Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

I hope the green family sues the fuck out all involved in that asswipe getting a gun.

Hope you assholes are proud.

D1B wrote:I hope the green family sues the **** out all involved in that asswipe getting a gun.

Hope you ******* are proud.

Sorry, J

[youtube][/youtube]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... j47lB1a-0Y

Maybe if she would have had a gun.....................................

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:Maybe if someone would have had a gun & the cajones to use it....besides the shooter.................................

fify

Appaholic wrote:

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:Maybe if someone would have had a gun & the cajones to use it....besides the shooter.................................

fify

I'm wondering why a law abiding citizen would ever really need a 33 round clip magazine. If the Police Chief of New York City who was once a lead agent in the ATF says that he was never issued a magazine with more than 12 rounds in it, why in the hell is it available to the public? This whole "self defense" argument is crap when you get to those levels. If you aren't a good enough shot to defend yourself with 12 bullets, you shouldn't have a gun anyway because you clearly don't know how to use it.

If we had sensible gun control laws, Congresswoman Giffords would probably still be in the hospital. A few others may have been shot. But perhaps this lunatic would have been tackled when reloading after he killed and injured half as many as he really did. When the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment, they wrote about a "well regulated militia" -- not giving lunatics like this the opportunity to stock up for a mass murder.

GSUAlumniEagle wrote:I'm wondering why a law abiding citizen would ever really need a 33 round clip magazine. If the Police Chief of New York City who was once a lead agent in the ATF says that he was never issued a magazine with more than 12 rounds in it, why in the hell is it available to the public? This whole "self defense" argument is crap when you get to those levels. If you aren't a good enough shot to defend yourself with 12 bullets, you shouldn't have a gun anyway because you clearly don't know how to use it.

If we had sensible gun control laws, Congresswoman Giffords would probably still be in the hospital. A few others may have been shot. But perhaps this lunatic would have been tackled when reloading after he killed and injured half as many as he really did. When the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment, they wrote about a "well regulated militia" -- not giving lunatics like this the opportunity to stock up for a mass murder.

Again, you can put the law in saying 12 rounds is the biggest magazine you can legally own, but how do you stop him from getting a bigger magazine?


The war on gun magazines would be even more dumb than the war on drugs

GSUAlumniEagle wrote:If we had sensible gun control laws, Congresswoman Giffords would probably still be in the hospital.

Did she die?

GSUAlumniEagle wrote:I'm wondering why a law abiding citizen would ever really need a 33 round clip magazine. If the Police Chief of New York City who was once a lead agent in the ATF says that he was never issued a magazine with more than 12 rounds in it, why in the hell is it available to the public? This whole "self defense" argument is crap when you get to those levels. If you aren't a good enough shot to defend yourself with 12 bullets, you shouldn't have a gun anyway because you clearly don't know how to use it.

If we had sensible gun control laws, Congresswoman Giffords would probably still be in the hospital. A few others may have been shot. But perhaps this lunatic would have been tackled when reloading after he killed and injured half as many as he really did. When the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment, they wrote about a "well regulated militia" -- not giving lunatics like this the opportunity to stock up for a mass murder.

I've never heard of a 33 round magazine, would be curious to know what used that odd number of rounds. Either way, it doesn't matter. The gun is not the problem, he could have taken a car and done more damage. The gun isn't the problem, it is the individual.

GrizFanStuckInUtah wrote:

GSUAlumniEagle wrote:I'm wondering why a law abiding citizen would ever really need a 33 round clip magazine. If the Police Chief of New York City who was once a lead agent in the ATF says that he was never issued a magazine with more than 12 rounds in it, why in the hell is it available to the public? This whole "self defense" argument is crap when you get to those levels. If you aren't a good enough shot to defend yourself with 12 bullets, you shouldn't have a gun anyway because you clearly don't know how to use it.

If we had sensible gun control laws, Congresswoman Giffords would probably still be in the hospital. A few others may have been shot. But perhaps this lunatic would have been tackled when reloading after he killed and injured half as many as he really did. When the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment, they wrote about a "well regulated militia" -- not giving lunatics like this the opportunity to stock up for a mass murder.

I've never heard of a 33 round magazine, would be curious to know what used that odd number of rounds. Either way, it doesn't matter. The gun is not the problem, he could have taken a car and done more damage. The gun isn't the problem, it is the individual.

quit making sense....

clenz wrote:

GSUAlumniEagle wrote:I'm wondering why a law abiding citizen would ever really need a 33 round clip magazine. If the Police Chief of New York City who was once a lead agent in the ATF says that he was never issued a magazine with more than 12 rounds in it, why in the hell is it available to the public? This whole "self defense" argument is crap when you get to those levels. If you aren't a good enough shot to defend yourself with 12 bullets, you shouldn't have a gun anyway because you clearly don't know how to use it.

If we had sensible gun control laws, Congresswoman Giffords would probably still be in the hospital. A few others may have been shot. But perhaps this lunatic would have been tackled when reloading after he killed and injured half as many as he really did. When the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment, they wrote about a "well regulated militia" -- not giving lunatics like this the opportunity to stock up for a mass murder.

Again, you can put the law in saying 12 rounds is the biggest magazine you can legally own, but how do you stop him from getting a bigger magazine?


The war on gun magazines would be even more dumb than the war on drugs

Still haven't answered the question. What practical "self defense" reason would any law abiding citizen need 33 rounds for? There isn't one. The Right just loves guns, and sees any type of gun control as a slippery slope.

And would this wacko have been able to get his hands on an illegal magazine if it were made illegal? Sure. But he wouldn't have been able to purchase it at a freakin' Wal-Mart just a few hours before his killings. People that want to murder will murder -- but we still have murder laws on the books. Why have any laws at all, using that logic? People that want to break them will break them. It's a silly argument. But can't we just agree that it'd be nice if it wasn't EASY to get this type of equipment? If you make it illegal to own or possess these types of magazines and then enforce those laws correctly, we can save lives.

Appaholic wrote:

GSUAlumniEagle wrote:If we had sensible gun control laws, Congresswoman Giffords would probably still be in the hospital.

Did she die?

Nope, but they've made it quite clear Congresswoman Giffords was *the* target. This guy would have put a bullet in her skull if he had 100 bullets or one. But perhaps if he had to reload sooner, he could have been tackled sooner. Maybe 9-year old Christina-Taylor Green is alive. Maybe Judge Roll is alive. Maybe Gabe Zimmerman is alive. Maybe Dorwin Stoddard is alive. Maybe Phyllis Schneck is alive. Maybe Dorothy Morris alive. Maybe some of those in the hospital wouldn't be there. It's hard to shoot 20 people with only 12 bullets. And if this guy only hit 20 people with 33 bullets, he's missing on a 1/3 of his shots. Limit him to 12 bullets and maybe he only shoots eight. Lives are saved.

If you don't learn from history you are destined to repeat it. I'd like to learn from this whole mess and see what we can do better. You'd rather just say "Eh, crazy people do crazy shit." But that's a simple answer in a complex world. There's another part to that sentence. Crazy people will do crazy shit, but let's not make it easy on them, and when they do go crazy let's try to limit the damage.

I agree with GSUAE, throughout history nothing bad ever happened when the guns were taken away from the citizens. In fact, all places that banned guns from the citizens are wonderful low crime mecca’s of tolerance and learning. We should definitely go this route.

SDHornet wrote:I agree with GSUAE, throughout history nothing bad ever happened when the guns were taken away from the citizens. In fact, all places that banned guns from the citizens are wonderful low crime mecca’s of tolerance and learning. We should definitely go this route.

Yea, because at ANY point in my post did I EVER say ANYTHING about banning guns.

Posts like this bullshit are exactly why I don't post here nearly as often as I once did. There's no attempt to debate fact. No attempt to show rational or reasonable thought.



99% of the posts fall into one of three categories:

1) Argh! The Liberal Media! Your point is invalid because of the Liberal Media! Liberal Media! Liberal Media! No! I'm not listening to you! Liberal Media!
2) Argh! Fox News! Your point is invalid because of the Right WingMedia! Right Wing Media! Right Wing Media! No! I'm not listening to you! Right Wing Media!
3) Silly, childing, name calling drivel that is the post quoted above.

GSUAlumniEagle wrote:I'm wondering why a law abiding citizen would ever really need a 33 round clip magazine. ..

Ever been hog hunting in a deep swamp?

That's about the only situation I could think of where I would want that many rounds.

GSUAlumniEagle wrote:

Appaholic wrote:
Did she die?

Nope, but they've made it quite clear Congresswoman Giffords was *the* target.

I know that, but your statement made it sound as if she had died & was no longer in the hospital. I thought I had missed something as the news sounded cautiously optimistic this morning....

...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

native wrote:...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Agree. Like GSU, I can't think of a single valid reason for a 31-round clip. But, that shouldn't mean they should be banned either....

native wrote:...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Hmm. I wonder what that "..." is before your post??? Oh. Here it is: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." To steal a line from The West Wing, I don't think three guys in a Dodge Durango is what they had in mind.

Nevermind that nowhere in any of my posts will you find me advocating gun policy that includes the banning of guns.

GSUAlumniEagle wrote:Yea, because at ANY point in my post did I EVER say ANYTHING about banning guns.

Posts like this bullshit are exactly why I don't post here nearly as often as I once did. There's no attempt to debate fact. No attempt to show rational or reasonable thought.

No but that is the slippery slope that all this is leading towards imo. And the reason I posted this was because throughout history tyranny has reigned supreme when a defenseless public is at hand. My post was based with that in mind and I decided to post it in an asshole type of sarcasm to make folks like you get their panties in a bunch.

Case and point is about 20 miles south of where I currently reside and the relatives I have living south of the border who I hope aren’t wiped out in all the senseless violent crime down there. They have no way of protecting themselves against the people who have the guns.

99% of the posts fall into one of three categories:

1) Argh! The Liberal Media! Your point is invalid because of the Liberal Media! Liberal Media! Liberal Media! No! I'm not listening to you! Liberal Media!
2) Argh! Fox News! Your point is invalid because of the Right WingMedia! Right Wing Media! Right Wing Media! No! I'm not listening to you! Right Wing Media!
3) Silly, childing, name calling drivel that is the post quoted above.

Neither of your points is relevant as that is not what I posted about. However additional gun regulation and the possibility of that by these minor regulations is with respect to my constitutional rights is relevant and that is what my post was related to.

GSUAlumniEagle wrote:

native wrote:...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Hmm. I wonder what that "..." is before your post??? Oh. Here it is: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." To steal a line from The West Wing, I don't think three guys in a Dodge Durango is what they had in mind.

Hmmmm. Doesn't matter.

Three guys in a Dodge Durango is exactly what they had in mind.

GSUAlumniEagle wrote:
Still haven't answered the question. What practical "self defense" reason would any law abiding citizen need 33 rounds for? There isn't one. The Right just loves guns, and sees any type of gun control as a slippery slope.

And would this wacko have been able to get his hands on an illegal magazine if it were made illegal? Sure. But he wouldn't have been able to purchase it at a freakin' Wal-Mart just a few hours before his killings. People that want to murder will murder -- but we still have murder laws on the books. Why have any laws at all, using that logic? People that want to break them will break them. It's a silly argument. But can't we just agree that it'd be nice if it wasn't EASY to get this type of equipment? If you make it illegal to own or possess these types of magazines and then enforce those laws correctly, we can save lives.

I'm hardly a member of "the right", I'm about as middle as it gets. I do think there could be some more laws/testing procedures put in place for someone who wants to buy a hand gun, but anyone who is found of "sane mind" with no legal history should be able to own the guns/magazines that they want. I do think that the limiting of owning a gun would be the start of a very slippery slope, beyond the basic background checks and what not.

As for being able to find a 33 round magazine at Wal Mart - I have yet to see those at any Wal Mart I've been too. To be honestly I looked online at Wal Mart and didn't see ANY magazines.

Would it be nice to not have gun accessories available? No. As someone who enjoys the guns I own I would hate to not be able to go to Scheels and get accessories for my shot gun or hand gun.

You said it yourself, if someone is hell bent on murdering someone they are going to do it, and they will find a way of getting what they need to do it regardless of the law. Does that mean there shouldn't be laws on the books for murder? Nope. Does it mean that because a lunatic goes crazy with an extended mag all people need to be banned from buying an extended mag? Nope. I love extended mags at the range. It keeps me from having to reload every 10-15 shots and reload the magazine as often.

There are more gun murders every year with the magazine that comes standard with the gun than an extended magazine. Should we ban those too? Why not make a law that says only muzzle loaded guns are allowed?

GSUAlumniEagle wrote:

clenz wrote:
Again, you can put the law in saying 12 rounds is the biggest magazine you can legally own, but how do you stop him from getting a bigger magazine?


The war on gun magazines would be even more dumb than the war on drugs

Still haven't answered the question. What practical "self defense" reason would any law abiding citizen need 33 rounds for? There isn't one. The Right just loves guns, and sees any type of gun control as a slippery slope.

And would this wacko have been able to get his hands on an illegal magazine if it were made illegal? Sure. But he wouldn't have been able to purchase it at a freakin' Wal-Mart just a few hours before his killings. People that want to murder will murder -- but we still have murder laws on the books. Why have any laws at all, using that logic? People that want to break them will break them. It's a silly argument. But can't we just agree that it'd be nice if it wasn't EASY to get this type of equipment? If you make it illegal to own or possess these types of magazines and then enforce those laws correctly, we can save lives.

Appaholic wrote:
Did she die?

Nope, but they've made it quite clear Congresswoman Giffords was *the* target. This guy would have put a bullet in her skull if he had 100 bullets or one. But perhaps if he had to reload sooner, he could have been tackled sooner. Maybe 9-year old Christina-Taylor Green is alive. Maybe Judge Roll is alive. Maybe Gabe Zimmerman is alive. Maybe Dorwin Stoddard is alive. Maybe Phyllis Schneck is alive. Maybe Dorothy Morris alive. Maybe some of those in the hospital wouldn't be there. It's hard to shoot 20 people with only 12 bullets. And if this guy only hit 20 people with 33 bullets, he's missing on a 1/3 of his shots. Limit him to 12 bullets and maybe he only shoots eight. Lives are saved.

If you don't learn from history you are destined to repeat it. I'd like to learn from this whole mess and see what we can do better. You'd rather just say "Eh, crazy people do crazy shit." But that's a simple answer in a complex world. There's another part to that sentence. Crazy people will do crazy shit, but let's not make it easy on them, and when they do go crazy let's try to limit the damage.

OK, so if we ban all magazines greater than 12 bullets what is to stop me from buying two or three pistols with a 12 shot magazine? One for each hand I still have 24 shots. I can pull a 3rd one out of my coat pocket when the 1st one is empty and I have 36 shots. The gun isn't killing anyone. It is the person pulling the trigger.

I own a shitload of guns. I am shopping for a coupla new ones right now. I'm actually going to have to upgrade my gunsafe capacity because I'm filling my current one up. I love my guns, I love shooting them, I love the culture of hunting that I grew up in. Having said all that, I don't believe everyone should be able to buy a gun any time they want. I have never ever known anyone that just woke up one morning and said, "damn, I forgot to buy that 308 for the hunt this afternoon. I better run over to WalMart and get one or I'm out of luck." And I don't know that many people that don't actually own a gun, so I have a pretty good sample group to base that on. Gun ownership is a privelege that I enjoy and cherish. But sometimes we need to be able to say, "Sorry dude, but your dumbass has no business owning a gun. Go home and get your shit straight first, then come back and maybe we'll talk." And a clip that holds over 30 rounds? I don't own handguns (just never had much use for one. If I'm wanting to get that close to my prey, I'm using a bow or crossbow) but that seems a little excessive and only good for one thing, kind of like an assault rifle. Doesn't mean I want to restrict ownership rights on it, just seems to me that kind of thing is designed for the sole purpose of killing lots of people quickly without reloading. I rarely load more than one or two rounds when I'm hunting. If I don't think I can take down a hog or deer with the first shot, I won't take the shot. Second round is just insurance. You need more than that, and what you really need is time at the range, or a new scope.

death dealer wrote:I own a shitload of guns. I am shopping for a coupla new ones right now. I'm actually going to have to upgrade my gunsafe capacity because I'm filling my current one up. I love my guns, I love shooting them, I love the culture of hunting that I grew up in. Having said all that, I don't believe everyone should be able to buy a gun any time they want. I have never ever known anyone that just woke up one morning and said, "damn, I forgot to buy that 308 for the hunt this afternoon. I better run over to WalMart and get one or I'm out of luck." And I don't know that many people that don't actually own a gun, so I have a pretty good sample group to base that on. Gun ownership is a privelege that I enjoy and cherish. But sometimes we need to be able to say, "Sorry dude, but your dumbass has no business owning a gun. Go home and get your **** straight first, then come back and maybe we'll talk." And a clip that holds over 30 rounds? I don't own handguns (just never had much use for one. If I'm wanting to get that close to my prey, I'm using a bow or crossbow) but that seems a little excessive and only good for one thing, kind of like an assault rifle. Doesn't mean I want to restrict ownership rights on it, just seems to me that kind of thing is designed for the sole purpose of killing lots of people quickly without reloading. I rarely load more than one or two rounds when I'm hunting. If I don't think I can take down a hog or deer with the first shot, I won't take the shot. Second round is just insurance. You need more than that, and what you really need is time at the range, or a new scope.

It's all or nothing man! There's no room for common sense here.......either you're with us or against us!!!

native wrote:...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Even Scalia believes there should be restrictions on that right.