gun control nuts

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by grean

ALL guns exist for the sole purpose of ending human life.

I disagree with your statement.

Do you have a concealed handgun license?

[grean]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

I disagree with your statement.

Do you have a concealed handgun license?

Nope. And don't own a gun. Don't want one. If I think I do, I just want to be able to go buy one.

They have other very valid purposes, sure. Was it not for a need to kill, howevern they would not have been developed.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by grean

ALL guns exist for the sole purpose of ending human life.

Originally Posted by grean

They have other very valid purposes, sure. Was it not for a need to kill, howevern they would not have been developed.

Sir, those are two different statements.

If by chance you decide to purchase a firearm in the future and your purpose is to protect yourself or those around you, I would recommend when the clerk helping you with the purchase asks you why you are purchasing a firearm that you refrain from saying ....

"I want one to kill someone"!

You might not be able to conclude the purchase.

If you take a firearm class I suspect your instructor will not advise you that your firearm is to kill people, either. Defense of self or another with a firearm is focused on stopping the threat of force directed at you or the 3rd person, which doesn't mean "kill," it means "stopping the threat."

Hysterical anti-gun fanatics get the two confused ... on purpose!

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Sir, those are two different statements.

If by chance you decide to purchase a firearm in the future and your purpose is to protect yourself or those around you, I would recommend when the clerk helping you with the purchase asks you why you are purchasing a firearm that you refrain from saying ....

"I want one to kill someone"!

You might not be able to conclude the purchase.

If you take a firearm class I suspect your instructor will not advise you that your firearm is to kill people, either. Defense of self or another with a firearm is focused on stopping the threat of force directed at you or the 3rd person, which doesn't mean "kill," it means "stopping the threat."

Hysterical anti-gun fanatics get the two confused ... on purpose!

Nah, that's not good advice. If an intruder enters the home of another uninvited the homeowner has the right to use deadly force and that's exactly what it should be. No firearms instructor instructs students to shoot to wound or shoot to scare it's shoot to kill. That's why instructors talk about center mass, it's the largest area of the body to place a lethal shot, that's how you stop a threat. If the intruder happens to live so be it, but the intentions should be to kill. Of course it may depend on the location, but in the home that bastard shouldn't leave, other than in a body bag.

Jim

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Nah, that's not good advice. If an intruder enters the home of another uninvited the homeowner has the right to use deadly force and that's exactly what it should be. No firearms instructor instructs students to shoot to wound or shoot to scare it's shoot to kill. That's why instructors talk about center mass, it's the largest area of the body to place a lethal shot, that's how you stop a threat. If the intruder happens to live so be it, but the intentions should be to kill. Of course it may depend on the location, but in the home that bastard shouldn't leave, other than in a body bag.

Jim

Why are you misinterpreting what I posted. I did not post this:

"...shoot to wound or shoot to scare..."

And you can't find where I did EVER POST THAT IN ANY POST I'VE MADE SINCE I'VE BEEN POSTING ....

You are getting as bad as WTF and AssUp ...!!!!

And that is not what instructors say: "it's shoot to kill"

and that is not why instructors talk about center mass" tp students "to kill"!

You are making this shit up! Including lying about what I posted!

And if any firearms instructor you've had for personal protection instructed you and other students to "shoot to kill" they should be fired and have their instructor's license pulled by the licensing authority!!!!

One shoots "center mass" for two reasons: #1 easiest to hit #2 stopping the threat level of the person being shot.

"Deadly force" is not defined as "shooting to kill"! Period!

Go dream up a conspiracy theory ... you're better at that!

[instfixer]

LL is correct

You shoot to stop a threat. One does not keep shooting till the perp is 'swiss cheese'

I would advise that in case of a e.g. criminal boldly taking e.g. your lawn mower that one does not shoot [unless one is threatened]
cost of lawn mower ~$1000
Cost of lawyer Minimum $10,000
What is cheaper?

There is a neat book "In the Gravest Extreme" by ~ Massob Ayub

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Why are you misinterpreting what I posted. I did not post this:

"...shoot to wound or shoot to scare..."

And you can't find where I did EVER POST THAT IN ANY POST I'VE MADE SINCE I'VE BEEN POSTING ....

You are getting as bad as WTF and AssUp ...!!!!

And that is not what instructors say: "it's shoot to kill"

and that is not why instructors talk about center mass" tp students "to kill"!

You are making this shit up! Including lying about what I posted!

And if any firearms instructor you've had for personal protection instructed you and other students to "shoot to kill" they should be fired and have their instructor's license pulled by the licensing authority!!!!

One shoots "center mass" for two reasons: #1 easiest to hit #2 stopping the threat level of the person being shot.

"Deadly force" is not defined as "shooting to kill"! Period!

Go dream up a conspiracy theory ... you're better at that!

I'll tell ya what you interpret a threat and stop it how ever you wish. Also if you read my post more thoroughly you would have noticed that I mentioned if the assailant lived so be it. I didn't say keep shooting. Oh and if you want a conspiracy theory just go listen to any story put out by the Main Stream Media.

Jim

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by instfixer

LL is correct

You shoot to stop a threat. One does not keep shooting till the perp is 'swiss cheese'

I would advise that in case of a e.g. criminal boldly taking e.g. your lawn mower that one does not shoot [unless one is threatened]
cost of lawn mower ~$1000
Cost of lawyer Minimum $10,000
What is cheaper?

There is a neat book "In the Gravest Extreme" by ~ Massob Ayub

The use of a firearm to stop a property crime isn't a very good idea. Also if you shoot properly the threat won't look like Swiss Cheese.


Jim

[grean]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

The use of a firearm to stop a property crime isn't a very good idea. Also if you shoot properly the threat won't look like Swiss Cheese.


Jim

We have a winner.


One would only shoot another if that person felt there was an imminent threat of death or at least severe bodily harm to themselves or in very, VERY, VURY, rare circumstances imminent threat of death or bodily harm to a 3rd party.

LL, the saleman at bass pro[ or any other retailer, I just picked a name ]doesn't ask what your intentions with a firearm are. They ask for an ID, make you fill out some federal form, and ask that you aren't making a straw purchase.

Maybe they should, but they don't.

I understand a great deal about firearms. I understand their grave purpose. That's why I don't own any. As long as if when needed or If I just change my mind, I can buy a gun, I'm good.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

They wrote the Constitution but the 2nd Amendment in its vagueness does not say what YOU want it to say, hence the need for the court system all the way up to SCOTUS needint to interpret what the 2nd Amendment does and does not guarantee the citizens of this country. The Founding Fathers MAY have wanted ALL citizens to have the right to own ANY gun and carry it ANYPLACE, but the 2nd amendment does NOT state that.

It's only "vague" in your lib-retard mind, speedy, because the Founding Fathers made it fucking clear that the citizen had the right to own guns, you equivocating jackass -- NOW the SCOTUS is telling you again what the Founding Fathers intended, and you're still being a dumb-fuck retard!

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, counties or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man." John Adams

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Now you are out-and-out lying. I have never said that the 2nd Amendment did not guarantee individual gun ownership. I have never given my opinion on what the 2nd Amendment does or does not say.

I do question anyone who says "I know exactly what the 2nd Amendment says."

So-called "anti-gun clowns" like myself simply want to keep weapons that exist only for the killing of other human beings out of the hands of people. An M-16 meets that definition in my opinion. As does the bump stock. The AR-15 has uses other than killing of humans. As do hand guns. I have absolutely no problem with anyone of a certain age who is mentally competent from owning any legal gun. Other than that, I have no anti-gun agenda.

You're a fucking mendacious liar when you claim the Founding Fathers were "vague" and "unclear", speedy, because the majority of them were explicit in saying that it was a fundamental right for American citizens to own guns, speedy.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Latest and the Greatest...

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by grean

LL, the saleman at bass pro[ or any other retailer, I just picked a name ]doesn't ask what your intentions with a firearm are. They ask for an ID, make you fill out some federal form, and ask that you aren't making a straw purchase.

#1: You can't help yourself like, MOJO, and you fabricate shit! Did I say that: "the salesman" at "any other retailer" asks "what your intentions with a firearm are" ...? But I will say this: I have HEARD AND PARTICIPATED in conversations involving LEGAL firearms sales in which the person selling has asked the person buying for what purpose were they buying the firearmS ...

so your universal statement is simply not true, and you have NO WAY OF KNOWING what ALL SALESMEN WILL ASK OR WON'T ASK. Perhaps were you buy (the "Bass Shop" where yesterday the "salesman" was selling boots!) they don't, but where I have bought they have what I consider to be casual conversations with people regarding equipment purchased.

Additionally, I've heard the same type of question regarding ammo!

You sort of remind me of the "young one" who walks up to the bar and asks for "a beer"! ... or better yet ... "a drink"! (You actually believe some of the disingenuous statements made about me from people who "think" they know me!)

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

It's only "vague" in your lib-retard mind, speedy, ....

.. he's not really "lying," because that assigns "motive" and "intent," which he really cannot develop as a "lib-retard."

(Sort of like calling Paddock "crazy" and then spending the rest of your life seeking a "motive"!)

Speaking of: I heard a blurb on TV news that the "autopsy" results concluded Paddock didn't have any "brain damage" ... really? Didn't he recently place a firearm muzzle in his mouth and pull the trigger? (Putting aside the question: Why hasn't the autopsy report been released, but alleged findings have?)

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

I'll tell ya what you interpret a threat and stop it how ever you wish. Jim

I guess you actually believe you are qualified to give me advice or permission ... It is painfully obvious you are NOT!

#1: You don't even know what is "deadly force"!
#2: You are not familiar with the "continuum of force"!
#3: You've had no personal protective training (or you skipped classes!)

Now go fantasize a new conspiracy.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

.. he's not really "lying," because that assigns "motive" and "intent," which he really cannot develop as a "lib-retard."

(Sort of like calling Paddock "crazy" and then spending the rest of your life seeking a "motive"!)

Speaking of: I heard a blurb on TV news that the "autopsy" results concluded Paddock didn't have any "brain damage" ... really? Didn't he recently place a firearm muzzle in his mouth and pull the trigger? (Putting aside the question: Why hasn't the autopsy report been released, but alleged findings have?)

that was the preliminary report. its likely they did a cursory look at his brain case and noticed no anomalies.

the lab report is the one you'd have to wait for. I suspect he prolly had an unbalanced chemistry in his brain.