DaVinci 0 #76 July 25, 2012 Quote I wasn't and am not disagreeing with the data. Hence, there is no reason to debate it. Thank you for affirming my post. Total BS. You claim this was not a personal attack? I expected the reply from DaVinci. Thought you had better logical thinking skills. Typical of you to make one, and then claim you didn't Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #77 July 25, 2012 QuoteAny guns they might have had would have been "quaint" by today's standards or compared to the military thugs who rounded them up. They really didn't stand a chance either way. Google Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. QuoteIn much the same way, any individual or group of individuals who believe they'd be able to protect themselves from our own government if the government was determined are really just fooling themselves. They wouldn't stand a chance. They'd be declared domestic terrorists and would be very quickly dealt with. -- King George, 1775 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #78 July 25, 2012 QuoteSeems fair enough. 31 rds plus for LEO and Mil, 30 and below are plenty for Comps and weekend fun. Matt You seem to be ignoring the Founding Fathers reason for the 2nd. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
devildog 0 #79 July 25, 2012 Quote Quote So we can expect to go back to 11 rounds as opposed to 13? That was ever so helpful in protecting me from a true assault weapon. How about keep 13 but get rid of 100? Is that really too much to ask? Is that completely unreasonable? Retardedly high-cap round magazines do the cops a favor. They are notorious for jamming (like what happened).You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #80 July 25, 2012 QuoteQuoteSeems fair enough. 31 rds plus for LEO and Mil, 30 and below are plenty for Comps and weekend fun. Matt You seem to be ignoring the Founding Fathers reason for the 2nd. Not at all, but I am NOT ignoring REASONABLE control measures, that will allow us to still have a 2nd Amendment, and allow us to have these weapons for hunting, sport, (target, comp), and self defense. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #81 July 25, 2012 Quote Retardedly high-cap round magazines do the cops a favor. They are notorious for jamming (like what happened). Have we gotten a conclusion yet on when this drum jammed? Did he get off 10 rounds, 50 rounds, 80 rounds? Seems like a useful detail in this conversation since many are seizing upon the 100 round capacity as the key to this slaughter. With 70 people shot, it may be true. But if the 12 who died were mostly shot by that shotgun after the jam, not so much. I think back to the Tec9 with its 30 round magazines, but with the accuracy to hit the side of a barn. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #82 July 25, 2012 QuoteQuote Retardedly high-cap round magazines do the cops a favor. They are notorious for jamming (like what happened). Have we gotten a conclusion yet on when this drum jammed? Did he get off 10 rounds, 50 rounds, 80 rounds? Seems like a useful detail in this conversation since many are seizing upon the 100 round capacity as the key to this slaughter. With 70 people shot, it may be true. But if the 12 who died were mostly shot by that shotgun after the jam, not so much. I think back to the Tec9 with its 30 round magazines, but with the accuracy to hit the side of a barn. And to ask another question about stuff that has been a large part of the debte: Did the teargas actually affect the crowd? I haven't been following the news on it really closely, but I havent' heard any of the news reports mention anyone in the crowd (including interviews of those who were in the theater) being incpacitated, or even noticing the tear gas. A lot of discussions about the shooter, the people getting hit, the panic in the crowd, ect. But no mention of teargas, burning eyes, skin, ect. Did the tear gas have any effect on the crowd??"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CSpenceFLY 1 #83 July 25, 2012 Or was it tear gas? Not that I doubt the media. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #84 July 25, 2012 Quote Or was it tear gas? Not that I doubt the media. That's another possibility. Maybe a smoke bomb or something. It's not so much trusting the media as much as if it had been bad it would have been mentioned more (or maybe it was and I just missed it). So many of the arguments against effective defense against this looney were based on exposure to tear gas (I have experienced it once, non-military and it was a bitch. I don't want to think about what real CS would be like). But if there wasn't a teargas bomb set off, or it was homemade and fizzled, then the enitre discussion changes. DavJohns had a pretty good post on his observations in a theatre."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #85 July 26, 2012 Not to mention that many of them weren't even Americans.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #86 July 26, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote'Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership' Seriously?? Seriously. The Holocaust was a real wake-up call about the dangers governments pose to their populations. Avoiding victim disarmament should make committing such atrocities more difficult in the future. Nonsense. The Holocaust was about genocide. It wasn't about gun control. That was after the Nazis made it illegal for Jews to own firearms and confiscated many of their guns in 1938. They also leveraged local records of gun ownership to disarm victims outside Germany as they marched across Europe. I see where you are going with this, but I still disagree. The road to the gas chambers and execution pits was an insidious one which worked because the victims actively took part in the long slow bureaucratic process. Where they did have access to guns (Warsaw) they hesitated to use them because they knew what it would lead to. The only difference that guns made to the resistance in the ghetto was that they died in the ghetto rather than the death camps. Personally I'd rather have died fighting too but it still wouldn't change the outcome.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #87 July 26, 2012 Quote The miscreants came and took them anyway. Exactly! They did it using the law of the time, if firearm ownership would have saved the Jews of WWII then this was the moment for them to rise up and take on the Third Reich. They didn't, why? Because they knew that they would be massacred on the spot.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #88 July 26, 2012 Quote Quote Here you go: http://shop.jpfo.org/...uct_detail&p=103 It's even made in America. Just submitted my order. Can't wait for it to come in. It's going to be my new favorite cap. i might get one myself, that would raise a few eyebrows down at the range! When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #89 July 26, 2012 Quote And it's much harder to demonize our own people rather than ones that are distinct minorities (ie, Muslims). You do realise that being a Muslim is not a race or a nationality. While its true that Muslims are demonised in the Western media and watched in the states like 'commies' were in the McCarthy era there is no reason why a white American from Alabama couldn't be a Muslim.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #90 July 26, 2012 QuoteQuote And it's much harder to demonize our own people rather than ones that are distinct minorities (ie, Muslims). You do realise that being a Muslim is not a race or a nationality. While its true that Muslims are demonised in the Western media and watched in the states like 'commies' were in the McCarthy era there is no reason why a white American from Alabama couldn't be a Muslim. No, there's not, but demographics are clear. In America you have populations that tend to be Arab, and you have very obvious populations of Black Muslims. The latter are not African immigrants with darker skin...these are descendants from the slavery era that embraced Islam starting with the Civil Rights era in the 60s and 70s. In Oakland the men stand out - tending to be very clean cut in white suits, much the same way that Mormon missionaries are easily identified. You're skipping the point, btw. In Iraq, it is pretty easy for our troops to distinguish between "us and them." Same with Vietnam. But here...no such luck. As you state, even the Muslims are going to look very much like "us" so it's still hard to get the National Guard to attack them, let alone shoot at them for protesting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #91 July 27, 2012 I wasn't (debating the data) and I am not disagreeing with the data. Thank you for re-affirming my post. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #92 July 30, 2012 QuoteNot at all, but I am NOT ignoring REASONABLE control measures, that will allow us to still have a 2nd Amendment, and allow us to have these weapons for hunting, sport, (target, comp), and self defense. Yes, you are. Why do you think the Founding Fathers had a 2nd Amendment and made sure it was spelled out? I'll give you a hint, it was not for hunting and was not for self defense - Read the Founding Fathers thoughts on Blackstone. Those rights were considered everyday rights and they saw no reason to even mention them since it was a given. Again, why do you think the Founding Fathers specifically wrote the 2nd? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #93 July 30, 2012 QuoteI wasn't (debating the data) and I am not disagreeing with the data. Thank you for re-affirming my post. Total BS. You made a personal attack and then tried to claim you didn't.... Now you are just trying to misdirect instead of just admitting what you did. QuoteI expected the reply from DaVinci. Thought you had better logical thinking skills. Typical of you to make one, and then claim you didn't Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #94 July 30, 2012 QuoteQuoteNot at all, but I am NOT ignoring REASONABLE control measures, that will allow us to still have a 2nd Amendment, and allow us to have these weapons for hunting, sport, (target, comp), and self defense. Yes, you are. Why do you think the Founding Fathers had a 2nd Amendment and made sure it was spelled out? I'll give you a hint, it was not for hunting and was not for self defense - Read the Founding Fathers thoughts on Blackstone. Those rights were considered everyday rights and they saw no reason to even mention them since it was a given. Again, why do you think the Founding Fathers specifically wrote the 2nd? You say; "Ignore", I say; "Compromise". is it the ideal situation? No. But is it better than having NO 2nd Amendment? Yes. http://www.largo.org/meaning2.html MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #95 July 30, 2012 Quote You say; "Ignore", I say; "Compromise". is it the ideal situation? No. But is it better than having NO 2nd Amendment? Yes. http://www.largo.org/meaning2.html Matt There is no compromise when we're talking about the basic freedoms spelled out in the Bill of Rights. And in this specific case, there's no compromise available with gun control groups who until recently didn't even try to deny that their objective is complete banning of weapons to citizens, either directly by law, or by litigating small weapons makers into financial ruin. Makes as much sense as compromising with a child molester by only letting him play with 3 kids at a time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #96 July 30, 2012 Did you just equate gun control groups to child molesters? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #97 July 30, 2012 Quote Did you just equate gun control groups to child molesters? nonsense - he made the point that giving in with impotent actions just to placate a group doesn't fix any problem. Especially when the group won't go away or stop their negative value behavior no matter how many pointless concessions you give up. i.e., you can't placate fanatics - just like you won't placate someone with a severely twisted need. In that limited boundary, perhaps it's a good analogy. Unless someone is shallow enough to not take the intent of the comment and just wants to find an argument not intended. edit: I would also answer this way -.,,,, yes, yes they are exactly the samebut sometimes the smiley faces are ignored around here by the uber-serious crowd ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #98 July 30, 2012 QuoteDid you just equate gun control groups to child molesters? They both have incurable obsessions. They both, currently, are in denial of this truth. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #99 July 31, 2012 Quotenonsense - he made the point that giving in with impotent actions just to placate a group doesn't fix any problem. Especially when the group won't go away or stop their negative value behavior no matter how many pointless concessions you give up. i.e., you can't placate fanatics - just like you won't placate someone with a severely twisted need. In that limited boundary, perhaps it's a good analogy. Unless someone is shallow enough to not take the intent of the comment and just wants to find an argument not intended. No it isn't a good analogy. Actually it is a pretty fucking sick analogy, really only made for shock factor and completely devalues any point. You are equating mostly law abiding people who feel that a law needs to be enacted or maybe a constitutional amendment needs to be altered or redacted with people who actively break the law in the most despicable way. They actively and in the first person hurt a child. It is absolutely insane you would defend this analogy and then call me shallow. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #100 July 31, 2012 You either try to see the analogy for what it is (and no more than that) - or you're just trying to find outrage to complain about - or, you really are incapable of understanding what you choose not to understand I suspect the first. so in this case, yeah, it's a pretty shallow read, with no attempt to understand the point he's making - I don't think you're shallow, I find your comments pretty smart, but I think you're manufacturing something out of thin air here. analogies in SC are pretty pointless anyway, you people are too literal for your own good ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
