Jump to content
ShoMeOutdoors Forums
Sign in to follow this  
killmode

I know Where I Wont Be Going

Recommended Posts

5150, you said earlier in this thread that you supported CCW. You do realize that the Virginia Tech shooting was committed with the very same handguns that most people use for their concealed carry weapon? I suppose you\'d like to see those banned too, as it was the deadliest mass shooting in US history committed by a single gunman? 32 dead, not counting the gunman himself who committed suicide, and another 17 wounded. There is simply no credible evidence to suggest that a restriction on certain types or styles of firearms, or magazine capacity, would have any effect at all in preventing any type of crime, or the amount of destruction committed during a crime. Believe me when I say, the gun ban on the table today is only the first step. The left wants nothing less than a completely unarmed society. If they could get their way, they would repeal the second amendment tomorrow. While I\'m sure your intentions are good, your position is both misinformed and misguided. Just as the police don\'t prevent crimes, they react to them, weapons bans won\'t prevent mass murders, it will only change the tactics used by those bent on mass destruction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Very well said, Deerman!By the way, didn\'t the shooter in Newtown, CT use pistols?
He was carrying pistols with him, as well as an AR 15. It\'s commonly believed that most, if not all of the people were shot with the rifle, but it\'s not all that clear yet as the police investigating it haven\'t come out with any details or a press conference. I really don\'t see where it matters though. He committed 40+ crimes that days BEFORE he even got to the school. Unarmed staff members and children are powerless against a madman with any firearm. Even if he only had 10 round magazines, do you think a staff member would have been able to stop him before the police showed up and he shot himself? He would only have needed another 5 seconds to change out magazines twice, would those 5 seconds have saved anyone? There is no way to know for certain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He was carrying pistols with him, as well as an AR 15. It\'s commonly believed that most, if not all of the people were shot with the rifle, but it\'s not all that clear yet as the police investigating it haven\'t come out with any details or a press conference. I really don\'t see where it matters though. He committed 40+ crimes that days BEFORE he even got to the school. Unarmed staff members and children are powerless against a madman with any firearm. Even if he only had 10 round magazines, do you think a staff member would have been able to stop him before the police showed up and he shot himself? He would only have needed another 5 seconds to change out magazines twice, would those 5 seconds have saved anyone? There is no way to know for certain.
the Latest and Greatest that ive heard on this is that The AR was found in the back seat of his vehicle and was not used in the shooting at all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the Latest and Greatest that ive heard on this is that The AR was found in the back seat of his vehicle and was not used in the shooting at all
That is not true. He was carrying the AR in the school. The gun found in the trunk of the car was a shotgun, and you can plainly see that in the video taken from the helicopter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bolt cycles faster on an ar than any other hunting rifle:laughcry::laughcry::laughcry:You can\'t be for real...this has got to be some sort of joke I\'m not privy to or something.Can you define the term assault gun, assault rifle? You use it an aweful lot and I\'m not sure you really know what one is by definition.Oh yeah, almost forgot. CT already has an awb in effect right now and was in effect the day of the shooting. So tell me how this awb will deter or lower these events? He possessed the guns illegally, took them illegally, used them illegally, and you really think a ban from obamas desk would have stopped him. This thought process is almost laughable if it wasn\'t so sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
\"Regarding your uneducated opinion of what is considered \"high capacity\", AR\'s are boxed with a 30 round magazine from the factory. Therefore that\'s a standard capacity magazine. How many rounds is acceptable for a magazine in your eyes? Let me follow up by saying it takes 1.5 seconds to drop a mag and install a fresh one.\"Just not really sure why a 30 rounder coming with the gun vs. one bought after market vs. one delivered by a fairy in pink pants makes it high capacity or not. That rational is laughable and confirmation of how truly uneducated a large portion of the fanatical pro-gun group is. That and the fact you really think the \"G-men\" under direction of a tyrant leader are coming to get \'ya is a joke.
Interesting diversionary tactic.Make a terrible attempt at tossing humor into a reply that has nothing at all to do with the questions answered. Cute, but it negates what little credibility your argument had in the first place.Regarding high capacity mags....I wasn\'t really asking a question per say. I was stating a fact. 30 rounds IS standard capacity, whether you like it or not. It\'s not an arguable point. So are you capable of answering the questions or are we just going to discuss your misguided opinions? I\'ll add another one to the list...have you ever even shot an ar style rifle? And by fanatical, you mean someone who actually gives a rip about my rights being trampled on by the government on a daily basis? Or do you mean those who don\'t rely on the government for a means of living and a safety blanky? If you think for one second the government whether it be local, state or otherwise give 2 hoots if your alive or dead, your kidding yourself.Police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim. There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is \"You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980\'s when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole.\"\"It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection.\"Sources:7/15/05 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to individual police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. Mrs. Gonzales\' husband with a track record of violence, stabbing Mrs. Gonzales to death, Mrs. Gonzales\' family could not get the Supreme Court to change their unanimous decision for one\'s individual protection. YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN FOLKS AND GOVERNMENT BODIES ARE REFUSING TO PASS THE Safety Ordinance.(1) Richard W. Stevens. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Hartford, Wisconsin: Mazel Freedom Press.(2) Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).(3) Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).(4) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).(5) Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).(6) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981).\"...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen...\" -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)(7) \"What makes the City\'s position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her.\" Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958).(8) \"Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public.\"Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)New York Times, Washington DCJustices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone By LINDA GREENHOUSE Published: June 28, 2005 The ruling applies even for a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.THIS is the government your speaking so highly of:duh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is not true. He was carrying the AR in the school. The gun found in the trunk of the car was a shotgun, and you can plainly see that in the video taken from the helicopter.
Hmmmm...are you sure about that? I just watched a video update that said that there was no rifle...just pistols. The only rifle he had, was in the trunk. Originally, the news reported that there was a rifle in the school, but later, admitted that there wasn\'t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmmm...are you sure about that? I just watched a video update that said that there was no rifle...just pistols. The only rifle he had, was in the trunk. Originally, the news reported that there was a rifle in the school, but later, admitted that there wasn\'t.
Yes, I\'m positive. The firearm in the trunk was a shotgun. Every credible source of information I\'ve seen indicates that he indeed had the AR in the school, and that most or all of the victims were shot with it. As I said before, the police investigating this have done absolutely nothing to clear up any and all of these rumors and speculations. It really makes me wonder who\'s pulling the strings, but I already have a pretty good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I\'m positive. The firearm in the trunk was a shotgun. Every credible source of information I\'ve seen indicates that he indeed had the AR in the school, and that most or all of the victims were shot with it. As I said before, the police investigating this have done absolutely nothing to clear up any and all of these rumors and speculations. It really makes me wonder who\'s pulling the strings, but I already have a pretty good idea.
Which credible sources of information are you talking about? The video I saw, was from NBC news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don\'t believe the video you saw is all that new. I think I\'ve seen the same one, and it\'s a month or more old. As far as I can tell, no new details about the shooting have been released in over a month. and I don\'t exactly call NBC a credible source of information anymore, as well as most of the major media outlets. The only credible statement I have found was made by police officials, and again, it was over a month ago, but here\'s a small portion of it:

Three weapons were recovered from the school: a semi-automatic .223 Bushmaster rifle, a Glock and a Sig Sauer, a law enforcement official familiar with the investigation said. The weapons were legally purchased by Lanza\'s mother, the official said. A fourth weapon, a shotgun, was recovered from a car in the school parking lot, police said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeremy....... Like I said. It doesn\'t matter the source of a 30 rounder. It is high capacity. PERIOD. It doesn\'t matter if it is standard issue with the gun or you buy it afterwards. I fail to see your point and your rationale is useless.As far as using a AR-15 to hunt because that is what they used while playing video games...... REALLY?????? That is a good reason ya got????? Wow. Back in the day I was pretty dang good at flying an F-14 in a video game and blowing MIGs out of the sky....... Guess I ought to join the Navy. Oh, I forgot for a second there, they scrapped the F-14 about 8 years ago. Guess I\'m out of luck. I was also pretty good at Pole Position. Guess I\'ll be in the Indy 500 this year.If you all really have the attitude that that government is trying to take you over and by into all these Tea Party conspiracy theories about everything....... we are all screwed. Folks wake up. It is 2013 and this country has been here a long time and will continue to be here. However, things are different than they were in the 1800s, 1950s, whatever and you best get out of your little \"shell\" and catch up with the times and true issues.Just curious too for all you \"they take or AR\'s now, they will take my Browning A-Bolt next\" types. How many of your non-assault weapons got taken during the last assault weapon ban. I\'ll give you a hint. ZERO!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And, outside of Deerman, 99% of aren\'t even up to speed on what guns were used in CO and CT. And something else that sickens me is the fact that during yestedays hearings in CT some pro-gun fanactics had the heartlessness to chastise the Dad of a 6-year old killed a little more than a month ago because he expressed the truth........ that being if Adam Lanza didn\'t have completely legal access to an AR-15, most if not all of those kids would be alive today.You talk about in only takes a few seconds to swap a mag...... I agree. But I also tell you lot can happen in a couple seconds and alot of times in alot of situations a couple of seconds is the difference between life and death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just curious too for all you \"they take or AR\'s now, they will take my Browning A-Bolt next\" types. How many of your non-assault weapons got taken during the last assault weapon ban. I\'ll give you a hint. ZERO!!!!!
Again, this newest proposed legislation is a far cry from the weapons ban that was passed back in 1994. A ban that by all accounts failed to do anything to stop crime by the way. When you start talking about a national gun registry, background checks for ammo purchases, and having background checks performed on your family members when you wish to give them a birthday or christmas present, you are taking it to a new level. One that is only a stones throw away from completely banning all firearms. You are right about one thing, this is a much different world today than it was 200 years ago. But only in the respect that we\'ve allowed the government to have too much power already. They\'ve systematically intruded into every aspect of our lives, which was never the intent of our founding fathers. They were a very smart group of individuals, and they saw this time and place coming from 200 years away. They are likely rolling in their graves knowing what the leaders of the past 100 years have done to undermine the very principals and ideals they fought so hard for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here\'s an excerpt from a post I made in the political forum, I think it fits in well with this conversation:

Only in America could the people who believe in balancingthe budget and sticking by the country\'s Constitution be thought of as\"extremists.\"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And something else that sickens me is the fact that during yestedays hearings in CT some pro-gun fanactics had the heartlessness to chastise the Dad of a 6-year old killed a little more than a month ago because he expressed the truth........ that being if Adam Lanza didn\'t have completely legal access to an AR-15, most if not all of those kids would be alive today..
You obviously watched the edited version. Here is the unedited version in its entirety. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/newtown-father-heckled-second-amendment-191804834.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, I ain\'t \"left\" nor \"right\" in my political views. I think both have good and bad. However, all politicians and both parties have become extremist. Whatever I may agree with on one party, I disagree with an equal or more things that they put out there. I like to think that I take a common sense view on everything (hence why I have ZERO political affilitation) ..... whether that be taxes, guns, pro-life/pro-choice, unemployment, medical services, etc. Whatever issue there is, there is two sides to everything. Just because a democrat or republican introduces something doesn\'t mean I will agree with or disagree with it just because that is what \"my\" party or church tells me to do. I will tell you right now and I will tell you tomorrow and forever. Common sense is telling me that every swinging ding-dong doesn\'t need an AR or other assault weapon for hunting or personal protection and banning/limiting them isn\'t going to alter my or anyone else\'s abiltiy to target shoot, hunt, or protect my family. It may however, be one of many levels of protetion that need to be implemented to help protect future incidents of this type from occurring.As I\'ve said in the past and if anybody would really take time to think about it before blabbing away in a supposed response, two of my 3 stances on this are about as anti-liberal as can be. 1) The dang video game and television/movie violence needs to be toned down. You can\'t tell me that isn\'t adding to the desensitization of society and filling in alot of holes being created by bad parenting/family life. 2) A sad but true fact is that people with mental disabilities cannot be completely main-streamed as the ultra left want. Some people will never be able to be part of mainstream society and we need to accept/handle/monitor that situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never claimed or accused you of being on the left, just that your view on this topic is left. While you are entitled to your opinion, it\'s really not your place or the governments place to tell law abiding Americans what they need or don\'t need to defend their family and property. We\'re not talking about restricting what guns criminals and mentally ill people can have, we\'re talking about taking rights away from law abiding Americans. If you really are using common sense, then you\'d clearly be able to see that gun bans have no effect on reducing crime. Just go to the FBI website and look at it for yourself if you don\'t believe me. No gun ban or other legislation will ever prevent tragedies like the Newtown shooting from happening, that\'s just plain common sense. It\'s my personal opinion, that the American people shouldn\'t be forced to give up their constitutionally granted rights for the off chance that 1 life might be saved in the event of a future mass shooting. One life lost is a tragedy, but the loss of freedom of 300+ million people is far worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what its worth the police said ar was used .http://www.ctpost.com/newtownshooting/ar...ith-4220548.phpLt. J. Paul Vance, the face of an ongoing Connecticut State Police investigation into worst grade-school shooting in U.S. history, Thursday debunked media and Internet reports that Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza killed his victims with handguns and not the Bushmaster XM-15 E2S The only time Lanza used a handgun at the school was to commit suicide, according to Vance.The state police went so far as a to issue a news release on Jan. 18 listing the weapons recovered from inside the school, which included the Bushmaster, a Glock 10mm handgun and a Sig-Sauer P226 9mm handgun. An Izhmash Canta-12 12-gauge shotgun was taken from the trunk of the suspect\'s car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still no answersHow many rounds do you see as acceptable and why?How will a ban on these weapons on a nationwide scale stop this from happening since CT had a ban already?Do you really think people are going to just hand over their legaly purchased ar rifles...and every other rifle on that crazy list? If not, who do you think is going to go door to door and collect them?And yes, 1.5 seconds to swap mags. A lot can happen in that time you say? That\'s not enough time for a adult to get off the floor to a standing position, or from a seated position and be able to take more than a couple steps. The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting...at all.I install intoxilock systems on cars more than you can possibly imagine. When do we start installing them on people\'s cars that have never been convicted of a DUI? You don\'t punish the masses because of the few criminals. The argument of \"get with the times\" as some sort of rational thought process of undermining the second amendment is plain silly. With the way this country is operated, the law abiding should be able to have whatever firearms they can legaly purchase....and that includes any semi auto gun.Btw, an ar bolt doesn\'t cycle any faster than my ruger sr9c carry pistol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pretty darn sure that 99.99999% of franchises of any type, malls decent restaurants, hardware stores, barber shops, doctors offices, etc. have some version of that sign on their door/window. That isn\'t exactly new \"news\". Just sayin\'.;)As I\'ve said before, I am pro-conceal carry. That has nothing to do with my hate/despise for assault weapons and desire to have every dang one of them and high capacity mag (unless it is for the cops or military) melted into scrap. But I\'ve always wondered what good is CC when pretty much every establishment bans guns?????? So, that being said, how do any of you CC regulars really go anywhere in public? Obviously you can have the Glock or Sig out in the F-250, just wondering how you really go inside anywhere without breaking the law? I guess if you never leave small town USA you can get by, but outside of that how do you go anywhere without breaking a law or leaving you gun outside. And then, is it really going to prevent any of these crimes you are so sure it will?Like I said, I\'m not putting down or anit-CC. I just really wonder how it really means much when almost every public place bans it (and that can be said long before CO or CT happened).
Well let me say this. I would rather be judged by twelve than carried by six.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Firstly, I ain\'t \"left\" nor \"right\" in my political views. I think both have good and bad. However, all politicians and both parties have become extremist. Whatever I may agree with on one party, I disagree with an equal or more things that they put out there. I like to think that I take a common sense view on everything (hence why I have ZERO political affilitation) ..... whether that be taxes, guns, pro-life/pro-choice, unemployment, medical services, etc. Whatever issue there is, there is two sides to everything. Just because a democrat or republican introduces something doesn\'t mean I will agree with or disagree with it just because that is what \"my\" party or church tells me to do. . I will tell you right now and I will tell you tomorrow and forever. Common sense is telling me that every swinging ding-dong doesn\'t need an AR or other assault weapon for hunting or personal protection and banning/limiting them isn\'t going to alter my or anyone else\'s abiltiy to target shoot, hunt, or protect my family. It may however, be one of many levels of protetion that need to be implemented to help protect future incidents of this type from occurring.As I\'ve said in the past and if anybody would really take time to think about it before blabbing away in a supposed response, two of my 3 stances on this are about as anti-liberal as can be. 1) The dang video game and television/movie violence needs to be toned down. You can\'t tell me that isn\'t adding to the desensitization of society and filling in alot of holes being created by bad parenting/family life. 2) A sad but true fact is that people with mental disabilities cannot be completely main-streamed as the ultra left want. Some people will never be able to be part of mainstream society and we need to accept/handle/monitor that situation.
Yah you MAY be right about don\'t need an AR. But then if the bad guys can have them then why can\'t I have one legally. I have three. With over 50 mags for each. I have 3 more lowers in various stages. I have many more guns. I like to hunt, shoot steel plates and sometimes I just hang out with good people at the range and not even get a gun out. I work hard ,Obey the law, was born an American and that makes it my right Now as for the video game thing. Why should Me or any other people be punished because people can\'t raise their kids right. Go after those parents. And I can go on about bad parents. I see it alot where I live. I believe that people should have to take a pill to have kids instead of prevent it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×