Its almost like I tried to warn people about this very thing more than a year ago.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread...t-your-friends
Its almost like I tried to warn people about this very thing more than a year ago.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread...t-your-friends
Forward Ascertainment Group
It just gets worst…
A cop had the killer in his rifle sights as he approached the school entrance, and asked his superior for permission to shoot- and the killer got into the school before he could shoot.
At this point, the killer had already been shooting, right? Why would the cop need authority to shoot?
So we either have cops that shoot anything, or cops that won’t shoot at all.
Just when you couldn’t get any more depressing…
The Second Amendment ACKNOWLEDGES our right to own and bear arms that are in common use that can be used for lawful purposes. The arms can be restricted ONLY if subject to historical analogue from the founding era or is dangerous (unsafe) AND unusual.
It's that simple.
I have people argue with me that there is never a reason that police should ever shoot someone in the back. This is the exact example I have given for years, armed violent suspect trying to get into a school or church. I usually say knife instead of gun though, and that usually causes them to freak out a bit more because…”it’s not like they have a gun.”
https://alerrt.org/reading
Scroll to the bottom for what I believe is the most detailed and relevant analysis yet. Its very straight forward but as you might expect, there are difficult parts.
Sic semper tyrannis.
Sic semper tyrannis.
He had already been shooting at people at this point, correct? Even if not, someone walking towards a school with a rifle? I know it would be hard to shoot someone, but even in that circumstance- not taking the shot? Shoot him in the back? Fair fights are for suckers.
The Second Amendment ACKNOWLEDGES our right to own and bear arms that are in common use that can be used for lawful purposes. The arms can be restricted ONLY if subject to historical analogue from the founding era or is dangerous (unsafe) AND unusual.
It's that simple.
This was forwarded to me by a friend in MUNICH, of all places...
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>YOU IDIOTS! I WROTE 1984 AS A WARNING, NOT A HOW-TO MANUAL!--Orwell's ghost
Psalms 109:8, 43:1
LIFE MEMBER - NRA & SAF; FPC MEMBER Not employed or sponsored by any manufacturer, distributor or retailer.
Sounds pretty similar, with the added "civilian" (for lack of a better term) context.
I remember one instructor telling us of a class he used to put on where he had responding officers go to a domestic call. As they were nearing the front door, they could hear a woman screaming and loud banging. As soon as you opened the door there was a woman (dummy) laying on the ground on her back with her face covered in blood and a man with his back to you, on his knees straddling the woman with a raised cast iron skillet in his hands. He said the number of people that wouldn't shoot the man in the back was pretty high. He had people try to tackle the man, some just yell, and some that actually entered the building to get in front of the man before they shot him. As these officers were doing this the man was slamming the skillet into the woman's head. Only a few would shoot the man in the back from the onset.
This was way before tasers were being carried, but even now, a taser probably wouldn't be the best solution.
Willeford and Langendorff certainly stepped up when needed.
Sounds like the cops in that locale are a lot better bunch than Uvalde. Somehow I doubt that segment of the event would have went down the same way with Uvalde area cops.
https://www.texasmonthly.com/article...s-mass-murder/
Bookmarks