Posted on 01/15/2013 7:17:52 PM PST by paltz
Nadler told Breitbart News:
Hunters don’t use large ammunition clips, and as far as self defense, I mean who are you defending yourself against? If you’re defending yourself against a robber…if you have a pistol permit or you’re carrying a gun because you work for Wells Fargo and you’re taking money in and out of a bank or something, two or three or four shots should be enough—period.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Dear Rep Nader. No one gives a rats rear end what you think about guns. Period.
These guys watch too much TV. In real life unless one hits the heart, brain, or spinal cord the person will be able to fight back until they bleed out.
Nadler is simply too stupid to merit a response. Would he put a limit on the guns the Secret Service carry or for that matter the armament of Jodie Foster’s bodyguard?
Either libs still don’t get it or are being deliberately misleading: the second amendment securing our rights to weapons is not about personal “self-defense” (or hunting), but about defending ourselves against a tyrannical government (which it seems we have!).
So give the police single shot pistols. That is within governments perview. But they had best keep their filthy hands off my rights.
I have 30 round mags to deal with enemies that have 30 round mags and more.
What if I’m being attacked by someone who is on meth or pcp?
How about two people on meth or pcp?
What if I shoot my two to four bullets and they keep coming?
What if I shoot my two to four bullets and I miss?
With all due respect, which is none, Rep. Nadler, mind your own f*cking business and stay the f*ck out of my life and everyone else’s life.
You are not needed or wanted.
It’s self defense against a Tyrannical government; two to four is meaningless.
This is a great example of just how stupid our lawmakers are.
So says Nadler the expert on close quarters defensive shooting.
I guess when you become a politician you become an expert on everything.
This is a perfect illustration of a politician’s contempt for the average citizen. Attitudes like this say they have been in elected office FAR too long.
Somebody needs to remind Jabba that the woman in the attic in Georgia shot that maggot 5 times in the face and neck and as far as I know, he’s still wasting oxygen.
2 to 4 shots usually ain’t good enough hunting tyrants.
That fat pig Nadler can kiss my ass.
The NYPD can’t even hit anything with 40 shots+. How dare he suggest that his constituents shouldn’t be allowed to shoot more than three or four times.
2 to 4 shots wouldn’t even penetrate this a$$hole Nadler.
He is so anti-woman......
I knew a guy once who went thru 50 rounds fighting for his life. Three thugs decided to use him as target practice while he crossed a lit parking lot at night while they hid in darkness behind bushes.
Oh, and this was in NY.
Idiots and panderers for votes are trying to take charge of our self-defense.
Anybody who’s ever seen a picture of Jerry Nadler would quickly realize that 3 or 4 shots from an elephant gun would be unlikely to even slow him down.
Dear Mr Congressman, what if I am not that great a shot, I get nervous (because I think I’m about to die), and need 5 shots?
What are you gonna say at my funeral? Sorry, Mr Bryan24, you should have been a better shot?
Guys JUST LIKE YOU you are why we need guns. You appoint yourself to be master over the serfs, and you are trying to tell me what my life is worth.
That is why we fought a war against England. To get out from under guys JUST LIKE YOU.
Well, when we are pushed to the point that our very liberty is at risk, we will push back. And guys JUST LIKE YOU will pay the price.
BTW, for you Federal Agent types monitering the internet, that is not a threat to Mr Nadler personally. That fat slob isn’t worth a bowl of warm spit.
But, I WILL DEFEND MY LIBERTY.
I curse you. May your faggot ass end up in a dark alley when a group of Obama's people want to have their way with you and the police are only minutes away.
Personal opinions? Everyone has one. All that matters is the US Constitution. That’s the contract that We the People wrote with the federal government, and the amendment process is quite clear.
If Nadler doesn’t like the 2nd Amendment, he simply needs to convince enough Americans to amend or repeal it. It’s as simple as that, and you’d think a party that wants “every vote counted” would want to go about this democratically by following the amendment process. (Of course, we know they don’t really honor the rule of law, but...)
It was written that way so slight political majorities (and I don’t think Nadler even has that) wouldn’t ride roughshod over a minority. In the amendment process, everyone’s vote really is counted, through the representatives we send to Congress and in each of the state houses.
If two to four is enough, then I’m sure that all of the police in NY would gladly get rid of their high cap sidearm and get derringers.
So doe he extend the same standard to the Secret Service, FBI, and all sundry LEO’s? Or does he intend to only limit law abiding homeowners? Because we all know that the criminals will use the liberal idiot standard of the Second Amendment and will only arm themselves with single shot muskets and pistols. I want to hear him direct all armed security personnel around him to load only three or four rounds into their weapons.
Anybody who’s ever seen a picture of Jerry Nadler would quickly realize that 3 or 4 shots from an elephant gun would be unlikely to even slow him down.
_______________________________________________________
The only thing that could stop him is a double pastrami from Katz’s.
“So give the police single shot pistols.”
Let’s include bathhouse barry’s bodyguards on that.
Nadler neither knows nor cares about citizen defense needs. He is another Democrap pol whose agenda overwhelmed his brain.
Nadler conveniently forgets the issue of black Urban Feral crowds attacking whites. A high capacity pistol magazine might well keep the closer Ferals distant enough to allow reloading with one still in the barrel. Maybe.
One lady, in a news story, shot her peep 5times, all of them being good body mass hits. He was still in position to carry out his intents.
What a f'n idiot statement this is.
What about a home invasion robbery involving 3 or 4 armed individuals?
Then he brings up armored car drivers?
Huh?
And wtf do people hunting have to do with any of this? Why is he playing stupid?
He you little middle class tax paying peons, all you need a 2 or 3 shot gun....If that isn't enough for you and your families safety, too damn bad!
You're just going to have to die...Stupid tax payers....
How about we ban arrogant cowflop eating bloated slobs?
What an f’ing idiot!
What an ignore-rammus.
“What if I’m being attacked by someone who is on meth or pcp?”
No, it’s bath salts now that makes the person super strong and trying to chew off your face and it takes numerous cops to get that person on the ground. I remember with one they had to keep tasering him beause he would not go down. Even when they get the perp to the hospital, he keeps biting and they have to tie him down.
You cannot stop a bath salt zombie with just one bullet unless you manage to hit him in the head and that is unlikely with his moving around so much. I’d want a 12 cartridge magazine for that zombie.
I read all those New York laws and if you have right now a magazine with more than seven cartridges in it, you are breaking the law and if they fid you have more than seven in there, you get arrested and fined. New York state must be hell to live in now.
And his protection? How many bullets are they allowed?
i guess that's all the cops need then too... right???
Two-to-Four bullets may be enough to hit a fat, slow moving slovenly sloth like Nadler. As far as hunting goes, where the animals are slim, slender and smarter than the average gun-grabbing Democrat.....
Conservatives and supporters of the 2nd amendment the Obama regime is using the 2nd amendment argument to blame gun owners for its inability to deal with the hundreds of gangland murders and shootings commited in areas under their solid control using illegally obtained firearms. Their solution to those inner city problems is to remove those rights provided by the constitution to have and bear arms from all US citizens.
None of those 19 so called “reforms” and unconstitutional efforts being edicted by who some call an emporer do not deal with the following issues briefly outlined below . They won’t because instead of creating a uniformly democratic society where every citizen has an equal voice no matter what their race or ethnicity.
Their policies have grouped races and ethnic groups by gerrymandering congressional districts where much of this criminal activity occurs. GOPES {goverment of the people (republican party) elites} see this issue as a 3rd rail because most of it is black on black or illegal vs illegal (Mexican) activity . GOPES are also afraid to say that policy may have also increased racial tension but again GOPES accept this because of the influence of mainline socialist media which would be accusing them of “racism” if they dare to question it.
The following are links to New York publications the first is the New York Times
January 12, 2013 4:34:43 PM · 49 of 73
mosesdapoet to 2ndDivisionVet
Revolutionary Language by C.M.Blow of the New York Times
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2977484/posts with link to article
As the ghouls swoop in on Blow’s inflamatory rhetoric promoted by The New York Times with directionless rebuttal or meaningless responses laughed at by its staffers. I’m.not even sure if a C.M.Blow is even listed on the NYT staff
I submit the purpose of this NYT article is to keep the right and conservatives focused on what the Demo-Coms describe as issues through their propaganda arm known as the MSM (mainline socialist media) not on the problems created by the “Libs” on their road of good intentions or the socialist/fascists/communists successors to comtrol over todays Democrat party :
Not one word in Blow’s NYT inflamatory contribution will address or offer a solution about the hundreds of gangland murders and shootings using illegaly obtained mostly handguns and revolvers .Not “assault weapons” which are really single shot per trigger pull rifles, used for small game hunting or target practice. That are made to look like their military counterpart. which by the way are small caliber and designed to wound not necessarilly kill which is why they are automatic and fire many rounds while the trigger is in the pulled position. .
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2977901/posts NY Post pix of shooter using handgun
Blow certainly can’t critique a system created by his ilk .Ignored by his publication is that when once caught, perps get set free with lenient sentencing from “liberal” judges or sob sister plea bargain prosecution promoted by The New York Times. There’s certainly no criticism of “no snitch” mentality partcularly in areas where these shootings are rampant.
What do you expect an honest look at the problem from The New York Times ? They’re incapable that’s why they’re going broke...Printing tripe from people like C.M.Blow
While attempting to deal with the latest diversion by the Demo-Coms who would if they had their druthers eliminate the constitution period not just the 2nd ammendment. Conservatives and defenders of the 2nd amendment should cite these issues mentioned here. Holding their fire and aim this when they see the whites of their eyes.
From the article:
" If you’re defending yourself against a robber…if you have a pistol permit or you’re carrying a gun because you work for Wells Fargo and you’re taking money in and out of a bank or something, two or three or four shots should be enough—period.
Nadler felt similarly about looting, riots, and mob situations. When asked about the looting circumstances that business owners faced post super storm Sandy, Nadler responded:
The same thing is the case. Second, there weren’t so many mobs looting (during Sandy). If you are in a store…I’m not aware of any mobs looting. One or two shots should be enough. You don’t want to start mowing down 30 or 40 people. Hopefully you’re not going to do that. You don’t need to do that. The police shouldn’t do that either. Nobody should be doing that. The only people who should ever be firing large clips of ammunition is the military.
Like many politicians he seems to have a fascination with the word "clips."
Police: And just why did you shoot the perp 8 times?
Miss: I ran out of ammo before I could shoot him 16 times.
Two to the center of mass, one to the head - all in self defense. Not enough capacity, Jerry. None of your beeswax.
Wow, excellent point. I think I must be gettin gold now, I am not aware as I should be of all these new vices people are into it would seem.
I do not even know what to say about the people in New York. They have let it come to this. Apparently they value democrat politicians more than their right to defend their own lives so...
All i can say is that I will neither obey or comply. I do not take orders from tyrants. They can go to Hell.
When I was in Iraq, when we did a movement outside the wire I carried well over 300 rounds of 9mm and 5.56. I learned very quickly that when someone is trying to kill you more is better. The same applies here to a lesser degree. There is an old saying in aviation that the only time you can have too much fuel is when you are on fire.
Two shots, you heard me!
We in government know what's good for you stupid tax paying peons and you'll do what the hell your told!
Liberals never allow facts to interfere with their theories.
It would take an elephant gun to make a dent in nadler. A normal rifle would be like a mosquito bite. That might, or might not, be a bit of an exaggeration, but I think wierd thoughts sometimes.
First and foremost, it ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT MATTER WHAT I NEED OR DON'T NEED. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it say these rights are predicated on a demonstrated need. No-one asks if you need a Facebook account with more than 10 friends to exercise your right to free speech. The BoR specifies the rights necessary for an individual to remain free and have liberty. Without them we have tyranny. Not tyranny at some point in the future when (not if) the government does something and we have no defense against it. No, when we surrender any of the rights in the BoR then we have tyranny right here, right now. I will not dishonor the memory of tens of thousands of true Americans that have gone before me whose sacrifices ensured we continue to have these freedoms.
Second of all, we absolutely do need the very best technology to defend ourselves and our loved ones. Yes, that includes "military style" and the so-call "assault weapons." Are we not equipping our soldiers with the best technology to defend themselves? Why should we not similarly have the best technology? Who are you - or anyone for that matter - to say what is "good enough" for me to protect myself and my family? You want to come over and take the airbag and seatbelt away from the passenger side of my car? Hey, one seatbelt and airbag is enough, right? Wrong. Want a more specific example? How about the mother who recently defended herself and her twins from an attacker - shooting six times for 5 hits with a .38 - and the perp still got up and drove away! Getting 5/6 hits under stress is pretty darn good shooting. Even at that it wasn't enough to completely ensure her family's safety. Note that the average home invasion is now being done by a crew of 3. If I've got to put a few rounds into each one, and I'll probably miss a few times... Yeah, I absolutely need that 15 round mag in my Glock and that 30 round mag in my AR.
So yeah, Nadler, actually we do need these kinds of weapons and features. More to the point though, we absolutely, positively, must have the freedom to own them if we choose. "...shall not be infringed." is pretty clear on that.
Molon labe!
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.