Right. The other 54 delegates who attended were just there for the free
food. iirc, Madison wasn't even on the Committee of Detail. In any case
Madison, a Federalist at the time, did a 180 at the founding of the
Democratic-Republican party. Then he was against a national bank before
he was for it. He was also against a war with Britain before he was for
it. He'd be a good role model for Clinton.
Was he at the Pulse that night? Then what does this prove other than a
highly trained and practiced "trick" shooter can achieve (after years of
practice) firing rates approaching a "Black Mamba?"
Annie Oakely could split a playing card held edge-on from thirty paces, she
hit dimes tossed into the air, she shot cigarettes from her husband's lips,
and, a playing card being thrown into the air was shot multiple times before
it touched the ground. So effing what? She wasn't at the Pulse either. If
you're trying to prove that any ditch-brained human being can now "buy"
trick speedshooter skill, I'd agree. And I further stipulate that
represents a great danger to US citizens because we haven't been able to
decelerate the frequency and severity of mass killings by hi-capacity
firearms. Just like Republicans have left the elite, US citizens could
leave the NRA in droves if they believed that it was exacerbating the
With guns like the Sig Sauer MCX you don't need to practice (or even aim in
a packed nightclub). You just have to twitch your finger. He bought the
rifle a few days earlier and managed to kill and maim nearly 100 people on
his (presumably) first murder spree. He was well-armed but certainly not
well-regulated. Back when the 2A was drafted, one would need a cannon or a
platoon of Marines to achieve the kill power that Omar had in one small
Just don't be surprised if the mood of the country changes and gun-control
advocates multiply. Gays are banding together already, seeing it as a
direct attack on them. They managed to ram gay marriage down Conservative
America's throat in fairly short order. Gun control may soon follow because
people are no longer buying the BS like "one good guy with a gun" can stop
The newest line of NRA BS is that a .223 is so anemic that it's banned in
many states for deerhunting. Seems to have killed 49 people without any
problem at all. I think the NRA are in for the fight of their life against
the gay lobby. With their refusal to even get behind not selling guns to
people on the NoFly list the NRA totters on the edge of extinction, just
like the Republican Romney elites.
As to whether a YouTube of an experienced speed shooter proves anything, it
more likely proves my point that any idiot can buy that skill in the form of
a Sig Sauer MCXb. And he did.
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:13:20 -0400, "Robert Green"
The real answer is "Fight back". If these people had fought with this
guy, he might have got a couple of them but certainly not more than a
few. Instead they just ran around aimlessly waiting their turn to be
We need a whole different focus, more like the people on flight 93 who
understood if they were going to die, they were going to die fighting.
The only flaw in their plan is they waited too long. If they take
these guys down before they get to the cockpit, they all live.
We should be teaching "fight back" strategies and hope 5-10% of the
population actually learns.
There are a number of strategies but they all focus on "flank the
shooter", "control the gun", "take down the shooter".
"beat him to death before the cops get there and tweet the picture of
his pummeled body" is an optional activity.
I am tired of seeing these guys on TV in their facebook and high
school yearbook photos. They should only be showing him in a pool of
his own blood.
On Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 12:40:49 PM UTC-4, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
I was wondering about that too. Hard to judge not being there, but
flight 93 is a good example. If I went into a bathroom as a retreat,
I would not be huddled in the stall. I'd find the best place off to
the side of the entrance, where I could rush him from the side as he
entered. And I'd find something to toss as a diversion to get his
attention off guard, or have another person in there toss something,
etc. Figure out how to put the lights out so he can't see.
Eventually, some people get to a point of "well,
I'm dead if I don't do some thing, so lets do
some thing". I have great respect for the "lets
roll" people on flight 93. I hope I am never in
such a situation. But, should I be, I pray to
have the courage.
I agree. And more and more schools are actually teaching that doctrine.
People who have fought back have clearly interrupted rampages that would
have taken more lives. They often did it when the shooter was reloading
(LIRR and Gifford shootings). I think it's because at that moment it's
easiest to believe you won't get shot (sense of lowered risk) and that you
can actually stop the slaughter (sense of duty). "Grab the gun" would be a
good slogan instead of some that are going around.
I'd expect it's human nature to think "I can just run away - I'll survive"
and that's why the Army has to drill new recruits relentlessly to not fold
under fire. It's pretty disorienting dealing with gunshots in a dark,
enclosed space with people screaming all around you. I think the autopsies
will show that some people never even saw the shooter - they were killed by
a round that had passed through someone else. I'll bet plenty of them were
drunk and stoned, too.
I haven't been watching the news so I'm going to wait until the official
report to draw conclusions about what people did because it's too easy to
speak ill of the dead. He had surprise, panic, a noisy and probably very
brightly flashing rifle in a dark, enclosed space with people screaming.
How could they know if he was the only shooter? It's so easy to Monday
morning q-back this stuff that I'll wait this time. What scares me most is
that the post-shooting analysis will be used by ISIS to train shooter teams.
We had better come up with a better solution like vestibules that can detect
someone with lots of guns and ammo trying to enter places with large numbers
of people and lock them in. And maybe spray them with fentanyl gas like the
Russians did in the Moscow Opera House siege. After you've seen people
climbing over other people to escape, you understand what panic does to
For just a few times in my life I've seen true pandemonium. Almost no one
is thinking anything other "How do I get away from the obvious danger?"
People turn into animals that will climb over other people to escape. The
list of things at least some people will do to survive - even at the expense
of others (think Titanic life boats) - is long, appalling and frankly not
Back then, flyers were asked to cooperate with hijackers who were not
weaponizing the plane but trying to go to Cuba. It made sense back then
because if the pilot got shot in a scuffle, you've got a movie franchise
called "Airport." After 9/11 we assume hijackers want to crash the plane.
I suspect it's a whole lot harder now to hijack a plane than it was
pre-9/11. It mostly happens overseas now because they aren't serious about
I agree. If only one in ten people knew to shout "Grab the gun!!' -
something that psychologically turns the hunter into the hunted and might
just freak out some psychopathic killer and put him on the run. The
squirrels that manage to escape my dog run straight at her and obviously
freak her out by doing so. Running around like headless chickens is
certainly not the way to survive an active mass shooting but asking more of
untrained citizens is wishful thinking. I would, however, like to see lots
of articles and TV segments about how to neutralize a shooter instead of
covering the life of Omar the Madman.
I think that will happen now that people are beginning to realize these
shootings are not aberrations but the new status quo.
Not sure I agree. It's important to realize this normal looking person was
capable of great violence. Those yearbook photos help people realize when
someone normal looking talks to coworkers about sending some Islamic terror
group after them they should take it seriously. So should the FBI. The last
big round of shooters looked exceedingly normal.
I heard they buried Omar the Murderer in your scenic state somewhere. Want
to start a pool to see who guesses how long it takes for someone to find his
corpse and dig it up for "further funeral activities?"
On Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 11:38:18 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
How about a semi-automatic pistol then? That's the most common weapon
sold for self-defense. If you don't need any skill to use a semi-suto
rifle, don't even need to aim it, then the same is true for a semi-auto
pistol. And there in lies the problem. Gun rights people know that it
will never end. First it's ban the "assault rifle", whatever that even means.
When that doesn't prevent shootings, then it will be all semi-auto rifles.
When that doesnt' work, then it will be all semi-auto pistols, then revolvers,
then shotguns, then all guns. It's just one step in the lib process.
Just look at what they did with cigarettes. First it was a 50 cent tax,
no smoking in public buildings. Then a $2 tax and no smoking in businesses,
no smoking on most sections of beaches, no smoking in bars. Then it was
a $4 tax and you can't even have a private room in a restaurant for a
once a month cigar dinner. Then it was a $6 tax andyou can't smoke
outside within 25 ft of a door and you can't smoke on the beach anywhere.
Then it was no smoking on entire properties.
Right now they are starting the same thing with what we eat. You can't
buy a soda bigger than X ounces in NYC. Philly just put in a tax on soda,
raising the price for a 2 liter by $1. So, excuse me, but we gun owners
On 6/22/2016 12:41 PM, trader_4 wrote:
Gun rights people know that it
I think that reasonable compromise on gun control is
to repeal all gun laws after 1965, and compromise by
leaving the ones before that.
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
I can tell that you never did any penetration tests with the guns. With
the right ammo the 223 will not have as much penetration through walls
as the Glock. Run the mini14 with some varmit ammo through some walls
and any of the normal self defense rounds in the glock and see which
I have an AR 15 and while it is not easy to get to and have a handgun at
the bed at night. If I had an easy choice I would grab the AR15 as the
first choice. It does have the short stock of the M4 design.
The Marines and other military people use the handguns as a backup.
They only go to that when their main weapon is not functioning.
If you want to see something interisting get some varmit ammo for the
mini 14. At about 10 to 20 yards shoot it through some iron about 1/4
of an inch thick. Then take the same ammo and distance. Put up a piece
of cardboard. I used to use paper grocery bags, but they are hard to
come by. Then put a piece of about 1/4 to 1/2 inch thick plywood about
3 feet after that and see what hapens.
Most often the bullet will come apart at the cardboard and not penetrate
Then see how much wood the 40 cal will penetrate.
Agreed - without specifying ammo it's hard to compare. You can load the .40
cal with rounds that definitely won't overpentrate in a home. Without
getting into being a tutorial for the Omar's of this world, the .223 round
will penetrate through a group of people the way it goes through ballistic
I did read recently where there's been a switch back in the FBI to 9mm from
.40 cal because there was some issue with the "stopping power" of the 9mm
turning out to be greater in most police shooting situations. When I was
still shooting it used to be "pistol v. shotgun?" for home defense. Now
there's another option. I don't really keep up with that stuff anymore.
Every once in a while we'll go rent full auto machine guns at the local
range. Tactically, FA is a bad idea but it's always a kick to empty a
machine gun in a few seconds and hear the shells clattering all around you.
It costs a lot, but there's no denying the awesome feeling of that sort of
Oh, for sure I'll be setting up the test in the basement tonight just as
soon as I fill out the divorce papers. (-: I have been spending quite some
time looking a various YouTube videos and all I can say is overpenetration
depends a lot on the target, the ammo, the distance to the target and the
element of luck.
I *still*- believe that the .223 round in an AR15var has way more kinetic
energy that most pistol bullets in a smaller mass. I've heard cops say they
hate AR15vars because the .223 round *will* puncture all but the best
I don't mean this the wrong way, but the reasons you'd reach for the AR are
the same reasons Omar did: superior killing power.
Especially if they've overheated and jammed it in a full auto fire jamboree.
Try it at 10, 50 and 200 yards. Though I've never tried hitting anything
with the Glock at 200 yards, I would imagine to hit a target at that range
with a .40 cal , you'd have to aim at low flying aircraft. The trajectory
would be like a rainbow.
I did read something about hollow points and drywall and how ramming through
a piece of wallboard packs so much stuff into the hole of a hollow point
round that it essentially acts as a FMJ round afterward.
That's probably like the FBI's short lived experiment with the 10mm.
More of the girls could hope to hit anything with the .40 Short & Weak.
Maybe they will do even better with the 9's. You can't miss fast enough
to win a gun fight.
Wake me up if they make it all the way back to the .38 Specials they
used to carry before they got their ass handed to them in Miami.
As far as I'm concerned the .40 has one advantage for USPSA -- it's
considered a major caliber unless you're shooting Production where
everything is scored as minor.
The disadvantage is it's easy to mix .40 cases with 9mm and they jam up
my case feeder.
They're good for advertising. Not only sales, but firearms classes.
"Sign up for our classes where stupidity and ignorance are left at
the door. We'll explain what is/what isn't an assault rifle. We'll
cover the basics. We'll teach you how to shoot AND hit what you're
aiming for. We will keep you from catching the contagious dumbass
MID: <nb7u27$crn$ email@example.com>
Hmmm. I most certainly don't understand how I can access a copy of a
Once again you have no idea in the WORLD about what you are talking about,
Trader. Semi-auto is a "type" of firing mechanism and includes pistols and
rifles. Many assault rifles can be placed in the safe, semi-auto (single
shot per trigger pull), burst (3 rounds per pull) and full auto mode. I
would bet good money that even assaulting an embassy, those weapons are not
on full auto.
Soldiers are taught to fire controlled bursts and rarely use full auto - if
ever. Look it up!
(Sometimes it's embarrassing to converse with you because you're so
obviously ignorant when you get outside the fields of engineering and home
Guns like the Sig Sauer MCX are very much designed for missions like
storming embassies. They have allegedly been "neutered" for public
consumption by eliminating the full auto selection but that's a rather
meaningless distinction considering Omar's rate of fire, lack of experience
with the gun and casualty count.
Here's a great discussion from the M4Carbine site among actual soldiers (who
quote their MOS's - I am sure you know what that means, Mr. Military
Expert?) about why full auto is almost never used even though it's
available. It's a colossal waste of ammo, overheats the barrel, results in
*lower* kill rates and a higher likelihood of a jammed weapon, etc:
<< I have very limited use for F/A fire except in highly mobile break
contact situations OR in crew served mounted weapons and unfortunately I
think that a lot of people take the opinion of 'safe-semi-oh shit' and that
the "oh shit" position will save the day even if they have never trained on
how to employ it or discussed the downsides.>>
F/A (full auto) has very little use in real firefights. And nowadays, when
turds like Omar learn to "bump fire" we'll really be in the shi+ because
they apparently can get their hands on all the AR15-style firepower and
ammunition they need for a massacre with hardly a problem. We've just seen
the beginning of these sorts of attacks and eventually, the public will
decide enough is enough. They're leaning that way already and after a truly
massive massacre (over 200 killed - until now we've only seen the work of
amateurs) the pendulum will swing. Remember Trader, Saint Ronnie was fully
against assault rifles . . . so then why aren't you?
Perfect case in point. Hasan was only able to kill a fraction of the number
of people that Mateen did 13 v. 49 partly because Hasan had a FN Herstal
handgun and Mateen had a much more powerful MCX semi-automatic AR15
style-rifle. Similar handgun v. rifle shootings have the same sorts of
ratios. Take Newton v. the Bapist church shooting. Newton had a much
higher body count.
So *exactly* why is it that an doofis off the street like Omar (or anyone
else) needs that kind of firepower for self-defense? "I wanna" just doesn't
cut the muster anymore.
They don't, it is not a self-defense weapon, it is a common defense
weapon. I for one don't want my common defense weapon locked up in an
armory surrounded by enemy soldiers armed with Kalasnikov's fitted with
75 round drums while I only have a single-shot bolt-action with a five
round magazine because some idiot thinks the 2nd amendment is about
OTOH a country overrun by brainwashed liberals can't be addressed with
any kind of self-defense weapon, that takes vocal conservatism.
Spread the word that gun ownership isn't about self-defense and sport
rifles and don't "Drink the Kool-aid" the liberals are pushing.
On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 3:46:41 PM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
Obvioulsy for the same reason you own your Mini 14, which is also a
semi-automatic rifle similar to the one Mateen used. The village
hypocrite, at it again.
And a couple of shootings under different circumstances don't prove
anything. In a nightclub, with no way out, no one else armed,
no one fighting back, it would be easy to do what Mateen did with
Dude, you made the comparison - however brief your analysis of "two words"
was. Are you going to *really* try to insist that modern pistols are just
as lethal as assault rifles?
Wasn't it you that wrote: "A pistol is what you shoot your way to a long gun
with . . . "?
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.