36
   

Terror at Orlando Nightclub, 20 Feared Dead.

 
 
snood
 
  3  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2016 12:17 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
No one is fooled. Everyone knows that the goal is to ban guns.


Well you've got the NRA to protect you, so you'll be alright. Now we just need someone to protect the rest of us from you.

But seriously though, who is trying to ban all guns? What do you base that on?
revelette2
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2016 12:54 pm
At least this is an uplifting story.

How a heroic Marine’s military training helped him save dozens from Orlando gunman

Quote:
When the terrifying blasts of rapid gunfire filled an Orlando nightclub early Sunday morning, many clubgoers panicked or froze.

Amid the swirl of sensory overload, their response was overwhelmingly typical of people under threat. In an emergency situation — as any first responder can attest — a victim’s first challenge is overriding the paralysis brought on by extreme fear and confusion.

Imran Yousuf, a bouncer at the Pulse nightclub, had an advantage. A Marine who had served in Afghanistan, Yousuf was able to use his training to quickly identify the impending threat and remain clear-headed as people died around him, according to the Marine Corps Times. Because of the 24-year-old’s decisive actions, he is being credited with saving dozens of lives.

He told CBS News that he knew something was horribly wrong as soon as he heard the familiar crack of gunfire. It was then, he said, that his training took over.

“The initial one was three or four” shots, said Yousuf, a former sergeant who left the Marine Corps last month. “That was a shock. Three of four shots go off, and you could tell it was a high-caliber [weapon]. Everyone froze. I’m here in the back, and I saw people start pouring into the back hallway, and they just sardine-pack everyone.”

Yousuf told CBS that he knew there was a door behind the panicked crowd, but people were too overwhelmed to unlatch it.

“And I’m screaming, ‘Open the door! Open the door!’ ” Yousuf said. “And no one is moving because they are scared.”

If they did not act, they could be targeted by the gunman, who could have appeared at any moment. They were a few feet from relative safety. Yousuf told CBS that there was “only one choice.”

“Either we all stay there and we all die, or I could take the chance of getting shot and saving everyone else, and I jumped over to open that latch and we got everyone that we can out of there.”

It was a simple act of heroism, but it may have been one of the most decisive actions that took place that morning. Asked how many people left through that exit, Yousuf told CBS that he estimated as many as 60 or 70.

“As soon as people found that door was open, they kept pouring out, and after that we just ran,” he said.

Yousuf served in the Marine Corps from June 2010 to May 2016 as an engineer equipment electrical systems technician, according to service records obtained by The Washington Post. He deployed to Afghanistan in 2011 and most recently was assigned to the 3rd Marine Logistics Group.

His military awards include the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal, the Afghanistan Campaign Medal, the Korean Defense Service Medal and the Sea Service Deployment Ribbon.
0 Replies
 
George
 
  3  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2016 01:09 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
. . . Got a good reason for banning pistol grips on a rifle? . . .
No one is fooled. Everyone knows that it is about more than pistol grips.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2016 02:05 pm
@George,
George wrote:
No one is fooled. Everyone knows that it is about more than pistol grips.

Apparently you were fooled. In fact, assault weapons bans are only about harmless cosmetic features like pistol grips and flash suppressors.

But that's an excellent example of how everything that comes out of the gun control movement is an outright lie, and why no one should listen to anything that the gun control movement says.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2016 02:07 pm
@snood,
snood wrote:
But seriously though, who is trying to ban all guns?

The gun control movement.


snood wrote:
What do you base that on?

From watching gun control people over time.

There have been a number of events where local areas in the US required registration for assault weapons, with gun control people saying that everyone was being paranoid for predicting that it would lead to gun seizures. Then the locality turned around and banned assault weapons, using the registration lists to seize people's guns.

The same sort of registration followed by confiscation happened on a wider scale in Australia.

Just a year or two ago New York State passed an unconstitutional ban on a bunch of guns, and right here on a2k you could actually see the gun control drones shifting gear from "no one wants to take anyone's guns" to "no one uses the types of guns we're taking" (when first trying to justify taking people's guns) to sneering "those hunters are just a bunch of backwards rednecks and they can just start using other guns" (when it became clear to everyone that they were actually banning popular hunting guns).
0 Replies
 
George
 
  6  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2016 02:14 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
. . . In fact, assault weapons bans are only about harmless cosmetic
features like pistol grips and flash suppressors . . .
Only? Really?
Foofie
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2016 02:26 pm
@snood,
snood wrote:

WASPS were here first?


Their ancestors were here first. And obviously Black slaves were here since the inception of the colonies (actually before under the Dutch East India Company). And after 1850 the ethnic (aka, Catholic mostly) immigrants came.

Yes, America is owned and run by white Protestants, in my opinion. As I've read in a sociological treatise, white Protestants are the mentors of Black Americans, and white Catholics are the mentors of Hispanic Americans. Where you are, you might not have seen the signs on some Catholic churches offering legal council for Hispanic immigrant legal counseling?

P.S.: Let's not forget that after the Reformation Protestants had to be literate to read the bible. The Catholic countries did try to limit literacy to avoid converts to Protestantism. Some scientist might one day call this a genetic "sort" 500 hundred years ago. That's 25 generations to inbreed a brain that is able to read.

When I say own and run, I mean they own the most land and are on the interlocking corporate directorites. You do not have to believe me. However, it was this conclusion that has led me to be a believer in WASP superiority. So, don't think I'm on some ego trip about Jewish intelligence; it's WASP's that got the smarts, in my opinion. All others are enjoying the fact that WASP's designed a society that allows everyone to contribute up to their ability; try that in a Catholic country.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  0  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2016 02:27 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:

What, God's chosen gene pool?

Oy vey!


Yes. They are really like Jews, only with the added dimension of Jesus.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2016 02:45 pm
@George,
George wrote:
Only? Really?

Correct.
parados
 
  3  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2016 02:49 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
Apparently you were fooled. In fact, assault weapons bans are only about harmless cosmetic features like pistol grips and flash suppressors.


It amazes me that the military would include "harmless cosmetic features" on weapons since adding such cosmetic features would add weight (and cost) to the weapon and added weight would actually make the weapon less effective.

Do you really believe the military would do that oralloy? I don't. It seems you want to ignore why the military would include them because it goes against your argument.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2016 03:47 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
It amazes me that the military would include "harmless cosmetic features" on weapons since adding such cosmetic features would add weight (and cost) to the weapon and added weight would actually make the weapon less effective.

Do you really believe the military would do that oralloy? I don't. It seems you want to ignore why the military would include them because it goes against your argument.

If you want to offer a view on why the military uses them, feel free. But what really counts is whether you can offer a good reason for banning them.

What amazes me (not that I'm complaining) is that the gun control movement would devote 100% of their energy on an issue that is trivial for us to defeat, is so obviously unconstitutional, and wouldn't achieve anything useful even if the law were allowed to pass and allowed to stand.

I know why they do it of course. It is because they hate our freedom and the only thing they care about is violating people's rights. So a measure that achieves nothing but a violation of people's rights is the perfect legislation in their view.

But still, talk about a self-defeating movement. It makes our job easy I guess....
0 Replies
 
George
 
  3  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2016 06:50 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
Correct.

Oooh, sorry. Incorrect. But thanks for playing our game.

Let's look at what constitutes an "assault weapon"

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or
more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher mount

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip,
or suppressor
Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Detachable magazine.


Notice anything?
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2016 08:44 pm
@George,
George wrote:
Oooh, sorry. Incorrect. But thanks for playing our game.

Let's look at what constitutes an "assault weapon"

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or
more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher mount

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip,
or suppressor
Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Detachable magazine.


Notice anything?

I noticed that I was completely correct. The law bans harmless cosmetic features.

The most common of those harmless cosmetic features, and most likely to get a weapon covered under the law, is a pistol grip. Next most common is a flash suppressor.

The fact that there are other possible harmless cosmetic features, like say a barrel shroud or a bayonet mount, does not change the reality that assault weapon bans are only about banning harmless cosmetic features.

And the main point remains: Can you come up with any reason for banning a pistol grip on a rifle? If not, then the law is unconstitutional.
RABEL222
 
  3  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2016 09:53 pm
@snood,
Hey Snood. Leave him alone. If they start making military weapons illegal I may have to give up my personal nuke!
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  3  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2016 10:02 pm
@snood,
Even Scalia said the 2nd amendment referred to militia which was equilavent to the national guard. Not individual citizens. Laws can be passed to regulate the Militia as well as private citizens. If that is the politicians showed any balls.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  3  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2016 10:07 pm
@snood,
The NRA, who have never lied.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  3  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2016 10:09 pm
@George,
And of course their are the 100 round clips so one dosent have to reload when rabbit hunting.
0 Replies
 
George
 
  5  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2016 05:43 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

. . . I noticed that I was completely correct. The law bans harmless
cosmetic features. . .
That was quite the knee-jerk! I hope you didn't hurt yourself.

You were close, so close. But to be correct your reply should have been
"The law bans harmless cosmetic features when included on semi-automatic
weapons with detachable magazines."

Semi-automatic capability and detachable magazines are not cosmetic
features, they are functional as, of course, you know.

What those who advocate such bans are against are weapons that allow
the shooter to fire a great many bullets in a very short time.

I agree with you that a pistol grip is no reason to ban a rifle.

Would this rifle be banned?

http://www.hinterlandoutfitters.com/images/2015new/longguns/medium/75753.jpg
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2016 02:37 pm
@George,
George wrote:
But to be correct your reply should have been
"The law bans harmless cosmetic features when included on semi-automatic
weapons with detachable magazines."

Semi-automatic capability and detachable magazines are not cosmetic
features, they are functional as, of course, you know.

While your description is factually correct, I question how your added detail is at all relevant, and how my description is inaccurate for leaving out this detail.

If you ban harmless cosmetic features from semi-autos with detachable magazines, the only thing you are doing is banning harmless cosmetic features.


George wrote:
What those who advocate such bans are against are weapons that allow
the shooter to fire a great many bullets in a very short time.

Banning harmless cosmetic features on such guns does nothing at all to prevent people from having such guns. It merely changes the appearance of those guns while still letting people freely have them.


Also, I don't know if you are familiar with strict scrutiny or the other standards of judicial review, but in general a law is only allowed to impact a Constitutional right if there is a compelling public reason for the law. If there isn't a good reason for having a law that impacts our rights, that law is found unconstitutional.

I've yet to hear anyone provide a compelling public reason for banning these harmless cosmetic features.

That means, even in the unlikely event that the gun banners manage somehow to get this law passed, as soon as the courts start enforcing the Second Amendment the law will be struck down. And in the meantime the law won't actually do anything besides really aggravate people who like pistol grips, getting them to vote in election after election.


George wrote:
Would this rifle be banned?

http://www.hinterlandoutfitters.com/images/2015new/longguns/medium/75753.jpg

No, but that does not change that this law would ban the use of pistol grips on other rifles.
George
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2016 04:12 pm
@oralloy,
Lots of stuff here. I'll have to reply a piece at a time.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/18/2024 at 01:54:56