UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (85) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 744851  
Subject: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/16/2012 11:14 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 26
So. The nutroots is high-fiving each other over Obama's performance. They did that after Biden's debate, too...until all his untruths were categorized and the effect of his jerkwad demeanor set in.

Obama made 2 big mistakes, one that's being talked about and one that isn't. The Libya question is the one that is being talked about. Candy Crowley tried desperately to rescue him on that one, but Obama never explicitly linked the Libya 9/11 attacks to terrorism in the Rose Garden and in fact continued to sell the video meme for days afterwards.

I think that threw Mitt off. Right when Obama was stumbling through that, the camera happened to have a closeup of an incredulous Mitt, who said "You said that?" Mitt clearly knew Obama was lying there and was poised to pounce. That was the point where Crowley barged in.

That's going to cost Obama in the days ahead. But there's an even more painful mistake that he made: guns.

The AK-47 question forced Obama to give his real opinion on gun control - he wants an assault weapons ban. That's one thing, but his key mistake was in mentioning handguns.

Where are not only assault weapons and especially handguns popular?

ROTFL. Get ready:

Ohio
Pennsylvania
Nevada
Iowa
Wisconsin
Virginia
Michigan

Holy ammo belts, Batman! How eager is the NRA to cut commercials together and run them in those states? That was an ENORMOUS unforced error that's going to cost him.

Frank Luntz's focus group is tearing Obama to pieces, including one guy who just called Obama "bullsh1t" on live TV :)
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: lowstudent Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649192 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/17/2012 6:48 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I hope you are right regarding the NRA swinging so many votes.

As a NYer, I simply have no frame of reference for this stuff. I read it and I hear it, but it is so foreign it just does not register as that big an impact

I still am just floored by how bad Crowley actually was.

I have to hope that her attack on Mitt and her lie become a central issue, as opposed to ending the debate.

There has to be a way to turn thie spotlight on the ugly moment it was.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ascenzm Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649200 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/17/2012 8:51 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
The journalist's guide to firearms identification.

http://sigforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/320601935/m/692001120...

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCinOC Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649206 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/17/2012 9:28 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
lowstudent wrote: I still am just floored by how bad Crowley actually was.


I think she detonated her reputation, such as it was.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ModernViking Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649211 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/17/2012 10:03 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Holy ammo belts, Batman! How eager is the NRA to cut commercials together and run them in those states? That was an ENORMOUS unforced error that's going to cost him.

Yeah, Obama really stood a lot to lose with the gun nut crowd.

Remember, he has a secret plan to take away all our weapons. He just needs a second term to get around to it.

And having a bunch of NRA ads taking about how Romney is going to keep our citizenry armed to the hilt is really going to help him with independent voters. Run with that.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Colovion Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649214 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/17/2012 10:40 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
And having a bunch of NRA ads taking about how Romney is going to keep our citizenry armed to the hilt is really going to help him with independent voters. Run with that.

The only demographic that is even close to being anti-gun are hard-core liberals. Independents and Conservatives are comfortably pro-gun (per Gallup), so I don't think it will hurt Romney with Independents.

I also don't think it'll be a major issue though, for those who do see it as a major issue odds are they aren't undecided. As always it's about the economy mainly, and per a CBS Poll Romney won decidedly on that point.

http://nation.foxnews.com/2012-presidential-debates/2012/10/...

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCinOC Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649229 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/17/2012 11:17 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
ModernViking wrote: Yeah, Obama really stood a lot to lose with the gun nut crowd.

NRA members = 4.3 million

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lowstudent Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649231 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/17/2012 11:20 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
ModernViking wrote: Yeah, Obama really stood a lot to lose with the gun nut crowd.

NRA members = 4.3 million
___________________

MV is likely correct, the 6 of them that were undecided and still considering Obama are not likely to swing the election.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JLC Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649234 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/17/2012 11:27 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 24
... with the gun nut crowd...

Since when does personal protection make one a nut?

I'm a pretty big guy, I can and do look intimidating, and I can probably easily handle 80% of the population in a fight, 10% would be a draw, and 10% I'd lose.

But I'm getting a little older, grey hair, wrinkles, etc., so I'm becoming more of a target. I don't let DW go shopping alone if I can help it because she's even more of a target.

Getting a concealed carry and a firearm is the great equalizer. Two pertinent sayings: one, God made man but Sam Colt made them equal; two, seconds count with the police are minutes away.

JLC, who thinks gun control is hitting your intended target.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ModernViking Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649249 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/17/2012 12:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
The only demographic that is even close to being anti-gun are hard-core liberals. Independents and Conservatives are comfortably pro-gun (per Gallup), so I don't think it will hurt Romney with Independents.

Speaking as a gun owner I'm not comfortable with the NRA's tendency to conflate 2nd amendment rights with the idea that everyone should have unfettered access to every type of firearm and be able to carry them everywhere they go.

Responsible gun owners are not "gun nuts", and many of them are people you would roundly lump into the category of "hard-core liberals" simply because they have a nuanced take on the issue.

The fact of the matter is that Romney's own waffling on the assault weapons ban as Gov. demonstrates his clear lack of a principled stand on the issue. One can expect that on the issue of gun rights (or any other issue for that matter) he will bend to whatever pressures are presented to him. I'd suggest Mitt Romney could learn a thing or two from Aaron Tippin.

...you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything
You've got to be your own man not a puppet on a string...


Print the post Back To Top
Author: ModernViking Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649251 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/17/2012 12:14 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
Since when does personal protection make one a nut?

It doesn't. See my last post.


But I'm getting a little older, grey hair, wrinkles, etc., so I'm becoming more of a target. I don't let DW go shopping alone if I can help it because she's even more of a target.

Pretty scary world you must live in where you're afeared of letting your wife go to the store by herself without the benefit of concealed carry. Pretty scary world for the rest of us where there are a bunch of scared ladies running around carrying firearms, most of whom probably don't have a very good barometer for what is and what not is a mortal threat.

Is this why I always see ladies sitting in the passenger seats in the Home Depot parking lot on Saturday? Are they reaching into their purse and cocking back the hammer as I walk by to my car, "just in case?"

Good christ, but if that's what you call "freedom" I don't want any part of it.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 2828 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649252 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/17/2012 12:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
Pretty scary world for the rest of us where there are a bunch of scared ladies running around carrying firearms, most of whom probably don't have a very good barometer for what is and what not is a mortal threat.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Another War On Women. Women are too stupid to kerry firearms i guess.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Colovion Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649255 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/17/2012 12:35 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
NRA members = 4.3 million

That's just the number that are up-to-date on their memberships. Surveys have shown that well over 20 million THINK they are members (if only they'd pay up, lol!)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: decath Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649256 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/17/2012 12:36 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
mv
Yeah, Obama really stood a lot to lose with the gun nut crowd.

Remember, he has a secret plan to take away all our weapons. He just needs a second term to get around to it.

And having a bunch of NRA ads taking about how Romney is going to keep our citizenry armed to the hilt is really going to help him with independent voters. Run with that.



It depends on how aggressive Obama gets. He's smart enough to stay away from the issue as much as possible. Last statistic I heard is far more important than an NRA count. That is, an estimated 100 million Americans own guns. Now that's count I'd be careful not to get mad.

If McCain had not been such a wussy candidate 4 years ago, Obama's "Gun's and Bible" quote would have been enough to crater his candacy.

decath

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ModernViking Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649257 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/17/2012 12:47 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Another War On Women. Women are too stupid to kerry firearms i guess.

You'll pardon me for not knowing that this is the board where narrowly framed stereotypes are frowned upon.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Colovion Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649259 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/17/2012 12:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Speaking as a gun owner I'm not comfortable with the NRA's tendency to conflate 2nd amendment rights with the idea that everyone should have unfettered access to every type of firearm and be able to carry them everywhere they go.

The NRA certainly doesn't say there should be no restrictions on who can obtain/possess firearms. They've been successful in getting laws passed to strengthen the penalties for felons caught with guns and to improve NICS so mental illness screening is more effective.

It's fair to say that they think there should be some pretty high hurdles for denying someone gun ownership, but seeing as it is an individual right it very well should be high hurdles in that regard. You shouldn't have to prove you qualify to exercise a right, rather the government should have to prove you have lost it. Innocent until proven guilty.

As for carrying... it says "keep and bear" for a reason. A self-defense firearm doesn't do you much good if you aren't allowed to carry it where you need to defend yourself. Some of us like to occassionaly leave our homes. I still haven't heard a good reason why your right to self-defense ends at your own doorway. I've seen lots of crime reports, very few of them happen in people's own homes... there's plenty of evidence that you need to be able to defend yourself outside your home too.

Just ask the cabbie who was killed on the East Side of Detroit yesterday... he didn't live in his cab but he sure as hell was shot to death in a robbery in it. If I want to drive to my mother's hosue I go though... Detroit. It'll be a cold day in hell before I do so unarmed.

Responsible gun owners are not "gun nuts", and many of them are people you would roundly lump into the category of "hard-core liberals" simply because they have a nuanced take on the issue.

I didn't break them down into liberals, Gallup did. They do this survey every year. Hell, I invariably post it every year! Now I'll have to dig it up, sheesh.

The fact of the matter is that Romney's own waffling on the assault weapons ban as Gov. demonstrates his clear lack of a principled stand on the issue. One can expect that on the issue of gun rights (or any other issue for that matter) he will bend to whatever pressures are presented to him.

I saw 0bama try to make that case last night. That dog won't hunt with the NRA crowd of course. Why? Bush said he'd renew the AWB during his first election... but gun owners supported him anyway and were rewarded with justices like Alito and Roberts who were in the majority of the Heller and McDonald decisions. You can bet your bottom dollar that every voter who cares about this issue knows where Kagan and Sotomayor stood on these (well, one on both, both on one). Plus Bush didn't, of course, renew the AWB. Having a candidate say in no uncertain terms that he'll not support an AWB (which is a bit of a moot point, if 0bama couldn't get one passed when he had supermajorities in Congress the odds with a GOP House or even Dem control, but just barely, of passing it are nil) is just fine.

If 0bama wants to go back to what Romney said about guns then Romney will be just as happy to go back to 0bama's various pronouncements on guns, like banning all gun stores within five miles of a school or park (rendering nearly all of the lower 48-states a "gun-store free" zone) or voting for the atrocious Kennedy Amendment that (despite Kennedy saying it wasn't the intent) would have banned rifle ammo capable of penetrating bullet-proof vests (which are rated to stop handgun ammo, NOT rifle ammo), etc. For every "anti-gun" pronouncement you can find for Romney there are five from 0bama. If he wants to play that game then game on!

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ModernViking Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649261 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/17/2012 12:57 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
It depends on how aggressive Obama gets. He's smart enough to stay away from the issue as much as possible. Last statistic I heard is far more important than an NRA count. That is, an estimated 100 million Americans own guns. Now that's count I'd be careful not to get mad.

Presumably that number includes people like my Dad who have a pair of bolt-action .22 rifles that haven't seen a proper cleaning in 50 years, and an oldy moldy box of .22 longs to go with 'em.

I see no evidence that Obama has any interest in significantly curtailing gun ownership beyond inspiring cultural changes that negate the percieved need for it. Opportunity and prosperity can be a great equalizer as well.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Colovion Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649267 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/17/2012 1:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
Good christ, but if that's what you call "freedom" I don't want any part of it.

2 million defensive gun uses in this country every year say that you ARE part of it, you just choose to remain oblivious. Just hope your number doesn't come up. If so your moral stand won't mean a hill of beans to the bad guy intent on doing you harm. You'll be at his mercy, and his alone.

Some of us can't pretend that these bad people aren't out there. I see reports of them every day. I move paperwork on them every day. I hear cops talking about them every day. I see them out on the streets after getting out of jail every day.

Sure, you're free to pretend that you're immune to all of this. You aren't free to tell the rest of us we are and legislate your myth (and subsequent irrational beliefs) onto us. I'll carry my gun, and won't feel a tad bit guilty about it.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: decath Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649268 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/17/2012 1:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 11
MV
I see no evidence that Obama has any interest in significantly curtailing gun ownership beyond inspiring cultural changes that negate the percieved need for it. Opportunity and prosperity can be a great equalizer as well.


Well, that would be nice. I can't argue with a society that does not really have the need for a gun.

Where is it, Sweden? Where every male has to serve in the military and then keep their military issued rifle after they serve at home, cleaned, maintained and available for use at a moments notice?

Now that's a society that has lot's of guns with very little need to use one.

Years ago, I bought my 1st handgun immediately after finding out we had a nutbag living next door to us. He was an ex-con, 6'4", angry jerkwad that bullied people in the neighborhood. Now, I was not personally scared of him being a 6'5", martial arts enthusiast that could bench press about 340 lbs at the time. But I had to leave and go to work while my DW and 2 young kids stayed home during the day.

My ex-marine FIL trained us both on how to shoot and use it and whalla, DW was ready to plug that frakker at a moment's notice if he tried anything.

It was a beautiful thing.

Not long aftwards, I noticed some items missing in my front yard. Another neighbor reported to me that it was the dirtbag ex-con that took it.

I woke up that Saturday morning. Did about 200 pushups to get my upperbody nice and swollen. I took a pickax out of my garage and walked over to his house with my shirt off and the pickax hanging over my shoulder. Dirtbag's DW answer's the door. I kindly told her that the item's missing in my yard better be back by the end of the day or I'll take a hell of a lot more damage out of them than the measely tomatoe cages and rocks he took. I also told him we are armed and no how to handle our weapons and they we will not be bullied. I could hear movement behind her so I'm sure the man was listening.

Now, I realize that was not the smartest thing in the world to do. I was 25 at the time. The guy could of shot me right there where I was standing. But... he didn't.

Some of the items were returned the next day. I never heard a peep out them and their two delinquent son's avoided my property like we had a disease.

Bullies are always cowards. I've yet to meet one that is not scared
sh!tless when you stand up to them.

decath

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649272 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/17/2012 1:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
Obama and the lib crowd have:


1) Tried to outlaw 'automatic' weapons like common handguns like the Glock and every other produced handgun similar to it. They are semi-automatics but according to Obama and the drones, anything that holds more than a single bullet is to be banned. One bullet. One shot. They you reload. Not even a revolver in their world.

Same for shotguns. Only one shot shotguns. Huh? every hunting rifle these days is a 3 shot automatic.....many rifles are 3 or 5 shot weapons. Not fully automatic, but you pull the trigger for each shot.

Same for .22....you can put 10-15 rounds in some of them. So?

But Obama and the drones want to outlaw anything that holds more than a bullet.

You have to have a special permit to own a fully automatic weapon and it has to be specially registered....very hard to do. (like an AK-47).

Assault weapon? They define it as anything with more than one bullet!...

duh!

-----

2) Obama and the ultra left have gone after 'bullets'. Duh!....ban bullets....no more bullets made. NO more ammunition. We'll stop 'em that way!...

====

3) Obama and the drones have gone after trying to allow 'unlimited liability' on gun manufacturers and gun store owners for 'making' or 'selling' a gun /handgun used in a crime by allowing the 'victim' to sue the manufacturers!..... Put 'em out of business that way with 100 million dollar lawsuits!

-----

4) Obama and the drones are out to come up with a UN Mandate preventing 'private ownership' of guns, period. It's already well underway, sponsored by the likes of Chavez, Castro and other tyrants of the world anxious to disarm the population worldwide.

Let the UN come up with it, then he'll pass an Executive Order forcing the US to comply. Order the government to enforce 'the International Treaty' on arms limitations banning owning weapons of any sort, or allowing 'one gun for hunting' with a $1000/yr type permit, a total background check, a 2 year waiting period for the red tape, etc - which means you'll never get it anyway

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

It's pretty obvious when Obama rants about 'clinging to their guns and bibles' that he is out to disarm Americans.

It's pretty obvious when Obama slipped last night and 'handguns' came out in this 'assault weapons' tirade when he tried to deflect Fast and Furious questions about his failed administration and hiding behind executive privilege.


t

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ModernViking Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649273 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/17/2012 1:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
The NRA certainly doesn't say there should be no restrictions on who can obtain/possess firearms.

True enough, though the same cannot be said for a broad swath of their membership.


It's fair to say that they think there should be some pretty high hurdles for denying someone gun ownership...

Agreed.


... there's plenty of evidence that you need to be able to defend yourself outside your home too.

I'd say there should also be some pretty high hurdles for making sure people who are going to be allowed into public are appraised of their coincident "responsibility" in doing so.


For every "anti-gun" pronouncement you can find for Romney there are five from 0bama. If he wants to play that game then game on!

Really now. Forgetting Romney's time in public office again, eh? Obama arguably has less of a record of supporting (legislatively - not just rhetorically) denial of gun ownership than Mitt Romney. "Brady Bill" ring a bell? Can you say "MA Assault weapons ban?"

Never mind. For Romney backers, whatever parts of his past that don't fit the narrative are flushed down the old memory hole. Now he's a lifelong devotee of huntin' small varmints. Go with that.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ModernViking Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649288 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/17/2012 1:49 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Did about 200 pushups to get my upperbody nice and swollen.

Amazing how well that works.


Bullies are always cowards. I've yet to meet one that is not scared
sh!tless when you stand up to them.


For me, threat mitigation in public spaces comes down to how I carry myself. There's limitiations to who and in what situations one can pull this off. But I'd have to say that being aware of one's surroundings (and making sure you *look* like you're aware of your surroundings and prepared to deal with any nonsense) tends to shake off the riffraff.

I've only been shaken down once and that was by a panhandler I was stupid enough to give some change. This was not your greasy bum type panhandler - think of the guy "just asking for a few bucks to get on the bus" type of guy. Apparently he was upset by the amount of my donation. So I told him if he was going to show me that kind of gratitude then he could just give me my money back. To this day I have no idea if the guy ever made enough money for his bus ride.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Jim2B Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649290 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/17/2012 1:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
MV is likely correct, the 6 of them that were undecided and still considering Obama are not likely to swing the election.

It may be more important than anyone thinks.

I have a number of extremely liberal friends who also happen to be pro-gun. If Obama appears to be very anti-gun, that could very well swing those votes.


There is another factor that people don't consider. Epona is a left of middle moderate who is pro-gun. She was NOT planning to vote for Obama but she hadn't decided whether to vote at all. If Obama appears too anti-gun, she'll get motivated to go vote.

Either way, Obama loses and Romney gains and it'll be by more than anyone anticipates. People who are for personal freedoms tend to be VERY protective of those freedoms.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: decath Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649296 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/17/2012 2:10 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
MV
I've only been shaken down once and that was by a panhandler I was stupid enough to give some change. This was not your greasy bum type panhandler - think of the guy "just asking for a few bucks to get on the bus" type of guy. Apparently he was upset by the amount of my donation. So I told him if he was going to show me that kind of gratitude then he could just give me my money back. To this day I have no idea if the guy ever made enough money for his bus ride.


I had a 'learning' experience like that as well. Texas State Fair 1975. Me and 2 other 14 yo's enter the fairgrounds and are confronted by some religious wacko asking for money. Living in the sticks, we did not know what to do. We reach for a $1 bill to give him and I accidentally pull out a $10. He grabs it out of my hand and says he'll give me change back. He gives me $.50 and won't give me back my $ and then loses himself in the crowd. I only had a few bucks left. What a miserable day that was.

I think about that now when people panhandle for money. I tell them no. I hope that religious creep burns in whatever hell he thinks the rest of us are going to. <g>

decath

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649308 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/17/2012 2:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Since when does personal protection make one a nut?

It doesn't. IMO, "gun nuts" are against any control of any kind. And there are such people. I don't know if you're one or not. I think it was stated very well in the "debate" that weapons manufactured for soldiers to use in war are probably not appropriate for home defense use. Weapons with high rates of fire and large capacity magazines are neither necessary, nor appropriate, for personal defense (unless you live in Somalia).

My mom owns a firearm. I would work against any legislation that tried to take it away from her. Somewhere between that and AK-47s with 30 round (or higher) magazines there is a line that can (and should) be drawn.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: twopairfullhouse Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649320 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/17/2012 2:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Yeah, Obama really stood a lot to lose with the gun nut crowd.

This, from the Nuanced Thinking Department.

My sister-in-law is a devout Democrat, and has been forever. But she travels alone for her job, and she has a concealed carry permit.

I don't travel, live in safe area, and have never been into guns much, but I totally support other people's rights in owning their own guns.

So, according to Mr. Nuanced Thinking, she's a 'gun nut' and I'm not, but we're going to vote exactly the opposite of what Mr. Nuanced Thinking would think. Now, Mr. Nuanced Thinking would say that because our votes aren't affected by our gun beliefs, and that's true. But there will be independent voters for whom it will matter.

I think it's 16 trillion times more likely that Obama would take away someone's guns than Mitt Romney would take away someone's contraceptives. Run with that.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: twopairfullhouse Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649321 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/17/2012 2:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Opportunity and prosperity can be a great equalizer as well.

That would be why we're voting Obama out in 3 weeks.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Colovion Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649322 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/17/2012 2:57 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
I think about that now when people panhandle for money. I tell them no.

Ann Arbor has a reputation for being "generous" so lots of panhandlers flock to this town. It's rather difficult to explain to the denizens that a lot of these people are, to put it into our parliance, dirt bags. They have criminal histories a mile long for everything imaginable. Not the kind of people you want hanging around with your sons and daughters... or yourself. But there's a small but vocal subset of Townies who are irate that anyone would try to deny these people the "right" to ask for money. Of course panhandling is illegal, though as it's a civil infraction it's never really enforced (the court will barely bother to levy a fine for it.)

There have been more than a few instances of "aggressive panhandling" (which I would call assault or robbery, but that's apparently too harsh for some). I do NOTHING to encourage panhandlers as a result. I won't so much as give them the time of day. It isn't as if there aren't a ton of resources in this community of which they can avail themselves (soup kitchens, shelters, heating stations in the winter, the list goes on and on!) The problem is that they can't get what they really want from those places: booze and/or drugs. No, I'm not subsidizing someone's chemical dependency and won't feel guilty for not doing so no matter how pathetic they look. I don't want them to feel welcome, I want them to GO AWAY and take their crimes with them.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649323 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/17/2012 2:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
1poorguy: " I think it was stated very well in the "debate" that weapons manufactured for soldiers to use in war are probably not appropriate for home defense use. Weapons with high rates of fire and large capacity magazines are neither necessary, nor appropriate, for personal defense (unless you live in Somalia)."


How wrong you are.

You can buy yourself a military rifle, say a 30-06, for maybe $50 to $100. It was the common military rifle manufactured for soldiers and used during WW2. Made by the tens of millions. Same for the German 8mm Mauser. Bolt action rifles. Held five rounds, fed with a clip.

My dad owned about 30 different ones, including a Jap 7mm (but you wouldn't want to shoot that one).

The common .45 'auto' pistol was made for the military. Nothing but a 9 shot, if I remember right, SEMI-Automatic. You had to pull the trigger for each round. A 'military weapon'. Now you can buy a Glock that is the same. Oh...they are sold to the military by the tens or hundreds of thousands. Dang...there goes your argument. It's also one of the most popular self defense weapons.


After WW2, you could buy yourself an M-1 Carbine. Nice hunting rifle...Oops..it was a military rifle, but semi-auto five shot. There goes your argument again. Or you can buy yourself a new semi auto for $300 or $400 bucks.

And just who determines what a 'large capacity' magazine is? Some common 22 cal target rifles hold 20 rounds. Many handguns hold 10-15 rounds. Hey, when a perp is invading your house, you might miss on the first few shots, or even fire warning shots.....you want to be out of ammo after 3 shots? Hmmm...... and the stupid part of your argument is ....well, if you limit it to five shot magazines, you can change them in less than 2 seconds if you train yourself. 10 shot? Same thing. so you can fire off 20 rounds in 10 seconds. If you want. even five at a time. Your argument really holds no water. It only works when you are down to a bolt action, one shot at a time rifle, gun, or other weapon, which, you'd likely force people to own. Miss once and the perp has free reign to kill you, right? or rape you. That the idea?


Actually, more folks are murdered in Chicago......than likely daily in Somalia...... you let the criminals have guns...and try to take them away from law abiding citizens.

Where gun control works is when the authorities actually enforce the laws against CRIMINALS and put them away for repeated gun use. Instead, we have bleeding heart liberals letting perps with 20 page long rap sheets for armed robbery getting 3 weeks in jail and six months probation which they violate in 24 hours by buying another stolen gun on the streets and doing another string of robberies, rapes or worse until they are caught once again...to be let out in 3 weeks. In cities where you actually go after the criminals, and lock them away, crime plummets.


t.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: JLC Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649324 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/17/2012 3:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 9
It doesn't.

So then you retract your "gun loving nut job" statement or still stand by it?

.Pretty scary world you must live in where you're afeared of letting your wife go to the store by herself without the benefit of concealed carry.

Its called the real world.

She was accosted in the parking lot at Target (in a nice neighborhood) the one time I was stuck at the hospital on call. Fortunately there were other people around.

Plus, a couple of hospitals she has to cover are not exactly in the nicest neighborhoods. One is literally in the middle of a ghetto where you often hear gun shots at all hours. Even with security supposedly around the clock, things can and do happen.

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

JLC

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Colovion Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649332 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/17/2012 3:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 15
It doesn't. IMO, "gun nuts" are against any control of any kind. And there are such people. I don't know if you're one or not. I think it was stated very well in the "debate" that weapons manufactured for soldiers to use in war are probably not appropriate for home defense use. Weapons with high rates of fire and large capacity magazines are neither necessary, nor appropriate, for personal defense (unless you live in Somalia).

Oooh, lots of points!

1. I know lots and lots (and LOTS) of gun owners, I don't know any that are against any control of any kind. What they area against is arbitrary controls based on fear-mongering.

2. Saying that semi-automatic firearms are the type manufactured for soldiers going to war is just the kind of fear-mongering I'm talking about. Our troops in Afghanistan aren't sporting Ruger 10-22's (regardless of what accessories you put on them).

3. A "high rate of fire" for a semi-automatic means as fast as you can wiggle your finger... not quite as nefarious as you're making it sound.

4. Large capacity magazines are a ridiculous restriction. Making gun owners jump through hoops based on your own paranoia doesn't endear your views to them, quite the opposite. If I have to reload a magazine 20 times at the range instead of 10 times simply because a gun-grabber doesn't like a larger magazine I'll make a note of it and give more to the NRA just out of spite.

5. Semi-auto weapons are PERFECT for self-defense! That's why cops carry them. That's why the FBI switched to them from revolvers. Even semi-auto rifles are useful for self-defense out in the sticks. I've even seen someone use an AK-47 knock-off (semi-auto) for self-defense in Ann Arbor. Worked great! For him. He walked away, the guy he shot not so much. No charges filed against him, even in a liberal town like Ann Arbor that's justified self-defense.

6. Semi-auto rifles are becoming more and more popular for hunting, they're referred to as "modern sporting rifles" in fact. This isn't anything new. When did bolt action rifles become common in hunting? After a bunch of soldiers returned from Europe after toting them around and realized, hey, these would work great for shooting deer! The same thing is happening with semi-auto rifles based upon the select-fire models being used by soldiers around the world. More reliable, easier to get that second-shot if need be (and when hunting deer it happens often), easier to practice with and more versitile. Complaining that they're "too much" is the same thing people could have complained about in regards to bolt-action in the 30's and 40's. In fact every firearm that's "legitimate" (as some would say) for civilian use started as a military weapon that was adapted to civilian use and adopted for those uses by civilians. Semi-auto rifles are NO DIFFERENT in this regard.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: twopairfullhouse Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649333 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/17/2012 3:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Good christ, but if that's what you call "freedom" I don't want any part of it.

France is always there for you, and that have that spiffy new 75% tax rate, to boot.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649340 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/17/2012 4:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
1. I know lots and lots (and LOTS) of gun owners, I don't know any that are against any control of any kind. What they area against is arbitrary controls based on fear-mongering.

Without getting into all of that (like the inconvenience of having to change your magazine a few more times during a range session - oh, the horror!!), what would you consider reasonable and/or appropriate.

It is absurd holding up a flintlock (or M1 or whatever) and saying "this was made for soldiers". While true, it's clearly missing the point.

1poorguy (has no problem with semi-auto in general, I actually prefer it to bolt-action or revolvers)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649342 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/17/2012 4:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 11
1poor guy: "It is absurd holding up a flintlock (or M1 or whatever) and saying "this was made for soldiers". While true, it's clearly missing the point."

Your argument falls flat. What is the technology of today is run of the mill in 3 generations. Actually, today's military is working on smart weapons with 'smart bullets' that automatically explode XXX meters from the front of the gun...so you can shoot over a wall, and have the round explode 3 feet on the other side, killing the guys hiding behind the wall. Laser rangefinders , etc....

You had the wheel lock...replaced by the flint lock...used by early Americans to hunt game and stay alive...as well as by the militia....it was the 'military weapon' of the day..... muskets..... then you had the rifle...mostly adopted by the frontiersman to shoot game.... and the military ignored it since they had their guns (smoothbore) and didn't want to spend more money. They had tactics that just put ranks of soldiers at 100 feet shooting at each other and accuracy didn't matter.

Later the colonists taught them that wasn't smart as they picked them off one by one.

Then you had rim fire cartridges....powder and bullet in one..with lever action and other 'quick' fire mechanisms....... then center fire....and up to gattling guns.....for mass fire.

Wow... then the military got stuck in bolt action rifles for 50 years.....until the Germans came up with their Sturmgewhar machine pistols..... for war..... oh, we had the Thompson sub machine gun, but the main users were Al Capone type gangs...until the feds decided to match the mob in fire power......


During WW2, you had the M1 carbine - semi auto..... then into the M16 for Vietnam.....and the AR-15 civilian version.........

So you think limiting magazines to 5 or 10 is going to stop mass killers? Heck, one hand grenade will go a job...or one suicide bomber like over in the Middle East. They'll just reload a few more times. ONly takes 2--3 seconds. Faster than you can type reload. Click, click..done....

The gov't sold a million M1 carbines through the NRA back in the 70s/80s...... semi auto weapons.....

Face it...libs want to regulate to death, step by step....this week, no more than 10 shot magazines...then 7 shots...then 3 shots..then no shots.....register every magazine....register every bullet!...fingerprint every bullet!.....every round..ever made. Oh, the paperwork. Fingerprint every gun - test fire it and keep the records forever......hundreds of millions of records........zillions of bureacrats...layers and layers of new government and billions or tens of billions in computer systems. Oh, and of course, big fees added on to 'pay for the program'...heh heh...say $50 per new gun, and $20 per box of ammo......or more.... tax it..regulate it......then outlaw it .....



t.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: fleg9bo Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649347 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/17/2012 4:47 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
if that's what you call "freedom" I don't want any part of it.

Here's a place where people once enjoyed freedom from gun ownership:

https://picasaweb.google.com/fleg9bo/CzechAustriaTrip#579632...

--fleg

Print the post Back To Top
Author: LuckyDog2002 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649371 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/17/2012 6:20 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
.. with the gun nut crowd...

Since when does personal protection make one a nut?

I'm a pretty big guy, I can and do look intimidating, and I can probably easily handle 80% of the population in a fight, 10% would be a draw, and 10% I'd lose.

But I'm getting a little older, grey hair, wrinkles, etc., so I'm becoming more of a target. I don't let DW go shopping alone if I can help it because she's even more of a target.

Getting a concealed carry and a firearm is the great equalizer. Two pertinent sayings: one, God made man but Sam Colt made them equal; two, seconds count with the police are minutes away.

JLC, who thinks gun control is hitting your intended target.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I got involved with a local women's gun group early part of the year and have enjoyed meeting other women including lesbians who believe in self defense and target shooting.....practice is so important in knowing how to use your gun and what to do if it malfunctions, etc. Gun safety also comes with practice, especially at a range that stresses it and has range officers educating others in gun handling. I took a couple of gun classes, both NRA, and got my concealed carry permit too. I've had the opportunity to shoot a variety of guns, rifles, shotgun, and a couple of machine guns.

I wasn't sure about joining the NRA, but got over it and joined last month. O and the Dem's want to limit guns, no 2 ways about it and they will keep pushing for gun control. That will be a major mistake to have happen. So I see the NRA and the lobbying group to advocate for gun rights.

I want to live in a safe society and since there are criminals with guns, I want to be prepared and at least have a weapon so as to defend myself. I'm a woman and feel more vulnerable, and can't run as fast as I could in my younger years with more knee cartilage.....I'm a target. I've known women who have been mugged and assaulted and it affects them for life. Plain and simple, I don't want to be a victim.

Gawd help me, if I'm in a situation where I need to use it though...but more than likely, the adrenaline will kick in and it becomes real clear the right choice to take.

I don't think of myself as a gun nut though. A friend of mine who is a Bahai, she's American, but she chose that religion and met her husband of 5 or so yrs on a pilgrimage. Anyway, I kiddingly told her we could go to a gun show this weekend and she says oh she had just told her husband that she was a hippie, dippy, commie, pinko and hates guns. Her family all has guns. Her husband doesn't. I just laughed but I've been thinking of it and want to push her on that, she believes in making money so she can't be a communist, and I'd like to ask her if someone broke into her house and killed her cats or husband and was about to harm her, would she even try to defend herself? But it's wasted thinking on my part. I find it hard to fathom that a person would not try to defend themselves, hide, run, do something rather than submit to a thug.

LuckyDog

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: bighairymike Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649378 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/17/2012 6:27 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
>>... there's plenty of evidence that you need to be able to defend yourself outside your home too. <<

I'd say there should also be some pretty high hurdles for making sure people who are going to be allowed into public are appraised of their coincident "responsibility" in doing so. - ModernViking


Covered in your mandatory concealed carry class.
F

>>or every "anti-gun" pronouncement you can find for Romney there are five from 0bama. If he wants to play that game then game on! <<

Really now. Forgetting Romney's time in public office again, eh? Obama arguably has less of a record of supporting (legislatively - not just rhetorically) denial of gun ownership than Mitt Romney. "Brady Bill" ring a bell? Can you say "MA Assault weapons ban?"

Never mind. For Romney backers, whatever parts of his past that don't fit the narrative are flushed down the old memory hole. Now he's a lifelong devotee of huntin' small varmints. Go with that.


So the conclusion should be that based on second amendment rights, Obama is the go to guy. Surely you aren't arguing that point???

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649395 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/17/2012 8:10 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
"I wasn't sure about joining the NRA, but got over it and joined last month. O and the Dem's want to limit guns, no 2 ways about it and they will keep pushing for gun control. That will be a major mistake to have happen. So I see the NRA and the lobbying group to advocate for gun rights."


My dad bought me an NRA Life Membership when I was 23 as a present......been getting the mag free for over 40 years...but I send them money for this and that cause along the way every year.

Obama really does want your guns, along with 90% of the democrats....and probably 20% of the 'republicans' (RINOs)


t.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649397 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/17/2012 8:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The responses to this thread prove my point ;)
All the NRA needs to do is run a couple of ads with Obama at the debate...nature can and will take its course.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AOLFoolman100 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649407 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/17/2012 9:14 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
I think this is the thread that forces Obama to go after the Middle East for "Clinging to their Guns and Religion". But apparently, Pennsylvanians are the real culprit.

And oh, let's not forget the REAL war on women. Yeah, let's see, women earn 97.5% on the dollar of men in the US, but a 14-year old gets shot in the head in Pakistan by the Taliban for promoting education. I think the combat battle zone on the female gender has been erroneously located by Obama and the Democratic Party.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CM001 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649411 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/17/2012 9:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Yeah, Obama really stood a lot to lose with the gun nut crowd.

Really? You seriously believe that? You believed before that the gun nut crowd was voting for Obama? You gotta be kidding.

The simple fact is gun nut crowd has 2 bad choices. I think in a different era, Romny would be easily winning this election. The reason the race is right or he is bit behind is simply because of the extremet right. He had to move so far right on the primaries, it is taking him forever to get back to middle.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CM001 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649416 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/17/2012 9:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
God made man but Sam Colt made them equal;
God made man with hope, fear, greed, etc. In your case, I guess the insecurity and fear of your fellow citizens has gone a tad bit more in the mix.

I have traveled (because of my job) to most states in US and traveled all times of the day. For a below average size man, I have never felt insecure, or the need to carry gun to do anything.

Actually, most of the times, when the cops are around that made me more nervous than any of my fellow citizens (irrespective of their height, weight, color, intoxication).

I still remember the day at SF BART Station durig a protest when there were over 20 cops on a station with less than dozen passengers looking menacingly. I was so glad I had nothing on me that can be used as an excuse to shoot me down.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Jim2B Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649423 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/17/2012 10:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 8
if that's what you call "freedom" I don't want any part of it.


The great thing about a Right is that you can choose to not exercise it. You are welcome to not own a gun.

Why is it that you wish to impose your view by denying others the ability to exercise their Right?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ModernViking Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649424 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/17/2012 10:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
There have been more than a few instances of "aggressive panhandling" (which I would call assault or robbery, but that's apparently too harsh for some). I do NOTHING to encourage panhandlers as a result. I won't so much as give them the time of day.

The Eagle Scout in me used to compel me to want to help my fellow man. But age and experience (and a decade of working in downtown Baltimore) have given me what I feel is a healthy cynicism about the motivation behind most panhandling.


It isn't as if there aren't a ton of resources in this community of which they can avail themselves (soup kitchens, shelters, heating stations in the winter, the list goes on and on!) The problem is that they can't get what they really want from those places: booze and/or drugs.

Yup. That's what the social contract is intended to provide is a safety net for people living on the margins so that they can contribute to an improved quality of life for the rest of us rather than simply being a drain. Unfortunately, this part of the social contract is the most at risk from political interests that are penny wise and pound foolish.


No, I'm not subsidizing someone's chemical dependency and won't feel guilty for not doing so no matter how pathetic they look. I don't want them to feel welcome, I want them to GO AWAY and take their crimes with them.

Problem is that most people in this position lack the most basic of resources that would allow them to go away even if they wanted to. So we have a choice - attempt to help them solve their problems through an organized and well managed public support infrastructure or cut them off and hope the hazards of their personal circumstances drive the underclass to extinction. The reality is that, as a country, we're not effectively doing either.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ModernViking Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649427 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/17/2012 10:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
So then you retract your "gun loving nut job" statement or still stand by it?

Stand by it, of course, in the context that statement was made and with the clarifications I made in followup. But if you want to demagogue then be my guest.


She was accosted in the parking lot at Target (in a nice neighborhood) the one time I was stuck at the hospital on call. Fortunately there were other people around.

Accosted how? Bugged for change? Some road ragin' idiot come after her? Armed robbery by someone that snuck up and caught her from behind? The circumstances matter in judging that particular situation. And in all but the most favorable circumstances - unless she had the safety off and was ready to draw and fire at a second's warning - a gun wouldn't have done anything for her. I certainly support (and salute) your desire for her personal security - you gotta do what you gotta do - but I just lack the faith in guns as a plausible method of day-to-day personal security for most of the population.

To put it differently, the right should be there ... and is (state dependent, of course). But it's not the be-all and end-all of personal security.


Plus, a couple of hospitals she has to cover are not exactly in the nicest neighborhoods. One is literally in the middle of a ghetto where you often hear gun shots at all hours. Even with security supposedly around the clock, things can and do happen.

Well now, that's another data point in favor of her considering concealed carry. It's also a point in favor of her considering buying a car with bullet-proof windows.


Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Gotta do what you gotta do. Good thing Obama isn't doing anything to threaten her ability to consider concealed carry as an option.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ModernViking Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649428 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/17/2012 10:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Why is it that you wish to impose your view by denying others the ability to exercise their Right?

If I was advocating denying 2nd Amendment rights to anyone then your question might make a lick of sense.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Colovion Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649474 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/18/2012 8:21 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
what would you consider reasonable and/or appropriate.

I don't see any magazine restrictions as reasonable or appropriate. There's no evidence that they do anything to deter firearm crimes. The criminals certainly aren't at all worried about them where they do exist. They only serve to hamper law-abiding citizens, making them jump through a needless hoop with no benefit to society.

Far better would be more education in the responsible use of firearms at an early age. Things like the Eddie the Eagle Gunsafe Program for elementary school kids teaching them that guns aren't toys and if they see one to Stop, Don't Touch, Get Away, Tell and Adult. My son is in Cub Scouts, he's already learning the rules of firearms safety and has shot BB guns at the range (he's 6), so he's well on his way to learning responsible firearms use.

Schools used to have ranges in them (some still do, shut down and unused now of course.) They had rifle teams, kids didn't go around shooting up the schools. If we spent half as much on these programs as we do on silly laws that only hamper law-abiding citizens it would be far more effective. Granted it will take years and years for the benefits to occur, but that's still better than passing a law that does nothing good now or anytime in the future.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Colovion Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649476 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/18/2012 8:35 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Face it...libs want to regulate to death, step by step....this week, no more than 10 shot magazines...then 7 shots...then 3 shots..then no shots.....register every magazine....register every bullet!...fingerprint every bullet!.....every round..ever made. Oh, the paperwork. Fingerprint every gun - test fire it and keep the records forever......hundreds of millions of records........zillions of bureacrats...layers and layers of new government and billions or tens of billions in computer systems. Oh, and of course, big fees added on to 'pay for the program'...heh heh...say $50 per new gun, and $20 per box of ammo......or more.... tax it..regulate it......then outlaw it .....


We've mentioned it before on the board, but it bears repeating:

http://cheaperthandirt.com/blog/?s=%22you+must+be+violent%22...

Excerpt:
Previously, I have accused Illinois lawmakers of being mentally deficient, but I did not mean it as a personal challenge to prove me right!

Whether or not you are violent, if you live in Cook County, Illinois (Chicago) you are set to be the subject of a new “Violence Tax.” Cook County Board President, Toni Preckwinkle, recently floated the proposal for a Violence Tax. This new and unwarranted tax seeks to target the sale of guns and ammunition sold in the City of Chicago and its suburbs.

----

With apologies to Andrew this would be reason 874,221 why I'm glad I do not live in or near Chicago.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: twopairfullhouse Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649483 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/18/2012 9:12 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Yup. That's what the social contract is intended to provide is a safety net for people living on the margins so that they can contribute to an improved quality of life for the rest of us rather than simply being a drain. Unfortunately, this part of the social contract is the most at risk from political interests that are penny wise and pound foolish.

We've pumped trillions into social programs in the last 40 years, and we have nothing to show for it, except greater dependency. We have an entire Democratic Party that sees nothing wrong with having millions dependent on Government handouts, so long as they vote Democrat to continue the gravy train.

Problem is that most people in this position lack the most basic of resources that would allow them to go away even if they wanted to. So we have a choice - attempt to help them solve their problems through an organized and well managed public support infrastructure or cut them off and hope the hazards of their personal circumstances drive the underclass to extinction. The reality is that, as a country, we're not effectively doing either.

No, the problem is that there are too many Democrats, that are concerned with what 'feels good' rather than what works. Panhandlers usually use their money to buy more drugs or booze. I prefer to give to children's hospitals (and have). They can't make it to the curb with a cardboard sign, and they use the money for things that actually change lives for the better. I don't feel guilty about not subsidizing someone's dependence. I prefer to direct my efforts toward sponsoring someone's efforts toward independence.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: JLC Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649484 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/18/2012 9:14 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
1poorguy (has no problem with semi-auto in general, I actually prefer it to bolt-action or revolvers)

For safety reasons, I prefer revolvers. You won't accidentally leave one in the chamber.

JLC

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Colovion Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649497 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/18/2012 10:00 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
But it's wasted thinking on my part. I find it hard to fathom that a person would not try to defend themselves, hide, run, do something rather than submit to a thug.

It's quite simple: gun control is the belief that the murder, rape or other crime victim is morally superior to the would-be victim who defends themself.

Seeing as that's 180-degrees out of phase with my thinking I suppose that puts me in the "gun nut" category. If so I wear that badge proudly.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JLC Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649513 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/18/2012 10:18 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Accosted how? Bugged for change? Some road ragin' idiot come after her? Armed robbery by someone that snuck up and caught her from behind? The circumstances matter in judging that particular situation.

Some guy walking around the parking lot, snooping around, probably looking for an unlocked car and something to steal, she saw him coming but with a buggy full of groceries its hard to be mobile. She confronted him, made such a noise to attract attention, he ran off. Fortunately she was not harmed. But things could have been much different.

That's what tipped her over the edge about guns.

JLC

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ModernViking Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649521 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/18/2012 10:38 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
It's quite simple: gun control is the belief that the murder, rape or other crime victim is morally superior to the would-be victim who defends themself.

Wow. Talk about warm milk for the gun-nut crowd.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: decath Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649522 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/18/2012 10:46 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
ld
I wasn't sure about joining the NRA, but got over it and joined last month. O and the Dem's want to limit guns, no 2 ways about it and they will keep pushing for gun control. That will be a major mistake to have happen. So I see the NRA and the lobbying group to advocate for gun rights.



The NRA can get pretty aggressive. Before I dropped my landline, I got way too many calls from them for political donations.

But they are necessary and do a lot of good things that far outweigh the negatives. If it were not for the NRA, there would be no 2nd amendment rights in the US.

I read several monthly publications from them and I always learn something whether it be gun safety, self-protection, how to handle yourself in various situations, product info and much, much more.

Even in Texas where gun ownership borders on a religion, I run into liberals all the time that are completely and totally offended that I own a few guns. They will tell me point blank that ALL guns should be outlawed.

These people would soil their own pants if they ever picked up a gun. It's as if they think they have minds of their own and will start shooting random people. They are irrational. It is fun debating them because to be honest, they are usually pretty stupid as well as fanatical.

I'm sure people like that are far more populous in other states that don't respect gun rights, freedom or most other constitutionally protected activities.

decath

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Colovion Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649533 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/18/2012 11:09 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Gotta do what you gotta do. Good thing Obama isn't doing anything to threaten her ability to consider concealed carry as an option.

Sure...

http://www.gunbanobama.com/

March 25, 2004(3 of 3)

Votes to Uphold Prosecution of People Using Guns in Self-Defense


Illinois Senate, SB 2165, March 25, 2004, vote 20

Amends the Criminal Code of 1961. Provides that it is an affirmative defense to a violation of a municipal ordinance that prohibits, regulates, or restricts the private ownership of firearms if the individual who is charged with the violation used the firearm in an act of self-defense or defense of another. Effective immediately.


----

April 27, 2004(1 of 1)

Says He Continues to Oppose Concealed Carry


Obama explained the motivation for his vote:

"I didn't find that [vote] surprising. I mean, I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry," Obama said. "This was a narrow exception in an exceptional circumstance where a retired police officer might find himself vulnerable as a consequence of the work he had previously done--and had been trained extensively in the proper use of firearms."


----

October 17, 2006(1 of 1)

Says "I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities."


I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturers' lobby - but I also believe that when a gang-banger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels somebody disrespected him, we've got a moral problem. There's a hole in that young man's heart - a hole that the government alone cannot fix.”


----


April 2, 2008(1 of 1)

Says "I am not in favor of concealed weapons"


He differs with McCain and Clinton about whether people should be allowed to carry concealed guns. Clinton and McCain oppose outlawing it.

"I am not in favor of concealed weapons," Obama said. "I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations."

Obama and Clinton agree on most issues, NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandom said.


----

February 8, 2011(1 of 2)

At the U.N.: Agreement Signed with Anti-Gun Group IANSA


We are delighted to announce that on 8 February, IANSA signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA).

The MoU paves the way for closer cooperation and joint activities. These include capacity building, training programmes, awareness-raising strategies and the promotion of effective civil society participation in relevant UN meetings, mainstreaming gender and diversity in the field of arms control, disarmament, peace and security.


IANSA is against ALL civilian gun ownership, which certainly predludes concealed carry.

----

March 15, 2011(2 of 3)

Looks For Ways Around Congress on Gun Policy


Faced with a Congress hostile to even slight restrictions of Second Amendment rights, the Obama administration is exploring potential changes to gun laws that can be secured strictly through executive action, administration officials say.

The Department of Justice held the first in what is expected to be a series of meetings on Tuesday afternoon with a group of stakeholders in the ongoing gun-policy debates.


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649535 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/18/2012 11:14 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
"Faced with a Congress hostile to even slight restrictions of Second Amendment rights, the Obama administration is exploring potential changes to gun laws that can be secured strictly through executive action, administration officials say."


HE's out to 'radically transform' America. That means taking away your rights...one by one.



t.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: LuckyDog2002 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649536 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/18/2012 11:21 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
still remember the day at SF BART Station durig a protest when there were over 20 cops on a station with less than dozen passengers looking menacingly. I was so glad I had nothing on me that can be used as an excuse to shoot me down.
cm

>>>>>>>>

sounds paranoid to me.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CM001 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649541 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/18/2012 11:41 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
sounds paranoid to me
Well. The only set of folks who can routinely kill fellow citizens with or without cause and get away with it, and when 20 of them surrounded you in a closed space, and you cannot walk out of that place, I think it is normal to be afraid of.

But, I didn't feel like carrying a gun or something else to protect me, I just wanted to stay out of that place.

To me it is not paranoid. A reasonable cautious approach.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Colovion Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649542 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/18/2012 11:47 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
It is fun debating them because to be honest, they are usually pretty stupid as well as fanatical.

It's more than that. This is an oldie but a goodie, one of my favorite articles on the anti-gun mentality. If you haven't read it then stop whatever you're doing and take the time to do so. It is fabulous!


http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm

Raging Against Self Defense:
A psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality
By Sarah Thompson, M.D.

Excerpt:


"You don’t need to have a gun; the police will protect you."

"If people carry guns, there will be murders over parking spaces and neighborhood basketball games."

"I’m a pacifist. Enlightened, spiritually aware people shouldn’t own guns."

"I’d rather be raped than have some redneck militia type try to rescue me."

How often have you heard these statements from misguided advocates of victim disarmament, or even woefully uninformed relatives and neighbors? Why do people cling so tightly to these beliefs, in the face of incontrovertible evidence that they are wrong? Why do they get so furiously angry when gun owners point out that their arguments are factually and logically incorrect? How can you communicate with these people who seem to be out of touch with reality and rational thought? One approach to help you deal with anti-gun people is to understand their psychological processes. Once you understand why these people behave so irrationally, you can communicate more effectively with them.


----

Admittedly I often fail to follow the advice and go right into "you're unhinged!" attack mode, at least online. But, well, they ARE unhinged, you're just not supposed to point that out...

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: lowstudent Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649543 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/18/2012 11:48 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
Well. The only set of folks who can routinely kill fellow citizens with or without cause and get away with it, and when 20 of them surrounded you in a closed space, and you cannot walk out of that place, I think it is normal to be afraid of.

But, I didn't feel like carrying a gun or something else to protect me, I just wanted to stay out of that place.

To me it is not paranoid. A reasonable cautious approach.
_______________

A little paranoid? No this is get out the prescription pad.

Any person, in the United States, in a situation where he is surrounded by a massive police presence on a transportation platform, and is paranoid about the police shooting him, is really in a really bad place mentally.

A sane person is very very concerned, they would figure there is a reason all the police were there and that there was some threat they shoud be really alarmed about.

The cops are going to shoot me, because they may think my bubble gum is a weapon if I reach in my pocket, is paranoid beyond anything normal.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Colovion Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649549 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/18/2012 12:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
Well. The only set of folks who can routinely kill fellow citizens with or without cause and get away with it, and when 20 of them surrounded you in a closed space, and you cannot walk out of that place, I think it is normal to be afraid of.

I'm not saying that isn't a legitimate concern, we've all seen videos of innocent people being shot by police. Granted it isn't something that happens every day (far more police are shot and killed than civilians killed by cops, and likewise they take down multitudes of bad guys for every civilian shot) but it happens as much as those of us who work in and support law enforcement would rather it didn't.

However, this begs the question: if you can't trust the cops, who CAN you trust to defend you? Not that you said it but one of the common refrains from gun-control advocates is, "civilians don't need guns, they have cops to protect them!" Ignoring the fact that cops aren't each civilians' personal bodyguards (I certainly don't have one walking around with me 24/7/365, and I spend more time with them than 99% of the population!) if there is a legitimate concern that they aren't always to be trusted... then how can the argument that civilians don't need guns for self-defense (including concealed carry) hold any water?

Whatever the rationalization (distrust of cops, realizing how few are out there at any given time and the laws of physics prevent them from being in more than one place, average response times measuring in minutes, not seconds, etc.) the result is the same: you'd have to be quite lucky to have a cop there and ready to save you at the moment you need them. While I agree that people can do many things to avoid putting themselves in dangerous situations all that does is lower your odds of being targetted by a criminal, not eliminate them because, frankly, crime is EVERYWHERE.

By its nature it's unpredictable. Trust me, I TRY to predict it based on knowledge the general public has no clue of... frankly a monkey throwing darts at a map would be as accurate as we are at predicting it! Two weeks ago we had a TON of larcenies in one building, so you figure just clamp down on that building, find the bad guy and solve the problem, right? Wrong. He moved onto another building the next week. He did get caught (made the mistake of stealing something with GPS tracking enabled) but it wasn't due to any prediction I made. In fact I had just noticed the pattern a couple hours before he was arrested, but even then I couldn't have told the officers when he would strike next, what floor (and it's a LARGE building), etc.

That's for a crime I knew was going to happen. Lots of crimes happen with no warning what-so-ever. No girl goes jogging thinking "Today is the day I'll be raped in the woods and left for dead", no old couple goes to bed thinking "Tonight is the night some punks will break in, kill us and steal our meager belongings." But these things happen, EVERY DAY. The way I see it we (every able-bodied citizen) not only have a responsibility but a duty to be prepared to protect ourselves and those around us.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649552 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/18/2012 12:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
So you don't consider any restrictions reasonable and appropriate? None at all? It's OK to get a full-auto M16? Can it have the M203 over/under grenade launcher too? (I'm not being snarky, I'm seeing if you draw a line anywhere on this side of a nuclear weapon, which I would assume you would favor banning private ownership of...or not?)

FWIW, I agree that in a society where firearms are legal it makes sense to have basic safety programs so kids know not to mess with them. Just like "stop, drop and roll" if you set yourself on fire, "don't talk to strangers if your parents aren't there", etc. I don't see how that would in any way impede an Aurora (or Columbine) incident from occurring. Smaller magazines would mean the shooter has to reload sooner, and someone might be able to stop him while he's reloading. And they would be minimally intrusive to the responsible gun owner/user.

1poorguy (understands the "one in the chamber" rationale, but finds the pull of a double-action revolver reduces accuracy, and thumbing the hammer back every shot is tedious (plus if your thumb slips you could fire unintentionally))

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Jim2B Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649554 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/18/2012 12:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Even in Texas where gun ownership borders on a religion, I run into liberals all the time that are completely and totally offended that I own a few guns. They will tell me point blank that ALL guns should be outlawed.

I know liberals in Ohio who deny any mention of guns or even pretending to have a gun (whether it is actually a stick or even using your hand in the configuration of a gun) for their own kids. Their kids are not permitted to have play sword fights either.

They do not allow their kids to play with others who do these things either. These "gun-nuts" think the guns themselves are evil and that they can protect their kids from guns.

I don't think these people have a very high regard for soldiers either.

I suppose their liberalness also depends highly upon their welfare check because for the 15 odd calendar years I've known them they have collected welfare for 11. The funny thing is he earned a law degree and she came within 1 term of earning her B.A.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Colovion Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649583 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/18/2012 1:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
So you don't consider any restrictions reasonable and appropriate? None at all? It's OK to get a full-auto M16? Can it have the M203 over/under grenade launcher too? (I'm not being snarky, I'm seeing if you draw a line anywhere on this side of a nuclear weapon, which I would assume you would favor banning private ownership of...or not?)

I have no qualms with any semi-auto firearms with any magazine size (other than the fact that at some point they become utterly unweildy anyway, that's more a matter of physics of course). I don't have a problem with civilian ownership of fully-auto weapons either, given that it is legal in some states (though very highly restricted) and the number of crimes committed with them since the 1930's can be counted on one hand. That system seems to be working well, though the further restrictions put in place in 1986 are questionable. Nobody is really going to the mat for those though.

As for grenade launchers, that can fit in with a national-defense rationale, not so a self-defense one. Blowing up part of your home isn't exactly a sane way to defend it. Now civilians can obtain explosives, of course, but those aren't regulated by firearms laws per se. Again, not something anyone is really trying to get added into the AWB or Concealed Carry arguments which are mostly focused on self-defense. SCOTUS has been willing to entertain self-defense arguments, I don't think the NRA et al want to push the boundaries too much too soon with trying to get them to allow bazookas under a national-defense argument (it clearly wouldn't fly with a self-defense one!)

FWIW, I agree that in a society where firearms are legal it makes sense to have basic safety programs so kids know not to mess with them. Just like "stop, drop and roll" if you set yourself on fire, "don't talk to strangers if your parents aren't there", etc. I don't see how that would in any way impede an Aurora (or Columbine) incident from occurring. Smaller magazines would mean the shooter has to reload sooner, and someone might be able to stop him while he's reloading. And they would be minimally intrusive to the responsible gun owner/user.

If you can properly instill responsible firearms use/ownership and a sense of right and wrong then, sure, you can prevent those kinds of disasters. Not always possible, sure. But it certainly isn't as harmful as some make it out to be ("What, you let your kid shoot a BB gun?!? Are you mad?!?") It would be a step in a more healthy public discussion on the topic at least.

As for stopping the shooters when they're reloading, generally speaking only two things stop bad guys with guns: good guys with guns or they shoot themselves.

A bit of a tangent, but not a huge one: I do believe that teachers who can obtain and keep a CPL (concealed pistol license) here in Michigan should be able to carry even when on the job, in a school. Why? I know what it takes to obtain a CPL, I have one myself. They don't pass them out like candy. In fact the requirements to obtain a CPL are more stringent (in terms of background checks, what violations you're allowed to have on your record, etc.) than those to become a teacher in Michigan! It would literally be safer if there were a law requiring teachers to be able to obtain a CPL before they could teach. I'd feel better knowing my kid's teacher (or their bus driver, custodian, school nurse, etc.) could pass a CPL background check! At least I'd know they don't have any violent crimes, drug offenses, alcohol offenses or firearm offenses on their record. Right now they could have any or all of the above and still teach!

Obviously it will never be a requirement to obtain a CPL to be a teacher, but the point still is that your average CPL holder is more law abiding than your average teacher. They have to be or else they wouldn't be allowed to keep their CPL!

I also oppose gun-free-zones on principle. Several in fact. If you're disarmed then you've given up the ability to defend yourself in many cases. Who is liable for your safety then? The property? The state that passed the law? The feds? Someone is getting sued by me or my survivors! Not to mention the above statement that one of two things that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Rather hard for that to happen if you disarm all the good guys. Oh, and say you're a teacher in Detroit. You can't bring a gun to work with you, by law. You can't even park at work with a gun, by law. Thus you're disarmed not only while at work but on the way to work and on the way home from work, despite being outside of the "gun free zone" you're still disarmed because of it. And Detroit is the kind of place where you probably should be armed while driving around (again, just ask the cabbie who was shot and killed in a robbery this week. He WAS armed, managed to hit one of his attackers, but sometimes the bear gets you.)

It isn't just Detroit either. I live and work in Ann Arbor. Earlier in the year a restaurant I go to often was robbed at gunpoint. I wasn't there... that day. But I could have been easily. But I would have been disarmed because, again, where I work I can't carry, nor even leave my gun in my car. Ann Arbor is considered a "safe" place (invariably ranked as one of the best places to raise a family in the country!) but, hey, it even can happen here.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Jim2B Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649585 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/18/2012 1:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Any person, in the United States, in a situation where he is surrounded by a massive police presence on a transportation platform, and is paranoid about the police shooting him, is really in a really bad place mentally.


I was once in a small Caribbean port when a US Navy cruiser (Ticonderoga class) anchored. I had a sobering realization that with just the 5 in guns on that vessel they could quickly destroy pretty much anything that I could see.

But I was NOT afraid that they would do so. Nothing in the history of the US Navy made me fear that a vessel anchored in a friendly port would open fire and level everything in sight.

Similarly, police do not pull out their side arms and shoot innocent bystanders.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JLC Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649591 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/18/2012 1:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
HE's out to 'radically transform' America. That means taking away your rights...one by one.

Wasn't that the playbook of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. Control the press, control the guns, then control everything else?

Obozo is getting a good grasp on the press but the internet poses problems. He is dancing around guns.

Might sound a little paranoid, but like Ben Franklin said, its a Republic if you can keep it.

JLC

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JLC Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649596 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/18/2012 1:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
1poorguy (understands the "one in the chamber" rationale, but finds the pull of a double-action revolver reduces accuracy, and thumbing the hammer back every shot is tedious (plus if your thumb slips you could fire unintentionally))

Get with the program. Double action but no external hammer to slip. No external hammer to catch on the purse contents/strap while pulling out. DW's little number.

Accurate enough. From about 30 feet away I can cluster 8 rounds within 10 inches. Not great but good enough. DW is not far behind. Now just need to get her comfortable with a .38

http://www.ruger.com/products/lcr/index.html

I would draw the line at weapons of mass destruction. Now some would argue that a fully automatic M16 is mass destruction. I would argue not. Besides, that times I've fired one, jams too easily. But I can hit a target 300 yards away but I'm definitely no sniper. So anything that could kill multiple people with one pull/push/toss of trigger/button/whatever. So in your example, grenade launcher is where things would start.

JLC

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ModernViking Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649602 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/18/2012 2:09 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Some guy walking around the parking lot, snooping around, probably looking for an unlocked car and something to steal, she saw him coming but with a buggy full of groceries its hard to be mobile. She confronted him, made such a noise to attract attention, he ran off. Fortunately she was not harmed. But things could have been much different.

That's quite a bit different than "she was accosted in a parking lot".

This story is starting to sound more like she wants a gun so she can draw down on evil-doers she stumbles upon in her daily activities. Can't say I haven't felt the same way (heck, have acted out on it on occasion, sans firearm), but the tale of why your wife needs a gun is blurring the line between self-defense and vigilantism.

So I'd advise caution. Ask George Zimmerman about his quality of life since he decided he'd had enough of people snooping around his neighborhood. We'll have to wait until at least June to see how that one shakes out for America's half-baked superhero - Zimmerman the Neighborhood Watchman.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: twopairfullhouse Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649606 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/18/2012 2:32 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Well. The only set of folks who can routinely kill fellow citizens with or without cause and get away with it, and when 20 of them surrounded you in a closed space, and you cannot walk out of that place, I think it is normal to be afraid of.

But, I didn't feel like carrying a gun or something else to protect me, I just wanted to stay out of that place.

To me it is not paranoid. A reasonable cautious approach.


So, you don't carry a gun because your fellow citizens don't need to be feared, but you fear the police.

You appear to be a crime statistic waiting to happen. I hope that's not the case, but these crimes happen all the time.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lowstudent Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649609 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/18/2012 2:35 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I was once in a small Caribbean port when a US Navy cruiser (Ticonderoga class) anchored. I had a sobering realization that with just the 5 in guns on that vessel they could quickly destroy pretty much anything that I could see.

But I was NOT afraid that they would do so. Nothing in the history of the US Navy made me fear that a vessel anchored in a friendly port would open fire and level everything in sight.

Similarly, police do not pull out their side arms and shoot innocent bystanders.
______________________

I was in Penn Station in Midtown Manhattan just about every day in September in 2001

I spent a good long time surrounded by Police with machine guns.
There were tables for searching peoples bags and everything

Not once did I ever worry about them opening fire and killing me of I wielded a plastic knife to butter my bagel

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JLC Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649613 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/18/2012 2:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
That's quite a bit different than "she was accosted in a parking lot".

This story is starting to sound more like she wants a gun so she can draw down on evil-doers she stumbles upon in her daily activities.


She confronted him as in, facing, preparing, not getting taken by surprise before he reached her personal space. Not as in walking up to him and Hey, what the hell you doing.

JLC

Print the post Back To Top
Author: LuckyDog2002 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649663 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/18/2012 6:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
A new member of the women's gun club joined recently after she came home and found her door ajar. Someone had jimmied the lock, but hadn't taken anything. Her boyfriend works 100 miles away and he encouraged her to learn how to use a gun. The officer who took the report told her, this happens all the time, they break in, don't steal anything the first go, just do some shopping and come back later and steal it. She got new locks and a burglar alarm and getting trained in how to use a gun.


LD

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bighairymike Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649664 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/18/2012 6:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I have no qualms with any semi-auto firearms with any magazine size (other than the fact that at some point they become utterly unweildy anyway, that's more a matter of physics of course). - Colovion

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

I saw a clip one time of someone who had made a high capacity clip for 9 mm. The clip was like six feet long and you had to stand on an elevated platform to shoot with it inserted in the gun. It was done as a gimmick of course. I was going to post a link but couldn't find one. I am sure I Googled around enough for high capacity magazines that I have attracted the attention of Homeland Security.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: warrl Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649666 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/18/2012 6:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Getting a concealed carry and a firearm is the great equalizer. Two pertinent sayings: one, God made man but Sam Colt made them equal; two, seconds count with the police are minutes away.

The second isn't universally true.

In some cities, when every second could mean life or death the police will take a report over the phone.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCinOC Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649668 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/18/2012 6:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
My house was burglarized once. It was at Christmastime, so they took all the wrapped packages under the tree, too. It was an inside job; someone knew the exact layout of my house. Probably the window blind cleaners or someone who had already been in my house.

At my current house, I walked into the kitchen one morning and saw two handprints on the sliding glass door, positioned as if someone had tried to see if perhaps the sliding glass door was left unlocked.

I still don't have a gun but I bought a couple of cans of wasp spray. I heard they can be sprayed several feet and hit someone right in the face.

Silly, I know.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lowstudent Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649669 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/18/2012 6:38 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
I still don't have a gun but I bought a couple of cans of WASP spray. I heard they can be sprayed several feet and hit someone right in the face.

Silly, I know.
_________________________

Depends, I know my area is mostly Catholic, I guess if there were a lot of Protestant it might work.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: warrl Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649680 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/18/2012 8:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
1. I know lots and lots (and LOTS) of gun owners, I don't know any that are against any control of any kind. What they area against is arbitrary controls based on fear-mongering.

Without getting into all of that (like the inconvenience of having to change your magazine a few more times during a range session - oh, the horror!!), what would you consider reasonable and/or appropriate.


I'll bluntly go directly to the Constitution on that one.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The militia - that is, the mass of common citizens (by US law, the US military is excluded as are the state national guards when called to federal service, and most government officials who are elected or who carry arms as part of their government jobs) - ought to have, and be allowed to have, weapons "necessary to the security of a free state".

What weapons are those? I'm content to let the US military decide.

But there's a kicker on that. If a weapon is NOT "necessary to the security of a free state", there is no legitimate reason for the US military to possess and retain any of that weapon.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CM001 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649695 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/19/2012 12:38 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
A little paranoid? No this is get out the prescription pad
This country's law enforcement kills more people than any other force in the world. A force so good in profiling, for some strange reason, doesn't have any statisitcs on how many they kill, of course they maintain how many cops are killed, but how many they killed is missing.

These trigger happy folks under normal circumstances, when they are just a few act completely different than when they perceive there is a thread.

You should be insane to feel secured when there are over 20 cops and it is not a donut shop. They shoot first and ask questions later. When there is a demonstration agains them is going on and it is for shooting and killing an unarmed passenger, and you better be cautious.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CM001 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649696 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/19/2012 12:50 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I'm not saying that isn't a legitimate concern, we've all seen videos of innocent people being shot by police. Granted it isn't something that happens every day (far more police are shot and killed than civilians killed by cops, and likewise they take down multitudes of bad guys for every civilian shot) but it happens as much as those of us who work in and support law enforcement would rather it didn't.
The last time I checked, of course I didn't look too hard, but there is no nationwide statistics available for how many people are killed by law enforcement agencies. You have a count of how many died on duty.

However, this begs the question: if you can't trust the cops, who CAN you trust to defend you
I understand and accept as a society we delegated that role to an organization and that means as part of their job you gotta trust them. They get the public trust by default. Then it is upto them to keep that trust. I have no problem with an officer pulling me over and talking to me, or a cop on the street, etc. But I have seen, observed their behaviour changes dramatically when a thread (perceived or real) shows up. You can insult the President or Governor and get away with it, but you don't want to show any disrespect whatsoever to these guys.


No girl goes jogging thinking "Today is the day I'll be raped in the woods and left for dead", ... EVERY DAY. The way I see it we (every able-bodied citizen) not only have a responsibility but a duty to be prepared to protect ourselves and those around us.

So you are trying to justify that you are carrying the gun for the innocent girl and old couple? Sorry, you are not really going to be around to help them. As you alluded earlier there is no way of predicting when or where a crime is going to happen. So don't flip that logic to say everyone should carry a gun.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Colovion Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649715 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/19/2012 7:08 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
So you are trying to justify that you are carrying the gun for the innocent girl and old couple? Sorry, you are not really going to be around to help them. As you alluded earlier there is no way of predicting when or where a crime is going to happen. So don't flip that logic to say everyone should carry a gun.

I'm saying that the female jogger and the old couple should be armed in order to defend themselves.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649771 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/19/2012 12:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
As for stopping the shooters when they're reloading, generally speaking only two things stop bad guys with guns: good guys with guns or they shoot themselves.

Actually, good guys with guns are generally useless. Consider the case of Gabby Giffords. When Loughner opened-up there was a "good guy with a gun" right there. He emptied his gun, and missed Loughner every time. There was even some speculation that he was responsible for a few of the wounds that day, but I don't think that was ever verified (or it was false).

What stopped the attack? Loughner had to reload and was jumped by unarmed bystanders.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JLC Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649776 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/19/2012 1:11 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Consider the case of Gabby Giffords. When Loughner opened-up there was a "good guy with a gun" right there. He emptied his gun, and missed Loughner every time. There was even some speculation that he was responsible for a few of the wounds that day, but I don't think that was ever verified (or it was false).

That just shows the importance of training, even for military/police/etc. Anything is useless if you don't know how to use it properly.

A local example. A punk/thug wished for and received suicide by cop. He went recklessly driving down a city street late at night. Didn't pull over even after a couple of police cars gave chase. He eventually pulled into a 7-11 and started to walk away from the police even after a couple warning. He turned, not once but twice and made a threatening gesture with what appeared to be a firearm (later discovered to be a cell phone). Both police officers opened fired after the second gesture.

Result, 32 shots fired, 8 hitting target, 1 dead punk from about 15-20 feet away. All caught on cruiser cameras.

Black community was upset and threatening to riot (both cops were white). The only thing I was upset about was the 25% hit rate. IMHO, while the cops were on administrative leave pending investigation they should have been assigned to the firing range for more practice.

JLC

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ascenzm Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649793 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/19/2012 2:14 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The only thing I was upset about was the 25% hit rate. IMHO, while the cops were on administrative leave pending investigation they should have been assigned to the firing range for more practice.

JLC


LOL. The cops wasted ammo by being such poor marksmen. Taxpayers have to pay for that ammo.

Better to be judged by twelve than buried by six.

Mike

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649794 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/19/2012 2:15 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The only thing I was upset about was the 25% hit rate. IMHO, while the cops were on administrative leave pending investigation they should have been assigned to the firing range for more practice.

My sensei has worked with local police in the past. One of the things he learned was that when the adrenaline is pumping it is extremely difficult to maintain accuracy. It actually works great in hand/hand, but is terrible when you're trying to keep a firearm steady. Extra range time won't change that.

But I do agree that having 24 shots going wide (who knows where?) is not a good thing.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: warrl Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 649868 of 744851
Subject: Re: Obama's 2 big problems after tonight Date: 10/19/2012 6:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Any person, in the United States, in a situation where he is surrounded by a massive police presence on a transportation platform, and is paranoid about the police shooting him, is really in a really bad place mentally.

A sane person is very very concerned, they would figure there is a reason all the police were there and that there was some threat they shoud be really alarmed about.


Yeah, in that situation, you look around, pick one of the cops out, and ask "Hey, is something going on?".

If the answer is yes, then you ask "Should I leave, and in what direction?". And if they send you in some direction, go that way promptly. Unless you see a really good reason not to. Your train arriving at the platform in two minutes is NOT a really good reason - you'd rather miss the train than stay there and find out the cops are waiting for someone who's on it.

But don't waste time asking WHAT is going on - aside from the fact that they should not tell you (operational security), there is also the fact that they shouldn't tell you (keeping focused on what they are doing). Getting an innocent civilian out of the way is part of their job; help them with that part by determining where "out of the way" is and going there.

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (85) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement