The Right To Bear Arms

[Brain357]

With as many of the cult of bloodbath aka muslims that are being forced on us in America. We can never stand down and be disarmed! Once they start going after Americans, they need a tri pattern in chest. If a serious disarming effort is attempted, every firearm needs to show up in Washington.

Where have you been? Did you notice the last attempt at gun control failed? It was far from taking guns away. Relax, don't be so paranoid.

Firearms are being taken away, little by little. And the criteria for being disqualified are some very minor reasons. Ever heard the frog and the pot of cold water story? It's all happening sorta like that.

Felons can't have guns. Been that way for a long time. You prefer armed criminals?

Misdemeanor charges of a family squabble can now bar you from firearms ownership. Keep up.

So you don't go shooting your wife like so often happens?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

With as many of the cult of bloodbath aka muslims that are being forced on us in America. We can never stand down and be disarmed! Once they start going after Americans, they need a tri pattern in chest. If a serious disarming effort is attempted, every firearm needs to show up in Washington.

Where have you been? Did you notice the last attempt at gun control failed? It was far from taking guns away. Relax, don't be so paranoid.

Firearms are being taken away, little by little. And the criteria for being disqualified are some very minor reasons. Ever heard the frog and the pot of cold water story? It's all happening sorta like that.

Felons can't have guns. Been that way for a long time. You prefer armed criminals?

Misdemeanor charges of a family squabble can now bar you from firearms ownership. Keep up.

So you don't go shooting your wife like so often happens?

Now you are being retarded.

 

[2aguy]

When will the confusing, poorly worded Second Amendment be updated to reflect modern reality?

I have a suggestion for rewording the 2nd amendment.....to reflect modern reality.....

"The Right to Keep and Bear arms is absolute.....and cannot be stopped by either local or federal government, and just because there are people who pretended to not understand the first iteration of this Amendment......let us be clear......people can own, carry and defend themselves with pistols and rifles, especially those used by the current military, but not excluding any others......and no treaties with foreign nations will stop this right......oh......and for those gun grabbers who will try to be clever.....ammo and equipment needed to operate pistols and rifles are off limits as well.....they carry the same protection as the pistols and rifles.....oh.......and again......for those who pretended not to understand the first attempt at this.........this does not mean for a militia....it is an absolute individual right.....get it......."


There....that may need some work, since the gun grabbers will weasle around just about anything you try to do to stop them....but we'll start with this....

So you want people to have machine guns?

anything civilian police have other civilians should be able to buy with nothing more than a background check. same with the standard issue individual infantry weapon. when we get to crew served heavy machine guns we are nearing the limit of arms that individuals KEEP and BEAR

So then you do think people should have fully automatic weapons? Just limit at heavy machine guns? Now that is remarkably stupid. Like criminals aren't already doing enough damage with semi autos and hi cap magazines. You want to give them machine guns. Our machine gun laws now work great. The gun nuts can get them but they are practically gone from crime. Only a real dope would want to change that.

If they want fully automatic military rifles Brain they will get them....for example....like the 3 muslim terrorists in France....the weapons they used are illegal in France, it is also against the law for them to have hand guns....they got both....and at least one of the guys was a convicted criminal, and still on a government anti terrorism watch list....and they still got fully automatic weapons......

Dittos mexico....military weapons are forbidden to law abiding Mexican citizens....the cartels have them as many as they want and need....

Puerto Rico....has the strictest gun control in the United States and it's territories...it is an island so you can't just drive illegal guns across the border....and it has the highest murder rate in the world......

Gun control only works for law abiding citizens....for example....not one journalist had a gun when they were killed by the muslim terrorists with illegal guns.....

 

[westwall]

So then you do think people should have fully automatic weapons? Just limit at heavy machine guns? Now that is remarkably stupid. Like criminals aren't already doing enough damage with semi autos and hi cap magazines. You want to give them machine guns. Our machine gun laws now work great. The gun nuts can get them but they are practically gone from crime. Only a real dope would want to change that.

I have a machine gun and have never used it in a crime.

Many of my shooting friends have legal Class III automatic weapons and none of them have ever used the firearms in a crime.

In fact there is only one recorded incident of anyone using a Class III machine gun in a crime and that was an off duty police and it was a crime of passion when he found his wife with another guy. He blasted his wife and the guy with his M-16 because he was damn mad.

There is nothing bad about American citizens having machine guns.

Criminals mostly use stolen or illegal handguns for crimes. Machine guns are not the weapon of choice for most criminals. In the case where criminals do use them, like in the drug wars, no law in the world is going to keep them out of the hands of the bad guys.

Libtards hate machine guns because it puts substantial power in the hands of the citizens. It allows them to be more effective against government tyranny. Unlike our founding fathers the Libtards wants the government to have all the power and not the citizens.

It was a Mac-10, not an M-16.

 

[2aguy]

So then you do think people should have fully automatic weapons? Just limit at heavy machine guns? Now that is remarkably stupid. Like criminals aren't already doing enough damage with semi autos and hi cap magazines. You want to give them machine guns. Our machine gun laws now work great. The gun nuts can get them but they are practically gone from crime. Only a real dope would want to change that.

1) yes-select fire carbines, machine pistols, and sub machine guns.

2) you are too stupid to understand that full automatic is usually less dangerous than semi auto

3) there has been NO crimes with legal machine guns in 80 years, banning ones made after May 19, 1986 was spiteful, unconstitutional and not base on any legitimate reason

4) if cops have them, that means Other civilians should have them

tell us moron

why do cops need machine guns?

Do cops have machine guns?

Do explain how a full auto is less dangerous than a semi auto. Maybe you can tell that to the guy training the young girl with the uzi...

Always with the name calling turtle. Why so childish all the time?

When did you become so pro criminal? They would love to have easy access to machine guns.

Most people can't hit the inside of a barn when they shoot a fully automatic weapon. The person taking rapid single shots is far more deadly. If you weren't such an ignorant twit you would know that.

true-automatic fire-suppress movement, break contact

single shots-inflict casualties

1989=Turtle doing demo for news chicks at a range north of Cincinnati

10 IPSC targets 1.5 yards apart-20 yards down range

turtle-one colt SMG 9mm32 round magazine

1) shot full auto-32 rounds in about 2 seconds-hit most of the targets

2) shot semi auto-one shot per target-all center of mass-less than 3 seconds-had 22 rounds left and all the targets were hit so as to normally be fatal in 75% of the cases

3) one shot per target-head shots-all targets hit in the head in less than 4 seconds-all guaranteed kills with 22 rounds left

4) one 10 shot semi auto shotgun loaded with federal tactical # 4 buckshot

less than 3 seconds-every target filled with at least 15 holes

full auto least "deadly"

I see what you ment now by "deadly". What applications do you see civilians needing a machine gun for? There is only about 230 criminals killed in defense each year. Based on the number of defenses that is already quite a low number. I don't think you can get much less deadly to criminals than that.

Fighting the government in the event it turns as evil as the governments in Europe did in the 1930s, or as evil and murderous as the Mexican drug cartels are now...with their allies in the police and Mexican military....or the people of Kenya might need them as boko haram murders them in their thousands as the Kenyan government sits there helpless.......

Mass murders have happened....to ignore it is to doom future generations from the easy living of today

 

[westwall]

So then you do think people should have fully automatic weapons? Just limit at heavy machine guns? Now that is remarkably stupid. Like criminals aren't already doing enough damage with semi autos and hi cap magazines. You want to give them machine guns. Our machine gun laws now work great. The gun nuts can get them but they are practically gone from crime. Only a real dope would want to change that.

I have a machine gun and have never used it in a crime.

Many of my shooting friends have legal Class III automatic weapons and none of them have ever used the firearms in a crime.

In fact there is only one recorded incident of anyone using a Class III machine gun in a crime and that was an off duty police and it was a crime of passion when he found his wife with another guy. He blasted his wife and the guy with his M-16 because he was damn mad.

There is nothing bad about American citizens having machine guns.

Criminals mostly use stolen or illegal handguns for crimes. Machine guns are not the weapon of choice for most criminals. In the case where criminals do use them, like in the drug wars, no law in the world is going to keep them out of the hands of the bad guys.

Libtards hate machine guns because it puts substantial power in the hands of the citizens. It allows them to be more effective against government tyranny. Unlike our founding fathers the Libtards wants the government to have all the power and not the citizens.

Thank you for providing examples of how our current laws on machine guns are working so well.

Before the current laws MG ownership was rare. After the laws went into effect the rate of ownership increased dramatically. Their use in crime was always low (even when unregulated) and has stayed low. Your pithy responses make you sound like a child.

 

[2aguy]

So then you do think people should have fully automatic weapons? Just limit at heavy machine guns? Now that is remarkably stupid. Like criminals aren't already doing enough damage with semi autos and hi cap magazines. You want to give them machine guns. Our machine gun laws now work great. The gun nuts can get them but they are practically gone from crime. Only a real dope would want to change that.

1) yes-select fire carbines, machine pistols, and sub machine guns.

2) you are too stupid to understand that full automatic is usually less dangerous than semi auto

3) there has been NO crimes with legal machine guns in 80 years, banning ones made after May 19, 1986 was spiteful, unconstitutional and not base on any legitimate reason

4) if cops have them, that means Other civilians should have them

tell us moron

why do cops need machine guns?

Do cops have machine guns?

Do explain how a full auto is less dangerous than a semi auto. Maybe you can tell that to the guy training the young girl with the uzi...

Always with the name calling turtle. Why so childish all the time?

When did you become so pro criminal? They would love to have easy access to machine guns.

Most people can't hit the inside of a barn when they shoot a fully automatic weapon. The person taking rapid single shots is far more deadly. If you weren't such an ignorant twit you would know that.

true-automatic fire-suppress movement, break contact

single shots-inflict casualties

1989=Turtle doing demo for news chicks at a range north of Cincinnati

10 IPSC targets 1.5 yards apart-20 yards down range

turtle-one colt SMG 9mm32 round magazine

1) shot full auto-32 rounds in about 2 seconds-hit most of the targets

2) shot semi auto-one shot per target-all center of mass-less than 3 seconds-had 22 rounds left and all the targets were hit so as to normally be fatal in 75% of the cases

3) one shot per target-head shots-all targets hit in the head in less than 4 seconds-all guaranteed kills with 22 rounds left

4) one 10 shot semi auto shotgun loaded with federal tactical # 4 buckshot

less than 3 seconds-every target filled with at least 15 holes

full auto least "deadly"

I see what you ment now by "deadly". What applications do you see civilians needing a machine gun for? There is only about 230 criminals killed in defense each year. Based on the number of defenses that is already quite a low number. I don't think you can get much less deadly to criminals than that.

You know the 230 number is probably too low.....when a homicide is changed from murder to justified by a prosecutor or the killer is found innocent in court, the FBI doesn't change the data....so that number is off....probably too low....but still pretty good considering that law abiding gun owners use their guns 1.6 million times a year to stop violent criminal attack and save lives....

 

[Flash]

Your pithy responses make you sound like a child.

That is why I didn't even bother to answer him.

 

[Flash]

It was a Mac-10, not an M-16.

It has been several years since I read the account of what happen. Excuse me for not having a good memory.

 

[Brain357]

When will the confusing, poorly worded Second Amendment be updated to reflect modern reality?

I have a suggestion for rewording the 2nd amendment.....to reflect modern reality.....

"The Right to Keep and Bear arms is absolute.....and cannot be stopped by either local or federal government, and just because there are people who pretended to not understand the first iteration of this Amendment......let us be clear......people can own, carry and defend themselves with pistols and rifles, especially those used by the current military, but not excluding any others......and no treaties with foreign nations will stop this right......oh......and for those gun grabbers who will try to be clever.....ammo and equipment needed to operate pistols and rifles are off limits as well.....they carry the same protection as the pistols and rifles.....oh.......and again......for those who pretended not to understand the first attempt at this.........this does not mean for a militia....it is an absolute individual right.....get it......."


There....that may need some work, since the gun grabbers will weasle around just about anything you try to do to stop them....but we'll start with this....

So you want people to have machine guns?

anything civilian police have other civilians should be able to buy with nothing more than a background check. same with the standard issue individual infantry weapon. when we get to crew served heavy machine guns we are nearing the limit of arms that individuals KEEP and BEAR

So then you do think people should have fully automatic weapons? Just limit at heavy machine guns? Now that is remarkably stupid. Like criminals aren't already doing enough damage with semi autos and hi cap magazines. You want to give them machine guns. Our machine gun laws now work great. The gun nuts can get them but they are practically gone from crime. Only a real dope would want to change that.

If they want fully automatic military rifles Brain they will get them....for example....like the 3 muslim terrorists in France....the weapons they used are illegal in France, it is also against the law for them to have hand guns....they got both....and at least one of the guys was a convicted criminal, and still on a government anti terrorism watch list....and they still got fully automatic weapons......

Dittos mexico....military weapons are forbidden to law abiding Mexican citizens....the cartels have them as many as they want and need....

Puerto Rico....has the strictest gun control in the United States and it's territories...it is an island so you can't just drive illegal guns across the border....and it has the highest murder rate in the world......

Gun control only works for law abiding citizens....for example....not one journalist had a gun when they were killed by the muslim terrorists with illegal guns.....

What you mean is if they are made easy to get again they will use them. Right now they are not.

 

[2aguy]

And, historically correct.

Really mass graves? There is a long list of countries where very few people have guns. They don't have mass graves. Sorry but it is silly. You obviously aren't looking at modern history.

Name them.

Denmark. Sweden. Netherlands. Australia....

Denmark and the Netherlands both lost thousands of people to the German death camps. Might want to check your history there. The aboriginals likewise suffered at the hands of those who were armed. Sweden is indeed one of the few countries that hasn't had a mass murderer take control but 16% of the population does indeed own guns, so they are not disarmed are they?

And that has what to do with how many guns they had? That was WWII. And since then there have been many countries with few guns in citizens hands living quite peaceful and happy.

For now......it only took Germany 20 years to go from the Weimar republic to the Death camps of hitler's Germany....20 years......and do you think the Germans of 1917 thought that in 20 years they would be gassing 6 million Jews and millions of other "undesirables".....they were probably like you guys.......never needed a gun so no one else needs one either.....and 20 years later you have 12 million dead......

 

[Brain357]

1) yes-select fire carbines, machine pistols, and sub machine guns.

2) you are too stupid to understand that full automatic is usually less dangerous than semi auto

3) there has been NO crimes with legal machine guns in 80 years, banning ones made after May 19, 1986 was spiteful, unconstitutional and not base on any legitimate reason

4) if cops have them, that means Other civilians should have them

tell us moron

why do cops need machine guns?

Do cops have machine guns?

Do explain how a full auto is less dangerous than a semi auto. Maybe you can tell that to the guy training the young girl with the uzi...

Always with the name calling turtle. Why so childish all the time?

When did you become so pro criminal? They would love to have easy access to machine guns.

Most people can't hit the inside of a barn when they shoot a fully automatic weapon. The person taking rapid single shots is far more deadly. If you weren't such an ignorant twit you would know that.

true-automatic fire-suppress movement, break contact

single shots-inflict casualties

1989=Turtle doing demo for news chicks at a range north of Cincinnati

10 IPSC targets 1.5 yards apart-20 yards down range

turtle-one colt SMG 9mm32 round magazine

1) shot full auto-32 rounds in about 2 seconds-hit most of the targets

2) shot semi auto-one shot per target-all center of mass-less than 3 seconds-had 22 rounds left and all the targets were hit so as to normally be fatal in 75% of the cases

3) one shot per target-head shots-all targets hit in the head in less than 4 seconds-all guaranteed kills with 22 rounds left

4) one 10 shot semi auto shotgun loaded with federal tactical # 4 buckshot

less than 3 seconds-every target filled with at least 15 holes

full auto least "deadly"

I see what you ment now by "deadly". What applications do you see civilians needing a machine gun for? There is only about 230 criminals killed in defense each year. Based on the number of defenses that is already quite a low number. I don't think you can get much less deadly to criminals than that.

You know the 230 number is probably too low.....when a homicide is changed from murder to justified by a prosecutor or the killer is found innocent in court, the FBI doesn't change the data....so that number is off....probably too low....but still pretty good considering that law abiding gun owners use their guns 1.6 million times a year to stop violent criminal attack and save lives....

It is from the FBI. Not going to find more accurate number. You mean mostly criminals defending themselves as kleck has admitted.

 

[2aguy]

If gun ownership was allowed for all law-abiding citizens, most people still wouldn't bother carrying one with them. But a few would. Often concealed.

And the best news is, someone contemplating committing a crime, would know there were no laws preventing nearly everyone in the crowd from carrying a gun in their pocket or purse. And he would know that most probably weren't carrying... and that a few people probably were. And he wouldn't know which ones they were.

So he would know that if he slugged an old lady and snatched her purse, he could expect a bullet from an unknown direction (or two). And there would be nothing he could do to prevent it, or to know which person in the crowd might fire the shot.

It's enough to make a criminal change jobs, and not commit the crime in the first place.

And that's the point.

If gun ownership is allowed for all law-abiding adults, many crimes won't get committed in the first place. And without a shot being fired. Without anyone having to pull their gun at all.

And that's the biggest benefit of gun ownership by all responsible adults.

So we have the most guns of any other country. Why do so many other countries with far fewer guns have lower crime rates? I don't think the number of guns really effects crime.

Because their criminals and nuts haven't decided to use guns to kill people......but as we have seen in Canada, Australia, France, when they do decide they want or need guns to kill people, none of their laws stop them......once Britain, Germany, France and the rest reach the point of saturation with muslim radicals....you will see an uptick in gun crime....since most of the gun crime in those countries already occurs in the parts of the country with immigrant communities......

 

[Brain357]

Really mass graves? There is a long list of countries where very few people have guns. They don't have mass graves. Sorry but it is silly. You obviously aren't looking at modern history.

Name them.

Denmark. Sweden. Netherlands. Australia....

Denmark and the Netherlands both lost thousands of people to the German death camps. Might want to check your history there. The aboriginals likewise suffered at the hands of those who were armed. Sweden is indeed one of the few countries that hasn't had a mass murderer take control but 16% of the population does indeed own guns, so they are not disarmed are they?

And that has what to do with how many guns they had? That was WWII. And since then there have been many countries with few guns in citizens hands living quite peaceful and happy.

For now......it only took Germany 20 years to go from the Weimar republic to the Death camps of hitler's Germany....20 years......and do you think the Germans of 1917 thought that in 20 years they would be gassing 6 million Jews and millions of other "undesirables".....they were probably like you guys.......never needed a gun so no one else needs one either.....and 20 years later you have 12 million dead......

Germany didnt go from a stable country with real voting rights to that. Name a country that has?

Won't happen in this modern time with cell phones, 24 hour news, Internet.... Our military is the best we have and would never go with any tyrant.

 

[Brain357]

If gun ownership was allowed for all law-abiding citizens, most people still wouldn't bother carrying one with them. But a few would. Often concealed.

And the best news is, someone contemplating committing a crime, would know there were no laws preventing nearly everyone in the crowd from carrying a gun in their pocket or purse. And he would know that most probably weren't carrying... and that a few people probably were. And he wouldn't know which ones they were.

So he would know that if he slugged an old lady and snatched her purse, he could expect a bullet from an unknown direction (or two). And there would be nothing he could do to prevent it, or to know which person in the crowd might fire the shot.

It's enough to make a criminal change jobs, and not commit the crime in the first place.

And that's the point.

If gun ownership is allowed for all law-abiding adults, many crimes won't get committed in the first place. And without a shot being fired. Without anyone having to pull their gun at all.

And that's the biggest benefit of gun ownership by all responsible adults.

So we have the most guns of any other country. Why do so many other countries with far fewer guns have lower crime rates? I don't think the number of guns really effects crime.

Because their criminals and nuts haven't decided to use guns to kill people......but as we have seen in Canada, Australia, France, when they do decide they want or need guns to kill people, none of their laws stop them......once Britain, Germany, France and the rest reach the point of saturation with muslim radicals....you will see an uptick in gun crime....since most of the gun crime in those countries already occurs in the parts of the country with immigrant communities......

Gun nuts sure jumped at the France tragedy fast.... Hypocricy?

 

[2aguy]

Do cops have machine guns?

Do explain how a full auto is less dangerous than a semi auto. Maybe you can tell that to the guy training the young girl with the uzi...

Always with the name calling turtle. Why so childish all the time?

When did you become so pro criminal? They would love to have easy access to machine guns.

Most people can't hit the inside of a barn when they shoot a fully automatic weapon. The person taking rapid single shots is far more deadly. If you weren't such an ignorant twit you would know that.

true-automatic fire-suppress movement, break contact

single shots-inflict casualties

1989=Turtle doing demo for news chicks at a range north of Cincinnati

10 IPSC targets 1.5 yards apart-20 yards down range

turtle-one colt SMG 9mm32 round magazine

1) shot full auto-32 rounds in about 2 seconds-hit most of the targets

2) shot semi auto-one shot per target-all center of mass-less than 3 seconds-had 22 rounds left and all the targets were hit so as to normally be fatal in 75% of the cases

3) one shot per target-head shots-all targets hit in the head in less than 4 seconds-all guaranteed kills with 22 rounds left

4) one 10 shot semi auto shotgun loaded with federal tactical # 4 buckshot

less than 3 seconds-every target filled with at least 15 holes

full auto least "deadly"

I see what you ment now by "deadly". What applications do you see civilians needing a machine gun for? There is only about 230 criminals killed in defense each year. Based on the number of defenses that is already quite a low number. I don't think you can get much less deadly to criminals than that.

You know the 230 number is probably too low.....when a homicide is changed from murder to justified by a prosecutor or the killer is found innocent in court, the FBI doesn't change the data....so that number is off....probably too low....but still pretty good considering that law abiding gun owners use their guns 1.6 million times a year to stop violent criminal attack and save lives....

It is from the FBI. Not going to find more accurate number. You mean mostly criminals defending themselves as kleck has admitted.

Brain....Kleck did not say self defense deaths are criminals fighting criminals....he most definitely said that back in the 90s when people had their rights violated to carry weapons for self defense, many of them did any way...and he didn't quantify how many of the 2.5 million were that situation anyway....so your using it is decietful.....they were not gang members or drug dealers just average citizens who needed to protect themselves.....and the 238 is not accurate...the FBI does not follow up on homicides and if they stay justifiable or not....so they don't change their numbers....

 

[2aguy]

Name them.

Denmark. Sweden. Netherlands. Australia....

Denmark and the Netherlands both lost thousands of people to the German death camps. Might want to check your history there. The aboriginals likewise suffered at the hands of those who were armed. Sweden is indeed one of the few countries that hasn't had a mass murderer take control but 16% of the population does indeed own guns, so they are not disarmed are they?

And that has what to do with how many guns they had? That was WWII. And since then there have been many countries with few guns in citizens hands living quite peaceful and happy.

Swedens numbers are current. The fact that they had no guns to defend themselves is the point. Funny how whenever a population is disarmed, imprisonment and death soon follow.

Soon follow? I think WWII might have been before gun control in those countries. And well they have been doing quite well ever since. That is hardly soon.

actually, no....Weimar Germany began taking away guns from people....and then the nazis faced disarmed Jews and dissenters when they started their rise to power...instead of facing Jewish business owners who could fight back, their brown shirts had free reign because they were younger, stronger, in greater numbers and more aggressive....everything that a gun will equalize.....if more Germans were armed then the brown shirts, much like our klan in the south, wouldn't have been as effective at beating their enemies into submission.....

 

[2aguy]

If gun ownership was allowed for all law-abiding citizens, most people still wouldn't bother carrying one with them. But a few would. Often concealed.

And the best news is, someone contemplating committing a crime, would know there were no laws preventing nearly everyone in the crowd from carrying a gun in their pocket or purse. And he would know that most probably weren't carrying... and that a few people probably were. And he wouldn't know which ones they were.

So he would know that if he slugged an old lady and snatched her purse, he could expect a bullet from an unknown direction (or two). And there would be nothing he could do to prevent it, or to know which person in the crowd might fire the shot.

It's enough to make a criminal change jobs, and not commit the crime in the first place.

And that's the point.

If gun ownership is allowed for all law-abiding adults, many crimes won't get committed in the first place. And without a shot being fired. Without anyone having to pull their gun at all.

And that's the biggest benefit of gun ownership by all responsible adults.

So we have the most guns of any other country. Why do so many other countries with far fewer guns have lower crime rates? I don't think the number of guns really effects crime.

Because their criminals and nuts haven't decided to use guns to kill people......but as we have seen in Canada, Australia, France, when they do decide they want or need guns to kill people, none of their laws stop them......once Britain, Germany, France and the rest reach the point of saturation with muslim radicals....you will see an uptick in gun crime....since most of the gun crime in those countries already occurs in the parts of the country with immigrant communities......

Gun nuts sure jumped at the France tragedy fast.... Hypocricy?

Gun nuts sure jumped at the France tragedy fast.... Hypocricy?

For myself...I got tired of sitting by out of respect for the victims and their families to just have anti gunner politicians jump in front of the first camera as the blood was still wet, to denounce gun owners.....no more......

 

[2aguy]

With as many of the cult of bloodbath aka muslims that are being forced on us in America. We can never stand down and be disarmed! Once they start going after Americans, they need a tri pattern in chest. If a serious disarming effort is attempted, every firearm needs to show up in Washington.

Where have you been? Did you notice the last attempt at gun control failed? It was far from taking guns away. Relax, don't be so paranoid.

But they never, ever stop......they will continue to fight for each and every gun, bullet and piece of equipment, so we have to be just as determined to stop them.......

 

[Brain357]

Most people can't hit the inside of a barn when they shoot a fully automatic weapon. The person taking rapid single shots is far more deadly. If you weren't such an ignorant twit you would know that.

true-automatic fire-suppress movement, break contact

single shots-inflict casualties

1989=Turtle doing demo for news chicks at a range north of Cincinnati

10 IPSC targets 1.5 yards apart-20 yards down range

turtle-one colt SMG 9mm32 round magazine

1) shot full auto-32 rounds in about 2 seconds-hit most of the targets

2) shot semi auto-one shot per target-all center of mass-less than 3 seconds-had 22 rounds left and all the targets were hit so as to normally be fatal in 75% of the cases

3) one shot per target-head shots-all targets hit in the head in less than 4 seconds-all guaranteed kills with 22 rounds left

4) one 10 shot semi auto shotgun loaded with federal tactical # 4 buckshot

less than 3 seconds-every target filled with at least 15 holes

full auto least "deadly"

I see what you ment now by "deadly". What applications do you see civilians needing a machine gun for? There is only about 230 criminals killed in defense each year. Based on the number of defenses that is already quite a low number. I don't think you can get much less deadly to criminals than that.

You know the 230 number is probably too low.....when a homicide is changed from murder to justified by a prosecutor or the killer is found innocent in court, the FBI doesn't change the data....so that number is off....probably too low....but still pretty good considering that law abiding gun owners use their guns 1.6 million times a year to stop violent criminal attack and save lives....

It is from the FBI. Not going to find more accurate number. You mean mostly criminals defending themselves as kleck has admitted.

Brain....Kleck did not say self defense deaths are criminals fighting criminals....he most definitely said that back in the 90s when people had their rights violated to carry weapons for self defense, many of them did any way...and he didn't quantify how many of the 2.5 million were that situation anyway....so your using it is decietful.....they were not gang members or drug dealers just average citizens who needed to protect themselves.....and the 238 is not accurate...the FBI does not follow up on homicides and if they stay justifiable or not....so they don't change their numbers....

He said most defenders are involved in criminal activity. That makes them criminals.