Aurora: AR-15 Orlando: AR-15 Las Vegas: AR-15 Sandy Hook: AR-15 Umpqua CC: AR-15 San Bernardino: AR-15 Sutherland Springs: AR-15
Nothing can be done.
Well, one state made it illegal to own a bump stock with your pretty AR killing device.
Is there anybody on here opposed to the ban of owning AR-15 style assault rifles outside of LE and military?
Yes.
You can't even get the terminology correct.
Besides I have been hearing non-stop for a year how "literally Hitler" was elected President, and now those people want "literally Hitler" to be the one in control of all firearms.
Why do you want to give "literally Hitler" oh and the white supremacist and racist and apparently woman abusing and Russian colluder so much control?
Ok. My apologies. I haven't fired an AR or its like in about 10 years. What is the correct terminology you would like me to use? You have lots of criticism, but no answers or suggestions. Only Mace seems to be able to provide some sort of reasonable discussion points.
Have you ever shot one?
If not, I will take you out to a range and introduce you to one. I can then go over terminology and show you how it operates, including breaking it down and re-assembling it.
Yeah, did you read my answer? It's been about 9 years. I shot it several thousand times and was qualified with it before that. A crack shot with it. I could break it down and put it back together no problems. That's what I did.
Again, do you have any other suggestions. A civilian has no need to own an AR or other types of semi-auto assault rifles. Fear is the only reason no one is willing to give up these types of guns. Don't worry, we'll all die of lack of water and tillable land before the government comes for your guns. You will probably need your gun to protect your bunker of supplies from the raving masses of starving and thirsty.
Clearly yesterday proved that we need them, in order to stop bad people from harming others.
Thankfully it isn't the Bill of Needs. Thankfully I don't need someone telling me what I do or don't.
You asked me what my terminology was, that lead me to believe your experience was not vast. My terminology is what it actually is, not what the media says it is.
pretty sure that guy didn't have an assault weapon
That's fine....I stand corrected. I had just heard that he grabbed his "rifle" from a safe which I assumed was just non assault weapon.
But the important thing to remember is that (while I completely support and commend this guy...for keeping his gun in a safe and for using it) this "good guy with a gun" did not stop the massacre. We could argue that the shooter may have planned to go somewhere else and continue killing but I doubt that is the case. It appears that his goal was to kill his mother in law and luckily for her she wasn't at the church.
The shooter was leaving the scene when he was shot.
At the very least they stopped him from escaping, no one can know if this was his end game, but he was trying to escape. The only reasons I can think of why he would try and escape would be to either get away with what he had just done or to continue what he was doing. From what I have read, he was still shooting at people (outside of the church) when he was shot. At that moment, he got to experience the pain that he had been inflicting on others. I’m glad there was a good guy with a gun there to give him a taste of his own medicine. His control of the situation (whatever his plan was) was ended by a local armed citizen.
Yeah hats off to the guys that shot and pursued him.
Maybe he would have gone to hunt down the mother in law. We'll never know. Maybe the police would have shown up and taken him out.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
So what I am reading says that only licensed dealers are required to check the federal database. So, even though the federal database should have prevented him from buying, it is likely that he would have sought out other legal means to make his purchase.
We need tougher federal laws. Background checks for all purchases. The states obviously can't handle this.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Aurora: AR-15 Orlando: AR-15 Las Vegas: AR-15 Sandy Hook: AR-15 Umpqua CC: AR-15 San Bernardino: AR-15 Sutherland Springs: AR-15
Nothing can be done.
Well, one state made it illegal to own a bump stock with your pretty AR killing device.
Is there anybody on here opposed to the ban of owning AR-15 style assault rifles outside of LE and military?
Yes.
You can't even get the terminology correct.
Besides I have been hearing non-stop for a year how "literally Hitler" was elected President, and now those people want "literally Hitler" to be the one in control of all firearms.
Why do you want to give "literally Hitler" oh and the white supremacist and racist and apparently woman abusing and Russian colluder so much control?
Ok. My apologies. I haven't fired an AR or its like in about 10 years. What is the correct terminology you would like me to use? You have lots of criticism, but no answers or suggestions. Only Mace seems to be able to provide some sort of reasonable discussion points.
Have you ever shot one?
If not, I will take you out to a range and introduce you to one. I can then go over terminology and show you how it operates, including breaking it down and re-assembling it.
Yeah, did you read my answer? It's been about 9 years. I shot it several thousand times and was qualified with it before that. A crack shot with it. I could break it down and put it back together no problems. That's what I did.
Again, do you have any other suggestions. A civilian has no need to own an AR or other types of semi-auto assault rifles. Fear is the only reason no one is willing to give up these types of guns. Don't worry, we'll all die of lack of water and tillable land before the government comes for your guns. You will probably need your gun to protect your bunker of supplies from the raving masses of starving and thirsty.
Clearly yesterday proved that we need them, in order to stop bad people from harming others.
Thankfully it isn't the Bill of Needs. Thankfully I don't need someone telling me what I do or don't.
You asked me what my terminology was, that lead me to believe your experience was not vast. My terminology is what it actually is, not what the media says it is.
pretty sure that guy didn't have an assault weapon
That's fine....I stand corrected. I had just heard that he grabbed his "rifle" from a safe which I assumed was just non assault weapon.
But the important thing to remember is that (while I completely support and commend this guy...for keeping his gun in a safe and for using it) this "good guy with a gun" did not stop the massacre. We could argue that the shooter may have planned to go somewhere else and continue killing but I doubt that is the case. It appears that his goal was to kill his mother in law and luckily for her she wasn't at the church.
The shooter was leaving the scene when he was shot.
At the very least they stopped him from escaping, no one can know if this was his end game, but he was trying to escape. The only reasons I can think of why he would try and escape would be to either get away with what he had just done or to continue what he was doing. From what I have read, he was still shooting at people (outside of the church) when he was shot. At that moment, he got to experience the pain that he had been inflicting on others. I’m glad there was a good guy with a gun there to give him a taste of his own medicine. His control of the situation (whatever his plan was) was ended by a local armed citizen.
Yeah hats off to the guys that shot and pursued him.
Maybe he would have gone to hunt down the mother in law. We'll never know. Maybe the police would have shown up and taken him out.
I wonder what will happen to that guy. He essentially murdered someone (or at least attempted murder). It wasn't self-defense, it wasn't stand your ground. He chased someone down who was fleeing and shot them. I anticipate at least a wrongful death lawsuit, this has the potential to ruin his life.
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
Aurora: AR-15 Orlando: AR-15 Las Vegas: AR-15 Sandy Hook: AR-15 Umpqua CC: AR-15 San Bernardino: AR-15 Sutherland Springs: AR-15
Nothing can be done.
Well, one state made it illegal to own a bump stock with your pretty AR killing device.
Is there anybody on here opposed to the ban of owning AR-15 style assault rifles outside of LE and military?
Yes.
You can't even get the terminology correct.
Besides I have been hearing non-stop for a year how "literally Hitler" was elected President, and now those people want "literally Hitler" to be the one in control of all firearms.
Why do you want to give "literally Hitler" oh and the white supremacist and racist and apparently woman abusing and Russian colluder so much control?
Ok. My apologies. I haven't fired an AR or its like in about 10 years. What is the correct terminology you would like me to use? You have lots of criticism, but no answers or suggestions. Only Mace seems to be able to provide some sort of reasonable discussion points.
Have you ever shot one?
If not, I will take you out to a range and introduce you to one. I can then go over terminology and show you how it operates, including breaking it down and re-assembling it.
Yeah, did you read my answer? It's been about 9 years. I shot it several thousand times and was qualified with it before that. A crack shot with it. I could break it down and put it back together no problems. That's what I did.
Again, do you have any other suggestions. A civilian has no need to own an AR or other types of semi-auto assault rifles. Fear is the only reason no one is willing to give up these types of guns. Don't worry, we'll all die of lack of water and tillable land before the government comes for your guns. You will probably need your gun to protect your bunker of supplies from the raving masses of starving and thirsty.
Clearly yesterday proved that we need them, in order to stop bad people from harming others.
Thankfully it isn't the Bill of Needs. Thankfully I don't need someone telling me what I do or don't.
You asked me what my terminology was, that lead me to believe your experience was not vast. My terminology is what it actually is, not what the media says it is.
pretty sure that guy didn't have an assault weapon
That's fine....I stand corrected. I had just heard that he grabbed his "rifle" from a safe which I assumed was just non assault weapon.
But the important thing to remember is that (while I completely support and commend this guy...for keeping his gun in a safe and for using it) this "good guy with a gun" did not stop the massacre. We could argue that the shooter may have planned to go somewhere else and continue killing but I doubt that is the case. It appears that his goal was to kill his mother in law and luckily for her she wasn't at the church.
The shooter was leaving the scene when he was shot.
At the very least they stopped him from escaping, no one can know if this was his end game, but he was trying to escape. The only reasons I can think of why he would try and escape would be to either get away with what he had just done or to continue what he was doing. From what I have read, he was still shooting at people (outside of the church) when he was shot. At that moment, he got to experience the pain that he had been inflicting on others. I’m glad there was a good guy with a gun there to give him a taste of his own medicine. His control of the situation (whatever his plan was) was ended by a local armed citizen.
Yeah hats off to the guys that shot and pursued him.
Maybe he would have gone to hunt down the mother in law. We'll never know. Maybe the police would have shown up and taken him out.
I wonder what will happen to that guy. He essentially murdered someone (or at least attempted murder). It wasn't self-defense, it wasn't stand your ground. He chased someone down who was fleeing and shot them. I anticipate at least a wrongful death lawsuit, this has the potential to ruin his life.
Yeah and he's in TX...probably death penalty.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
So what I am reading says that only licensed dealers are required to check the federal database. So, even though the federal database should have prevented him from buying, it is likely that he would have sought out other legal means to make his purchase.
We need tougher federal laws. Background checks for all purchases. The states obviously can't handle this.
Take Nevada, for instance.
You do not need a permit to buy a gun
There is no requirement for a background check
There is no limit on the number of guns an individual can buy at a time
There is no limit on high capacity magazines or assault-type weapons
Law enforcement are required to issue a concealed carry permit to anyone who meets basic minimum requirements, despite any concerns
And Nevada is not the worst of the states regarding gun laws.
Yes, the states can't handle this responsibility
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Aurora: AR-15 Orlando: AR-15 Las Vegas: AR-15 Sandy Hook: AR-15 Umpqua CC: AR-15 San Bernardino: AR-15 Sutherland Springs: AR-15
Nothing can be done.
Well, one state made it illegal to own a bump stock with your pretty AR killing device.
Is there anybody on here opposed to the ban of owning AR-15 style assault rifles outside of LE and military?
Yes.
You can't even get the terminology correct.
Besides I have been hearing non-stop for a year how "literally Hitler" was elected President, and now those people want "literally Hitler" to be the one in control of all firearms.
Why do you want to give "literally Hitler" oh and the white supremacist and racist and apparently woman abusing and Russian colluder so much control?
Ok. My apologies. I haven't fired an AR or its like in about 10 years. What is the correct terminology you would like me to use? You have lots of criticism, but no answers or suggestions. Only Mace seems to be able to provide some sort of reasonable discussion points.
Have you ever shot one?
If not, I will take you out to a range and introduce you to one. I can then go over terminology and show you how it operates, including breaking it down and re-assembling it.
Yeah, did you read my answer? It's been about 9 years. I shot it several thousand times and was qualified with it before that. A crack shot with it. I could break it down and put it back together no problems. That's what I did.
Again, do you have any other suggestions. A civilian has no need to own an AR or other types of semi-auto assault rifles. Fear is the only reason no one is willing to give up these types of guns. Don't worry, we'll all die of lack of water and tillable land before the government comes for your guns. You will probably need your gun to protect your bunker of supplies from the raving masses of starving and thirsty.
Clearly yesterday proved that we need them, in order to stop bad people from harming others.
Thankfully it isn't the Bill of Needs. Thankfully I don't need someone telling me what I do or don't.
You asked me what my terminology was, that lead me to believe your experience was not vast. My terminology is what it actually is, not what the media says it is.
pretty sure that guy didn't have an assault weapon
That's fine....I stand corrected. I had just heard that he grabbed his "rifle" from a safe which I assumed was just non assault weapon.
But the important thing to remember is that (while I completely support and commend this guy...for keeping his gun in a safe and for using it) this "good guy with a gun" did not stop the massacre. We could argue that the shooter may have planned to go somewhere else and continue killing but I doubt that is the case. It appears that his goal was to kill his mother in law and luckily for her she wasn't at the church.
The shooter was leaving the scene when he was shot.
At the very least they stopped him from escaping, no one can know if this was his end game, but he was trying to escape. The only reasons I can think of why he would try and escape would be to either get away with what he had just done or to continue what he was doing. From what I have read, he was still shooting at people (outside of the church) when he was shot. At that moment, he got to experience the pain that he had been inflicting on others. I’m glad there was a good guy with a gun there to give him a taste of his own medicine. His control of the situation (whatever his plan was) was ended by a local armed citizen.
Yeah hats off to the guys that shot and pursued him.
Maybe he would have gone to hunt down the mother in law. We'll never know. Maybe the police would have shown up and taken him out.
I wonder what will happen to that guy. He essentially murdered someone (or at least attempted murder). It wasn't self-defense, it wasn't stand your ground. He chased someone down who was fleeing and shot them. I anticipate at least a wrongful death lawsuit, this has the potential to ruin his life.
I thought he shot the guy while he still had the gun in his hand and while still shooting? Then they chased him down. I do not think this guy will face any legal trouble in Texas regarding acceptable use of lethal force laws. Might be different if he had been in New York. I think this guy will most likely get an award for his actions.
Aurora: AR-15 Orlando: AR-15 Las Vegas: AR-15 Sandy Hook: AR-15 Umpqua CC: AR-15 San Bernardino: AR-15 Sutherland Springs: AR-15
Nothing can be done.
Well, one state made it illegal to own a bump stock with your pretty AR killing device.
Is there anybody on here opposed to the ban of owning AR-15 style assault rifles outside of LE and military?
Yes.
You can't even get the terminology correct.
Besides I have been hearing non-stop for a year how "literally Hitler" was elected President, and now those people want "literally Hitler" to be the one in control of all firearms.
Why do you want to give "literally Hitler" oh and the white supremacist and racist and apparently woman abusing and Russian colluder so much control?
Ok. My apologies. I haven't fired an AR or its like in about 10 years. What is the correct terminology you would like me to use? You have lots of criticism, but no answers or suggestions. Only Mace seems to be able to provide some sort of reasonable discussion points.
Have you ever shot one?
If not, I will take you out to a range and introduce you to one. I can then go over terminology and show you how it operates, including breaking it down and re-assembling it.
Yeah, did you read my answer? It's been about 9 years. I shot it several thousand times and was qualified with it before that. A crack shot with it. I could break it down and put it back together no problems. That's what I did.
Again, do you have any other suggestions. A civilian has no need to own an AR or other types of semi-auto assault rifles. Fear is the only reason no one is willing to give up these types of guns. Don't worry, we'll all die of lack of water and tillable land before the government comes for your guns. You will probably need your gun to protect your bunker of supplies from the raving masses of starving and thirsty.
Clearly yesterday proved that we need them, in order to stop bad people from harming others.
Thankfully it isn't the Bill of Needs. Thankfully I don't need someone telling me what I do or don't.
You asked me what my terminology was, that lead me to believe your experience was not vast. My terminology is what it actually is, not what the media says it is.
pretty sure that guy didn't have an assault weapon
That's fine....I stand corrected. I had just heard that he grabbed his "rifle" from a safe which I assumed was just non assault weapon.
But the important thing to remember is that (while I completely support and commend this guy...for keeping his gun in a safe and for using it) this "good guy with a gun" did not stop the massacre. We could argue that the shooter may have planned to go somewhere else and continue killing but I doubt that is the case. It appears that his goal was to kill his mother in law and luckily for her she wasn't at the church.
The shooter was leaving the scene when he was shot.
At the very least they stopped him from escaping, no one can know if this was his end game, but he was trying to escape. The only reasons I can think of why he would try and escape would be to either get away with what he had just done or to continue what he was doing. From what I have read, he was still shooting at people (outside of the church) when he was shot. At that moment, he got to experience the pain that he had been inflicting on others. I’m glad there was a good guy with a gun there to give him a taste of his own medicine. His control of the situation (whatever his plan was) was ended by a local armed citizen.
Yeah hats off to the guys that shot and pursued him.
Maybe he would have gone to hunt down the mother in law. We'll never know. Maybe the police would have shown up and taken him out.
I wonder what will happen to that guy. He essentially murdered someone (or at least attempted murder). It wasn't self-defense, it wasn't stand your ground. He chased someone down who was fleeing and shot them. I anticipate at least a wrongful death lawsuit, this has the potential to ruin his life.
Absolutely nothing other than being called a hero. True its tougher to prove self-defense when the guy is fleeing, but it can still be the case. You just have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were in fear for yourself or others of serious injury or harm. I think anyone with 3 active brain cells could tell someone who just killed 26 people and injured how many more is likely going to keep killing, and unless he was actively surrendering then shooting him was 100% justified. Absolutely not murder or even attempted murder. Plenty of reason to justifiably believe he was going to continue to kill and harm others.
Aurora: AR-15 Orlando: AR-15 Las Vegas: AR-15 Sandy Hook: AR-15 Umpqua CC: AR-15 San Bernardino: AR-15 Sutherland Springs: AR-15
Nothing can be done.
Well, one state made it illegal to own a bump stock with your pretty AR killing device.
Is there anybody on here opposed to the ban of owning AR-15 style assault rifles outside of LE and military?
Yes.
You can't even get the terminology correct.
Besides I have been hearing non-stop for a year how "literally Hitler" was elected President, and now those people want "literally Hitler" to be the one in control of all firearms.
Why do you want to give "literally Hitler" oh and the white supremacist and racist and apparently woman abusing and Russian colluder so much control?
Ok. My apologies. I haven't fired an AR or its like in about 10 years. What is the correct terminology you would like me to use? You have lots of criticism, but no answers or suggestions. Only Mace seems to be able to provide some sort of reasonable discussion points.
Have you ever shot one?
If not, I will take you out to a range and introduce you to one. I can then go over terminology and show you how it operates, including breaking it down and re-assembling it.
Yeah, did you read my answer? It's been about 9 years. I shot it several thousand times and was qualified with it before that. A crack shot with it. I could break it down and put it back together no problems. That's what I did.
Again, do you have any other suggestions. A civilian has no need to own an AR or other types of semi-auto assault rifles. Fear is the only reason no one is willing to give up these types of guns. Don't worry, we'll all die of lack of water and tillable land before the government comes for your guns. You will probably need your gun to protect your bunker of supplies from the raving masses of starving and thirsty.
Clearly yesterday proved that we need them, in order to stop bad people from harming others.
Thankfully it isn't the Bill of Needs. Thankfully I don't need someone telling me what I do or don't.
You asked me what my terminology was, that lead me to believe your experience was not vast. My terminology is what it actually is, not what the media says it is.
pretty sure that guy didn't have an assault weapon
That's fine....I stand corrected. I had just heard that he grabbed his "rifle" from a safe which I assumed was just non assault weapon.
But the important thing to remember is that (while I completely support and commend this guy...for keeping his gun in a safe and for using it) this "good guy with a gun" did not stop the massacre. We could argue that the shooter may have planned to go somewhere else and continue killing but I doubt that is the case. It appears that his goal was to kill his mother in law and luckily for her she wasn't at the church.
The shooter was leaving the scene when he was shot.
At the very least they stopped him from escaping, no one can know if this was his end game, but he was trying to escape. The only reasons I can think of why he would try and escape would be to either get away with what he had just done or to continue what he was doing. From what I have read, he was still shooting at people (outside of the church) when he was shot. At that moment, he got to experience the pain that he had been inflicting on others. I’m glad there was a good guy with a gun there to give him a taste of his own medicine. His control of the situation (whatever his plan was) was ended by a local armed citizen.
Yeah hats off to the guys that shot and pursued him.
Maybe he would have gone to hunt down the mother in law. We'll never know. Maybe the police would have shown up and taken him out.
I wonder what will happen to that guy. He essentially murdered someone (or at least attempted murder). It wasn't self-defense, it wasn't stand your ground. He chased someone down who was fleeing and shot them. I anticipate at least a wrongful death lawsuit, this has the potential to ruin his life.
Absolutely nothing other than being called a hero. True its tougher to prove self-defense when the guy is fleeing, but it can still be the case. You just have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were in fear for yourself or others of serious injury or harm. I think anyone with 3 active brain cells could tell someone who just killed 26 people and injured how many more is likely going to keep killing, and unless he was actively surrendering then shooting him was 100% justified. Absolutely not murder or even attempted murder. Plenty of reason to justifiably believe he was going to continue to kill and harm others.
Aurora: AR-15 Orlando: AR-15 Las Vegas: AR-15 Sandy Hook: AR-15 Umpqua CC: AR-15 San Bernardino: AR-15 Sutherland Springs: AR-15
Nothing can be done.
Well, one state made it illegal to own a bump stock with your pretty AR killing device.
Is there anybody on here opposed to the ban of owning AR-15 style assault rifles outside of LE and military?
Yes.
You can't even get the terminology correct.
Besides I have been hearing non-stop for a year how "literally Hitler" was elected President, and now those people want "literally Hitler" to be the one in control of all firearms.
Why do you want to give "literally Hitler" oh and the white supremacist and racist and apparently woman abusing and Russian colluder so much control?
Ok. My apologies. I haven't fired an AR or its like in about 10 years. What is the correct terminology you would like me to use? You have lots of criticism, but no answers or suggestions. Only Mace seems to be able to provide some sort of reasonable discussion points.
Have you ever shot one?
If not, I will take you out to a range and introduce you to one. I can then go over terminology and show you how it operates, including breaking it down and re-assembling it.
Yeah, did you read my answer? It's been about 9 years. I shot it several thousand times and was qualified with it before that. A crack shot with it. I could break it down and put it back together no problems. That's what I did.
Again, do you have any other suggestions. A civilian has no need to own an AR or other types of semi-auto assault rifles. Fear is the only reason no one is willing to give up these types of guns. Don't worry, we'll all die of lack of water and tillable land before the government comes for your guns. You will probably need your gun to protect your bunker of supplies from the raving masses of starving and thirsty.
Clearly yesterday proved that we need them, in order to stop bad people from harming others.
Thankfully it isn't the Bill of Needs. Thankfully I don't need someone telling me what I do or don't.
You asked me what my terminology was, that lead me to believe your experience was not vast. My terminology is what it actually is, not what the media says it is.
pretty sure that guy didn't have an assault weapon
That's fine....I stand corrected. I had just heard that he grabbed his "rifle" from a safe which I assumed was just non assault weapon.
But the important thing to remember is that (while I completely support and commend this guy...for keeping his gun in a safe and for using it) this "good guy with a gun" did not stop the massacre. We could argue that the shooter may have planned to go somewhere else and continue killing but I doubt that is the case. It appears that his goal was to kill his mother in law and luckily for her she wasn't at the church.
The shooter was leaving the scene when he was shot.
At the very least they stopped him from escaping, no one can know if this was his end game, but he was trying to escape. The only reasons I can think of why he would try and escape would be to either get away with what he had just done or to continue what he was doing. From what I have read, he was still shooting at people (outside of the church) when he was shot. At that moment, he got to experience the pain that he had been inflicting on others. I’m glad there was a good guy with a gun there to give him a taste of his own medicine. His control of the situation (whatever his plan was) was ended by a local armed citizen.
Yeah hats off to the guys that shot and pursued him.
Maybe he would have gone to hunt down the mother in law. We'll never know. Maybe the police would have shown up and taken him out.
I wonder what will happen to that guy. He essentially murdered someone (or at least attempted murder). It wasn't self-defense, it wasn't stand your ground. He chased someone down who was fleeing and shot them. I anticipate at least a wrongful death lawsuit, this has the potential to ruin his life.
I thought he shot the guy while he still had the gun in his hand and while still shooting? Then they chased him down. I do not think this guy will face any legal trouble in Texas regarding acceptable use of lethal force laws. Might be different if he had been in New York. I think this guy will most likely get an award for his actions.
Not while he was still shooting from what I've read, but in any case, the idea that anyone would consider his actions unjustified must not know how it works. The city or state is not relevant. Obviously it is completely legal in all cases to kill an active mass shooter, which does not require that bullets are currently coming out the end of his weapon when it happens, lol. The only way any issue might arise is if the person happened to do it with an illegal weapon, in which case, the charges would be related to carrying/owning an illegal weapon, that's it.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Aurora: AR-15 Orlando: AR-15 Las Vegas: AR-15 Sandy Hook: AR-15 Umpqua CC: AR-15 San Bernardino: AR-15 Sutherland Springs: AR-15
Nothing can be done.
Well, one state made it illegal to own a bump stock with your pretty AR killing device.
Is there anybody on here opposed to the ban of owning AR-15 style assault rifles outside of LE and military?
Yes.
You can't even get the terminology correct.
Besides I have been hearing non-stop for a year how "literally Hitler" was elected President, and now those people want "literally Hitler" to be the one in control of all firearms.
Why do you want to give "literally Hitler" oh and the white supremacist and racist and apparently woman abusing and Russian colluder so much control?
Ok. My apologies. I haven't fired an AR or its like in about 10 years. What is the correct terminology you would like me to use? You have lots of criticism, but no answers or suggestions. Only Mace seems to be able to provide some sort of reasonable discussion points.
Have you ever shot one?
If not, I will take you out to a range and introduce you to one. I can then go over terminology and show you how it operates, including breaking it down and re-assembling it.
Yeah, did you read my answer? It's been about 9 years. I shot it several thousand times and was qualified with it before that. A crack shot with it. I could break it down and put it back together no problems. That's what I did.
Again, do you have any other suggestions. A civilian has no need to own an AR or other types of semi-auto assault rifles. Fear is the only reason no one is willing to give up these types of guns. Don't worry, we'll all die of lack of water and tillable land before the government comes for your guns. You will probably need your gun to protect your bunker of supplies from the raving masses of starving and thirsty.
Clearly yesterday proved that we need them, in order to stop bad people from harming others.
Thankfully it isn't the Bill of Needs. Thankfully I don't need someone telling me what I do or don't.
You asked me what my terminology was, that lead me to believe your experience was not vast. My terminology is what it actually is, not what the media says it is.
pretty sure that guy didn't have an assault weapon
That's fine....I stand corrected. I had just heard that he grabbed his "rifle" from a safe which I assumed was just non assault weapon.
But the important thing to remember is that (while I completely support and commend this guy...for keeping his gun in a safe and for using it) this "good guy with a gun" did not stop the massacre. We could argue that the shooter may have planned to go somewhere else and continue killing but I doubt that is the case. It appears that his goal was to kill his mother in law and luckily for her she wasn't at the church.
The shooter was leaving the scene when he was shot.
At the very least they stopped him from escaping, no one can know if this was his end game, but he was trying to escape. The only reasons I can think of why he would try and escape would be to either get away with what he had just done or to continue what he was doing. From what I have read, he was still shooting at people (outside of the church) when he was shot. At that moment, he got to experience the pain that he had been inflicting on others. I’m glad there was a good guy with a gun there to give him a taste of his own medicine. His control of the situation (whatever his plan was) was ended by a local armed citizen.
Yeah hats off to the guys that shot and pursued him.
Maybe he would have gone to hunt down the mother in law. We'll never know. Maybe the police would have shown up and taken him out.
I wonder what will happen to that guy. He essentially murdered someone (or at least attempted murder). It wasn't self-defense, it wasn't stand your ground. He chased someone down who was fleeing and shot them. I anticipate at least a wrongful death lawsuit, this has the potential to ruin his life.
Absolutely nothing other than being called a hero. True its tougher to prove self-defense when the guy is fleeing, but it can still be the case. You just have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were in fear for yourself or others of serious injury or harm. I think anyone with 3 active brain cells could tell someone who just killed 26 people and injured how many more is likely going to keep killing, and unless he was actively surrendering then shooting him was 100% justified. Absolutely not murder or even attempted murder. Plenty of reason to justifiably believe he was going to continue to kill and harm others.
That's pure speculation. For all we know he was driving to the police station to turn himself in.
past performance does not guarantee future results
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
Aurora: AR-15 Orlando: AR-15 Las Vegas: AR-15 Sandy Hook: AR-15 Umpqua CC: AR-15 San Bernardino: AR-15 Sutherland Springs: AR-15
Nothing can be done.
Well, one state made it illegal to own a bump stock with your pretty AR killing device.
Is there anybody on here opposed to the ban of owning AR-15 style assault rifles outside of LE and military?
Yes.
You can't even get the terminology correct.
Besides I have been hearing non-stop for a year how "literally Hitler" was elected President, and now those people want "literally Hitler" to be the one in control of all firearms.
Why do you want to give "literally Hitler" oh and the white supremacist and racist and apparently woman abusing and Russian colluder so much control?
Ok. My apologies. I haven't fired an AR or its like in about 10 years. What is the correct terminology you would like me to use? You have lots of criticism, but no answers or suggestions. Only Mace seems to be able to provide some sort of reasonable discussion points.
Have you ever shot one?
If not, I will take you out to a range and introduce you to one. I can then go over terminology and show you how it operates, including breaking it down and re-assembling it.
Yeah, did you read my answer? It's been about 9 years. I shot it several thousand times and was qualified with it before that. A crack shot with it. I could break it down and put it back together no problems. That's what I did.
Again, do you have any other suggestions. A civilian has no need to own an AR or other types of semi-auto assault rifles. Fear is the only reason no one is willing to give up these types of guns. Don't worry, we'll all die of lack of water and tillable land before the government comes for your guns. You will probably need your gun to protect your bunker of supplies from the raving masses of starving and thirsty.
Clearly yesterday proved that we need them, in order to stop bad people from harming others.
Thankfully it isn't the Bill of Needs. Thankfully I don't need someone telling me what I do or don't.
You asked me what my terminology was, that lead me to believe your experience was not vast. My terminology is what it actually is, not what the media says it is.
pretty sure that guy didn't have an assault weapon
That's fine....I stand corrected. I had just heard that he grabbed his "rifle" from a safe which I assumed was just non assault weapon.
But the important thing to remember is that (while I completely support and commend this guy...for keeping his gun in a safe and for using it) this "good guy with a gun" did not stop the massacre. We could argue that the shooter may have planned to go somewhere else and continue killing but I doubt that is the case. It appears that his goal was to kill his mother in law and luckily for her she wasn't at the church.
The shooter was leaving the scene when he was shot.
At the very least they stopped him from escaping, no one can know if this was his end game, but he was trying to escape. The only reasons I can think of why he would try and escape would be to either get away with what he had just done or to continue what he was doing. From what I have read, he was still shooting at people (outside of the church) when he was shot. At that moment, he got to experience the pain that he had been inflicting on others. I’m glad there was a good guy with a gun there to give him a taste of his own medicine. His control of the situation (whatever his plan was) was ended by a local armed citizen.
Yeah hats off to the guys that shot and pursued him.
Maybe he would have gone to hunt down the mother in law. We'll never know. Maybe the police would have shown up and taken him out.
I wonder what will happen to that guy. He essentially murdered someone (or at least attempted murder). It wasn't self-defense, it wasn't stand your ground. He chased someone down who was fleeing and shot them. I anticipate at least a wrongful death lawsuit, this has the potential to ruin his life.
I thought he shot the guy while he still had the gun in his hand and while still shooting? Then they chased him down. I do not think this guy will face any legal trouble in Texas regarding acceptable use of lethal force laws. Might be different if he had been in New York. I think this guy will most likely get an award for his actions.
Not while he was still shooting from what I've read, but in any case, the idea that anyone would consider his actions unjustified must not know how it works. The city or state is not relevant. Obviously it is completely legal in all cases to kill an active mass shooter, which does not require that bullets are currently coming out the end of his weapon when it happens, lol. The only way any issue might arise is if the person happened to do it with an illegal weapon, in which case, the charges would be related to carrying/owning an illegal weapon, that's it.
The state is relevant. Some states implement a “duty to retreat” type of standard in regards to use of force. Texas does not. I stated that part in regards to the crime still being in progress, not silly at all. If he was surrendering with his hands up, and then got shot, it would be a completely different scenario and the person that shot him would then face legal trouble.
Aurora: AR-15 Orlando: AR-15 Las Vegas: AR-15 Sandy Hook: AR-15 Umpqua CC: AR-15 San Bernardino: AR-15 Sutherland Springs: AR-15
Nothing can be done.
Well, one state made it illegal to own a bump stock with your pretty AR killing device.
Is there anybody on here opposed to the ban of owning AR-15 style assault rifles outside of LE and military?
Yes.
You can't even get the terminology correct.
Besides I have been hearing non-stop for a year how "literally Hitler" was elected President, and now those people want "literally Hitler" to be the one in control of all firearms.
Why do you want to give "literally Hitler" oh and the white supremacist and racist and apparently woman abusing and Russian colluder so much control?
Ok. My apologies. I haven't fired an AR or its like in about 10 years. What is the correct terminology you would like me to use? You have lots of criticism, but no answers or suggestions. Only Mace seems to be able to provide some sort of reasonable discussion points.
Have you ever shot one?
If not, I will take you out to a range and introduce you to one. I can then go over terminology and show you how it operates, including breaking it down and re-assembling it.
Yeah, did you read my answer? It's been about 9 years. I shot it several thousand times and was qualified with it before that. A crack shot with it. I could break it down and put it back together no problems. That's what I did.
Again, do you have any other suggestions. A civilian has no need to own an AR or other types of semi-auto assault rifles. Fear is the only reason no one is willing to give up these types of guns. Don't worry, we'll all die of lack of water and tillable land before the government comes for your guns. You will probably need your gun to protect your bunker of supplies from the raving masses of starving and thirsty.
Clearly yesterday proved that we need them, in order to stop bad people from harming others.
Thankfully it isn't the Bill of Needs. Thankfully I don't need someone telling me what I do or don't.
You asked me what my terminology was, that lead me to believe your experience was not vast. My terminology is what it actually is, not what the media says it is.
pretty sure that guy didn't have an assault weapon
That's fine....I stand corrected. I had just heard that he grabbed his "rifle" from a safe which I assumed was just non assault weapon.
But the important thing to remember is that (while I completely support and commend this guy...for keeping his gun in a safe and for using it) this "good guy with a gun" did not stop the massacre. We could argue that the shooter may have planned to go somewhere else and continue killing but I doubt that is the case. It appears that his goal was to kill his mother in law and luckily for her she wasn't at the church.
The shooter was leaving the scene when he was shot.
At the very least they stopped him from escaping, no one can know if this was his end game, but he was trying to escape. The only reasons I can think of why he would try and escape would be to either get away with what he had just done or to continue what he was doing. From what I have read, he was still shooting at people (outside of the church) when he was shot. At that moment, he got to experience the pain that he had been inflicting on others. I’m glad there was a good guy with a gun there to give him a taste of his own medicine. His control of the situation (whatever his plan was) was ended by a local armed citizen.
Yeah hats off to the guys that shot and pursued him.
Maybe he would have gone to hunt down the mother in law. We'll never know. Maybe the police would have shown up and taken him out.
I wonder what will happen to that guy. He essentially murdered someone (or at least attempted murder). It wasn't self-defense, it wasn't stand your ground. He chased someone down who was fleeing and shot them. I anticipate at least a wrongful death lawsuit, this has the potential to ruin his life.
Absolutely nothing other than being called a hero. True its tougher to prove self-defense when the guy is fleeing, but it can still be the case. You just have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were in fear for yourself or others of serious injury or harm. I think anyone with 3 active brain cells could tell someone who just killed 26 people and injured how many more is likely going to keep killing, and unless he was actively surrendering then shooting him was 100% justified. Absolutely not murder or even attempted murder. Plenty of reason to justifiably believe he was going to continue to kill and harm others.
That's pure speculation. For all we know he was driving to the police station to turn himself in.
past performance does not guarantee future results
That doesn't matter.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Aurora: AR-15 Orlando: AR-15 Las Vegas: AR-15 Sandy Hook: AR-15 Umpqua CC: AR-15 San Bernardino: AR-15 Sutherland Springs: AR-15
Nothing can be done.
Well, one state made it illegal to own a bump stock with your pretty AR killing device.
Is there anybody on here opposed to the ban of owning AR-15 style assault rifles outside of LE and military?
Yes.
You can't even get the terminology correct.
Besides I have been hearing non-stop for a year how "literally Hitler" was elected President, and now those people want "literally Hitler" to be the one in control of all firearms.
Why do you want to give "literally Hitler" oh and the white supremacist and racist and apparently woman abusing and Russian colluder so much control?
Ok. My apologies. I haven't fired an AR or its like in about 10 years. What is the correct terminology you would like me to use? You have lots of criticism, but no answers or suggestions. Only Mace seems to be able to provide some sort of reasonable discussion points.
Have you ever shot one?
If not, I will take you out to a range and introduce you to one. I can then go over terminology and show you how it operates, including breaking it down and re-assembling it.
Yeah, did you read my answer? It's been about 9 years. I shot it several thousand times and was qualified with it before that. A crack shot with it. I could break it down and put it back together no problems. That's what I did.
Again, do you have any other suggestions. A civilian has no need to own an AR or other types of semi-auto assault rifles. Fear is the only reason no one is willing to give up these types of guns. Don't worry, we'll all die of lack of water and tillable land before the government comes for your guns. You will probably need your gun to protect your bunker of supplies from the raving masses of starving and thirsty.
Clearly yesterday proved that we need them, in order to stop bad people from harming others.
Thankfully it isn't the Bill of Needs. Thankfully I don't need someone telling me what I do or don't.
You asked me what my terminology was, that lead me to believe your experience was not vast. My terminology is what it actually is, not what the media says it is.
pretty sure that guy didn't have an assault weapon
That's fine....I stand corrected. I had just heard that he grabbed his "rifle" from a safe which I assumed was just non assault weapon.
But the important thing to remember is that (while I completely support and commend this guy...for keeping his gun in a safe and for using it) this "good guy with a gun" did not stop the massacre. We could argue that the shooter may have planned to go somewhere else and continue killing but I doubt that is the case. It appears that his goal was to kill his mother in law and luckily for her she wasn't at the church.
The shooter was leaving the scene when he was shot.
At the very least they stopped him from escaping, no one can know if this was his end game, but he was trying to escape. The only reasons I can think of why he would try and escape would be to either get away with what he had just done or to continue what he was doing. From what I have read, he was still shooting at people (outside of the church) when he was shot. At that moment, he got to experience the pain that he had been inflicting on others. I’m glad there was a good guy with a gun there to give him a taste of his own medicine. His control of the situation (whatever his plan was) was ended by a local armed citizen.
Yeah hats off to the guys that shot and pursued him.
Maybe he would have gone to hunt down the mother in law. We'll never know. Maybe the police would have shown up and taken him out.
I wonder what will happen to that guy. He essentially murdered someone (or at least attempted murder). It wasn't self-defense, it wasn't stand your ground. He chased someone down who was fleeing and shot them. I anticipate at least a wrongful death lawsuit, this has the potential to ruin his life.
Absolutely nothing other than being called a hero. True its tougher to prove self-defense when the guy is fleeing, but it can still be the case. You just have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were in fear for yourself or others of serious injury or harm. I think anyone with 3 active brain cells could tell someone who just killed 26 people and injured how many more is likely going to keep killing, and unless he was actively surrendering then shooting him was 100% justified. Absolutely not murder or even attempted murder. Plenty of reason to justifiably believe he was going to continue to kill and harm others.
That's pure speculation. For all we know he was driving to the police station to turn himself in.
past performance does not guarantee future results
That is probably the top 10 most ridiculous things I've heard on AMT (and i was around when Godfather was posting things). Lets suppose you're right, he was going to turn himself in. So what? One, you want to talk about speculation? I'm assuming a mass murder wants to kill and you assume a mass murderer is trying to turn himself in? Okay, but lets not speculate anything. Either way, that doesn't change anything. Anyone would still have reason to believe others are in harm. You only have to argue that a reasonable person could justifiably believe others are in harm. You want to argue otherwise then you are probably alone. Any sane person would have very good reason to believe others are in immediate danger. 100% justified.
There are absolutely no grounds for a criminal charge against the guy who shot the mass murderer. As for the civil side, that's always a circus show. We'll see if any grieving relatives come forward to try and sue for wrongful death. They'd be in for the fight of their life.
Aurora: AR-15 Orlando: AR-15 Las Vegas: AR-15 Sandy Hook: AR-15 Umpqua CC: AR-15 San Bernardino: AR-15 Sutherland Springs: AR-15
Nothing can be done.
Well, one state made it illegal to own a bump stock with your pretty AR killing device.
Is there anybody on here opposed to the ban of owning AR-15 style assault rifles outside of LE and military?
Yes.
You can't even get the terminology correct.
Besides I have been hearing non-stop for a year how "literally Hitler" was elected President, and now those people want "literally Hitler" to be the one in control of all firearms.
Why do you want to give "literally Hitler" oh and the white supremacist and racist and apparently woman abusing and Russian colluder so much control?
Ok. My apologies. I haven't fired an AR or its like in about 10 years. What is the correct terminology you would like me to use? You have lots of criticism, but no answers or suggestions. Only Mace seems to be able to provide some sort of reasonable discussion points.
Have you ever shot one?
If not, I will take you out to a range and introduce you to one. I can then go over terminology and show you how it operates, including breaking it down and re-assembling it.
Yeah, did you read my answer? It's been about 9 years. I shot it several thousand times and was qualified with it before that. A crack shot with it. I could break it down and put it back together no problems. That's what I did.
Again, do you have any other suggestions. A civilian has no need to own an AR or other types of semi-auto assault rifles. Fear is the only reason no one is willing to give up these types of guns. Don't worry, we'll all die of lack of water and tillable land before the government comes for your guns. You will probably need your gun to protect your bunker of supplies from the raving masses of starving and thirsty.
Clearly yesterday proved that we need them, in order to stop bad people from harming others.
Thankfully it isn't the Bill of Needs. Thankfully I don't need someone telling me what I do or don't.
You asked me what my terminology was, that lead me to believe your experience was not vast. My terminology is what it actually is, not what the media says it is.
pretty sure that guy didn't have an assault weapon
That's fine....I stand corrected. I had just heard that he grabbed his "rifle" from a safe which I assumed was just non assault weapon.
But the important thing to remember is that (while I completely support and commend this guy...for keeping his gun in a safe and for using it) this "good guy with a gun" did not stop the massacre. We could argue that the shooter may have planned to go somewhere else and continue killing but I doubt that is the case. It appears that his goal was to kill his mother in law and luckily for her she wasn't at the church.
The shooter was leaving the scene when he was shot.
At the very least they stopped him from escaping, no one can know if this was his end game, but he was trying to escape. The only reasons I can think of why he would try and escape would be to either get away with what he had just done or to continue what he was doing. From what I have read, he was still shooting at people (outside of the church) when he was shot. At that moment, he got to experience the pain that he had been inflicting on others. I’m glad there was a good guy with a gun there to give him a taste of his own medicine. His control of the situation (whatever his plan was) was ended by a local armed citizen.
Yeah hats off to the guys that shot and pursued him.
Maybe he would have gone to hunt down the mother in law. We'll never know. Maybe the police would have shown up and taken him out.
I wonder what will happen to that guy. He essentially murdered someone (or at least attempted murder). It wasn't self-defense, it wasn't stand your ground. He chased someone down who was fleeing and shot them. I anticipate at least a wrongful death lawsuit, this has the potential to ruin his life.
Absolutely nothing other than being called a hero. True its tougher to prove self-defense when the guy is fleeing, but it can still be the case. You just have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were in fear for yourself or others of serious injury or harm. I think anyone with 3 active brain cells could tell someone who just killed 26 people and injured how many more is likely going to keep killing, and unless he was actively surrendering then shooting him was 100% justified. Absolutely not murder or even attempted murder. Plenty of reason to justifiably believe he was going to continue to kill and harm others.
That's pure speculation. For all we know he was driving to the police station to turn himself in.
past performance does not guarantee future results
That is probably the top 10 most ridiculous things I've heard on AMT (and i was around when Godfather was posting things). Lets suppose you're right, he was going to turn himself in. So what? One, you want to talk about speculation? I'm assuming a mass murder wants to kill and you assume a mass murderer is trying to turn himself in? Okay, but lets not speculate anything. Either way, that doesn't change anything. Anyone would still have reason to believe others are in harm. You only have to argue that a reasonable person could justifiably believe others are in harm. You want to argue otherwise then you are probably alone. Any sane person would have very good reason to believe others are in immediate danger. 100% justified.
Aurora: AR-15 Orlando: AR-15 Las Vegas: AR-15 Sandy Hook: AR-15 Umpqua CC: AR-15 San Bernardino: AR-15 Sutherland Springs: AR-15
Nothing can be done.
Well, one state made it illegal to own a bump stock with your pretty AR killing device.
Is there anybody on here opposed to the ban of owning AR-15 style assault rifles outside of LE and military?
Yes.
You can't even get the terminology correct.
Besides I have been hearing non-stop for a year how "literally Hitler" was elected President, and now those people want "literally Hitler" to be the one in control of all firearms.
Why do you want to give "literally Hitler" oh and the white supremacist and racist and apparently woman abusing and Russian colluder so much control?
Ok. My apologies. I haven't fired an AR or its like in about 10 years. What is the correct terminology you would like me to use? You have lots of criticism, but no answers or suggestions. Only Mace seems to be able to provide some sort of reasonable discussion points.
Have you ever shot one?
If not, I will take you out to a range and introduce you to one. I can then go over terminology and show you how it operates, including breaking it down and re-assembling it.
Yeah, did you read my answer? It's been about 9 years. I shot it several thousand times and was qualified with it before that. A crack shot with it. I could break it down and put it back together no problems. That's what I did.
Again, do you have any other suggestions. A civilian has no need to own an AR or other types of semi-auto assault rifles. Fear is the only reason no one is willing to give up these types of guns. Don't worry, we'll all die of lack of water and tillable land before the government comes for your guns. You will probably need your gun to protect your bunker of supplies from the raving masses of starving and thirsty.
Clearly yesterday proved that we need them, in order to stop bad people from harming others.
Thankfully it isn't the Bill of Needs. Thankfully I don't need someone telling me what I do or don't.
You asked me what my terminology was, that lead me to believe your experience was not vast. My terminology is what it actually is, not what the media says it is.
pretty sure that guy didn't have an assault weapon
That's fine....I stand corrected. I had just heard that he grabbed his "rifle" from a safe which I assumed was just non assault weapon.
But the important thing to remember is that (while I completely support and commend this guy...for keeping his gun in a safe and for using it) this "good guy with a gun" did not stop the massacre. We could argue that the shooter may have planned to go somewhere else and continue killing but I doubt that is the case. It appears that his goal was to kill his mother in law and luckily for her she wasn't at the church.
The shooter was leaving the scene when he was shot.
At the very least they stopped him from escaping, no one can know if this was his end game, but he was trying to escape. The only reasons I can think of why he would try and escape would be to either get away with what he had just done or to continue what he was doing. From what I have read, he was still shooting at people (outside of the church) when he was shot. At that moment, he got to experience the pain that he had been inflicting on others. I’m glad there was a good guy with a gun there to give him a taste of his own medicine. His control of the situation (whatever his plan was) was ended by a local armed citizen.
Yeah hats off to the guys that shot and pursued him.
Maybe he would have gone to hunt down the mother in law. We'll never know. Maybe the police would have shown up and taken him out.
I wonder what will happen to that guy. He essentially murdered someone (or at least attempted murder). It wasn't self-defense, it wasn't stand your ground. He chased someone down who was fleeing and shot them. I anticipate at least a wrongful death lawsuit, this has the potential to ruin his life.
Absolutely nothing other than being called a hero. True its tougher to prove self-defense when the guy is fleeing, but it can still be the case. You just have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were in fear for yourself or others of serious injury or harm. I think anyone with 3 active brain cells could tell someone who just killed 26 people and injured how many more is likely going to keep killing, and unless he was actively surrendering then shooting him was 100% justified. Absolutely not murder or even attempted murder. Plenty of reason to justifiably believe he was going to continue to kill and harm others.
That's pure speculation. For all we know he was driving to the police station to turn himself in.
past performance does not guarantee future results
That is probably the top 10 most ridiculous things I've heard on AMT (and i was around when Godfather was posting things). Lets suppose you're right, he was going to turn himself in. So what? One, you want to talk about speculation? I'm assuming a mass murder wants to kill and you assume a mass murderer is trying to turn himself in? Okay, but lets not speculate anything. Either way, that doesn't change anything. Anyone would still have reason to believe others are in harm. You only have to argue that a reasonable person could justifiably believe others are in harm. You want to argue otherwise then you are probably alone. Any sane person would have very good reason to believe others are in immediate danger. 100% justified.
I would actually place it in the top 5.
I think she's trolling you guys. Remember the last time this happened? She admitted to sometimes trolling in this thread....let it go.
Aurora: AR-15 Orlando: AR-15 Las Vegas: AR-15 Sandy Hook: AR-15 Umpqua CC: AR-15 San Bernardino: AR-15 Sutherland Springs: AR-15
Nothing can be done.
Well, one state made it illegal to own a bump stock with your pretty AR killing device.
Is there anybody on here opposed to the ban of owning AR-15 style assault rifles outside of LE and military?
Yes.
You can't even get the terminology correct.
Besides I have been hearing non-stop for a year how "literally Hitler" was elected President, and now those people want "literally Hitler" to be the one in control of all firearms.
Why do you want to give "literally Hitler" oh and the white supremacist and racist and apparently woman abusing and Russian colluder so much control?
Ok. My apologies. I haven't fired an AR or its like in about 10 years. What is the correct terminology you would like me to use? You have lots of criticism, but no answers or suggestions. Only Mace seems to be able to provide some sort of reasonable discussion points.
Have you ever shot one?
If not, I will take you out to a range and introduce you to one. I can then go over terminology and show you how it operates, including breaking it down and re-assembling it.
Yeah, did you read my answer? It's been about 9 years. I shot it several thousand times and was qualified with it before that. A crack shot with it. I could break it down and put it back together no problems. That's what I did.
Again, do you have any other suggestions. A civilian has no need to own an AR or other types of semi-auto assault rifles. Fear is the only reason no one is willing to give up these types of guns. Don't worry, we'll all die of lack of water and tillable land before the government comes for your guns. You will probably need your gun to protect your bunker of supplies from the raving masses of starving and thirsty.
Clearly yesterday proved that we need them, in order to stop bad people from harming others.
Thankfully it isn't the Bill of Needs. Thankfully I don't need someone telling me what I do or don't.
You asked me what my terminology was, that lead me to believe your experience was not vast. My terminology is what it actually is, not what the media says it is.
pretty sure that guy didn't have an assault weapon
That's fine....I stand corrected. I had just heard that he grabbed his "rifle" from a safe which I assumed was just non assault weapon.
But the important thing to remember is that (while I completely support and commend this guy...for keeping his gun in a safe and for using it) this "good guy with a gun" did not stop the massacre. We could argue that the shooter may have planned to go somewhere else and continue killing but I doubt that is the case. It appears that his goal was to kill his mother in law and luckily for her she wasn't at the church.
The shooter was leaving the scene when he was shot.
At the very least they stopped him from escaping, no one can know if this was his end game, but he was trying to escape. The only reasons I can think of why he would try and escape would be to either get away with what he had just done or to continue what he was doing. From what I have read, he was still shooting at people (outside of the church) when he was shot. At that moment, he got to experience the pain that he had been inflicting on others. I’m glad there was a good guy with a gun there to give him a taste of his own medicine. His control of the situation (whatever his plan was) was ended by a local armed citizen.
Yeah hats off to the guys that shot and pursued him.
Maybe he would have gone to hunt down the mother in law. We'll never know. Maybe the police would have shown up and taken him out.
I wonder what will happen to that guy. He essentially murdered someone (or at least attempted murder). It wasn't self-defense, it wasn't stand your ground. He chased someone down who was fleeing and shot them. I anticipate at least a wrongful death lawsuit, this has the potential to ruin his life.
Absolutely nothing other than being called a hero. True its tougher to prove self-defense when the guy is fleeing, but it can still be the case. You just have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were in fear for yourself or others of serious injury or harm. I think anyone with 3 active brain cells could tell someone who just killed 26 people and injured how many more is likely going to keep killing, and unless he was actively surrendering then shooting him was 100% justified. Absolutely not murder or even attempted murder. Plenty of reason to justifiably believe he was going to continue to kill and harm others.
That's pure speculation. For all we know he was driving to the police station to turn himself in.
past performance does not guarantee future results
That is probably the top 10 most ridiculous things I've heard on AMT (and i was around when Godfather was posting things). Lets suppose you're right, he was going to turn himself in. So what? One, you want to talk about speculation? I'm assuming a mass murder wants to kill and you assume a mass murderer is trying to turn himself in? Okay, but lets not speculate anything. Either way, that doesn't change anything. Anyone would still have reason to believe others are in harm. You only have to argue that a reasonable person could justifiably believe others are in harm. You want to argue otherwise then you are probably alone. Any sane person would have very good reason to believe others are in immediate danger. 100% justified.
to be fair, he wasn't speculating. he was countering the claim with another, just as reasonable claim, proving his stance that we didn't know and can't speculate.
however, I do agree that the shooting of the murderer was justified. a guy kills 26 people: justified.
Aurora: AR-15 Orlando: AR-15 Las Vegas: AR-15 Sandy Hook: AR-15 Umpqua CC: AR-15 San Bernardino: AR-15 Sutherland Springs: AR-15
Nothing can be done.
Well, one state made it illegal to own a bump stock with your pretty AR killing device.
Is there anybody on here opposed to the ban of owning AR-15 style assault rifles outside of LE and military?
Yes.
You can't even get the terminology correct.
Besides I have been hearing non-stop for a year how "literally Hitler" was elected President, and now those people want "literally Hitler" to be the one in control of all firearms.
Why do you want to give "literally Hitler" oh and the white supremacist and racist and apparently woman abusing and Russian colluder so much control?
Ok. My apologies. I haven't fired an AR or its like in about 10 years. What is the correct terminology you would like me to use? You have lots of criticism, but no answers or suggestions. Only Mace seems to be able to provide some sort of reasonable discussion points.
Have you ever shot one?
If not, I will take you out to a range and introduce you to one. I can then go over terminology and show you how it operates, including breaking it down and re-assembling it.
Yeah, did you read my answer? It's been about 9 years. I shot it several thousand times and was qualified with it before that. A crack shot with it. I could break it down and put it back together no problems. That's what I did.
Again, do you have any other suggestions. A civilian has no need to own an AR or other types of semi-auto assault rifles. Fear is the only reason no one is willing to give up these types of guns. Don't worry, we'll all die of lack of water and tillable land before the government comes for your guns. You will probably need your gun to protect your bunker of supplies from the raving masses of starving and thirsty.
Clearly yesterday proved that we need them, in order to stop bad people from harming others.
Thankfully it isn't the Bill of Needs. Thankfully I don't need someone telling me what I do or don't.
You asked me what my terminology was, that lead me to believe your experience was not vast. My terminology is what it actually is, not what the media says it is.
pretty sure that guy didn't have an assault weapon
That's fine....I stand corrected. I had just heard that he grabbed his "rifle" from a safe which I assumed was just non assault weapon.
But the important thing to remember is that (while I completely support and commend this guy...for keeping his gun in a safe and for using it) this "good guy with a gun" did not stop the massacre. We could argue that the shooter may have planned to go somewhere else and continue killing but I doubt that is the case. It appears that his goal was to kill his mother in law and luckily for her she wasn't at the church.
The shooter was leaving the scene when he was shot.
At the very least they stopped him from escaping, no one can know if this was his end game, but he was trying to escape. The only reasons I can think of why he would try and escape would be to either get away with what he had just done or to continue what he was doing. From what I have read, he was still shooting at people (outside of the church) when he was shot. At that moment, he got to experience the pain that he had been inflicting on others. I’m glad there was a good guy with a gun there to give him a taste of his own medicine. His control of the situation (whatever his plan was) was ended by a local armed citizen.
Yeah hats off to the guys that shot and pursued him.
Maybe he would have gone to hunt down the mother in law. We'll never know. Maybe the police would have shown up and taken him out.
I wonder what will happen to that guy. He essentially murdered someone (or at least attempted murder). It wasn't self-defense, it wasn't stand your ground. He chased someone down who was fleeing and shot them. I anticipate at least a wrongful death lawsuit, this has the potential to ruin his life.
Absolutely nothing other than being called a hero. True its tougher to prove self-defense when the guy is fleeing, but it can still be the case. You just have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were in fear for yourself or others of serious injury or harm. I think anyone with 3 active brain cells could tell someone who just killed 26 people and injured how many more is likely going to keep killing, and unless he was actively surrendering then shooting him was 100% justified. Absolutely not murder or even attempted murder. Plenty of reason to justifiably believe he was going to continue to kill and harm others.
That's pure speculation. For all we know he was driving to the police station to turn himself in.
past performance does not guarantee future results
That is probably the top 10 most ridiculous things I've heard on AMT (and i was around when Godfather was posting things). Lets suppose you're right, he was going to turn himself in. So what? One, you want to talk about speculation? I'm assuming a mass murder wants to kill and you assume a mass murderer is trying to turn himself in? Okay, but lets not speculate anything. Either way, that doesn't change anything. Anyone would still have reason to believe others are in harm. You only have to argue that a reasonable person could justifiably believe others are in harm. You want to argue otherwise then you are probably alone. Any sane person would have very good reason to believe others are in immediate danger. 100% justified.
I would actually place it in the top 5.
I think she's trolling you guys. Remember the last time this happened? She admitted to sometimes trolling in this thread....let it go.
You said yourself the state of Texas matters here. If it were another state, it's completely feasible there could be charges brought.
just one more reason not to visit Texas I guess, wish they would secede already and be done with it (and take florida with)
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
Aurora: AR-15 Orlando: AR-15 Las Vegas: AR-15 Sandy Hook: AR-15 Umpqua CC: AR-15 San Bernardino: AR-15 Sutherland Springs: AR-15
Nothing can be done.
Well, one state made it illegal to own a bump stock with your pretty AR killing device.
Is there anybody on here opposed to the ban of owning AR-15 style assault rifles outside of LE and military?
Yes.
You can't even get the terminology correct.
Besides I have been hearing non-stop for a year how "literally Hitler" was elected President, and now those people want "literally Hitler" to be the one in control of all firearms.
Why do you want to give "literally Hitler" oh and the white supremacist and racist and apparently woman abusing and Russian colluder so much control?
Ok. My apologies. I haven't fired an AR or its like in about 10 years. What is the correct terminology you would like me to use? You have lots of criticism, but no answers or suggestions. Only Mace seems to be able to provide some sort of reasonable discussion points.
Have you ever shot one?
If not, I will take you out to a range and introduce you to one. I can then go over terminology and show you how it operates, including breaking it down and re-assembling it.
Yeah, did you read my answer? It's been about 9 years. I shot it several thousand times and was qualified with it before that. A crack shot with it. I could break it down and put it back together no problems. That's what I did.
Again, do you have any other suggestions. A civilian has no need to own an AR or other types of semi-auto assault rifles. Fear is the only reason no one is willing to give up these types of guns. Don't worry, we'll all die of lack of water and tillable land before the government comes for your guns. You will probably need your gun to protect your bunker of supplies from the raving masses of starving and thirsty.
Clearly yesterday proved that we need them, in order to stop bad people from harming others.
Thankfully it isn't the Bill of Needs. Thankfully I don't need someone telling me what I do or don't.
You asked me what my terminology was, that lead me to believe your experience was not vast. My terminology is what it actually is, not what the media says it is.
pretty sure that guy didn't have an assault weapon
That's fine....I stand corrected. I had just heard that he grabbed his "rifle" from a safe which I assumed was just non assault weapon.
But the important thing to remember is that (while I completely support and commend this guy...for keeping his gun in a safe and for using it) this "good guy with a gun" did not stop the massacre. We could argue that the shooter may have planned to go somewhere else and continue killing but I doubt that is the case. It appears that his goal was to kill his mother in law and luckily for her she wasn't at the church.
The shooter was leaving the scene when he was shot.
At the very least they stopped him from escaping, no one can know if this was his end game, but he was trying to escape. The only reasons I can think of why he would try and escape would be to either get away with what he had just done or to continue what he was doing. From what I have read, he was still shooting at people (outside of the church) when he was shot. At that moment, he got to experience the pain that he had been inflicting on others. I’m glad there was a good guy with a gun there to give him a taste of his own medicine. His control of the situation (whatever his plan was) was ended by a local armed citizen.
Yeah hats off to the guys that shot and pursued him.
Maybe he would have gone to hunt down the mother in law. We'll never know. Maybe the police would have shown up and taken him out.
I wonder what will happen to that guy. He essentially murdered someone (or at least attempted murder). It wasn't self-defense, it wasn't stand your ground. He chased someone down who was fleeing and shot them. I anticipate at least a wrongful death lawsuit, this has the potential to ruin his life.
Absolutely nothing other than being called a hero. True its tougher to prove self-defense when the guy is fleeing, but it can still be the case. You just have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were in fear for yourself or others of serious injury or harm. I think anyone with 3 active brain cells could tell someone who just killed 26 people and injured how many more is likely going to keep killing, and unless he was actively surrendering then shooting him was 100% justified. Absolutely not murder or even attempted murder. Plenty of reason to justifiably believe he was going to continue to kill and harm others.
That's pure speculation. For all we know he was driving to the police station to turn himself in.
past performance does not guarantee future results
That is probably the top 10 most ridiculous things I've heard on AMT (and i was around when Godfather was posting things). Lets suppose you're right, he was going to turn himself in. So what? One, you want to talk about speculation? I'm assuming a mass murder wants to kill and you assume a mass murderer is trying to turn himself in? Okay, but lets not speculate anything. Either way, that doesn't change anything. Anyone would still have reason to believe others are in harm. You only have to argue that a reasonable person could justifiably believe others are in harm. You want to argue otherwise then you are probably alone. Any sane person would have very good reason to believe others are in immediate danger. 100% justified.
to be fair, he wasn't speculating. he was countering the claim with another, just as reasonable claim, proving his stance that we didn't know and can't speculate.
however, I do agree that the shooting of the murderer was justified. a guy kills 26 people: justified.
I’m sure in Texas everyone’s excited about their good guy with a gun, but in a lot of areas, prosecutors and police dont’t like to green light these things because it encouraged dipshits to play vigilante. “I shot him because I thought he was going to do _______”. “Well he looked a lot like the guy described”.
And just imagine if another neighbor good guy comes running out of his house with a gun to see the "good guy" taking shots and shoots him thinking he's the "bad guy."
These scenarios are going to happen.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Comments
‘LOL!’ and other things men should never say if they want to have sex again
http://brobible.com/guyism/article/lol-things-men-never-say-want-sex/www.headstonesband.com
Maybe he would have gone to hunt down the mother in law. We'll never know. Maybe the police would have shown up and taken him out.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
We need tougher federal laws. Background checks for all purchases. The states obviously can't handle this.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
You do not need a permit to buy a gun
There is no requirement for a background check
There is no limit on the number of guns an individual can buy at a time
There is no limit on high capacity magazines or assault-type weapons
Law enforcement are required to issue a concealed carry permit to anyone who meets basic minimum requirements, despite any concerns
And Nevada is not the worst of the states regarding gun laws.
Yes, the states can't handle this responsibility
True its tougher to prove self-defense when the guy is fleeing, but it can still be the case. You just have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were in fear for yourself or others of serious injury or harm. I think anyone with 3 active brain cells could tell someone who just killed 26 people and injured how many more is likely going to keep killing, and unless he was actively surrendering then shooting him was 100% justified. Absolutely not murder or even attempted murder. Plenty of reason to justifiably believe he was going to continue to kill and harm others.
That's pure speculation. For all we know he was driving to the police station to turn himself in.
past performance does not guarantee future results
Lets suppose you're right, he was going to turn himself in.
So what? One, you want to talk about speculation? I'm assuming a mass murder wants to kill and you assume a mass murderer is trying to turn himself in? Okay, but lets not speculate anything. Either way, that doesn't change anything. Anyone would still have reason to believe others are in harm. You only have to argue that a reasonable person could justifiably believe others are in harm. You want to argue otherwise then you are probably alone. Any sane person would have very good reason to believe others are in immediate danger. 100% justified.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
however, I do agree that the shooting of the murderer was justified. a guy kills 26 people: justified.
www.headstonesband.com
Lol... I've weakened you. Yes!!
He will probably be made King of Texas
These scenarios are going to happen.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana