The Attack on the 2nd Amendment Continues

Cherokee_Cruiser

Well-Known Member
But he certainly could have and/or used other methods as well. A person hell bent will do what ever it takes with whatever means available to them.

Really??? When you post stupid, idiotic, ignorant hyperbole such as this, you have no credibility whatsoever. Let's send your ass into an active shooting scenario were no one knows how many shooters there are, does not know where they are, and have no idea how they are dressed or what they look like or if they are in multiple locations, how they are armed, and precautions have to be taken to sort out the innocent and the victims, and see how you do.

You want to run like an idiot and you may be running right into a shooter, you do that. Me? I am parking my little ass right next to the 4 LEOs who are trained and armed to the nuts, ready to save and protect me and following their instructions.

What is wrong with you? Damn, I have seen plenty of stupid chit posted on this forum but this has to be up there in the top 5. I am just practically speechless over your complete and utterly asinine, clueless mindset. You are comparing LEOs trying to protect people, trying to ID those at the scene, protecting them and locate the shooter(s) to radical Islamist death squads. You have finally lost your tiny mind, all of your sensibilities and any connection that you may have once had with reality. I've have seen it all now.
Chill pill dude :)

As I stated, exigent circumstances. I get it. Still doesn't change the fact of how that scene looks. A line of people on their knees with their hands raised up with a line of armed appear-to-be paramilitary soldiers behind them. Yes, I get why they "have" to do that. All because of a gun nutter decided to go nutty that day.
 

Cherokee_Cruiser

Well-Known Member
Of course. Given the circumstances, good chance it wou so have happened without a gun too.

While I wish he had self terminated first, not last, I also wish that the others would have had an equal opportunity to defend themselves.
Come on, are we really to believe they all stood a chance if they were armed? For all we know, he had an appointment with the professor to get help, the professor was helping the student, and writing something on the blackboard when he was shot in the back of the head. We don't know. Similarly, the estranged wife situation could also have been coming to her home to go over some divorce paperwork / lawyer papers, and then as he is about to walk out, he shoots her. People can only defend themselves if they don't get the dropped on first.
 

Cherokee_Cruiser

Well-Known Member
You realize that even "exigent circumstances" needs to be shown to actually be so, otherwise it is indeed a 4th violation? It's not some free-for-all card that can be used at any time for any reason.
Of course, and that scene qualifies because of an active shooter 911 call and they don't know 1. who the shooter is or 2. how many shooters there are. Still don't like seeing photos like this. This is the penalty the non-gunners pay when someone else decides to take it a little too far.
 

esa17

Well-Known Member
Of course, and that scene qualifies because of an active shooter 911 call and they don't know 1. who the shooter is or 2. how many shooters there are. Still don't like seeing photos like this. This is the penalty the non-gunners pay when someone else decides to take it a little too far.
No, it's the price you pay for legislating yourself into not being anything other than a soft target.
 

A Life Aloft

Civilian Patriot
As I stated, exigent circumstances. I get it. Still doesn't change the fact of how that scene looks. A line of people on their knees with their hands raised up with a line of armed appear-to-be paramilitary soldiers behind them. Yes, I get why they "have" to do that. All because of a gun nutter decided to go nutty that day.
This b.s. really cracks me up. The same exact people who are fine and have no issue with, in fact are calling for, quelling the Second Amendment and taking away others' freedoms and liberties, are fired up and losing their nuts over the fact that LEOs are trying to secure and vet people at a shooting spree, while protecting them and while trying to locate the shooter(s). What a bunch of hypocrites.

Let's see what should the LEOs be wearing while they are in a scenario with active shooters or a shooter? Are they not allowed protective gear and vehicles - vest, helmets, etc. Are they not allowed to be armed to the same or better capacity than the shooters? You are seriously concerned over how they are outfitted/dressed and what equipment they may employ? Bejebus. Get a life and make a real point for a change. Do you think that those who are rescued, protected and saved are fricking complaining about how the LEOs are attired and what weapons they have? Good grief. This crap just gets more idiotic and comical by the moment.


 
Last edited:

MikeD

Administrator
Staff member
Of course, and that scene qualifies because of an active shooter 911 call and they don't know 1. who the shooter is or 2. how many shooters there are. Still don't like seeing photos like this. This is the penalty the non-gunners pay when someone else decides to take it a little too far.
Its an unfortunate penalty all people pay, as there could very well be pro-gun people there too in the lineup. In that situation, everyone unfortunately pays for the decision of a bad apple.
 

Cherokee_Cruiser

Well-Known Member
Its an unfortunate penalty all people pay, as there could very well be pro-gun people there too in the lineup. In that situation, everyone unfortunately pays for the decision of a bad apple.
Yes, it still feels wrong though to be herded up like cattle at gun point and then forced on the knees in some cases. This gun euphoria is getting out of hand. What happened to the old days when a guy would just smoke a cigar, take a drink, sit on the toilet and then take himself out with a headshot? Please leave the other people alone - people who have lives to live for and people to come home to. Now it's a "if I'm gonna take myself out, I'm gonna take out others too!"

Though in this case, at least he limited it to two people, both of whom he had connections to. Not that it makes it right, but at least it wasn't completely random. Walking into a McDonalds or an elementary school and blasting away innocent kids, men, and women does not help society in any way.
 

Cherokee_Cruiser

Well-Known Member
This b.s. really cracks me up. The same exact people who are fine and have no issue with, in fact are calling for, quelling the Second Amendment and taking away others' freedoms and liberties, are fired up and losing their nuts over the fact that LEOs are trying to secure and vet people at a shooting spree, while protecting them and while trying to locate the shooter(s). What a bunch of hypocrites.

Let's see what should the LEOs be wearing while they are in a scenario with active shooters or a shooter? Are they not allowed protective gear and vehicles - vest, helmets, etc. Are they not allowed to be armed to the same or better capacity than the shooters? You are seriously concerned over how they are outfitted/dressed and what equipment they may employ? Bejebus. Get a life and make a real point for a change. Do you think that those who are rescued, protected and saved are fricking complaining about how the LEOs are attired and what weapons they have? Good grief. This crap just gets more idiotic and comical by the moment.


My point was a side point, and perhaps deserves another thread of its own, which is the paramilitarization of the police force. We aren't talking about them needing the things to go up against an active shooter. But the things in general with the military surplus equipment randomly finding its way to police departments.
 

NovemberEcho

Dergs favorite member
My point was a side point, and perhaps deserves another thread of its own, which is the paramilitarization of the police force. We aren't talking about them needing the things to go up against an active shooter. But the things in general with the military surplus equipment randomly finding its way to police departments.
You mean Bumfick, Indiana doesn't need MRAPS?! You sir, are a commie.
 

Cherokee_Cruiser

Well-Known Member
No, it's the price you pay for legislating yourself into not being anything other than a soft target.
Really? Lets talk about a non-California resident using a less-restrictive state's gun laws to carry out his crime by driving across multiple states to do so.

This gun-nut mentality that if the wife or the professor were carrying a handgun, this wouldn't have happened is a complete fallacy. Just like the police officer filling up the gas tank of his car getting 17 rounds put in his back. If someone else gets the drop on you first, it doesn't matter how well-equipped you are. At least the police know they have a dangerous job. A professor meeting a kid for some after-hours help to improve himself is not supposed to be considered a dangerous situation. And when you turn your back to draw something on the blackboard to explain calculus principles, it is not a reasonable expectation in any form to be shot dead. The only way a professor could get the advantage is if he's got his eyes on each student at every moment in his class.

Lets face it, the gun carrying side means more so the teacher in the general vicinity of the school that could be armed and then meet the armed shooter. Maybe there are some merits to it, maybe not. You see those stories with even FBI agents getting their guns stolen from them in their cars (sometimes even the ID badge as well). Who knows where a teacher weapon might end up? Point is, conceal carry only works when you have the advantage and the surprise element.

Being the first one shot dead at the scene does NOT mean that's a price you pay for legislation that made him a soft target for voting no guns on campus. That's just a classless tool-like statement to make, it's very offensive to the dead victims and their families. For all you know, this guy could have been writing on the blackboard when he was shot in the head and killed. Even an armed teacher in this scenario would not have stood a chance.
 

Hacker15e

Dunning–Kruger Observer
Really? Lets talk about a non-California resident using a less-restrictive state's gun laws to carry out his crime by driving across multiple states to do so.
Which laws, specifically, are you referring to, that -- by your implication -- would have apparently stopped this crime had they been the law in all 50 states?

Murder is illegal in both states, ya know.
 

TUCKnTRUCK

That guy
Come on, are we really to believe they all stood a chance if they were armed? For all we know, he had an appointment with the professor to get help, the professor was helping the student, and writing something on the blackboard when he was shot in the back of the head. We don't know. Similarly, the estranged wife situation could also have been coming to her home to go over some divorce paperwork / lawyer papers, and then as he is about to walk out, he shoots her. People can only defend themselves if they don't get the dropped on first.
Maybe it would have played out the same, maybe not.

Some initial reports had him walking on campus with the gun in his hand - making it not a surprise attack.

What if she had left him because he was dangerous, but had no means to get away once cornered?

There are a lot of "what if's" but one thing is certain- we'll never know. We also know person with gun vs. person without gun, the outcome is almost always one sided. Gun vs. Gun and suddenly the stats become a lot more even... Which favors the victim in this case.
 

Cherokee_Cruiser

Well-Known Member
Maybe it would have played out the same, maybe not.

Some initial reports had him walking on campus with the gun in his hand - making it not a surprise attack.

What if she had left him because he was dangerous, but had no means to get away once cornered?

There are a lot of "what if's" but one thing is certain- we'll never know. We also know person with gun vs. person without gun, the outcome is almost always one sided. Gun vs. Gun and suddenly the stats become a lot more even... Which favors the victim in this case.

The only thing offensive is your side's insistence that the death is BECAUSE of CA's gun laws and/or lack of ability to carry on campus. As you said, too many unknowns and variables to know if him having a gun would have saved his life. Plenty of videos of people on liveleak, even armed, still get taken down by a bad guy with a gun. Gang members, cops, and regular armed citizens. So it can cut both ways.
 

Nark

Macho Superpilot
Prime example right here.
Only white people are/can be racist/fascist/homophobic etc etc etc...
 
Top