|
Scarborough gets it right
In article , says...
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? They don't. |
Scarborough gets it right
In article , earl8471
@hotmail.com says... ESAD wrote: On 12/18/12 12:01 PM, wrote: On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 06:47:07 -0500, ESAD wrote: Perhaps the police have found or will find some clues that shine light on the shooter's mental state. Maybe not. The problem with guessing on these cases where the shooter is dead and there is a lack of concrete evidence is that it usually points in the wrong direction. I've read and heard some reports that "violent video games" may have been involved. Well, video games don't cause schizophrenia. We have a culture of violence. We were started in a revolution where we threw out all of the rules of "civilized warfare", our most bloody war was amongst ourselves and the rest of the world uses us as their enforcer/hit man. You really just have to look to the media to see the model for these shootings. What passes for news and entertainment (which is only separated by a blurry line) all you see is mass killing of one kind or another. The public seems to be drawn to it and the media outlets are more than happy to oblige. The biggest news story last year was the cold blooded murder of Osama Bin Laden. I agree he needed killing but it was still a "hit" worthy of Al Capone or Pablo Escobar. We love bomb camera and drone strike videos even when a bunch of kids are "collateral damage". . It is not shocking that a disturbed individual thinks the best way to be somebody is to kill a lot of people. The more shocking the victims, the bigger splash you get. Once again, you are just extending the psychobabble. What evidence do you have that the Connecticut shooter wanted to "be somebody"? Check out the West Memphis Three. Pay your taxes first, deadbeat. I'm sorry, what does the West Memphis Three have to do with the Connecticut shooter? |
Scarborough gets it right
On 12/19/2012 9:30 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 17:08:53 -0500, JustWait wrote: 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? You don't, unless you're fighting off an attack of Taliban folks armed with AK's. I never espoused the 30-round magazine. Outlaw them. I don't care. My point is that three 10-round clips can do the same amount of damage in about 7-10 additional seconds - at most. WTF are you guys getting so hot about this question? It's just a question? I am sensing a lot of penis guns here in this group, more than I originally thought.. |
Scarborough gets it right
|
Scarborough gets it right
|
Scarborough gets it right
|
Scarborough gets it right
On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 8:34:29 AM UTC-5, JustWait wrote:
On 12/19/2012 8:00 AM, BAR wrote: In article , says... "GuzzisRule" wrote in message ... 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. ---------------------------------------------------------- There's no question that killing someone with a single shot derringer is possible. That's not really the question or issue. What has to be resolved in order to make any kind of meaningful gun control reform possible in this country is to define what the designed purpose of a weapon is. Defensive? Offensive? Yes, you can still kill with a gun primarily designed as a defensive weapon. But why make guns primarily designed as "offensive" weapons generally available to Joe Doe public? Doesn't make any sense. Is a knife defensive or offensive? Is a sword defensive or offensive? Is a baseball bat an offensive weapon or a defensive weapon. The common thread in all of the mass killings is that there is a person initiating the sequence of events. So, how about you try it since Greg won't answer the question... and remember, I support the second. But I am starting to wonder why you need a 30 round clip? Same reason someone "needs" a motocross bike. It's not a life necessity, but it can be fun. |
Scarborough gets it right
On 12/19/2012 9:46 AM, ESAD wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:47:34 -0500, wrote: I keep hearing about these closed mental hospitals but most were actually closed because civil rights and privacy advocates took away all of the patients. It is very hard to keep someone in a mental hospital after 72 hours if they want to go. There is a guy around the corner from me who has been "Baker acted" at least 30 times in the last 10 years (hauled away by the cops and put in for observation). Sometimes he goes into rehab for a few weeks on our dime, he calls it the spa, but most of the time he is home after a few days. Even court ordered (non-criminal) commitments can easily be vacated if the patient files a "show cause" motion and there are lots of "rights" groups who will file the motion for you. There are at least three large mental health facilities with forensic wards in your state of Florida. My wife did her internship at one of them, a 650-bed facility. At the time she worked there, there were several hundred persons resident who had been committed for substantial or even indeterminate terms as a result of serious, violent criminal activities in which they had engaged. Your "guy around the corner" sounds like someone who is a drug addict and who gets out of control but is not judged a threat to others. A "Baker Act" commitment is for 72 hours, after which a judge determines if cause can be demonstrated for a longer commitment. If not, as is usually the case, the individual is released. Most communities these days simply don't have out-patient treatment available for the indigent, so they end up hospitalized. She'd have to be a real bruiser to be assigned that sort of duty. |
Scarborough gets it right
On 12/19/2012 10:31 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 8:34:29 AM UTC-5, JustWait wrote: On 12/19/2012 8:00 AM, BAR wrote: In article , says... "GuzzisRule" wrote in message ... 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. ---------------------------------------------------------- There's no question that killing someone with a single shot derringer is possible. That's not really the question or issue. What has to be resolved in order to make any kind of meaningful gun control reform possible in this country is to define what the designed purpose of a weapon is. Defensive? Offensive? Yes, you can still kill with a gun primarily designed as a defensive weapon. But why make guns primarily designed as "offensive" weapons generally available to Joe Doe public? Doesn't make any sense. Is a knife defensive or offensive? Is a sword defensive or offensive? Is a baseball bat an offensive weapon or a defensive weapon. The common thread in all of the mass killings is that there is a person initiating the sequence of events. So, how about you try it since Greg won't answer the question... and remember, I support the second. But I am starting to wonder why you need a 30 round clip? Same reason someone "needs" a motocross bike. It's not a life necessity, but it can be fun. Well there you go... What's fun about it compared to a ten clip. I can see if you have a fully automatic weapon, but a semi. Enlighten me?? |
Scarborough gets it right
On 12/19/12 11:18 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/19/2012 10:31 AM, wrote: On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 8:34:29 AM UTC-5, JustWait wrote: On 12/19/2012 8:00 AM, BAR wrote: In article , says... "GuzzisRule" wrote in message ... 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. ---------------------------------------------------------- There's no question that killing someone with a single shot derringer is possible. That's not really the question or issue. What has to be resolved in order to make any kind of meaningful gun control reform possible in this country is to define what the designed purpose of a weapon is. Defensive? Offensive? Yes, you can still kill with a gun primarily designed as a defensive weapon. But why make guns primarily designed as "offensive" weapons generally available to Joe Doe public? Doesn't make any sense. Is a knife defensive or offensive? Is a sword defensive or offensive? Is a baseball bat an offensive weapon or a defensive weapon. The common thread in all of the mass killings is that there is a person initiating the sequence of events. So, how about you try it since Greg won't answer the question... and remember, I support the second. But I am starting to wonder why you need a 30 round clip? Same reason someone "needs" a motocross bike. It's not a life necessity, but it can be fun. Well there you go... What's fun about it compared to a ten clip. I can see if you have a fully automatic weapon, but a semi. Enlighten me?? I'll enlighten you. It's fun for the lazy and the feeble minded. I have a couple of "large cap" mags for my CZ, and with them I have instantly available at the pull of a trigger 19 rounds. The mags were packed in with the pistol when I ordered it from the custom shop. But I never use these mags. I can't use them in competitive shooting, because they're not allowed. They make the handgun heavier and impact balance. They are more difficult to reload. I use the 10-round mags in my CZ. Same with my Ruger .22 - I used 10-round mags. In fact, I don't believe there are higher cap mags for this particular Ruger pistol. |
Scarborough gets it right
On 12/19/2012 11:34 AM, ESAD wrote:
On 12/19/12 11:18 AM, JustWait wrote: On 12/19/2012 10:31 AM, wrote: On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 8:34:29 AM UTC-5, JustWait wrote: On 12/19/2012 8:00 AM, BAR wrote: In article , says... "GuzzisRule" wrote in message ... 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. ---------------------------------------------------------- There's no question that killing someone with a single shot derringer is possible. That's not really the question or issue. What has to be resolved in order to make any kind of meaningful gun control reform possible in this country is to define what the designed purpose of a weapon is. Defensive? Offensive? Yes, you can still kill with a gun primarily designed as a defensive weapon. But why make guns primarily designed as "offensive" weapons generally available to Joe Doe public? Doesn't make any sense. Is a knife defensive or offensive? Is a sword defensive or offensive? Is a baseball bat an offensive weapon or a defensive weapon. The common thread in all of the mass killings is that there is a person initiating the sequence of events. So, how about you try it since Greg won't answer the question... and remember, I support the second. But I am starting to wonder why you need a 30 round clip? Same reason someone "needs" a motocross bike. It's not a life necessity, but it can be fun. Well there you go... What's fun about it compared to a ten clip. I can see if you have a fully automatic weapon, but a semi. Enlighten me?? I'll enlighten you. Don't flatter yourself, your opinion on this subject is not necessary... won't read it. |
Scarborough gets it right
On 12/19/12 11:48 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/19/2012 11:34 AM, ESAD wrote: On 12/19/12 11:18 AM, JustWait wrote: On 12/19/2012 10:31 AM, wrote: On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 8:34:29 AM UTC-5, JustWait wrote: On 12/19/2012 8:00 AM, BAR wrote: In article , says... "GuzzisRule" wrote in message ... 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. ---------------------------------------------------------- There's no question that killing someone with a single shot derringer is possible. That's not really the question or issue. What has to be resolved in order to make any kind of meaningful gun control reform possible in this country is to define what the designed purpose of a weapon is. Defensive? Offensive? Yes, you can still kill with a gun primarily designed as a defensive weapon. But why make guns primarily designed as "offensive" weapons generally available to Joe Doe public? Doesn't make any sense. Is a knife defensive or offensive? Is a sword defensive or offensive? Is a baseball bat an offensive weapon or a defensive weapon. The common thread in all of the mass killings is that there is a person initiating the sequence of events. So, how about you try it since Greg won't answer the question... and remember, I support the second. But I am starting to wonder why you need a 30 round clip? Same reason someone "needs" a motocross bike. It's not a life necessity, but it can be fun. Well there you go... What's fun about it compared to a ten clip. I can see if you have a fully automatic weapon, but a semi. Enlighten me?? I'll enlighten you. Don't flatter yourself, your opinion on this subject is not necessary... won't read it. SNERK You're always the ignorant moron. |
Scarborough gets it right
On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 11:34:36 AM UTC-5, ESAD wrote:
On 12/19/12 11:18 AM, JustWait wrote: Well there you go... What's fun about it compared to a ten clip. I can see if you have a fully automatic weapon, but a semi. Enlighten me?? I'll enlighten you. It's fun for the lazy and the feeble minded. Lazy, feeble-minded people fail to pay their taxes and debts. |
Scarborough gets it right
|
Scarborough gets it right
In article , says...
On 12/19/2012 11:34 AM, ESAD wrote: On 12/19/12 11:18 AM, JustWait wrote: On 12/19/2012 10:31 AM, wrote: On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 8:34:29 AM UTC-5, JustWait wrote: On 12/19/2012 8:00 AM, BAR wrote: In article , says... "GuzzisRule" wrote in message ... 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. ---------------------------------------------------------- There's no question that killing someone with a single shot derringer is possible. That's not really the question or issue. What has to be resolved in order to make any kind of meaningful gun control reform possible in this country is to define what the designed purpose of a weapon is. Defensive? Offensive? Yes, you can still kill with a gun primarily designed as a defensive weapon. But why make guns primarily designed as "offensive" weapons generally available to Joe Doe public? Doesn't make any sense. Is a knife defensive or offensive? Is a sword defensive or offensive? Is a baseball bat an offensive weapon or a defensive weapon. The common thread in all of the mass killings is that there is a person initiating the sequence of events. So, how about you try it since Greg won't answer the question... and remember, I support the second. But I am starting to wonder why you need a 30 round clip? Same reason someone "needs" a motocross bike. It's not a life necessity, but it can be fun. Well there you go... What's fun about it compared to a ten clip. I can see if you have a fully automatic weapon, but a semi. Enlighten me?? I'll enlighten you. Don't flatter yourself, your opinion on this subject is not necessary... won't read it. But you did, AND responded. |
Scarborough gets it right
On 12/19/2012 12:56 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 10:23:40 -0500, JustWait wrote: On 12/19/2012 10:11 AM, wrote: On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 08:34:29 -0500, JustWait wrote: So, how about you try it since Greg won't answer the question... and remember, I support the second. But I am starting to wonder why you need a 30 round clip? Since when do we base what we can buy by what we need. Nobody NEEDS a motorcycle. Sure you do, if you are gonna' race Motocross... What do you use a 30 round clip for? Convenience. I can take 3 magazines to the range and be done with it. In my M1A it also makes a nice rest for bench shooting. Thank you... The real issue here is, how effective is a ban? I had no problem finding any kind of magazine I wanted during the Clinton ban. They were just expensive. I am sure there are speculators buying up every SA rifle and large magazine they can find. I have no issue with how effective is a ban, I support your right to bear arms. In fact I have been on the phone a lot recently with a member of this group, helping a relative who has decided take classes and buy a pistol for PP. At the same time, my youngest has always had a serious interest in long guns and targets, no intention of hunting but she really wants to shoot too. I am amazed at what's available out there though, never really thought of the machine that way, so much more than a hammer and primer:) I am fascinated with the videos and the technology... Still not really interested in going to the range... If I am going to spend a lot of money to make a lot of noise, I would rather be burning race gas:) Perhaps if you revoke the 5th and 6th amendment too, you might make a small dent in legal sales. Kevin says most criminals get their weapons from illegal sources. I don't want to ban anything... If I were in charge the plan I would produce would involve trained, armed employees being encouraged, better tracking of weapons, and better enforcement with harsher penalties which would probably close the gun show loopholes... That's where I would start, even though I know that is just the tip of the iceberg... I talk to my kid all the time, she says video games don't do ****.. My response along the lines of.... "When I was a kid, each and every twelve year old didn't know how to "clear a room" or "sweep a compound". They didn't know how much time it takes to reload, have awareness to shoot while taking cover, what that return fire might look like or sound like......... When I was a kid, unless your parents had spent a lot of time with you teaching you, most of my peers wouldn't even know what a safety was on a semi-auto, thus probably couldn't really do **** with one, even if we did get our hands on it... These kids have hundreds of hours of tactical training now before they attack a school or theater... Either way, I am not for a ban, I am for a ban. In fact if it were up to me, more good law abiding folks like Gene, Tim, or Bar would be encouraged to have a CCL and use it... Just sayin'... |
Scarborough gets it right
On 12/19/2012 1:58 PM, JustWait wrote:
Either way, I am not for a ban. In fact if it were up to me, more good law abiding folks like Gene, Tim, or Bar would be encouraged to have a CCL and use it... Just sayin'... Sorry, fixed it... |
Scarborough gets it right
In article , says...
On 12/19/2012 12:56 PM, wrote: On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 10:23:40 -0500, JustWait wrote: On 12/19/2012 10:11 AM, wrote: On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 08:34:29 -0500, JustWait wrote: So, how about you try it since Greg won't answer the question... and remember, I support the second. But I am starting to wonder why you need a 30 round clip? Since when do we base what we can buy by what we need. Nobody NEEDS a motorcycle. Sure you do, if you are gonna' race Motocross... What do you use a 30 round clip for? Convenience. I can take 3 magazines to the range and be done with it. In my M1A it also makes a nice rest for bench shooting. Thank you... The real issue here is, how effective is a ban? I had no problem finding any kind of magazine I wanted during the Clinton ban. They were just expensive. I am sure there are speculators buying up every SA rifle and large magazine they can find. I have no issue with how effective is a ban, I support your right to bear arms. In fact I have been on the phone a lot recently with a member of this group, helping a relative who has decided take classes and buy a pistol for PP. At the same time, my youngest has always had a serious interest in long guns and targets, no intention of hunting but she really wants to shoot too. I am amazed at what's available out there though, never really thought of the machine that way, so much more than a hammer and primer:) I am fascinated with the videos and the technology... Still not really interested in going to the range... If I am going to spend a lot of money to make a lot of noise, I would rather be burning race gas:) Perhaps if you revoke the 5th and 6th amendment too, you might make a small dent in legal sales. Kevin says most criminals get their weapons from illegal sources. I don't want to ban anything... If I were in charge the plan I would produce would involve trained, armed employees being encouraged, better tracking of weapons, and better enforcement with harsher penalties which would probably close the gun show loopholes... That's where I would start, even though I know that is just the tip of the iceberg... I talk to my kid all the time, she says video games don't do ****.. My response along the lines of.... "When I was a kid, each and every twelve year old didn't know how to "clear a room" or "sweep a compound". They didn't know how much time it takes to reload, have awareness to shoot while taking cover, what that return fire might look like or sound like......... When I was a kid, unless your parents had spent a lot of time with you teaching you, most of my peers wouldn't even know what a safety was on a semi-auto, thus probably couldn't really do **** with one, even if we did get our hands on it... These kids have hundreds of hours of tactical training now before they attack a school or theater... Either way, I am not for a ban, I am for a ban. In fact if it were up to me, more good law abiding folks like Gene, Tim, or Bar would be encouraged to have a CCL and use it... Just sayin'... Welp, git that gurl a few guns, then guhilk!~ |
Scarborough gets it right
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 17:10:06 -0500, 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? Well, if you've got the money, and you like to shoot a lot, then a 30 round clip can be fun! Is it needed? Hell no. |
Scarborough gets it right
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 22:39:43 -0500, JustWait wrote:
On 12/18/2012 10:10 PM, wrote: On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 17:10:06 -0500, JustWait wrote: On 12/18/2012 4:50 PM, wrote: Just making the point that a magazine is not a clip. So why does anybody need 30 in a clip outside PoPo, or Military? I would ask why the PoPo need a 30 round magazine too. Marksmanship went out the window when the cops started carrying double stack 9MMs and they end up doing things like shooting 11 innocent bystanders, taking down ONE perp. (recently in NYC) Last chance... So why does anybody need 30 in a clip outside PoPo, or Military? Lots of squirrels running around? Rats at the dump? Raccoons and other critters attacking Huntingtown, MD? Your question's been asked and answered! |
Scarborough gets it right
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 22:33:35 -0800, thumper wrote:
On 12/18/2012 12:21 PM, GuzzisRule wrote: Fine - do away with 'military style...combat assault rifles with high capacity (not defined) magazines'. How the hell would that stop someone who wanted to kill twenty kids? It might make him a little slower, but not much! Yeah, lets make it as easy as possible. That was kind of a stupid reply. C-4 would make it *very* easy. In fact, I'm wondering why some jihadist hasn't strapped a bomb to her chest and walked into a school cafeteria during lunchtime. |
Scarborough gets it right
|
Scarborough gets it right
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 09:35:16 -0500, ESAD wrote:
On 12/19/12 9:27 AM, GuzzisRule wrote: On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:33:55 -0500, ESAD wrote: 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? There are very few Mexicans in Springfield Mall. Springfield Mall and in fact much of the area just north of the mall towards Annandale has one of the highest concentrations of MS-13 gangbangers along the Eastern Seaboard. There have been many "incidents" reported by shoppers at that mall of being confronted by gang members. If you put "ms-13 springfield, va" into a google search, you'll get a lot of hits, and many of them have details of MS-13 gang activities right down the street from you and what, about five miles away? Oh, and MS-13 is transnational. It's not a "Mexican" gang. You are an ignorant ass. Your post didn't mention MS-13 or any other gang. Are all Latinos, in your estimation, gang members? Perhaps you were looking in a mirror when you typed 'ignorant ass'? BTW - Springfield Mall is almost dead. Most of the stores have closed. Macy's, Penny's, and Target are still open. Do you blame that on the Latino population north of the mall? Are the Latinos, in your opinion, all bad? You call others racist. You're sick. |
Scarborough gets it right
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 10:06:18 -0500, JustWait wrote:
On 12/19/2012 9:30 AM, GuzzisRule wrote: On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 17:08:53 -0500, JustWait wrote: 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? You don't, unless you're fighting off an attack of Taliban folks armed with AK's. I never espoused the 30-round magazine. Outlaw them. I don't care. My point is that three 10-round clips can do the same amount of damage in about 7-10 additional seconds - at most. WTF are you guys getting so hot about this question? It's just a question? I am sensing a lot of penis guns here in this group, more than I originally thought.. Who's hot? You've asked the same question about 20 times. No one here has provided a rationale for 30-round clips, except for military/police type activity. Yet you persist in asking your stupid question. WTF for? |
Scarborough gets it right
On 12/19/12 3:59 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 09:35:16 -0500, ESAD wrote: On 12/19/12 9:27 AM, GuzzisRule wrote: On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:33:55 -0500, ESAD wrote: 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? There are very few Mexicans in Springfield Mall. Springfield Mall and in fact much of the area just north of the mall towards Annandale has one of the highest concentrations of MS-13 gangbangers along the Eastern Seaboard. There have been many "incidents" reported by shoppers at that mall of being confronted by gang members. If you put "ms-13 springfield, va" into a google search, you'll get a lot of hits, and many of them have details of MS-13 gang activities right down the street from you and what, about five miles away? Oh, and MS-13 is transnational. It's not a "Mexican" gang. You are an ignorant ass. Your post didn't mention MS-13 or any other gang. Are all Latinos, in your estimation, gang members? Perhaps you were looking in a mirror when you typed 'ignorant ass'? BTW - Springfield Mall is almost dead. Most of the stores have closed. Macy's, Penny's, and Target are still open. Do you blame that on the Latino population north of the mall? Are the Latinos, in your opinion, all bad? You call others racist. You're sick. I've several times mentioned MS-13 was active in your immediate area. I never said or implied that all Latinos were gang members. Springfield Mall has been dying for a decade, and a big reason is MS-13 gang activity. Maybe one day while you are out on your clapped out old motorcycle, you'll encounter a few MS-13 members, who will take your bike away from you. |
Scarborough gets it right
On 12/19/2012 3:47 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 22:39:43 -0500, JustWait wrote: On 12/18/2012 10:10 PM, wrote: On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 17:10:06 -0500, JustWait wrote: On 12/18/2012 4:50 PM, wrote: Just making the point that a magazine is not a clip. So why does anybody need 30 in a clip outside PoPo, or Military? I would ask why the PoPo need a 30 round magazine too. Marksmanship went out the window when the cops started carrying double stack 9MMs and they end up doing things like shooting 11 innocent bystanders, taking down ONE perp. (recently in NYC) Last chance... So why does anybody need 30 in a clip outside PoPo, or Military? Lots of squirrels running around? Rats at the dump? Raccoons and other critters attacking Huntingtown, MD? Your question's been asked and answered! And when it was, I said acknowledged it and thanked the author... now calm down, you are a gun owner, don't need you getting all that excited. |
Scarborough gets it right
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 17:01:37 -0500, ESAD wrote:
On 12/19/12 3:59 PM, GuzzisRule wrote: On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 09:35:16 -0500, ESAD wrote: On 12/19/12 9:27 AM, GuzzisRule wrote: On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:33:55 -0500, ESAD wrote: 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? There are very few Mexicans in Springfield Mall. Springfield Mall and in fact much of the area just north of the mall towards Annandale has one of the highest concentrations of MS-13 gangbangers along the Eastern Seaboard. There have been many "incidents" reported by shoppers at that mall of being confronted by gang members. If you put "ms-13 springfield, va" into a google search, you'll get a lot of hits, and many of them have details of MS-13 gang activities right down the street from you and what, about five miles away? Oh, and MS-13 is transnational. It's not a "Mexican" gang. You are an ignorant ass. Your post didn't mention MS-13 or any other gang. Are all Latinos, in your estimation, gang members? Perhaps you were looking in a mirror when you typed 'ignorant ass'? BTW - Springfield Mall is almost dead. Most of the stores have closed. Macy's, Penny's, and Target are still open. Do you blame that on the Latino population north of the mall? Are the Latinos, in your opinion, all bad? You call others racist. You're sick. I've several times mentioned MS-13 was active in your immediate area. I never said or implied that all Latinos were gang members. Springfield Mall has been dying for a decade, and a big reason is MS-13 gang activity. Maybe one day while you are out on your clapped out old motorcycle, you'll encounter a few MS-13 members, who will take your bike away from you. It's not something I worry about, ESAD. Perhaps the sight of a Latino scares you, but I'm really not bothered by it. And you call others 'racist'. My 'clapped out old motorcycle' took me about 90 miles today at about 50 mpg. How's your 'Ducati' running? Do you keep it in your Maryland-red barn? I suppose the twin-Volvo-diesel-powered trawler is stored there also, no? |
Scarborough gets it right
On 12/19/12 5:39 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 17:01:37 -0500, ESAD wrote: On 12/19/12 3:59 PM, GuzzisRule wrote: On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 09:35:16 -0500, ESAD wrote: On 12/19/12 9:27 AM, GuzzisRule wrote: On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:33:55 -0500, ESAD wrote: 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? There are very few Mexicans in Springfield Mall. Springfield Mall and in fact much of the area just north of the mall towards Annandale has one of the highest concentrations of MS-13 gangbangers along the Eastern Seaboard. There have been many "incidents" reported by shoppers at that mall of being confronted by gang members. If you put "ms-13 springfield, va" into a google search, you'll get a lot of hits, and many of them have details of MS-13 gang activities right down the street from you and what, about five miles away? Oh, and MS-13 is transnational. It's not a "Mexican" gang. You are an ignorant ass. Your post didn't mention MS-13 or any other gang. Are all Latinos, in your estimation, gang members? Perhaps you were looking in a mirror when you typed 'ignorant ass'? BTW - Springfield Mall is almost dead. Most of the stores have closed. Macy's, Penny's, and Target are still open. Do you blame that on the Latino population north of the mall? Are the Latinos, in your opinion, all bad? You call others racist. You're sick. I've several times mentioned MS-13 was active in your immediate area. I never said or implied that all Latinos were gang members. Springfield Mall has been dying for a decade, and a big reason is MS-13 gang activity. Maybe one day while you are out on your clapped out old motorcycle, you'll encounter a few MS-13 members, who will take your bike away from you. It's not something I worry about, ESAD. Perhaps the sight of a Latino scares you, but I'm really not bothered by it. And you call others 'racist'. My 'clapped out old motorcycle' took me about 90 miles today at about 50 mpg. How's your 'Ducati' running? Do you keep it in your Maryland-red barn? I suppose the twin-Volvo-diesel-powered trawler is stored there also, no? Duc and I took a 50 mile round trip to Home Despot earlier today, ISO some Honeywell timer switches and some dimmer switches. |
Scarborough gets it right
On 12/19/2012 12:49 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 22:33:35 -0800, thumper wrote: On 12/18/2012 12:21 PM, GuzzisRule wrote: Fine - do away with 'military style...combat assault rifles with high capacity (not defined) magazines'. How the hell would that stop someone who wanted to kill twenty kids? It might make him a little slower, but not much! Yeah, lets make it as easy as possible. That was kind of a stupid reply. C-4 would make it *very* easy. In fact, I'm wondering why some jihadist hasn't strapped a bomb to her chest and walked into a school cafeteria during lunchtime. Yeah, it wasn't the time for sarcasm. You got my point though. |
Scarborough gets it right
In article ,
says... On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:47:34 -0500, wrote: I keep hearing about these closed mental hospitals but most were actually closed because civil rights and privacy advocates took away all of the patients. It is very hard to keep someone in a mental hospital after 72 hours if they want to go. There is a guy around the corner from me who has been "Baker acted" at least 30 times in the last 10 years (hauled away by the cops and put in for observation). Sometimes he goes into rehab for a few weeks on our dime, he calls it the spa, but most of the time he is home after a few days. Even court ordered (non-criminal) commitments can easily be vacated if the patient files a "show cause" motion and there are lots of "rights" groups who will file the motion for you. There are at least three large mental health facilities with forensic wards in your state of Florida. My wife did her internship at one of them, a 650-bed facility. At the time she worked there, there were several hundred persons resident who had been committed for substantial or even indeterminate terms as a result of serious, violent criminal activities in which they had engaged. The assumption is that your wife met you at one of these mental hospitals or during a group therapy session where you were a mandatory attendee. Your "guy around the corner" sounds like someone who is a drug addict and who gets out of control but is not judged a threat to others. A "Baker Act" commitment is for 72 hours, after which a judge determines if cause can be demonstrated for a longer commitment. If not, as is usually the case, the individual is released. Thirty times in 10 years is a pattern. The guy is not right in the head. Most communities these days simply don't have out-patient treatment available for the indigent, so they end up hospitalized. Maybe if you paid your taxes the government could afford to run in- patient facilities. |
Scarborough gets it right
|
Scarborough gets it right
|
Scarborough gets it right
wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 07:38:18 -0500, BAR wrote: Your "guy around the corner" sounds like someone who is a drug addict and who gets out of control but is not judged a threat to others. A "Baker Act" commitment is for 72 hours, after which a judge determines if cause can be demonstrated for a longer commitment. If not, as is usually the case, the individual is released. Thirty times in 10 years is a pattern. The guy is not right in the head. The cops have been there three times in the last 2 days and left without him every time. I don't think anything will be done until he kills someone or one of my neighbors shoots him. The seven years was up and he just got his driver's license back after felony DUI so it will probably be someone on the road who gets it with his pickup. I guess the real question is exactly what you do. I don't think anyone has actually been "cured" of mental illness. They can drug the people into a compliant stupor but as soon as they stop taking the drug, they are back to crazy, maybe even worse than before. The drugs also seem to lose effectiveness over the years. Are we really talking about a gulag mentality where they round up all the people someone thinks are "mentally ill" and lock them up? "Outpatient services" is really just a drug dispensary and the problem is the patients are not real good about taking their drugs. You are grossly overstating the problems here. Many mental illnesses can be controlled with therapy and sometimes with therapy and medications. You are giving the impression that if you have a mental illness your outlook is forever dim. Many people with mental illnesses Are creative and productive members of society. Your prejudices are really out there. |
Scarborough gets it right
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 20:25:32 -0500, ESAD wrote:
On 12/19/12 5:39 PM, GuzzisRule wrote: On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 17:01:37 -0500, ESAD wrote: On 12/19/12 3:59 PM, GuzzisRule wrote: On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 09:35:16 -0500, ESAD wrote: On 12/19/12 9:27 AM, GuzzisRule wrote: On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:33:55 -0500, ESAD wrote: 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? There are very few Mexicans in Springfield Mall. Springfield Mall and in fact much of the area just north of the mall towards Annandale has one of the highest concentrations of MS-13 gangbangers along the Eastern Seaboard. There have been many "incidents" reported by shoppers at that mall of being confronted by gang members. If you put "ms-13 springfield, va" into a google search, you'll get a lot of hits, and many of them have details of MS-13 gang activities right down the street from you and what, about five miles away? Oh, and MS-13 is transnational. It's not a "Mexican" gang. You are an ignorant ass. Your post didn't mention MS-13 or any other gang. Are all Latinos, in your estimation, gang members? Perhaps you were looking in a mirror when you typed 'ignorant ass'? BTW - Springfield Mall is almost dead. Most of the stores have closed. Macy's, Penny's, and Target are still open. Do you blame that on the Latino population north of the mall? Are the Latinos, in your opinion, all bad? You call others racist. You're sick. I've several times mentioned MS-13 was active in your immediate area. I never said or implied that all Latinos were gang members. Springfield Mall has been dying for a decade, and a big reason is MS-13 gang activity. Maybe one day while you are out on your clapped out old motorcycle, you'll encounter a few MS-13 members, who will take your bike away from you. It's not something I worry about, ESAD. Perhaps the sight of a Latino scares you, but I'm really not bothered by it. And you call others 'racist'. My 'clapped out old motorcycle' took me about 90 miles today at about 50 mpg. How's your 'Ducati' running? Do you keep it in your Maryland-red barn? I suppose the twin-Volvo-diesel-powered trawler is stored there also, no? Duc and I took a 50 mile round trip to Home Despot earlier today, ISO some Honeywell timer switches and some dimmer switches. LOL! |
Scarborough gets it right
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 19:25:08 -0800, thumper wrote:
On 12/19/2012 12:49 PM, GuzzisRule wrote: On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 22:33:35 -0800, thumper wrote: On 12/18/2012 12:21 PM, GuzzisRule wrote: Fine - do away with 'military style...combat assault rifles with high capacity (not defined) magazines'. How the hell would that stop someone who wanted to kill twenty kids? It might make him a little slower, but not much! Yeah, lets make it as easy as possible. That was kind of a stupid reply. C-4 would make it *very* easy. In fact, I'm wondering why some jihadist hasn't strapped a bomb to her chest and walked into a school cafeteria during lunchtime. Yeah, it wasn't the time for sarcasm. You got my point though. If the goal is to make the killing of 20 kids take 10 seconds longer, then it's a stupid goal! Do you get the point? |
Scarborough gets it right
|
Scarborough gets it right
|
Scarborough gets it right
iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... On 12/18/2012 3:45 PM, GuzzisRule wrote: 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. Who held congress at the time the bill was passed? Republicans, why? The California Legislature was Democrat. The bill was a California bill. Just set the model for the rest of the states. |
Scarborough gets it right
wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 08:34:29 -0500, JustWait wrote: So, how about you try it since Greg won't answer the question... and remember, I support the second. But I am starting to wonder why you need a 30 round clip? Since when do we base what we can buy by what we need. Nobody NEEDS a motorcycle. Some might need a motorcycle, but nobody needs a race motorcycle. Just like the former police chief n San Jose California. Since he was a cop, got to carry all the time, but stated no civilian needed a firearm. Max speed limit was 65 in the state, but he drove a top of the line Jaguar. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:35 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com