NJ101.5 discussing 2A now!!

[Shane45 807]

It would have done nothing......... He would have simply added a few steps to his planning.......

[woodentoe 14]

Well, hell! Now that you posted that, I can think of two other people's laptops that those searches will show up on...yours and mine!

[Duppie 73]

Well, hell! Now that you posted that, I can think of two other people's laptops that those searches will show up on...yours and mine!

Christ!I have family over there and my nephews and I correspond regularly about Breivik's case...I guess those Helicopters were for me after all.

[Shawnmoore81 623]

They need to shut up about cats and get to the guns.

[NJScott 15]

This is just interminable.

 

Well, I guess if they teased their upcoming show by promoting this stupid, uninteresting Cat vs. Dog topic, no one would tune in.

 

Where's Captain Janks when you need him?

[NJScott 15]

These two nitwits are on until what...7PM? I imagine they'll get to the topic at some point.

[NJScott 15]

Okay, so both co-hosts are pro-2A, but with conditions. Lots of talk of high-capacity "clips", and one anti actually made the statement--which went unchallenged by the hosts--that there are banana clips that fire 100 rounds in .08 seconds available. Sheesh.

[Shawnmoore81 623]

I want that clip!

[siderman 1,138]

If this was addressed to me - I am not, nor ever intend to be, a member of Facebook. This (and similar) forum is as "social networky" as I intend to get.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

 

Ha! Thats the second great thing you said here today. You do have a way with words and I nominate you to be a regular guest on the GFH TV show!

[Shawnmoore81 623]

It would kill them to get someone who actually knows about firearms on that show

[Guest]

Figured there was little chance of getting through, or, even if I did, not enough time to make a point. So, I e-mailed the host of the show (Jim Gearhart). Won't do any good, but it brought my blood pressure down a few points. Here's the e-mail...

 

Jim:

 

I was surprised and disheartened to hear you promoting Lautenberg’s magazine capacity limiting proposal. While I hope the reason was simply to create controversy and stimulate the number of callers, I fear that you may have been drinking the New Jersey Kool-Aide for too long and truly believe what you are saying.

 

Are you aware that NJ already has a magazine capacity limitation? In NJ the mere possession of a magazine that exceeds a 15 round capacity is a felony. So what’s the answer? It was fifteen rounds. Now they say that we need a ten round limit. After the next tragedy, will that be reduced to five? How about three? What’s the magic number? The answer is there is none. Magazine capacity has little correlation to the number of shots fired in a given time span. I am a competitive shooter – unfortunately, not a very good one – I compete in the lowest rated class allowed under the rules of my sport. Part of the rules for the class in which I compete limit you to ten round magazines. I can draw from a holster, fire two rounds each on 15 separate targets (total of 30 rounds) while moving over a span of 30 – 40 feet. I can do this in less than 30 seconds, and as I said, I’m slow.

 

Magazine capacity has little to do with sparing lives and has everything to do with getting the elephant’s trunk into the tent. This is “feel-good”, sound-bite legislation that makes it look like our legislators are actually doing something.

 

I’d like to comment on several other things I heard you espouse this morning. You kept referring to “Assault Weapons” and parroting Lautenberg, why do we need them to shoot ducks, etc. First, an assault weapon is fully automatic – fires continuously with a single pull of the trigger – they have been strongly regulated since 1934, outlawed completely in New Jersey and must have been produced prior to 1986 for a private citizen to own (in free America), which has driven prices well into the five figure range.

 

What you (and Lautenberg) seem to think are assault weapons are nothing more than semi-automatic firearms (only one round fired with each pull of the trigger), that look like the military counterpart, but as far as function is concerned are no different that the Remington 7400 deer rifle or maybe your Remington 1100 shotgun that you use for duck hunting. So now they are trying to ban items based on their appearance – what would happen if they applied the same standard to people?

 

While we are on the subject of hunting, I don’t recall the second amendment saying anything about hunting. Please remember that when the second amendment was framed, we had just thrown off the yoke of a tyrannical British government, and were able to do so because of the private ownership of firearms. The second amendment was framed as a protection for “the people” against a tyrannical government. And before you start with the “militia” argument, the “militia” in colonial times consisted of every able-bodied male. It was not a formal, organized military unit. Beyond that, the Supreme Court has already ruled (the Heller decision) that the second amendment is an individual right, not a collective (militia) one.

 

Someone made the point about a well-trained armed citizen could have possibly ended the tragedy sooner and you were only too eager to jump on board the “well-trained” wagon. Allow me to disabuse you of that notion. In, I believe 2009, the “well-trained” NYC police department had a “hit ratio” (number of hits on target vs. number of rounds fired) of 23%. That, of course means that 77% of rounds fired missed the target with the potential to injure innocents. That same year in citizen involved shootings (there are now 40 states that have “shall-issue” concealed carry legislation on their books) the hit ratio for armed citizens in defense of their or other’s lives, was 68% - almost three times the rate of the NYC police department

 

To summarize: I am vehemently against:

• Know-nothing politicians passing ineffective legislation about things they neither understand or care about, that affects my ability to protect myself against any and all threats
  
• Passing legislation based on the way something looks
  
• Making political capital on the backs of victims of a tragedy (I find this one particularly abhorrent)
  

There was nothing that could have been done to prevent what happened in Colorado without grossly abridging personal freedoms. You keep talking about “trade-offs” – there can be no trade-off when it comes to personal liberty. I would point out the truism that when you trade liberty for security, you have neither. Sad, but the price of living in a free society is often a high one.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

 

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^YEAH..................THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Old Glock guy 1,127]

 

Nice work Bob!

[deadeye74 5]

Bob that was a great email you sent!

 

I was chomping at the bit all day after I had to stop listening. Was wondering how the rest of the story played out. I can paint a fairly decent picture based on the posts here.

[raz-0 1,259]

 

And how would strobe lights and buzzers have stopped it.

 

Well he left the theater propped the door got his stuff and came back in last version I heard. Would have ruined the surprise a bit having the whole theater thoroughly alerted on his exit.

[woodentoe 14]

 

Well he left the theater propped the door got his stuff and came back in last version I heard. Would have ruined the surprise a bit having the whole theater thoroughly alerted on his exit.

 

This thought process presupposes that the murderer would be ignorant to the existence of such a measure. I would assume, judging from his cold calculating and methodical plan, he would be aware and have considered means by which to defeat it.