THE SHERIFF

If you were faced with a shooter, in a crowded venue, what are the chances that you would have brought your AR15 to the event with you? In the event you carried it around with you, how wiling would you be to fire it in the chaos and confusion?

I would not be carrying my Semiautomatic rifle in public, I would be carrying 45cal. and/or 9mm high capacity handguns. In the event that an attack occurs and the shooter escapes the scene, as thought to be the case in San Bernardino, I would retrieve my semiautomatic rifle for protection. Following the Paris attacks many French citizens were locked in their homes with nothing to defend themselves but hope! As far as my ability to fight back in the event that I'm attacked, all I can do is make sure that my weapons are clean and functional and practice with them on a regular basis.

Kind of makes think of when I was a young man in a dry county. I had to count on the guy down the road in the holler. The only problem was he had one brand of Kentucky's "finest". I had my fair share of Saturday morning headaches. When I walked into a store at 21 I saw his product was on the very bottom shelf and was a fourth of the price.

Spent time in some dry counties when I was younger, might have visited that same guy in the holler! Lol

You guys are right. Criminals will find ways to commit violent acts, but what if weapons were a little harder to get a hold of legally. I mean I know this is an extreme example but there was this story this weekend.

 

3 Injured After Knife 'Terror Attack' In London Underground

 

3 injuries in a terrorist attack replace the weapon with a pistol, a hunting rifle, a shotgun, or in the worst case scenario a "semi-automatic weapon other terrorists use to commit mass.murder" (I'm scared to death to call it anything else or I will be piled on for 9 pages :sorry:). I believe the death toll would be much much much higher.

 

Some of the questions that are asked by TTP and others on here are fair. It's also fair to think our government won't stop at (fill in the blank).

 

But it's a whole new world and gun control and terrorism are tied together. The president pointed out that ISIS is now employing a strategy that we have not been able to or willing defend ourselves from in gun violence and mass shootings.

If I ever start piling on you for voicing your opinion it would be wrong, I understand your point and I would say if it's too hard to get a gun legally, they'll get them illegally! And you are correct if a criminal decides to attack it is nearly impossible to stop them until they commit the crime!

Actually, the party line quip is off target. I'm farther to the left on gun control than the Democratic Party or Mrs. Clinton.

What is to understand. Guns are weapons designed to kill. What does one need with a gun that shoots 75 rounds in less than 5 minutes?

 

Maybe he understands the facts and firearms, and STILL has those questions.

In case I need to defend myself against people like Sayed Farook! In his address to the nation the POTUS said that the terror threat has moved to a new stage, I am ready to fight back if needed. If people choose to not fight back I understand, some people are not cut out to do that, but to deny me that ability is not what our country was built on.

I think a lot of the problem is that RTS and JD have tens of thousands of dollars tied up in guns-bombs-bullets, including weapons similar to those used at San Bernardino and Colorado Springs. Which is why they're employing the denigration-by-ignorance schtick. I might be wrong but I don't think I am.

I am a new member to this site and am very surprised that a poster could accuse another member of owning a bomb! This is silly rhetoric, and the problem I have with his posts.

I just got a reply from relative of mine in Chicago who has a 3D machine. He can make a mag to hold as many rounds as I want. This is one reason why a limit on capacity won't work.

Better ban those 3D machines before they start killing people.

You better get used to answering critics of current lax gun laws, because the clamor is going to increase. People are tired of massacre after massacre after massacre while the NRA Republicans bellow "Nothing is going to change."

Critics of the lax gun laws had better improve their presentations or they will never be taken seriously.

But what about the left wing clowns that own these weapons!

I think the reason most right-wing clowns own these is that they think they'll be of use when "the revolution" comes.

I apologize to the other visitors to this thread for using such childish language, you deserve better than that.

Rat-a-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat.

 

Every "tat" is a bullet. That's how many times an AR-15 is capable of dispensing lead in 4 or 5 seconds.

 

Tell me again why any civilian needs to own one.

In case I want to rat-a-tat-tat a bad guy who's trying to rat-a-tat-tat me!

What you're saying is that in order to have an opinion in this debate, one must be able to recite the lingo as well as a gun dealer and also be able to spout the technical differences between, say, an AK-47 and an AR-15.

 

I don't buy that. Rep. Sanchez is correct. We should ban from public use guns that go rat-a-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat. (How's that for technical know-how?) Ban all guns from public use that are capable of dispensing lead at a rate of X times per minute. That's all anyone needs to know.

Herein lies the problem!

People Hilariously Criticize Bible After Reading Verses They Think Are From The Quran (VIDEO) «

Groups of Radical Islamic terrorists have begun a holy war on nonbelievers throughout the world. They have verbalized their intentions and followed through on these warnings. If I hear of any groups of Christians behaving this way, then we'll discuss the teachings of the Bible, until then your post is meaningless.

You bring up an interesting point, how bout we start enforcing the gun laws that are already in place?

No I don't think background checks should be eliminated.

 

And while I also have no issue with private gun sales having background checks...In no way do I think it would have more than a miniscule, if that, impact on gun crimes.

I couldn't agree with you more, and the responsible Americans that I know would not privately sell a firearm to an individual who they suspect of mental illness or a threat to society. So many times in these threads we always end up beating a dead horse. I have no hidden agenda, just trying to point out an inconsistency in our laws!

How would that work? How do you keep one guy from selling private property to another one?

 

Even if a law was passed saying that I had to do a background check on my neighbor before I could sell him a gun...I'm sure there would a be a Government Fee for that, right? The only people doing it would be people that are currently law abiding citizens, they would be paying the extra fees and keeping up with the extra paperwork...while those outside the law would just keep on doing things just like they are today.

 

The only people out money or inconvenienced would be law abiding citizens.

Law abiding,hard working people will always be the ones who bear the load, I don't pretend to have all the answers, I do know that when it comes to background checks, the laws are inconsistent! Do you think that background checks should be eliminated for buyers in a gun store? If so then I understand your position.

The gun show loophole that I am referring to is the fact that a seller not holding a Federal Firearms License can sell to an individual without any paperwork or background check on the buyer! This I believe should be changed as it is not consistent with retail laws.

Seriously, if the president would present his case for closing the gun show loophole he would have it passed very quickly and I would support it 100%, I don't see any other proposals that would seriously affect mass killings!

What legislation would have stopped this? A law against killing maybe...that's it, make killing illegal....Seriously I'm willing to listen, but what law that can ever be passed can eliminate acts like this?

The legislation man, you know the common sense law! The meaningful gun safety law, the stop gun violence law! Any law, they just want to pass some law! It doesn't have to mean anything as long as they get credit for passing a gun law! Please let them pass a law so they'll stop!

Reinstituting the assault weapons ban would be a solid first step to start addressing the insidious firearms problem in this country. No civilians have any legitimate need to own one. Isn't that what Congress wisely thought in 1994? Why yes.

Along the same lines as we differentiate between mainstream Christians like the Colorado Springs guy, and kids who decide to go into schools and start shooting?

So we should just threaten all of them to be on the safe side?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/manassas-mosque-gets-threatening-phone-call-you-all-will-be-killed/2015/12/03/494142b2-9a09-11e5-94f0-9eeaff906ef3_story.html?postshare=8621449235904609&tid=ss_tw-bottom

 

 

This is precisely why failure to distinguish radial Muslims from mainstream Muslims is very dangerous behavior.

The ATF Firearm Transaction Record or form 4473, which is used in background checks lists firearm types as Handgun(which would include pistols and revolvers) Long Guns (which would include rifles and shotguns). Personally I call mine Sweetie!