bersaguy

Folks, if we go back in time and do some research which I did a few years back mass shootings in not a new thing. I went back to the 70s and read up on that guy in Texas that climbed up in that tower at Texas A&M and shot and killed about 20 people before they were able to get to him. He was armed with a 30-06 and a shotgun and stock pile of ammo. Had it not been for a couple ranchers in the area that went in to help the police there probably would have been more killed. 4 local ranchers that also had long range high powered rifles went to the college and offered to help. The problem was the police only had shot guns and pistols which were totally noneffective with the range he was at. The 4 ranchers took up positions where when ever he raised his head to shoot he was shot at by one of the ranchers. They kept his head down until a few police officers were able to gain access to the tower door. From then on it is history. The police officers gained access to the tower roof and shot the shooter several times killing him. But as far as mass killings look at the gangsters of the 20's and 30's that used Tommy guns to kill many groups of people. The real difference is today there are many more ways for the public to learn about the shootings even as they are happening real time. Weapons have also came a long way in their effectiveness compared to back years ago. Back in the 70's the police didn't learn anything from that college shooting. It was not until that shoot out between those two bank robbers and the FBI that it came to the reality that the police needed to take a new look at what they needed to do to keep up with the bad guys thus shotguns were replaced with automatic high powered rifles in the trucks of all FBI agents cars and soon after came SWAT in Federal and city police departments. Now even with all the advancements in law enforcement they are still protecting the public from behind as long as they continue making so many areas gun free zones.  I have many friends that work for local law enforcement and TBI and I have asked each of them how they really feel about the people getting permits to carry weapons for self protection. Every one of them said the same thing. They think it is a good idea because they all know that they cannot be everyplace all the time and they see the need for law abiding citizens to be able to protect themselves and their families. They said that they know when they are called to respond to a mass shooting that the person involved in not going to be a legal law abiding citizen but in a few cases the shooter was taken down by a law abiding citizen and prevented an even worse situation. They also said those are the shootings you never read about and almost never hear about because they don't want any good news about armed citizens getting out. Nuff said........... :popcorn: :popcorn:

Yep the Federal elected officials made sure they are protected from a recall vote because they have no intentions of doing the bidding of the people that elected them when they decided to run in the first place for a federal office....... :popcorn: :popcorn:

TankerHC, This is just one on the hundreds of articles about one of Bill Clinton's first orders after taking office and it was issued in 1993. I know this to be fact since I had friends write me complaining about it that were in the military at the time on base in country. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/11/end-clinton-era-military-base-gun-ban/

In all reality I don't think that the LEO's can know every law and I also think that the one big problem is this problem has been going on way longer than any of us have been around. The difference now is Video cameras. Now almost every move anyone makes someone is either making a video of it or taking a bunch of pictures of it and what the LEO's use to just get away with are now on video or film and the real truth is finally coming out........jmho.

I think it might be time to recall Bob Corker and get him replaced with an American Citizen because i think he is from another Planet........jmho

  Bill Clinton made that impossible when he was president is why they cannot shoot back.............. :popcorn: :popcorn:  

They have spent the last 15 or so years trying to teach out children to be socialists and sneaking these kind of books it every chance they get. This is nothing new except for the fact they got caught again............ :down: :down:

Lets all give Bill Clinton a big cheer. He was the one that had the orders written and he signed them soon as they were finished to take away the rights of our very well trained very good shots with almost any weapon military personnel from being able to even carry their own personal sidearms while on base in country. He disarmed our Military and made sitting ducks out of them on our bases. I hope he slept well after Ft. Hood where the carnage could have been far less if our troops would have been armed. Today he can be held accountable for our military again being a shooting gallery without a way to defend themselves once again.  and with that said, I have heard several different stories about the gun or guns this guy was suppose to have had. First report was shotgun, then a shotgun and a hand gun, then a shotgun, a hand gun and an AR. They I read reports that he was seen picking up the AR from a dead or wounded Military Security officer and the hand gun came from another wounded police officer. Has any figured out yet just how many guns the guy actually brought with him?  I mean if this guy had an AR and a shotgun and walked through the door he was a busy person and no one saw that.???????????????? I mean since he was military trained he would be familiar with almost any weapon he picked up.........jmho

Could possibly be a Savage or a Stevens 12 gauge slug gun. They both make a gun very similar to it so they may have made that one for Revelation.

One thing that never ceases to amaze me is there can be 5 people near a shooting or 5,000 and no one really sees anything that they can explain with surety. I guess that is why they have video cameras stuck up every where in our lives. Because people cannot comprehend anything going on around them with any credibility. But with that said was really amazes me much more is how many people don't know a gun shot when they hear one. I don't care what type of building I am in or if I am outside I know a gun shot when I hear one. One guy said it sounded like someone dropped a metal desk on the floor. That guy is an idiot...........jmho

Right now I am going to hold any opinions on this because there are far to many conflicting reports coming out of to many different news agencies about what really happened..................jmho

If I am not mistaken Any state or Federal Capitol Building is a place that is off limits to all firearms so I think that may have been the law they might have broken. I know you cannot carry any firearms up to the Tennessee capitol building or on capitol building grounds but I am just guessing since I don't know Texas laws..........jmho

Ok, I know some folks have made their feelings known about infowars and I feel pretty much the same but this does raise an issue I think needs to be discussed a little. I will post my view on this and then ya'll can beat e up if you want to..... :ugh: This is about what I think is somewhat stupid and see no need for it as all it does is give all anti-gunners more ammunition because it is folks like these that think they need to rub the anti-gun peoples noses in it. I do realize that it is their right to do what they did but I just think in my mind it is a stupid necessary action that should be done in the voting booth or someplace it will do good. Below is the article I am talking about.   Trooper stumbles for words after realizing man’s replica black powder revolver is not considered a firearm under Texas law. (info Wars) – On a visit to the Texas state capital to show his appreciation for the Second Amendment right that we all enjoy, Texas Open Carry board member Terry Holcomb was arrested by Texas state troopers who appeared ignorant of state firearm laws.   http://www.teaparty.org/shock-video-texas-state-troopers-arrest-legally-armed-american-28403/  

I will side with them a little but with that said,  Does any police departments even send their applicants to a training academy before putting them in a uniform and shoving them out on the streets anymore? I would say the officer that did the shooting needs a lot more range time so he can learn to hit his target a lot better. Maybe Bloomberg needs to spend some of him millions training his policemen better instead of spending it fighting against law abiding citizens and carry permits and guns in general.............jmho

When you get to investigations that quick back to back and one decided 's one way and the other goes in exact opposite direction lawsuit cover-up's are in the making almost every time. Most police shootings are justified up front but probably after talking with the other officers involved they got the real facts and then made the proper decision in their minds at that point. I do have prayers being sent to the poor mans family for their loss and will express sorrow for the officers situation. My problem is 3 officers on the scene 1 guy acting frantically distraught and these three men could not subdue him  long enough to find out what is happening does not say much for any or all of those police officers. They didn't see any weapons in his hands so the reason for shooting him goes to almost zero at that point. Physical restraint 3 on 1 should have been used..............jmho

I guess that explains all the need for the feds to buy up all that ammo. They are building the Private army that our President thinks he will need someday.............jmho

I watch history channel and Mountain Men on TV a lot and on one of them I think it was in Yukon Men they all would yodel to communicate and I thought that was really cool to listen to and watch.......... :up: :up:

I think maybe they wanted to stop giving him his social security check might be a possibility and a $1.50 bullet could do that. I mean isn't that what our Federal Government has planned for all us old folks anyway. Now they will save another $800.00 bucks a month..........jmho

  Thanks and that answered my questions very well............... :up: :up:

Ok I want someone to explain this to me. The Constitution gives every American(legal American) the right to keep and bear arms. That I understand to a point Keep I understand very well, it is the bear part I have not really got clear. It does not say Keep and carry arms in the Constitution. Is the definition in the Constitution the same as carry or does it mean you can bear it in response to the protection of you and your family and property in and around your property or does it mean right to carry in public?  That is something I have been wondering and hope that someone can explain it in terms an old kinda dumb guy like me can understand......... :popcorn: :popcorn:  

:rofl: well I don't know about the slow news but the thread was a good one for sure..... :rock:

  It's like everything else the news posts these days TMF. Good news is not news so why post it or print it? Bad news is the only new worthy of writing today according to the press. I remember a song that was out years ago that said  "It's good to hear some good news today"..........jmho

For one, that is why I don't carry open. I don't go fishing for a confrontation or go out to show off I have a gun. I have been pulled over several times by LEO's while driving for what I would consider bogus stops here in my town back when I first got my carry permit. Things like I didn't see your seat belt and of course I was asked if I was armed due to the fact that it tells the police by your license plate to you possess a carry permit. I guess they ask hoping they will catch me packing and not have my permit with me. All of that took place for about the first year after I got my permit but now all the police do is wave and I wave back as we pass each other on the road. I think all in all the girls should have checked out what the laws are in MO. before going into the state because each states laws read differently and if your going to visit a neighboring state check their carry laws first. If they have a carry law but it is conceal only then you either don't carry or you carry concealed...............jmho.

Ok , I had a buddy come by that is a swat officer here in gallatin. He has read every one of the posts plus read the articles posted with links. He said they had somewhat of a similar issue about a year ago when an 82 year old man barricaded himself in his home because his family wanted to move him from his home of 55 years into a nursing home. Not because he could not care for himself and he had 24 /7  paid sitters paid buy his insurance to come in and do for him. One day when the family arrived to move him from his home to the nursing home he showed them his gun and told him he was not going. They called the police and told them he threatened them with a gun. My buddies Swat team was called out along with a negotiator. The swat team got eyes in the house and saw the old man was armed with a 38 pistol and said he was not leaving his home. He actually fired off two rounds into the floor to get their attention that he would shoot. In the end the swat team got him to fire off his last 4 rounds by making noises under the floor which after that they made a quick entry into the house and room and took control of the issue with out killing the old gentleman. They brought him out with out even putting him in cuff's and took him to the police station. After an investigation it was exposed that the only reason the family wanted him placed in a nursing home was a large offer had been made on the old man's home and property and he turned it down and his two sons were do to get the house when he vacated it. The man was evaluated by a doctor and the doctor said that the old gentleman was not crazy and his health was good for his age and with the aid of the sitters he should have been able to remain in his home indefinitely or until his health worsened. Now after it was all said and done, because the old gentleman actually never pointed the gun at anyone including his two sons but just showed it to them and he never fired directly at any of the police officers or swat team the judge made a decision to dismiss all of the charges that had been made and sent the old man back home without his gun and he is still living in his home with his 24/7 sitters. Now with that said I realize that all cases are different but my buddy said that not being there it was hard for him to make a totally accurate decision but he said that someone in the upper level must have had plans and didn't have time to do his job and keep his plans and gave orders that should not have been given and he left it there.............. :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

Well all in all I do think she has the people at heart when she is working in Washington. I have also attending a few of her town hall meetings and asked her some pretty tough questions and she gave a deliberate and direct answer to them all and nothing was negative about them.