An Interesting Colorado View - and yet I disagree with most of it

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by Dillinger, Jul 26, 2012.

  1. Dillinger

    Dillinger New Member

    23,972
    1
    0
    I read the guy's blog off a link from Foxnews. I was really surprised that someone who was trying to come off as a gun owning patriot would be such a moron about the AR platform, carry laws and down right stupid when it came to his beliefs on personal carry.

    http://blog.frankmtaylor.com/2012/0...nions-on-gun-control-to-yourself/#comment-108

    I will let you folks judge for yourself, but I had to leave a couple of paragraphs in the comments to point out a few obvious stupid statements.

    JD
     
  2. orangello

    orangello New Member

    19,156
    0
    0
    Check your window JD, there could be a black 'burban pulling up to cart you off for this veiled threat of terrorist revenge against the mouthy blogger...Is, is that a helicopter i hear...JD? You still there?

    ;)
     

  3. Dillinger

    Dillinger New Member

    23,972
    1
    0
    Can they hear me?! Am I typing out loud?!

    *turns out lights, take beverage and iPad under desk*
     
  4. levelcross

    levelcross New Member

    984
    0
    0
    I want to perform a reload before the bullet leaves the barrel, that would be awesome.

    Now for the blog, yes it is good for someone to tell people to shut up about all the hoopla, we need to focus on the families that were affected by this nightmare. Does the blogger speak for me, no! Dillinger you did good, we will yell when the choppers have gone.
     
  5. TDS92A

    TDS92A New Member Supporter

    2,747
    0
    0
    I also read the blog from Fox News. I had to get out a map to try and figure out where he was going. I put the map away and took out the Excedrin bottle.:D

    One cannot be a supporter of the 2nd Amendment and of gun control at the same time, I am thinking a "matter - anti-matter" reaction is in order here.

    Every citizen in this country has the right to have firearms. It is up to the individual to decide if they want them.

    Now, if the individual has violated the law to the level of losing that right, well it sucks to be them.
     
  6. KalashnikovJosh

    KalashnikovJosh New Member

    1,156
    0
    0
    I'll let someone who's actually BEEN THERE make her retort:

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis[/ame]

    She actually went for her gun,but it wasn't there,thanks to the "law".

    I'm also sick and tired of hearing about how much better trained cops and the military are then we mere mundanes.

    First of all,as dillinger pointed out,thats a bold assed assumption to be making; some people take their **** pretty seriously.

    Secondly- has anyone making these claims ever seen the statistics of how well cops really shoot?Have they duly noted that alot of cops consider their guns to be just another tool on their belt that they train only to departmental standards with,and that said standards oftentimes are achieved by training that is nowhere near the level of skill taught by these private training camps around the nation that tens of thousands of private people (including some cops on their off time) go to train?

    I'll give the guy this much- no one actually knows what they'll do when their faced with life or death.

    You can in fact train for years- but until you actually face it,you don't know how you'll respond.

    But to somehow place agents of the state above this reality is alarming.Its alarming because so many people seem to be of the same mentality.
    As if,unless someone has had government training,they can't solve a serious problem.

    I'm frankly alarmed at the statist notion that we all need our nannies to come wipe our asses for us and we can't take care of ourselves.

    This is a totally defeatist idea that likely can handicap people psychologically who might otherwise have the capacity to act under such stress as an active shooter.

    If more people understood that we are all responsible for our own safety and acted accordingly,more people would then be prepared to defend themselves.

    What the hell happened to the spirit of independence and self reliance in this nation that we have people who worship anyone and anything thats government so readily?

    Anyway,Suzanna states that she'd had no training and had no experience with her gun.....but I'd bet you my left testicle if the "law" hadn't illegitimately and wrongly disarmed her that day she'd have shot that mad man dead.

    PS-
    TDS92A- you can't truly "lose" or have "taken" from you inalienable rights.Look up the definition of the word "inalienable".People who are so dangerous that they cannot be trusted to be able to act on their rights should be in the custody of those that can prevent them from doing so.
    Government should otherwise be restricted by the plain intent of the meaning of the words "shall not be infringed".

    Agreeing that government can enact "laws" that "take away" said inalienable rights,is,in fact,agreeing to "gun control".

    It was not until 1968,with the passing of the Nazi plagiarized GCA68,that government asserted it could "take" the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms away from certain groups of "prohibited possessors".

    In fact,until the turn of the 19th century,it was common practice in some states for a man being released from prison to be issued a gun and a horse.

    Also,there are many historical references to criminals in england who were sentenced to "transportation",or the forcible deportation from england to the colonies,who then actually went on to bear arms under Washington in the Colonial Army to fight for the inalienable rights we now allow progressives to claim they can "take" from us.

    It is true that you cannot be pro 2A and also accept "gun control."

    And that means you have to know what "gun control" really is,and also,you have to know what an inalienable right is.
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2012
  7. dog2000tj

    dog2000tj New Member

    8,176
    2
    0
    Well done sir, well done indeed :) and for your efforts - a little redheaded cookie, enjoy :D
     

    Attached Files:

  8. KalashnikovJosh

    KalashnikovJosh New Member

    1,156
    0
    0
    Yep.

    she's a cutie thanks!
     
  9. JTJ

    JTJ Well-Known Member Supporter

    9,561
    173
    63
    You could get transported for debt or just stealing a loaf of bread. It did not take a violent crime.
     
  10. KalashnikovJosh

    KalashnikovJosh New Member

    1,156
    0
    0
    You could also be given a death sentence for the same and have it commuted to transportation.

    I believe violent criminals with no regard for the rights of others should be kept locked up,but there was and historically is no precedent whatsoever for denying people the excersize of their inalienable rights via "gun control" in this nation.
    It is a phenomena of modern times and directly contradictory to the Second Amendment that clearly tells government that it shall not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
     
  11. Dillinger

    Dillinger New Member

    23,972
    1
    0
    I approve of this offering and deem you shall be King of all New York State and it's bordering locals once I am elected. :cool:

    JD
     
  12. JonM

    JonM Moderator

    20,110
    15
    38
    here is my reply in point my text is bold underlined

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/26/why-own-assault-rifle/#ixzz21m56WN4o
     
  13. Dillinger

    Dillinger New Member

    23,972
    1
    0
    Very nice response Jon - So far no comments of argument from the blogger to either post.

    I wonder why. :roll eyes:

    JD
     
  14. dog2000tj

    dog2000tj New Member

    8,176
    2
    0
    your generosity is only outshined by your ..... gleaming dome :p I am honored :D
     
  15. vincent

    vincent New Member

    4,123
    0
    0
    Ahhh, NOW I get the 'combover..spritz' tagline...well done sir...carry on...:cool:
     
  16. Neurotic_Hapi_Snak

    Neurotic_Hapi_Snak New Member

    16
    0
    0
    He actually is right about only 1/4 of troops in combat in WW2 actually fired at the enemy. But today it's well over 90% today because of training. But also realize you rarely see the enemy in combat. Now if someone was in front of you killing other people, and pointed his gun on you? I believe for most people survival instinct would take over and they would take the shot.

    I do agree with the idea that if someone had been carrying doesn't automatically mean they could have stopped him. They could have, but we will never know.
     
  17. Dillinger

    Dillinger New Member

    23,972
    1
    0
    Interesting. So would your position be that this college kid was so well prepared & trained that someone shooting back at him would not deter him and his efforts?

    I've personally never been shot at directly with intent to kill. I have been downrange many times as a kid and adult manning targets at rifle ranges and I can say I was "prepared" for the sound of fire. It was another thing entirely when someone missed the usual spots and skipped a round off the berm or one hit the actual metal skeleton frame that raised and lowered the targets. :eek:

    My thought is what happened, looking back, has a definitive outcome. His AR jammed, his shotgun was either out of ammo or he didn't want to/need to reload it and he had a pistol. He left on his own accord.

    But he was never confronted with a "force on force" situation that caused him to question his plans or his own safety.

    A lot has been made of the protective gear he was wearing, but all that tells me is that he was in fear of his own safety. Putting rounds near him, let alone dumping bullet energy into that vest or groin or neck protector, would have got his attention in a NY minute.

    What would have happened next is the only thing up for debate. But I am willing to bet dollars to donuts that his first choice would not have been to continue walking up an aisle shooting at innocent people. :rolleyes:

    Just sayin'.....

    JD
     
  18. Neurotic_Hapi_Snak

    Neurotic_Hapi_Snak New Member

    16
    0
    0
    What I mean is that it was dark, chaotic, crowded theater with people scrambling to get away. It would have been difficult to identify the shooter, let alone line up a shot without risking hitting an innocent person. Had someone who was 10-20 ft away from him been carrying, and managed to draw their weapon and line up a shot before he shot them, they probably could have stopped him.

    I'm not saying he was trained for force on force shooting or that his body armor would have saved him (even if body stops a bullet you still have the bullet energy to contend with. I've known guys who've been shot in the SAPI plates and had their ribs broken).

    But this is all conjecture. No one had a gun, and no one was able to stop him.
     
  19. WebleyFosbery38

    WebleyFosbery38 New Member

    7,510
    0
    0
    Sound like "S41T and did, fit and got lost", coulda, shoulda wouolda chatter from the Blogmeister.

    Fact, anyone with a gun coulda returned fire and taken him out even with full body armor on, at 10 - 20 feet, a face shots pretty easy.

    Fact, its easy to Identify the shooter, he's the one with the flash coming out the end of his barrel!

    Fact, even if collateral injury had happened as a result of returned fire, it would be hard to imagine 70 injured and 12 dead if someone tried to stop him!

    Fact, those that carry do have a significantly higher survival rate than those that dont in a shootout.

    I could go on all day with these little tidbits but why bother, most of the folks here know it, the rest walk around with blinders on!