Skip to comments.Rep. Nadler: Two to Four Self-Defense Shots is Enough
Posted on 01/15/2013 7:17:52 PM PST by paltz
Nadler told Breitbart News:
Hunters dont use large ammunition clips, and as far as self defense, I mean who are you defending yourself against? If youre defending yourself against a robber
if you have a pistol permit or youre carrying a gun because you work for Wells Fargo and youre taking money in and out of a bank or something, two or three or four shots should be enoughperiod.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
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.
Unless you sneak up right behind them!
One bullet to be carried in the pocket is all you get
The capacity of my magazines is none of the Waddler’s business.
1) You first, Jabba. Limit the Capitol Police and you other guards to the same 2-4 round limit you propose for your employers.
2) This is part of the usual anti-gun distraction that the 2nd Amendment is about hunting or self-defense. It isn’t, it IS about defending our liberties against power-tripping statists like YOU. For that, we need full capacity magazines (not “clips” you fat moron), since you and your ilk have the resources of a national army and several police forces at you disposal. In other words, it is about resistance to tyrants like you.
3) Molon Labe!!!
What happens when you’re attacked by five guys? Riddle me that, Nadler, you nincompoop!
Bwahahhahhahahha! That is one fat arse opinionated building of a half-wit.
He reminds me of Newman on Seinfeld... Neeeeeeeeew-man!
What a brain dead stupid statement. We just read about the lady that emptied her revolver on an intruder, and he was still able to run away.
Had there been more than 1 intruder those 6 shots would not have been enough. This POS needs a dose of reality. I wish someone could shut him up. I am sick of hearing and reading about his brain dead stupid comments.
He is full of s#*t.
No rounds necessary, you get a projectile Twinkie canon, (may the Twinkie rest in peace), and put it on full auto!
I’ll bet his security guards have more than 4 shots in their weapons.