WMATA Gun Ban Lawsuit

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just did a quick Google search and people are shot in WMATA station, train or buses with alarming frequency. In fact, the bus shootings seem to be the most common and the most scary (where do you hide?). Just thinking about more guns on WMATA makes me want to deal with it even less.

And every single one of those people was shot by a criminal. Someone carrying a gun illegally, and committing violence.

But you’re worried about noncriminals who would like to carry a gun legally, with zero intent of committing a crime.

Ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just did a quick Google search and people are shot in WMATA station, train or buses with alarming frequency. In fact, the bus shootings seem to be the most common and the most scary (where do you hide?). Just thinking about more guns on WMATA makes me want to deal with it even less.

And every single one of those people was shot by a criminal. Someone carrying a gun illegally, and committing violence.

But you’re worried about noncriminals who would like to carry a gun legally, with zero intent of committing a crime.

Ok.

How do you know it wasn't self defense?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are plenty of guns being carried on Metro already. By criminals.

I’m confused as to why allowing people who are known non-criminals who have gone to the considerable trouble/training of acquiring a permit to legally carry a gun makes you frightened. Because frankly, it doesn’t make any sense. The people most likely to rob/assault/shoot you are already carrying their guns on the train/bus with you right now. Like RIGHT NOW.

The people LEAST likely to rob/assault/shoot you are the ones you feel you should fear the most?


Apply some critical thinking here.

How many of them are meat-head vigilante-wannabes who will start shooting in a crowded train "to protect people"?

The amount of training is nowhere near enough to prepare someone for an active shooting.

I'm not going to stop taking metro because of them, but they sure aren't making me feel safer.

And your credentials to make this judgement are what?

Countless federal agents, military personnel and on and off duty members of the plethora of police agencies in and around DC already travel armed on Metro in DC. People in MD and VA already travel armed on Metro there. Some of them are better trained (even significantly better trained) than the aforementioned law enforcement personnel. As PP pointed out, there is no shortage of armed, violent criminals on the Metro in DC.

You question my credentials but then can't count how many (legally?) armed people are already riding metro.

If there actually we're that many armed superheroes riding metro then why the concern about criminals?

You just have vigilante fantasy. Keep it in your bedroom.

DP, and I question your creds.

I’ve only met a single (one!) LEO who could shoot better than me. A Federal Air Marshall. I’ve placed higher than every LEO I ever shot a IDPA match against except one.

Does that make up for your little penis?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just did a quick Google search and people are shot in WMATA station, train or buses with alarming frequency. In fact, the bus shootings seem to be the most common and the most scary (where do you hide?). Just thinking about more guns on WMATA makes me want to deal with it even less.

And every single one of those people was shot by a criminal. Someone carrying a gun illegally, and committing violence.

But you’re worried about noncriminals who would like to carry a gun legally, with zero intent of committing a crime.

Ok.

DP and not ok bozo. Salvador Ramos, Robert Crimo, Adam Lanza and many others acquired guns legally or from their homes. Most legal gun owners have not changed the course of a shooting in their homes or in public. More have been killed or injured by criminals who use their guns against them. Do your own research.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are plenty of guns being carried on Metro already. By criminals.

I’m confused as to why allowing people who are known non-criminals who have gone to the considerable trouble/training of acquiring a permit to legally carry a gun makes you frightened. Because frankly, it doesn’t make any sense. The people most likely to rob/assault/shoot you are already carrying their guns on the train/bus with you right now. Like RIGHT NOW.

The people LEAST likely to rob/assault/shoot you are the ones you feel you should fear the most?


Apply some critical thinking here.

How many of them are meat-head vigilante-wannabes who will start shooting in a crowded train "to protect people"?

The amount of training is nowhere near enough to prepare someone for an active shooting.

I'm not going to stop taking metro because of them, but they sure aren't making me feel safer.

And your credentials to make this judgement are what?

Countless federal agents, military personnel and on and off duty members of the plethora of police agencies in and around DC already travel armed on Metro in DC. People in MD and VA already travel armed on Metro there. Some of them are better trained (even significantly better trained) than the aforementioned law enforcement personnel. As PP pointed out, there is no shortage of armed, violent criminals on the Metro in DC.

You question my credentials but then can't count how many (legally?) armed people are already riding metro.

If there actually we're that many armed superheroes riding metro then why the concern about criminals?

You just have vigilante fantasy. Keep it in your bedroom.

DP, and I question your creds.

I’ve only met a single (one!) LEO who could shoot better than me. A Federal Air Marshall. I’ve placed higher than every LEO I ever shot a IDPA match against except one.

Does that make up for your little penis?

Ah, juvenile personal insults — the typical response of a DCUMoron who has nothing better to say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are plenty of guns being carried on Metro already. By criminals.

I’m confused as to why allowing people who are known non-criminals who have gone to the considerable trouble/training of acquiring a permit to legally carry a gun makes you frightened. Because frankly, it doesn’t make any sense. The people most likely to rob/assault/shoot you are already carrying their guns on the train/bus with you right now. Like RIGHT NOW.

The people LEAST likely to rob/assault/shoot you are the ones you feel you should fear the most?


Apply some critical thinking here.

How many of them are meat-head vigilante-wannabes who will start shooting in a crowded train "to protect people"?

The amount of training is nowhere near enough to prepare someone for an active shooting.

I'm not going to stop taking metro because of them, but they sure aren't making me feel safer.

And your credentials to make this judgement are what?

Countless federal agents, military personnel and on and off duty members of the plethora of police agencies in and around DC already travel armed on Metro in DC. People in MD and VA already travel armed on Metro there. Some of them are better trained (even significantly better trained) than the aforementioned law enforcement personnel. As PP pointed out, there is no shortage of armed, violent criminals on the Metro in DC.

You question my credentials but then can't count how many (legally?) armed people are already riding metro.

If there actually we're that many armed superheroes riding metro then why the concern about criminals?

You just have vigilante fantasy. Keep it in your bedroom.

DP, and I question your creds.

I’ve only met a single (one!) LEO who could shoot better than me. A Federal Air Marshall. I’ve placed higher than every LEO I ever shot a IDPA match against except one.

Oh yeah, well I have bow staff skills and nunchuck skills.

If this were true, you’d know that it is “bo staff” and “nunchaku.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are plenty of guns being carried on Metro already. By criminals.

I’m confused as to why allowing people who are known non-criminals who have gone to the considerable trouble/training of acquiring a permit to legally carry a gun makes you frightened. Because frankly, it doesn’t make any sense. The people most likely to rob/assault/shoot you are already carrying their guns on the train/bus with you right now. Like RIGHT NOW.

The people LEAST likely to rob/assault/shoot you are the ones you feel you should fear the most?


Apply some critical thinking here.

How many of them are meat-head vigilante-wannabes who will start shooting in a crowded train "to protect people"?

The amount of training is nowhere near enough to prepare someone for an active shooting.

I'm not going to stop taking metro because of them, but they sure aren't making me feel safer.

And your credentials to make this judgement are what?

Countless federal agents, military personnel and on and off duty members of the plethora of police agencies in and around DC already travel armed on Metro in DC. People in MD and VA already travel armed on Metro there. Some of them are better trained (even significantly better trained) than the aforementioned law enforcement personnel. As PP pointed out, there is no shortage of armed, violent criminals on the Metro in DC.

You question my credentials but then can't count how many (legally?) armed people are already riding metro.

If there actually we're that many armed superheroes riding metro then why the concern about criminals?

You just have vigilante fantasy. Keep it in your bedroom.

You specifically stated that “ The amount of training is nowhere near enough to prepare someone for an active shooting.” What’s your basis for that assertion? Are you certified as a firearm trainer by any national or governmental entity? How much firearms training have you had? What is the authority upon which you rely for your assertion?

And of course I can’t count how many lawfully armed persons are on Metro in DC at any given time on any given day. No one can. The number obviously varies by day and throughout the day.

Police aren’t superheroes. And it’s too heavy to carry one around, which is why people carry their own firearms.

As for bedroom fantasies, you’re the one dreaming things up about people you know nothing about. Caustic, puerile rudeness is no substitute for reasoned discussion.

[Anonymous]

How much training do police get? And are they always prepared in a firefight? If you know any police they'll tell you it's not a given.

DC requires 16 hours of classroom instruction and 2 hours on the range. Yeah, you'll be a regular Rambo with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are plenty of guns being carried on Metro already. By criminals.

I’m confused as to why allowing people who are known non-criminals who have gone to the considerable trouble/training of acquiring a permit to legally carry a gun makes you frightened. Because frankly, it doesn’t make any sense. The people most likely to rob/assault/shoot you are already carrying their guns on the train/bus with you right now. Like RIGHT NOW.

The people LEAST likely to rob/assault/shoot you are the ones you feel you should fear the most?


Apply some critical thinking here.

How many of them are meat-head vigilante-wannabes who will start shooting in a crowded train "to protect people"?

The amount of training is nowhere near enough to prepare someone for an active shooting.

I'm not going to stop taking metro because of them, but they sure aren't making me feel safer.

And your credentials to make this judgement are what?

Countless federal agents, military personnel and on and off duty members of the plethora of police agencies in and around DC already travel armed on Metro in DC. People in MD and VA already travel armed on Metro there. Some of them are better trained (even significantly better trained) than the aforementioned law enforcement personnel. As PP pointed out, there is no shortage of armed, violent criminals on the Metro in DC.

You question my credentials but then can't count how many (legally?) armed people are already riding metro.

If there actually we're that many armed superheroes riding metro then why the concern about criminals?

You just have vigilante fantasy. Keep it in your bedroom.

DP, and I question your creds.

I’ve only met a single (one!) LEO who could shoot better than me. A Federal Air Marshall. I’ve placed higher than every LEO I ever shot a IDPA match against except one.

Does that make up for your little penis?

LMAO. You can always spent more time with your bed post if your step son can't satisfy you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are plenty of guns being carried on Metro already. By criminals.

I’m confused as to why allowing people who are known non-criminals who have gone to the considerable trouble/training of acquiring a permit to legally carry a gun makes you frightened. Because frankly, it doesn’t make any sense. The people most likely to rob/assault/shoot you are already carrying their guns on the train/bus with you right now. Like RIGHT NOW.

The people LEAST likely to rob/assault/shoot you are the ones you feel you should fear the most?


Apply some critical thinking here.

Training? Joe Sixpack Chucklef**k can go buy a gun on credit. And according to MAGA federal judge in NY he has a right to carry that weapon into a daycare or virtually anywhere else other than a courthouse (of course) or givernment building thanks to the radical historical revisionism of Scalia and Thomas. So much for critical thinking, huh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are plenty of guns being carried on Metro already. By criminals.

I’m confused as to why allowing people who are known non-criminals who have gone to the considerable trouble/training of acquiring a permit to legally carry a gun makes you frightened. Because frankly, it doesn’t make any sense. The people most likely to rob/assault/shoot you are already carrying their guns on the train/bus with you right now. Like RIGHT NOW.

The people LEAST likely to rob/assault/shoot you are the ones you feel you should fear the most?


Apply some critical thinking here.

Exactly. Well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are plenty of guns being carried on Metro already. By criminals.

I’m confused as to why allowing people who are known non-criminals who have gone to the considerable trouble/training of acquiring a permit to legally carry a gun makes you frightened. Because frankly, it doesn’t make any sense. The people most likely to rob/assault/shoot you are already carrying their guns on the train/bus with you right now. Like RIGHT NOW.

The people LEAST likely to rob/assault/shoot you are the ones you feel you should fear the most?


Apply some critical thinking here.

Training? Joe Sixpack Chucklef**k can go buy a gun on credit. And according to MAGA federal judge in NY he has a right to carry that weapon into a daycare or virtually anywhere else other than a courthouse (of course) or givernment building thanks to the radical historical revisionism of Scalia and Thomas. So much for critical thinking, huh?

You genuinely haven’t got the slightest idea what you’re talking about.

What difference does it make if people buy their firearms on credit? Are lower income people not entitled to self defense? The judge in NY properly saw through the State’s attempt to end run a binding Supreme Court ruling. The whole “sensitive places” argument is a dodge. Businesses can already eject anyone for any reason or no reason at all. And I hate to break it to you, but tons of guns have long gone in and out of NY day cares every day, on the hips of their law enforcement clientele and the powerful, privileged, politically connected few who were the only ones who, until recently, could get carry permits in New York. Before Bruen, half the States were shall issue and there was no glut of toddlers maiming each other with firearms at day care.

As for “radical historical revisionism,” that’s precisely what Bruen got rid of. Even the briefest research will establish that Bruen is wholly in accord with the intent of the Framers.

Your juvenile name calling and uninformed and/or dishonest exaggerations really expose your irrational, unreasoned, emotionally reactive non-logic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are plenty of guns being carried on Metro already. By criminals.

I’m confused as to why allowing people who are known non-criminals who have gone to the considerable trouble/training of acquiring a permit to legally carry a gun makes you frightened. Because frankly, it doesn’t make any sense. The people most likely to rob/assault/shoot you are already carrying their guns on the train/bus with you right now. Like RIGHT NOW.

The people LEAST likely to rob/assault/shoot you are the ones you feel you should fear the most?


Apply some critical thinking here.

Training? Joe Sixpack Chucklef**k can go buy a gun on credit. And according to MAGA federal judge in NY he has a right to carry that weapon into a daycare or virtually anywhere else other than a courthouse (of course) or givernment building thanks to the radical historical revisionism of Scalia and Thomas. So much for critical thinking, huh?

You genuinely haven’t got the slightest idea what you’re talking about.

What difference does it make if people buy their firearms on credit? Are lower income people not entitled to self defense? The judge in NY properly saw through the State’s attempt to end run a binding Supreme Court ruling. The whole “sensitive places” argument is a dodge. Businesses can already eject anyone for any reason or no reason at all. And I hate to break it to you, but tons of guns have long gone in and out of NY day cares every day, on the hips of their law enforcement clientele and the powerful, privileged, politically connected few who were the only ones who, until recently, could get carry permits in New York. Before Bruen, half the States were shall issue and there was no glut of toddlers maiming each other with firearms at day care.

As for “radical historical revisionism,” that’s precisely what Bruen got rid of. Even the briefest research will establish that Bruen is wholly in accord with the intent of the Framers.

Your juvenile name calling and uninformed and/or dishonest exaggerations really expose your irrational, unreasoned, emotionally reactive non-logic.

What did the "Framers" have to say about public transportation and handguns?

Why are we beholden to people from a couple hundred years ago? They were people, and we can think also.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are plenty of guns being carried on Metro already. By criminals.

I’m confused as to why allowing people who are known non-criminals who have gone to the considerable trouble/training of acquiring a permit to legally carry a gun makes you frightened. Because frankly, it doesn’t make any sense. The people most likely to rob/assault/shoot you are already carrying their guns on the train/bus with you right now. Like RIGHT NOW.

The people LEAST likely to rob/assault/shoot you are the ones you feel you should fear the most?


Apply some critical thinking here.

Training? Joe Sixpack Chucklef**k can go buy a gun on credit. And according to MAGA federal judge in NY he has a right to carry that weapon into a daycare or virtually anywhere else other than a courthouse (of course) or givernment building thanks to the radical historical revisionism of Scalia and Thomas. So much for critical thinking, huh?

You genuinely haven’t got the slightest idea what you’re talking about.

What difference does it make if people buy their firearms on credit? Are lower income people not entitled to self defense? The judge in NY properly saw through the State’s attempt to end run a binding Supreme Court ruling. The whole “sensitive places” argument is a dodge. Businesses can already eject anyone for any reason or no reason at all. And I hate to break it to you, but tons of guns have long gone in and out of NY day cares every day, on the hips of their law enforcement clientele and the powerful, privileged, politically connected few who were the only ones who, until recently, could get carry permits in New York. Before Bruen, half the States were shall issue and there was no glut of toddlers maiming each other with firearms at day care.

As for “radical historical revisionism,” that’s precisely what Bruen got rid of. Even the briefest research will establish that Bruen is wholly in accord with the intent of the Framers.

Your juvenile name calling and uninformed and/or dishonest exaggerations really expose your irrational, unreasoned, emotionally reactive non-logic.

+1. But you are wasting your breath. There is a vocal, but quite irrational, group of DCUM posters that aren't just pro-gun control; they absolutely HATE gun owners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are plenty of guns being carried on Metro already. By criminals.

I’m confused as to why allowing people who are known non-criminals who have gone to the considerable trouble/training of acquiring a permit to legally carry a gun makes you frightened. Because frankly, it doesn’t make any sense. The people most likely to rob/assault/shoot you are already carrying their guns on the train/bus with you right now. Like RIGHT NOW.

The people LEAST likely to rob/assault/shoot you are the ones you feel you should fear the most?


Apply some critical thinking here.

Training? Joe Sixpack Chucklef**k can go buy a gun on credit. And according to MAGA federal judge in NY he has a right to carry that weapon into a daycare or virtually anywhere else other than a courthouse (of course) or givernment building thanks to the radical historical revisionism of Scalia and Thomas. So much for critical thinking, huh?

You genuinely haven’t got the slightest idea what you’re talking about.

What difference does it make if people buy their firearms on credit? Are lower income people not entitled to self defense? The judge in NY properly saw through the State’s attempt to end run a binding Supreme Court ruling. The whole “sensitive places” argument is a dodge. Businesses can already eject anyone for any reason or no reason at all. And I hate to break it to you, but tons of guns have long gone in and out of NY day cares every day, on the hips of their law enforcement clientele and the powerful, privileged, politically connected few who were the only ones who, until recently, could get carry permits in New York. Before Bruen, half the States were shall issue and there was no glut of toddlers maiming each other with firearms at day care.

As for “radical historical revisionism,” that’s precisely what Bruen got rid of. Even the briefest research will establish that Bruen is wholly in accord with the intent of the Framers.

Your juvenile name calling and uninformed and/or dishonest exaggerations really expose your irrational, unreasoned, emotionally reactive non-logic.

+1. But you are wasting your breath. There is a vocal, but quite irrational, group of DCUM posters that aren't just pro-gun control; they absolutely HATE gun owners.

+2. They’re impervious to both fact and reason.

But I like seeing their posts in other threads, many of which call for the large-scale imprisonment or murder of gun owners. Last week one of them even expressed a wish to see the (presumably female?) spouses of gun owners “stretched out” (raped) by federal law enforcement officers after their husbands had been tossed in prison. I wonder if it’s the same poster making all the genitalia/bedroom references in this thread? It’s on-brand.

That’s who these folks are. And I think it’s important they be allowed to show everyone.