Congresswoman: Norway gunman touted lax US gun laws

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
I don't know if this has been mentioned yet to to further the conspiracy or just to really tick us all off I read he used a Ruger Mini-14.

Ruger was one of the biggest supporters of the Clinton AWB. It was his letters to Congress and his testimony that were used to say "see, even gun owners want this ban" despite the fact that many boycotted the company and continue to do so to this day.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

I boycott both Ruger AND Smith and Wesson. Since neither of those companies is bright enough not to bite the hand that feeds them, I just can't trust 'em to make a quality product.

To be fair, though, I started boycotting Ruger years ago, when I saw Sandinistas carrying shiny new Mini-14's in a parade in Managua. If you're going to arm my enemy, don't expect me to subsidize your folly by giving you my money.

You know, not that it matters much to most, but a great observation I made growing up was that the USA has the whole 'mutual self destruction' thing going on with massive weapons... Well I figured it was just the American way, at my high school, in my grade were at least 5 students who carried loaded pistols on a daily basis (just that I knew). Columbine would be impossible at my school.

However Im not saying everyone having a gun would mean that no one would be insane, I just dont think 90 people would die because of one, just several perhaps...

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
I don't know if this has been mentioned yet to to further the conspiracy or just to really tick us all off I read he used a Ruger Mini-14.

Ruger was one of the biggest supporters of the Clinton AWB. It was his letters to Congress and his testimony that were used to say "see, even gun owners want this ban" despite the fact that many boycotted the company and continue to do so to this day.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

I boycott both Ruger AND Smith and Wesson. Since neither of those companies is bright enough not to bite the hand that feeds them, I just can't trust 'em to make a quality product.

To be fair, though, I started boycotting Ruger years ago, when I saw Sandinistas carrying shiny new Mini-14's in a parade in Managua. If you're going to arm my enemy, don't expect me to subsidize your folly by giving you my money.

Got that right. To further your point, every single Smith and Wesson weapon I've handled has been an uncomfortable, unreliable and inaccurate piece of garbage. Not to say I've handled them all. I can only knock Ruger so hard because I grew up hunting white tail with a Ruger 30-06 bolt-action. Still have the rifle and it still shoots like it did 25+ years ago. Not a big fan of their political ideology however.

Originally posted by JennaDarling

Fake victims?

Do their parents know this?

No, they are fake as well... actually Norway as a whole is a fake...

On a more serious and on topic note, that argument is just stupid... it it was some polititian from Norway saying they need to change their laws so these weapons and ammo can't be imported... allright, that would make sense, but this?

reply to post by no time


She should be the one ashamed to make up such blatant lies... Criminals will find any way to get weapons, when you ban weapons criminals turn to the black market which is as prosperous as ever.

That nurse should be reading the facts of what has been going on in the UK with regards to firearm crimes, and including crimes with guns. In the UK crimes with guns have increased, and crime in general has increased since the weapons ban.

It is time these uneducated politicans inform themselves about the subjects they like to bash so much. It is time to fire from their jobs every politician, no matter their political party, that does not want to abide by, and defend the U.S. Constitution. She should be ashamed that she hasn't even read the U.S. Constitution, because if she had, she wouldn't be tyring to once again restrict the right of U.S. citizens to own and bear arms.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

It's a statement that the victim brought it upon themselves.

Nope. It is a statement that their government left them screwed. If the government hadn't limitted their right to self defense they would have had a fighting chance. It isn't their fault. Not even in the least. Many of them grew up in a system that never allowed them that option. So, the thought never crossed their mind. It is like the sociology theory of the "buffet line." You will usually only seek out those options readily presented to you. Since they never had the option they probably never considerred the option.

We aren't blaming them. We are blaming their government.

Summer camp is not the sort of outing where one typically bears a small army's worth of weaponry, is it?

Nope but it use to be pretty common in Europe and America to teach the "sporting use" of rifles in summer camp. People forget that it was less than a century ago that being able to hunt or shoot sporting clay was considerred part of being well rounded. The proper handling of small bore rifles and shotguns was taught to kids as young as six and seven. In parts of the UK it was considerred a right of passage for a young person from a family of means to go on their first bird or fox hunt.

So, no you wouldn't have an arsenal at a summer camp. However, just a couple of decades ago it wouldn't have been unheard of to have a dozen small rimfire rifles and several hundred rounds of ammunition. In other words, the counselors would have had the guy out numbered and (at least in numbers) out gunned.

reply to post by MikeNice81


Weren't a lot of the victims children?
The problem is the government not allowing us to arm our children?

reply to post by Crapspackle


I was editting to add because I accidentally sent the post too soon. Please read the completed post. Sorry about the mix up.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by morder1

 

Yes, if only all those kids had been armed. Really, it's their own fault they got gunned down, isn't it?

lol. what a silly comment. nhf.

Originally posted by Crapspackle
reply to post by MikeNice81

 

Weren't a lot of the victims children?
The problem is the government not allowing us to arm our children?

lol. no.

the problem is police arriving at the crime scene 90 minutes after the shooting.
and remember, it's norway not bangladesh or kazahstan where you don't
even know who is who and where they don't have enough policemen and
vehicles to do their job.

and this american demo(n)crat said what she said because she's in it for
some cheap pollitical points. hence this discussion was set to fail and end
in stupidity and bickering from the start. wouldn't you agree?

reply to post by no time


Wait, if guns were common, wouldn't they have shot the Norway guy quickly so he'd do less harm?

Originally posted by Siddharta
reply to post by macman

 

It's not Gibberish, it is Dada. When there is no sense in anything and the world tumbles down, then the only logical language is Dadaism. This thread is full of it. You yourself use it. Simply Dadaism. Helplessness at its tall.

You don't want to talk, you just want to be right. Hey, man, you are! In this sense at least.

edit on 29-7-2011 by Siddharta because: Had to make a point there.

No, honestly, I do wish to discuss this. But, your responses are fragmented and I find it difficult to decipher them.

reply to post by ateuprto


I carried a S+W "K" frame revolver at work when they did their high strangeness regarding the Mayor's Conference, and took what appeared to me to be an "anti-gun" stance, going against all common sense for a gun manufacturer. The very next day, I went in and turned in my Smith, insisted on being issued a Taurus instead. Some folks cuss Taurus without mercy, but I never had a bit of trouble out of mine over the next several years. It was a virtual clone of the Smith.

I've still got a Ruger 10/22 that I got in 1979, several years before I had my falling out with them. I ain't giving it up for nothing, but I'll never buy another Ruger product, either.

Now, this "high capacity ammunition feeding device" debate has no substance at all to me. 10 rounds or a hundred makes little difference, except in the number of times one has to swap magazines. I can put 100 rounds down range either way. I used to have an AK-74, and US made magazines were just plain unavailable for it. I had ONE 10 round magazine, and bought up a butt-load of East German surplus 30 round mags for carry during the Clinton Gun Ban. The 45 rounders for the RPK version were mostly unavailable, and if you could find one the sky was the limit as far as price went. To work around that, I just took two of the 30 rounders and cut 'em down, rejoining them into one 45 rounder and one 15 rounder. The 45 rounder allowed me to be obnoxious for 15 rounds more while I looked for better cover to change mags under (I called it my "ambush magazine"), but it was a luxury, not a necessity. When the heat is on, you can slap those magazines around pretty fast, anyhow, and 60 rounds is 60 rounds, no matter how you group it up. It really doesn't matter that much if it's six groups of ten, or one group of sixty.

I really think this congress woman ought to stick to the gay rights debate, which she appears to have a firmer grasp on, and leave the gun issues to the big kids that know something about it.

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by ateuprto

 

I really think this congress woman ought to stick to the gay rights debate, which she appears to have a firmer grasp on, and leave the gun issues to the big kids that know something about it.

edit on 2011/7/30 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

As should most in Govt.

"Were sending a death warrant to other parts of the world?" Ya right, because we all know guns kill people, people don't kill people................He would have gotten the guns one way or another anyways.

Yes he probably got the clip from the US, but you can bet the return address was the Department of Justice, ATTN: Attorney General's Office.

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by no time

 

Wait, if guns were common, wouldn't they have shot the Norway guy quickly so he'd do less harm?

as far as i could find, the police could have shot the suspect but they "thought" he was strapped
with explosives and so they didn't (and again, this could be due to bad translation done by halfassed
journalists). to expect hippie kids to be strapped with guns is kinda silly even if we're talking
hypothetically imo.

reply to post by psyop911


If people were known to carry concealed weapon it would be a serious incentive against doing such actions.

reply to post by nenothtu


Enjoyed the response. I'm a simple 3 sidearm man. I don't always carry, but when I do it's either been a USP series, P22x series or old fashioned Gov't 1911 (with some modest but necessary modifications). As much as I have used the sidearm in an operational capacity and as many times as I've put my life in its cold mechanical hands, I still dislike the 1911. That's not to say I hate it, felt great in the hands but the draw and necessary "condition" to carry effectively never sat right with me. Reliability, despite popular opinion, is always an issue with any 1911 model I've operated, regardless of modifications. You can only teach an old "dog" so many new tricks. I've generally enjoyed Sig's P226 and P229 models, but have been carrying an H&K USP .40 full size recently. Neither has failed to cycle a single round, my last 226 in .40 had its frame cracked almost in two before it ever gave out or failed to fire. Point being, all three are companies that pride themselves on quality of manufacture and not much else.

This high-capacity magazine scapegoat garbage is laughable, I agree. I addressed that in my first and direct response to the OP. Just some self-important and delusional politician trying to gain another 15 minutes by jumping on the guilt-trip wagon. A man with any working combative knowledge and the unrelenting intent to kill is going to do so regardless of the tools available. The only difference the magazines made in this case was less time for the victims to hide in fear due to fewer reloads. Any man worth his weight in sh*t could jury-rig himself a 50+ capacity magazine using his own materials anyway.

We can only hope that history views this reactionary garbage the same way we do. As hopeless as everything may seem, I would argue we have made progress. Not once I have seen in the newspaper or in the bit of news I've watched any coverage of this particular representative's claims.

reply to post by ateuprto


I'm what the kids call "old school". I reckon. 1911's were what everyone carried back then as far as auto pistols went. I had one for a while, but didn't fall in love with it like most did - but the various carry conditions were more or less ingrained into me, so they weren't a problem for me. I preferred a Browning HP35, much to the chagrin of the "I hate 9mm" crowd. Same basic design, with a couple of improvements, and the same carry conditions. I generally carried mine with one up the spout, safety off, and the hammer at half-cock, which was a damn sight safer than the safety, anyhow. We put one in a vise one time, and beat the hammer with a ball-peen hammer to try to defeat the half-cock notch, and the hammer broke before the notch gave. I most appreciated it for the 13 round magazine, which was the highest cap going in a sidearm at the time. I later "acquired" a couple of South African 17 rounders for it, and was a happy camper.

The most "modern" thing I've owned was a Beretta in .40. I handled a USP, but didn't like it. Purely a personal preference rather than a problem with the weapon, it just didn't "feel" right to me, ergonomics-wise. I checked with DynCorp about a contract they had going in Baghdad a few years ago, where they were issuing M4's as primary weapons and Sigs as sidearms, but I didn't go on that one, so didn't have the Sig Experience. Can't say yea or nay about them.

I agree, any one hell bent on destruction will get it done, regardless of equipment. I've always said a dangerous man is a dangerous man, whether he's got a 150 round drum, a knife, a sharps stick, a brick, or just his teeth. it's the man that's dangerous, not the means. I've yet to see an AK jump up all by itself and slaughter a schoolyard, but I HAVE seen one man kill 3 with a Phillips screwdriver. A man bent on destruction will have a plan to accomplish it, and there's really not much that will stop him if he's even half-assed at planning.

It's the man, not the means. Outlaw lunatics.

As far as this lady and news reporting goes, I dug up a news interview she did that I thought you might enjoy. I hope I get the embedding right. THIS is Carolyn McCarthy, and her vast storehouse of knowledge on firearms, which she obviously employs in her decision making process as regards legislative action:



"Do you know what a barrel shroud is?"

"It's the shoulder thing that goes up."

"No, it's not."