Future Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe purchased a new double barrel shotgun at Dick's Sporting Goods this weekend. Yes, that's the same Terry McAuliffe who was Democratic Party Chairman and has campaigned constantly for more gun control.

Just another professional carpetbagging politician who believes there should be one set of rules for himself and another for all the little people.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/gun-control-fan-mcauliffe-is-va.s-newest-gun-owner/article/2517872#.UOyUEuTAede

FU: We don't make the news; we just make fun of it.

I don't think anyone has proposed any limits double barrel shotguns... maybe limit them to one shell. The other barrel has a welded plug?

a shotgun isnt a assault weapon

you DO know that, right?

two COMPLETELY different weapons.

are a you so stupid you cant tell the difference, OP?

Your mom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't think anyone has proposed any limits
> double barrel shotguns...

Yeah, pretty much this.

Calling him a hypocrite is pretty silly.

Terry McAuliffe isn't even from Virginia. Hope gets caught taking his new gun into DC.

Gordon - it is a weapon used to assault people. It is an assault weapon.

ass_salt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gordon - it is a weapon used to assault people.
> It is an assault weapon.


a shotgun is used mainly for defense.

Its waaaaaaaaaaaay more a defensive weapon. Any fool using it as an assault weapon is either a criminal targeting an unarmed (or less-armed) subject or is someone who is going to end up VERY dead as their target is going to have a longer range than they are LoLz

This is the NEW Terry McAuliffe. The outsider who now wants to be elected by Virginians, thinking that living in a Mclean mansion makes him a Virginian.

Look for Terry to show up for lots of pictures this year without his $100 ties and $2000 suits.

He might even try some stunt to try to gain favor with the NRA.

Oh, wait, truth is really stranger than fiction:

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe today proposed having trained school resource officers stationed in elementary schools as a “common sense” option to help keep students safe, while some Democratic lawmakers announced plans to pursue gun control legislation in the 2013 General Assembly session.

McAuliffe said last week’s school shootings in Newtown, Conn. “remind us that we must take any reasonable action to make our children safer.”

“One change we can make now to keep Virginia’s children safe is passing legislation to help localities provide School Resource Officers for elementary schools that request it,” McAuliffe said in a statement issued today. “We already have these trained officers at the majority of high schools and middle schools in Virginia and should simply extend this common sense option to as many elementary schools as possible. These officers are professionals who are specifically trained to respond to dangerous situations and would be available to deal with any threat our children might face.”

McAuliffe said the cost of such a program should be manageable “considering that many schools sharing facilities may already be covered, federal funds are available, and it is of course the decision of each school whether to pursue this option. The legislature should make sure such legislation is as cost-efficient as possible.”

http://blogs.roanoke.com/politics/2012/12/19/mcauliffe-calls-for-more-school-resource-officers-legislators-seek-new-gun-restrictions/

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> a shotgun isnt a assault weapon
>
> you DO know that, right?
>
> two COMPLETELY different weapons.
>
> are a you so stupid you cant tell the difference,
> OP?


actually, there are shotguns that exist that have the same features that were part of the prior weapons ban. If its semi auto, has a folding or telescoping stock and a pistol grip, thats an assault weapon. Heck throw a bayonet mount on and thats an assault weapon, how does that make sense? You can carry around tons of magazines full of shotgun shells and assuredly injure as many people as the most recent shooter did.

Not that i really want to give you that information since I am pro-guns, but to say "oh its a shotgun thats fine, its not an ASSAULT WEAPON" is just dumb.

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> a shotgun isnt a assault weapon
>
> you DO know that, right?
>
> two COMPLETELY different weapons.
>
> are a you so stupid you cant tell the difference,
> OP?


Two double-barrel shotguns worked pretty well for that purpose at Columbine.

Jander420 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gordon Blvd Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > a shotgun isnt a assault weapon
> >
> > you DO know that, right?
> >
> > two COMPLETELY different weapons.
> >
> > are a you so stupid you cant tell the
> difference,
> > OP?
>
>
> actually, there are shotguns that exist that have
> the same features that were part of the prior
> weapons ban. If its semi auto, has a folding or
> telescoping stock and a pistol grip, thats an
> assault weapon. Heck throw a bayonet mount on and
> thats an assault weapon, how does that make sense?
> You can carry around tons of magazines full of
> shotgun shells and assuredly injure as many people
> as the most recent shooter did.
>
> Not that i really want to give you that
> information since I am pro-guns, but to say "oh
> its a shotgun thats fine, its not an ASSAULT
> WEAPON" is just dumb.


Wow, another gun expert. What branch of the military did you serve?

Hell, Klebold offed himself with the shotgun.

ass_salt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gordon - it is a weapon used to assault people.
> It is an assault weapon.


So according to your logic, if I use a sawed off bed post to hit someone with, it is considered an assault weapon because I assaulted someone with it.

You people are morons when it comes to firearms and what they are capable of and what they are used for.

The gun McAuliffe bought is a clay target/bird hunting gun. It holds a maximum of 2 12 gauge shells at a time and is a slow reloading process (even your precious CNN admits these words). He bought this gun legally and went through the 3 form application as well as background check (phone call to the VA State government and police) it takes to pass to own this type of weapon.

The first shotgun used in Columbine was a police tactical pump style firearm used for self-protection and could hold multiple shells at once (depending on accessories but standard form holds 5-7 shells at once which is what they used according to police evidence - 5 was used in the pump). The other shotgun used was a sawed of side by side double barrel. The guns that did the damage were the TEC-9 and the Carbine rifle.

I don't even know why I spent the time to respond to someone who is going to completely ignore the reasonable facts. At least as a gun owner I can admit that I think there is no need for assault weapons and refuse to listen or buy into NRA crap, but taking away home defense semi-automatic and sporting guns is ridiculous.

Once you try and see it from both sides, then you can open your mouth.

Shotgun dude? Or bong? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jander420 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Gordon Blvd Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > a shotgun isnt a assault weapon
> > >
> > > you DO know that, right?
> > >
> > > two COMPLETELY different weapons.
> > >
> > > are a you so stupid you cant tell the
> > difference,
> > > OP?
> >
> >
> > actually, there are shotguns that exist that
> have
> > the same features that were part of the prior
> > weapons ban. If its semi auto, has a folding
> or
> > telescoping stock and a pistol grip, thats an
> > assault weapon. Heck throw a bayonet mount on
> and
> > thats an assault weapon, how does that make
> sense?
> > You can carry around tons of magazines full of
> > shotgun shells and assuredly injure as many
> people
> > as the most recent shooter did.
> >
> > Not that i really want to give you that
> > information since I am pro-guns, but to say "oh
> > its a shotgun thats fine, its not an ASSAULT
> > WEAPON" is just dumb.
>
>
> Wow, another gun expert. What branch of the
> military did you serve?


Whether they served or not doesn't affect that what they said is exactly right.

The "assault weapons ban" focused on "scary" features alone. The same 12 gauge in another black plastic folding stock with a pistol grip magically becomes an "assault weapon."

Not to mention that sawing off such a gun also has been illegal for a long time yet had absolutely no effect on someone doing so, for example, as noted at Columbine.

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> a shotgun isnt a assault weapon
>
> you DO know that, right?
>
> two COMPLETELY different weapons.
>
> are a you so stupid you cant tell the difference,
> OP?


You seem to have a desire to post stupid remarks. Just what is an assault weapon? There is no legal definition just whatever the media, democrats and people like you think it should be. An assault weapon is any weapon pointed at me.

Maybe Terry McAuliffe needs his guns in case Tom Perriello decides to launch a primary challenge after all.

McAuliffe trying the be more centrist/right than Cuccinelli is retarded.

Assault rifles?
Attachments:

gun owner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> You people are morons when it comes to firearms
> and what they are capable of and what they are
> used for.
>
> The gun McAuliffe bought is a clay target/bird
> hunting gun. It holds a maximum of 2 12 gauge
> shells at a time and is a slow reloading process
> (even your precious CNN admits these words). He
> bought this gun legally and went through the 3
> form application as well as background check
> (phone call to the VA State government and police)
> it takes to pass to own this type of weapon.
>
> The first shotgun used in Columbine was a police
> tactical pump style firearm used for
> self-protection and could hold multiple shells at
> once (depending on accessories but standard form
> holds 5-7 shells at once which is what they used
> according to police evidence - 5 was used in the
> pump). The other shotgun used was a sawed of side
> by side double barrel. The guns that did the
> damage were the TEC-9 and the Carbine rifle.
>


No, it wasn't a "police tactical pump." It was a standard crappy Savage pump with the stock and barrel cut down.




The second gun used was virtually the equivalent of the gun purchased here other than being side-by-side versus over-under.



Note that altering the guns as was done is and was strictly prohibited.

Neither of the other guns were "assault rifles." Both use pistol caliber ammo. The Tec already was banned (and has become extinct even after the ban because they were junk). The Hi-Point also was, as you note, basically a pistol in a long stock and was not an "assault weapon" even as defined by law and even meeting the CA 10-round mag limit.

Also somewhat incorrect re the use of the guns. Most of the damage to persons was done in the library where Harris fired the shot gun 21 times and the 9mm 13 times, and Klebold fired the Tec 21 times and the shotgun 6 times.

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> a shotgun is used mainly for defense.
>

I'd say it is more a sporting weapon than anything else. That's especially true of a double barrel.

Believe in ME Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Look for Terry to show up for lots of pictures
> this year without his $100 ties and $2000 suits.

OK. The $2,000 suits I can see, but have you priced ties lately? I had some showing their age so I went down to the local JAB, found a couple I liked and then looked at the price...$100, and they weren't anything special.

As long as he doesn't try to buy more than one a month he should be okay.

-------------------------------------------------
“We don’t have any rude, unpleasant people here. We’re different!”

Shotgun notwithstanding, McAuliffe is still an opportunistic carpetbagger. I can't stand that guy, but he will in all likelihood be our next governor since Cuccinelli is certifiable.

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> a shotgun isnt a assault weapon
>
> you DO know that, right?
>
> two COMPLETELY different weapons.
>
> are a you so stupid you cant tell the difference,
> OP?

One of these days you'll post something that isn't completely ignorant, but it hasn't happened yet and I doubt it'll happen any time soon.

113 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gordon Blvd Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > a shotgun isnt a assault weapon
> >
> > you DO know that, right?
> >
> > two COMPLETELY different weapons.
> >
> > are a you so stupid you cant tell the
> difference,?
> > OP?
>
> One of these days you'll post something that isn't
> completely ignorant, but it hasn't happened yet
> and I doubt it'll happen any time soon.

awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww............didums somene get their widdle feewers hurt by something I posted?

pic unrelated
Attachments:

^^
Is so vapid that thinks their own whining makes others "butt hurt"

:)

"Not that i really want to give you that information since I am pro-guns, but to say "oh its a shotgun thats fine, its not an ASSAULT WEAPON" is just dumb."

It's a double barrel shotgun, not a Saiga with a folding stock and a drum mag on it. This is the issue with non-gun owners trying to have a debate about guns, they don't understand or know the difference between the guns they want to ban.

They love to say "gun show loophole" on the news but it really has nothing to do with the gun show other than a large percentage of gun owners gather at these events so you are more likely to find someone selling a gun privately at the event then you are walking down Braddock Rd. The same rules would apply in both cases, no background check because it is a private citizen to citizen sale. It has nothing to do with the gun show other than it being more likely that you will find a person wanting to sell a gun privately.

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> a shotgun isnt a assault weapon
>
> you DO know that, right?
>
> two COMPLETELY different weapons.
>
> are a you so stupid you cant tell the difference,
> OP?


Like being so fucking stupid as to call a semi-automatic rifle an "Assault rifle"?

lmao...

Fucking idiot.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

I say "fuck" a lot...

FBO Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gordon Blvd Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > a shotgun isnt a assault weapon
> >
> > you DO know that, right?
> >
> > two COMPLETELY different weapons.
> >
> > are a you so stupid you cant tell the
> difference,
> > OP?
>
>
> Like being so fucking stupid as to call a
> semi-automatic rifle an "Assault rifle"?
>
> lmao...
>
> Fucking idiot.


CAUGHT!!!

+1 for you, FBO

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww............didums somene
> get their widdle feewers hurt by something I
> posted?
>
> pic unrelated


What's "feewers"? This post makes less sense than your other senseless posts. Please clarify. Only Gordon Blvd can interpret Gordon Blvd.

G0RDON BLVD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Terry McAuliffe isn't even from Virginia. Hope
> gets caught taking his new gun into DC.

Terry has lived at 7527 Old Dominion Dr. in McLean for twenty years.

"What's "feewers"?"

He probably meant "feewings" but in his haste to respond didn't re-read what he was about to post.

@BB*X no, I meant feewers - it's a dirivative of "feewings" - but close enuff LoLz

@Norm - exactly what is it about your life is so pathetic that you'd actually sit around a computer trying to make sense out of what Gordon Blvd says on the interwebz? YOU NEED TO GET OUT MORE, SON!!

Google Saiga



a shotgun isnt a assault weapon

you DO know that, right?

two COMPLETELY different weapons.

are a you so stupid you cant tell the difference, OP?

He's just another typical carpetbagger coming to NOVA(see Gerry Connolly/Jim Moran).

Do as I say, not as I do. Nothing new unfortunately.

um, did he BUY a Saiga? NO? well then, exactly why are you bringing it up?

ok, if I really, REALLY need to hold yr hand and walk you thru it..............

A double barrel is NOT NORMALLY considered an assault weapon.

Shotguns are USUALLY designed for defense and crowd control.

the term "Assault weapon" normally is used towards automatic rifles, pistols, and YES, some shotguns that have semi-auto and automatic firing capabilities - what this means is that you dont have to load a round into the chamber each and everytime you fire. The gun will AUTOMATICALLY load the next round for you.

In a semi-automatic weapon, all you do is pull a trigger and a round goes off, and the gun AUTOMATICALLY loads the next round and all you need to do is pull the trigger again. IN a FULLY automatic weapon, all you need to do is hold down the trigger and the gun will fire until empty.

Now with a normal shotgun, single or double barrel, you must "cock" it, meaning each time you fire, you must CHAMBER the next round. An over-under shotgun like the one the paper says McAuliffe bought works exactly that way - hence NOT an assault weapon. It is designed for competition shooting (clay and skeet, that sorta thing). The pellets are designed to like meet up far away. Yeah you can still use it in other ways - but that's NOT what it is designed for. Here, see for yourself: http://www.berettausa.com/shop-by-department/firearms/field-shotguns/overandunder/

it's REALLY sad that Gordon Blvd knows more about firearms than you do....................

p.s. most ppl who TRULY ever need an assault weapon would know all this crap LoLz

FBO Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gordon Blvd Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > a shotgun isnt a assault weapon
> >
> > you DO know that, right?
> >
> > two COMPLETELY different weapons.
> >
> > are a you so stupid you cant tell the
> difference,
> > OP?
>
>
> Like being so fucking stupid as to call a
> semi-automatic rifle an "Assault rifle"?
>
> lmao...
>
> Fucking idiot.

Couldn't hack it as Dane Brambage?
Personality issues?

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The pellets are designed to like meet up
> far away.

Ummm, no. lmao

Really, some of you folks should just stay out of arguments where you clearly have no clue.

>
> it's REALLY sad that Gordon Blvd knows more about
> firearms than you do....................


Yeah, you're a real expert. lulz

You jerks are killing me. Who gives a crap about if the shotgun is a musket or assault rifle or even a SCUD. The point is McAuliffe is a hypocrite, and unless the GOP gets their act together, this opportunist is in like flint as our next guv. Jeez, I love guns as much as the next guy, but please FOCUS!

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

Checking in a day later and still nothing from you that is worth a damn. Only difference is adding on a little more (unearned) conceit than usual.




Since you have now decided to elevate yourself to "firearms expert", why don't you tell us which of these is an "assault weapon."

A:

B:

Scattergun sound familiar? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gordon Blvd Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The pellets are designed to like meet up
> > far away.
>
> Ummm, no. lmao
>
> Really, some of you folks should just stay out of
> arguments where you clearly have no clue.
>
> >
> > it's REALLY sad that Gordon Blvd knows more
> about
> > firearms than you do....................
>
>
> Yeah, you're a real expert. lulz


yeah, your right. A shotgun and an assualt rifle shot EXACTLY THE SAME - you got me there o_0

anyways, the answer to yr question is neither.

edit: your, you're...................oh who cares anymore LoLz



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/14/2013 12:42PM by Gordon Blvd.

Where's all those big speeches from are leaders about protecting kids from crime.

BillBolling Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The point is McAuliffe is a hypocrite,

How do you figure? McAuliffe's position on gun control is (from 2012) "I’ve said in the past and I continue to believe that there are mainstream restrictions on dangerous weapons that we can agree on including: renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban, passage of bipartisan legislation to strengthen background checks, and re-implementation of Virginia’s one-gun-a-month rule.” You can argue that position is not in line with what most Virginians favor, but there is nothing there about prohibiting a law abiding citizen from purchasing ONE shotgun.

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Scattergun sound familiar? Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Gordon Blvd Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > The pellets are designed to like meet up
> > > far away.
> >
> > Ummm, no. lmao
> >
> > Really, some of you folks should just stay out
> of
> > arguments where you clearly have no clue.
> >
> > >
> > > it's REALLY sad that Gordon Blvd knows more
> > about
> > > firearms than you do....................
> >
> >
> > Yeah, you're a real expert. lulz
>
>
> yeah, your right. A shotgun and an assualt rifle
> shot EXACTLY THE SAME - you got me there o_0
>
> anyways, the answer to yr question is neither.
>
> edit: your, you're...................oh who cares
> anymore LoLz


So in other words, you have no clue. lol

Just FYI, not for your benefit as much as to clear up any confusion by others who might read your bs and actually believe it, shotgun pellets are not designed to "like meet up far away."

A shotgun shell is filled with pellets which sit in what's call a wad as shown below. It's a, typically plastic, carrier which is slit along the long axis in usually four places.



When you pull the trigger on the gun to shoot the shell, the hammer of the gun hits the primer which is a small explosive charge that detonates on impact (similar to a cap in a cap gun). The primer then fires off the main charge. The charge propels the wad holding the shot down the barrel. Once clear of the barrel, the shot is no longer held together as a single unit and begins to expand. At some distance (say about 20 feet or so) the wad falls away and the pellets continue on their way in a gradually expanding cone in the same way as if you'd taken a handful of the same pellets and thrown them. They do not somehow magically regroup.

A shotgun can, in fact, be an "assault weapon" as defined by law. Even in double-barrel form it can be and can be further restricted given barrel length. There is nothing inherently less dangerous about a shotgun versus an "assault rifle" beyond the effective range. Fact is, at shorter ranges as typical in a criminal use-case, they are more devastating, more likely to hit a target, and can affect a larger number of targets with a single shot. An unopposed shooter can very quickly and easily reload a double-barrel shotgun as needed. It takes maybe 2 - 3 seconds.

in other words, a shotgun fires differently than a rifle. But hey, thanks for breaking the science down on that one for us all! Maybe next you can tell us why cargo goes but ship, but shipments go by car LoLz


dunno what yr goal is here other than troll me LoLz - cause all you proved to us is that an "assault rifle" like our friend the Bushmaster (available at Walmart.......well maybe not right now LoLz) is diff from the gun McAuliffe was buying - which was my point originally

Shotgun Sally Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gordon Blvd Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Scattergun sound familiar? Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Gordon Blvd Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > The pellets are designed to like meet up
> > > > far away.
> > >
> > > Ummm, no. lmao
> > >
> > > Really, some of you folks should just stay
> out
> > of
> > > arguments where you clearly have no clue.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > it's REALLY sad that Gordon Blvd knows more
> > > about
> > > > firearms than you do....................
> > >
> > >
> > > Yeah, you're a real expert. lulz
> >
> >
> > yeah, your right. A shotgun and an assualt
> rifle
> > shot EXACTLY THE SAME - you got me there o_0
> >
> > anyways, the answer to yr question is neither.
> >
> > edit: your, you're...................oh who
> cares
> > anymore LoLz
>
>
> So in other words, you have no clue. lol
>
> Just FYI, not for your benefit as much as to clear
> up any confusion by others who might read your bs
> and actually believe it, shotgun pellets are not
> designed to "like meet up far away."
>
> A shotgun shell is filled with pellets which sit
> in what's call a wad as shown below. It's a,
> typically plastic, carrier which is slit along the
> long axis in usually four places.
>
> src="http://www.nij.gov/training/firearms-training
> /module05/images/fir_m05_t06_09.png">
>
> When you pull the trigger on the gun to shoot the
> shell, the hammer of the gun hits the primer which
> is a small explosive charge that detonates on
> impact (similar to a cap in a cap gun). The
> primer then fires off the main charge. The charge
> propels the wad holding the shot down the barrel.
> Once clear of the barrel, the shot is no longer
> held together as a single unit and begins to
> expand. At some distance (say about 20 feet or
> so) the wad falls away and the pellets continue on
> their way in a gradually expanding cone in
> the same way as if you'd taken a handful of the
> same pellets and thrown them. They do not somehow
> magically regroup.
>
> A shotgun can, in fact, be an "assault weapon" as
> defined by law. Even in double-barrel form it can
> be and can be further restricted given barrel
> length. There is nothing inherently less
> dangerous about a shotgun versus an "assault
> rifle" beyond the effective range. Fact is, at
> shorter ranges as typical in a criminal use-case,
> they are more devastating, more likely to hit a
> target, and can affect a larger number of targets
> with a single shot. An unopposed shooter can very
> quickly and easily reload a double-barrel shotgun
> as needed. It takes maybe 2 - 3 seconds.

You're describing a shotgun loaded with buckshot. Buckshot disperses pretty quickly. In fact, I'd say the lethal range is probably no greater than 10 yards. Now, on the other hand, a shotgun with a solid slug is basically a rifle. There are different types of shotgun as well.

2-3 seconds is a LONG time in a firefight. The average time to reload a pistol is about 1-3 seconds. The average pistol has between 7-15 rounds. It's not comparable.

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> in other words, a shotgun fires differently than a
> rifle. But hey, thanks for breaking the science
> down on that one for us all! Maybe next you can
> tell us why cargo goes but ship, but shipments go
> by car LoLz


Ummmm his point was that you posting "The pellets are designed to like meet up far away." is a completely stupid thing to say. Unless you mispoke in which case you should have said oops instead of attacking him for pointing out that you don't know how shotgun ammo works. Pellets don't change direction in midflight to all converge on a single spot, this isn't the movie "wanted" where you can bend bullets.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 2-3 seconds is a LONG time in a firefight. The
> average time to reload a pistol is about 1-3
> seconds. The average pistol has between 7-15
> rounds. It's not comparable.

it's not a firefight if you're the only one with a gun, and that's why he said "unopposed" shooter.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:

> You're describing a shotgun loaded with buckshot.
> Buckshot disperses pretty quickly. In fact, I'd
> say the lethal range is probably no greater than
> 10 yards. Now, on the other hand, a shotgun with a
> solid slug is basically a rifle. There are
> different types of shotgun as well.
>
> 2-3 seconds is a LONG time in a firefight. The
> average time to reload a pistol is about 1-3
> seconds. The average pistol has between 7-15
> rounds. It's not comparable.


Yea but were not talking about a firefight. The argument for banning the rifles is for the shootings, 20 minute response time minimum from police. 2-3 seconds is nothing when no one can fight back

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> in other words, a shotgun fires differently than a
> rifle. But hey, thanks for breaking the science
> down on that one for us all! Maybe next you can
> tell us why cargo goes but ship, but shipments go
> by car LoLz
>
>
> dunno what yr goal is here other than troll me
> LoLz - cause all you proved to us is that an
> "assault rifle" like our friend the Bushmaster
> (available at Walmart.......well maybe not right
> now LoLz) is diff from the gun McAuliffe was
> buying - which was my point originally


No, the fact is that you were wrong and have little to no understanding of even basic aspects of the subject.

A shotgun is different but for practical purposes no "better" and in some ways worse than an "assault rifle" in terms of the harm that it can cause.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> You're describing a shotgun loaded with buckshot.
> Buckshot disperses pretty quickly. In fact, I'd
> say the lethal range is probably no greater than
> 10 yards. Now, on the other hand, a shotgun with a
> solid slug is basically a rifle. There are
> different types of shotgun as well.
>
> 2-3 seconds is a LONG time in a firefight. The
> average time to reload a pistol is about 1-3
> seconds. The average pistol has between 7-15
> rounds. It's not comparable.


Just to clarify, no, I'm describing a shotgun firing shot. Any shot. Buckshot is a particular type of larger sized shot. Too many terms get thrown around in discussions like this with little understanding of what they mean.

A slug is a completely different animal. While similar to a rifle is not the same since there is no rifling in the barrel (at least unless using a special purpose barrel) and it does not have the range or accuracy of a rifle.

Again, for practical purposes, a shotgun round in any form whether shooting bird shot at closer ranges, buckshot, or a slug is just as or more dangerous than an "assault weapon" (other than at longer ranges). With a shotgun firing buckshot one can fire effectively the equivalent of many "assault weapon" caliber bullets all at once with a single pull of the trigger. At closer ranges the effect is greater and can potentially affect more targets. Firing a slug, given the much greater mass (on the order of 10X), is more damaging than an assault caliber bullet.

As others noted above, most of the types of shootings that are the focus of such discussions are unopposed shooters, not firefights. The time to reload is trivial in the scheme of things. As is the difference in the time to reload 10-round versus 15- or 30-round magazines in similar circumstances.

@shotgun, jander: we gotcha - use the term "assault rifle" not "assault weapon" or else y'all gun nuts are gonna get all butthurt over it - not a problem LoLz. In any event, the gun McAuliffe bought is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from the type of firearms he talks about politically. And anyone who cant see the diff between a skeetgun and an assault rifle is just f**king nuts.


pic unrelated



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/14/2013 05:23PM by Gordon Blvd.
Attachments:

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @shotgun, jander: we gotcha - use the term
> "assault rifle" not "assault weapon" or else y'all
> gun nuts are gonna get all butthurt over it - not
> a problem LoLz. In any event, the gun McAuliffe
> bought is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from the type of
> firearms he talks about politically. And anyone
> who cant see the diff between a skeetgun and an
> assault rifle is just f**king nuts.
>
>
> pic unrelated



Nope, you don't get it. Assault weapon and assault rifle used as you do are meaningless beyond being black and "scary" in both cases. There is little to no functional difference in the threat presented by a double-barrel shotgun of the type purchased by McAuliffe and the guns that he wants to ban. Because one has a nice wood stock and engraving and the other a plastic stock and matte black finish, that doesn't change the basic nature of the weapons. In fact, at the ranges typically involved in incidents of the type of primary concern here, the double-barrel shotgun very arguably could be considered the more effective kid-killing weapon.

Now if you want to talk about incidents involving longer-range shootouts with police, an assault on some facility, snipers, etc., then you might have more of the basis for an argument.

Random LoLz unrelated

I see you still have no defense for your belief that shotgun pellets are designed to meet up after a distance....

I do agree that there is a difference between a skeet gun and an AR-15, however there are people who obviously feel that it is a bit of a mixed message for a governor pushing gun control. I don't necessarily agree but I am not in control of other people. Many people feel that any weapons ban just leads to further ones down the road, and aren't at all effective anyway.

Banning the guns and collecting them is a daunting and expensive task and if you ban them and people don't want to give them up it's turning them into a criminal for purchasing something they were allowed to buy and probably have owned for years and the vast majority of which were never going to be used to kill anyone anyway.

If you ban "assault" guns and then a couple years down the road some psycho kills 20 kids with a double barrel shotgun or a bunch of handguns you don't think someone will push to have some more weapons thrown into the ban? Dianne Feinstein wants to push forward a new assault weapons ban with provisions that would make a vast majority of commercially available handguns illegal. So it's not like there aren't people who wan't to ban way more than just "assault" weapons.

Jander420 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I see you still have no defense for your belief
> that shotgun pellets are designed to meet up after
> a distance....
>
> I do agree that there is a difference between a
> skeet gun and an AR-15, however there are people
> who obviously feel that it is a bit of a mixed
> message for a governor pushing gun control. I
> don't necessarily agree but I am not in control of
> other people. Many people feel that any weapons
> ban just leads to further ones down the road, and
> aren't at all effective anyway.
>
> Banning the guns and collecting them is a daunting
> and expensive task and if you ban them and people
> don't want to give them up it's turning them into
> a criminal for purchasing something they were
> allowed to buy and probably have owned for years
> and the vast majority of which were never going to
> be used to kill anyone anyway.
>
> If you ban "assault" guns and then a couple years
> down the road some psycho kills 20 kids with a
> double barrel shotgun or a bunch of handguns you
> don't think someone will push to have some more
> weapons thrown into the ban? Dianne Feinstein
> wants to push forward a new assault weapons ban
> with provisions that would make a vast majority of
> commercially available handguns illegal. So it's
> not like there aren't people who wan't to ban way
> more than just "assault" weapons.




I'd also make the distinction but fact is that handguns and shotguns are used in many, many more shootings than are "assault weapons" and are equally deadly. The numbers for the latter are tiny. A small percentage of a percentage. Banning "assault weapons" will do little to nothing to reduce the numbers of people or children who are shot.

The primary reason that the focus is on such weapons is that they've been made to be more than the are, they have a scary military look, it's an easy target. The anti-gun people know that there's no way in hell that they'll be able to ban hunting, sporting, and recreational guns (although the vast majority of "assault weapons" are used for those the same purposes).

It may come as a shock to most of the anti-gun nuts, but most people don't buy an AR-15 because it's an assault weapon or anything related to it serving assault purposes. They buy them because it's a great modern modular rifle platform which can be "lego'ed" into pretty much anything that you want from a home defense weapon in rifle or pistol form, to a hunting gun, to a long-range target gun, all using the same base.

@gunny - the fact that it can be "lego'ed" into pretty much anything that you want" if kinda one of the problems - yeah, we know. LoLz. And yes, banning "assault weapons" may do little to reduce the numbers of people or children who are shot.......................BUT AT LEAST IT IS BETTER TO TRY SOMETHING THAN NOTHING AT ALL!! Hell, if y'all gun nuts would AT LEAST TRY TO TAKE SOME RESPONSIBILITY FOR FIREARMS MISUSE or at least put out an attempt to even show that you cared about the issue, there's prolly be no talk whatsoever about gun bans. It's just the fact y'all could care less about gun crime that there is even talk about it.


@jander: Ok, we get you. I'm not a quartermaster LoLz Believe me, son - you are the ONLY person thinking I am. Didnt explain myself at all correctly about what I was trying to convey - you win the prize LoLz

@sally - um, that's all fine and dandy but my only point is that a skeet shotgun aint an "assault weapon" no matter how hard y'all want to confuse the two.............

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @gunny - the fact that it can be "lego'ed" into
> pretty much anything that you want" if kinda one
> of the problems - yeah, we know. LoLz. And yes,


So because I can swap the stock, handguards for rails, grip, sighting system, swap a .22 upper or drop-in for less expensive target shooting, or whatever else, is a concern to you from a gun control perspective exactly why?


> banning "assault weapons" may do little to reduce
> the numbers of people or children who are
> shot.......................BUT AT LEAST IT IS
> BETTER TO TRY SOMETHING THAN NOTHING AT ALL!!
> Hell, if y'all gun nuts would AT LEAST TRY TO TAKE
> SOME RESPONSIBILITY FOR FIREARMS MISUSE or at
> least put out an attempt to even show that you
> cared about the issue, there's prolly be no talk
> whatsoever about gun bans. It's just the fact
> y'all could care less about gun crime that there
> is even talk about it.


You couldn't have answered in a more telling way. We need to do SOMETHING even if that something has no real effect on the actual problem and significantly affects others who are not the problem. Very typical. And that's exactly why most on the other side from you have little interest in even bothering to try to engage. I'm a responsible firearms user but I have no responsibility nor can I control misuse of firearms by some nut cases or by criminals, neither of which are going to pay any attention to gun laws. Legal gun owners have been far more concerned with actual gun crime than most of you because it stands to affect our rights. What we could care less about are idiotic, bandaid, feel good solutions which really aren't and which affect us versus gun crime.

Gunny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> So because I can swap the stock, handguards for
> rails, grip, sighting system, swap a .22 upper or
> drop-in for less expensive target shooting, or
> whatever else, is a concern to you from a gun
> control perspective exactly why?
>
cause apaprently you can customize these things so that you can hold the trigger down and bullets just fly out like jiffypop, that's why.

http://www.hackcanada.com/ice3/misc/ak47mod.txt

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKLD5yVl0PM

(no, not the only two examples on the net......)


> You couldn't have answered in a more telling way.
> We need to do SOMETHING even if that something has
> no real effect on the actual problem and
> significantly affects others who are not the
> problem. Very typical. And that's exactly why
> most on the other side from you have little
> interest in even bothering to try to engage. I'm
> a responsible firearms user but I have no
> responsibility nor can I control misuse of
> firearms by some nut cases or by criminals,
> neither of which are going to pay any attention to
> gun laws. Legal gun owners have been far more
> concerned with actual gun crime than most of you
> because it stands to affect our rights. What we
> could care less about are idiotic, bandaid, feel
> good solutions which really aren't and which
> affect us versus gun crime.

translation: you dont know much about guns so FUCK your fear and fear of yr kids safety from gun crime.

Yeah, we got that I'm not ballistics expert. But that means SHIT, ok? You gun ppl are NOT DOING ENOUGH TO CURE GUN CRIME IN THIS COUNTRY! So FUCK what you know about guns, ok?

You want to talk about your rights, that's all great but I see AGAIN that you want to ignore those two words that all you gun nuts want to ignore time and time again:
WELL REGULATED

you want all the rights but NONE of the responsibility. Just give me my guns but nope, cant have ANY rules about them at all.

And the most pathetic part about it is that whenever even a discussion comes up about what to do about gun crime, y'all act like fucking Stormtropers are coming to your house tomorrow to take your wife and kids to Sobibor. (well, actually, y'all act like you could care less about wife and kids as long as you get to keep yr gun lol)

You say you are a responsible firearms user yet in the VERY NEXT SENTENCE you say act as you have no EXTRA RESPONSIBILITY to your community to keep firearms out of the hands of a criminals. Then you're gonna bitch at me cause I'm wanting some to take on that responsibility YOU HAVE CHOSEN TO NEGLECT?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/14/2013 09:50PM by Gordon Blvd.

p.s. this has nothing to do with the damn shotgun, y'know
LoLz

pic unrelated
Attachments:

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> cause apaprently you can customize these things so
> that you can hold the trigger down and bullets
> just fly out like jiffypop, that's why.
>
> http://www.hackcanada.com/ice3/misc/ak47mod.txt
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKLD5yVl0PM
>
> (no, not the only two examples on the net......)
>

Sorry, already illegal. Like to the tune of 10 years in Federal prison illegal. The usual person without Class III license and even most who are so licensed can't even own parts that they've manufactured themselves to do so. The far easier way to do it would be to simply buy the parts from the fully automatic versions but that's also illegal in the same way. If you also have a gun in which such parts can be installed then that's an additional separate offense. In any case, that's completely different than the primary reasons as I mentioned above for why people buy AR-15s. Virtually nobody does that. Anyone with any sense especially wouldn't do it in a half-ass, hack-job way that resulted in a less reliable weapon. Beyond that, you can do effectively the same thing in various ways to pretty much any repeating gun, even handguns, so nothing specific to the AR.


> translation: you dont know much about guns so
> FUCK your fear and fear of yr kids safety from gun
> crime.
>
> Yeah, we got that I'm not ballistics expert. But
> that means SHIT, ok? You gun ppl are NOT DOING
> ENOUGH TO CURE GUN CRIME IN THIS COUNTRY! So FUCK
> what you know about guns, ok?
>
> You want to talk about your rights, that's all
> great but I see AGAIN that you want to ignore
> those two words that all you gun nuts want to
> ignore time and time again:
> WELL REGULATED


LOL! The term "Well regulated" means something entirely different in that context. It leave it to you to figure out the meaning of the term regulated as it applies to a militia or army. Maybe you'll learn something along the way. Hint: It does not mean regulated under gun laws. No serious interpretation even suggests such.

>
> you want all the rights but NONE of the
> responsibility. Just give me my guns but nope,
> cant have ANY rules about them at all.
>
> And the most pathetic part about it is that
> whenever even a discussion comes up about what to
> do about gun crime, y'all act like fucking
> Stormtropers are coming to your house tomorrow to
> take your wife and kids to Sobibor. (well,
> actually, y'all act like you could care less about
> wife and kids as long as you get to keep yr gun
> lol)
>
> You say you are a responsible firearms user yet in
> the VERY NEXT SENTENCE you say act as you have no
> EXTRA RESPONSIBILITY to your community to keep
> firearms out of the hands of a criminals. Then
> you're gonna bitch at me cause I'm wanting some to
> take on that responsibility YOU HAVE CHOSEN TO
> NEGLECT?

Once again you try the standard Gordon twist. lol

No, I don't have any personal responsibility for gun crime, acts by nuts, or for enforcing gun laws. I have personal responsibility for not violating gun laws myself, for using and maintaining my guns in a responsible way and, to the extent that I am aware of and/or encounter it, and, morally if not legally, taking whatever appropriate actions might be required (notify the police, intervene, whatever) when I see some violation or threat which endangers others.

I don't drink. I don't do drugs. Nothing against either particularly, just not my thing any more. I certainly don't hold people who do drink responsible for the actions of drunk drivers or for other abuse of alcohol. I don't hold people who legally take prescription pain meds responsible for what some whacked out oxy nut does. I really don't see much if any difference.

And now that I think about it, both drugs and alcohol are responsible for far more deaths than are firearms. Given the coincident associations for both with gun-related crime, the fact is that you'd very likely get more bang (no pun intended) in terms of actual effect on gun violence by dealing with alcohol and drugs than you would through gun laws. That's true for all of intentional violence, accidents, and suicide.

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> p.s. this has nothing to do with the damn shotgun,
> y'know
> LoLz
>
> pic unrelated


It has to do with his position on "assault weapons" which is the only reason why the shotgun is even noteworthy.

Shotgun Sally Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is little to no functional difference in the
> threat presented by a double-barrel shotgun of the
> type purchased by McAuliffe and the guns that he
> wants to ban. Because one has a nice wood stock
> and engraving and the other a plastic stock and
> matte black finish, that doesn't change the basic
> nature of the weapons. In fact, at the ranges
> typically involved in incidents of the type of
> primary concern here, the double-barrel shotgun
> very arguably could be considered the more
> effective kid-killing weapon.

While I don't especially have a dog in this race, I do find this comment odd. A double barrel shotgun takes quite a lot longer to reload than a semiautomatic firearm of any kind, and has to be reloaded quite a lot more often. Perhaps a very practiced shooter can reload it quickly, but I've been shooting for almost 20 years and it takes me a LOT longer to reload a double barrel than any of my semi-automatic handguns or rifles.

In a life-and-death situation, anyone not experienced in combat is going to be extremely nervous and likely very jittery. Reloads become much more difficult and time-consuming in those situations, especially those requiring fine motor skills like a hand reload of shot shells.

You (or perhaps someone else) mention earlier that a reload takes 2-3 seconds. In practice, perhaps that is the case. I think in a critical situation, it is likely to take longer. But as I'm sure you know, the old "7 yard rule" indicates that an assailant can cover 21 feet in 1½ seconds; that's before a double barreled shotgun can be reloaded, even assuming your 2-3 seconds is accurate, which I'm not sure it is, and am strongly doubtful it is in a critical situation. That gives an adult significant time to counterattack. And as I'm also sure you're aware of, long arms become almost useless when someone is less than 2 feet away from you.

That would seem to make it significantly less useful for maximum killing even against unarmed victims, if for no other reason than it gives them a LOT more time to run. It also gives unarmed victims much more opportunity to counterattack, and a decent chance at succeeding.

For the record, I own 8 guns, most of which have high-capacity magazines, and a concealed handgun permit. I'm not opposed to private gun ownership. And yes, I know the real difference between an assault rifle, a battle rifle, and a hunting rifle.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2013 02:10AM by Kardinal.

@Kilton - all I know is that I find it funny that "gun-nuts" are sitting here acting like this guy is some sorta liar for buying a friggin skeet gun. And the WORST part about it is that all the ppl arguing with me over it are aruging that it's ok to rank on him for buying the gun, then they point out in DETAIL how the gun is so different than the types of guns McAuliffe talks about banning, then CONTINUE to act like he should be crucified for discussing the topic WHEN IT'S NOT EVEN THE SAME TYPE OF WEAPON. It's like they wanna have their cake and eat it too. Just pathetic.

@Gunny - sorry but in the minds of most ppl, the shotgun he bought is NOT considered an "assualt weapon", ok? I dont know shit about guns, but I NEVER have thought that a skeet shooting gun is an assualt weapon. It's only been the gun-lovers on this thread who have tried to confuse the issue - not too sure why y'all are into that.................. And no, it's not really noteworthy in the least, yo.


but the best for last, folks: from you very own WELL REGULATED MILTIA!!!

"No, I don't have any personal responsibility for gun crime, acts by nuts, or for enforcing gun laws. I have personal responsibility for not violating gun laws myself, for using and maintaining my guns in a responsible way and, to the extent that I am aware of and/or encounter it, and, morally if not legally, taking whatever appropriate actions might be required (notify the police, intervene, whatever) when I see some violation or threat which endangers others."

translation: NRA ppl could care less once a gun leaves their presence. If I lose a gun I brought into your community, (either by negligence or theft) whelp - tough luck citizens and fuck you if you get hurt by them!!

Next up, "comparing a weapon to a tool" argument: This time, it's "car as weapon". Gun nuts will CONTINUE to confuse the words "tool" and "weapon" and act like they are interchangable.
Look, kids. A tool can be used as a weapon. A weapon is a tool SOLELY DESIGNED FOR KILLING. Using a vehicle improperly is a CRIME. So your arguments about DUI is a fail even before it starts, friend. You say you see no difference and I pray you are just messing with me on that. A gun is NOT a tool - it is a WEAPON and should ALWAYS BE TREATED AS SUCH! If you store yr guns away the same way you store yr tools away, then I'm not too sure you are that responsible a gun owner. But I actually dont think you believe that.
I actually do believe you are the type of gun owner I'd have no problem with. But I'm not going to let you tell me that I've no right to bitch about this stuff cause I do. Cause I've personally been effected by gun crime with my kids involved (nothing major, but DAMN was it scary when it was going down). Something needs to be done. I dont see the NRA (gun rights leaders) doing a damn thing about it. So since they are, others are going to have to. And I'm gonna support those who at least are TRYING to do something about what I see is as one of the largest issues in our Nation.

Kardinal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Shotgun Sally Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > There is little to no functional difference in
> the
> > threat presented by a double-barrel shotgun of
> the
> > type purchased by McAuliffe and the guns that
> he
> > wants to ban. Because one has a nice wood
> stock
> > and engraving and the other a plastic stock and
> > matte black finish, that doesn't change the
> basic
> > nature of the weapons. In fact, at the ranges
> > typically involved in incidents of the type of
> > primary concern here, the double-barrel shotgun
> > very arguably could be considered the more
> > effective kid-killing weapon.
>
> While I don't especially have a dog in this race,
> I do find this comment odd. A double barrel
> shotgun takes quite a lot longer to reload than a
> semiautomatic firearm of any kind, and has to be
> reloaded quite a lot more often. Perhaps a very
> practiced shooter can reload it quickly, but I've
> been shooting for almost 20 years and it takes me
> a LOT longer to reload a double barrel than any of
> my semi-automatic handguns or rifles.
>
> In a life-and-death situation, anyone not
> experienced in combat is going to be extremely
> nervous and likely very jittery. Reloads become
> much more difficult and time-consuming in those
> situations, especially those requiring fine motor
> skills like a hand reload of shot shells.
>
> You (or perhaps someone else) mention earlier that
> a reload takes 2-3 seconds. In practice, perhaps
> that is the case. I think in a critical
> situation, it is likely to take longer. But as
> I'm sure you know, the old "7 yard rule" indicates
> that an assailant can cover 21 feet in 1½
> seconds; that's before a double barreled shotgun
> can be reloaded, even assuming your 2-3 seconds is
> accurate, which I'm not sure it is, and am
> strongly doubtful it is in a critical situation.
> That gives an adult significant time to
> counterattack. And as I'm also sure you're aware
> of, long arms become almost useless when someone
> is less than 2 feet away from you.
>
> That would seem to make it significantly less
> useful for maximum killing even against unarmed
> victims, if for no other reason than it gives them
> a LOT more time to run. It also gives unarmed
> victims much more opportunity to counterattack,
> and a decent chance at succeeding.
>
> For the record, I own 8 guns, most of which have
> high-capacity magazines, and a concealed handgun
> permit. I'm not opposed to private gun ownership.
> And yes, I know the real difference between an
> assault rifle, a battle rifle, and a hunting
> rifle.


Sure, you can come up with scenarios where it might make a difference. Likewise, there are many others where it would not. The point was that a double-barrel shotgun is a very deadly weapon, at least equal to and arguably more so versus the 5.56 at closer ranges, and that reloading one isn't some particularly slow, difficult task.

Hit the latch, the barrels break and the shells eject, grab two from a pouch and drop them in, snap it closed. Done in less time than it likely took you to read this paragraph.

Using the current case as an example, I really don't see a group of 2nd graders rushing a gunman while reloading (or most adults in the same situation for that matter). Not sure where you run in an enclosed area like classroom. Hiding behind a light plastic or particle board desk just ain't gonna do it. Even accounting for reloading time, an unopposed shooter could easily kill 20 people with a double-barrel shotgun within a very short period of time. You can make it 10 seconds per shot (which is a relatively long time - go ahead and count it out) X 25 shots and you're still only at 250 seconds or slightly over 4 minutes. The practical result is the same.

@Sally - principal and at least one teacher died trying to take that asswipe down. DIRECTLY tried to do that.

So yeah, I see an adult thinking about rushing a gunman while he's reloading. I pray to Christ I am never put in that sort of scenario but if I am, I'd hope that I'd be that lucid (and Blessed) to know to react if that reloading opportunity presented itself.

p.s. since you are such the expert, can you show us a link of a gun massacre where 20 ppl were killed with a shotgun?

Y'all wanna use that arguement like it happens ever 20 minutes - so SHOW US WHEN A SHOTGUN WAS SOLE WEAPON USED IN A MASS KILLING OF 10+ PEOPLE.

sounds unlikely to me............................but y'all will still try to confuse REALITY with whatever is in yr head - same way y'all tried to confuse a skeetgun with an assault weapon LoLz

pic unrelated



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2013 08:41AM by Gordon Blvd.
Attachments:

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @Sally - principal and at least one teacher died
> trying to take that asswipe down. DIRECTLY tried
> to do that.
>
> So yeah, I see an adult thinking about rushing a
> gunman while he's reloading. I pray to Christ I
> am never put in that sort of scenario but if I am,
> I'd hope that I'd be that lucid (and Blessed) to
> know to react if that reloading opportunity
> presented itself.
>
> p.s. since you are such the expert, can you show
> us a link of a gun massacre where 20 ppl were
> killed with a shotgun?
>
> Y'all wanna use that arguement like it happens
> ever 20 minutes - so SHOW US WHEN A SHOTGUN WAS
> SOLE WEAPON USED IN A MASS KILLING OF 10+ PEOPLE.
>
> sounds unlikely to
> me............................but y'all will still
> try to confuse REALITY with whatever is in yr head
> - same way y'all tried to confuse a skeetgun with
> an assault weapon LoLz
>
> pic unrelated


Gordon, I think you're not nearly as unreasonable as some around here think, and you have good thoughts to contribute sometimes...

...but if you did it in a more reasonable and polite way, I think it would go a lot further to making your points stick and people would listen to your points more.

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @Sally - principal and at least one teacher died
> trying to take that asswipe down. DIRECTLY tried
> to do that.
>
> So yeah, I see an adult thinking about rushing a
> gunman while he's reloading. I pray to Christ I
> am never put in that sort of scenario but if I am,
> I'd hope that I'd be that lucid (and Blessed) to
> know to react if that reloading opportunity
> presented itself.


And how'd that work out? I think you just made my point.

No indication that things would have been any different in the case of a shotgun.


>
> p.s. since you are such the expert, can you show
> us a link of a gun massacre where 20 ppl were
> killed with a shotgun?
>
> Y'all wanna use that arguement like it happens
> ever 20 minutes - so SHOW US WHEN A SHOTGUN WAS
> SOLE WEAPON USED IN A MASS KILLING OF 10+ PEOPLE.
>
> sounds unlikely to
> me............................but y'all will still
> try to confuse REALITY with whatever is in yr head
> - same way y'all tried to confuse a skeetgun with
> an assault weapon LoLz
>
> pic unrelated


Not really a valid case given that in most mass shooting cases there are multiple weapons used. It's typically not just a sole type used and most stats aren't broken out that way. In the same way I'd have to hunt to find some where an "assault weapon" was the sole gun used. And further without doing more research than I'm interested in doing at the moment it would take some time and effort to try to parse out how many victims were shot with what in a particular incident and they could, in fact, have been shot with more than one.

In any case, there are lots of examples of mass shootings where a shotgun was one of several primary weapons used. And if you take it to the more common and numerous cases of incidents where smaller numbers in the 5-ish person range are killed then there are many more where a shotgun was the primary weapon.

But just as several quick, well-known examples from an easy to find source:

The Dark Knight Rises: Movie Theater Shooting

INCIDENT

Fifteen minutes into the midnight premiere screening of Batman: The Dark Knight Rises on July 20, 2012, a man clad in body armor and wearing a gas mask, entered the Century Aurora 16 movie theatre in Aurora, CO, through an emergency exit. After tossing two canisters of tear gas into the theater he began firing upon the audience. The gunman first used an AR-15-type assault rifle equipped with a 100-round drum large capacity ammunition magazine, after the assault rifle jammed, he then continued with a 12-gauge shotgun--killing 12 and wounding 58. The alleged shooter, James Holmes, was apprehended by the police within seven minutes of the first 911 calls from moviegoers in the theatre's rear parking lot."


Northern Illinois University

INCIDENT

Armed with four firearms and 33- and 15-round large capacity ammunition magazines, graduate student Steven Kazmierczak kicked in the door of a Cole Hall lecture room and began firing on the 162-person class. Firing approximately 54 shots, he killed 5 students and wounded 17 others, before taking his own life. Kazmierczak had a history of mental illness, erratic behavior, and self-mutilation, and had reportedly stopped taking his medication in the weeks leading up to the shooting.

WEAPONS
SIG SAUER Kurz 9mm semiautomatic pistol, Hi-Point CF380 .380 caliber semiautomatic pistol, GLOCK 19 9mm semiautomatic pistol, Remington Sportsman 48 12-gauge shotgun, and 33-round and 15-round large capacity ammunition magazines.


Edgewater Technology Office

INCIDENT

Armed with multiple firearms and a 60-round large capacity ammunition magazine, McDermott arrived at his workplace at about 9 AM. After about two hours, he began his rampage by walking to the reception desk and shooting and killing the office manager. He moved throughout the building continuing to shoot at specific coworkers, firing 37 shots over the course of five to six minutes before he stopped firing, returned to the reception area and sat down. Authorities speculated that McDermott's motive centered on anger that his wages were to be collected by the IRS for the payment of back taxes.

WEAPONS

AK-47-type semiautomatic assault rifle, unknown make and model 12-gauge shotgun, unknown make and model .32-caliber semiautomatic pistol, and 60-round large capacity ammunition magazine.


Columbine High School

INCIDENT

On the morning of April 20th, Harris and Klebold entered Columbine High School and placed two propane bombs in the cafeteria. They then returned to their cars, awaiting detonation. After the bombs failed to detonate, Harris and Klebold gathered their guns and large capacity ammunition magazines ranging from 28- to 52-rounds, then approached the school's west entrance. At approximately 11:20 AM, they begin shooting at students outside the school. After entering the school, they commenced shooting and throwing pipe bombs at random, eventually proceeding to the library where they killed 10 and injured 12 more. Leaving the library, they continued wandering about the school, occasionally firing through windows at law enforcement, until—at around noon—they committed suicide.

WEAPONS

Savage Springfield 67H 12-gauge pump-action shotgun, Savage Stevens 311D 12-gauge sawed-off shotgun, Hi-Point 995 9mm semiautomatic rifle, INTRATEC TEC-DC9 9mm semiautomatic pistol, and thirteen 10-round magazines, one 52-, one 32-, one 28-round large capacity ammunition magazines. Harris and Klebold illegally acquired the shotguns and Hi-Point rifle through a "straw purchase" (a transaction in which a legal buyer makes a purchase for someone who cannot legally purchase the firearm). Their friend, Robyn Anderson, purchased the three firearms at the Tanner Gun Show from unlicensed sellers in December of 1998. A pizza shop employee, Mark Manes, illegally sold them the INTRATEC TEC-DC9.


McDonald's Restaurant

INCIDENT

Armed with multiple firearms and 25-round large capacity ammunition magazines, Huberty entered the McDonald's restaurant and opened fire. He shot 40 people, killing 21 and wounding 19. He expended 257 rounds over 77 minutes, before being killed by a police sniper. No motive has been established. Prior to the shooting, Huberty told his wife, "I'm going hunting humans."

WEAPONS

Browning P-35 9mm semiautomatic pistol, Winchester 1200 pump-action 12-gauge shotgun, Israeli Military Industries 9mm Model A Carbine (Uzi), and 25-round large capacity ammunition magazines.

@Kilton - you are very right. If I was a differnt type of person my arguments would go a whole lot further. But I'm not and they wont LoLz

seriously...........anyone who's not going to listen to truth just cause of the receptacle it comes in.............whelp, that's just not how I was raised.

I learned some of my most VALUABLE life lessons from some of the most righteous and also from some of the most potty-mouthed ppl on the planet. Once thing I've picked up is that if you dont listen to ppl just cause of who you THINK they are, who YOU perceive them to be - then it's YOU who turn out to be the loser.

I know I've learned TONS just by listening to ppl on this board. Same gun nuts made me change my mind about open-carry. I used to be all about the DUI checkpoints and now I know they are a COMPLETE waste of time and resources in this county as we dont really have a "party zone" so no real place to target - best to have roving DUI patrols. And in BOTH thos cases, ppl werent necessarily all nice and dandy when talking to me - but the thing is I LISTENED TO THEM CAUSE THEY WERE MAKING SENSE, bringing meat and potatoes to the table and not just bullshit.

And THAT's what should matter most in an interwebz discussion - the meat and potaotes of it all, not how "nice" or polite" you think the person is, y'know?

or how many typos the make LoLz

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> but the best for last, folks: from you very own
> WELL REGULATED MILTIA!!!
>

And just FYI so you won't embarrass yourself again as far as the term "well regulated" goes, in that context it means well equipped, competent, capable. In a similar way to how the term "regular army" is used to distinguish between that and irregular groups of conscripts, etc. Nobody suggests that it refers to regulating arms in the way that you're using the term.

At the time, the Federal government was much more subordinate to and very much dependent upon the States for funding (my how things change huh? lol). In order to avoid the cost of maintaining a large standing national army, the idea was that the citizenry of the various States would act as supplemental forces which could be pressed into service as necessary; therefore, they needed to maintain arms and be competent in their use.

The matter of individual rights to arms and an armed citizenry goes beyond that, but that's a different discussion versus the term "well regulated" as it applies in that context.

@sally - ROFLMAO at you ignoring the AKs, Uzis and high-capacity mag weaponry used in EACH AND EVERY SINGLE ONE of those mass shootings you pointed out. Those were the weapons mainly used in killing the majority of those ppl in every incident - and THOSE are the ones we are mainly concerned about. You pointing out about the shotguns is all very well fine but can you prove ANYBODY was killed by shotgun blasts in any of those incidents?

Again, I ask you: SHOW US WHEN A SHOTGUN WAS SOLE WEAPON USED IN A MASS KILLING OF 10+ PEOPLE.

cause THAT is the crutch(LoLz) of yr argument - you say the shotgun is as deadly as an assault weapon - so prove it. Sniper used ONLY a bushmaster. He killed 10. SHOW ME WHERE SOMEONE WITH A SHOTGUN HAS DONE THIS

Only one time I've EVER heard of a shotgun being used in such a manner was the Shotgun Stalker long time ago. and he only killed 4 even though he attacked JUST AS MANY TIMES AS SNIPER DID.

p.s. I just wish y'all would..............well, regulate yourselves

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @sally - ROFLMAO at you ignoring the AKs, Uzis and
> high-capacity mag weaponry used in EACH AND EVERY
> SINGLE ONE of those mass shootings you pointed
> out. Those were the weapons mainly used in
> killing the majority of those ppl in every
> incident - and THOSE are the ones we are mainly
> concerned about. You pointing out about the
> shotguns is all very well fine but can you prove
> ANYBODY was killed by shotgun blasts in any of
> those incidents?
>
> Again, I ask you: SHOW US WHEN A SHOTGUN WAS
> SOLE WEAPON USED IN A MASS KILLING OF 10+
> PEOPLE.
>
> cause THAT is the crutch(LoLz) of yr argument -
> you say the shotgun is as deadly as an assault
> weapon - so prove it. Sniper used ONLY a
> bushmaster. He killed 10. SHOW ME WHERE SOMEONE
> WITH A SHOTGUN HAS DONE THIS
>
> Only one time I've EVER heard of a shotgun
> being used in such a manner was the Shotgun
> Stalker long time ago. and he only killed 4 even
> though he attacked JUST AS MANY TIMES AS SNIPER
> DID.
>
> p.s. I just wish y'all would..............well,
> regulate yourselves


No, I'm not ignoring them. I listed them along with all the rest. Just as I said, you're really not asking a valid question since such incidents typically don't involve single types of weapons.

By the same reasoning, you're ignoring the handguns which are by far the most common weapons used in deadly shootings at about 75% of cases overall. You're also ignoring cases like Northern IL where there were no "assault weapons" used. You're also ignoring that in the CO shooting the AR jammed and he used the shotgun. Arguably the same applies to Columbine and the McDonald's cases since the specific weapons used were pistol-caliber versus "assault rifles" equivalent to an AR-15 or AK. If I remember correctly, in the case of Columbine, one of the shotguns was fired 21 times and was the primary cause of death to a large number of those killed in the library.

I'm not going to spend endless time hunting down stats that you're just going to blow off with your typical nonsense responses. You can look at any of the numbers for the incidence of the use of "assault weapons" and you'll find that they are a very, very small both in terms of number and percentage. In terms of orders of magnitude, in a typical year for firearms used in murders, handguns will be in the 5,000 range. shotguns will be in the 300 range. Rifles of all types (mostly .22s and hunting-style rifles ), will be in the 200-300 range. Of the latter, typically only about 10-20 will be "assault rifles." Granted, they tend to be used frequently in mass shootings. So are handguns. So are shotguns.

Shotgun Sally Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> No, I'm not ignoring them. I listed them along
> with all the rest. Just as I said, you're really
> not asking a valid question since such incidents
> typically don't involve single types of weapons.

and why do you think that is, Sally? - it's cause if yr planning to ASSAULT, you'd use the ASSAULT WEAPONS. I mean, you just said you understand the difference between the two (No, I'm not ignoring them) and STILL you are arguing that they are the same. I mean, WTF?


> By the same reasoning, you're ignoring the
> handguns which are by far the most common weapons
> used in deadly shootings at about 75% of cases
> overall. You're also ignoring cases like Northern
> IL where there were no "assault weapons" used.
> You're also ignoring that in the CO shooting the
> AR jammed and he used the shotgun. Arguably the
> same applies to Columbine and the McDonald's cases
> since the specific weapons used were
> pistol-caliber versus "assault rifles" equivalent
> to an AR-15 or AK. If I remember correctly, in
> the case of Columbine, one of the shotguns was
> fired 21 times and was the primary cause of death
> to a large number of those killed in the library.
>

I'm not ignoring the handguns. The ONLY point I've ever made on this thread is that McAuliffe's skeetgun aint the same as an ASSAULT WEAPON - dunno why yr bringing up handguns as that's never been the topic o_0


> I'm not going to spend endless time hunting down
> stats that you're just going to blow off with your
> typical nonsense responses. You can look at any
> of the numbers for the incidence of the use of
> "assault weapons" and you'll find that they are a
> very, very small both in terms of number and
> percentage. In terms of orders of magnitude, in a
> typical year for firearms used in murders,
> handguns will be in the 5,000 range. shotguns will
> be in the 300 range. Rifles of all types (mostly
> .22s and hunting-style rifles ), will be in the
> 200-300 range. Of the latter, typically only
> about 10-20 will be "assault rifles." Granted,
> they tend to be used frequently in mass shootings.
> So are handguns. So are shotguns.

So you simply say "I cant find any Gordo cause shotgun mass murders dont exist" but I understand it's difficult. Anywho, like I said to ya'll 8 days ago:

Re: Terry McAuliffe Buys Shotgun in Fairfax Store
Posted by: Gordon Blvd ()
Date: January 08, 2013 05:11PM

a shotgun isnt a assault weapon (edit: I should have said "THIS" shotgun, not "A" shotgun - my bad)

you DO know that, right?

two COMPLETELY different weapons.

are a you so stupid you cant tell the difference, OP?

You psycho-libs aren't going to win this one ever! Most of the gun owners I know are preparing to protect all those who believe in the second amendment. Terry McAuliffe doesn't have the power and never will have the power to do anything about guns in Virginia.

dieing breed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You psycho-libs aren't going to win this one ever!

And you've got your head so far up Fox News's ass that you seem to be missing the fact that this fight isn't between Liberals and Conservatives. It is between the Brady group and its uber-gun control allies on the one hand, the NRA and its line in the sand allies on the other, the MSM is lapping it up because it is a hot story and the Kardashian's aren't doing anything at the moment, and most of us sitting in between.

Bill.N. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> dieing breed Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You psycho-libs aren't going to win this one
> ever!
>
> And you've got your head so far up Fox News's ass
> that you seem to be missing the fact that this
> fight isn't between Liberals and Conservatives.
> It is between the Brady group and its uber-gun
> control allies on the one hand, the NRA and its
> line in the sand allies on the other, the MSM is
> lapping it up because it is a hot story and the
> Kardashian's aren't doing anything at the moment,
> and most of us sitting in between.


Somewhat correct Bill (per usual). The MSM is squarely in the lap of the democrats and the banner in chief. This has been proven over and over. They put their liberal ideology over profits, over good journalism and over their role as protectors of the American people's right to know the truth.

What specifics can you cite to support your position that being against another gun ban means you are being brainwashed by Fox News. What is it about Fox News that gets everyone in a tizzy? As one of the ONLY news outlets that isn't towing the liberal line, it must be torn down. I personally find it rather low-brow, but certainly no more biased than any other news on TV.

And this is a fight between liberals and conservatives. In general, liberals believe the law should be whatever they think it should be, regardless of what things like the Constitution clearly convey. Conservatives believe the law should be what the law says, regardless of what they think it should be. Gun control is a perfect relection of this IMO.

ROFLMAO@@ soooooooooo +1 Bill N.

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> - but the thing is I LISTENED TO THEM CAUSE THEY
> WERE MAKING SENSE, bringing meat and potatoes to
> the table and not just bullshit.

and yet you spout stuff that doesn't make sense and act like an ass to people who are telling you facts. I tried to discuss many aspects other than related to shotguns vs assault rifles, that you completely disregard and fall back on your ignorance.
I don't see any evidence that you read and try and learn at all.

You also seem to think that it is every gun owners duty to keep check on other gun owners. We can't make everyone lock up their guns, responsible gun owners will keep their weapons out of the hands of criminals, but that is something I can't control.

Ride the pee pee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What specifics can you cite to support your
> position that being against another gun ban means
> you are being brainwashed by Fox News.

> In general, liberals believe the
> law should be whatever they think it should be,
> regardless of what things like the Constitution
> clearly convey. Conservatives believe the law
> should be what the law says, regardless of what
> they think it should be.

You answered your own question.

If you've read my posts you'd know that I am not saying someone who is against gun bans has been brainwashed by Fox News. To the contrary I've consistently held the position that there are many on the left who strongly believe the Second Amendment protects the rights of law abiding citizens to own guns and there are many on the right who strongly favor significant gun restrictions. What I have said is that those who see this as a battle between virtuous conservatives who are trying to uphold the Constitution and evil liberals trying to subvert it are brainwashed by right wing commentators such as those found on Fox News. Got it?

Jander420 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gordon Blvd Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > - but the thing is I LISTENED TO THEM CAUSE
> THEY
> > WERE MAKING SENSE, bringing meat and potatoes
> to
> > the table and not just bullshit.
>
> and yet you spout stuff that doesn't make sense
> and act like an ass to people who are telling you
> facts. I tried to discuss many aspects other than
> related to shotguns vs assault rifles, that you
> completely disregard and fall back on your
> ignorance.
> I don't see any evidence that you read and try and
> learn at all.
>
> You also seem to think that it is every gun owners
> duty to keep check on other gun owners. We can't
> make everyone lock up their guns, responsible gun
> owners will keep their weapons out of the hands of
> criminals, but that is something I can't control.


............sigh. jander, you said it best yourself: "I tried to discuss many aspects other than related to shotguns vs assault rifles. Kinda a fail in the meat 'n taters department, son - seeing as the topic at hand was a discussion about why McAuliffe is being called out his name for buying this stupid gun to have some funtime with his kid.

What I think about every gun owner: If you purchase a firearm and bring it into a community, YOU HAVE MORE OF A RESPONSIBILITY THAN I DO TO INSURE THAT FIREARM NEVER HARMS ANOTHER SOUL!!

If that was the culture of gun owners in this country, that would be AWESOME, a win-win as gun-crime would be nil and y'all would be able to have all the guns you want no questions.

What blows my mind is how it is the gun-owners who fight this culture change. I hear time and time again "I'm a responsible gun owner" and then you stick yr head in the sand like irresponsible gun owners dont exist.

But what REALLY is a pisser is this argument you are using that nobody has a right to do something about irresponsible gun owners BECAUSE you are a responsible gun owner, yet YOU the RESPONSIBLE gun owner will also wash their hands of trying to do something about irresponsible gun owners - I mean WHAT THE FUCK!?!?! o_0

All I want is for gun owners as a whole to start a culture change about gun ownership and gun safety - I mean y'all bitch when anybody else tries to do something about gun crime - so why the f**k dont y'all do something about it?

Gun owners are doing everything they can to stop these horrible crimes, but our hands are tied. Wayne La pierre stated that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun. You psycho-liberals just can't admit that it is true. Make you a deal- you retrieve all of the assault weapons that Oblama and Derelick Holder armed the drug cartels with(some 1400) during fast'n furious then we'll talk about stiffer penalties for felons and those who commit gun crimes(and become felons). In fact, we'll even talk about long hard sentences for illegal possesion of firearms, but we(law abiding citezens) will never, ever agree to disarm of any type of firearm. Even low level criminals need assault rifles to protect themselves right now with all those fast'n furious assault rifles out there.

Check out this cartoon above: 4 different killings. THe first three involve TOOLS (pipe, rope, knife) that have been improperly used, not for their DESIGNED PURPOSE.

That handgun was used as a WEAPON. That's it's ONLY design. And that's why the different response.

You've got to be pretty stupid to not know the difference between a TOOL and a WEAPON

edit: @dieing-the fact that I'd need to "make a deal" with you in order to get you to discuss ways on how to reduce gun crime in this Nation of ours...........................well that just makes me sick to my stomach to think you'd need to "make a deal" with a fellow American to get such a thing going..................................that should be something we'd ALL be on the same page about, bro.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2013 07:21PM by Gordon Blvd.

Tool: A device or implement, esp. one held in the hand, used to carry out a particular function. A handheld device that aids in accomplishing a task.

(so if a gun helps one carry out the task for a function {i.e.target shooting} it is a tool).


Weapon: something as a club (picture 1), knife (picture 3), or gun(picture 4) used to injure, defeat, or destroy.

All are inanimate objects & all can be used as weapons.


Gordon, you are a tool.

Bill.N. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> You answered your own question.
>
> If you've read my posts you'd know that I am not
> saying someone who is against gun bans has been
> brainwashed by Fox News. To the contrary I've
> consistently held the position that there are many
> on the left who strongly believe the Second
> Amendment protects the rights of law abiding
> citizens to own guns and there are many on the
> right who strongly favor significant gun
> restrictions. What I have said is that those who
> see this as a battle between virtuous
> conservatives who are trying to uphold the
> Constitution and evil liberals trying to subvert
> it are brainwashed by right wing commentators such
> as those found on Fox News. Got it?


Yeah, I got it. You're still somewhat correct. Where are the liberals trying to uphold a law. The supreme court already reaffirmed the meaning of the second amendment (twice in the past two years) so it doesn't really matter how liberals interpret it (yet). So where are all these liberals defending the 2nd amendment. Not on this board, that's for sure. If you can provide some facts to back up your OPINIONS, then perhaps you won't come across as just another FFXU blowhard acting like their opinions are somehow gospel.

know nothing Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tool: A device or implement, esp. one held in the
> hand, used to carry out a particular function. A
> handheld device that aids in accomplishing a
> task.
>
> (so if a gun helps one carry out the task for a
> function {i.e.target shooting} it is a tool).
>
>
> Weapon: something as a club (picture 1), knife
> (picture 3), or gun(picture 4) used to injure,
> defeat, or destroy.
>
> All are inanimate objects & all can be used as
> weapons.
>
>
> Gordon, you are a tool.

and here we go again. not being able to understand the difference between the two.

YES, we all understand a tool CAN be used as a weapon - HOWEVER they are not DESIGNED as such like a PISTOL is DESIGNED to be.

Yes, I am a tool. All my life I thought the NRA and gun nuts actually cared about America and fellow Americans. I bought y'alls bullshit hook line and sinker for the majority of my life up until 4 and a half weeks ago when I learned you could care less about your community, your neighbors and your country.

So yeah, I'm a tool :(

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @gunny - the fact that it can be "lego'ed" into
> pretty much anything that you want" if kinda one
> of the problems - yeah, we know. LoLz. And yes,
> banning "assault weapons" may do little to reduce
> the numbers of people or children who are
> shot.......................BUT AT LEAST IT IS
> BETTER TO TRY SOMETHING THAN NOTHING AT ALL!!
> Hell, if y'all gun nuts would AT LEAST TRY TO TAKE
> SOME RESPONSIBILITY FOR FIREARMS MISUSE or at
> least put out an attempt to even show that you
> cared about the issue, there's prolly be no talk
> whatsoever about gun bans. It's just the fact
> y'all could care less about gun crime that there
> is even talk about it.

No its not thats the same logic that got us obama care and wasted trillions on stimulus packages that did nothing.

So now your plan is to just start trampling constitutional rights throwing shit at the wall hoping something sticks, great plan

give me a break Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gordon Blvd Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > @gunny - the fact that it can be "lego'ed" into
> > pretty much anything that you want" if kinda
> one
> > of the problems - yeah, we know. LoLz. And
> yes,
> > banning "assault weapons" may do little to
> reduce
> > the numbers of people or children who are
> > shot.......................BUT AT LEAST IT IS
> > BETTER TO TRY SOMETHING THAN NOTHING AT ALL!!
> > Hell, if y'all gun nuts would AT LEAST TRY TO
> TAKE
> > SOME RESPONSIBILITY FOR FIREARMS MISUSE or at
> > least put out an attempt to even show that you
> > cared about the issue, there's prolly be no
> talk
> > whatsoever about gun bans. It's just the fact
> > y'all could care less about gun crime that
> there
> > is even talk about it.
>
> No its not thats the same logic that got us obama
> care and wasted trillions on stimulus packages
> that did nothing.
>
> So now your plan is to just start trampling
> constitutional rights throwing shit at the wall
> hoping something sticks, great plan


whelp - what are you bringing to the table to help stop gun crime in this nation?

what's going on on yr side of the debate that is going to curb criminals getting their hands on guns?

sit on yr ass and do nothing? great plan

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> whelp - what are you bringing to the table to help
> stop gun crime in this nation?

Its been on the decline for years its not the problem its been made out to be.

You want mass shootings to stop, stop making the shooters famous in the media and making it a way for unstable people to leave their mark on history. You also wouldnt get the copy cats either.

How about a president that brings people together instead of pinning the country against each other for his own power.

> what's going on on yr side of the debate that is
> going to curb criminals getting their hands on
> guns?

Theyre going to get them no matter what is done, thats life.

Unlike you I blame the criminal not the gun. I dont blame my pencil for a wrong test answer, or blame a car for a drunk driver.

> sit on yr ass and do nothing? great plan

Yes actually it is a much better plan than tearing up the constitution hoping something sicks.

What solutions have you offered that would make a difference, none.

Your solution is to ban something that is involved in about 300 murders a year. That would be less than knives, hands/feet and slightly more than people who are strangled. Thats how much of an impact you will have on crime if somehow you destroyed every rifle in the world which will never happen. Way to make a difference.

If your so worried about kids how about banning abortion more kids have been killed in 1 year from that than in the history of rifles. Rifles wont even crack the top 10 probably top 20 for ways kids die.

Or how about this, since you dont care about the constitution you can just stop talking and give up the first amendment until we prove that doesnt stop murders then well reevaluate since thats how your plan will work

@give em a break -yr bringing up abortion? Are you off yr meds? We are talking about a skeet shotgun, yo..............................

While you're talking about Terry McAuliffe buying guns, remember to drop by Glory Days Grill for some delicious mouth watering food!

We'll see you at Glory Days Grill, very soon!

http://www.glorydaysgrill.com

now now gordy boy- you opened that door! you said you in favor of gun rights until the newtown murders which were mostly little children. if you're so concerned about the children where are the rights of the unborn ya freakin hypocrite liberal!

do unborn children like skeet shooting

I bet they'd LOVE some Glory Day wings!! LoLz

pic unrelated
Attachments:

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> do unborn children like skeet shooting
>
> I bet they'd LOVE some Glory Day wings!! LoLz
>
> pic unrelated


Lean pro-life here but in hindsight I'd have been OK with making an exception in your case.

lol

@missed - yes yes, we know...............we alllllllllllllll know.

pic unrelated



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/16/2013 10:12PM by Gordon Blvd.
Attachments:

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @give em a break -yr bringing up abortion? Are
> you off yr meds? We are talking about a skeet
> shotgun, yo..............................


Your rational for getting rid of guns is to save kids, how about you use that energy to actually do something that will save kids and a hell of a lot more of them.

Its really quite simple. Im not going to listen to people who are pro abortion lecture how we need to protect our children with laws that have proven to have no impact on crime and do nothing more than get rid of guns because they dont like them

Re: Terry McAuliffe Buys Shotgun in Fairfax Store
Posted by: give me a break ()
Date: January 16, 2013 11:15PM


Its really quite simple. Im not going to listen to people who are pro abortion lecture how we need to protect our children with laws that have proven to have no impact on crime


fixed that for you :)

pic unrelated
Attachments: