Kroger Gun Stunt Sparks 2nd Amendment...

Kroger Gun Stunt Sparks 2nd Amendment Debate

There are 336 comments on the NBC29 Charlottesville story from Jan 25, 2013, titled Kroger Gun Stunt Sparks 2nd Amendment Debate. In it, NBC29 Charlottesville reports that:

Charlottesville police say a man's motive for carrying a loaded gun into a Kroger grocery store was to make a point about his rights.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NBC29 Charlottesville.

sez you

Charlottesville, VA

#312 Feb 6, 2013
real central va Marine wrote:
<quoted text>And BTW, the GUN CANNOT premeditate anything.
No but they are way too available now for that to be a factor. If you have intent the rest is easy. With violent crime rate this country has with guns there is only one solution. Its obvious now that more and more tragedies will occur, the question is when will we choose to address the problem like adults, instead of cowboys.
huck

Charlottesville, VA

#313 Feb 6, 2013
real central va Marine wrote:
<quoted text>You totally miss the point...go after the OPERATOR, not the machine. Should we ban cars, because more kids are killed in cars than are shot by lunatics? And on and on......by your logic, we should limit ALL motor vehicles to 10 mph max. to prevent any deaths. See the hole in your point?
speed limits saves lives
reducing the flow of guns, ditto
Me myself and I

Charlottesville, VA

#314 Feb 6, 2013
real central va Marine wrote:
<quoted text>You totally miss the point...go after the OPERATOR, not the machine. Should we ban cars, because more kids are killed in cars than are shot by lunatics? And on and on......by your logic, we should limit ALL motor vehicles to 10 mph max. to prevent any deaths. See the hole in your point?
Your logic is fundamentally flawed. You know this of course, but you continue to peddle the argument because it's all you've got. You close your eyes to the dead children, because you'd rather be ignorant than realize you're wrong.

Cars are not designed to kill, and when used properly deliver us enormous social good. They allow our economy to exist.

Guns exist to kill. There are circumstances where that might be reasonable, for example, hunting animals, but an AR-15 is not designed as a hunting weapon, it's a people killing machine. It's simply a lightweight version of the AR-10 which, itself, was designed for the battlefield.

Sandy Hook was no place for an AR-15 to be. Kroger was no place for an AR-15 to be. Someone's home is no place for an AR-15 to be.
sez you

Charlottesville, VA

#315 Feb 6, 2013
Holy smokes, someone else here against mans need to destroy himself?
VA Mom

Washington, DC

#316 Feb 6, 2013
real central va Marine wrote:
<quoted text>You totally miss the point...go after the OPERATOR, not the machine. Should we ban cars, because more kids are killed in cars than are shot by lunatics? And on and on......by your logic, we should limit ALL motor vehicles to 10 mph max. to prevent any deaths. See the hole in your point?
All the holes I see are the ones left in the hearts of the victim's families. If your point is that it's not the gun, but the operator, then why can't we all have tanks and nukes? What's the difference? If it's "acceptable" to you to allow machines that have the potential to kill hundreds in a matter of seconds, why stop there? Just think of the thrill of being able to eliminate thousands!

Since: Aug 12

Saint Louis, MO

#317 Feb 7, 2013
Me myself and I wrote:
<quoted text>
Your logic is fundamentally flawed...
Guns exist to kill. There are circumstances where that might be reasonable, for example, hunting animals, but an AR-15 is not designed as a hunting weapon, it's a people killing machine. It's simply a lightweight version of the AR-10 which, itself, was designed for the battlefield.
Sandy Hook was no place for an AR-15 to be. Kroger was no place for an AR-15 to be. Someone's home is no place for an AR-15 to be.
You lie to yourself. The reason a AR-15 is not used for hunting anything as big or bigger then a man is that the military designed it to Incapacitate enemy soldiers and maybe kill. So the enemy would be forced to spend supplies on useless personnel. Why do you think an OCD person fired a random number of bullets into his victims he expected them to die when shot. He stopped when...
Most people don't die when shot they die from bleeding out. If you shot someone you would call 911, a predator doesn't they leave you to die; gun, knife, bat, hammer, doesn't matter.
sez you

Charlottesville, VA

#318 Feb 7, 2013
Drake_Burrwood wrote:
<quoted text>
You lie to yourself. The reason a AR-15 is not used for hunting anything as big or bigger then a man is that the military designed it to Incapacitate enemy soldiers and maybe kill. So the enemy would be forced to spend supplies on useless personnel. Why do you think an OCD person fired a random number of bullets into his victims he expected them to die when shot. He stopped when...
Most people don't die when shot they die from bleeding out. If you shot someone you would call 911, a predator doesn't they leave you to die; gun, knife, bat, hammer, doesn't matter.
Of course it matters fool, efficiency is the idea. Do the most damage in the shortest span of time. A firearm allows that, a hammer doesn't. Gawd you cowboys.
Me myself and I

Charlottesville, VA

#319 Feb 9, 2013
Drake_Burrwood wrote:
<quoted text>
You lie to yourself. The reason a AR-15 is not used for hunting anything as big or bigger then a man is that the military designed it to Incapacitate enemy soldiers and maybe kill. So the enemy would be forced to spend supplies on useless personnel. Why do you think an OCD person fired a random number of bullets into his victims he expected them to die when shot. He stopped when...
Most people don't die when shot they die from bleeding out. If you shot someone you would call 911, a predator doesn't they leave you to die; gun, knife, bat, hammer, doesn't matter.
You are just plain wrong. Take a read of this post on ar15.com (hardly an anti-gun site)

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/468039_M16s_...

Other tools, like your knives, bats and hammers can indeed kill. For the most part they are not designed to kill (other than some knives) and all do it much less efficiently than a semi-automatic rifle.

Since: Aug 10

Derwood, MD

#320 Feb 9, 2013
Me myself and I wrote:
<quoted text>
You are just plain wrong. Take a read of this post on ar15.com (hardly an anti-gun site)
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/468039_M16s_...
Other tools, like your knives, bats and hammers can indeed kill. For the most part they are not designed to kill (other than some knives) and all do it much less efficiently than a semi-automatic rifle.
So you're arguing over how EFFICIENTLY something can kill someone, despite the undeniable numbers that show one kills many times the quantity of people versus the other one? Really?

And who cares what it was "designed" to do if the end result is the exact same? I highly doubt someone who has lost a loved one to gun violence says "Gee, I would have much rather them get killed by a car because it wasn't designed for that."

Since: Aug 12

Ballwin, MO

#321 Feb 9, 2013
Since an AR-15 WAS designed by the military to primarily disable at the risk of killing it IS highly effective at disabling a large number of attackers while killing some. Unless like a rogue predator you abandon them to bleed out, or stick around and pump multiple shots until they quit..

Speaking through ignorance doesn't change the facts of military design spec's or that a pistol is one-fifth the lethality of a long gun, that for every person killed by a police officer in defence, four nonLEO kill a predator who was trying to kill them.

A gun can kill a person, "the golden BB", a critical hit but in a gun fight your a fool to try for it unless they are unaffected by the first two chest shots. It takes time you don't have.

Wanting people like me to be to be sick evil bloodthirsty rogues, it means little since the tactics needed to protect you have nothing to do with killing and everything to do with stopping.

Since: Oct 10

Palmyra, VA

#322 Feb 9, 2013
Drake_Burrwood wrote:
Since an AR-15 WAS designed by the military to primarily disable at the risk of killing it IS highly effective at disabling a large number of attackers while killing some. Unless like a rogue predator you abandon them to bleed out, or stick around and pump multiple shots until they quit..
Speaking through ignorance doesn't change the facts of military design spec's or that a pistol is one-fifth the lethality of a long gun, that for every person killed by a police officer in defence, four nonLEO kill a predator who was trying to kill them.
A gun can kill a person, "the golden BB", a critical hit but in a gun fight your a fool to try for it unless they are unaffected by the first two chest shots. It takes time you don't have.
Wanting people like me to be to be sick evil bloodthirsty rogues, it means little since the tactics needed to protect you have nothing to do with killing and everything to do with stopping.
The AR15 was NOT designed by the military. It was originally designed as a civilian weapon. It was adopted by the military which then designed the M16 based on the AR15 design. Please endeavor to get simple facts straight. And lethality or stopping power doesn't necessarily have to do with number of rounds. The actual round itself plays a huge role in stopping power. Shooting someone with plain ball ammo vs shooting them with a notched jacket hollow point like the Winchester PDX1 personal defense ammo is a huge difference.
huck

Charlottesville, VA

#323 Feb 9, 2013
Rely On Yourself wrote:
<quoted text>
The AR15 was NOT designed by the military. It was originally designed as a civilian weapon.
The AR-15 was first built by ArmaLite as a selective fire rifle for the United States armed forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15
sez you

Charlottesville, VA

#324 Feb 9, 2013
Rely On Yourself wrote:
<quoted text>
The AR15 was NOT designed by the military. It was originally designed as a civilian weapon. It was adopted by the military which then designed the M16 based on the AR15 design. Please endeavor to get simple facts straight. And lethality or stopping power doesn't necessarily have to do with number of rounds. The actual round itself plays a huge role in stopping power. Shooting someone with plain ball ammo vs shooting them with a notched jacket hollow point like the Winchester PDX1 personal defense ammo is a huge difference.
Gee, I'll ask that 71 year old lady in LA if she really cared what kind of gun the cop used to shoot her arse.
Me myself and I

Charlottesville, VA

#325 Feb 9, 2013
Eternity325 wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're arguing over how EFFICIENTLY something can kill someone, despite the undeniable numbers that show one kills many times the quantity of people versus the other one? Really?
And who cares what it was "designed" to do if the end result is the exact same? I highly doubt someone who has lost a loved one to gun violence says "Gee, I would have much rather them get killed by a car because it wasn't designed for that."
No, I'm not arguing about how efficiently something can kill. I was pointing out that one is a killing machine, the other is a car.

That you want to suggest cars should be banned because of the number of road accidents aptly demonstrates your lack of comprehension and the failure of your argument.
Gunzkill

Silver Spring, MD

#326 Feb 9, 2013
Rely On Yourself wrote:
<quoted text>
The AR15 was NOT designed by the military. It was originally designed as a civilian weapon. It was adopted by the military which then designed the M16 based on the AR15 design. Please endeavor to get simple facts straight. And lethality or stopping power doesn't necessarily have to do with number of rounds. The actual round itself plays a huge role in stopping power. Shooting someone with plain ball ammo vs shooting them with a notched jacket hollow point like the Winchester PDX1 personal defense ammo is a huge difference.
Blah, blah, blah......blah, blah. Who cares about all the different specs of which gun does what, and what bullet can cause the most damage? It's simple common sense that the odds of getting hit by 100's of (insert favorite bullet), far outweigh the odds of getting hit by one.
Gunzkill

Silver Spring, MD

#327 Feb 9, 2013
huck wrote:
<quoted text>
The AR-15 was first built by ArmaLite as a selective fire rifle for the United States armed forces.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15
Thank you for finally providing some truth here.

Since: Aug 12

Fairview Heights, IL

#328 Feb 9, 2013
sez you wrote:
<quoted text>Gee, I'll ask that 71 year old lady in LA if she really cared what kind of gun the cop used to shoot her arse.
Your joking right, you think she wouldn't care if the bullet made a single path or expanded into a larger path and possibly fragmented into multiple paths. At least a pistol bullet is one four to on fifth the lethality of a long gun. Which I hope most were using under the situation your mentioning.

Since: Oct 10

Palmyra, VA

#329 Feb 10, 2013
Fact - The military never used the AR-15
Fact - The M16 (which the military does use, was designed after the AR-15).
Gunzkill

Baltimore, MD

#330 Feb 10, 2013
Rely On Yourself wrote:
Fact - The military never used the AR-15
Fact - The M16 (which the military does use, was designed after the AR-15).
They both do the exact same thing......KILL PEOPLE.
sez you

Charlottesville, VA

#331 Feb 10, 2013
Drake_Burrwood wrote:
<quoted text>
Your joking right, you think she wouldn't care if the bullet made a single path or expanded into a larger path and possibly fragmented into multiple paths. At least a pistol bullet is one four to on fifth the lethality of a long gun. Which I hope most were using under the situation your mentioning.
Talk about flying over someones head, geeeeeeeeeeeeeez

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Charlottesville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News The First Family Nov 19 Mohamad dRACIST 18
UVA Students Nov 15 George Wallace 2
Trump vs Clinton 2016 (The Issues, candidate po... Nov '16 MAGA2016 1
Hey detective Randy Snead they better detective... (Feb '16) Oct '16 Joe d 15
Jane Dittmar for Congress 1999 DUI Conviction, ... Oct '16 Muh2ndAmendmentz 4
News Local NAACP chapter protests Bella's Restaurant Oct '16 Oh No You Di-nt 1
News Police Investigate Reported Abduction, Assault ... (Feb '13) Oct '16 Missinglink 115

Charlottesville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Charlottesville Mortgages