Scarborough gets it right
 

On 12/18/2012 4:02 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:56:43 -0500, JustWait
wrote:



So what do you all think of 30 clips?

I bet you $1000 the guy did not have a single "clip".

There were no M-1s mentioned and I doubt seriously he had the charging
adapter to load a magazine from a stripper clip.


Forgetting that I support "your" right to bear arms... you sound like
the guys on the groups that can only answer the question as to why they
need them, the only answer they wrote up was "because we can"... It's a
dodge for them, is this a dodge for you?

Ok... then for those of us not in the cool group:) What do you all think
of a weapon that can hold and fire up to 30 rounds in succession without
anything but pulling the trigger?

Scarborough gets it right
 

On 12/18/12 3:29 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:48:16 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Califbill" wrote in message
...


Seems as if there are a couple questions to be answered. First, why
did a
person decide to massacre a room full of kids. And second, why target
assault rifles because of this. He used pistols.

------------------------------------------------------

My understanding is that he used an assault type rifle or clone of one
to kill the children and adults.
He used a pistol to kill himself.

Raises a disturbing question though. Those who advocate bans on
assault and or/high capacity weapons (me included) have to
acknowledge that a "number" is basically being established in terms of
how many people a nut case can kill with one weapon. A magazine
capacity of no more than 10 rounds seems to be a common
recommendation. In fact, Dianne Feinstein (D) California just
announced that she will introduce a bill immediately that limits
magazine rounds to 10.

So, does that mean that 10 people killed is an "acceptable" number in
our society? Wouldn't 5 be better . How about 1?
There are those who advocate banning guns altogether in the false hope
that it would end these tragic events, but it won't. Too many guns
exist and there are many other ways for nut cases to carry out mass
murders. Banning guns isn't the answer.

I find it a little strange that any number can be placed on magazine
capacity that is "acceptable".


How about if I can change magazines in three seconds (very easy, especially if one is taped to the
other)? Then it takes only three seconds more to get up to twenty rounds. Another four or five
seconds, depending on the location of the new magazine, to get up to thirty rounds off.

Magazine limiting should be done, but just to keep some folks happy. It won't stop a determined
killer in any way.


So, when will we see the aftermath of your multi-magazine rampage? Are
you going over to Springfield Mall to kill a bunch of Latinos?

Scarborough gets it right
 

On 12/18/2012 4:21 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 14:43:05 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

That would certainly make a dent. Fact remains, some 90% of gun crimes
were committed with a gun that someone either stole or "borrowed" from a
legal owner.


Why don't we just make theft illegal?
That should stop it.

That's just stupid on so many levels.


Then I suppose gun laws are even stupider. You are the one who says
most criminals have stolen guns. Why bother with all of the laws about
the legal sale?

Yeah, those grade school kids should be armed to the teeth with
automatic weapons.

Why must you always go to the extreme with the drama? Do you think it
helps you make your point, that only works on tv sit coms...

And yes, most crimes committed with guns are with
stolen guns. I've shown that.

Scarborough gets it right
 

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:47:11 -0500, JustWait wrote:

On 12/18/2012 3:29 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:48:16 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Califbill" wrote in message
...


Seems as if there are a couple questions to be answered. First, why
did a
person decide to massacre a room full of kids. And second, why target
assault rifles because of this. He used pistols.

------------------------------------------------------

My understanding is that he used an assault type rifle or clone of one
to kill the children and adults.
He used a pistol to kill himself.

Raises a disturbing question though. Those who advocate bans on
assault and or/high capacity weapons (me included) have to
acknowledge that a "number" is basically being established in terms of
how many people a nut case can kill with one weapon. A magazine
capacity of no more than 10 rounds seems to be a common
recommendation. In fact, Dianne Feinstein (D) California just
announced that she will introduce a bill immediately that limits
magazine rounds to 10.

So, does that mean that 10 people killed is an "acceptable" number in
our society? Wouldn't 5 be better . How about 1?
There are those who advocate banning guns altogether in the false hope
that it would end these tragic events, but it won't. Too many guns
exist and there are many other ways for nut cases to carry out mass
murders. Banning guns isn't the answer.

I find it a little strange that any number can be placed on magazine
capacity that is "acceptable".


How about if I can change magazines in three seconds (very easy, especially if one is taped to the
other)? Then it takes only three seconds more to get up to twenty rounds. Another four or five
seconds, depending on the location of the new magazine, to get up to thirty rounds off.

Magazine limiting should be done, but just to keep some folks happy. It won't stop a determined
killer in any way.


It will.

Bull****. A few short practice sessions in the bedroom would make it quite easy to change 10 round
magazines quite rapidly.

I have been watching videos of people put into situations where
they think they are drawing on a situation. Some dropped the weapon,
some froze, some got the thing caught in their tee shirt...

Well, there you go. We should go to ten round magazines because anyone using more than one will drop
his weapon, freeze, or get the magazine caught in a tee shirt.

Right.


A couple of the last shootings were stopped dead in their tracks when
the shooter had mechanical problems, or had a bad clip, or jammed the
weapon changing clips... Like I said, 1-10 is for defense. 30 is
either for penis power, or offense...

The jamming of a weapon may or may not be due to the clip. You've said nothing here that shows a ten
round clip to be less usable for killing than a 30 round clip - penis power or not.

Scarborough gets it right
 

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:17:02 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 12:47:14 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Monday, December 17, 2012 11:34:25 AM UTC-5, jps wrote:
MSNBC host Joe Scarborough,

Was wrong whe he said: "The violence we see spreading...

It is not spreading, it is actually reduced from 1980-90 levels.

Here's what needs to be looked at instead of new, knee-jerk gun control laws.

http://now.msn.com/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-says-mom-of-mentally-ill-son?

Thanks, I'd heard mention of this story but hadn't seen it yet. I believe the mother should have
called the law and pressed charges when threatened with the knife.

But you don't like raising taxes so how are we going to pay for all of
the prisons to house these people in? Gee, the mental hospitals that got
closed aren't sounding so bad now, eh?

Who says I don't like raising taxes? Surely, Kevin, you can show the cite - right?

Why have the Democrat presidents and Congress not opened your mental hospitals, Kevin?

It's funny that you bypass legitimate questions.

Scarborough gets it right
 

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:18:33 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:02:46 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Monday, December 17, 2012 11:34:25 AM UTC-5, jps wrote:
MSNBC host Joe Scarborough,

Was wrong whe he said: "The violence we see spreading...

It is not spreading, it is actually reduced from 1980-90 levels.

Here's what needs to be looked at instead of new, knee-jerk gun control laws.

http://now.msn.com/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-says-mom-of-mentally-ill-son?

Thanks to Reagan for cutting mental health programs....

Have we not had Democrat presidents and Democrat controlled congresses since Reagan?

What a stupid f'ing comment, Kevin.

Are you really saying that because we've had democratic presidents and
democratic congress since Reagan that the Republicans would have voted
with them to re-open these facilities?

What a stupid ****ing thought, Racist John.

I asked you a question. Did you answer it? Did the Democrats even try? No, 'cause they don't give a
****.

Here, this will indicate how much your beloved Democrats care about people: The Democrats have
contributed greatly to the poor - by keeping them poor.

City, State, % of People Below the Poverty Level
1. Detroit, MI 32.5%
2. Buffalo, NY 29..9%
3. Cincinnati, OH 27.8%
4. Cleveland, OH 27.0%
5. Miami, FL 26.9%
5. St. Louis, MO 26.8%
7. El Paso, TX 26.4%
8. Milwaukee, WI 26.2%
9. Philadelphia, PA 25.1%
10. Newark, NJ 24.2%
U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 American Community Survey, August 2007

What do the top ten cities (over 250,000) with the highest poverty
rate all have in common? Democrat mayors.

Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn't elected a
Republican mayor since 1961;

Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn't elected one since 1954;

Cincinnati, OH (3rd)...since 1984;

Cleveland, OH (4th)...since 1989;

Miami, FL (5th) has never had a Republican mayor;

St. Louis, MO (6th)....since 1949;

El Paso, TX (7th) has never had a Republican mayor;

Milwaukee, WI (8th)...since 1908;

Philadelphia, PA (9th)...since 1952;

Newark, NJ (10th)...since 1907.

Scarborough gets it right
 

On 12/18/2012 4:43 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:47:11 -0500, JustWait wrote:

On 12/18/2012 3:29 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:48:16 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Califbill" wrote in message
...


Seems as if there are a couple questions to be answered. First, why
did a
person decide to massacre a room full of kids. And second, why target
assault rifles because of this. He used pistols.

------------------------------------------------------

My understanding is that he used an assault type rifle or clone of one
to kill the children and adults.
He used a pistol to kill himself.

Raises a disturbing question though. Those who advocate bans on
assault and or/high capacity weapons (me included) have to
acknowledge that a "number" is basically being established in terms of
how many people a nut case can kill with one weapon. A magazine
capacity of no more than 10 rounds seems to be a common
recommendation. In fact, Dianne Feinstein (D) California just
announced that she will introduce a bill immediately that limits
magazine rounds to 10.

So, does that mean that 10 people killed is an "acceptable" number in
our society? Wouldn't 5 be better . How about 1?
There are those who advocate banning guns altogether in the false hope
that it would end these tragic events, but it won't. Too many guns
exist and there are many other ways for nut cases to carry out mass
murders. Banning guns isn't the answer.

I find it a little strange that any number can be placed on magazine
capacity that is "acceptable".


How about if I can change magazines in three seconds (very easy, especially if one is taped to the
other)? Then it takes only three seconds more to get up to twenty rounds. Another four or five
seconds, depending on the location of the new magazine, to get up to thirty rounds off.

Magazine limiting should be done, but just to keep some folks happy. It won't stop a determined
killer in any way.


It will.

Bull****. A few short practice sessions in the bedroom would make it quite easy to change 10 round
magazines quite rapidly.

I have been watching videos of people put into situations where
they think they are drawing on a situation. Some dropped the weapon,
some froze, some got the thing caught in their tee shirt...

Well, there you go. We should go to ten round magazines because anyone using more than one will drop
his weapon, freeze, or get the magazine caught in a tee shirt.

Right.


A couple of the last shootings were stopped dead in their tracks when
the shooter had mechanical problems, or had a bad clip, or jammed the
weapon changing clips... Like I said, 1-10 is for defense. 30 is
either for penis power, or offense...

The jamming of a weapon may or may not be due to the clip. You've said nothing here that shows a ten
round clip to be less usable for killing than a 30 round clip - penis power or not.


So, why do you need 30... another dodge?

Scarborough gets it right
 

On 12/18/2012 4:50 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:32:08 -0500, JustWait
wrote:

On 12/18/2012 4:02 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:56:43 -0500, JustWait
wrote:



So what do you all think of 30 clips?

I bet you $1000 the guy did not have a single "clip".

There were no M-1s mentioned and I doubt seriously he had the charging
adapter to load a magazine from a stripper clip.


Forgetting that I support "your" right to bear arms... you sound like
the guys on the groups that can only answer the question as to why they
need them, the only answer they wrote up was "because we can"... It's a
dodge for them, is this a dodge for you?

Ok... then for those of us not in the cool group:) What do you all think
of a weapon that can hold and fire up to 30 rounds in succession without
anything but pulling the trigger?



Just making the point that a magazine is not a clip.



So why does anybody need 30 in a clip outside PoPo, or Military?

Scarborough gets it right
 

On 12/18/12 5:10 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/18/2012 4:50 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:32:08 -0500, JustWait
wrote:

On 12/18/2012 4:02 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:56:43 -0500, JustWait
wrote:



So what do you all think of 30 clips?

I bet you $1000 the guy did not have a single "clip".

There were no M-1s mentioned and I doubt seriously he had the charging
adapter to load a magazine from a stripper clip.


Forgetting that I support "your" right to bear arms... you sound like
the guys on the groups that can only answer the question as to why they
need them, the only answer they wrote up was "because we can"... It's a
dodge for them, is this a dodge for you?

Ok... then for those of us not in the cool group:) What do you all think
of a weapon that can hold and fire up to 30 rounds in succession without
anything but pulling the trigger?



Just making the point that a magazine is not a clip.



So why does anybody need 30 in a clip outside PoPo, or Military?

Because it makes them feel...manly.

Scarborough gets it right
 

On 12/18/2012 5:11 PM, ESAD wrote:
On 12/18/12 5:10 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/18/2012 4:50 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:32:08 -0500, JustWait
wrote:

On 12/18/2012 4:02 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:56:43 -0500, JustWait
wrote:



So what do you all think of 30 clips?

I bet you $1000 the guy did not have a single "clip".

There were no M-1s mentioned and I doubt seriously he had the charging
adapter to load a magazine from a stripper clip.


Forgetting that I support "your" right to bear arms... you sound like
the guys on the groups that can only answer the question as to why they
need them, the only answer they wrote up was "because we can"... It's a
dodge for them, is this a dodge for you?

Ok... then for those of us not in the cool group:) What do you all
think
of a weapon that can hold and fire up to 30 rounds in succession
without
anything but pulling the trigger?



Just making the point that a magazine is not a clip.



So why does anybody need 30 in a clip outside PoPo, or Military?

Because it makes them feel...manly.

You should know.