Page 19 of 20 FirstFirst ... 917181920 LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 191
  1. #181  
    Timed Out
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post

    Sure, if the unarmed children in the gun free zone can close the space and overwhelm the attacker.
    Loughner wasn’t in a gun free zone and those who subdued him weren’t children and any teacher willing to throw themselves in front of their children to protect them would no doubt try to take advantage of a pause by a gunman to try to subdue him. To deny them that opportunity solely to maintain pace with police armaments makes little sense.

    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 .
    And when the police armed themselves with Tommy guns the general population didn't arm themselve with Tommy guns plus the use of the .223 semi-automatic is issued to SWAT forces not patrol officers. If you are arguing what the police use is what we should use then a Glock with a 10 round clip should do fine.
    Last edited by PeterS; 02-16-2013 at 01:08 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #182  
    Timed Out
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by TVDOC View Post
    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
    True and thanks for the correction. However, they remain highly regulated and you are not going to run down to the local Walmart and buy one. For all practial reasons they are banned as a means of self defense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #183  
    Senior Member TVDOC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterS View Post
    And when the police armed themselves with Tommy guns the general population didn't arm themselve with Tommy guns plus the use of the .223 semi-automatic is issued to SWAT forces not patrol officers. If you are arguing what the police use is what we should use then a Glock with a 10 round clip should do fine.
    Patently false.......the police armed themselves with Thompsons AFTER the criminal element armed themselves with them, they were perfectly legal to purchase back in those years........you could buy a full-auto Thompson from Sears & Roebuck for about $125.......mail-order, in 1925, they were quite popular back then, and many of them are still around today.

    The AR-15, 5.56 mm, semi-auto rifle is the standard "field rifle" carried in most police vehicles in many urban areas......this change occured after the LA bank shoot-out, so to state that they are limited to SWAT is untrue.....do some research before you continue to make a fool out of yourself.....in my city EVERY police cruiser has an AR-15 in the trunk (typically with 3 30-round mags).....

    doc
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #184  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    8,067
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterS View Post
    True and thanks for the correction. However, they remain highly regulated and you are not going to run down to the local Walmart and buy one. For all practial reasons they are banned as a means of self defense.

    So by your own admission the weapons in question and the kind that Obama wants to put even MORE restrictions are "highly regulated".

    So with that being the case...what's more restrictions gonna do to help?

    As I said earlier...the U.S. already has 1600 laws on the books concerning the regulation of firearms.

    Why do we need another?
    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  
     

  5. #185  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    8,067
    Quote Originally Posted by TVDOC View Post
    Patently false.......the police armed themselves with Thompsons AFTER the criminal element armed themselves with them, they were perfectly legal to purchase back in those years........you could buy a full-auto Thompson from Sears & Roebuck for about $125.......mail-order, in 1925, they were quite popular back then, and many of them are still around today.

    The AR-15, 5.56 mm, semi-auto rifle is the standard "field rifle" carried in most police vehicles in many urban areas......this change occured after the LA bank shoot-out, so to state that they are limited to SWAT is untrue.....do some research before you continue to make a fool out of yourself.....in my city EVERY police cruiser has an AR-15 in the trunk (typically with 3 30-round mags).....

    doc

    The Texas DPS has an AR-15 in every one of their patrol cars. They did that after a shoot out north of Dallas in the IIRC early 80's. The bad guys were well armed and all the DPS officers has was shotguns and revolvers.
    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  
     

  6. #186  
    Drive-by Poster ABC in Georgia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    2,890
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockntractor View Post
    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
    Oh Mercy, Rock ...

    You are funny!

    ~ ABC
    American By Choice ~ 1980
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #187  
    Senior Member TVDOC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by txradioguy View Post
    The Texas DPS has an AR-15 in every one of their patrol cars. They did that after a shoot out north of Dallas in the IIRC early 80's. The bad guys were well armed and all the DPS officers has was shotguns and revolvers.
    True.....SWAT prefers the MP-5 (select-fire) for close-quarters, and the military version of the Remington 700, in either 300 mag, or 338 Lapua for the snipers (I think it's the M-24).

    doc
    Last edited by TVDOC; 02-16-2013 at 01:42 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #188  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterS View Post
    Then don't.
    Okay, but when you set yourself up as an authority on the language, to the extent that you feel that you can parse the language of the Constitution, and then proceed to provide poorly spelled, grammatically incorrect posts, you set yourself up to look like a tool. If you don't care about looking foolish, then more power to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterS View Post
    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.
    There are a few points to make here. First, the existence of a standing army that is mostly deployed overseas doesn't threaten us. The founders saw the people as a counterweight to the forces of the government, which, back then, was the standing army, but today is more likely to be felt through the auspices of one of the alphabet agencies (FBI, TSA, ATF, NSA, DEA, MIC, KEY, MOUSE). There are numerous legal safeguards against the use of the military as a tyrannical force, but far fewer against the agencies that I cited. Nothing that you have said counters that. The presumption that government can deny us the right to self-defense is based on the belief in government as our master, not our servant.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterS View Post
    You left out "fair and balanced" Fox and all right wing media sources.
    Fox and most pundits on the right don't deny being conservative, although in the case of Fox, that conservatism plays out more along the lines of having a conservative spokesperson along with the obligatory liberal, something that the leftist media doesn't do.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterS View Post
    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.
    Whether the justices are conservative or liberal, the Constitution is the law of the land. What it says is clear and unambiguous, and those who seek to pretend that it does not say what it does do so, not out of respect for the law, but out of contempt for it, and for those that it protects.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterS View Post
    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.
    One could argue otherwise, especially in view of the use of regular troops against the Whiskey Rebellion.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterS View Post
    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.
    The founders' intent is still today's reality. The primary means of individual defense are individuals, not federal state or local police agencies, and the proliferation of SWAT-type agencies has made individual liberty more tenuous. When the Department of Education has its own SWAT team (and they do: http://www.cato.org/blog/department-...-student-loans), then a standing army is the least of our worries.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterS View Post
    How was I evading this? If the militia was not made up of the people who would they be made up of?
    You didn't say the people previously, you said people, without the qualifier. The point is that the militia isn't simply some people, it is the entirety of the American people.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterS View Post
    If you really think that was a successful defense it is ludicrous for me to argue it.
    I never said that the Davidians' defense of their lives and homes was successful. It failed, because the state used lethal military force against civilians. The real question is why you aren't as appalled by that as the rest of us.

    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 didnít take the military to turn him into mangled meat.
    No, but it did take the military in the case of the Davidians. And, since we're on the subject, exactly what did the Davidians do to warrant the initial raid? Why did the ATF go in with guns blazing? What danger did Koresh pose to the community? The ATF raid in Waco was exactly the kind of abusive act that would have shocked and outraged the founders. The use of lethal force against US citizens without provocation was an outrageous abuse of federal power. Rather than claiming that it proves that Americans cannot resist the force of their government, you should be arguing that it demonstrates that Americans must have the means to resist it when it acts with reckless disregard for the law.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterS View Post
    Loughner wasnít in a gun free zone and those who subdued him werenít children and any teacher willing to throw themselves in front of their children to protect them would no doubt try to take advantage of a pause by a gunman to try to subdue him. To deny them that opportunity solely to maintain pace with police armaments makes little sense.
    Loughner was the sole exception to the pattern. He targeted a specific political figure and attacked her in a public place. In every other mass shooting that we have discussed, the shooter targeted people who were disarmed, concentrated and vulnerable.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterS View Post
    And when the police armed themselves with Tommy guns the general population didn't arm themselve with Tommy guns plus the use of the .223 semi-automatic is issued to SWAT forces not patrol officers. If you are arguing what the police use is what we should use then a Glock with a 10 round clip should do fine.
    The police issued Glock has a 17 round clip. And patrol officers in NYC carry HK MP5 submachineguns on routine patrols, ever since 9/11. The federal police throughout Washington DC carry them, as well (I see them whenever I enter a federal building). And, as pointed out elsewhere, the general public bought Thompson SMGs long before the police began using them. The NYPD carried .38 revolvers long after felons began carrying 9mms, and the Dinkins administration made the same absurd arguments that you do about magazine capacity and the needs of the police to protect themselves.
    --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. #189  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus
    You didn't say the people previously, you said people, without the qualifier. The point is that the militia isn't simply some people, it is the entirety of the American people.
    This is precisely what George Mason is saying:
    "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
    It's the whole people meaning anyone who can hold a gun. Male, female, adult, child(yes, there were children fighting in the revolution). Not certain people. Not to mention that the government doesn't get to pick who is in the militia like peter thinks. WE get to pick who is in the militia.
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus
    No, but it did take the military in the case of the Davidians. And, since we're on the subject, exactly what did the Davidians do to warrant the initial raid? Why did the ATF go in with guns blazing? What danger did Koresh pose to the community? The ATF raid in Waco was exactly the kind of abusive act that would have shocked and outraged the founders. The use of lethal force against US citizens without provocation was an outrageous abuse of federal power. Rather than claiming that it proves that Americans cannot resist the force of their government, you should be arguing that it demonstrates that Americans must have the means to resist it when it acts with reckless disregard for the law.
    Let's not forget that liberal hero Bill Clinton was responsible for this which led to the OKC bombing. The Clinton's have a lot of American blood on their hands and the left simply loves them. I just can't understand it. Oh, and Bill Clinton refused to take Bin Laden so 9/11 is partially on his hands as well. He has more blood on his hands for that than they think Bush has for 9/11. Speaking of which, he would't take on Bin Laden but he was comfortable doing this:

    Last edited by NJCardFan; 02-17-2013 at 03:55 AM.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #190  
    Senior Member Unreconstructed Reb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    882
    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.
    1) Please learn the difference between a 'clip' and a 'magazine'. Of course, I guess libtards talking about guns is about the same as conservatives discussing what to wear to a gay marriage..........

    2) By allowing 10 round magazines you're saying that 10 victims is acceptable, at which point, in your world, the perp will always fumble the mag switch, heroic left wing citizens (certainly union thugs and FSA types) will humanely subdue the poor troubled shooter and Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and GW will be blamed for the shooters actions. It's a win-win situation for you lefties; you get some victims, but not too many, and you're able to demonize the right even if the shooter was a slobbering 0bama lover.

    3) People that perpetrate these shootings don't abide by the rules. Imposing a 10 round magazine limit on a criminal is like telling 0bama that he has to govern according to the Constitution. It's a joke.

    4) How do you plan on imposing a 10 round magazine limit? You do know that there are hundreds of millions of them in private possession, don't you?

    5) Do you feel comfortable making criminals out of millions of Americans who will refuse to surrender their property to an out of control federal government?

    6) Do you advocate a nation wide, door to door search and seizure of EBR's and >10 mags and, if not, how would you enforce a new AWB and mag limit? Grandfather all the existing ones in? If so, then you've nullified your argument against EBR's and >10 round mags.

    and lastly,

    7) How is it that you libtards can cry alligator tears for the single victim of a senseless shooting and advocate the denial of constitutional rights to prevent it from happening again but staunchly defend the right to kill a million babies a year denying them their right to life?
    "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  
     

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
  •