Joe Scarborough, who claims to be a “proud NRA member” just said there is no reason to allow someone to have an “assault weapon” that shoots “30 rounds a second.”
Related: Obama Showcases the Magical Thinking of Gun Controllers
Joe Scarborough, who claims to be a “proud NRA member” just said there is no reason to allow someone to have an “assault weapon” that shoots “30 rounds a second.”
Related: Obama Showcases the Magical Thinking of Gun Controllers
What irks me most is the dishonesty of those backing gun control. Gun BANNERS, at least they are honest. Gun CONTROLLERS though, will never be satisfied. There’s always just one more law, restriction, registry, license, permit, hurdle etc. that they want gun owners to compromise on.
I have a burning hatred of people who are constantly trying to rewrite the rules. Doesn’t matter what those rules are about, it’s the hallmark of a cheat, a fraud.
To the controllers, I say let me see your proposal, all of it, every detail. I’ll sign on to it, so long as 3 conditions are met:
1) Law-abiding citizens, who pass a background check and a competency exam, will receive a license (regularly renewed) declaring they are free and clear to own firearms.
And then you will get off their backs. There will not be an endless series of petty hoops to constantly jump through, whose purpose is to so inconvenience people that they give up in frustration. Having passed the check and exam, they are assumed to be responsible owners, capable of safely handling, storing and transporting their firearms in a sober manner that keeps them out of little hands or from accidentally discharging. I’m open to the idea of tiered licenses, that extra training and a spotless record over many years qualifies a person to, say, concealed carry, or own otherwise restricted weapons (eg. handguns in Canada).
2) Those who are licensed can own any firearm they like, within reasonable and logical limits.
And by ‘reasonable and logical’, I mean we set objective, quantifiable criteria (maximum rate of fire, magazine size, etc) to score a firearm as legal or illegal, and no fuzzy nonsense about how some models ‘look scary’, or ‘have a reputation’. I think most firearms owners are willing to settle on fair numbers, assuming you’re not going to try to set the bar ridiculously high.
3) You never, ever, ask for another gun law, in any shape or form. You retire your crusade, in victory, and we never hear another fear-mongering word from you ever again. You explicitly acknowledge that we are adults, that you are not our nannies, and we will be treated with respect, not sneering condescension and veiled innuendo.
This of course would never work. It would all fall apart on the third condition.
First responders were police stationed on the base.
Also, if I wasn’t a conservative, why would I be here in the first place. Or does every conservative have to be a rabid constitutionalist incapable of any independent thought outside of those prescribed by Glenn Beck.
coolpacific, I must disagree with your statement . It is not that difficult to teach someone of average ability to hit center mass with a handgun. I’ve taken neophytes to the range and they were happily knocking over poppers at 20-25yards with a .357Mag after a few cylinders. I started them off with .38 Special loads and progressed to a mild .357mag and then full power loads. It is even easier to teach someone to use a carbine with its longer sight radius and tamer recoil. Now that laser sights are so cheap it should be even easier to train a newbie.
I tell you what, let’s get some paintball guns, you select my ‘defenders’, give me a few hours with them for training and then we’ll set up a scenario where you come into a ‘school’ and try to get to the ‘children’ unpainted.
FYI, the Fort Hood shooter was in a gun free zone because BJ Clinton stripped on-base personnel of their sidearms during his presidency. It took a policewoman and her partner to end the shooting there. If a soldier owns a deer rifle or a duck gun he can’t keep it on base. Not trusting soldiers with guns makes sense to liberal minds, somehow.
Also, the most heavily armed nation in the world is most likely Switzerland where 80% of men between 19 and 34 have to store a Sig assault rifle at home, some with grenade launchers fitted. Women are not conscripted but may volunteer to join the militia and many men over 35 voluntarily remain in the militia into their 50s. Snipers (the lucky b#$&@!ds) have state issued .338Lapua Magnum or .50BMG rifles at home. Note that Israeli military weapons are stored at military armouries, not in the home, and are issued when the reserves are called up.
The Swiss firearm murder rate is 0.52, while Canada is at 0.76 per 100,000people/year. The US is not even close to the top, by the way, 3.7 compared to 47.44 for Jamaica. Yes, I double-checked, it is forty-seven decimal forty-four and Jamaica has very strict gun control.
coach said: “Designating these weapons as restricted is fine with me. At least it keeps the creepy wing of gun ownership contained, and out of the woods.”
Out of the woods eh? You mean like the friggin’ retards that show up in my backyard with their shotguns and their dogs “hunting rabbits”? Run a few of those boys off in the last few years.
I hear this song all the time out of the hunting crowd, how they can’t stand “military” guns and don’t care if they get banned. Tell you what coach, I haven’t met many hunters can hit a barn at more than fifty yards. My “assault rifle”, a Valmet M-76, could hit a dime at 100 yards. My FN FAL shot into two inches. I used to do it every weekend in New York and Arizona.
But then I moved back home here to the Demented Dominion, where IDIOTS LIKE YOU make the rules. I sold my guns to friends in the States and I haven’t fired a shot in this d@mn fool country in ten years. Not worth the hassle.
I’d sooner go shoot at South Mountain Park in Phoenix with the Mexican gang bangers than here in Morontario with a bunch of “rabbit hunters”. Its safer, and the gang bangers have better manners. Never had a Mexican disrespect my rifle either, coach.
As to Joe Scarborough and the rest of the media they’re either morons that can’t keep their lies straight… or they’ve done a ton of focus groups and discovered that saying sh1t like “assault weapon that shoots 30 rounds a second” makes the sale to their target audience.
Of the two possibilities I think its clear that practiced, calculated liars is the more likely. They’re totally selling this to a big part of the gullible urbanite swarm.
However, no matter what any of these lying scum may say, there’s one fact that shines above all others. Across the USA this past weekend gun shops sold more firearms than ever before in US history. Record breaking weekend in a record breaking year. Every time Obama opens his yap another million guns fly off the shelves.
Most of which were probably AKs and ARs, coach. Suck on that.
Seems to me mass shooting are on the rise under Obama’s reign.
Is this a coincidence or is it shades of fast and furious?
I notice mass killing occur mostly where the victims are helpless, these are relished by the media , but does anyone remember the copy-cat shooter after columbine?
Never got much press, cause the university instructor,licensed to carry concealed, capped him as soon as he presented a dangerous intent.
Guns do not kill people. The focus on the tool used is the symptom of people afraid to take responsibility .
Your average liberal bleeding heart, always defending the criminal.
I found what I was looking for. This was originally posted after the Aurora, Colorado shooting, I couldn’t remember where, it has been updated after the Newton School shooting.
http://www.examiner.com/article/analyzing-shooting-rampage-statistics-after-newport-school-shooting
To sum up, it costs twelve more lives each time the police stop a shooting rampage as opposed to when a legally armed citizen does so.
coolpacific said: “Idiocy! Yeah, there is Mrs Grundy with a six shooter in her purse ready to take out the first heavily armed Kevlar coated bad guy that kicks in the door. This kind of talk really hurts the gun crowd’s argument to the extent they have one beyond ridiculous talking points like this.”
Doubling down, coolpacific then said: “I can’t believe I am responding, but here it goes: I am saying a gun wielded by an elementary school teacher would have been, effectively, useless.”
If that’s what you think then you know nothing about guns and nothing about close quarters combat.
Or about school teachers, for that matter. One of my school teachers was a commodore in the RCN in WWII. He’d have double-tapped that freak in the head from 25 yards.
See, the truth is that you think “regular people” can’t be trusted with guns. That it takes super special training and superhuman reflexes or some such. You think that normal people are the ones that “snap” or “go postal” without warning. Anyone can be a mall shooter, right?
That’s because your beliefs come from TV, not from experience, study and practice. The TV lies, and consequently you have no faintest clue what the average human being can learn if they decide to.
Maybe you should go learn about shooting and self defense too, then come back when you have something intelligent to say on the subject.
Of course Miss Grundy isn’t the only teacher in school that is armed. Mr Weatherbee, Professor Flutesnoot and even the janitor Mr. Svensen carries a weapon and is highly trained in the art of preventing mass murders. The general public doesn’t know which staff members are armed and which ones are not psychologically fit to handle weapons but the parents are assured that those charged with the care of their children are also capable of defending them.
Posted by: TheTooner at December 17, 2012 2:46 PM
It’s worse.
You could actually get a good body count by hiding in a washroom, with a knife. And SILENTLY pick off one by one, the people sent to find out why an individual wasn’t back in class. Or office, factory floor, or whatever.
I’m kinda disgusted I came up with that method. But I’m probably not the first.
Predators do lie in wait…. all the time.
“…And by ‘reasonable and logical’, I mean we set objective, quantifiable criteria (maximum rate of fire, magazine size, etc) to score a firearm as legal or illegal, and no fuzzy nonsense about how some models ‘look scary’, or ‘have a reputation’. I think most firearms owners are willing to settle on fair numbers, assuming you’re not going to try to set the bar ridiculously high.”
No. I won’t accept limits on ‘magazine size’ or the even more stupid ‘rate of fire’. I’m tired of limits on my personal property because of the actions of others.