2A MEGA thread - 2nd Edition
With a new governor in office, it seems like we are yet again in the sights of anti-gun politicians who have no fear in attempting to break our constitutional rights.
http://nj.gov/governor/news/news/562018/approved/20180126b_handgun-permits.shtml
Any light we saw with concealed carry under Christie will be swept away like dust on the floor.
Darrin 
LJRubi JR - he’s giving you numerous chances to turn in your firearms before he turns you into a felon - mandatory gun buy back events are being established
http://bulletsfirst.net/2018/01/04/nj-moves-make-gun-buyback-events-mandatory/
Skippy 
JeffersonRepub I actually think justifiable need, if requiring proof of an actual threat, is too much, especially if penalties for gun crimes are not substantial. Like, well that guy is never gonna do that again (because when getting out if jail he’s too old).
Likewise, free access to cc is too much in the other direction imo. Is there sonething in between; was that Christie’s solution?
What’s wrong with a buyback plan? Don’t you want your own junker entitlement program?
Strangerdanger Can you own NFA firerarms in a trust ? The state police superintendent would need to sign off but that may be an option - other option is create a trust in PA
pending legislation - I cant post all of the links due to the HL URL cap. if anyone is interested and cant find it please reply or PM me.
Federal:
Progun
HR 38: national CCW reciprocity, would force NJ to accept out of state CCW licenses.
Passed House, now in Senate Judiciary Comittee
HR 3576: Second Amendment Guarantee Act, would prohibit state and local AWBs using interstate commerce clause.
S 446: national CCW reciprocity, the Senate companion bill to HR 38
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antigun
HR 3962 Stop online ammunition sales act, would require all ammunition to be purchased in face to face transactions.
HR 2380 Handgun trigger safety act, would mandate that all new handguns nationally be "smart guns"
HR 3999 Amendment to Title 18, "Bumpstock" ban. Would ban anything which would "increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but does not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun" (dangerously vague).
HR 3947 Automatic gunfire prevention act, "Bumpstock" ban, would ban anything that would "accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun" (dangerously vauge).
S 2095 Assault weapons ban, would ban certain firearms based on their names and cosmetic features.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ State:
Progun
A145: Internal law enforcement guidelines for the processing of firearms permit applications will be subject to public records requests.
A116: Repeals "smartgun" law (would have required all new handguns sold in NJ be "smartguns" after such devices became commercially available).
A505: Exempts BB guns from the state definition of "firearm".
A1286: Makes Permits to Purchase a Handgun valid for 4 years after issuance.
A1386: Changes New Jersey CCW permits from a May-Issue system to a Shall-Issue system, sets forth new training criteria to qualify for a permit.
A1901: Requires the state police create brochure summarizing NJ tansport laws, requires the MVC to make this brochure available to individuals registering cars from out of state.
Antigun:
S3477: Bans the possession of "bumpstocks" and any devices "designed to attach to a semi-automatic firearm in order to fire shots in rapid succession in a manner that simulates an automatic firearm".
PASSED: Signed into law by Gov. Christie.
A248: Prohibits those on the federal terrorist watch list from obtaining an FPID card or Pistol Purchase Permit.
A665: Magazine capacity restriction, reduces maximum legal detachable magazine capacity to 5 rounds. No grandfather clause.
A1098: Requires newly sold handguns possess micro-stamping, establishes separate handgun registry (in addition to already existing purchase registry).
A1894: Increases fee for FPID cards from $72.05 to $97.05. Requires color photo on FPID cards, permits to purchase handgun, and permits to carry handgun. WOULD VOID CURRENTLY HELD FPID CARDS, REQUIRE ALL HOLDERS REAPPLY.
A2078: Adds training requirement for FPID card application. Applicants must complete a 4 hour class focusing on firearms safety with a curriculum approved by the state police superintendent.
S102: Magazine capacity restriction, reduces maximum legal detachable magazine capacity to 10 rounds, reduces maximum integral magazine capacity to 10 rounds for center-fire rifles. No grandfather clause.
S547: Restricts sale of Shotgun and Rifle ammunition to those that present a valid FPID card or Pistol Purchase Permit. Potentially bans online ammunition sales.
S548: broadens assault weapons ban, restricts firearms to zero banned features, adds thumbhole stocks, forward grips, and muzzle breaks[sic] to banned features list. Bans many currently legal rifles. No grandfather clause.
S563: Broadens state definition of "destructive device", bans all rifles with a caliber of .50 or greater, bans all firearms with a muzzle energy in excess of 12,000 ft/lbs regardless of caliber (for reference, .50bmg M2 ball has a muzzle energy of ~11,500 ft/lbs out of a rifle).
S793: Prohibits manufacture, sale, and possession of 3D printed "undetectable" firearms.
S1200: Universal background checks for long guns. Requires all sales of long guns go through an FFL, requires all long gun buyers undergo a NICS check.
If you wish to view all proposed state guns and weapons legislation go to the New Jersey Legislature's website and search for bills under the subject of PUBLIC SAFETY - WEAPONS.
"I liked the people on the other 2A thread better."
Don't worry, I'm on this one too.
Mark Mc. Well SD - The gun buyback program on top of being mandatory will also draw another $2 Million from taxpayers. You cool with that?
Not worried and depends on the results of the program skippy.
But of course, the question of whether you would like a junker entitlement program remains unanswered. As is your way.
Skippy, how many times does he have to say it? "if it saves JUST ONE life..."
I wish they had buy backs down here...
Option A: Find the most beat ass piece of crap and turn it in for gift cards (to offset the cost of a new gun or ammo... at taxpayers expense).
Option B: Stand outside and offer people double for the good stuff. They get $50 or so more than they expected, and I get a great deal!
Now for some math... if that $2M is divided across $50 gift cards, that would be 40,000 guns. Which is less than one day's sales (across the country) for new guns. But we know that nowhere near 40,000 guns are turned in at these things, so it's basically $1.9M of useless overtime for the police and a handful of broken BB guns "off the streets".
They don’t work to reduce gun violence and the state now owns a bunch of garbage they have to melt down or make into reefs - that’s why the NJ attorney general doesn’t run them that often.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/12/gun-buybacks-popular-but-ineffective/1829165/
No - I don’t think the government should operate a cash for junk guns program it’s a waste. Why would you advocate throwing away taxpayer money on a program that has been repeatedly proved ineffective? Is it because it serves your agenda.. Feels are more important than real right SD?
I agree with Mark....I think they are great.....any broken POS guns I can get money for as opposed to destroying them and throwing them out is a good thing.....plus the line is a great place to buy....go ahead waste tax payer money! And yes, it does absolutely nothing..... IMO 90% of the guns getting turned in would never/ COULD never be used in a crime......I certainly wouldn't expect to see any gang banger running up to turn in their glock for a gift card....and there is certainly no $2000 AR's getting turned in........
Here’s a beauty for you guys
https://www.npr.org/2013/01/15/169439243/newtown-prompts-gun-buybacks-but-do-they-work
Btw NPR says they don’t work
Hah, that's a little over the top for me... not a big fan of fancy engraving.
One of these is on my eventual shopping list though...
You like the Ruger over the kimber? Gonna get it in .45 ACP? There definitely great shooters but don’t like carrying “cocked and locked”.
Just got Mrs. skippy a Walter CCP - I tell her it looks like a high point lol - she is not pleased
Yeah that is kinda High Point-ish... probably weighs about 8 pounds less, though.
How could you get a 1911 in anything but .45? That's sacrilegious...
Nothing against Kimber. I'll cross-shop for sure, and it won't be a carry gun so I could lean towards the "nicer" gun.
Yeah it’s only 20oz. - and agreed about the 1911 caliber but some folks do get them in 9.
If you are looking to compete in IDPA / IPSC they have different requirements.
https://www.personaldefenseworld.com/2017/07/kimber-1911-pistols/
I can’t see dropping $1700 on something that only eats ball ammo but that’s me lol
For sure - I was just teasing but the original colts were pretty much limited to ball ammo. You had to send it to a competent smith for a little feed ramp work to get them to feed reliably. They all come with the polished feed ramps now
Here’s an example of the feed ramp fix
https://youtu.be/qA6iMGQ5a2Y
Sure, ball ammo, no wonder....
Think the going rate in NJ is 500,000 for 5,000 guns or $100 a gun. While most "experts" deem these unsuccessful, they must have some success if Mark and other VG's (vulture gunnies) wait on the fence to try to cherry pick buybacks to get a deal and put the gun back on the street. Nice.
When it comes to success or not, most of these buybacks do require the guns to be operational at least. Payment plans can help where you pay more for the "good stuff" and less for the junkers. That might keep VGMark home too. It can help and, nowadays, if you're worried about the value versus your tax dollar, the potential to private fund these things is possible also ---- which is how NJ should do it. Have the govt. spend our time and our money getting others to fund. Call it Project Snowflake Search. And then the govt can help them implement in a successful fashion and provide the PR so they can take credit for it too. Then you would have precious little to whine about re tax expense which would be a good thing too.
Here's the tally from a recent NJ version: looks like some good stuff left the street here, as well as the junkers. It can be done, it can be useful, but you are correct that the price-per-unit versus the units true value must be aligned. Otherwise indeed it's a waste of taxpayer dollars or even PSS dollars.
Since at the Federal level you are already in favor of wasting taxpayer dollars on a yuge scale, you really should address this given your blind spot to tax dollar waste on a national level.
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/08/heres_what_people_turned_in_at_njs_biggest_ever_gu.html
Written in 1777: A small arm, loaded via cartridge, to discharge one after another, twenty in five seconds time. The 2nd amendment was written with full knowledge of semi-automatic rifles - there goes that narrative.
Also, there was the Girandoni Air Rifle in 1779.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle
20-round "magazine" and two spare air cylinders. Could fire 30 times on one cylinder, effective to ~125 yards.
Circumstantial anecdotes.
Have you seen Da Vinci's 1400's Gatling gun which proves the founding fathers knew about automatics before they wrote the 2A.
And helicopters, airplanes, and time travel.....
No I don’t know how to trome travel. But I know a guy who knows a guy who tld him about it and that’s good enough proof for you gents :-)
Hey we really can’t talk anymore. Every time we do, I get bumped off for a day. Therefore, it must be your fault. :-)
Glad someone read the prime rant; certainly one of my better pieces of sillyness.
Someone not feeling the sunshine state?
Nra sues against states rights.
Heh heh.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/03/08/us/florida-gun-bill.html?partner=IFTTT&referer=
Did you read it? It also allows teachers to be armed. In any regard the minimum age requirement was upheld in NY and CA - I think unless they’re willing to go to SCOTUS this is sticking.
Well I applaud you for using the Times you little devil you. What interesting reading material --- Russian right wing blogosphere's and the Times --- quite some range!
"Did you read it?"....Yes? Did it say what said after you read it and asked me if I did. Did is say, as you said: "Arm the teachers" --- well, no. Actually it said specifically that teachers would not be armed. Did you read it? For those of us who did, it says: "Specifically, the bill would create a $67 million “marshal” program under which certain employees — including counselors, coaches and librarians, but not full-time classroom teachers — could be trained and armed" or if you want to see the full provision, try: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/05/us/guns-florida-schools-teachers.html linked in your same story, for those of us who read, he said snarkily :>)
Further, it's really up to local Sheriffs and School Administrators so it's not really over yet until they decide. Ah, state-wide program controlled by Sheriffs (aren't they the guys who provided security at Parkland?) and School Superintendents (now there's some seal-6 level talent.). How the type of guns is chosen and who actually pays for it and buys them are seemingly open? "Hello, my name is Superintendent Smith and I would like a hundred Glocks please."
But wait, there's more....just for fun, use the $67M for training (and remember this is FL, the NRA darling no-control state and foster home to Eddie the Eagle), times 50 (we'll leave out DC, PR and the like) and you get $3.4B for 50 states worth of FL training. Granted some of the smart ones like NY, CA, and NJ might spend more and some of the others like the Carolinas might just have Eddie do a flyover :>)
And before any hardening of the schools, it's about 5% of our welfare payments so maybe not a bad deal in the scheme of things.
Happy reading.......
All raising the minimum age proves is that at 18 kids are not ready for adulthood....hmmm...parenting isn't as good as it used to be I guess, but laws will fix that!
Justintime Humor, I like it when it works :>)
Hey Darrin, you're next to fix this parenting thing, good luck. Rule one: consistency. If you're gonna be upset about the age thing, perhaps you should have raised your voice over cigarettes, alcohol, and the other incredibly dangerous things that guns are now considered part of in FL. I mean too dangerous for teachers; librarians and custodians can handle that heat. Or maybe think twice before leaving kids behind with the wife whilst you go sporting away needlessly endangering your kid's breadwinner :>) Is your life insurance and long term disability paid up?
Seriously, it's only purchase. Parents can still buy them for sonny boy's pleasure. Not that yuge an encumbrance.
The NRA lost on this one. Not big time, but we'll take any progress.
ok - snarky man lol.
McDonald v. Chicago incorporated the 2nd Amendment against the states. Interstate commerce is irrelevant here, states are not allowed to infringe the 2A any more than the federal government is.
Otis McDonald, et al. v. City of Chicago, Illinois, et al. 561 U.S. 742 (more) 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 " the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" as protected under the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states"
So unless SCOTUS is prepared to reverse their decision in Heller and McDonald, they will see prohibiting 18-20 year olds from purchasing any type of firearm from an FFL as an effective ban on their 2A rights.
my comment still stands - if the NRA is willing to fight this to SCOTUS this law will be found to be unconstitutional.
here is what Scott signed. Nothing in CS/SB 7026 changes the age to posses a firearm - only to purchase a long gun - oh and bans bump stocks..
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2018/07026/?Tab=BillHistory
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2018/7026/BillText/er/HTML
if this "feel-good" legislation makes you feel safer - awesome. nothing much has changed.
Skippy - where are the details on NY and CA raising age limits?
I thought NY was still 18 and CA hasn’t yet passed the proposed bill.
If anything, it’s good that those 3 states (with FL) are in different districts. Makes it more likely for a split that the SCOTUS would review.
talking about NYC - everything is 21 see permit application below
http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/permits/rifle_shotgun_permit_application_rev_10_16.pdf
LA has similar restrictions.
Ah, not state law then.
Their logic is probably “You don’t *need* to live in NYC / LA so this isn’t a violation of your rights” or some such non-sense.
On a separate note, let them have their liberal s***tholes. You couldn’t pay me enough to live in either of those cities. I’m sure the gangs have all their permits in order though?
Yeah lol - and it’s a municipal ordinance which means they can pretty much do whatever
" let them have their liberal s***tholes" Are you just being funny or are you really this ignorant? I mean just because NYC leans left, so far left they often vote Republicans in as mayor, that you write them off because they are too liberal for you? Have you really never been to NYC or LA?
Are you really scared of this: "Crime in New York City Plunges to a Level Not Seen Since the 1950s" https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/27/nyregion/new-york-city-crime-2017.html
What safe state are you from? Because if it's the Carolina's, I think the NYC murder rate is lower than where you live.
Stymie Fact check....."NYC leans left, so far left they often vote Republicans in as mayor"
https://www.nga.org/cms/home/governors/past-governors-bios/page_new_york.default.html?begin8af4a665-17d2-4fcb-b264-3428baa53ff2=0&end8af4a665-17d2-4fcb-b264-3428baa53ff2=9&pagesize8af4a665-17d2-4fcb-b264-3428baa53ff2=10&
The last republican govenor was 1995-2007...way before all this liberal b.s. really sparked up
Before that 1959 - 1975 was republican......far from "often" as this was all prior to "gun laws" and "NY safe acts"
In 100 years, NY has had 5 republican mayors as opposed to 9 Democrat mayors
Yeah, Mark Mc.
You live in one of those "shining cities on a hill" - Hackettstown
Please get over yourself...
There’s more dislike about liberal cities (or states) than just crime rates, such as high taxes/cost of living and believing that more government is the solution to everything.
Also regardless of the crime rate, I’d rather live in a state that lets you defend yourself. Note that “occurrence” is only one factor in a proper risk assessment. Reducing the “severity” is just as (if not more) important to define the overall impact of the risk. Criminals won’t care about statistics when they’re breaking down your door, but the barrel of a 12 gauge on the other side is a bit more persuasive. Guess what... when that happens here the homeowner (I.e. victim) isn’t the one that gets charged.
Stymie - If you haven’t heard, I left NJ 2 1/2 years ago. Shining or not, I can afford a heck of a lot more hill down here.
White House vows to help arm teachers and backs off raising age for buying guns
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-vows-to-help-arm-teachers-and-backs-off-raising-age-for-buying-guns/2018/03/11/14da0c8e-253a-11e8-bc72-077aa4dab9ef_story.html
HALLAHUAH!!
Aww...... is the MSM throwing their own under the bus...again? This one seems to be losing steam...(not that there was truly much steam there to begin with, that's just what the MSM does)...
Tic,tic,tic....
Movement is not going away
You know it
I know it
We ALL know it.
"It matters not how quickly one moves, as long as one is always moving forward".
HALLAHUAH!
The administration's views are based on who was in the room last with our supreme leader. What they say doesn't count for much; no one believed his initial statements. He hadn't been told what to say by the NRA yet.
"Aww...... is the MSM throwing their own under the bus...again? This one seems to be losing steam...(not that there was truly much steam there to begin with, that's just what the MSM does)..." This has got to be one of the most delusional conclusions based on the facts. I mean it's MSM tossing things about over Stormy Daniels, Seychelles, NK meeting, UAE buys Kushner, Trump buys Daniel's through lawyer's home equity loan, Foreigner's buy Trump lodging whenever they visit DC, Panama pulls his name from yet another failing Tower, Kushner running his business from West Wing meets for the people - gets $250M loan instead, Pres tells people "jokingly" how the Chinese President-for-life is a good idea, is MSM driven? I believe most Americans know where the buck stops by this point and it ain't with the MSM. How does that grope you? That's just the last ten days or so.
What I am impressed by is your ability to move the values line so far for this guy. I honestly do believe that he "could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters," yeah, I do believe you are delusional enough in your reading of the facts to be one of those guys. The right has lost it's moral compass and sits in the valley after taking the low road since 2016.
"The right has lost it's moral compass and sits in the valley after taking the low road since 2016". That's 23 years after the left lost it's moral compass in 1993. That's a long time to catch up.
auntiel "The right has lost it's moral compass"
I was going to say.... but Auntiel beat me to it!! LOL
Ah, you have got to love watching those right-wing gears move to rationalize our current administration.
You're probably right, we were probably first once again. You are last and now you joyfully follow us down into the morality morass without even a sly wink because, deep in your heart, you know that all the bad, bad things we do are good for you to do as well as long as we go first.
And now, according to you, you are taking a long time to catch up showing again that it's OK to be morally corrupt as long as the other guy started it but that you have great difficulty in even getting that done.
Great. No loss of your moral compass there.
Which leftist politician had his lawyer take out a $130K home equity loan laundering bill to pay off the hooker he was seeing? I mean Clinton paid $850K to Jones, but that was above the table so that does not count?
Which leftist politician met with the Russians in the Seychelles to set up a backchannel around the US Intelligence community?
Which leftist politician works in the West Wing taking loans from visitors there?
Which leftist politician had a fleet of workers without proper security clearance?
Should I continue???????
Moral of the story for our kids: Yes, Johnny, if Billy does bad things he gives you the right to do it too. That's what makes it right to be right; letting the left lead by example. Makes we want to grope someone ASAP :>)
Moral compass?????
Lol every Republicrat condones the forceful taking of property! Left or right matters not one bit!!!!
A coworker said something today that really made me think....
these liberals are comparing Trump to Hitler....YET want him to take away guns.....just like Hitler did.....hmmmmm.....seriously?
New stats by the Secret Service show in 2017, 72% of mass attacks in the US are 14 minutes or less. Average police response time to arrive on scene is 10 minutes. 75% of attacks are stopped by the perpetrator deciding to stop, only 18% by law enforcement.
Supreme court has upheld that police departments do not have the duty to protect citizens. Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)
https://www.secretservice.gov/data/press/releases/2018/18-MAR/USSS_NTAC-Mass_Attacks_in_Public_Spaces-2017.pdf
yawn, we get it..
In God's world with or without guns, you choose everyone should carry a gun.
We get it; move on.
SD....this is the 2A thread....not the parkland thread.....this is what we talk about....you move on!
No....you...
No, really we get it. Everyone should have a gun on them at all times. Message received.
Of course we don't have to, but should we?
Is it not your recommendation that we always be armed, if possible?
I mean all the statistics you display seem to lean that way; didn't Skippy basically say it's fast and no police will ever help you in that time? I mean if good guys never miss, and police never get there in time, wouldn't 100% armed be our nirvana?
Do whatever you want SD...if that’s your take, go for it.....oh wait....you live in NJ...so you CAN’T!!
Case in point.
I don’t tell people who dislike guns they should have them...I only tell them to leave the people who DO have them alone, and justify the question of why own with proven factual information.
Thank you for your acceptance, but you sidestepped the question.
I know what you do, I know what you say I can do, but what do you recommend folks do to be safe?
I mean you pack a gun for safety, even when walking the dog, so what would you recommend to others? I know, do what you want, and, of course. But what would you recommend --- gun, no gun, or something else?
I would recommend competent and sober persons carry a firearm at all times and places it is lawful to do so.
Come on skippy - everybody knows that "dog walking time" is specifically excluded in the schedule sections of the Bear Attack and Burglary & Assault Handbooks. It wouldn't be very nice of them to not follow the rules now, would it?
Agreed - just a reminder the YouTube shooter was an alt-left liberal and PETA activist. Alt-left activists have shot more people than NRA members this year. Maybe this is a case of reflection.
Have any of them been NRA members?
(The only association I can even think of is the guy that shot BACK at the Sutherland Springs attacker is an NRA member/instructor.)
"Alt-left activists have shot more people than NRA members this year. "
EVERY shooter has shot more people than NRA members... and what I'm about to quote was an NRA member attempting to STOP a mass shooter...
"The only known NRA member actually involved with a mass shooting was Stephen Williford, a NRA-certified instructor who shot mass shooter Devin Kelley in an exchange of fire after Kelley emerged from the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas. Williford was not able to save the people in the church due to the amount of time it took him to respond but by the time sheriff’s deputies arrived at the church, he and Johnnie Langendorff had already left in pursuit of Kelley. The pursuit led to Kelley’s crashing and subsequent suicide. Law enforcement officers arrived on that scene after Kelley had shot himself."
"Alt-left activists have shot more people than NRA members this year. Maybe this is a case of reflection." At first I was going to ask for the source, but realized Skipster is pulling things from out of that place again.......Come on Skippy, that's not even a bit funny.
I do appreciate that you have the spine to say: "I would recommend competent and sober persons carry a firearm at all times and places it is lawful to do so" and that your other brothers in residential arms don't. I also, based on past accounts, that you would expand "places it is lawful to do so" to almost every venue in America, if you could. What a fu'd place your America is.
If that's America, I prefer the Dodge Deadline approach. Lots of walls, everywhere.
Unintended outcomes of fear, loathing in America. So sad.
@SD “I know what you do, I know what you say I can do, but what do you recommend folks do to be safe? ”
There is no side stepping, you just don’t want to hear it....I recommend people do whatever they are comfortable with....I don’t tell others what to do, but if they have interest in guns, but are unsure, I will surely be here to help them learn how to safely operate a gun.
I just made it up but here you go
https://www.quora.com/Of-the-last-mass-shootings-in-the-US-how-many-shooters-were-known-to-be-NRA-members-and-how-many-of-the-weapons-used-were-legally-owned-by-the-shooters
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/28/nra-confirms-it-has-no-re_n_2972762.html
and I did not throw the gauntlet down on that @michaelianblack and various talking heads of the left such as alyssa milano etc.. and par for the course brought up racism of all things..
http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2018/04/04/alyssa-milano-ridiculed-blaming-youtube-shooting-nra/
there has been little MSM coverage of it
why?
shooter was not male
shooter was not white
shooter was not christian (she was Baha'i) but was wearing a Burqa
shooter was a radical Communist animal right's activist.
shooting occurred in a strict gun law state in a gun free zone.
police had prior knowledge of the shooter being armed and mentally unstable from her father..
my America is f'ed up?
Over the past 20 years, gun sales have absolutely exploded (thanks Obama) but homicides with firearms are down 39 percent during that time and “other crimes with firearms” are down 69 percent.
https://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/articles/2013/05/07/gun-murders-down-39-percent-from-1993-to-2011
study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy discovered that nations that have more guns tend to have less crime.
http://www.theacru.org/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/
Almost every mass shooting that has occurred in the United States since 1950 has taken place in a state with strict gun control laws…looking at you chicago
ttps://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/12/25/gun-free-zone-john-lott/1791085/
"With just one exception, every public mass shooting in the USA since at least 1950 has taken place where citizens are banned from carrying guns. Despite strict gun regulations, Europe has had three of the worst six school shootings."
So your recommendation on gun ownership is do what you like but I......got it. No recommendation at all on whether one should be armed at all times in America.
Skippy, do you want to review your sources before I eviscerate your research skills, or lack thereof, again? Spoiler alert: what you know to be a lie probably is. More Skippy compost for the pile. Fake news: avoid that post.
@SD "No recommendation at all on whether one should be armed at all times in America."
This was not your question....in case you forgot you asked "but what do you recommend folks do to be safe? " NOT "whether one should be armed at all times in America"
my recommendation was quite clear....."I recommend people do whatever they are comfortable with" to be safe/feel safe
And AGAIN...just because it's not what you "want" me to say, doesn't mean I had "No recommendation at all" and BTW, I caught ya red handed trying to change your question (3 times, but who's counting) to pigeon hole me into saying what you want...I am not that gullible bro :->
I will reiterate....Do what you feel comfortable with to protect yourself and your family.... I can only say it so many times SD
I will also reiterate...again....that I have NEVER promoted anyone having a gun...that did NOT WANT to have a gun.....if you are uncomfortable around guns, or just do not like them.... no problem....don't buy one...it is YOUR choice....but don't tell other what they should/or should not have because what YOU feel comfortable with.....to each their own
Spot on skip...spot on..proven over, and over, and over...for years in the running....discredit and ignore....typical
“No recommendation at all on whether one should be armed at all times in America.“
Choice. What an amazing concept
^
SD = Mind blown
No, he just didn't like my answer, because it was not what he was hoping I would say....but instead gave my honest feeling about the subject.
Like? I did not know I evinced an emotion at all that you could not answer the question should we be armed at all times in America except to state the that it's a personal choice which is your recommendation and a Captain Obvious moment. But it was an answer and I thank you for that.
If I was emotional about this I might have asked Darrin what he does himself; is he armed whenever it is legal? We know if the dog is next to him, he probably has a gun. Or what would he recommend to DJ -- do your thang, nothing or be like Dad?
But I didn't, and are not asking that.
It was just a question. Beyond the sadness of living with neighbors who feel they must be armed at all times, I got no other "angle" here.
And yes, JIT, choice is amazing, and obvious too. Thank you very much as well.
maybe what I don't get is why that makes you sad? people carry around you every day and it's certainly not readily apparent. Even more so in firearm dense areas where concealed carry is legal. Even in areas where open carry is legal - I see folks enjoying the liberties and freedoms of this great country and feel even more secure - I certainly don't feel fear or sadness..
I think it comes down to core beliefs - I and my compatriots believe in taking personal responsibility for the security and safety of ourselves and our families and individual liberty. we value courage, forbearance or resilience as well as voluntary charity and cooperation.
Liberals clearly see a world of neediness, misfortune, poverty, suspicion, mistrust, anger, exploitation, discrimination, victimization, alienation and injustice where the government needs to manage every aspect of our lives cradle to grave. Anyone who does not agree is a racist misogynist. trans-bashing homophobic puppy killer.
It makes me sad that there are people in this country that see the flag our forefathers died for as a sign of racism and oppression. It makes me sad that as a proud patriot I am labeled as a nationalist and a Nazi. It makes me sad that I have to be concerned about my safety for supporting a sitting president .
everything I just said about the youtube attacker is right here
https://heavy.com/news/2018/04/nasim-aghdam-youtube-shooting-suspect-channel-instagram-photos/
a website with a left-center bias per
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/heavy/
Once again Skippy has defined liberals as only he, Darrin and others see reality generalizing their hatred of liberals because they believe:
Liberals clearly see a world of neediness
Liberals clearly see a world of misfortune
Liberals clearly see a world of poverty
Liberals clearly see a world of suspicion
Liberals see a world of mistrust
Liberals clearly see a world of anger
Liberals clearly see a world exploitation
Liberals clearly see a world of discrimination
Liberals clearly see a world of victimization, alienation and injustice
Liberals believe government needs to manage every aspect of our lives cradle to grave.
Anyone who does not agree with liberals is a racist misogynist. trans-bashing homophobic puppy killer.
Liberals see the flag our forefathers died for as a sign of racism and oppression.
If you believe that I can labelled you as a nationalist and a Nazi, I am sad for your delusional fears and loathing's that makes you concerned, even with all those guns, about your personal safety just because you're a Trumpian.
I have yet to see any of your......statements.....in either the liberal handbook OR liberal policies. What I see is one long list of lies and name calling.
I know, I know, I did it first so it's OK.
Not for nothing SD..but please stop spreading rumors about when I would or would not have a gun....”we know”....no you don’t know...you don’t know anything about me really and I don’t appreciate you acting like you do.
"Once again Skippy has defined liberals as only he, Darrin and others see reality generalizing their hatred of liberals because they believe: "
who said hate? paranoid?
"If you believe that I can labelled you as a nationalist and a Nazi, I am sad for your delusional fears and loathing's that makes you concerned, even with all those guns, about your personal safety just because you're a Trumpian."
as we have covered before - trump supporters get assaulted all the time and posters on this very forum have championed that fact and stated that it's deserved.
"I have yet to see any of your......statements.....in either the liberal handbook OR liberal policies. What I see is one long list of lies and name calling. "
who called you a name? is there a liberal handbook - I mean other than anything by Alinsky. proof? everything on that list is something that is being purported as currently occurring in society.
"I know, I know, I did it first so it's OK." - WTF does this even mean?
you have once again proved you have no interest in a discussion. I have even proposed a difference in world view as to the source of our differences.
you reformatted the list and made a nonsensical retort. Any time you want to offer anything whatsoever to change my / our view besides snark feel free.
Like “Spot on Skippy...spot frakin on” is not the same as that which you falsely accuse me of, only on steroids.
Want me to quote the Darrin walkin the dog gun habits for you? The rest was rhetorical or interrogative. Learn to read. You’re doing all the spreading here and it stinks
Twisting statements and attempting to put them back in our mouths again SD? I thought we moved on from this classic SD play?
If you haven’t noticed, you lost your audience a while ago....your only talking to us...so changing what we said to fit your argument is not going to work here bud.....give it a rest
Sure I do....I CHALLENGE you to actually SD...maybe it will help you learn how to read and refresh your memory about what was actually said....you can lie all you want....I never said I “always” carry a gun when I walk my dog...
now your just spiraling out of control and your honestly making yourself look very bad trying to point the blame else where
Do it....quote my exact statement right here....I will be waiting
This is a 2A form not 2 B's. SD start an Anti 2A post and stop trolling. The internet is for sharing info not opinions, cause they are like buttholes, everyone has one and yours isn't that special so keep it to yourself. Any news on the bills on the Mayors desk?
DillyDilly 
Rebecka "Any news on the bills on the Mayors desk?"
If there is, you better not dare to give your opinion on it after that screech.
DevilsFan Sorry Stym- I don't give a crap about Mass. I live in NJ, as long as we can still purchase here, who cares. Get them while we can!!! On the app, I was glad to see the new discloser. NJ it is legal to purchase marijuana, it is not a Federal law. So the Feds are saying to the users of weed, you can not purchase.
Can someone explain to me what banning a long gun that’s difficult to conceal does? A semi auto .22 no less
Politics aside, I don't understand the need to give assault weapons to civilians! Hand guns is enough to defend yourself! Stocking up magazines and assault rifles makes no sense! They are never gonna be used. If cops who risks their lives everyday feel safe with a handgun, why do civilians sitting at home need assault rifles? Isn't hand gun enough for self protection just like cops uses them for same purpose?
I am not liberal nor conservative
TheFuture What’s an assault weapon?
Liberals like to assert that nobody without a vagina should make laws about abortion.
Nobody seems to apply that logic to firearms - understand the subject matter - then form an opinion.
Police don’t have AR’s? That’s news to me.
Didn’t you see the recent article where they even mount AR’s on police motorcycles in Arizona now?
Handguns are easier to carry, that’s why police carry them. AR’s are just as well suited to self defense at home where lugging them around all day isn’t a concern.
That must be 1% of police stations in America! Seriously, AR for self defense is an excuse of NRA. Hand gun is self sufficient for self defense! America is not Syria nor Iraq with a civil war undergoing. Assault rifles is just like drugs and NRA keeping the supply chain up and running! No wonder America is the only country in the world that needs ARs at home to be safe! AR and other war weapons to be sold and used in civilian life is indoctrinated by NRA and gun companies to gun loving parents and parents to kids!
Thought you were not centric - you have no idea what you’re talking about and are regurgitating ignorant diatribe.
An AR has negligible artifacts that resemble a military grade firearm accept appearance. The fact that you’re taking that tact that more concealable weapons are preferable proves your ignorance - find a safe space
That’s just a most recent example of where the police are expanding availability of AR’s to their officers. Plenty of departments across the country use them - certainly much much more than 1%.
Nice attempt to come here with your first post (maybe second, but your Hyundai comment is unrelated) attempting to be “middle of the road” politically but when the response to your question isn’t what you wanted you immediately jump all the way to the left/liberal mindset.
Also AR-15’s aren’t assault rifles. M16’s and M4’s are, but they function differently even if they look the same.
TheFuture:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/us/war-gear-flows-to-police-departments.html
There’s probably thousands of articles about the “militarization” of police. The surplus of old military weaponry looking for a home creates an incentive I think.
Mark mc or whatever your name is!
There are always 2 sides of a coins! Try to look at two sides of a coin even if you hate one side. Doing a research on who I am and what I posted earlier won't help change the fact that you don't need an AR to defend yourself,a handgun is enough for self defense.
Skippy,
I am skipping you altogether because I can't understand your hallucinating epileptic seizure monologue between a vagina and an AR
Um news flash....every single outfitted state police car has a AR mount in it.
The police don’t always physically carry them because they are so bulky, but you can rest assured...they ARE in their cruisers.....where did the one percent number come from?
Telling someone what they “should” have or what “should” be “enough” to protect their family is quite left field. I don’t tell you what car “should” be enough for you....nobody does actually...so why apply the same to guns?
And yes, a AR is most certainly not a "military weapon" it may resemble one in just looks, but they function very different.
“Doing a research on who I am and what I posted earlier”
It really wasn’t much trouble at all since you are new here and had a whopping total of three posts by that time (unless you’ve been here before and just changed your name like others have done).
Also, if YOU had done research maybe you would have come across posts here where the benefits of AR’s over handguns have been listed, *numerous* times.
Quick summary:
Easier for a variety of folks to use since the recoil is low. My small 9mm and 38’s can actually hurt your hand to shoot (and they aren’t large calibers). You can barely feel the AR kick at all.
Better accuracy (longer sight radius, and flashlights can be mounted on them freeing up your hands to see your attacker without fumbling two different items in each hand).
Better safety by not penetrating as many interior walls as a handgun round, if you have family or neighbors nearby.
More magazine capacity than most handguns. Yes, this exact thing you probably hate, because if there is more than one attacker you don’t want to run out of ammunition.
Heck, even add easier maintenance so you can get familiar and confident with the firearm more so than a handgun (many of which can’t even be dis-assembled). Parts from one brand of AR will, in most cases, fit right into another brand with no problem.
I’m sure you don’t actually care about facts, but there they are (again) so it’s easier for the next reasonable person who comes along to see them.
If "TheFuture" is indeed the future, the country is in VERY big trouble.
Someone who doesn't know his butt from an AR is preaching gun policy? Go snort some more condoms and pop some more tide pods. I can't take the willfully ignorant brainwashed propaganda anymore.
An "AR" is a semi-automatic rifle. That's it. Just like every other semi-automatic rifle in existence, including those own by your grandpappy. The "AR" just LOOKS like a "military weapon", but that's where the resemblance stops.
The civilian "AR" fires one shot every time the trigger is pulled. Just like a semi-automatic pistol (which no one is screaming about) or a revolver.
The military rifle is resembles is capable of both fully-automatic (machine gun) fire as well as 3-shot burst.
It's getting SO TIRING trying to educate the willfully ignorant (of course that's all part of the master plan- make us sick and tired of fighting for our rights, while convincing the numbnuts to beg for their rights to be taken away.)
And I'm quite sure this post won;t even be allowed to be "published."
Here JR I labeled the parts of an AR with the terms they use to facilitate communication
Good post, Mark, but I'd like to add a couple of things. You can certainly mount a flashlight (or laser sight) to a pistol. And since flashlights are getting smaller and brighter, every year, that's not the issue it once was. Also, muzzle flash is a significant factor to consider. The end of a pistol barrel is closer to the eyes, when fired, and it's easier to mount an effective flash suppressor on a rifle.
But, all of that being noted, if I was one of those nutters planning to shoot up a school, I would not choose a rifle. (And this is why I find all of those school kids protesting "assault rifles" to just be babbling nonsense.) I would choose two semi-auto pistols, in 9mm or .40, with extended mags and laser sights, and loaded with something like Hydra-Shok rounds. (Suppressors would have advantages, too.)
(A) Much easier to sneak them into position, before being noticed.
(B) Backup weapon already in hand, in case one jams.
(C) At very close range, with laser-sights, on soft targets, accuracy is not a major factor.
(D) A 9mm or .40 pre-frag round is likely to do far more damage than a typical .223 rifle round.
(E) Depending on mag size, you could easily get 30 or 40 rounds in each. As soon as one pistol is empty, just dump or holster it, and reload the other.
(F) It's easier for someone to charge you, grab your rifle barrel, and control it than to try to face two pistols.
The fact is, those nuts are using AR-15s because that's what they see on TV. But take the AR-15s away, and they may actually be even more dangerous. . . .
JerseyWolf Skippy, ROFLMAO!!!!!!
"he fact is, those nuts are using AR-15s because that's what they see on TV. "
EXACTLY. It's simply what's available. If ARs were not available, they would just use something else.
Like in Britain: STABBINGS have increased dramatically in the UK....
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/03/world/europe/britain-uk-knife-violence.html
JR, it's simply basic instinct. Even animals do it. If you want to accomplish a task--any task--you want to accomplish it as simply, cheaply, and efficiently as possible. So, if some nut wants to kill a bunch of people, he just uses a means he already knows. Some people are buying AR-15s and shooting people, so others will do the same. It's the same reason the world has recently seen a dramatic increase in nuts driving vehicles into crowds. Why the sudden increase? Because they simply never thought of it, before. But now that they know about it, they do the same.
I'm all in favor of REASONABLE restrictions on the sale of weapons--there's no reason for 5-year-old kids to be buying grenades from vending machines at Walmart. But the simple fact is, in this day and age, with all of the information and resources available, if someone wants to kill 50 people WITHOUT using a firearm, and he can't figure out some way to do it, then he's simply an idiot.
"I'm all in favor of REASONABLE restrictions on the sale of weapons--there's no reason for 5-year-old kids to be buying grenades from vending machines at Walmart."
Oh well, no problem- we already have laws against that. ;)
" But the simple fact is, in this day and age, with all of the information and resources available, if someone wants to kill 50 people WITHOUT using a firearm, and he can't figure out some way to do it, then he's simply an idiot."
Yup. It'll just be mom & dad's car next, driving onto the football field during a game, or simply waiting for school to let out in the afternoon for a target-rich environment.
BUT- you won't see anyone calling for the banning or even further age-restriction of cars... why? Because EVERYONE likes their cars. To INCONVENIENT to touch that. But further banning something they have no interest in? HAVE AT IT! Even if it's a constitutional right, and even if the people calling for the bans are represented by people with armed security details (the politicians.) Hypocrisy at it finest.
"It's getting SO TIRING trying to educate the willfully ignorant (of course that's all part of the master plan- make us sick and tired of fighting for our rights, while convincing the numbnuts to beg for their rights to be taken away.)"
Now we can understand what women are talking about with regard to their reproductive rights...
"there's no reason for 5-year-old kids to be buying grenades from vending machines at Walmart. "
But think about it for a minute...why not? If he and his family feel that's what he needs to protect himself, then why not? A gun or a grenade will work just as well in a pinch, and as long as he's taught gun or grenade safety, what's the issue? Our great-grandparents are always telling us how they learned how to handle guns and other weapons before school age.
DF, there will always be people out there who think that they deserve to be able to own their own tactical nukes. Just as there will always be people out there who think they are Napoleon. But most of this (quasi-)democratic society understands that people do not need to own their own nukes, in order to protect themselves, and that it's highly likely that at least one person would use one of those nukes unlawfully to harm others.
The real issue, right now, is where to draw the lines between what is reasonable and what is dangerously excessive--and most people seem to WANT lines to be drawn. Unfortunately, this country has become so polarized (and so overfed with disinformation) that nobody seems to actually be working at determining the best place to draw those lines. Like everything else, these days, Americans seem to begin every sentence with, "I want. . . " instead of "Perhaps we should. . ."
"Now we can understand what women are talking about with regard to their reproductive rights..."
Apples vs oranges.... what about the rights of the unborn? (wrong thread, but YOU brought it up). so women's reproductive rights include justifiable murder?
Well, if you go by a strict interpretation of the second amendment, there is NOTHING that says you can't own a nuke! Nukes are arms like grenades or guns. If we support banning ownership of one type of arms (nukes) based upon the POSSIBILITY someone might use them to harm others, well, there goes the argument for keeping the second amendment!
So tell us all you know about women’s reproductive rights jr.
Why is it whenever you’re talking guns, you seem to be thinking about vagina? Can’t wait to see you rationalize that comparison.
I mean cars and guns are like peas in a pod, but childbirth and guns appears to be a red limo, a real stretch.
The Constitution is just a set of laws, not a Mandate from the Gods. For either "side" to use it as an arguing point is rather absurd, as laws are changed all the time, to adapt to the ever-changing needs and desires of society.
What IS important is recognizing that the inherent drive for self-preservation (and the preservation of offspring) is the most powerful motivating force in human nature. And the world is full of dangers (the two-legged kind, as well as others), against which weapons can aid in one's self-preservation. The reason the Founding Fathers didn't write such things into the Constitution is because it would have been as absurd as declaring that water is wet. In 1787, that fact--the inherent desire and "right" for people to defend themselves--was simply a given.
And while the world has changed much, in more than 200 years, that same fact has not. The question at hand, now, is whether allowing others to possess certain weapons ultimately increases or decreases their self-preservation, the preservation of others, and the preservation of society.
Sd .... your back... without my answer of course....PROVE IT....still waiting.
I personally would not consider nukes or gernadeds "arms" they are more defined as bombs.....and nobody here or anywhere actually is fighting to be able to own either of them...so whats the point of even bringing it up?
"Women have as much right to protect their body as men do with guns. Someone dies in both scenarios. You don't get to say one life is more sacred than another, or one's right to preserve their body in their own way is more sacred or correct than another's."
So abortion = self-defense? You're delusional. That means the mass shooters are really just defending themselves.... they are providing "population control", you guys should love that.
In both cases, I am AGAINST murder. You are FOR murder in at least 1 of the cases. Abortion is not self-defense, it's birth control.
And that is all I will say about that in THIS thread, which is for the discussion of 2A. You want to debate abortion, I'm in- but start a new thread.
“You don't get to say one life is more sacred than another, or one's right to preserve their body in their own way is more sacred or correct than another's.”
Correct, except the life taken has no means of defense whatsoever, other than those who advocate for their right to live. That’s why the marketing campaign of “a woman’s right to choose” is so absurd because the question has *never* been about a woman’s right but about the rights of the person who can’t defend themselves from the “choice” of another.
The logical arguments for abortion centers around the rights of the unborn: person or not, whether they have their own right to live, and if so whether government should inrecede to protect their lives?
But abortion is unfortunately one of the most extremely personal and emotional issues that parents face in their lives and so the desire for an emotion-soothing solution will always be prevalent. Probably the toughest subject to deal with in our society.
Darrin: if you're talkin walkin the dog, I did respond, with your words, above. If you're (not your) vexed about something else, it alludes me.
Meanwhile.......let's move off abortion as a rationale for the 2A and get back to dem guns.....
After Parkland, the students first just asked for school safety and what were us adults gonna do about it and I was glad: a new approach with a pertinent question expecting action as the response. It made us think and know that we had to do something. We have done precious little.
Then, under intense media scrutiny and "guidance," the students moved to the traditional gun control discussion including the AWB which, as I said would happen, just puts us back on the same old familiar ground, debate, paralysis, and knee-jerk reactions by both sides.
IMO whether needed or not, there will be no AWB, especially at the Federal Level; it's a waste of time to try. Mostly because it's a stupid question. There are no assault weapons; there are just weapon attributes like the most important four:
- caliber
- capacity
- rate of fire
- range
And then there's the other stuff, not an exhaustive list, some of which can determine the important stuff:
- shape and size (rifle, shotgun, handgun or other)
- single, semi-auto, or auto fire
- integral or detachable mag
- stock, folding, collapsible
- grip, pistol or other
- open barrel or barrel suppressors, silencers, shrouds
Point is, to have any effect, any ban must deal with attributes, not some branding or look n feel. A ban has to universally limit one or more of the main four attributes, not the other stuff which most ban attempts focus on. Neither gonna happen but the gun control folk should get it right.
And that's why the gunnies can tie up any AWB discussion over the definitional morass that surrounds the concept of an "assault rifle" while the entire debate tires within that tedium.
Second, as noted before, banning any long gun will not change the homicide rate; gun homicides are mostly handgun, like around 95%. And of the 5% committed by long gun, half are shot guns --- not an assault weapon.
Hardly anyone takes a long gun to an armed robbery or hold up. Most long gun homicides happen at home with easy availability for substitutes of another weapon . So it's pretty easy to prove numerically that an AWB is a statistical pimple at best. Numerically, banning knives is better than long guns, a point the gunnies can pretty much mute any progressive action against any long gun.
No, the only numerical advantage for an AWB is for mass murder. Here, 25% of the time a rifle is in the arms package, 50% of the time a semi-auto handgun is in the package (these numbers can overlap as villains can carry multiple weapons). However, even if you affected 25% of the weapons, the ongoing mass murders may not statistically change. Even if it worked perfectly, you would never be able to prove it.
Now, if you go after magazine size, you can possibly affect 75% of the arms package changing the arms landscape for mass murder. Sure, gunnies can make the claim that substitutes can be used BUT NO substitute is as easy to access, easy to use, and as effective as the gun. Less bullets, more clip exchanges means less death than more bullets and less clip exchanges. Other weapons can be either harder to procure, hard to build, hard to use, tricky to detonate --- mistakes happen all the time -----> in terms of a lethality index, the gun rules.
Still won't be able to statistically see it, but IMO, limiting the mag size would be beneficial without sacrificing your safety at home or ability to fend off the tyrannical oppression overthrough you are preparing for.
Another good guy with gun stops bad guy with gun
https://www.ammoland.com/2018/04/volunteer-church-member-stops-attacker-in-church-gunfight/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork#axzz5C5eAdWeU
SD, there is no post from you where you answered the walking the dog question....so I AM still waiting.
And as far as your magazine argument, you are overlooking that the parkland shooter utilized 10 round magazines, legal in every state other then NYC because he was able to conceal them better....idea debunked right there... hard evidence that mag size does NOT make a difference.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/report-parkland-shooter-did-not-use-high-capacity-magazines/
And, if that is the approach you want to take, you will still have to answer the question of how can you tell someone else how MANY rounds the SHOULD need to PROPERLY defend themselves and their family?
Darrin, it's above. Want me to email it to you?
Meanwhile..... Hmmm. If he was a guard, and it sure looked like he was a guard at the point your story said ---- probably not ---- is he a good guy or a bad guard?
You gotta love it: a guy announces this is a robbery and the shots start flying. Get out of Dodge.....Wait, Dodge had a deadline.
Meanwhile, in other gunny news they don't want you to know:
- 2018 Chicago "man on a chartered coach bus shot and killed three fellow passengers with an assault rifle while the bus was traveling in Rockford early Saturday morning." Good guy gone bad? Sure ain't partying like it's 1999.
- 2018 NJ "Guy shot while duck hunting? Cops say it's a featherbrained tale, charge shooter." NRA trained? Are they bad guys or just bad liars?
- 2018 nj: "An 11-year-old Jersey City boy is recovering from serious injuries after he was shot by two teenagers playing with a gun in a Marion Gardens apartment Jan. 28" Heh, boys will be boys.....
"According to the International Hunter Education Association, in an average year, fewer that 1,000 people in the US and Canada are accidentally shot by hunters, and of these, fewer than 75 are fatalities." Do they become bad guys when they unload a load of face buckshot?
I mean if we are going to compare accidental bad guys against your good guys, or just kids being kids against your good guys ------ you're gonna need a bigger gun
How does a folding stock or pistol grip factor in to either leathality or prevalence of use?
Also the mag limit argument goes to creating a window for a good guy with a gun - thought you were anti that? Stop using clip - your post above proves you know the difference - unless you’re talking about banning wheel guns or Mosin–Nagant / Lee–Enfield rifles.
Another AWB is stupid to try because it didn’t work - that’s why it was not renewed and cost democrats a ton of seats.
Full auto is already banned without a tax stamp and serious background check and as we’ve discussed gives you little tactical advantage.
Suppressors make the firearm longer and less concealable and only bring down the report to a level that while still damaging to hearing is less so. They’re not even regulated in new expand and in most European countries they are freely available with a fee.
So we including accidents now in statistics? How are those strict gun laws in Chicago and NJ working out?
SD, there is no post from you answering the question, it may have been modded out due to something you said...either email me or re-post the quote....I am still waiting
Commenting is no longer available.