# Huge win for long gun lovers !!!!



## Quasar44 (Jun 4, 2021)

Judge Rules California's ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Unconstitutional
					

California's "assault weapons" ban was ruled unconstitutional Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.




					www.breitbart.com
				




Very good news 
Xiden lost and safe long guns will be allowed


----------



## Quasar44 (Jun 4, 2021)

Every American can own these fake assault weapons


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 4, 2021)

Now, if we can just get these fuckers to admit the FUCKING OBVIOUS -- that a full auto m4 has "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" -- we can start getting back to the original intent.


----------



## cnm (Jun 4, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> we can start getting back to the original intent.


Not depending on the Federal Government to put down slave revolts? Well, I suppose so.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 4, 2021)

cnm said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> > we can start getting back to the original intent.
> ...


We're gonna put you back in CHAINS!!!


----------



## cnm (Jun 4, 2021)

_In 1788, at the constitutional ratification convention in Virginia, a major source of contention was that the draft constitution had placed the training and arming of the states’ militia under federal control. Virginians Patrick Henry and George Mason balked, and raised the specter of a massive slave revolt left unchecked because Congress could not be trusted to summon the forces to protect the plantation owners. Mason warned that if and when Virginia’s enslaved rose up (as they had before), whites would be left “defenseless”. Patrick Henry explained that white plantation owners would be abandoned because “the north detests slavery”. In short, Black people had to be subjugated and contained and state control of the militia was the way to do that._​_








						America’s gun obsession is rooted in slavery | Carol Anderson
					

A series of slave revolts terrified white residents and helped fuel the rationale for gun ownership




					www.theguardian.com
				



_​


----------



## cnm (Jun 4, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> We're gonna put you back in CHAINS!!!


That's what the 2A is for, agreed. Oh, and to force slavery on to Mexico. Forgot about that.


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 4, 2021)

Quasar44 said:


> Judge Rules California's ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Unconstitutional
> 
> 
> California's "assault weapons" ban was ruled unconstitutional Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
> ...


Since when does Biden run California?


----------



## xband (Jun 4, 2021)

Quasar44 said:


> Judge Rules California's ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Unconstitutional
> 
> 
> California's "assault weapons" ban was ruled unconstitutional Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
> ...


That's what the FBI calls them, Long Guns. A Shotgun is a Long Gun. Short Guns are Pistols.


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 4, 2021)

Quasar44 said:


> Judge Rules California's ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Unconstitutional
> 
> 
> California's "assault weapons" ban was ruled unconstitutional Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
> ...


Right....so when the next yahoo or nut case buys his AR-15 and blows away a group of innocent people for whatever absurd or insane reason, please dust off all the old excuses and have them ready, because laPierre is having a bit of financial trouble with the IRS, I here.

Oh, and be sure to mail your justifications to the surviving family members.  Judge Roger T. Benitez won't give a damn, as it's all academics and ideology to him.


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 4, 2021)

Quasar44 said:


> Every American can own these fake assault weapons


Gee, how many mass shootings and deaths by these "fake" weapons with "fake" bullets have happened in, oh say the last 20 years?


----------



## Rambunctious (Jun 5, 2021)




----------



## xband (Jun 5, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> > Every American can own these fake assault weapons
> ...


Guns don't kill, bullets do. You can also bash a gun on the head and that can kill.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 5, 2021)

cnm said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> > We're gonna put you back in CHAINS!!!
> ...


Good.  So, fuck off.  We're NEVER giving them up.  You can be a slave and eat a fat dick.


----------



## Colin norris (Jun 5, 2021)

cnm said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> > we can start getting back to the original intent.
> ...


Slave revolts??? 
When was the last time that happened? 
But why would you need a gun like that? 
Just because you can have it? 
Don't tell me it's for personal protection. No one carries them to the grocery store.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 5, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> > Every American can own these fake assault weapons
> ...


Not enough.  We need you to shit your pants more.

We will get machine guns back before I die.


----------



## Colin norris (Jun 5, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > Quasar44 said:
> ...



You'll have to get a carry bag for your excess testosterone and a wheel barrow for your  ego.  
As if that gun will make the community  safer.  What a joke.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Jun 5, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> ...



That's the beauty of the 2nd Amendment. We don't have to "explain" a fucking thing...


----------



## xband (Jun 5, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > Quasar44 said:
> ...


My favorite is a Thompson Sub-Machine gun. I rescued the Commodore with it.


----------



## cnm (Jun 5, 2021)

If deplorables didn't have denial they'd have nothing.


----------



## cnm (Jun 5, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> We're NEVER giving them up.


Of course not. You have to keep the Blacks down after all, as the 2nd intended.


----------



## cnm (Jun 5, 2021)

Canon Shooter said:


> That's the beauty of the 2nd Amendment. We don't have to "explain" a fucking thing...


True, you just get Scalia to pluck some nonsense out of his arse.


----------



## cnm (Jun 5, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Don't tell me it's for personal protection. No one carries them to the grocery store.


Citizen. Please. I believe you live in America?


----------



## Colin norris (Jun 5, 2021)

Canon Shooter said:


> Colin norris said:
> 
> 
> > cnm said:
> ...



I would've thought it was more appropriate to say you have no reason. 
Same thing, but a completely different meaning. 
You know guns like that have no place in society. You have no use other than my original excuses and that's not an excuse but it will contributing to gun violence when nut jobs get their hands on them.


----------



## fncceo (Jun 5, 2021)

cnm said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> > we can start getting back to the original intent.
> ...



The government, Federal or otherwise, shouldn't be in the business of putting down revolts, slave or otherwise.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Jun 5, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Colin norris said:
> ...



No, I have a reason.

I just don't have to explain it to you...


----------



## Colin norris (Jun 5, 2021)

Canon Shooter said:


> Colin norris said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Shooter said:
> ...



Of course you do.  Nuts like you would have tanks if you were allowed. 
The fact remains, I'll nailed it and your not happy.  You're entitled to have truck loads of guns but its still no justification.

I thought they might have been used to protect the capital from those redneck republicans smashing it.   That is if you disagreed with it but I know you didn't.  
Cheers.


----------



## cnm (Jun 5, 2021)

fncceo said:


> The government, Federal or otherwise, shouldn't be in the business of putting down revolts, slave or otherwise.


Not according to the founders. That's why the states have the 2nd, so they can keep the Blacks down. I mean, that's not really a matter for argument as the arguments do appear to have been minuted.


----------



## cnm (Jun 5, 2021)

fncceo said:


> The government, Federal or otherwise, shouldn't be in the business of putting down revolts, slave or otherwise.


Just think of all those rebellions that shouldn't have been put down. _Naughty_ governments.


----------



## cnm (Jun 5, 2021)

Tom Hanks wrote an article about the Whitewashing of American history. I'm sure he intended the pun, but one can see exactly what he meant.


----------



## Quasar44 (Jun 5, 2021)

Very few folks die by long guns and you need them to fight dozens of leftist thugs 

Most gun deaths are all pistols


----------



## Colin norris (Jun 5, 2021)

cnm said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > The government, Federal or otherwise, shouldn't be in the business of putting down revolts, slave or otherwise.
> ...



To keep the blacks down? 
What a load of crap you racist pig. 
It does not say that and nor has that been legislated anywhere.


----------



## fncceo (Jun 5, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> To keep the blacks down?



I suppose it doesn't matter that the 2nd Amendment was ratified by Northern states as well as Southern ones.


----------



## Colin norris (Jun 5, 2021)

fncceo said:


> Colin norris said:
> 
> 
> > To keep the blacks down?
> ...



I repeat, it does not say anything about keeping down blacks. You are a liar regardless of who ratified it.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 5, 2021)

The decision reads like an NRA press release, or a wacky ‘editorial’ from a gun blog, with ridiculous references to ‘the media.’

Rather than such partisan nonsense, the judge could have simply ruled that AR 15s are weapons in common use and within the scope of Second Amendment protections.

Needless to say, the ruling will be overturned on appeal and the Supreme Court will refuse to hear the case because there’s no dissent among the appellate courts.

Last, we have yet another example of the inconsistent right’s hypocrisy – clearly “states’ rights” apply only to red states.

Link to the actual ruling:



			https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/Decision%20--%20Miller%2020210604.pdf


----------



## Quasar44 (Jun 5, 2021)

With leftist rogue terrorist groups in most major cities : you will be happy the T appointment judge favored the second amendment 
 I think fully automatic weapons should be legal


----------



## cnm (Jun 5, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> I repeat, it does not say anything about keeping down blacks. You are a liar regardless of who ratified it.


I see denial is a bipartisan attribute in America.

_In 1788, at the constitutional ratification convention in Virginia, a major source of contention was that the draft constitution had placed the training and arming of the states’ militia under federal control. Virginians Patrick Henry and George Mason balked, and raised the specter of a massive slave revolt left unchecked because Congress could not be trusted to summon the forces to protect the plantation owners. Mason warned that if and when Virginia’s enslaved rose up (as they had before), whites would be left “defenseless”. Patrick Henry explained that white plantation owners would be abandoned because “the north detests slavery”. In short, Black people had to be subjugated and contained and state control of the militia was the way to do that._​_








						America’s gun obsession is rooted in slavery | Carol Anderson
					

A series of slave revolts terrified white residents and helped fuel the rationale for gun ownership




					www.theguardian.com
				



_​


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 5, 2021)

Quasar44 said:


> With leftist rogue terrorist groups in most major cities : you will be happy the T appointment judge favored the second amendment
> I think fully automatic weapons should be legal


I want a grenade launcher..


----------



## Quasar44 (Jun 5, 2021)

Moonglow said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> > With leftist rogue terrorist groups in most major cities : you will be happy the T appointment judge favored the second amendment
> ...


That is too extreme


----------



## cnm (Jun 5, 2021)

fncceo said:


> I suppose it doesn't matter that the 2nd Amendment was ratified by Northern states as well as Southern ones.


Not a lot, no. The purpose of it has been made quite clear.


----------



## cnm (Jun 5, 2021)

Moonglow said:


> I want a grenade launcher..


Bugger that. Suitcase nuke or nothing.


----------



## Colin norris (Jun 5, 2021)

cnm said:


> Colin norris said:
> 
> 
> > I repeat, it does not say anything about keeping down blacks. You are a liar regardless of who ratified it.
> ...


A major source of contention.  
Again, was it legislated for that reason.  No. It was not.


----------



## fncceo (Jun 5, 2021)

cnm said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > I suppose it doesn't matter that the 2nd Amendment was ratified by Northern states as well as Southern ones.
> ...



I'm sure, in your mind, it's very clear.


----------



## cnm (Jun 5, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Again, was it legislated for that reason. No. It was not.


Denial is not just a river in Egypt. 

Ok.


----------



## Mac-7 (Jun 5, 2021)

cnm said:


> Colin norris said:
> 
> 
> > Don't tell me it's for personal protection. No one carries them to the grocery store.
> ...


 Do you call that a long gun in your native language?


----------



## cnm (Jun 5, 2021)

fncceo said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > fncceo said:
> ...


So what's the story, are you denying these events took place or are you denying they were of moment?

_In 1788, at the constitutional ratification convention in Virginia, a major source of contention was that the draft constitution had placed the training and arming of the states’ militia under federal control. Virginians Patrick Henry and George Mason balked, and raised the specter of a massive slave revolt left unchecked because Congress could not be trusted to summon the forces to protect the plantation owners. Mason warned that if and when Virginia’s enslaved rose up (as they had before), whites would be left “defenseless”. Patrick Henry explained that white plantation owners would be abandoned because “the north detests slavery”. In short, Black people had to be subjugated and contained and state control of the militia was the way to do that._​America’s gun obsession is rooted in slavery | Carol Anderson​


----------



## cnm (Jun 5, 2021)

Mac-7 said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > Colin norris said:
> ...


Oh, if you need another image of a gun crazed American I'm happy to oblige. It's not as if there's a shortage.


----------



## Mac-7 (Jun 5, 2021)

cnm said:


> Oh, if you need another image of a gun crazed American I'm happy to oblige. It's not as if there's a shortage.


At least you have your terminology correct this time

I detest sloppy libs who want only the criminals to have guns


----------



## Mindful (Jun 5, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> ...



He’s got a ‘thing‘ about America, Israel, and.....Great Britain. (Given he’s a former colony)

Never stops sniping. Never any constructive criticism.


----------



## Mindful (Jun 5, 2021)

cnm said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > cnm said:
> ...



They’re not gun crazed. Pick your use of language carefully. You sound all tabloid.


----------



## fncceo (Jun 5, 2021)

cnm said:


> _In short, Black people had to be subjugated and contained and state control of the militia was the way to do that._



Even in the states where slavery was not permitted and blacks, as well as whites, had the right to bear arms?


----------



## Mindful (Jun 5, 2021)

fncceo said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > _In short, Black people had to be subjugated and contained and state control of the militia was the way to do that._
> ...



Don’t blind him with science. He’s not up to it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 5, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Colin norris said:
> ...


so according to you every semi automatic rifle is an assault weapon? Be specific now and tell us how many murders and mass shootings were done with an ar-15?


----------



## Mindful (Jun 5, 2021)

Moonglow said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> > With leftist rogue terrorist groups in most major cities : you will be happy the T appointment judge favored the second amendment
> ...



Iran will give you one. Maybe two.


----------



## Colin norris (Jun 5, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Colin norris said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Shooter said:
> ...



I did not think that or say it.  I believe you have no use for that type of weapon . 
You don't need it other than inflate your ego and build testosterone.


----------



## Colin norris (Jun 5, 2021)

cnm said:


> Colin norris said:
> 
> 
> > Again, was it legislated for that reason. No. It was not.
> ...


Again, show me where it was legislated the reason  was to suppress blacks.  
I know you can't because it doesn't exist.  You are a liar..


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 5, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Colin norris said:
> ...


Be specific now and show hw many murders were committed with an ar 15 and how many mass shootings.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 5, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Colin norris said:
> ...


there is NO difference between an AR-15 and any other semi auto rifle.


----------



## cnm (Jun 5, 2021)

Mindful said:


> They’re not gun crazed.


Yes they are. Carrying an AK to go grocery shopping is gun crazed. Carrying concealed [or open] is gun crazed. Accepting the massacres of school kids and others as the price of free dumb is gun crazed.


----------



## cnm (Jun 5, 2021)

fncceo said:


> Even in the states where slavery was not permitted and blacks, as well as whites, had the right to bear arms?


You read the god damned article excerpt. Do you dispute it?


----------



## cnm (Jun 5, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> there is NO difference between an AR-15 and any other semi auto rifle.


Magazine style and capacity. For example


----------



## cnm (Jun 5, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Again, show me where it was legislated the reason was to suppress blacks.


I quite happy to admit invincible ignorance is invincible. I've shown you the evidence for the creation of the 2nd A. If you want to deny it, well that is no surprise to me or to Tom Hanks.


----------



## cnm (Jun 5, 2021)

Mac-7 said:


> At least you have your terminology correct this time
> 
> I detest sloppy libs who want only the criminals to have guns


Sure. The semantic deflection/defence. Very convincing.


----------



## cnm (Jun 5, 2021)

Mindful said:


> Don’t blind him with science. He’s not up to it.


----------



## Colin norris (Jun 5, 2021)

cnm said:


> Colin norris said:
> 
> 
> > Again, show me where it was legislated the reason was to suppress blacks.
> ...



You're wrong.  It was discussed vigorously but it was not legislated as for the reason for the second amendment. 
You can justify anything you want in your to tiny  racist mind but it's not necessarily the truth.


----------



## Colin norris (Jun 5, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Colin norris said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



I couldn't give a shit it they had 10 barrels each.  Society in general has no use for those weapons. Pure ego.


----------



## Mindful (Jun 5, 2021)

cnm said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > They’re not gun crazed.
> ...



That’s your own definition. And your fevered imagination.

One size doesn’t fit all, as you’d like it to.


cnm said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Don’t blind him with science. He’s not up to it.



Is that the best you can come up with?

With an intellect like that, you’ll go far.

Aren’t you on the wrong thread for that type of insult?


----------



## Mindful (Jun 5, 2021)

cnm said:


> Colin norris said:
> 
> 
> > Again, show me where it was legislated the reason was to suppress blacks.
> ...



And we all know about him.


----------



## cnm (Jun 5, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> It was discussed vigorously but it was not legislated as for the reason for the second amendment.


No, it was the reason for the legislation. Did you not read the article excerpt? That the Federal Government was not trusted by the slave states. No other reported reason was advanced for the 2A that I have seen. How about you?


----------



## cnm (Jun 5, 2021)

Mindful said:


> Aren’t you on the wrong thread for that type of insult?


Does your lack of self awareness prevent you from seeing your own? 

Oh. Silly me.

Of course.


----------



## Lesh (Jun 5, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> > Judge Rules California's ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Unconstitutional
> ...


And get ready with those "thought and prayers"...because that's all you give


----------



## Mindful (Jun 5, 2021)

cnm said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Aren’t you on the wrong thread for that type of insult?
> ...



I’d desist, if I were you.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 5, 2021)

Again I ask for the number of murders committed with an AR-15 and the number of mass shootings.


----------



## Flash (Jun 5, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> > Judge Rules California's ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Unconstitutional
> ...


Innocent people are far far more likely to get shot with a cheap handgun in the hands of a street thug in a Black ghetto than from an AR-15.

The great majority of people that get shot with guns are druggies, gang bangers and street thugs in Democrat control big city shitholes.


----------



## Flash (Jun 5, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The decision reads like an NRA press release, or a wacky ‘editorial’ from a gun blog, with ridiculous references to ‘the media.’
> 
> Rather than such partisan nonsense, the judge could have simply ruled that AR 15s are weapons in common use and within the scope of Second Amendment protections.
> 
> ...


The Supreme Court has one important ruling it needs to make on RTKABA.  That is the issue of Strict Scrutiny.

Strict Scrutiny is determined in individual rights protected under the Bill of Rights.  Without the Strict Scrutiny requirement asshole Communist States and Local governments can get away with taking away our Constitutional rights and they have done it with these filthy ass gun laws.

After the _Heller_ case it was time for the Supremes to declare that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to Strict Scrutiny.  This may be case when they do it.  Lets hope so.  Tyranny by government sucks and California needs to be told to shut the fuck up.


----------



## Flash (Jun 5, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Colin norris said:
> ...




I have use for my AR-15s and my M-16.

I shoot them for recreational purposes.

I have them for self defense.

I have a use to collect them.

I have them because the Constitution says they are necessary for the security of a free state.


----------



## cnm (Jun 5, 2021)

Flash said:


> I have them because the Constitution says they are necessary for the security of a free state.


You have them because the slave states didn't trust the Feds to put down slave uprisings.


----------



## evenflow1969 (Jun 5, 2021)

Quasar44 said:


> Very few folks die by long guns and you need them to fight dozens of leftist thugs
> 
> Most gun deaths are all pistols


You need the right tool for the right situation.  Real fire fight is different than what you see on the movies. Dependent on where the fire fight is and range. There are many situations where I would prefer a pistol over a long gun. As far as fullu automatic goes that is a spray and pray.  I  would not spend much time praying in a fire fight. The odds on a trained soldier clicking his rifle to fully automatic are very slim. In most cases you would fix bayonet over spray and pray. Spray and pray on these rifles are only for when you feel like emptying your wallet.


----------



## busybee01 (Jun 5, 2021)

Quasar44 said:


> Judge Rules California's ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Unconstitutional
> 
> 
> California's "assault weapons" ban was ruled unconstitutional Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
> ...



The legal reasoning will not hold up. It absolutely makes no sense whatsoever. Thixs judge cited his opinion rather than law. If his reasoning was followed, the ban on automatic weapons as well as military grade arms would be constitutional.


----------



## busybee01 (Jun 5, 2021)

cnm said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > cnm said:
> ...



Any store that allows that is a shop I would not want to shop in.


----------



## busybee01 (Jun 5, 2021)

Mindful said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...



They are gun crazed. You sound nuts.


----------



## toobfreak (Jun 5, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> > Very good news
> ...



IN OTHER WORDS:  we should outlaw EVERYTHING that has the potential to be abused?  Because sooner or later, an otherwise harmless person with no record of violence and no reason to deny him a sale will take a gun and shoot someone with it?

Do ya know we have laws against that?  They are called *MURDER CHARGES*.

But I guess in your diseased, non-functioning brain, better to just BAN GUNS from legal ownership just in case one crackpot turns up, even if it means disarming the entire public leaving them victim to every armed thug and criminal out there who doesn't obey laws leading to thousands of deaths!

But why stop with guns.  One can easily murder with other things too:  cars, axes, knives, crossbows, and pencils.  You can even murder with a shopping bag.  And bags make no noise nor leave any entry hole.

Let's ban EVERYTHING that has a potential for abuse until we are a totally safe, totally controlled, totally state-operated society treating its citizenry like 3 year olds, RIGHT ASSHOLE?


----------



## B. Kidd (Jun 5, 2021)

Man! This judge just put alot of faggots hair on fire!!


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 5, 2021)

Rambunctious said:


> View attachment 497508











						Fact check: AR-15 style rifles used in 11 mass shootings since 2012
					

Of 12 shootings listed, including the Sandy Hook, Pulse, Las Vegas, and Boulder shootings, 11 used AR-15 style rifles. But a post is missing context.



					www.usatoday.com
				












						AR-15 Rifles Were Used in 26 Percent of the Last 80 Mass Shootings in U.S.
					

AR-15s were used in the Las Vegas shooting, the Parkland, Florida, shooting and Monday's shooting in Boulder, Colorado.




					www.newsweek.com


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 5, 2021)

xband said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > Quasar44 said:
> ...


I am SO tired of variations of that moronic NRA mantra....the original substituting "guns" for "bullets".  See, unlike a Warner Bros. cartoon, guns don't sprout tiny sneakered feet and chase people around blasting way.  A HUMAN BEING has to pick up the gun, aim and fire it at another human being.  In light of what's been going on with the AR-15 in the last few years, I would hardly call the OP a "win".  A reminder:









						AR-15 Rifles Were Used in 26 Percent of the Last 80 Mass Shootings in U.S.
					

AR-15s were used in the Las Vegas shooting, the Parkland, Florida, shooting and Monday's shooting in Boulder, Colorado.




					www.newsweek.com
				












						Fact check: AR-15 style rifles used in 11 mass shootings since 2012
					

Of 12 shootings listed, including the Sandy Hook, Pulse, Las Vegas, and Boulder shootings, 11 used AR-15 style rifles. But a post is missing context.



					www.usatoday.com


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 5, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > Quasar44 said:
> ...


Why don't you cycle over to the surviving family members or the victims of your beloved assault weapons and tell them the same thing.  I'm sure they'll have some choice words for you.  In the meantime, something else for you to try and ignore:









						Fact check: AR-15 style rifles used in 11 mass shootings since 2012
					

Of 12 shootings listed, including the Sandy Hook, Pulse, Las Vegas, and Boulder shootings, 11 used AR-15 style rifles. But a post is missing context.



					www.usatoday.com
				












						AR-15 Rifles Were Used in 26 Percent of the Last 80 Mass Shootings in U.S.
					

AR-15s were used in the Las Vegas shooting, the Parkland, Florida, shooting and Monday's shooting in Boulder, Colorado.




					www.newsweek.com


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 5, 2021)

xband said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...


Commodore of your local Boating club?  Funny, I don't recall hearing about this on local news affiliate or "the nation" section of the newspapers.  Elucidate, son, elucidate!


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 5, 2021)

Lesh said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > Quasar44 said:
> ...


As opposed to you cheering on the availability of a weapon that has racked up a number of innocent dead civilians in the last few years?  Or your congressional reps doing the same?  Or your right wing punditry doing the same?  And avoiding like the plague any discussion regarding how the victims need not be IF THE 1994 AWB WAS NOT ALLOWED BY THE GOP TO SUNSET?

Seems you don't give a damn about people in this instance  so long as some psychological "we won" tick is satisfied.  Pitiful.  Carry on.


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 5, 2021)

Flash said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > Quasar44 said:
> ...


So lets get all the cards on the table; a weapon that has been PROVEN to be the favorite choice of the majority of mass shooters in the last 20 years or so has to stay in circulation because gang bangers can gain easier access to Saturday Night Specials and the lot.  And since YOU introduced race into the discussion, it seems you're okay that the majority of victims of the AR-15's used in mass shootings have NOT been black folk.

Nope, it's all cool with you so long as some psychological comfort zone of "don't let the liberals win" is sated.  A sad statement that you don't give a damn about the following.  Carry on.
newsweek.com/ar-15-rifles-were-used-26-percent-last-80-mass-shootings-america-1578107









						Fact check: AR-15 style rifles used in 11 mass shootings since 2012
					

Of 12 shootings listed, including the Sandy Hook, Pulse, Las Vegas, and Boulder shootings, 11 used AR-15 style rifles. But a post is missing context.



					www.usatoday.com


----------



## 52ndStreet (Jun 5, 2021)

This is the right decision made by the Federal Judge. As I stated in another post. Any Assault weapon ban, or magazine capacity reduction,or any weapons ban is an infringement on the 2nd amendment of the United States Constitution. We don't need Politicians telling us what weapons, we can or can not have. Assault weapons , handguns, are not alive. We need more mental health workers to deal with people before they go out and try to harm people. Not punishing everyone with these illegal weapons bans.


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 5, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > Quasar44 said:
> ...


Your buffoonish little rant aside, here's a refresher course in reality:

The AR-15 has been the weapon of choice for the majority of mass shooters in the last few years.  It was on the 1994 AWB that the GOP let sunset.  When the 1994 AWB was in effect, there was still a plethora of rifles, semi-automatics, handgun, shot guns, hunting rifles, target guns/rifles, etc., available to the law abiding public.  There has NEVER been a proposal to ban ALL weapons....that is a LIE that the NRA promoted with the blessing of the gun manufacturers and retailers.

The OP is no win for the general public, as recent history shows.  That the judge and the sycophants that cheer his decision just blow smoke and shovel lame propaganda BS to cover the fact that they just don't give a damn about other people's lives so long as they "win".  Pitiful.

newsweek.com/ar-15-rifles-were-used-26-percent-last-80-mass-shootings-america-1578107









						Fact check: AR-15 style rifles used in 11 mass shootings since 2012
					

Of 12 shootings listed, including the Sandy Hook, Pulse, Las Vegas, and Boulder shootings, 11 used AR-15 style rifles. But a post is missing context.



					www.usatoday.com


----------



## Quasar44 (Jun 5, 2021)

I have no fear of AR15s
I do have a fear of hidden pistols


----------



## 52ndStreet (Jun 5, 2021)

More people are killed in car accidents, than assault rifles per year.!Are we going to ban automobiles?! Hand guns kill more people per year than Assault rifles.  Why the focus on Assault rifles. The government wants to eliminate the States militia in America.


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 5, 2021)

Quasar44 said:


> I have no fear of AR15s
> I do have a fear of hidden pistols


Ahh, but it 's not about your personal fear (real or perceived), it's about the FACT that a formally banned weapon has been the favorite choice of mass shooters for the past few years.  What the judge did was just green light more of the same:









						Fact check: AR-15 style rifles used in 11 mass shootings since 2012
					

Of 12 shootings listed, including the Sandy Hook, Pulse, Las Vegas, and Boulder shootings, 11 used AR-15 style rifles. But a post is missing context.



					www.usatoday.com


----------



## 52ndStreet (Jun 5, 2021)

The assault weapons ban accomplished nothing. It was a symbolic political ploy. People were still being killed with handguns. Repealing a unconstitutional ban does not mean that people are going to see more mass shootings. The Democratic demonization of Assault rifles is wrong.


----------



## Quasar44 (Jun 5, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> > I have no fear of AR15s
> ...


 The judge cannot be overturned and it was a T judge ..I bet


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 5, 2021)

52ndStreet said:


> More people are killed in car accidents, than assault rifles per year.!Are we going to ban automobiles?! Hand guns kill more people per year than Assault rifles.  Why the focus on Assault rifles. The government wants to eliminate the States militia in America.


That is yet another moronic meme that the NRA loved to promote.  Since there are a hell of a lot more cars on the roads than weapons in general circulation, you are bound to have more fatal accidents ... and the key word is ACCIDENT, because cars were NOT designed to kill people.  The AR-15 is a highly versatile weapon that gives one great accuracy....it does EXACTLY what it was designed to do....KILL with accuracy for one or more targets.

When the 1994 AWB was in place, you STILL had access to a slew of handguns, rifles, shotguns in numerous styles and variations.  The second the GOP let that law sunset, AR-15's flew off the shelves and became the weapon of choice for the majority of mass shooters in the last 2 decades or so.  A matter of fact, a matter of history.  
Oh, and if "the government" wanted to eliminate the State militia, it would have done so when the National Guard was created.  However, militias that are recognized by the various states still exist and function:  These states have their own armies not under the control of the Commander In Chief - We Are The Mighty


----------



## Quasar44 (Jun 5, 2021)

Anything can be a weapon 
Ever get raked by a Jewish menorah 
Those things can be pointy


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 5, 2021)

52ndStreet said:


> The assault weapons ban accomplished nothing. It was a symbolic political ploy. People were still being killed with handguns. Repealing a unconstitutional ban does not mean that people are going to see more mass shootings. The Democratic demonization of Assault rifles is wrong.


1. Not quite....check this objective piece  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ow-about-banning-assault-weapons-in-one-post/

2.  There was nothing "unconstitutional" about the 1994 AWB, as there has always some time of gov't gun control in this country since the time or colonial militias.  The AWB was passed through Congress with provisions to sunset in 10 years, which is did and was not reinstated via GOP Senate vote edge.  After which, mass shootings were on the up tick, coinciding with America's favorite weapon the AR-15 being available.  And here we are.


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 5, 2021)

Quasar44 said:


> Anything can be a weapon
> Ever get raked by a Jewish menorah
> Those things can be pointy


I already did this dance with either you and/or another poster....if you've got nothing else, I'd say we're done.


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 5, 2021)

Quasar44 said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > Quasar44 said:
> ...


Small consolation for the next mass shooting victims.


----------



## 52ndStreet (Jun 5, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> > More people are killed in car accidents, than assault rifles per year.!Are we going to ban automobiles?! Hand guns kill more people per year than Assault rifles.  Why the focus on Assault rifles. The government wants to eliminate the States militia in America.
> ...



What I see is a Government, and political attempt to remove a military type weapon from public access. This is a blatant infringement on the 2nd amendment. Mass shooter psychopaths are going to find a weapon to do harm regardless of  if a ban exist or not. We need more mental health resources, not weapons bans.!


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 5, 2021)

52ndStreet said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > 52ndStreet said:
> ...


You don't "see" anything because the actual historical record regarding militias and gun control DO NOT support your supposition and conjecture...no "blatant infringement" on the 2nd Amendment.

The generalized statement that mass shooters would exists without the 1994 AWB is true.....BUT.....they would be denied the very weapons they chose AFTER the ban sunset to kill more people effectively.  Yes, we need better mental health resources, as it is difficult to legislate against crazy.  But since we've scene staunch resistance to any gov't sponsored mental health bills, the reliance on the private sector seems to be inadequate in dealing with such a problem as they are handicapped by an edict to make a profit in any endeavor.

As the lady said, "and so it goes".


----------



## Flash (Jun 5, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...



You are really confused about this.

First of all there have a number of "mass" shooting that were done with weapons other than AR-15s, including the latest one. 

The AR-15 is not the weapon of choice of the great majority of gun crimes in the US.  It is a cheap or stolen handgun, most often in possession of a Black or Brown druggie, street thug or gang banger living in a Democrat controlled shithole.

The FBI keeps stats on gun crime in the US.  Of the ten thousand or so crimes every year that are not suicides only about 400 "long guns" are used.  AR-15 is a subset of long guns.

According to most estimates there are about 20 million AR-15s and another like number of what you stupid Moon Bats love to call "assault weapons" and percentage wise that is an extremely low number used in crime.

Confused shitheads like you don't get to take away my right to own an AR-15 because somebody else may occasionally use one in a crime.  I have about 30 of them now and none of them have ever been used in a crime nor will they.  Don't be an asshole to advocate something like that.  It makes you look like a dickhead.

Are you shitheads going to also take away my swimming pool because in a year more people drown in polls than are killed by AR-15s?

If you are concerned about gun deaths in the US talk to these Democrat nitwits that govern the high crime rate in the big city shitholes where most of the gun crime takes place because they don't even enforce the existing gun laws or hold the Blacks and Browns accountable for their high rate of crime.  In fact the idiot Democrats have been defunding the very police that help to stop gun crime.  How stupid is that?  You are not one of these morons that help to elect Democrats are you?  Because that would really be dumb, wouldn't it?


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 5, 2021)

Flash said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...


The only confusion here is yours in thinking you can BS you way past simple facts.  I never said the AR-15 was the ONLY weapon used in mass shootings in the last few years, but a MAJORITY of them.  I posted an objective article listing that addressed this very issue....you should have read it, as it pointed to the variations and "sub-sets" of weapons used in mass shootings.  The conclusion points to your failure to diminish the impact of these weapons that were formerly banned.

Spare us all your moronic whining about your "right" being denied.  As I stated before, a plethora of weapons equal in stature were available during the ban.  Folk like you just knee jerk the NRA propaganda based on a childish attitude of " I want it because I want it".  You could care less about the FACT that said particular weapon did it's job in sales and usage...pity it was by mass shooters.

Now since you need a blankie or pacifier in the form of numerous weapons, you would be able to keep them so long as  they were purchased before a ban....just like in 1994.  My problem is that if you sell them with no ability to trace or account for (receipts, proof of purchase)....they could end up in the hands of some rabid right wing yahoo or some nut case.  But hey, since no ban has existed since 2004, everything is cool with you....too bad for the mass shooting victims.

I already addressed your attempted dodge regarding race and crime...you don't dare acknowledge the simple truth of my response, as it exposed your irrational and insipid stubbornness to concede a point.

And TFB if you don't like the term "assault weapon", because that's the classification used by law enforcement and the military.  Write a whine ridden letter to them.

So continue to name call and attempt to shift the conversation to some blather about blacks and crime and the Democratic party....the objective, rational reader sees your folly.  Unless you've got something new and worthwhile to add, I'd say we're done here.


----------



## toobfreak (Jun 5, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...


Well then, here's one for you:



TheDefiantOne said:


> The AR-15 has been the weapon of choice for the majority of mass shooters in the last few years.


Congrats!  You're arguing about ELEVEN incidents over decades, that involve no more injuries and deaths than we already have every day from 90 other causes!  So banning such a basic, popular and needed rifle would really have little effect.  And you should be happy they are using ARs----  in the full Lexicon of semi auto rifles, the AR is about the gentlest one out there!


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 6, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...


 I wrote "last few years"...didn't say decades...you should read more carefully. That's why I provided an objective link that lists the distinctions of the weapons used. Here, this time READ IT! Fact check: AR-15 style rifles used in 11 mass shootings since 2012

But  I do acknowledge an error on my part, as the official record is that this particular weapon is  26% of the mass shootings.  I don't think the victims would be thrilled either way  AR-15 rifles were used in 26 percent of the last 80 mass shootings in America

And as for mass shootings for the last 30 years, you'll note a slight up tick since 2004 (sunset year for the 1994 AWB)  A timeline of mass shootings in the U.S.


----------



## Flash (Jun 6, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...




You continue to be confused even after I took my time to explain it to you.  You little stupid Libtards never get anything right, do you?

Lets get to the real basics here because I don't think you have a clue as to what you are spouting.

What do you want?

1.  Less gun deaths?

2.  Take the right to keep and bear arms away from the people don't want the US to be a Socialist shithole?

Which one?


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jun 7, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...


If you’re worried about violence, ask Democrats why they’ve released tens of thousands of violent felons from prison early.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jun 7, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...


----------



## busybee01 (Jun 7, 2021)

52ndStreet said:


> This is the right decision made by the Federal Judge. As I stated in another post. Any Assault weapon ban, or magazine capacity reduction,or any weapons ban is an infringement on the 2nd amendment of the United States Constitution. We don't need Politicians telling us what weapons, we can or can not have. Assault weapons , handguns, are not alive. We need more mental health workers to deal with people before they go out and try to harm people. Not punishing everyone with these illegal weapons bans.



That is not true. The late Antonin Scalia said that ownership of firearms is not absolute.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 7, 2021)

cnm said:


> _In 1788, at the constitutional ratification convention in Virginia, a major source of contention was that the draft constitution had placed the training and arming of the states’ militia under federal control. Virginians Patrick Henry and George Mason balked, and raised the specter of a massive slave revolt left unchecked because Congress could not be trusted to summon the forces to protect the plantation owners. Mason warned that if and when Virginia’s enslaved rose up (as they had before), whites would be left “defenseless”. Patrick Henry explained that white plantation owners would be abandoned because “the north detests slavery”. In short, Black people had to be subjugated and contained and state control of the militia was the way to do that._​_
> 
> 
> 
> ...




And actual historians have shown that that is a lie.....

Gun control....is actually racist...since the first gun control measures were to keep guns out of the hands of blacks and indians......

The Northern States didn't have slavery and wanted the 2nd Amendment...you idiot......

you guys will say and do anything to take away freedom....it is the political party that you support...the democrat party, that was actually founded by slave owners, and the democrat party that started the Civil War to keep slaves....

You idiots support the party of actual racism and slavery and then tell us we need to give up our freedoms to you.....

Sell that stupidity to joe biden voters, they are the only ones dumb enough to believe it...


----------



## busybee01 (Jun 7, 2021)

52ndStreet said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > 52ndStreet said:
> ...



You see wrong. It is not a infringement on second amendment rights. Military style weapons can be banned. They are designed to kill people. They are light and have a high rate of fire. A mass shooter may find another weapon but it will give more people a chance to escape.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 7, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> ...




When you want to protect your grocery store from the democrat party blm and antifa terrorists, an AR-15 keeps them from looting and burning your store and murdering your employees...especially when the democrat party mayor tells the local police to stand down......


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 7, 2021)

busybee01 said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...




You don't know what you are talking about........if you did, you would know that Military weapons are, in fact, directly protected by the 2nd Amendment as per the Miller Supreme Court ruling...

As to mass public shootings...you again don't have any idea what you are talking about...

There is only one mass public shooting where the rifle had an advantage in the shooting, and that was Las Vegas, where the range was over 200 yards......but he was also firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night, from a concealed and fortified position.......with his initial shooting masked by the concert.



And if the crowed wasn't  trapped in that concert arena, he wouldn't have been able to kill as many since they would have run away or found cover.....since shooting at moving targets at hundreds of yards is almost impossible for all but expertly trained shooters...



At the range of every other mass public shooting a rifle has no advantage over pistols or shotguns.......



again.....at the range of a mass public shooting the AR-15 is no better than a pump action shotgun....as are 2 handguns......you idiot...



Boulder....used an AR-15 with magazines that held more than 10 bullets..  10 killed.....



Virginia Tech...2 pistols, one with 10 round magazine..... 32 killed.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 2 pistols?



Boulder...10 killed with an AR-15 rifle and regular magazines ( holding more than 10 bullets)



Luby's Cafe..... 2 pistols....24 killed.



Do you see that the 2 pistols killed more than the AR-15?



Do you know what the difference was between these attacks?



The cops immediately responded and shot at the attacker in boulder, causing him to stop shooting unarmed victims, and then he shot himself....



Virginia Tech and Luby's Cafe, the police didn't get there, and at Luby's Cafe, the one woman who could have shot and killed the attacker had to leave her gun in her car because of stupid gun free zone laws....



Boulder AR-15 with magazines that hold more than 10 bullets...you know, regular magazines..... 10 killed...



Kerch, Russia, Polytechnic school shooting.... 5 shot, pump action shotgun...which means it had 5 shells which is 5 less than 10........20 killed 70 wounded.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 5 shot, pump action shotgun?



The difference?   The Russian police station was 100 yards away from the school...and it still took them 10 minutes to get to the school...and he managed to kill 20 people with a 5 shot, pump action shotgun....10 more than the Boulder shooter with a rifle and a regular sized magazine...





So again.......in a mass public shooting the number of bullets in the gun magazine don't mean anything......the gun doesn't make the difference....



What makes the difference?



1) if the target is a gun free zone, more people get killed.



2)  if someone starts shooting at the attacker, they commit suicide, or surrender, or runaway....



That is what you don't understand and don't care to understand since you simply have a mental issue when it comes to the AR-15 rifle.

That rifle had no special advantage in a mass public shooting.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 7, 2021)

busybee01 said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> > This is the right decision made by the Federal Judge. As I stated in another post. Any Assault weapon ban, or magazine capacity reduction,or any weapons ban is an infringement on the 2nd amendment of the United States Constitution. We don't need Politicians telling us what weapons, we can or can not have. Assault weapons , handguns, are not alive. We need more mental health workers to deal with people before they go out and try to harm people. Not punishing everyone with these illegal weapons bans.
> ...




No.....that isn't what he said....but thanks for pulling that anti-gun talking point out of your ass.....


----------



## busybee01 (Jun 7, 2021)

2aguy said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > _In 1788, at the constitutional ratification convention in Virginia, a major source of contention was that the draft constitution had placed the training and arming of the states’ militia under federal control. Virginians Patrick Henry and George Mason balked, and raised the specter of a massive slave revolt left unchecked because Congress could not be trusted to summon the forces to protect the plantation owners. Mason warned that if and when Virginia’s enslaved rose up (as they had before), whites would be left “defenseless”. Patrick Henry explained that white plantation owners would be abandoned because “the north detests slavery”. In short, Black people had to be subjugated and contained and state control of the militia was the way to do that._​_
> ...



You have no clue what freedom is. You think it is a license to do anything you want.  You are the ones who will say a do anything. Those racists are now Republicans.

The late Antonin Scalia said this on gun control.
“So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed,” Scalia said. “What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time.”


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 7, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...




You don't know what you are talking about...

There is only one mass public shooting where the rifle had an advantage in the shooting, and that was Las Vegas, where the range was over 200 yards......but he was also firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night, from a concealed and fortified position.......with his initial shooting masked by the concert.



And if the crowed wasn't  trapped in that concert arena, he wouldn't have been able to kill as many since they would have run away or found cover.....since shooting at moving targets at hundreds of yards is almost impossible for all but expertly trained shooters...



At the range of every other mass public shooting a rifle has no advantage over pistols or shotguns.......



again.....at the range of a mass public shooting the AR-15 is no better than a pump action shotgun....as are 2 handguns......you idiot...



Boulder....used an AR-15 with magazines that held more than 10 bullets..  10 killed.....



Virginia Tech...2 pistols, one with 10 round magazine..... 32 killed.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 2 pistols?



Boulder...10 killed with an AR-15 rifle and regular magazines ( holding more than 10 bullets)



Luby's Cafe..... 2 pistols....24 killed.



Do you see that the 2 pistols killed more than the AR-15?



Do you know what the difference was between these attacks?



The cops immediately responded and shot at the attacker in boulder, causing him to stop shooting unarmed victims, and then he shot himself....



Virginia Tech and Luby's Cafe, the police didn't get there, and at Luby's Cafe, the one woman who could have shot and killed the attacker had to leave her gun in her car because of stupid gun free zone laws....



Boulder AR-15 with magazines that hold more than 10 bullets...you know, regular magazines..... 10 killed...



Kerch, Russia, Polytechnic school shooting.... 5 shot, pump action shotgun...which means it had 5 shells which is 5 less than 10........20 killed 70 wounded.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 5 shot, pump action shotgun?



The difference?   The Russian police station was 100 yards away from the school...and it still took them 10 minutes to get to the school...and he managed to kill 20 people with a 5 shot, pump action shotgun....10 more than the Boulder shooter with a rifle and a regular sized magazine...





So again.......in a mass public shooting the number of bullets in the gun magazine don't mean anything......the gun doesn't make the difference....



What makes the difference?



1) if the target is a gun free zone, more people get killed.



2)  if someone starts shooting at the attacker, they commit suicide, or surrender, or runaway....



That is what you don't understand and don't care to understand since you simply have a mental issue when it comes to the AR-15 rifle.

That rifle had no special advantage in a mass public shooting.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 7, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...


It'll make me safer. The Community can fuck off.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 7, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...




Dipstick.....we have social media now.......24/7 news coverage......that is what encourages mass public shootings......and the rifle doesn't matter in mass public shootings as the facts show...

There is only one mass public shooting where the rifle had an advantage in the shooting, and that was Las Vegas, where the range was over 200 yards......but he was also firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night, from a concealed and fortified position.......with his initial shooting masked by the concert.



And if the crowed wasn't  trapped in that concert arena, he wouldn't have been able to kill as many since they would have run away or found cover.....since shooting at moving targets at hundreds of yards is almost impossible for all but expertly trained shooters...



At the range of every other mass public shooting a rifle has no advantage over pistols or shotguns.......



again.....at the range of a mass public shooting the AR-15 is no better than a pump action shotgun....as are 2 handguns......you idiot...



Boulder....used an AR-15 with magazines that held more than 10 bullets..  10 killed.....



Virginia Tech...2 pistols, one with 10 round magazine..... 32 killed.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 2 pistols?



Boulder...10 killed with an AR-15 rifle and regular magazines ( holding more than 10 bullets)



Luby's Cafe..... 2 pistols....24 killed.



Do you see that the 2 pistols killed more than the AR-15?



Do you know what the difference was between these attacks?



The cops immediately responded and shot at the attacker in boulder, causing him to stop shooting unarmed victims, and then he shot himself....



Virginia Tech and Luby's Cafe, the police didn't get there, and at Luby's Cafe, the one woman who could have shot and killed the attacker had to leave her gun in her car because of stupid gun free zone laws....



Boulder AR-15 with magazines that hold more than 10 bullets...you know, regular magazines..... 10 killed...



Kerch, Russia, Polytechnic school shooting.... 5 shot, pump action shotgun...which means it had 5 shells which is 5 less than 10........20 killed 70 wounded.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 5 shot, pump action shotgun?



The difference?   The Russian police station was 100 yards away from the school...and it still took them 10 minutes to get to the school...and he managed to kill 20 people with a 5 shot, pump action shotgun....10 more than the Boulder shooter with a rifle and a regular sized magazine...





So again.......in a mass public shooting the number of bullets in the gun magazine don't mean anything......the gun doesn't make the difference....



What makes the difference?



1) if the target is a gun free zone, more people get killed.



2)  if someone starts shooting at the attacker, they commit suicide, or surrender, or runaway....



That is what you don't understand and don't care to understand since you simply have a mental issue when it comes to the AR-15 rifle.

That rifle had no special advantage in a mass public shooting.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 7, 2021)

cnm said:


> _In 1788, at the constitutional ratification convention in Virginia, a major source of contention was that the draft constitution had placed the training and arming of the states’ militia under federal control. Virginians Patrick Henry and George Mason balked, and raised the specter of a massive slave revolt left unchecked because Congress could not be trusted to summon the forces to protect the plantation owners. Mason warned that if and when Virginia’s enslaved rose up (as they had before), whites would be left “defenseless”. Patrick Henry explained that white plantation owners would be abandoned because “the north detests slavery”. In short, Black people had to be subjugated and contained and state control of the militia was the way to do that._​_
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Dipshit.......militias existed long before slavery.....and existed in all of the colonies you idiot.........

Again....

Actual gun control was first and foremost to keep slaves, free blacks and indians from having guns...

Gun control is racist.


----------



## busybee01 (Jun 7, 2021)

2aguy said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> > 52ndStreet said:
> ...



You don't know what you are talking about. You cannot own bazookas or other military style equipment. There is no reason for anyone to own a AR-15.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 7, 2021)

cnm said:


> _In 1788, at the constitutional ratification convention in Virginia, a major source of contention was that the draft constitution had placed the training and arming of the states’ militia under federal control. Virginians Patrick Henry and George Mason balked, and raised the specter of a massive slave revolt left unchecked because Congress could not be trusted to summon the forces to protect the plantation owners. Mason warned that if and when Virginia’s enslaved rose up (as they had before), whites would be left “defenseless”. Patrick Henry explained that white plantation owners would be abandoned because “the north detests slavery”. In short, Black people had to be subjugated and contained and state control of the militia was the way to do that._​_
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The truth....

first.....none of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights were in the original Constitution...you idiot....including the 1st Amendment, and all the others including the 5th Amendment...so the 2nd Amendment wasn't special in that regard, you doofus...Some of the Founder didn't think a Bill of Rights was necessary, but smarter founders understood that people like you existed...so they codified Rights that pre-dated the Constitution...

Then....

*Not only are Anderson’s historical claims entirely inaccurate, but the publication of her book represents the larger, continued effort by American leftists to degrade and distort the American founding. 

The entire premise of the Second Amendment was not to protect the institution of slavery as Anderson suggests, but rather to provide the American citizenry with a necessary tool to prevent encroachments by their federal government.*
*
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” stated James Madison in June 1789. “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”

*
*Samuel Adams made the same sentiments a year prior during the Massachusetts ratifying convention, where he proclaimed “the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…”*
*
Having recently lived under the thumb of Great Britain, the Founders understood that the capacity for government to infringe on the rights of its people was universal and that such tyranny could certainly exist in America. As a result, the Founders viewed the individual right to keep and bear arms as essential in preserving the freedom and liberty of the American citizenry.
----
*
*Anderson’s attempt to make racism the reason behind the establishment of the Second Amendment falls in lockstep with Marxist curricula like the New York Times’ 1619 Project. The goal isn’t merely to just falsify our history, but to do so in a way that breeds further division within the country. Rather than divide us by economic status or class, this kind of “racial Marxism” seeks to pit Americans against one another based on race.*









						Historian Falsely Claims The Second Amendment Was Created To Protect Slavery
					

The goal isn’t merely to just falsify our history, but to do so in a way that breeds further division within the country.




					thefederalist.com


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jun 7, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> > Every American can own these fake assault weapons
> ...


Very few


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 7, 2021)

cnm said:


> _In 1788, at the constitutional ratification convention in Virginia, a major source of contention was that the draft constitution had placed the training and arming of the states’ militia under federal control. Virginians Patrick Henry and George Mason balked, and raised the specter of a massive slave revolt left unchecked because Congress could not be trusted to summon the forces to protect the plantation owners. Mason warned that if and when Virginia’s enslaved rose up (as they had before), whites would be left “defenseless”. Patrick Henry explained that white plantation owners would be abandoned because “the north detests slavery”. In short, Black people had to be subjugated and contained and state control of the militia was the way to do that._​_
> 
> 
> 
> ...




How about going back to the actual Roots of the Right to Bear Arms....England......you twit...

To understand the Second Amendment, you must go back to 1688, when England had its Glorious Revolution, which was glorious because Parliament kicked out King James II without firing a shot.  The British then invited William III and Mary (James's daughter) to occupy the throne subject to Parliament's rules.  These Rules were articulated in the Declaration of Rights in the English Bill of Rights from 1689.

The seventh articulated right holds that those of the king's "subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law."  When the king's subjects traveled to the raw, untamed new world, they took seriously their right to bear arms, one that quickly transferred itself to all free men, regardless of color.

People needed weapons to hunt (no cellophane-packed meat in grocery stores back then) and to defend themselves against neighbors, hostile Native Americans, the French, and the Spanish.  From the earliest years of colonial settlements, they had formed mandatory militias made up of all able-bodied men for community defense against this multitude of threats.

By 1775, Americans were angry that the British continuously denied them their rights under the Bill of Rights, something Parliament was able to do by claiming that the rights applied only to the king, not Parliament.  In April 1775, British general Thomas Gage received instructions from Secretary of State William Legge, Earl of Dartmouth: disarm the rebels.  That was why the British marched on Lexington and Concord when Paul Revere made his famous ride.  The first shots in the American Revolution occurred because a tyrannical government tried to seize its citizens' weapons.

It is true that, following 1739's Stono Rebellion in what is now South Carolina, Southerners seized guns from Blacks.  

*And that's the important point: those among the colonists and, after the Revolution, the Americans who wanted to subordinate Blacks deprived them of their inherent right to possess arms.

Put another way, the Second Amendment wasn't intended to control Blacks;

 gun control was meant to control Blacks.  The Southerners knew that if Blacks had the right to bear arms, slavery would quickly have ended.*









						The Second Amendment isn't racist
					

For leftists, history isn't about understanding and learning from the past.  It's about rewriting the past to suit their present needs.  The latest example is the claim from Carol Anderson, a race-obsessed academic at Emor...




					www.americanthinker.com
				




And those who wanted to keep blacks as slaves, made laws keeping them from owning guns.......they later became the democrat party...


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jun 7, 2021)

busybee01 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > busybee01 said:
> ...


Can we own this?


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 7, 2021)

busybee01 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > busybee01 said:
> ...



*There is no reason for anyone to own a AR-15.*

And when you say something stupid like this, we know you don't know what you are talking about...you listened to some left wing, anti-gun activist and simply repeated the last thing that idiot said....

Self Defense and Hunting, also competition ....you idiot.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jun 7, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...


If more people were armed, there would be fewer mass shooting victims.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 7, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 497508
> ...




Idiot...

There is only one mass public shooting where the rifle had an advantage in the shooting, and that was Las Vegas, where the range was over 200 yards......but he was also firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night, from a concealed and fortified position.......with his initial shooting masked by the concert.



And if the crowed wasn't  trapped in that concert arena, he wouldn't have been able to kill as many since they would have run away or found cover.....since shooting at moving targets at hundreds of yards is almost impossible for all but expertly trained shooters...



At the range of every other mass public shooting a rifle has no advantage over pistols or shotguns.......



again.....at the range of a mass public shooting the AR-15 is no better than a pump action shotgun....as are 2 handguns......you idiot...



Boulder....used an AR-15 with magazines that held more than 10 bullets..  10 killed.....



Virginia Tech...2 pistols, one with 10 round magazine..... 32 killed.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 2 pistols?



Boulder...10 killed with an AR-15 rifle and regular magazines ( holding more than 10 bullets)



Luby's Cafe..... 2 pistols....24 killed.



Do you see that the 2 pistols killed more than the AR-15?



Do you know what the difference was between these attacks?



The cops immediately responded and shot at the attacker in boulder, causing him to stop shooting unarmed victims, and then he shot himself....



Virginia Tech and Luby's Cafe, the police didn't get there, and at Luby's Cafe, the one woman who could have shot and killed the attacker had to leave her gun in her car because of stupid gun free zone laws....



Boulder AR-15 with magazines that hold more than 10 bullets...you know, regular magazines..... 10 killed...



Kerch, Russia, Polytechnic school shooting.... 5 shot, pump action shotgun...which means it had 5 shells which is 5 less than 10........20 killed 70 wounded.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 5 shot, pump action shotgun?



The difference?   The Russian police station was 100 yards away from the school...and it still took them 10 minutes to get to the school...and he managed to kill 20 people with a 5 shot, pump action shotgun....10 more than the Boulder shooter with a rifle and a regular sized magazine...





So again.......in a mass public shooting the number of bullets in the gun magazine don't mean anything......the gun doesn't make the difference....



What makes the difference?



1) if the target is a gun free zone, more people get killed.



2)  if someone starts shooting at the attacker, they commit suicide, or surrender, or runaway....



That is what you don't understand and don't care to understand since you simply have a mental issue when it comes to the AR-15 rifle.

That rifle had no special advantage in a mass public shooting.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 7, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...




Moron.......your own links show it isn't used in even half of the mass public shootings...you idiot.....

How is 26% a majority, you dumb shit......and even that number is likely wrong....


----------



## busybee01 (Jun 7, 2021)

2aguy said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> > 52ndStreet said:
> ...



Yes that is what he said. He also said more.

Scalia pointed out Sunday that that the Second Amendment “obviously” doesn’t apply to weapons that can’t be hand-carried, and modern-day weapons like “hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes” weren’t factored in at the time of the writing of the Constitution.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jun 7, 2021)

cnm said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > I want a grenade launcher..
> ...


There's no such thing as a suitcase nuke.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 7, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> > More people are killed in car accidents, than assault rifles per year.!Are we going to ban automobiles?! Hand guns kill more people per year than Assault rifles.  Why the focus on Assault rifles. The government wants to eliminate the States militia in America.
> ...




Moron, there are more guns in the country than cars...

600 million guns in private hands and over 19.4 million Americans can legally carry guns in public for self defense.....

The intentional illegal use of guns......

10,235 gun murders in 2019.

Accidental car deaths?

39,107.......

You don't know what you are talking about.....

Of the 10,235 gun murders over 70-80% of the victims are criminals, and of the rest the majority are friends and family of the criminals....and these shootings take place in democrat party controlled cities because of their actions and policies toward repeat gun offenders....they keep letting them out of jail and prison...


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 7, 2021)

busybee01 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > busybee01 said:
> ...




The AR-15 can be hand carried, you idiot........and .....

What Scalia actually said in Heller and his opinion in Friedman v Highland Park...where he states the AR-15 rifle is protected...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001),
*

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf*
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


*Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

A more detailed quote from Friedman...
*
Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “_f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411.

Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller.

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409.

Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412.


Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.
_


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jun 7, 2021)

busybee01 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > busybee01 said:
> ...


And no one is arguing that we should be allowed to own surface-to-air missiles, or nukes, or grenade launches, or indirect fire weapons.  Any comparison of a semi-automatic rifle to a SAM is fucking moronic.  Doing so proves how lame the Left's anti-gun argument really is.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 7, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> > More people are killed in car accidents, than assault rifles per year.!Are we going to ban automobiles?! Hand guns kill more people per year than Assault rifles.  Why the focus on Assault rifles. The government wants to eliminate the States militia in America.
> ...




*AR-15's flew off the shelves and became the weapon of choice for the majority of mass shooters in the last 2 decades or so.

You should stop pulling this crap out of your butt.....*

*The AR-15 is not the weapon of choice for the majority of mass public shootings, you idiot...not even close....













						Gun Control Myths: The lie that AR-15s are the weapon of choice of Mass Public Shooters - Crime Prevention Research Center
					

Here is an all too typical Twitter post making the claim that AR-15s are the weapon of choice for mass public shooters. But you have to wonder though if all this media coverage that these are the best weapons for mass public shooters actually causes more of these particular guns to be used than...




					crimeresearch.org
				



*
With all the concern about assault weapons since the federal ban sunset in 2004, it is interesting to see what a small share of murders are committed with any type of rifle and how even that share has fallen over time. The percentage of firearm murders with rifles was 4.8% prior to the ban starting in September 1994, 4.9% from 1995 to 2004 when the ban was in effect, and just 3.6% after that (3.9% if you look at just the first ten years after the an ended). The data is from the *FBI UCR reports*.

The average rate of firearm murders committed with rifles after the assault weapons ban was statistically significantly less than the rate during the ban at the 0.0001 percent level for a two-tailed t-test. *There was no statistically significant difference in rates for the period before the ban with the assault weapon ban period.*

There are similar drops over time if one looks at the share of total murders committed with rifles.

*


			One moment, please...
		

*


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 7, 2021)

busybee01 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > busybee01 said:
> ...




So...genius...the M60 Machine gun and the Squad Automatic Weapon are both hand held...........you really, really need to actually do some research on your own.....


----------



## Colin norris (Jun 8, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Colin norris said:
> 
> 
> > Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> ...



How will it make you safer? 
Think about that. What you mean is you feel safer but you don't know. It gives you an ego boost so now you are safer. Yep.  Got it.  That's logical.


----------



## Flash (Jun 8, 2021)

busybee01 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > busybee01 said:
> ...




You moron.  I already explained to you the reasons to own an AR-15

1.  To use for recreational purposes

2.  To use for self defense

3.  To have for the "necessary for the security of a free state".

Just because pathetic little pussies like you don't have a use for one don't meant the rest of us don't.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jun 8, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> > Colin norris said:
> ...


Do you lock your doors?  Wear seatbelts?


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jun 8, 2021)

Flash said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


4. Firepower superiority.


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 10, 2021)

Flash said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...


Typical irrational, smoke blowing goalpost shift by LaPierre sycophants....you don't DARE directly respond to how I deconstructed your previous screed.  Just as I predicted.  You're done.  Adios.


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 10, 2021)

Weatherman2020 said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > Quasar44 said:
> ...


Check yourself before pointing the finger:









						About 3,100 federal inmates to be released early under new U.S. law
					

Roughly 3,100 U.S. inmates, including many convicted of drug offenses, will be released early from federal prisons for good behavior under a criminal justice reform law signed last year by President Donald Trump, the Justice Department said on Friday.




					www.reuters.com
				












						PolitiFact - Did Va. Democrats OK an early release plan for many violent inmates?
					

Del. Nick Freitas, R-Culpeper, says Democrats in the General Assembly have opened prison gates for the early release of




					www.politifact.com
				




YOU CANNOT JUSTIFY THE RE-INTRODUCTION OF A HIGHLY EFFECTIVE WEAPON MARKETED TO THE AVERAGE CIVILIAN POPULATION THAT HAS BEEN USED AS THE WEAPON OF CHOICE FOR MASS MURDERERS.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 10, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...




I posted actual data that shows that no, they are not even close to the majority, in fact, I think your link said they were in 26% of mass public shootings, genius...how is that a majority?


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 10, 2021)

Weatherman2020 said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...


Ahh, but the devil is in the details:  PolitiFact - Greg Abbott says that according to FBI, more people are killed each year with clubs, hammers than with rifles

Go to the serving family members of mass shootings in the last 30 years with your justification...let us know how that works out for you.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 10, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...




It isn't the weapon of choice...the handgun is....you moron...

And, dipshit....knives kill more people every single year than all rifles do.....more people are killed deer, falling off ladders and by lawn mowers than are killed in mass public shootings each year....

You have to focus on the rarest of rare events, more rare than lightning strikes because you know that of the 10,235 gun murders in the US in 2019... 73 people were murdered in mass public shootings...

More people are killed by knives, clubs, deer, ladders and lawn mowers than are killed in all the mass public shootings each year...and the majority of those few mass public shootings are with hand guns, not rifles...you doofus.









						Expanded Homicide Data Table 8
					





					ucr.fbi.gov
				




knife murders.....2009-2013.....

2009----1,836
2010----1,933
2011----1,611
2012---1,769
2013---1.956
2015....1,589
2016....1,632
2017....1,591
Rifle murder....

2009---351
2010---367
2011---332
2012---298
2013---285

---------
The actual number of mass shootings from Mother Jones......

Here you go...the number of mass public shootings according to Mother Jones...rabid, anti gun, left wing news source.....not the NRA...

The list below comes from the old definition of 4 killed to make a shooting a mass shooting...if you now go to the link there are more than listed below...but that is because Mother Jones changed the list from the time I first posted it...and changed to obama's new standard of only 3 dead to make a mass shooting...

*I have put obama's updated number in parenthesis..........*

we will see....


US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

2020....1

2019....10

2018... 12

2017:  11 ( 5 according to the old standard)

2016....6

2015....4 ( obama's new standard....7)

2014....2 (4)

2013....5

2012....7

2011....3

2010....1

2009....4

2008....3

2007....4

2006....3

2005...2

2004....1

2003...1

2002 not listed so more than likely 0

2001....1

2000....1

1999....5

1998...3

1997....2

1996....1

1995...1

1994...1

1993...4

1992...2

1991...3

1990...1

1989...2

1988....1

1987...1

1986...1

1985... not listed so probably 0

1984...2

1983...not listed so probably 0

1982...1
US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

*US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation


Rental Truck in Nice, France, 86 murdered in 5 minutes...*

Total number murdered in mass public shootings by year...

*Lawn mower deaths every year.... more than 90*

Lawnmowers kill more people than bears or sharks or alligators each year

This article says 90 people died a year...it verys......but it also points out Deer kill 200 people a year....more than mass public shooters do...

found that, on average, lawnmower accidents were responsible for the deaths of an average of 90 Americans annually
----
 deer attacks, responsible for an annual average of 200 people;

*Falling off ladder deaths...300..*.

Gun murder 2019.....20,235

Deaths in actual mass public shootings... ( someone do the math and tell us what percent of 10,235 the number 73 equals.....)

Ladder Safety.

2020....5
2019....73
2018.....93
2017........117
*2016......71*
2015......37
2014..... 9
2013..... 36
2012..... 72
2011..... 19
2010....9
2009...39
2008...18
2007...54
2006...21
2005...17
2004...5
2003...7
2002...not listed by mother jones
2001...5
2000...7
1999...42
1998...14
1997...9
1996...6
1995...6
1994....5
1993...23
1992...9
1991...35
1990...10
1989...15
1988...7
1987...6
1986...15
1985...(none listed)
1984...28
1983 (none listed)
1982...8


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 10, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...




You are a moron....rifles are no more deadly in a mass public shooting than pistols or shotguns because the range is so close...you idiot.......the one thing that makes mass public shootings dangerous is the gun free zone idiots like you create so that no one can shoot back and save lives...

*The AR-15 is not the weapon of choice for the majority of mass public shootings, you idiot...not even close....







https://crimeresearch.org/2021/03/g...the-weapon-of-choice-of-mass-public-shooters/*

With all the concern about assault weapons since the federal ban sunset in 2004, it is interesting to see what a small share of murders are committed with any type of rifle and how even that share has fallen over time. The percentage of firearm murders with rifles was 4.8% prior to the ban starting in September 1994, 4.9% from 1995 to 2004 when the ban was in effect, and just 3.6% after that (3.9% if you look at just the first ten years after the an ended). The data is from the *FBI UCR reports*.

The average rate of firearm murders committed with rifles after the assault weapons ban was statistically significantly less than the rate during the ban at the 0.0001 percent level for a two-tailed t-test. *There was no statistically significant difference in rates for the period before the ban with the assault weapon ban period.*

There are similar drops over time if one looks at the share of total murders committed with rifles.

*




With all the concern about assault weapons, how has the share of murders with rifles changed over time? - Crime Prevention Research Center​With all the concern about assault weapons since the federal ban sunset in 2004, it is interesting to see what a small share of murders are committed with any type of rifle and how even that share has fallen over time. The percentage of firearm murders with rifles was 4.8% prior to the ban...





 crimeresearch.org*


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 10, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...




You really are stupid....did you even read the dumb Politifact article?

Obviously, you didn't, you dumb ass....

Politifact took Abbot's statement...

*Greg Abbott wrote, "FBI: More people killed with hammers & clubs each year than rifles," and supplied a link to a Jan. 3, 2013, Fox News commentary piece that originated on Breitbart.com and referred to FBI murder statistics from 2005 through 2011.

Abbot said Rifles...not all guns you idiot.......and politifact knows this too....

They ignored what he actually said, you idiot....and then added in 

The Facebook post did not include homicides the FBI attributed to handguns (6,220), firearms whose type was not stated (1,587) and "other guns" (97).

No...statement was on rifles you doofus......and they lied by using Handguns and "other guns," when he said rifles.....you idiot.....*

*And, he was right, you idiot...*


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 10, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...




Hey...idiot.....

MARKETED TO THE AVERAGE CIVILIAN POPULATION THAT HAS BEEN USED AS THE WEAPON OF CHOICE FOR MASS MURDERERS.

The very link you used, you moron, said they were used in 26% of mass public shootings.....

To be the "Weapon of Choice," you moron, would need to be at least 51%........

Hand guns are the weapon of choice because you can carry them concealed and they weigh less......you moron...


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 10, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...




Dipshit...........

Your link.....Newsweek.....26%....did you not even bother to read your link......


----------



## Flash (Jun 10, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...




You didn't answer my question Moon Bat.

I asked you why you wanted to ban AR-15s.

Is it to have fewer gun deaths or is it to take the power away from the people so they can't oppose your filthy ass Socialist agenda?

Which one of the two is it?

If it is number one then you are barking up the wrong tree Sport because the great majority of gun deaths in the country are not done with AR-15s.  That data has already been presented to you but you being a typical stupid uneducated Moon Bat don't want to hear the truth.

Just admit it.  You don't was us Patriots to be armed because we become a threat to your agenda to turn the US into a Socialist shithole.

Be honest for a change.


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 10, 2021)

2aguy said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > 52ndStreet said:
> ...


My God, you wasted a LOT of time and space to try and justify murders by a weapon that was previously banned...a weapon that has on numerous occasions that has been the weapon of choice for mass murderers.

Your regurgitate the SOS, long debunked, found in the last gasps of LaPierre before the IRS got a hold of the NRA shenanigans .... good guys with guns, various "it might have been, would've, could've, should've" scenarios.  NONE of that blather changes the FACTS of the following:  AR-15 rifles were used in 26 percent of the last 80 mass shootings in America

The only "mental issue" here has to deal with the insipid stubbornness and willful ignorance of those trying to minimize the ramifications of the mass shootings this weapon caused once re-released to the general public.

Your last sentence is an absurd revisionist joke in the face of recent historical fact.


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 10, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Colin norris said:
> 
> 
> > Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> ...


these two responders have given the most childish and absurd responses I've read here so far.  Seems they just ignore what they don't like.  AR-15 rifles were used in 26 percent of the last 80 mass shootings in America


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 10, 2021)

2aguy said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...


My, but you are a one trick pony...here's my response to your previous blather  Huge win for long gun lovers !!!!


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 10, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > Quasar44 said:
> ...


Collateral damage, ehh?  Tell that to the surviving family members, let us know how that works out for you.  AR-15 rifles were used in 26 percent of the last 80 mass shootings in America


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 10, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...




And here you go....trying to cover for your screw ups...

Your original sentence...

*THAT HAS BEEN USED AS THE WEAPON OF CHOICE FOR MASS MURDERERS.*

*After my posts that called out this stupidity?*

*a weapon that has on numerous occasions that has been the weapon of choice for mass murderers.

And now you try to cover for your screw up....where you stated they were used in the majority of mass public shootings, while in the very link you posted it stated they were 26%......*

*this is what you post now...

NONE of that blather changes the FACTS of the following: AR-15 rifles were used in 26 percent of the last 80 mass shootings in America

The AR-15 has no advantage in mass public shootings.....the only reason you use mass public shootings is because most people see them covered in the press 24/7 after they happen....while handguns are used in almost every other shooting of the 10,235 that happened in 2019...*

*Rifle murders 2019......that include all rifle types, not just AR-15s?

364........ out of 10,235 gun murders....

Murders in mass public shootings in 2019?

73....and not all of them were with rifles.....*

*








						Expanded Homicide Data Table 8
					





					ucr.fbi.gov
				





600 million guns in private hands......over 19.4 million Americans can legally carry their guns in public for self defense....*

*20 million AR-15 rifles in private hands....*

*73 people killed in mass public shootings...

Deer kill 200 people a year.....ladder falls kill over 300....lawnmowers between 90-100...

This is why your hyper emotional silliness brands you an irrational, anti-gun extremist....*


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 10, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


You tell me...and then tell me how this compares to the AR-15.


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 10, 2021)

2aguy said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


You have a penchant for name calling, yet you demonstrate a lack of critical thinking and analysis along with a lack of basic historical knowledge on this subject.

Here's a homework assignment for you:  Look up the list of weapons that were on the 1994 AWB list, the look up what weapons were available during it's ten year action.  Then tell us just how you couldn't find one weapon for hunting or self defense or for games (competition).  Then let us know if you still can maintain your previous declaration.


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 10, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > Quasar44 said:
> ...


Possibly the dumbest mantra from LaPierre's collection.  Since the sunset of the 1994 AWB, mass shootings have been on the rise.









						New research puts the 'good guy with a gun' idea to rest: Loose concealed-carry laws are linked to more firearm homicides
					

States with looser concealed-carry laws have higher rates of gun homicide. And higher gun-ownership rates are associated with more mass shootings.




					www.businessinsider.com


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 10, 2021)

2aguy said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > Rambunctious said:
> ...


Already addressed this.  You need a new line of smoke, kid.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 10, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > busybee01 said:
> ...




Sorry, dumb ass....you don't get to tell us which guns we can have.......and then tell use which guns aren't allowed.....and then which new guns aren't allowed.......it is a Right, and though you and other democrats like Poll Taxes and Literacy Tests to prevent Rights.....we are not going to stand by and let you take them....


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 10, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...




You addressed it an failed.......you idiot.   You have nothing....you are an irrational, hyper-emotional, anti-gun extremist.........you have nothing to argue your point, so you go emotional.....you are an idiot.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 10, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...




Moron....

Total mass public shootings by year...

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

2020....1

2019....10

2018... 12

2017:  11 ( 5 according to the old standard)

2016....6

2015....4 ( obama's new standard....7)

2014....2 (4)

2013....5

2012....7

2011....3

2010....1

2009....4

2008....3

2007....4

2006....3

2005...2

2004....1

2003...1

2002 not listed so more than likely 0

2001....1

2000....1

1999....5

1998...3

1997....2

1996....1

1995...1

1994...1

1993...4

1992...2

1991...3

1990...1

1989...2

1988....1

1987...1

1986...1

1985... not listed so probably 0

1984...2

1983...not listed so probably 0

1982...1


The only reason some years have a few more than others is idiots like you, in the press and politics, create celebrities out of the shooters....it has nothing to do with what weapon is available...you doofus......when morons like you cover these shootings 24/7, you create copy cats....and inspire other idiots.....

This is why the press stopped reporting on Teen Suicides...you dumb ass...because they found that after doing stories on the death of a teen by suicide, other teenagers committed suicide ....they were inspired and instructed by those news articles...

You idiots are inspiring the future shooters and showing them where to look to analyze and improve on the last shooters......you are the idiots driving these shootings...


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 10, 2021)

2aguy said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...


Not really, as the article just covers 10 years....you go back further, the numbers increase.  You'd know this if you honestly researched the issue instead of this "whack a mole" knee jerk defense.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 10, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...




Mother Jones went back to 1982...you idiot......John Lott listed all of the guns in all of the shootings in that Pie Chart, you idiot.........

You have nothing......and pretending you do just makes you look dumb...


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 10, 2021)

2aguy said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > 52ndStreet said:
> ...


You just proved my point....the previous comparison of car deaths to gun deaths is sheer stupidity, because we are talking about ACCIDENTS as opposed to intentional shootings that have resulted in murders.

And how on God's green earth do you think that this "collateral damage" approach justify's the increase in the murders with weapons previously banned?  Expand your critical analysis beyond your limited vocabulary.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 10, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...




Moron......you prove my point...

Gun murder is the intentional illegal use of a gun.  The majority of the victims are not innocent people but criminals engaged in crime, and the friends and family of criminals hit by mistake.



Car Accidents are worse because they are not intentional....and we allow 16 year olds to drive cars, unsupervised........

You idiots compare illegal gun use to accidents, instead of comparing accidents to accidents...you do this for one reason..

600 million guns in private hands, 20 million AR-15 rifles, over 19.4 million Americans can carry their guns legally in public places for self defense....

Accidental gun deaths, in a country of over 320 million people?

2019....

Guns.....486

cars....37,595

Comparing accidents to accidents doesn't help you....so you move the goal posts....and even then....you can't get the number you want.....


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 10, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...




What increase in murders with Rifles?  You idiot....knives kill more people every single year than all rifle types.....clubs kill more people every single year than all rifle types.....bare hands kill more people than all rifle types....

Every single year.....you idiot...

Here...do some research...you idiot...









						Expanded Homicide Data Table 8
					





					ucr.fbi.gov


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 10, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...




Idiot.....rifle deaths going down up to 2015.....going up and down over the years......









						Expanded Homicide Data Table 8
					





					ucr.fbi.gov


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 10, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...




Hey...idiot....

Are AR-15 Rifles a Public Safety Threat? Here's What the Data Say | Being Classically Liberal

According to a _New York Times_ analysis, since 2007, at least “173 people have been killed in mass shootings in the United States involving AR-15s.”

That’s 173 over a span of a decade, *with an average of 17 homicides per year. *To put this in perspective, consider that at this rate _it would take almost one-hundred years of mass shootings with AR-15s to produce the same number of homicide victims that knives and sharp objects produce in one year.
--------
_
_If we take the time to look at the raw data provided by the FBI, we find that all rifles, not just “assault-style rifles,” constitute on average 340 homicides per year from 2007 through 2017 (see Figure 1.). When we adjust these numbers to take under-reporting into account, that number rises to an average of 439 per year.

Figure 2 compares rifle homicides to homicides with other non-firearm weapons. Believe it or not, between 2007 and 2017, nearly 1,700 people were murdered with a knife or sharp object per year. That’s almost four times the number of people murdered by an assailant with any sort of rifle._


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 10, 2021)

2aguy said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > 52ndStreet said:
> ...


Do you understand the difference between a "mass shooting" and a basic homicide?  Let me pablum feed you on this;  if you can reduce 26 to 40% of the mass shootings (depending on what stats you look at) by reinstating the ban, isn't that a good thing?  The legal battle over 'assault weapons' continues. What are they?

Accepting "collateral damage" to maintain some absurd mental comfort zone for gun enthusiasts is a high price to pay...too high, if you ask the surviving family members.


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 10, 2021)

Flash said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


You rail like a petulant child.  Here's something for the adult part of you to ponder:  How many weapons were banned in 1994?  How many weapons weren't banned in 1994?  Are you telling the reading audience that you couldn't defend yourself or shoot targets or fulfill your mental security of a free state with the plethora of weapons NOT on the list?


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 10, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > busybee01 said:
> ...


If you couldn't defend your home or self with the plethora of weapons that were available during the 1994 ban, then I'd say you're just a bad shot or have some serious psychological issues.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 10, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...




The ban didn't stop any mass public shootings you idiot......

Do you understand that rifles are no different from any other guns at the range of mass public shootings?   This is why shotguns and pistols can kill as many or more people than rifles in mass public shootings........

There is only one mass public shooting where the rifle had an advantage in the shooting, and that was Las Vegas, where the range was over 200 yards......but he was also firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night, from a concealed and fortified position.......with his initial shooting masked by the concert.



And if the crowed wasn't  trapped in that concert arena, he wouldn't have been able to kill as many since they would have run away or found cover.....since shooting at moving targets at hundreds of yards is almost impossible for all but expertly trained shooters...



At the range of every other mass public shooting a rifle has no advantage over pistols or shotguns.......



again.....at the range of a mass public shooting the AR-15 is no better than a pump action shotgun....as are 2 handguns......you idiot...



Boulder....used an AR-15 with magazines that held more than 10 bullets..  10 killed.....



Virginia Tech...2 pistols, one with 10 round magazine..... 32 killed.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 2 pistols?



Boulder...10 killed with an AR-15 rifle and regular magazines ( holding more than 10 bullets)



Luby's Cafe..... 2 pistols....24 killed.



Do you see that the 2 pistols killed more than the AR-15?



Do you know what the difference was between these attacks?



The cops immediately responded and shot at the attacker in boulder, causing him to stop shooting unarmed victims, and then he shot himself....



Virginia Tech and Luby's Cafe, the police didn't get there, and at Luby's Cafe, the one woman who could have shot and killed the attacker had to leave her gun in her car because of stupid gun free zone laws....



Boulder AR-15 with magazines that hold more than 10 bullets...you know, regular magazines..... 10 killed...



Kerch, Russia, Polytechnic school shooting.... 5 shot, pump action shotgun...which means it had 5 shells which is 5 less than 10........20 killed 70 wounded.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 5 shot, pump action shotgun?



The difference?   The Russian police station was 100 yards away from the school...and it still took them 10 minutes to get to the school...and he managed to kill 20 people with a 5 shot, pump action shotgun....10 more than the Boulder shooter with a rifle and a regular sized magazine...





So again.......in a mass public shooting the number of bullets in the gun magazine don't mean anything......the gun doesn't make the difference....



What makes the difference?



1) if the target is a gun free zone, more people get killed.



2)  if someone starts shooting at the attacker, they commit suicide, or surrender, or runaway....



That is what you don't understand and don't care to understand since you simply have a mental issue when it comes to the AR-15 rifle.

That rifle had no special advantage in a mass public shooting.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 10, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...




Idiot.......that list, with idiots like you in charge gets bigger and bigger if we let you have power......

The Right to own and carry a gun is a Right........because you will allow us to have a bolt action .22 pistol is not what a Right allows....you idiot.

*https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

A more detailed quote from Friedman...

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411.

Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller.*_*

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409.

Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412.


Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.*
_


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 10, 2021)

2aguy said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


you think it through, do you?  You babble, throw out a lot stuff and don't stop to analyze what you say.   You have yet to justify allowing 26 to 40% of mass shooting deaths by assault rifles that were on the 1994 ban to stay in the open market.  Are you saying that those subsequent deaths are acceptable?  Collateral damage for your psychological need to have these weapons in the mix?
Once again, you keep doubling down on the sheer stupidity of comparing traffic deaths to gun deaths.  Intentional gun deaths due to mass shootings, murders, criminal invasion & assaults, etc. are NOT a comparative to car accidental deaths.  Period.  Guns have one purpose....to kill or practice to kill (food, self defense, offensive moves).  Cars have one purpose....transportation.  Got that?  I hope so, because if you paid attention to the chronology of the post, I DID NOT ORIGINATE THIS ABSURD COMPARISON.


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 10, 2021)

2aguy said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


And yet:









						Mass shootings: America’s challenge for gun control explained in seven charts
					

Charts explaining some of the key statistics behind gun ownership and attacks linked to guns in the US.



					www.bbc.com
				




there's something really wrong with a person who keeps trying to tell people that increase in mass shooting deaths is not really as bad as it seems...for what end?  Like you can't get a gun or semi-auto rifle, or hunting rifle or shot gun?  Before or after the 1994 ban.  Seriously, what is your problem?


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 10, 2021)

2aguy said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


And when all is said and done,  you can't change the following:









						Mass shootings: America’s challenge for gun control explained in seven charts
					

Charts explaining some of the key statistics behind gun ownership and attacks linked to guns in the US.



					www.bbc.com
				



Seriously, WTF is the matter with you?  Since when does the deaths of people that could have been prevented become acceptable for your weapons paranoia?


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 10, 2021)

2aguy said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


No one said it was stopped.  Please learn to read carefully and comprehensively.  Even Koper admitted there was reduction.  I'd take less people dying than to the status quo you seem to relish any day.  the rest of your regurgitated drivel was previously addressed and debunked.  The chronology of the post shows your folly in thinking repetition equals fact.  It doesn't.  Carry on.


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 10, 2021)

2aguy said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> ...


You're boring me, son.  Individual court rulings don't change the fact that NO GUN LAW EVER BANNED OWNERSHIP OR CONFISCATED WEAPONS IN GENERAL.  The whine and foot stamping concerns specific weapons.  None of your quotes changes the FACTS that YOU cannot own a military grade weapon (full auto) or explosives.  Also, it does not change the FACT that the when the 1994 ban ended the AR-15 became the weapons of choice for some of the worst mass shootings in the last 30 years.

This near insane "I want it just because I want it" attitudes towards guns only benefits the gun lobby, the manufacturers and the retailers.  The victims that I have listed time and again are of no consequence to you, as you repeatedly ignore such.  Carry on.


----------



## Flash (Jun 11, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > busybee01 said:
> ...




I don't have to tell you jackshit.  I choose to use the AR-15 because they are excellent for recreation, self defense and to kick you Socialist's ass if we ever have to.  I have 30 of them.  Just because you are a little pussy that is frightened of the scary Black Rifes don't mean the rest of us are.   Mind your own fucking business.  If you are too scared to own one that is fine.  Not all of us are little pussies like you.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 11, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...




No...dipshit....I am saying the rifle played no difference......as I have shown you with the facts of other mass public shootings.

You don't care about the deaths, you simply have an irrational fixation on the AR-15......a regular rifle, that is no different from any other rifle, pistol or shotgun.....


73 mass public shooting deaths in 2019....over 37,595 deaths in cars..........

Your irrational......I would say insane....fixation on the rifle is media driven....as the facts show......you hear left wing asshats screech..."AR-15....AR-15..." it sinks into your tiny brain and you simply start repeating it....


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 11, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...




I listed every mass public shooting since 1982.......there is not an increase in mass public shootings in any way that matters.....

The ban did nothing...actual research shows the ban did nothing....

73 total deaths in mass public shootings in 2019.......using all types of guns.....which means the AR-15 was responsible for less than 73 deaths in mass public shootings...

Again...

Deer kill 200 people a year....

Ladders kill 300 people a year

lawn mowers kill between 90-100 people a year.......

Sell your irrational, insane fixation on the AR-15 to dumb people....the people who voted for joe biden....

Those of us who deal with facts, truth and reality get tired of your stupidity....


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 11, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...




It isn't any court...you idiot...Heller was the Supreme Court....as was the ruling in Caetano.....Scalia, the guy who wrote the opinion in Heller, also stated in Friedman that the AR-15 is a protected rifle...by name....


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 11, 2021)

Flash said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...


And there you have it, dear readers....yet another LaPierre knock off who doesn't have the intellectual courage and honesty to answer a simple, rational and logical question.  Instead, we get insults, childish petulance and highly suspect chest beating about his gun collection.  If his claim is true, I as a neighbor would be worried about 1 man with a short fuse, proud willful ignorance and inability to critically think owning 30 weapons.

Once I've reduced people like Flash to the mouth frothing point he's at now, I just dump them in IA, as all he's good for is this and regurgitation of disproved/dubious mantras.


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 11, 2021)

2aguy said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


You really should think before you type, as I'm beginning to feel sorry for your proud willful ignorance and insipid stubbornness.

Once again, you make the assinine claim that assault weapons (no junior, using the generic term "rifles" doesn't smoke screen the crux of the discussion) "played no difference"....then you fairly dance with glee that 26% of the mass shooting deaths were by one particular assault weapon.

*I have asked you time and again: a re you saying that those subsequent deaths are acceptable?  Why? So you can have a weapon just because you want it?  Are you saying it's the ONLY weapon capable to suit your need for home protection?  Hunting?  Target practice?  To date, you don't have an honest, intelligent answer.....just moronic accusations (if I didn't care about people getting killed, then why advocate to remove THE WEAPON OF CHOICE for a large portion of those mass shootings?)*

Since the majority of people use their cars on a daily basis, then you have a large portion of ACCIDENTS.  Since the majority of rational, legit gun owners DO NOT COMMIT MASS MURDER,  then the ratio in that vein is relatively "small" to thos that do.  But as I said many times before on this thread, that is of small comfort to the victim's mass shootings' families.. and as stats shows, those numbers are creeping up!

So do continue to try and BS your way past simple logic...the objective reader sees you for what you are about.  Unless you actually have an adult and rational response beyond your parroting the SOS, I'll just leave you to wail and rail.


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 11, 2021)

2aguy said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


Okay folks, here's the bottom line for this cretin's mentality on the subject, ".....* there is not an increase in mass public shootings in any way that matters.....*

This joker doesn't give a damn as to how many people have been killed by assault weapon mass shootings in the last 20 years or more....to him it's all about his fanatical devotion to the LaPierre mandate from the NRA....it doesn't matter that the weapons of choice for such killings was purchased AFTER it's ban was dissolved via GOP vote.  Nope, it doesn't matter because he WANTS it, and if he can't get it (assuming the cretin actually has bought one), then this country is on the path to communism   Never mind the slew of weapons available during the 1994 ban....nope, it's all or nothing....TFB for the victims.

So finally I got this joker to cop to his sociopathic indifference to Americans in general (no one ever polled the victims families as to how the victims felt about gun control) for his bizarre logic and beliefs.  That being done, I no longer will waste time giving him a platform to parrot his pathetic drivel.  I'm done with him.


----------



## Flash (Jun 11, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...




You haven't answered the question I asked you.

What is your fucking agenda in taking away AR-15s?

Is it to reduce gun crime or to prevent us Patriots from letting you Left Wing shitheads from destroy the Constitution?

You can't be honest, can you?

You little anti gun nut pussies never have the courage to explain your confusion, do you?


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 11, 2021)

2aguy said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


No shyte, Sherlock!  Scalia also said:  Scalia: There Are 'Undoubtedly' Limits To A Person's Right To Carry Guns





Even Scalia Would Allow Today’s Gun-Control Proposals

You're done!  You've previously admitted that you feel the deaths of  those by assault weapons in the last 20 years or so were of no significant consequence.  That is just plain sick.  Adios.


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 11, 2021)

Flash said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...


Only a complete idiot would think they could lie in a posted medium.  The chronology of the posts Shows Flash NOT answering a simple question, and then thinking all will ignore his dodge as he tries to shift the discussion to one of his accusatory and false premise queries.

Once exposed for such lame tactics and intellectual dishonesty, people like Flash are dumped in IA, as they are a waste of time and space when seeking an adult discussion.


----------



## Flash (Jun 11, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...




We don't know what restrictions Scalia had in mind do we?  However, what we do know is that Scalia said that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right protected by the Constitution.  As 2ag has pointed out  to you Scalia said that the government can't ban the AR.

You haven't answered the question I have asked several times.

Do you want to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms by restricting the most popular firearm in America to prevent gun crime?

Or are you afraid that Patriots will use these firearms to hold the government accountable for oppression? Oppression that you filthy little Left Wing scumbags want?

Stop being a little chickenshit and running away from the question.  It makes you look like a pathetic little pussy.


----------



## Flash (Jun 11, 2021)




----------



## 2aguy (Jun 11, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...




I have shown that the gun in a mass public shooting doesn't matter....the range is too close for it to make a difference.....so your irrational, insane fixation on the AR-15 rifle is silly.

there were 10 mass public shootings in 2019.....in a country of over 320 million people..

There were 73 people killed in 2019 in mass public shootings......

4 of the 10....less than 50% used rifles.....not to mention other guns

killed in each shooting...

7
9
22
3

In the Virginia Tech shooting, the killer used two pistols....murdered 32.

The Luby's Cafe shooting....the killer used two pistols...killed 24

So far, they killed more people than the guys with rifles....yet you  are fixated on the rifle.

Then we go to

Kerch, Russia, 5 shot, pump action shotgun...killed 20, wounded 70.

The navy yard shooting....5 shot, pump action shotgun....killed 12.

You are irrational....you are insanely focused on the wrong element of mass public shootings...

1) you need to focus on mental health, and reporting deranged people by friends and family to prevent the shootings

2) you need to focus on ending gun free zones......the actual majority of mass public shootings happen in gun free zones.....when a good person can shoot back, the killer stops murdering innocent people, commits suicide, surrenders, runs away, is injured or killed

The AR-15 rifle is no different from any other rifle....you have allowed the media to implant dumb ideas in your head.....


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 11, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...




*then you fairly dance with glee that 26% of the mass shooting deaths were by one particular assault weapon.

No...idiot....I pointed out that you claimed that the majority of mass public shootings were done with AR-15s......you claimed it, and then in one of your links...in the very title, it said 26%.......it made you look like an idiot.....and then, with more posts, you proved you actually are an idiot...

Mass public shootings numbered 10 in 2019....73 killed....

Deer kill 200 people a year.

Ladders kill 300 people a year.

Lawn mowers kill between 90-100 people a year.

There are 20 million AR-15 rifles in private hands...and that number is growing...

4 were used in 2019 for mass public shootings........

4 out of 20 million....

You are an idiot...you are irrational, likely insane.....you are fixated on a rifle because your brain has been subjected to anti-gun extremists feeding you crap for a long time...

We don't take people like you seriously, but we do take what you want to do seriously....*


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 11, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...




See.....you don't think, you don't read..........


This is what Scalia stated when he wrote the Majority opinion in the Heller decision...and his further opinion in Friedman v Highland Park....where he says, you dumb shit......that the AR-15, by name, is a protected rifle....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. 

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), *the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.*
*

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf*
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


*Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, t**hat is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.*

*And from Caetano v Massachusetts...*

Opinion of the Court[edit]



In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

------





As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056.* But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. *



*First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”). *



Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly. 


Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581. Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692. 



*If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis*




> *--*


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 11, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...




Moron, your second link lies............I just posted exactly what Scalia wrote in the majority opinion in Heller..........

Your link......

*Even more importantly, Justice Scalia limited the Second Amendment right to the kinds of weapons “in common use at the time” of the amendment’s passage. Total bans on assault-style weapons are completely constitutional (though the law expired in 2004).










						Even Scalia Would Allow Today’s Gun-Control Proposals
					

Republicans should stop using the Constitution as cover. All gun control measures being debated today would be perfectly legal under the Supreme Court’s last major gun decision.



					www.thedailybeast.com
				



*
*From what Scalia actually stated in the Heller decision....*




https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. 

Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), *the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Now tell us....do you see how your very link got it completely wrong?  Did you read Heller?  Did you read your own link?*


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jun 13, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...


You obviously don't understand what "firepower superiority" means.

List the weapons that can outgun an AR-15/AK-47/FN-FAL/or like firearms.  I double dog dare ya to tackle that argument.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jun 13, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...


There, you just said it yourself: AR/AK weapons are "highly effective".  Why would you deny the citizenry to the most effective self-defense firearm available?


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jun 13, 2021)

busybee01 said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> > This is the right decision made by the Federal Judge. As I stated in another post. Any Assault weapon ban, or magazine capacity reduction,or any weapons ban is an infringement on the 2nd amendment of the United States Constitution. We don't need Politicians telling us what weapons, we can or can not have. Assault weapons , handguns, are not alive. We need more mental health workers to deal with people before they go out and try to harm people. Not punishing everyone with these illegal weapons bans.
> ...


Scalia was referring to SAM's and nukes and shit like that.


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 13, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> ...


Again, you can't defend your home with a .45 caliber semi-automatic?  Or a shotgun?  Or a hunting rifle?  Last time I checked,  the distance from one end of a standard living room is a hell of a lot shorter than the average distance from a hunter to a deer... so you have a good chance of blowing a perp off their feet in addition to possibly killing them outright.  A .45 caliber ain't no pea shooter, and a shotgun (single barrell, pump action or double barrell) let loose in a house is serious nasty damage to man and walls/furniture/fridge, etc.

As to your absurd challenge, here are some official stats that should (hopefully) set you straight as to alluding to what is needed to defend a home....pay particular attention to page #2  https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

Oh, and here's a history lesson for you regarding of what the Afghan's had against the Russians back in the day  





						List of military equipment used by mujahideen during Soviet–Afghan War - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 13, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


For the very same reasons I would deny some yahoo mounting a .50 caliber machine gun on the roof of their house or own a flame thrower or grenades:  1)  you can't legislate against crazy very well....so keeping full auto or assault weapons and military ordinance out of circulation in the general public bodes well for all....or hasn't the last 20 years taught you anything?
2)  If you can't protect yourself with a .45 caliber semi-auto handgun, or a .38 revolver, or your home with a shotgun (single, double barrell or pump action) or a hunting rifle, then you're just a lousy shot, because the average burglar or home invasion is NOT with an AK-47 or AR-15....and least not yet.  See my other response to you on this...hope you read the links thoroughly.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jun 14, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...



1. No one is talking about 50 cal MG's, or flamethowers, or grenades.  That argument will always be bullshit, so you oughta put it to bed.

2. You just said that an AR/AK rifle is the most efficient, more efficient than revolver, semi-auto pistol and certainly more efficient than a single shot.  What if a burglar shows up at my crib with an AR/AK?  I should be able to at least be prepared to have paridy of fires.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jun 14, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...



The Mujis were equipped with heavy machine guns, automatic rifles, sub-machine guns, anti-armor weapons and SAM's...lol.  Not sure what point you're trying to make, there.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jun 14, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...


If AR's are rarely used in crimes, then they're no danger to society and there's no need to ban them.  Right?


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jun 14, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...


AR's aren't capable of firing automatic.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 14, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


AR-15 can be modified to fire automatic but that takes a special federal license tax and background check with a life long review by ATF.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jun 14, 2021)

You are correct.  Alls it requires is a class 7 FFL.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 14, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> > Judge Rules California's ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Unconstitutional
> ...



What you wrote makes no sense because the WWII, M-1 carbine is almost identical to the AR-15.
About the same energy, rate of fire, weight, magazine capacity, cost, etc.
So there is nothing new or remotely more dangerous about the AR-15 than any small caliber rifle.
In fact, a person armed with 2 Glock-21 pistols likely is much more dangerous because they have more shots, can fire 2 directions at once, and can reload one while still firing the other.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 14, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...



Its also very difficult to make an AR-15 full auto.
It takes a  lot of additional machine shop work, as well as additional hard to get and regulated pieces.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 14, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> You are correct.  Alls it requires is a class 7 FFL.



And a lot of skilled machine shop work and parts that are not easy to get.

That is how David Koresh got into trouble in Waco.
He built a machine shop with half a dozen skilled machinists, spending months trying to convert an AR-15 into a full auto M-4.
And it was when he finally succeeded that they raided him.

I did not quickly find a Koresh article, but this is about conversion in general.








						Turning Your AR-15 into an M-16
					

Read: Turning Your AR-15 into an M-16 from Mike Searson on June 5, 2019 for Recoil.




					www.recoilweb.com


----------



## Flash (Jun 14, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> > You are correct.  Alls it requires is a class 7 FFL.
> ...




The government has yet to produce one illegal firearm that they claimed Koresh had.

When the filthy government thugs attacked the people and the Patriots returned fire it was all semi auto fire.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 14, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > busybee01 said:
> ...



But you missed some very important points.
First of all, the 1994 so called Assault Weapons ban did not ban anything really.
It made nothing already purchased, illegal.
And it did nothing to the future sales of ARs.
They just had to take off the bayonet lug and flash suppressor.
Which the buyer could put back on if he wanted to.

The future proposed Assault Weapons bans are entirely different, in that they would illegally try to confiscate currently legally owned ARs, in violation of the Ex Post Facto laws.
And with about 20 million of them out there, that would be bound to start a shooting war on US streets.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 14, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...



True past laws have not been applied retroactively, because that would be illegal, ex post facto.
However, all the current proposals for an assault weapons ban would be retroaction and talks about confiscation.
Hillary clearly proposed the mandatory buy back of Australia as her model.

Pete Buttigieg supported even more draconian confiscation and laws.


----------



## Flash (Jun 14, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...




Yea, exactly what you filthy ass Libtards want


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jun 14, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> ...


It isn't "very difficult" and the required parts aren't regulated.  Those two facts blow the anti-gunner argument completely out of the water.


Rigby5 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> ...


It isn't "very difficult" anf the parts aren't regulated.


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 14, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> ...


Were you asleep or out of the country in a place with no international news in the last 20 years or so?  Because that's the only reason to try to weasel pass the FACT of the AR-15 showing up in a LOT of mass shootings.  Yep, the weapon of choice for a LOT of yahoos and nut cases that did EXACTLY as it advertisement said.

That's why they were on the 1994 AWB list.  And only a fool would try to minimize the damage they have caused since re-introduced to the general public.  Right?


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 14, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> ...


Maybe you should quit the false hysterics and pay attention to what you read.....the majority of the heavy weapons were confiscated from the Russians, and that was done by people using dated weapons, IED's and just plain guts...and since you are obviously unaware of the history of the conflict, you should do a little research as to when the SAM's (finally) came into the picture (or you could rent the DVD "Charlie Wilson's War" as a short cut).

Assuming you're intellectually honest and do the suggested task, you may want to just concede the previous points as well, given that you have NO rebuttal other than an erroneous dodge.  Carry on.


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 14, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


This is true, as they are the civilian version of what was planned for the military.
But
They were and are categorized as an "assault weapon" by military and law enforcement. (Cops have the version that can switch from semi to full auto).  The early advertisement sold it as a highly efficient & adaptable weapon capable of rapid fire with great accuracy and serious impact ammo...and that's EXACTLY what the mass shooters who purchased them wanted.  A matter of fact, a matter of history.


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 14, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > Quasar44 said:
> ...


1.  This ain't WWII....the AR-15 design is an easier handle and highly more adaptable for the individual user's varied purposes, as advertised.  "about the same" is a misleading statement, unless you can provide proof that the M-1 carbine can have all the attachments and use the lighter weight ammo.

2.  If your assertions are true, then explain to the reading audience why gun enthusiasts, nut jobs, basic anti-gov't yahoos prefer the AR-15 ("America's rifle") to a weapon that was NEVER ON THE BAN LIST?  We are talking about the original M-1, not it's subsequent models.

3.  How many folk in the general population do you know that can accurately shoot two hand guns at the same time, or are ambidextrous?

Bottom line: what you wrote doesn't stand up to close examination.

2.


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 14, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> ...


Umm, not quite


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 14, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...


I'll address your statements point for point:

1.  A matter of opinion.  Read the following thoroughly and comprehensively:  Did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Work? - FactCheck.org

2.  A moot point, as the law was never designed to confiscate weapons purchased prior to it's enactment.

3.  Ahh, but that is the point....it was designed to BAN the sales of the AR-15.  The day after the law ended, they flew off the shelves, and the mass shootings using them ran up the scale.

4.  You are talking about the sleazy dodges by greedy retailers, which doesn't change the fact that when the ban lifted the original style weapons flew off the shelves, skyrocketing sales and the mass murders using them dramatically increased  America’s Failed Attempt to Ban Assault Weapons

5.  I am unaware of a proposed national law that entails confiscation.  Could you post such source information?  Thanks.


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 14, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


A more objective take:  FactCheck Q&A: did government gun buybacks reduce the number of gun deaths in Australia?

Please provide the "draconian" measures of Buttigieg's proposal....given that he's position has NOTHING to do with that part of gov't.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 15, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...




No...they were not on the list because they were popular in mass public shootings.  The reason they were on the list is the anti-gunners thought they could get away with banning them, so they did.   Then lost control of the House of Representatives......a government body they had total control over for about 40 years.....and why they stopped pushing gun control until obama came along.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 15, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...




Wrong.....what makes them attractive to mass public shooters is you shitheads.  You have made the AR-15 seem far deadlier than it deserves...you have pushed to make it illegal, so you have simply made it sexier for them.

A matter of fact is this...

There is only one mass public shooting where the rifle had an advantage in the shooting, and that was Las Vegas, where the range was over 200 yards......but he was also firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night, from a concealed and fortified position.......with his initial shooting masked by the concert.

And if the crowd hadn't been  trapped in that concert arena, he wouldn't have been able to kill as many since they would have run away or found cover.....since shooting at moving targets at hundreds of yards is almost impossible for all but expertly trained shooters...

At the range of every other mass public shooting a rifle has no advantage over pistols or shotguns.......

again.....at the range of a mass public shooting the AR-15 is no better than a pump action shotgun....as are 2 handguns......you idiot...



Boulder....used an AR-15 with magazines that held more than 10 bullets..  10 killed.....

Virginia Tech...2 pistols, one with 10 round magazine..... 32 killed.

Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 2 pistols?

Boulder...10 killed with an AR-15 rifle and regular magazines ( holding more than 10 bullets)

Luby's Cafe..... 2 pistols....24 killed.

Do you see that the 2 pistols killed more than the AR-15?

Do you know what the difference was between these attacks?

The cops immediately responded and shot at the attacker in boulder, causing him to stop shooting unarmed victims, and then he shot himself....

Virginia Tech and Luby's Cafe, the police didn't get there, and at Luby's Cafe, the one woman who could have shot and killed the attacker had to leave her gun in her car because of stupid gun free zone laws....

Boulder AR-15 with magazines that hold more than 10 bullets...you know, regular magazines..... 10 killed...

Kerch, Russia, Polytechnic school shooting.... 5 shot, pump action shotgun...which means it had 5 shells which is 5 less than 10........20 killed 70 wounded.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 5 shot, pump action shotgun?

The difference?   The Russian police station was 100 yards away from the school...and it still took them 10 minutes to get to the school...and he managed to kill 20 people with a 5 shot, pump action shotgun....10 more than the Boulder shooter with a rifle and a regular sized magazine...

So again.......in a mass public shooting the number of bullets in the gun magazine don't mean anything......the gun doesn't make the difference....

*What makes the difference?

1) if the target is a gun free zone, more people get killed.

2)  if someone starts shooting at the attacker, they commit suicide, or surrender, or runaway....*

That is what you don't understand and don't care to understand since you simply have a mental issue when it comes to the AR-15 rifle.

That rifle had no special advantage in a mass public shooting.


----------



## Colin norris (Jun 15, 2021)

2aguy said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



And what are you and your buddies gonna do about it?? Storm the WH? 
Take on those pillaging hordes who legistlate against you? 
You'll do nothing.  You're all piss and wind. If the government legislated anything it's the military you will be facing. Not a pack of Rambos like you.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 15, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...




*2.  If your assertions are true, then explain to the reading audience why gun enthusiasts, nut jobs, basic anti-gov't yahoos prefer the AR-15 ("America's rifle") to a weapon that was NEVER ON THE BAN LIST?  We are talking about the original M-1, not it's subsequent models.

Why do Americans prefer the AR-15.....*

*-it is light, easy to shoot, and different people in a home can use the rifle just as easily....the M1 is long, and can't be customized for several family members to use.

-the AR-15 is shorter and has lighter recoil than the 30.06 

-the .223/5.56 round also is less likely to over penetrate the outside wall of a house...

-the AR-15 is easy to customize...you can also have both a laser, a light, as well as any other optic.....the original M1 is made of wood....and you can't put those items on it...

The AR-15 is a good choice for home defense, you idiot......

Woman can shoot the AR-15 much easier than they can shoot the M-1.....

YOu really don't think about your topics....do you?*


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 15, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...




We have 20 million AR-15 rifles in private hands in the U.S....

They were used for mass public shootings 4 times in 2019  killing a grand total of

41

Deer kill 200 people a year.

Ladders kill 300 people a year.

Lawn mowers kill between 90-100 people a year...

20 million, and growing, AR-15 rifles in private hands....they were used 4 times in mass public shootings...

Killed in each shooting?

7
9
22
3









						US mass shootings, 1982–2022: Data from Mother Jones’ investigation
					

The full data set from our in-depth investigation into mass shootings.




					www.motherjones.com
				




Compared to...

Luby's cafe....2 pistols.... 24 killed

Virginia Tech...2 pistols....32 killed

Virginia Beach shooting....15 killed, 2 hand guns


Fort Hood shooting....13 killed....2 hand guns...

Kerch, Russia...20 killed, 70 wounded.... 5 shot, pump action shotgun

Navy Yard shooting....12 killed, pump action shotgun

You really don't know what you are talking about.......


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 15, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...




They are not telling the truth.....

This is Australia now...

Gun city: Young, dumb and armed

*The notion that a military-grade weapon could be in the hands of local criminals is shocking, but police have already seized at least five machine guns and assault rifles in the past 18 months. The AK-47 was not among them.*

Only a fortnight ago, law enforcement authorities announced they were hunting another seven assault rifles recently smuggled into the country. Weapons from the shipment have been used in armed robberies and drive-by shootings.

*These are just a handful of the thousands of illicit guns fuelling a wave of violent crime in the world’s most liveable city.

----*

Despite Australia’s strict gun control regime, criminals are now better armed than at any time since then-Prime Minister John Howard introduced a nationwide firearm buyback scheme in response to the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.

Shootings have become almost a weekly occurrence, with more than 125 people, mostly young men, wounded in the past five year

-----------

While the body count was higher during Melbourne’s ‘Underbelly War’ (1999-2005), more people have been seriously maimed in the recent spate of shootings and reprisals.

*Crimes associated with firearm possession have also more than doubled, driven by the easy availability of handguns, semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and, increasingly, machine guns, that are smuggled into the country or stolen from licensed owners.*

*-------------*

These weapons have been used in dozens of recent drive-by shootings of homes and businesses, as well as targeted and random attacks in parks, shopping centres and roads.

“They’re young, dumb and armed,” said one former underworld associate, who survived a shooting attempt in the western suburbs several years ago.

“It used to be that if you were involved in something bad you might have to worry about [being shot]. Now people get shot over nothing - unprovoked.”

------------

*Gun crime soars*
In this series, Fairfax Media looks at Melbourne’s gun problem and the new breed of criminals behind the escalating violence.

The investigation has found:


There have been at least 99 shootings in the past 20 months - more than one incident a week since January 2015
Known criminals were caught with firearms 755 times last year, compared to 143 times in 2011
The epicentre of the problem is a triangle between Coolaroo, Campbellfield and Glenroy in the north-west, with Cranbourne, Narre Warren and Dandenong in the south-east close behind
Criminals are using gunshot wounds to the arms and legs as warnings to pay debts
*Assault rifles and handguns are being smuggled into Australia via shipments of electronics and metal parts*
In response to the violence, it can be revealed the state government is planning to introduce new criminal offences for drive-by shootings, manufacturing of firearms with new technologies such as 3D printers, and more police powers to keep weapons out of the hands of known criminals.

============

The second part of the series....

Gun city: Gunslingers of the North West


========================
'Thousands' of illegal guns tipped to be handed over in firearms amnesty

Asked roughly how many he expected to be handed in, Mr Keenan said: "Look I certainly think the number will be in the thousands."

The Australian Crime Commission estimated in 2012 there were at least 250,000 illegal guns in Australia. But a Senate report noted last year it was impossible to estimate how many illicit weapons are out there.

*And despite Australia's strict border controls, the smuggling of high-powered military-style firearms is also a growing problem.*


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 15, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...




Major shootings in Australia...why aren't they counted as mass public shootings......?

Because the shooters failed to kill 3 or more people.....even though they had guns, and fired at people in public locations...they were just bad shots........

Shots fired in Launceston siege
A siege in the Tasmanian city of Launceston has ended with police arresting a 24-year-old man and a woman, 40, after 33 shots were fired at police.
Police had brought in negotiators, a heavily armoured Bearcat truck and evacuated residents from the street during the 18 hour stand-off which began on Friday afternoon.

Timeline of major crimes in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


16 January 1998 to 15 June 2009 – Melbourne gangland killings – A series of 35 murders of crime figures and their associates that began with the slaying of Alphonse Gangitano in his home, most likely by Jason Moran, the latest victim being Des Moran who was murdered in Ascot Vale on 15 June 2009.




16 August 1998 – Victorian police officers Gary Silk and Rodney Miller were shot dead in an ambush by Bendali Debs and Jason Joseph Roberts in the Moorabbin Police murders.
*3 August 1999 – La Trobe University shooting – Jonathan Brett Horrocks walked into the cafeteria in La Trobe university in Melbourne Victoria armed with a 38 caliber revolver handgun and opened fire killing Leon Capraro the boss and manager off the cafeteria and wounding a woman who was a student at the university.*
13 March 2000 – Millewa State Forest Murders – Barbara and Stephen Brooks and Stacie Willoughby were found dead, all three having been shot execution style and left in the forest.[60][61]
26 May 2002 – A Vietnamese man walked into a Vietnamese wedding reception in Cabramatta Sydney, New South Wales armed with a handgun and opened fire wounding seven people.

14 October 2002 – Dr. Margret Tobin, the South Australian head of Mental Health Services, was shot dead by Jean Eric Gassy as she walked out of a lift in her office building.
*21 October 2002 – Monash University shooting – Huan Xiang opened fire in a tutorial room, killing two and injuring five.*
25 October 2003 – Greenacre double murder – A man and a woman are shot dead in a house in the suburb of Greenacre, Sydney which was the result of a feud between two Middle Eastern crime families, 24-year-old Ziad Abdulrazak was shot 10 times in the chest and head and 22-year-old Mervat Hamka was shot twice in the neck while she slept in her bedroom, up to 100 shots were fired into the house from four men who were later arrested and convicted of the murders.
26 July 2004 – Security guard Karen Brown shot dead armed robber William Aquilina in a Sydney carpark after he violently bashed her and stole the hotel's takings. Brown was charged with murder but acquitted on the grounds of self-defence.[66][67]

*18 June 2007 – Melbourne CBD shooting – Christopher Wayne Hudson opened fire on three people, killing one and seriously wounding two others who intervened when Hudson was assaulting his girlfriend at a busy Melbourne intersection during the morning peak. He gave himself up to police in Wallan, Victoria on 20 June.[71]*
10 April 2010 – Rajesh Osborne shot and killed his three children, 12 year-old Asia, 10-year-old Jarius and 7-year-old Grace before killing himself in Roxburgh, Victoria.[_citation needed_]
28 April 2011 – 2011 Hectorville siege – Donato Anthony Corbo shot dead Kobus and Annetjie Snyman and their son-in-law Luc Mombers and seriously wounded Mr Mombers' 14-year-old son Marcel and a police officer at Hectorville, South Australia before being arrested after an eight-hour stand off.
1
29 January 2012 – Giovanni Focarelli, son of Comancheros gang member Vincenzo Focarelli, was shot dead whilst Vincenzo survived the fourth attempt on his life.[79]
*28 April 2012 – A man opened fire in a busy shopping mall in Robina on the Gold Coast shooting Bandidos bikie Jacques Teamo. A woman who was an innocent bystander was also injured from a shotgun blast to the leg. Neither of the victims died, but the incident highlighted the recent increase in gun crime across major Australian cities including Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide.[citation needed]*
23 May 2012 – Christopher 'Badness' Binse, a career criminal well known to police, was arrested after a 44-hour siege at an East Keilor home in Melbourne's north west. During the siege, Binse fired several shots at police and refused to co-operate with negotiators; eventually tear gas had to be used to force him out of the house, at which point he refused to put down his weapon and was then sprayed with a volley of non-lethal bullets.[_citation needed_]
15 December 2012 – Aaron Carlino murdered drug dealer Stephen Cookson in his East Perth home by shooting him twice in the head and then he cut up and dismembered his body. He buried his arms legs and torso in the backyard of his house and he wrapped his head in a plastic bag and dumped it on Rottnest Island. The head of Cookson was later found washed up on Rottnest Island by an 11-year-old girl. Carlino was convicted of the murder and was sentenced to life in prison.[_citation needed_]
*8 March 2013 – Queen Street mall siege – Lee Matthew Hiller entered the shopping mall on Queen Street Brisbane Queensland armed with a revolver and threatened shoppers and staff with the revolver, causing a 90-minute siege which ended when Hiller was shot and wounded in the arm by a police officer from the elite Specialist Emergency Response Team. Hiller was then later taken to hospital and was treated for his injury; he pleaded gulity to 20 charges and was sentenced to four-and-a-half years in jail with a non-parole period of two years and three months.[*_*c*itation needed_]
29 July 2013 – Two bikie gang associates, Vasko Boskovski and Bassil Hijazi were shot dead in two separate shooting incidents minutes apart in South West Sydney. The previous week Bassil Hijazi had survived a previous attempt against his life after he was shot inside his car.[_citation needed_]
*9 September 2014 – Lockhart massacre* – Geoff Hunt shot and killed his wife, Kim, his 10-year-old son Fletcher, and his daughters Mia, eight and Phoebe, six before killing himself on a farm in Lockhart in the Riverina district near Wagga Wagga New South Wales. The body of Geoff Hunt and a firearm are later found in a dam on the farm by police divers and a suicide note written by Geoff Hunt is also found inside the house on the farm.[_citation needed_]
*22 October 2014 – Wedderburn shootings* – Ian Jamieson shot dead Peter Lockhart, Peter's wife Mary and Mary's son Greg Holmes on two farm properties in Wedderburn, Victoria over a property dispute. Jamieson surrendered to police after a three-and-a-half hour siege.[_citation needed_]
7 November 2014 – Jordy Brook carjacked a Channel 7 news cameraman at gun point during a crime spree on the Sunshine Coast, Queensland. He was later captured and arrested by police after luring police on a high speed chase and crashing the car.[_citation needed_]
12 November 2014 – Jamie Edwards and Joelene Joyce a married couple who were drug dealers are found shot dead in a car on a highway in the town of Moama, New South Wales.[86]


*15 December 2014 – 2014 Sydney hostage crisis – Seventeen people were taken hostage in a cafe in Martin Place, Sydney by Man Haron Monis. The hostage crisis was resolved in the early hours of 16 December, sixteen hours after it commenced, when armed police stormed the premises. Monis and two hostages were killed in the course of the crisis.[87]*
*27 June 2015 – Hermidale triple murder –* the bodies of three people, two men and a woman are found shot dead on a property in a rural farming community in the town of Hermidale west of Nyngan, the bodies of 28-year-old Jacob Cumberland his father 59-year-old Stephen Cumberland and a 36-year-old woman were found with gun shot wounds, the body of Jacob Cumberland was found on the drive way of the property, the body of the 36-year-old woman was found in the backyard of the property and the body of Stephen Cumberland was found in a burnt out caravan on the property. 61-year-old Allan O'Connor is later arrested and charged with the murders.


*10 September 2015 – A 49-year-old woman is shot dead in a Mc Donald's restaurant in Gold Coast by her 57-year-old ex partner, who then turned the gun on himself afterwards and shot himself dead.*


*2 October 2015 - 2015 Parramatta shooting* On 2 October 2015, Farhad Khalil Mohammad Jabar, a 15-year-old boy, shot and killed Curtis Cheng, an unarmed police civilian finance worker, outside the New South Wales Police Force headquarters in Parramatta, Australia. Jabar was subsequently shot and killed by special constables who were protecting the police station.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 15, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...




And here.......actual research vs the democrat party FactCheck....

Australia’s 1996 Gun Confiscation Didn’t Work | National Review

University of Melbourne researchers Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi concluded their 2008 report on the matter with the statement, “There is little evidence to suggest that [the Australian mandatory gun-buyback program] had any significant effects on firearm homicides.”

“Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy that helps to placate the public’s fears,” the reported continued, “the evidence so far suggests that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths.”

A 2007 report, “Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?” by Jeanine Baker and Samara McPhedran similarly concluded that the buyback program did not have a significant long-term effect on the Australian homicide rate.

*The Australian gun-homicide rate had already been quite low and had been steadily falling in the 15 years prior to the Port Arthur massacre. And while the mandatory buyback program did appear to reduce the rate of accidental firearm deaths, Baker and McPhedran found that “the gun buy-back and restrictive legislative changes had no influence on firearm homicide in Australia.”

=======

2007 report..

http://c3.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/Baker and McPhedran 2007.pdf
*
*Conclusions Examination of the long-term trends indicated that the only category of sudden death that may have been influenced by the introduction of the NFA was firearm suicide**
------

However, this effect must be considered in light of the findings for suicide (non-firearm). Homicide patterns (firearm and non-firearm) were not influenced by the NFA, **the conclusion being that the gun buy-back and restrictive legislative changes had no influence on firearm homicide in Australia. **The introduction of the NFA appeared to have a negative effect on accidental firearm death. However, over the time period investigated, there was a relatively small number of accidental deaths per annum, with substantial variability. Any conclusions regarding the effect of the NFA on accidental firearm death should be approached with caution
=========

2008 report...
*
*
http://c8.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/Lee and Suardi 2008.pdf

In this paper, we re-analyze the same data on firearm deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means to identifying impacts of the NFA.

 The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates. 
-------

6. Conclusion 

This paper takes a closer look at the effects of the National Firearms Agreement on gun deaths. 

Using a battery of structural break tests, there is little evidence to suggest that it had any significant effects on firearm homicides and suicides. 

In addition, there also does not appear to be any substitution effects – that reduced access to firearms may have led those bent on committing homicide or suicide to use alternative methods.*


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 15, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...




Actual research....

Did Australia’s Ban on Semiauto Firearms Really Reduce Violence? A Critique of the Chapman et al. (2016) Study by Gary Kleck :: SSRN

*In reality, their own data, along with information from other widely available sources, indicates that: *
*1. The NFA did not reduce the prevalence of gun ownership in Australia. *
*2. The NFA only temporarily reduced the total number of guns in civilian hands; within 20 years imports of new guns cancelled out the subtractions from the gun stock produced by buybacks and gun destruction programs.
 3. The NFA did not reduce Australia’s homicide rate. 
4. The NFA did not reduce Australia’s suicide rate. 
5. The NFA appears to have increased the rate of fatal gun accidents.*
* 6. There is no strong evidence that the NFA reduced mass shootings in Australia. Such crimes were extremely rare even before implementation of the NFA, and were unlikely to become common even if the NFA had never been implemented
-----------

In contrast to the spin placed on their findings by the authors, here is what their findings actually indicated regarding the NFA’s impact on homicide and suicide rates. 

In assessing these findings, readers should keep in mind that the authors did not directly control for a single other factor that might have affected violence trends, but simply compared mortality rate trends before the NFA with trends after the NFA, and hinted to readers that if violence rates trended more downward (or less upward) after 1996 than before 1996, the NFA was probably responsible. 

-----

Their findings, however, did not support this expectation at all. While the authors were correct in noting that both homicide and suicide declined overall after 1996, gun violence was already declining before the NFA was passed, and post-1996 declines were no stronger for firearms homicides or suicides than for nonfirearms homicides or suicides. 

Even more crucial, homicides and suicides not involving firearms declined every bit as much as those involving firearms (Table 3), indicating that something other than gun controls were causing reductions in homicides and suicides in general, regardless of whether guns were used.

The authors acknowledged that gun violence did not decline any more after 1996 than nongun violence did (p. 298), but they appear to have missed the crucial significance of this pattern of findings for the credibility of their claim that the NFA reduced violence. 
-----

As to what those declines in violence were due to, nothing in the research by Chapman and his colleagues offers any clues. 

The authors did not control for a single confounding variable in their analyses of national violence trends, so they had no basis for knowing what did cause the post-1996 violence declines, and no basis for ruling out the possibility that their findings reflected effects of other variables other than the NFA. 
-----

The 2006 report suggests a different explanation for why their 2016 paper did not address gun accidents. The results of the earlier analysis indicated that unintentional firearms deaths actually increased after the NFA was implemented. ----

Given what the authors did emphasize, they appear to have believed that the NFA’s effects were instead primarily due to the ban and buyback of semi-auto long guns and pump shotguns and rifles. 

The authors do not cite any evidence that these specific kinds of firearms were used to commit any significant share of homicides or suicides in Australia prior to the NFA. 

In fact, pre-NFA Australian firearm violence rarely involved the banned types of guns. Mouzos (2000) reported than only 10% of homicides committed in 1992-1999 in Australia (excluding the Port Arthur incident) were committed with firearms banned by the NFA. 

If Chapman et al. had any evidence to the contrary - that a large share of pre-NFA Australian homicides (or suicides) had been committed with the banned types of firearms - they presumably would have provided it. They did not
------
There was a strategic benefit to the authors failure to provide any explanation of how banning these types of firearms would reduce mass shootings. If the authors had explicitly endorsed the idea that the banned guns encourage mass shootings because the enable shooters to fire many rounds in a short period of time, their arguments could be discredited by evidence that mass shooters in Australia rarely shot many rounds in short periods of time.


 Refraining from offering any hypothesis as to how or why the gun bans would reduce mass shootings helps make the hypothesis that NFA eliminated gun massacres evidence-proof. The significance of this omission will become clear in the next section.
----
*
*A useful comparison can be made with New Zealand, the nation that is probably most similar to Australia. New Zealand has not implemented any significant new gun controls since 1996 (Wikipedia, “Guns Laws in New Zealand” 2017) but, like Australia, it has not experienced a single mass shooting since six people were killed in Raurimu, New Zealand on February 8, 1997 (Wikipedia, “List of Massacres in New Zealand” 2017). If New Zealand can provide a relevant guide, its recent history suggests that Australia would probably not have experienced any mass shootings after 1996 even if it had not implemented the NFA. In any case, New Zealand’s experience certainly demonstrates that a nation very similar to Australia can go 20 years without a mass shooting, without it being attributable strict gun controls.


**Conclusions As best one can tell from the available evidence, Australia’s massive 1996 gun control effort was a failure. It did not reduce either suicide or homicide rates below what, based on pre1996 trends, they would have been in the absence of the NFA, and may even have increased the number of fatal gun accidents. *


*Based on national surveys, the gun bans and buybacks did not make any contribution to the decline in the share of Australian households that owned guns that had already been going on before 1996, and may have even slowed this decline. Although the NFA produced a temporary reduction in the gun stock, it had no long-term effect on the number of guns in civilian hands in Australia, since the nearly million guns that were surrendered and destroyed were counterbalanced by over a million new civilian guns imported into the country in the first 19 years after the ban.*


----------



## Flash (Jun 15, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> 2.  If your assertions are true, then explain to the reading audience why gun enthusiasts, nut jobs, basic anti-gov't yahoos prefer the AR-15 ("America's rifle") to a weapon that was NEVER ON THE BAN LIST?  We are talking about the original M-1, not it's subsequent models.


It is actually none of your business what we prefer.


----------



## Flash (Jun 15, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...




The swimming pool I have  is much more likely to cause a death than the 30 AR-15s that I have.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jun 15, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...


So called _assault rifles_ are used in a minority of mass shootings.

The weapon isn't the problem.  The people carrying out these attacks are the problem.  The semi-automatic, magazine fed rifle has been on the civilian market since 1904.  Looooong before mass shootings became en vogue.

If you want to blame someone for AR style rifles being used in mass shootings, you can blame you and the rest of the anti-gun idiots for advertising it as the most efficient killing tool ever invented.  It's you people that perpetuate moronic myths like the "tumbling bullet", or stupid shit like, "an AR bullet is going to travel all through the body causing more damage".  The latter is my favorite moronic myth, BTW...lol.

People like you are the best advertisement the AR-15 ever had.  Good job!


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jun 15, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...


The M-1 carbine can do everything an AR can do.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 15, 2021)

Moonglow said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> > Judge Rules California's ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Unconstitutional
> ...


Remember the Mulford Act?   Reagan and the NRA got rid of open carry because of scary black men with guns.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 15, 2021)

bodecea said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Quasar44 said:
> ...




And...?  That was a mistake...

However....when there were guys a few years back walking down the street with AR-15 rifles on slings...going to grocery stores with the rifles..... it was cry babies/bullies, like you who screeched the loudest about them......

Apparently, you only want black panther criminals to be able to carry loaded rifles in public.....

I, however, have no problem with anyone carrying a gun in public...

If the democrat party brown shirts, blm and antifa, are not burning and looting in your neighborhood...however, carrying a long gun in public is rude behavior....long guns are for when you have a high expectation of actual violence......handguns are what you carry just in case.....


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 15, 2021)

bodecea said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Quasar44 said:
> ...




So...please...tell us...do you support black men being able to carry guns in public?  Or are you like the original democrats who made laws to make sure blacks and indians couldn't own guns?


----------



## miketx (Jun 15, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> > Judge Rules California's ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Unconstitutional
> ...


Perhaps you vile lying scum would consider stopping your catch and release programs?


----------



## miketx (Jun 15, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> > Every American can own these fake assault weapons
> ...


Perhaps you vile lying scum would consider stopping your catch and release programs?


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 15, 2021)

bodecea said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Quasar44 said:
> ...




Gun control is one of the first racist laws passed by the colonists......the southern colonists who would eventually create the democrat party......


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jun 15, 2021)

bodecea said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Quasar44 said:
> ...


Why do you support racist laws?


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 17, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> ...


OMG!  Did you just dust off that old bullhorn, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"? No kidding?  The thing is, unlike a Warner Bros. cartoon, the assault weapons (yeah, that's how the military, police, and federal law enforcement categorzies them) in question don't spring tiny sneakered feet and chase people around while blazing away.  PEOPLE USE THE WEAPONS TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE.  And the AR-15 was among the top choice for that purpose in the last 20 years or so.  That you can't/won't deal with that reality is pretty pathetic, because it shows a total disregard for fellow human beings lives...."colateral damage" to keep your psychological gun safety zone.


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 17, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...


Saying it and proving it are two wholly different things.  If you can't meet a simple burden of proof as requested in #1 of my previous response, then debating with you further would be he equivalent of debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

And of course, you don't dare respond to #2 & #3.  Carry on.


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 17, 2021)

miketx said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > Quasar44 said:
> ...


I do wish you acolytes of Cheeto Jeezus would actually paid attention to what goes on in the world before you type.  Case in point:

President Trump’s claim that Democrats created ‘catch and release’ policies​
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...democrats-created-catch-and-release-policies/

So it seems my previous post fits you to a 'T'.  Carry on.


----------



## miketx (Jun 17, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...


Fake news from liars like you.


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 17, 2021)

miketx said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > Quasar44 said:
> ...



For your education:

President Trump’s claim that Democrats created ‘catch and release’ policies​


			https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/04/04/president-trumps-claim-that-democrats-created-catch-and-release-policies/


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 17, 2021)

miketx said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > miketx said:
> ...


translation: Mike doesn't read what might contradict his beliefs, nor does he dare venture a rational, fact based discussion if he does.

Reminds me of the folk in the Ministry of Truth in Orwell's, "1984".


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 17, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> ...


Why on earth would we want to put leftists back in chains? We would have to feed their worthless asses


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 17, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...


it's either one or the other a killing machine or a joke if it's a joke why are you scared about an inanimate object?


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 17, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> > cnm said:
> ...


All this alt right blather just makes the case to bring back the 1994 AWB all the more.....bad enough these yahoos have a slew of weapons....giving them more efficient ones will just put an uptick on mass shootings.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 17, 2021)

Rambunctious said:


> View attachment 497508


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 17, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> ...


why would you deprive women and Blacks, Asians, Latinos, and Native Americans of their rights to self-defense over a lie that you just pulled out of your ass?
FYI the phrase "in common use" get use to hearing that. Those will be the keywords that kill any attempted fake assault weapon ban.


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 17, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 497508
> ...


Funny thing.....the exact same chest thumping stuff was done by "survivalist", Posse Comitatus types, separatists, etc., during the 1980's.  So now all those jokers are in their 60's and 70's....wonder if they could afford to be off the grid this long without dental or medical?  Hell, the current "preppers" may actually get to live out their Turner Diary fantasy....but it might not work out like they planned.  Just ask Kyle Rittenhouse .... still cooling his heels in jail  Kyle Rittenhouse, Illinois teen who allegedly killed 2 protesters, makes 1st in-person court appearance


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 17, 2021)

So if Joe going to arrest these people when they don't turn their semiautomatic weapon in?


----------



## Batcat (Jun 17, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...


Democrats want to ban all civilian owned firearms but realize they can’t do all at one time. So they pick one type of firearm to ban first. The semi-automatic rifles that resemble military assault weapons are their first choice.

The problem is because democrats have been defunding police and not supporting  them, crime has skyrocketed and many democrats are buying these semi-automatic rifles for home defense. These rifles are not cheap so the Democratic  Party will lose support from these first time gun owners. That will make it harder to ban these firearms.


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 17, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Putting aside your childish attempts at racist taunts,  to take your question seriously would require one to ignore the FACT regarding the plethora of shot guns, hunting rifles, semi-auto rifles, hand guns, semi-auto handguns that have been and are available to law abiding citizens despite the 1994 AWB.  If you can't defend your home with a shot gun or .38 Special, then you're just a lousy shot.

And only the willfully ignorant or insipidly stubborn would try to deny the recorded facts regarding such weapons as the AR-15 as being "America's gun" (retailers advertising, not mine) for a lot of the mass shooters in the last 20 years or so.  Carry on.

Oh, and FYI:  The military, police, federal law enforcement agencies categorize assault weapons.  You got a problem with that, take it up with them.


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 17, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> So if Joe going to arrest these people when they don't turn their semiautomatic weapon in?
> View attachment 502645View attachment 502645


Is there a proposal for confiscation?  Does it have legs in both parties?  Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 17, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...


nope not going to work chump, why would you deprive women and Blacks, Asians, Latinos, and Native Americans of their rights to self-defense over a lie that you just pulled out of your ass?
1. the Military would never define a semiautomatic as an assault weapon
2. Law enforcement doesn't define what an assault weapon is  the enforce the laws


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 17, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > So if Joe going to arrest these people when they don't turn their semiautomatic weapon in?
> ...


yes there is that's the end game plan registration then forced buyback then confiscation
Then a lot of black gun owners dead in the street.
I thought you believed that black lives matter


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 17, 2021)

Batcat said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> ...


your first paragraph reeks of LaPierre......he took your money and is now under indictment for some shady dealings which may have been responsible for bankrupting the NRA.  And since folk like you have pointed out time and again the plethora of semi-automatic weapons that were NOT on the 1994 AWB list, your "Democratic" agenda screed has no credibility....much the same was said about the Brady Bill, and that accusation died a quiet death.

your second paragraph is just revisionist clap trap.  While "defund the police" was a stupid tag line to get everyone's attention, it gave credence to blather like yours and ignored the point of increased police budgets across the country that went to para-military equipment rather than better salaries & benefits to recruit more cops, or community liasons, or better patroling of neighborhoods (not para-military occupation).  Crime rises when there are less jobs, and the last 40 years of Reaganomics gave us a near 2nd Depression, massive outsourcing of industry and decimation of many retirement funds.  Solely blaming Democrats is just disingenous at best.


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 17, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Proof beyond your opinion, supposition and conjecture, please.  And you really should stop obsessing about black folk, because essentially no one knows you exist.


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 17, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


you really need to stop parroting these childish attempts a racial innuendo.  It would magically validate them, you know.

And for your information:

1.   Has the AR-15 ever been used by the US (or other nations') military in combat situations in the past or present? - Quora

2.  Didn't say they define the law, I said they categorize them LAPD Equipment - Los Angeles Police Department


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 17, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...


less then 400 murders a year are committed using any rifle that includes all other rifles. so explain to me the dire threat of the AR15?


----------



## whitehall (Jun 17, 2021)

When an anemic win for the 2nd Amendment in a district court is cause for celebration we are in serious trouble these days.


----------



## Batcat (Jun 18, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...


If gun grabbers thought they could they would ban and confiscate handguns as handguns are the weapon of choice in criminal activities and often mass murders. That was the original idea but it failed. Did you know the Brady Campaign to Control Gun Violence was originally called Handgun Control Inc.?

_
Mark Borinsky founded the National Council to Control Handguns in 1974. He served as Chair until 1976. Charlie Orasin was a key player in the founding and growth of Handgun Control (HCI). He worked at HCI from 1975 until 1992.[8]

Nelson "Pete" Shields became the organization's chairman in 1978 and retired in 1989.[9] In July 1976, Shields estimated that it would take seven to ten years for NCCH to reach the goal of "total control of handguns in the United States." He said: "The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition – except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors – totally illegal."[10] In 1987 Shields said that he believed "in the right of law-abiding citizens to possess handguns... for legitimate purposes.".[11]

Richard Aborn served as president from 1992 until 1996 and went on to form the Citizens Crime Commission of New York City.[12][13_
Ihttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Campaign

Many gun buyers today are first time gun owners who realize that the democrats hatred of police and refusal to support them is causing the cops to turn reactive rather than proactive and to quit the police force. These liberal gun owners realize it is now up to them to protect their families as dialing 911 isn’t what it used to be.

In my opinion the cops need paramilitary equipment to handle Antifa and BLM rioters who want to loot and burn cities and attack cops with bricks, Molotov cocktails, commercial fireworks, high powered lasers and even firearms.


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 18, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> ...


Why not ask the surviving family members of that 400?  I'm just speaking out as a concerned citizen with empathy.


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 18, 2021)

Batcat said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > Batcat said:
> ...


First off, I would like you to authenticate the term "gun grabbers" by pointing to what was in the Brady Bill and the 1994 AWB that states in no uncertain terms that your pre-law enactment owned weapon(s) would be confiscated.  If you can't, that means that the aforementioned administrators did/could not sustain support for their agenda from previous organizations, and therefore your accusation is without merit  (I believe only the District of Columbia had something akin to what you allude to).

Your opinion is essentially worthless, as it is chock full of supposition and conjecture substituting for fact. I noted that you avoided my responses to the previous statements made by you and others.  Seems you fellas can't acknowledge when logically and factually proven wrong, so you just jump to the next topic hoping no one will notice your folly....a silly move actually, this being a printed medium and all.  Carry on.


----------



## Batcat (Jun 18, 2021)

Y


TheDefiantOne said:


> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> > Many gun buyers today are first time gun owners who realize that the democrats hatred of police and refusal to support them is causing the cops to turn reactive rather than proactive and to quit the police force. These liberal gun owners realize it is now up to them to protect their families as dialing 911 isn’t what it used to be.
> ...





TheDefiantOne said:


> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...



The original Brady Campaign was known as HCI (Handgun Control Inc.). They thought they could ban and confiscate handguns but never got to first base. Rather than be a total failure they decided to try an incremental approach and first ban fairly unpopular semi-automatic rifles that resembled military assault weapons. The ban actually didn’t ban these rifles as the manufacturers simply modified the rifles to meet certain requirements and these rifles became quite popular and now are the most popular rifles in our nation.

But let’s look at the history of HCI which morphed into the Brady Campaign  because they definitely wanted to grab guns.

_ Brady Campaign

***snip***

In 1974, the National Council to Control Handguns (NCCH) was founded by armed-robbery victim Mark Borinsky. In 1975, Republican marketing manager Pete Shields, whose 23-year-old son had been murdered, joined NCCH as Chairman. In 1980, the organization became Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI) and partnered with the National Coalition to Ban Handguns (NCBH). The partnership did not last long; the NCBH, renamed in 1990 as the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV), generally advocates for stricter gun laws than does the Brady Campaign.[3]:111–112[4]

HCI had few resources until 1980, after the murder of musician John Lennon increased the public's interest in shootings. By 1981, HCI's membership exceeded 100,000. In 1983, the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence (CPHV) was founded as an educational outreach organization and sister project. In 1989, CPHV established the Legal Action Project to press its agenda in the courts.[3][4]

In 2001, Handgun Control, Inc. was renamed the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence was renamed the Brady Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, in honor of both Jim and Sarah Brady. The same year, the Million Mom March (MMM) was incorporated into the Brady Campaign.

***snip***

*Nelson "Pete" Shields became the organization's chairman in 1978 and retired in 1989.[9] In July 1976, Shields estimated that it would take seven to ten years for NCCH to reach the goal of "total control of handguns in the United States." He said: "The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition – except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors – totally illegal."[10] In 1987 Shields said that he believed "in the right of law-abiding citizens to possess handguns... for legitimate purposes.".[11]*_









						Brady Campaign - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Flash (Jun 18, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...




Why not ask the surviving families of the children that died in backyard swimming pools if the pools are dangerous and should be banned?

How about the surviving families of the loved ones that got struct by lightening if Nature should be banned.

Many, many, many more people get killed driving to wherever they are going than get killed by an AR-15 when they get there.

I'm sorry but you being a little pussy and being afraid of AR-15s is not a good enough reason for the filthy government to take mine away from me.

Since you are so concerned about public safety then why aren't you on the streets of Chicago telling the goddamn Negroes to stop shooting themselves?.  About a thousand of the assholes are killed each year by gun violence with weapons other than AR-15s.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 18, 2021)

i


TheDefiantOne said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...


it is sad for them but 100's of millions do not lose rights because of 400 or even 10000 people


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 18, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...




Why not ask the surviving family members of people killed with knives....

knife murders.....2009-2013.....

2009----1,836
2010----1,933
2011----1,611
2012---1,769
2013---1.956
2015....1,589
2016....1,632
2017....1,591


Rifle murder....

2009---351
2010---367
2011---332
2012---298
2013---285




We have 20 million AR-15 rifles in private hands in the U.S....



They were used for mass public shootings 4 times in 2019  killing a grand total of



41



Deer kill 200 people a year.



Ladders kill 300 people a year.



Lawn mowers kill between 90-100 people a year...



20 million, and growing, AR-15 rifles in private hands....they were used 4 times in mass public shootings...



Killed in each shooting?



7

9

22

3



US mass shootings, 1982–2021: Data from Mother Jones’ investigation



Compared to...



Luby's cafe....2 pistols.... 24 killed



Virginia Tech...2 pistols....32 killed



Virginia Beach shooting....15 killed, 2 hand guns





Fort Hood shooting....13 killed....2 hand guns...



Kerch, Russia...20 killed, 70 wounded.... 5 shot, pump action shotgun



Navy Yard shooting....12 killed, pump action shotgun



You really don't know what you are talking about.......


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jun 18, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...


Do you want to ban cars, too?


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jun 18, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...


No, the AR-15 wasn't the "top choice".  That's a falsehood.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jun 18, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...


The proof is in pudding.  A .30 Carbine round is as lethal as a .223 Remington.  It's as accurate at 100 yds, or less, as a .223.  The weight and dimensions are roughly the same as an AR.  There's no arguing any of that.


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 19, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> i
> 
> 
> TheDefiantOne said:
> ...


But what "rights" are you talking about exactly?  Before and after the 1994 AWB, any law abiding citizen had the "right" to a slew of various handguns (revolver or semi-auto), rifles (bolt, semi-auto), shotguns (double barreled, pump action).  BEFORE YOU OR I WERE BORN THE LAW EXISTED THAT PROHIBITED MILITARY GRADE WEAPONRY IN THE HANDS OF CIVILIANS.  That means you couldn't and can't mount a .50 caliber machine gun on your roof, or stroll the streets strapped with an Uzi.  That a law was passed that added a relative small portion of weapons to that list is NOT a denial of your rights, as you NEVER had the "right" to anything you want regarding civilian weaponry.

I've asked at least 2 of your like minded brethren as to whether they are saying that they couldn't adequately defend themselves and/or home & family with a large caliber revolver, or a hunting rifle or shotgun, much less a semi-auto handgun (all available before and after the 1994 AWB.  To date, no answer.  Also, I asked if they just considered all the people killed by formerly banned assault rifles/weapons like the AR-15 (when it was reinstated on the open market upon the 1994 AWB sunset) in mass shootings acceptable collateral damage for their perceived comfort zone of accessibility to these weapons.  Again, no answer.

Can you give an answer?


----------



## Flash (Jun 19, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > i
> ...




It has been explain to you over and over again that the deaths in the US from what you stupid little shits call "assault weapons" are minimal.

If you don't like people shooting each other with firearms go talk to the Negroes in the Democrat big city shitholes.  They are the ones doing it and they use cheap handguns.


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 19, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


So you don't give a damn about that 400 so long as your political/social comfort zone about accessibility to these weapons is kept.  Thanks, just wanted the readers to know where you stood.

So now you trot out another lame/tired NRA bullhorn?  Why would I ban cars?  They are NOT designed to kill....guns are.  Car ACCIDENTS are addressed by better safety measures and standards in design....which is why you have seat belts and airbags, or with the new crop of techno cars sensors for road drift, unforeseen rear objects, etc.

Next.


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 19, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> ...


Please learn to read carefully and comprehensively.  I wrote "AMONG the top choice".  Like it or not, the AR-15 did for the mass shooters EXACTLY what it was advertised to do....be VERY efficient for multiple or moving targets.  Take note:

_The involvement of semi-automatic rifles in mass shootings_​_Owing to their use in several high-profile mass shootings, there has been much public discussion over suitability or necessity of assault weapons for the purpose of self-defense. While any definition of assault weapon is contentious, semi-automatic rifles are generally the main focus of debates around this issue. Since 1985 there has been a known total 49 mass shootings involving rifles, *mostly semi-automatics.* This figure is underreported though, as it excludes the multiple semi-automatic (and fully automatic) rifles used in the 2017 Las Vegas Strip massacre – the worst mass shooting in U.S. history, killing 58 and wounding 546. In fact, semi-automatic rifles were featured in four of the five deadliest mass shootings, being used in the Orlando nightclub massacre, Sandy Hook Elementary massacre and Texas First Baptist Church massacre.









						Guns used in mass shootings U.S. 2022 | Statista
					

Handguns are the most common weapon type used in mass shootings in the United States, with a total of 151 different handguns being used in 103 incidents between 1982 and November 2022.




					www.statista.com
				



_


----------



## Flash (Jun 19, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...




Very small number.  It has been explained to you over and over,  This weekend more Negroes will be shot with handguns in Democrat controlled Chicago than has been shot with ARs in the rest of the country in the last two years.

Start paying attention to what everybody is telling you, Moon Bat.  You are embarrassing yourself.


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 19, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> ...


Then you should have no problem providing a valid source documentation to back up your personal assertion.  That is "proof"....facts, NOT opinion.  Just provide the facts from a reliable source that the .30 Carbine was used in mass shootings, and how many times.  The reading audience awaits.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 19, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...


It was used in at least one the Austin tower shooting the assailant had a slew of weapons m1 carbine and long guns


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 19, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > i
> ...


there is a RIGHT to have military relevant weapons as encoded by the 2nd and adjudicated by the Supreme Court. what there is not is an unrestricted right to fully automatic weapons or crew served weapons. the ar 15 is nothing more then a semi automatics rifle like any other semi auto available.


----------



## meaner gene (Jun 19, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> *there is a RIGHT to have military relevant weapons as encoded by the 2nd and adjudicated by the Supreme Court.* what there is not is an unrestricted right to fully automatic weapons or crew served weapons. the ar 15 is nothing more then a semi automatics rifle like any other semi auto available.



Please read the opinion.  It doesn't say people have a right to any kind of military weapons.  What it said is they have a right to "commonly used" civilian weapons.  Don't put the cart before the horse.


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 19, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> ...


1 example from 55 years ago, as compared to objective review in just the las10 years of so.  Were AR-15s Used in These Mass Shootings?


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 19, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


You should really stop repeating this myopic LaPierre revisionism:  For your education:  The legal loopholes that let people get automatic guns
And us all regarding the attempt to down play the AR-15, which for mass shooters has lived up to it's advertising...light weight and highly accurate/effective for single/multiple targets.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 20, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > *there is a RIGHT to have military relevant weapons as encoded by the 2nd and adjudicated by the Supreme Court.* what there is not is an unrestricted right to fully automatic weapons or crew served weapons. the ar 15 is nothing more then a semi automatics rifle like any other semi auto available.
> ...


read the 39 decision


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 20, 2021)

Again for the slow and stupid. there is no difference between any semi auto rifle.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jun 20, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...


Those aren't "loopholes".  It's how the law was intentionally written.

AR-15's aren't anymore accurate than any other firearm.  That's false advertising on your part, so when some egghead chooses an AR to commit a crime, because he believes it's the most accurate weapon in the market, we can thank uninformed people like you.

Actually, AR's are less accurate than they could be because most are sold with a 1:7, or 1:8 twist and people run 55 grain bullets through them.  They have a 18 inch shot group at 100 yards and can't figure out why...lol.

There are other repeating rifles that are the same weight as an AR and are more accurate and just as effective when engaging multiple targets.  Shotguns can inflict the same number of casualties as an AR in every known scenario, except one: the Vegas shooting.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jun 20, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...



I never said M-1 Carbines were used in mass shootings.  I said that an M-1 Carbine is just as effective and lethal as an AR-15 and that's a fact.

If you anti-gun types moronically advertised the M-1, or the Mini-14, or even a pump shotgun with a three round capacity as the most lethal firearm ever, you would see them used more often.


----------



## DrLove (Jun 20, 2021)

Quasar44 said:


> Judge Rules California's ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Unconstitutional
> 
> 
> California's "assault weapons" ban was ruled unconstitutional Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
> ...


Many of you are not “gun lovers” …
Barrel-stroking fetishists may be more appropriate.
But as the judge said in his ruling, enjoy those “Swiss army knives”


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jun 20, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > i
> ...


Should this rifle be outlawed?


----------



## Flash (Jun 20, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...




That is definitely a weapon of war!


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jun 20, 2021)

Flash said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...


It shows just how stupid the "weapon of war", "military grade" catch phrases are...lol.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 20, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> ...


If there was any validity to the gun grabber's position there would be no need to change the meaning of a word.
There would be no need to hide what you want to do.


----------



## Flash (Jun 20, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> ...




A firearm is only a "weapon of war" if a person is using it for war.

My AR-15s are not weapons of war because I have never used them for war.  Mostly just shooting holes in paper.

These stupid Moon Bats don't understand things like that.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 20, 2021)

Flash said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...


another weapon of war


----------



## Flash (Jun 20, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> ...




Is my Springfield M1903 a weapon of war?  I have only ever used it to shoot holes in paper.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 20, 2021)

Flash said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...


clubs at one time were weapons of war


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jun 20, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> ...


It's capable of afixing a bayonet, so that makes it illegal according to the banneroids.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 20, 2021)

Ya I mean we really gotta do something about all those drive by bayonetting's and random ones as well.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jun 20, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > *there is a RIGHT to have military relevant weapons as encoded by the 2nd and adjudicated by the Supreme Court.* what there is not is an unrestricted right to fully automatic weapons or crew served weapons. the ar 15 is nothing more then a semi automatics rifle like any other semi auto available.
> ...


The AR style rifle is a commonly used civilian weapon.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jun 20, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...



They say "weapon of war" to prey upon people's ignorance and scare them so they'll support idiotic gun control laws.


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 20, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


*sigh*  A loophole is a part of the original set of laws and regulations that can be applied to negate an inaction of a law.  It may not be "intentional" by the authors, but discerned via examination.

Now, spare us all this armchair BS in trying to describe the AR-15 as one step above an antique blunderbuss.  What cracks me up about this tactic guys like you use is that you inadvertently shoot your argument in the foot.... because by stating that there are more weapons just as effective and more accurate, you bring up the question, "if these weapons you point to weren't on the 1994 AWB, then why all the hand wringing over the AR-15 availability?  Why is it a very popular sale among Americans, who say it's great for hunting, target shooting and self defense, when as you say, there are better guns (that were NOT on the list)?  Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 20, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> ...


And if that is the case and the M-1 was available, then why is the AR-15 more popular?  Why didn't the mass shooters go for the better type of weapon, as you allude to?

And last time I checked, it was gun retailers and the manufacturers that advertised the AR-15 as the best for what it does....."anti-gun" types don't control or do such advertising.  If you can provide proof regarding such advertising, then do so.  If not, stop making stuff up.


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 20, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


Was it on the 1994 AWB?  If not, then no.  If so, then yes.

Now, have you mustered the intellectual courage to answer my questions or not?


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jun 20, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...


You keep saying "weapon of war".  Why the inconsistancy?  Is it because you know the "weapon of war" catch phrase used scare people?


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 20, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> ...


It's a example of the absurd conclusions of your basic point....that you have the Constitutional right to military grade weapons or the next best thing to them.  NRA buffoons wailed like stuck pigs because they could no long by an AK-47 (don't lie and say they didn't), so my reference is not out of context.  Oh, and had you actually read the official law enforcement information, you'd know that burglars DO NOT carry bulky, hard to conceal weapons when robbing a house.  And since you claimed on another post that a shotgun can do similar damage as an AR-15  The absurd scenario you put up to justify owning such weaponry is just that...an absurd scenario.  If that's the case, then again my initial statement/hypothetical example rings true....legislate to keep these weapons out of circulation, thus keeping accessibility to the criminal element down.  The mass shootings using their weapons of choice supports that.


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 20, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> ...


Pardon?  Please copy & paste where I used the phrase "weapon of war".  I'll wait.  Until then, quit stalling and just honestly answer the questions.  If you can't or won't, then honestly say so.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jun 20, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...


Because the anti-gun idiots have tricked a lot of people into thinking the AR-15 is the most lethal, accurate firearm in history...lol.

The average mass shooter nutjob doesn't know enough about firearms to even have heard of an M-1 Carbine, but thanks to you and your gun ban idiot pals, they have definitely heard of an AR-15.

They don't use the FN-FAL, H&K 91, H&K 93, M-1 Carbine, Sprinfield M1A.  The few that use an AR choose an AR because you people have moronically been it's best salesman.  Good job!...lol


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jun 20, 2021)

Im


TheDefiantOne said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...


 Post #276.  You said "military grade weaponry".

I've answered every question you've asked and you damn well know it.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jun 20, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...


Like how drugs were legislated out of circulation?...lol.  That legislation kept accessibility down...lol.

It's good that burglars don't carry much firepower.  That way, they won't be able to outgun me.


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 20, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> ...


You have a fanatical belief that your opinion, supposition & conjecture are parallel to valid history and documented facts.  Hint: they're not even close.  You have no proof of what you say.

You make statements you can't factually back up, claims that have NO basis in reality or recent history, and then you just blow smoke and double down on your silliness.  In short, your insipid stubbornness renders you useless in a rational, fact based and logical debate.  So I'll shortly leave you to your self aggrandizement and kudos from your like minded compadres.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jun 20, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...


Why?  Because the 94 gun ban law was written by fucking anti-gun idiots that don't know their asses from a hole in the ground.  That's why...lol

You obviously don't understand what I was referring to when I mentioned twist rates in regards to projectile weight.

The fact is: there are plenty of weapons that can be used to execute a mass shooting, besides an AR.  The Denver shooting lasted 40-odd minutes.  The shooter killed 10 people.  That could have been pulled off with a crack barrel 20 gauge.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jun 20, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...


Evey comment I've made is factual and verifiable.  You know this, because you haven't tried to use a single piece of information to refute anything I've said.  All you have is "nuh-uh!"...lol


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 20, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> ...


Grasping at straws, are we?  Because that's a pretty ignorant comparison....unlike crystal meth or marijuana, you don't have people cobbling together AK-47's or AR-15's or the cousins of such in their apartments and basements on mass, no do you?  

*sigh* the quality of your responses indicate that you can't even muster a logical or fact based retort, nor muster the courage to answer simple questions.  So unless you can do better or different, I'll soon just ignore you.


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 20, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> ...


You first sentence is the blathering of a drunk or a petulant child that does NOT address the question.  Clearly, you can't muster the intellectual courage to honestly do so, as admitting error on any point seems to be a problem for you.

You essentially just keep parroting the SOS; your supposition and conjecture trying to pass for facts while avoiding simple questions.  The objective reader sees your folly, and what a waste of time it is to engage you further.


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 20, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> ...


I can and have provided documentation from valid sources to back what I say....and I discuss it.  

You don't....you can't.  So you blather like a petulant child.  I have no use for that.  You're done.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jun 20, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...


Your use of insults proves the fragility of your argument.  Your source is shit.  Whoever wrote that is ignorat AF.


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 20, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Im
> 
> 
> TheDefiantOne said:
> ...


And since when does "military grade weaponry" translates to "weapons of war"?  Didn't you and your cohorts blather endlessly how a club can be categorized as a weapon of war?  Now if you found that to be stupid, then don't play stupid and try to adjust definitions to suit your blather.

And stop lying...the chronology of the posts shows how you've consistently dodge pertinent questions.

I'm tired of your childish BS.....just another NRA armchair "expert" sycophant short on facts and logic but long on supposition and conjecture.  You're done.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jun 20, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> > Im
> ...


I accept your surrender...lol


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 20, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...


talk about being fanatical you have a fanatic belief that semiautomatic weapons are not protected by the second amendment.
You are wrong and take your fanatic ass elsewhere


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 20, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> > Im
> ...


ok we'll go with AR15 are weapons of war
U.S. vs. Miller 1939 In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.

In 1994 AR15's were not in common use of the time they are now.


----------



## Flash (Jun 21, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> ...




That is the thing in the _Miller_ case that most of the anti gun nut Moon Bats always want to ignore.

Just like they ignore the fact in _Heller_ that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right protected the same as free speech and freedom of religion.


----------



## Flash (Jun 21, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> talk about being fanatical you have a fanatic belief that semiautomatic weapons are not protected by the second amendment.
> You are wrong and take your fanatic ass elsewhere




He doesn't want them protected and that is the reason he is so confused with his silly bullshit.


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 21, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> ...


And this, dear readers, is what I'm talking about.....here Reb makes an accusation that he cannot prove with any quote from me that states what he claims in no uncertain terms.   That makes him a liar.  Once I reduce jokers like Reb to this state, I just ignore them as the waste of time & space they are.


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 21, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> ...


If you're going to pick up the gauntlet for Billy, then you should try to be a little more intellectually honest and astute.  All you've done is created a definition for your own purpose then build on that revisionist take by taking a court case to prove one point. thing is, you didn't read it through 

_*In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.*










						UNITED STATES v. MILLER et al.
					






					www.law.cornell.edu
				



_
Bottom line:  Like Billy, you avoid the questions I asked which is the crux of your revelry and whining.  I've got no problem with law abiding citizens owning weapons for hunting or self defense....but there are laws and regulations that have existed since the 1700's regarding types of weapons, how they are kept, etc.  I've deconstructed every argument Billy put up to justify putting assault weapons previously banned back in circulation.  No sense in repeating those points with you.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 22, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...


Talk about being dishonest look in the mirror. The Miller court ruled a sawed-off shotgun was not used by the military so it was not a second amendment protected weapon. Then they laid out what type of weapon was protected


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 22, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...


your words you post are proof enough that you are an antigun fanatic 
SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPONS ARE IN COMMON USE AND ARE PROTECTED BY THE SECOND AMENDMENT.


----------



## Flash (Jun 22, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



The irony is that the Court really didn't do its homework.  Sawed off shotguns were used by the military in WWI.  By their own definition Miller was innocent.

Too bad he chickened shitted out and didn't show up for court.  He could have beat the charges.  The NFA could have been overturned.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jun 22, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...



According to that ruling, although it says shotgun and not rifle, the rifles with a barrel shorter than 16 inches can't be regulated because the armed forces have used rifles with barrels less than 16 inches for decades.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jun 22, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...


You've failed to support your argument throughout this entire thread...lol


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 22, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


Wrong.

The Supreme Court has ruled only that the prohibition of the possession of handguns violates the Second Amendment.

The Court has never addressed the issue as to whether any rifle and carbine – save that of an SBR/shotgun – is within the scope of the Second Amendment, including the AR 15.


----------



## Flash (Jun 22, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...




If the Justices read the Second Amendment and see the thing that says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed then they have no choice but to rule in flavor of the right to keep and bear arms.  After all it is necessary for the security of the free state.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 22, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> yes there is that's the end game plan registration then forced buyback then confiscation
> Then a lot of black gun owners dead in the street.


This is a lie.

It fails as a strawman fallacy.

The courts have consistently held that the registration of firearms is perfectly Constitutional.

The notion that registration is the ‘gateway’ to the ‘forced’ buy back of firearms is ignorant idiocy and demagoguery, as is the lie about ‘confiscation.’


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 22, 2021)

Batcat said:


> If gun grabbers thought they could they would ban and confiscate handguns as handguns are the weapon of choice in criminal activities and often mass murders.


This is a lie.

There are no ‘gun grabbers.’

No one seeks to ‘confiscate’ guns – this is nothing but rightwing demagoguery and dishonesty.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 22, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> it is sad for them but 100's of millions do not lose rights because of 400 or even 10000 people


This is a lie.

No one has ‘lost’ any rights.

The states and local jurisdictions have enacted firearm regulatory measures consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence – no rights ‘lost,’ no rights ‘violated,’ no rights ‘infringed.’


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 22, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...


Liar heller did so with the statement weapons in common use.


----------



## Batcat (Jun 22, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> > If gun grabbers thought they could they would ban and confiscate handguns as handguns are the weapon of choice in criminal activities and often mass murders.
> ...


How about….









						[VIDEO] Beto O'Rourke Promises to Confiscate Semi-Automatic Guns
					






					pjmedia.com
				












						Must See: 5 Specific Times Democrats Wanted To Confiscate Your Guns
					

The New York Times created quite a stir recently when they ran a front page op-ed – the first of its kind since 1920 – endorsing the mass confiscation of firearms from everyone in America. The notion that far-left, Second Amendment-hating hacks would endorse the wholly unconstitutional...




					thepoliticalinsider.com
				




An older article that discusses gun confiscation that didn’t happen but still is pertinent as it mentions gun grabbers. 









						California to Ban all Semi-Automatic Guns, Confiscate Firearms and Limit Ammo Sales
					

California calling for door-to-door gun confiscations; ban of all semi-automatic handguns, shotguns and rifles; making possession of over 500 rounds of ammo a felony; and a list of proposals that will instantly criminalize law abiding gun owners...



					offgridsurvival.com
				




Gun grabbed do indeed exist.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 22, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > yes there is that's the end game plan registration then forced buyback then confiscation
> ...


just because you think that lie will work doesn't mean it works
You're just that stupid
Dumb ass what is the purpose of a forced gun buyback?
What's the purpose of a gun registration?
Do you believe criminals will some how register their guns?
What courts have went out of their constitutional authority and made such a decree?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 22, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


Heller got the in common use from Miller


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 22, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...


stupid U.S. VS Miller addressed that issue


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 22, 2021)

Flash said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...


this is true sad that Jack Miller never showed up to court to set the record straight


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 22, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


he got killed before the case came up is what I have read.


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 22, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


Ahh, but there was this;  * ... Scalia left some gifts for liberals in his Heller ruling. He wrote that the right to bear arms had limits. "Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."*


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 22, 2021)

Batcat said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Batcat said:
> ...


Well, your link shows us 5 folk had "wish lists" and such, but to date the various consensus from the Party and committees voted that type of thinking down.  Beto shot his mouth off, but couldn't get support from the Party.  just saying.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jun 22, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > yes there is that's the end game plan registration then forced buyback then confiscation
> ...


Ok, what's the point of registration, if not to confiscate firearms?


----------



## Batcat (Jun 22, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


That does not change the fact that there are people who want to disarm American citizens and would be willing to implement  a mandatory gun buyback program (which is gun confiscation) or raid known gun owner’s homes to confiscate their weapons. To call such people “gun grabbers” is appropriate and accurate as that is what they are.

Of course this is nothing new. 

_
Mark Borinsky founded the National Council to Control Handguns in 1974. He served as Chair until 1976. Charlie Orasin was a key player in the founding and growth of Handgun Control (HCI). He worked at HCI from 1975 until 1992.[8]

*Nelson "Pete" Shields became the organization's chairman in 1978 and retired in 1989.[9] In July 1976, Shields estimated that it would take seven to ten years for NCCH to reach the goal of "total control of handguns in the United States." He said: "The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition – except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors – totally illegal."[10] In 1987 Shields said that he believed "in the right of law-abiding citizens to possess handguns... for legitimate purposes.".[11]*_








						Brady Campaign - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 23, 2021)

Flash said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...




The other side did not appear at the Supreme Court......so no argument was made, the Court simply ruled on the one side of the question.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 23, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...


see my post notice dr love shows he's clueless on the subject


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 23, 2021)

Batcat said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > Batcat said:
> ...


Uhh, yeah it DOES CHANGE THE FACT that folk like you consistently claim that "gun grabbing" is the end game for any gun control legislation.  As I pointed out, NONE of your examples are nothing more than A FEW INDIVIDUALS WHO COULD NOT GAIN CONSENSUS FOR THEIR VIEWS IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.  THE FINAL LEGISLATIONS GO OUT OF THEIR WAY TO SECURE PRE- LAW PURCHASES AND OWNERSHIP.  Period.  And I already did the dance concerning Mr. Shields, Borinksy and subsequent like examples with another poster on this thread.  If you guys can't come up with something original, then please stop wasting time and space.


----------



## Batcat (Jun 24, 2021)

TheDefiantOne said:


> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> > TheDefiantOne said:
> ...


Of course you will deny that the end run objective of many of your fellow liberals is to implement draconian gun control in our nation and to ban and confiscate most if not all civilian owned firearms. Perhaps you are deceived by their propaganda. 

But they can’t accomplish their goal if the average citizen realizes what they are up to. The gun grabbers learned after years of attempts by the anti-gun organization Handgun Control Inc. that banning handguns (the firearm most used in crimes) is impossible as a first goal. Therefore they decided to adopt an incremental approach. First ban a basically unpopular type of firearm — rifles that resembled fully automatic rifles used by the military such as the AR-15.

 The gun banners pushed through a Federal Assault Weapons ban to stop the manufacture and sale of such weapons but it had loopholes in the law big enough to drive a semi through. The bottomline was it really didn’t ban anything. Even high capacity magazines were available as long as they were manufactured before a certain date. 

Gun owners decided to buy modified versions of the AR-15 which were legal to manufacture under the Assault Weapons Ban and they discovered it was a very accurate rifle that was easy to modify without taking it to a gunsmith. It could be used for hunting and also for home defense. It’s lack of recoil made it more poplar with women than a shotgun for self defense. Soon the AR-15 became the most popular rifle in the nation and millions and millions ended up in civilian hands. 

The first Federal Assault Weapons Ban was allowed to “sunset” after ten years. Everybody agreed it had accomplished nothing. 

Now we are once again witnessing the gun grabbers trying to ban and confiscate firearms. It almost seems the plan this time to ban the police (defund or handicap police departments) causing gun crime to skyrocket and therefore leading to a demand to disarm civilians. 

Well the big democrat cities have shafted their police departments and cops are quitting in mass or becoming reactive rather than proactive. Crime including gun crime is SKYROCKETING. Unfortunately for the gun grabbers liberals are becoming first time gun owners because they realize dialing 911 means the cops will show up just in time to put out crime scene tape. 

Today we witnessed our President addressing the rising crime rate. Being a gun grabber, he of course blamed firearms and once again called for another Federal Assaualt Weapons Ban. He wanted to see weapons like the AR-15 banned again and mentioned that deer don’t wear Kevlar so you don’t need a weapon that can use a 100 round magazine to hunt deer. In many states where it is legal to hunt deer with a semi-automatic rifle the hunter is limited to a five round magazine. Joe Biden may not realize that but to be fair he is in the early stages of dementia and may not know what end of the rifle the bullet comes out of.

 He did mention patriots using weapons such as an AR-15 to overthrow a tyrannical government but said they would need F15 fighters or nuclear weapons to win the fight. I get the feeling he would nuke American cities that are under the control of patriots but he has the balls to criticize Assad for using chemical weapons on his people in Syria.  

I really don’t expect the gun grabbers to get far with gun bans this time. However assume they do blow up the filibuster and force legislation through requiring all gun owners to turn their “assault weapons” into a mandatory federal buy back program (which is gun confiscation). I doubt if gun owners will just line up and turn their weapons in like a bunch of British wimps. 

But even though I don’t expect the gun grabbers will have much success I still will oppose any and all efforts to ban or federally register firearms. 

Gun grabbers are like the camel who pokes its nose under the tent. If you let the camel get away with this then before you know it the entire camel will be in the tent.


----------



## TheDefiantOne (Jun 24, 2021)

Batcat said:


> TheDefiantOne said:
> 
> 
> > Batcat said:
> ...


My, but you are quite the gasbag of supposition, conjecture and plain old revisionism when you can't factually disprove what some says.

the corner stone of your screed is your 1st paragraph.....that is a LIE.  For the objective reader, here it is again, ".... *As I pointed out, NONE of your examples are nothing more than A FEW INDIVIDUALS WHO COULD NOT GAIN CONSENSUS FOR THEIR VIEWS IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. THE FINAL LEGISLATIONS GO OUT OF THEIR WAY TO SECURE PRE- LAW PURCHASES AND OWNERSHIP. Period.*

That's it.  A matter of fact, a matter of history.  You can't logically or factually prove otherwise, and just waste time and space with a lot of childish blather.  Pathetic.  Carry on.


----------

