View Full Version : People are such Sheep
Alaskapopo
12-21-12, 21:13
Just got done posting on Facebook about the NRA's response to the shooting. The responses I saw from the anti gunners are nuts. They think that putting armed cops or sercurity in the schools will make things worse. It sickens me that people have gotten so sheeply and cowardly that they think you can't fight back and that simply banning weapons is the answer. People need to grow a spine. If people are this wimpy and afraid of fighting back then our country has already fallen.
Pat
Belmont31R
12-21-12, 21:16
My MIL said she would rather be killed by an attacker than use a gun and take their life.
Some people are just born victims, and want everyone else to be the same way. :rolleyes:
We've had armed police officers in our schools down here for years, it seems funny for people to be complaining about it elsewhere. I just saw a blip on a Chicago area station (How I Met Your Mother re-runs are one of my few vices...) where someone in the upper echelons of their school system commented on it. He basically said that he would love to have better security, but there were other things he needed to spend his budget on. So much for Biden's '...even if it saves only one life.' It must have been followed by a very low mumbling of '....and doesn't cost too much.'
My MIL said she would rather be killed by an attacker than use a gun and take their life.
Some people are just born victims, and want everyone else to be the same way. :rolleyes:
I've met people like that. If there was actually divine justice in the world somebody on a train headed for Poland in 1944, praying for just a chance to "fight to save themselves or someone they love" would magically become your mother in law and your mother in law would find herself on a train.
Alaskapopo
12-21-12, 21:27
What these people don't seem to understand is a world without firearms is not a good place. You would have more of the strong oppressing the weak. Right now if I am unarmed and 2 guys attack me on the street I am probably not going to win that fight. I will do my best to hurt them as much as possible but its most likely going to be a lose. There are large and strong men would could kill me when I am unarmed despite my best efforts. However with a gun I have a lot better odds of winning even against multiple armed attackers. Being armed puts more emphaiss on your skills than it does on your physical attributes of size and strength. Listening to the news last night on NPR. (I know liberal station) I heard a story about some women and children being attacked by men in africa with machetties. I could not help but thinking if the victims had a firearm this would not have ended the same way.
Like I said I don't want to live in a world free of guns.
Pat
My MIL has a CCW. :D
I have met people like that as well, but just from the context of how they (most of them) go about their lives, I'm pretty sure they'd do whatever it took to save their own skin.
Far too many are obviously wrong to think that trained, qualified armed personnel would further endanger children if they protected our schools. But many more of us want to see our fellow citizens try just a little harder and care just a little more before we accept this as a now perceived normal standard.
Left and right need to stop screwing around with their idealogical limits and start adhering to common sense. A small example would be FOX pulling that piece of crap McFarland's anti-Christmas slop off the Sunday line up after the killings. Both Family Guy and the one after (whatever it is) had the new episodes substituted with a re-run according to an article I read.
Alaskapopo
12-21-12, 21:47
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151301822672871&set=a.285190767870.147612.103708747870&type=1&theater
That is the page if you want to comment.
Pat
I had a pro-gun acquaintance of mine convinced that we should ban "high" capacity mags. Because he is from California, he wanted to limit mag capacity to 9 rounds....(WTF!). In fact, a disturbing trend I'm seeing is that many RKBA/2A proponents are wanting to give up standard capacity mags because they see it as a problem.
His reasoning is that: "If someone is licensed with a conceal and carry permit and has a weapon on them to possibly confront a murderer such as this then magazine size means everything. A pistol small enough to conceal reasonably on one's person is likely going to have 6-7 rounds in it at the most (maybe a few more if you aren't carrying it on your person and in something else). That person has a much better chance of stopping the assailant if the shooter has a smaller magazine and has to stop and change out a magazine at some point, even if he has several weapons. A 3-5 second change out by the shooter is all a person trained to carry a concealed weapon would need to stop a mass murder from having a higher casualty count. 30 round clips are absurd and give someone bent on mass murder a distinct advantage over the law abiding citizen with a carry and conceal license (or an armed security guard, off duty cop, etc.)."
I pointed out that it doesn't matter what a person with CCW has because the majority of these murders are taking place in "Gun Free" zones along with all the other obvious arguments. At the end of it all, you really can't fix stupid, so I stopped trying.
ICANHITHIMMAN
12-21-12, 22:10
I had a pro-gun acquaintance of mine convinced that we should ban "high" capacity mags. Because he is from California, he wanted to limit mag capacity to 9 rounds....(WTF!). In fact, a disturbing trend I'm seeing is that many RKBA/2A proponents are wanting to give up standard capacity mags because they see it as a problem.
His reasoning is that: "If someone is licensed with a conceal and carry permit and has a weapon on them to possibly confront a murderer such as this then magazine size means everything. A pistol small enough to conceal reasonably on one's person is likely going to have 6-7 rounds in it at the most (maybe a few more if you aren't carrying it on your person and in something else). That person has a much better chance of stopping the assailant if the shooter has a smaller magazine and has to stop and change out a magazine at some point, even if he has several weapons. A 3-5 second change out by the shooter is all a person trained to carry a concealed weapon would need to stop a mass murder from having a higher casualty count. 30 round clips are absurd and give someone bent on mass murder a distinct advantage over the law abiding citizen with a carry and conceal license (or an armed security guard, off duty cop, etc.)."
I pointed out that it doesn't matter what a person with CCW has because the majority of these murders are taking place in "Gun Free" zones along with all the other obvious arguments. At the end of it all, you really can't fix stupid, so I stopped trying.
LOL WOW. I just asked my friend (gang member) what he thought of your friends logic and he asked for his address.
I am not surprised by the responses here. Anyone with real firearms knowledge knows that you could have 3 round mags and still rack up a body count until someone shows up to stop you.
LOL WOW. I just asked my friend (gang member)...
Well so long as he disagrees we're all set.
brushy bill
12-21-12, 22:29
Good post Pat and I agree. It is sickening. More so, many of the members of this forum have either given up and 'accepted' a ban and beginning to work out what they will carry if the .gov even lets them keep theirs, or if they do have to go to 10 rounds, what will they go to. Many seem unable to focus on the fight at hand.
I am actually more troubled by what I've seen posted here in the last several days than anything I've seen in MSLSD, Faux News, Communist News Network, or the other media outlets.
It reminds me of the men who went weeping to hand over their guns to the .gov in the NRA films of UK and Aussie gun turn ins. I've refrained from posting as long as I could, but this has been a real wake up call for me. For many this is really just not that important and something they only care about if the powers that be permit it.
His reasoning is that: "If someone is licensed with a conceal and carry permit and has a weapon.....snip.
Yeah, it's a real problem with a LOT of people. They have a reality they live in. It's not a true reality because they assume for instance that criminals will somehow be abiding by the law as they commit a crime....
It's the craziest thing I've ever seen. I'm not sure what's wrong with them. It's some inability to see true reality when presented with basic facts a child could understand. Seems their brains are in arrested development with regards to good and evil and the people they share the earth with. It's really frustrating because you feel like if you could just get through to them they would go "OHHHHH!!! what was I thinking!!" But they never do.
Seems like a lot of the idiocy is breeding in California. Some of them are just bitter they are restricted more than the rest of us and want us to suffer too. Screw that.
For many this is really just not that important and something they only care about if the powers that be permit it.
Scary isn't it?
Firearms are allowed in my kid's public elementary school as long as you have a concealed carry permit. I carry there all the time and I know that at least the principal carries. I am happy with that scenario and I feel that my kids are a little safer there. Nothing can stop a determined crazy person, but it can sure limit the damage he can do before being taken down.
Surprisingly, we have had no firearms just start shooting at people in our schools so it leads me to the conclusion that it might actually be about the person and not the gun.
brushy bill
12-21-12, 23:06
Michael Savage referred to liberalism as a 'mental disorder' and after the events of the last week, I have to agree.
Yeah, it's a real problem with a LOT of people. They have a reality they live in. It's not a true reality because they assume for instance that criminals will somehow be abiding by the law as they commit a crime....
It's the craziest thing I've ever seen. I'm not sure what's wrong with them. It's some inability to see true reality when presented with basic facts a child could understand. Seems their brains are in arrested development with regards to good and evil and the people they share the earth with. It's really frustrating because you feel like if you could just get through to them they would go "OHHHHH!!! what was I thinking!!" But they never do.
We've had armed police officers in our schools down here for years, it seems funny for people to be complaining about it elsewhere. I just saw a blip on a Chicago area station (How I Met Your Mother re-runs are one of my few vices...) where someone in the upper echelons of their school system commented on it. He basically said that he would love to have better security, but there were other things he needed to spend his budget on. So much for Biden's '...even if it saves only one life.' It must have been followed by a very low mumbling of '....and doesn't cost too much.'
Like million dollar football stadiums and basketball gymnasiums.
I am not surprised by the responses here. Anyone with real firearms knowledge knows that you could have 3 round mags and still rack up a body count until someone shows up to stop you.
Absolutely. I made the point to say if we did limit mag capacity to 10 rounds, then what happens the next time a mass shooting occurs in a "gun free zone" and the shooter brings in 20 10 round magazines? Will the next ban call to further limit mag capacity, or limit the number of mags you're allowed to own? It just gets more and more stupid... So I quit before I got too irritated.
Alaskapopo
12-21-12, 23:35
Absolutely. I made the point that say if we did limit mag capacity to 10 rounds, then what happens the next time a mass shooting occurs in a "gun free zone" and the shooter brings in 20 10 round magazines? Will the next ban call to further limit mag capacity, or limit the number of mags you're allowed to own? It just gets more and more stupid... So I quit before I got too irritated.
If we give in now it will be 10 round mags
next time 5 round. Then no repeating arms, then no powerful calibers just rimfire etc until we have not more gun rights.
Pat
Yeah, it's a real problem with a LOT of people. They have a reality they live in. It's not a true reality because they assume for instance that criminals will somehow be abiding by the law as they commit a crime....
It's the craziest thing I've ever seen. I'm not sure what's wrong with them. It's some inability to see true reality when presented with basic facts a child could understand. Seems their brains are in arrested development with regards to good and evil and the people they share the earth with. It's really frustrating because you feel like if you could just get through to them they would go "OHHHHH!!! what was I thinking!!" But they never do.
You know, I avoid these debates like the plague because it's rare that I'll ever make a breakthrough. I thought he was reasonable because we see eye to eye on many issues, but instead, it was a let down and I've scratched another person off my list of people to talk to.
LOL WOW. I just asked my friend (gang member) what he thought of your friends logic and he asked for his address.
Yeah, after his comment I started to question his common sense (He is a fairly bright guy who after completing his O.D. went on to complete an M.D.). His whole premise for limiting mag capacity was so that a person with a 6-7 round CCW could stop the crime more easily.:blink:
I didn't even want to waste my breath on, "Why not have a 30 round mag ready for home defense" etc.
A person with 2 revolvers (let's say .38) and 5 speedloaders with hollow points could walk into an unguarded school, gym, Starbucks, or whatever and easily kill and wound multiple people before the police can respond.
Will there be a call for a ban on assault weapons? No, they will want all the weapons which is the ultimate goal.
The unfortunate part is that you average village idiot knows nothing about firearms except what they see on TV and film.
Absolutely. I made the point to say if we did limit mag capacity to 10 rounds, then what happens the next time a mass shooting occurs in a "gun free zone" and the shooter brings in 20 10 round magazines? Will the next ban call to further limit mag capacity, or limit the number of mags you're allowed to own? It just gets more and more stupid... So I quit before I got too irritated.
the gov is like dating a girl in HS
NO really I wont do that I just want to put my hand under your shirt I promise I wont go any further !
of course we know the outcome you really want !!!
they want to screw you for sure !!! and take away everything but of course some clause for them will be in the laws so politicians and actors will be exempt
Absolutely. I made the point to say if we did limit mag capacity to 10 rounds, then what happens the next time a mass shooting occurs in a "gun free zone" and the shooter brings in 20 10 round magazines? Will the next ban call to further limit mag capacity, or limit the number of mags you're allowed to own? It just gets more and more stupid... So I quit before I got too irritated.
For all intensive purposes I think the best way to describe their strategy is the incremental annihilation of our god given rights. Before long people in this country wont have anything left to fight back with except their benefit cards..
My MIL said she would rather be killed by an attacker than use a gun and take their life.
Some people are just born victims, and want everyone else to be the same way. :rolleyes:
My wife said a similar thing to me. When the subject of someone breaking into our house and rape came up, my wife said she would not use a gun to defend herself because she would be afraid of the attacker grabbing the gun from her and using it on her........So I asked her if she would rather be raped? She said she would call the cops and in the mean time.....find a happy place. (No kidding). I couldn't believe it. I told her that there are handgun classes that people could take that teach retention techniques and she said no, guns make people want to kill........I realized at that point I was not going to waste my time, and that there are some people that you just can't reach. Very sad.
If you look at the VT shooter's strategy, he had two semiautomatic pistols and a backpack full of magazines along with chains and padlocks for the doors. Even if they were all 7 round mags, to think his massacre would have been any (significantly) less deadly is foolish. I think a big problem with a lot of the proposed/anticipated laws that Common Man says 'it doesn't affect MY rights' is that the public at large doesn't remotely understand the mindset nor the thought process for someone like this. A 10-20-life law doesn't bother the guy that doesn't plan on walking away afterwards, and making it illegal/harder to obtain certain items just means they will adapt to their circumstances. (Including simply breaking the law to gain those items.)
That also brings up the question: Why doesn't anyone create a form for, or a regulation/restriction on, purchasing a certain number of padlocks and lengths of chain? It could be used to stop such crimes in the future...
I am not surprised by the responses here. Anyone with real firearms knowledge knows that you could have 3 round mags and still rack up a body count until someone shows up to stop you.
Right. If you are well trained in the "art of the mag change" you can do anything you want too with a 10rd mag.
C4
My wife said a similar thing to me. When the subject of someone breaking into our house and rape came up, my wife said she would not use a gun to defend herself because she would be afraid of the attacker grabbing the gun from her and using it on her........So I asked her if she would rather be raped? She said she would call the cops and in the mean time.....find a happy place. (No kidding). I couldn't believe it. I told her that there are handgun classes that people could take that teach retention techniques and she said no, guns make people want to kill........I realized at that point I was not going to waste my time, and that there are some people that you just can't reach. Very sad.
Sorry man. That is sad. These people, They fail to realize that their lives were already forfeit the minute someone targets them and they choose not to fight back due to shitty mindset. Death by strangulation or death by your own gun that was taken from you.... The outcome is the same. At least the gun gives you the ability to fight back effectively. More so if one is trained with it.
I'm glad that I've had the opportunity to know many women who have not only sought training, but who would gladly use it to defend themselves and their families.
My MIL said she would rather be killed by an attacker than use a gun and take their life.
To which I respond: that's perfectly ok, just don't force me into adopting that position.
As long as they support my right not to adopt that position, I will support their right to be a victim. :bad:
That's how I counter that one and it generally shuts them the fu&% up.
I am quite amazed myself. I have been flooding my facebook with facts and statistics as well as write ups including the LV one on here. It astonishing the posts you see on a lot of pro second posts from firearm manufactures, distributors, instructors, etc. that are anti gun. When did we as whole become this blind. I am ashamed. I plan on compiling all these statistics and write ups and emailing, mailing and what ever else I can do to any and all I can in any political position in my state.
A person with 2 revolvers (let's say .38) and 5 speedloaders with hollow points could walk into an unguarded school, gym, Starbucks, or whatever and easily kill and wound multiple people before the police can respond.
Will there be a call for a ban on assault weapons? No, they will want all the weapons which is the ultimate goal.
The unfortunate part is that you average village idiot knows nothing about firearms except what they see on TV and film.
It took me showing this video of Miculek to someone to convince them a revolver can be just as effective to get them to understand it is all guns. They had that look when I said, be honest, it will be eventual confiscation for this path of the anti's to be effective is that what you support...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uisHfKj2JiI
montanadave
12-22-12, 12:35
It took me showing this video of Miculek to someone to convince them a revolver can be just as effective to get them to understand it is all guns. They had that look when I said, be honest, it will be eventual confiscation for this path of the anti's to be effective is that what you support...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uisHfKj2JiI
I sent that same clip to my brother yesterday. ;)
My MIL said she would rather be killed by an attacker than use a gun and take their life.
Some people are just born victims, and want everyone else to be the same way. :rolleyes:
As you know there are Sheep, Wolves and Sheep Dogs.
From BCM/Grossman.
http://www.bravocompanyusa.com/Articles.asp?ID=148
Right. If you are well trained in the "art of the mag change" you can do anything you want too with a 10rd mag.
C4
Yep, the guy in CT shot 26 at the school. He walks in with a loaded AR with 10rd mags, that's 2 mag changes. Let's give him a very leisurely 5 seconds per mag change, it's still hard to imagine the lack of 30rd mags making any difference at all. He could have used a revolver with speed loaders and created the same amount of mayhem in only a few seconds more. Either way, he was shooting unarmed kids who had nowhere to go: it was fish in a barrel regardless of firearm used.
Anti 2A's obviously will not be satisfied with AWB's or mag cap limits. The logic of the extremist wing of their view is that ALL guns must ultimately be removed from private hands.
Yeah, after his comment I started to question his common sense (He is a fairly bright guy who after completing his O.D. went on to complete an M.D.). His whole premise for limiting mag capacity was so that a person with a 6-7 round CCW could stop the crime more easily.:blink:
I didn't even want to waste my breath on, "Why not have a 30 round mag ready for home defense" etc.
Well I see the biggest problem is if they get a ban and run with it. It could violate the the seconding amendment. Which really was violated with the tax stamp in the NFA. But I fear with this new wave of politics, it will only be a matter of time before someone says this crime could have been stopped if the fourth amendment was different. Then we could be subjected to unlaw search and seizure.
GeorgiaBoy
12-24-12, 18:39
I had a pro-gun acquaintance of mine convinced that we should ban "high" capacity mags. Because he is from California, he wanted to limit mag capacity to 9 rounds....(WTF!). In fact, a disturbing trend I'm seeing is that many RKBA/2A proponents are wanting to give up standard capacity mags because they see it as a problem.
That is not unusual. I think people need to realize how few gun owners actually support having magazines of more than 10 rounds.. I'm not one of them, but I know plenty of STRONG 2A supporters that do not believe in civilian possession of "standard"/high capacity mags...
I couldn't count the number of times I have heard of people canceling their NRA membership because "they aren't what they used to be".
Reposted from the Raven Concealment Systems page on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Raven-Concealment-Systems/305851175686
This editorial was written by my good friend Scott Wilson. He works for one of the most recognized brands in this industry, and earns his living equipping the good guys -- law enforcement, military, AND CIVILIANS. With his permission, I am making his thoughts available for you to read and share with your friends:
Many have posed the question this past week as to why anybody needs a "high capacity clip." I would like to very briefly state why I choose to possess and use standard capacity magazines.
The ultimate use of a firearm is the defense of one's owns life, or to prevent the unlawful taking of life from another. This is the reason why the right to "bear" (to be equipped or furnished with) arms is enumerated in the Constitution of the United States. As regards the use of the term "arms," in Miller .v US, SCOTUS defined arms in the following manner:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."
Read carefully the part about "ordinary military equipment." In essence, SCOTUS stated that the second amendment guarantees the right to keep (have and to hold) and bear (to be equipped or furnished with) arms (ordinary military equipment.)
If that isn't clear enough for you, please allow me to expound further. Each round of ammunition in said standard capacity magazine represents to me the opportunity to solve a problem. That problem is an individual or individuals who intend to unlawfully take from me ,through force, my life or cause me bodily harm. The same could be said of my family and those I love and care about. The situation is probably going to be scary, extremely dynamic, and occurring at a rather rapid pace. I prefer to have as many opportunities to solve that problem as possible. The lives of my family and my own life are rather precious to me.
The thought that an arbitrary limit should be set as regards those opportunities by an individual or individuals who do not even have any factual knowledge of the equipment they seek to limit, I find patently absurd.
Furthermore, if you disagree with the above premise then we don't just have a philosophical disagreement over technical terms or minutiae, but a radically different world view. You seek to limit my ability to defend myself and my loved ones from those who would do us harm. If that is your stance, stick to it, defend it, justify it to yourself all you want. I will oppose you with all my might. I take issue with those who would harm my family, through action or omission. Both are equally culpable
If a sheep is not willing to fight back to save their own life, that is their right. It is not their right to impose their will on me and deprive me of the right to properly defend myself and others.
What the sheep do not understand is that using a firearm to kill a lot of innocent people is not the most effective means of accomplishing the task.
If a sheep is not willing to fight back to save their own life, that is their right. It is not their right to impose their will on me and deprive me of the right to properly defend myself and others.
What the sheep do not understand is that using a firearm to kill a lot of innocent people is not the most effective means of accomplishing the task.
Exactly we havent banned U-Haul trucks and fertilizer yet
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.