Only cowards need guns

[Dr-Sniper]

Kios wrote:

<quoted text>What does a military cemetery have to do with what we are talking about?

Here's your sign!

[Dr-Sniper]

hillbilly wrote:

<quoted text>No shot guns don't .but shot gun slugs do.

Slug barrels do. That is a minuscule percentage of shotguns, however.

[arm hostages now]

We have got to arm our hostages!!!!

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/05/us-...

[Dr-Sniper]

milwaukee69 wrote:

<quoted text>"Germany had plans for a cross channel attack, to invade Britain."

Had plans and actually doing it is the stuff of "smoking guns." UFO's, search for Bigfoot and life with no taxes are also up there with "had plans."

Actually the economy hasn't been this good in years - the only anarchy that exists in this country are in the minds of the paraniod doomsday preppers.

Are you related to The Man from Atlantis?

Provide your source for the claim that the economy hasn't been this good in years.

[Dr-Sniper]

milwaukee69 wrote:

<quoted text>The Marines still use the Beretta, at least that's what they say anyways...

http://www.marines.com/operating-forces/equip...

The M1911 was replaced by the M9 pistol as the standard U.S. sidearm in the early 1990s, but due to its popularity among users, it has not been completely phased out. Modern M1911 variants are still in use by some units within the US Army Special Forces, the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps.

I'm very familiar with the .45 - and to become proficient with it, the gun needs to be aimed straight up in the air to hit someone across the room. The falloff from 40 yards is a McDonald's arch.

If one needs to shoot at someone 40 yards away, a .45 isn't the weapon of choice anyway. That is a job for a small caliber rifle.

[Dr-Sniper]

obesity wrote:

I forget his name but that Japanese general during WWII was asked why they chose not to attack and send troops to the mainland. He said because the citizens are armed and we wouldn't stand a chance. So to all of you in other countries who say we should be embarrassed by our gun laws, I say you should be embarrassed by yours. It must feel really bad to know that you can't or don't want to be in control of your own lives and that you need a gov to control every aspect of your life. Is your gov going to protect you if you ever get invaded?? I think not.

Spot on! The problem is, we are headed in their direction on the subject.

[justaguess]

So many anti gun people play the argument that the lawful carry doesn't save those children in that school, the other people in the theater..this is where the reality breaks down to a very silly debate.
People that lawfully conceal carry are not there to be the police, they take this responsibility for themselves, to protect themselves only. If the situation escalates to more than that and they end up saving others in that process then that is a plus, not a goal. It really is that simple. There is no debate. It is legal and it is prudent.

[Dr-Sniper]

Ohio Cowgirl wrote:

I own guns have some registered in my name but I still think there should be stricker laws and registrations...

That's like saying I'm part Jewish, but still think we should have a little Hola Cost, when viewing from the standpoint of the second amendment.

[Dr-Sniper]

tallyho wrote:

<quoted text>the correct answer is the hijackers were allowed in the USA legally , lived/worked here did not invade

The fact that the DID invade, legally, should have awakened the sleeping giant once again. Instead, people bend over backward to prove their political correctness. Political correctness has cost a lot of lives.

[Dr-Sniper]

milwaukee69 wrote:

<quoted text>LMFGDAO!!!

McGyver?

Now that's funny!

[Ferrerman]

Dr-Sniper wrote:

<quoted text>
That's like saying I'm part Jewish, but still think we should have a little Hola Cost, when viewing from the standpoint of the second amendment.

What the eff is a "Hola Cost", Adolph?

[Ferrerman]

justaguess wrote:

So many anti gun people play the argument that the lawful carry doesn't save those children in that school, the other people in the theater..this is where the reality breaks down to a very silly debate.
People that lawfully conceal carry are not there to be the police, they take this responsibility for themselves, to protect themselves only. If the situation escalates to more than that and they end up saving others in that process then that is a plus, not a goal. It really is that simple. There is no debate. It is legal and it is prudent.

Interesting. However, you're the only reichtard I've seen put it that way.

[Rotor Head]

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[Dr-Sniper]

flbadcatowner wrote:

<quoted text>I have hit targets three hundred yards away with a military assault rifle such as the AR15. I can almost guarantee that I couldn't do the same with a 22.

The AR-15 is not a military rifle.
And we aren't talking about your abilities with the .22.
The offer still stands.

[Dr-Sniper]

Ferrerman wrote:

<quoted text>Judge Judy has overturned nearly all of his rulings.

Judge Judy obviously has her agenda, and it is definitely anti gun. She is blinded to all else when guns are the topic.

[Korny Kat]

A great woman once said, "If only cowards need guns, the every libtard and pedophile in America should have a closet full!"

[Korny Kat]

Dr-Sniper wrote:

<quoted text>
Judge Judy obviously has her agenda, and it is definitely anti gun. She is blinded to all else when guns are the topic.

When libtards are reduced to using Judge Judy and her talking points as a place to make a stand, you know they have run out of ammunition.

[Dr-Sniper]

justaguess wrote:

So many anti gun people play the argument that the lawful carry doesn't save those children in that school, the other people in the theater..this is where the reality breaks down to a very silly debate.
People that lawfully conceal carry are not there to be the police, they take this responsibility for themselves, to protect themselves only. If the situation escalates to more than that and they end up saving others in that process then that is a plus, not a goal. It really is that simple. There is no debate. It is legal and it is prudent.

People that lawfully carry concealed, are not allowed to carry in schools, malls, theaters, and churches that are posted as gun free zones, such as the ones that have made national headlines recently.

[justaguess]

Dr-Sniper wrote:

<quoted text>
People that lawfully carry concealed, are not allowed to carry in schools, malls, theaters, and churches that are posted as gun free zones, such as the ones that have made national headlines recently.

That would be why I made the statement I did about the 'silliness' of the debate..

[Dr-Sniper]

Korny Kat wrote:

<quoted text>When libtards are reduced to using Judge Judy and her talking points as a place to make a stand, you know they have run out of ammunition.

True enough. Ferrerman went on to say he dislikes Judge Judy. Although I know he is a liberal, I think he just likes to stir the stink with whatever he can when the opportunity arises.