Posted on 07/24/2012 1:39:10 PM PDT by South40
More Americans want to protect their right to own guns
In the wake of the Colorado shooting, celebrities who tweeted about the need for tighter gun controls in the U.S. seem to be out of step with the majority of Americans who are more concerned with protecting their right to own guns, a trend that may be traced back to President Barack Obama’s ascension to the presidency in 2009.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbc.ca ...
Once again, do not let the liberals steal the debate in this case, and make it an issue of gun control. Instead, let us put liberals on the defensive and demand that congress expedite the federal appeals of state death penalties.
Congress has the authority to tell nit picking federal judges to back off from overturning death penalties on the flimsiest of pretexts.
That armor doesn’t mean much when a muzzle flash comes your way. While Batboy apparently had a helmet on he was wearing a gas mask on his mush. His head is the target, especially since his lower body was mostly screened by chairs. Any reasonably competent shooter can keep his rounds on a head sized target. When trying to take a dumbass out of a fight one does not aim for a non-lethal spot. Besides any bullet with 300 or more ft-lbs of muzzle energy will most likely knock the dummy off his feet, even if armor stops the round, long enough to subdue him. Picture this: 300 ft-lbs of muzzle energy is like getting hit by a linebacker full tilt boogy. 9mm or 38 spl ought to do nicely. No doubt in my mind just one armed citizen could have done a lot of good. Remember the one chick who unloaded on Hasan at Ft. Hood and “secured his operation”?
As for firearms training, I’m a combat veteran who has been in several firefights
The shift (away from a public preference for gun control) coincides with President Barack Obama taking office, observes Dougherty.
It's RACISM!!!
"There was a reaction to Obama’s presidency. There was a growing concern at that time that there would be new restrictions on gun ownership coming down and it had the effect of raising the profile of this issue and mobilizing support for gun rights."
Oh it wouldn't have anything to do with falling crime rates wherever CCW laws have been adopted, would it? Or the "bloodbath" that didn't happen when the assault weapons ban expired?
I guess that's what makes them "the experts." /s
You have the numbers backwards. Population growth is not the issue. Firearms related aggression of every sort has dropped, percentage-wise with the growth in the PERCENTAGE of armed citizens. You can do the numbers any way you want but keep these in mind: There are over 300 million privately owned firearms in the USA——that is more , by far, than all the rest of the world combined——including the totals of all other militaries. Acts of stupidity by hoodums that are interrupted/stopped by armed citizens far out number misuse of firearms by those same dunderheads.
And by the way-—Obamuzzie has presided over record gun sales. He scares the krap out of people to the extent that over 15 million new firearms were sold in the US in 2011-—an all time record. And 2012 is on track to beat that record. There is no, REPEAT NO, recession in the gun business. And more people aren’t getting hurt because of it.
Nonsense.
The armor still has to transfer the energy. Perp's not going to know what hit him.
It'll certainly test his bravado when the bullets start flying in his direction.
I’m still having problems with this assumption of body armor. I heard the description ballistic helmet and “tactical vest”. That got translated into protective body armor.
I’m just looking for an official police report that specifically says body armor. Tactical vest often means nothing more than lots of pockets and molle attachments.
Just asking.
BTW: Ballistic Helmet of what generation. Some of them are pretty good at keeping the round from exiting the far side.
That’s okay: gun control will be imposed on us anyway.
Now go pay your taxes, your government is broke. :)
I don’t think he was wearing head armor. He wasn’t on a suicide mission, he was a cowardly punk. A couple rounds in his direction, or better, into an arm or a leg, and he’d be calling for mommy.
They will be getting smacked with 500 - 1000 lbs of energy per sq foot with each hit.
That skinny punk would have went down.
I think that the Secret Service should go on strike until we all give up our guns.
zacly
Look up the “Happy Land massacre”.
87 dead.
Weapon: gasoline.
Seems several in the audience were current soldiers. You’d think active duty military would be REQUIRED to be armed at all times, instead of officially _disarmed_ everywhere but assigned combat.
I like.
There still are no practical ‘bulletproof’ faceplates. And even if all the target presented was the side of a ‘bulletproof’ helmet, hitting him there would have taken him down at least for a while. While the helmet would have prevented a major caliber bullet from entering the skull, it still would have had a kinetic impact like taking a baseball bat to the head. He would have been down for a while with his bell rung.
Ever heard of the Bath School disaster of 1927?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
44 dead, 58 injured.
Weapon: dynamite and pyrotol
> Seems several in the audience were current soldiers. You’d think active duty military would be REQUIRED to be armed at all times, instead of officially _disarmed_ everywhere but assigned combat
I’d never be without a gun except for the fact that I refuse to pay as much as the gun costs just for the licence to allow me to have it.
I saw that second guy on the “Goonies” movie!
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.