How To Stop A Massacre

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

People seem to forget that a lot of people (more than a million of us) in their 60's ( more or less ) have seen combat ( Nam or,Desert

Storm ), may have actually shot or killed people, and are very comfortable with guns and know how to use them and know the dangers as well. I am not anti gun.. I own them and am over 60. What I am opposed to is guns that can kill 20 people in 20 seconds... military and security or police may have a use for them but not the rest of us.

I am sick of the damn NRA trying to picture it as people are trying to take our guns... that is a lie... just ban certain ones..... just BE HONEST..... Would an assault gun been helpful here... NO... and very rarely would they be better than a typical pistol or shotgun.

As for for teachers carrying guns in school... that would be a terrible mistake ... the risk/reward rate is awful... more people would be killed by accidents than saved. Not opposed to some guns being on campus... just not teachers carrying one. Again lots of bad info out there. ... [ I have spent 40 years on campuses ]

I am sure UNT90 will think I am a stupid socialist or pagan liberal for my beliefs .. he does that to everyone that dares disagree with him. (so does the Aryan brotherhood) I suppose if you are anti assault weapon ban .. you also want Tommy guns and bazookas allowed. ....after all we already have some gun control... think about it...

Edited April 30, 2013 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[UNTFan23]

  On 4/30/2013 at 2:33 PM, SCREAMING EAGLE-66 said:

I am sick of the damn NRA trying to picture it as people are trying to take our guns... that is a lie... just ban certain ones..... just BE HONEST..... Would an assault gun been helpful here... NO... and very rarely would they be better than a typical pistol or shotgun.

There are some politicians that straight up want to take guns away from people. Sen. Dianne Feinstein is one of those people that prefers Americans to be disarmed.

In 1995 she told 60 Minutes: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, for an outright ban, picking up (every gun) ... Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in. I would have done it..." Edited April 30, 2013 by UNTFan23

[UNT90]

  On 4/30/2013 at 2:33 PM, SCREAMING EAGLE-66 said:

People seem to forget that a lot of people (more than a million of us) in their 60's ( more or less ) have seen combat ( Nam or,Desert

Storm ), may have actually shot or killed people, and are very comfortable with guns and know how to use them and know the dangers as well. I am not anti gun.. I own them and am over 60. What I am opposed to is guns that can kill 20 people in 20 seconds... military and security or police may have a use for them but not the rest of us.

I am sick of the damn NRA trying to picture it as people are trying to take our guns... that is a lie... just ban certain ones..... just BE HONEST..... Would an assault gun been helpful here... NO... and very rarely would they be better than a typical pistol or shotgun.

As for for teachers carrying guns in school... that would be a terrible mistake ... the risk/reward rate is awful... more people would be killed by accidents than saved. Not opposed to some guns being on campus... just not teachers carrying one. Again lots of bad info out there. ... [ I have spent 40 years on campuses ]

I am sure UNT90 will think I am a stupid socialist or pagan liberal for my beliefs .. he does that to everyone that dares disagree with him. (so does the Aryan brotherhood) I suppose if you are anti assault weapon ban .. you also want Tommy guns and bazookas allowed. ....after all we already have some gun control... think about it...

Why liberals cannot have an honest discussion with make calling and implying someone is a racist is beyond conprehension. I have never made it personal (unlike you just did, 66). Go find one example on any political topic where I have done so. You can't.

Again, it's the sign of a losing argument when you name call, which is exactly the case here.

These are the same tired arguments that we heard when conceal carry was allowed. We were told there would be bodies in the street and we would return to the old west days. What actually happened in Texas? Gun violence decreased.

Again, you use the liberal talking point of "assault weapon." Is my glock 27 an assault weapon? Because it has the same mechanical firing design as those "assault weapons" you mention.

It makes me completely question what you actually do know about guns and how they are used.

Now, go ahead and insult me some more. After all, it is what liberals are good at.

Edited April 30, 2013 by UNT90

[Censored by Laurie]

  On 4/30/2013 at 12:09 PM, UNT90 said:

nut case.

  On 4/30/2013 at 4:30 PM, UNT90 said:

Go find one example on any political topic where I have done so. You can't.

[UNT90]

  On 4/30/2013 at 4:34 PM, Censored by Laurie said:

Ah, the old favorite trick of the left of quoting out of context.

Why don't you post the entire sentence that you robbed that from? You know, the sentence where a jokingly called you a right wing but job?

But, context means nothing to you lefties ;-)

[Eagle1855]

You probably can't stop most massacres. You might be able to limit the damage. But people that are hell-bent on killing and causing destruction are usually able to do so. The problem isn't explicitly the guns, knives, or even pressure-cookers- it's the people using them. And until that's addressed, it won't stop.

Call it mental disorder. Call it religious fanaticism. Call it a hard childhood. Call it whatever you want: there are underlying issues at play in every single one of these instances.

Sure, you can say that "if someone had a gun" and cite and example or two where it was beneficial, but having guns wouldn't have done a damned thing for the people of Boston. That's the sad reality of the world in which we live. Besides that, a bunch of half-trained people firing off guns in the middle of chaos probably doesn't help the police as much as we'd like to think. But I can't say for sure.

You can tighten up gun laws and require more extensive background checks and longer wait periods, you can limit magazine clips or even require certain skills tests for purchasing said firearms. These are worthwhile things to consider (no one is taking anyone's guns away).

But you'll still have the aforementioned underlying issues that have to be addressed, else the people who want to kill (or feel it is their responsibility to do so) will continue to kill.

Edited April 30, 2013 by Eagle1855

[UNT90]

  On 4/30/2013 at 4:46 PM, Eagle1855 said:

You probably can't stop most massacres. You might be able to limit the damage. But people that are hell-bent on killing and causing destruction are usually able to do so. The problem isn't explicitly the guns, knives, or even pressure-cookers- it's the people using them. And until that's addressed, it won't stop.

Call it mental disorder. Call it religious fanaticism. Call it a hard childhood. Call it whatever you want: there are underlying issues at play in every single one of these instances.

Sure, you can say that "if someone had a gun" and cite and example or two where it was beneficial, but having guns wouldn't have done a damned thing for the people of Boston. That's the sad reality of the world in which we live. Besides that, a bunch of half-trained people firing off guns in the middle of chaos probably doesn't help the police as much as we'd like to think. But I can't say for sure.

You can tighten up gun laws and require more extensive background checks and longer wait periods, you can limit magazine clips or even require certain skills tests for purchasing said firearms. These are worthwhile things to consider (no one is taking anyone's guns away).

But you'll still have the aforementioned underlying issues that have to be addressed, else the people who want to kill (or feel it is their responsibility to do so) will continue to kill.

Solid post, except for the part about people firing off guns in all the chaos. Again, show one example of where that has happened? They simply don't exist.

People who take the time to qualify for a concealed carry permit are not "average citizens who don't know anything about guns." They want to carry, take the time and spend the money to go through courses, and take carrying guns seriously.

It's like some of you guys think that at the first popped balloon, everyone is going to be drawing weapons. That simply doesn't happen.

And you are right. If crazies want to kill a bunch of people, they will find a way to do it.

They might even (gasp!!!) acquire handguns illegally.

[Eagle1855]

  On 4/30/2013 at 5:00 PM, UNT90 said:

Solid post, except for the part about people firing off guns in all the chaos. Again, show one example of where that has happened? They simply don't exist.

People who take the time to qualify for a concealed carry permit are not "average citizens who don't know anything about guns." They want to carry, take the time and spend the money to go through courses, and take carrying guns seriously.

It's like some of you guys think that at the first popped balloon, everyone is going to be drawing weapons. That simply doesn't happen.

And you are right. If crazies want to kill a bunch of people, they will find a way to do it.

They might even (gasp!!!) acquire handguns illegally.

Right, which is why I said that I couldn't say for sure. I don't know the statistics or probability in such a situation. I'm also not sure there has ever been a situation where someone pulled out a gun and a bunch of people carrying have beaten them to the draw and "eliminated the risk." And maybe that says something, too. Ha. I was in Stephenville last week and after noting the large percentage of cowboys, ranchers, and the like, remarked to my girlfriend that "I bet it's the last place on earth someone would try to shoot up a restaurant." A joke, but the underlying principle is one that I believe to be consistent with your point.

I'm a fan of owning guns of all kinds and I personally enjoy shooting and using them responsibly. Also a fan of making sure all of that is done in an intelligent, rational and responsible manner. So if there are ways to improve that, I'm willing to listen.

Edited April 30, 2013 by Eagle1855

[Censored by Laurie]

  On 4/30/2013 at 5:00 PM, UNT90 said:

They might even (gasp!!!) acquire handguns illegally.

If this continues to be the argument...that criminals will find ways to get guns, laws or not...against even the simplest of regulation, like a background check, on the legal sale of guns, then tell me where is the point of having any laws at all?

Criminals are, by definition, just going to break them.

A simple background check does absolutely nothing to curtail the 2nd amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. Nothing. Not a thing.

Does it 100% take guns out of the hands criminals? No...but it does help cut down on their avenues to acquire them.

[Green P1]

  On 4/30/2013 at 5:52 PM, Censored by Laurie said:

If this continues to be the argument...that criminals will find ways to get guns, laws or not...against even the simplest of regulation, like a background check, on the legal sale of guns, then tell me where is the point of having any laws at all?

Criminals are, by definition, just going to break them.

A simple background check does absolutely nothing to curtail the 2nd amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. Nothing. Not a thing.

Does it 100% take guns out of the hands criminals? No...but it does help cut down on their avenues to acquire them.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

  On 4/30/2013 at 4:30 PM, UNT90 said:

Why liberals cannot have an honest discussion with make calling and implying someone is a racist is beyond conprehension. I have never made it personal (unlike you just did, 66). Go find one example on any political topic where I have done so. You can't.

Again, it's the sign of a losing argument when you name call, which is exactly the case here.

These are the same tired arguments that we heard when conceal carry was allowed. We were told there would be bodies in the street and we would return to the old west days. What actually happened in Texas? Gun violence decreased.

Again, you use the liberal talking point of "assault weapon." Is my glock 27 an assault weapon? Because it has the same mechanical firing design as those "assault weapons" you mention.

It makes me completely question what you actually do know about guns and how they are used.

Now, go ahead and insult me some more. After all, it is what liberals are good at.

..

-- There are an insane number of times you have called me out personally...[ I just returned the favor ] and I continue to answer one question over and over... an assault weapon is any type gun capable of killing 20 people in 20 seconds... I will not and can not name them all. No doubt there may be a few extreme views of a few people that would like to ban all guns.... but that isn't going to happen..... and even almost all Democrats, GOP, or whatever would agree with that..... But that is not what the NRA and some people are claiming.... Never have I supported banning anything other than something is considered an assault weapons... I own guns.. and have hunted since I was a kid. (I have a rural background). You twist everything... . as for being a liberal .... I was one that wanted debts paid as we went...(it was climbing at less 2% per year or less than the interest rate on it) prior to 2001... I also didn't think we had any business invading a country that might not be any threat to us... and sure enough no nuke program as most Europeans insisted was true.... I did not want Americans killed, blinded injured, mained etc. for no reason or a very poor one.. it seemed patriotic to oppose what I viewed as mistake . .. not the opposite.... My two best friends in HS died as the result of Nam.. my wife's father died as the result of WWII... I hate war when it is not necessary... but you think I am an unpatriotic liberal and have so stated. I don't think you have a clue what conservative really means... financially paying your debts and otherwise minding your own business and not telling everyone else how/what to believe seems conservative to me....

How about some honesty... !! About the only thing liberal about me is religion... so long as it isn't doing anyone any harm (excludes terroists doesn't It) believe as you want... go where you want... besides every denomination has a lot of things others don't believe so don't try to turn schools, government etc. into churches. There are even Christians there that believe differently... [ drinking, contraception, dress standards, womens hair lenghth, or even some (Amish) oppose modern electrical and auto use, etc ]

______

--- "Now, go ahead and insult me some more. After all, it is what liberals are good at."--

well that fits you... and so does your attitude toward the national debt from 2001 on.... did not see you complaining about it.... I was.

..

Edited April 30, 2013 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[BeanCounterGrad'03]

  On 4/30/2013 at 5:52 PM, Censored by Laurie said:

If this continues to be the argument...that criminals will find ways to get guns, laws or not...against even the simplest of regulation, like a background check, on the legal sale of guns, then tell me where is the point of having any laws at all?

This...what's the point of having drug regulations and laws?

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

  On 4/30/2013 at 8:01 PM, BeanCounterGrad said:

This...what's the point of having drug regulations and laws?

..

I see your message but outlawing murder doesn't stop it... but it does allow us to get those guys off of the street.. and in some cases it likely prevents some murders.

Laws don't prevent certain actions... but they do reduce them somewhat.

[MeanGreenTexan]

  On 4/30/2013 at 5:52 PM, Censored by Laurie said:

If this continues to be the argument...that criminals will find ways to get guns, laws or not...against even the simplest of regulation, like a background check, on the legal sale of guns, then tell me where is the point of having any laws at all?

Criminals are, by definition, just going to break them.

A simple background check does absolutely nothing to curtail the 2nd amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. Nothing. Not a thing.

Does it 100% take guns out of the hands criminals? No...but it does help cut down on their avenues to acquire them.

What's sad is that just about all of America supported the background checks, but politicians had to mess everything up.

The background checks were not the answer, but it at least nudged the needle in the right direction. Instead, everything had to be polarized and sensationalized by the media and the politicians themselves, plus the politicians had to make sure everything stayed in line to maintain power and keep the monies flowing in.

[UNT90]

  On 4/30/2013 at 5:52 PM, Censored by Laurie said:

If this continues to be the argument...that criminals will find ways to get guns, laws or not...against even the simplest of regulation, like a background check, on the legal sale of guns, then tell me where is the point of having any laws at all?

Criminals are, by definition, just going to break them.

A simple background check does absolutely nothing to curtail the 2nd amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. Nothing. Not a thing.

Does it 100% take guns out of the hands criminals? No...but it does help cut down on their avenues to acquire them.

The problem I have with the background check is the amount of money that will be spent opposed to the good that it will do.

Every day felons are found in possession of firearms. Completely against the law for them to possess and a felony offense to boot. Do you really think they buy them from the local gun store or they go to gun shows to get them? Hell no.

Most get them through burglaries of honest citizens homes, or buying them off the street from someone who got them from said burglaries. They don't buy them the way you and I do.

They are criminals, after all.

And if they wanted to get them legally, all they would have to do is find someone without a criminal history, slide then a few extra bucks, and have them get the gun for them.

Background checks for everyone sounds like a really good idea when you first hear it, but when you start looking at the logistics of it, it just doesn't make any sense.

And, it is a complete dodge by the politicians and the media to deal with the real issues.

Again, when you can become infamous overnight thanks to a thoughtless news media who care more about ratings and selling their media than they do about helping to end this violence, you will use whatever weapon it takes to achieve that end.

We damn sure know how to pronounce the Serbian bombers names, but how many of us know the names of even one victim of the bombings.

As far as why we have laws at all, that is simple. You have laws to punish criminals when they are caught. Do you hope that laws somehow prevent some crime and that criminals are rehabilitated? Sure. Do you count on it? Only if you are a fool.

Edited April 30, 2013 by UNT90

[UNT90]

  On 4/30/2013 at 7:41 PM, SCREAMING EAGLE-66 said:

..

-- There are an insane number of times you have called me out personally...[ I just returned the favor ] and I continue to answer one question over and over... an assault weapon is any type gun capable of killing 20 people in 20 seconds... I will not and can not name them all. No doubt there may be a few extreme views of a few people that would like to ban all guns.... but that isn't going to happen..... and even almost all Democrats, GOP, or whatever would agree with that..... But that is not what the NRA and some people are claiming.... Never have I supported banning anything other than something is considered an assault weapons... I own guns.. and have hunted since I was a kid. (I have a rural background). You twist everything... . as for being a liberal .... I was one that wanted debts paid as we went...(it was climbing at less 2% per year or less than the interest rate on it) prior to 2001... I also didn't think we had any business invading a country that might not be any threat to us... and sure enough no nuke program as most Europeans insisted was true.... I did not want Americans killed, blinded injured, mained etc. for no reason or a very poor one.. it seemed patriotic to oppose what I viewed as mistake . .. not the opposite.... My two best friends in HS died as the result of Nam.. my wife's father died as the result of WWII... I hate war when it is not necessary... but you think I am an unpatriotic liberal and have so stated. I don't think you have a clue what conservative really means... financially paying your debts and otherwise minding your own business and not telling everyone else how/what to believe seems conservative to me....

How about some honesty... !! About the only thing liberal about me is religion... so long as it isn't doing anyone any harm (excludes terroists doesn't It) believe as you want... go where you want... besides every denomination has a lot of things others don't believe so don't try to turn schools, government etc. into churches. There are even Christians there that believe differently... [ drinking, contraception, dress standards, womens hair lenghth, or even some (Amish) oppose modern electrical and auto use, etc ]

______

--- "Now, go ahead and insult me some more. After all, it is what liberals are good at."--

well that fits you... and so does your attitude toward the national debt from 2001 on.... did not see you complaining about it.... I was.

..

Calling you a liberal is not "calling you out personally."it is simply what you are, as I am a conservative. I have never called you a white supremist or anything close to it.

Again, find one post where I have. Just one.

You can't, because it doesn't exist.

And your 20 dead in 20 seconds would apply to most semi-automatic handguns (assuming the killer was an expert marksman and his targets were standing completely still, as it would with what you mistakenly call an "assault weapon").

Are you calling for most semi-auto handguns to be outlawed?

And yes, you are a liberal, and the worst kind. The kind that tries to pretend they are conservative, but when you question them, like I have you, you find they go straight down the liberal talking points.

Ya, your fiscally conservative when it comes to Bush, but it's perfectly fine for Pres. Obama to spend 3 or 4 times as much as Bush while raising taxes on average Americans, right? But you aren't liberal, right?

And you hunted all your life, but oppose gun rights that every single hunter I know endorses 100 percent. Ya, you hunt. I bet.

When was the last time you went hunting? What did you hunt? What weapon did you use in your hunt?

Please

Edit: After reading your entire rant, I think you should title it "How a Liberal Claims to be a Conservative".

Lol

Edited April 30, 2013 by UNT90

[KRAM1]

  On 4/29/2013 at 4:00 PM, UNT Five&Dime said:

Nobody screws with Switzerland. Just sayin'.

I think you need to read up on your Switzerlad history...while there is much to admire about the country, they were actually far from neutral in WWII...especially in the way they treated Allied detainees as opposed to German detainees. They were pretty much cowered by the Germans and pretty much did their bidding to prevent being attacked. The Axis needed the Swiss for several reasons. Facts sort of punch holes in all that neutrality crap-o-la. Yes, the Germans screwed a great deal with Switzerland during WWII, and the Swiss govt. very much "favored" the Axis in cases involving wartime detainees. Interesting stuff.

[UNT Five&Dime]

I make a joke about Swiss Army knives and I am informed America and Switzerland have different cultures and am given a history lesson in 1930's-1940's Europe.

I love you Internetz.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

  On 4/30/2013 at 9:42 PM, UNT90 said:

Calling you a liberal is not "calling you out personally."it is simply what you are, as I am a conservative. I have never called you a white supremist or anything close to it.

Again, find one post where I have. Just one.

You can't, because it doesn't exist.

And your 20 dead in 20 seconds would apply to most semi-automatic handguns (assuming the killer was an expert marksman and his targets were standing completely still, as it would with what you mistakenly call an "assault weapon").

Are you calling for most semi-auto handguns to be outlawed?

And yes, you are a liberal, and the worst kind. The kind that tries to pretend they are conservative, but when you question them, like I have you, you find they go straight down the liberal talking points.

Ya, your fiscally conservative when it comes to Bush, but it's perfectly fine for Pres. Obama to spend 3 or 4 times as much as Bush while raising taxes on average Americans, right? But you aren't liberal, right?

And you hunted all your life, but oppose gun rights that every single hunter I know endorses 100 percent. Ya, you hunt. I bet.

When was the last time you went hunting? What did you hunt? What weapon did you use in your hunt?

Please

Edit: After reading your entire rant, I think you should title it "How a Liberal Claims to be a Conservative".

Lol

..

Hunting --several things... game.. ducks and doves mostly... (my land).. strangest thing I have shot was a Emu rooster... that damn thing was on my land and was circling me wanting to fight me ( tall as I am, huge toes with huge nails )... shot him (.22, one shot and one to finish him off) when he decided to make a run for my son.... last gun bought.. Winchester 37 (estate sale of friend) ... single shot 16 guage... didn't have a break-over single shotgun which is handy to have and very safe around other people.. use it or use one of my .22's to shoot raccoons snakes, and varmits near at barn where they chew up feed sacks. Oldest gun -- 1892 Winchester pump 12 gauge shotgun.. my grandfathers. [ short barrel version used by police for years ] Still works well. Also have his 5-shot pistol (some odd brand, may be older) .. have more..

Yes the debt is still out of control and Congress passes nothing.... mostly because of the idiotic Norquest pledge... they owe their alligence to the USA not some fool.

You have no clue what conservative really is.... and apparently no clue what an assault weapon is.... do you support legaling Tommy guns, BARs, bazookas then if you are so anti-gun control... ? If you are a half-way decent shot 1-2 shots should do unless you in a druggie gun battle. Where is your "conservative outrage" over the last administration getting the insane increase in the debt started (actually doubled)..... you are not really conservative then.

Never said you were a white supremist... just that you think and state people who disagree with you are liberal socialist nuts that are inferior [ as they do... no respect for others that disagree ].

Edited May 1, 2013 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[Quoner]

  On 4/30/2013 at 11:49 PM, UNT Five&Dime said:

I make a joke about Swiss Army knives and I am informed America and Switzerland have different cultures and am given a history lesson in 1930's-1940's Europe.

I love you Internetz.

To be fair, he was teaching you about Switzerlad, which I actually never knew anything about until today. From internet research, they seem to be mostly friendly and harmless, but will randomly take the most random things personally out of nowhere and harp on them for weeks. They also seem pretty optimistic, so I guess all that suicide stuff is way overblown. Interesting stuff indeed.

[UNT90]

  On 5/1/2013 at 1:47 PM, SCREAMING EAGLE-66 said:

..

Hunting --several things... game.. ducks and doves mostly... (my land).. strangest thing I have shot was a Emu rooster... that damn thing was on my land and was circling me wanting to fight me ( tall as I am, huge toes with huge nails )... shot him (.22, one shot and one to finish him off) when he decided to make a run for my son.... last gun bought.. Winchester 37 (estate sale of friend) ... single shot 16 guage... didn't have a break-over single shotgun which is handy to have and very safe around other people.. use it or use one of my .22's to shoot raccoons snakes, and varmits near at barn where they chew up feed sacks. Oldest gun -- 1892 Winchester pump 12 gauge shotgun.. my grandfathers. [ short barrel version used by police for years ] Still works well. Also have his 5-shot pistol (some odd brand, may be older) .. have more..

Yes the debt is still out of control and Congress passes nothing.... mostly because of the idiotic Norquest pledge... they owe their alligence to the USA not some fool.

You have no clue what conservative really is.... and apparently no clue what an assault weapon is.... do you support legaling Tommy guns, BARs, bazookas then if you are so anti-gun control... ? If you are a half-way decent shot 1-2 shots should do unless you in a druggie gun battle.

Never said you were a white supremist... just that you think and state people who disagree with you are liberal socialist nuts that are inferior [ as they do... no respect for others that disagree ].

You have a very strange perception of what confronting an armed threat is like.

Most police shootings involve multiple rounds fired by the officer, with few hitting their actual target. Armed confrontation does wild things to one's body. Police attempt to train for it, but there is nothing like the real thing. Officers with very high range scores have been seen to empty a magazine dry and not hit their target. If you really think it only takes 1 or 2 rounds to end a gunfight, please read this:

http://www.policeone.com/patrol-issues/articles/6199620-Why-one-cop-carries-145-rounds-of-ammo-on-the-job/

Oh, and I've never called you a nut. Again, find the post where I have. This is a message board. People disagree. We will always disagree on politics because you are a liberal and I am a conservative. It's not name calling, it's just what we are.

You claim not to be a liberal, yet in your previous post you praise just about every liberal position taken by this administration. If it quacks, has webbed feet, and floats in a pond...

Edited May 1, 2013 by UNT90

[Army of Dad]

  On 5/1/2013 at 1:47 PM, SCREAMING EAGLE-66 said:

..

and apparently no clue what an assault weapon is.... do you support legaling Tommy guns, BARs, bazookas then if you are so anti-gun control... ?

You don't either (unless you actually meant assault weapon, which would be anything that could be used to commit an asssault). You are 0-3 in your examples. The correct definition of an assault rifle is a weapon that is selective fire (semi-auto and full auto), magazine fed, and fires an intermediate rifle cartridge.

A Tommy gun is a submachine gun (and already legal to own if you can find one to buy and pay all the extra taxes).

A BAR is a light machine gun (and legal to own if you can find one and pay the extra taxes).

A bazooka would be considered a destructive device (legally) and is usually not legal to own in working condition, though I think there are exceptions that make it legal.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

  On 5/2/2013 at 4:04 AM, Army of Dad said:

You don't either (unless you actually meant assault weapon, which would be anything that could be used to commit an asssault). You are 0-3 in your examples. The correct definition of an assault rifle is a weapon that is selective fire (semi-auto and full auto), magazine fed, and fires an intermediate rifle cartridge.

A Tommy gun is a submachine gun (and already legal to own if you can find one to buy and pay all the extra taxes).

A BAR is a light machine gun (and legal to own if you can find one and pay the extra taxes).

A bazooka would be considered a destructive device (legally) and is usually not legal to own in working condition, though I think there are exceptions that make it legal.

..

Not legal if fully automatic... as the military uses. ... ( at least that is all I have ever read). either way it is subject to gun-control..... and better not not be caught with a very short-barrel shotgun either (more gun control) .... a friend in HS had one.... town kid... ruined the barrel by getting dirt in barrel then fired it... 410 single shot, and sawed it off and the stock somewhat... looked like an old pistol... I and about no one else knew he had it.... not a bad kid...sorta stupid... therefore no point in telling anyone.... his problem if caught with it.

Edited May 2, 2013 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

  On 5/1/2013 at 2:33 PM, UNT90 said:

You have a very strange perception of what confronting an armed threat is like.

Most police shootings involve multiple rounds fired by the officer, with few hitting their actual target. Armed confrontation does wild things to one's body. Police attempt to train for it, but there is nothing like the real thing. Officers with very high range scores have been seen to empty a magazine dry and not hit their target. If you really think it only takes 1 or 2 rounds to end a gunfight, please read this:

http://www.policeone.com/patrol-issues/articles/6199620-Why-one-cop-carries-145-rounds-of-ammo-on-the-job/

Oh, and I've never called you a nut. Again, find the post where I have. This is a message board. People disagree. We will always disagree on politics because you are a liberal and I am a conservative. It's not name calling, it's just what we are.

You claim not to be a liberal, yet in your previous post you praise just about every liberal position taken by this administration. If it quacks, has webbed feet, and floats in a pond...

...

Find where I have praised this administration... I just support honesty .... and the the debt problem started after 2001 not 2009..... and the banking crisis and the Iraq invasion with no actuall justification (WMD?).... and the claims that Obama is an Islamic Kenyan ( false.. explain the two birth announcement in the two Hawaiian newspapers the week after his birth ..that was once done.. not now.. privacy issues ) or any evidence he was been islamic.. ( his step-father was, and he did not live with him very long, 3-4 years ... his Christian American white grandparents raised him in Hawaii after age 9)

If you are honestly conservative...How about some criticism of the debt from 2001-2009....it doubled ... equaling the total of all 42 previous administrations... and it isn't changing because Congress isn't passing anything meaningful because of the Norquist pledge ( backed by those who think they are super-rich.. and mostly aren't). Gates, Buffet even the older Bush thinks it is nuts... so are they liberals too?

Police guns fights..??.. how often does regular citizens get in one... I never said police should not own them. You are twisting things again.

Edited May 2, 2013 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[UNT90]

  On 5/2/2013 at 2:45 PM, SCREAMING EAGLE-66 said:

...

Find where I have praised this administration... I just support honesty .... and the the debt problem started after 2001 not 2009..... and the banking crisis and the Iraq invasion with no actuall justification (WMD?).... and the claims that Obama is an Islamic Kenyan ( false.. explain the two birth announcement in the two Hawaiian newspapers the week after his birth ..that was once done.. not now.. privacy issues ) or any evidence he was been islamic.. ( his step-father was, and he did not live with him very long, 3-4 years ... his Christian American white grandparents raised him in Hawaii after age 9)

If you are honestly conservative...How about some criticism of the debt from 2001-2009....it doubled ... equaling the total of all 42 previous administrations... and it isn't changing because Congress isn't passing anything meaningful because of the Norquist pledge ( backed by those who think they are super-rich.. and mostly aren't). Gates, Buffet even the older Bush thinks it is nuts... so are they liberals too?

Police guns fights..??.. how often does regular citizens get in one... I never said police should not own them. You are twisting things again.

I'm not twisting anything. You said someone should be able to compete in a gun fight with 1 or 2 rounds. A pretty ludicrous statement on its own, but I figured some on here who don't know about armed confrontation might like the real story.

It's real life, not TV, and that guy now carries over 140 rounds of ammo due to his brush with death. And he was a sniper and firearms instructor.

I won't go over issues that you and I have beaten to death. I've said many times that W. was a republican, not a conservative, and spent WAY too much money. But, unlike you, I don't attempt to use W.'s spending to justify Pres. Obama spending more.

Your posts have always started "I'm sorta a conservative" and then go on to favorable talk about everything a true conservative is against.

And in true liberal form, you just simply don't understand that saying you are something doesn't make you something.