Bentleyspop said:

unsung said:

Bentleyspop said:

Massachusetts gets it....

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/927762572115369984

LOL

‘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/

CM189191 said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

unsung said:

tbergs said:

unsung said:

tbergs said:

unsung said:

tbergs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Bentleyspop said:

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.

Reminds me of this beautiful song;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fj-10lIrboM

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

Just following up:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/11/robert-farago/sutherland-springs-good-guy-gun-stephen-willeford-got-ar-15-safe-video/

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.  

mace1229 said:

CM189191 said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

unsung said:

tbergs said:

unsung said:

tbergs said:

unsung said:

tbergs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Bentleyspop said:

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.

Reminds me of this beautiful song;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fj-10lIrboM

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

Just following up:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/11/robert-farago/sutherland-springs-good-guy-gun-stephen-willeford-got-ar-15-safe-video/

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.

CM189191 said:

mace1229 said:

CM189191 said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

unsung said:

tbergs said:

unsung said:

tbergs said:

unsung said:

tbergs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Bentleyspop said:

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.

Reminds me of this beautiful song;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fj-10lIrboM

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

Just following up:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/11/robert-farago/sutherland-springs-good-guy-gun-stephen-willeford-got-ar-15-safe-video/

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 

PJPOWER said:

mace1229 said:

CM189191 said:

mace1229 said:

CM189191 said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

unsung said:

tbergs said:

unsung said:

tbergs said:

unsung said:

tbergs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Bentleyspop said:

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.

Reminds me of this beautiful song;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fj-10lIrboM

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

Just following up:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/11/robert-farago/sutherland-springs-good-guy-gun-stephen-willeford-got-ar-15-safe-video/

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.

mace1229 said:

CM189191 said:

mace1229 said:

CM189191 said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

unsung said:

tbergs said:

unsung said:

tbergs said:

unsung said:

tbergs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Bentleyspop said:

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.

Reminds me of this beautiful song;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fj-10lIrboM

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

Just following up:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/11/robert-farago/sutherland-springs-good-guy-gun-stephen-willeford-got-ar-15-safe-video/

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.