Trolls At SHOT. With Video

[Hazcat]

Timothy,

Once again I said that 'standard' capacity was NOT part of the deal.  Guns that take a 17 round mag are fine and so are the mags.  I'm talking about extended mags (don't fit flush with the gun).

[Timothy]

Timothy,

Once again I said that 'standard' capacity was NOT part of the deal.  Guns that take a 17 round mag are fine and so are the mags.  I'm talking about extended mags (don't fit flush with the gun).

I understand your point Haz.....

My long winded point was...."If you give a mouse a cookie, he'll want a glass of milk!".

We can't deal with these people, they're self serving at best and will take, take, take, and take some more.  I can post the "List of Approved Firearms" roster from MA if you'd like.....they just keep on taking up here...Hell, even CT isn't what it was a mere 15 years ago!

Respectfully submitted by a frustrated, displaced Midwesterner...

T

[Paraguy]

As can be seen in the video below, if magazines had lower capacity there would be plenty of time in between magazine changes for law enforcement to take down the criminal.  Please note that this was written in a sarcastic font. 


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLniuMpgM1I&playnext=1&list=PL3619BEF09B43B868&index=10

[Big Frank]

It's time to stock up on 150 round mags. http://www.armatac.com/products.html

[tombogan03884]

Personally, IF we could get something in return like the 1986 closing of MG registry ended or maybe national reciprocity or national open carry I would give up the EXTENDED mags, not STANDARD mags (whatever the gun was made for).  The mag law would ONLY apply to handguns.

Just a thought.

This from the guy who was bitching about Shooting sports and manufacturers spending money in Ca. ?

There is no compromise on Constitutionally recognized Civil Rights.
As PathFinder pointed out, compromise is what got us where we are today.
My compromise position is "repeal all firearms regulations passed since 1934 and I will not pursue a treason charge against the Anti's"

[Sponsor]

[ratcatcher55]

Why do people feel obligated to talk on camera to strangers?

At one point in my life I was sent to a course on how to talk to the press.  The fact was what ever you said was going to end up as an eight second sound bite chosen by the editor. He or she will pick what they want to hear, not what you ment to say.

So if somebody sticks a camera in my face I smile and say, No habla senor.

[alfsauve]

Why do people feel obligated to talk on camera to strangers?

People like to talk.   They all want their voice to be heard.   One thing I learned in industrial theatre is that during presentations/meetings, people seldom ask questions because they have questions.  They ask questions because they want to be to be noticed, to be heard,  to talk.  Since that time, I don't ask a lot of questions when I attend meetings (except maybe, "when's the bar open" and "where's the bathroom").

Go back and look at the video about "Don't talk to the police".   


(Yes that principle applies here as well.)

[WatchManUSA]

Compromises got us into this mess.

Shrugging off the gummint's illegal actions helped.



No Compromises!!!!!!

No shrugs!!!!!

The gummint takes no more rights away, no more liberties, no more freedoms. Period.

WTF, Haz? ? ?

This gets my vote!!!

[RVN11B]

There must be NO, NONE, NADA compromises when it comes to the rights of the American Citizen.

That stupidity was tried before and a near terminal case of mission creep ensued.

Do not fall for that BS ever again.

[twyacht]

I’ll join the NRA when the NRA soundly condemns and works tirelessly to abolish the Gun Control Act of 1968. [As you know] NRA lawyers actually helped to write this piece of totalitarian legislation … a near carbon copy of the Nazi German gun laws of the 1930s.

In an acerbic letter just 11 days before his death, Zelman wrote “An Open Letter to All American Politicians and Bureaucrats,” noting acidly,

You have done absolutely nothing effective or meaningful to stop [the erosion of our Second Amendment rights]. A preponderance of the blame can be laid directly at your feet. Why? Because many of you are, unequivocally, deceivers and liars.

How can I call you liars? Upon your election or appointment here’s what you promised us: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take his obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Your oath of office is a contract, both verbal and signed. If you are in breach of that contract you are now both a liar and a criminal….

Mr. Zelman, RIP. Compromise is not the answer. Didn't see the compromising in the "keep and bear" & "shall not be infringed" part either.