Jump to content

NRA "Enabler of Death" Video


CdnWingShooter

Recommended Posts

Perhaps because they are in the role of law enforcement and as such are armed to not only prevent escape and control prizoners as well as protect other military personel and civilians.

Spin, it sounds like you are only in favor of the military and law enforcement having firearms.

I have two responses to that.

1st, my mother told me of the night the Gestapo came and took my grandfather's pocket pistol so that he would not be a threat to the security of the military and police in NAZI Germany.  Hmm, how many millions of civilians died there not counting those who died as a result of the war?

2d, about twenty years ago the guy coming at three of us with the big knife decided he needed to be elsewhere when I produced my legally carried handgun.  I really feel that I could have died that night were I not armed.  

Yes, both my wife and I have concealed weapons permits.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 230
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • gundogpa

    17

  • john mcg

    17

  • Spin

    15

  • bobman

    15

Top Posters In This Topic

Fishnfowler
I can't believe you invoked the science card, do you have the talking points written down for quick reference, but alas seems your right.

I can't believe so many nitwits live in my WI, yes I can I watch Madison news.        

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html

No doubt that sociologists use statistics to the point of absurdity, but that doesn't invalidate the entire branch of study.  I'm not surprised that among social psychologists, the majority are liberal.  I'm sure that someone can correct me here if I'm wrong, but I had the impression that among those that have a graduate degree, liberalism is more common.  

I found sociology fascinating, particulary when considering global economics.  I don't have any talking points.  Thanks for the link.

Back to the second, in times of lawlessness, people had to forfeit some rights.  I'm thinking of those towns that made cowboys give up sidearms when in town.  Thankfully we aren't there, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the Aurora event used to promote restrictions of some sort similar to the Brady ban.  People are reactionary.  We don't have to take it laying down, but dead kids scare people.  It is a shame as a society we are willing to over-react to rare events like this, but turn a blind eye to other threats that are less sensational.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Really? Ever question why everyone isn't allowed to go armed at military bases. Why aren't all prison guards armed at all times.

 

If you register you firearm with the MPs then you can, I done it while stationed in Ft. Sill and hunted in Ft. Riley. They also have curfew on some bases.  

But the military is not the civilian world, you do as they say when on their turf.  This is not a fair comparison, same with the prison guards, they are at risk of a mob attack where they can be taken hostage with their own guns.  

In the Colorado case (and in some of the other cases) the victims were trapped, I would argue that the theater did not provide enough security, and prevented some from the ability to protect then selves.  I would like to know how many of the people in that theater  had CC and were not allowed to carry inside?   I would  hold the theater responsible because they prevented the ability of some of the people of self protection.   You could also argue that the theater had the responsibility to provide (reasonable) security and they did not, same with the schools.  

Where does it stop?  

As I said before, we are a free self governing people (for now anyway) , if a few cannot handle that responsibility then they need to be punished, and the responsibility taken from them.  Do not punish those who are responsible and law abiding.  

Would you close the deer season if a few poach and shoot deer out of season?

Probably not.  

The truth is that there are evil and bad people in the world, they will seek to do harm to the innocent because that is what they do.  No amount of legislation will stop that.  You can psycho analyze all you want, but the bottom line is that they are bad people who harm others.  When you catch them you punish them to the full extent of the law.  

I would also place some blame on the media, they make such a big deal out of these things that people will do this for the notoriety.      They should treat this the same as a  one of those idiot streakers on the football games, talk about it but do not show it, deny the gratification gained by the publicity.  

Barna

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? Ever question why everyone isn't allowed to go armed at military bases

Yep I've wondered, once again worked well for these unarmed innocent didnt it....anyone knows if you take their guns away they are safer

from WIKI

 at Fort Hood, the most populous U.S. military installation in the world, located just outside Killeen, Texas.[1] In the course of the shooting, a single gunman killed 13 people and wounded 29 others.[1] It is the worst shooting ever to take place on an American military base
Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt that sociologists use statistics to the point of absurdity, but that doesn't invalidate the entire branch of study.  I'm not surprised that among social psychologists, the majority are liberal.  I'm sure that someone can correct me here if I'm wrong, but I had the impression that among those that have a graduate degree, liberalism is more common.  

I found sociology fascinating, particulary when considering global economics.  I don't have any talking points.  Thanks for the link.

I'm not trying to trash them, just pointing out to chub  that his "brainwashing science" quip was not a black and white issue.

They have the same inclination for group think, conformation bias and politicizing of issues as us pro 2nd amendment guys.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Then I went overseas and some of the lustre wore off. You see what all this firepower can bring to bear.

And you see that all this firepower won't necessarily stop you or your friends from getting hit.

Today I still own some guns and I'm a brushworn bird hunter, love being in the woods and fields as often as possible.

I'm handy with a gun but I don't sit around in abject fear that people are going to it away. I don't sit around plotting about lighting up people 50 times with my high-cap assault rifle because they won't line up.

I have no right, authority or compulsion to tell anyone to fall in any line.

Rob J.

People come away from combat with different reactions.  For me it reinforced my opinions rather than changed them, but I never had visions of being the cavalry, I knew it was going to suck like working at the slaughterhouse.  I knew the big guns would miss on occasion, and that wide eyed kids make mistakes. You can keep the poetry about field of red flowers, I'll keep my martial weapons.

I was on the road, and am just catching up with a week's worth of this, but keep seeing posts that miss the point of the 2nd. Armed militia, drawn from the people, defend the free state.

The basic load to defend the free state isn't 40 rounds of ball and a horn of powder anymore; it's 30 round mags in easy access rigs.

And I don't care how you line them up or how many; if they come at me or mine with intent of harm, I'll knock them all down, or die. There's no visions of glory in that, and I don't fantasize about it, but that's truth. Unrepentant .

Link to post
Share on other sites
C'mon I mentioned before if you can't feel safe without being constantly armed with a gun you aren't free at all.

Haven't kept up with this thread as I'd figured it had ran its course.

This statement, if believed, seems to me to indicate a serious lack of knowledge of human nature and realized condition.

There are many kinds of freedom. Many things and conditions that men can be enslaved to, but in context I don't see 'feeling' safe a requisite for freedom. A relatively free society where 'freedom' is defined as a people self-ruled and not subjects of tyranny; such freedom needs to be maintained by the vigilant and informed populace lest the (base) human nature of those in power be left unchecked and lead to that natural conclusion inevitably. Power wants more power. An unarguable fact is that a threat can only be successfully met with equal or greater threat. The framers set it up so that the 'people' had a greater power than any who would 'take'. Although it can be argued that the framework for that people power still exists, the overall dynamic has changed so that the people can't meet the threat with equal or greater force.

This is how I see the problem over all and the incremental slide won't be arrested until the dynamic swings back to a former equilibrium.

Link to post
Share on other sites

578864_10151147201003223_555682831_n.jpg

Latest build.  Upper, stock, Leupold CQT and components are veterans of Iraq 2004. Civvy barrel mod and lower. A reincarnation of my dismount rifle. My "out the window" pal was a SAW with short barrel (did not get the full kit with cooler looking retractable stock). In the pic, twin 30 mags in a commercial cinch, the tape keeps the dust from sticking to the cinch. Weighted para cord loop on the mag to slap the empties on a easy gate carabiner (only fools throw their empty mags on the ground, or possibly those with better supply lines) on the vest. Mag holder on the side of the guards was a 1st ID thing, kept for nostalgia. Reallocated the front handle from some Marine's SAW kit, rail originally held a flashlight but it proved to be more of a target (or at least a warning) and the CQT had a good NVG setting. Molon Labe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Virgil Kane

One thing that in 14 pages hasn't been said yet so I will.

LET'S PUT THE BLAME SQUARELY ON THE SHOOTER'S.

There, I've said it. How politically uncorrect is that? I didn't murder anybody so how about we go after the persons that do the shootings instead of people that follow the laws.

IMHO all this talk about gun control whether here or on the nightly news has drawn attention AWAY from those that commit the crimes. How about we focus this energy at the person that pulls the trigger and not some imagined threat from a piece of steel?

Virgil

Link to post
Share on other sites
LET'S PUT THE BLAME SQUARELY ON THE SHOOTER'S.

Hard to argue with that kind of logic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
     

 I'm sure that someone can correct me here if I'm wrong, but I had the impression that among those that have a graduate degree, liberalism is more common.  

Could it be that an advanced degree actually makes you smarter?? :<img src=:'>       Nah, that couldn't be it, must be the influence of all those liberal colleges and universities.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Erik you're a smart well educated guy ....if you wanted to go kill a bunch of innocent people and you didn't have a gun could you devise another way??

Guns kill people like forks make us fat

But guns with clips that hold dozens of rounds kill a lot more people than guns with shorter fixed magazines.  

We aren't vulnerable on the "people kill people, guns don't kill people" argument.  We sure are vulnerable when we allow zero ability to discuss limits.  

This is the type of thing I think sportsmen need to think about.  What do we REALLY need?  For hunting AND personal protection?  Who needs multiple 30 round clips?

We need high capacity mags so that we can shoot down lots of mindless thugs who would come to take away any guns we have, becuase thats what they will have.  

Kinda like what they did in New Orleans just five years ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

     

 I'm sure that someone can correct me here if I'm wrong, but I had the impression that among those that have a graduate degree, liberalism is more common.  

Could it be that an advanced degree actually makes you smarter?? :<img src=:'>       Nah, that couldn't be it, must be the influence of all those liberal colleges and universities.

Don that is actually a quote from FishnFowler I forgot to put it in quotes. The link I provided was a NYtimes article on how the fields are so unbalanced politically it's impossible to get creditable and unbiased results, here's a highlight.

After finding out that of 1000 people only 3 acknowledged being conservative.

{“This is a statistically impossible lack of diversity,” Dr. Haidt concluded, noting polls showing that 40 percent of Americans are conservative and 20 percent are liberal. In his speech and in an interview, Dr. Haidt argued that social psychologists are a “tribal-moral community” united by “sacred values” that hinder research and damage their credibility — and blind them to the hostile climate they’ve created for non-liberals.

“Anywhere in the world that social psychologists see women or minorities underrepresented by a factor of two or three, our minds jump to discrimination as the explanation,” said Dr. Haidt, who called himself a longtime liberal turned centrist. “But when we find out that conservatives are underrepresented among us by a factor of more than 100, suddenly everyone finds it quite easy to generate alternate explanations.”

Thomas Sowell quote

"The next time some academics tell you how important diversity is, ask how many Republicans there are in their sociology department."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...