Thread: Fat Liberal Bastard Planned Mass Murder

Page 18 of 20 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 191
  1. #171  
    Senior Member Unreconstructed Reb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    882
    Quote Originally Posted by txradioguy View Post
    I wanna know what our Libtard gun grabber...umm...that's you PeterS...thinks is the limit at which guns have been regulated enough?
    I've been meaning to ask one of these libtard gun grabbers why a 10 round magazine is OK but thirty round magazines are bad. One would have to conclude that 10 shooting victims is acceptable but 30, well, that's just carrying things a bit too far!

    BTW, I'll attempt to answer your question to Petey as he would answer: "Ze messiah has not limitations! Ze messiah can take all ze veapons from you peasants venever he vants to! Anyvon that questions ze messiah will be branded a racist and charged vid high treason against ze state and ze messiah!"---PeterScheisse
    "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that you won't need it until they try to take it away."---Thomas Jefferson

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #172  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Reb View Post
    I've been meaning to ask one of these libtard gun grabbers why a 10 round magazine is OK but thirty round magazines are bad. One would have to conclude that 10 shooting victims is acceptable but 30, well, that's just carrying things a bit too far!
    It's got nothing to do with the difference between 10 bullets and thirty, except that 10 is closer to zero, which is the ultimate goal. Remember, this isn't about "common sense" restrictions on guns, it's about the complete elimination of guns from the general population. They don't have the backing for a total ban, so they implement bans on what they can get away with, and since every incremental restriction inevitably leads to higher crime rates as more law-abiding people are disarmed, they get to do the same thing again and again, ratcheting down our rights until we have none left. The Brits are now arguing that long kitchen knives should be banned, seriously:

    Doctors' kitchen knives ban call
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm


    Doctors say knives are too pointed

    A&E doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing.
    A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase - and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.

    They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon.

    The research is published in the British Medical Journal.

    The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all.

    They consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, and found such knives have little practical value in the kitchen.

    None of the chefs felt such knives were essential, since the point of a short blade was just as useful when a sharp end was needed.

    The researchers said a short pointed knife may cause a substantial superficial wound if used in an assault - but is unlikely to penetrate to inner organs.

    In contrast, a pointed long blade pierces the body like "cutting into a ripe melon".

    The use of knives is particularly worrying amongst adolescents, say the researchers, reporting that 24% of 16-year-olds have been shown to carry weapons, primarily knives.

    The study found links between easy access to domestic knives and violent assault are long established.

    French laws in the 17th century decreed that the tips of table and street knives be ground smooth.

    A century later, forks and blunt-ended table knives were introduced in the UK in an effort to reduce injuries during arguments in public eating houses.

    The researchers say legislation to ban the sale of long pointed knives would be a key step in the fight against violent crime.

    "The Home Office is looking for ways to reduce knife crime.

    "We suggest that banning the sale of long pointed knives is a sensible and practical measure that would have this effect."
    This is beyond parody. Once they have banned knives of all types, they will turn their attention to clubs, bats and other hard objects that are small enough to lift but large enough to cause damage if used as a weapon. For that matter, the world is full of potential weapons. Any structure higher than the height of a tall man can be dangerous (you can be pushed off), as can open windows (or pushed out), closed windows (glass can cut when you are pushed out), cars (vehicular homicides), pillows (people can be suffocated), rope (or strangled), twine (can be braided to make rope), thread (can be braided to make twine, which can make rope, which can strangle people) or pretty much anything. Eventually, the descendents of the yeomen of Agincourt will be forced to live in houses made of foam rubber, while they cower from the armed thugs who will treat these laws with the laughable contempt that they deserve.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #173  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    7,244
    Quote Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Reb View Post
    I've been meaning to ask one of these libtard gun grabbers why a 10 round magazine is OK but thirty round magazines are bad. One would have to conclude that 10 shooting victims is acceptable but 30, well, that's just carrying things a bit too far!
    John Allen Mohammed and Lee Malvo didn't need 30 round magazines or even 20 round magazines for that matter...to kill 10 people.

    I wonder if all the gun grabbers have stopped to consider that little factoid.



    BTW, I'll attempt to answer your question to Petey as he would answer: "Ze messiah has not limitations! Ze messiah can take all ze veapons from you peasants venever he vants to! Anyvon that questions ze messiah will be branded a racist and charged vid high treason against ze state and ze messiah!"---PeterScheisse
    Very true.
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #174  
    Senior Member Unreconstructed Reb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    882
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    It's got nothing to do with the difference between 10 bullets and thirty, except that 10 is closer to zero, which is the ultimate goal. Remember, this isn't about "common sense" restrictions on guns, it's about the complete elimination of guns from the general population. They don't have the backing for a total ban, so they implement bans on what they can get away with, and since every incremental restriction inevitably leads to higher crime rates as more law-abiding people are disarmed, they get to do the same thing again and again, ratcheting down our rights until we have none left.
    Oh, I get it. I just wanted to hear a libtard try to rationalize allowing 10 round mags in an EBR.
    "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that you won't need it until they try to take it away."---Thomas Jefferson

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #175  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    41,131
    Maybe we are approaching this from the wrong angle, a bubble wrapped suit coupled with Kevlar underwear and a helmet may be the answer, plus you could always fall forward on your attacker and suffocate them.


    Actual picture of peterS
    How is obama working out for you?
    http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/5d569df9-186a-477b-a665-3ea8a8b9b655_zpse9003e54.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #176  
    Timed Out
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    How did the Continental Army and militia do it with basic muskets?
    Once the French injected money, munitions, arms, an army and navy they did pretty good...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #177  
    Timed Out
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Reb View Post
    Oh, I get it. I just wanted to hear a libtard try to rationalize allowing 10 round mags in an EBR.
    Ten rounds vs thirty mean 2 mag changes and perhaps enough time to over come the nut with the gun. When Loughner, the Arizona shooter, fumbled when reloading he was over come and subdued. Had he been using a 10 round clip no doubt lives would have been saved.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #178  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,639
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterS View Post
    Once the French injected money, munitions, arms, an army and navy they did pretty good...
    But the French didn't inject money, munitions, arms, an army and navy until we had decisively demonstrated that the revolution was viable, which took the defeat of General Burgoyne at the Battle of Saratoga in 1778, three years after the war began. American insurgents fought for three years without aid, and won. The French aid was decisive to the final outcome, but it would never have come if the revolutionaries hadn't demonstrated the capacity to defeat the British, and that took militia arms.
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterS View Post
    Ten rounds vs thirty mean 2 mag changes and perhaps enough time to over come the nut with the gun. When Loughner, the Arizona shooter, fumbled when reloading he was over come and subdued. Had he been using a 10 round clip no doubt lives would have been saved.
    Sure, if the unarmed children in the gun free zone can close the space and overwhelm the attacker. Here is why this will not work:

    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...mit-lethality/
    People who preach “common sense gun control” argue that limiting ammunition magazine capacity limits a killers’ ability to kill. Ipso facto. Notice I didn’t say “murder.” As John Grisham might say, there’s a time to kill. OK, “stop the threat.” When you or other innocent life are in imminent, credible danger of death or bodily harm you probably don’t want your lethality limited by a capacity-limited ammunition magazine. As the rabbi says, “no one ever finished a gunfight wishing he had less bullets.” As Nick would say, where’s the data? There isn’t any. Well, there is some . . .

    Here’s an email from Greg, one of our readers:

    “I’ve had a train of thought that the magazine capacity of the weapons used in a mass shooting makes little/no difference in the actual lethality of the event. While I’m no statistician, I started to use open source information to determine how long these maniacs are actively shooting, the number of shots fired and the overall lethality of the shots.

    The events I looked into: Columbine, VT, the Wisconsin Sikh Temple, Giffords, Aurora and Sandy Hook. The data is quite interesting and opens up a substantial line of argument against high capacity magazine bans.

    • Average Time a Shooter is Active: 10.3 Minutes
    • Average Total Shots Fired: 89.8
    • Shooting Tempo: 8.7 Rounds/Min
    • Wound to Kill Ratio: 1 : 2.86


    Given that anyone, with minimal practice, can do a magazine change in roughly three seconds, the data indicates that magazine capacity actually has almost no impact on the overall lethality of an active shooter.

    Other data points bolster the case; the wounded : killed ratio is far higher than defensive shootings or police shootings, indicative of the fact that active shooters are not rushed and are (unfortunately) in complete control of the situation.
    With the exception of the Giffords shooting (which is an exceptional case for a number of reasons, more of an open air political assassination than a typical mass shooting), the ONLY thing that has ever stopped a mass shooter is armed confrontation (more accurately, the notion that armed confrontation is close by).”
    So, the magazine limit doesn't impact shooters of unarmed victims in gun-free zones. It does, however, impact self defense against armed assailants:

    WHY GOOD PEOPLE NEED SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARMS AND “HIGH CAPACITY” MAGAZINES … Part I
    Saturday, December 29th, 2012
    http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/Massa...azines-part-i/
    If you’re reading this, you’ve probably had a conversation with someone in the last few days who asked, “Why do ordinary law-abiding people need those semiautomatic firearms with magazines that can hold more than ten cartridges?” There are lots of sound answers.

    For one thing, defensive firearms are meant to be “equalizers,” force multipliers that can allow one good person to defend against multiple evil people. To allow one good person to defend against a single evil person so much stronger and/or bigger and/or more violent than he or she, that the attacker’s potentially lethal assault can be stopped. History shows that it often takes many gunshots to stop even a single determined aggressor. Most police officers have seen the famous autopsy photo in the cops-only text book “Street Survival” of the armed robber who soaked up 33 police 9mm bullets before he stopped trying to kill the officers. Consider Lance Thomas, the Los Angeles area watch shop owner who was in many shootouts with multiple gang bangers who tried to rob and murder him. He shot several of them, and discovered that it took so many hits to stop them that he placed multiple loaded handguns every few feet along his workbench. That’s not possible in a home, or when lawfully carrying concealed on the street: a semiautomatic pistol with a substantial cartridge capacity makes much more sense for that defensive application.



    Semiautomatic rifles? Consider this heart-breaking, fatal home invasion in Florida http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders...lanie_Billings and ask yourself if it might have turned out differently had the homeowners been able to access and competently deploy something like, oh, a Bushmaster AR15 with 30 round magazine. I teach every year in Southern Arizona, and each year I see more Americans along the border with AR15s and similar rifles in their ranch vehicles and even their regular cars. There have been cases where innocent ranchers and working cops alike have been jeopardized by multiple, heavily armed drug smugglers and human traffickers in desert fights far from police response and backup. A semiautomatic rifle with a substantial magazine capacity can be reassuring in such situations, as seen here: http://azstarnet.com/news/local/bord...ef7e77220.html

    In the last twenty years, we have seen epic mob violence in American streets. During the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles, Korean storekeepers armed with AR15s kept their stores and livelihoods – and lives – from the torches of inflamed crowds because the mob feared their force multipliers. Read this, for a survivor’s account: http://www.seraphicpress.com/jew-without-a-gun/. There have been bands of roving, violent predators as lately as this year during the Sandy storm. And the “flash mob violence” phenomenon of recent years has left many urban dwellers picturing themselves as the lone victim of a feral human wolfpack.

    And, if you will, one more stark and simple thing: Americans have historically modeled their choices of home protection and personal defense handguns on what the cops carried. When the police carried .38 revolvers as a rule, the .38 caliber revolver was the single most popular choice among armed citizens. In the 1980s and into the 1990s, cops switched en masse to semiautomatic pistols. So did the gun-buying public. Today, the most popular handgun among police seems to be the 16-shot, .40 caliber Glock semiautomatic. Not surprisingly, the general public has gone to pistols bracketing that caliber in power (9mm, .40, .45) with similar enthusiasm. The American police establishment has also largely switched from the 12 gauge shotgun which was also the traditional American home defense weapon, to the AR15 patrol rifle with 30-round magazine…and, not surprisingly, the law-abiding citizenry has followed suit there, too.

    The reasoning is strikingly clear. The cops are the experts on the current criminal trends. If they have determined that a “high capacity” semiautomatic pistol and a .223 semiautomatic rifle with 30-round magazines are the best firearms for them to use to protect people like me and my family, they are obviously the best things for us to use to protect ourselves and our families .
    So, to respond to your argument, it is fanciful to assume that unarmed sheep will charge a wolf while he stops to pick blood out of his teeth, but armed citizens need to be able to defend themselves against armed assailants.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #179  
    Timed Out
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    Two things. First, I hate to play grammar Nazi
    Then don't.

    Second, Britain's attempts to disarm the colonists after the passage of the Coercive Acts (or Intolerable Acts, as they were known here), precipitated the Revolutionary War. The mission of the British forces at Lexington and Concord was the confiscation of the militia arms, but this was the tip of the iceberg. The Crown had successfully confiscated gunpowder stores from colonists in Massachusetts and Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder_Alarm, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_Incident), and had banned the importation of powder and arms in 1774. This was why the Second Amendment was of such critical importance to the founders. They knew that any tyrannical ruler would seek to disarm the populace and enforce decrees by force of arms. This was also the source of the opposition to standing armies.
    That was my point. This is why military power was to be in the hands of the people not a free standing army. This isn't how the Second is being read today though but instead as a general right of self defense leaving the question of what is a reasonable arm for self defense? We've already banned fully automatic weapons so why is a restriction of semi automatic to certain types with certain capacity unreasonable? If you are going to say to fight a tyrannical government we let that right slide when we encouraged the creation of the largest and most powerful free standing army in the world.

    A fact that the NY Times, WAPost, LA Times, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC and the rest of the mainstream media continue to deny. Again, glad to see you calling them liars.
    You left out "fair and balanced" Fox and all right wing media sources.

    No, the answer is that the restrictions exceed the Constitutional enumerations of powers to the federal government, but were done anyway.
    And yet the restrictions are law. The appointment of conservative justices to the Supreme Court may shift the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment but until that time current regulations are law.

    But that isn't what you said. You stated that the founders didn't want a standing army which would be capable of conquering other territories.
    I was quoting the congressional record not writing it and the actions of Jefferson are his not mine. The founding fathers found the army, whether militia or free standing, as a means of defense not offence. It wasn't until Polk came along that the concept of an American Empire was first popularized. Until that point the military was largely used as a means of defense.

    The point was not that we would not have land forces, but that those forces would be constituted in such a way as to ensure that they would not become a threat to domestic liberty. Since then, we have been forced to recognize that the complexity of modern warfare demands a professional soldier corps, trained in advanced weapons which are far more complex than the musket and ball, and that this requires a permanent structure. However, since the vast majority of that structure has been stationed overseas for the duration of the Cold War, it hasn't been an issue. But, this does not change the fact that the founders expected the people to have the means to defend their liberty against foreign and domestic threats.
    That was the founders intent but not today's reality. Today, the primary means of defense are federal, state, and local. Personal security is individual with only a few translating that to a need for armaments necessary to repulse a tyrannical government.





    Not "people", but the people. It's a critical difference.

    Yes, but my point is that the militia was made up of the entirety of the people, something that you keep evading. The people of the United States were to keep their arms so that they could provide a last line of defense against tyrannical usurpations of power. That is what you refuse to acknowledge.
    How was I evading this? If the militia was not made up of the people who would they be made up of?

    But they did use deadly force. They went in shooting on day one, and were repulsed, at which point they engaged in a siege. However, the FBI had to play some games in order to use the force that they eventually brought to bear. For example, the Posse Commitatus Act bars the use of federal troops in matters of law enforcement, unless martial law has been declared. Texas law has a similar requirement for use of the National Guard, but has an exemption for drug interdiction. The feds simply claimed, falsely, that the Branch Davidians were running drugs in order to get TXARNG assets. Without the heavy armor that was provided, the fight would have required the massing of a much larger force to breach the compound. Thus, the FBI had to break the law and use standing military forces in order to subdue a small group of people in a fixed location with minimal fortifications. Had the Davidians fled and gone to ground in prepared positions, or scattered, the feds would have had a much harder time dealing with them. If others in the region had sided with them, and a general uprising had occurred, as it had after the Powder Alarm, then the situation would have very quickly gone beyond control of the FBI. The feds were lucky that they chose an obscure group of local cranks who didn't have much support to flex their muscles against.
    If you really think that was a successful defense it is ludicrous for me to argue it.

    Look at what you are saying. You are proposing that we forcibly disarm law-abiding citizens, and if they resist, that we use the full force of the US military against them, and turn them into "mangled meat".
    If I have a fully automatic weapon am I a law abiding citizen? If I have an RPG am I a law abiding citizen? When certain categories of weapons are outlawed then ownership of them, unless grandfathered, does not constitute a law abiding citizen. If necessary, I have no problem if the full force of the military is used to repulse and repel those who break our laws but as is with the case of Doner it will be, in all likelihood, left to local police forces to enforce US law. It didn’t take the military to turn him into mangled meat.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #180  
    Senior Member TVDOC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterS View Post
    If I have a fully automatic weapon am I a law abiding citizen? If I have an RPG am I a law abiding citizen? When certain categories of weapons are outlawed then ownership of them, unless grandfathered, does not constitute a law abiding citizen. If necessary, I have no problem if the full force of the military is used to repulse and repel those who break our laws but as is with the case of Doner it will be, in all likelihood, left to local police forces to enforce US law. It didn’t take the military to turn him into mangled meat.
    Not going to inject myself into this rather fruitless argument, but just wanted to let you know that :

    ........I own several fully automatic weapons, (an M-16, MP-5, an M-2 Browning, and an old UZI) which are perfectly legal (in my state and the US) to own so long as I completed the Class III paperwork, and paid the $200 federal tax for the stamp (for each of them).

    Just a bit of history, back when the 1934 "Gun control act" was passed, congress knew that they could never actually ban possession of them, as the Supreme Court would shoot it down because of the 2nd Amendment, so they levied a $200 tax on their purchase, which was a hell of a lot of money in those years, and deterred the populace from purchasing them......today not so much. They are perfectly legal if you can afford them, and qualify with the Feds......

    Full-auto is not illegal in either the US as a whole, or in many of the states, so long as you jump through all of the hurdles........they are expensive, but a hell of a lot of fun to shoot! You can also own an RPG in some states (Nevada for example), however, you have to pay the tax on every round that you use in it.

    Had them for decades.....and none of them has ever crawled out of the gun safe and perpetrated a mass shooting......

    I am a law abiding citizen.....

    Just say'n......

    doc
    Last edited by TVDOC; 02-16-2013 at 01:00 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •