Lieut. General G. S. Patton, JR., U. S. Army
Posted on 01/14/2011 7:46:27 AM PST by neverdem
Suggest gently that his pulling the trigger was the real problem.
Must be related to Katie Couric, who, when talking with a gun expert during the D.C. shootings: "I understand that these rifles (Ar-15) are deadly because they have spirals [in the barrel].
Mother of God.
Had the sheriff done his job and arrested Loughner for either the drup offenses or the threats he had made in the past, Loughner would have had a criminal record that would have prohibited him from legally buying the gun.
In the course of prosecuting any of his previous offenses, a court-ordered psych eval would have added to his difficulties in getting the gun.
The Germans outlawed guns in the Warsaw ghetto and killed anyone they found with a gun.
Is that your next step when gun control doesn't work?
“I saw a comment yesterday in support of stricter gun control laws. The person said that Loughner hadn’t broken any laws up until he pulled the trigger, pointing out that he was in legal possession of the gun. I personally stand by the 2nd amendment but what should one say to someone who’s using that argument?”
That while the point is true, it’s a red herring. Say there was a law he broke — or a thousand of them — would that have slowed him down one iota? Nope. So the argument makes a point that has no relation to the situation.
Never heard them referred to as “ single shot”, only “single action”. As to the empty chamber rule, it’s a good habit fer sure, even with modern revolvers with rebounding safety hammers. Doesn’t pay to push yer luck.
Yessirree Bob; can’t beat an Ivy League education!
The person said that Loughner hadn’t broken any laws up until he pulled the trigger, pointing out that he was in legal possession of the gun. I personally stand by the 2nd amendment but what should one say to someone who’s using that argument?
Don’t fall for their false logic that if there had been other laws for him to break, that he would have been caught for breaking the laws. For instance, someone who sets out to shoot someone (in, say California) who puts the gun in the coat pocket on the way, in violation of concealed carry prohibitions is unaffected by the law, and no less likely to commit the crime than if the carry mode were legal.
What makes this writer think that liberals want to have a useful conversation? In almost all cases, they deliberately distort the issue in the pursuit of banning just about all ownership and use of guns for self-defense purposes.
The point is that he broke the law, the most serious law of all. If he was willing to do that what makes them think he would obey any law they would choose to impose? He could have easily purchased a stolen gun or stolen one himself.
If they are really serious about laws to reduce murder ask them if they would support streamlining death penalty executions and holding them in public in the county where they occurred.
Unfortunately, not even that deterrent would have worked in this case in all likelihood.
They said, “that Loughner hadn’t broken any laws up until he pulled the trigger”? How about the threats he made that sheriff dipstick didn't deem worthy of action?
You are correct. However, the “clip” I was speaking to is the image that the media has in its collective mind: a 30-round magazine... loaded with special child-sensing, armor-piercing bullets that go off on their own, no doubt.
The existence of the type of clip you reference is so far above the comprehensive ability of the average journalist, that we should probably include in an article titled “ADVANCED Guide To Writing About Firearms”.
Ask them if making death threats are lawful. Ask them if the authorities in the Tucson area should have sought proscution for Loughner making those death threats. Ask them if the authorities should have sought involuntary mental assessment for Loughner as Arizona law allows. Successful exercise of either could have flagged Loughner on his Brady check. Ask the liberals how a Brady check can work if authorities block someone from being held responsible for their actions.
They would probably call my K98 a assault rifle..
Ignorance using proper terminology, correct grammar, and run through a spell checker is still ignorance.
Oh how I love the M1 Garand Clip. TINGGGGGGGGGGGGG!
“...I saw a comment yesterday in support of stricter gun control laws...
...what should one say to someone who’s using that argument?...”
-
I usually call them damn fools; but hey, that’s just me.
Lieut. General G. S. Patton, JR., U. S. Army
Exactly. If a law abiding citizen had bought the same type of gun on the same day and gone to the same shopping center, bought some chewing gum and went home, without ever taking his gun out of its holster, should he be charged with a crime?
Of course, Loughner HAD previously committed crimes that could have led to charges that would prevent him from legally buying a gun, and behaved in a manner that could have caused him to be receive a mental health evaluation and treatment or commitment. However, the vitriolic, uncivil, partisan, incompetent, Liberal, Democrat sheriff chose to ignore his behavior and allowed this menace to society to walk free and kill.
Tell them they should take it up with Reagan-era liberals who demanded much tighter limits on involuntary confinement of those with psychological problems.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.