It's fascinatiing how she and the other pseudo-Christians overlook the part about love your enemies and forgive those who offend.
Absolutely fascinating. All that bluster and boasting, "if I EVER encounter..." Yet, not a word of sympathy for a disturbed man who has the same ideas she does about the threat of Islam.I have been told over and over again that the first thing one must do when a combat theater unfolds is to seek cover.
I'm sorry, but that is wrong. And yes, I realize that I am directly contradicting the near-unanimous advice of men who have training and experience that I lack. I realize that, but I still must disagree. If I EVER encounter a gunman or gunmen situation as we saw yesterday in Norway, or as in the Giffords shooter in Arizona, or as in musloid Mumbai-syle attacks I will NOT seek cover. The "seek cover" tactic completely hems YOU in and basically demands that the gunman move into a position such that YOU have a shot on him, but he doesn't have a shot on you. Guys, that's never going to happen. And it is completely pullusfimus. (she defines this as Latin for chicken-shit).
Any adult with any degree of physical capability, regardless of armament, upon seeing a shooter should immediately RUN AT THE S.O.B. as hard and as fast as possible. If you have a gun, you draw it and start shooting as soon as you can. If you have a knife, draw it and brandish it and then go for the face and neck as soon as you are in range. If you are unarmed you can still tackle him and beat him into submission or death, if necessary, or gouge his eyes out (ladies).
On the American Jingoist there's an amusing correspondence between Ann and a nasty Islamist who attacked her with name calling and threats. Her response:
Is she the toughest-talking li'l gal you ever did hear? She is for me. Don't you love that use of "fricking?" You know what that is, of course? That's what hate-spewing raving lunatic pseudo-Christians say instead of "fucking," because I suppose that offends the Lord.Come and get it, Player. Anytime. I will never submit to islam. allah is satan and mohammed was a child-raping, cross-dressing, homosexual con-artist. If you want to get serious about jihad and take this deal to the next level, you come and see me. World War 3 will start on my front porch, guaran-fricking-teed.
What do you think? Please leave a comment.
It's fascinatiing how she and the other pseudo-Christians overlook the part about love your enemies and forgive those who offend.
ReplyDeleteThou shalt not commit murder
So are we in agreement that the murderous Mr Scandahovian..... was not a christian but a nut job?
About a dozen or so years ago, I ran into Riddick Bowe at my local grocery. Bowe is about the same height and weight as me and as we exchanged pleasantries at the meat counter, I had the fleeting thought that I could probably hold my own with him in the ring.
ReplyDeleteOf course, everyone has such such fleeting thoughts from time to time. I'm sure Brad Kozak imagines himself someday being successful at something or Jon Sullivan pictures himself as John mcLain from the Die Hard movies or Mike Walther imagines being on a date..with a woman.
But reality should quickly intervene. I quickly realized that I might last a minute in the ring with Bowe, if I could backpedal fast enough before Bowe would pound the bejesus out of me.
Rational people understand that flights of fancy are just that--fantasies. Sadly, Ann B. is not rational and actually believes the nonsense she spews.
Isn't she the batshit KKKrazzee lady with the pink AR-15?
ReplyDelete"So are we in agreement that the murderous Mr Scandahovian..... was not a christian but a nut job?"
Um, no, that would be your view. It is not as widely shared as you might wish. He's a piece of shit, a coward, a reichwing killer and whether or not he professes to be a christian he is certainly showing his true KKKrisitian values.
I would call the guy a pseudo-Christian, just like I call Ann. Both could be referred to as "nuts," in my opinion?
ReplyDeleteI agree it is a bunch of tough talk. Much like the proponents of magazine bans who claim they will charge and tackle an active shooter during the 2 seconds it takes to change out a magazine.
ReplyDeleteTS: Huh? Who says this?
ReplyDeleteReally, the primary argument against hi-cap mags is that one might limit the body count with a smaller mag. The secondary feature is that folks might be able to escape the line of fire during a mag swapout. Pretty far down the list is the ability to disarm a gunloon.
One has to understand that a gunloon who decides he needs to indiscrimantly kill a lot of people is almost certainly on a suicide mission.
Jade: “Huh? Who says this?”
ReplyDeleteIronically Colin Goddard said it in his interview with Left Jab radio. He said the purpose of the ban is to stop the shooter when they pause to reload. Never mind that the Virginia Tech shooter reloaded 17 times, and only two of his magazines held 15 rounds while the rest held the Brady approved 10 rounds. Also never mind that he has repeatedly said there was no time to stop the shooter with your own gun if you had one.
Actually he didn't, TS. The context you're missing or omitting is that Goddard was talking about the Giffords shooting and Goddard noted that only when Loughner had exhausted his hi cap magazine were folks able to disarm him. Which is 100% accurate. The argument has always been that the primary benefit to lower cap mags is that it might mitigate potential casualties.
ReplyDeleteJade: “The context you're missing or omitting is that Goddard was talking about the Giffords shooting and Goddard noted that only when Loughner had exhausted his hi cap magazine were folks able to disarm him. Which is 100% accurate.”
ReplyDeleteThe context you are intentionally omitting is that Loughner’s gun jammed- which is far different than exhausting the magazine. AND he dropped the magazine on the ground. So no, that is not 100% accurate. Ironically it jammed because it was a notoriously unreliable extended magazine. No way does a 10rd magazine jam in that situation.
Apart form that- are you and Goddard freely admitting that magazine capacity plays no part in the majority of mass shootings?
Jade: “The argument has always been that the primary benefit to lower cap mags is that it might mitigate potential casualties.”
They don’t exactly stress this part I bolded for you. “maybe… on the off chance… something weird could happen…” It is hard to push for legislation like that.
By the same token that 11th round *might* be needed to save a life, and those who practice cautionary self defense are less likely to carry a duffle bag full of magazines than those bent on suicidal mass murder.
TS: Are you seriously suggesting that hi cap magazines pose no greater threat because they don't always work as advertised?
ReplyDeleteoh my.
Re the point you bolded for some unknown reason. The reason I put "might" is because generally folks like Loughner are mentally ill and they're not methodically selecting targets, taking careful aim and shooting. Instead, they're indiscriminantly shooting.
Even a gunloon like David Brin --who subscribes to the notion gun laws=genocide--admits hi-cap magazines aren't about self-protection or hunting or sport. They're about indiscriminant killing.
Jade: “Are you seriously suggesting that hi cap magazines pose no greater threat because they don't always work as advertised?”
ReplyDeleteYes. Magazines that extend beyond the grip are poor feeders. They are unreliable. In this case, Loughner’s choice to use them saved lives. I would only use such a thing for target shooting at the range if I didn’t want to waste time loading magazines during the hot period. I would only use the standard capacity magazine for self-defense, but they are trying to ban that too.
TS: So you're bbetting on the fact these mags *sometimes* don't work. IOW, if you were part of crowd being fired on by a dearnged gunloon--you'd prefer the gunloon be using a hi cap mag?
ReplyDeleteConversely, is these things fail as much as you claim--why are you so adamantly defending their use? Usually, when something fails or doesn't perform as advertised--people militate to get it off the market.
Jade: “…if you were part of crowd being fired on by a dearnged gunloon--you'd prefer the gunloon be using a hi cap mag?”
ReplyDeleteI suppose I’d prefer them to have chosen an unreliable gun or magazine, but that is hardly my concern. Far more important is that I prefer to not be robbed of the choice to protect myself with the best means possible, and that the normal gun related equipment I use recreationally is not criminalized. The reality is we got lucky with his extended magazine jamming. Don’t expect it to always happen, but it would NOT have happened if he had a normal magazine.
Jade: “Conversely, is these things fail as much as you claim--why are you so adamantly defending their use?”
You missed the point where I said they are attempting to ban much more than just extended magazines. They are also banning just about every normal modern handgun magazine, and the 20 and 30 round rifle magazines which feed just fine with the gun is designed for them.
If they were only trying to ban extended magazines, I wouldn’t personally be affected by it, however my principles are to oppose useless bans even if they don’t affect me. It is especially irritating when the gun control crowd claims they are “not a gun ban organization” and that they are only after background checks and the like. But of course nobody should have this or that…
Jade: “Usually, when something fails or doesn't perform as advertised--people militate to get it off the market.”
ReplyDeleteI gave a perfectly good example of where someone would want to use one of these where occasionally clearing a jam is not a big concern. Say if they are in training and they don’t want to waste time loading magazines with a paid professional on the clock.
So, TS, hi cap mags only fail when deranged gunloons are firing indiscrimantly into crowds but not on the range during training.
ReplyDeleteWow. Who knew their control software was so discerning?
Pay attention, Jade. They can fail at the range, it is just not a big deal because it is practice. That circle with a bulls-eye is not trying to kill you.
ReplyDeleteTS: You want it both ways.
ReplyDeleteYou claim you "need" hi cap mags because it's so terribly onerous to swap amgs at the range. OTOH, you're not concerned about folks like Loughner gunning down lots of people.
I mean do you really buy stuff that you know is prone to failure? Or, as I suspect, you're just making crap up?
TS, I didn't remember that part about Loughner's gun jamming. But if you say so, I believe you.
ReplyDeleteI find in an increbible leap for you to say that in means high capacity magazines save lives.
Loughner shoulda had oneathem AR-15's with the 100 round drum (http://www.sportsmansguide.com/net/cb/100-rd-ar-15-drum-mag-black.aspx?a=650806). I notice that, like TS, the supplier is concerned about jamming and suchlike; from the ad:
ReplyDelete"•Each comes with a nylon pouch, personal mag loader and 1 bottle of dry graphite lube."
Why, just think of the lives saved if gunzloon Jared had brought oneathese puppies to the party!
Oh, btw, TS. The part about the target not shooting back? Isn't that the attraction to gutless fucks like Loughner. Otherwise, why wouldn't he just get strapped and head for the nearest police station, sheriff's department or Highway Patrol barracks and call 'em out? Oh, that's right, they DO shoot back.
ReplyDeleteMikeB: “I find in an increbible leap for you to say that in means high capacity magazines save lives.”
ReplyDeleteThat is a leap from what I said. I said in this particular incident his choice of poor reliability equipment did save lives. It may never happen again. But for the gun control side to use this incident to push their ban, conveniently leaving out two pertinent details (the jam, and the dropping of a fresh magazine) is dishonest. The details of the case is that the gun jammed on the feed of the second magazine- meaning he had time to load the fresh magazine and drop the slide. If it were a 10 or 15 round magazine, he was back to shooting. The heroes that day required the extra time of the jam and the dropped magazine to stop the shooter.
Some clarification- “high capacity” does not mean extended magazine. The ban includes the normal 15/17 round magazine that the Glock came with, which are extremely reliable. If I had to take a guess, I would say extended magazines account for less than 1% of the proposed ban. In no way am I suggesting that the reason to fight the ban is so that some other mass shooter will have a gun jam. There are far better reasons to fight it than that.
Allow me to clarify the issue; Loughner's gun jammed as he was reloading.
ReplyDeleteHad he not had the expanded magazine, he would have had to stop sooner. It was the pause to reload that provided the initial opportunity for people to grapple with him, and the jamming simply made that less dangerous for those brave people who intervened.
So, yes, having access to fewer rounds of ammunition might very well have meant fewer people would have been hit before Loughner had to stop. It may or may not have resulted in less risk to those who interevened; I wouldn't want to put too much reliance on a jam for protection. It could unjam at any moment, with or without the jostling of people wrestling with Loughner. So, I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the jam in assessing the risks of the situation, but I would put more emphasis on the advantage to the victims of a lesser capacity magazine, which would have resulted in the reloading lull for someone to stop him, sooner.
Don't take my word for it - it's here in the news article;
http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/010911_loughner_suspect/fbi-director-loughner-suspect-giffords-shooting-rampage/
I hope this advances the discussion on a more factual basis.
Tighty Righty wrote:
ReplyDelete"Thou shalt not commit murder
So are we in agreement that the murderous Mr Scandahovian..... was not a christian but a nut job?"
No, we are in agreement that he was a so0-called fundamentalist, old-testament bible thumper, who liked to see himself as living the vengeful, punitive aspects of books like Leviticus. He used religion as his pretext and justification for violence; there is plenty of that in the Bible.
He was a bit of a cherrypicker, missing the importance of the beatitudes from the new testament:
(from Matthew)
•Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Verse 3)
•Blessed are the meek: for they shall possess the land. (Verse 4)
•Blessed are they who mourn: for they shall be comforted. (Verse 5)
•Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill. (Verse 6)
•Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. (Verse 7)
•Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God. (Verse 8)
•Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. (Verse 9)
•Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (verse 10)
Even cherrypicking Leviticus, he clearly avoided this:
Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
Leviticus 19:34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.
There are other versions of the same thing in the new testament, like this one:
Galatians 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
He was a christian, just a poor one, who clearly was not well informed. But he is all too much like all too many of the more so-called fundamentalist 'cafeteria' Christians, who are very selective, and usually rather hateful about those selections.
But Christians, oh yes, definitely.
Dog gone: “It was the pause to reload that provided the initial opportunity for people to grapple with him, and the jamming simply made that less dangerous for those brave people who intervened.”
ReplyDeleteIt is the difference between having a loaded gun in his hand vs. a couple of pounds of useless plastic and metal. The gun jammed, so that means he had enough time to release the slide on a fresh magazine. If it didn’t jam, all he would need to do next is pull the trigger. Let’s not minimize this.
Aside from that, Loughner was careless and didn’t think things through (unlike the Norway shooter). There are many easy ways to get around reloading pauses (which only take a few seconds anyway). One is to carry multiple guns- which most of the mass shooters do. Second is to execute a tactical reload- that is refreshing the magazine before it runs empty. It can be done at an opportune time, there will still be a cartridge in the chamber during the reload (so it is never empty), and there is no extra step of dropping the slide. That simple practice blows away any advantage of reloading pauses that they are attempting to create with this legislation (and so does a second gun). For this, you are willing to create criminal liability for millions and millions of gun owners, as well as increase the possibility of running out of ammo in a self-defense situation.
What about other ways to mitigate casualties, Dog gone? Would you be willing to ban cartridges over .38 caliber to offset the fact that limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds will simply increase the use of large bore handguns? Giffords does not survive if she gets shot by anything more powerful than a 9mm FMJ.
TS, that's a good point that "high-capacity" could include some standard issue mags. I'll repeat my official stand on this issue. I don't think gun control politicians should be wasting time on this one. We have bigger fish to fry: background checks, licensing and registration, to name just a few.
ReplyDeleteGiffords does not survive if she gets shot by anything more powerful than a 9mm FMJ.
ReplyDeleteJuly 26, 2011 8:22 PM
Giffords doesn't even get shot if we have mechanisms to keep cowardly gunzloonz like Loughner from easlly acquiring handguns.
Correct me if I'm wrong; one sickfuck, Jared Loughner, did all the shooting on that day. Had he not been there would there have been other sickfucks like him lurking nearby to do his "PatriotiKKK Duty"? Oh, how silly of me to say something so totally conjetural. Of course there would be other brave heroes waiting to take up the righteous sword of Mr. Loughner and exterminate the parasites that suck out our liberty's lifeblood--especially those 11 year old girltyrants.
Jared Loughner, gutless piece of shit. People who defend policies that allow gutless pieces of shit to commit mayhem, idiots.
Democommie: “Giffords doesn't even get shot if we have mechanisms to keep cowardly gunzloonz like Loughner from easlly acquiring handguns.”
ReplyDeleteIt is called “arrest and prosecution”, of which the authorities had multiple occasions to use this mechanism to prevent Loughner from acquiring a handgun.
Mike, thanks for you comment- I haven’t forgotten your stance on this.
MikeB: “that's a good point that "high-capacity" could include some standard issue mags.”
Probably 99% of what is covered under the ban are standard issue mags.
All right, enough of the magazines. What do you think off Ann Barnhardt, TS? How do you feel about the hate she preaches?
ReplyDeleteI don't know much about her, but from what I have heard I don't like her message.
ReplyDelete