Page 9 of 18 FirstFirst ... 5678910111213 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 263

Thread: Guns...

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Detroit Michigan
    Posts
    1,908


    The issue is irresponsible people, which no, we will never get rid of.
    “Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.”

    –Eleanor Roosevelt




  2. #122

    Re: Guns...

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirdowski View Post
    The issue is irresponsible people, which no, we will never get rid of.
    which is my issue. giving a bunch of irresponsible people guns isnt the answer to criminals having guns.
    -JAB




  3. #123
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,470

    Re: Guns...

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    which is my issue. giving a bunch of irresponsible people guns isnt the answer to criminals having guns.
    Who's arguing we should give guns to irresponsible people?
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  4. #124

    Re: Guns...

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Who's arguing we should give guns to irresponsible people?
    im not saying anybody here per say, but theres certainly a group that think everybody carrying a gun is the optimum way to stop crime. Thats not taking into account those irresponsible gun owners that would then also have guns and do stupid shit like this. So basically, everyone have a gun and nobody have a gun is not the answer but it seems people dont want to compromise in the middle.
    -JAB




  5. #125

    Re: Guns...

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    im not saying anybody here per say, but theres certainly a group that think everybody carrying a gun is the optimum way to stop crime. Thats not taking into account those irresponsible gun owners that would then also have guns and do stupid shit like this. So basically, everyone have a gun and nobody have a gun is not the answer but it seems people dont want to compromise in the middle.
    yeah, i can agree to an extent. it's not like we get nine lives or something so when someone screws up one, that's it, no do-overs. one of the problems really is that stupid/irresponsible people in some cases don't think things out clearly or walk away from certain avoidable confrontations. instead they escalate it further. and then retaliation happens as we see in Chicago with these young guys. something real minor turns to a fist fight, fist fight turns to a shooting, someone's cousin decides to shoot the shooter's friend for pay back, shooter's friend's brother decides to shoot THAT guy and his friends via drive-by for payback, so on and so forth. And we haven't even gotten to the "street justice" shootings over drug turf yet...Personally, I think we REALLY need to invest back in state run mental institutions again, decriminalize certain drugs, and also extend conceal carry to more well-qualified marksmen BUT with some required liability insurance in case you shoot a bystander while shooting a criminal in self defense or if someone like your kid steals your gun and uses it to shoot innocent people, you're covered for civil suits. just throwing some ideas out, no offense being thrown at anyone here. It's a great debate to be had.




  6. #126

    Re: Guns...

    Quote Originally Posted by kojo View Post
    yeah, i can agree to an extent. it's not like we get nine lives or something so when someone screws up one, that's it, no do-overs. one of the problems really is that stupid/irresponsible people in some cases don't think things out clearly or walk away from certain avoidable confrontations. instead they escalate it further. and then retaliation happens as we see in Chicago with these young guys. something real minor turns to a fist fight, fist fight turns to a shooting, someone's cousin decides to shoot the shooter's friend for pay back, shooter's friend's brother decides to shoot THAT guy and his friends via drive-by for payback, so on and so forth. And we haven't even gotten to the "street justice" shootings over drug turf yet...Personally, I think we REALLY need to invest back in state run mental institutions again, decriminalize certain drugs, and also extend conceal carry to more well-qualified marksmen BUT with some required liability insurance in case you shoot a bystander while shooting a criminal in self defense or if someone like your kid steals your gun and uses it to shoot innocent people, you're covered for civil suits. just throwing some ideas out, no offense being thrown at anyone here. It's a great debate to be had.
    I think even the the NRA is on board with testing to get your conceal carry, at least ive read an article or two where they said they were but i dont really see them pushing for it. which would be a start. Honestly if they agree testing should be done to conceal im not sure how they can argue it shouldnt be done just to own a gun.

    The "payback" shooting seems to be an epidemic in poorer neighborhoods. Im not sure what started the mentality but thats certainly something that needs attention. which education and trying to raise the overall economic level is at least the goal, whether or not its effective is debatable.

    I dont like the idea of insurance for shooting a bystander. If a gun owner feels threatened to the point of using his weapon, he/she needs to be just as responsible towards those around them. I dont think a get off easy because "i shot that bad guy... and those 2 other people, one of which died." is really what were striving for. When Police stop shootings like this theres precautions taken so as no innocent bystanders do get injured. that would be the problem with allowing untrained civilians to police. Goes back to people saying they could have stopped Aurora if there was a gun in there. Were they trained to deal with low visibility, smoke, in an intense situation like that? most likely not. which means they could just as easily have been part of the massacre by killing innocent bystanders as the Killer himself. better to kill a bystander and the killer than let the killer kill everyone? sure, but to me that still murder as well and we can do better. The how im just not sure.
    -JAB




  7. #127
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,735

    Re: Guns...

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    I think even the the NRA is on board with testing to get your conceal carry, at least ive read an article or two where they said they were but i dont really see them pushing for it. which would be a start. Honestly if they agree testing should be done to conceal im not sure how they can argue it shouldnt be done just to own a gun.

    The "payback" shooting seems to be an epidemic in poorer neighborhoods. Im not sure what started the mentality but thats certainly something that needs attention. which education and trying to raise the overall economic level is at least the goal, whether or not its effective is debatable.

    I dont like the idea of insurance for shooting a bystander. If a gun owner feels threatened to the point of using his weapon, he/she needs to be just as responsible towards those around them. I dont think a get off easy because "i shot that bad guy... and those 2 other people, one of which died." is really what were striving for. When Police stop shootings like this theres precautions taken so as no innocent bystanders do get injured. that would be the problem with allowing untrained civilians to police. Goes back to people saying they could have stopped Aurora if there was a gun in there. Were they trained to deal with low visibility, smoke, in an intense situation like that? most likely not. which means they could just as easily have been part of the massacre by killing innocent bystanders as the Killer himself. better to kill a bystander and the killer than let the killer kill everyone? sure, but to me that still murder as well and we can do better. The how im just not sure.
    There are several shootings that police stop or try to stop where innocent bystanders get shot, often by police.

    You've shot guns JAB, so I know that you know it's not like the movies where every shot is exactly on target and where you want it to go. You can train and train and train and train some more, but nothing will ever prepare any one for a real-life situation where a "bad guy" has a gun and your adrenaline is pumping and it's time to act.
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  8. #128
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,470

    Re: Guns...

    Lots of misconceptions again ...

    1. Yes, the NRA favors training. They are the leader in firearms safety, training, etc and what many states turn to when they set their guidelines in terms of training. I am in the process of getting my CHL Instructors permit through Texas. If I have a certain number of NRA training classes under my belt, I can skip a certain portion of me state training. It's that good and that effective.

    2. This notion of "untrained" folks who carry weapons comes from where, JAB? There's only two states that have no training requirement for their CHL permit holders and that's AZ and VT (two of the safest states in the country, I might add). So this leap you seem to take that there's this mob of folks who carry on a whim is puzzling.

    3. FAR more innocent bystanders get shot by police than by a CHL permit holder. And the simple answer is training. Cops have a duty to act, civilians do not. CHL holders are trained / taught that even there's a hint of shooting an innocent person, you do not take the shot. Even further, there are laws in place that will hammer the shooter if someone gets shot unwarranted. A cop, on the other hand, has a duty to protect. Thus, they are far ore likely to have to discharge their weapon when people are in harms way. Of course, they train not to but it still happens.

    4. Of course had someone been carrying it could have prevented Aurora and again it goes with understanding the training. Nobody I know, outside of SWAT or special forces, could have gone on the offensive against the shooter there. But that's not the purpose of carrying in the first place so applying that standard of dealing with a theater environment is irrelevant in terms of planning for it. A handgun is a defensive weapon, not an offensive one. Transplant me into that theater (or any CHL holder) and the second I heard the first shot, I am on the floor, taking cover with gun in hand (or on top of anyone I am with). If I can take a shot, I do. There's not such thing as a perfect scenario for self defense but having the weapon does increase your chances for survival. I can roll off dozens and dozens of examples from just this past year where people protected themselves in public with a firearm.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  9. #129

    Re: Guns...

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    There are several shootings that police stop or try to stop where innocent bystanders get shot, often by police.

    You've shot guns JAB, so I know that you know it's not like the movies where every shot is exactly on target and where you want it to go. You can train and train and train and train some more, but nothing will ever prepare any one for a real-life situation where a "bad guy" has a gun and your adrenaline is pumping and it's time to act.
    untrained civilian vs trained police is night and day. im obviously not saying it doesnt happen from time to time with the trained (August Empire State shooting was an example of absolute shit policing) but theres no question that it would happen more often with untrained. I do believe the training police take involves high adrenaline training. Police are put in a position that if they do mess up a lot of things can happen to them and they are protected somewhat, but not entirely. Giving civilians that same protection without the training, or understanding, or the fact its their job, or that they qualify day/night shooting, i just think is opening a can of worms. IF they do the same training and same qualifications, maybe but its still not their job in which the public is basically giving them that power to police, their taking into their own hands. Protect yourself, your family, your friends by all means, but if you injure another by doing so, how is that not the same thing as what you were trying to stop in the first place?

    I think even the most novice of shooters are taught pretty early on to know what youre pointing at because YOURE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT BULLET. I know my hunters safety course i took when i was little had those pictures of shadowy characters and asked whether it was safe to shoot at the deer or not. same principle should be used whenever shooting a gun regardless of intent or scenario. you want to take down the bad guy, make sure its a safe shot before you pull the trigger.
    -JAB




  10. #130
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,735

    Re: Guns...

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    untrained civilian vs trained police is night and day. im obviously not saying it doesnt happen from time to time with the trained (August Empire State shooting was an example of absolute shit policing) but theres no question that it would happen more often with untrained. I do believe the training police take involves high adrenaline training. Police are put in a position that if they do mess up a lot of things can happen to them and they are protected somewhat, but not entirely. Giving civilians that same protection without the training, or understanding, or the fact its their job, or that they qualify day/night shooting, i just think is opening a can of worms. IF they do the same training and same qualifications, maybe but its still not their job in which the public is basically giving them that power to police, their taking into their own hands. Protect yourself, your family, your friends by all means, but if you injure another by doing so, how is that not the same thing as what you were trying to stop in the first place?

    I think even the most novice of shooters are taught pretty early on to know what youre pointing at because YOURE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT BULLET. I know my hunters safety course i took when i was little had those pictures of shadowy characters and asked whether it was safe to shoot at the deer or not. same principle should be used whenever shooting a gun regardless of intent or scenario. you want to take down the bad guy, make sure its a safe shot before you pull the trigger.
    See HR's post as my response. HR's #4 is spot on.
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  11. #131

    Re: Guns...

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    2. This notion of "untrained" folks who carry weapons comes from where, JAB? There's only two states that have no training requirement for their CHL permit holders and that's AZ and VT (two of the safest states in the country, I might add). So this leap you seem to take that there's this mob of folks who carry on a whim is puzzling.
    what does this consist of? a written test? or actually shooting a gun and proving you can handle it? and if so is under distressed scenarios? this would be a misconception on my part because i thought of it as a written test only not actual ability. however, if its just target shooting and not scenario based i dont see how its useful in the real world except, under optimum conditions the person can handle it properly but that will never be the case if its actually needed.

    3. FAR more innocent bystanders get shot by police than by a CHL permit holder. And the simple answer is training. Cops have a duty to act, civilians do not. CHL holders are trained / taught that even there's a hint of shooting an innocent person, you do not take the shot. Even further, there are laws in place that will hammer the shooter if someone gets shot unwarranted. A cop, on the other hand, has a duty to protect. Thus, they are far ore likely to have to discharge their weapon when people are in harms way. Of course, they train not to but it still happens.
    Civilians dont have the duty to act but when they do how is it different. Youre saying a civilian is that much better of a shot than police that percentage wise police just shoot em up vs precise shots? Obviously police will be in more shootouts than actual civilians so saying overall isnt really a helpful stat. comparing 1 on 1 crimes where bystanders arent around vs police in populated areas probably isnt fair either. Im comparing a civilian in situation like were trying to stop vs police doing so. I dont have a problem with civilians doing so, but i certainly want them held accountable for any collateral damage.

    4. Of course had someone been carrying it could have prevented Aurora and again it goes with understanding the training. Nobody I know, outside of SWAT or special forces, could have gone on the offensive against the shooter there. But that's not the purpose of carrying in the first place so applying that standard of dealing with a theater environment is irrelevant in terms of planning for it. A handgun is a defensive weapon, not an offensive one. Transplant me into that theater (or any CHL holder) and the second I heard the first shot, I am on the floor, taking cover with gun in hand (or on top of anyone I am with). If I can take a shot, I do. There's not such thing as a perfect scenario for self defense but having the weapon does increase your chances for survival. I can roll off dozens and dozens of examples from just this past year where people protected themselves in public with a firearm.
    youre being shot at, youre on the ground he put smoke bombs out and its dark as it is. you stand up and take aim but how can you possibly be sure that your bullet isnt going to hit somebody else which is one of the rules for firing for a CHL? Again im saying you could have stopped it, but you could have easily added to it. I dont think not being held accountable because you were trying to do the right thing is a good road to go down.

    let me reiterate. my problem isnt so much with civilians trying to stop crime as much as it is with the thought that they should be protected in doing so.

    from wiki:
    Some states require a certain proficiency to receive a passing grade, whereas other states (e.g., Florida) technically require only a single-shot be fired to demonstrate handgun handling proficiency.
    to me thats a big difference between "training" and being able to fire. so if thats enough for some to say they were "trained" to handle that situation, i just disagree.
    Last edited by JAB1985; 01-24-2013 at 11:40 AM.
    -JAB




  12. #132
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,470

    Re: Guns...

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    what does this consist of? a written test? or actually shooting a gun and proving you can handle it? and if so is under distressed scenarios? this would be a misconception on my part because i thought of it as a written test only not actual ability. however, if its just target shooting and not scenario based i dont see how its useful in the real world except, under optimum conditions the person can handle it properly but that will never be the case if its actually needed.
    In just about all states that have a CHL program it's a two part test. The written test is about laws governing CHL carriers (i.e. when / where you can carry, type of weapon, etc) and the liability surrounding carrying. The second part is qualification with the weapon. It varies for each state, but the lowest minimum standard I've seen is in LA, which is 70%. And target shooting IS scenario based. Shooting at a silhouette target is ideal for taking up a proper target picture and aiming center mas. Those are thew two most critical skills in shooting.

    You wouldn't ask a golfer to practice putting anywhere else put a putting green so I don't see why you have to ask someone to train "scenario based" when no two scenarios are never the same. When it comes time to shoot, you want to revert back to the fundamentals, not a laundry list of of other "stuff". That's precisely whey the military / law enforcement trains on targets. Now anyone can take advanced classes (handgun, AR-15, etc), all through the NRA, that's more scenario based but again, unless you master the fundamentals, it's meaningless to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    Civilians dont have the duty to act but when they do how is it different. Youre saying a civilian is that much better of a shot than police that percentage wise police just shoot em up vs precise shots?
    No. I am saying civilian training / requirements to act are different than that of a cop, thus the outcome if affected by it. A cop has to engage an active shooter. A civilian does not. A cop in an active shooter scenario has a duty to stop the threat. A CHL Carrier does not. Since a cop has a duty to protect himself AND those around him, he / she is going to be more inclined to take a shot / shots. Me, as a CHL holder, is not going to go on the offensive unless I absolutely have to and / or if I feel comfortable doing so. You keep using Aurora as the standard, yet cops and CHL holders are FAR more likely to use their weapons is a vast amount of other, more realistic scenarios. Aurora is the extreme outlier here.

    And it's been my experience civilians are generally far better shots than your average beat cop. Most cops only have to qualify once a year with their weapon and many times, that's the only time they fire said weapon. SWAT and QRT teams are different, but that's a small percentage of police on the streets.

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    youre being shot at, youre on the ground he put smoke bombs out and its dark as it is. you stand up and take aim but how can you possibly be sure that your bullet isnt going to hit somebody else which is one of the rules for firing for a CHL? Again im saying you could have stopped it, but you could have easily added to it. I dont think not being held accountable because you were trying to do the right thing is a good road to go down.
    For one, you're assuming I am going to take the offensive which I would not unless I had to.

    But lets suppose I did decide I needed to stand up and take a shot. It goes back to training. I am trained as a CHL holder to survey the area BEHIND the shooter. It's called haveing a clear background. If there's a chance I can hit someone, I don't take the shot. Now, some reports have said his AR-15 jammed. I have an advantage than most CHL holders in that I know exactly what an AR-15 sounds like when it jams, is out of ammo, etc. thanks to my military time and the fact I own an AR-15. Once I heard that sound and I had a clear background, I am putting 15 rounds of 9mm right at his chest without hesitation. But again, Aurora is the extreme fringe example. The more likely scenario is I am at a gas station and grabbing something to drink when some nut comes in to hold up the place. Or, I am walking down the street and someone tries to mug me.

    Point is, there's never going to be the perfect example as to when you pull the gun and pull the trigger but you seem to want to strive for one.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  13. #133

    Re: Guns...

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    In just about all states that have a CHL program it's a two part test. The written test is about laws governing CHL carriers (i.e. when / where you can carry, type of weapon, etc) and the liability surrounding carrying. The second part is qualification with the weapon. It varies for each state, but the lowest minimum standard I've seen is in LA, which is 70%. And target shooting IS scenario based. Shooting at a silhouette target is ideal for taking up a proper target picture and aiming center mas. Those are thew two most critical skills in shooting.
    target shooting is not scenario based. unless that target is surrounded by civilians in some scenarios and you have to move or simply cannot take a shot its not a scenario. its dead straight, controlled environment that says you can shoot a non-moving target from a set distance. nothing else. thats not what im talking about as far as actual training that would allow one to say they were trained for that scenario. based on the last part of my previous post that i added, theres not even a 70% in some cases just simply firing a shot (granted its from wiki).

    You wouldn't ask a golfer to practice putting anywhere else put a putting green so I don't see why you have to ask someone to train "scenario based" when no two scenarios are never the same. When it comes time to shoot, you want to revert back to the fundamentals, not a laundry list of of other "stuff". That's precisely whey the military / law enforcement trains on targets. Now anyone can take advanced classes (handgun, AR-15, etc), all through the NRA, that's more scenario based but again, unless you master the fundamentals, it's meaningless to you.
    first, i think this is a bad example. a golfer will only put on a putting green, so he should only be asked to put on one. a shooter will never find himself shooting at somebody at the other end of a gun range. so a scenario based, even general scenario where civilian bystanders are indeed included is the more likely scenario.

    second, i agree basics should be handled first but i dont think its adequate to say that becasue they can handle the basics they are now qualified to handle such a scenario that involves other civilians. to the greater point that even if they do injure a bystander they shouldnt be trialed for it as if it was their duty.

    No. I am saying civilian training / requirements to act are different than that of a cop, thus the outcome if affected by it. A cop has to engage an active shooter. A civilian does not. A cop in an active shooter scenario has a duty to stop the threat. A CHL Carrier does not. Since a cop has a duty to protect himself AND those around him, he / she is going to be more inclined to take a shot / shots. Me, as a CHL holder, is not going to go on the offensive unless I absolutely have to and / or if I feel comfortable doing so. You keep using Aurora as the standard, yet cops and CHL holders are FAR more likely to use their weapons is a vast amount of other, more realistic scenarios. Aurora is the extreme outlier here.
    that may be the written part of the test that you and other responsible owners and CHL follow properly. In my experience, I remember my simple hunters safety course, that i didnt intend to ever use, was pretty simple common sense stuff. however, there was a guy beside and behind me that barely passed after acknowledging this was a 2nd time and they studied really hard. Whats the chances that they retain that information and follow through with it so devoutly as you and other responsible owners do? I obviously wont say none of them are responsible, nor do i remotely believe that, but i dont think you can claim that everyone that takes these courses are either.

    And it's been my experience civilians are generally far better shots than your average beat cop. Most cops only have to qualify once a year with their weapon and many times, that's the only time they fire said weapon. SWAT and QRT teams are different, but that's a small percentage of police on the streets.
    well personal experiences are hard to argue against. Ive seen both. I have a cop friend (qualifies 2x a year) that was on a marine Fast team whos a damn good shot, i have a friend thats a beat cop (qualifies 4x a year) thats a pretty decent shot and three civilians, two of which are pretty bad shots. One is worse than me and shoots damn near weekly vs my once a year at best. Both civilians have CHL, so whatever they had to pass, they did but it doesnt give me warm and fuzzies about how difficult a test that is to say "theyre trained". once a year qualification is better than once a lifetime imo. Most of the cops that i know that do only qualify once in a while are avid shooters and practice as much or more than the civilians i know. so im not sure that beat cops are bad shots holds true across the board.

    For one, you're assuming I am going to take the offensive which I would not unless I had to.

    But lets suppose I did decide I needed to stand up and take a shot. It goes back to training. I am trained as a CHL holder to survey the area BEHIND the shooter. It's called haveing a clear background. If there's a chance I can hit someone, I don't take the shot. Now, some reports have said his AR-15 jammed. I have an advantage than most CHL holders in that I know exactly what an AR-15 sounds like when it jams, is out of ammo, etc. thanks to my military time and the fact I own an AR-15. Once I heard that sound and I had a clear background, I am putting 15 rounds of 9mm right at his chest without hesitation. But again, Aurora is the extreme fringe example. The more likely scenario is I am at a gas station and grabbing something to drink when some nut comes in to hold up the place. Or, I am walking down the street and someone tries to mug me.
    first im not trying to assume but i just dont understand how you defensively use a weapon. its an aggressive tool. A shield is defensive. once you commit to pulling a trigger youre now on the offensive in my mind, even if it is indeed to protect/defend yourself.

    second i think again your using yourself as the CHL holder, which is fine, but not everyone that has CHL, is a military trained responsible gun owner. Youre saying when you stand up because his gun locked, theres nobody else around, but again, its dark, smokey, shadow figure, how do you know its not somebody trying to get away? chances are hes not just standing there like a target, right? I also dont disagree that these public massacres are not likely scenarios. which is why i dont think civilians are properly prepared to handle such. They should be trained for gas stations and or a street scenario at night. all places where other civilians could be around. It may be hard for you to step outside because in your shoes, you already are trained for such a thing as ex military. a more general CHL im not sure makes the same judgements as yourself. theyd like to think they would but its not always going to happen that way.

    Point is, there's never going to be the perfect example as to when you pull the gun and pull the trigger but you seem to want to strive for one.
    again, im just saying they should be held accountable when they do vs your argument that seems to be it would never happen or is, at the very least, less likely to happen than if they were police even because of a written test and shooting at a target one day. this debate started because KOJO suggested insurance for shooters that injure bystanders while stopping a crime. I said im not ok with it because they arent trained like cops and have that responsibility. Im not really seeing where we disagree on this or are you saying civilians that take these courses are trained enough to be equal to police?
    -JAB




  14. #134
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,470

    Re: Guns...

    Agree to disagree. I suggest you do more shooting to fully understand the nuances.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  15. #135
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,470
    One thing I'm happy about is that Feinsteins legislation is being pushed right away and not after the midterm elections.

    She definitely doesn't have the votes in the House and she may not even have them in the Senate. Harry Reid is in a tough spot himself, having been rather pro gun himself for years, including not favoring the AWB renewal.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland