Sandy Hook Commission: No gun that can fire over 10 rounds in a row

[PrimusTactical]

lol That was quick boys, only stepped out for a bit....Where to begin?

1. Check the thread. Never said I agree with a mag restriction. (so why the anger?)
2. Sure I agree all those things MAY happen to you, but if the 7-11 next to you gets robbed do you go? No. Unless you HAPPEN to be there, LEOs go there when they are across town.
3. The double standard is created by the politicians, not LEOs, so hate them not LEOs.
4. As far as fighting bad guys go... Umm not sure what other guys do, but most of the guys I know actually LOOK for bad guys. You know, like if you see a drug deal you stop them? Not sure the last time I heard a call when some gu just randomly broke up a drug deal and got a gun out of it...
5. If you hate LEOs then you'll never even hear anything I say it goes in one ear and out the other.
6. The only ANTI thing I am is blanket hating of ANYONE. Everyone quotes Nazis because they hated people, but it's cool here to hate LEOs (except the ones that agree with you) and wish them dead or injured etc. etc. How is that different? If you replace LEO (or JBT) with a race or a creed then it's racism, here it's sport to bash LEOs.
7. Me trying to get you guys to not bash LEOs and me standing up for LEOs when they get bashed is no different then the threads I see about trying to get ANTI GUN people to like guns.
8.(last one) Anyone who needs to see what I'm talking about look at the MEGA thread on here that has all the crimes that are called over the radio, every other one is a gun crime or something dumb. Just peruse through it for a second and that's the stuff I talk about.

 

[xtry51]

Stop doing number 4 and you'd make the world a much better place.

 

[PrimusTactical]

then the logical conclusion is to not arrest people because they have a magazine that contains over some arbitrary number that was manufactured after some arbitrary date?

Never have arrested anyone on mag stuff or anything else like that. In fact have seen plenty of at the range. If I would go for guns, the serials are rubbed off or no one around with a license (gang related) etc. Not Joe citizen going to walmart.

 

[tom888fish]

lol That was quick boys, only stepped out for a bit....Where to begin?

2. Sure I agree all those things MAY happen to you, but if the 7-11 next to you gets robbed do you go? No. Unless you HAPPEN to be there, LEOs go there when they are across town.
QUOTE]

Here's the problem with that logic - why would the probability of having to respond to it determine how many rounds you need? Are you more likely to have to go there? Yes. Is it possible that I'm already there with no time to prepare? Yes. By your logic, LEO capacity should be determined by the crime rate of your beat. Small town cop - the Barnie Fife 1 bullet, because he's almost sure to never need it. Bad area - you get to carry the full monty.

 

[mremski]

Tons of backup that can be minutes away when seconds count.

Well, that pretty much seals the argument for non LEOs to have high capacity ammunition feeding devices too. If the "backup can be minutes away when seconds count" stands to reason that "the initial response is minutes away when seconds count", no?

 

[spcantwell]

Tons of backup that can be minutes away when seconds count. Your opinion on Police is your opinion and "well documented". Doesn't change anything I've said. And if you pose the question and the idea as I put it in my post, anybody but someone who just hates LEOs would agree it isn't worth LEOs or MORE IMPORTANT, victims dying to prove a point. But we can agree to disagree.

The way I see it, it is veary rare for a crime to be commited against LEO's. SO, every 'well armed criminal' attacks a civilian first THEN the police show up (mins or even a 1/2 hr later). If the police 'need' large cappacity (when its likely that multible officers will be showing up at or near the same time) then your average civilian (who may be by themself for a while) has at minium the same need (if not much more)

 

[Quiet]

I've never seen a video of a civilian being shot at from a car during a traffic stop.

All Primus is saying is this:

"Just like you, I don't agree with the capacity restrictions, but please don't take your anger with the politicians out on the cops. I understand your anger and frustration, but as you understand we have a difficult and highly dangerous job; please don't make it more dangerous for us.

We need our guns and rounds TOO. I'm THANKFUL for the exemption and will continue to advocate for your side. "


If the people on our side advocate for stripping LEOs of standard capacity magazines, are you more likely to make friends or enemies of LEOs? Put yourself in the position of an UNDECIDED LEO. Are you going to think:

"Yeah! These guys are right! I'll give up my rounds in support of them, woo hoo!"
Or
"Bastards! They can rot in hell for all I care."

Picture yourself having been pulled over for speeding by that UNDECIDED LEO. Are you gonna tell the officer he has no right to carry that many bullets if you can't and the legislature should stip him of his exemption, or are you going to tell him that you're glad the legislature carved out an exemption for him and wish that they would just get rid of the whole thing?

Which one is gonna win you a friend?

Keep your eyes on the ultimate goal, not a feel good stunt. That's my feeling on it this week.

Happy St. Patrick's Day!

 

[Rob893]

The article states:

Over the objections of some on panel, the commission opted not to differentiate between assault weapons, rifles, or handguns. Instead they focused on what they called the “lethality” of weapons.

OK, now this is just getting plain ridiculous. Why aren't we talking about the "lethality" of cars? Kitchen knives? Baseball bats? Hatchets?

Even if you have a gun that could fire only a single round, it still would be lethal. Otherwise what would be the point of it? There is no relativity to lethality. A weapon is either lethal or it's not (I'm thinking flyswatters, nerf bats, etc.). And since the 2nd Amendment guarantees our right to bear arms, there should be no one saying that how many rounds a firearm can fire affects its "lethality" ... remember that at the time our Constitution was written, one round was all you got, and no one was fool enough to say that that one round wasn't intended to be lethal.

Guns are lethal weapons. That's by design. Deal with it, antis.

 

[PaulD]

I don't have an opinion on what YOU (and me off duty) should be allowed, I was talking about what LEO should be allowed. It's two seperate things. Do I think that if the politicians pose some STUPID ban and say everyone can have 3 rds, would I agree that LEOs should have it or anyone? Hell no.

Regarding the bold portion, that's pretty sad.

With regard to LEOs being limited to what lawful citizens should have, you're really missing the point that this isn't about equalizing individuals and LEOs, it's about equalizing individuals and the government. Every time some a-hole politician proposes some form of gun control, there is always an exception made for law enforcement and that exception means law enforcement gets behind the gun ban. Also, it's quite ironic that you mention how far away back up can be for a lone cop.

To put this in a more blatant light, should Gov. Patrick's security detail have 30 round mags if the rest of us are limited to 7?

I don't want to see any cops get shot. However, the whole point of the 2nd amendment is that citizens should at least equal to the government.

 

[RealQuick]

If I get pulled over by a cop, guns/ammo is not a discussion I want to have. They are paid to do a job... Not be my friend or your friend. The point we are getting at is we are the primary responders when it comes to ourselves and our family... Cops are secondary. Of course they should have no restrictions, but neither should we.

Remember, cops aren't required to protect us (proven in court previously), so when the shit hits the fan, I need to be prepared. Realistically the cops will be showing up to late (not their fault, you can't be everywhere).

 

[Quiet]

Cops have a different role in society than civilians. You might as well be arguing that if they're gonna cut your mags down to 7 then they should cut the National Guard (or army or secret service or yes, Deval Patricks detail) down, too. It's a red herring. It's apples and oranges. It's nuts. (OK I'm out of cliches).

It ain't gonna happen and advocating for it will only serve to piss off the people you want on your side.

Keep your eye on the prize!


(OK, I guess I had another one in me)

Spring is NEAR!

 

[PaulD]

Cops have a different role in society than civilians. You might as well be arguing that if they're gonna cut your mags down to 7 then they should cut the National Guard (or army or secret service or yes, Deval Patricks detail) down, too. It's a red herring. It's apples and oranges. It's nuts. (OK I'm out of cliches).

It ain't gonna happen and advocating for it will only serve to piss off the people you want on your side.

Keep your eye on the prize!


(OK, I guess I had another one in me)

Spring is NEAR!

I understand and agree with your point, but cops are civilians.

 

[Quiet]

Well, sorta. As I just mentioned in another thread, they are sorta seen as "never off duty."

If they were held to the same standards as civilians whilst off duty, then I'd be 100% in that corner with ya. As it is now, I have mixed emotions about their off-duty exemptions.

But from a tactical, keep-your-eyes-on-the-prize standpoint, arguing for parity is a loser for us.

 

[spcantwell]

I've never seen a video of a civilian being shot at from a car during a traffic stop.

You have never heard of someone being shot at durring a road rage incident? The only reason you never see video of it is that (some bad apples) LEO's have done bad things to citizens over the years so they need to be watched.

Put yourself in the position of an UNDECIDED LEO. Are you going to think:

"Yeah! These guys are right! I'll give up my rounds in support of them, woo hoo!"
Or
"Bastards! They can rot in hell for all I care."

What people are complaining about are the DECIDECD LEO's who say "I have my supper killy guns and people killing mags so everyone else can rot in hell for all I care"...

why arnt the LEO's concerned about 'makeing freinds' with the law abiding citizens durring a traffic stop? If they arnt, why should we?

 

[Quiet]

Because we have a *goal*, they've got a job.

 

[CTpatriot]

how do you get someone to step into an oven, first ban what he can have on his person, then what he has in his home, then use the media to portray them as evil and ungerm, i mean unamerican, make some lists of these people, make them wear an identifying mark, get the high speed trains, um i mean mass transit trains and busways in place and pass laws that say the govt can determine you are a terrorist because you served in the sand box or belonged to the NRA and away we go.

We need to stop them at step one. I will not go quietly unless it is with a suppressor.

I wonder how those camps worked out for Japanese citizens a few years back, i was not alive then, but am ashamed at that history. I am just glad it was not worse than it was.

 

[CTpatriot]

i will put the 30 round mags back in the safe after the police starting chalk outlining the larva that's staining the carpet.

 

[CTpatriot]

to primustactical, my backup will only arrive if i can get to my phone dial 911 while half asleep, all while securing my primary weapon and my primary weapon has a 60 round surefire mag and is soon to be suppressed 300 blackout. I commend you for your fearless and selfless acts you do every once in a while.
I sleep while at home because i have to, you sleep in your uniform and gun because you want to, so I would argue that I am at a tactical disadvantage to any intruder or situation that occurs at my home. Be on the side of the law abiding or the criminals you work for.

 

[CTpatriot]

You guys don't get it. To very many LEOs we're ALL the bad guys - potential threats to them while they're on the job.

The police are not your servants, they're not your friends, they're the extension of government control in your life. It just happens that sometimes the "greater good" that they're serving happens to coincide with your desires or needs. But when it doesn't...

you aint kdiding, your friend is the constitution. come back with a warrant, i will not comply with your unlawful request, no you may not search my vehichle

 

[Pete85]

I can't seem to figure out how liberals are so ****ing retarded that they can't understand how flawed their logic is.....I dont get it

I don't get it either. When only the bad guy has a gun, it doesn't matter if it's got one of those unlimited mags from the movies, or it's a single shot gun. When the shooter has 15 minutes until the first good guy with a gun arrives, they can cause just as much damage.

 

[CTpatriot]

Sure LEOS sign up for it. They don't sign up to die though. And what happens to the victim when cop runs out of ammo because he only has 18 rds? Or gets killed because he's reloading and the bad guy has 30rd magazines? Argument doesn't hold water. The only reason people bring up the LEO vs. citizens with mags is like saying "I can't have it then neither can you! NAH (insert stuck out tongue)". Most poeple realize LEOs are there to fight bad guys. Average joes dont' (they shouldn't have to). Do you advocate sending troops overseas with 10 rd mags? Just to prove a point? They are no more special then LEOS, they are citizens defending other citizens. And the reason I said depending on the town/city is because not every day does something crazy happen in certain towns. But again it can at any point in time. Insert that quote about needing it and not having it or having it and not needing it here.

And "guys getting shot in back while face down" or w/e your talking about is NOT what this thread or anyone on here as been talking about.

From a sheer tactical standpoint LEOs need that stuff because bad guys have it. So my statement from before still stands.

I think your last statement is almost right just replace LEO with homewoner or disabled person or senior citizen.

You can roll with a drum magazine sticking out of your glock with a flame thrower attachment, thats up to you, I feel comfortable enough with a 60 round surefire mag and a NY reload on my hip.

 

[CTpatriot]

I don't have an opinion on what YOU (and me off duty) should be allowed, I was talking about what LEO should be allowed. It's two seperate things. Do I think that if the politicians pose some STUPID ban and say everyone can have 3 rds, would I agree that LEOs should have it or anyone? Hell no.

you said as soon as we clear a hallway with you , you will give us the mags you use, go back and read your quote

 

[CTpatriot]

im waiting for the NY police that protect Gov. Greasey, to announce that they no longer need high capacity mags because it is safe now and that only a deer might attack them and like said Greasey said you dont need more than seven rounds to kill a deer.

 

[Boghog1]

I've never seen a video of a civilian being shot at from a car during a traffic stop.

All Primus is saying is this:

"Just like you, I don't agree with the capacity restrictions, but please don't take your anger with the politicians out on the cops. I understand your anger and frustration, but as you understand we have a difficult and highly dangerous job; please don't make it more dangerous for us.

We need our guns and rounds TOO. I'm THANKFUL for the exemption and will continue to advocate for your side. "


If the people on our side advocate for stripping LEOs of standard capacity magazines, are you more likely to make friends or enemies of LEOs? Put yourself in the position of an UNDECIDED LEO. Are you going to think:

"Yeah! These guys are right! I'll give up my rounds in support of them, woo hoo!"
Or
"Bastards! They can rot in hell for all I care."

Picture yourself having been pulled over for speeding by that UNDECIDED LEO. Are you gonna tell the officer he has no right to carry that many bullets if you can't and the legislature should stip him of his exemption, or are you going to tell him that you're glad the legislature carved out an exemption for him and wish that they would just get rid of the whole thing?

Which one is gonna win you a friend?

Keep your eyes on the ultimate goal, not a feel good stunt. That's my feeling on it this week.

Happy St. Patrick's Day!

drive bys happen all the time to civilians as a matter of fact a friend of someone on here posted bout it happening last year matter of fact I am willing to bet non leos are shot more often than leos

 

[CTpatriot]

read the story in the first post. they told the Uconn police chief that she cant have a high capacity magazine at home, when she said that the proposal was too far reaching. So the commision feels that a police chief is a danger to the children unless she has a low capacity magazine at home. They arent even giving the CLEO an exemption as most other gun control laws. I guess they started with the notion that guns have their own minds and need to be tamed with 10 round mags. Are these people fruits or nuts or both?

 

[PaulD]

Well, sorta. As I just mentioned in another thread, they are sorta seen as "never off duty."

If they were held to the same standards as civilians whilst off duty, then I'd be 100% in that corner with ya. As it is now, I have mixed emotions about their off-duty exemptions.

But from a tactical, keep-your-eyes-on-the-prize standpoint, arguing for parity is a loser for us.

No, not sorta. If a person is not in the military, that person is a civilian. This has been lost sight of and it's important.

 

[Gidge]

I can't seem to figure out how liberals are so ****ing retarded that they can't understand how flawed their logic is.....I dont get it

It's not about logic, it is, and always has been about CONTROL.

Usually these folks have accomplished very little in their own lives, and feel the need to control others -- they join these moonbat unions/political campaigns/ causes and think they're on the winning team.

Once a full blown dictatorship assumes power, these will be the first to get "two in the hat" because they know where the "bodies are buried" so to speak.

 

[Quiet]

No, not sorta. If a person is not in the military, that person is a civilian. This has been lost sight of and it's important.

You may be (are!) right technically, but nowadays cops aren't seen as civilians by most, including myself. They're not military either. They hold a special place in between. If not in fact then in reality.

 

[Boghog1]

You may be (are!) right technically, but nowadays cops aren't seen as civilians by most, including myself. They're not military either. They hold a special place in between. If not in fact then in reality.

they shouldn't be and that is a problem

 

[PaulD]

You may be (are!) right technically, but nowadays cops aren't seen as civilians by most, including myself. They're not military either. They hold a special place in between. If not in fact then in reality.

You're right that they're not seen as civilians these days, but that is a problem and it needs to change. To illustrate the point, Feinstein, Deval and their ilk complain about "military style" weapons being on our streets, but are perfectly ok with cops looking like this:

We have a serious, serious problem in this country with this stuff. People need to start recognizing it and I suggest that you seriously consider your viewpoint.