gunning the attacker down well before he points that gun at me.

A gunman who planned his course of action still isn't prepared enough, but victims who were stunned by such an attack would be by reacting heroically and tackling the attacker. LOL! You watch too many movies.

Thats just the point...thanks for making it for me yet again....

When you have 33 rounds in a Glock, you may not have a chance. You limit that to 5, and there are chances to rush the attacker. Its what stopped Laughtner out here from murdering more people that were there with Gabby Giffords. It's the only thing that stopped him....

And despite your illustration of showing how fast someone can re-load under perfect conditions, you're likely to have 3-5 seconds per re-load to move. Likely more since most of the "retards" and "clowns" are not as proficient at it as the guy in the video. IF anyone believes what he sees in the movies...its you silly.

Resistance to magazine sizes is just an idiotic spasm from a bunch of dorks who think that their inconvenience to having to re-load is more important than saving lives.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

So if a mass murderer kills 13 people instead of 14, that makes it better?

If you our your 10 year old daughter are the 14th person...you tell me.
Obviously fewer deaths are preferable to more deaths.

I carry a high capacity magazine when I'm armed. Why? Because experience tells me that you don't hit your target all the time. The farther away you are, the less likely you are to hit your target, and two, you may be defending yourself from several attackers instead of one. There have been people that been shot with several bullets and continued their attack. The police officer in Philadelphia is a prime example. He was shot three times, ran after the shooter and apprehended him. Do you think police should have limited magazines too?

No. Police should have access to superior firepower in my view. I don't get bent out of shape when I see the tactical vehicles deployed like some liberals do either so save your argument.

When you take firearms training, you are taught that shooting at cardboard is much different than shooting at another human being who is shooting back. There is no real training for how to react to that so you just do the best you can with the information you were given.

Funny,earlier you were saying that Rampage killers were prepared. Now it's "no real training".

You stated:

Furthermore is the fact the suspect is prepared for commotion unlike the victims who were not anticipating an attack.

Obviously, when you add that factor of resistance environmentally, mentally, or in terms of ballistics into the mix, the time it takes to change magazines will lengthen considerably. Don't pretend otherwise.

It's the same way for police officers. Nobody is trained with live human beings shooting at them. The best you can do is prepare.

Which is why I trust a cop whose minutes away much more than some armed, untrained yahoo who happens to be closer by. The cop's job is to prepare.

That being said, with the 2nd Amendment and it's fortified place in the culture, I accept that there will be people close by who are likely carrying firearms. Do I trust them? No. I think they are almost as big a threat as the original assailant like this dope from the Twin Peaks video 32 second mark.



Still, let's say Adam Lanza was on the receiving end of that shot being fired wildy in his direction. That'll give you a second or two to pause and probably duck behind something instead of continuing your rampage. So net benefit perhaps (unless the wildly fired round hit someone).

No, because most of these clowns are suicidal. They know they are going to die and likely by their own hands. It's one of the reasons they choose gun free zones. They don't want to be hit and injured. They don't want to serve any time in jail. They want to kill as many people as they can, and then kill themselves.

Again, whether they want to live or die, bedlam is bedlam, someone turning off the lights unexpectedly, pulling the fire alarm unexpectedly, simply turning over a table or throwing something at the guy is stuff that they may have gone over in their mind but expecting and being prepared are different things.

Also, what you said is that a few seconds to change magazines makes a real difference but waiting for police for a couple of minutes won't?

Obviously, I was speaking for myself and that I would rather wait a few moments for cops to arrive than to put my faith in some yahoo who doesn't know what they are doing.

In any scenario, I would put as much space between me and the gunman as possible...changing magazines allows people to escape because he's not firing the weapon while he's reloading.

What I said earlier is that the attacker is prepared for all the commotion.

College Quarterbacks often talk about not being prepared for noise...hard to imagine some "retard" or "clown" (your words) would be more prepared. Most are loners or social outcasts...and you're telling me that they are suddenly prepared to be the center of attention? Nonsense.

Well let me tell ya, if you were a student in a classroom with one door on the third floor, you can throw whatever you want, but you're going to die waiting for the police and I don't care how many times he installs a new magazine. Are you going to be the first one to rush that armed gunman? I doubt it, and I doubt anybody would be. They would just be praying to God---some for the first time in their lives. Me, I would definitely want another student or teacher with a firearm gunning the attacker down well before he points that gun at me.

A gunman who planned his course of action still isn't prepared enough, but victims who were stunned by such an attack would be by reacting heroically and tackling the attacker. LOL! You watch too many movies.

Thats just the point...thanks for making it for me yet again....

When you have 33 rounds in a Glock, you may not have a chance. You limit that to 5, and there are chances to rush the attacker. Its what stopped Laughtner out here from murdering more people that were there with Gabby Giffords. It's the only thing that stopped him....

And despite your illustration of showing how fast someone can re-load under perfect conditions, you're likely to have 3-5 seconds per re-load to move. Likely more since most of the "retards" and "clowns" are not as proficient at it as the guy in the video. IF anyone believes what he sees in the movies...its you silly.

Resistance to magazine sizes is just an idiotic spasm from a bunch of dorks who think that their inconvenience to having to re-load is more important than saving lives.

You've made a complete fool of yourself on this thread. Just stop with your left loon nonsense.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So if a mass murderer kills 13 people instead of 14, that makes it better?

If you our your 10 year old daughter are the 14th person...you tell me.
Obviously fewer deaths are preferable to more deaths.

I carry a high capacity magazine when I'm armed. Why? Because experience tells me that you don't hit your target all the time. The farther away you are, the less likely you are to hit your target, and two, you may be defending yourself from several attackers instead of one. There have been people that been shot with several bullets and continued their attack. The police officer in Philadelphia is a prime example. He was shot three times, ran after the shooter and apprehended him. Do you think police should have limited magazines too?

No. Police should have access to superior firepower in my view. I don't get bent out of shape when I see the tactical vehicles deployed like some liberals do either so save your argument.

When you take firearms training, you are taught that shooting at cardboard is much different than shooting at another human being who is shooting back. There is no real training for how to react to that so you just do the best you can with the information you were given.

Funny,earlier you were saying that Rampage killers were prepared. Now it's "no real training".

You stated:

Furthermore is the fact the suspect is prepared for commotion unlike the victims who were not anticipating an attack.

Obviously, when you add that factor of resistance environmentally, mentally, or in terms of ballistics into the mix, the time it takes to change magazines will lengthen considerably. Don't pretend otherwise.

It's the same way for police officers. Nobody is trained with live human beings shooting at them. The best you can do is prepare.

Which is why I trust a cop whose minutes away much more than some armed, untrained yahoo who happens to be closer by. The cop's job is to prepare.

That being said, with the 2nd Amendment and it's fortified place in the culture, I accept that there will be people close by who are likely carrying firearms. Do I trust them? No. I think they are almost as big a threat as the original assailant like this dope from the Twin Peaks video 32 second mark.



Still, let's say Adam Lanza was on the receiving end of that shot being fired wildy in his direction. That'll give you a second or two to pause and probably duck behind something instead of continuing your rampage. So net benefit perhaps (unless the wildly fired round hit someone).

No, because most of these clowns are suicidal. They know they are going to die and likely by their own hands. It's one of the reasons they choose gun free zones. They don't want to be hit and injured. They don't want to serve any time in jail. They want to kill as many people as they can, and then kill themselves.

Again, whether they want to live or die, bedlam is bedlam, someone turning off the lights unexpectedly, pulling the fire alarm unexpectedly, simply turning over a table or throwing something at the guy is stuff that they may have gone over in their mind but expecting and being prepared are different things.

Also, what you said is that a few seconds to change magazines makes a real difference but waiting for police for a couple of minutes won't?

Obviously, I was speaking for myself and that I would rather wait a few moments for cops to arrive than to put my faith in some yahoo who doesn't know what they are doing.

In any scenario, I would put as much space between me and the gunman as possible...changing magazines allows people to escape because he's not firing the weapon while he's reloading.

What I said earlier is that the attacker is prepared for all the commotion.

College Quarterbacks often talk about not being prepared for noise...hard to imagine some "retard" or "clown" (your words) would be more prepared. Most are loners or social outcasts...and you're telling me that they are suddenly prepared to be the center of attention? Nonsense.

Well let me tell ya, if you were a student in a classroom with one door on the third floor, you can throw whatever you want, but you're going to die waiting for the police and I don't care how many times he installs a new magazine. Are you going to be the first one to rush that armed gunman? I doubt it, and I doubt anybody would be. They would just be praying to God---some for the first time in their lives. Me, I would definitely want another student or teacher with a firearm gunning the attacker down well before he points that gun at me.

A gunman who planned his course of action still isn't prepared enough, but victims who were stunned by such an attack would be by reacting heroically and tackling the attacker. LOL! You watch too many movies.

Thats just the point...thanks for making it for me yet again....

When you have 33 rounds in a Glock, you may not have a chance. You limit that to 5, and there are chances to rush the attacker. Its what stopped Laughtner out here from murdering more people that were there with Gabby Giffords. It's the only thing that stopped him....

And despite your illustration of showing how fast someone can re-load under perfect conditions, you're likely to have 3-5 seconds per re-load to move. Likely more since most of the "retards" and "clowns" are not as proficient at it as the guy in the video. IF anyone believes what he sees in the movies...its you silly.

Resistance to magazine sizes is just an idiotic spasm from a bunch of dorks who think that their inconvenience to having to re-load is more important than saving lives.

Well speaking of saving lives, what if I'm walking down a street and a gang of four guys attacks me? Think that 5 round magazine will save my life?

And because you have ONE instance where somebody got tackled (from behind) in a crowd, smaller clips will save the day?

You should go to the gun range sometime or at the very least, find somebody that owns guns and have him or her show you how easy it is to install a loaded magazine in a gun. And make sure you take a stopwatch with you. When you push the release button on the gun, you don't have to pull the used magazine out. It simply drops to the floor while at the same time you would be ready to install the loaded one. It takes less than two seconds for anybody to do--even you. And that two seconds won't help anybody because again, nobody is thinking of rushing a shooter in a shocking situation. All you can think about in those few seconds is staying alive.

 

[jon_berzerk]

If you our your 10 year old daughter are the 14th person...you tell me.
Obviously fewer deaths are preferable to more deaths.

No. Police should have access to superior firepower in my view. I don't get bent out of shape when I see the tactical vehicles deployed like some liberals do either so save your argument.

Funny,earlier you were saying that Rampage killers were prepared. Now it's "no real training".

You stated:
Obviously, when you add that factor of resistance environmentally, mentally, or in terms of ballistics into the mix, the time it takes to change magazines will lengthen considerably. Don't pretend otherwise.


Which is why I trust a cop whose minutes away much more than some armed, untrained yahoo who happens to be closer by. The cop's job is to prepare.

That being said, with the 2nd Amendment and it's fortified place in the culture, I accept that there will be people close by who are likely carrying firearms. Do I trust them? No. I think they are almost as big a threat as the original assailant like this dope from the Twin Peaks video 32 second mark.



Still, let's say Adam Lanza was on the receiving end of that shot being fired wildy in his direction. That'll give you a second or two to pause and probably duck behind something instead of continuing your rampage. So net benefit perhaps (unless the wildly fired round hit someone).

No, because most of these clowns are suicidal. They know they are going to die and likely by their own hands. It's one of the reasons they choose gun free zones. They don't want to be hit and injured. They don't want to serve any time in jail. They want to kill as many people as they can, and then kill themselves.

Again, whether they want to live or die, bedlam is bedlam, someone turning off the lights unexpectedly, pulling the fire alarm unexpectedly, simply turning over a table or throwing something at the guy is stuff that they may have gone over in their mind but expecting and being prepared are different things.

Also, what you said is that a few seconds to change magazines makes a real difference but waiting for police for a couple of minutes won't?

Obviously, I was speaking for myself and that I would rather wait a few moments for cops to arrive than to put my faith in some yahoo who doesn't know what they are doing.

In any scenario, I would put as much space between me and the gunman as possible...changing magazines allows people to escape because he's not firing the weapon while he's reloading.

What I said earlier is that the attacker is prepared for all the commotion.

College Quarterbacks often talk about not being prepared for noise...hard to imagine some "retard" or "clown" (your words) would be more prepared. Most are loners or social outcasts...and you're telling me that they are suddenly prepared to be the center of attention? Nonsense.

Well let me tell ya, if you were a student in a classroom with one door on the third floor, you can throw whatever you want, but you're going to die waiting for the police and I don't care how many times he installs a new magazine. Are you going to be the first one to rush that armed gunman? I doubt it, and I doubt anybody would be. They would just be praying to God---some for the first time in their lives. Me, I would definitely want another student or teacher with a firearm gunning the attacker down well before he points that gun at me.

A gunman who planned his course of action still isn't prepared enough, but victims who were stunned by such an attack would be by reacting heroically and tackling the attacker. LOL! You watch too many movies.

Thats just the point...thanks for making it for me yet again....

When you have 33 rounds in a Glock, you may not have a chance. You limit that to 5, and there are chances to rush the attacker. Its what stopped Laughtner out here from murdering more people that were there with Gabby Giffords. It's the only thing that stopped him....

And despite your illustration of showing how fast someone can re-load under perfect conditions, you're likely to have 3-5 seconds per re-load to move. Likely more since most of the "retards" and "clowns" are not as proficient at it as the guy in the video. IF anyone believes what he sees in the movies...its you silly.

Resistance to magazine sizes is just an idiotic spasm from a bunch of dorks who think that their inconvenience to having to re-load is more important than saving lives.

Well speaking of saving lives, what if I'm walking down a street and a gang of four guys attacks me? Think that 5 round magazine will save my life?

And because you have ONE instance where somebody got tackled (from behind) in a crowd, smaller clips will save the day?

You should go to the gun range sometime or at the very least, find somebody that owns guns and have him or her show you how easy it is to install a loaded magazine in a gun. And make sure you take a stopwatch with you. When you push the release button on the gun, you don't have to pull the used magazine out. It simply drops to the floor while at the same time you would be ready to install the loaded one. It takes less than two seconds for anybody to do--even you. And that two seconds won't help anybody because again, nobody is thinking of rushing a shooter in a shocking situation. All you can think about in those few seconds is staying alive.

California has a law limiting the size of magazines

in the latest terror attack

the terrorists did not care about the law

and used 30 round ones

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, because most of these clowns are suicidal. They know they are going to die and likely by their own hands. It's one of the reasons they choose gun free zones. They don't want to be hit and injured. They don't want to serve any time in jail. They want to kill as many people as they can, and then kill themselves.

Again, whether they want to live or die, bedlam is bedlam, someone turning off the lights unexpectedly, pulling the fire alarm unexpectedly, simply turning over a table or throwing something at the guy is stuff that they may have gone over in their mind but expecting and being prepared are different things.

Also, what you said is that a few seconds to change magazines makes a real difference but waiting for police for a couple of minutes won't?

Obviously, I was speaking for myself and that I would rather wait a few moments for cops to arrive than to put my faith in some yahoo who doesn't know what they are doing.

In any scenario, I would put as much space between me and the gunman as possible...changing magazines allows people to escape because he's not firing the weapon while he's reloading.

What I said earlier is that the attacker is prepared for all the commotion.

College Quarterbacks often talk about not being prepared for noise...hard to imagine some "retard" or "clown" (your words) would be more prepared. Most are loners or social outcasts...and you're telling me that they are suddenly prepared to be the center of attention? Nonsense.

Well let me tell ya, if you were a student in a classroom with one door on the third floor, you can throw whatever you want, but you're going to die waiting for the police and I don't care how many times he installs a new magazine. Are you going to be the first one to rush that armed gunman? I doubt it, and I doubt anybody would be. They would just be praying to God---some for the first time in their lives. Me, I would definitely want another student or teacher with a firearm gunning the attacker down well before he points that gun at me.

A gunman who planned his course of action still isn't prepared enough, but victims who were stunned by such an attack would be by reacting heroically and tackling the attacker. LOL! You watch too many movies.

Thats just the point...thanks for making it for me yet again....

When you have 33 rounds in a Glock, you may not have a chance. You limit that to 5, and there are chances to rush the attacker. Its what stopped Laughtner out here from murdering more people that were there with Gabby Giffords. It's the only thing that stopped him....

And despite your illustration of showing how fast someone can re-load under perfect conditions, you're likely to have 3-5 seconds per re-load to move. Likely more since most of the "retards" and "clowns" are not as proficient at it as the guy in the video. IF anyone believes what he sees in the movies...its you silly.

Resistance to magazine sizes is just an idiotic spasm from a bunch of dorks who think that their inconvenience to having to re-load is more important than saving lives.

Well speaking of saving lives, what if I'm walking down a street and a gang of four guys attacks me? Think that 5 round magazine will save my life?

And because you have ONE instance where somebody got tackled (from behind) in a crowd, smaller clips will save the day?

You should go to the gun range sometime or at the very least, find somebody that owns guns and have him or her show you how easy it is to install a loaded magazine in a gun. And make sure you take a stopwatch with you. When you push the release button on the gun, you don't have to pull the used magazine out. It simply drops to the floor while at the same time you would be ready to install the loaded one. It takes less than two seconds for anybody to do--even you. And that two seconds won't help anybody because again, nobody is thinking of rushing a shooter in a shocking situation. All you can think about in those few seconds is staying alive.

California has a law limiting the size of magazines

in the latest terror attack

the terrorists did not care about the law

and used 30 round ones

You mean a criminal didn't obey the law? Say it isn't so. You can't even trust criminals now a days.

 

[Flash]

[

I find you humorous.

DO you think the public should have belt-fed weapons, attack choppers with missiles, or atomic weapons?

I find you to be a dumbass.

The public does have belt fed weapons. They are called Class III. With one exception many years ago when an off duty policeman used a Class III in a crime of passion there has never been a crime with one.

Unless you are a billionaire like Tom Steyer nobody could afford an attack chopper, missile or atomic weapon. Even if you could afford one most of those advanced weapon system are unavailable for purchase to the general public because they were developed under government contract. That is a silly point.

However, if you knew what you were talking about you would know from the Miller case that the Supreme Court has determine that the Second Amendment applies to military type weapons. They found against Miller because they (erroneously) determined that his sawed off shotgun was not used by the military so therefore the Second didn't apply. The military did in fact use sawed off shotguns in WWI.

The crime should never be the possession of a firearm. The crime should be the illegal use of the firearm.

I see that typical of a Moon Bat you ran away from the substantive point that I made. Why does an American have to get permission from the filthy ass government to enjoy a right enumerated in the Bill of Rights? If you have to get permission from the filthy ass government in the form of a background check then it really isn't a right, is it? It is what the filthy ass government is willing to give you not what you are entitled to. Isn't that against the concept of a Bill of Rights?

Speaking of rights how about the basic American concept that you innocent until proven guilty? Isn't the background check an assumption of guilt until the filthy ass government finds out that you are innocent?

Why are you Liberals so much afraid and against liberties? What is wrong with you people?

 

[candycorn]

[

I find you humorous.

DO you think the public should have belt-fed weapons, attack choppers with missiles, or atomic weapons?

I find you to be a dumbass.

The public does have belt fed weapons. They are called Class III. With one exception many years ago when an off duty policeman used a Class III in a crime of passion there has never been a crime with one.

Unless you are a billionaire like Tom Steyer nobody could afford an attack chopper, missile or atomic weapon. Even if you could afford one most of those advanced weapon system are unavailable for purchase to the general public because they were developed under government contract. That is a silly point.

However, if you knew what you were talking about you would know from the Miller case that the Supreme Court has determine that the Second Amendment applies to military type weapons. They found against Miller because they (erroneously) determined that his sawed off shotgun was not used by the military so therefore the Second didn't apply. The military did in fact use sawed off shotguns in WWI.

The crime should never be the possession of a firearm. The crime should be the illegal use of the firearm.

I see that typical of a Moon Bat you ran away from the substantive point that I made. Why does an American have to get permission from the filthy ass government to enjoy a right enumerated in the Bill of Rights? If you have to get permission from the filthy ass government in the form of a background check then it really isn't a right, is it? It is what the filthy ass government is willing to give you not what you are entitled to. Isn't that against the concept of a Bill of Rights?

Speaking of rights how about the basic American concept that you innocent until proven guilty? Isn't the background check an assumption of guilt until the filthy ass government finds out that you are innocent?

Why are you Liberals so much afraid and against liberties? What is wrong with you people?

See douche...I asked you a question. You apparently do not know what that means. It's a lot of fun to let yourself point out how insipid you are. Feel free to answer, or not. I've had my fun for the day.

 

[candycorn]

No, because most of these clowns are suicidal. They know they are going to die and likely by their own hands. It's one of the reasons they choose gun free zones. They don't want to be hit and injured. They don't want to serve any time in jail. They want to kill as many people as they can, and then kill themselves.

Again, whether they want to live or die, bedlam is bedlam, someone turning off the lights unexpectedly, pulling the fire alarm unexpectedly, simply turning over a table or throwing something at the guy is stuff that they may have gone over in their mind but expecting and being prepared are different things.

Also, what you said is that a few seconds to change magazines makes a real difference but waiting for police for a couple of minutes won't?

Obviously, I was speaking for myself and that I would rather wait a few moments for cops to arrive than to put my faith in some yahoo who doesn't know what they are doing.

In any scenario, I would put as much space between me and the gunman as possible...changing magazines allows people to escape because he's not firing the weapon while he's reloading.

What I said earlier is that the attacker is prepared for all the commotion.

College Quarterbacks often talk about not being prepared for noise...hard to imagine some "retard" or "clown" (your words) would be more prepared. Most are loners or social outcasts...and you're telling me that they are suddenly prepared to be the center of attention? Nonsense.

Well let me tell ya, if you were a student in a classroom with one door on the third floor, you can throw whatever you want, but you're going to die waiting for the police and I don't care how many times he installs a new magazine. Are you going to be the first one to rush that armed gunman? I doubt it, and I doubt anybody would be. They would just be praying to God---some for the first time in their lives. Me, I would definitely want another student or teacher with a firearm gunning the attacker down well before he points that gun at me.

A gunman who planned his course of action still isn't prepared enough, but victims who were stunned by such an attack would be by reacting heroically and tackling the attacker. LOL! You watch too many movies.

Thats just the point...thanks for making it for me yet again....

When you have 33 rounds in a Glock, you may not have a chance. You limit that to 5, and there are chances to rush the attacker. Its what stopped Laughtner out here from murdering more people that were there with Gabby Giffords. It's the only thing that stopped him....

And despite your illustration of showing how fast someone can re-load under perfect conditions, you're likely to have 3-5 seconds per re-load to move. Likely more since most of the "retards" and "clowns" are not as proficient at it as the guy in the video. IF anyone believes what he sees in the movies...its you silly.

Resistance to magazine sizes is just an idiotic spasm from a bunch of dorks who think that their inconvenience to having to re-load is more important than saving lives.

Well speaking of saving lives, what if I'm walking down a street and a gang of four guys attacks me? Think that 5 round magazine will save my life?

And because you have ONE instance where somebody got tackled (from behind) in a crowd, smaller clips will save the day?

You should go to the gun range sometime or at the very least, find somebody that owns guns and have him or her show you how easy it is to install a loaded magazine in a gun. And make sure you take a stopwatch with you. When you push the release button on the gun, you don't have to pull the used magazine out. It simply drops to the floor while at the same time you would be ready to install the loaded one. It takes less than two seconds for anybody to do--even you. And that two seconds won't help anybody because again, nobody is thinking of rushing a shooter in a shocking situation. All you can think about in those few seconds is staying alive.

California has a law limiting the size of magazines

in the latest terror attack

the terrorists did not care about the law

and used 30 round ones

Yes, but Adam Lanza wouldn't have had access to them via his mom's arsenal. Thus kids would likely still be alive due to this fact.

I know, those kids lives aren't worth you having to reload at the range...right?

 

[candycorn]

Well speaking of saving lives, what if I'm walking down a street and a gang of four guys attacks me? Think that 5 round magazine will save my life?

And because you have ONE instance where somebody got tackled (from behind) in a crowd, smaller clips will save the day?

Actually two for sure. Lanza and Laughner. I know, I know, since you weren't personally affected, you don't give two shits that someone's son or daughter may be alive today. Right?

You should go to the gun range sometime or at the very least, find somebody that owns guns and have him or her show you how easy it is to install a loaded magazine in a gun. And make sure you take a stopwatch with you. When you push the release button on the gun, you don't have to pull the used magazine out. It simply drops to the floor while at the same time you would be ready to install the loaded one. It takes less than two seconds for anybody to do--even you. And that two seconds won't help anybody because again, nobody is thinking of rushing a shooter in a shocking situation. All you can think about in those few seconds is staying alive.

So it's no inconvenience at all to people on the range? Great. So why the resistance?

PS: You forgot to add in the time it takes to re-aim and fire.

 

[Rustic]

Again, whether they want to live or die, bedlam is bedlam, someone turning off the lights unexpectedly, pulling the fire alarm unexpectedly, simply turning over a table or throwing something at the guy is stuff that they may have gone over in their mind but expecting and being prepared are different things.

Obviously, I was speaking for myself and that I would rather wait a few moments for cops to arrive than to put my faith in some yahoo who doesn't know what they are doing.

In any scenario, I would put as much space between me and the gunman as possible...changing magazines allows people to escape because he's not firing the weapon while he's reloading.

College Quarterbacks often talk about not being prepared for noise...hard to imagine some "retard" or "clown" (your words) would be more prepared. Most are loners or social outcasts...and you're telling me that they are suddenly prepared to be the center of attention? Nonsense.

Well let me tell ya, if you were a student in a classroom with one door on the third floor, you can throw whatever you want, but you're going to die waiting for the police and I don't care how many times he installs a new magazine. Are you going to be the first one to rush that armed gunman? I doubt it, and I doubt anybody would be. They would just be praying to God---some for the first time in their lives. Me, I would definitely want another student or teacher with a firearm gunning the attacker down well before he points that gun at me.

A gunman who planned his course of action still isn't prepared enough, but victims who were stunned by such an attack would be by reacting heroically and tackling the attacker. LOL! You watch too many movies.

Thats just the point...thanks for making it for me yet again....

When you have 33 rounds in a Glock, you may not have a chance. You limit that to 5, and there are chances to rush the attacker. Its what stopped Laughtner out here from murdering more people that were there with Gabby Giffords. It's the only thing that stopped him....

And despite your illustration of showing how fast someone can re-load under perfect conditions, you're likely to have 3-5 seconds per re-load to move. Likely more since most of the "retards" and "clowns" are not as proficient at it as the guy in the video. IF anyone believes what he sees in the movies...its you silly.

Resistance to magazine sizes is just an idiotic spasm from a bunch of dorks who think that their inconvenience to having to re-load is more important than saving lives.

Well speaking of saving lives, what if I'm walking down a street and a gang of four guys attacks me? Think that 5 round magazine will save my life?

And because you have ONE instance where somebody got tackled (from behind) in a crowd, smaller clips will save the day?

You should go to the gun range sometime or at the very least, find somebody that owns guns and have him or her show you how easy it is to install a loaded magazine in a gun. And make sure you take a stopwatch with you. When you push the release button on the gun, you don't have to pull the used magazine out. It simply drops to the floor while at the same time you would be ready to install the loaded one. It takes less than two seconds for anybody to do--even you. And that two seconds won't help anybody because again, nobody is thinking of rushing a shooter in a shocking situation. All you can think about in those few seconds is staying alive.

California has a law limiting the size of magazines

in the latest terror attack

the terrorists did not care about the law

and used 30 round ones

Yes, but Adam Lanza wouldn't have had access to them via his mom's arsenal. Thus kids would likely still be alive due to this fact.

I know, those kids lives aren't worth you having to reload at the range...right?

It's childish to blame the firearm, progressives are very predictable...

 

[Rustic]

Well speaking of saving lives, what if I'm walking down a street and a gang of four guys attacks me? Think that 5 round magazine will save my life?

And because you have ONE instance where somebody got tackled (from behind) in a crowd, smaller clips will save the day?

Actually two for sure. Lanza and Laughner. I know, I know, since you weren't personally affected, you don't give two shits that someone's son or daughter may be alive today. Right?

You should go to the gun range sometime or at the very least, find somebody that owns guns and have him or her show you how easy it is to install a loaded magazine in a gun. And make sure you take a stopwatch with you. When you push the release button on the gun, you don't have to pull the used magazine out. It simply drops to the floor while at the same time you would be ready to install the loaded one. It takes less than two seconds for anybody to do--even you. And that two seconds won't help anybody because again, nobody is thinking of rushing a shooter in a shocking situation. All you can think about in those few seconds is staying alive.

So it's no inconvenience at all to people on the range? Great. So why the resistance?

PS: You forgot to add in the time it takes to re-aim and fire.

Cry me a river, you're just another control freak.

You're very predictable

 

[Flash]

[Qhat is wrong with you people?

See douche...I asked you a question. You apparently do not know what that means. It's a lot of fun to let yourself point out how insipid you are. Feel free to answer, or not. I've had my fun for the day.

I did answer your question. I believe that Americans should have military style weapons and the crime should never be possession. The Supreme Court in the Miller case agrees with me.

You don't get to ask questions and not answer questions yourself.

I asked you point blank two different times why is it that an American should have to get permission from your beloved filthy ass government to enjoy a right enumerated in the Bill of Rights? You think you can answer that or are you going to continue to run from it?

I also asked you why is it that Americans are assumed to be guilty and have to prove themselves to be innocent through background checks? You ran from that question.

In addition to those two questions I asked you why is that you hate liberty and freedom and do not understand the Bill of Rights? What the fuck is your malfunction, Moon Bat?

 

[The Rabbi]

[

I find you humorous.

DO you think the public should have belt-fed weapons, attack choppers with missiles, or atomic weapons?

I find you to be a dumbass.

The public does have belt fed weapons. They are called Class III. With one exception many years ago when an off duty policeman used a Class III in a crime of passion there has never been a crime with one.

Unless you are a billionaire like Tom Steyer nobody could afford an attack chopper, missile or atomic weapon. Even if you could afford one most of those advanced weapon system are unavailable for purchase to the general public because they were developed under government contract. That is a silly point.

However, if you knew what you were talking about you would know from the Miller case that the Supreme Court has determine that the Second Amendment applies to military type weapons. They found against Miller because they (erroneously) determined that his sawed off shotgun was not used by the military so therefore the Second didn't apply. The military did in fact use sawed off shotguns in WWI.

The crime should never be the possession of a firearm. The crime should be the illegal use of the firearm.

I see that typical of a Moon Bat you ran away from the substantive point that I made. Why does an American have to get permission from the filthy ass government to enjoy a right enumerated in the Bill of Rights? If you have to get permission from the filthy ass government in the form of a background check then it really isn't a right, is it? It is what the filthy ass government is willing to give you not what you are entitled to. Isn't that against the concept of a Bill of Rights?

Speaking of rights how about the basic American concept that you innocent until proven guilty? Isn't the background check an assumption of guilt until the filthy ass government finds out that you are innocent?

Why are you Liberals so much afraid and against liberties? What is wrong with you people?

Not necessarily on the belt fed. There are belt fed semi autos and I think someone makes an AR upper that is belt fed.
But so what? How often are belt fed weapons used in crimes? People gripe about big magazines but the shooter in Aurora CO did everyone a favor by getting a 100rd drum magazine. The thing jammed on him, as they are wont to do. Had he used standard 30rd mags many more people would have died.