• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NRA Newtown response [W:818]

Re: NRA Newtown response

SheWolf said:
It's absurd that the NRA is only responding because these were very small, little children. When it was a movie cinema and high schools, I guess the kids weren't young enough... the carnage wasn't bad enough. Why is the NRA only talking about protecting our children, and not about protecting everybody at cinemas and shopping malls as well?

Is it because they don't have any solutions to offer?
Click to expand...

Your post is foolish, naive, and looney. Too much eggnog for you, it seems.

It is you who are against protecting anyone. Such as the NRA has always advocated protecting everyone. But as 6 year-olds cannot pack, we need adults to do it for them.

This is rocket science, eh ? :)
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Eighty Deuce said:
Your post is foolish, naive, and looney. Too much eggnog for you, it seems.

It is you who are against protecting anyone. Such as the NRA has always advocated protecting everyone. But as 6 year-olds cannot pack, we need adults to do it for them.

This is rocket science, eh ? :)
Click to expand...

So an average person with a pistol should be expected to take a heavily armed shooter covered in body armor like Holmes?

That's nonesense
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

SheWolf said:
So an average person with a pistol should be expected to take a heavily armed shooter covered in body armor like Holmes?

That's nonesense
Click to expand...

This is ignorant.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Eighty Deuce said:
This is ignorant.
Click to expand...

Want to explain why??

Even the terrorist that shot a bunch of people to death on a military base, was not shot down. And was a on a ****ing military base. Why didn't any soldiers have the capacity to kill him? Was nobody there armed? That's definitely not a gun free zone.... lol
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

SheWolf said:
So an average person with a pistol should be expected to take a heavily armed shooter covered in body armor like Holmes?

That's nonesense
Click to expand...

'Expected' by who?
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

lizzie said:
No, you are apparently still having comprehension problems. It's a very simple concept. I want an AR15, I have the money to buy one, I can own one. I can use it for any legal means, regardless of your assumption that I need it.
Click to expand...
I agree. Another citizen telling you its a or it is not a need is ludicrous. that being said there has to be a limit at some point. Do you need a shoulder fired air to air missile? A tank? Bazooka? etc.etc.

Where is that line? Myself I think that AR-15 is on the permissible side.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

SheWolf said:
Want to explain why??

Even the terrorist that shot a bunch of people to death on a military base, was not shot down. And was a on a ****ing military base. Why didn't any soldiers have the capacity to kill him? Was nobody there armed? That's definitely not a gun free zone.... lol
Click to expand...

Actually the only ones armed were on the perimeter. The majority of areas inside the perimeter ARE infact ‘gun free zones’…
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

SheWolf said:
Want to explain why??

Even the terrorist that shot a bunch of people to death on a military base, was not shot down. And was a on a ****ing military base. Why didn't any soldiers have the capacity to kill him? Was nobody there armed? That's definitely not a gun free zone.... lol
Click to expand...
Military bases in the USA are gun free zones. Only police and MP's are allowed to carry firearms.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

SheWolf said:
Want to explain why??

Even the terrorist that shot a bunch of people to death on a military base, was not shot down. And was a on a ****ing military base. Why didn't any soldiers have the capacity to kill him? Was nobody there armed? That's definitely not a gun free zone.... lol
Click to expand...

Actually the clinic, on base, where the shooting occured, was not "secured" by armed guards. The shooter was shot/stopped by guns and is still paralyzed, from that shooting, as he awaits trial. Why do you "lol" at the deaths of any crime victims?
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Dickieboy said:
'Expected' by who?
Click to expand...

Deuce thinks the NRA and society should only protect children from mass shooters, but adults should have to do it for themselves.

I am just wondering how he expected armed adults to take down a heavily armored James Holmes. What kind of guns should we have have to keep on our person's to kill the next James Holmes? And then course, you have teens and kids getting shot in shopping malls and cinemas, and Holmes killed children too. I guess when school is out, us adults have to guard the kids as well as ourselves.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

BigRedChief said:
I agree. Another citizen telling you its a or it is not a need is ludicrous. that being said there has to be a limit at some point. Do you need a shoulder fired air to air missile? A tank? Bazooka? etc.etc.

Where is that line? Myself I think that AR-15 is on the permissible side.
Click to expand...

These are already HEAVILY regulated if not banned outright for the public...specific to the ammo. Anyone can own a tank, rocket launcher, bazooka tube just generally not the ammo.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Thrilla said:
when faced with a predator armed with an AR... who do you think will fare better... an unarmed person, or a person armed with a handgun?
Click to expand...

Niether both will be in a bad spot! Odds are both would be dead! The reason is and I am going by the newton shooting. This case to get a head shot off with one person has a 30 round clip to a ten round that a three to one advantage. Add in the body armor The odds are not in favor of the glock. Honestly, bith would be dead the only differance is one person had a gun and the other didnt. Plus add in confusion from a rapid fire weapon really I do not see a big advantage in having a gun or not. I am sure the keyboard commando's and DP snipers here will disagree but oh well
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

SheWolf said:
Want to explain why??

Even the terrorist that shot a bunch of people to death on a military base, was not shot down. And was a on a ****ing military base. Why didn't any soldiers have the capacity to kill him? Was nobody there armed? That's definitely not a gun free zone.... lol
Click to expand...

Allright Tara Anne. This thread is about protecting our kids in the classroom. Such as from what happened in Newtown, CN, two Fridays ago.

Am I getting too complicated ?

And if is about defending yourself from someone who may confrint the group you are in tomorrow, they with an AR-15 and you with ............... what ?

Your choices are a) nothing; or b) a loaded Glock 9mm

Choose wisely .... ;)
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

SheWolf said:
Deuce thinks the NRA and society should only protect children from mass shooters, but adults should have to do it for themselves.
Click to expand...
Unclear…please explain.
I am just wondering how he expected armed adults to take down a heavily armored James Holmes. What kind of guns should we have have to keep on our person's to kill the next James Holmes? And then course, you have teens and kids getting shot in shopping malls and cinemas, and Holmes killed children too. I guess when school is out, us adults have to guard the kids as well as ourselves.
Click to expand...
“heavily armored’? Presumably you think bullets just bounce off bullet-proof vests. They don’t. There is still enough energy to ‘stagger’ an assailant to the point that one could gain an advantage… at close range a head shot is not terribly difficult which you would agree would terminate the aggressor…yes? As to ‘adults have to guard the kids’, of course we do as adults always have…?
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

jakiejakester said:
Really? So if you wanted a bigger weapon of mass destruction that's OK in your world too? Afterall you have the right to protect yourself and if a rocket launcher is needed you should have the right to own it too, right?

Do you have some type of incredible fear that you're being threatened all the time and that only if you carry gun(s) you will be safe?

I don't get how so many people in this community are so afraid of being threatened? I can't relate to your fears....sorry.
Click to expand...

I'm perfectly fine with bigger "WMDs"... but not "rocket launchers " ( at least take some time to learn proper nomenclature, FFS)... for reasons you probably would not understand.

for instance, my AR is the lightweight in my rifle collection.. it's the baby.
.....the Daddy is my SA 110BA.
If I thought to myself ... "man, I need to grab the most powerful weapon I have".. there are 17 rifles I would grab before the AR ( I own 18 rifles)
hell, my old ass Win 1894 30/30 that hangs over my fireplace would be grabbed long before that little ol' AR

y'all need to stop pretending the AR's are these monstrously powerful weapons... they aren't
scaring you people does not mean it's ultrapowerful.. it just means you scare easily.


let me ask you a simple question.... if police officers did not exist... would you then accept responsibility for your own protection?


bah, nevermind ... it's a trick question.... we all know that at the very instant you need a police officer to protect you, they do not exist.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Eighty Deuce said:
Allright Tara Anne. This thread is about protecting our kids in the classroom. Such as from what happened in Newtown, CN, two Fridays ago.

Am I getting too complicated ?

And if is about defending yourself from someone who may confrint the group you are in tomorrow, they with an AR-15 and you with ............... what ?

Your choices are a) nothing; or b) a loaded Glock 9mm

Choose wisely .... ;)
Click to expand...

Why are those my only choices?
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

SheWolf said:
Deuce thinks the NRA and society should only protect children from mass shooters, but adults should have to do it for themselves.

I am just wondering how he expected armed adults to take down a heavily armored James Holmes. What kind of guns should we have have to keep on our person's to kill the next James Holmes? And then course, you have teens and kids getting shot in shopping malls and cinemas, and Holmes killed children too. I guess when school is out, us adults have to guard the kids as well as ourselves.
Click to expand...

Do not try to speak for me. You are not remotely bright enough.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Dickieboy said:
These are already HEAVILY regulated if not banned outright for the public...specific to the ammo. Anyone can own a tank, rocket launcher, bazooka tube just generally not the ammo.
Click to expand...
my point was where is the line? Do you have a line in mind? Is there a line for you?
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

SheWolf said:
Why are those my only choices?
Click to expand...

You are welcome to suggest reasonable others. The only requirement is that you must rely upon yourself. Cause it is all you can take for granted when the **** hits that fan right in front of you.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Dickieboy said:
Unclear…please explain.

“heavily armored’? Presumably you think bullets just bounce off bullet-proof vests. They don’t. There is still enough energy to ‘stagger’ an assailant to the point that one could gain an advantage… at close range a head shot is not terribly difficult which you would agree would terminate the aggressor…yes? As to ‘adults have to guard the kids’, of course we do as adults always have…?
Click to expand...

Of course I know bullet proof vests are not that powerful, but I think you guys are overestimating what somebody like Holmes could have done... even if people were armed, and if he didn't tell authorities about his rigged apartment.

As it has been mentioned before, there was shooting at a church. Jeanne Assam or something like like shot the shooter several times. He ended up killing several people before she encountered him, and it ended up his own bullet took his life.

At close range a head shot isn't terribly difficult... try getting close to James Holmes and shooting him in the head. His head was protected as well.

No, it's not as simple as you make it sound.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

BigRedChief said:
my point was where is the line? Do you have a line in mind? Is there a line for you?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty satisfied with the current lines...I know of no overly onerous gun laws generally. There are some state/municipal ones that I question but given that one has the ability to relocate I give them a pass.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

BigRedChief said:
I agree. Another citizen telling you its a or it is not a need is ludicrous. that being said there has to be a limit at some point. Do you need a shoulder fired air to air missile? A tank? Bazooka? etc.etc.

Where is that line? Myself I think that AR-15 is on the permissible side.
Click to expand...

For me, the line is precisely where it is now. That already IS a limit.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

SheWolf said:
Of course I know bullet proof vests are not that powerful, but I think you guys are overestimating what somebody like Holmes could have done... even if people were armed, and if he didn't tell authorities about his rigged apartment.
Click to expand...

We 'overestimate' what somebody like Holmes could have done? How so?
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Dickieboy said:
We 'overestimate' what somebody like Holmes could have done? How so?
Click to expand...

I mean underestimate, and I explained why in my post. He obviously could have killed a lot more people, with his apartment being rigged. He was also wearing armor from head to toe, so good luck with the close range head shot argument.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

SheWolf said:
Of course I know bullet proof vests are not that powerful, but I think you guys are overestimating what somebody like Holmes could have done... even if people were armed, and if he didn't tell authorities about his rigged apartment.

As it has been mentioned before, there was shooting at a church. Jeanne Assam or something like like shot the shooter several times. He ended up killing several people before she encountered him, and it ended up his own bullet took his life.

At close range a head shot isn't terribly difficult... try getting close to James Holmes and shooting him in the head. His head was protected as well.

No, it's not as simple as you make it sound.
Click to expand...

Good grief. In Colorado Springs, as you note, the shooter was taken down by two shots from a female. He was down. No longer mobile. But you make it sound as though he chose when to stop the killing by taking his own life ! He was down for chrissakes !

You clearly do not know what you are talking about. Holmes could have easily been taken down as well. He had a few hundred targets in front of him, all random. Had one of them been armed, they only had one target. First shot into his "body armor" would have knocked Holmes on his ass. If he gets up, he is likely to run out the door, or get knocked down again, if not blown away. Body armor is limited in what it can do, and you truly haven't a clue yet about anything you are arguing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom