Mike “The Gun Guy” Weisser: “‘Good Guys With Guns’ Didn’t Stop Dallas Attack”

(courtesy wfaa.com)

Mike “The Gun Guy” Weisser continues his ascendancy in the mainstream media. Last week, The New York Times paid him for a dose of anti-gun animus. Today, it’s The Huffington Post, headlining his disarmament diatribe ‘Good Guys With Guns’ Didn’t Stop Dallas Attack. Which is kind of true. Good guys with C4 explosive strapped to a robot stopped the Dallas attack. And how.

Anyway, Mr. Weisser begins by taking readers down memory lane, recounting the firearm used in the John F. Kennedy assassination.

Oswald, a former Marine Corps member, used a surplus military rifle called a Mannlicher-Carcano 91/38, which he bought from a mail-order sporting goods wholesaler in Chicago for twenty bucks. There’s been no confirmation yet out of Dallas, but I’ll bet you that the murder weapon used in Thursday’s attacks was an AR-15 assault rifle, or some variation on the theme, like the Sig-Sauer rifle that mowed down over 100 people inside Orlando’s Pulse nightclub.

The SIG-SAUER rifle mowed down 100 people all on its own? Of course not. The gun would have been inert if an Islamic terrorist hadn’t pulled the trigger. A lot. [Note: never attribute to sloppy writing that which is adequately explained by paid propaganda.]

Wait a minute! Nobody’s going to quarrel with the idea that President Kennedy was shot with a military gun; Oswald, after all, was a trained Marine Corps marksman, which meant he probably learned to shoot with a Springfield, bolt-action 1903 rifle, a gun that was similar in design and function to the gun he took into the Book Depository in order to carry out his assault.

But the AR-15 is a ‘sporting’ rifle, according to the NRA and the NSSF. It doesn’t have any military application at all. Those unfortunate Dallas cops weren’t shot with a military weapon, they were shot with a gun that is no more dangerous than any other rifle that you can find for sale in in any gun shop and can be purchased by anyone whose ownership of a gun is approved by a call to FBI-NICS.

Straw man much?

Mr. Weisser says the NRA and NSSF claim that modern sporting rifles “don’t have any military application at all.” No, they claim that the MSRs are not the same guns used by U.S. troops. All guns have “military applications.” They are, after all, guns.  Mr. Weisser knows this.

As for Mr. Weisser’s sarcastic assertion that the NRA and NSSF would say the Dallas murder weapon was “no more dangerous than any other rifle that you can find for sale in in any gun shop,” well, they didn’t say it.

Why would they? All guns are dangerous. Depending on the “application,” a shotgun or long-range rifle would be far more “dangerous” than an AR-style rifle.

Mr. Weisser knows this, too. And chose to ignore it in that “ends justify the means” way of his fellow Progressives.

It’s going to be interesting to see how Gun-nut Nation gets past this one, if only because it’s one thing if a ‘street thug’ shoots another ‘street thug,’ it’s another thing if five police officers were killed and seven others, cops and civilians, were wounded by a guy walking around with a ‘sporting’ gun. And remember that Texas is an open-carry state; in fact, there was one guy walking in the parade who had an AR-15 slung over his back; fat lot of good he did when the shooting broke out.

“Gun-nut Nation”? That’s not very nice from a guy who calls himself “The Gun Guy.” But it must make his HuffPo editors smile, conforming as it does with their view of American gun owners as Bible-clinging mental defectives.

As a proud member of GNN, I can “get past” killer Micah X. Johnson’s use of a “sporting” gun to slaughter five police officers easily enough. I simply refer to President Obama’s comment: “We cannot let the actions of a few define all of us.”

Adam Gopnick had a piece in The New Yorker in which he pointed out that the Dallas assault represented “the grotesque reductio ad absurdum of the claim that it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun.” The parade route was lined with good guys who had guns, and the result was that five of them ended up dead.

Question: how many more people would have died if the “good guys with guns” hadn’t been on scene? Also, where’s evidence that an assault weapons ban would have prevented the slaughter in Dallas, or anywhere else?

If nothing else, the gruesome twosome should remember the Boston Marathon bombing that left three dead and 264 injured, many grievously.

Clearly, Mr. Weisser and Mr. Gopnik are arguing that only the cops should have guns. As the son of a Jewish Holocaust survivor whose relatives were murdered by their own government, how many people would die if that was the America we lived in?

In fact, preventing that inevitable — yes I said inevitable — outcome of government tyranny is why we have a Constitutional republic, complete with a Second Amendment prohibition on government infringement of Americans’ right to keep and bear arms.

I honestly hope we never have to rely on the “military application” of modern sporting rifles to defend it. But if we do, we do. Props to our “Gun-nut Nation.”

comments

  1. avatar TravisP says:

    CNN and CBS both reported an SKS rifle was used by Dallas shooter

    1. avatar MikeP says:

      And he was stopped by a good guy with an exploding robot. So by “Gun [Grab} Guy”‘s logic, police shouldn’t even have firearms – fat load of good all of their ballistic firepower did.

      1. avatar billy-bob says:

        Johnny Five sacrificed himself to end the threat.

        1. avatar Jiz says:

          it was a “good guy” with an exploding robot who stopped the bad guy. so there!

        2. avatar BTP says:

          Who’s Johnny?

        3. avatar jwm says:

          BTP. Johnny 5 was a character from a movie, Short Circuit. He was a tracked robot.

        4. avatar Geoff says:

          So much for his plea, “No disassemble!”

    2. avatar Phil L. says:

      Looks like several sources have updated, and are now claiming the shooter used an AK-74.

      Of course, this is the problem with relying on early reports for detailed information: Current-day reporting techniques on stories like this seems value speed over accuracy. I tend to apply the 50% rule to details in such stories, and that percentage seems to be about right.

    3. avatar W says:

      Yes, an SKS.
      It would take an awful lot to stop Weisser from spouting off about things he doesn’t understand.

  2. avatar Z says:

    Since when did cops stop being considered as good guys with guns.

    1. avatar Mike says:

      Exactly.

  3. avatar Fight islam Now says:

    Standing for and with the GNN!

    1. avatar anonymoose says:

      We need that on hats and t-shirts.

  4. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    Well, refuting the “arguments” is both trivial and pointless. This nonsense is virtue signaling – smugness writ large.

    The antidote to virtue signaling isn’t argument, it’s mockery.

    That said. I, for one think Commander False Flag makes a brilliant argument against guard rails. Highways everywhere are literally lined with guard rails, and thousands of people die every year anyway. That doesn’t count the thousands killed by running into guard rails themselves.

    Down with the low gray line!

    What? I’m perfectly serious. At least as serious as Commander False Flag, anyway.

  5. avatar NickW says:

    In a situation like this, with such high police presence and utter chaos going on it would be a death wish to pull out your weapon. Anyone running around with a gun drawn that is not in uniform becomes a potential threat until otherwise identified (or killed). So the best option is to find cover and let law enforcement do their job. This reporter is a hack.

    1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      Then it must be Hell to be a plainclothes, undercover officer, which every major department routinely inserts into the crowds at these events, and even infiltrates the protesters themselves. Yet, I didn’t hear of any undercover officers being shot by uniformed officers in Dallas or Boston in what you described as “utter chaos.” In the midst of “utter chaos”, again, your term, not mine, simply pulling out a badge on a lanyard isn’t going to cut it, either, as that could easily be mistaken for jewelry, if it’s noticed at all, what with that intense focus on the firearm he’s carrying.

      Speaking of which, an open carrier was on scene in Dallas and was actually considered a person of interest. Yet, he was able to approach the police, while armed with a rifle, relinquish the firearm, and speak to officers, ultimately being cleared of any involvement and not having been shot for his trouble.

      Beyond that, even the ACTUAL Dallas shooter, openly firing on people from the sidewalk, wasn’t immediately or ever taken out by police gunfire. It was hours later in a parking garage where they blew him up with a remote controlled bomb.

      I think your “death wish” speculation regarding concealed carrying, good guys with guns is a bit over the top, don’t you?

      1. avatar Albrecht Kurze says:

        No. What he’s saying makes excellent sense and fits the role of concealed carry.

        You certainly could go charging in to play cowboy if you’d like. You absolutely should expect the outcome described.

        The intent of concealed carry is NOT to go kicking doors and playing commando. It’s premise is self-defense.

        A lot of us would surely want to help. A lot of us would gladly defend anyone; especially law enforcement. Most of us know the limitations the laws put us under. Most of us know & understand our involvement (no matter how well intended) would complicate matters for law enforcement. There’s a time & place where we can legally act. In terms of acting; there’s a window of opportunity in which the tactical decision to act & how to act opens & closes. These are individual decisions. The wrong choice can get you physically ruined, mentally ruined, & financially ruined.

        In other words; if it isn’t an almost perfect storm of timing & opportunities surrounding an event such as Dallas, a concealed carrier isn’t going to be able to help much & will likely just complicate matters.

        1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          Except…..the scenario you two describe never happens.

          He’s saying “running around” with a gun–a locution I absolutely despise for its willful disrespect and mischaracterization of CCers–and you’re spouting iff about cowboys, commandos, and kicking down doors. When does any of that ever happen with CCers? If you’re just going to frame the discussion in absurd, unrealistic and self-serving terms, then why bother having a conversation? It’s like playing darts, where you throw the dart first, then walk over a draw a bullseye around it.

          A concealed carrier who pulls his firearm during a soree shooting is most likely just going to take cover and wait it out, or possibly stay low and make his way to cover or an escape…..just like everyone else. PHe’s only expecting to use that furearm if he’s cornered.

          Police are unlikely even to be on scene when shooting erupts. If they are, they’re going to be focused on the gun shots, not some CCer who is obviously not engaging anyone else.

      2. avatar california richard says:

        When departments insert plain clothes cops in to the crowd there are protocols in place and visible indicators worn by the plain clothes cops to PREVENT friendly fire. All uniformed officers are breifed on the plain clothes officers and indicators. Doing the chipotle street ninja act is (at best) going to muddy the waters and add to the confusion or (at worst) get you killed…… Remeber the Christopher Dorner thing a few years ago in L.A.?….. Some of those idiot cops were shooting/killing paper boys because they were so damn jacked up over the intentional targeting of cops..

    2. avatar Patrick says:

      I was waiting for a comment on that…the 1st allows fools to write stupid things. You are right and we all know if you are not in uniform they will treat you as the problem until proven not. I just dont understand poeple like this guy.

  6. avatar John in Ohio says:

    I commented about the “useless carry” of firearms, specifically the OCed rifle at the scene. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/07/robert-farago/breaking-president-obama-hard-unpack-motives-dallas-shooter/#comment-2757829

    Infringement being what it is, law enforcement engagement practises, and lack of legal accountability for officers makes for the eight ball armed individuals might find themselves behind should they choose to defend themselves in such a situation. Government created the impediments and then statists use the results of those impediments as clear indicators that being armed doesn’t help.

    If the open carrier even had the weapon loaded, which I understand he did not — making it a prop, he probably would have been shot down by officers if he even tried to defend himself. That is a problem with government and not with the notion of an armed people. Our present tyranny hobbles the armed individual, placing him in an impossible situation. He simply cannot win under the present system.

    1. avatar JWK says:

      Amen and Amen.
      By the way. Doe anybody think this guy thought he would escape. Or was this a suicide mission ?

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        All of this is pure speculation but I think he was initially planning on escape but was not discounting the possibility of this being a one-way trip. Part of me thinks that he was pulling a John Brown in that he thought others would begin killing officers (and pehaps any caucasians) during the commotion.

  7. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    Wait, I need to take notes on what we are being called now.
    “Gun Nut Nation” mmkay. Got it.

    1. avatar TravisP says:

      Sounds like a future website

      1. avatar MintMar says:

        Make it shorthand, gunution.org 🙂

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Slightly higher brow than fetishists, I suppose.

    3. avatar jwm says:

      I prefer ammosexual. It appeals to the pervert in me.

      1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

        It appeals to the pervert in me.”

        I always knew you were a catcher. What’s his name?

        1. avatar jwm says:

          Now you’re projecting. First time I’ve detected a liberal slant to you. 🙂

        2. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

          It does slant to the left a bit…

          Oh, like yours is perfectly straight.

        3. avatar jwm says:

          It was before I took an arrow to the d…….

        4. avatar Anonymous says:

          It was before I took an arrow to the d…….

          Seriously? I’ll bring this up later.

        5. avatar jwm says:

          I used to be an adventurer til I took an arrow to the knee. It’s a meme.

  8. avatar Mr. 308 says:

    Hey Mike “The Gun Guy” Weisser:

    Come and get em.

  9. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin says:

    He is techinically correct. A good robot with a bomb did. Three cheers for Robby the Robot!

    Besides, since when did someone who writes for the Times consider cops good guys with guns?

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “Three cheers for Robby the Robot!”

      ED 209’s great-grand-daddy… 🙂

    2. avatar strych9 says:

      No disassemble!

    3. avatar John in Ohio says:

      “Three cheers for Robby the Robot!”

      Uhh… no, thank you.

    4. avatar Mike in Texas says:

      tdiinva – I must totally disagree. He is both technically and factually wrong. It was, in fact, good guys with guns who stopped the “Dallas Sniper”. They just didn’t USE their guns, they used the BombBot ™. But, they were still good guys with guns and the truism remains.

      1. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin says:

        Mike, I was ridiculing Weiser but yourreply does give me the opportunity to say that it is just the NYT who thinks Johnson was the good guy.

        I don’t get this thing about human using Robby to get the job done. Killing with a human fired bullet is no more moral than using the robot.

        “No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country; he won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his.”

        1. avatar Mike in Texas says:

          my bad. damn sarcasm and interweb thingy!

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “I don’t get this thing about human using Robby to get the job done. Killing with a human fired bullet is no more moral than using the robot.”

          It is playing into the hands of the left. Government is going to have to get much more brutal for them to bring about their dystopia. All the while, the left will demonize these actions in private; eventually harvesting those sentiments through propaganda. Don’t worry, these tactics and worse will be used against gun owners one day. It also served the left by not having this guy alive to talk. Yay for Robbie the Robot… not.

        3. avatar california richard says:

          I agree with John. They should have challenged him to a mano y mano duel as the sun went down in the west Texas sky. They should have made it a fair fight where he would have one more chance to take out an other good guy with a gun…… This use of remote controlled tracked vehicles for the justified and reasonable use of deadly force with the express purpose of limiting unnecessary cassualties among the public and law enforcement officers is brutal and sadistic. The cops should have sent in John with his Ohio CCW to take this guy out. Heck, John is so awesome he probably could have taken him alive then got him to spill the beans about how Michaeld Bloomberg paid him to do it…. It would have been the humane thing to do.

        4. avatar John in Ohio says:

          It’s a CHL in Ohio and I open carry, but nice try Cali Dick.

  10. avatar Greg says:

    Scumbags like “Mike the Gun Guy” who attempt to use the premeditated assassination of 5 police officers to further their anti-American agenda are the lowest form of life. And, further compounding their sin is the fact that they lie and distort the facts to achieve their wet dream of civilian disarmament. The same goes for the person currently occupying the White House who has no respect for the Constitution or the principles upon which this nation was formed. Anyone who’s not concerned about his efforts to federalize local police agencies is either insane or a fellow Brown Shirt fascist.

    1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

      They, and their ideology, are pure evil. The biggest threat to this nation is not ISIS, it is not China, it is not Russia. The biggest threat is the divisive identity politicking employed by these Alinsky disciples through organizations like media matters, BLM, organizing for action, etc and pushed as fact by their lackeys in the media.

      They excuse and cover up violence perpetrated by their blind followers and wish to physically harm those with which they disagree.

      This is why they pivot to gun control when a couple of Islamic Terrorists shoot up a city in a state with the most restrictive gun laws. This is why they blame the NRA and conservatives when a professed Hillary supporting, ISIS-pledging asshole shoots up a night club. This is why they blame white people and guns when a Black Nationalist (Marxist) kills white police officers.

      They know that the average gun carrying individual is not violent and we don’t want to hurt anyone unless attacked. We know this because cowards like Mike Wiesser would never be so blatant in his vitriolic screeds if he thought there would be any consequences to his printed propaganda. Reflect on people like him when gun owners start to get shot at by agents of the State. That is all.

  11. avatar Cedardog says:

    Oh what a mess this country has become.. When I peer over the rocks that I call home, It appears things are sliding down that proverbial slippery slope of liberties lost.. I hope it’s not too late.. but if it is, well, I’m ready

  12. avatar JoshFormerlyinGA says:

    They have well and truly jumped the great white over at the HuffPo. Claiming it was a failure of responsible gun owners to pull out their weapons and attempt to stop an active shooter? Admonishing an open carrier, who was at one point a suspect in the shootings, for not hunting down the shooter? I refuse to give HuffPo the clicks, but I imagine the comments are equally troubling.

  13. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    Oswald, a former Marine Corps member, used a surplus military rifle called a Mannlicher-Carcano 91/38, which he bought from a mail-order sporting goods wholesaler in Chicago for twenty bucks.
    Sooo…..the Dallas Shooter was supposed to use a Mannlicher Carcano?

  14. avatar tjlarson2k says:

    Oh wait, I see. Antis are ok with us having guns as long as we are at the anti’s beck and call and are protecting them and putting ourselves in harm’s way.

    Sorry anti’s, you just admitted that you think you deserve and are entitled to armed protection provided by others.

    That is what the police are paid for. I, as a free gun owner, don’t have any obligation to help you, particularly if I feel you don’t deserve my help because you refuse to take responsibility for own protection. I look after myself and my own.

    Sleep in the bed you made.

  15. avatar Parnell says:

    No moron, it was an SKS and I’m willing to bet you have no clue what that is.

    1. avatar Chris Mallory says:

      According to new sources it was not an SKS. It was a Saiga AK-74 with “red dot military style optic” (sic).

      https://sofrep.com/58756/dallas-shooter-used-a-saiga-ak-74/

      1. It will be interesting to see how it comes out. I only see one source for the AK74 claim.

        The rifle looks rather clean for being held by the perp when a pound of C4 went off very close by.

        We should know for certain in a few days.

  16. avatar strych9 says:

    This guy is a total moron.

    “The parade route was lined with good guys who had guns, and the result was that five of them ended up dead.”

    So now he’s against the cops too? This guy’s pretzel logic make my head hurt. I mean, is he arguing the cops shouldn’t have been there? Shouldn’t have been armed? Should have had SWAT on the rooftops with snipers, counter snipers and at least one FIM-92? What the hell is he trying to say?

    1. avatar Anonymous says:

      The obvious answer is there is something mentally wrong with him.

  17. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    Those unfortunate Dallas cops weren’t shot with a military weapon, they were shot with a gun that is no more dangerous than any other rifle that you can find for sale in in any gun shop and can be purchased by anyone whose ownership of a gun is approved by a call to FBI-NICS.
    The AR-15 is probably not the most dangerous gun you can legally buy ( although all guns can be dangerous with the appropriate nut behind the butt). I would imagine that a semi-auto rifle in 7.62 X 54 or a Ruger Precision type of rifle in 6.5 Creedmore would have made quite an equal or better mess. Even a lever action centerfire rifle would be quite effective.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      Reports are that the rifle used was an SKS.

      If that’s true, then as much as I hate to concede ANY point to the grabbers, they’re right it’s a military rifle just like a 1903 Springfield is a military rifle. The SKS was the Russians front line rifle from 1945-1949 (the AK was officially adopted by the USSR in 1949).

      The issue is that this fact is immaterial as the SKS is still a semi-auto rifle. The whole point of the grabber argument is try to confuse people between machineguns and semi-autos.

      Or is it? Under a loose reading of some of what they’ve said about military styled or designed weapons, nearly all guns would be banned. Bolt actions these days are often derived from the Mauser or Springfield action, both designed for the military. Similar arguments can be made for nearly all firearms.

      1. avatar CTstooge says:

        …SKS is 70-year old technology. A significant point in itself.

      2. avatar Chris Mallory says:

        Not an SKS. It as an AK-74 or some variation.

        https://sofrep.com/58756/dallas-shooter-used-a-saiga-ak-74/

        1. avatar neiowa says:

          Rather a strange choice for a guy who had received professional instruction in the use of the M16/M4.

          Why the heck would you chose an AK? “Brainwashed” by chairborne rangers with the 1980s BS of Mattel toy vs omnipotent AK?

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          That’s new info to me. Thanks. Since they have multiple sources and a picture, I suspect they’re right.

          It was clear from the video on Thursday night that if he did use an SKS it was modified. None of the video I saw made it really clear what he was shooting but when SKS was reported I figured he threw an Archangel or Tapco stock on it and used some of those aftermarket 30 round mags and optics. Personally I’ve found those mags unreliable, but I’ve seen people say they work.

        3. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “and used some of those aftermarket 30 round mags”

          If it had turned out to be an SKS, it could’ve been something like an SKS-D(?) which takes actual AK magazines. I used to carry one. They were pretty useful.

  18. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    ‘Good Guys With Guns’ Didn’t Stop Dallas Attack.
    I would guarantee anyone without a uniform waving a gun during the Dallas incident would have been shot down like a dog by the cops.

    1. avatar tjlarson2k says:

      Doesn’t that validate the anti’s belief that law abiding citizens with guns will only make matters worse in a terrorist attack?

      I argue that if the police were trained to only open fire on those firing at them, then it would be a non-issue. Similar to how the military is trained with ROE in situations where allies and enemies aren’t wearing uniforms.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        It would be nice if they were trained properly that way, however that doesn’t presently appear to be the case. I would like to see that changed but I’m not holding my breath. The left has sucessfully baited agents of government into more extreme behavior and the right goes along willingly for the ride. This trend won’t end well.

      2. avatar strych9 says:

        ^^This^^.

        A huge problem with police is that they are poorly trained and given a ton of gear they don’t really know how to use properly. As a result they’re undisciplined, prone to panic and therefore dangerous to the public in a variety of situations.

        The Academy here in my state seems to think they’re turning out Recon Marines but the reality is far, far different.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          I like to not have to look over my shoulder at officers and, undoubtedly, they appreciate the same thing. In my rural AO, I have a fine relationship with the older officers. They know my views on liberty and more than a few of them agree with much of it. Unfortunately, new officers are coming in as the older ones retire. Even the older officers have their concerns about the new ones. In the major cities, it’s a mixed bag. I tend to be very polite by nature but I have had to resort to “Am I being detained?” in the large cities much more often than I would have liked. Some of the worst treatment came at the hands of DC cops. Those guys were brutal.

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          When it comes to the younger guys I go out of my way to avoid them.

          Remember that incident in NYC where multiple cops lit a guy up in public and sent something like 16 bullets into a crowd of bystanders? Yeah, I want no part of that.

    2. avatar DaveW says:

      Yuup and Nope. That would depend upon the conduct of the individual.

      I believe that the public needs to be educated as to how to conduct themselves during contact with law enforcement.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        I think more officers need to be taught how to interact with a free society.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          +1 to both of you.

          Flying off the handle on the cops is stupid but many cops are not well trained in how to deal with the public.

      2. avatar tjlarson2k says:

        “I believe that the public needs to be educated as to how to conduct themselves during contact with law enforcement.”

        Unfortunately, what is being taught to the public via the media and social media is that public educations is distilled to this:

        Don’t do anything that would make the officer angry, upset, or suspicious or they will then bend the law to infringe on your rights until they get a desired result or, in some cases, they will overreact and use deadly force if they feel it is necessary for their safety.

        20-30 years ago, the perception was that the police would only use deadly force as a last resort. Similar to how any armed civilian now would be in jail for doing half the stuff police officers get away with in force on force conflicts.

        Since when did “last resort” go from “someone is actively trying to kill me” to “I saw or heard mention of a weapon and was scared / startled / surprised”.

        I thought the behavior of trying to murder a police officer or other people was what warranted deadly force. Am I mistaken? If so, why are the rules different for legally armed citizens?

        Ridiculous.

        1. avatar doesky2 says:

          Since when did “last resort” go from “someone is actively trying to kill me” to “I saw or heard mention of a weapon and was scared / startled / surprised”.

          When??….when police departments were forced to hire women as patrol cops.

          Then of coarse, it was realized that women couldn’t perform a beat down on the average bad guy.
          So the ROE had to be changed to “Use your patrol gun the moment you feel your safe space is violated”.
          Of coarse the same ROE was granted to male cops so that you can spew the Leftist mantra that “Women are just as effective as men being cops”

          Tada…..Commence with the quick-trigger slaughter on the general public.

          BTW, you’ll never see this timeline explained by the MFM.

          Being on the Left means never having to say you are sorry or wrong…..Dennis Prager

  19. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

    I do not carry to defend the public, but to defend my life if there is no other option. I support and respect the job that the police do, but I am not a police officer. My CCW license does not make me a law enforcement officer.

    Confusing the reason we have a police force with the right of an individual citizen to have a tool to defend his life or the lives of loved ones in “the gravest extreme” may provide for interesting political theater but in my opinion it is a poor argument all around.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      The role of a peace officer in a free society is not to replace the resposibility of the individual. The proper role of a peace officer is to serve warrants & writs and to investigate crimes. When a free society tries to shirk individual responsibilities by outsourcing them to government, individual liberty suffers. To advocate this shift in resposibility is to advocate for the same as the left, it is only a matter of degrees. There should have been just as many, or more, non-government individuals firing back at the shooter than agents of government.

    2. avatar strych9 says:

      If you find yourself in the situation the public did in Dallas, shooting back (when applicable) is not you attempting to step in for LE… it’s you protecting yourself because you don’t know exactly who this guy is shooting.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Pecisely.

        I don’t want to be an officer of the law but that doesn’t mean that I am giving up my responsibility and ability to defend myself and those I care about.

      2. avatar Mike in Texas says:

        I consider myself wicked good with my Kimber Ultra Carry. 6 hits of my 7 rounds in pretty quick succession at 300 feet.

        Shooting back at a dude on a roof somewhere or shooting at him greater than 25 feet away when he has a rifle? LMAO – I think not, not when I can run and have the choice to run (no one else in immediate danger).

        By the way, did you see the cop that came at him in the columns? 15-25 feet away and pistol vs rifle. Cop was suppressed and out maneuvered. I am actually highly trained in this and in his situation would have suffered his same fate. Now, I would never have approached by myself. I would have waited till we had a couple of guys to maneuver and suppress ourselves. And that is me talking in the comfort of my home typing on a computer.

        IF you can, RUN. If you can’t, observe. If you must … shoot.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          You miss the point.

          I’m not talking specifically about any type of firearm vs any other type of firearm. I’m making a general statement that when you are being shot at or people around you are being shot at shooting back is not you attempting to take the place of law enforcement. It is at that point self defense. Exactly how effective your attempt at self defense will be is going to depend on more factors than we can reasonably discuss here.

          Yes, I saw the video you refer to. I saw it live. That officer wasn’t simply suppressed and out maneuvered. He was completely and totally unprepared for the level of aggression that he was dealing with because like it or not, cops really are not that well trained. Their instructors at the Academy tell them that they are but cops, for the most part, are not really capable of dealing with the type of serious and unbridled aggression that the military teaches.

          In the situation that officer was in the ONLY course of action that would have allowed him to survive was to attack with the full force of everything he had. The guy with the rifle was not at a serious advantage at that point due to the fact that he was well within the effective range of the officers handgun. Had the officer pushed forward around that pillar he might have gotten himself killed, sometimes you can do everything right and still lose, but he would have had a much greater chance of surviving by meeting deadly force with deadly force. The officer was not prepared to do that and it cost him his life.

  20. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    So, the police managed to pin down the domestic terrorist with, what? Calming words?

    1. avatar Priest of the center mass says:

      I hear that lavender oil calms people down…..next time maybe just a lavender bomb is all that’s needed?
      And a whole lot of koom bi ya and if that doesn’t work then go back to old school.
      .308 and c4….that works too!

  21. avatar Ralph says:

    A bad guy with a gun was stopped by good guys with a bomb, and I’m good with that.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      “and I’m good with that.”

      No surprise there.

  22. avatar Stateisevil says:

    “Sporting rifle”. Mmmmm. If Mr Weisser only knew what long range plinkers, hunters, and military snipers could do bolt action rifles I guess he wouldn’t think they were very sporting either.

    1. avatar Tom in PA says:

      Precisely. A skilled shooter with a bolt action .300 win mag or similar, shooting from an elevated position, would have done significantly more damage. His attempt to disqualify defensive gun usage based on a singular event is willfully delusional and a complete flight from fact, and when you argue documented facts, you’re just another dumbass.

  23. avatar Priest of the center mass says:

    Good job c4!!!
    I’m certain you had a blast getting rid of that racist blm sniper!
    Blm is just a black kkk.
    Instead of protesting at the capital, they choose highways and downtowns that shut down everyday people that are not the problem.
    Not very intelligent.

  24. avatar Shwiggie says:

    The fact that it was a dozen or so casualties and not two or three dozen is evidence that the writer is full of crap. Had there been no good guys with guns to take up the issue the shooter would have been free to freely reload and continue firing with impunity. Mike the gun weasel may consume excrement and expire for all I care.

  25. avatar FormerWaterWalker says:

    He was a freakin’ sniper gun goon…

  26. avatar DaveW says:

    the aristocracy. In more modern times, soldiers returning from wars adopted weapons of war for hunting and
    sporting because they were trained with them and very experienced with them. This was true of single shot
    to bolt action, semi-automatic, and automatic until 1934 and the National Firearms Act was used to bypass
    the amendment process to ban automatic (Thompsons and Browning Automatic Rifles) and “short barrelled”
    shotguns.

    Armalite Arms, in the early 1960s actually sold the AR-15 Rifle, chambered in .223 caliber, with one 20 round
    removable magazine, and having the carry handle, bayonet lug, pistol grip and flash suppressor (not “flash hider”)
    , which I will get to momentarily) to the public prior to the military adoption of the M-16. It was advertised as
    a small game/varmint rifle suitable for ranch and farm. As I recall, the name used was the “Varminter”.
    Unfortunately, this then paperboy couldn’t afford one for hunting the racoons, possums, rats, and other critters.
    The AR-15 was being sold to the public with zero infringement. Around that time, Armalite sold the design to Colt
    Arms because they were having cash flow problems. Colt, in turn, offered a military version, the M-16, with full
    automatic capability, to the US Air Force for testing and adoption. Some of the testing was conducted by the newly
    formed Air Commandos at Hurlburt Field (formerly Eglin AFB Auxillary Field #9), Florida, where my father was an
    instructor. In my sopomore year of high school (1964), my father took me to watch some of the testing. The rifle
    was eventually adopted as the M-16 Rifle not “assault weapon”. And the “AR” stands for Armalite Rifle, not
    “assault rifle”. I carried the M-16 Rifle for 21+ years, in war and peace. I still have my field book entitled,
    “Care and maintenance of the M-16 Rifle”. Nowhere is it called an assault rifle. As for the “flash suppressor”,
    it’s purpose is not to “hide” the shooter. That is impossible. It serves the purpose of a) protecting the vision
    of the shooter in low light conditions, and to stabalize the weapon by diverting the muzzle blast evenly.

    Today, the AR-15 is not just chambered in the original .223 caliber. I think it’s safe to say that the AR-15 is
    the most popular centerfire rifle in America today. By far the top cartridge for this gun is the .223/5.56mm NATO. It dominates the rifle, but the list of available cartridges for the AR-15 is pretty extensive. Of course, you can find the rifle in rimfires like the .22 LR or the .17 HMR, but it’s a centerfire gun at heart. Here is a look at some of the cartridges other than the .223 you can find in the AR platform.
    Additional calibers include:

    .17 Remington: When this cartridge was introduced in 1971, it was the fastest thing anyone had seen. With
    Remington factory ammo, a 25-grain hollow-point bullet has a muzzle velocity of 4,040 fps, while the newer
    20-grain AccuTip load is flying at 4,250 fps. Bullet impacts at this kind of velocity turn predators into puddles.

    .204 Ruger: The .204 Ruger is currently the highest-velocity centerfire rifle cartridge in production by a major
    ammo-maker. Hornady originated the cartridge and has the load with the fastest muzzle velocity. It’s a 24-grain
    NTX bullet with a muzzle velocity of 4,400 fps. The 32-grain bullets run about 4,200 fps, and the 40-grainers move
    out at 3,900 fps. Hornady also has a 45-grain bullet with a muzzle velocity of 3,625 fps. My AR in .204 Ruger has
    a 24-inch barrel. It will put most bullets into less than 0.5 MOA, and it absolutely wrecks coyotes.

    5.45x39mm: The 5.45x39mm was Russia’s answer to the 5.56mm NATO and was developed in 1974 for use with the new
    AK-74 rifle. Hornady, Wolf and TulAmmo all offer newly manufactured expanding-bullet ammo. Wolf and TulAmmo have
    60-grain HP bullets with a muzzle velocity of 2,960 fps. Hornady loads a 60-grain V-MAX at 2,810 fps. All of these
    loads use a Berdan-primed, non-reloadable steel case.

    .223 WSSM: Olympic Arms makes hunting rifles in all three of the Win­­­­­­chester Super Short Magnum (WSSSM)
    cartridges: .223, .243 and .25. Winchester makes the ammo. The .223 WSSM has the potential to be the best predator AR cartridge. Factory loads drive a 55-grain Ballistic Silvertip bullet at 3,850 fps. The 64-grain load has a
    muzzle velocity of 3,600 fps and will work for antelope and even deer.

    .243 WSSM: The .243 WSSM cartridge might be the ultimate dual-use AR-15 hunting round. With a 55-grain bullet at
    4,060 fps, it is a varmint and predator-hunting machine. Turn loose a 100-grainer at 3,110 fps, and it’s a death
    ray for deer and antelope.

    .25 WSSM: This is a .25-06 in an AR-15 rifle. The 115-grain bullet exits the muzzle at 3,060 fps. Deer, antelope
    and black bear—it’s all covered.

    6.5 Grendel: Invented by Bill Alexander from Alexander Arms, the 6.5 Grendel is designed for precision long-range
    target work. But it’s proven to be a good hunting and defense cartridge as well. Alexander Arms, Hornady and Wolf
    offer ammo. Bullet weights generally run from 120 to 130 grains. The popular Hornady ammo is available in two 123-grain bullets: the A-MAX for targets and the SST for hunting. The muzzle velocity is 2,580 fps from a 24-inch barrel and 2,350 fps from a 16-inch barrel.

    6.8 SPC: The 6.8 SPC has a checkered history and as far as I can tell, there are currently four different chamber
    designs for the cartridge. It uses a .277-inch bullet, the same as the famed .270 Winchester. The Hornady load
    ith a 110-grain V-MAX bullet has a muzzle velocity of 2,550 fps from a 16-inch barrel. The company also loads a
    120-grain SST bullet at 2,460 fps from a 16-inch barrel. Remington, Silver State Armory, Wilson Combat and others
    have other ammo available with a wide range of bullet options.

    300 AAC Blackout: The 300 AAC Blackout, or 300 BLK, is in vogue right now, and just about everybody is jumping on the bandwagon. It was originally developed by J.D. Jones to use with heavy bullets weighing 200 grains or more,
    running subsonic and suppressed. He called it the .300 Whisper. AAC reintroduced the cartridge as the 300 Blackout.
    With a lighter, supersonic bullet like a 125-grain at 2,250 fps, it is getting a lot of interest as a defensive and hunting round. While there are those who will no doubt write letters of disagreement, I am not a huge fan of this cartridge for deer or hogs, but for smaller game or home defense, it is excellent.

    .30 Remington AR: This necked-down .450 Bushmaster cartridge provides ballistics that are similar to the .300
    Savage. The muzzle velocity for a 125-grain bullet is 2,800 fps, and it runs at 2,575 fps for a 150-grain bullet.
    The new Remington Hog Hammer load has a Barnes 125-grain TSX bullet with a muzzle velocity of 2,800 fps. This is the highest-performing .30-caliber cartridge in commercial use in the AR-15 rifle.

    .300 Olympic Super Short Magnum: Olympic Arms developed a .30-caliber cartridge by necking up the WSSM case. The company is reporting a 3,040-fps velocity with a 150-grain bullet. That means the cartridge is outperforming the .
    30-06, from an AR-15 rifle. This is a proprietary cartridge available only from Olympic Arms.

    7.62x39mm: This is the cartridge that made the AK-47 famous. It’s been around in AR-15-type rifles for many years.
    The 7.62x39mm has a 125-grain, .311-inch bullet with a muzzle velocity of 2,365 fps from a 24-inch barrel. This
    makes it adequate for deer hunting if quality soft-point bullets are used. Of course, its pedigree as a battle
    round is well documented.

    The AR is not just rifle, it is many, and none of them are military

  27. avatar William Ashbless says:

    Our dear Mike is somewhat of a Rennaissance Man. He’s some kind of Doctor. He owns and operates a gun control think tank that hasn’t really found it’s footing just yet. His ‘Advisory Board’ is comprised of names like Ludwig, Cooke, Hemenway and Palfrey. All are serial gun control researchers.
    Check out his outfit: National Medical Council on Gun Violence.

    He promises great things are in the works.

  28. avatar H says:

    The video I saw of the shooter shooting from behind the pole demonstrates that cellphone holder could have suppressed his activity if not have taken him out had he/she been armed. This person would have required some training to take that shot. This person would have to have moved after shooting just as the sniper did. But it would have prevented or diminished the “free range” slaughter.

    The cell phone holder could have, I don’t know that they didn’t, notify the police of the sniper’s position.
    So yes a good guy…..

  29. avatar Destro says:

    Technically they did.

    Well good guys with guns cornered the bad guy with a gun.

    A robot with a bomb took care of the rest.

  30. While this dip sh|t is technically correct. It was a good guy with an IED, the police still had guns.

  31. avatar Bob says:

    Mike’s commentary is akin to someone writing article for the KKK about how to restrict black rights and then telling people, “but I have Black friends” as a way to provide his legitimacy to his opinion.

    No one who is a “gun guy” (isn’t gun person more correct, Mike?) is going to say the things you say.
    .

  32. avatar Karl says:

    Who gives a …. What this guy says.

  33. avatar Mike C says:

    Next, he’ll argue that fire extinguishers are useless because they can’t put out big fires.

  34. avatar HP says:

    Mike Weisser has transformed from a liberal shill afflicted by stockholm syndrome (assuming he ever actually liked guns) to a hateful, depraved ultra-progressive. I’d say he should be ashamed of the things he writes, but I’m sort of thinking there’s just nothing to this man other than ignorance and hate.

  35. avatar David Z says:

    Bobby,
    I think you’re truly insane. You start by saying there is some truth about ha comments then take a twisted dive south. There was an armed trained off duty policeman as a security guard at the Orlando massacre who FAILED to stope the rampage. It blows the the theory that good guys with guns are all we need. Dallas is another.example of a well trained armed group who couldn’t stop a lunatic until he’d killed 5 and wounded many more. Guns are not the answer. In addition to have the vaulted Lt Govenor of the Republic of Texas calling the crowd hypocrites for running under fire is both ludicrous and incendiary. If you or anyone were in that situation, wouldn’t you run like hell? Don’t mess with Texas because Texas is a mess

    1. avatar Robert Farago says:

      First, I never said good guys (with guns) are all we need. But when the shit gets real, they ARE exactly what we need.

      Second, there are good guys and there are good guys. The Orlando guard turned tail. The two cops who arrived on scene did not finish the job (or die trying). The SWAT team waited THREE HOURS before entry.

      Third, that well-trained armed group stopped the Dallas killer. It took a while. People died. But they got the job done. Guns weren’t the ultimate answer — Johnson died from an IED — but he wouldn’t have been cornered without them.

      Wake up. Smell the coffee. And remember that your right to keep and bear arms does not depend on arguments about social utility or efficacy.

    2. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

      Clackamas mall shooting, stopped by a good guy with a gun. The nightclub in south Carolina, sort was stopped by a good guy with a gun. A church shooting near Aurora, CO, again stopped by a good guy with a gun.

      It’s been definitively proven that civilian firearms save more lives than are taken with them. Both the U.K.and Australia experienced an increase in homicides and violent crime immediately following their gun bans.

      Civilian firearm ownership is irrefutably a net positive.

    3. avatar Anonymous says:

      Guns are not the answer.

      Well, tell that to the cops that took him down. Guns were part of the answer.

  36. avatar Phil says:

    Yep, good guys with gun didn’t stop this madness… but good guys with explosive. That’s exactly why explosive shouldn’t be restricted and should be accessible for any law abiding citizen under no condition 🙂

  37. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

    No one has ever claimed that good guys with guns would, without fail, stop every tragedy.

    But the data is clear, civilian firearms ownership leads to more lives being saved than taken.

  38. avatar DefiantDeity says:

    So because they can say this one incident a good guy with a gun didn’t stop the shooter that means we need to ban guns and guns are not the answer? First off if the good guys with guns were not there it could have been hundreds of killed or hurt like in France. Second, what about all those times when a person does stop a shooter and they conveinetly fail to report it on the news? Why don’t they apply this same logic to their agenda’s? Find one person on welfare that is still poor and then we must end that program. Find one woman who regrets getting an abortion, then we must make them illegal too. You get the point… While we are at it lets completely disregard that people who carry do so for their own protection and not to save hundreds of moron protestors calling for the killing of cops. If i see some crazy guy with a knife going after people I will just continue on with my business. I will not risk my life or help any other citizen out, especially in my state which is very liberal and majority democrat. The people in my state or so sick you could save their life by taking out the lunatic with a knife that was after them and those same people you saved would then advocate for the cops to arrest you because you had no right to take his life.

  39. avatar Mark Kelly's Diapered Drooling Ventriloquist's Dummy says:

    Mikey Milquetoast resides in his own Liberal utopia immune to reality and unable to see what’s occurring in the “real world” as with the recent unrest sponsored, financed, championed, and engineered by the “Progressive” Democratic “Left” (Communists/Socialists/Anarchists) in order to rally their forces to win the Presidential Elections and advance “gun control”.

    The instability, highway blockages, and killings of police officers has spurred many Americans who were “on-the-fence” to action and what action are they taking, they are buying firearms at astounding rates. Yesterday at 5pm I stopped by Dicks Sporting Goods, I needed some small hooks for trout fishing and walked over to the Gun & Ammo counter, it was quite busy which is atypical here in NW N.J. just 50 miles west of NYC. When one of the four frazzled-looking clerks had a second I asked how business had been, he stated at that moment it was the slowest it had been all day and here four (4) customers were waiting on approvals for long guns/shotguns with even more waiting to be served.

    What did I hear at the counter? The common question was “What’s the best shotgun for home defense?”. Just by listening and from what the staff told me most of the purchasers were “first time” firearm buyers who had already obtained the mandatory N.J. FID card (necessary to purchase ANY type of rifle/shotgun/air rifle) but had neglected to do so until yesterday, others were turned away for lacking the the “card” which a potential buyer has to be apply for at least a month or more in advance. The ones that were ignorant of the fact that a firearms purchaser needs more than a “government issued ID and a quick “background check” to exercise their 2nd Amendment were incensed. The stores stock of ammo was going fast, boxes of 12 gauge slug & buckshot the biggest sellers, pistol cartridges were also moving..

    Violence and instability breeds “fear” and like our opposition we CAN and MUST use that fear to advance OUR cause and convert others to OUR side. I and a few of my friends and neighbors have converted a few of our formerly “middle-of-the-road” neighbors and friends who for most of their life voted for Democrats and are now “all-in” for Trump and the 2nd Amendment.

    “Fear” is a powerful motivator, we MUST exploit the current instability if we are to survive as a nation and like “Christian missionaries” we MUST seek to convert as many people to our cause as possible.

  40. avatar Ad Astra says:

    “It’s going to be interesting to see how Gun-nut Nation gets past this one,”

    With these little things called logic and math, you see we can understand these little concepts like ratios and per capita. We can rationally understand that and automobile is far more likely to kill us than a person with a gun.

    “The parade route was lined with good guys who had guns, and the result was that five of them ended up dead.”

    So following that logic train since JFK’s secret service detail wasn’t able to stop oswald we should disband the entire executive protection section of the secret service.

  41. avatar Ad Astra says:

    Seriously why does this site give bandwidth to what this fool spews out of his fat jowled orifice? He is nothing more than a powerless cog who has already sold his soul to his masters in hopes of being a pampered house slave/pet. He has no will or new ideas of his own he merely recites what his masters say on their and hopes to be rewarded with table scraps.

  42. avatar Anonymous says:

    Sure they did – they sent in a robot and blew him up – and they were carrying guns. Good guys.

  43. Mike “The Gun Guy” Weisser, from every person with at least half a brain and a pulse………….shut your mouth.

    Aside from watching an idiot do idiot things, and enjoying the outcome, this is painful and sad.

    Mike…..just shut up. You are a moron.

  44. avatar Matt in TX says:

    Why do we give this libtard page hits? Kuntzman also! Leave them to their echo chambers.

  45. avatar JQP says:

    Of course good guys with guns stopped this attack. Good guys with guns cornered this guy, then they sent in a bomb drone to take him out.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email