Why Do I Need More Than 10 Rounds?

[Daryl Hunt]

Because someday THIRTEEN shitlords might decide to smash their way into my house, that's why.

'I Could Die': Suspects Trash House During Md. Home Invasion

Two new future law abiding gun owners the left will hate

Loud crash at 3 am probably means the cows broke a gate. If I was stupid enough to live somewhere that I had to worry about people breaking into my house I would grab my shotgun. Middle of the night I want something that covers the widest area per shot, three feet per shot not a quarter of an inch.

Neither one of us are much of a Gun Grabber but by the definition of the Gun Crazies, we are gun grabbers, I guess. I agree. And there is nothing more chilling than the racking of a round into a Model 870 Remington. Makes every popgun shooter take notice and pause in the tracks.

 

[farmer]

Because someday THIRTEEN shitlords might decide to smash their way into my house, that's why.

'I Could Die': Suspects Trash House During Md. Home Invasion

Two new future law abiding gun owners the left will hate

Loud crash at 3 am probably means the cows broke a gate. If I was stupid enough to live somewhere that I had to worry about people breaking into my house I would grab my shotgun. Middle of the night I want something that covers the widest area per shot, three feet per shot not a quarter of an inch.

Neither one of us are much of a Gun Grabber but by the definition of the Gun Crazies, we are gun grabbers, I guess. I agree. And there is nothing more chilling than the racking of a round into a Model 870 Remington. Makes every popgun shooter take notice and pause in the tracks.

My old Harrington & Richardson 12 Guage is a single shot so it's pretty quite until I pull the trigger. Then I would have peoples attention.

 

[DOTR]

Because nowhere in the document that articulates that right does it say, "You have the right to firearms if you need them".

Rights can be taken away ... sometimes by force, sometimes by misguided philanthropic zeal.

But, in order to take away this right, you're going to have to remove the entire amendment from The Constitution. You won't be successful nibbling away at the right by misdirections about "need".

In fact our Christian forefathers called our rights "inalienable" and stated that they were "endowed by their creator".

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Because someday THIRTEEN shitlords might decide to smash their way into my house, that's why.

'I Could Die': Suspects Trash House During Md. Home Invasion

Two new future law abiding gun owners the left will hate

Loud crash at 3 am probably means the cows broke a gate. If I was stupid enough to live somewhere that I had to worry about people breaking into my house I would grab my shotgun. Middle of the night I want something that covers the widest area per shot, three feet per shot not a quarter of an inch.

Neither one of us are much of a Gun Grabber but by the definition of the Gun Crazies, we are gun grabbers, I guess. I agree. And there is nothing more chilling than the racking of a round into a Model 870 Remington. Makes every popgun shooter take notice and pause in the tracks.

My old Harrington & Richardson 12 Guage is a single shot so it's pretty quite until I pull the trigger. Then I would have peoples attention.

If I were armed with an AR you certainly would get my attention. I wouldn't know if it were a single shot, double barrel, pump or semi auto and taking the chance and be wrong would mean I would lose that gun fight. The crap that one needs 30 round mags in a high speed rifle with 4 backup mags to defend you home is just an accident waiting for a place and time to happen.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Because nowhere in the document that articulates that right does it say, "You have the right to firearms if you need them".

Rights can be taken away ... sometimes by force, sometimes by misguided philanthropic zeal.

But, in order to take away this right, you're going to have to remove the entire amendment from The Constitution. You won't be successful nibbling away at the right by misdirections about "need".

In fact our Christian forefathers called our rights "inalienable" and stated that they were "endowed by their creator".

Invoking the "Creator" has caused more trouble than any of us can imagine. The Creator burned witches at the stake, invaded entire countries, caused wars, strife, hunger and more. I have a God and He hasn't told me to do any of these things. Nor has he told me to arm myself to the teeth either.

 

[fncceo]

Nor has he told me to arm myself to the teeth either.

You're under no compulsion to do so. How one chooses to defend himself or his loved ones is a personal decision.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Nor has he told me to arm myself to the teeth either.

You're under no compulsion to do so. How one chooses to defend himself or his loved ones is a personal decision.

WWJS

 

[fncceo]

Nor has he told me to arm myself to the teeth either.

You're under no compulsion to do so. How one chooses to defend himself or his loved ones is a personal decision.

WWJS

You're asking the wrong Jewish boy. I thought that would have been obvious from my avatar.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Nor has he told me to arm myself to the teeth either.

You're under no compulsion to do so. How one chooses to defend himself or his loved ones is a personal decision.

WWJS

You're asking the wrong Jewish boy. I thought that would have been obvious from my avatar.

What would your Rabi say?

 

[farmer]

Hell I've got an old .22 that was from the 50s I wanna say it's a Springfield but I'm not sure. It holds 22 to 25 rounds in a tube magazine ,much more user friendly than one of those he-man ARs. No super tall front sight, banana clip or sling to get caught on things, just a simple efficient gun.Notice I said gun not weapon, I use them as a tool to keep the 4 legged varmints somewhat under control

 

[fncceo]

Nor has he told me to arm myself to the teeth either.

You're under no compulsion to do so. How one chooses to defend himself or his loved ones is a personal decision.

WWJS

You're asking the wrong Jewish boy. I thought that would have been obvious from my avatar.

What would your Rabi say?

The biblical injunction for self-defense and defense of family and property is pretty well defined for Jews. It's a big thumb's up from Hashem.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Nor has he told me to arm myself to the teeth either.

You're under no compulsion to do so. How one chooses to defend himself or his loved ones is a personal decision.

WWJS

You're asking the wrong Jewish boy. I thought that would have been obvious from my avatar.

What would your Rabi say?

The biblical injunction for self-defense and defense of family and property is pretty well defined for Jews. It's a big thumb's up from Hashem.

No more so than my Protestant background. But I doubt if the Hashem would go for wholesale slaughter anymore than Jesus. It's not God that is determining where to draw the line here, it's people. And none of it is Devine.

 

[fncceo]

But I doubt if the Hashem would go for wholesale slaughter

Who is advocating wholesale slaughter? We were discussing self-defense.

Straw man argument?

 

[fncceo]

And none of it is Devine.

I think you mean divine. Devine means to guess.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And none of it is Devine.

I think you mean divine. Devine means to guess.

Danged Speell Cheeker.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I just love all this posturing of the rightwinggunnutters. Notice how hard they try and twist and wind anything and everything. And as hard as they try (they are afterall nutcases) they are failing. They are just getting in the way as more people die needlessly. Everyone that disagrees even the slightest wants to ban all firearms. Anyone that disagrees slightly is a "(&()^% Liberal.....spit on floor", They fight the coming of the common sense firearms regulations tooth and nail. Well, cupcakes. enough people have died in the last couple of weeks even the Republicans are starting to talk about two items that need to be added to the National Firearms Regulations and those two are Universal Background Checks and Red Flag Laws. The more you block those two, the more needless death of innocents will continue.

Okay, you nutcases, we can never stop all the shootings. But what we can do is minimize them and when they do happen, minimize the body count. Ok, you Rexall Rangers, you want to look at it like Military? ALL Military Commanders look at the battle and find ways to minimize the body count of their own troops. In this case, as a Sillyvillian, we need to look at how to lower the body count of the Civilians. The shooting will still happen but what can we do to minimize the body count. You want to accept the possibility of a high body count because it might bother you a bit. Well, those families of those dead from that high body count are certainly bothered. You want to talk about your Constitutional Rights being infringed upon well you don't get any more infringed on than by being mowed down in a mass shooting that could have either been prevented or minimized. Rather than talk about your silliness, talk about the rights of the dead, wounded and traumatized of these mass shootings and how they can be either prevented or minmized. And don't say by arming everyone there. The Cops won't be able to identify the real shooter anymore than the armed crowd will. Present a real solution.

You're not going to minimize any body counts by making life for the law abiding more troublesome or blaming the inanimate object, which is what every one of the gun grabbers do.

You are still no help. Try again. This time, without the nonsense. Do I sound like a gungrabber? You mean you can't carry on a reasonable conversation with me?

What do you propose that you consider common-sense gun laws?

I've already said what I thought. It's your turn. What do YOU consider as common-sense gun laws? And the response of "No Gun Laws" doesn't cut it when over 80% of the population would disagree. Be reasonable.

We already have common-sense gun laws nothing else is needed.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You're not going to minimize any body counts by making life for the law abiding more troublesome or blaming the inanimate object, which is what every one of the gun grabbers do.

You are still no help. Try again. This time, without the nonsense. Do I sound like a gungrabber? You mean you can't carry on a reasonable conversation with me?

What do you propose that you consider common-sense gun laws?

I've already said what I thought. It's your turn. What do YOU consider as common-sense gun laws? And the response of "No Gun Laws" doesn't cut it when over 80% of the population would disagree. Be reasonable.

If 80% of the population was good with legalizing looting, would you also demand that we needed "common sense" looting laws, to keep it all safe and orderly?

So what you are saying is that you only want to complain, not work on solutions. So be it. We'll do it without you while we ignore you.

You are wanting a solution to a problem that already has been fixed?

 

[fncceo]

We'll do it without you while we ignore you.

You can try.

But, no matter how much your try to whip up hysteria about evil guns, Democrats have gone done in flames for trying to force gun control measures on Americans.

Demonizing hardware and law-abiding Americans has never worked out for your and, frankly, I'm a bit surprised that some in the party continue to beat their heads against that particular wall.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I just love all this posturing of the rightwinggunnutters. Notice how hard they try and twist and wind anything and everything. And as hard as they try (they are afterall nutcases) they are failing. They are just getting in the way as more people die needlessly. Everyone that disagrees even the slightest wants to ban all firearms. Anyone that disagrees slightly is a "(&()^% Liberal.....spit on floor", They fight the coming of the common sense firearms regulations tooth and nail. Well, cupcakes. enough people have died in the last couple of weeks even the Republicans are starting to talk about two items that need to be added to the National Firearms Regulations and those two are Universal Background Checks and Red Flag Laws. The more you block those two, the more needless death of innocents will continue.

Okay, you nutcases, we can never stop all the shootings. But what we can do is minimize them and when they do happen, minimize the body count. Ok, you Rexall Rangers, you want to look at it like Military? ALL Military Commanders look at the battle and find ways to minimize the body count of their own troops. In this case, as a Sillyvillian, we need to look at how to lower the body count of the Civilians. The shooting will still happen but what can we do to minimize the body count. You want to accept the possibility of a high body count because it might bother you a bit. Well, those families of those dead from that high body count are certainly bothered. You want to talk about your Constitutional Rights being infringed upon well you don't get any more infringed on than by being mowed down in a mass shooting that could have either been prevented or minimized. Rather than talk about your silliness, talk about the rights of the dead, wounded and traumatized of these mass shootings and how they can be either prevented or minmized. And don't say by arming everyone there. The Cops won't be able to identify the real shooter anymore than the armed crowd will. Present a real solution.

You're not going to minimize any body counts by making life for the law abiding more troublesome or blaming the inanimate object, which is what every one of the gun grabbers do.

You are still no help. Try again. This time, without the nonsense. Do I sound like a gungrabber? You mean you can't carry on a reasonable conversation with me?

What do you propose that you consider common-sense gun laws?

I've already said what I thought. It's your turn. What do YOU consider as common-sense gun laws? And the response of "No Gun Laws" doesn't cut it when over 80% of the population would disagree. Be reasonable.

We already have common-sense gun laws nothing else is needed.

Not quite but many states are very close. Some are a bit overboard. Colorado is very, very close now. Until the other states that are very, very lax join in, the states with the common sense firearms regulations are just pissing into the wind. This is why the Feds are looking into the Red Flag and Universal Background Checks. That laxness flows over state lines.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You are still no help. Try again. This time, without the nonsense. Do I sound like a gungrabber? You mean you can't carry on a reasonable conversation with me?

What do you propose that you consider common-sense gun laws?

I've already said what I thought. It's your turn. What do YOU consider as common-sense gun laws? And the response of "No Gun Laws" doesn't cut it when over 80% of the population would disagree. Be reasonable.

If 80% of the population was good with legalizing looting, would you also demand that we needed "common sense" looting laws, to keep it all safe and orderly?

So what you are saying is that you only want to complain, not work on solutions. So be it. We'll do it without you while we ignore you.

You are wanting a solution to a problem that already has been fixed?

Tell that to the families of the slain students.