Scalise was bulletproof

And what are they usually doing with said replica when they get shot?

I'm going to assume you're talking about police here, unless you're trying to say CCW holders are somehow responsible.

 

Orrrrrrr . . . perhaps the radicals in control of the DNC and the bulk of the mainstream Media could begin toning down the raw hatred they express for Trump specifically and for GOP politicians in general; you know, cease egging on the countless violent whackos infesting their side? That might . . . just . . . help.

 

Ummmm . . . would those be the same officers of the law that apparently the typical leftist hates with a passion to the point of advocating creating 'pigs in a blanket'? I perceive a bit of a logic flow problem there; for the Left anyway.

 

Time and again we have discovered that the typical pie-in-the-sky leftist IS precisely that . . . dense. It seems to be one of their few consistent talents.

 

Shot by whom? What actions were the individuals engaged in at the time of the incident before they were shot? Where are the citations?

 

But the gun the shooter had WAS banned in the place where he was firing it. How do you not understand that criminals don't obey gun laws? Guns are banned, essentially, in Chicago and DC. Yet, they have the two highest gun murder rates? How are those bans protecting the citizens, exactly?

 

You seem to miss the obvious fact that, due to local law where the shooting happened, not even the sane people are allowed to have guns, by any reasonable measure. If you can't keep the guns out of the hands of crazy people, taking the guns out of the hands of sane people doesn't really help, does it?

 

I wouldn't bet the farm on it...

 

No need to revoke it at all. Guns can be kept at home for self-defense, and transported securely for hunting and to shooting ranges. Outlawing ALL firearms in public, however, would sort out the good guys and bad guys quickly. Add that to the default 'I was afraid for my life' defense LEO's already enjoy, and the word will get around rapidly when law enforcement starts shooting on sight.

 

Except there's been a rash of LEO's being saved by those of us who carry firearms.

Good luck convincing them there isn't value in an armed law abiding citizenry.

Those of us with CCWs are more law abiding, by far, than the general populace. It's anecdotal of course, but I've never even gotten a parking ticket.

 

There were plenty of trained, armed people around the Congressman. They didn't stop it from happening. The question you can't answer is: why not?
Why didn't all the guns stop the bullets from hitting Scalise?

 

How did he acquire the gun?

 

There were two officers with pistols against a rifle.

If those two cops hadn't been there, with firearms, we would be having a lot of funerals right now.

Guns in the vicinity don't prevent people from doing bad things, but they can mitigate it, and in this situation thats exactly what happened.

Instead of this democrat-voting nut job casually picking unarmed men off, he had to contend with armed opposition firing back at him. That took his attention off the congressmen, and limited his options.

What you're saying makes zero sense, and it sounds like you're trying to convince yourself of your own argument.

 

In the UK a petition of just 100,000 names (0.15%) can force something to be debated in parliament.
So........
Where's the debate?

 

And that was enough. What would more guns in the hands of untrained people have achieved?

If Hodginkson hadn't been given a gun there wouldn't have been an incident.

People doing bad things is made worse by those people having guns.

Yeah, trained security who thankfully didn't also have to contend with a pack of caulflower-cheese assed politicians and lobbyists firing guns all over the place.

He was targeting specific people and it doesn't matter whether Scalise was carrying or not as it was a sniper-style shot.

 

On what legal basis would you have denied this man his right to bear arms? Where did these "liberal judges" err in interpreting the law?

Evidently you are incorrect. Be a man and admit it.

 

Well, for starters, he may have been taken out before he shot the other two cops.

If someone was trying to kill you, would you rather have two people with guns defending you or five?

People will always do things.

Should we remove everyone's penis because some of them will be rapists? Should we impound all vans in the UK? Would martial law make you happier and safer?

Training with a firearm doesn't require 12 years in Firearm Ph.D. school. As a Marine I got two weeks on the rifle range and few weeks of infantry training and was sent out into the world locked and loaded at the age of 18.

No, it wasn't a "sniper style shot". If it had been he would have been dead by a center mass shot. The reason he was having problems aiming is that he was being shot at. That throws you off a bit.

 

Let's not start calling manhood into question, I wouldn't want anyone's feelings to get hurt.

The legal basis would be the three or four separate violent incidents this man had, at least one of them with firearms, that he was never prosecuted for.

All the tools are there to keep nutjobs from legally purchasing a firearm. They are not used.

For example, in 7 years just in Chicago, over 13000 felony firearm charges were dropped and never even prosecuted.

 

The man was involved in allegations of violent incidents. The problem with a felony being your lowest standard for assessing integrity is that any incident has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

How about the standard being regular training and psych tests, and a personal warranty by community members who know you?

 

I would rather not have someone shooting at me. Why did we give him a gun? What point were we trying to prove by giving this guy the means to attack us?

The only purpose of a gun is to kill. There is no need for them.

He wasn't being shot at before he shot first. He would have got at least three to five shots out before even the best trained person would go from standing and looking around to returning fire.
What would have made it much harder to respond is if that trained person looked around to assess and saw 12 guys waving guns in the air. Who's the killer?

 

No. You think you have violence now? Try and take legally purchased guns from Americans. Millions would March straight to DC and kick them all out.

Not even kidding.

I do support reasonable gun restrictions. The Pulse shooter being investigated by the FBI and they drop the ball, then he went and bought an assault rifle? Geez.

 

Oh indeed. That was just a theoretical response to an open-ended question.

Additionally, the 2A does have a sound basis for its existence, being the condition upon which the armed services were federalized.

What would need to happen in my view is a legislative clarification of the 2A to limit for militia use, so then you can have a full and recurring vetting process for gun ownership that includes psych evaluations and community-based approval.

But in any event, current legally-owned guns (outside militia) should not be taken away, but merely non-transferable except to the state. Then ownership slips off by gradual attrition.

 

He got it in another state, one would presume. The only states that have active shooters for 10 minutes and such, are states where guns are effectively banned, due to no conceal or open carry rights. Also, the shooter fired around 100 rounds, with no banana clip. So, we can scratch that off the list of nonsense spouted by anti-constitutionalists.

 

Because you can't use a hand gun against a rifle very effectively, when the rifle is 100 yards away, and across an open field. The shooting went on for nearly 10 minutes. Introduce a few more guns in to the neighborhood, and it's over in one or two minutes, tops.

 

OK. Looks like the best solution is to ban all guns in all states.

Really? That may or may not be true, but its a big assertion to carry without any substantiation.

Has that ever happened?