Skip to comments.Dem. Jerrold Nadler: 2 to 4 self-defense shots are enough, hes a jackass period
Posted on 01/19/2013 7:13:27 AM PST by IbJensen
or liberals facts are never really important. Truth to liberals like Democrat New York City Congressman Jerrold Nadler is what he feels it is. Nadler has said: Hunters dont use large ammunition clips, and as far as self- defense, I mean who are you defending yourself against? If youre defending yourself against a robber two or three or four shots should be enoughperiod.
Its a safe bet Nadler has never faced an assailant fueled by adrenalin drugs and alcohol. That doesnt matter, of course, since no one will ever challenge Nadler on his supposed knowledge of the danger presented by people who are psychotic and drunk period.
The period at the end of Nadlers pronouncement is the classic liberal dismissal of anyone daring to disagree with their use of feelings as facts.
Nadlers fantasy about real shooting combat brings up the death of New York City Police Sergeant Edward J. Johnson.
On January 8, 1960 Sergeant Johnson and his driver were on patrol in the Bowery district of lower Manhattan. The area was dotted with dozens of soup kitchens that catered to the skid row drunks and mental patients that freely walked New Yorks streets.
Johnson responded to a call of a man with a knife who was menacing the staff and clients one of those soup kitchens. When Johnson arrived another team of cops was already on the scene and attempting to subdue the man in a narrow hallway. He was clearly a drunken paranoid schizophrenic. He had a 16 inch bread knife and was not giving it up.
At some point the man lunged at Johnson and all four cops started shooting from less than seven feet away. They fired 24 shots hitting him 16 times. Four of the shots should have killed the drunken psychotic instantly. One cleanly severed his spinal cord; another went through his heart. None of those shots killed him fast enough to stop him from plunging his knife into Sergeant Edward Johnsons heart. Johnson died at the scene. The drunken psychotic died seconds later; but way too late.
Jerrold Nadler is a jackass; but he feels the right way about guns so thats good enough period.
In some NY City shoot-outs I have read about the police shoot more innocent bystanders than criminals.
In other incidents police have fired huge numbers of rounds.
Not criticizing the officers - just commenting on the difficulties of putting every round where you intend. I'm sure the same thing takes place in other cities.
Here is a story of an incident last August where two police officers fired 16 rounds at one lone criminal with a gun and they wounded 9 innocent people.
Here is another incident where two policemen confronted a shooter armed with a lowly 6 shot .22 caliber revolver. The title speaks for itself:
And to keep it in context, remember that at the time NY City had some of the toughest gun control laws in the nation. And both shooters had illegal pistols, not scary, black, "Assault Rifles".
100% FACT: In just the first 5 Amendments, it is perfectly clear that the founders wanted the citizens protected from GOVERNMENT, not rabid deer.
100% FACT: For the 2nd Amendment to have ANY worth, the citizens MUST have, at bare minimum, the same arms that the government would be willing to use against them.
100% FACT: With the very first law/regulation on the citizen’s RTKBA the 2nd Amendment was rendered moot. Both sides of the debate never seem to get to the “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” portion which for an honest person would end any debate on the subject. They have INFRINGED therefore the Federal and state governments are currently in direct violation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. There is no honest way around this point.
100% FACT: The first time speech was limited the 1st Amendment was rendered moot. Yes you can yell fire in a theater but if it is not on fire then you are responsible for any injury.
100% FACT: The 4th Amendment is completely worthless with government being allowed to search you without a warrant.
100% FACT: The 5th Amendment is being dismantled in many areas like forced traffic stops/inspections where you are essentially forced into acts which can and will be used against you.
The only one of the first 5 Amendments which is not currently under attack is the 3rd but with the others gone, who cares?
And before anyone attempts to attack the point on traffic stops by saying “well a right to drive is not in the Constitution”, I say, thank you communist union teachers for making us so Constitutionally ignorant. WE HAVE ALL CREATOR GIVEN RIGHTS except for those which the Founders agreed to assign to the Federal government and the citizens of individual states decided to assign to their state government.
If you want to look into the constitution for rights given to you by the government then you need to read the constitution for the former Soviet Union as it was they not the USA which gave government the power to assign rights.
What a stupid a-hole -- period.
I have some pet pointers about neurosurgical technique, 5-tone compositional scoring and particle accelerator design I’d like to share when fatass Nadler frees up the floor. Let me know if anyone sees any fat-quakes toward the door.
Just stepping back and using common sense here, my guess is the number of bullets that are enough “self-defense shots” is equal to the number of shots fired that results in the assailant being rendered incapable of posing a threat which requires self-defense.
Or am I missing something?
The treasonous portly POS is setting the progressive parameters to be imposed on those sufficiently subjugated by socialists. Two steps forward, one step back.
DEPOPULATE socialists from the body politic.
Nice quote from one of the best movies yet!
Isn’t it amazing how ignorance makes everything simple?
So what if it's an armed robber - will the robber adhere to a "2 to 4 offensive shots are enough" rule ??
I'll use as many shots as I need Nadler so F off...
If two to four shots is enough, Jerrold, then why did the government of you state freak out when they discovered that they had accidentally limited police officers to only seven shots?
A government smart enough to tell us what light bulbs we need is surely smart enough to tell us how many bullets we need.
During his recent gun legislation speech, he President affirmed self defense as a legitimate reason for firearm ownership when he stated: "There are millions of responsible, law-abiding gun owners in America who cherish their right to bear arms for hunting, or sport, or protection, or collection. Having made that admission, the democrats now have to accept the reality that there is an increased incidence of multiple perpetrator homicides in America.
124 gr Federal Hydra-shok JHP. Yeah, it'll be a mess, but the wife wants new carpet anyway. 2 to 4 rounds my lily white backside. Maybe 2 or 4 rounds of the high-brass #1 buck I've got loaded in the 12 ga...
Excuse me, Mr. Robber. I’d really appreciate it if you’d kneel down and put your head against this barrel. Yes, just like that. Now, please, don’t move or I’ll have used up my limit of shots. Thank you so very much for your cooperation in this.
One of my favorite Dilbert cartoons....directed to the fat Nadler.
More wisdom from the “feelings are better than reason” crowd.
The only thing worse than their ignorance is their arrogance: the assumption that their feelings should have the force of law (enforced at gunpoint—rather ironic, that).
with 4 shots even if you miss half the time you can still kill 2 people. that is, if you are not shooting those scary hollow point bullets. then, an extra 2 will probably be killed somehow. Yeah, I see his logic
It sounds like Waddler is trying to split the baby here. He doesn’t want civilians to have *any* shots. *None.* *Zero.* But he knows he can’t get a 100% ban on all guns, so he’s trying to stake out what seems, to him, to be a reasonable compromise. That’s what all these fools who are calling for 10-round maximum magazines are trying to do.
In their hearts, they want the little people (not counting their personal bodyguards) completely disarmed but they know they can’t get that so they try for a compromise. His arbitrary number just happens to be less than the arbitrary number the other gun-grabbers are talking about.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.