Just another reason why we should never let our 2nd Amendment go away.
Exactly.
Another good reason, closer to home (Ft Worth) and more recent (10/17/08):
http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa081017_wz_ambush.11fbdae6e.html
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
jawara wrote:
Just another reason why we should never let our 2nd Amendment go away.
I don’t think it’s going away any time soon, but I think it will look a bit different after obuma’s four years.[/quote]
Agreed. My concern is that Mr. Obama, along with all of the democratic shitbirds like Ried, Pelosi, Biden, etc.; will work to enact so many “common sense” regulations, they will effectively make the purchase and use of guns not worth a person’s time.
They will not outright ban guns, aside from semi automatics that is, they’re aware that this is a bad move. But placing a shit ton of restrictions on the sale, transport, and licensure of guns, along with working to end CCW laws will more than likely be on their agenda
Watch for outright bans on certain ammunition though.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
jawara wrote:
Just another reason why we should never let our 2nd Amendment go away.
[/quote]
Did you read the wikipedia article? The attackers came in with assualt rifles and grenades. You see this as a reason we need less gun control in the world?
I’ll grant you they were scared away by a man with a .38 pistol, but this would seem to support proponents of gun control, wouldn’t it? That small arms are a deterrent, and large arms are… well… used for domestic terrorism?
[quote]Otep wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
jawara wrote:
Just another reason why we should never let our 2nd Amendment go away.
Did you read the wikipedia article? The attackers came in with assualt rifles and grenades. You see this as a reason we need less gun control in the world?
I’ll grant you they were scared away by a man with a .38 pistol, but this would seem to support proponents of gun control, wouldn’t it? That small arms are a deterrent, and large arms are… well… used for domestic terrorism?[/quote]
Yes but gun control only limits those going through legal channels to obtain weapons, so in essence gun control is like telling the citizens to defend yourself from assault weapons with a bb gun.
[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
Exactly.
Another good reason, closer to home (Ft Worth) and more recent (10/17/08):
http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa081017_wz_ambush.11fbdae6e.html
[/quote]
I really wish more stories like these would get out, instead we always hear about firearms accidents. I’ll bet more people contract HIV each year then are killed in accidental gun deaths.
[quote]Otep wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
jawara wrote:
Just another reason why we should never let our 2nd Amendment go away.
Did you read the wikipedia article? The attackers came in with assualt rifles and grenades. You see this as a reason we need less gun control in the world?
I’ll grant you they were scared away by a man with a .38 pistol, but this would seem to support proponents of gun control, wouldn’t it? That small arms are a deterrent, and large arms are… well… used for domestic terrorism?[/quote]
Criminals will ALWAYS have access to firearms but if they are banned YOU won’t.
How many people go to church with a gun in their pocket even if they own several guns?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
How many people go to church with a gun in their pocket even if they own several guns?[/quote]
Depends on where you live I think. I have been to some churches where people have them in a holster, but one of my friends is also a state trooper and is supposed to have his gun on him at all times, so he carries it to church.
And with the hate in this country for church goers recently I could see it becoming more common.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
How many people go to church with a gun in their pocket even if they own several guns?
Depends on where you live I think. I have been to some churches where people have them in a holster, but one of my friends is also a state trooper and is supposed to have his gun on him at all times, so he carries it to church.
And with the hate in this country for church goers recently I could see it becoming more common.[/quote]
I agree. If I lived in a ghetto I would ALWAYS pack. Being a victim doesnt make any sense.
Aside from that it seems that going to church with a gun help this guy and his fellow church goers.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
How many people go to church with a gun in their pocket even if they own several guns?[/quote]
More and more every day, thanks in part to Front Sight’s “Protect Your Congregation” package:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
How many people go to church with a gun in their pocket even if they own several guns?[/quote]
I was down in AZ and the old-timers carry their sidearms with them everywhere. At first it was kind of weird but I didn’t see any random shootings the whole week I was down there.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Professor X wrote:
How many people go to church with a gun in their pocket even if they own several guns?
I was down in AZ and the old-timers carry their sidearms with them everywhere. At first it was kind of weird but I didn’t see any random shootings the whole week I was down there.[/quote]
Well, to my knowledge, it is still weird around here and I live in Texas. That church was attacked like a military advance meaning the only people who would be prepared for something like that are possible non active duty soldiers in this country. They had grenades. No matter what, someone was going to get hurt.
I am split on gun control because I know most of the same people bragging about their gun ownership are NOT trained like soldiers and mostly only have experience on a gun range if that.
I agree that the criminals are not restricted by gun laws, however, just as that church was possibly saved by one man with a gun, there is also the potential of people not as well trained doing a hell of alot more harm than good.
I am not the type who believes most people on the planet are competent.
I guess my solution would be mandatory gun training on a pre-determined satisfactory level.
[quote]Otep wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
jawara wrote:
Just another reason why we should never let our 2nd Amendment go away.
Did you read the wikipedia article? The attackers came in with assualt rifles and grenades. You see this as a reason we need less gun control in the world?
I’ll grant you they were scared away by a man with a .38 pistol, but this would seem to support proponents of gun control, wouldn’t it? That small arms are a deterrent, and large arms are… well… used for domestic terrorism?[/quote]
Most gun crime involves pistols and that sort of thing. Grenades have already been banned for a long, long time (if they were ever legal), yet the criminals still managed to obtain them. Banning “assault rifles” also wouldn’t go very far in reducing the number because there are still plenty of people willing to smuggle them into the country, and they can be assembled from parts purchased from military members who have access to them, or made in home machine shops.
A lot of the domestic “terrorism” has been committed with bolt-action rifles, for example John Allen Mohammed, Lee Harvey Oswald, that shooter in the tower in Texas in the 1960s…
A more reasonable approach is simply allowing people to defend themselves.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Professor X wrote:
How many people go to church with a gun in their pocket even if they own several guns?
I was down in AZ and the old-timers carry their sidearms with them everywhere. At first it was kind of weird but I didn’t see any random shootings the whole week I was down there.
Well, to my knowledge, it is still weird around here and I live in Texas. That church was attacked like a military advance meaning the only people who would be prepared for something like that are possible non active duty soldiers in this country. They had grenades. No matter what, someone was going to get hurt.
I am split on gun control because I know most of the same people bragging about their gun ownership are NOT trained like soldiers and mostly only have experience on a gun range if that.
I agree that the criminals are not restricted by gun laws, however, just as that church was possibly saved by one man with a gun, there is also the potential of people not as well trained doing a hell of alot more harm than good.
I am not the type who believes most people on the planet are competent.
I guess my solution would be mandatory gun training on a pre-determined satisfactory level.[/quote]
It’s better to have spent money on one gun and an intense training course than any collection of guns and no training to use them. A single gun with mindset and skill beats a closet full of guns any day.
[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
Professor X wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Professor X wrote:
How many people go to church with a gun in their pocket even if they own several guns?
I was down in AZ and the old-timers carry their sidearms with them everywhere. At first it was kind of weird but I didn’t see any random shootings the whole week I was down there.
Well, to my knowledge, it is still weird around here and I live in Texas. That church was attacked like a military advance meaning the only people who would be prepared for something like that are possible non active duty soldiers in this country. They had grenades. No matter what, someone was going to get hurt.
I am split on gun control because I know most of the same people bragging about their gun ownership are NOT trained like soldiers and mostly only have experience on a gun range if that.
I agree that the criminals are not restricted by gun laws, however, just as that church was possibly saved by one man with a gun, there is also the potential of people not as well trained doing a hell of alot more harm than good.
I am not the type who believes most people on the planet are competent.
I guess my solution would be mandatory gun training on a pre-determined satisfactory level.
It’s better to have spent money on one gun and an intense training course than any collection of guns and no training to use them. A single gun with mindset and skill beats a closet full of guns any day.
[/quote]
I agree and that is what I’m getting at. We are weapons trained even as medical staff before we deploy. I see random people bragging about their guns when I know for a fact that would be out of breath and slow to react if they were actually in the heat of a situation.
There are people who can’t even fucking talk on their cell phone and drive well at the same time yet we think EVERYONE is capable of owning a weapon that can kill you that easily?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
Professor X wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Professor X wrote:
How many people go to church with a gun in their pocket even if they own several guns?
I was down in AZ and the old-timers carry their sidearms with them everywhere. At first it was kind of weird but I didn’t see any random shootings the whole week I was down there.
Well, to my knowledge, it is still weird around here and I live in Texas. That church was attacked like a military advance meaning the only people who would be prepared for something like that are possible non active duty soldiers in this country. They had grenades. No matter what, someone was going to get hurt.
I am split on gun control because I know most of the same people bragging about their gun ownership are NOT trained like soldiers and mostly only have experience on a gun range if that.
I agree that the criminals are not restricted by gun laws, however, just as that church was possibly saved by one man with a gun, there is also the potential of people not as well trained doing a hell of alot more harm than good.
I am not the type who believes most people on the planet are competent.
I guess my solution would be mandatory gun training on a pre-determined satisfactory level.
It’s better to have spent money on one gun and an intense training course than any collection of guns and no training to use them. A single gun with mindset and skill beats a closet full of guns any day.
I agree and that is what I’m getting at. We are weapons trained even as medical staff before we deploy. I see random people bragging about their guns when I know for a fact that would be out of breath and slow to react if they were actually in the heat of a situation.
There are people who can’t even fucking talk on their cell phone and drive well at the same time yet we think EVERYONE is capable of owning a weapon that can kill you that easily?
[/quote]
QFT. A lot of gun nuts tend to be pretty out of shape and untrained.
It’s not the gun that makes the difference, it’s the man using it.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I agree that the criminals are not restricted by gun laws, however, just as that church was possibly saved by one man with a gun, there is also the potential of people not as well trained doing a hell of alot more harm than good.
[/quote]
On one hand having an armed populous does probably reduce the incidence of violent crimes just because it should be a deterrent to would be criminals; however, the TX church situation is an example of criminals who probably would not be easily deterred in the first place.
Grenades? Yeah, I would say they had every intention to do some damage and there is no way the average person is prepared to react in this kind of situation.
People that do not train to use deadly force are no match for those that have.
[quote]Otep wrote:
Did you read the wikipedia article? The attackers came in with assualt rifles and grenades. You see this as a reason we need less gun control in the world?
I’ll grant you they were scared away by a man with a .38 pistol, but this would seem to support proponents of gun control, wouldn’t it? That small arms are a deterrent, and large arms are… well… used for domestic terrorism? [/quote]
What you may fail to realize, Otep, is that in South Africa, semi-automatic centerfire rifles have been illegal for decades. Gun control did not prevent these terrorists from obtaining their weapons.
Furthermore, understand that these were not your run-of-the-mill criminals. These were well-funded, well-equipped terrorists using military weapons: the R4 is the South African equivalent of the American M-16.
If they had been carrying cheap Kalashnikovs gotten from Botswana or wherever, it would be one thing, but the fact that they were carrying R4s hints to me that the government may have been directly or indirectly complicit in this action.
There are four possibilities for how these rifles ended up in the APLA’s hands. A) They stole them from a government armory; B) they bought them from corrupt military personnel; C) their ranks include deserters from the South African army, who took their weapons with them; or D) they were supplied by the government.
The other thing about this incident that hasn’t been mentioned is that it was without question a racially-motivated crime. Sabelo Phama, the leader of the APLA, has publicly declared that he would “aim his guns at children, to hurt whites where it hurts most.”
The current South African government has seen little need to control guns aimed at white children.