"Being the good guy with a gun is a selfish hero fantasy for so many 'sheepdogs'. It's not about keeping the flock safe.
If it were, they'd be focused instead on policy solutions that would stop mass killings before they occur. Like restricting access to guns."
-Brandon Freeman, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs at The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. And, a Texas resident and gun owner.
The good guy with a gun who stopped Kelley from killing more innocent people is also a NRA instructor.
1 - No one should own an automatic or semi automatic weapon outside of military/law enforcement. Period
2 - Tougher vetting before gun purchases
Only compromise we can hope for. It would surely limit the carnage; because part 1 tempers the inherent flaws in any vetting system.
1 - No one should own an automatic or semi automatic weapon outside of military/law enforcement. Period
I guess you have never hunted or owned a hunting rifle or shotgun. Like a Browning humpback shotgun. Or a Browning BAR. Or a Remington 742. Look them up. Those are all semi-automatic weapons. Your ignorance of what is and isn't a military/law enforcement weapon is quite pervasive in the general populace.
1 - No one should own an automatic or semi automatic weapon outside of military/law enforcement. Period
I guess you have never hunted or owned a hunting rifle or shotgun. Like a Browning humpback shotgun. Or a Browning BAR. Or a Remington 742. Look them up. Those are all semi-automatic weapons. Your ignorance of what is and isn't a military/law enforcement weapon is quite pervasive in the general populace.
Absolutely true.
No ignorance; poor editing. Meant period in there. No automatic/semiautomatics. Period - and I know not what fun is what. Military/law enforcement only exception allowed to own.
No ignorance; poor editing. Meant period in there. No automatic/semiautomatics. Period - and I know not what fun is what. Military/law enforcement only exception allowed to own.
You're right.
You don't know how fun it is to target shoot with an AR.
Meant which gun is what; but yes I have no clue.
No ignorance; poor editing. Meant period in there. No automatic/semiautomatics. Period - and I know not what fun is what. Military/law enforcement only exception allowed to own.
You're right.
You don't know how fun it is to target shoot with an AR.
That depends on what you are using for a target.
No ignorance; poor editing. Meant period in there. No automatic/semiautomatics. Period - and I know not what fun is what. Military/law enforcement only exception allowed to own.
You're right.
You don't know how fun it is to target shoot with an AR.
That depends on what you are using for a target.
And also on whether or not you at f**ng nuts.
Our dear friends on the left keep screaming about “gun control legislation” yet not one of them or their politicians, also running off at the mouth about gun control legislation ever propose any such legislation.
Mental health issue?
After Sandy Hook Obama went running to the TV cameras and said, “his administration would fix the counties broken mental health system”. Obama then prompt did nothing.
Posting empty rhetoric accomplishes nothing. Nothing being the standard of the far-left loons.
Put up or shut up.
[Edited on 11/7/2017 by BillyBlastoff]
This one is melting too!
Donald: I thought you said, "Take America Back". Didn't know you meant backwards.
[Edited on 11/8/2017 by robslob]
Got to give this Texas Conservative alot of credit for responding the way he did.
The gunman killed himself.
It wasn't the "good guy with a gun" who did the killing.
No ignorance; poor editing. Meant period in there. No automatic/semiautomatics. Period - and I know not what fun is what. Military/law enforcement only exception allowed to own.
You're right.
You don't know how fun it is to target shoot with an AR.
That depends on what you are using for a target.
99.99% of shooters don't use people as targets.
No ignorance; poor editing. Meant period in there. No automatic/semiautomatics. Period - and I know not what fun is what. Military/law enforcement only exception allowed to own.
You're right.
You don't know how fun it is to target shoot with an AR.
That depends on what you are using for a target.
99.99% of shooters don't use people as targets.
So mass shootings are the price of the second amendment. Cool.
This one is melting too!
The only thing "melting" is the little turd between your ears, you call a brain. 😛
Classy! You might want to get back in the freezer dude, I think you just wet yourself.
No ignorance; poor editing. Meant period in there. No automatic/semiautomatics. Period - and I know not what fun is what. Military/law enforcement only exception allowed to own.
You're right.
You don't know how fun it is to target shoot with an AR.
That depends on what you are using for a target.
99.99% of shooters don't use people as targets.
So mass shootings are the price of the second amendment. Cool.
And, pray tell, where did you get that from the conversation.
Go back to smoking your rope until you can make sense of what you are typing.
The gunman killed himself.
It wasn't the "good guy with a gun" who did the killing.
It WAS the good guy with a gun that stopped the killing.
1 - No one should own an automatic or semi automatic weapon outside of military/law enforcement. Period
2 - Tougher vetting before gun purchases
Only compromise we can hope for. It would surely limit the carnage; because part 1 tempers the inherent flaws in any vetting system.
You do know that goes against equal protection under the law? Read the Constitution and see what it says about how the people should be armed.
Also, learn what the difference is between semi-auto and automatic and assault weapons.
[Edited on 11/7/2017 by BillyBlastoff]
Again? You know that this was a piece by AnyTown, a purely anti-gun group, and proven false.
1 - No one should own an automatic or semi automatic weapon outside of military/law enforcement. Period
2 - Tougher vetting before gun purchases
Only compromise we can hope for. It would surely limit the carnage; because part 1 tempers the inherent flaws in any vetting system.
You do know that goes against equal protection under the law? Read the Constitution and see what it says about how the people should be armed.
Also, learn what the difference is between semi-auto and automatic and assault weapons.
I've read every word of the constitution many times and nowhere does it specifically mention semi-auto and automatic weapons. At the time the constitution was written "arms" were single shot black powder riffles. I have no problem allowing almost anyone from owning those, although I still don't think mentally ill people should have them either.
If equal protection under the law must be extended to mentally ill people owning assult weapons, then it might be time to revisit the entire second ammendment.
The gunman killed himself.
It wasn't the "good guy with a gun" who did the killing.
It WAS the good guy with a gun that stopped the killing.
No, the shooter was leaving the church. He was done killing at that point.
No ignorance; poor editing. Meant period in there. No automatic/semiautomatics. Period - and I know not what fun is what. Military/law enforcement only exception allowed to own.
You're right.
You don't know how fun it is to target shoot with an AR.
That depends on what you are using for a target.
99.99% of shooters don't use people as targets.
So mass shootings are the price of the second amendment. Cool.
And, pray tell, where did you get that from the conversation.
Go back to smoking your rope until you can make sense of what you are typing.
I always love it when you enter a conversation others are having several days later and act like an authority on the subject.
1 - No one should own an automatic or semi automatic weapon outside of military/law enforcement. Period
2 - Tougher vetting before gun purchases
Only compromise we can hope for. It would surely limit the carnage; because part 1 tempers the inherent flaws in any vetting system.
You do know that goes against equal protection under the law? Read the Constitution and see what it says about how the people should be armed.
Also, learn what the difference is between semi-auto and automatic and assault weapons.
I've read every word of the constitution many times and nowhere does it specifically mention semi-auto and automatic weapons. At the time the constitution was written "arms" were single shot black powder riffles. I have no problem allowing almost anyone from owning those, although I still don't think mentally ill people should have them either.
If equal protection under the law must be extended to mentally ill people owning assult weapons, then it might be time to revisit the entire second ammendment.
Wrong again.
There were many multi-fire weapons fairly comparable to modern lever action rifles, revolvers (examples from 1590), and even rapid fire rifles. The Continental Congress contracted to have Coockson rifles made for the Continental Army. (You can google the Cookson repeating rifle if you wish). There was the earlier Lorenzoni, available in a rifle or pistol, the Klathoff repeater was used in 1659. There was the Girandoni 22 shot repeater, yes, I know it was an air rifle, but it was loaded by use of a plunger and could be fired quickly enough that the magazine (22 .46 caliber lead balls) was emptied in less than a minute.
So you need to rethink that answer.
My response isn't what is in the 2nd Amendment, but in Article I, section 8, para 16.
That has nothing to do with those of "feeble minds" owning firearms. If you read that, you'll understand how the populace is to be armed.
Equal protection under the law is the 14th amendment.
Jerry, it’s cslled the 2nd AMENDMENT. The constitution can be AMENDED. Ever hear of that word? If so, why do you keep bringing it up in your arguments? If the Constitution is rule of law, shouldn’t we ignore all the amendments and stick to the original? Or you can try a relevant line of reasoning.
Jerry, it’s cslled the 2nd AMENDMENT. The constitution can be AMENDED. Ever hear of that word? If so, why do you keep bringing it up in your arguments? If the Constitution is rule of law, shouldn’t we ignore all the amendments and stick to the original? Or you can try a relevant line of reasoning.
Talk about not reading the post----