Noodler probably never fired a gun.
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.
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.
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2009-02-25/
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.
NYPD is legendary for its lack of shooting expertise.
Several years ago several cops got into it with a perp:
125 shots fired (total from all sides in the fight)
No one (0) was hit. Seriously.
Couple of points:
1. Young people in the age range that are a problme are much larger than they used to be and will be harder to take down.
2. The small calibers require more ammunition as they are not nearly as destructive as a .45
3. The use of drugs by perps is nearly universal by perps and they are much harder to stop than in the past.
Nadler is completely ignorant of the subject.
Nadler asked “I mean who are you defending yourself against?”
Answer: Against jack booted thugs trying to take my weapons.
Ok, so let’s pass a law, or, as they are currently being called, an “Executive” order.
All criminals must die by the third shot.
Typical liberal red herring bullhockey...the 2nd Amendment is NOT about hunting or personal self defense. Any such argument regarding personal self defense and hunting, while protected by the 1st Amendment, is only aimed at creating a false problem in search of a solution. The 2nd Amendment IS about the security of a free state. Period.