# Colorado judge strikes down AR-15 ban, and over 10 round magazine ban....good.



## 2aguy (Mar 18, 2021)

Hey...Daryl hunt........you were saying about the colorado AR-15 ban?

*Now, a Colorado judge has tossed the AR-15 ban in the trash bin, along with the provision prohibiting ownership of magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. That’s the backdoor gun ban right there. It’s not just about the rifle. It’s about curbing constitutional gun rights by these magazine laws. *

*A host of firearms that aren’t AR-15 rifles have magazines with more than 10 rounds. This law would effectively ban them too.


 We all see what you’re doing here, liberal America (via Free Beacon):*



> * A judge struck down Boulder, Colorado's ban on the possession of AR-15s and magazines holding more than 10 rounds on Monday.
> Colorado state judge Andrew Hartman ruled the city's gun ban violated the state's preemption law, which prevents localities from imposing gun regulations above and beyond state law. Judge Hartman's ruling declares the ordinance invalid and immediately bars the city from enforcing the ban.
> "The Court has determined that only Colorado state (or federal) law can prohibit the possession, sale, and transfer of assault weapons and large capacity magazines," Hartman wrote in the ruling.
> The ruling is the latest in a string of victories for gun advocates who have used state preemption laws to overturn strict local gun regulations. A Washington court struck down a local ordinance on gun storage in February 2021, and a Pennsylvania court struck down Pittsburgh's attempt to regulate the use of AR-15s inside city limits in October 2019.
> ...











						Colorado Judge Takes a Katana to Boulder's AR-15 Ban
					






					townhall.com


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 18, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Hey...Daryl hunt........you were saying about the colorado AR-15 ban?
> 
> *Now, a Colorado judge has tossed the AR-15 ban in the trash bin, along with the provision prohibiting ownership of magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. That’s the backdoor gun ban right there. It’s not just about the rifle. It’s about curbing constitutional gun rights by these magazine laws. *
> 
> ...



I agree with the ruling since that was already established by the 9th Circuit Federal Court.  But the State Law reads 15 as being the max.  And that has been upheld in various courts.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 18, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Hey...Daryl hunt........you were saying about the colorado AR-15 ban?
> ...




And that is just dumb.   Limiting bullets was simply a way to back door ban various types of pistols that take 15-19 rounds in their magazine.   It was stupid and pointless.......


----------



## westwall (Mar 18, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Hey...Daryl hunt........you were saying about the colorado AR-15 ban?
> ...









It's still an infringement.


----------



## hjmick (Mar 18, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Hey...Daryl hunt........you were saying about the colorado AR-15 ban?
> ...




15 is the max? Shit... I'll need 15 more before I can move to Colorado...


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 18, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



It's the law and has been upheld in Federal Courts.


----------



## K9Buck (Mar 18, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> And that has been upheld in various courts.



It's unconstitutional.  But who cares about the constitution, right?  Individual rights don't serve the interests of the _party _and the _party_ comes first, right?


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 18, 2021)

westwall said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Well, that  Vietnam Era M-2 still takes a special license and I doubt if I will see too many CJ-5s sporting the M-2 will be cruising the streets.  Of course,  it just might make the argument solution when you want to make sure that open parking spot.  Unless both parties bring their Armed CJ-5.


----------



## AFrench2 (Mar 18, 2021)




----------



## westwall (Mar 18, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...









No, it doesn't.   If it's a transferable anyone who can legally own firearms can own the M2.  They just have to pay a 200 tax.

Still an infringement,  for sure, but that's because the government cheated and appealed their loss while neglecting to inform Miller's attorneys of the upcoming hearing.


----------



## K9Buck (Mar 18, 2021)

westwall said:


> They just have to pay a 200 tax.



Yea, that's a bullshit rule.  The political left is determined to DESTROY this nation and they're getting the job done!


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 18, 2021)

westwall said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



And pass a background check.  And prove that you have the storage and security for it.  And purchase an EFA license.  Anyone that is able to pass a simple Background Check to buy a 9mm pistol can probably pass that EFA background check.  And running around the street with it mounted on your CJ-5 would definitely be in violation of not only federal but state laws.


----------



## westwall (Mar 18, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...








There is no license dumbass.  Transferable NFA weapons need no special license.  I OWN machineguns.  The tax pays for the background check.  The time used to be a day.  Then, when obummer came in the waits for transfers jumped to 6 months.  No reason, just bureaucrats acting like petty assholes.

As far as running around the street with it, they are worth more than the stupid jeep.  People who own those types of weapons aren't as stupid as you seem to be.


----------



## Lysistrata (Mar 18, 2021)

Please explain why this is so important to you to have an AR-15. We had guns in the house in leather locked bags and we shot them. I even pulled the trigger when my father sighted. He taught me to never pull a gun on any living being. I violated this teaching once, in Castroville, Texas, when I was 12 and practicing with my aunt's pistol. I shot at a spider on the back of the garage.

Explain yourself and why you would need an assault weapon.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Mar 18, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...



A Barret that can only fire semi-auto doesn't need a special license.


----------



## hjmick (Mar 18, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> Explain yourself and why you would need an assault weapon.




Define "assault weapon."


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Mar 18, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> Please explain why this is so important to you to have an AR-15. We had guns in the house in leather locked bags and we shot them. I even pulled the trigger when my father sighted. He taught me to never pull a gun on any living being. I violated this teaching once, in Castroville, Texas, when I was 12 and practicing with my aunt's pistol. I shot at a spider on the back of the garage.
> 
> Explain yourself and why you would need an assault weapon.



Superiority of firepower.  At least parody of firepower.  That's why.  That's more explanation than you're entitled to.


----------



## daveman (Mar 18, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> Please explain why this is so important to you to have an AR-15. We had guns in the house in leather locked bags and we shot them. I even pulled the trigger when my father sighted. He taught me to never pull a gun on any living being. I violated this teaching once, in Castroville, Texas, when I was 12 and practicing with my aunt's pistol. I shot at a spider on the back of the garage.
> 
> Explain yourself and why you would need an assault weapon.


I need one because fuck you I don't have to explain myself.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 18, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> Please explain why this is so important to you to have an AR-15. We had guns in the house in leather locked bags and we shot them. I even pulled the trigger when my father sighted. He taught me to never pull a gun on any living being. I violated this teaching once, in Castroville, Texas, when I was 12 and practicing with my aunt's pistol. I shot at a spider on the back of the garage.
> 
> Explain yourself and why you would need an assault weapon.



It's really not so much about need as it is want.  In a free country, you should be able to buy yourself toys even if you have no "need" for them.  

More importantly, Democrats have used increments to get their way to their ultimate goal.  I remember when gays only wanted to be out of the closet.  Look at them today.  I remember when they only wanted to outlaw cigarettes in movie theaters.  Today you can't smoke outside in some commie cities unless it's pot.  I remember when all they wanted was to take lead out of gasoline.  Today we have 30 different blends of gasoline.  

It's like the great late Rush Limbaugh said so many times: I know liberals like I know every square inch of my glorious naked body. 

That being said, there is nobody that will convince me they are going to stop at AR's, AKs, anything.  Because liberals have a history of using increments.  We all know they won't be happy, or quit pushing until it's nearly impossible for law abiding citizens to be armed.  If you look at their bills, they are trying to do it right now.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 18, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> And pass a background check. And prove that you have the storage and security for it. And purchase an EFA license. Anyone that is able to pass a simple Background Check to buy a 9mm pistol can probably pass that EFA background check. And running around the street with it mounted on your CJ-5 would definitely be in violation of not only federal but state laws.



Maybe we should do the same with voting.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 18, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Hey...Daryl hunt........you were saying about the colorado AR-15 ban?
> 
> *Now, a Colorado judge has tossed the AR-15 ban in the trash bin, along with the provision prohibiting ownership of magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. That’s the backdoor gun ban right there. It’s not just about the rifle. It’s about curbing constitutional gun rights by these magazine laws. *
> 
> ...


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 18, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...



Courts have often been wrong, like the Dredd Scott Decision, Citizen's United, the War on Drugs, etc.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 18, 2021)

westwall said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Your buyer will still have to have either a valid EFL or NFL license for automatic weapons and some forms of shotguns.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 18, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> Please explain why this is so important to you to have an AR-15. We had guns in the house in leather locked bags and we shot them. I even pulled the trigger when my father sighted. He taught me to never pull a gun on any living being. I violated this teaching once, in Castroville, Texas, when I was 12 and practicing with my aunt's pistol. I shot at a spider on the back of the garage.
> 
> Explain yourself and why you would need an assault weapon.



Every government in history has always become more corrupt over time.
Every government then has had be ended by armed rebellion.
The US and almost all democratic republics were created by armed rebellions.
The current US government already is extremely corrupt and abusive, with things like the Vietnam war, the invasion of Iraq based on WMD lies, the War on Drugs, any federal gun control law, 3 Strikes law, corrupt IRS regulations, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, the growing income inequality, the military being more than half the federal budget, etc.


----------



## task0778 (Mar 18, 2021)

Gun control is not something the democrats can pass through reconciliation.  It has nothing to do with revenue, spending, or the debt, which means they gotta go it the hard way by getting 60 votes and that means at least 10 GOPers have to vote for it.  While we do have a couple RINOs in the Senate, I do not believe this legislation has a chance in hell.  Not unless they find a way to get rid of the filibuster.

If they could pass some kind of gun control law, it will probably help the dems in the deep blue states but they weren't going to lose them anyway.  But it sure as hell won't help them in Texas and many other red or purple states.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 18, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



No it doesn't.  There are a few owned by private citizens.  And some are shot at ranges.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Mar 18, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...



You can buy one anytime


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 18, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...



{...

Contrary to popular belief, it is perfectly legal for a law-abiding American citizen to own/possess a machine gun (sometimes called a full-auto firearm or automatic weapon).

The absolute easiest way is for someone to get a Federal Firearms License or “FFL” (even a home-based FFL).

Depending on the type of FFL, the FFL-holder can purchase and sell machine guns, regardless of when they were made (more on this below), and they can even legally make their own machine guns or lawfully convert current firearms into full-autos. The best part about getting a machine gun as an FFL is that you can get it at dealer cost and fast.

Even without an FFL, a private citizen can still lawfully own a true machine gun if certain conditions are met. However, machine guns for non-FFLs are EXTREMELY expensive as the available supply is limited.

As an FFL, you can buy a brand new machine gun for less than $2,000 and have it transferred to you in a few days.

As a private citizen (without an FFL) you can only buy an old machine gun (over 35 years old), it’ll likely cost North of $15,000 and you’ll have to wait around a year for the transfer via an ATF Form 4.

For example, a private citizen can lawfully own a machine gun only if:


the possessor isn’t a “prohibited person,”
the full-auto machine gun was made before 1986, and
their relevant state law does not ban that the firearm (whether banning machine guns outright or any firearm with certain features).
As you can see, machine gun possession by non-FFLs is regulated based on the person (possessor), the firearm itself (when it was made), and where the firearm is possessed (which state).

...}









						Who Can Own a Full-Auto Machine Gun? - RocketFFL
					

Are Machine Guns Legal? Contrary to popular belief, it is perfectly legal for a law-abiding American citizen to own/possess a machine gun (sometimes called a full-auto firearm or automatic weapon). The absolute easiest way is for someone to get a Federal Firearms License or “FFL” (even a...




					rocketffl.com


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 18, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> ...



Sure I can but why?  But if you feel the need,report to your nearest gun shop and get your order in.


----------



## Lysistrata (Mar 18, 2021)

I've got a lot of feedback, but no explanation of why anyone needs high-powered weaponry.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Mar 18, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...



Fire superiority.  That's why.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Mar 18, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> I've got a lot of feedback, but no explanation of why anyone needs high-powered weaponry.



I told you exactly why I need one.  You obviously lack the ability to prove me wronb.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 18, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> I've got a lot of feedback, but no explanation of why anyone needs high-powered weaponry.



Better to have it and not need it..............









						Homeowner with AR-15 Repels Four Armed Intrusion Suspects, Killing Two
					

A homeowner with an AR-15 killed two of four intrusion suspects Wednesday night, one of whom was wearing a "Jason" mask.




					www.breitbart.com


----------



## hjmick (Mar 18, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> I've got a lot of feedback, but no explanation of why anyone needs high-powered weaponry.




You never asked why anyone would need "high-powered weaponry."

Your exact words were, "Explain yourself and why you would need an assault weapon."


First and foremost, no one needs to explain to you or anyone else why they choose to exercise any of their Constitutional Rights.

Second, my reply to your actual request was to ask you to define "assault weapon." Apparently you are unable to do that, so you chose to redefine your question.


----------



## westwall (Mar 18, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> Please explain why this is so important to you to have an AR-15. We had guns in the house in leather locked bags and we shot them. I even pulled the trigger when my father sighted. He taught me to never pull a gun on any living being. I violated this teaching once, in Castroville, Texas, when I was 12 and practicing with my aunt's pistol. I shot at a spider on the back of the garage.
> 
> Explain yourself and why you would need an assault weapon.









I need one, because I WANT it.  Not that you have any business telling me what I can, and can't own.


----------



## westwall (Mar 18, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...







No, they don't.   Only dealers need to have a Class III license.   Don't discuss things you have no clue about with people,  who do.


----------



## Likkmee (Mar 18, 2021)

hjmick said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > Explain yourself and why you would need an assault weapon.
> ...


Define department of defense.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 18, 2021)

westwall said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I have a very good knowledge of the Federal Licensing since I once had one.  So stop lying to everyone.  You get caught selling a fully auto weapon to anyone with a Federal License and they have a 3 squares and a cot waiting for you.


----------



## westwall (Mar 18, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...








Then why do call it everything, but what it actually is.  It's not an EFL, or an NFL, it is a FFL.  And, when you add an SOT, it becomes a Class III license.

You have no fucking clue what you are talking about.  A Federal licensee is OBLIGATED to confiscate ANY NFA weapon that is not papered you clown.

Like I said, you have never had an FFL, and I doubt if you have ever owned a firearm in your miserable little life.

So YOU, stop lying.


----------



## Muhammed (Mar 18, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> I've got a lot of feedback, but no explanation of why anyone needs high-powered weaponry.


To kill more efficiently, dumbass.

Wow, you're a fucking idiot.


----------



## Quasar44 (Mar 19, 2021)

The Stalins Dems will pass it in the senate by the “ Stalin in a skirt”
 Justice schmendrick Roberts will also pass it as will the rapist kavanough


----------



## Quasar44 (Mar 19, 2021)

Justice Kav is a fraud and a rapist


----------



## Lysistrata (Mar 19, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > Please explain why this is so important to you to have an AR-15. We had guns in the house in leather locked bags and we shot them. I even pulled the trigger when my father sighted. He taught me to never pull a gun on any living being. I violated this teaching once, in Castroville, Texas, when I was 12 and practicing with my aunt's pistol. I shot at a spider on the back of the garage.
> ...


Why do you need such "firepower"? I am entitled to an explanation because I live in this country and guns are designed to be pointed at other people.


----------



## Lysistrata (Mar 19, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > Please explain why this is so important to you to have an AR-15. We had guns in the house in leather locked bags and we shot them. I even pulled the trigger when my father sighted. He taught me to never pull a gun on any living being. I violated this teaching once, in Castroville, Texas, when I was 12 and practicing with my aunt's pistol. I shot at a spider on the back of the garage.
> ...



You sound dangerous; very paranoid. Gays and smoking and something about communism. Wow. We simply have two major political parties in this country, and you claim that one of them is restricting your rights, but both parties do that. Who are you going to shoot at? Who is harming you? Who are you afraid of? You are not rational.

BTW: as a white heterosexual woman raised Christian in the Jersey suburbs who has lived and gone to school in Washington, D.C., I have to say that the worst shit I've ever gotten has been from white men and was based on gender. I don't carry a gun and I never shot anyone. I've known many LGBTQs. They never did a damned thing to me. Many helped me when I needed it. Friends. And folks of African descent. Same-same. Good neighbors who help.

I went to law school at night after work in DC, so I rode the rails. My significant other gave me a derringer. It never got out of its box because I don't do that stuff.


----------



## Lysistrata (Mar 19, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > Please explain why this is so important to you to have an AR-15. We had guns in the house in leather locked bags and we shot them. I even pulled the trigger when my father sighted. He taught me to never pull a gun on any living being. I violated this teaching once, in Castroville, Texas, when I was 12 and practicing with my aunt's pistol. I shot at a spider on the back of the garage.
> ...


what would we replace this with? We've already seen the trump crap. Racism, misogyny, garbage theology from "Christian" sects, anti LGBT shit


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 19, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...



No.....left wing judges on the federal courts have ignored the Supreme Court rullings on Heller, McDonald, Caetano, and Scalia in Friedman....


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 19, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> Please explain why this is so important to you to have an AR-15. We had guns in the house in leather locked bags and we shot them. I even pulled the trigger when my father sighted. He taught me to never pull a gun on any living being. I violated this teaching once, in Castroville, Texas, when I was 12 and practicing with my aunt's pistol. I shot at a spider on the back of the garage.
> 
> Explain yourself and why you would need an assault weapon.




The AR-15 is not an "Assault" weapon, it is just a common semi-automatic rifle.....so your premise is a lie from the start.

The AR-15 is a great civilian and police rifle, easy to clean and maintain, it can be equipped with accessories that help people shoot it, from lasers to lights, it is customizable for different sized people, including the ability for different sized people in the same home to use it easily with adjustable stocks.  It is easy to shoot for smaller people, unlike 12 gauge shot guns, it is lightweight which makes it good for home defense where you might have to hold it one handed while calling the police on your phone.............

The AR-15 is a really good rifle for civilians...for all of those reasons....and it is nothing more than a regular rifle....

The only reason you shitheads are demonizing the outside look of this rifle is that you figure if you can ban the AR-15, which is just a semi-automatic rifle no different from any other semi-automatic rifle.....that then gives you the ability to go to uninformed people and say......"See....you let us ban this rifle because we made you think it was different and more dangerous.......all the other semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns work the exact same way, so now we are going to ban those too...and you can't say anything since you let us ban the AR-15 which is the same as those other weapons."

We know who you are, we know what you want.........and we are going to fight you every step of the way.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 19, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Reread Heller V.  It doesn't say what you claim it does and,so far, it's been the basis for all Gun Court rulings.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 19, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> I've got a lot of feedback, but no explanation of why anyone needs high-powered weaponry.




The AR-15 is not high powered....the 5.56 or .22 version of the rifle is weaker than the deer hunting rifle people use every fall....you have no idea what you are talking about or the issues involved........you talk out of your ass and ask questions that reveal your ignorance.....


----------



## miketx (Mar 19, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...


Not gonna comply.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 19, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...




I have read heller and I know the left wing judges ignore it.....and then make up their own rulings.......

And in Scalia's Dissent in Friedman he specifically states that the AR-15 is protected under the 2nd Amendment......by name.  And since he wrote the decision in Heller, his statement in Friedman explains the AR-15 is protected............


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 19, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > Please explain why this is so important to you to have an AR-15. We had guns in the house in leather locked bags and we shot them. I even pulled the trigger when my father sighted. He taught me to never pull a gun on any living being. I violated this teaching once, in Castroville, Texas, when I was 12 and practicing with my aunt's pistol. I shot at a spider on the back of the garage.
> ...



Fine.  Fight it through legislation the way it should be done in the first place.  But the problem with the AR was that it reached cult status and no mass shooter, today, leaves home dressed any other way.  It just wouldn't be proper.  

And the AR is still a Model 6XX no matter how you spell it.  You can call it the Colt Model 6920 or the Colt Model 750 (out of production) or you can piece on together from after market parts.  In the end, it's still part of the Colt Model 6XX Family.  It's  not designed with hunting for food.  It's was designed from the ground up to kill other humans.  Not one part has any other use.  And there is no way you can give it the drop dead looks of a fine Hunting Rifle.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 19, 2021)

miketx said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



You comply whether you admit it or not.  How do I know?  Felons in Prisons don't have access to this board.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 19, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...




It is a semi-automatic rifle just like any other semi-automatic rifle, pistol or shotgun....if you can ban it because of the way it shoots, then you can ban every other semi-automatic rifle, pistol and shotgun.......which is the whole strategy behind going after the AR-15.

The AR-15 kills fewer people each year than knives, clubs and bare hands.......so your reason why it is more dangerous than other weapons is just silly.  The AR-15 is nothing more than a standard civilian rifle...it is not used by the military.....but the pump action shotgun and deer hunting rifle are actual, current, military weapons .........which is why the anti-gun extremists say weapons of war now....so they can later ban those guns too.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 19, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



I did a search for Friedman V and came up with quite a bit but it's about economics.  How about giving us the rest of the Friedman V title so we can research it.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 19, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



But it's the leader in Mass Shootings because that is exactly what every part was made to do.  In every other type of shooting (short of war), the AR-15 doesn't place even a distant 4th in the ratings.  Even cheaper conventional Semi-Autos score higher.  But for mass shootings, it does take the #1 slot hands down.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 19, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...




Here.....

*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.*


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 19, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...




No, it isn't.  More handguns are used in mass public shootings than rifles.   The AR-15 was made popular for mass shootings by the anti-gunners.  And again, each year, knives, clubs and bare hands are used to murder more people than AR-15 rifles....

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8



Knives...1,476

Clubs....397

Bare hands....600

Rifles...364


----------



## miketx (Mar 19, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...


No sir, I don't care what corrupt scum do and I will not comply. However, it's very likely that where I live no one will even bother worrying about what the senile idiot does, because we are already immune from the fake presidents stupid.


----------



## miketx (Mar 19, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...


Rights don't come with a needs clause, as I'm sure you have been told a million times. Come take them.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 19, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Do you know what Dissenting means for the Courts?  It means you lost your argument and it was ruled the other way.

Now for the real Ruling.
*https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/14-3091/14-3091-2015-04-27.html*
That is  ARIE S. FRIEDMAN, ET AL. v. CITY OFHIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS  in it's entirety.  Banning the AR style (and the ruling specifically uses "AR" in it's ruling along with high capacity mags has been upheld in many Court Rulings from the East Coast to the West Coast.  Those that just say "Assault Rifles" never passes muster in the courts because that includes a lot of fine hunting rifles.  But by putting in a phrase of "AR and it's clones" makes it dead legal.  This ruling supported the other court rulings.  And does NOT go against Heller or McDonald at all.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 19, 2021)

miketx said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > miketx said:
> ...



I remember what Judge Young wrote.  If you don't like the Boston Ruling, move.  That ruling upheld the banning of the AR and high capacity mags for the City.


----------



## miketx (Mar 19, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...


Make me commie.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 19, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Funny, you use totals instead of the number of  people killed at each shooting.  It's a lot tougher to get a death rate of over 50 with a casualty rate of between 200 and 400 out of a knife, club, bare hands or even a handgun.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 19, 2021)

miketx said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > miketx said:
> ...



Why would I care to do that.  I would much rather read you crying and weeping about how mistreated you really are.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 19, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Hey...Daryl hunt........you were saying about the colorado AR-15 ban?
> 
> *Now, a Colorado judge has tossed the AR-15 ban in the trash bin, along with the provision prohibiting ownership of magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. That’s the backdoor gun ban right there. It’s not just about the rifle. It’s about curbing constitutional gun rights by these magazine laws.*



In related news, a maniac guns down 8 people in two massage parlors.  Nothing to see here.


----------



## SavannahMann (Mar 19, 2021)

K9Buck said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > And that has been upheld in various courts.
> ...



Really? Great.

What Amendment is violated in requiring people to decrypt hard drives or phones?









						Man who refused to decrypt hard drives is free after four years in jail
					

Court holds that jail time to force decryption can't last more than 18 months.




					arstechnica.com


----------



## Lysistrata (Mar 19, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > I've got a lot of feedback, but no explanation of why anyone needs high-powered weaponry.
> ...



It's not a matter of this gun or that gun. Why are you people doing this?  I'm trying to find out what you folks are so afraid of. So many Americans, like me, are not afraid to live each day in these United States. You are. What gives? What's your neighborhood like? I live in one in northern Virginia in which I can find people from every nation in the world, but there are no problems, and the food is really good.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Mar 19, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...



So that I can outgun my attacker, or at lesst be on equal terms.  You're all about equal rights.  Yes?


----------



## Lysistrata (Mar 19, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> ...



Who is your "attacker:? Where in the hell do you live??? I  live a few highway stops from the Pentagon and I'm not scared. Are you scared of being in the US?


----------



## westwall (Mar 19, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Hey...Daryl hunt........you were saying about the colorado AR-15 ban?
> ...








Used a pistol.   Doesn't further your argument so you neglect to mention the weapon used.

Typical moronic Joe B post.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 19, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...




Yes......they court did not hear that case...but....Scalia wrote the opinion in Heller......the opinion that rules how the court should have ruled on hearing that case.....and he stated, as the Majority opinion writer in Heller, that AR-15 rifles are protected rifles, by name...this is not a minority opinion writer commenting, this is the man who wrote the opinion in Heller so whatever he writes after goes directly to the meaning of Heller...

It is completely against Heller and ignores what the Supreme Court has stated not only in Heller but Miller, Caetano, and Scalia in Friedman.....


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 19, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...




And that is n unconstitutional ruling...as per rulings from the Supreme Court.f....they don't get to make up their rules on their own.........


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 19, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...




Yeah.....and only one mass shooting achieved over 50........that was 61 people... because he used  a rifle at long distance, firing into an unaware, tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night.........

A muslim terrorist in Nice, France using a rental truck and 5 minutes of driving murdered 86 and wounded 435......

The vegas shooter had a private pilots license...he could have killed more people had he rented a plane and flown into the crowd....

The weapon does not determine how many people will be killed......the major factor in mass public shootings is *the target location*....and add to that *the gun free zone status of the location..*

The shooting stops when the good guys with guns get there...

Just for the record...

Sandy Hook... AR-15....27 killed, 2 injured.

Colorado theater, AR-15 which malfunctioned followed by a shotgun and pistol...12 killed...70 wounded.....and his AR-15 malfunctioned

*Holmes reportedly threw two canisters emitting a gas or smoke, that partially obscured the audience members' vision, made their throats and skin itch, and caused eye irritation.[16] He fired a 12-gauge Remington 870 Express Tactical shotgun, first at the ceiling and then at the audience. *

*He also fired a Smith & Wesson M&P15[17] semi-automatic rifle with a 100-round drum magazine, which eventually malfunctioned.[17][18][19]*

* Finally, he fired a .40-caliber Glock 22 Gen4 handgun.[20][21] *

Meanwhile......pistols have killed more people....

Virgini Tech shooting, 2 pistols...... 32 killed, 23 wounded


Luby's Cafe....2 pistols....24 killed.. 27 injured...

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

So, mass public shootings do not depend on long range shooting.  You have one, the Vegas Shooting, vs all the rest.......

At the ranges a mass public shooting occurs, the attacker could kill as many people or more with pistols or shotguns.....a rifle does not give them an advantage.

The Desire to ban the AR-15 rifle by anti-gun extremists has nothing to do with mass public shooting, as the facts show.....they just know if they can get uninformed or gullible people to allow them to ban the AR-15 rifle, a  civilian rifle, a semi-automatic rifle no different in operation from a semi-auto pistol, or shotgun........then they can come back and demand banning semi-auto pistols and shotguns too.....because they all operate the same way.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 19, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...



And the Pulse Nightclub shooting...49 killed........was another tightly packed target location that was also a gun free zone......

He could have killed just as many with pistols and shotguns since he wasn't shooting long range.  In fact, if you watch the documentary series...."Active Shooter," on Showtime or Stars...don't remember which one.......had anyone in that club had a gun they could have stopped the shooter in his tracks.......you had survivors in the club just sitting there as the shooter calmly walked around, washed his hands.......


The weapon is secondary in importance to target location and gun free zone status....


----------



## Lysistrata (Mar 19, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



What is it that you people actually want? I am of the generation where we had guns and shot them at targets. But this gun-crazy thing is very strange. Who do you people want to shoot at? I don't trust you people because you are paranoids with mental problems.


----------



## westwall (Mar 19, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...









And don't forget the gallon of gasoline in New York that murdered over 70.

Thank the gods that the asshole in Vegas used a gun.  If he'd have done a Nice France type attack,  he would have probably killed over 1000.  They were literally packed in like fish in a barrel.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 19, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...




And yes....totals.....since more people are killed every single year by knives, clubs and bare hands than by mass public shooters......it isn't even close......

Mass public shootings are the rarest of rare events.......

All of the mass public shootings since 1982?  Total number of people killed 950....

950 over 38 years....

Every single year knives kill over 1,500 people...every single year.



And if you really want to stop mass public shootings, don't ban the rifle, ban gun free zones....the areas that mass public shooters target with all of their planning...


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 19, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...




So......crime doesn't exist in the U.S.?   Anywhere?   People are not killed....ever?  Raped.....ever?   Robbed....ever?

Wow........didn't know that.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 19, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...




Moron.....as more Americans own and carry guns our gun murder rate went down 49%, our gun crime rate went down 75%....our violent crime rate went down 72%.....

Americans owning guns isn't a problem or a concern....the democrat party constantly releasing violent gun criminals, captured committing gun crimes, and gun murder, is what drives our gun crime problem in democrat party controlled cities...

You should ask the democrats why they keep releasing these violent gun criminals...the ones actually doing all of the shooting.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 19, 2021)

westwall said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...




Yep.....a private plane loaded with fuel?  With fuel cans packed into the plane before hand....I don't want to give anyone ideas but the silliness of the "AR-15s  can kill a lot of people," needs to be shown as the silly argument it is...


----------



## westwall (Mar 19, 2021)

2aguy said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...









A semi truck, in the right setting, is far more dangerous than any firearm.


----------



## Lysistrata (Mar 19, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Where do live that you fear so much? Who is getting into your house??? Do you have to spray bullets all over the place? Should every household in the US have the capacity to spray bullets? Really. What is your fear?


----------



## westwall (Mar 19, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...







We don't live in fear because we are armed.  I live in earthquake country.  We have lots of earthquakes.  When they happen there are looters, and you.  No law enforcement.   Sometimes for days.  Weeks in a big one.

I am quite safe and happy.  You, on the other hand, will be at the mercy of whoever decides to take what you have.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 19, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



There was no ruling in Heller about any long guns.  Again, you quote the losing side.  The Winning side in Heller just dealt with handguns and licensing for DC.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 19, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...




Again...

Are you saying that crime does not exist in the U.S.?

Are you saying that no one is raped in the U.S....ever?

Are you saying that no one is robbed in the U.S....ever?

Are you saying that no one is murdered in the U.S....ever?


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 19, 2021)

2aguy said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



It's already been done on 9/11.  A Commerical Plan just after takeoff is loaded with fuel.  And it took  out over 3000 people.


----------



## westwall (Mar 19, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...









And you ignore the US vs Miller ruling that held sawed off shotguns could be regulated because they had "no foreseeable military purpose".

ONLY militarily useful weapons are protected by the 2nd Amendment.  Ponder that for a while.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 19, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> Where do live that you fear so much? Who is getting into your house??? Do you have to spray bullets all over the place? Should every household in the US have the capacity to spray bullets? Really. What is your fear?



Last year I had two shootings right by my house.  One of them was my next door neighbor. 

I never had an interest in guns.  I wasn't raised with them, never been to the shooting range, knew only a few people that had them.  I got my first gun in my mid 20's after my apartment was broken into, and I knew who did it.  The problem is I had no evidence to give to police.  

These were desperate and dangerous people; drug addicts.  They kept coming around as if I was stupid and didn't know who actually robbed me.  After I got my gun, I showed it to one guy.  I started acting like a nut, spinning it around on my finger like the old cowboy movies.  It was a revolver and had a really hard trigger so I knew it wouldn't go off.  I told him I had a friend come over to pickup my car from time to time so it looked like I wasn't home.  I told him I couldn't wait for them to come back to put their guts on my walls.  He ran out of here and I never seen him or his friends again.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 19, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...




No...it didn't.....it stated...

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.

Also.....Caetano v Massachusetts....Which came after Heller.....*

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.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 19, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > miketx said:
> ...



All of the court rulings are based on Heller V which is the gold standard.  Read the ruling itself.  The Dissent means nothing.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 19, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> What is it that you people actually want? I am of the generation where we had guns and shot them at targets. But this gun-crazy thing is very strange. Who do you people want to shoot at? I don't trust you people because you are paranoids with mental problems.




CCW holders are the most law abiding of any group of people.  We are checked out by government agencies when we apply for a license, go through hours of training, have to pass a test, and also renew our license every couple of years, which of course they check you out again.


----------



## SavannahMann (Mar 19, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...



I have a first aid kit in my car. Does that mean I am afraid of injuries? I have food and water stored for hurricane season. Does that mean I am afraid of hurricanes?

I also carry a gun. But only when preparing for that does the word fear come into play.

I do not expect to need my first aid kit today. But in the unlikely event that I do need it I have it. I don’t expect to need my Epi-Pen today. But if I do need it I’ll need it badly. The same is true of my pistol. I do not expect to fire a single round today. But if I do need it, then it will be needed badly.

I don’t wake up every day with an erection over the thought of a tourniquet to save a life. I don’t set out to find an excuse to slap an Israeli Battle Bandage on a gushing wound. I don’t dream of a situation where pulling Sam Colt will be needed to save a life. Those are honestly nightmare scenarios. But I refuse to be helpless in the extremely unlikely event I need one of those things.

I don’t know what the day will hold. I am not psychic. I know it is possible. I know it is unlikely. I will probably die having never pulled my gun. Heart attack or emphysema from smoking. But because it is possible if extremely unlikely, I prepare for it as well as other events.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 19, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...



The left wing anti-gun judges on the lower federal courts are ignoring Heller, Miller, Caetano, and Friedman..........they are making up their own rulings.....


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 19, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> You sound dangerous; very paranoid. Gays and smoking and something about communism. Wow. We simply have two major political parties in this country, and you claim that one of them is restricting your rights, but both parties do that. Who are you going to shoot at? Who is harming you? Who are you afraid of? You are not rational.



It's very rational.  Being prepared is not being paranoid or scared.  I have car insurance but don't expect to have an accident.  I have house insurance but don't plan to get robbed or have the house burned down.  Is that irrational too?  When you leave the house to go somewhere, or to bed at night, do you lock your doors and windows?  If so, why?  Are you paranoid or scared? 

The Communists are the Democrat party.  They won't call themselves communists......yet.  They are going to wait until they have total power over all of us.  If the devil comes for your soul, he's not going to introduce himself as the devil, or tell you why he came.  He will look just like you, me, or anybody else.  




Lysistrata said:


> BTW: as a white heterosexual woman raised Christian in the Jersey suburbs who has lived and gone to school in Washington, D.C., I have to say that the worst shit I've ever gotten has been from white men and was based on gender. I don't carry a gun and I never shot anyone. I've known many LGBTQs. They never did a damned thing to me. Many helped me when I needed it. Friends. And folks of African descent. Same-same. Good neighbors who help.
> 
> I went to law school at night after work in DC, so I rode the rails. My significant other gave me a derringer. It never got out of its box because I don't do that stuff.



That's fine with me.  If you don't want to carry or own a gun, that's your right as an American.  But don't come down on us because we do.  If you and I are in line at the grocery store, you don't have to worry about me because I'm carrying.  In fact you are safer because I am armed in the event some maniac comes into the store and starts killing people randomly.  

I have nothing against gay people.  I have a few in my own family.  One of my cousins (a wonderful woman) is married to her "other."  I have another cousin who's daughter is marrying her "other" this summer.  My point about gays and other things I listed was to demonstrate that Democrats only say they want X.  Once they get X, they move to Y, then Z.  

In other words what the Democrats say will make them happy about guns today won't be that way tomorrow if they get what they want today.  They will move to the next step, then the next, then the next as their history has demonstrated.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 19, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



The Stun Gun was a bad decision and was overturned.  As for Heller, here is the overview direct from Heller and NOT from the dissent which dissent is from the losing side.  Here it is from the winning side.

*64 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER Opinion of the Court In  sum,  we  hold  that  the  District’s  ban  on  handgun possession  in  the  home  violates  the  Second  Amendment,  as  does  its  prohibition  against  rendering  any  lawful  firearm  in  the  home  operable  for  the  purpose  of  immediate self-defense.    Assuming  that  Heller  is  not  disqualified  from  the  exercise  of  Second  Amendment  rights,  the  District  must  permit  him  to  register  his  handgun  and  must  issue him a license to carry it in the home. *        *        *    

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici   who   believe   that   prohibition   of   handgunownership  is  a  solution.    The  Constitution  leaves  the  District  of  Columbia  a  variety  of  tools  for  combating  thatproblem,  including  some  measures  regulating  handguns,  see supra, at  54–55,  and  n.  26.    But  the  enshrinement  of  constitutional   rights   necessarily   takes   certain   policychoices  off  the  table.   These  include  the  absolute  prohibition  of  handguns  held  and  used  for  self-defense  in  the  home.   Undoubtedly  some  think  that  the  Second  Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the  pride  of  our  Nation,  where  well-trained  police  forces  provide  personal  security,  and  where  gun  violence  is  a  serious  problem.   That  is  perhaps  debatable,  but  what  isnot  debatable  is  that  it  is  not  the  role  of  this  Court  to  pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. It is so ordered.  *

All the other crap you bring up is from the dissent which means nothing legally.


----------



## hjmick (Mar 19, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...




You are entitled to exactly nothing. Period, end of discussion.


----------



## hjmick (Mar 19, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Hey...Daryl hunt........you were saying about the colorado AR-15 ban?
> ...




With a handgun.


----------



## westwall (Mar 19, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...









You still refuse to look at the US v Miller decision which  renders your arguments irrelevant.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 19, 2021)

I just want to say to all you people who ask "What are you so afraid of that you need to own a gun?"

Have any of you people been the victim of a violent crime?  

I have been the victim of a violent crime.  A crime that included a vicious beating by 3 piece of shit thugs.  That assault left me with a grade 4 concussion, a fractured eye orbital and some permanent vision impairment in my left eye, 3 broken ribs and a ruptured spleen.  I was left bleeding on the sidewalk in the middle of winter after those 3 shit stains robbed me and took my winter coat and even my fucking boots.

I regained consciousness about an hour or so later still on the ground which resulted in a mild case of hypothermia.  I hobbled my way to a hospital 6 blocks away bloody and gasping in pain and watched 2 cruisers pass me by as well as at least half a dozen other cars.

So you're fucking right I carry a gun because no motherfucker is ever going to do that to me again and I cannot count on the fucking cops or anyone else to render aid.

So just because you may not have ever been the victim of a violent crime don't be so fucking naive to think that there isn't real violence in this world.  Just be thankful you haven't experienced it and keep your judgments about other people to yourselves.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 19, 2021)

westwall said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



US v Miller was mentioned in Heller V and some of it was thrown out during the dissertation.  Yes, the dissent went on and on about it but the dissertation is what counts.  The rulings since have referred to Heller V and not Miller V.


----------



## westwall (Mar 19, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...










The underlying ruling of Miller was ONLY WEAPONS USEFUL FOR A MILITARY PURPOSE ARE COVERED BY THE 2ND AMENDMENT.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Mar 19, 2021)

SavannahMann said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...


5th.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Mar 19, 2021)

westwall said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...


Or a Cessna full of gasoline.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 19, 2021)

westwall said:


> Used a pistol. Doesn't further your argument so you neglect to mention the weapon used.
> 
> Typical moronic Joe B post.



You're disappointed he couldn't kill more people?   Gun nuts are weird. 



2aguy said:


> Yeah.....and only one mass shooting achieved over 50........that was 61 people... because he used a rifle at long distance, firing into an unaware, tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night.........



You can always tell when there's been a mass shooting, because 2AGuy (AKA Dick Tiny) gets out there and spooges the threads with "Gun violence isn't that bad".   

This guy had no problem walking into a store, buying a gun and then proceeding to murder 8 people.


----------



## westwall (Mar 19, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Used a pistol. Doesn't further your argument so you neglect to mention the weapon used.
> ...








No, I am pissed that ignorant fucks, like you, mandate people be victims.  Bad people do bad things.  Assholes, like you, demand their victims have no chance.

YOU, are fucked in the head.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 19, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> You can always tell when there's been a mass shooting, because 2AGuy (AKA Dick Tiny) gets out there and spooges the threads with "Gun violence isn't that bad".
> 
> This guy had no problem walking into a store, buying a gun and then proceeding to murder 8 people.



Should he have had a problem?  If so, what problem?


----------



## daveman (Mar 19, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> I've got a lot of feedback, but no explanation of why anyone needs high-powered weaponry.


You have yet to explain why you need to know.


----------



## daveman (Mar 19, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > I've got a lot of feedback, but no explanation of why anyone needs high-powered weaponry.
> ...






It's the little one on the right.


----------



## daveman (Mar 19, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...


So your opposition is IT LOOKS SCARY.

Run along, Fudd.


----------



## daveman (Mar 19, 2021)

2aguy said:


> The Desire to ban the AR-15 rifle by anti-gun extremists has nothing to do with mass public shooting, as the facts show.....they just know if they can get uninformed or gullible people to allow them to ban the AR-15 rifle, a  civilian rifle, a semi-automatic rifle no different in operation from a semi-auto pistol, or shotgun........then they can come back and demand banning semi-auto pistols and shotguns too.....because they all operate the same way.


Leftists don't give a shit about the safety of gun crime victims.  

They want people unarmed and unable to resist their tyranny.

Because armed people don't get on the boxcars.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 19, 2021)

K9Buck said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > And that has been upheld in various courts.
> ...


He sure doesn’t that’s for sure.


----------



## daveman (Mar 19, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...


If gun owners were as violent as your programming says they are, there wouldn't be any anti-gun people.


----------



## daveman (Mar 19, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Used a pistol. Doesn't further your argument so you neglect to mention the weapon used.
> ...


You don't oppose gun violence, Iosef.  

You just want an all-powerful government wielding guns against people you don't like.

And that's why you oppose civilian ownership of firearms.  You want people helpless against your government.

Fuck.  That.  Shit.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 19, 2021)

daveman said:


> And that's why you oppose civilian ownership of firearms. You want people helpless against your government.
> 
> Fuck. That. Shit.



What they really want is us being helpless against their criminal element so we are always at a disadvantage.  They want to see the entire country look like Portland where people have few gun rights and the government looks out more for the criminals than law abiding citizens.  They get great joy when they see five of these lowlifes beat a single conservative person to the ground and him being unable to defend himself.

You'd never see that in my state because our laws give us the right to fill them full of holes and ship them home in boxes where they rightfully belong.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 19, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Hey...Daryl hunt........you were saying about the colorado AR-15 ban?
> 
> *Now, a Colorado judge has tossed the AR-15 ban in the trash bin, along with the provision prohibiting ownership of magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. That’s the backdoor gun ban right there. It’s not just about the rifle. It’s about curbing constitutional gun rights by these magazine laws. *
> 
> ...


The thread premise is a lie – AR 15s are not banned in Colorado, at issue is an ordinance in the City of Boulder only.

Moreover, the issue addressed by the court had nothing to do with the regulation of AR 15s or LCMs _per se_; rather, the issue was that the City’s ordinance conflicts with State law prohibiting jurisdictions from regulating firearms:

“…the legislature clearly and unequivocally stated its intent to prohibit local governments from exercising their authority to regulate lawful firearms.”



			https://dl.airtable.com/.attachments/3620eb35746c9c1b7ae66392bdde057d/14e14ef3/ChambersvBoulderOrderonMSJ.pdf
		


The cited source in the OP in intentionally dishonest and misleading, typical of rightwing misinformation media.

And the OP is just as dishonest.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 19, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> I've got a lot of feedback, but no explanation of why anyone needs high-powered weaponry.


That’s because no one ‘needs’ an AR 15; anyone who claims to ‘need’ one is a liar.

But that’s not the issue.

The issue is the enactment of bad laws, government excess and overreach, and firearm regulatory measures that are likely un-Constitutional – laws banning assault weapons are an example of such bad laws.

The problem of gun violence in America has little to do with the availability or possession of certain types of firearms; the problem is far too complex to be solved with ‘bans,’ where AWBs serve only to increase the authority of the state at the expense of individual liberty.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 19, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...




The Dissent from Scalia is in Friedman.......not Heller......

Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Heller, when the court refused to slap down the lower court by not taking the case, Scalia went on to explain Heller further.....stating that the AR-15 is protected....he wrote the opinion in Heller so it isn't a just a dissent.....the dissent was against them not doing their job and taking the case....his explanation in the Dissent is completely relevant to what he stated in Heller....

And Heller isn't just about handguns........

Scalia stated in Heller....

*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.*

You don't know what you are talking about.....that, right there, states that all bearable arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment under the majority opinion of the United States Supreme Court.....It also confirms the ruling in Miller....and just after Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that "Dangerous and Unusual" can't be used to ban guns.......using the case of stun guns as a way to define dangerous and unusual and those terms effect on Second Amendment law...


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 19, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> I just want to say to all you people who ask "What are you so afraid of that you need to own a gun?"
> 
> Have any of you people been the victim of a violent crime?
> 
> ...




Sorry...did. not. happen........ joe and lystrata state that there is no crime in the U.S. since no one they know has ever been a victim of crime......those stories of rape, robbery and murder you see on the news are simply fake news......


----------



## daveman (Mar 19, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> That’s because no one ‘needs’ an AR 15; anyone who claims to ‘need’ one is a liar.


I see you haven't yet come to terms with your inability to dictate what people need and what they don't.


----------



## Flash (Mar 19, 2021)

This will probably force the Supreme Court to finally rule on Strict Scrutiny for the Second and that will put an end to all this anti gun bullshit the Communist states have been getting away with.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 19, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...




No... none of Miller was thrown out...please....show us in Heller where parts of miller were thrown out....


----------



## Flash (Mar 19, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> Explain yourself and why you would need an assault weapon.



The "need" is perfectly explained in the Constitution:  "Being neccessary for the security of a free state".  I shit you not.  Go look it up if you don't believe me.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 19, 2021)

Flash said:


> This will probably force the Supreme Court to finally rule on Strict Scrutiny for the Second and that will put an end to all this anti gun bullshit the Communist states have been getting away with.




Don't count on it.......so far kavanaugh and barrett haven't shown a lot of freaking courage....


----------



## Flash (Mar 19, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > This will probably force the Supreme Court to finally rule on Strict Scrutiny for the Second and that will put an end to all this anti gun bullshit the Communist states have been getting away with.
> ...


 

I agree.  We can't count on the Judicial branch to protect our Liberties any more than we can count on the Legislative or Executive branches.

My statement was more along the lines of hoping that they would do the right thing and rule favorably on Strict Scrutiny.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 19, 2021)

Flash said:


> This will probably force the Supreme Court to finally rule on Strict Scrutiny for the Second and that will put an end to all this anti gun bullshit the Communist states have been getting away with.



If that happens, they will simply bring in commie judges to pack the court to rule against the people and Constitution.  

I hate to say it, but what we may be experiencing is the end of the Great Experiment.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 19, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> That’s because no one ‘needs’ an AR 15; anyone who claims to ‘need’ one is a liar.
> 
> But that’s not the issue.
> 
> ...



HEY YOU!!!!  What did you do with the real Clayton????


----------



## woodwork201 (Mar 19, 2021)

hjmick said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


I'll need 5000 more before I can move to Colorado.  Why limit yourself to 30?  I don't own anything over 30 but that doesn't mean I'd accept a ban of anything larger.


----------



## Lysistrata (Mar 20, 2021)

daveman said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > I've got a lot of feedback, but no explanation of why anyone needs high-powered weaponry.
> ...



Because of the threat posed to me and the whole rest of society. The people who are behind this gun-love movement seem to be mentally ill. We don't know when one of them will open fire. I don't want them in my community. We have always permitted guns. I grew up with them in the house. If someone unwelcome comes in, a .22 pistol will take care of the problem. These insaniacs want to spray bullets. We have had too many mass shootings. Why continue?


----------



## Lysistrata (Mar 20, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



You seem to have a political problem between the Democratic and Republican parties. Perhaps also a racial problem. Who is releasing violent criminals? I'm not into your fantasy. I've never experienced a home invasion. The worst shit that I have ever experienced here in the US was not based on my race or religion or ethnic background. It was based on my gender.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 20, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...



you're a fucking moron if you think a .22 pistol is a good weapon for self defense.

FYI an Ar 15 is not a high powered weapon.  In fact it shoots what is a .22 caliber bullet.

And before you assume anything about what guns I own , I do not own an AR 15.

You don't know shit about the reasons a person carries a gun.

read post 100 and learn something


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 20, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...


you have never experienced a violent crime so you're convinced that no one else has .

You're so naive you border on being mentally retarded


----------



## freyasman (Mar 20, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> Please explain why this is so important to you to have an AR-15. We had guns in the house in leather locked bags and we shot them. I even pulled the trigger when my father sighted. He taught me to never pull a gun on any living being. I violated this teaching once, in Castroville, Texas, when I was 12 and practicing with my aunt's pistol. I shot at a spider on the back of the garage.
> 
> Explain yourself and why you would need an assault weapon.


BFYTW


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 20, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...




What threat to the rest of society?   Of the 10,235 gun murders in the U.S. 70-80% of the victims were criminal thugs involved in crime.  Of the 2,000 remaining victims, the majority of those victims are friends and family of criminals caught up in the crossfire of the actual criminals they know.   

A country of over 320 million people with about 2,000 innocent people murdered by criminals with guns..........concentrated in democrat party controlled cities, murdered by criminals released by democrat party judges, prosecutors and politicians....criminals, who are released over and over again no matter how many times they are arrested on gun charges.....they are the ones doing the shooting....career criminals with long histories of crime and violence, released by the democrat party to commit more gun crimes.


Meanwhile....doofus......Americans own over 600 million guns and over 19.4 million Americans can carry guns in public for self defense.....

What has that caused....what threat to the rest of society?

Over the last 27 years, before the democrat party went to war against the police,

Gun murder down 49%

Gun crime down 75%

Violent crime down 72%


So no, gun owners do not pose a threat to society.  As usual...the democrat party and their policies are the threat to society.  The criminals the democrat party keeps releasing from jail and prison are the ones doing 95% of all the gun crime....and the democrat party keeps letting them out......

Over the last 27 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 19.4 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2019...guess what happened...

New Concealed Carry Report For 2020: 19.48 Million Permit Holders, 820,000 More Than Last Year despite many states shutting down issuing permits because of the Coronavirus - Crime Prevention Research Center


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.


----------



## westwall (Mar 20, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...









There is no threat to you.


----------



## freyasman (Mar 20, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> I've got a lot of feedback, but no explanation of why anyone needs high-powered weaponry.


It's not possible to explain things like "freedom" to someone like you. You lack the necessary intellect and character to ever understand.


----------



## freyasman (Mar 20, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...


No, you're not entitled to a damn thing actually.


----------



## freyasman (Mar 20, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...


You need any more cats by chance? My mom's just had a litter a couple weeks ago.

You sound like a lady with a lot of them........ and not much else.


----------



## freyasman (Mar 20, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...


Translation = "Waahhhh!!!"


----------



## freyasman (Mar 20, 2021)

SavannahMann said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...


I hate to see a short eyes get freed, but protecting our liberty is more important.

Someone can always slit his throat later.


----------



## freyasman (Mar 20, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...


You are the one who seems to be afraid; why does freedom scare you so much?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 20, 2021)

AFrench2 said:


> View attachment 469466


Why don't you care?
Shouldn't every American have equal rights as pre the 14th amendment?


----------



## freyasman (Mar 20, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...


Why does freedom and liberty terrify you so?


----------



## freyasman (Mar 20, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...


I don't trust people who believe that folks who want to be free are _"paranoids with mental problems."_
Why does personal liberty and individual freedom cause you to feel such intense terror and hatred?
Is it that you're just an evil person?


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 20, 2021)

freyasman said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...




Socialist countries have clinics for mentally ill people who want "freedom."  I think they call them "gulags."


----------



## freyasman (Mar 20, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...


Why does the idea that your neighbors might not be defenseless concern you so?

What evil thing were you planning to do to them that is made more difficult by their being armed?


----------



## freyasman (Mar 20, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...


So you actually believe that people who value freedom and believe in personal responsibility are mentally ill?




Mystery solved...... *you* are the problem.


----------



## freyasman (Mar 20, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


Border???


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 20, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...


Fairfax
being  Safer than 41% of U.S. Cities is not a good thing 41 out of a 100 and 100 being the safest




__





						Fairfax, VA Crime Rates and Statistics - NeighborhoodScout
					

Most accurate 2021 crime rates for Fairfax, VA. Your chance of being a victim of violent crime in Fairfax is 1 in 1207 and property crime is 1 in 59. Compare Fairfax crime data to other cities, states, and neighborhoods in the U.S. on NeighborhoodScout.




					www.neighborhoodscout.com


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 20, 2021)

westwall said:


> No, I am pissed that ignorant fucks, like you, mandate people be victims. Bad people do bad things. Assholes, like you, demand their victims have no chance.
> 
> YOU, are fucked in the head.



Hey, fuckhead, a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.   Bad people do bad things, but bad people without guns a less capable of doing bad things.  That's the point.  The rest of the fucking world has figured this out.  








daveman said:


> You don't oppose gun violence, Iosef.
> 
> You just want an all-powerful government wielding guns against people you don't like.
> 
> And that's why you oppose civilian ownership of firearms. You want people helpless against your government.



Uh, no, guy.  I don't live in a delusion that owning a gun protects me from an "evil" government.  The government has tanks, drones, bombers, missiles, nukes, warships, etc.   There's just not a whole lot I'm going to do with a gun if the government breaks bad.   

If the government comes after you, a gun isn't going to make that much of a difference, and most of your neighbors will be cheering for the government, not you.  



2aguy said:


> Sorry...did. not. happen........ joe and lystrata state that there is no crime in the U.S. since no one they know has ever been a victim of crime......those stories of rape, robbery and murder you see on the news are simply fake news......



When did I say that.  My position is the reason we have so much fucking crime is because idiots like you make it way too easy for the bad guys to get guns... that's the point.


----------



## freyasman (Mar 20, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > No, I am pissed that ignorant fucks, like you, mandate people be victims. Bad people do bad things. Assholes, like you, demand their victims have no chance.
> ...


False.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 20, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > No, I am pissed that ignorant fucks, like you, mandate people be victims. Bad people do bad things. Assholes, like you, demand their victims have no chance.
> ...




Again with the 43 lie......

You know that Kellerman, who came up with that number lied.......

Kellerman who did the study that came up with the 43 times more likely myth, was forced to do the research over when other academics pointed out how flawed his methods were....he then changed the 43 times number to 2.7, but he was still using flawed data to get even that number.....

Below is the study where he changed the number from 43 to 2.7 and below that is the explanation as to why that number isn't even accurate.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7;

------------


Nine Myths Of Gun Control

Myth #6 "A homeowner is 43 times as likely to be killed or kill a family member as an intruder"

To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists repeat Dr. Kellermann's long discredited claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder." [17] This fallacy , fabricated using tax dollars, is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defense lobby.

The honest measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected not Kellermann's burglar or rapist body count.

Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator. [3]

Any study, such as Kellermann' "43 times" fallacy, that only counts bodies will expectedly underestimate the benefits of gun a thousand fold.

Think for a minute. Would anyone suggest that the only measure of the benefit of law enforcement is the number of people killed by police? Of course not. The honest measure of the benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved by deaths and injuries averted, and the property protected. 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun. [2]

*Kellermann recently downgraded his estimate to "2.7 times," [18] but he persisted in discredited methodology. He used a method that cannot distinguish between "cause" and "effect." His method would be like finding more diet drinks in the refrigerators of fat people and then concluding that diet drinks "cause" obesity.*


Also, he studied groups with high rates of violent criminality, alcoholism, drug addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse .


From such a poor and violent study group he attempted to generalize his findings to normal homes

*Interestingly, when Dr. Kellermann was interviewed he stated that, if his wife were attacked, he would want her to have a gun for protection.[19] Apparently, Dr. Kellermann doesn't even believe his own studies.


-----
*

Public Health and Gun Control: A Review



Since at least the mid-1980s, Dr. Kellermann (and associates), whose work had been heavily-funded by the CDC, published a series of studies purporting to show that persons who keep guns in the home are more likely to be victims of homicide than those who don¹t.

In a 1986 NEJM paper, Dr. Kellermann and associates, for example, claimed their "scientific research" proved that defending oneself or one¹s family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counter productive, claiming* "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."8

In a critical review and now classic article published in the March 1994 issue of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Dr. Edgar Suter, Chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), found evidence of "methodologic and conceptual errors," such as prejudicially truncated data and the listing of "the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors."5 *

Moreover, the gun control researchers failed to consider and underestimated the protective benefits of guns.

Dr. Suter writes: "The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives and medical costs saved, the injuries prevented, and the property protected ‹ not the burglar or rapist body count.

Since only 0.1 - 0.2 percent of defensive uses of guns involve the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000."5

In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4 Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology.

*He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.

For example, 

53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested, 

31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use, 32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight, and 

17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required. 
Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability.*

In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered.

*Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home. One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.*

All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5

*It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.*

Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 20, 2021)

daveman said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



No.  You are just using the same tired rhetoric that you have used over and over and have failed with.  The fact still remains that not one ounce of the AR was designed for anything other than to kill people as quickly and efficiently as possible in inexperienced hands.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 20, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Show me the quote where Scalia specifically said that the AR was protected.  I mean the whole paragraph.  Your Red statement doesn't make sense until they overturn the 1934 NFA law.


----------



## freyasman (Mar 20, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...


So what?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 20, 2021)

daveman said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > That’s because no one ‘needs’ an AR 15; anyone who claims to ‘need’ one is a liar.
> ...


Citizens are not required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so, such as the Second Amendment right.

There is no ‘need’ to possess an AR 15, there is no ‘need’ to ‘justify’ possessing one; that there is a right to possess one is alone sufficient.

This is where conservatives get it wrong: they sound extreme, desperate, and ridiculous trying to ‘justify’ possessing an AR 15.

The possession of certain types of firearms isn’t jeopardized by ‘liberals’ or ‘gun-grabbers,’ it’s jeopardized by ham-fisted rightwing dullards who lack the rhetorical acumen to respond intelligently when asked why one ‘needs’ an AR 15.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 20, 2021)

Flash said:


> This will probably force the Supreme Court to finally rule on Strict Scrutiny for the Second and that will put an end to all this anti gun bullshit the Communist states have been getting away with.


lol

No it won’t.

This post is an example of the willfully ignorant rightwing dullard.

Again, the issue the court addressed had nothing to do with the constitutionality of AWBs; indeed, the Second Amendment isn’t even noted in the ruling.

The issue concerned solely Colorado law that preempts local jurisdictions enacting firearm regulatory measures – nothing else.


----------



## Lysistrata (Mar 20, 2021)

freyasman said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...


This has nothing to do with cats. You apparently are incapable of dealing with a serious issue. Your misogyny and racism are noted. Grow up before you type. 
Just whom do you want to shoot at? BTW: what is your race, sex, ethnicity, and religion? Do you have a putin's poodle beard? Are you yelling at somebody from Thailand?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 20, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> AFrench2 said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 469466
> ...


At least conservatives are consistent at being willfully ignorant and wrong.

This has nothing to do with the 14th Amendment; this isn’t a civil rights issue.

This post does illustrate the hypocrisy of conservatives, who have no problem violating the 14th Amendment when it comes to the right to privacy or the rights of gay and transgender Americans.


----------



## Flash (Mar 20, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



You Moon Bats don't understand the Constitution very well, do you?  You are as confused about the Constitution as you are confused about Economics, History, Climate Science, Biology and Ethics.

You don't have to have a "need" for individual rights.  I have the right for free speech, freedom of religion and the right to keep and bear arms because I am a citizen protected by the Constitution.  I don't have to establish a need for any of the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

The right to keep and bear arms is the one that specifically says that it shall not be infringed.

If somebody else with an agenda to screw Americans out of that  right for whatever nefarious reason by determining if I have a need is sure as hell infringing upon that Constitutional right.

Stop trying to advocate taking away the Constitutional rights of Americans.  It ain't cool.

By the way, just to play your silly game my needs for my AR-15s are:

1.  Recreation, both shooting and collecting

2.  Self defense

3.  To serve as warning to the government that there will be a price to pay for oppression, just like the Founding Fathers wanted.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 20, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...




Scalia...who wrote the majority opinion in Heller writing in Friedman when the rest of the Justices decided not to hear the Friedman case.....his dissent here matters because, again, he actually wrote the opinion in Heller and in his writings in Friedman, goes more in depth into what he meant in Heller........

He cites Heller and Macdonald when he states that the AR-15 rifle is protected by the 2nd Amendment...........

*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.*


* III *
*The Court’s refusal to review a decision that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions.*



			https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
		

_


----------



## Lysistrata (Mar 20, 2021)

freyasman said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


I am not scared. I walk in the US free and not scared. What are you so scared of that you have to have a gun every time you step outside? What is your "freedom" thing about? Why do you feel so threated?


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 20, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > No, I am pissed that ignorant fucks, like you, mandate people be victims. Bad people do bad things. Assholes, like you, demand their victims have no chance.
> ...


still parroting that debunked 43 times bullshit I see

and we have gun crime because we do not enforce the federal gun laws we have on the books


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 20, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...


 an AR15  is a basic commonplace small caliber semiautomatic rifle and small caliber semiautomatic rifles have been on the civilian market for over 100 years.

The question is why do you think it needs to be banned?


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 20, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> freyasman said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...



I just want to say to all you people who ask "What are you so afraid of that you need to own a gun?"

Have any of you people been the victim of a violent crime?  

I have been the victim of a violent crime.  A crime that included a vicious beating by 3 piece of shit thugs.  That assault left me with a grade 4 concussion, a fractured eye orbital and some permanent vision impairment in my left eye, 3 broken ribs and a ruptured spleen.  I was left bleeding on the sidewalk in the middle of winter after those 3 shit stains robbed me and took my winter coat and even my fucking boots.

I regained consciousness about an hour or so later still on the ground which resulted in a mild case of hypothermia.  I hobbled my way to a hospital 6 blocks away bloody and gasping in pain and watched 2 cruisers pass me by as well as at least half a dozen other cars.

So you're fucking right I carry a gun because no motherfucker is ever going to do that to me again and I cannot count on the fucking cops or anyone else to render aid.

So just because you may not have ever been the victim of a violent crime don't be so fucking naive to think that there isn't real violence in this world.  Just be thankful you haven't experienced it and keep your judgments about other people to yourselves.


----------



## freyasman (Mar 20, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> freyasman said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...


You just sound like every lonely cat lady I ever met, is all..... have you heard yourself?


I'm a 51 year old, retired grunt, Heathen peckerwood biker from Texas, and whiny ass females like you tend to hate me because I wouldn't fuck you, not even with some wetback's dick, lol.


----------



## freyasman (Mar 20, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> freyasman said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...


Of course you are, why are you pretending?


----------



## Flash (Mar 20, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...




Especially knowing that ARs are very seldom used in crime.

The gun of choice for the thugs that commit most of the gun crimes in this country is a cheap handgun.

A guy planning to rob you would use a $150 Taurus (easily concealed, probably stolen) rather than a bulky $1K AR.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 20, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> freyasman said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...




Again...

According to you rape does not exist in the U.S.?

According to you robberies do not happen in the U.S.?

According to you, no one is ever murdered in the U.S.?

Is that your stance?


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 20, 2021)

Flash said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...


Rifles in general are not used in crimes.  In fact murders with any type of rifle account for less than 2% of murders annually.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 20, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Again, you are presenting the dissention not the resolution of the ruling.  And Scalia did NOT address the mass shootings going for the "Record" that became more the rule than the exception for a  number of years.  I still hold that we needed to lessen the body counts because we can never lessen the actual shootings.  And the laws that place limitations on the amount of ammo that a gun can hold certainly does just that.  This reduces the AR down to the level of the Handgun in capacity.  But most of all, it breaks the cult status no matter how hard you try and keep the cult going.


----------



## westwall (Mar 20, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > No, I am pissed that ignorant fucks, like you, mandate people be victims. Bad people do bad things. Assholes, like you, demand their victims have no chance.
> ...








This is a well known lie you ignorant clod.  It was PROVEN  a lie decades ago.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 20, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



And exactly where did I EVER say that they should be banned?  What I stated is, they need to be regulated.  Such as mag capacity.  I agree with the courts in that 10 is too few and 15 is just enough.  This breaks the cult status.  And when that happened, the handgun once again became the weapon of choice.  It also limited the body count.  We may not be able to stop or even slow down the number of gun crimes but we can limit the body counts of those crimes.


----------



## westwall (Mar 20, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...








The handgun has ALWAYS been the weapon of choice for criminals.

Stop trying to talk about a topic you clearly know nothing about.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 20, 2021)

westwall said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...



Thank you for verifying that I am correct about the AR Cult being real.  But the Sane have all but removed the cult.  We don't have to ban the weapon, just regulate it enough that the Cult dies off.  What a shock to your system.


----------



## Flash (Mar 20, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...




China Joe once made a recommendation that we use shotguns.

More shotguns are used in crimes than AR-15s.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 20, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Again with the 43 lie......
> 
> You know that Kellerman, who came up with that number lied.......



he did nothing of the sort.   The problem is, you guys want to pretend that number isn't valid because suicides don't count in your bizarre world.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 20, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> still parroting that debunked 43 times bullshit I see
> 
> and we have gun crime because we do not enforce the federal gun laws we have on the books



Yes, the NRA has done a great job of making the ATF a toothless tiger...  

Of course, if the ATF started doing it's job, you'd bitch about that, too.  You guys are still trying to make Randy Weaver and David Koresh into heroes. 



westwall said:


> This is a well known lie you ignorant clod. It was PROVEN a lie decades ago.



If it were, then you guys would support a more complete study of the subject, not ban all studies on gun violence. 

The reality- Most gun deaths are suicides, accidents and domestic violence.   Cases of criminals shooting people are the exception, and cases of civilians killing bad guys are so rare they barely register.


----------



## westwall (Mar 20, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > still parroting that debunked 43 times bullshit I see
> ...










Randy weaver was a mountain top yahoo, who was no threat to anyone.  The fbi tried to get him to spy on someone they wanted to build a case on, and when he refused they went after him.

They framed him for a petty crime and used that as an excuse to spy on him, and when they got caught, the agent shot weavers kid, and dog.  

Then, good old lon horiuchi, of sicherheistdienst fame,  murdered weavers wife while she was holding a baby.


Koresh was a loon who previously had turned himself in when charged with a crime.  The ATF though needed to justify the existence of their SWAT team so decided to raid the community.  

There were 25+children incinerated in that fire.  Completely innocent children.  You bleat about the DACA kids but turn your blind eye to those kids because you are a sociopath.

You should aquaint yourself of the facts before you shoot your mouth off.


----------



## westwall (Mar 20, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > still parroting that debunked 43 times bullshit I see
> ...








Bullshit, as usual.  Civilians kill bad guys at twice the rate that cops do.


----------



## westwall (Mar 20, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...








That's funny.  There are more AR owners now, over 10 million of us, than before you idiots started wanting to ban them.  

You call us cultists, yet you are the one who is part of a very small, though very loud, group of fools trying to ban them.

That makes YOU the cult member, sweetie.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 20, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...




No....I'm not........the disent was only because the Supreme Court justices refused to hear the case......again, Scalia wrote the Majority opinion in the Heller decision and then went on to further explain it in his writings in Friedman....he isn't just a random judge commenting on Friedman he is stating why the court needed to hear Freeman and tell the lower court to obey the Heller ruling, and he went on to further explain the 2nd Amendment as it is applied to actual firearms......

Mass shootings are not an issue........you keep bringing them up and they are simply a way to frighten uninformed Americans into giving left wing, anti-gun extremists the power to ban guns...

Mass public shooting deaths in 2020?   5

2019... 73

In a country of over 320 million people.......

You want to pretend that mass public shootings are a major threat to people and that isn't true in any sense of truth, facts or reality....

By comparison, car accidents killed 37,595 people in 2019......

73 mass public shooting deaths in 2019....

37,595 car accident deaths....

Bicycle accidents....?  712 people.....

Motorcycles?  4,576

These rifles aren't even the most commonly used gun for mass public shootings.

You are using mass public shootings as an excuse to ban rifles that are protected by our Constitution.....mass public shootings that kill fewer people than even knives, clubs and bare hands

Your use of mass public shootings as an excuse to ban these rifles is not rational.

*In fact, there is only one mass public shooting where the AR-15 rifle is relevant and that was the Las Vegas shooting where the shooter was shooting out to hundreds or yards....every single other mass public shooting in this country that used a rifle of any kind could easily have matched the number of victims murdered if they used pistols or shotguns......*

So you have no rational argument...


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 20, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...




Magazine capacity as a factor in mass public shootings is simply another lie used by left wing anti-gun extremists to ban rifles and pistols without passing actual laws to ban rifles and pistols...by banning magazines that hold more than 10 rounds you automatically ban millions and millions of pistols that use 15-19 bullets as standard......that is the only reason anti-gun extremists hype magazine bans.........they are lying when they say they care about mass public shootings.

Do you understand that magazine capacity has no bearing on the number of people killed in mass public shootings?  Do you understand that?

*There isn't one mass public shooting where a regular magazine was used that would have had reduced casualties if we had a magazine ban....do you understand that?

There are 3 factors that impact the number of people killed

1) target choice......number of people plus the legally mandated gun free zone status of the target.

2) how fast someone with a gun shoots back at the mass public shooter

Here....actual research that shows your concern about magazines has no basis in objective reality..*

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary  Kleck :: SSRN

*I.*

Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings? 
========
*In sum, in nearly all LCM-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading. 

Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shooters’ rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooter’s need to change magazines.
==========*

The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading. 


*LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings. *

News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined.

 There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload. 

*In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change. 


Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.

--------
*
We did not employ the oft-used definition of “mass murder” as a homicide in which four or more victims were killed, because most of these involve just four to six victims (Duwe 2007), which could therefore have involved as few as six rounds fired, a number that shooters using even ordinary revolvers are capable of firing without reloading.

 LCMs obviously cannot help shooters who fire no more rounds than could be fired without LCMs, so the inclusion of “nonaffectable” cases with only four to six victims would dilute the sample, reducing the percent of sample incidents in which an LCM might have affected the number of casualties.

 Further, had we studied only homicides with four or more dead victims, drawn from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports, we would have missed cases in which huge numbers of people were shot, and huge numbers of rounds were fired, but three or fewer of the victims died.


 For example, in one widely publicized shooting carried out in Los Angeles on February 28, 1997, two bank robbers shot a total of 18 people - surely a mass shooting by any reasonable standard (Table 1). 

Yet, because none of the people they shot died, this incident would not qualify as a mass murder (or even murder of any kind).

 Exclusion of such incidents would bias the sample against the proposition that LCM use increases the number of victims by excluding incidents with large numbers of victims. We also excluded shootings in which more than six persons were shot over the entire course of the incident but shootings occurred in multiple locations with no more than six people shot in any one of the locations, and substantial periods of time intervened between episodes of shooting. An example is the series of killings committed by Rodrick Dantzler on July 7, 2011. 

Once eligible incidents were identified, we searched through news accounts for details related to whether the use of LCMs could have influenced the casualty counts.

 Specifically, we searched for 

(1) the number of magazines in the shooter’s immediate possession, 

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine, 

(3) the number of guns in the shooter’s immediate possession during the incident, 

(4) the types of guns possessed, 

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident, 

(6) the number of rounds fired,

 (7) the duration of the shooting from the first shot fired to the last, and (8) whether anyone intervened to stop the shooter. 

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

 We identified 23 total incidents in which more than six people were shot at a single time and place in the U.S. from 1994 through 2013 and that were known to involve use of any magazines with capacities over ten rounds.


 Table 1 summarizes key details of the LCMinvolved mass shootings relevant to the issues addressed in this paper. 

(Table 1 about here) What fraction of all mass shootings involve LCMs?

There is no comprehensive listing of all mass shootings available for the entire 1994-2013 period, but the most extensive one currently available is at the Shootingtracker.com website, which only began its coverage in 2013.

-----



-----

The offenders in LCM-involved mass shootings were also known to have reloaded during 14 of the 23 (61%) incidents with magazine holding over 10 rounds. 

The shooters were known to have not reloaded in another two of these 20 incidents and it could not be determined if they reloaded in the remaining seven incidents. 

Thus, even if the shooters had been denied LCMs, we know that most of them definitely would have been able to reload smaller detachable magazines without interference from bystanders since they in fact did change magazines. 

The fact that this percentage is less than 100% should not, however, be interpreted to mean that the shooters were unable to reload in the other nine incidents. 

It is possible that the shooters could also have reloaded in many of these nine shootings, but chose not to do so, or did not need to do so in order to fire all the rounds they wanted to fire. This is consistent with the fact that there has been at most only one mass shootings in twenty years in which reloading a semiautomatic firearm might have been blocked by bystanders intervening and thereby stopping the shooter from doing all the shooting he wanted to do. All we know is that in two incidents the shooter did not reload, and news accounts of seven other incidents did not mention whether the offender reloaded.

----

For example, a story in the Hartford Courant about the Sandy Hook elementary school killings in 2012 was headlined “Shooter Paused, and Six Escaped,” the text asserting that as many as six children may have survived because the shooter paused to reload (December 23, 2012). ''

The author of the story, however, went on to concede that this was just a speculation by an unnamed source, and that it was also possible that some children simply escaped when the killer was shooting other children. 

There was no reliable evidence that the pauses were due to the shooter reloading, rather than his guns jamming or the shooter simply choosing to pause his shooting while his gun was still loaded. 

The plausibility of the “victims escape” rationale depends on the average rates of fire that shooters in mass shootings typically maintain.

 If they fire very fast, the 2-4 seconds it takes to change box-type detachable magazines could produce a slowing of the rate of fire that the shooters otherwise would have maintained without the magazine changes, increasing the average time between rounds fired and potentially allowing more victims to escape during the betweenshot intervals.

 On the other hand, if mass shooters fire their guns with the average interval between shots lasting more than 2-4 seconds, the pauses due to additional magazine changes would be no longer than the pauses the shooter typically took between shots even when not reloading. 

In that case, there would be no more opportunity for potential victims to escape than there would have been without the additional magazine changes


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 20, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...




The handgun was always the weapon of choice until anti-gun extremists began promoting the regular semi-automatic rifle, the AR-15 as a killing machine.......

They did this for a very specific reason, and you are that reason.

They know that they can lie to uninformed Americans and say that the AR-15 rifle is exceptionally dangerous....and this is a lie...it is no different from any other semi-automatic rifle, pistol or shotgun...

They understand that if they can get uninformed, and gullible Americans to sign on to allowing them to ban the AR-15, they can later come back and tell those same people that all the other semi-auto rifles, pistols and shotguns operate the same way, are actually used by the military (versus the AR-15 that is not a military weapon) and therfore they must be allowed to ban those other guns too....

Magazine capacity is a trojan horse......and you are buying into the lie.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 20, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...




I showed you numerous mass public shootings with shotguns and pistols that had just as high a body count as shootings done with the AR-15......I also pointed out that the other mass public shootings with rifles could have simply substituted shotguns and pistols and had the same body count.  The only exception was the Vegas shooting that took place from hundreds of yards, and even that only had the high body count because the shooter picked a target that allowed the high body count, 22,000 people jammed into a tightly packed, enclosed  concert arena with limited exits.....

Magazine capacity is a fake argument to get a back door ban against millions of pistols....


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 20, 2021)

westwall said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



10 million?  With just over 7 mil made total including the clones, that's a bit hard to come up with unless you are sharing your AR with your buddy for the count purposes.  Let's take a look at the manufacturers of decent ARs.  Colt stopped producing their Model 750 and only offers their mode 6920 to LE which is made on the same assembly line as their Model 604.  Remington almost went broke because they put all the eggs in the AR basket.  So you have your AR.  And I can buy one from almost any pawn shop (clones not worth a damned) for around 399 in price.  But most people that felt the undying need to buy an AR already has purchased them.  Hence the problems with the 2 major AR manufactures with producing the ARs.  If you own one of those two, enjoy them.  While you may be able to purchase a Remington you can't buy another Colt which is the gold standard for stock units.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 20, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > still parroting that debunked 43 times bullshit I see
> ...




And you lie again...you have been shown over and over that the CDC has done all sorts of gun research since the 1990s....I have listed that research over and over again.....they were banned from taking the political stance of calling for banning guns, you lying asshole.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 20, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > still parroting that debunked 43 times bullshit I see
> ...




Suicides are not a gun issue....you have been shown this over and over again......

Domestic violence is not a gun issue, it is a drug, and alcohol addiction issue and a criminal control issue....

Fact Check, Gun Control and Suicide

*There is no relation between suicide rate and gun ownership rates around the world. *
*
 According to the 2016 World Health Statistics report, (2) suicide rates in the four countries cited as having restrictive gun control laws have suicide rates that are comparable to that in the U. S.:  Australia, 11.6, Canada, 11.4, France, 15.8, UK, 7.0, and USA 13.7 suicides/100,000.  By comparison, Japan has among the highest suicide rates in the world, 23.1/100,000, but gun ownership is extremely rare, 0.6 guns/100 people.   
Suicide is a mental health issue.  If guns are not available other means are used.  Poisoning, in fact, is the most common method of suicide for U. S. females according to the Washington Post (34 % of suicides), and suffocation the second most common method for males (27%). 
Secondly, gun ownership rates in France and Canada are not low, as is implied in the Post article.  The rate of gun ownership in the U. S. is indeed high at 88.8 guns/100 residents, but gun ownership rates are also among the world’s highest in the other countries cited.  Gun ownership rates in these countries are are as follows:  Australia, 15, Canada, 30.8, France, 31.2, and UK 6.2 per 100 residents. (3,4) Gun ownership rates in Saudia Arabia are comparable to that in Canada and France, with 37.8 guns per 100 Saudi residents, yet the lowest suicide rate in the world is in Saudia Arabia (0.3 suicides per 100,000).
Third, recent statistics in the state of Florida show that nearly one third of the guns used in suicides are obtained illegally, putting these firearm deaths beyond control through gun laws.(5)*
*Fourth, the primary factors affecting suicide rates are personal stresses, cultural, economic, religious factors and demographics.  According to the WHO statistics, the highest rates of suicide in the world are in the Republic of Korea, with 36.8 suicides per 100,000, but India, Japan, Russia, and Hungary all have rates above 20 per 100,000; roughly twice as high as the U.S. and the four countries that are the basis for the Post’s calculation that gun control would reduce U.S. suicide rates by 20 to 38 percent.  Lebanon, Oman, and Iraq all have suicide rates below 1.1 per 100,000 people--less than 1/10 the suicide rate in the U. S., and Afghanistan, Algeria, Jamaica, Haiti, and Egypt have low suicide rates that are below 4 per 100,000 in contrast to 13.7 suicides/100,000 in the U. S. *
========


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 20, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...



The Egg came before the Chicken, if you didn't already know.  When the record holders all used one specific weapon then maybe we all need to do a rethink.  Well, most did and the Cult got broken and the new record will stand for a very long time if we have our way.  And it's not done by Banning the weapon itself.  It's  done by regulating the weapon.  I don't hold much with the banners and the total get rid of regulations of both sides.  I think you are both a bunch of complete nutz.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 20, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...




There are over 20 million AR-15 rifles alone, not to forget the millions and millions of other styles of semi-automatic rifles that operate the exact same way as AR-15s operate....which is why the AR-15 is simply the gateway drug to banning all those other rifles.....


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 20, 2021)

2aguy said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...



The problem you have is that you keep using Klek as your source.  Or his partner in crime whom both pretty much used ALL shooting incidents (including wars and military) to come up with their figures.  And then the fudged that as well.  To be truthful, I doubt if anyone really knows the truth here.  How many are reported.  How many are not reported.  How many are improperly reported.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 20, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Wow, I know the number is just over 7 mil.  But in two posts, it jumped from 10 mil to 20 mil.  Can't wait until it reaches 400 trillion.  Shouldn't take longer than a day.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 20, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...




Sorry, you do not know what you are talking about...........even if you had your wish and a stupid magazine ban was in place, where 10 rounds was the max.....not one mass public shooting that has happened would have been made less severe from that action........and the anti-gunners know this which is why they will be back later to call for a ban on 10 round magazines and semi-automatic rifles as well.....

* I think you are both a bunch of complete nutz.*

And since you keep insulting normal gun owners, you have crossed the line....I have been polite, and approached this as I always do until you anti-gun assholes start throwing out insults....

So, shithead.......you are nothing more than a useful idiot for the anti-gun extremists....you are allowing them to lie to your face, and you are pushing the lie...


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 20, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



I just used kleck now for his actual research into magazine use and mass public shootings...actual research.....


And here you are........revealing yourself at last.  Kleck is the gold standard, which is why you attack him....but of course....he isn't the only one.....and I use the CDC as well...



In fact, the CDC did research in the 1990s and found that Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year for self defense.....the Department of Justice did separate research and found that Americans use their legal guns 1.5 million times a year for self defense......


----------



## Concerned American (Mar 20, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Hey...Daryl hunt........you were saying about the colorado AR-15 ban?
> 
> *Now, a Colorado judge has tossed the AR-15 ban in the trash bin, along with the provision prohibiting ownership of magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. That’s the backdoor gun ban right there. It’s not just about the rifle. It’s about curbing constitutional gun rights by these magazine laws. *
> 
> ...


These bastards never quit--there are places in CA that limit how much ammo you can buy.  If you don't have ammunition that is effectively banning guns.  Time to by dies and lead.  But then they'll probably ban powder.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 20, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Thank you for verifying what I said about both sides being Nutz.  I'll list you as batshit crazy and let it go with that.  And the rest of us will continue addressing the problems by regulations.


----------



## Flash (Mar 20, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Again with the 43 lie......
> ...




You stupid uneducated Libtards hate to face reality, especially when you get caught with your lies.

How are my firearms a threat to your pussy ass?


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 20, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...



I never used the 7 million number you asshat..........

This article is from 2018........we have gone well over the 16 million mark since then...

'Assault Weapons,' Explained

After the law expired, sales of previously banned rifles exploded. Based on production and import data from 1990 through 2016, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade group, estimates that Americans own more than 16 million guns that politicians would deem "assault weapons," which the industry prefers to call "modern sporting rifles."
------
The faulty logic of such legislation actually works to the benefit of those who support "broader gun control." Once people realize that banning these firearms has no measurable effect on violence, they may be primed to accept more ambitious measures. At the same time, if the flimsy arguments in favor of "assault weapon" bans are enough for them to survive judicial review, the Second Amendment barriers to gun control will be eroded.

*15 million in 2017.......*

Today, one of out of every five firearms purchased in this country is an AR-style rifle, according to a NSSF estimate. Americans now own an estimated 15 million AR-15s, gun groups say. New AR-15 style guns range widely in price, from about $500 to more than $2,000.









						How the AR-15 became America's most popular rifle
					

The Instagram tag #ar15 has over 1.7 million posts, with updates by the minute




					www.nbcnews.com


----------



## westwall (Mar 20, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...









Your number is years out of date.  There are five different makers whose quality is orders of magnitude better than Colt ever managed.

Yet again you display a colossal ignorance about the subject. 

You are way the hell out of your league,  dude.  You are a little league player up against the majors.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 20, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...




And there you are....I post pages and pages of facts, truth and reality, and you can't debate those facts...so you start name calling...

so right back at you, you dumb asshat....


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 20, 2021)

westwall said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




I wonder if this douche bag isn't brain357 under a new name...same M.O.................


----------



## Concerned American (Mar 20, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> When the record holders all used one specific weapon


The bombers in OKC, Nashville and the Boston marathon might disagree with you


----------



## Lysistrata (Mar 20, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > freyasman said:
> ...



No. And I never said that it was. You sound like a scared old queen.


----------



## westwall (Mar 20, 2021)

2aguy said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...





Lysistrata said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...








You're the scared one.  There are millions of gun owners all around you, and you have no idea they are there.

You are conjuring demons in your head that don't exist.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 20, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...




Hmmmmm....and now we see that homophobia is also a hallmark of the left...whenever they are pressed, it gets thrown out there.....they aren't against homophobia, they simply want it as a tool to attack their enemies...


----------



## Lysistrata (Mar 20, 2021)

freyasman said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > freyasman said:
> ...



Please explain why I ever would want to have sex with you. I prefer men, not some old queen from Texas,


----------



## freyasman (Mar 20, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> freyasman said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...


Apparently you don't know any actual men, lol.


----------



## freyasman (Mar 20, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> freyasman said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...


And if all the women were like you,  I'd prefer men too, lol.


----------



## Lysistrata (Mar 20, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Really? What are we supposed to call these scaredy cats who have guns and moronic beards who pretend to be men (heterosexual men) but are not? Oathkeepers? Proud boys? Militia? will "white trash" do?


----------



## westwall (Mar 20, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...









We ain't scared.  YOU are.  You are terrified of law abiding people who happen to have guns.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 20, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> These bastards never quit--there are places in CA that limit how much ammo you can buy. If you don't have ammunition that is effectively banning guns. Time to by dies and lead. But then they'll probably ban powder.



On Biden's own website he stated part of his gun plan was to lift the liability protection for gun manufacturers and sellers.  That would effectively allow commie cities and individuals to sue them all out of business.  Also in his plans were a law that prohibits gun, gun parts or ammo sales over the internet.  Therefore if there are no places in the US to buy guns or ammo, and you can't buy anything off the internet, there would be no place to buy guns at all. The remaining guns would be un-repairable.


----------



## Concerned American (Mar 20, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> > These bastards never quit--there are places in CA that limit how much ammo you can buy. If you don't have ammunition that is effectively banning guns. Time to by dies and lead. But then they'll probably ban powder.
> ...


Buy a small metal lathe--make anything you want.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 20, 2021)

2aguy said:


> And you lie again...you have been shown over and over that the CDC has done all sorts of gun research since the 1990s....I have listed that research over and over again.....they were banned from taking the political stance of calling for banning guns, you lying asshole.



Just to save you some work, Joe never goes to sites anybody posts.  He admitted that repeatedly to me the last couple of years.  Joe is a leftist.  Like all leftists, he doesn't want to know the truth.  He only wants to believe what he's told by the puppet masters, or otherwise what he wishes to believe himself.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 20, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > When the record holders all used one specific weapon
> ...



So now you want to move the goal posts to illegal bombs.  Why not bring up poisoning city water supplies while you are at it?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 20, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> The reality- Most gun deaths are suicides, accidents and domestic violence. Cases of criminals shooting people are the exception, and cases of civilians killing bad guys are so rare they barely register.



The presence of an armed civilian certainly changes the plans of a bad guy, doesn't it?  It's one of the reasons people like you who don't carry a firearm are safe.  The criminal has no idea if you are armed or not.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 20, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Thank you for verifying that I am correct about the AR Cult being real. But the Sane have all but removed the cult. We don't have to ban the weapon, just regulate it enough that the Cult dies off. What a shock to your system.



No, what we really need to do is way up the penalties for using a firearm in the commission of a crime.  25 years minimum for armed robbery using a gun is a nice place to start.  All premeditated murders using a gun an instant death penalty is another.  10 years minimum for felon carrying a concealed weapon.  

This is what we need to do.  But the Democrats are not going after the bad guys with a gun, they are going after the good guys with a gun instead.


----------



## westwall (Mar 20, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...







Oh, you're the most expertest goal post mover in this thread, dearie.  Your ass has been handed to you multiple times and all you can drop back to is lies.

Go away, your shtick is done.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 20, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> And exactly where did I EVER say that they should be banned? What I stated is, they need to be regulated. Such as mag capacity. I agree with the courts in that 10 is too few and 15 is just enough. This breaks the cult status. And when that happened, the handgun once again became the weapon of choice. It also limited the body count. We may not be able to stop or even slow down the number of gun crimes but we can limit the body counts of those crimes.



Which is a ridiculous theory.  It it takes less than a second to drop a magazine and insert a fully loaded magazine if you practice at it.  Maybe one second if you don't.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 20, 2021)

westwall said:


> Randy weaver was a mountain top yahoo, who was no threat to anyone. The fbi tried to get him to spy on someone they wanted to build a case on, and when he refused they went after him.
> 
> They framed him for a petty crime and used that as an excuse to spy on him, and when they got caught, the agent shot weavers kid, and dog.
> 
> Then, good old lon horiuchi, of sicherheistdienst fame, murdered weavers wife while she was holding a baby.



You left out the part where his Nazi ass shot a Federal Marshall executing a valid arrest warrant.  

Or that Weaver's Nazi buddies were shooting at the FBI when Lon shot his Nazi old lady.  



westwall said:


> Koresh was a loon who previously had turned himself in when charged with a crime. The ATF though needed to justify the existence of their SWAT team so decided to raid the community.
> 
> There were 25+children incinerated in that fire. Completely innocent children. You bleat about the DACA kids but turn your blind eye to those kids because you are a sociopath.



There were THREE investigations of the Waco fire, one of them led by John Danforth, a respected Republican Senator, and ALL THREE of them concluded the Davidians set themselves on fire and committed mass suicide.  

Koresh had 53 days to turn himself in.  He picked mass suicide and took all those kids with him.  

Yes, I feel bad those kids weren't rescued when it was determined Koresh was fucking them.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 20, 2021)

westwall said:


> Bullshit, as usual. Civilians kill bad guys at twice the rate that cops do.



Actually, they don't.  According to the FBI's own figures, only 200 gun homicides by civilians are ruled as "Justified" self defense. 

US Cops shoot 1000 people every year.  Most of those are ruled Justified, for what that is worth.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 20, 2021)

2aguy said:


> And you lie again...you have been shown over and over that the CDC has done all sorts of gun research since the 1990s....I have listed that research over and over again.....they were banned from taking the political stance of calling for banning guns, you lying asshole.











						The CDC Could Totally Study Gun Violence—It Just Needs Money
					

Congress clarified last year that the CDC can use its budget for gun research, after decades of effectively banning it. But Democrats are still fighting to get actual funding approved.




					www.wired.com
				





For all the obsession that Americans have with guns, the country has awful little scientific data to show for it. In 1996, Congress passed a law with a provision known as the Dickey Amendment that effectively prohibited the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from using its life-saving budget to study gun violence. As a result, for decades the US has not thrown its full resources at the problem the way it has with, say, tobacco or car crashes.

After the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, last year, and the wave of activism that followed, Congress clarified that the CDC could, in fact, use funds to study gun violence. It just didn’t earmark any additional money for that purpose. Months later, Democrats regained the majority in the House. They’ve been using that status to fight to get $50 million explicitly earmarked for studying the underpinnings of America’s gun violence


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 20, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> On Biden's own website he stated part of his gun plan was to lift the liability protection for gun manufacturers and sellers. That would effectively allow commie cities and individuals to sue them all out of business.



Or they can do something as breathtakingly rational as actually check out the people they sell guns to.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Also in his plans were a law that prohibits gun, gun parts or ammo sales over the internet.



Again, great idea!  We should make sure who we are selling guns to.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 20, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> So now you want to move the goal posts to illegal bombs. Why not bring up poisoning city water supplies while you are at it?



His point is that people who want to commit mass murders are not going to allow strict access to firearms change their plans.  Not to mention there is a good percentage of people who did commit mass murders that were able to, and did buy firearms from a store legally.  They passed the federal background check, bought the guns, perhaps not all at one time, and committed their murders.  They had no criminal record up to that point.  The Vegas shooter is a perfect example of that.


----------



## Flash (Mar 20, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > And you lie again...you have been shown over and over that the CDC has done all sorts of gun research since the 1990s....I have listed that research over and over again.....they were banned from taking the political stance of calling for banning guns, you lying asshole.
> ...




You didn't answer my question Moon Bat.

How are my firearms a threat to your pussy ass?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 20, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Or they can do something as breathtakingly rational as actually check out the people they sell guns to.



We already do.  It's called a federal background check, and you cannot buy a gun from any licensed dealer until you pass it.



JoeB131 said:


> Again, great idea! We should make sure who we are selling guns to.



That's not what he's after.  He's trying to do a round about on the US Constitution that protects our right to own and carry firearms.  If the commies sue all the gun stores out of business, sue all the gun manufacturers out of business, prohibit people buying firearms over the internet, buy parts or ammo, there would be essentially no place for Americans to buy guns accept off the street like criminals will do, and no law abiding person is going to do that.


----------



## westwall (Mar 20, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > On Biden's own website he stated part of his gun plan was to lift the liability protection for gun manufacturers and sellers. That would effectively allow commie cities and individuals to sue them all out of business.
> ...









They have been doing that for years.  The Parkland shooter was well known to law enforcement.   Had they bothered to arrest him  for just one of the many felonies we know he had committed prior to his rampage, he would have not been able to do his terrible deed.

And assholes, like you, support not arresting assholes like him.


----------



## freyasman (Mar 20, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...


Cat lady is spazzing out.....


----------



## Concerned American (Mar 20, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...


Not moving the goal posts at all--if guns are not available, other forms of terrorism will arise and all you did was to disarm law-abiding citizens.  The crooks will still have the weapons of terror.  I thought you had enough common sense to be able to draw the parallel--apparently I was mistaken.  And yes, poisoning water supplies is another option.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Mar 20, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> The CDC Could Totally Study Gun Violence—It Just Needs Money
> 
> 
> Congress clarified last year that the CDC can use its budget for gun research, after decades of effectively banning it. But Democrats are still fighting to get actual funding approved.
> ...



The only way to resolve "the problem" is to make owning AR-15's and at least a dozen 30 round magazines MANDATORY for every citizen.

Studies prove that would stop nearly all government violence against citizens.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 20, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > AFrench2 said:
> ...


You don't know anything about the 14th amendment 
*Amendment XIV
Section 1.*
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. *No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.*


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 20, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > I've got a lot of feedback, but no explanation of why anyone needs high-powered weaponry.
> ...


Dumb ass show me the word needs in the bill of rights
need is not a necessity for the right to have a gun


----------



## freyasman (Mar 20, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 20, 2021)

daveman said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...


Would you believe the north American Arms 22 mag. revolver is restricted in Californa


----------



## Flash (Mar 20, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...




Not being a member of the Communist Party USA or an Illegal is considered a hate crime in California.


----------



## Flash (Mar 20, 2021)

Looks Like JoeB is too chickenshit to answer my simple question.

Typical uneducated Libtard.  He ain't bright enough to give a coherent answer.


----------



## westwall (Mar 20, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Randy weaver was a mountain top yahoo, who was no threat to anyone. The fbi tried to get him to spy on someone they wanted to build a case on, and when he refused they went after him.
> ...










There was no warrant presented when the agent was shot.  The warrant was FRAUDULENTLY obtained which made it null and void, and you ignore the millions paid to Weaver because of the illegal government action you lying piece of shit.


----------



## Flash (Mar 20, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > And you lie again...you have been shown over and over that the CDC has done all sorts of gun research since the 1990s....I have listed that research over and over again.....they were banned from taking the political stance of calling for banning guns, you lying asshole.
> ...




You are confused about this Moon Bat.

There is not what you stupid uneducated Moon Bats call "gun" violence.  It is just crime and it is mostly in our Democrat controlled big city shitholes among mostly minority demographics. The crimes are mostly among gang bangers, druggies, street thugs and other assorted lowlifes.  You know, the core voting block for the Democrat Party.  The ones that don't obey the existing laws now, no less any more law you idiots want to pass.

We don't need to study jackshit because we know where the crime is at an who is doing it and passing more stringent gun control laws ain't gonna change anything.  Passing oppressive laws that only law abiding citizens will obey that don't commit the crime won't change anything.

Are you too stupid to understand this?  Is this over your Moon Bat head?


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 20, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > The reality- Most gun deaths are suicides, accidents and domestic violence. Cases of criminals shooting people are the exception, and cases of civilians killing bad guys are so rare they barely register.
> ...



And I promote CCW.  With only a couple or three times, the CCW people have NOT been part of the problem.  Meanwhile, the list of the unlicensed open carry problems goes on and on.  It's called Regulation.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 20, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > On Biden's own website he stated part of his gun plan was to lift the liability protection for gun manufacturers and sellers. That would effectively allow commie cities and individuals to sue them all out of business.
> ...


damn you are one ignorant bastard


----------



## freyasman (Mar 20, 2021)




----------



## Vrenn (Mar 20, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you for verifying that I am correct about the AR Cult being real. But the Sane have all but removed the cult. We don't have to ban the weapon, just regulate it enough that the Cult dies off. What a shock to your system.
> ...



There is oonly a fraction of a second between a law abiding citizen with a gun and a criminal with a gun.  And that is what "Regulation" is all about.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Mar 20, 2021)

daveman said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > That’s because no one ‘needs’ an AR 15; anyone who claims to ‘need’ one is a liar.
> ...


I wonder if he thinks people shouldn't be allowed to buy cars that go above sixty five mph or have a range of one hundred miles.  After all no one need fast or long ranged cars, they can take  mass transport for long distances and airplanes for high speeds trips.


----------



## freyasman (Mar 20, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...


Nah..... you're just full of shit.



Fuck off.


----------



## westwall (Mar 20, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...










Good gosh you are full of shit.  There is an enormous gulf between a good guy with a gun, and a criminal.  If there weren't all of you idiots would have been killed long ago, along with all the other Americans out there.

There are more guns than people,  you moronic twit.  Guns aren't the problem.  Never have been.  It's evil people who are constantly allowed out of prison to prey on defenseless people. 

Do you not find it weird that gangbangers regularly do less than 5 years in prison for murdering people?  

If you really wanted to reduce crime you would address that fact.

But you don't because you don't give a shit about reducing crime.   It's all about power with you fascists.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Mar 20, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...


Actually, the 5.56mm round wasn't designed to kill people, it was designed to INJURE them.  If you kill a soldier on the battlefield, you take one person out of the force equation, if you wound one person, you take at least three people (the injured person plus at least two people caring for him) out of the force equation.  If you want a round designed to kill people, look no further than the .45 ACP shot by the M1911 pistol.  It was specifically designed for one shot stopping power by the US Army when the then standard .38 round took multiple hits to stop charging Morro guerillas.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 20, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you for verifying that I am correct about the AR Cult being real. But the Sane have all but removed the cult. We don't have to ban the weapon, just regulate it enough that the Cult dies off. What a shock to your system.
> ...




Yep.....targeting actual criminals and keeping them off of the street instead of releasing the most violent gun criminals over and over again so they can keep stealing guns and shooting people.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 20, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Randy weaver was a mountain top yahoo, who was no threat to anyone. The fbi tried to get him to spy on someone they wanted to build a case on, and when he refused they went after him.
> ...




Shit head....it was well known that koresh walked into town every week to get icecream and could have been picked up at anytime, alone and unarmed.....the ATF wanted a big operation to justify their budget and to get an increase....they caused the deaths of those children.


----------



## daveman (Mar 20, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...


99.9999%+ of legal gun owners didn't shoot anyone yesterday.  They didn't last week.  They won't next week.

It's not legal gun owners you need to worry about, although I know that's what your programming says.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 20, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Bullshit, as usual. Civilians kill bad guys at twice the rate that cops do.
> ...




Dumb ass......I know you want to hide the truth and the fact that the majority criminals are not idiots and when faced with a normal American who has a gun and points it at them, they run away.....rather than get shot.   About 235 of the dumbest criminals press the attack and get killed....the rest run away, surrender or just get wounded not killed.

As you know, the Centers for Disease Control researched defensive gun use and found that normal Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop rapes, robberies and murder....the Department of Justice research showed 1.5 million times a year.......


----------



## daveman (Mar 20, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > You don't oppose gun violence, Iosef.
> ...


Yes, we know you slavishly support an all-powerful government.  

My neighbors don't.  Americans don't.

You wannabe Soviet subjects do, though.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 20, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > And you lie again...you have been shown over and over that the CDC has done all sorts of gun research since the 1990s....I have listed that research over and over again.....they were banned from taking the political stance of calling for banning guns, you lying asshole.
> ...




And you lie....again...the Dickie Amendment did not prevent gun research by the CDC, it prevented them from pushing gun control......you have been shown this over and over again, and I have listed actual gun research by the CDC that happened after the Amendment...you lying shitbag.

This is some gun research from the CEC in 2006....

Violence-Related Firearm Deaths Among Residents of Metropolitan Areas and Cities --- United States, 2006--2007

And this one....2003

Source of Firearms Used by Students in School-Associated Violent Deaths --- United States, 1992--1999

And this one....

http://www.thecommunityguide.org/violence/viol-AJPM-evrev-firearms-law.pdf

And this one....2001

Surveillance for Fatal and Nonfatal Firearm-Related Injuries --- United States, 1993--1998

And this one....2013

Firearm Homicides and Suicides in Major Metropolitan Areas — United States, 2006–2007 and 2009–2010

And this one...2014

Indoor Firing Ranges and Elevated Blood Lead Levels — United States, 2002–2013

And this one....

Rates of Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm-Related Death Among Children -- 26 Industrialized Countries


==================

The Deleware study of 2015...

When Gun Violence Felt Like a Disease, a City in Delaware Turned to the C.D.C. (Published 2015)

When epidemiologists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention came to this city, they were not here to track an outbreak of meningitis or study the effectiveness of a particular vaccine.

They were here to examine gun violence.
This city of about 70,000 had a 45 percent jump in shootings from 2011 to 2013, and the violence has remained stubbornly high; 25 shooting deaths have been reported this year, slightly more than last year, according to the mayor’s office
.-------

The final report, which has been submitted to the state, reached a conclusion that many here said they already knew: that there are certain patterns in the lives of many who commit gun violence.
“The majority of individuals involved in urban firearm violence are young men with substantial violence involvement preceding the more serious offense of a firearm crime,” the report said. “Our findings suggest that integrating data systems could help these individuals better receive the early, comprehensive help that they need to prevent violence involvement.”
Researchers analyzed data on 569 people charged with firearm crimes from 2009 to May 21, 2014, and looked for certain risk factors in their lives, such as whether they had been unemployed, had received help from assistance programs, had been possible victims of child abuse, or had been shot or stabbed. The idea was to show that linking such data could create a better understanding of who might need help before becoming involved in violence.


------------------
Why Congress stopped gun control activism at the CDC

I was one of three medical doctors who testified before the House’s Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee on March 6, 1996 about the CDC’s misdeeds. (_Note: This testimony and related events are described in my three-part documented __historical series__)._ Here is what we showed the committee:


_Dr. Arthur Kellermann’s1993 New England Journal of Medicine __article__ that launched his career as a rock star gun control advocate and gave rise to the much-repeated “three times” fallacy. His research was supported by two CDC grants._
Kellermann and his colleagues used the case control method, traditionally an epidemiology research tool, to claim that having a gun in the home triples the risk of becoming a homicide victim. In the article Kellermann admitted that “a majority of the homicides (50.9 percent) occurred in the context of a quarrel or a romantic triangle.” Still another 30 percent “were related to drug dealing” or “occurred during the commission of another felony, such as a robbery, rape, or burglary.”

I*n summary, the CDC funded a flawed study of crime-prone inner city residents who had been murdered in their homes. The authors then tried to equate this wildly unrepresentative group with typical American gun owners. The committee members were not amused.*


_The Winter 1993 CDC official publication, __Public Health Policy for Preventing Violence__, coauthored by CDC official Dr. Mark Rosenberg. This taxpayer-funded gun control polemic offered two strategies for preventing firearm injuries—“restrictive licensing (for example, only police, military, guards, and so on)” and “prohibit gun ownership.”_
_The brazen __public comments__ of top CDC officials, made at a time when gun prohibitionists were much more candid about their political goals._
_“*We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.” (P.W. O’Carroll, Acting Section Head of Division of Injury Control, CDC, quoted in Marsha F. Goldsmith, “Epidemiologists Aim at New Target: Health Risk of Handgun Proliferation,” Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 261 no. 5, February 3, 1989, pp. 675-76.) Dr. O’Carroll later said he had been misquoted.

But his successor Dr. Mark Rosenberg was quoted in the Washington Post as wanting his agency to create a public perception of firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.” (William Raspberry, “Sick People With Guns,” Washington Post, October 19, 1994.
=========*_

Did ‘Gun Violence’ Researcher Just Expose Gun Control ‘Myth?’ - Liberty Park Press

*The article recalls how then-Congressman Jay Dickey sponsored the “Dickey Amendment” in 1996. This was an amendment that cut funding for gun research; at least, that’s what anti-gunners have intimated. But the article notes the amendment actually instructed, “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” (Emphasis added.)*
*------
But Wintemute is quoted in the Discover article explaining, “The language did not ban research; it banned advocacy or promotion for gun control.”*

*Translation: Public funding could not be used to promote gun control legislation. You cannot use the public’s money to advocate for restrictions on a constitutionally-protected fundamental right exercised by more than 100 million taxpayers whose taxes provided the funds.*


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 20, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > On Biden's own website he stated part of his gun plan was to lift the liability protection for gun manufacturers and sellers. That would effectively allow commie cities and individuals to sue them all out of business.
> ...




Moron........the Pulse Nightclub shooter had a complete background check for his job as a security agent.  He had background checks for each and every gun that he bought.  He was also called into the FBI as a possible terrorist by a co-worker.....the FBI did a complete background check and history on him, they interviewed him 3 separate times and also did an undercover approach against him...

He passed all of it  because mass public shooters only become actual criminals when they do the mass public shooting......you idiot.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Mar 20, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > And you lie again...you have been shown over and over that the CDC has done all sorts of gun research since the 1990s....I have listed that research over and over again.....they were banned from taking the political stance of calling for banning guns, you lying asshole.
> ...


What part of Centers for DISEASE CONTROL don't you understand?  Gun violence, let alone gun ownership isn't a DISEASE, so the CDC shouldn't be using it's limited budget to study it.  If any Federal agency should study it , that agency should the THE BATF, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and FIREARMS.


----------



## daveman (Mar 20, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...


You can kill people with a .22 Derringer.  You can kill people with a Barrett .50 sniper rifle.

News flash:  You can kill people with _any_ firearm, including the hunting rifles you seem to not realize are firearms.

Homework:  Tell me the differences between an AR-15 and the popular Ruger Mini-14 hunting rifle.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 20, 2021)

westwall said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...




It was obama's "Promise Policy," that kept law enforcement and the schools from arresting the Parkland shooter even though he committed several felonies on school grounds and had over 30 interactions with the local police........


----------



## daveman (Mar 20, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


Despite getting your first two points right, you go ahead and fuck up the last half of your post.

So, in your world, if one can't justify ownership to a liberal's satisfaction, there is no legitimate need.

Fuck off with that dumbassery.  You don't get a say in other people's lives.


----------



## daveman (Mar 20, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...


How is that going to happen when your proposed regulations will affect ONLY law-abiding gun owners?

What is the magic number of gun laws that will make criminals start obeying them?


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 20, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...




There is no problem with unlicensed open carry......there is a problem with criminals who use illegal guns, and those criminals are constantly caught by the police, then released by the democrat party judges, prosecutors and politicians.......

You are again making fake arguments as either a useful idiot of anti-gun extremists or as a troll...


----------



## daveman (Mar 20, 2021)

westwall said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


Joe's a Soviet man.  He supports government executing Thoughtcriminals.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 20, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...




again...troll.....you don't know what you are talking about.

There is not a fraction of a second between being law abiding and being a criminal simply because you have a gun.......that is another lie from the anti-gun extremists.....

The truth....

The Criminology of Firearms

In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications and some empirical research of its own about guns. The Academy could not identify any gun restriction that had reduced violent crime, suicide or gun accidents.

Why don't gun bans work? Because they rely on voluntary compliance by gun-using criminals. Prohibitionists never see this absurdity because they deceive themselves into thinking that, as Katherine Christoffel has said: "[M]ost shootings are not committed by felons or mentally ill people, but are acts of passion that are committed using a handgun that is owned for home protection."

*Christoffel, et al., are utterly wrong. The whole corpus of criminological research dating back to the 1890'sshows murderers "almost uniformly have a long history of involvement in criminal behavior," and that "[v]irtually all" murderers and other gun criminals have prior felony records — generally long ones.*

*While only 15 percent of Americans have criminal records, roughly 90 percent of adult murderers have prior adult records — exclusive of their often extensive juvenile records — with crime careers of six or more adult years including four major felonies. 

Gerald D. Robin, writing for the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences,notes that, unlike ordinary gun owners, "the average murderer turns out to be no less hardened a criminal than the average robber or burglar."
------*
In the late 1970's the US Department of Justice (DOJ) funded and tasked the University of Massachusetts' Social and Demographic Research Institute to review and evaluate the entire extant literature on gun control in the US and elsewhere. The Institute's resulting report observed: "It is commonly hypothesized that much criminal violence, especially homicide, occurs simply because the means of lethal violence (firearms) are readily at hand, and, thus, that much homicide would not occur were firearms generally less available. _There is no persuasive evidence that supports this view_." (emphasis added)


That evaluation's authors — Professors James Wright, Peter Rossi and Kathleen Daly — subsequently published a commercial version of their report to which they added their personal recantation:



> The progressive's indictment of American firearms policy is well known and is one that both the senior authors of this study once shared. This indictment includes the following particulars: (1) Guns are involved in an astonishing number of crimes in this country. (2) In other countries with stricter firearms laws and fewer guns in private hands, gun crime is rare ... (4) Many families acquire a gun because they feel the need to protect themselves; eventually, they end up shooting one another. (5) If there were fewer guns around, there would obviously be less crime ... _The more deeply we explored the empirical implications of this indictment, the less plausible it has become_. (emphasis, parentheses added)
> 
> ========


http://www.haciendapublishing.com/m...art-ii-gun-violence-and-constitutional-issues

Another favorite view of the gun control, public health establishment is the myth propounded by Dr. Mark Rosenberg, former head of the NCIPC of the CDC, who has written: "Most of the perpetrators of violence are not criminals by trade or profession. Indeed, in the area of domestic violence, most of the perpetrators are never accused of any crime. The victims and perpetrators are ourselves --- ordinary citizens, students, professionals, and even public health workers."(6) 

That statement is contradicted by available data, government data. The fact is that the typical murderer has had a prior criminal history of at least six years with four felony arrests in his record before he finally commits murder.



(17) The FBI statistics reveal that 75 percent of all violent crimes for any locality are committed by six percent of hardened criminals and repeat offenders.(18)



 Less than 2 percent of crimes committed with firearms are carried out by licensed (e.g., concealed carry permit holders) law-abiding citizens.(11)

*Violent crimes continue to be a problem in the inner cities with gangs involved in the drug trade. Crimes in rural areas for both blacks and whites, despite the preponderance of guns in this setting, remain low*.(11,19)



 Gun availability does not cause crime. Prohibitionist government policies and gun control (rather than crime control) exacerbates the problem by making it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves, their families, and their property. In fact, there was a modest increase in both homicide and suicide after prohibition and passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968.(20)


----------



## daveman (Mar 20, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...


----------



## daveman (Mar 20, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you for verifying that I am correct about the AR Cult being real. But the Sane have all but removed the cult. We don't have to ban the weapon, just regulate it enough that the Cult dies off. What a shock to your system.
> ...


That's because Democrats support criminals and want them to have safe working environments.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 20, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Yep.....targeting actual criminals and keeping them off of the street instead of releasing the most violent gun criminals over and over again so they can keep stealing guns and shooting people.



And vote Democrat.  

Criminals keep Democrat politicians in business.  As long as there are gun incidents, they believe they have a case with the American people and will gather more anti-gun support.  They don't want to solve the problem, they want to use the problem for their political advantage.  

I found this in Facebook this morning by a friend.  It's a story of this lowlife who attacked a female police officer in one of our suburbs, beat the living hell out of her, pressed his thumbs against her eyeballs stating he's going to push them into her skull, and telling her the only reason he's going to let her live is because of his wife.  

Another cop got there, arrested him, and he went to court where he was sentenced  to a couple of years with the ability to get out in 9 months.  Needless to say what party this judge belonged to.  Now the ninth month is coming up, and he may be released by this very same liberal judge.  For what, to kill somebody the next time?  This is what they want. 

When I was younger I studied martial arts up to black belt. Each belt had a body part focus.  In the upper belts, one was the eyes, and various methods to blind somebody permanently.  This violent criminal could have easily blinded this woman for life with what he did to her, and he can get out to possibly pursue her and maybe kill her this time?  









						Man convicted of badly beating police officer could be free by judicial release after serving 9 months in prison
					

A man convicted of violently assaulting a North Royalton Police Officer is granted judicial release by a Cuyahoga County Judge. Police officer Alexandra Bell says she was shocked to learn that the man she says tried to kill her could be back on the streets in just days.




					www.cleveland19.com


----------



## daveman (Mar 20, 2021)

freyasman said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


----------



## daveman (Mar 20, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


I would, because California has all but criminalized self-defense.


----------



## daveman (Mar 20, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


Oddly enough, the people too incompetent to properly run their own lives feel strongly that they should make everyone's decisions for them.


----------



## daveman (Mar 20, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


The use of expanding bullets is classed as a war crime by international treaty.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 20, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Yep.....targeting actual criminals and keeping them off of the street instead of releasing the most violent gun criminals over and over again so they can keep stealing guns and shooting people.
> ...




As you know I have dozens of these types of stories......criminals with convictions for gun crimes and other violent crimes captured by police and released from jail on bond, who go out and kill, and released from prison due to light prison sentences who go out and kill.......and the common denominator is democrat party policies, judges, prosecutors and politicians who released them...


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 20, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> There is only a fraction of a second between a law abiding citizen with a gun and a criminal with a gun. And that is what "Regulation" is all about.



I don't even understand that comment.  What fraction of a second are you talking about?  If you mean a legal gun owner may inadvertently do something against the law, then you are correct.  But that's no reason to disarm that person in the first place. 

Look, I drove a tractor-trailer for over 25 years.  If I got into a serious accident killing several people, I could have been sent to prison for vehicular homicide.  That's no reason to take trucks off the road.  People who own and carry guns have a responsibility in doing so.  We all know it when we purchase a firearm or apply to get a carry permit.  We are trained to know the law, when it's safe to shoot and when it's unsafe, keeping firearms out of the reach of children or mentally disabled, making sure you take your gun out of your vehicle when unattended.

My earlier comment is directed at going after the criminals instead of the gun.  The leftist mentality is like that school teacher you might of had in school, who punished the entire class because some kid shot a spit ball at the back of her head when she was drawing something on the blackboard. 

This is exactly the same compared to what the Democrats are doing.  The criminals don't care what new laws they make because those laws don't affect them.  They are going to get their guns off the street, carry them whether allowed to or not, and use them for nefarious activities.  The Democrat solution?  Take firearms away from the general public.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 20, 2021)

2aguy said:


> As you know I have dozens of these types of stories......criminals with convictions for gun crimes and other violent crimes captured by police and released from jail on bond, who go out and kill, and released from prison due to light prison sentences who go out and kill.......and the common denominator is democrat party policies, judges, prosecutors and politicians who released them...



Which is why I've always said, the solution to our crime problem is not getting rid of guns, the solution to our crime problem is getting rid of Democrats.


----------



## Flash (Mar 20, 2021)

daveman said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...




I would be happy if one of these stupid Moon Bats could tell me how my firearms are a threat to them or how taking my AR 15s away or my magazines will make them safer.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Mar 20, 2021)

daveman said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...


What has that got to do with my post?  Neither the 5.56mm or the .45 ACP in  military configuration are expanding bullets.  Both are perfectly legal under the Geneva Conventions and will be until it becomes illegal to injure an opposing combatant.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 20, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Actually, the 45ACP rarely kills in one shot.  It has a tremendous shot value and drops the recipient.   Normally, if you get them proper care, they will  live from one shot.  But you may have to punch 16 holes with a 9mm or 6 holes with a 38spc to get the same initial effect and very few people make it to the emergency room under those conditions.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 20, 2021)

daveman said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



If you don't know you shouldn't own either of them.


----------



## daveman (Mar 20, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > AZrailwhale said:
> ...


The discussion triggered a memory of Law Of Armed Conflict training from my military career.  It also counters Vrenn's hysterical claims that the AR-15 is a scary deadly weapon designed to do nothing but kill.


----------



## daveman (Mar 20, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...


Oh, I know.

The homework is yours, kid.  Hop to it.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 20, 2021)

daveman said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



And packing a M-16 for days on end tells me exactly what the AR was intended for.  Not oncew have any of you countered the fact that the design and construction of the AR is for wholesale killing people.  You gunnutters are going in my ignore file where you belong.  Just like you are for most of America.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 20, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> And packing a M-16 for days on end tells me exactly what the AR was intended for. Not oncew have any of you countered the fact that the design and construction of the AR is for wholesale killing people. You gunnutters are going in my ignore file where you belong. Just like you are for most of America.



That makes no sense.  How is the AR intended to kill people?   Looking at it that way, all guns are intended for killing people.  The AR is no different than any firearm whereas if you use it for evil means, it will kill people.  

This is one of the points I think all of us are making here.  Outlaw or ban ARs/ AK's.  Kooks will turn to an alternative weapon for mass shootings.  Then we ban those brands.  So they move to another model, and we ban those as well.  It keeps going down the list until just about everything but a revolver is banned in the US.  

You can debate us all you like, but we pro-gunners know where this is going and where the anti-gunners are hoping it ends up.  That's why we need to stop it here and now.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 20, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > And packing a M-16 for days on end tells me exactly what the AR was intended for. Not oncew have any of you countered the fact that the design and construction of the AR is for wholesale killing people. You gunnutters are going in my ignore file where you belong. Just like you are for most of America.
> ...



I am not placing you on ignore because you do make some sense.  Okay, not a lot of it, but some.   I am not wanting to ban the AR.  But I am in favor of regulating it to make it not be the weapon of choice for the New Body Count Record Holder in the Schools, Movies and such.  That got old fast, real fast.  To date, the record was set in Nevada.  And something as simple as requiring the use of 15 round mags would have slowed things down a bit.  I am not after stopping the shootings (not going to happen)_ but I am after reducing the body count and putting a big dent in the Cult Status.  If reducing the number of rounds per mag does it (and it obviously has) then that's a good thing.  

I also don't ding States, Counties and Cities that pass their own regulations to make their citizens feel safer.  I do condemn the state next to them that won't and export all the nasties to the ones that have when it's found that this is a huge problem (i.e.  Illinois v Indiana).  And this one isn't about just the AR, it's about ALL firearms.  

Of course, Kansas has a lot of nerve complaining that people are going right across the border and legally buying MJ when they same thing is happening with the 30 round mags purchased in Kansas.  But Stoners rarely are mass shooters because they just don't care.....what was I saying again?


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Mar 20, 2021)

daveman said:


>



Yeah, have to agree with this meme

The want to disarm women making them easy prey.......and they also support huge transgender "men" posing as women in sports killing sports for real women.

Ya know....why does the Left have this raging hatred for women ?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 20, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> I am not placing you on ignore because you do make some sense. Okay, not a lot of it, but some. I am not wanting to ban the AR. But I am in favor of regulating it to make it not be the weapon of choice for the New Body Count Record Holder in the Schools, Movies and such. That got old fast, real fast. To date, the record was set in Nevada. And something as simple as requiring the use of 15 round mags would have slowed things down a bit. I am not after stopping the shootings (not going to happen)_ but I am after reducing the body count and putting a big dent in the Cult Status. If reducing the number of rounds per mag does it (and it obviously has) then that's a good thing.
> 
> I also don't ding States, Counties and Cities that pass their own regulations to make their citizens feel safer. I do condemn the state next to them that won't and export all the nasties to the ones that have when it's found that this is a huge problem (i.e. Illinois v Indiana). And this one isn't about just the AR, it's about ALL firearms.
> 
> Of course, Kansas has a lot of nerve complaining that people are going right across the border and legally buying MJ when they same thing is happening with the 30 round mags purchased in Kansas. But Stoners rarely are mass shooters because they just don't care.....what was I saying again?



Okay, so let's go through this:  

What you are saying is that we implement some sort of firearm ban, in this case, a limited magazine.  Upon this law being passed, and millions of Americans who don't comply now being criminals upon the discovery, arrest, and conviction for having a 15 round magazine, it's worth it because it's better if a maniac kills only 49 students in a school shooting instead of 50?  Because after all, I posted a video (if you bothered to watch it) how effortlessly a magazine can be changed.  In other words, it wouldn't make any difference in the world.  

Even if you are satisfied with only 49 students getting killed instead of 50, do you think your party would share your same satisfaction, and stop pushing for more restrictions?


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 20, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...




You are a moron.  The shooter in Vegas was firing from hundreds of yards away from a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night, from a concealed and elevated position.  This is the only mass public shooting where the AR-15 had an advantage because of the long range shooting involved.....and, dipstick......if he had 10 round magazines, it wouldn't have mattered since he was in a secure room where he could have had them stacked up to the roof and changed them out easily...

You don't know what you are talking about, you are either a troll or a useful idiot for the anti-gun extremists..

There isn't one mass public shooting where the AR-15 gave the shooter an advantage over a semi-automatic pistol, rifle or shotgun of another type........you don't know what you are talking about.

And that crap about "regulating" the AR-15 to make them safer is just B.S. in an attempt to make your crap sound reasonable.......


----------



## westwall (Mar 20, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...






He's a lying troll sock.  I already proved he doesn't know anything about the subject.   He claimed to have been a gun dealer, but couldn't name the license needed.  The moron even called it an NFL.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 21, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > I am not placing you on ignore because you do make some sense. Okay, not a lot of it, but some. I am not wanting to ban the AR. But I am in favor of regulating it to make it not be the weapon of choice for the New Body Count Record Holder in the Schools, Movies and such. That got old fast, real fast. To date, the record was set in Nevada. And something as simple as requiring the use of 15 round mags would have slowed things down a bit. I am not after stopping the shootings (not going to happen)_ but I am after reducing the body count and putting a big dent in the Cult Status. If reducing the number of rounds per mag does it (and it obviously has) then that's a good thing.
> ...



You keep talking about banning.  I haven't said a thing about it.  This is just one more "Routine" that you gunnutters have that you try and instill fear and awe into other gun owners.  Talk to me about regulation.

As for the dead body count, it started out with pistols and 9mm semi auto rifles.  Got a pretty good body count.  But it switched to 30+ round mags (lots of them) and the AR and the new body count was established.  There is no way that one person can get over 50 dead and over 400 wounded with hand guns.  But, obviously, it can (and has been) done using ARs.  The common fruitcake with mass shooting on his mind might get 9 or 10 (20 on a good day) and wound not many more than that before he's brought down using a handgun or standard semi auto rifle.  But that same shooter can use an AR with a 30+ mag (4 or them) and easily bag 40. and wound over 100.  Common sense says, limit the mag size to 15 and you halve the dead body count in half.  

Actually, the majority of the Population agrees with me at 57% for stricter firearms regulations.  It's even supported by 31% of the Republicans. * https://www.npr.org/2019/10/20/771278167/poll-number-of-americans-who-favor-stricter-gun-laws-continues-to-grow*

*Share of Americans who favor stricter gun laws has increased since 2017Poll: 90% of Registered Voters Want Firearms Background Checks*

*Americans underestimate public support for key gun policies*

There is a lot more out there.  Either you work with us or you might lose a hell of a lot more than you think.  If for one second the politicos believe you are unhinged, they may swing way to far to the fringe.  And it would take decades to swing it back.  Work to get common sense gun regulations where you don't have to turn your gun in or even register it nor have a license to own it in most states.  Or you can keep going like you are and ALA California.


----------



## woodwork201 (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...



Your logic is very flawed.  Cutting magazine capacity in half does not equate to cutting body count in half.  That's a ludicrous statement.  It simply means that the shooter must change mags more often - a task that takes less than 2 seconds.

The beauty of being a constitutional republic instead of a democracy is that the majority doesn't get to vote to take the rights away from the minority.  Polls don't mean crap.  What it takes to change the rules is two-thirds of both houses of Congress and then greater than 50% of the legislators in three-quarters of the states to ratify a change to the Constitution.


----------



## freyasman (Mar 21, 2021)

Flash said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...


They want to bully you, maybe to death, and they don't want to get shot for it.

That simple.


----------



## freyasman (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...


In other words, you want to tell other people what they can and cannot do, and you're mightily pissed off that all those people are telling you to fuck right off, you nosy little fucking busybody.






You're the problem.

Now fuck off, you nosy little fucking busybody.


----------



## freyasman (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...


You believe some weird shit, guy.


----------



## freyasman (Mar 21, 2021)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


Because only the fugliest and most fucked up ones will give them any.

Any woman with her shit halfway together doesn't want any part of those limp-dicks.


----------



## freyasman (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...


3dprintergobrrr – Agoristics 



LOLOLOLOLOLOL


----------



## SavannahMann (Mar 21, 2021)

westwall said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...



Oh good. We are going to deal with facts? Great. Tell me why Norway has a Recidivism rate that is about 20 percent while our rate is nearly double that. Tell me why we have one of the highest prison populations in the world. Our tough on crime bullshit doesn’t seem to be paying rewards, unless you are in the business of building prisons that is.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...


why do they need to be regulated any more than any other small caliber rifle?

I have an old .22 rifle with a 17 shot internal magazine.  I suppose you think that's too much?

And you can't get away from the fact that Ar15s are not used in crimes to any great degree so the gun isn't really the problem.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 21, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > still parroting that debunked 43 times bullshit I see
> ...



The ATF isn't needed to enforce our federal gun laws.  When the city of Richmond started enforcing federal gun laws in cooperation with the US attorney's office murders, gun crimes and crime in general was reduced significantly.

The only thing you got right is that most gun deaths are suicides and that isn't a crime.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 21, 2021)

SavannahMann said:


> Oh good. We are going to deal with facts? Great. Tell me why Norway has a Recidivism rate that is about 20 percent while our rate is nearly double that. Tell me why we have one of the highest prison populations in the world. Our tough on crime bullshit doesn’t seem to be paying rewards, unless you are in the business of building prisons that is.



The problem is we let leftist judges turn our prisons into playgrounds.  You go there, get three squares a day plus snacks if your friends or family donate money to your prison account or you take a job in the prison.  You get a field to go outside and throw a football around, a pool room, a library, cable television, limited access to the internet, a private room to use if you want to knock up your wife or girlfriend and start a family.  Now if you need a vacation, just sue the state for serving you grape jello instead of cherry, and they take you out for your court dates. 

Prison might be hell for most of us, but for lowlifes, it's a better life than many of them had in the outside world.  Want to see prisons be a deterrent?  Watch the classic movie Cool Hand Luke.  If prisons were like that today, you'd see that recidivism rate drop like a boulder off a cliff.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 21, 2021)

SavannahMann said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...


For one thing most of the people in state and county jails have not been convicted of any crime but are awaiting trial.  If we overhauled our arraignment and bail policies we could cut the population of our jails by about 60%.

Then factor in that we lock up people for nonviolent crimes that could be part of some alternative sentencing practices.

you might want to actually research the issue


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> You keep talking about banning. I haven't said a thing about it. This is just one more "Routine" that you gunnutters have that you try and instill fear and awe into other gun owners. Talk to me about regulation.
> 
> As for the dead body count, it started out with pistols and 9mm semi auto rifles. Got a pretty good body count. But it switched to 30+ round mags (lots of them) and the AR and the new body count was established. There is no way that one person can get over 50 dead and over 400 wounded with hand guns. But, obviously, it can (and has been) done using ARs. The common fruitcake with mass shooting on his mind might get 9 or 10 (20 on a good day) and wound not many more than that before he's brought down using a handgun or standard semi auto rifle. But that same shooter can use an AR with a 30+ mag (4 or them) and easily bag 40. and wound over 100. Common sense says, limit the mag size to 15 and you halve the dead body count in half.
> 
> ...



You avoided the question totally, so one more time:  Would you and your party be satisfied with 49 people killed in a mass murder instead of 50, and would that stop them from seeking even more restrictions on guns?  And don't tell me you could kill more people with an AR and 30 round clip than any semi-automatic handgun with a 15 round clip.  That's blatantly false.  That's not a personal opinion, I showed you a video supporting my point.  Both the AR and any semi-automatic hand gun works the exact same way.  Every time you pull the trigger, it shoots a round.

A nut with a gun perfectly willing to kill total strangers only stops when a good guy with a gun arrives on the scene.  Until that time, he will keep killing until he runs out of ammo.  Once somebody else with a gun gets there, the shooter either kills himself or surrenders.

What you are talking about here is writing policy or law that makes you feel better, but doesn't accomplish anything.  What would accomplish much more is a movement to get rid of gun-free zones.  That way any shooter no matter what kind of weapon they have always has to fear somebody in his target area will fire back.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 21, 2021)

Flash said:


> You didn't answer my question Moon Bat.
> 
> How are my firearms a threat to your pussy ass?



you mean other than you might have a "Really bad day" and shoot up some place that I am at. 

The best argument for gun control is a five minute conversation with a gun nut.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 21, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > You didn't answer my question Moon Bat.
> ...



So lets break it down by the numbers.

in 2019 10189 people were murdered by a person using a firearm.  (Notice I didn't say murdered by a gun.  That's because guns can't murder anyone)

That's .003% of the population.

So for the entire year of 2019 you had a .003% chance of being murdered by a person with a gun.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 21, 2021)

Flash said:


> You are confused about this Moon Bat.
> 
> There is not what you stupid uneducated Moon Bats call "gun" violence. It is just crime and it is mostly in our Democrat controlled big city shitholes among mostly minority demographics. The crimes are mostly among gang bangers, druggies, street thugs and other assorted lowlifes. You know, the core voting block for the Democrat Party. The ones that don't obey the existing laws now, no less any more law you idiots want to pass.



That's not true, either.  In fact, according to the National Gang Center, only 2200 murders a year are "Gang related".   That is out of 19,000 homicides a year in the US.   Most homicides are domestic violence.  Not to mention the 19,000 gun suicides every year..     



Flash said:


> We don't need to study jackshit because we know where the crime is at an who is doing it and passing more stringent gun control laws ain't gonna change anything. Passing oppressive laws that only law abiding citizens will obey that don't commit the crime won't change anything.



Again- what upset the gun lobby is that it found that a gun in the home was 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.  This panicked the Gun Lobby.  OH MY GOD, they're on to us!!!


----------



## SavannahMann (Mar 21, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> > Oh good. We are going to deal with facts? Great. Tell me why Norway has a Recidivism rate that is about 20 percent while our rate is nearly double that. Tell me why we have one of the highest prison populations in the world. Our tough on crime bullshit doesn’t seem to be paying rewards, unless you are in the business of building prisons that is.
> ...



You are an idiot.

Prisons are little more than warehouses. We don’t do anything but keep them.

Getting tough results in the prisoners getting tough too. That is why the recidivism rate is so high. The prisoners learn nothing but aggression and more violence. You reinforce the wrong lessons.

Norway has a lower rate because they spend the time to retrain the people. To rehabilitate them. Finland has been closing prisons because of the success of their similar programs. But we Americans know better. We will get tougher. So what if something else works better. We demand the worst and we get it.

Then when the prisoner completes his sentence. We barely allow them to have menial labor jobs. We don’t want ex cons near us. To make sure we pass laws to make it even tougher for the ex con to get jobs.

We don’t want to hear about successful programs. We want more agony. Just because it hasn’t worked yet doesn’t mean it won’t if we get tougher. Like the Communists. You are an idiot. It doesn’t work. It never has. But like a religious belief you cling to it as the future.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 21, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> So lets break it down by the numbers.
> 
> in 2019 10189 people were murdered by a person using a firearm. (Notice I didn't say murdered by a gun. That's because guns can't murder anyone)



Actually, it's 14,500.   That's just the homicides... I wasn't even counting the suicides.  

Now compare that to 4 killed by guns in Japan.  40 in the UK. 200 In Germany.   You get the idea.   



Blues Man said:


> That's .003% of the population.
> 
> So for the entire year of 2019 you had a .003% chance of being murdered by a person with a gun.




Okay. Let's look at that.  In 2001, 3000 people were killed in a terrorist attack.  That was less than .001% of the population!!!   Yet despite that being a ONE YEAR anomaly, (most years, the number of Americans killed by terrorists are less than 10), we take extraordinary efforts to hunt down and monitor terrorist groups.

Wait. Wait. It gets better.   283 Americans were killed in Aviation crashes in 2019.    But funny thing, we regulate the hell out of who can get on a plane, who can fly a plane, where planes can fly, etc.    All to prevent something that doesn't happen that often.


----------



## Flash (Mar 21, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > You didn't answer my question Moon Bat.
> ...



You are confused Moon Bat

If I wanted to have a really bad day no friggin law is going to stop me.  Every day in Democrat controlled Chicago a bunch of your Negro buddies have bad days and Chicago has the strictest gun control laws in the country.  Gun control laws don't stop druggies, street thugs, gang bangers and nut cases from having bad days.  The ones that commit the great majority of the gun crimes in this country.

Oppressive gun control laws don't stop people that want to have bad days.  All they do is take Liberty away from Americans citizens that have good days.

I have good days when i go out to the range and shoot my AR-15s for recreational purposes.  I have good days collecting and building firearms.  I have good days knowing my home is secure from those assholes that want to have a bad day.  I have good days knowing that I have the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

You really need to pull your head out of your Liberty hating ass Moon Bat.  You sound like a fool whenever you post your uneducated Libtard garbage.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 21, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Shit head....it was well known that koresh walked into town every week to get icecream and could have been picked up at anytime, alone and unarmed.....the ATF wanted a big operation to justify their budget and to get an increase....they caused the deaths of those children.



yes, the ATF could have done that better...> So could have the cops who bashed in Breonna Taylor's door in the middle of the night.  

But Koresh had 53 days to consider what he was doing, and decided that mass suicide was better than going to jail as a Chomo.


----------



## Flash (Mar 21, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...




If he doesn't live a Democrat controlled big city shithole and isn't a gang banger, druggie, street thug, Negro or Illegal that percentage is probably more like .00001.  Much less than the chance of drowning in a backyard swimming pool or getting struck by lightning.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 21, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > So lets break it down by the numbers.
> ...











						Homicides by murder weapon in the U.S. 2021 | Statista
					

Handguns are by far the most common murder weapon used in the United States, accounting for 6,012 homicides in 2021.




					www.statista.com
				




Nope in 2019 it was actually 10753, I didn't add in the rifles and shotguns.

but that doesn't really change the numbers.

.0032%


Do you fear being murdered by some "gun nut" to the same degree you fear dying in a terrorist attack?

It seems to me you have an unreasonable fear of being murdered by a person with a firearm.

And if the only thing we did was to enforce the federal gun laws we already have on the books I bet we could decrease murders by 60% or more.

And suicides don't count because suicide isn't murder , nor is it a crime.


----------



## westwall (Mar 21, 2021)

SavannahMann said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...








Because of CULTURE.  Norway is a homogenous society.  There are twice as many illegal aliens in the USA as there are people in all of Norway.

Most of the illegals are OK folks, but, a very small minority of them are extremely violent.  More violent by far, than the people born and raised here. 

Why do you ignore that very simple fact?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 21, 2021)

SavannahMann said:


> You are an idiot.
> 
> Prisons are little more than warehouses. We don’t do anything but keep them.
> 
> ...



Why do you people always try to compare the US to other countries?  What works here may not work there and what works there may not work here. We are different cultures and much more diverse than those other places.  

Fact of the matter is a strong enough deterrent works every time it's tried.  Prisons are for punishment, not to train people how to make a living.  You do that when you're in the free world outside of prison.  The aftermath of your prison term you brought on yourself.  I know people who've been in prison.  They tell me once you get used to it, there really is no fear if they had to go back.  The prisoners don't learn aggression and violence in prison. They were that way before they got to prison, and many of them sent there because they were violent.


----------



## Flash (Mar 21, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > You are confused about this Moon Bat.
> ...




You just don't get it, do you?  Do you have peanut butter stuck in your ears?

The great majority of the gun crimes that are committed in this country are committed by a criminal element that already disobeys the existing gun laws.

Passing more gun controls won't change that but it will take Liberty away from the people that don't use firearms for illegal purposes.  A Liberty guarantee to us under the Constitution of the United States.

You don't give jackshit about the Bill of Rights, do you?  Typical uneducated hate filled Moon Bat, aren't you? 

Stop being a fucking Pajama Boy pussy.

My firearms are not threat to you unless you try to harm my family.

I guess not everybody has the courage to live in a free society.  Pussy Bois like you want National Socialism so the government controls everything.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 21, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> you mean other than you might have a "Really bad day" and shoot up some place that I am at.
> 
> The best argument for gun control is a five minute conversation with a gun nut.



Except for the fact that never happens.  CCW holders are the most law abiding group in the country.  Don't worry about the people legally allowed to carry a firearm, worry much more about the people that are not.  They're the ones that are going to get you--not us.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 21, 2021)

Flash said:


> You just don't get it, do you? Do you have peanut butter stuck in your ears?
> 
> The great majority of the gun crimes that are committed in this country are committed by a criminal element that already disobeys the existing gun laws.



Are they?  The vast majority of gun crimes are domestic violence.  Sorry, man. That's why we are the only country that has this problem.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 21, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Except for the fact that never happens. CCW holders are the most law abiding group in the country. Don't worry about the people legally allowed to carry a firearm, worry much more about the people that are not. They're the ones that are going to get you--not us.



Um, yeah, frankly, they aren't the ones talking about all the people they want to shoot...that would be you guys.


----------



## freyasman (Mar 21, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > You just don't get it, do you? Do you have peanut butter stuck in your ears?
> ...


False.



You never let the fact that you're constantly wrong interfere with your absolute certainty..... that's a sign of mental defect, BTW.

IOW, you're retarded.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Shit head....it was well known that koresh walked into town every week to get icecream and could have been picked up at anytime, alone and unarmed.....the ATF wanted a big operation to justify their budget and to get an increase....they caused the deaths of those children.
> ...




Breonna taylors boyfriend shot at the police.......he caused her death, not the police.  You idiot.

Koresh could have been taken into custody at anytime, easily, but the ATF made the call to raid the entire compound......getting those children killed in the process....


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...




You are wrong...the Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 with 2 pistols.....had he picked a different target, like the pulse nightclub shooter he easily could have killed more....he picked a school, and started in a classroom allowing lots of people in other classrooms to escape before he got to them...you idiot....

Luby's cafe...24 killed....

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

And the Americans who support your stupid policies don't understand the issues or the goals of people like you who support the anti-gun extremists.....if the actual agenda was explained to them they wouldn't support what you want.

* Common sense says, limit the mag size to 15 and you halve the dead body count in half. *


*No...common sense doesn't show that, since changing a magazine isn't a limiting factor on mass public shootings...since they plan them 6 months to 2 years in advance......

Target location.....which are packed with unarmed people....gun free zones by law...is the primary factor.

The secondary factor is how quickly a good guy can shoot back at the mass public shooter, since they either surrender or run away, or are killed or injured.....



You have been shown that that is just bullshit.......actual research shows that magazine capacity has no bearing on the number of people killed in mass public shootings....you were given the research, it shows you are wrong, but you continue with your B.S. on limiting magazines...

And there is a reason anti-gun extremists want to ban 15 round magazines that you won't admit......by limiting to 10 rounds, they ban millions and millions of pistols that have 15 round magazines.....it is a ban by the back door.....which is why your 15 round magazine limit isn't the one they are pushing...*


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...



And here is the anti-gun threat...

*Either you work with us or you might lose a hell of a lot more than you think. *

*Give us what we want now, or we will take more.....

Then....

They come back and say, give us what we want now, or we will take more...


Then....

The come back and say, give us what we want now, or we will take more...

And they always come back and take more....*


----------



## freyasman (Mar 21, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...


Quit wasting time talking to them. 
Tell them to fuck off,  and shoot them if they don't.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2021)

SavannahMann said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...




Because of their culture...and because they don't have a political party that allows violent, repeat gun offenders out of jail and prison over and over again.....the criminals who are doing all of the shooting are the criminals our democrat party keeps letting out of jail and prison, that's why.....

We don't have a tough on crime policy, you dumb ass......as I keep showing, the democrat party keeps releasing violent, repeat gun offenders from jail and prison....over and over again...

If you keep letting out violent criminals, you keep having violent crime....


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > You are confused about this Moon Bat.
> ...




You keep lying.........the majority of gun murders occur among criminals...you have been shown the research over and over again, but you want to lie to push your agenda.......

And we just posted the information showing that the 43 number was a lie......we gave you the links and the quotes and you still lie about it...

2017 homicide data provide insight into Baltimore's gun wars, police say



*About 86 percent of the victims and 85 percent of the 118 suspects identified by police had prior criminal records.* 

*And about 46 percent of victims and 44 percent of suspects had previously been arrested for gun crimes, the data show.*
*
----

The average homicide victim in Baltimore in 2017 had 11 previous arrests on his record. 

About 73 percent had drug arrests, and nearly 50 percent had been arrested for a violent crime. About 30 percent were on parole or probation at the time they were killed, and more than 6 percent were on parole or probation for a gun crime.

Twenty percent of the victims were known members of a gang or drug crew, according to the data.

The average homicide suspect, meanwhile, had 9 previous arrests on his record. About 70 percent had drug arrests, and nearly half had been arrested for a violent crime. Nearly 36 percent were on parole or probation, and 6 percent were on parole or probation for a gun crime, the data show.
*
*Eighteen percent of the suspects were known members of a gang or drug crew, according to the data.*

The Criminology of Firearms
In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications and some empirical research of its own about guns. The Academy could not identify any gun restriction that had reduced violent crime, suicide or gun accidents.

Why don't gun bans work? Because they rely on voluntary compliance by gun-using criminals. Prohibitionists never see this absurdity because they deceive themselves into thinking that, as Katherine Christoffel has said: "[M]ost shootings are not committed by felons or mentally ill people, but are acts of passion that are committed using a handgun that is owned for home protection."

*Christoffel, et al., are utterly wrong. The whole corpus of criminological research dating back to the 1890'sshows murderers "almost uniformly have a long history of involvement in criminal behavior," and that "[v]irtually all" murderers and other gun criminals have prior felony records — generally long ones.*

*While only 15 percent of Americans have criminal records, roughly 90 percent of adult murderers have prior adult records — exclusive of their often extensive juvenile records — with crime careers of six or more adult years including four major felonies. Gerald D. Robin, writing for the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences,notes that, unlike ordinary gun owners, "the average murderer turns out to be no less hardened a criminal than the average robber or burglar."*


----------



## westwall (Mar 21, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...







That's why these anti freedom (because ultimately That's what gun control is all about) fascists need to be fought at every step.

Their lies need to be exposed, and their propaganda defeated.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > So lets break it down by the numbers.
> ...




Gun crimes in Britain are going up, you doofus, as their drug crime is taken over by 3rd World immigrant gangs who do not share the culture of the British .........Japan is a police state as you have been shown over and over again, and their criminals get guns easily when they want to use them...but their criminal culture is focused on wealth, not violence....and their gangs are homogenous not of various national and racial groups who war with each other over girlfriends and social media insults...

You don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > You just don't get it, do you? Do you have peanut butter stuck in your ears?
> ...




Of the domestic violence, you idiot.....they are done by drug addicts, alcoholics and people with previous criminal records.......

We are not the only country with this problem...just ask England where London is unsafe for women and girls...according to their own mayor...you dunce.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > You just don't get it, do you? Do you have peanut butter stuck in your ears?
> ...




You are an idiot...

*They have histories of non-domestic criminal behavior*
Various studies have found different numbers, but all of them are high:


40-60% had non-domestic criminal histories. Only 5% had criminal histories that _only_ involved domestic abuse.111
91% of men who were subject to an OP had a prior criminal and/or juvenile delinquency record.112
78% of offenders whose partners sought an OP had criminal histories, with an average of 13 prior charges.113
Prior arrest rates in different cities ranged from 59% to 85%.114
-------
*They get arrested again and again115,116*
Consistent results have been found across numerous studies.
Men who have even one prior arrest for _any_ crime —domestic or non-domestic— are more likely to be arrested for abusing their partner than those who have never been arrested for anything.117
Among men who had been arrested for domestic violence at least once, 71% were arrested again over the next nine years, many of them more than once; 62% of the new arrests were for non-domestic crimes.118
Men arrested for domestic violence who had previously been arrested for any offense were over seven times more likely to be arrested again in the future than those with no prior record.119
Men who have been arrested for _any_ crime are just as likely to reabuse their partner as those who have been arrested for past domestic violence.120
Abusers who had been arrested as juveniles were 1.8 times as likely to commit future abuse than those who had no juvenile arrest.121
Abusers who had been arrested more than once were even more likely to reabuse their partner. Among abusers on probation for domestic violence, 23% of those who were on probation following their first arrest reabused their partner over the course of the next year. This increased to 40% of those with one prior arrest, and 73% of those with more than one prior arrest.122
Prior non-domestic violence arrests significantly predicted whether men attending abuser programs would be arrested for abusing their partner again.123

*They abuse substances*
Wilson and Klein’s study compared men who were more heavily involved in substance abuse, were generally more violent, and had longer criminal careers with men who had shorter histories of crime and substance abuse. Only 25% of the former group desisted from IPV after being arrested, vs. 59% of the latter.124 Wilson and Klein consider this to be “evidence that a major proportion of arrested [male] abusers are persistently violent, substance abusing criminals.”125

*Summary*
Wilson and Klein’s study found that:
Over 10 years, 75% of the men studied were rearrested for subsequent crimes involving substance abuse or violence (including IPV), or both.
A majority of those involved with the criminal justice system were re-arrested for a domestic violence offense within ten years
Men arrested for IPV were generally antisocial and persistently criminal. IPV was part of a general pattern of criminal activity.






__





						Understanding Domestic Abusers: Abusers Involved with the Criminal Justice System - NYS OPDV
					





					opdv.ny.gov


----------



## Flash (Mar 21, 2021)

2aguy said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...




It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a Moon Bat to pull their heads out of their asses.

You can keep stating facts to these Moon Bats all day long and since they don't want to hear the truth they ain't gonna listen.

They are not exactly the brightest bulbs in the chandelier.

Their real agenda to take firearms away from Right leaning White people so that there will not be a potential impediment to making America a Socialist shithole.  they don't care about the enormous Black on Black crimes in the Democrat controlled big cities with a large minority population.  They just pretend it doesn't exist.

That is why shitheads like this JoeB character are saying my firearms is a threat to him, although I have never used one for a crime and have no plans to ever do so.

The fact that I am not a Left Wing Commie dickhead is the real threat to them.  They want to deprive me of my Constitutional rights to keep and bear arms because I wasn't contributing to their BLM/ANTIFA insurrection.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 21, 2021)

westwall said:


> That's why these anti freedom (because ultimately That's what gun control is all about) fascists need to be fought at every step.
> 
> Their lies need to be exposed, and their propaganda defeated.



Once we allow them to take that first step, all is lost.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 21, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...



So you bring 4 Mags makes it more difficult.  That means you have 60 rounds instead of 120.  And I can change a mag on an AR in about 1 second so there is no point there.  The shooters are not usually that profient.  I've seen combat troops drop a fully loaded mag in the confusion.  So you have half the rounds.  Do the math here.  But mostly, it takes the advantage the AR has over the 15 round handgun.  Put your mind in the mind of the potential mass shooter.  It's not a fun place to be.  When the ban was lifted on the AR, the real killing started and almost became a nearly every day ocurrance for those going for the record.  We broke the cycle with that simple regulation.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 21, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > That's why these anti freedom (because ultimately That's what gun control is all about) fascists need to be fought at every step.
> ...



The first, second and third step has already been taken.  Either work with us "Sane" people or lose to the "Insane" ones.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 21, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...



What you view as your "Right" may be just a "Privilege".  When a "Right" becomes detrimental to the well being of the Public (Public Safety) then it becomes a "Privilege".


----------



## westwall (Mar 21, 2021)

Flash said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...








Everything you say is true, but having idiots, like Joe B, trot out their BS propaganda is actually a very good foil for us to present real facts to those who don't know, but want to know.

The largest increase of gun owners is among women and the gay community who have been figuring out that the Dems, and fools like vrenn et al, have been lying to them.


----------



## westwall (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...










No sane person will work with fascists, like you.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 21, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...



But when they are, it's usually devistating.  Much more than your little popgun could ever be or even a sane handgun.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 21, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You had me until that last sentence.


----------



## westwall (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> woodwork201 said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...









Wrong.  Rights don't depend on anything.  GOVERNMENT  tries like hell to abrogate Rights because government is power.  And government always wants more power.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 21, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > You keep talking about banning. I haven't said a thing about it. This is just one more "Routine" that you gunnutters have that you try and instill fear and awe into other gun owners. Talk to me about regulation.
> ...



You are trying to talk down to me.  You already know I am a strong supporter of the CCW program and vehemently condemn the untrained open carry.  The CCW carriers AREN'T part of the problem and never were.  That argument is nothing more than a Strawman.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 21, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Um, yeah, frankly, they aren't the ones talking about all the people they want to shoot...that would be you guys.



You guys?  When did I ever say I want to shoot anybody?  On all the gun topics where I speak of myself, I have been consistent with having no desire to hurt or kill anybody., When I strap my shoulder holster on, or clip my back holster to my pants belt, I pray I don't get into any conflict that will cause me to need deadly force.  

Fact of the matter is all licensed carriers have been checked out by multiple government agencies, and that's one reason you have nothing to fear from us.  Secondly, you don't get a license if in your past you've displayed your inability to control your anger and act out instead.  Those are the people you worry about; two guys get into a verbal argument, and one of them kills the other over a heated debate about something stupid, or loses a fist fight.  I knew a guy I hung around with as a kid who lost his life that way.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 21, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Um, yeah, frankly, they aren't the ones talking about all the people they want to shoot...that would be you guys.
> ...



That's one thing we can agree on.  CCW license holders are NOT a problem.  They may be the solution if enough of them are on the street at any one time.  I doubt if the corner liquor store is being robbed by a CCW license holder.  Or the shooting at the local school is done by a CCW License holder.  I think in the modern history, there has only been 3 recorded times that a CCW License Holder has discharged his firearm in a criminal way.  I can only find one but others pointed out two others.  

Tell me this, do you support requiring a Citizen to obtain a CCW to carry a concealed weapon?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> You are trying to talk down to me. You already know I am a strong supporter of the CCW program and vehemently condemn the untrained open carry. The CCW carriers AREN'T part of the problem and never were. That argument is nothing more than a Strawman.



Well if you implement new regulations, who do you thing that effects, the criminal?  And no, I am not talking down to you or anybody.  I'm just stating facts. 

A guy who plans on killing a bunch of people doesn't care if 30 round mags are illegal.  He will find a way to get one, or just use 15 round mags and change them as needed.  They can't make gun laws specifically for criminals, they have to make them for all of us, so that tens of millions are disadvantaged for the actions of a very rare few.  

Let me fill you in on a secret here:  The reason Democrats want to take our guns is because of politics.  Take away guns from law abiding citizens, and that gives the criminals a huge advantage over us.  When they finally have a society where only the police and criminals have the guns and nobody else, they create a new group of victims.  Democrats love victims and victims love Democrats.  

So how do we fight big crime?  The same way we fought big tobacco, fight big business, big pharma, and that is with a bigger government.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> That's one thing we can agree on. CCW license holders are NOT a problem. They may be the solution if enough of them are on the street at any one time. I doubt if the corner liquor store is being robbed by a CCW license holder. Or the shooting at the local school is done by a CCW License holder. I think in the modern history, there has only been 3 recorded times that a CCW License Holder has discharged his firearm in a criminal way. I can only find one but others pointed out two others.
> 
> Tell me this, do you support requiring a Citizen to obtain a CCW to carry a concealed weapon?



Most certainly I do.  I think that everybody at the very least who carries needs to study the laws and pass a test.  In Ohio, our requirements are ten hours of class time and two hours on the range.  Speaking of the range, I've been at the range before when yahoos were there at the same time.  They treat guns like toys.  One time I seen these assholes shoot a hole in the ceiling, and laughing like a couple of school girls.  I don't want those people around me and I don't want them carrying on the street.  

People like that won't spend the money, go through the class to get a license.  In our state, you have to be at least 21 years old to apply for a license, and that's a good thing so we don't have immature teenagers carrying guns and mishandling them like those kids I spoke about above.  

We have gun groups here trying to rescind the law of having to inform a police officer when they are armed either on the street or in their vehicle.  I'm against that as well.  Even if they would remove that law, I will always inform a police officer that I'm armed.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 21, 2021)

westwall said:


> Everything you say is true, but having idiots, like Joe B, trot out their BS propaganda is actually a very good foil for us to present real facts to those who don't know, but want to know.
> 
> The largest increase of gun owners is among women and the gay community who have been figuring out that the Dems, and fools like vrenn et al, have been lying to them.



A couple of years ago, I read an article about more women applicants in our state than men.  

I remember back when I first started shooting.  We'd go to the range, only a few people there, and the guys would be on the range while their girlfriends or wives sat at the table behind the glass and talked ceramics or read magazines.  

Today it's an hour wait or more many times to get a booth, and they opened up two more ranges in this area.  The women are right with their boyfriends or husbands taking turns shooting at the targets.  
So I think the Democrats better be very careful about getting down on guns.  It's been a growing interest in this country for the last 30 years.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> The first, second and third step has already been taken. Either work with us "Sane" people or lose to the "Insane" ones.



No, it has not been taken yet.  What they have in their gun bill now is forcing all gun purchasers to submit to a psychological exam at the cost of $800.00, get a federal license, and anybody you may have had a disagreement with can voice their opposition to you getting that license in which to buy that gun.  It may be an ex-wife, an ex-girlfriend, a neighbor or family member.  The shrink will be the one questioning these people, and I'm sure a lot of good people won't be able to get one, because the Democrats will likely choose who those shrinks are, which will be anti-gun leftists like themselves.


----------



## westwall (Mar 21, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Everything you say is true, but having idiots, like Joe B, trot out their BS propaganda is actually a very good foil for us to present real facts to those who don't know, but want to know.
> ...







That's why idiots like Joe continually trot out bogus numbers trying to make the new shooters think there is something wrong with them.  

Fascists like Joe don't ever tell the truth because the truth undermines everything they claim.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 21, 2021)

westwall said:


> That's why idiots like Joe continually trot out bogus numbers trying to make the new shooters think there is something wrong with them.
> 
> Fascists like Joe don't ever tell the truth because the truth undermines everything they claim.



In their minds, if you have a hobby you enjoy, that makes you a nut.  Well why aren't people who love sports considered nuts, or people who go to movies constantly, or people who collect coins and have several cars? 

This is one of the biggest differences between conservatives and liberals.  If a conservative doesn't like something, they will not participate in it.  If a liberal doesn't like something, nobody else should like it either.


----------



## SavannahMann (Mar 21, 2021)

westwall said:


> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Norway had one of the worst mass shootings in history. If that isn’t violent I don’t know what is.

But even as I pointed out that Norway has a 20% Recidivism Rate. They aren’t perfect. Nobody is. So why reject something that evidence shows works better just because it isn’t perfect?

We got three of the most important factors for successful Carrier operations from the Brits. Why? It was better. Not perfect. Better. We got the Ribbon Bridge from the Russians. It was better.

we copied the Range Rover and got the Ford Explorer.

Now let’s say we don’t get down to a 20% rate. Our rate is close to 77%. We drop the rate to 50%. Only 50%. So instead of 3 out of 4 people committing more crimes we have one out of two. Perhaps we design a better system after learning and make it 33%. Not 20%. But better than 77% yes?

But no. We won’t even consider it. Instead we want to get tougher. Sure Communism hasn’t worked ever in history. But this time it will. Because we are going to do it right. You sound just as dumb as those idiots who say that.

The current system is not working. It isn’t. Why not try something different. Worst case it doesn’t work either. So we try something else. It is proof of the old saying. The difference between Genius and Stupidity is that Genius has limits. Continuing with the same flawed failing system is just Stupid. Demanding we double down on a failed system is proof that Stupid has no limits.


----------



## Dadoalex (Mar 21, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Hey...Daryl hunt........you were saying about the colorado AR-15 ban?
> 
> *Now, a Colorado judge has tossed the AR-15 ban in the trash bin, along with the provision prohibiting ownership of magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. That’s the backdoor gun ban right there. It’s not just about the rifle. It’s about curbing constitutional gun rights by these magazine laws. *
> 
> ...


Watch how fast this fool is overturned.


----------



## Dadoalex (Mar 21, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > That's why idiots like Joe continually trot out bogus numbers trying to make the new shooters think there is something wrong with them.
> ...


REALLY?????

You've never heard the terms
SPORTS NUT
CAR NUT
MOVIE NUT?

Where the flock are you from?  When the flock are you from?

And your conservative vs liberal thing is just a lie.
OR, Do you favor
Making drugs ALL DRUGS, legal?
Making prostitution and other sex crimes legal?

Those are two things you nuts both participate in AND want made illegal.

Thread = LOSE
No idea what point you tried to make since all you really did was expose your own ignorance and hypocrisy.


----------



## westwall (Mar 21, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > That's why idiots like Joe continually trot out bogus numbers trying to make the new shooters think there is something wrong with them.
> ...






Ultimately it is about control.  What's truly funny is the billionaires,  that these asshats all claim to hate, are the ones pushing gun control.  So long as the PEOPLE have guns we are citizens.   

The second the rich can take our guns away, we become serfs again.


----------



## westwall (Mar 21, 2021)

SavannahMann said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > SavannahMann said:
> ...








Yes, they did.  A country that has every gun law you want....and MORE.  Had one mass killing that killed more than ALL  of our mass shootings over a ten year period. 

So nice you admit it.

I do find it funny that you think communism can ever work.   So far you murderous swine have murdered more than 200 million people in the last one hundred years.  

So, what's the next goal a billion?  How many people do you need to kill to make your system work?


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 21, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > You are trying to talk down to me. You already know I am a strong supporter of the CCW program and vehemently condemn the untrained open carry. The CCW carriers AREN'T part of the problem and never were. That argument is nothing more than a Strawman.
> ...



Only a very small  group of Democrats wish this.  The Majority doesn't.  Your battle cry is pretty empty.


----------



## SavannahMann (Mar 21, 2021)

westwall said:


> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I used Communism as another example of a failed idea. You are as dumb as they are. It has never worked. It can’t work. Just as the stupid idea that tough prisons will do anything to prevent more crime. An equally stupid idea.

o

I thought it was clearly stated. Apparently your reading comprehension is more proof of your stupidity.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 21, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > That's one thing we can agree on. CCW license holders are NOT a problem. They may be the solution if enough of them are on the street at any one time. I doubt if the corner liquor store is being robbed by a CCW license holder. Or the shooting at the local school is done by a CCW License holder. I think in the modern history, there has only been 3 recorded times that a CCW License Holder has discharged his firearm in a criminal way. I can only find one but others pointed out two others.
> ...



You do know you just supported Firearms Regulation, don't you.  And you listed some very good points why.  It's called "Common Sense".


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 21, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > The first, second and third step has already been taken. Either work with us "Sane" people or lose to the "Insane" ones.
> ...



Any fruitcake in Congress can present a bill.  That doesn't mean it's going to be passed.  And anyone that votes to pass a bill with that in there loses my vote fast.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Any fruitcake in Congress can present a bill. That doesn't mean it's going to be passed. And anyone that votes to pass a bill with that in there loses my vote fast.



Normally I would agree with you.  But they have total control over the federal government now, and the party is being run by radicals.  On his website, Biden himself agreed to these things and more.  

Bills are not an up and down vote.  They haggle and may take one or two things out.  But one way or another they are going to pass some form of this gun bill.  Will it get stopped in court?  That remains to be seen.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> You do know you just supported Firearms Regulation, don't you. And you listed some very good points why. It's called "Common Sense".



There has always been firearm regulation; hundreds of laws written about firearms.  My stance is we don't need anymore.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Only a very small group of Democrats wish this. The Majority doesn't. Your battle cry is pretty empty.



Wrong.  It's what they all want--power.  

Each party wants to attract more people to their side, expanding the tent as they like to call it.  The two largest groups for the Democrats are government dependents and victims.  It only makes political sense that they try to expand these groups.  Look at what they propose in legislation or talk about.  Free college, medicare for all, reparations, additional federal unemployment, universal basic income.  For the other group, victims of big business, victims of the rich people, victims of discrimination, victims of sexuality, victims of racism, and my favorite of all, war on women.  By slowly disarming Americans, they will create another Democrat group, victims of violent crime.  

Democrats don't care if we have guns.  What bothers them is we can defend ourselves with them.  If people can take care of themselves, then who needs Democrats around?  

I can see the man behind the curtain.  It's why our border is a mess now.  They want as many of these people from South and Central America as they can squeeze in.  For what?  To create a single-party government.  Every other group outside of whites votes a majority Democrat, some an extremely strong majority.  So what's the plan for unchallenged power?  Get rid of white people; not in a genocidal way, but a political way.  Work on making whites a minority in this country ASAP.  

They're doing all this too.  Now they want to force the rest of the country to vote their way by making national election laws.  Our founders never wanted that, but they don't care.  If they can get the same election results they did the last time, who knows, they just might outlaw voting in person.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > AZrailwhale said:
> ...


Guns are intended for legal use


----------



## freyasman (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> woodwork201 said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...


Look, everything you want, all the stuff you're asking for?

Answer is *"No."*


We're done; you can fuck off back to wherever you came from now.


----------



## freyasman (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Save the threats...... Chris Dorner was _one guy_ and he tied up all of SoCal LE for a solid week and cost them millions of dollars.

Start trying to enforce gun bans and you're going to have a _dozen_ Dorners in every city and quite a few Micah Johnsons as well.

Uniformed police won't be willing leave the station if they are taking rifle fire every time they leave the parking lot, lol.
And the DAs office, the fed's offices, FBI and ATF both, the fusion centers, etc., and their homes will all be in flames, and the firefighters will have been warned to steer clear and let them burn.







You don't have enough muscle in the world to try that shit with us, guy.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 21, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Any fruitcake in Congress can present a bill. That doesn't mean it's going to be passed. And anyone that votes to pass a bill with that in there loses my vote fast.
> ...



So far, the Courts have been pro Heller as am I.  And I don't see any change coming soon.  Just like the 5 and 10 round limits didn't survive the courts but the 15 did.  Have you ever seen an AR with a 10 round mag?  It's like something is missing.  I do find that the 15 round was a bit much and would have rather it limited to 20 like the original mag.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 21, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > You do know you just supported Firearms Regulation, don't you. And you listed some very good points why. It's called "Common Sense".
> ...



The earliest Gun Control we had was due to the Western Towns being shot up by cowboys coming in off the long trail.  Stray Bullets have no conscience.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 21, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Only a very small group of Democrats wish this. The Majority doesn't. Your battle cry is pretty empty.
> ...



There you go again, lumping ALL Democrats in with the fringes.  And you would be wrong.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...


How many rounds should you have in the case of a riot and rioters are coming towards your front door?


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 21, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



But guns get misused.  All I am trying to do is to agree with the "LAW" that limits the amount of ammo carried.  That, alone, keeps the body count to a lower level when they ARE misused.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...


that's incorrect 
First gun control was king George telling Americans they couldn't have guns


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 21, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...



None.  As a community, we would never allow riots and rioters to exist.  When the community has had enough, the rioting stops.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...


Cars get misused what's your point?
Laws, when they infringe on rights, are not acceptable 
FYI you do realize more people are killed with handguns and blunt objects kill more people than rifles.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 21, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...



Actually, no.  The first was the Magna Carte.  King George was trying to maintain a failing nation.  Doesn't make what he did was right but I sympathize with it.  But since those days, we have outgrown anything that the Founding Fathers could even imagine.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...


You don't live in America do you? or were you asleep in 2020? it was accepted by democrats t allow riots in 2020


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...


in America we are talking about America


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 21, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



You are using the same tired info that just gets you ignored by the majority.  

Of course Cars kill.  But Cars don't kill per killing nearly the number that a fully equipped soldier armed with an AR and 4 mags of 30 rounds each can.  

Rights are when it doesn't interfere with the public safety of others.  At that point it changes from a right to a privilege.

And when many areas and states moved to the 15 round limit per mag, it broke the CultAR and the really horrendous mass murders stopped.  Now it was just as efficient to use a handgun and the body count is much lower.  While you can't stop the shootings, you can minimize the body count.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> woodwork201 said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...


the ban did not stop any mass shootings 
It's already a criminal act to commit murder


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 21, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I do live in America.  And in MY America, we don't tolerate looting and rioting.  The Looting and Rioting can only exist if the community allows it.  If it's allowed where you are at, then it's YOU that are not part of America.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...


I'm using facts
You have nothing
FYI soldiers don't use AR15'S LOL
RIGHTS CANNOT BE INFRINGED UPON REGARDLESS OF PUBLIC SAFETY


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 21, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > woodwork201 said:
> ...



So?  It just reduced the body count.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...


well champ riots were tolerated in 2020


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 21, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I don't have time to argue with you.  So bye Bye.


----------



## westwall (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...







People misuse things all of the time.  It's idiotic to think that punishing 100 million gun owners for the criminal activities of 10,000.

Laws don't prevent misuse.  If laws worked that way there would be no DUI's, or murders, or rapes.  

All laws do is provide a framework to punish evildoers.  It does not, and never has, prevented the evildoers.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...


no it didn't 
columbine remember that school?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...


facts makes clueless people run away.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Rights are when it doesn't interfere with the public safety of others. At that point it changes from a right to a privilege.



No, our rights for this country are written down in the US Constitution, and none of them become a privilege for any reason.  They may be governed, but not changed.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 21, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Rights are when it doesn't interfere with the public safety of others. At that point it changes from a right to a privilege.
> ...



Governed equals Regulated. As in for the good of the general Public Safety in this case.  I, for one, don't take the last part of the 2nd amendment verbatum.  And neither did Hell V which is the gold standard for Gun Laws in this Nation.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> But guns get misused. All I am trying to do is to agree with the "LAW" that limits the amount of ammo carried. That, alone, keeps the body count to a lower level when they ARE misused.



You have zero evidence to backup that claim.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> overned equals Regulated. As in for the good of the general Public Safety in this case. I, for one, don't take the last part of the 2nd amendment verbatum. And neither did Hell V which is the gold standard for Gun Laws in this Nation.



That may be, but it doesn't turn a right into a privilege.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 21, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > But guns get misused. All I am trying to do is to agree with the "LAW" that limits the amount of ammo carried. That, alone, keeps the body count to a lower level when they ARE misused.
> ...



How about the lack of proof as in, the mass shootings going for the "NEW" record stopped.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 21, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > overned equals Regulated. As in for the good of the general Public Safety in this case. I, for one, don't take the last part of the 2nd amendment verbatum. And neither did Hell V which is the gold standard for Gun Laws in this Nation.
> ...



Then you are saying that the last part of the 2nd Amendment is not a Right?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> How about the lack of proof as in, the mass shootings going for the "NEW" record stopped.



I have no idea what that even means.  How many rounds a magazine carries is irrelevant in a mass murders given how quickly they can be changed, as the video I posted demonstrated.  Maybe if somebody killed 100 people but only got 99 instead, but that's not any kind of improvement.  

If I'm shooting into a crowd of people, unlike a rifle, I can keep shooting with one hand while my other is reaching for a new magazine.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Then you are saying that the last part of the 2nd Amendment is not a Right?



I'm say it is a right.  You stated rights are turned to privileges which I disagree with.  A court can't do that.  Now, rights may have limitations, but they can't be changed into a privilege.  Driving is a privilege, bearing arms is a right.


----------



## westwall (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...









Norway, every gun law you want and more 70+ dead.

Paris, every gun law you want and more
130+ dead.

Looks like gun laws don't prevent bad people from getting them.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Mar 21, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...



No matter who my attacker is, I'm pretty much assured that I'll have the upper hand.

I'm not afraid to live in the U.S.  Obviously you are, since you want to ban guns.  Why are you afraid of law abiding citizens?  I bet you lock your doors at night and have a security system.  Is that because you're afraid of something?


----------



## westwall (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...









No, he's saying you are mis reading it.

Well regulated, at the time  it was written, meant "in good working order".

Clocks made in that time are engraved with the term well regulated.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...



The last part of thr 2nd Amendment literally says gun ownership is a right...lol


----------



## woodwork201 (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> There you go again, lumping ALL Democrats in with the fringes.  And you would be wrong.


All Democrats are lumped with the fringes - unless you know a Democrat that voted for Trump.  

Every Democrat voted for a Democratic representative which kept Pelosi and her fringe in power in the House.  
Every Democrat voted for a Democratic senator which will likely give Schumer what he needs to end the filibuster and hand the country to the fringes.
Every Democrat voted for President Harris, the most left member of the Senate when she was in it and she loves hard co...........core..yes, that's the word.  Hard core communists.

In spite of their loud cries otherwise, there's no such thing as a pro-2nd Amendment Democrat.  There's no such thing as a pro-life Democrat.  When you vote for the party whose primary goals are abortion, socialism, and gun confiscation then you cannot claim that you do not support those things.   You do not vote to support those things because you think the minimum wage should be increased.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...



Where does Heller say that?


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 21, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > How about the lack of proof as in, the mass shootings going for the "NEW" record stopped.
> ...



The best you can hope for today with a handgun or normal semi auto rifle would be about 20 people before you are stopped.  And that would be if the person was highly skilled like the Ex-Marine in California that had to be taken down by superior fire power and numbers. But in the hands of someone experienced, that body count could have easily been much, much higher had he used an AR with multiple 30 round mags.   Yah, I know, the same can be said about a Mini-14 with 30 round mags but unlike the AR, it takes both hands to change the mags in a Mini-14, therefore slower fire rate overall.  Just those 2 or 3 seconds will save lives but not enough.  Lower the mag limits to 15 like the Courts had suggested.  Make you have to reload more times.  And you can only carry so many mags at a time.  Most would carry 1 in the gun and 3 or 4 in a vest or belt.  Anything past that really gets in the way and you clink when you walk.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 21, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > There you go again, lumping ALL Democrats in with the fringes.  And you would be wrong.
> ...



I know a bunch of Republicans that didn't vote for Rump.  A lot of them.  Doesn't make them fringe Democrats.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 21, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Then you are saying that the last part of the 2nd Amendment is not a Right?
> ...



Symatics, Symatics.


----------



## woodwork201 (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> But guns get misused.  All I am trying to do is to agree with the "LAW" that limits the amount of ammo carried.  That, alone, keeps the body count to a lower level when they ARE misused.



This is an unsubstantiated, and unsubstantiatable, lie. There are several states where high-capacity magazines are illegal.  Name a single shooting in one of those states that ended because the shooter ran out of magazines or ammunition.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 21, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...



No it doesn't.  It says you have the right to bear arms.  It doesn't say what arms or where you can have them.  You want it to read the way you think it does, get a 2/3rds Congress Vote for it or go the Continental Congress Route.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 21, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > But guns get misused.  All I am trying to do is to agree with the "LAW" that limits the amount of ammo carried.  That, alone, keeps the body count to a lower level when they ARE misused.
> ...



Aurora, Colorado.


----------



## jackflash (Mar 21, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Hey...Daryl hunt........you were saying about the colorado AR-15 ban?
> 
> *Now, a Colorado judge has tossed the AR-15 ban in the trash bin, along with the provision prohibiting ownership of magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. That’s the backdoor gun ban right there. It’s not just about the rifle. It’s about curbing constitutional gun rights by these magazine laws. *
> 
> ...


Gun control falls into the other ban/control categories throughout history: book burning, speech control(PC), tobacco control, pornography bans, clothing bans, knife bans, slingshot bans, alcohol control, nuclear weapon bans, homosexuality bans, obesity control, rec drug bans, prostitution bans, hate bans, internal combustion engine bans, junk food control & thousands of other items, activities & ideas through the years. Victimless so called crimes are the product of the busy body power & control narcissists that continue to plague every society upon our planet earth.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Mar 21, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...


Actually the percentage is far lower than that since something like eighty percent of gun deaths are criminal on criminal violence.  If you are a law-abiding citizen living in a normal area your chance of dying by any kind of violence drops to nearly zero.


----------



## freyasman (Mar 21, 2021)

No.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...



It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  There's no grey area there; no ambiguity.  The Supreme Court says it protects the right to keep and bear arms that are "in common use".  Semi automatic rifles are absolutely in common use.

A 2/3 vote in Congress isn't enough to change The Constitution.  It also takes a vote by 3/4 of the states.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> There you go again, lumping ALL Democrats in with the fringes.  And you would be wrong.



Anyone who votes Democrat votes for the fringe bullshit.  They either do so intentionally, or out of ignorance.


----------



## Flash (Mar 21, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



I don't have the stats bookmarked but I saw a report where if you exclude the six biggest cities ghetto crime areas then the rest of the country has a rate lower than Europe or Scandinavia.

I was born when Harry Truman was President.  In my life I have never been the victim of a crime.  None of my friends or family members either.  The clincher is that we all own firearms. Some of us a lot of firearms.


----------



## Flash (Mar 21, 2021)

In-ground swimming pools are death traps that disproportionately kill young children. No one needs an in-ground swimming pool, aside from Olympic swimmers and divers. The average person can swim in the ocean or an above-ground pool. I'm pro-pool, but banning in-ground death holes is just common sense regulation.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...


SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED MEANS EXACTLY THAT.
It doesn't mean if the government says you can have them


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> woodwork201 said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...




Wrong, and wrong.....none of the mass public shootings would have been affected by limiting to 15 round magazines....and, of course, they aren't calling for a 15 round limit but a 10 round limit because they know that bans million upon millions of pistols without having to vote to ban those pistols...they are just banning magazines....

Lifting the ban didn't change anything......

You are just pulling this crap out of your butt and you think people will think you sound correct....and you are not......

Actual research on magazine capacity and mass public shootings.....

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary  Kleck :: SSRN

*I.*

Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings? 
========
*In sum, in nearly all LCM-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading. 

Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shooters’ rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooter’s need to change magazines.
==========*

The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading. 


*LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings. *

News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined.

 There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload. 

*In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change. *


*Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.*
*
--------
*
We did not employ the oft-used definition of “mass murder” as a homicide in which four or more victims were killed, because most of these involve just four to six victims (Duwe 2007), which could therefore have involved as few as six rounds fired, a number that shooters using even ordinary revolvers are capable of firing without reloading.

 LCMs obviously cannot help shooters who fire no more rounds than could be fired without LCMs, so the inclusion of “nonaffectable” cases with only four to six victims would dilute the sample, reducing the percent of sample incidents in which an LCM might have affected the number of casualties.

 Further, had we studied only homicides with four or more dead victims, drawn from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports, we would have missed cases in which huge numbers of people were shot, and huge numbers of rounds were fired, but three or fewer of the victims died.


 For example, in one widely publicized shooting carried out in Los Angeles on February 28, 1997, two bank robbers shot a total of 18 people - surely a mass shooting by any reasonable standard (Table 1). 

Yet, because none of the people they shot died, this incident would not qualify as a mass murder (or even murder of any kind).

 Exclusion of such incidents would bias the sample against the proposition that LCM use increases the number of victims by excluding incidents with large numbers of victims. We also excluded shootings in which more than six persons were shot over the entire course of the incident but shootings occurred in multiple locations with no more than six people shot in any one of the locations, and substantial periods of time intervened between episodes of shooting. An example is the series of killings committed by Rodrick Dantzler on July 7, 2011. 

Once eligible incidents were identified, we searched through news accounts for details related to whether the use of LCMs could have influenced the casualty counts.

 Specifically, we searched for 

(1) the number of magazines in the shooter’s immediate possession, 

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine, 

(3) the number of guns in the shooter’s immediate possession during the incident, 

(4) the types of guns possessed, 

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident, 

(6) the number of rounds fired,

 (7) the duration of the shooting from the first shot fired to the last, and (8) whether anyone intervened to stop the shooter. 

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

 We identified 23 total incidents in which more than six people were shot at a single time and place in the U.S. from 1994 through 2013 and that were known to involve use of any magazines with capacities over ten rounds.


 Table 1 summarizes key details of the LCMinvolved mass shootings relevant to the issues addressed in this paper. 

(Table 1 about here) What fraction of all mass shootings involve LCMs?

There is no comprehensive listing of all mass shootings available for the entire 1994-2013 period, but the most extensive one currently available is at the Shootingtracker.com website, which only began its coverage in 2013.

-----



-----

The offenders in LCM-involved mass shootings were also known to have reloaded during 14 of the 23 (61%) incidents with magazine holding over 10 rounds. 

The shooters were known to have not reloaded in another two of these 20 incidents and it could not be determined if they reloaded in the remaining seven incidents. 

Thus, even if the shooters had been denied LCMs, we know that most of them definitely would have been able to reload smaller detachable magazines without interference from bystanders since they in fact did change magazines. 

The fact that this percentage is less than 100% should not, however, be interpreted to mean that the shooters were unable to reload in the other nine incidents. 

It is possible that the shooters could also have reloaded in many of these nine shootings, but chose not to do so, or did not need to do so in order to fire all the rounds they wanted to fire. This is consistent with the fact that there has been at most only one mass shootings in twenty years in which reloading a semiautomatic firearm might have been blocked by bystanders intervening and thereby stopping the shooter from doing all the shooting he wanted to do. All we know is that in two incidents the shooter did not reload, and news accounts of seven other incidents did not mention whether the offender reloaded.

----

For example, a story in the Hartford Courant about the Sandy Hook elementary school killings in 2012 was headlined “Shooter Paused, and Six Escaped,” the text asserting that as many as six children may have survived because the shooter paused to reload (December 23, 2012). ''

The author of the story, however, went on to concede that this was just a speculation by an unnamed source, and that it was also possible that some children simply escaped when the killer was shooting other children. 

There was no reliable evidence that the pauses were due to the shooter reloading, rather than his guns jamming or the shooter simply choosing to pause his shooting while his gun was still loaded. 

The plausibility of the “victims escape” rationale depends on the average rates of fire that shooters in mass shootings typically maintain.

 If they fire very fast, the 2-4 seconds it takes to change box-type detachable magazines could produce a slowing of the rate of fire that the shooters otherwise would have maintained without the magazine changes, increasing the average time between rounds fired and potentially allowing more victims to escape during the betweenshot intervals.

On the other hand, if mass shooters fire their guns with the average interval between shots lasting more than 2-4 seconds, the pauses due to additional magazine changes would be no longer than the pauses the shooter typically took between shots even when not reloading. 

In that case, there would be no more opportunity for potential victims to escape than there would have been without the additional magazine changes

-----


SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...




No......any licensing of a Right is a way to keep people from being able to exercise that Right.....

The democrat party required literacy tests for Blacks to vote,......that is unConstitutional....so any test on the Right to own and carry a gun is also unConstitutional...and then, if you throw in a fee to get that permit...that is also a direct violation of the Right.....Per Murdock v Pennsylvania

Murdock v. Pennsylvania: 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

Held:
- A municipal ordinance which, as construed and applied, requires religious colporteurs to pay a license tax as a condition to the pursuit of their activities, is invalid under the Federal Constitution as a denial of freedom of speech, press and religion.
- A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.
- The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise

Opinion:
...It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax -- a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution....
... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down...
... It is a flat license tax levied and collected as a condition to the pursuit of activities whose enjoyment is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Accordingly, it restrains in advance those constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise...
Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > The first, second and third step has already been taken. Either work with us "Sane" people or lose to the "Insane" ones.
> ...




Dittos any mandatory license to carry a gun.....the democrats will increase the requirements for that license to the point no one other than the very rich or politically connected will be able to get the license....sorry, no way I support that.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...




Wrong....that minority controls the house and the senate as well as the White House.....so a dedicated minority can kick the crap out of an uninformed and unmotivated majority......only 1/3 of the American colonists wanted to break from Britain...so again, you don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...



So far, the Courts have been pro Heller as am I.


Wrong...the 2nd, 4th, Ninth and several other Federal Circuit courts have either completely ignored Heller, or lied about what Heller stated......the left wing judges relied on the fact that the Supreme Court was split 4-4 on gun rights and neither side trusted where Roberts might rule on the issue so they didn't vote to rule on the lower court bogus rulings on gun laws....

And again...there is a specific reason the anti-gunners are not pushing a 15 round magazine limit....and why they are pushing a 10 round magazine limit.....many pistols come with 15 round magazines as standard......or between 12-15......by banning anything over 10, they make sure those guns can't be used....essentially banning them without having to vote on banning them.....it is a scam.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...




And those Western Towns achieved nothing with those laws......that myth is easily busted if you look at Tombstone, the town the anti-gun extremists always cite when they try to use the old West to support gun bans....

One Earp was murdered, and another was maimed by criminals with guns inside the town limits of Tombstone, and Doc Holiday just ignored those laws.......

The myth of western town gun control is just that, a myth...


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...



*All I am trying to do is to agree with the "LAW" that limits the amount of ammo carried. That, alone, keeps the body count to a lower level when they ARE misused.*


You are wrong......magazine limits don't do anything you say they do...not even in mass public shootings...you are just making that up because you think it sounds good......it is not true, factual or based in reality.....


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...




You just make things up, and then think people will accept it as truth.  Nothing you just posted is true, factual or based in reality......

The AR-15 was made popular with mass public shooters because anti-gunners promoted them as being different from other guns....they aren't.  There is only one mass public shooting where the AR-15 did anything different from semi-automatic pistols and shotguns...Las Vegas...where the shooter was firing form several hundred yards out into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people....

All the other mass public shooters occurred at under 50 yards, in hallways and rooms, where the AR-15 has no advantage or features that make it better than pistols or shotguns....

You don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## woodwork201 (Mar 21, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Rights are when it doesn't interfere with the public safety of others. At that point it changes from a right to a privilege.
> ...



While I agree with your message, I'd like to just remind us all that what is written are not all of our rights and writing them in the Constitution did not create or grant those rights.  All of the rights we have, mentioned in the Constitution or mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, or not mentioned anywhere at all, exist whether or not there was, or is, or will be, a constitution.

They can't be governed outside of the explicit authority in the Constitution.  And there's nothing in there to suggest that rights can be limited for the safety of others.  

I know you know this; I'm just getting it into the context of the discussion.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...



*The best you can hope for today with a handgun or normal semi auto rifle would be about 20 people before you are stopped.*

You know this is a lie.....you have been shown Virginia Tech and Luby's cafe ......32 killed in Virginia Tech and 24 at Luby's....in each case more could have been killed with different planning........an AR-15 would not have changed the number killed....and these two shootings killed more people than several other shootings where the shooter had an AR-15....

The Aurora theater shooter started with an AR-15 and it immediately jammed on him and he had to switch to a shotgun and pistol............

You are just making things up because you think they sound reasonable and no one will challenge what you say.....you are wrong.

And you can only carry so many mags at a time.  Most would carry 1 in the gun and 3 or 4 in a vest or belt. 

Mass public shooters plan their attacks, on average, 6 months to 2 years in advance...the Sandy Hook shooter had plenty of 10 round magazines which he changed out multiple times when he did his attack.....

They will simply carry spare magazines in pouches on their belt, you dimwit.......you have no idea what you are talking about.....


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...




Yeah...it does....as the Supreme Court stated in Heller...

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.*


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> woodwork201 said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...




His rifle jammed, you idiot....he switched to a shotgun and pistol......

You need to watch "Active Shooter," where they talk to survivors of the shooting......you have no idea what you are talking about......had he used 15 round magazines his weapon wouldn't have jammed...he could have used 10 round magazines and killed a lot more people....you idiot...you don't know what you are talking about......no one charged him, no one stopped him...he was trying to leave in his car  when a cop asked him who he was, and he surrendered.....without firing a shot.

* He also fired a Smith & Wesson M&P15[17] semi-automatic rifle with a 100-round drum magazine, which eventually malfunctioned.[17][18][19]









						2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



*


----------



## woodwork201 (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Governed equals Regulated. As in for the good of the general Public Safety in this case.  I, for one, don't take the last part of the 2nd amendment verbatum.  And neither did Hell V which is the gold standard for Gun Laws in this Nation.



Nothing at all in the Constitution about the good of the general Public Safety.. I checked and it's just not there.  If you don't take the Constitution verbatim then just how do you take it?  As a suggestion or general guideline when it fits the agenda of the political party in charge of the Whitehouse?

By Hell V, I assume you mean Heller.  Heller is certainly NOT the gold standard for gun laws in the United States.  It's an important case in that it did affirm the individual right to keep and bear arms but there are things that Scalia got wrong - Scalia actually was a gun controller; just not as extreme as, say, Chuck Schumer.  Heller also didn't address many key points of gun control.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 21, 2021)

jackflash said:


> Gun control falls into the other ban/control categories throughout history: book burning, speech control(PC), tobacco control, pornography bans, clothing bans, knife bans, slingshot bans, alcohol control, nuclear weapon bans, homosexuality bans, obesity control, rec drug bans, prostitution bans, hate bans, internal combustion engine bans, junk food control & thousands of other items, activities & ideas through the years. Victimless so called crimes are the product of the busy body power & control narcissists that continue to plague every society upon our planet earth.



The difference of course is that none of those other things are actually protected by the Constitution.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> No it doesn't. It says you have the right to bear arms. It doesn't say what arms or where you can have them.



And it doesn't say what arms you can't.  

Our founders realized that the primitive gun would not likely be the same weapon in 200 years from the writing of the Constitution, or even 50 years.  They knew arms would change but didn't restrict that right to only those arms.  Arms are arms.  It's like saying we could have a law that women can't vote in the primaries because the Constitution was not explicit in the right to vote.  Voting is voting and a right of all people.  

You have it backwards really.  If you want to have the Constitution to have exclusions for certain weapons, then you actually need an amendment, not an amendment to include them.  A right to bear arms means all arms regardless of the arms of the day.


----------



## woodwork201 (Mar 21, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > overned equals Regulated. As in for the good of the general Public Safety in this case. I, for one, don't take the last part of the 2nd amendment verbatum. And neither did Hell V which is the gold standard for Gun Laws in this Nation.
> ...



This is why we never concede to the mistaken idea that rights can be "governed" or regulated beyond what is expressly stated in the Constitution.  When we try to make the conversation civil by allowing that the mistaken opinions of the left have merit, even just as opinions, then they build on that to continue their argument.  When we concede that rights can be governed then all that is left is to decide how much they can be governed - or infringed.

The Second Amendment says "shall not be infringed."  It does not say, "shall not be infringed except" and it doesn't say, "shall not be infringed but".

If the Second Amendment can be infringed for good (or emotional) cause then who decides what is good cause?  Certainly not the people and certainly not Congress.  If it was the intent of the Founders that the people could vote away provisions of the Constitution, or that Congress could, or that the president could by executive order, then there would have been no need for Article V at all.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 21, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > No it doesn't. It says you have the right to bear arms. It doesn't say what arms or where you can have them.
> ...



The Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment for the day.  Since then, 2/3rds of it no longer applies.  A single state or even a group of states doesn't have the money nor the power to go up against the Federal Government.  Even the clause that limited the Federal Army to just 75,000 got thrown out the window in 1898.  Had it not, Spain would have kicked Americas butt soundly.  And it was cemented in the 1916/17 Federal National Guard Act.  So do we keep the US Army at the 75,000 limit or has it been completely thrown out?  The 2nd Amendment was originally written for fear of what King George did in 1775.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 21, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...



Then we need to limit the US Army to 75,000 like it originally was.  But we would have had our butts kicked by Spain, Germany twice, Japan once and so on.  You want it to be what you want, fine.  Let's go all the way and follow the first 2/3rds of the 2nd Amendment all the way verbatum.  But I don't speak Spanish, German, Russian, Chinese very well and don't really wish to be forced to.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> The best you can hope for today with a handgun or normal semi auto rifle would be about 20 people before you are stopped. And that would be if the person was highly skilled like the Ex-Marine in California that had to be taken down by superior fire power and numbers. But in the hands of someone experienced, that body count could have easily been much, much higher had he used an AR with multiple 30 round mags. Yah, I know, the same can be said about a Mini-14 with 30 round mags but unlike the AR, it takes both hands to change the mags in a Mini-14, therefore slower fire rate overall. Just those 2 or 3 seconds will save lives but not enough. Lower the mag limits to 15 like the Courts had suggested. Make you have to reload more times. And you can only carry so many mags at a time. Most would carry 1 in the gun and 3 or 4 in a vest or belt. Anything past that really gets in the way and you clink when you walk.



You think a maniac is concerned about clinking when he walks?  

Where do you get these 20 people from?  The shooter continues to shoot until an armed person addresses the criminal to stop him.  Hell, even my 9mm has a 15 round clip.  One in the gun, two in my front jeans pockets and two in the rear pockets, and I have  75 rounds right there.  Plus I know I can probably get two magazines in each of my front pockets.  

You're not going to believe my video, you're not going to believe 2aguy's links, so believe yourself.  Take a firearm with a 15 two round clips, make sure they're empty.  Make sure the chamber of the gun is empty.  Now pretend you are trying to shoot as fast as you can.  Hit the release button on the mag to drop it.  No, don't take it out with your hand.  Just let it fall to the floor.  Now take a magazine you have in your other hand and slap it in the gun.  See how long it takes for yourself if you're not going to believe any of us.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> The Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment for the day. Since then, 2/3rds of it no longer applies. A single state or even a group of states doesn't have the money nor the power to go up against the Federal Government. Even the clause that limited the Federal Army to just 75,000 got thrown out the window in 1898. Had it not, Spain would have kicked Americas butt soundly. And it was cemented in the 1916/17 Federal National Guard Act. So do we keep the US Army at the 75,000 limit or has it been completely thrown out? The 2nd Amendment was originally written for fear of what King George did in 1775.



But that's not a right of the people to have any size army.  When you're talking about rights of the people, the US Constitution is not a living document.  It's written in stone.  If our founders wrote the 2nd with the intent of only for being for that day, they would have included the weapons that the right covered.  Arms means all arms, whether you're talking the 1700s or 2000s.  If we want to change it, we can do it with a super majority of those that want it changed.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 21, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> This is why we never concede to the mistaken idea that rights can be "governed" or regulated beyond what is expressly stated in the Constitution. When we try to make the conversation civil by allowing that the mistaken opinions of the left have merit, even just as opinions, then they build on that to continue their argument. When we concede that rights can be governed then all that is left is to decide how much they can be governed - or infringed.
> 
> The Second Amendment says "shall not be infringed." It does not say, "shall not be infringed except" and it doesn't say, "shall not be infringed but".
> 
> If the Second Amendment can be infringed for good (or emotional) cause then who decides what is good cause? Certainly not the people and certainly not Congress. If it was the intent of the Founders that the people could vote away provisions of the Constitution, or that Congress could, or that the president could by executive order, then there would have been no need for Article V at all.



Unfortunately that was not our decision to have some restrictions on rights.  That was decided by the US Supreme Court. 

The debate we were having is a privilege vs a right.  A privilege is something government allows you to do or have.  A right doesn't need the permission of government.  It's already in the Constitution.  And we don't convert rights to privileges because if we did, then it's no longer a right.  It's like if we made driving an automobile a right.  If we did that, then it's no longer a privilege from the state.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 21, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Governed equals Regulated. As in for the good of the general Public Safety in this case.  I, for one, don't take the last part of the 2nd amendment verbatum.  And neither did Hell V which is the gold standard for Gun Laws in this Nation.
> ...



The ONLY reason the Supreme Court got involved was there are no state rights involved.  DC isn't a state.  The Modern Supreme Court avoids 2nd Amendment issues like the plague as it's States Rights and is actually outside of their venue.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 21, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > The Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment for the day. Since then, 2/3rds of it no longer applies. A single state or even a group of states doesn't have the money nor the power to go up against the Federal Government. Even the clause that limited the Federal Army to just 75,000 got thrown out the window in 1898. Had it not, Spain would have kicked Americas butt soundly. And it was cemented in the 1916/17 Federal National Guard Act. So do we keep the US Army at the 75,000 limit or has it been completely thrown out? The 2nd Amendment was originally written for fear of what King George did in 1775.
> ...



But it  IS a living document.  That was the original intent.  But they also made it very difficult to change it so that every Tom, Dick and Mary wouldn't be changing it on a whim.  So you are saying that the 1934 National Firearms Act and the McDonald V should be thrown out, right?


----------



## SavannahMann (Mar 21, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > But guns get misused. All I am trying to do is to agree with the "LAW" that limits the amount of ammo carried. That, alone, keeps the body count to a lower level when they ARE misused.
> ...



That is logic. Let’s say I have a five shot revolver. Obviously I can’t shoot fifty people. At least not without reloading nine times.

Conversely if the revolver is a .357 Magnum, the damage done would be significantly worse than if I was using a less powerful cartridge of the type normally found in high capacity magazines.

And the damage from a .44 Magnum would be catastrophic by comparison.

That is something the focus on magazine capacity crew never understands. If High Capacity Mags are not available people will gravitate towards the more powerful cartridges again. A .308 is roughly speaking twice as powerful as a .223 and that means more damage to the person.

In fact a .30 cal rifle cartridge is probably going to be a through and through wound. In other words there is a good possibility that you will wound a second firing into a crowd.

But people don’t understand science. And ballistics as well as firearms are a science. Even pro gun people allow bias to influence them.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 21, 2021)

SavannahMann said:


> That is logic. Let’s say I have a five shot revolver. Obviously I can’t shoot fifty people. At least not without reloading nine times.
> 
> Conversely if the revolver is a .357 Magnum, the damage done would be significantly worse than if I was using a less powerful cartridge of the type normally found in high capacity magazines.



The difference is a revolver and a semi-automatic are apples and oranges.  Two different styles of semi-automatics is just about the same thing.  They both shoot the same way.


----------



## woodwork201 (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> The best you can hope for today with a handgun or normal semi auto rifle would be about 20 people before you are stopped.  And that would be if the person was highly skilled like the Ex-Marine in California that had to be taken down by superior fire power and numbers.



Totally unsupported and unsupportable hogwash.  No science, no intellectual study, no statistics, back up what you're claiming.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> But it IS a living document. That was the original intent. But they also made it very difficult to change it so that every Tom, Dick and Mary wouldn't be changing it on a whim. So you are saying that the 1934 National Firearms Act and the McDonald V should be thrown out, right?



If it was a living document, then it's not a Constitution at all, is it?  A living document means it automatically changes with the times.  Okay, if that's so, then who decides what those changes are?  

A living document does not need an amendment process.  It just changes all on it's own.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 21, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > The best you can hope for today with a handgun or normal semi auto rifle would be about 20 people before you are stopped. And that would be if the person was highly skilled like the Ex-Marine in California that had to be taken down by superior fire power and numbers. But in the hands of someone experienced, that body count could have easily been much, much higher had he used an AR with multiple 30 round mags. Yah, I know, the same can be said about a Mini-14 with 30 round mags but unlike the AR, it takes both hands to change the mags in a Mini-14, therefore slower fire rate overall. Just those 2 or 3 seconds will save lives but not enough. Lower the mag limits to 15 like the Courts had suggested. Make you have to reload more times. And you can only carry so many mags at a time. Most would carry 1 in the gun and 3 or 4 in a vest or belt. Anything past that really gets in the way and you clink when you walk.
> ...



2boy is a nutcase and will forever be in my ignore file.  You, the other hand, actually discuss things.  It's okay to disagree with me but do it respectfully.  And I show the same thing.  

Now, let's talk about power.  The AR is on the weak side for a rifle bullet but it's still at least 3 times more powerful than a .357.  It's penetration is many times that of your 9mm.  You fire into a crowd, that one bullet goes through 2 and lodges into a third person or maybe even into the wall.  Now, do it by pressing the trigger as fast as you can you can easily fire more than 400 rounds per minute not including Mag changes.  I would figure that a person fluttering the trigger (including mag changes) can run through 4 mags in less than a minute.  You don't need bump stocks at all.  Just lots of ammo and large capacity mags.  In the Aurora shooting, the shooter did almost all his shooting with his mothers AR with a 100 round mag.  Luckily, it jammed right around round #50 or 56.  he also had a handgun and a shotgun but those were spent pretty quick.  He had the record until LV.  But the wounded were staggering.  There were many times the wounded than the dead.  It's a target rich environment.  Movie Houses and Concerts are all like that.  Schools are for the functionally stupid mass shooter going for the record.  What made the Movie House more of a potential death trap versus the outdoor concert, the movie house has no where to run to.  The outdoor concert starts out target rich but it ends up people dispersing in every which direction fast.  There also was a difference between a stupid, unskilled Teen versus an experienced shooter like in LV.  We've already seen what a combat veteran can do with a handgun (California).  Imagine if a recent Combat 
Veteran were to load up like he was going into battle with an AR.  How many people would die or be wounded in a target rich environment.  

The days of the Turkey Shoot in the Schools is over.  And the new record holder will have some pretty tall shoes to fill.  But it will happen again unless we use Regulations to limit the body count.  And that is all I am getting at.  We won't stop some sicko from trying it but we can make it harder for him to get the equipment to do it without banning the actual rifle itself.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 21, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > The best you can hope for today with a handgun or normal semi auto rifle would be about 20 people before you are stopped.  And that would be if the person was highly skilled like the Ex-Marine in California that had to be taken down by superior fire power and numbers.
> ...



I have enough experience in Combat to know.  I put myself in that situation and come to those conclusions.  I know the weapons, the limitations and the strengths.  If you can't do that, you shouldn't be in this discussion.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 21, 2021)

SavannahMann said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...



Which due to size of gun and cartridge size and weight limits the number of rounds available.  In the Military, there is a huge size and power difference between an Assault Rifle (.556) versus a full blown Battle Rifle (7.62 or bigger).  And the cost of the Battle Rifle (even in semi auto) will far exceed most fruitcake shooters pocket books.  And trying to use a hunting version is just stupid.


----------



## woodwork201 (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> The best you can hope for today with a handgun or normal semi auto rifle would be about 20 people before you are stopped.  And that would be if the person was highly skilled like the Ex-Marine in California that had to be taken down by superior fire power and numbers. But in the hands of someone experienced, that body count could have easily been much, much higher had he used an AR with multiple 30 round mags.   Yah, I know, the same can be said about a Mini-14 with 30 round mags but unlike the AR, it takes both hands to change the mags in a Mini-14, therefore slower fire rate overall.  Just those 2 or 3 seconds will save lives but not enough.  Lower the mag limits to 15 like the Courts had suggested.  Make you have to reload more times.  And you can only carry so many mags at a time.  Most would carry 1 in the gun and 3 or 4 in a vest or belt.  Anything past that really gets in the way and you clink when you walk.



How about a mass shooting with a revolver?  Granted that not everyone will shoot this fast but if you allow that a motivated shooter might triple Jerry Miculek's time then that's 16 rounds in 12 seconds.  Or if he quadruples Miculek's time then 16 rounds in 16 seconds.  Since almost all mass shootings last minutes, some even more than 10 minutes, a shooter could even shoot at 10 times Miculek''s time, or 16 rounds in 40 seconds, and kill dozens.


There is, literally, only one solution to mass killings of these types: more guns in the hands of the targets so they can shoot back.  Imagine how many fewer state fair ducks would get shot if the ducks in the shooting gallery could shoot back.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 21, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > The best you can hope for today with a handgun or normal semi auto rifle would be about 20 people before you are stopped.  And that would be if the person was highly skilled like the Ex-Marine in California that had to be taken down by superior fire power and numbers. But in the hands of someone experienced, that body count could have easily been much, much higher had he used an AR with multiple 30 round mags.   Yah, I know, the same can be said about a Mini-14 with 30 round mags but unlike the AR, it takes both hands to change the mags in a Mini-14, therefore slower fire rate overall.  Just those 2 or 3 seconds will save lives but not enough.  Lower the mag limits to 15 like the Courts had suggested.  Make you have to reload more times.  And you can only carry so many mags at a time.  Most would carry 1 in the gun and 3 or 4 in a vest or belt.  Anything past that really gets in the way and you clink when you walk.
> ...



What we have to do is make sure that those sillyvillian hands on those guns are trained.  Having the normal Joe that thinks he's Gods answer to Wyatt Earp means that in a target rich environment he's going to kill and wound a lot of innocents.  You want to get the guns in those hands?  Get more people in the CCW program.


----------



## woodwork201 (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> I know a bunch of Republicans that didn't vote for Rump.  A lot of them.  Doesn't make them fringe Democrats.



You know a bunch of Republicans who voted to kill babies, confiscate guns, sell children into child sex rings, rape women, and bring dangerous drugs into the United States. 

In reality, there are almost no Democrats or Republicans.  That designation is simply an indicator of which party's primary you registered to vote in.  What really says who a person is, is how they vote.  People who voted in the Republican primary, or registered to do so, since we don't know if they actually voted, but voted for open borders, higher taxes, raping women and children, kicking women out of women's sports, free healthcare for all the poor in the entire world, confiscate guns, forcing parents to let their children have their genitals chemically or surgically mutilated, or any of the above, just because Trump was not polite enough for them, is not a Republican in the way we use Republican to mean the political right.  Regardless of which primary they voted in, they are, politically, Democrats.


----------



## woodwork201 (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> No it doesn't.  It says you have the right to bear arms.  It doesn't say what arms or where you can have them.  You want it to read the way you think it does, get a 2/3rds Congress Vote for it or go the Continental Congress Route.



No, it doesn't say we have the right to keep and bear arms.  It acknowledges the right to keep and bear arms and says that the right "shall not be infringed."  It says what it says.  It is you that, if you want it to say something else, would have to get it amended.  And a 2/3 vote of Congress isn't enough;  you should read the Constitution.  

It's written at 8-grade level so if you need a tutor, I googled one for you: Smart Reading Program for Kids that need help with reading and comprehension


----------



## woodwork201 (Mar 21, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Wrong, and wrong.....none of the mass public shootings would have been affected by limiting to 15 round magazines....and, of course, they aren't calling for a 15 round limit but a 10 round limit because they know that bans million upon millions of pistols without having to vote to ban those pistols...they are just banning magazines....
> 
> Lifting the ban didn't change anything......
> 
> ...



Brilliant find.  I've never seen that analysis before; thanks for posting it.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> 2boy is a nutcase and will forever be in my ignore file. You, the other hand, actually discuss things. It's okay to disagree with me but do it respectfully. And I show the same thing.
> 
> Now, let's talk about power. The AR is on the weak side for a rifle bullet but it's still at least 3 times more powerful than a .357. It's penetration is many times that of your 9mm. You fire into a crowd, that one bullet goes through 2 and lodges into a third person or maybe even into the wall. Now, do it by pressing the trigger as fast as you can you can easily fire more than 400 rounds per minute not including Mag changes. I would figure that a person fluttering the trigger (including mag changes) can run through 4 mags in less than a minute. You don't need bump stocks at all. Just lots of ammo and large capacity mags. In the Aurora shooting, the shooter did almost all his shooting with his mothers AR with a 100 round mag. Luckily, it jammed right around round #50 or 56. he also had a handgun and a shotgun but those were spent pretty quick. He had the record until LV. But the wounded were staggering. There were many times the wounded than the dead. It's a target rich environment. Movie Houses and Concerts are all like that. Schools are for the functionally stupid mass shooter going for the record. What made the Movie House more of a potential death trap versus the outdoor concert, the movie house has no where to run to. The outdoor concert starts out target rich but it ends up people dispersing in every which direction fast. There also was a difference between a stupid, unskilled Teen versus an experienced shooter like in LV. We've already seen what a combat veteran can do with a handgun (California). Imagine if a recent Combat
> Veteran were to load up like he was going into battle with an AR. How many people would die or be wounded in a target rich environment.
> ...



It won't make any difference in the world.  I could kill just as many people with my 9mm as I can with my .357.  Strength is irrelevant here, because mass shooters are not looking for blowing people into pieces, all they are looking for is a high death count and the ability to carry a large arsenal to their target. You could kill a lot of people with a .22 if you were using hollow points.  

The movie guy passed several other theaters on his way to his selected one.  Why was that?  Because he selected a target that was a gun-free zone, like most mass shooters do.  In Vegas, even if people were armed, it's very unlikely that anybody could send a handgun round to that exact room hitting the shooter.  In essence, it was pretty much the same as choosing a gun-free zone; nobody had the ability to stop him.  

Given the fact that most deaths caused by firearms are not with mass shootings, why are you so focused on them anyway?  Most firearm deaths are done with handguns and not AR's.  You will find more casualties and deaths during a holiday weekend in Chicago than you will with most mass shootings, which occur once or twice a year.  And I mean real mass shootings that don't fit the FBI description of four or more deaths.  

If you do have 2aguy on ignore as you claim, it's not because he's a nutcase, it's because you have no argument against him, his research, his sources, or extensive knowledge on firearms.   So my suggestion is if you really want to know our side of the issue, take him off ignore, and you will learn a lot of things you never knew before.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 21, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > No it doesn't.  It says you have the right to bear arms.  It doesn't say what arms or where you can have them.  You want it to read the way you think it does, get a 2/3rds Congress Vote for it or go the Continental Congress Route.
> ...



So far, you have been losing in the courts and the Constitutional Scholars.  Does that mean you are smarter than they are or are you just so deep in your message you can't see reality.  The Feds have to be very careful on how they approach the 2nd Amendment because it was originally written with them in mind.  But the States have a bit more leeway.  And that stands in the courts.  That means that I don't have to do a thing.  The courts and I agree.  You don't agree so it's you that needs to get that 2/3rds vote to rewrite it.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 21, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > 2boy is a nutcase and will forever be in my ignore file. You, the other hand, actually discuss things. It's okay to disagree with me but do it respectfully. And I show the same thing.
> ...



ALL the movie houses were gun free zones as per state law.  You are just  making things up about his motives for picking that particular theater.  he came in from an exit door.  I wonder who left that open for him or if he entered before, jammed it so he could enter a few minutes later with his weapons.  He fired from the side where he could move up and down the outside path to get the most saturation.  The scenerio would fit ANY movie theater in the area.  The results would have been the same regardless.

Again, the high body count mass murders have all been done by the AR with high capacity Mags since they tightened up the schools.  That moved the new top sites to the Movie Houses, Outdoor Concerts, school picnics, bars and even a Walmart.  Walmart removed itself from that equation so they were left with the other places which are ALL Gun Free Zones except for the Outdoor Concerts and we all know how well that worked out.  The one that was NOT a gun free zone is the new record holder because the others tightened themselves up to prevent the mass shootings.  

2boy quotes Klek and that makes him a fruitcake.  He stays on ignore and you just went on it as well.  I don't have the time nor the inclination to feed your insanity any further.


----------



## woodwork201 (Mar 21, 2021)

2aguy said:


> You are just making things up because you think they sound reasonable and no one will challenge what you say.....you are wrong.



Haha.. He's finding out otherwise.  But whichever 503c is paying his time to be here isn't grading him on performance, only on post count.


----------



## woodwork201 (Mar 21, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> The 2nd Amendment was originally written for fear of what King George did in 1775.



Perhaps they wrote it for what Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi will do in 2021.


----------



## woodwork201 (Mar 21, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Unfortunately that was not our decision to have some restrictions on rights.  That was decided by the US Supreme Court.
> 
> The debate we were having is a privilege vs a right.  A privilege is something government allows you to do or have.  A right doesn't need the permission of government.  It's already in the Constitution.  And we don't convert rights to privileges because if we did, then it's no longer a right.  It's like if we made driving an automobile a right.  If we did that, then it's no longer a privilege from the state.



Nothing in the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the ability to change it.  They're not mentioned in Article V.  Just because we, as a nation, have been suckered into believing they have that power doesn't make it so.  I may not be willing to take on the government in armed revolt to assert my right but I don't accept at all that the restrictions are constitutional - they are not.  Never, ever, will I agree, imply, infer, or support in any other way, any violation of the Constitution as being allowed.  

I do have to consider that they have more guns than do we (because they've, unconstitutionally, prevented us from having them) and comply with the tyranny but I will never call it anything except tyranny.  It is not the starting point of a debate; it's not the starting point of a negotiation.  It's tyranny, plain and simple.


----------



## woodwork201 (Mar 22, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> The difference is a revolver and a semi-automatic are apples and oranges.  Two different styles of semi-automatics is just about the same thing.  They both shoot the same way.



There have been views on gun control, and I believe submitted in Congress but I'm not going to spend the hours needed to validate that, that define a semi-automatic weapon as any weapon that when you fire a round readies the weapon to fire the next round with no more than pulling the trigger.  This is absolutely designed to include a revolver as a semi-automatic.

You and I know that's not the traditional definition but, if they get it into law, only single-shots will be allowed.


----------



## woodwork201 (Mar 22, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> I have enough experience in Combat to know.  I put myself in that situation and come to those conclusions.  I know the weapons, the limitations and the strengths.  If you can't do that, you shouldn't be in this discussion.



Ray already gave you examples of handgun shooting with far more than 20 dead and even more shot.l

Actually, you appear to know very little about guns, equipment, and strategies.  I own several magazine pouches that have 10 individual compartments.  Some have smaller pouches for my 1911 mags, others have larger pouches for my 16+ capacity magazines.  I don't use the belt loops on them; they just go in my range bag, but they all have belt loops.  A shooter could easily wear two of those, one in front and one in back.  He could easily wear a MOLLE vest loaded with another couple dozen magazines and put it all under a winter jacket and no one would ever know.

Honestly, reading your posts, I don't think you're as naive as this idea sounds; I don't think even you believe what you're posting.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Mar 22, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> Why do you need such "firepower"? I am entitled to an explanation because I live in this country and guns are designed to be pointed at other people


Because people have different wants and you're trying to tell others their want is wrong for them.

Someone buys a Bugatti Veyron and you're asking, "Why do want/need such engine power?".

Just because someone doesn't want/need a gun or car, doesn't mean others must follow suit, and when they buy a gun or car, they choose the model that they want.


----------



## woodwork201 (Mar 22, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> So far, you have been losing in the courts and the Constitutional Scholars.  Does that mean you are smarter than they are or are you just so deep in your message you can't see reality.  The Feds have to be very careful on how they approach the 2nd Amendment because it was originally written with them in mind.  But the States have a bit more leeway.  And that stands in the courts.  That means that I don't have to do a thing.  The courts and I agree.  You don't agree so it's you that needs to get that 2/3rds vote to rewrite it.



Well, what would be the good of rewriting it if the Federal Government, including the courts ignore it?  What could we possibly rewrite that is more plain than "shall not be infringed."  You have even the most (supposedly) justice in recent times, Justice Scalia, claiming that reasonable infringements are OK.  So we could rewrite it all day long and it would make no difference.  

So let's quit playing games and just call it what it is.  You and the courts want it infringed and you are getting away with it.  That's tyranny but, hey, if you can get away with it then you don't care.

Also, the states have no leeway.  The authors of the Constitution demonstrated quite clearly that they're able to assign to the appropriate scope.  For instance, the 1st Amendment says, Congress shall make now law.  They actually left that open to the States.  The 2nd Amendment describes the necessity of the militia, a State organization, indicating that the 2nd Amendment was clearly directed at the entire union, both the States and the Federal Government.

In any case, incorporation certainly requires that the 2nd Amendment applies to the States.  There has been a long-standing fallacy that some of the Bill of Rights could be incorporated and other parts not.  Whether one believes that they applied to the States from ratification or from the 14th Amendment, there is no possible logical argument for selective incorporation.  Selective incorporation was nothing more than the Court beginning what is now their standard practice of changing the law and the Constitution according to their own political whims.

As nonsensical as the idea of selective incorporation has always been, the Court did order it incorporated in McDonald so, no, the states have zero leeway in gun control: shall not be infringed.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 22, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...



Rifles of any kind are used in 2% of murders.  And I don't own an AR15 because I have no use for a small caliber rifle.  The old .22 was given to me a long time ago and I haven't shot it in years because a .22 is useless for anything but plinking cans

and WTF is a sane handgun?

FYI I own more handguns than rifles as my primary reason for owning firearms is self defense


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 22, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > SavannahMann said:
> ...


and I care why?


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 22, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


no the percentage stays the same because even those are murders but with all such statistics there will be variables I just didn't feel the need to do that deep of a dive on the stats


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 22, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...


Bullshit.

I have  semiautomatic rifles chambered for 7.62 and 6.8 mm

They aren't that expensive


----------



## SavannahMann (Mar 22, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...



Really? You do know with your extensive Military Experience that the 5.56 was chosen because it created “Militarily Significant Wounds” don’t you? The idea for the readers who don’t know is that one wounded soldier takes four people out of the battle. Two to carry the wounded and one to provide security, or carry excess equipment.

A dead guy takes one off the field. A wounded takes several. And the screams of the wounded demoralize the remaining soldiers. Making them less likely to be aggressive.

The other reason the 5.56 was chosen was suppression fire. Most rounds fired are meant to get the other guy to keep his head down. The 5.56 would allow the soldier to carry more ammo with the same weight. 

How would the Las Vegas shooting have played out with a .308 hunting rifle? First. The slower fire would have delayed the discovery longer. Second. The numbers killed would probably have been higher. Third, by picking his shots he would have been able to hit one with a high likelihood of hitting two. I could go on.

In nearly all the mass shooting situations a different weapon would have done more damage. A shotgun in the school shootings. Two or more wounded with every trigger pull as one example.

The one thing the mass shootings have in common is the shooters use the technique of spray and pray. Random fire to maybe hit someone. By firing into crowds they increase the likelihood of hitting someone. But as statistics show roughly 10% of those hit actually die. If we are intending to save lives why do anything to increase the probability of someone dying?

A weapon is not a magic wand of death.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 22, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Breonna taylors boyfriend shot at the police.......he caused her death, not the police. You idiot.



If he had been a white guy shooting at ATF agents, he'd be your fucking hero.  Silly Darkie, Rights are for White People. 



2aguy said:


> Koresh could have been taken into custody at anytime, easily, but the ATF made the call to raid the entire compound......getting those children killed in the process....



Again, no children were killed in the ATF's Raid on Feb 23rd, where six ARMED cultists were killed shooting at clearly identified ATF Agents serving a valid warrant.  Unlike Breonna's boyfriend, who had no idea who was knocking down his door in the middle of the night, Koresh knew those guys were ATF.  

The purpose of the raid was not to just arrest Koresh, it was to seize the stockpile of illegally modified guns specified in the warrant.  

What you leave out is that there were 53 days where the cultist held out, and then finally decided to burn themselves and their children alive because their fake Jesus was going to jail as a Chomo.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 22, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Of the domestic violence, you idiot.....they are done by drug addicts, alcoholics and people with previous criminal records.......
> 
> We are not the only country with this problem...just ask England where London is unsafe for women and girls...according to their own mayor...you dunce.



Again, the Brits consider sexual assault anyone who plays a little grabass.   American only consider it when body fluids are exchanged.    Sexual Assault isn't really a good measure, as it's not heavily reported and poorly prosecuted. 

Murder, on the other hand. VERY EASY to count.  You have a dead body.  

We have lost.  The Brit have few.   This isn't complicated.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 22, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> No, it has not been taken yet. What they have in their gun bill now is forcing all gun purchasers to submit to a psychological exam at the cost of $800.00, get a federal license, and anybody you may have had a disagreement with can voice their opposition to you getting that license in which to buy that gun. It may be an ex-wife, an ex-girlfriend, a neighbor or family member. The shrink will be the one questioning these people, and I'm sure a lot of good people won't be able to get one, because the Democrats will likely choose who those shrinks are, which will be anti-gun leftists like themselves.



again, if you have a neighbor or a family member who says, "Holy Shit, that's guy's crazy", that sounds like a great reason to keep them from getting guns. 

Every last time we have a mass shooting, we find out everyone in the guy's life KNEW he was crazy, and he was able to get a gun anyway.  

Imagine what would have happened on Tuesday if the Massage Parlor Shooter had to pay $800.00 bucks and they asked his family who just threw him out for watching Porn if he should have a gun.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 22, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> In their minds, if you have a hobby you enjoy, that makes you a nut. Well why aren't people who love sports considered nuts, or people who go to movies constantly, or people who collect coins and have several cars?



Because you can't kill a person with a movie or a coin.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...




No...you are wrong again...Heller.....

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.*

*--------*


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> woodwork201 said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...



Wrong.....it avoids 2nd Amendment cases because the court had been split 4-4, real Justices vs the left wing activist judges and neither side trusted where Roberts would fall on 2nd Amendment issues.

They already ruled that the Bill of Rights applies to the States as well....so again, you don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...




Yeah......you used the term "Assault" rifle like it was a real term.....you are a fake.........you are pretending to be something your use of terms shows you are not.......thanks for revealing yourself...


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong, and wrong.....none of the mass public shootings would have been affected by limiting to 15 round magazines....and, of course, they aren't calling for a 15 round limit but a 10 round limit because they know that bans million upon millions of pistols without having to vote to ban those pistols...they are just banning magazines....
> ...




Keep it and use it........


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > No, it has not been taken yet. What they have in their gun bill now is forcing all gun purchasers to submit to a psychological exam at the cost of $800.00, get a federal license, and anybody you may have had a disagreement with can voice their opposition to you getting that license in which to buy that gun. It may be an ex-wife, an ex-girlfriend, a neighbor or family member. The shrink will be the one questioning these people, and I'm sure a lot of good people won't be able to get one, because the Democrats will likely choose who those shrinks are, which will be anti-gun leftists like themselves.
> ...



You mean like the Parkland shooter, who committed several felonies that would have prohibited him from getting a gun....but obama's "Promise Program" prevented the police from arresting him and giving him that criminal record....or the over 30 interactions with the police including domestic problems that he had?

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


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > In their minds, if you have a hobby you enjoy, that makes you a nut. Well why aren't people who love sports considered nuts, or people who go to movies constantly, or people who collect coins and have several cars?
> ...




You can kill more people with a rental Truck in 5 minutes of driving than you can with a rifle firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people.....you dimwit...

Las Vegas shooting... 61 killed

Nice, FRance, rental Truck....86 killed


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 22, 2021)

2aguy said:


> You mean like the Parkland shooter, who committed several felonies that would have prohibited him from getting a gun....but obama's "Promise Program" prevented the police from arresting him and giving him that criminal record....or the over 30 interactions with the police including domestic problems that he had?



By interaction, they meant any time police were called to the house. 

Locking people up doesn't work.  We lock up 2 million people, and STILL have the highest crime rare. 

Hey, you can keep crazy people from getting guns without locking them up.   I know, man.  What a whacky idea.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 22, 2021)

2aguy said:


> You can kill more people with a rental Truck in 5 minutes of driving than you can with a rifle firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people.....you dimwit...
> 
> Las Vegas shooting... 61 killed
> 
> Nice, FRance, rental Truck....86 killed



Wow, seriously?  How many people were killed with trucks last year, and how many people were killed with guns last year?  

Dumbshit.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > 2boy is a nutcase and will forever be in my ignore file. You, the other hand, actually discuss things. It's okay to disagree with me but do it respectfully. And I show the same thing.
> ...



*Given the fact that most deaths caused by firearms are not with mass shootings, why are you so focused on them anyway? *


That's easy....as a useful idiot for anti-gunners, Vrenn knows that if you aren't a criminal or the friend or family of a criminal, and you don't live in a democrat party controlled inner city voting district, you are likely never going to experience gun murder.  However, with the democrat party press treating every mass public shooting as a public relations coup for the anti-gun movement, Vrenn knows you can scare normal, uninformed Americans into giving up their rights using mass public shootings.

We had 1 mass public shooting in 2020, 10 in 2019 in a country of over 320 million people...........73 people killed in 2019, 5 in 2019.......Cars killed over 35,000 last yeaar..........the rarest of rare events....but the democrat party media can make it seem like it is the most dangerous situation in the world.....so they use mass public shootings to push their anti-gun agenda...and Vrenn is helping that effort.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > You mean like the Parkland shooter, who committed several felonies that would have prohibited him from getting a gun....but obama's "Promise Program" prevented the police from arresting him and giving him that criminal record....or the over 30 interactions with the police including domestic problems that he had?
> ...




And again, if you keep releasing violent gun offenders over and over again, you get gun crime...since the same guys are doing 99% of the gun crime and gun murder.......you don't have to lock up 2 million people to keep the gun criminals locked up you dimwit.

The democrat party judges, prosecutors and politicians keep releasing violent gun offenders over and over again......criminals caught with illegal guns....criminals caught using illegal guns, criminals caught shooting at other people...and then they release them...over and over again..

That is the problem.  The problem is not normal Americans who own and carry guns for self defense, sport and hunting.

Over 19.4 million Americans can now carry guns for self defense...and our gun murder rate dropped 49%, our gun crime rate dropped 75%.......normal Americans aren't the problem

It is asshats like you who let violent criminals out of prison and jail...you are the problem.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > You can kill more people with a rental Truck in 5 minutes of driving than you can with a rifle firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people.....you dimwit...
> ...



Hey, dipshit.....it's Vrenn who is talking about incidents vs. totals......if you go to totals.....cars killed 37,595 people.......guns used illegally killed 10,235...

You lose no matter how you put the numbers together, you dimwit.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 22, 2021)

2aguy said:


> And again, if you keep releasing violent gun offenders over and over again, you get gun crime...since the same guys are doing 99% of the gun crime and gun murder.......you don't have to lock up 2 million people to keep the gun criminals locked up you dimwit.



But we DO lock up 2 million people.  We still have massive crime. 

Germany only locks up 78,000.  

Germany has far less crime than we do.  They allow gun ownership, but it isn't a "right", you actually have to undergo pretty thorough background checks.  

If locking people up were the answer for something as petty as "just having a gun while not being a white person", we'd have the prisons brimming with people. 



2aguy said:


> The democrat party judges, prosecutors and politicians keep releasing violent gun offenders over and over again......criminals caught with illegal guns....criminals caught using illegal guns, criminals caught shooting at other people...and then they release them...over and over again..



Again, we lock up 2 million people.  Locking people up isn't the problem.   Access to guns is.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 22, 2021)

SavannahMann said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > SavannahMann said:
> ...



No it was chosen because it was a light and small round and soldiers could carry a lot of ammo.

In fact the military has long thought the 5.56 round was under powered and are currently reintroducing the 6.8 mm









						Ammo Firm Unveils 6.8mm Cartridge for Army’s Next-Gen Squad Weapon
					

A Texas-based ammunition company recently unveiled its new 6.8mm cartridge.




					www.military.com


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 22, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > And again, if you keep releasing violent gun offenders over and over again, you get gun crime...since the same guys are doing 99% of the gun crime and gun murder.......you don't have to lock up 2 million people to keep the gun criminals locked up you dimwit.
> ...


we lock up more nonviolent criminals than any other country.

And over 60% of people in state and country jails have not been convicted of any crime and that's because our arraignment and bail procedures need an overhaul.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 22, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > You mean like the Parkland shooter, who committed several felonies that would have prohibited him from getting a gun....but obama's "Promise Program" prevented the police from arresting him and giving him that criminal record....or the over 30 interactions with the police including domestic problems that he had?
> ...


T

Bullshit.

The only metric that we have that is consistently higher than European countries is murder.

And our murder rate is more due to the fact that we do not enforce our federal gun laws than it is to law abiding citizens owning guns


----------



## SavannahMann (Mar 22, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...



I joined the Army in 1988. The articles I saw in gun magazines then, and since, were that the Military was switching from the 5.56 to some other round. Since that time, the beginnings of the A2 era, every couple years it is another weapon or ammo that will replace the M-16 or the 5.56.

They remain.

Why? NATO is a part of it. Our allies have the same ammo so we can supply each other in case of war. The same 5.56 round we use is able to be used in literally dozens of rifle types by a hundred countries.









						List of 5.56×45mm NATO firearms
					

Many nations (both NATO and non-NATO members) use the 5.56 mm NATO cartridge in their rifles. Examples include: Argentina FARA 83 Australian F88 Austeyr assault rifle and F89 Minimi machine gun. (ADI Thales also supplies ammunition) Austrian Steyr AUG and the Steyr ACR (Flechette) assault rifle...




					military.wikia.org
				




The other part is that the same factors that led to our decisions before remain. Weight of weapon. Weight of ammo. Effectiveness. Reliability. And wound dynamics. The 5.56 checks the blocks.


----------



## westwall (Mar 22, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > In their minds, if you have a hobby you enjoy, that makes you a nut. Well why aren't people who love sports considered nuts, or people who go to movies constantly, or people who collect coins and have several cars?
> ...









Propaganda video was the enumerated excuse for terrorist attacks all over the middle east.  What happens in terrorist attacks?

Oh yeah, people die.

You imbecilic moron.


----------



## westwall (Mar 22, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > And again, if you keep releasing violent gun offenders over and over again, you get gun crime...since the same guys are doing 99% of the gun crime and gun murder.......you don't have to lock up 2 million people to keep the gun criminals locked up you dimwit.
> ...










Wrong, as usual.  We lock up the wrong people.

You assholes continuously release the violent ones.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 22, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> But we DO lock up 2 million people. We still have massive crime.



Okay, so by your own determination, prisons are not much of a deterrent.  So wouldn't that make it even more important that Americans be allowed to defend themselves with firearms?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 22, 2021)

2aguy said:


> And again, if you keep releasing violent gun offenders over and over again, you get gun crime...since the same guys are doing 99% of the gun crime and gun murder.......you don't have to lock up 2 million people to keep the gun criminals locked up you dimwit.
> 
> The democrat party judges, prosecutors and politicians keep releasing violent gun offenders over and over again......criminals caught with illegal guns....criminals caught using illegal guns, criminals caught shooting at other people...and then they release them...over and over again..
> 
> ...



Yep.  This sad story is a great example of that.

_*INDIANAPOLIS — An Indianapolis quadruple murder suspect is in custody Tuesday, and court records say a stimulus check was the motive for the killings.*_

*The affidavit filed in the case shows that after being arrested, the suspect, Malik Halfacre, confessed to the murders of four people inside a home on the southeast side of the city.

The victim’s family explained that Malik had a history of violence long before the murders.

In 2017, prosecutors claim Malik shot another man multiple times. That victim survived, and court records show Malik was charged with aggravated battery.  A plea agreement later allowed him to plead guilty to a lesser charge of pointing a firearm, which resulted in a jail sentence of just a few months.*

_*Prosecutors would only say witness cooperation complicated that case and resulted in the essential witnesses being excluded by the court.*_









						Stimulus check murders: Court records confirm motive, family says system failed them
					

An Indianapolis quadruple murder suspect is in custody Tuesday, and court records say a stimulus check was the motive for the killings.




					fox4kc.com
				




That damn white privilege again, eh Joe?


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 22, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...



An insane handgun might be considered a 500 SW Magnum.  Nothing illegal about it but it's just a bit nutz to fire it.  It really has no use other than "Mine is Bigger than Yours".  The full load 44 Mag borders just inside the sane.  

The 22LR has always been a very good starter caliber for a young beginning shooter.  

All the gunnutters are doing is sidestepping from the problem that although the rifle is used for only 2% (I won't question that) of the criminal shootings, it was used for going for the record for mass shootings because it was the best suited for it because that is exactly what it was designed to do when in full combat trim.  What the common sense gun regs have done is removed the full combat trim of the AR rendering it unable to go for any new body count records.  It's been part of a group of actions to  discourage going for those new records with the AR.  And it's worked.

Coming from a Military Standpoint, anything that lessens the body count on friendly forces is a good thing and should be done.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 22, 2021)

2aguy said:


> That's easy....as a useful idiot for anti-gunners, Vrenn knows that if you aren't a criminal or the friend or family of a criminal, and you don't live in a democrat party controlled inner city voting district, you are likely never going to experience gun murder. However, with the democrat party press treating every mass public shooting as a public relations coup for the anti-gun movement, Vrenn knows you can scare normal, uninformed Americans into giving up their rights using mass public shootings.
> 
> We had 1 mass public shooting in 2020, 10 in 2019 in a country of over 320 million people...........73 people killed in 2019, 5 in 2019.......Cars killed over 35,000 last yeaar..........the rarest of rare events....but the democrat party media can make it seem like it is the most dangerous situation in the world.....so they use mass public shootings to push their anti-gun agenda...and Vrenn is helping that effort.



We also have to remember how the media sensationalizes mass murders over common gang or street murders. People buy into that sensationalism and it's the only thing the focus on.  Using the FBI standards of what a mass murder is, the story I posted above is considered a mass murder by their standards.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 22, 2021)

westwall said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Frankly, anyone who is unarmed and NOT fearing for his/her safety to some extent is a moron.  Any leftist who is trying to pretend that the United States of America is a completely safe place to live - any part of it at all - is deliberately trying to get people killed.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > And again, if you keep releasing violent gun offenders over and over again, you get gun crime...since the same guys are doing 99% of the gun crime and gun murder.......you don't have to lock up 2 million people to keep the gun criminals locked up you dimwit.
> ...




We have a different criminal population than Germany, for one, and immigrants in Germany are taking over their drug trade...so they will be seeing an increase in crime as well.....

Wrong....the cops catch gun criminals, with long histories of gun crimes and violence, and then the democrat party judges and prosecutors and politicians let them out......over and over again.  It is these specific criminals who are doing the gun violence in our country........if you catch them and then let them out again, it doesn't matter how many of them you temporarily lock up.....when they get out, they will use illegal guns again....you dimwit.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2021)

SavannahMann said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > SavannahMann said:
> ...




Yep...exactly, smaller bullets mean our troops can carry more of them......that was the biggest factor in taking the 5.56 round....as well as nato making it standard...


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 22, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > SavannahMann said:
> ...



You are talking about a hunting rifle for the 308.  What are you going to have, 5 in the mag and one in the tube?  Now load 30 in the Mag.  The Rifle is going to have to be strengthened to handle that mag and the whole gun is going to have to gain considerable weight.  You just entered into a whole new world.  It no longer functions as a hunting or a sporting rifle.  It's become a battle rifle.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 22, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> again, if you have a neighbor or a family member who says, "Holy Shit, that's guy's crazy", that sounds like a great reason to keep them from getting guns.
> 
> Every last time we have a mass shooting, we find out everyone in the guy's life KNEW he was crazy, and he was able to get a gun anyway.
> 
> Imagine what would have happened on Tuesday if the Massage Parlor Shooter had to pay $800.00 bucks and they asked his family who just threw him out for watching Porn if he should have a gun.



And this is why you leftist should have no say in who gets a gun or not. You want the opinion of other people who are not professionals in the psychological field making that decision?  

People can be vindictive in conflicting situations.  I'm sure we all have an ex-girlfriend or ex-wife that would love to get even with any one of us for a relationship that went bad.  Even a conflict between a neighbor because your dog crapped on their lawn when you weren't looking and it resulted in a verbal battle.  These people would have the power to nullify your constitutional right of gun ownership.  

Like most leftists, I'm sure you fantasize about living in red China, North Korea, or Cuba, but here in America, we are viewed as being innocent until proven guilty.  You can't take rights away from citizens based on the opinion of other people.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 22, 2021)

SavannahMann said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Well, yeah, carrying a first aid kit DOES mean you're afraid of injuries . . . as is quite reasonable, and you are reacting to that fear is a rational fashion.  Having food and water supplies stored DOES mean you're afraid of hurricanes . . . which any sane person who lives in an area that gets hurricanes should be, and you are reacting to that fear in a rational fashion.

Anyone who suggests that fear is automatically bad, crazy, or unwarranted and must instantly be denied to the world no matter the risks of doing so is a moron or a liar or both.  Fear is a naturally-occurring protective mechanism which exists to warn us of danger and help us prepare to survive it.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...




And that is a lie.......at the ranges of all but one of the mass public shootings shotguns and pistols can achieve the same number of victims.....the thing that changed from the 1980s to more recent shootings is today's mass public shooters are analyzing and learning from past mass public shooters, and choosing targets according to that analysis....that is why they pick the locations they pick and the victim types....you dimwit.

The Sandy Hook shooter chose Sandy Hook because it did not have a police liason officer on campus...the middle school and highschool did........he also stated in his notes he selected the youngest children as targets because he wanted to get a high score...he saw the murders as a live action video game and he knew kindergarten kids wouldn't fight back or be able to escape....you dimwit....


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 22, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > I just want to say to all you people who ask "What are you so afraid of that you need to own a gun?"
> ...



Joe and Lice are both wrong, actually.  Although I do not allow them to appear on my screen, as neither is worthy to be seen by me, they do both know me, and I have been a victim of a crime.

So much for that excuse.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 22, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Again, the Brits consider sexual assault anyone who plays a little grabass. American only consider it when body fluids are exchanged. Sexual Assault isn't really a good measure, as it's not heavily reported and poorly prosecuted.



Bullshit.  You made that claim before and I not only posted the link of how wrong you are, but even copied and pasted the section that explicitly showed how fragile our standards are in the US as to what's considered sexual assault.  It's no different here than in other places.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > That's easy....as a useful idiot for anti-gunners, Vrenn knows that if you aren't a criminal or the friend or family of a criminal, and you don't live in a democrat party controlled inner city voting district, you are likely never going to experience gun murder. However, with the democrat party press treating every mass public shooting as a public relations coup for the anti-gun movement, Vrenn knows you can scare normal, uninformed Americans into giving up their rights using mass public shootings.
> ...




The democrat party journalists emphazize mass public shootings because those are the only types of shootings that scare normal Americans....the chance that a random attacker could target them for no sane reason effects people in a way that ordinary gun violence does not.   

People realize that most criminal gun murder happens in inner city areas.....for the uninformed it is primarily democrat party controlled voting districts............and that the violence about shootings in these areas will not affect them because they don't live in those areas and they don't hang around with violent criminals.....

So...to push gun control, the democrat party journalists have to scare normal people into thinking that mass public shootings happen a lot more than they do, and that they are deadlier than they actually are..

And Vrenn is one of those gullible people ...


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 22, 2021)

SavannahMann said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > SavannahMann said:
> ...



I was in the AF when it was the Colt Model AR-15 Model 601.  It was chosen because it was light, easy to maintain, easy to shoot and could be carried for hours on end with little fatique as compared to the M-1 or the M-14.  And it operated much more efficiently for a scared shitless 18 year old with little training in a firefight when he needed to reload the mags under fire.  We are talking about Vietnam where the idea of one shot takes out 3 didn't apply.  The VC just left their dead and sometimes, used their dead as methods to climb over concertina wire.  And you left out the other myth that the bullet tumbled on impact and would exit out of other parts of the body than where it hits.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 22, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...



The 6.8 can be fired from the AR.  It's the same length of cartridge, just the cartridge and bullet are bigger diameter meaning a higher impact.  It doesn't mean a higher velocity, in fact, it's a slight lower velocity.  But the bullet throw weight is more meaning more shock.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong, and wrong.....none of the mass public shootings would have been affected by limiting to 15 round magazines....and, of course, they aren't calling for a 15 round limit but a 10 round limit because they know that bans million upon millions of pistols without having to vote to ban those pistols...they are just banning magazines....
> ...



If you like this, read the judges opinion from the 9th Circuit when he put an injunction on the magazine ban they wanted to pass.....the whole opinion is just great...

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...JieJ6BMiBtRS0jdYT2id4OKm6suWAzGqo1V9eoe_wL9aA

Few would say that a 100 or 50-round rifle magazine in the hands of a murderer is a good idea. Yet, the “solution” for preventing a mass shooting exacts a high toll on the everyday freedom of ordinary law-abiding citizens. Many individual robberies, rapes, and shootings are not prevented by the State. Unless a law-abiding individual has a firearm for his or her own defense, the police typically arrive after it is too late. With rigor mortis setting in, they mark and bag the evidence, interview bystanders, and draw a chalk outline on the ground. But the victim, nevertheless, is dead, or raped, or robbed, or traumatized.
--------

In other words, a Californian may have a pistol with a 10-round magazine in hopes of fighting off a home invasion robbery. But if that Californian grabs a pistol containing a 17-round magazine, it is now the home-defending victim who commits a new crime.
----------

All Californians, like all citizens of the United States, have a fundamental Constitutional right to keep and bear common and dangerous arms. The nation’s Founders used arms for self-protection, for the common defense, for hunting food, and as a check against tyranny. Teixeira v. Cty. of Alameda, 873 F.3d 670, 686 (9th Cir. 2017)
-----

1. The Supreme Court’s Simple Heller Test

In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court provided a simple Second Amendment test in crystal clear language. It is a test that anyone can understand. The right to keep and bear arms is a right enjoyed by law-abiding citizens to have arms that are not unusual “in common use” “for lawful purposes like self-defense.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 624 (2008); Heller v. District of Columbia (“Heller II”), 670 F.3d 1244, 1271 (2011) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting) (“In my view, Heller and McDonald leave little doubt that courts are to assess gun bans and regulations based on text, history, and tradition, not by a balancing test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny.”).

It is a hardware test. Is the firearm hardware commonly owned? Is the hardware commonly owned by law-abiding citizens? Is the hardware owned by those citizens for lawful purposes? If the answers are “yes,” the test is over.

The hardware is protected. Millions of ammunition magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds are in common use by law-abiding responsible citizens for lawful uses like self-defense.

This is enough to decide that a magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds passes the Heller test and is protected by the Second Amendment. The simple test applies because a magazine is an essential mechanical part of a firearm. The size limit directly impairs one’s ability to defend one’s self.

The Second Amendment does not exist to protect the right to bear down pillows and foam baseball bats. It protects guns and every gun is dangerous. “If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous.” Caetano v. Massachusetts, 136 S. Ct. 1027, 1031 (2016) (Alito, J. and Thomas, J., concurring); Maloney v. Singas, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211546 *19 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2018) (striking down 1974 ban on possession of dangerous nunchaku in violation of the Second Amendment and quoting Caetano).

“[T]he relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes.” Id. California law presently permits the lethality of a gun with a 10-round magazine. In other words, a gun with an 11-round magazine or a 15-round magazine is apparently too lethal to be possessed by a law-abiding citizen. A gun with a 10-round magazine is not. Missing is a constitutionally-permissible standard for testing acceptable lethality. The Attorney General offers no objective standard. Heller sets out a commonality standard that can be applied to magazine hardware: is the size of the magazine “common”? If so, the size is constitutionally-protected. If the “too lethal” standard is followed to its logical conclusion, the government may dictate in the future that a magazine of eight rounds is too lethal. And after that, it may dictate that a gun with a magazine holding three rounds is too lethal since a person usually fires only 2.2 rounds in self-defense. This stepped-down approach may continue32 until the time comes when government declares that only guns holding a single round are sufficiently lacking in lethality that they are both “safe” to possess and powerful enough to provide a means of self-defense.3

(12.) the critical “pause”

The State argues that smaller magazines create a “critical pause” in the shooting of a mass killer. “The prohibition of LCMs helps create a “critical pause” that has been proven to give victims an opportunity to hide, escape, or disable a shooter.” Def. Oppo., at 19.

This may be the case for attackers. On the other hand, from the perspective of a victim trying to defend her home and family, the time required to re-load a pistol after the tenth shot might be called a “lethal pause,” as it typically takes a victim much longer to re-load (if they can do it at all) than a perpetrator planning an attack.

*In other words, the re-loading “pause” the State seeks in hopes of stopping a mass shooter, also tends to create an even more dangerous time for every victim who must try to defend herself with a small-capacity magazine. The need to re-load and the lengthy pause that comes with banning all but small-capacity magazines is especially unforgiving for victims who are disabled, or who have arthritis, or who are trying to hold a phone in their off-hand while attempting to call for police help. *

The good that a re-loading pause might do in the extremely rare mass shooting incident is vastly outweighed by the harm visited on manifold law-abiding, citizen-victims who must also pause while under attack. This blanket ban without any tailoring to these types of needs goes to show § 32310’s lack of reasonable fit.

=======

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...JieJ6BMiBtRS0jdYT2id4OKm6suWAzGqo1V9eoe_wL9aA

*When a group of armed burglars break into a citizen’s home at night, and the homeowner in pajamas must choose between using their left hand to grab either a telephone, a flashlight, or an extra 10-round magazine, the burden is severe. When one is far from help in a sparsely populated part of the state, and law enforcement may not be able to respond in a timely manner, the burden of a 10-round limit is severe. 

When a major earthquake causes power outages, gas and water line ruptures, collapsed bridges and buildings, and chaos, the burden of a 10-round magazine limit is severe. 

When food distribution channels are disrupted and sustenance becomes scarce while criminals run rampant, the burden of a 10-round magazine limit is severe. 

Surely, the rights protected by the Second Amendment are not to be trimmed away as unnecessary because today’s litigation happens during the best of times. It may be the best of times in Sunnyvale; it may be the worst of times in Bombay Beach or Potrero. California’s ban covers the entire state at all times.

=========*
3. Lethality is Not the Test 

Some say that the use of “large capacity magazines” increases the lethality of gun violence. They point out that when large capacity magazines are used in mass shootings, more shots are fired, more people are wounded, and more wounds are fatal than in other mass shootings.31 That may or may not be true. Certainly, a gun when abused is lethal. A gun holding more than 10 rounds is lethal to more people than a gun holding less than 10 rounds, but it is not constitutionally decisive. Nothing in the Second Amendment makes lethality a factor to consider because a gun’s lethality, or dangerousness, is assumed. 


The Second Amendment does not exist to protect the right to bear down pillows and foam baseball bats. It protects guns and every gun is dangerous. “If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous.” Caetano v. Massachusetts, 136 S. Ct. 1027, 1031 (2016) (Alito, J. and Thomas, J., concurring); Maloney v. Singas, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211546 *19 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2018) (striking down 1974 ban on possession of dangerous nunchaku in violation of the Second Amendment and quoting Caetano). “[T]he relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes.” Id. California law presently permits the lethality of a gun with a 10-round magazine.

 In other words, a gun with an 11-round magazine or a 15-round magazine is apparently too lethal to be possessed by a law-abiding citizen. A gun with a 10-round magazine is not. Missing is a constitutionally-permissible standard for testing acceptable lethality.

The Attorney General offers no objective standard. 

Heller sets out a commonality standard that can be applied to magazine hardware: is the size of the magazine “common”? If so, the size is constitutionally-protected.


* If the “too lethal” standard is followed to its logical conclusion, the government may dictate in the future that a magazine of eight rounds is too lethal. And after that, it may dictate that a gun with a magazine holding three rounds is too lethal since a person usually fires only 2.2 rounds in self-defense. This stepped-down approach may continue32 until the time comes when government declares that only guns holding a single round are sufficiently lacking in lethality that they are both “safe” to possess and powerful enough to provide a means of self-defense.33*
*
32 Constitutional rights would become meaningless if states could obliterate them by enacting incrementally more burdensome restrictions while arguing that a reviewing court must evaluate each restriction by itself when determining its constitutionality. Peruta v. Cty. of San Diego, 824 F.3d 919, 953 (9th Cir. 2016) (Callahan, J., dissenting). 33 Artificial limits will eventually lead to disarmament. 
=====
*
Slippery Slope...

It does not take the imagination of Jules Verne to predict that if all magazines over 10 rounds are somehow eliminated from California, the next mass shooting will be accomplished with guns holding only 10 rounds. To reduce gun violence, the state will close the newly christened 10-round “loophole” and use it as a justification to outlaw magazines holding more than 7 rounds. The legislature will determine that no more than 7 rounds are “necessary.” 


Then the next mass shooting will be accomplished with guns holding 7 rounds. To reduce the new gun violence, the state will close the 7-round “loophole” and outlaw magazines holding more than 5 rounds determining that no more than 5 rounds is “necessary.” And so it goes, until the only lawful firearm law-abiding responsible citizens will be permitted to possess is a single-shot handgun. 


Or perhaps, one gun, but no ammunition. Or ammunition issued only to persons deemed trustworthy. 


*This is not baseless speculation or scare-mongering. One need only look at New Jersey and New York. In the 1990’s, New Jersey instituted a prohibition on what it would label “large capacity ammunition magazines.” These were defined as magazines able to hold more than 15 rounds. Slipping down the slope, last year, New Jersey lowered the capacity of permissible magazines from 15 to 10 rounds. See Firearms, 2018 N.J. Sess. Law Serv. Ch. 39 (ASSEMBLY No. 2761) (WEST). At least one bill had been offered that would have reduced the allowed capacity to only five rounds. (See New Jersey Senate Bill No. 798, introduced in the 2018 Session, amending N.J.S. 2C:39-1(y)*


----------



## westwall (Mar 22, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...







Um, those are used for hunting you idiot.


----------



## westwall (Mar 22, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...










Um, the AR-15 was adopted by the AF for perimeter security.   Based on what you have claimed before, you would have never handled one.

You sure lie a lot.


----------



## westwall (Mar 22, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > SavannahMann said:
> ...








Wrong again.  Shock is a function of many things, mainly where it impacts, and there is a mental aspect as well.

   The maximum energy that a projectile can deposit into the target is the same amount that is imparted into your shoulder as recoil.

Bullets cause damage to the nervous system, and to the blood system.  If the bullet strikes a vital part of the brain it switches everything off.  

If it strikes a nerve and severs it, whatever is below the break is rendered useless.  If the blood system is hit, then what matters is which part.  Heart, artery, vein. All lead to death, the question is how fast.  

It is patently obvious that all you know about guns is what you read on wiki.  Wiki is wrong about most of it.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 22, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> ALL the movie houses were gun free zones as per state law. You are just making things up about his motives for picking that particular theater. he came in from an exit door. I wonder who left that open for him or if he entered before, jammed it so he could enter a few minutes later with his weapons. He fired from the side where he could move up and down the outside path to get the most saturation. The scenerio would fit ANY movie theater in the area. The results would have been the same regardless.
> 
> Again, the high body count mass murders have all been done by the AR with high capacity Mags since they tightened up the schools. That moved the new top sites to the Movie Houses, Outdoor Concerts, school picnics, bars and even a Walmart. Walmart removed itself from that equation so they were left with the other places which are ALL Gun Free Zones except for the Outdoor Concerts and we all know how well that worked out. The one that was NOT a gun free zone is the new record holder because the others tightened themselves up to prevent the mass shootings.
> 
> 2boy quotes Klek and that makes him a fruitcake. He stays on ignore and you just went on it as well. I don't have the time nor the inclination to feed your insanity any further.



He went inside and wedged the door open, went back out, put on his garb, weapons and ammo, and reentered from the emergency door.  

Take AR's away from people a shooter will use any semi-automatic gun and get the same results.  What you're talking about here is a solution looking for a problem.  

*So why did the killer pick the Cinemark theater? You might think that it was the one closest to the killer’s apartment. Or, that it was the one with the largest audience.

Yet, neither explanation is right. Instead, out of all the movie theaters within 20 minutes of his apartment showing the new Batman movie that night, it was the only one where guns were banned. In Colorado, individuals with permits can carry concealed handgun in most malls, stores, movie theaters, and restaurants. But private businesses can determine whether permit holders can carry guns on their private property.
*
_*Most movie theaters allow permit holders carrying guns. But the Cinemark movie theater was the only one with a sign posted at the theater’s entrance.*_









						Did Colorado shooter single out Cinemark theater because it banned guns?
					

Most movie theaters allow permit holders carrying guns. But the Cinemark movie theater was the only one with a sign posted at the theater’s entrance.




					www.foxnews.com


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 22, 2021)

2aguy said:


> The democrat party journalists emphazize mass public shootings because those are the only types of shootings that scare normal Americans....the chance that a random attacker could target them for no sane reason effects people in a way that ordinary gun violence does not.
> 
> People realize that most criminal gun murder happens in inner city areas.....for the uninformed it is primarily democrat party controlled voting districts............and that the violence about shootings in these areas will not affect them because they don't live in those areas and they don't hang around with violent criminals.....
> 
> ...




Without a doubt.  It's how they make their money.  People who live in cities like mine are callous to your everyday murder.  It goes on all the time.  A mass shooting?  Everybody gets to the news websites, watch the news on television to see WTF went on, participate in the news blogs, and then they can charge more for advertisement time.  Four people in a restaurant got gunned down this morning at a restaurant here.  Two dead and the other two seriously injured.  No big deal.  

It's also why you never see the media report when an unarmed white person is shot and killed by the police.  No protests will ensue, no riots, not demand for the officers head.  White people watch the report and say "The asshole must have deserved it!"  The media knows who they can rile up and who they can't.


----------



## freyasman (Mar 22, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...


You really don't know as much about this stuff as you seem to think you do.

And you don't get a say in anyone else's shit anyway.

So maybe you should sit down and shut up already.


----------



## freyasman (Mar 22, 2021)

Cecilie1200 said:


> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...


----------



## freyasman (Mar 22, 2021)

Magazine ban? 

*What* magazine ban?











						Can’t Stop The Signal: DIY 3D Printed GLOCK Magazines
					

Can’t Stop The Signal: DIY 3D Printed GLOCK Magazines - using a stock 3D printer, one AR15.com member discusses the process to make your own Glock magazines.




					www.thefirearmblog.com
				



From the link
*"CAN’T STOP THE SIGNAL: DIY 3D PRINTED GLOCK MAGAZINES*
_All that is needed to print the “Menendez Mags” is a simple consumer grade 3d printer. One of the best values on the market nowadays is the Creality Ender 3, which can be found for less than $200 and is widely regarded as a very good unit. The Ender 3 is popularly widely modified by enthusiasts but is ready to make Glock magazines right out of the box._






3D Printed GLOCK Magazine Credit: Connor S.




3D Printed GLOCK Magazine Credit: Connor S

_The files themselves are created and distributed by “Deterrence Dispensed”, not to be confused with Defense Distributed. Deterrence Dispensed is a much more anonymous group that has been releasing various files including AR15 receivers, Glock frames, various tools, and other detailed CAD drawings of firearms. Some of the models are 3d printable, some are for reference only. The most well known source to obtain the files is from Github, at maduce/fosscad-repo. I believe the group would appreciate you sharing their distribution anywhere and everywhere, because widespread exposure is exactly what they want… especially with petty tyrants like Bob Menendez deplatforming them from twitter, and other popular platforms like Reddit inventing pretenses to ban them without warning.

Once you have the files you want, you’ll need to process them in a program called a “slicer”. There are a number of slicers out there, but the most well known are Ultimaker Cura and Slic3r. Cura is probably the most popular for its wide range of features and much more approachable interface. The two screencaps show what you see when opening 3d models for printing- a model that you can orient and modify the size of. These programs do not allow for end-user 3d model editing itself, and are mostly used to convert your models into “G-code”, which is the instructions your printer processes to print your files.

On the popular Ender 3, I am able to print up to 7 magazines at once. Until you have your printer well calibrated, I would encourage you to just do one at a time to save on filament in case there are any mistakes or mechanical errors. My average time for printing the magazines is around 6.5 hours per magazine.

All parts of the magazine other than the follower can be printed at once; due to the shape of the follower it requires supporting material be built into it and removed in post processing after it is done (this is just extra non-structural plastic used to build parts that would otherwise be hanging in thin air when printed, and is easily torn off and discarded after the part is complete). Removing the excess support material takes only a few seconds._





3D Printed GLOCK Magazine Credit: Connor S





3D Printed GLOCK Magazine Credit: Connor S
Find GLOCK Magazines

_The pictures of the three magazines show a factory glock magazine, a magpul brand magazine, and a printed “menendez” magazine.

There are pictures included of a factory glock frame (a G35 with a 9mm conversion barrel) and a polymer 80 G19L build. The magazine works fine in both, although fresh off the press they do not “drop free” but can be sanded lightly to get them to do so.

The disassembled magazines show a comparison of a factory mag with a factory spring to a “Menendez mag”. The Menendez Mag has a increased power spring- I wanted to see if it could handle it, and it certainly can with no issues.

Printing a single magazine requires 40 grams of filament according to Cura. This means you could print 25 magazines from a 1 kilogram spool of filament. That may be a bit optimistic due to waste or failed prints, but realistically you’re looking at magazine prices in the $0.87 (yes, really) range using the recommended filament based on current amazon prices. Your springs can be indefinitely reused if you do manage to wear out a magazine body, which may eventually fail when the feed lips spread or are cracked."_


----------



## daveman (Mar 22, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > AZrailwhale said:
> ...


If you packed an M-16 for days on end you wouldn't be such a pussy.


----------



## daveman (Mar 22, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...


We have worked with you for decades.  You keep pushing for more. 

No.


----------



## daveman (Mar 22, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > You didn't answer my question Moon Bat.
> ...


You're more likely to be killed by a practicing doctor than you are a legal gun owner.

And there you are, insisting government take over healthcare and kill even more people.

You can stop pretending you care about people.


----------



## daveman (Mar 22, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > You are confused about this Moon Bat.
> ...


Still spewing the horseshit you've been programmed with, and that has been proven to be a lie.

For a Useful Idiot, you're not very useful.


----------



## SavannahMann (Mar 22, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > SavannahMann said:
> ...



As I said earlier. No understanding of science. Let’s talk about kinetic energy. One of the least understood types of energy. Although I doubt most people understand much about any of them.

Kinetic Energy is ruled by a math formula. Put simply. Energy is equal to 1/2 Mass times Velocity Squared. So the bigger bullet traveling slower would have less shock. Not more. It is why the .45 ACP has about the same kinetic energy of a 9MM despite weighing twice as much. The 9MM has a higher velocity.

Higher velocities also create larger temporary wound channels. In other words the tissue around the bullet hole that is stretched, bruised, and torn by the passing of high velocity materials.

This is from a Doctor who will explain it fairly well.


I know. You don’t believe the tumbling bullet. I am not going to spend the next several days educating you on science.

However. Let’s stick with bullet size and velocity.









						A former special-operations doctor explains why he would rather be shot with an AK-47 than an M4
					

I’d rather not be shot with either, but if I had to choose, I’d take a round from an AK-47 over the M4 any day of the week.




					www.businessinsider.com
				




The AK fires a bigger bullet. It should create a worse wound. Logically it would right? But here is where understanding the Math is vital. Because the bullet is slower the wound is not as bad. Remember when I said the 5.56 had satisfactory wound dynamics? Past of that equation is the temporary wound cavity. The tissue around the bullet path that is damaged or destroyed.

Now a faster bullet that is larger is much worse. The .50 BMG is both heavy and fast. So the wounds are much worse from that round.

There is a lot of science behind firearms and shooting. Until you understand that math it is hard to speak either accurately or logically on the subject. That by the way is why the 6.8 isn’t going to be adapted.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 22, 2021)

SavannahMann said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...



Wow, talk down to others much?  

Much of the 5.56 will be spent on the background.  But let's say it doesn't hit a vital organ.  It will cause a shock as it passes.  It's just enough.  The 6.8 probably won't be adopted for a lot of reasons and wounds won't be one of the deciding factors.  What they are trying to figure out is how to make the M-16 get a little further out and a heavier bullet is easier to control.  Even though the 556 can do a shot out to 600 yds, it's actually only good out to about 300 yds.  Even though the AK-47 is slower, and the trajectory will be higher, it can still do damage at 600 yds.  The 6.8 can also go out to 600 yds with a better trajectory than the AK-47.  
But most of the time, there will be at least one battle rifle (7.62) in the unit that can go out past 1000 yds in good hands.  Trying to take any Assault Rifle against a Battle Rifle at 600 yds is pretty much suicide.  But the Battle Rifle will be very tiresome to lug around and not have nearly as many rounds on the person.  Most Battle Rifle shooters have weapons carriers carrying one ammo pack with them.  That Ammo Grunt will also be carrying his own M-16.  I don't see the 6.8 coming onto the line due to a lot of factors and most of them have been already stated by others in here.  The 556 is just good enough.


----------



## Lysistrata (Mar 22, 2021)

Boulder, Colo. Today. How many dead?


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Mar 22, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> Please explain why this is so important to you to have an AR-15. We had guns in the house in leather locked bags and we shot them. I even pulled the trigger when my father sighted. He taught me to never pull a gun on any living being. I violated this teaching once, in Castroville, Texas, when I was 12 and practicing with my aunt's pistol. I shot at a spider on the back of the garage.
> 
> Explain yourself and why you would need an assault weapon.


Explain what an assault weapon is ?


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Mar 22, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...


The effective range for an M-16 is 600 yards for point targets and 800 for area.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 22, 2021)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > Please explain why this is so important to you to have an AR-15. We had guns in the house in leather locked bags and we shot them. I even pulled the trigger when my father sighted. He taught me to never pull a gun on any living being. I violated this teaching once, in Castroville, Texas, when I was 12 and practicing with my aunt's pistol. I shot at a spider on the back of the garage.
> ...



Legally, it's a Military light individual rifle.  It has no meaning in the Civilian world.  Now, ask him to explain legally what an AR-15 and it's various clones are?


----------



## Lysistrata (Mar 22, 2021)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > Please explain why this is so important to you to have an AR-15. We had guns in the house in leather locked bags and we shot them. I even pulled the trigger when my father sighted. He taught me to never pull a gun on any living being. I violated this teaching once, in Castroville, Texas, when I was 12 and practicing with my aunt's pistol. I shot at a spider on the back of the garage.
> ...



Who cares at this point. If you love this shit, YOU COME UP WITH A SOLUTION. Over to you. Growing up, we were responsible with guns and my father taught gun safety: never point it at another sentient creature. We didn't grow up scared, so don't give me your horseshit.


----------



## Esdraelon (Mar 22, 2021)

K9Buck said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > They just have to pay a 200 tax.
> ...


They seem to be on a tear these days but if they come for 2A with those two abominations that Feinstein and Jackson-Lee put together, I think they are going to realize it was a bridge too far.  Of course, their intent is to ultimately disarm those who resist them but for the short term, they can silence dissent by making millions of us overnight Felons.  If we know we would be railroaded into a prison cell we'd be a lot less likely to speak out against them.  Marxism 101. 
 Hopefully, the states that still want to be ruled constitutionally will join together to demand their local state LEOs refuse to help with this power grab.  Unfortunately, I'm not convinced that all red state governments will risk the loss of Pork just to do the right thing for their citizens.  Oh well, we all make choices.  They come for the guns, no amount of cash from Uncle Sugar will make up for the chaos that will follow.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Mar 22, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> Boulder, Colo. Today. How many dead?



Did this judge's ruling cause it?


----------



## Lysistrata (Mar 22, 2021)

ESDRAELON said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



What "power grab"? Who is this "they"? Who are you going to shoot at? This is not understandable. Ten dead today. Eight on Tuesday. How many mass shootings do we Americans have to endure? We don't have to fight the British anymore. Now we have a standing military. What is this "marxism" stuff about? This sounds like some right-wing trash stuff. Shame on you. Bottom line: whom do you feel you have to fight? Other Americans? Or are you anticipating some sort of invasion from a foreign country? Explain, please. You seem to be living in some sort of fantasy in which you are a "hero."


----------



## K9Buck (Mar 22, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> ESDRAELON said:
> 
> 
> > K9Buck said:
> ...




Who cares?  Just pretend that they were all dead, black, Chicago, youths and then you will no longer give a fuck.  You're welcome.


----------



## Lysistrata (Mar 22, 2021)

K9Buck said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > ESDRAELON said:
> ...



Why are you such a COWARD that you cannot live in the United States with your fellow Americans? Who in the hell are you going to shoot at? Dumbshit. You are very scared. I'm not. I don't live in Chicago and I'm not black. Are you some white-trash boy in Alabama scared of your own shadow? Are you a putin's poodle hiding under the bed with some wispy beard thinking you're a "soldier"? Sounds like. try and grow up.


----------



## K9Buck (Mar 22, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...




I'm just trying to make you feel better.  This stuff happens daily in America's ghettos and you don't care.  So just think of today's victims as just more dead black kids.  Then, as usual, you'll no longer care.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 22, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> What "power grab"? Who is this "they"? Who are you going to shoot at? This is not understandable. Ten dead today. Eight on Tuesday. How many mass shootings do we Americans have to endure? We don't have to fight the British anymore. Now we have a standing military. What is this "marxism" stuff about? This sounds like some right-wing trash stuff. Shame on you. Bottom line: whom do you feel you have to fight? Other Americans? Or are you anticipating some sort of invasion from a foreign country? Explain, please. You seem to be living in some sort of fantasy in which you are a "hero."



Yes, we need our arms to fight other Americans.  Just because you're an American doesn't mean you are not ruthless or capable of hurting or killing other people.  While we do live in a more organized society than our founders, if we are to be honest, the police are only good after a crime is committed.  Up to that time, you can only rely on your own resources to defend your life and that of your family.

When you create laws to disarm law abiding citizens, it has no effect on those who are not like the mass shooters you brought up.  They will always find a way to obtain firearms, and what we end up with is a society where only the criminals and police have the guns.

If you're so confident that a society would benefit by being disarmed, do this:  Get a huge sign made that says THIS HOUSEHOLD HAS NO FIREARMS.    Put that on your front porch for everybody to see, and get back to us in a month or two to tell us how that worked out for you, if you're still alive by then. 

In other words, the reason anti-gun people like you are safer is because of pro-gunners like us.  A criminal eyeing out your home or vehicle has no idea if you are capable of defending yourself.  If you disarm good law abiding citizens,  it's really no different than getting that sign made and posting it on your front porch.  The criminals know all of us would be defenseless against their aggression.


----------



## Lysistrata (Mar 22, 2021)

K9Buck said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > K9Buck said:
> ...


Why are you trying to direct everything toward black Americans? How in the hell do you know what I care about or don't? You don't know me. I don't know who today's victims were, but the guy I saw being walked away in handcuffs is white. Same with the dizzy scumbag who murdered those people in Atlanta on Tuesday. What is your problem? I don't think that you have ever given a damn about a black person being killed. Nothing. Stop whining and grow up. Move out of your parents' basement.


----------



## freyasman (Mar 23, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...


Or, you could just stfu.
That would work.


----------



## freyasman (Mar 23, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...


Why are you so scared of freedom?

What makes you such a coward?


----------



## K9Buck (Mar 23, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...



Yea, you're angry because a bunch of white leftists were killed as opposed to a bunch of worthless blacks.  That's why you're speaking out.


----------



## freyasman (Mar 23, 2021)

K9Buck said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > K9Buck said:
> ...


Well,  she is a cvnt, so what do you expect?


----------



## LuckyDuck (Mar 23, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> Please explain why this is so important to you to have an AR-15. We had guns in the house in leather locked bags and we shot them. I even pulled the trigger when my father sighted. He taught me to never pull a gun on any living being. I violated this teaching once, in Castroville, Texas, when I was 12 and practicing with my aunt's pistol. I shot at a spider on the back of the garage.
> 
> Explain yourself and why you would need an assault weapon.


When a firearm is needed, the body's adrenaline is pumping and even trained police officers, actually "miss" half the time when shooting.  A semi-automatic rifle actually makes hitting the target easier, even if your adrenaline is going and if there is a home-invasion, or armed robbers in your home and a serious threat to your life.  
Also, a knife, sword, hammer, screwdriver, bat, or even your fists are literally, "assault weapons," when you are "assaulting" someone and semi-automatic rifles with a ten, twenty, or thirty round magazine, are separately being called, "assault weapons" to simply make you think they are "more scary" than other things used in a crime.
Separately, read the Second Amendment......AND......the Federalist Papers by our founding fathers.
The right to bear arms wasn't to ensure hunting...although even nations with strict gun laws, allow for their citizens to have hunting weapons.  The founding fathers saw where civilian groups gathered together, forming guerilla militias, were critical to winning the war against England and wanted to ensure that should any future tyrannical government, whether foreign...or...domestic attempt to conquer this nation and take away the rights under our Constitution, civilian militias could form and assist in defending the individual states. 
It has been said that Emperor Hirohito considered invading the United States with ground troops, but was dissuaded by his generals, as, "there would be a gun under every blade of grass."  Whether that is a factual quote, I don't know.  However, not long ago, our chief adversary, China, has said that they perceive American citizens owning firearms as a "problem."  That should be a hint to definitely...."keep the firearms, including AR-15 style rifles," in the hands of "LAW-ABIDING Citizens." For the LITERALLY TENS OF MILLIONS of "law-abiding" citizens are literally that....law-abiding and NOT committing any crimes with their firearms and that includes the millions of AR-15 style semi-automatic rifles with large capacity magazines in their hands.


----------



## Lysistrata (Mar 23, 2021)

freyasman said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...



How pathetic. You people can only response with ignorant insults about gender because you have nothing. How's your incel klan doing?


----------



## Lysistrata (Mar 23, 2021)

LuckyDuck said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > Please explain why this is so important to you to have an AR-15. We had guns in the house in leather locked bags and we shot them. I even pulled the trigger when my father sighted. He taught me to never pull a gun on any living being. I violated this teaching once, in Castroville, Texas, when I was 12 and practicing with my aunt's pistol. I shot at a spider on the back of the garage.
> ...



When is a firearm needed by an average citizen? why a firearm that sprays bullets? If, on the off-chance, that someone invades your house, a pistol will do nicely. No "tyrannical government" has invaded this country. These pigs that call themselves "militias" here in the 21st Century are ignorant white gangs, just like there are black gangs like the Crips and the Bloods, and they should be treated the same way.

BTW: you speak of "tyrannical government." Would you agree that women, LGBTs, non-white folks, and people of different faiths have the same rights to defend ourselves from it? Should we all march against some trash like trump and abbott and company carrying AR-15s and use them if necessary? You are the one referring to "TENS OF MILLIONS of "law-abiding" citizens". Last night I saw a news piece about a black militia group and a Black woman spoke about taking firearms practice. It was good to see. She explained that her intent was defensive only. I'm of European ancestry, but I have to agree with her. What if some tyrant like trump or abbott or their trashy friends try to pull their tyrannical shit on Americans again? You are advocating that we just shoot them. Do you agree that _sic semper tyrannis_ applies to everyone?


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 23, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> we lock up more nonviolent criminals than any other country.
> 
> And over 60% of people in state and country jails have not been convicted of any crime and that's because our arraignment and bail procedures need an overhaul.



Actually, Illinois just passed a law to overhaul bail procedures...

And the FOP screamed loudly when they did it.  

Still doesn't solve the problem that it's way too easy for crooks to get guns.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 23, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> We also have to remember how the media sensationalizes mass murders over common gang or street murders. People buy into that sensationalism and it's the only thing the focus on. Using the FBI standards of what a mass murder is, the story I posted above is considered a mass murder by their standards.



Wow, you are saying that the murder of nice white people gets more attention than the murder of people of color. 

Why do you think that is?


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 23, 2021)

daveman said:


> You're more likely to be killed by a practicing doctor than you are a legal gun owner.
> 
> And there you are, insisting government take over healthcare and kill even more people.
> 
> You can stop pretending you care about people.



If I'm seeing a doctor, I'm probably already in bad shape.  Doctors aren't breaking into shopping malls and theaters committing malpractice.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 23, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > we lock up more nonviolent criminals than any other country.
> ...


we need to enforce our federal guns laws.

When Richmond VA did the murder rate was cut almost in half

Criminal control is what makes the difference


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 23, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> we need to enforce our federal guns laws.
> 
> When Richmond VA did the murder rate was cut almost in half
> 
> Criminal control is what makes the difference



No, we need to hold the gun industry accountable.  

The law we need to pass, allowing the victims of gun violence to hold gun sellers and manufacturers responsible when they sell to people who shouldn't own guns.


----------



## freyasman (Mar 23, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...


Like I said.... cvnt.


----------



## Lysistrata (Mar 23, 2021)

freyasman said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > LuckyDuck said:
> ...



Thanks . . . prick. Do you make much standing on a street corner? Any customers? You ho's are disgusting. Stand up and be an American and a man, for a change.


----------



## freyasman (Mar 23, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> freyasman said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...


Quit being a whiny bitch. 

We're not going to do anything you want. 
We don't care what you think. 

Fuck off.


----------



## freyasman (Mar 23, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> freyasman said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...


And go make me a sandwich.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 23, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > we need to enforce our federal guns laws.
> ...


No we don't unless you want to hold the alcohol industry accountable for all drunk driving accidents and all the damages caused by alcoholism.

All licensed gun dealers have to ask the federal government if the person in their shop can legally buy a firearm so you should hold the government accountable.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Mar 23, 2021)

This thread hasnt aged well has it ?


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 23, 2021)

Tommy Tainant said:


> This thread hasnt aged well has it ?


By the looks of your picture you haven't either


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 23, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> No, we need to hold the gun industry accountable.
> 
> The law we need to pass, allowing the victims of gun violence to hold gun sellers and manufacturers responsible when they sell to people who shouldn't own guns.



Sounds great.  That precedent should follow other things.  We should allow Microsoft and Apple to be sued when people use their computers to lure children for sex, or set people up to be robbed and killed responding to sales ads.  A woman who used to unload me at one of my stops got taken for her life savings because some player conned her nickel and dime.  Can she sue the match making site where she met this scammer that robbed her of that 30 grand?  

Communists have always hated our Constitution and always will.  It's what stops them from turning our country into Nazi Germany which is what they're after.  Allowing lowlifes to sue all gun manufactures and gun sellers out of business is their attempt to get around the founding document.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 23, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Wow, you are saying that the murder of nice white people gets more attention than the murder of people of color.
> 
> Why do you think that is?



It's because you see everything through race in your life.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 23, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> When is a firearm needed by an average citizen?



Depending on who's estimate you use, firearms are used by law abiding Americans between 1 and 4 million times every year.  The FBI statistic puts it at 1.1 million times a year.  These stories are not reported by our national media, so you just assume they don't happen, but they do.  If it's a slow news day, maybe your local news will report on it, but even then it's kind of rare because it happens so often.  The root word to news is "new."  People stopping crime, protecting themselves, protecting others is an everyday event in the United States.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 23, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...


Who the fuck are you to tell me what firearm I can or can't use to defend my home and my wife?


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 23, 2021)

freyasman said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > freyasman said:
> ...


----------



## Crepitus (Mar 23, 2021)

2aguy said:


> *Colorado judge strikes down AR-15 ban, and over 10 round magazine ban....good.*



Any bets on what yesterday's shooter used?

I bet it was an AR style rifle with a large capacity magazine.  The gold standard for mass shootings all over the USA.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 23, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > *Colorado judge strikes down AR-15 ban, and over 10 round magazine ban....good.*
> ...



Define large capacity.

I don't own an AR but my Ruger came with a 20 round magazine which is the standard size


----------



## K9Buck (Mar 23, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Why do you think that is?



Because racists like you don't consider the murder of black folks as newsworthy.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 23, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Any bets on what yesterday's shooter used?
> 
> I bet it was an AR style rifle with a large capacity magazine. The gold standard for mass shootings all over the USA.



Yeah, and if we got rid of the AR, mass shooters would stop killing people.


----------



## Crepitus (Mar 23, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Any bets on what yesterday's shooter used?
> ...


I agree, nutters are still gonna go nuts.

But they might not be able to kill as many at once.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 23, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...



Tell that to the VA Tech shooter


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 23, 2021)

K9Buck said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you think that is?
> ...



Unless they can use it to rant about "white supremacy".


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 23, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> I agree, nutters are still gonna go nuts.
> 
> But they might not be able to kill as many at once.



I don't know how you figure that.  A semi-automatic weapon is a semi-automatic weapon.  Every time you squeeze the trigger, it fires a round. How scary a weapon looks does not equate to body count.


----------



## LuckyDuck (Mar 23, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...


Aaahh, starting out with insults, how pathetic.  It's a sure sign of someone losing an argument. 
I don't give a damn if any group forming a militia in a state is Black, Asian, Hispanic, White, or Native American, as long as they are 100% pro-Constitution and its Bill of Rights (its Amendments) and aren't out committing crimes.
As for a tyrannical government, that wasn't Trump or his supporters.  The Republicans are about a smaller central government, whereas the left is all about massive authoritarian oppressive government control over most of peoples lives.  Good examples:
"Democratic" Peoples Republic of Korea (North Korea).
Lao (Laos) Peoples "Democratic" Republic.
"Democratic" Republic of Congo.
OR...former Socialist nations like Nazi Germany (National SOCIALIST German Workers Party), or the old Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics.  
If this nation were to become a one party, authoritarian nation, which is always the case in true "Socialist" nations, then it is the obligation of its citizens to rise up and fight against such tyranny.
The same is true of standing against far-right military juntas.  
As long as we ensure that this nation will have voices from multiple parties and adherence to our Constitution....not just part of it, we will continue to be a just nation.


----------



## tyroneweaver (Mar 23, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > *Colorado judge strikes down AR-15 ban, and over 10 round magazine ban....good.*
> ...


and every single one was on the FBI's watch dog list, but they're to busy watching guys like me.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 23, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Sounds great. That precedent should follow other things. We should allow Microsoft and Apple to be sued when people use their computers to lure children for sex, or set people up to be robbed and killed responding to sales ads. A woman who used to unload me at one of my stops got taken for her life savings because some player conned her nickel and dime. Can she sue the match making site where she met this scammer that robbed her of that 30 grand?



Actually, no, since they aren't designed for that. 

Guns are designed to kill people.


----------



## RealDave (Mar 23, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


 Yep, let those wacko shooters have a semi-automatric rifle witrh a 150 ropund magazine.  What harm could it do?


----------



## Crepitus (Mar 23, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...


Why?  Did he do a comparison?


----------



## Crepitus (Mar 23, 2021)

tyroneweaver said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


Why would they be watching you?


----------



## daveman (Mar 23, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > we lock up more nonviolent criminals than any other country.
> ...


How many laws do we need before criminals start obeying them?


----------



## daveman (Mar 23, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > You're more likely to be killed by a practicing doctor than you are a legal gun owner.
> ...


No, they commit malpractice in their offices and in hospitals.  You know, where you go to see them.

You're on the wrong side of this issue.  Just like every other issue.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 23, 2021)

daveman said:


> How many laws do we need before criminals start obeying them?



By that logic, we should get rid of all laws, because Criminals break those, too!  

Murder laws?  We had 19,000 murders.  Clearly the murder laws aren't dissuading murderers.


----------



## daveman (Mar 23, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > we need to enforce our federal guns laws.
> ...


And we should be able to sue liquor distillers when a drunk driver kills our families!

That's you.  That's how stupid you sound.


----------



## daveman (Mar 23, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> freyasman said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...


Wait, are we using the actual definition of "man", or the leftist Pajama Boi definition?


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 23, 2021)

daveman said:


> No, they commit malpractice in their offices and in hospitals. You know, where you go to see them.



Exactly.   Which means if I don't want to die of malpractice, don't go to a doctor's office or hospital.  (I might die of whatever I should have gone there for to start with, but whatever.) 

Now,  It's clear you can't go to a supermarket without risking getting shot.  Or go get a massage, or go see a movie, or go to concert, without running the risk that someone who NEVER should have had a gun got a gun. 

So as I always say, when they identify a mass shooter, they almost always find out two things. 

1) Everyone in his life knew he was nuts.
2) He was able to get a gun, anyway.


----------



## daveman (Mar 23, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > How many laws do we need before criminals start obeying them?
> ...


Maybe if you leftists would hold criminals accountable for their actions, it'd improve.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 23, 2021)

daveman said:


> And we should be able to sue liquor distillers when a drunk driver kills our families!
> 
> That's you. That's how stupid you sound.



Was the booze designed to drive a car?  Um. No.  

The thing is, bars are obligated by law NOT to get you so shit-faced drunk you are going to run someone over.  We have BASSET training, and a bar owner can be held liable if he let you get so drunk you went out and killed someone.   

Same thing with gun shops. 

The problem is, the gun makers have been marketing to the crazies for years.  Not the responsible gun owner. He buys one gun, maybe takes it out once a year for target practice, eventually sticks it in his closet and forgets it.  He's not a source of return sales.  

Nope.  The gun industry markets to the crazies...  That's why they oppose background checks, waiting periods or anything else that might reduce gun sales.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 23, 2021)

daveman said:


> Maybe if you leftists would hold criminals accountable for their actions, it'd improve.



We lock up 2 million people and have another 7 million on probation or parole.  
We are one of the last civilized countries that still has capital punishment. 

If punishment was going to get us there, we'd have the lowest crime rates in the industrialized world, not the highest.


----------



## daveman (Mar 23, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > No, they commit malpractice in their offices and in hospitals. You know, where you go to see them.
> ...


Then your beef is with the Federal agencies who conduct background checks, not with legal gun owners.

But you don't dare criticize them.  You want law-abiding Americans unable to resist your wished-for totalitarianism.

Here's an idea:  Why don't you try disarming criminals first?  You know, as a trial run.  Let me know how it works out for you.


----------



## Flash (Mar 23, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > How many laws do we need before criminals start obeying them?
> ...




You are confused about this Moon Bat so let me explain it to you.  Take notes because I will quiz you later.

The filthy ass minorities commit the great majority of the gun crimes in this country and will continue to do so regardless of any gun control bullshit the Libtards manages to enact.

They will not adhere to any new law like they don't adhere to the existing ones.

Despicable gun control laws only infringes upon the Constitutional rights of law abiding citizens that would never commit a crime in the first place.

Case in point.  Stupid background checks.  The Muslim terrorist in Bolder passed a Federal NICS background check and them six days later killed Americans.  The law did nothing to stop him for doing an evil deed.  

Gun control laws are oppressive for law abiding Americans in addition to be in violation of the Constitution but they sure make you dumb idiot Moon Bats feel good, don't they?  Dumbasses!


----------



## daveman (Mar 23, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > And we should be able to sue liquor distillers when a drunk driver kills our families!
> ...


Gosh.  I didn't know the only place you're allowed to drink is at bars.  

No, you stupid Commie bastard.  We're not going to disarm so you can herd us onto boxcars.


----------



## daveman (Mar 23, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe if you leftists would hold criminals accountable for their actions, it'd improve.
> ...


Again -- your problem is with Government.  The Government you refuse to hold accountable.  

The funny part is, you want to give Government even more power over individual lives -- and you think everything will then be fine.

Dumbass.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 23, 2021)

daveman said:


> Then your beef is with the Federal agencies who conduct background checks, not with legal gun owners.



No, my beef is with the NRA and the gun makers who've made it impossible to conduct background checks. 



daveman said:


> But you don't dare criticize them. You want law-abiding Americans unable to resist your wished-for totalitarianism.



Again, guy, guns don't prevent totalitarianism.  Never have, never will.  Germany had a shit load of guns before Hitler came to power, despite attempts to limit gun ownership.  Hitler actually loosened the gun laws (for Germans, not the Jews) and there were lots of guns in Germany, but the "Good Germans" never rose up.  

Here's the reality...  if the ATF came for you tomorrow, they'd get you.  Most of your neighbors wouldn't get involved. 



daveman said:


> Here's an idea: Why don't you try disarming criminals first? You know, as a trial run. Let me know how it works out for you.



Here's an idea, how about we get the gun industry to stop flooding the streets with guns...


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 23, 2021)

daveman said:


> Again -- your problem is with Government. The Government you refuse to hold accountable.
> 
> The funny part is, you want to give Government even more power over individual lives -- and you think everything will then be fine.



Says the guy who was spent most of his life sucking off the government teet.  

The problem isn't government, the problem is government does exactly what we want them to.  Nobody wins on the "let's try something else" platform.  They get elected promising to punish people...


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 23, 2021)

daveman said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...



AND the manufacturer of the car they were driving while drunk.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Mar 23, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > No, it has not been taken yet. What they have in their gun bill now is forcing all gun purchasers to submit to a psychological exam at the cost of $800.00, get a federal license, and anybody you may have had a disagreement with can voice their opposition to you getting that license in which to buy that gun. It may be an ex-wife, an ex-girlfriend, a neighbor or family member. The shrink will be the one questioning these people, and I'm sure a lot of good people won't be able to get one, because the Democrats will likely choose who those shrinks are, which will be anti-gun leftists like themselves.
> ...


He'd have gone down to the hardware store and bought a twenty buck machete.  The end result would have been just as horrific or even more.  There was a lot more carnage in edged weapon battles than in firearm's ones.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Mar 23, 2021)

SavannahMann said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > SavannahMann said:
> ...


The reel place the 5.56 comes up short is range.  That's why the M-14 was reintroduced in Afghanistan in some units, The AKs were outranging the M-4s.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 23, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> He'd have gone down to the hardware store and bought a twenty buck machete. The end result would have been just as horrific or even more. There was a lot more carnage in edged weapon battles than in firearm's ones.



Not really.  tell you what... Let's get a bunch of mannequins, you take out as many as you can with a machette in five minutes, I'll take out as many as I can with an AR15... 

I'll betcha I'll inflict damage on more of them.


----------



## daveman (Mar 23, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Then your beef is with the Federal agencies who conduct background checks, not with legal gun owners.
> ...


Oh, look.  A leftist once again demanding all-powerful government and refusing to hold criminals responsible.

Don't you ever get tired of being a dumbass?


----------



## AZrailwhale (Mar 23, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...


Wrong, the M-1A is a civilian version of the M-14 and was designed to handle a 20 round mag just like a M-16 or AR-15 was, you can easily get 30 round M-1A mags cheaply, I just looked and they are thirty bucks each.  The civilian version of the AK-47 handles a thirty round mag and the IMI Galil handles a 35 round mag.  Unless you are humping the boonies all day the weight difference between 5.56 and 7.62 is inconsequential.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Mar 23, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> > He'd have gone down to the hardware store and bought a twenty buck machete. The end result would have been just as horrific or even more. There was a lot more carnage in edged weapon battles than in firearm's ones.
> ...


I said just as horrific, run through a crowd slashing with an edged weapon and you get horrific results.  If you did the same with any firearm, you'd get swarmed the first time you stopped for a magazine change.  At close range I very much doubt you'd get nearly as many kills/injuries as the guy with the edged weapon.


----------



## daveman (Mar 23, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Again -- your problem is with Government. The Government you refuse to hold accountable.
> ...


Yes, we know.  You voted for Biden to "get" Trump supporters, because you want people who disagree with you dead.

And you wonder _why_ people disagree with you, you freak.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Mar 23, 2021)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > SavannahMann said:
> ...


Unless things have changed since the seventies when I served, the Army trains out to three hundred meters of aimed fire and the Marines train out to five hundred meters of aimed fire.   Even at three hundred meters that light 5.56mm projectile is very susceptible to wind deflection.


----------



## daveman (Mar 23, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...


But since people don't resist leftist tyranny with knives, the left doesn't give a shit.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Mar 23, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...


The point he was making and that you ignored, is that those numbers are eclipsed in Chicago each and every week and people like you just ignore the carnage.


----------



## daveman (Mar 23, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> > He'd have gone down to the hardware store and bought a twenty buck machete. The end result would have been just as horrific or even more. There was a lot more carnage in edged weapon battles than in firearm's ones.
> ...


Pissing your pants won't hurt anybody.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Mar 23, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > we need to enforce our federal guns laws.
> ...


The problem with that is that gun shop owners are already held responsible for selling to people not qualified.  They can lose their licenses and go to jail for for that crime.  As fir the gun manufacturers, the laws are even stricter for them.  Every gun they sell HAS to go to a licensed dealer or to a country with a valid end-user certificate issued by the US government.  The restrictions on the manufactures are even stricter than on the government.  I had a reason to look up the procedures of the Civilian Marksmanship Program for selling M-1s and other surplus rifles and they can sell and ship to me at my home address without my having a FFL.  Oh and I can buy up to seven guns a year from them.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Mar 23, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


My Ruger 10/22 came with a ten round one, but I've seen hundred round drums advertised.  Personally, I can't see why anyone would need one, but it's a free country.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 23, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe if you leftists would hold criminals accountable for their actions, it'd improve.
> ...




Shit head.....the democrat party judges, prosecutors and politicians keep releasing the violent gun offenders over and over again....so, you dipshit...it doesn't matter if you temporarily lock them up if you let them back out and then they shoot people...

You are such a dumb ass.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 23, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Then your beef is with the Federal agencies who conduct background checks, not with legal gun owners.
> ...




Shithead...every fucking gun store and licensed gun dealer has to do federal background checks.....you lying asshole.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 23, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...



Wrong.  The M-1A was made by Springfield for WWII.  It was a gas operated Semi Auto that held 20 rounds and was the main firearm for grunts in WWII.  It predates the M-14 which is a decendant of the M-1A.  The M-1 was a Thompson Model 1920 that lead to the 1934 National Firearms act.  The original Typewriter.

The version of the AR-15 or Model 6XX Colt was the Armalite AR-10 chambered for the 7.62 which lost out because of the weight.  The same reason the M-14 lost out to the Colt Model 601 chambered for the 556.  Lug an M-14 around for 20 hours a day and you are going to be one very tired puppy.  And the normal rounds in both the M-14 and the M-16 are both 20 rounds.  That 30 round mag won't hold up in the M-16 in the rough and tumble world of Combat.  Sooner rather than later, you are going to bend it.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 23, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...



Not the M-1 (thompson Model 1920) and the M-14.  Both are fully automatics.  You are partially correct about the M1A and M1A1 since they are semi autos.  But most states require them to be shipped to a gun dealer where you will have to go through a background check to pick them up.


----------



## tyroneweaver (Mar 23, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> tyroneweaver said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...


free white and 21


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Mar 23, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...


And dodge the question.


----------



## Crepitus (Mar 23, 2021)

tyroneweaver said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > tyroneweaver said:
> ...


No.


----------



## tyroneweaver (Mar 23, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> tyroneweaver said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...


Well, would you believe  I was in  Dallas on Nov 23, 1963


----------



## SavannahMann (Mar 24, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...



Oh great. Another one who is an expert with flawed information.

The average rifleman still carries the M-4 or M-16A4 because the factors that made it a good choice remain true today. Those who carry the M-14’s are snipers. The heavier round is more accurate at longer ranges. The semi-automatic weapon is faster to fire than the bolt action rifle of my own era. It is not a common issue rifle for the average soldier. It is used by the long range shooters for obvious reasons.

A Squad and Platoon has a mix of weapons. Because someone carries the light automatic weapon chambered for the 5.56 cartridge does not mean it is going to be given to everyone.

A mix of weapons gives the squad and platoon leadership tools to deal with various situations. Grenade Launchers, Machine Guns, Rifles, Squad Automatic Weapons, Anti-Armor. The mix gives the unit flexibility.

In my day as a Combat Engineer our squad was armed as follows. A M-60 Machine Gun. 2 M-203 40 MM Grenade Launchers attached to rifles. Everyone else had standard M-16A2 rifles. Each Squad also had a M-67 90MM Recoilless Rifle. The Lieutenant and the Machine Gunners were also issued M-9 Pistols. 

We did not have snipers. We were a unit of Combat Engineers. But we were combat troops so we had enough firepower to deal with most situations we were liable to get into. We normally broke off into squads and supported Infantry Companies on attacks or defense.

Each unit has a mix of weapons. Just as each unit brings something to the party. Combined Arms means using these various parts to creat a whole that is much more than the sum of the parts.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Mar 24, 2021)

SavannahMann said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> > SavannahMann said:
> ...


Well said.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 24, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> The problem isn't government, the problem is government does exactly what we want them to. Nobody wins on the "let's try something else" platform. They get elected promising to punish people...



Only leftists vote that way, not us on the right.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 24, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Here's an idea, how about we get the gun industry to stop flooding the streets with guns...



They don't flood our streets with anything.  Like any other product, they provide a product based on demand from consumers.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 24, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Was the booze designed to drive a car? Um. No.
> 
> The thing is, bars are obligated by law NOT to get you so shit-faced drunk you are going to run someone over. We have BASSET training, and a bar owner can be held liable if he let you get so drunk you went out and killed someone.
> 
> Same thing with gun shops.




Apples and oranges. If a bartender knowingly serves you enough times to allow you to get drunk, he or she is liable because they participated in your irresponsible actions.  Gun manufacturers only sell to licensed gun dealers, and those dealers order firearms based on consumer demand.  The manufacturers have no idea who will be buying their products, and the licensed dealer has no idea of how their customers will use the product they buy from them, no different than the sales person at the dealership you buy an automobile from.  

All a licensed gun dealer does is run your identity through a federal background check, and sells you the product you want to buy if you that background check is approved by the federal government.  

Holding the gun manufacturer or dealer responsible is no different than if you wanted to buy a car, and the dealership and manufacturer refused to sell you one because you had a DUI 3 years ago, or perhaps had a conviction of vehicular homicide in your past.  Dealers don't do that.  If you are legally able to purchase an automobile, they sell you that automobile.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 24, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, no, since they aren't designed for that.
> 
> Guns are designed to kill people.



Guns are designed to put a projectile into the air.  You can use that projectile to hunt, to enjoy target practice, to protect yourself, family and even strangers in the street.  They are no more designed to murder people than a computer is designed to set people up to be robbed, killed, lure children into sex, or scam people, yet it happens all the time.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Mar 24, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds great. That precedent should follow other things. We should allow Microsoft and Apple to be sued when people use their computers to lure children for sex, or set people up to be robbed and killed responding to sales ads. A woman who used to unload me at one of my stops got taken for her life savings because some player conned her nickel and dime. Can she sue the match making site where she met this scammer that robbed her of that 30 grand?
> ...


The only function of a gun is to kill another person?  WHAT THE FUCK?  You can think of no other purpose in the design but to kill other humans?

Are you saying knives are designed only to stab people to death?  (what if "kitchenaid" is scribed on the side)

Bats are only designed to bash in skulls?

Boot heels are only designed to curb stomp?

You are a retarded motherfucker.  Design is WHOLLY irrelevant. 

Just admit that you hate guns and gun rights, and GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY COUNTRY and go somewhere where you don't have rights.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Mar 24, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > How many laws do we need before criminals start obeying them?
> ...


Not surprisingly, you are laboring under the misconception that you can prevent violent crime through legislation, or that laws are intended to prevent crime.

WRONG

Laws only establish prohibited behavior and punishment for same.  

This illustrates your need to control not just guns but everything.  You think you can make the whole world a happy, joyjoy, kumbaya singing pot farm by subjugating humanity.

You are mistaken.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 24, 2021)

daveman said:


> Oh, look. A leftist once again demanding all-powerful government and refusing to hold criminals responsible.
> 
> Don't you ever get tired of being a dumbass?



Uh, guy, I have no problem with holding criminals responsible...that's not the point. 

The point is, when you have easy access to guns, any fool can have a "really bad day" and become a criminal. 

The guy who shot all the Asian hookers had no criminal record.  He just had a "really bad day" and easy access to guns.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 24, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> The only function of a gun is to kill another person? WHAT THE FUCK? You can think of no other purpose in the design but to kill other humans?
> 
> Are you saying knives are designed only to stab people to death? (what if "kitchenaid" is scribed on the side)



So you are shooting up your kitchen during meal prep?  



Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Not surprisingly, you are laboring under the misconception that you can prevent violent crime through legislation, or that laws are intended to prevent crime.



Every other advanced country regulates who can own guns. None of them have the problems with violence we have.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 24, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> I said just as horrific, run through a crowd slashing with an edged weapon and you get horrific results. If you did the same with any firearm, you'd get swarmed the first time you stopped for a magazine change. At close range I very much doubt you'd get nearly as many kills/injuries as the guy with the edged weapon.



Sandy Hook.  Guy was able to reload several times.  Columbine.  Atlanta. Boulder yesterday.   This is a crock and you know it.  

Not that it matters, you guys want the mass shooters to have access to bigger and bigger magazines, so they never need to reload. 



2aguy said:


> Shithead...every fucking gun store and licensed gun dealer has to do federal background checks.....you lying asshole.



Then those background checks are inadequate.  

They should treat the background check like an actual background check.  For instance, when I got my last job, they did a background check.  They called several of my former coworkers and employers.  

They should do that with guns.  Ask your co-workers and neighbors if you are a nut or not.  My guess, they wouldn't be too keen on that.  

The thing we find out after every last one of these mass shootings is that everyone in the person's life knew he was nuts.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 24, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Apples and oranges. If a bartender knowingly serves you enough times to allow you to get drunk, he or she is liable because they participated in your irresponsible actions. Gun manufacturers only sell to licensed gun dealers, and those dealers order firearms based on consumer demand. The manufacturers have no idea who will be buying their products, and the licensed dealer has no idea of how their customers will use the product they buy from them, no different than the sales person at the dealership you buy an automobile from.



Given the deadly potential of guns, that isn't good enough.  

Here's the real problem. If there was legal liability, gun manufacturers would change how they do business.  they would be the ones performing REAL background checks, instead of selling to every crazy who wants a gun hoping to scare the straights into wanting them, too.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 24, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...



He used handguns.  So you don't need an AR ti kill a lot of people


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 24, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > How many laws do we need before criminals start obeying them?
> ...


The only thing you are ignoring is that we don't enforce the gun laws we have on the books so what makes you think more gun laws will be enforced.

No law is effective if it's not enforced.

When federal gun laws are enforced the murder rate drops


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 24, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> The only thing you are ignoring is that we don't enforce the gun laws we have on the books so what makes you think more gun laws will be enforced.
> 
> No law is effective if it's not enforced.
> 
> When federal gun laws are enforced the murder rate drops



Let's put real laws on the books, and then you can get back to me.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 24, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Then your beef is with the Federal agencies who conduct background checks, not with legal gun owners.
> ...


it's not impossible.

In fact anyone can contact a FFL in their  area to do a background check for the purpose of a gun sale.

I obey our federal gun laws and if I was to sell a gun to a person I didn't know I would have a BG check done.

But I'm more likely to trade a gun in at a gun store than I am to sell it on Craigs list


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 24, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > The only thing you are ignoring is that we don't enforce the gun laws we have on the books so what makes you think more gun laws will be enforced.
> ...



You mean real laws like it's illegal for a felon to buy or possess a firearm?


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 24, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> it's not impossible.
> 
> In fact anyone can contact a FFL in their area to do a background check for the purpose of a gun sale.
> 
> ...



That's nice.  But some asshole out there is selling them on Craig's List... and that's the problem.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 24, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > it's not impossible.
> ...



It's an easy fix.

Just require all gun sales be subject to a BG check.

No one should have an issue with that.

But even more important is the enforcement of our federal gun laws already on the books.


----------



## SavannahMann (Mar 24, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Apples and oranges. If a bartender knowingly serves you enough times to allow you to get drunk, he or she is liable because they participated in your irresponsible actions. Gun manufacturers only sell to licensed gun dealers, and those dealers order firearms based on consumer demand. The manufacturers have no idea who will be buying their products, and the licensed dealer has no idea of how their customers will use the product they buy from them, no different than the sales person at the dealership you buy an automobile from.
> ...



Out of curiosity. What is a Real Background Check?


----------



## Crepitus (Mar 24, 2021)

tyroneweaver said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > tyroneweaver said:
> ...


No


----------



## Crepitus (Mar 24, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


So he did do a comparison?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 24, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> That's nice. But some asshole out there is selling them on Craig's List... and that's the problem.



So how many murders or mass murders are because a criminal got their guns from Craigslist?  The majority of illegal guns are purchased off the street from other criminals and straw buyers, who face little in the way of a penalty if they purchased a weapon for somebody else not legally allowed to own a firearm.  This is not conjecture, this comes from FBI statistics.


----------



## Mac-7 (Mar 24, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> The point is, when you have easy access to guns, any fool can have a "really bad day" and become a criminal.
> 
> The guy who shot all the Asian hookers had no criminal record. He just had a "really bad day" and easy access to guns.


Careful

you are revealing the gun grabbers intention to remove all our guns

and thats supposed to be a secret till its too late to stop you


----------



## tyroneweaver (Mar 24, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> tyroneweaver said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...


How about Austin Texas August 1, 1966


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 24, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Given the deadly potential of guns, that isn't good enough.
> 
> Here's the real problem. If there was legal liability, gun manufacturers would change how they do business. they would be the ones performing REAL background checks, instead of selling to every crazy who wants a gun hoping to scare the straights into wanting them, too.



No, because a gun manufacturer has no contact with the end customer, that's what a gun seller does.  And again, a licensed dealer does background checks on ALL customers buying a firearm from their store or a gun show.  Yes, they still have to do that check even at a gun show by law.  

Apple sells around 20 million computers a year.  Do you think they should do a criminal search on 20 million people every year to make sure the consumer doesn't use their products to rob people, scam people, or to lure children into sex acts?  Of course not. That's ridiculous. 

So why do the commies want this liability lifted?  Because it would give them the ability to sue all gun makers and sellers out of business, and firearms would be virtually impossible to purchase.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 24, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Then those background checks are inadequate.
> 
> They should treat the background check like an actual background check. For instance, when I got my last job, they did a background check. They called several of my former coworkers and employers.
> 
> They should do that with guns. Ask your co-workers and neighbors if you are a nut or not. My guess, they wouldn't be too keen on that.



Coworkers and neighbors do not have the professional training to make that determination, furthermore they may be people you are on the outs with, and let's face it, a lot of people have that coworker or neighbor they have conflicts with including you, and you've wrote about that repeatedly. 

Your claim is that one supervisor only took white woman to lunch.  Forget the fact that most people of a particular race tend to gravitate towards each other.  Forget the fact he took out young attractive white girls maybe hoping to get their interest.  You said he did it because "you concluded" he was racist.

Now if a the feds contacted you about that supervisor during a background check, and they took your false conclusion that your supervisor was racist, they won't allow him to buy a gun?  They have no idea you are a self-hating white.  They have no idea that your entire life revolves around race.  They are just going to take your word for it that your supervisor is a racist.  See what I mean?


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 24, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> > I said just as horrific, run through a crowd slashing with an edged weapon and you get horrific results. If you did the same with any firearm, you'd get swarmed the first time you stopped for a magazine change. At close range I very much doubt you'd get nearly as many kills/injuries as the guy with the edged weapon.
> ...



You have been shown, over and over that magazine size has nothing to do with how many people are killed......you simply see an opportunity to ban guns by banning magazines....you are a twit.

The Pulse Nightclub shooter had an extensive background check for his security job.  He had a background check for every single gun he bought.   He was accused, by a co-worker, of being a terrorist...so the FBI.....the FBI.....did a complete background check into the guy....including 3 interviews with Federal agents, and also an undercover approach by federal agents........

He passed all of them, you doofus.........

Background checks do not catch mass public shooters because the majority commit no prior crimes.......and then the ones who have mental problems get passed along by the very fucking government you worship....

You are an idiot.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 24, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, look. A leftist once again demanding all-powerful government and refusing to hold criminals responsible.
> ...




Wrong.....you lying asshole.......90% of murderers have long histories of crime and violence dating back to their teen years with, on average, 6 years of crime before they commit the murder.......


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 24, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...




I do....because they won't open the NICS system to regular people..........you have to go through a firearms dealer or the police.....and they can charge you for it or delay it, or refuse to do it.

Joe doesn't care about background checks....he doesn't care about universal background checks.....they want universal background checks as the trojan horse to get gun registration which he knows they need to really ban and confiscate guns.....


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 24, 2021)

SavannahMann said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...




According to joe, a real background check is any background check that makes it impossible for people to buy, own or carry guns.......


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 24, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Wrong.....you lying asshole.......90% of murderers have long histories of crime and violence dating back to their teen years with, on average, 6 years of crime before they commit the murder.......



And if we ever implemented Joe's suggestion, the next thing you know he would be complaining that a lot of blacks can't legally purchase firearms, and that the regulation is racist.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 24, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong.....you lying asshole.......90% of murderers have long histories of crime and violence dating back to their teen years with, on average, 6 years of crime before they commit the murder.......
> ...




Except joe calls them "Darkies," not blacks.......


----------



## SavannahMann (Mar 24, 2021)

2aguy said:


> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



I heard it tossed about. I am honestly curious as to what he considers a Real Background Check. I am always willing to listen and consider. It is possible he has an idea with merit. I won’t know u til he describes this Real Background Check.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 24, 2021)

SavannahMann said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > SavannahMann said:
> ...



He wants the police to be able to go to all of your family and neighbors and employer, and give them a veto on your ability to own a gun.....that is what he means


----------



## LuckyDuck (Mar 24, 2021)

daveman said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


Nah.....sue the automobile manufacturers.


----------



## SavannahMann (Mar 24, 2021)

2aguy said:


> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



I will skip the veto power of neighbors for the moment. I have a question though. How do we pay for what is in essence a Top Secret Background Investigation on any and all Gun Buyers? Half of the current cops would be tied up in background investigations.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Mar 24, 2021)

The Texas Constitution, Article 1, Section 23 states:

"_*Every citizen* shall have the right to keep and bear arms *in the lawful defense of himself* or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime._"

The U.S. Constitution states:

_"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."_

What seems to be the confusion?  NOTHING in THE PLAIN LANGUAGE of either of those constitutional provisions states that the FedGov can limit my right to certain firearms.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 24, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> It's an easy fix.
> 
> Just require all gun sales be subject to a BG check.
> 
> No one should have an issue with that.



I would agree, if you ACTUALLY did background checks.  

The guy in Boulder-  Had a long history of mental illness and was convicted of assault in 2018.  Was still able to get a gun. 

The guy in Atlanta- had a history of mental illness.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 24, 2021)

SavannahMann said:


> I will skip the veto power of neighbors for the moment. I have a question though. How do we pay for what is in essence a Top Secret Background Investigation on any and all Gun Buyers? Half of the current cops would be tied up in background investigations.



Why would that be a bad thing.  The whole reason why we had riots all last summer was too many guys who shouldn't be cops got those jobs and kept shooting black people until they got fed up with it.


----------



## freyasman (Mar 24, 2021)

SavannahMann said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> > SavannahMann said:
> ...


Mostly correct, but we *did* have "Designated Marksmen" in rifle squads starting in Afghanistan, mostly due to the longer ranges of the engagements there.
I carried a scoped M14 with a bipod there in 2003 and filled that slot, even though I was an NCO, (I just really wanted the M14, lol).


----------



## freyasman (Mar 24, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


I do.


I don't have to prove I am not a felon to anyone before I exercise fundamental rights. The only thing the government or it's agents are allowed to _*presume*_ about anyone, is that they are citizens in good standing and innocent of all wrong doing, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.

That's what presumption of innocence means.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 24, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Why would that be a bad thing. The whole reason why we had riots all last summer was too many guys who shouldn't be cops got those jobs and kept shooting black people until they got fed up with it.



There is no law that states a cop cannot shoot a black person if he or she fears for their safety, the safety of others, or presume their life is on the line.  They already demonstrated (as I have) the maneuver used by the officer  in Mn is common by police, and taught in the police academies across the country.  The reason we had riots is because we have so many stupid people and a brainwashing media to rile them up.


----------



## daveman (Mar 24, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, look. A leftist once again demanding all-powerful government and refusing to hold criminals responsible.
> ...


Mass murderers have easy access to rental trucks.  To pressure cookers.  To the chemicals needed to make Sarin gas.  To knives.

But since people don't resist leftist tyranny with rental trucks, pressure cookers, chemicals, and knives, you don't give a shit.  

You can fuck off, you Commie bastard.


----------



## daveman (Mar 24, 2021)

SavannahMann said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...


One that prohibits the sale of guns to everyone.


----------



## Flash (Mar 24, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > It's an easy fix.
> ...




Why are you so confused about background checks?

1.  They are useless.  Past behavior is no guarantee of future behavior.  Just look at Obama's little Muslim terrorist in Bolder.  He passed a NICS check six days before his terrorism. 

2.  If you want a gun to do an evil deed a background check will not stop you from getting one.

3.  Background checks circumvents the Bill of Rights.  If you have to get permission from the government to enjoy a right guaranteed to you under the Bill of Rights then it is not really a right after all, is it?  The Bill of Rights isn't worth the parchment it is written on in that case, is it?


----------



## daveman (Mar 24, 2021)

Flash said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


Bold of you to assume Iosef gives a shit about the Constitituion.

He doesn't.  He wants it destroyed.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 24, 2021)

SavannahMann said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > SavannahMann said:
> ...




It isn't about actually doing this....they don't do it now with guys on their watch lists......

The demand for universal background checks is a trojan horse.....for gun registration.

First, they demand universal background checks....these will not stop criminals from getting guns, and mass public shooters will pass them because they have no criminal record...

Sooooo...when criminals still get guns and mass shooters are still getting guns?

They will come back and say....gee...you know what....for these universal background checks to work, we really need gun registration...you know, to know who owns the guns in the first place so that we will know if a background check was done.........

Then the same campaigns will start....you will see fake polls that show uninformed Americans "Want universal background checks to work....so register just weapons of war....." and so on....

The goal is gun registration...they know that in all the countries that banned and confiscated guns, they first had to register those guns so they couldn't be hidden....


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 24, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > It's an easy fix.
> ...




And again....Pulse Nightclub shooter had 

--background check for his security job

--background for each gun he bought

--Complete, FBI background investigation when they thought he might be a terrorist

--3 interviews with trained FBI interrogators

--an undercover approach by trained FBI agents trying to find out if he was a terrorist..


He passed each one....you dumb ass........

Parkland Shooter.....?

--committed multiple felonies on school grounds.....was not arrested because of obama's "Promise Program."  They didn't want to give him a criminal record....a criminal record which would have prevented him from getting the gun.

--he had more than 30 interactions with the police at home for domestic incidents...

And he had a clean record for the background check..

You dumb ass....


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 24, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Parkland Shooter.....?
> 
> --committed multiple felonies on school grounds.....was not arrested because of obama's "Promise Program." They didn't want to give him a criminal record....a criminal record which would have prevented him from getting the gun.
> 
> ...



If I remember correctly, the FBI also failed to give dirt on this kid to the fed government that might have restricted his ability to purchase firearms.


----------



## SavannahMann (Mar 25, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> > I will skip the veto power of neighbors for the moment. I have a question though. How do we pay for what is in essence a Top Secret Background Investigation on any and all Gun Buyers? Half of the current cops would be tied up in background investigations.
> ...



The problems with police are accountability. For generations police have gotten away with doing pretty much whatever they want. And for generations the people, the population has encouraged and endorsed this. If bad guys get tuned up on the way to jail? Well they shouldn’t have been bad.

Regular People who commit gun crimes are held accountable by comparison.

But think about this for a moment. The same cops who have shown a clear bias against minorities will be the ones conducting these investigations to determine if minorities should be allowed to buy guns. The same cops who lie in one case out of five will be investigating minorities to decide if they should be allowed to get a gun.

I wonder if you had considered that. The same cops who are abusing people would be given more authority and opportunity to abuse people by denying them their civil rights.

The answer to the problems we are having is changes in policy and accountability. Not more unchecked authority and even less accountability.


----------



## SavannahMann (Mar 25, 2021)

2aguy said:


> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



We already have gun registration. Look. Let’s be honest. Let’s say they recover a gun at the scene of a crime. A Glock. They ask Glock who got the gun. Glock points at the distributor. The Distributor points at the FFL dealer. The Dealer points at Joe Blow. He even shows the confirmation number of the approval from the background check. Joe Blow has to show what he did with the gun.

They track the gun through every step. It takes a few hours at most. If the Feds want to know about AR’s it would take time but in no more than a couple months they would have a list of every AR manufactured for more than twenty years. Unless the FFL’s want to go to prison for failing to maintain their records that is.

If Joe Blow had the Glock stolen, he had better have a report on file.

Unless the “buyer” is dead there is a chain of proverbial custody for the weapon. That chain of custody is easily determined.

The two morons who shot up Columbine. They tracked the guns and arrested the guy who sold them to the kids. Kyle Rittenhouse saw the guy who sold him the rifle arrested.

Once the weapons had serial numbers there is a chain of custody. I refuse to believe that there is no number anywhere on the 80% receivers. There is something. A lot number. Something to identify it.

I watched a documentary on spying techniques. They flash read your phone and credit card smart chips. They instal microchips in credit cards to track people and even monitor electronic communication around them.

Just as the FISA court made Black Bag Jobs legal the official Registration would make what the Feds are doing right now legal. They already have it mate. Resisting something after it is established is nonsense. We have to prevent them from doing what they’re already doing. Or something.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 25, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > It's an easy fix.
> ...



A person must be adjudicated to be mentally ill.  Not just seeing a shrink or taking antidepressants

And any FFL dealer can only work with the information the federal government provides so the fault is not with the licensed gun dealer.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 25, 2021)

freyasman said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


That presumption of innocence only applies to those awaiting trial for a crime.

I don't have a problem with convicted felons not being able to own firearms.  And it's the person selling guns that should be concerned if he is selling to a person who is legally prohibited from owning firearms.

It's the main reason I don't sell guns to people or buy guns from anyone other than a licensed dealer.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 25, 2021)

SavannahMann said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > SavannahMann said:
> ...




He doesn't want anyone to have guns......so if the police target minorities he doesn't care.


----------



## Flash (Mar 25, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Parkland Shooter.....?
> ...




Well he was a Muslim so we wouldn't want to profile him, would we?

The same government thugs that tried to frame Trump weren't about to finger the Muslim.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Mar 25, 2021)

Flash said:


> finger the Muslim


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 25, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> There is no law that states a cop cannot shoot a black person if he or she fears for their safety, the safety of others, or presume their life is on the line.



And that's the problem.  It's totally legal if the cop merely says he felt all scared and stuff.  

"Hey, that was a 12 year old kid with a toy." 
"I was really scared!"


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 25, 2021)

Flash said:


> Why are you so confused about background checks?
> 
> 1. They are useless. Past behavior is no guarantee of future behavior. Just look at Obama's little Muslim terrorist in Bolder. He passed a NICS check six days before his terrorism.



Because it wasn't a real background check. 

Here's how we do a background check. 

We just don't see if your name comes up on a database. 

We do a check with your family, your friends and your employer and ask, "Do you think Bob should have a gun?" 

If they say no.  No gun for you.  



Flash said:


> 2. If you want a gun to do an evil deed a background check will not stop you from getting one.



Except it does in Japan, Germany, the UK and every other civilized country that doesn't have an NRA. 







Flash said:


> 3. Background checks circumvents the Bill of Rights. If you have to get permission from the government to enjoy a right guaranteed to you under the Bill of Rights then it is not really a right after all, is it? The Bill of Rights isn't worth the parchment it is written on in that case, is it?



Hey, I'm all for Well-Regulated Militias, I was a member of one for years.  

Sorry, man, "A bunch of Slave Raping Assholes couldn't clearly write a militia Amendment" is not a good reason for crazies to have easy access to guns.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 25, 2021)

SavannahMann said:


> The problems with police are accountability. For generations police have gotten away with doing pretty much whatever they want. And for generations the people, the population has encouraged and endorsed this. If bad guys get tuned up on the way to jail? Well they shouldn’t have been bad.
> 
> Regular People who commit gun crimes are held accountable by comparison.
> 
> ...



I'm all for cops being held accountable, but most cops are good guys, and most of the time they get it right. 

If you want to talk about why cops shoot people so often, it's because they never know if the guy they pull over for a minor traffic violation might be a nut with a gun. 

I don't have a problem with a background check being really hard to pass.  They should be.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 25, 2021)

2aguy said:


> He doesn't want anyone to have guns......so if the police target minorities he doesn't care.



You guys have pretty much said the cost of you being able to enjoy your fetish is 14,000 murders and 25,000 suicides every year.   

That's too high of a cost. 

Now, I'm willing to meet you halfway.  Is there any reason why you think you can't pass a background check.  I'm assuming that you have no criminal record and other than your OCD about guns, no mental issues.   Or are you really afraid of what your neighbors would say if someone asked them?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Mar 25, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > He doesn't want anyone to have guns......so if the police target minorities he doesn't care.
> ...


There will be no compromise.

My "gun fetish" (aka constitutional right) has cost NO LIVES.

Go fuck yourself.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 25, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> There will be no compromise.
> 
> My "gun fetish" (aka constitutional right) has cost NO LIVES.
> 
> Go fuck yourself.



We have 29,000 gun deaths a year. 
70,000 gun injuries
400,000 gun crimes
$270,000,000,000 in economic losses. 

Eventually, the majority of us who don't have a gun fetish are going to get pretty tired of the guys who do.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Mar 25, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> > There will be no compromise.
> ...


Don't give a fuck.

There will be a fucking war if you try it.  Who do you think will die?


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 25, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Don't give a fuck.
> 
> There will be a fucking war if you try it. Who do you think will die?



Probably a few crazy gun nuts...  then people will finally DEMAND something be done.  

Hey remember when people were supposed to rise up after Waco? YOu had one terrorist attack and that was it... you guys went wimpering off into a corner and McVeigh got fried.


----------



## Flash (Mar 25, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > Why are you so confused about background checks?
> ...




You are really an idiot, aren't you?

What the hell do you want the filthy ass government to do before someone is given permission to enjoy a right that is guaranteed in the Constitution of the US?  A right that says very clearly that it shall not be infringed?  A full FBI background investigation?  Like I got when I was granted a Top Secret security clearance?  When is enough ever going to be enough for you asshole Libtards?

The stupid oppressive Democrats are the ones that pushed this idiotic NICS check through Congress so are you saying this is just another example of their incompetency?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Mar 25, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> > Don't give a fuck.
> ...


The State of Texas will WALK.  There's already a huge movement to ignore and frustrate any federal gun regulations.

This shit will just make it worse.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 25, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > There is no law that states a cop cannot shoot a black person if he or she fears for their safety, the safety of others, or presume their life is on the line.
> ...


It still has to be justified.

And can you tell the difference between a toy gun or a real gun at 20 yards in the dark?


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 25, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> > There will be no compromise.
> ...


Suicides don't count.

Suicide isn't a crime.

And gee maybe if we prosecuted all these people who illegally possess and use guns in federal court crime rates will drop like they did in Richmond VA when they did it.


----------



## Flash (Mar 25, 2021)




----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 25, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> It still has to be justified.
> 
> And can you tell the difference between a toy gun or a real gun at 20 yards in the dark?



He's talking about Tamir Rice which happened here in Cleveland.  You know how leftists are, always trying to avoid the truth.  Here is the "toy" gun he had compared to the real model it was replicated from.  Mind you, this "child" took off the fluorescent tip that identified it as a toy. 





Joe has seen this picture a dozens times, but Democrats have this mental block when it comes to the truth.  They just believe what they want to believe no matter how many times you show how wrong they are.

After the shooting, the case went to a grand jury where they examined the video frame by frame.  They concluded that the officer broke no laws by shooting this 5'9" 195 lbs "child" in self defense after he pulled this replica weapon out of his pants in front of the officers.  So it was a justified shooting.


----------



## Flash (Mar 25, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> > Don't give a fuck.
> ...




Yea, you are right.  We didn't burn down the cities, looted and murdered like you filthy ass Libtards did last summer with your destructive BLM insurrection.


----------



## Flash (Mar 25, 2021)




----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 25, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> We have 29,000 gun deaths a year.
> 70,000 gun injuries
> 400,000 gun crimes
> $270,000,000,000 in economic losses.
> ...



Likely the opposite.  The idea of more states adopting CCW programs and creating laws that favor the shooter instead of the criminal is evidence of a growing interest in self-defense and the use deadly force. Statistics show that because of that, we have had a near consistent decline in violent and gun crime in the last 30 years.  

More than ever, women today are joining the club learning how to use firearms and getting their carry licenses. If the commies push their issue against guns and law abiding citizens, they may be signing their death certificate as a party.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 25, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> I'm all for cops being held accountable, but most cops are good guys, and most of the time they get it right.
> 
> If you want to talk about why cops shoot people so often, it's because they never know if the guy they pull over for a minor traffic violation might be a nut with a gun.
> 
> I don't have a problem with a background check being really hard to pass. They should be.



If you think a constitutional right should be hard to exercise, why not to vote as well?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 25, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> And that's the problem. It's totally legal if the cop merely says he felt all scared and stuff.
> 
> "Hey, that was a 12 year old kid with a toy."
> "I was really scared!"



Yes, that's actually a picture of a 5'9" 195 lbs kid, isn't it?  Much like the Travon case, the family provided a picture of the suspect several years earlier to fool dupes like you. 

It's not just police that have the permission to use deadly force against somebody they believe will cause them serious bodily harm or death, it's us armed citizens as well.  As a CCW holder in my state, I'm legally allowed to use deadly force under those conditions.  It's the law.  Just like it's the law I'm allowed to kill somebody trying to break into my car while I occupy it.  They don't have to be armed.  All I need is evidence (broken glass, witness, video) they were trying to break into my vehicle.  This is why in commie cities and states, you see people being dragged out of their car during a riot.  Nobody does that in my state, because in doing so, you would be giving us permission to kill you.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 25, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > And that's the problem. It's totally legal if the cop merely says he felt all scared and stuff.
> ...


There's a caveat to that.

For a self defense shooting to be justified the person who shot in self defense has the burden of proof that he acted as any reasonable person would have in the same situation.

There is no presumption of innocence.


----------



## SavannahMann (Mar 25, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> > The problems with police are accountability. For generations police have gotten away with doing pretty much whatever they want. And for generations the people, the population has encouraged and endorsed this. If bad guys get tuned up on the way to jail? Well they shouldn’t have been bad.
> ...



Do we have the same standard for any other right? Say the First?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 25, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> There's a caveat to that.
> 
> For a self defense shooting to be justified the person who shot in self defense has the burden of proof that he acted as any reasonable person would have in the same situation.
> 
> There is no presumption of innocence.



Actually just the opposite.  Our law reads that I can use deadly force if I _believe_ I'm in jeopardy of _serous bodily harm_ or death.  In other words, in order to charge me with murder, a prosecutor must have evidence in what I believed at the time.  Also, there is no legal definition of what serious bodily harm is.  

Using deadly force is no different than any other law we have.  You are presumed innocent unless evidence shows that you committed a crime.  Even then, if charged, the prosecutor must then prove to the court that I had no reason to believe what I did, since the prosecutor cannot prove what I actually believed unless I went on Facebook bragging how I killed a guy that I knew was no threat to me.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 25, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > There's a caveat to that.
> ...


And if the DA decides to prosecute you the burden of proof is on you.

You are not presumed innocent because you have already admitted you shot and killed someone.

What needs to be proven in court if the case goes to court is that you were justified in shooting and killing that someone.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 25, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> And if the DA decides to prosecute you the burden of proof is on you.
> 
> You are not presumed innocent because you have already admitted you shot and killed someone.
> 
> What needs to be proven in court if the case goes to court is that you were justified in shooting and killing that someone.



No, the prosecutor has to prove I wasn't.  

I have a CCW license.  I used deadly force in accordance with the law.  I don't have to prove I did that, the prosecutor has to prove I was not within the constraints of our laws.  If the investigating officers believe I was acting illegally, they arrest me and tell me what I'm being charged with. They can't arrest me simply for using deadly force and then I have to prove why I did so.


----------



## Flash (Mar 25, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> I don't have a problem with a background check being really hard to pass.  They should be.



You don't know jackshit about the Constitution, do you?

You Moon Bats are as ignorant of the Bill of Rights as you are of Economics, History, Biology, Climate Science and Ethics.

It does not say that the Bill of Rights only applies to you if the government gives you permission, does it?  If it did then it really isn't a Bill of Rights, is it?  It is more like a list of things the government may let you do if they deem you worthy.  Kinda a Bill of Permissions, huh?

You Moon Bats aren't exactly the brightest bulbs in the chandelier, are you?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Mar 25, 2021)

If anyone and everyone could be armed at all times and in all places with no criminal penalty for the sole act of being armed, what would that society look like?

How many mass murderers attack police stations?  Gun stores?  Gun shows?  Gun ranges? Hardcore right-wing militia headquarters?  It's always a place where no one is armed and can offer NO response.  With no gun laws, even for violent felons, what would happen?  

When every encounter is potentially a deadly one, suddenly everyone is polite, nonviolent, courteous, self-aware, conscious.

The REAL issue for gun haters is that they believe they will be forced to actually protect themselves, instead of laying that burden on the unwilling or incompetent.  They thought of having to actually touch one of those "evil" "uncivilized" "weapons of war" makes gun hating hoplophobes soil their britches.  

*An individual's desire for gun control is nothing more than another one of that individual's compulsive rituals brought on by the internal need to reduce their anxiety caused by their irrational fear of guns.  It is entirely similar to obsessive hand washing by germaphobes. *

I believe any individual wanting gun control should be ordered to have a psych evaluation and treatment for their irrational fear.


----------



## Flash (Mar 25, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> > Don't give a fuck.
> ...




You dumb Moon Bat.

It has been explained to you many times but being a stupid Libtard you don't have the comprehension skills to understand it.  Like I have said many times, you Moon Bats are not exactly the best and brightest.  You are kinda all dumbfucks.

The great majority of the gun crime in this country is in the Democrat controlled big city shitholes among the minority demographics of druggies, gang bangers and street thugs.  

What is the Liberal plan to stop that gun crime in cities that already have strict gun control laws?

You don't have one, do you?

The reason you don't have one is because you agenda is not public safety.  Your agenda is to make this country a Socialist shithole without any individual Liberty.  That is why you ignore the real crime among the Democrat voting Negroes and are attacking White Republican voing gun owners that very seldom commit gun crimes.  Not anywhere near the rate of Democrat's special interest groups like the Muslim refugee that shot up the grocery store the other day or the Negroes that do it every day in cities like Chicago.


----------



## Flash (Mar 25, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> If anyone and everyone could be armed at all times and in all places with no criminal penalty for the sole act of being armed, what would that society look like?
> 
> How many mass murderers attack police stations?  Gun stores?  Gun shows?  Gun ranges? Hardcore right-wing militia headquarters?  It's always a place where no one is armed and can offer NO response.  With no gun laws, even for violent felons, what would happen?
> 
> ...




I went out to the shooting range early this morning.  I shot my FAL.  A gun the stupid uneducated Moon Bats would call an "assault rifle"

There were a dozen or so of us White Conservative gun guys.  We probably have several hundred guns between us.  Many of them the dreaded assault weapons.

None of us have used the firearms for illegal purposes.  Not likely that any of us would ever use one for anything illegal.

However, if you go to Democrat controlled South Chicago and find a dozen "gun owners" probably every damn one of them possesses the gun illegally and either has used the gun in a crime or is very likely to do so.

The stupid Moon Bats don't understand the difference in the two groups and even worse ignore the group that is the real problem.

The Liberal gun agenda is not a public safety agenda.  It is a destruction of individual rights agenda and it is despicable.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 25, 2021)

Flash said:


> The great majority of the gun crime in this country is in the Democrat controlled big city shitholes among the minority demographics of druggies, gang bangers and street thugs.
> 
> What is the Liberal plan to stop that gun crime in cities that already have strict gun control laws?



To take guns away from law abiding citizens and hope the criminals will follow the law by turning their guns in.


----------



## bodecea (Mar 25, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Hey...Daryl hunt........you were saying about the colorado AR-15 ban?
> 
> *Now, a Colorado judge has tossed the AR-15 ban in the trash bin, along with the provision prohibiting ownership of magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. That’s the backdoor gun ban right there. It’s not just about the rifle. It’s about curbing constitutional gun rights by these magazine laws. *
> 
> ...


How good did that work out for a Boulder grocery store?


----------



## bodecea (Mar 25, 2021)

westwall said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Of course you do.....  The world is a very very very scary place.


----------



## Flash (Mar 25, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > The great majority of the gun crime in this country is in the Democrat controlled big city shitholes among the minority demographics of druggies, gang bangers and street thugs.
> ...




Yea, the dumbshits would actually believe something as silly as that.

However, I don't think that is their agenda.  They don't give a shit what happens in the big city shitholes.  The minorities killing themselves is not a concern.

They just want to take away the right to keep and bear arms agains us Conservatives that would be a possible threat against them making this country a Socialist shithole.


----------



## Flash (Mar 25, 2021)

bodecea said:


> How good did that work out for a Boulder grocery store?



How did Obama letting filthy Muslim refugees flood into this country work out for the patrons of that Boulder grocery store?


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 25, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > He doesn't want anyone to have guns......so if the police target minorities he doesn't care.
> ...




It isn't a cost....criminals don't get to destroy Rights simply because they are criminals....and guns have nothing to do with suicide....as you have been shown over and over again......but you don't care, you have a fetish about guns.....

Background checks are only used to get to gun registration, you doofus....we know this from actual history around the world........

Fact Check, Gun Control and Suicide

*There is no relation between suicide rate and gun ownership rates around the world. *
*
 According to the 2016 World Health Statistics report, (2) suicide rates in the four countries cited as having restrictive gun control laws have suicide rates that are comparable to that in the U. S.:  Australia, 11.6, Canada, 11.4, France, 15.8, UK, 7.0, and USA 13.7 suicides/100,000.  By comparison, Japan has among the highest suicide rates in the world, 23.1/100,000, but gun ownership is extremely rare, 0.6 guns/100 people.   
Suicide is a mental health issue.  If guns are not available other means are used.  Poisoning, in fact, is the most common method of suicide for U. S. females according to the Washington Post (34 % of suicides), and suffocation the second most common method for males (27%). 
Secondly, gun ownership rates in France and Canada are not low, as is implied in the Post article.  The rate of gun ownership in the U. S. is indeed high at 88.8 guns/100 residents, but gun ownership rates are also among the world’s highest in the other countries cited.  Gun ownership rates in these countries are are as follows:  Australia, 15, Canada, 30.8, France, 31.2, and UK 6.2 per 100 residents. (3,4) Gun ownership rates in Saudia Arabia are comparable to that in Canada and France, with 37.8 guns per 100 Saudi residents, yet the lowest suicide rate in the world is in Saudia Arabia (0.3 suicides per 100,000).
Third, recent statistics in the state of Florida show that nearly one third of the guns used in suicides are obtained illegally, putting these firearm deaths beyond control through gun laws.(5)
Fourth, the primary factors affecting suicide rates are personal stresses, cultural, economic, religious factors and demographics.  According to the WHO statistics, the highest rates of suicide in the world are in the Republic of Korea, with 36.8 suicides per 100,000, but India, Japan, Russia, and Hungary all have rates above 20 per 100,000; roughly twice as high as the U.S. and the four countries that are the basis for the Post’s calculation that gun control would reduce U.S. suicide rates by 20 to 38 percent.  Lebanon, Oman, and Iraq all have suicide rates below 1.1 per 100,000 people--less than 1/10 the suicide rate in the U. S., and Afghanistan, Algeria, Jamaica, Haiti, and Egypt have low suicide rates that are below 4 per 100,000 in contrast to 13.7 suicides/100,000 in the U. S. *
*=*=======


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 25, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > Why are you so confused about background checks?
> ...




I have posted all of the articles that show that criminals in Japan, Europe, Britain in particular, Sweden, France.......all get guns whenever they need or want them...you have seen the stories over and over again.

Their murder rates for all weapons are lower than ours......but they still have access to guns.....their preferred gun is the fully automatic military rifle, they also like hand grenades...you doofus.

Hey...shit for brains...you vote for the party of the actual slave owning rapists....the democrat party....you idiot....the party was actually created by slave owning rapists long after the Founders were gone....you idiot....


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 25, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > Why are you so confused about background checks?
> ...




Tell that to Paris....where 137 people were murdered by muslim terrorists with fully automatic military rifles, hand grenades and improvised explosives........

Fully automatic military rifles are illegal in Paris...they are illegal in France, they are illegal on the Continent...but muslim terrorists.....ON ACTUAL FRENCH TERRORIST WATCH LISTS AND CONVICTED FELONS TO BOOT.....were able to get all the fully automatic military weapons they wanted.......

So stuff your Bullshit and sell it to someone stupid, like a joe biden voter.....


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 25, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > Why are you so confused about background checks?
> ...




Japan, Europe, Britain, Canada...

New Zealand:

_Worsening gun violence linked to gang turf wars, illicit drugs and the insidious cancer of organised crime has left more than 350 people with firearms injuries across Auckland in five years.

More than half of the wounded were treated at Middlemore Hospital as violence in South Auckland spilled over into bloodshed, leaving numerous people dead and scores of others fighting for their lives.

Auckland Mayor Phil Goff has serious concerns about the growing use of firearms.

He has written to the Police Minister and will meet Deputy Police Commissioner John Tims next week to discuss how to tackle the spate of shootings and toxic impact of gangs

These 501s have swamped the domestic crime scene with a level of violence that is far in excess of what the domestic NZ gangs use and with their South American Cartel links, the 501s are importing a purer and cheaper meth that is causing enormous damage in our communities._

The as predicted Australian crime wave & its ramifications on NZ | The Daily Blog



Germany: 2016

"Germany has a good system of legal gun ownership, but illegal firearms pose a big problem," said Nils Duquet, a weapons expert in Belgium who works for the Flemish Peace Institute. According to Duquet, there are millions of illegal weapons in Europe, but he said it is impossible to know exactly how many.
---
An increasing number of terrorist attacks over the past two years were carried out with illegal pistols and semi-automatic rifles from Eastern Europe.
The Balkans pose a particular risk as a source of weapons, where millions of firearms that were used during the region's wars are still believed to be in circulation. Although those weapons are older, they are still being smuggled and later sold in Western Europe.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...gun-laws-but-illegal-weapons-remain-a-threat/




Sweden 9/17/20

It’s about the problem of an imported type of crime: families from non-Swedishcultures who stay in their own circles and prey on Swedes of all ethnicities. These are people who have set up parallel systems of government that challenge the Swedish state — something that politicians cannot bring themselves to acknowledge.
----
Masked and armed men set up roadblocks, and controlled cars entering certain neighbourhoods in Gothenburg. Streets were deserted as the gangs ordered residents to stay inside. The headmaster of a local school put it bluntly: ‘Checkpoints controlled by criminal militia are something I last saw in Afghanistan. I never thought it would become a reality in Sweden.’ Meanwhile, home visits from doctors have been suspended in the area for safety reasons; and staff from care services for the elderly and disabled are being escorted on their rounds by security guards.
------------
e have an obvious problem,’ admitted the Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven recently. He was referring not to the Covid pandemic, but to a summer of crime that has left even jaded Swedes reeling in disbelief. There are regular bombings, hand grenade attacks and shootings. Young men are killing each other at a horrific rate — ten times that of Germany. The feeling is growing that the government has completely lost control. Yet, while Löfven has finally acknowledged the existence of the problem, he still seems in denial about its true nature.

Last month in Botkyrka, south of Stockholm, a 12-year-old girl walking her dog was killed by a stray bullet from a gang shooting — and in a TV interview her friends explained that shootings are simply part of daily life in their neighbourhood. One child said that she hears gunfire from her bedroom window almost every night. And this is perhaps what’s most shocking for older Swedes: how resigned the children in these areas are; how much they’ve grown used to the violence.

here are at least 40 family-based criminal networks — or clans — in Sweden, he confirmed: immigrants who came to the country ‘solely for the purpose of organising and systematising crime’. According to Löfving, they make their money through drug-trafficking and extortion and ‘have a great capacity for violence’.
----
It’s about the problem of an imported type of crime: families from non-Swedishcultures who stay in their own circles and prey on Swedes of all ethnicities. These are people who have set up parallel systems of government that challenge the Swedish state — something that politicians cannot bring themselves to acknowledge.
-----
These deplorable acts of aggression now have a name in Sweden. So-called ‘humiliation robberies’ are on the rise, and the victims are often children and young people who are not just mugged — mainly by immigrant youths — but also subjected to all kinds of horrifying and degrading treatment.

Because of the threat to children, Swedish parents are beginning to wake up. They’re beginning to realise that their children are not growing up in the low-crime country they themselves knew — and they feel that the time to talk honestly about it has long since arrived.
Sweden’s new epidemic: clan-based crime | The Spectator


France...

France won't 'bow down' to criminal violence, vows interior minister

The minister traveled to Nice on Thursday to visit the Moulins district, where on Monday drug gangs clashed in broad daylight outside a supermarket, firing assault weapons after police arrests and a major drugs haul a week earlier.
------
Some areas around some of France’s biggest cities have become no-go zones for police after dark, officials, politicians and experts have said. Drugs and arms trafficking as well as prostitution blight many housing estates, officials and analysts have said.

Inside Chechen drug wars where gangs barbecue rivals & rampage with AK-47s

TERRIFIED locals fled between burning bins as hooded thugs wielding AK-47s shot into the air, torching cars through the streets of Dijon.
------
This week, violence broke out across the eastern city as hundreds of Chechens from across France descended in an orgy of revenge.
Armed thugs – some brandishing Kalashnikovs – rampaged through the streets, injuring several people, including one pizza restaurant owner reportedly hit by gunfire.

-----In many cases the AK-47 is the trademark weapon and the murder is followed by a “barbecue”, meaning the body is doused in petrol and burned, to make it harder to identify.

Army sent into French city after fourth night of clashes between rival gangs

A police source in the city said on Monday: ‘Unrest has been going on for the past three nights. Chechen gangs linked to the drug trade and other criminal activity have mobilised to take part in battles with other gangs. ‘Weapons including Kalashnikovs, axes and baseball bats are being carried openly on the streets, and live ammunition is being fired. People are terrified.’
Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2020/06/17/army...ght-clashes-rival-gangs-12863046/?ito=cbshare
Twitter: https://twitter.com/MetroUK | Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MetroUK/
========


Reports of 'heavy gunfire' on the streets of French city of Nimes | Daily Mail Online

Machine-gun shots have been heard on the streets of a French city this evening as it was claimed a 'shootout' took place between rival gangs.

Repeated 'heavy gunfire' bursts were let off in the city of Nimes in southern France after armed men were seen in the area.

Social media videos showed several people running through the street as shots rang out at around 8.30pm.

Initial reports suggested the shooting could have been linked to gangs operating in the area.

Residents in a suburb of Pissevin district in the city claimed gang members shot at a building occupied by a rival group.

Britain...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jun/13/three-people-shot-at-party-in-essex-say-police

A man and two women have sustained gunshot wounds after attackers opened fire on people attending a party in Harlow, Essex.
Essex police said the man, who is in his 50s and from nearby Grays, was taken to hospital with life-threatening injuries early on Saturday.
Two women in their 20s were taken to hospital with single gunshot wounds, which are not considered to be life-threatening.
=======

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/7kz5kb/street-violence-lockdown-coronavirus-uk

There has been an explosion in the number of street stabbings and shootings in England since the beginning of lockdown, despite police claiming the measures have driven down serious violence.
-------
In Birmingham, a city with a well-deserved reputation for high gun crime, there has been a flurry of shootings and stabbings involving teenagers over the last fortnight. According to one youth crime expert, this has been sparked by boredom and lockdown-fuelled social media beefs.

Britain....

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ls-for-information-after-toddler-shot-in-head

A two-year-old boy who was shot in the head survived after the bullet missed a crucial artery by 1mm, his family have revealed, as they appealed for anyone with information on the shooting to come forward.
The toddler was one of four people, including his mother, who were shot in Energen Close, Harlesden, north-west London, on 3 June.
========
Gun-Free Britain? Nearly 10,000 Gun Crimes Committed in One Year

The number of gun crimes committed in the United Kingdom has increased by 27 per cent in five years and the number of firearms seized has quadrupled, despite the country having some of the strictest gun control laws in the world.

Figures released by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show that 9,787 crimes were committed with firearms in the year leading to March of 2019. The number of offences has risen by four per cent over the previous year and twenty-seven per cent in five years, the latest statistics available show.
-----

A middle-eastern gun runner told the news outlet that it is “easy” to bring guns to Britain and that he can sell the weapons for over £2,000, four times as much as he purchases them for in Europe.

The smuggler said that he travels to France and picks up the guns from migrant camps in Calais before shipping them back to the UK.
=======
New Zealand.........

Tauranga shootings: Armed police sent in to battle increasing violence in the city

The deaths are the latest in an uptick of crime in the Bay of Plenty, following the arrival of the notorious Mongols Motorcycle Club in the area.

Their arrival stoked simmering tensions with established Tauranga gangs like the Greazy Dogs and the Mongrel Mob, with police warning the newcomers - hardened from inter-gang warfare with firearms - would radically change the criminal landscape.

Tuesday's homicide was the latest in a series of brazen shootings involving semi-automatic firearms, with a suspected arson along a row of the Bay of Plenty shops last month.

Nash said the Government was pouring more resources into policing the Bay of Plenty, targeting gangs and organised crime.
----

"What's happening there is happening all around the country. Since March last year police have seized more than 2,000 illegal firearms from gangs and other criminals."

Armed officers dressed in body armour are about to hit the streets as police step up their response to increased gang rivalry and violent crime in Tauranga.

Police Minister Stuart Nash said the escalated response was a temporary measure aimed at tackling the latest flare-up between gangs. It also comes the day after two men where shot dead at a property in Omanawa.

"Expect to see police openly carrying their Bushmaster rifles and Glock pistols. Expect to see police wearing their new body armour," he said in a statement.


New Zealand....

'People are fearful': New Zealand police admit gang violence is out of control

Officers in Hawkes Bay, a region on the east coast of New Zealand’s North Island, are to be armed – police do not routinely carry guns in New Zealand – and have a more visible presence, with officers brought in from other areas, after shots were fired during a gang brawl in Taradale, Napier, on Sunday.

A 25-year-old man injured in the brawl was due to appear in court on Wednesday and police said more arrests were likely. Another shooting took place further north on Saturday, near the town of Ruatoria in the Bay of Plenty. Police said it was also gang-related.

The number of gang members in Hawkes Bay has increased by 30% to 35% in the past two or three years, according to police. Officers said on Wednesday they had arrested more gang members for unlawfully carrying weapons, including in an episode where members had “converged” on the Hawkes Bay town of Wairoa.
-----

In Saturday’s street brawl in Taradale, Stuff reported that residents “ducked for cover in shops and cafes” as shots rang out – one hitting a child’s car seat. The child was unharmed.

“We don’t know why they happened. It could be drugs, could be tit for tat, it’s stuff we will never know,” Kura said. It would be “horrendous” if a child was hurt.

Sweden...
https://sputniknews.com/europe/2020...crackdown-on-gang-violence-covid-19-epidemic/
*The number of shootings is increasing in Sweden, despite a national effort to curtail gang violence amid the ongoing coronavirus epidemic, SVT reported.*
-------
The police also noted that the raging coronavirus epidemic, contrary to some people's expectations, has not had a major impact on crime. This is likely due to the fact that Sweden, unlike most European nations, has consistently avoided lockdowns. Even the flow of drugs has not been disturbed to any great extent, the police said. However, there is still a risk that reduced access to drugs may increase violence.

Gangs of the North


> Sweden’s disadvantaged
> Both the perpetrators and the victims in Sweden’s gang wars are predominately young men from socially disadvantaged areas in the larger cities for the country. The suspects mostly have a migration background, but they have been born and raised in Sweden, representing the 2nd or 3rd generation of immigrants. As the Prime Minister Stefan Löfven recently pointed out, socio-economic factors are in part responsible.
> 
> Sweden is a deeply segregated society. Swedes with migrant backgrounds are often poorly integrated, live in socially deprived areas of the major Swedish cities and are trapped in a cycle of poverty, school failure and unemployment. These conditions did however not emerge overnight. They have crystallised over a long period time, questioning the amount of attention of Swedish that politics has paid to tackling integration problems.
> ...


======


https://www.thelocal.se/20200203/explosions-interview-police-stefan-hector-sweden

Why are there so many explosions in Sweden?

"We've seen, over the last couple of years, that the amount of explosions in Sweden have risen to a level not seen anywhere else in Europe. The reasons, or underlying cause, are criminals clashing.

"They range from conflicts of a rational character, like market shares for the illegal narcotics trade, or more personal, such as provocations or insults, old conflicts with causes long-forgotten. Nevertheless, the explosions are an expression of clashes between criminal elements.

"These criminal elements are in large part comprised of street gangs from 'vulnerable areas' in the suburbs but also what we sometimes refer to as 'biker gangs'. There is, however, a lot of overlap between these two groups so as a whole this is about conflicts between different criminal networks."
-----

How do your colleagues abroad view this development in Sweden?

"They are astonished. The prevailing picture of Sweden is that it is a calm and stable country and these expressions of violence, which are without equal, at least in Europe, is a surprise to our neighbouring countries.

"We have ongoing collaboration with many of the European countries, especially with the Nordic countries, and no one has the same kind of problems which is why this is a perplexing and possibly even frightening issue. But they are actively seeking more knowledge and are discussing these issues with us in order to share experiences and trying to understand this phenomenon."

You talked about seizures of other weapons, beside explosives. Recently a Bosnian man in the US got sentenced to prison for smuggling weapon parts to, among others, Swedish neo-nazis. How common are criminal international networks when it comes to Swedish gunrunning?

"From what I've seen, one of the most common guns in criminal clashes in Sweden is the AK 47, and they aren't manufactured here. Which means that it needs to be smuggled into the country, so in that sense international players are contributing to shootings in Sweden. These kinds of guns usually come from the Balkans, as they have a surplus of weapons from past decades of conflict."

Are those the kind of weapons you usually seize or are, for example, Swedish hunting weapons also confiscated?

"No. Swedish hunting rifles are extremely rare in these kinds of contexts, it's usually assault rifles such as the AK 47, pistols or submachine guns. It is very, very rare that we see hunting weapons as a part of our work with Operation Hoarfrost."


Canada...

Why Gun Violence Is Surging In Toronto

According to Canada's government statistics agency, gun violence overall rose by more than 40% in Canada between 2013 and 2017, with much of that increase driven by incidents in Toronto.

Toronto Police Chief Mark Saunders says that the city's recent gun violence has been connected to gang activity.

In a press conference in August, he said the Raptors incident and the August shootings "by and large have street gang connotations to them," pointing to the gang membership of the victims and those arrested. There is a thriving gang culture in Toronto centered on the illegal drug trade, largely in the city's poorer outer suburbs.


Britain..


Police struggle to stop flood of firearms into UK

Police and border officials are struggling to stop a rising supply of illegal firearms being smuggled into Britain, a senior police chief has warned.

Chief constable Andy Cooke, the national police lead for serious and organised crime, said law enforcement had seen an increased supply of guns over the past year, and feared that it would continue in 2019

The Guardian has learned that the situation is so serious that the National Crime Agency has taken the rare step of using its legal powers to direct every single police force to step up the fight against illegal guns.

The NCA has used tasking powers to direct greater intelligence about firearms to be gathered by all 43 forces in England and Wales.

Another senior law enforcement official said that “new and clean” weapons were now being used in the majority of shootings, as opposed to guns once being so difficult to obtain that they would be “rented out” to be used in multiple crimes.

*Cooke, the Merseyside chief constable, told the Guardian: “We in law enforcement expect the rise in new firearms to continue. We are doing all we can. We are not in a position to stop it anytime soon.*

“Law enforcement is more joined up now than before, but the scale of the problem is such that despite a number of excellent firearms seizures, I expect the rise in supply to be a continuing issue.”

The increasing supply of guns belies problems with UK border security and innovations by organised crime gangs. Smugglers have increasingly found new ways and innovative routes to get guns past border defences.


*Cooke said that the dynamics of the streets of British cities had changed and that criminals were more willing to use guns: “If they bring them in people will buy them. It’s a kudos thing for organised criminals.”

Simon Brough, head of firearms at the NCA, said: “The majority of guns being used are new, clean firearms ... which indicates a relatively fluid supply.”*

He said shotguns were 40% of the total, with an increase in burglaries to try and steal them.

*Handguns are the next biggest category,* most often smuggled in from overseas, with ferry ports such as Dover being a popular entry point into the UK for organised crime groups:

“We’re doing a lot to fight back against it,” Brough said, adding that compared to other European countries, the availability in the UK was relatively lower.
==========
*France...*

ris attacks highlight France's gun control problems

The arsenal of weapons deployed by the eight attackers who terrorised Paris on Friday night underlined France’s gun control problems and raised the spectre of further attacks.

The country has extremely strict weapons laws, but Europe’s open borders and growing trade in illegal weapons *means assault rifles are relatively easy to come by on the black market.*


===============
France’s real gun problem

Despite these strict laws, France seems to be awash with guns. The guns used in high-profile terror attacks are really just the tip of the iceberg. In 2012, French authorities estimated that there were around 30,000 guns illegally in the country, many likely used by gangs for criminal activities. Of those guns, around 4,000 were likely to be "war weapons," Le Figaro reported, referring to items such as the Kalashnikov AK-variant rifles and Uzis. Statistics from the National Observatory for Delinquency, a government body created in 2003, suggest that the number of guns in France has grown by double digits every year.
*Sweden.....*

IN DEPTH: What's behind the rise in gang violence across Sweden?

*The weapon of choice for gangs are Kalashnikov automatic rifles.* Imported from the Balkans, they are available for between 2,500 and 3,500 euros (around $2,800 to $3,950), although they become "more expensive in the event of an open conflict," according to Appelgren.
-------

Honour, debts, and prestige are serving as the pretext for an increasing number of deadly shootings that challenge the ideals of equality and social harmony on which modern Sweden was built.
-----

Last year more than 300 shootings resulted in 45 deaths and 135 injuries in Sweden.

While the overall homicide rate remains one of the lowest in the world, with one per 100,000 inhabitants according to police statistics, *deadly shootings have been steadily rising* and last year reached record levels. 2019 is also on track to create another unwanted record. In Stockholm the first six months of the year have seen as many killings as the whole of 2018.
-------

Sweden suffers surge in bomb attacks as gang violence rises

STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - A surge in drug-linked gang-violence in Sweden led to a 60% increase in bomb blasts in 2019, government statistics showed on Thursday, as police work to rid the streets of explosives and guns with more officers on patrol.
---------
Sweden has been hit by a wave of shootings and bombings over the past couple of years which police have linked to gang conflicts in major cities, shocking Swedes, who have long considered their country one of the safest in the world.

Some 257 bomb attacks were reported to police last year, up from 162 the previous year, the statistics from the National Council for Crime Prevention showed.
*Japan....*

The Great Japanese Gang Wars



The season for pineapples (yakuza slang for hand grenades) may finally be over. Jake Adelstein and Nathalie-Kyoko Stucky on the bloody, seven-year battle between the Dojin-kai and the Seido-kai.



In Southern Japan, the brutal pineapple season may finally be over; pineapple is yakuza slang for “hand grenade”—one of the many weapons utilized in a seven-year gang war between the Dojin-kai (1,000 members) and the splinter group the Kyushu Seido-kei (500 members).

----
---
The Gangs That Couldn’t Shoot Straight
The Dojin-kai and the Seido-kai are Kyushu-based yakuza gangs, once part of the same faction founded in 1971 in Kurume, Fukuoka Prefecture, by Isoji Koga. When the second generation Dojin-kai boss Seijiro Matsuo retired in May 2006, there was a fight over succession, and the group split into two factions, sparking a bloody gang war—where escalation seemed a matter of course. It started with shootings and bombs being thrown, and before it ended, *the two gangs were lobbing grenades and Molotov cocktails, shooting machine guns, and sometimes attacking their own men.*
-----
In May, a 9-year-old child found a hand grenade in a rice field in Iizuka, Fukuoka Prefecture, and took it home, to the astonishment of his father, who handed it over to the local police. According to the police, there were no yakuza headquarters where the grenade was found.

The numbers of grenades used and seized in the war became so problematic that by April 2012, the Fukuoka Prefecture Police became the first in Japan to offer cash rewards to anyone who reported finding a hand grenade.
----

TOYAMA – Classes resumed at an elementary school in the city of Toyama on Tuesday amid tight security, a week after a man killed a security guard who worked at the school and a police officer, with a knife and a gun, as well as firing bullets at the school.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 25, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> > There will be no compromise.
> ...




Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop rapes, robberies and murders........

You lie, again, and include suicides in your number...which isn't even close to accurate, 

2019....10,235 gun murders....70-80% of the victims are criminals, not normal Americans...and the majority of the rest of the victims are friends and family of criminals.....

And when those legally armed Americans use their guns?

Case Closed: Kleck Is Still Correct


*that makes for at least 176,000 lives saved**—less some attackers who lost their lives to defenders. This enormous benefit dwarfs, both in human and economic terms, the losses trumpeted by hoplophobes who only choose to see the risk side of the equation.*





==============
Annual Defensive Gun Use Savings Dwarf Study's "Gun Violence" Costs - The Truth About Guns

I was going to go on and calculate the costs of incarceration ($50K/year) saved by people killing 1527 criminals annually, and then look at the lifetime cost to society of an average criminal (something in excess of $1 million). But all of that would be a drop in the bucket compared to the $1,000,000,000,000 ($1T) annual benefit of gun ownership.
--------

It’s one of the antis’ favorite tricks: cost benefit analysis omitting the benefit side of the equation. So what _are_ the financial benefits of firearm ownership to society? Read on . . .

In my post Dennis Henigan on Chardon: Clockwork Edition, I did an analysis of how many lives were saved annually in Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs). I used extremely conservative numbers. Now I am going to use some less conservative ones.
--------------

How can we get a dollar figure from 1.88 million defensive gun uses per year? Never fear, faithful reader, we can count on the .gov to calculate everything.

According to the AZ state government, in February of 2008 a human life was worth $6.5 million. Going to the Inflation Calculator and punching in the numbers gives us a present value of $6.93 million.

So figuring that the average DGU saves one half of a person’s life—as “gun violence” predominantly affects younger demographics—that gives us $3.465 million per half life.

*Putting this all together, we find that the monetary benefit of guns (by way of DGUs) is roughly $1.02 trillion per year. That’s trillion. With a ‘T’.*

I was going to go on and calculate the costs of incarceration ($50K/year) saved by people killing 1527 criminals annually, and then look at the lifetime cost to society of an average criminal (something in excess of $1 million). But all of that would be a drop in the bucket compared to the $1,000,000,000,000 ($1T) annual benefit of gun ownership.

*When compared to the (inflation adjusted from 2002) $127.5 billion ‘cost’ of gun violence calculated by by our Ludwig-Cook buddies, guns save a little more than eight times what they “cost.”

Which, I might add, is completely irrelevant since “the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.”

So even taking Motherboard’s own total and multiplying it by 100, the benefits to society of civilian gun ownership dwarf the associated costs.*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 25, 2021)

Flash said:


> Yea, the dumbshits would actually believe something as silly as that.
> 
> However, I don't think that is their agenda. They don't give a shit what happens in the big city shitholes. The minorities killing themselves is not a concern.
> 
> They just want to take away the right to keep and bear arms agains us Conservatives that would be a possible threat against them making this country a Socialist shithole.



What they are really after is making sure Americans cannot take care of themselves.  They know these gun laws won't have much of an effect on criminals.  Take away the guns, and only the police and criminals will have them.  That makes all of us potential victims.  Democrats love victims and victims love Democrats.  Expanding the tent as they like to call it.  The more victims they can create, the more likely Democrat votes in the future.


----------



## westwall (Mar 25, 2021)

bodecea said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...







Not to me.  But lard ass you, you need momma to take care of widdle you.


----------



## freyasman (Mar 25, 2021)

SavannahMann said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > SavannahMann said:
> ...


That's easy...... everybody just kill one of them.


We'd be done by lunchtime, lol.


----------



## freyasman (Mar 25, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> freyasman said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


No, it applies to everyone, at all times.

As far as felons, if they are considered safe enough to walk around loose, then why can't they do so armed? *People* are dangerous, guns are just tools.

I will buy or sell anything I choose, to anyone I want, and fuck the government..... why should they get any say at all in my affairs? So they can tax us? Fuck that.


----------



## freyasman (Mar 25, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> > There will be no compromise.
> ...


So what?




BFYTW


----------



## freyasman (Mar 25, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


Correct. It's what's called an "affirmative defense" because you are stipulating to actions that under other circumstances would be a crime, but that because of the particular circumstances in this case, were reasonable and justified.




__





						Law of Self Defense Principles Softcover – Law of Self Defense
					






					lawofselfdefense.com


----------



## freyasman (Mar 25, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > And if the DA decides to prosecute you the burden of proof is on you.
> ...


Dude, be careful...... read what happened to Varg Freeborn when he defended himself sometime.

DAs don't care what the laws say.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 25, 2021)

freyasman said:


> Dude, be careful...... read what happened to Varg Freeborn when he defended himself sometime.
> 
> DAs don't care what the laws say.



I can't find anything on it and I'm not even familiar with the name.  I tried to look it up but all Google has is his videos and some of his books for sale.


----------



## freyasman (Mar 25, 2021)

He survived a murder attempt at 18 by stabbing the living fuck out of the guy and did 5 years for it. He finally won his appeals and the court acknowledged it was self-defense _*after*_ he was released. He's a firearms/defense instructor and an expert on the thinking, behavior, and training of high order criminals and violent predators...... he knows what they're like, he fucking lived in tight quarters with them for years.

The book is a must read.


And if I had to pick my top 5 guys I wanted to train with, he'd be on the list, along with Marcus Wynne, Craig Douglas, Mas Ayoob, and Cecil Burch.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 25, 2021)

freyasman said:


> He survived a murder attempt at 18 by stabbing the living fuck out of the guy and did 5 years for it. He finally won his appeals and the court acknowledged it was self-defense _*after*_ he was released. He's a firearms/defense instructor and an expert on the thinking, behavior, and training of high order criminals and violent predators...... he knows what they're like, he fucking lived in tight quarters with them for years.



Thanks.  I never heard of the guy, but what I was looking for was the circumstance, year and city.  I've said many times myself that if I had to go to a commie state like CA or NY, I'd be hesitant about using a firearm even if I knew it was totally justified.  My state is pretty much on the side of the victim over the criminal which is why we instituted a CCW program some 15 years ago.


----------



## freyasman (Mar 25, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> freyasman said:
> 
> 
> > He survived a murder attempt at 18 by stabbing the living fuck out of the guy and did 5 years for it. He finally won his appeals and the court acknowledged it was self-defense _*after*_ he was released. He's a firearms/defense instructor and an expert on the thinking, behavior, and training of high order criminals and violent predators...... he knows what they're like, he fucking lived in tight quarters with them for years.
> ...


Texas is pretty self-defense friendly as a whole too, but that didn't help Terry Thompson in Harris County.

Never, ever, _ever_ count on government employees to do the right thing.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 26, 2021)

Flash said:


> You are really an idiot, aren't you?
> 
> What the hell do you want the filthy ass government to do before someone is given permission to enjoy a right that is guaranteed in the Constitution of the US? A right that says very clearly that it shall not be infringed? A full FBI background investigation? Like I got when I was granted a Top Secret security clearance? When is enough ever going to be enough for you asshole Libtards?
> 
> The stupid oppressive Democrats are the ones that pushed this idiotic NICS check through Congress so are you saying this is just another example of their incompetency?



Actually, if the FBI ever read the crazy shit you post here, they'd realize you are a hate crime looking for a place to happen. 

I don't think we should all live in terror of gun nuts because a bunch of slave rapists couldn't foresee the mass production of guns and a gun industry with no ethics.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 26, 2021)

2aguy said:


> It isn't a cost....criminals don't get to destroy Rights simply because they are criminals....and guns have nothing to do with suicide....as you have been shown over and over again......but you don't care, you have a fetish about guns.....
> 
> Background checks are only used to get to gun registration, you doofus....we know this from actual history around the world........



You mean the rest of the world where they don't have mass shootings?    I'm down with that.


----------



## SavannahMann (Mar 26, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> I don't think we should all live in terror of gun nuts because a bunch of slave rapists couldn't foresee the mass production of guns and a gun industry with no ethics.



Slavery was a world wide practice at the time. The proof is in the history books. But what is interesting if you read the history is Americans. The slave rapists you denounce. They were liberal for the era. They were the progressive thinkers of the time they lived in.

A couple centuries from now people will look back and scream at us. One of those subjects is ethanol. They will be unable to understand why we turned food into fuel while people starved around the globe.

The point is context. At the time the Second was written people bought cannon. The literal big guns of the era. The bought cannons and armed ships. These were defensive against Pirates and offensive as Privateers.

Mass manufacturing of weapons was definitely on the horizon. And had actually begun. There was no way to arm an army with cottage industry.

And as for their ability to imagine the future. I am an old Paratrooper. The idea of Airborne Troops begins with Ben Franklin. He was the Ambassador to France. While there he viewed some drawings from Leonardo Da Vinci.









						Airborne forces - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org
				









Franklin saw the military application of this simple drawing. He asked how much chaos could a battalion of soldiers cause if they were able to be dropped behind enemy lines.

We saw how much. It was World War II before the theory was proven. But the theory was proven conclusively.

There is no way that you could take on the most powerful military in history with any hope of victory unless you were part dreamer, part visionary, and part madman.

Look how the rights have evolved. Freedom of Speech has become Freedom of Expression. Cruel and Unusual is nothing like it was at the time it was written.

If you told the people who passed the 14th Amendment that one day a century hence interracial marriage would be legal they would have never passed it. If you told them that a Black Man would be President. Or a Black Woman would be Vice President the Civil War wouldn’t have been fought.

The Union might have disapproved of Slavery. But they were still racist. The proof of that is the history of the next 150 years.

But the Union was Liberal for the Era. They were the progressives of their time. And the truth is what it is.

Merely to denounce the foundation of our freedoms as the rambling nonsense of slave rapists is to put the entire foundation of our country up for grabs. What is freedom of speech? Why should we allow it? It is merely the ramblings of slave rapists. Why not force someone to testify against himself? What is stopping us? A slave rapist?

History has shown that when we weaken one part of those rights we weaken all rights. I do not want to see any rights weakened further. Much less all of them.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 26, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > You are really an idiot, aren't you?
> ...



That's the first time I EVER heard anyone in public admit to a "Top Secret" security clearance.  And the FBI wouldn't be the agency to render that anyway.  As the story goes, if you have to ask your security clearance, you don't need one.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 26, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, if the FBI ever read the crazy shit you post here, they'd realize you are a hate crime looking for a place to happen.
> 
> I don't think we should all live in terror of gun nuts because a bunch of slave rapists couldn't foresee the mass production of guns and a gun industry with no ethics.



If you live in terror then it's all part of your imagination.  And if you live in terror, you should see if you can get a CCW permit and carry a firearm with you when you go to places you feel are a threat.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 26, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > It isn't a cost....criminals don't get to destroy Rights simply because they are criminals....and guns have nothing to do with suicide....as you have been shown over and over again......but you don't care, you have a fetish about guns.....
> ...




Paris had one....137 murdered by seven muslims with illegal, fully automatic military weapons and grenades.........they were on French terrorist watch lists and several were already convicted felons...and they were able to get fully automatic military rifles and grenades in a city where they are illegal, in a country where they are illegal and on a continent where they are illegal.....


----------



## freyasman (Mar 26, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > You are really an idiot, aren't you?
> ...


Are we supposed to believe you're _*not*_  reporting to them?




LOL


----------



## freyasman (Mar 26, 2021)

SavannahMann said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think we should all live in terror of gun nuts because a bunch of slave rapists couldn't foresee the mass production of guns and a gun industry with no ethics.
> ...


Well said.


I don't always agree with you on every point you make, but I sure am glad you're here making all those points, and doing it well.

Keep that shit up, Airborne.


----------



## Flash (Mar 26, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > You are really an idiot, aren't you?
> ...




You stupid confused Moon Bat.

The government trust me a lot more than insurrectionist commie Moon Bats like you.

The Federal government has granted me a Confidential, Secret, Top Secret, Top Secret Crypto. "L" and "Q" clearances and I have had more background investigations that you could possibly comprehend.

They trust me with nuclear weapon technology so it is OK that I have a couple of dozen AR-15s.

I have a homework assignment for you.  Go read the Bill of Rights and pay particular attention to the second one.  Then come back and tell me what is wrong with enjoying a right that is guaranteed under Constitutional.  Just because you are a little chickenshit Moon Bat pussy don't mean that we Americans are.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Mar 26, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> Please explain why this is so important to you to have an AR-15. We had guns in the house in leather locked bags and we shot them. I even pulled the trigger when my father sighted. He taught me to never pull a gun on any living being. I violated this teaching once, in Castroville, Texas, when I was 12 and practicing with my aunt's pistol. I shot at a spider on the back of the garage.
> 
> Explain yourself and why you would need an assault weapon.



What is an assault weapon? Legal definition, not liberal definition.


----------



## daveman (Mar 26, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> > There will be no compromise.
> ...


I'm curious how you people who are afraid of guns are going to take the guns away from people who own and practice with them.


----------



## daveman (Mar 26, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > You are really an idiot, aren't you?
> ...


You can't control your emotions.  We get it.  Leftists have all the emotional maturity of toddlers who need a nap.

However, your inability to control your emotions does not obligate normal people to change their behavior to suit you.  The onus is on you to grow the hell up.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 26, 2021)

airplanemechanic said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > Please explain why this is so important to you to have an AR-15. We had guns in the house in leather locked bags and we shot them. I even pulled the trigger when my father sighted. He taught me to never pull a gun on any living being. I violated this teaching once, in Castroville, Texas, when I was 12 and practicing with my aunt's pistol. I shot at a spider on the back of the garage.
> ...



Already been answered.  Or are  you fishing for a definition that you want to hear.  Okay, here is one.

It's any firearm, edged weapon or bludgeoning tool that YOU personally own.  Not the rest of us.  Insane Fruitcakes like you shouldn't be able to smuggle in things that can harm others or yourself into the mental hospital.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Mar 26, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...



No its never been answered. No legally recognized definition of an "assault rifle" has ever been posted.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 26, 2021)

airplanemechanic said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > airplanemechanic said:
> ...



Because it's a military term and not a Sillyvillain term as per a few Federal Court Rulings.  And any legislature that uses that term is just begging to get their brand new spanking law to be bounced by those same courts.  Now, the ones that place the phrase "AR-15/AK47 and their various clones" seem to cut the legal mustard.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Mar 26, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...



That's right. Which means they're trying to put a scary sounding military term on to civilian semi auto rifles in order to enact illegal gun legislation against them.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 27, 2021)

airplanemechanic said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > airplanemechanic said:
> ...



Or could it be that the AR IS a scary military weapon in the first place.  It fits all the squares of the M-16A4 when it's used in normal combat.  The A4 is not really a true full automatic or machine gun.  It has the 3 shot burst that no one in their right mind uses once you leave basic or  post.  It's a huge waste of ammo.  Take that feature away and there is absolutely nothing different about the AR to the M-16A4 or the M-4.  It was made for one thing and one thing only.  To kill people as quickly and efficiently as possible and it hit the mark.  Not one feature is there for anything else.

I am sick and tired of cops responding to a shooting only to face an AR and die.  Those are the good ones.  He goes into the situation with nothing but his handgun and is severely outgunned and dies.  Pretty much, the first one or two that are on station have died.  Yes, he may or may not have had a Colt Model 6920 in the trunk but he won't have it going in at first.  And he dies.


----------



## SavannahMann (Mar 27, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...



We will skip past the Military Specific Alloys used in the M-16. Let’s focus on your definition of an Assault Rifle. An AR or AK.

So that means the Mini-14 is not an Assault Weapon. Not is the IMI Galil or Travor Rifles. Nor the L1A2. The SCAR or other FN rifles.

Here is a list of rifles that fire the exact same ammo that are not Assault Weapons by your definition. Well the vast majority aren’t because they aren’t AR’s.









						List of 5.56×45mm NATO firearms - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org
				




That leaves a lot of weapons available. So your definition means that all those other rifles would be available for purchase. Like banning the Dodge Hellcat to stop street racing. A lot of other cars are still available. And a lot of them are faster than the hellcat.

Companies that make the AR clones would retool and start making clones of SCAR’s or other similar weapons. Or they would make the 416 which is an operating rod version of an AR but is not an AR because the AR has a long gas tube.

Six months after you ban the AR’s you would have all the rifles available. IMI would be making the Galil by the ton as well as the Trevor.

Nothing would change. The Gang Bangers kept killing each other even after they banned the Tec 9, the Ingram, and the Uzi’s. People would just get different weapons. Just as the Gang Bangers moved on from the Tec 9’s.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 27, 2021)

SavannahMann said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > airplanemechanic said:
> ...



But the SCAR isn't part of the Cult.  And it costs a damn site more to make than the AR or the M-16/M-4.  At about 3,000 bucks a copy, it is out of reach of the common AR clone buyer.  The cost of a full blown Colt Model 604 (M-16A4) is right around $1500 to the Government.  The cost of a SCAR is to any Government is right around 3400.  That means the AR can be cloned for right around 400 bucks for a piece of crap and a piece of crap SCARs would still cost at least 900 bucks.  For 900 bucks, that buys a pretty good AR-15 with either equal to mil specs or better than mil specs.  

And guess what, it's birth is exactly like that of the AR, every ounce of the SCAR was designed to kill a lot of people as quickly and as efficiently as possible with little training.  In fact, the biggest difference visually is the stock.  So there is a good chance it could be considered a variant of the AR already legally.  

Nice try on the end around.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 27, 2021)

SavannahMann said:


> Slavery was a world wide practice at the time. The proof is in the history books. But what is interesting if you read the history is Americans. The slave rapists you denounce. They were liberal for the era. They were the progressive thinkers of the time they lived in.



The key words being "for the time they lived in".   The problem with conservatives is they don't want to advance beyond that.   Back at those times, only the well-off could afford guns and be in a militia.   Therefore, for the time, the Second Amendment made sense.   It doesn't make sense now, when guns are cheap enough where anyone can get them, and militias have been replaced by professional armies.  



SavannahMann said:


> Franklin saw the military application of this simple drawing. He asked how much chaos could a battalion of soldiers cause if they were able to be dropped behind enemy lines.
> 
> We saw how much. It was World War II before the theory was proven. But the theory was proven conclusively.
> 
> There is no way that you could take on the most powerful military in history with any hope of victory unless you were part dreamer, part visionary, and part madman.



Actually, not as great as you think.   The Germans did a air drop on Crete, and it was such a fiasco they never did it again.   For the Allies, Operation Market Garden was a complete failure.  Paratroops "look cool", but their effectiveness is questionable.  But that's another discussion. 



SavannahMann said:


> There is no way that you could take on the most powerful military in history with any hope of victory unless you were part dreamer, part visionary, and part madman.



America has an inflated opinion of it's own military prowess.   We don't have the stomach for high levels of causalities.  We've never "won" a war which didn't involved either beating up a smaller weaker country or having other countries doing most of the heavy lifting.  

The only thing that made our military powerful was our ability to flood the battlefield with material goods.  So the most awesome guy in the  military wasn't the paratrooper, it was the Supply Sergeant! 

(Inside joke, my MOS in the army was 76Y) 



SavannahMann said:


> Look how the rights have evolved. Freedom of Speech has become Freedom of Expression. Cruel and Unusual is nothing like it was at the time it was written.
> 
> If you told the people who passed the 14th Amendment that one day a century hence interracial marriage would be legal they would have never passed it. If you told them that a Black Man would be President. Or a Black Woman would be Vice President the Civil War wouldn’t have been fought.
> 
> ...



Actually, the conduct of the union during the civil war wasn't much to be proud of.  We'd have let the South keep raping their slaves for decades if they hadn't had a bowl of dumbass with their grits and tried to secede. 

Yes, there's been a lot of interpretation beyond the words... in the case of the 1st and 14th, for the good, but in the case of the 2nd, for the bad.  The problem with Constitutional fetishists on both side is they think the constitution is a suicide pact.  We have to ignore child molestation in that cult because first Amendment.  We have to let that Ax Murderer go because you didn't have probable cause when you found his bloody ax and bits of his girlfriend in various plastic bags.  We have to let Adam Lanza have a machine gun because you couldn't write a militia amendment clearly.  This is... you know, just kind of nuts. 



SavannahMann said:


> Merely to denounce the foundation of our freedoms as the rambling nonsense of slave rapists is to put the entire foundation of our country up for grabs. What is freedom of speech? Why should we allow it? It is merely the ramblings of slave rapists. Why not force someone to testify against himself? What is stopping us? A slave rapist?
> 
> History has shown that when we weaken one part of those rights we weaken all rights. I do not want to see any rights weakened further. Much less all of them.



The foundation of this country should be questioned.   This country was built on slavery and genocide.  

The point is, everyone assumes someone who pleads the fifth is guilty, anyway.  

I don't think having to share our streets with gun weilding maniacs makes us more "Free".  In fact, less, as we have to live with metal detectors, militarized police departments, active shooter drills, security guards, magnetic key locks in our workplaces, bullet proof backpacks for the kiddies, etc.   We've reworked our entire society around that 3% of the population with a gun fetish, because they are the gun industry's best customers.


----------



## SavannahMann (Mar 27, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Yes, there's been a lot of interpretation beyond the words... in the case of the 1st and 14th, for the good, but in the case of the 2nd, for the bad.  The problem with Constitutional fetishists on both side is they think the constitution is a suicide pact.  We have to ignore child molestation in that cult because first Amendment.  We have to let that Ax Murderer go because you didn't have probable cause when you found his bloody ax and bits of his girlfriend in various plastic bags.  We have to let Adam Lanza have a machine gun because you couldn't write a militia amendment clearly.  This is... you know, just kind of nuts.
> The foundation of this country should be questioned.   This country was built on slavery and genocide.
> The foundation of this country should be questioned.   This country was built on slavery and genocide.
> 
> ...



If we went with your theories. We would find ourselves in a new country every fifty years or so. Oh Slave Rapists started this. We can’t do that.

then it would be objections to slave owners. Then objections to Indian killers. And on and on.

Ever couple generations we would decide that the previous nation was horrible and start over.

Either that or become a third world dictatorship with a series of President for Life leaders.

When I was a boy in High School we were discussing the advantages to America. What made us different. One of those things was our Constitution. The rights we have enumerated in there. The discussion was started because of a Criminal Court Case. The defense attorney had stood up and started quoting the Rights of Citizens. After a minute the Judge interrupted the defense attorney. The question was of the evidence seized was admissible. The Judge said everyone knew the Bill of Rights.

The Defense Attorney said he wasn’t reading from the Bill of Rights. But the Soviet Rights of a Citizen. The words were meaningless because nobody in authority had to follow them. The only difference between those meaningless words and our own rights was the Judge.

The evidence was not allowed. The defendant went free. As a Boy I thought this was horrible. A guilty man went free because of some silly technicality. As I matured. I realized how good it was that the defendant went free.

Those rights that I disdained as a juvenile. Those rights, all of them are the only thing worth fighting for. Freedom.

Freedom from dictators who write their laws in pencil. Freedom from abusive authority figures. Freedom from all those things the Slave Rapists you detest fought against.

And among those freedoms is the Second Amendment.

When you joined the military. You swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. The same oath I swore. But you are very modern. And very conservative. Just like the Conservatives you want to decide what applies. And instead of taking the broadest possible meaning, you want more limits on those rights. Including the 4th, 5th, and 6th.

My position on those is very simple. These are not new rules. These are not new restrictions. They have been around for centuries. So knowing the rules is the key to getting the baddie. If you can’t follow the rules find a new line of work.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 27, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> The key words being "for the time they lived in". The problem with conservatives is they don't want to advance beyond that. Back at those times, only the well-off could afford guns and be in a militia. Therefore, for the time, the Second Amendment made sense. It doesn't make sense now, when guns are cheap enough where anyone can get them, and militias have been replaced by professional armies.



We don't need militias.....yet, but then again the Democrats have total power now, so you never know. 

The right was not exclusive to militias as the courts have ruled.  The right is for your average everyday citizen to enjoy.  A lot of people had guns at the time.  They had to hunt for their food.  

Our brilliant founders knew times would change, and that's why they included an amendment process for those changes.  However a simple majority of leaders cannot make those changes.  It takes 2/3 of them with the support of the people.


----------



## SavannahMann (Mar 27, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...



You skipped the Mini-14. Cheap. Easy to use. And it’s been used in multiple mass shootings in the past. And since it is based on the Garand design can not be considered a variant of the AR. No more than many of the rifles on the list could.


----------



## freyasman (Mar 27, 2021)

SavannahMann said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > SavannahMann said:
> ...


Wasn't a mini 14 variant used in that Miami shootout back in the 80's where the FBI got their asses handed to them?


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 27, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...



The AR-15 is a civilian rifle......it is nothing more than a basic semi-automatic rifle...you know this, you are lying about it, you are part of the effort to smear the rifle to get it banned....and then you will come back and say that all the other semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns need to be banned as well since they are the same as the AR-15.


The cops don't face AR-15s you twit....only on the t.v. Show Chicago P.D. do cops face fully automatic miltiary weapons on a weekly basis....

Each post and you reveal more and more how much a useful idiot you are for anti-gun extremists...


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 27, 2021)

SavannahMann said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > airplanemechanic said:
> ...



Ahhhh...but you see.....then Vrenn comes back and goes after all those other guns.....one after the other, or he and his anti-gun extremists go for all semi-automatic guns.......since they all operate the same way as an AR-15.......that is the point....


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 27, 2021)

SavannahMann said:


> If we went with your theories. We would find ourselves in a new country every fifty years or so. Oh Slave Rapists started this. We can’t do that.
> 
> then it would be objections to slave owners. Then objections to Indian killers. And on and on.
> 
> Ever couple generations we would decide that the previous nation was horrible and start over.



Works for me.   Frankly, I don't know why we don't have a constitutional convention every 20 years or so to check if stuff is still working.  



SavannahMann said:


> When I was a boy in High School we were discussing the advantages to America. What made us different. One of those things was our Constitution. The rights we have enumerated in there. The discussion was started because of a Criminal Court Case. The defense attorney had stood up and started quoting the Rights of Citizens. After a minute the Judge interrupted the defense attorney. The question was of the evidence seized was admissible. The Judge said everyone knew the Bill of Rights.
> 
> The Defense Attorney said he wasn’t reading from the Bill of Rights. But the Soviet Rights of a Citizen. The words were meaningless because nobody in authority had to follow them. The only difference between those meaningless words and our own rights was the Judge.
> 
> The evidence was not allowed. The defendant went free. As a Boy I thought this was horrible. A guilty man went free because of some silly technicality. As I matured. I realized how good it was that the defendant went free.



Okay...  If someone you cared about was the next person that obviously guilty person killed, maybe you wouldn't feel that way.  

The Constitution isn't a suicide pact. 



SavannahMann said:


> And among those freedoms is the Second Amendment.
> 
> When you joined the military. You swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. The same oath I swore. But you are very modern. And very conservative. Just like the Conservatives you want to decide what applies. And instead of taking the broadest possible meaning, you want more limits on those rights. Including the 4th, 5th, and 6th.
> 
> My position on those is very simple. These are not new rules. These are not new restrictions. They have been around for centuries. So knowing the rules is the key to getting the baddie. If you can’t follow the rules find a new line of work.



Actually, what I want is common sense interpretation... 

Which means you don't let ax murderers go because a cop didn't have probable cause.
You don't let Johnny McCrazy get an assault rifle because they didn't define "militia" properly.  
You don't let someone molest kids because that's their religion (Branch Davidians, Mormons, Catholics).


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 27, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> > If we went with your theories. We would find ourselves in a new country every fifty years or so. Oh Slave Rapists started this. We can’t do that.
> ...




Shit for brains, you moron.....

The democrat party is releasing violent, known, repeat gun offenders from jail and prison over and over again....these are the guys doing almost all of the gun murder and gun crime....and you vote for the democrat party, the party created by actual slave rapists long after the Founding of this country.....

The Founders defined militia just fine....you are a shithead who just doesn't want people to own and carry guns for self defense.


Public school teachers molest children at a far higher rate than any religious group....yet children have to attend public schools....you moron.


----------



## SavannahMann (Mar 27, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> > If we went with your theories. We would find ourselves in a new country every fifty years or so. Oh Slave Rapists started this. We can’t do that.
> ...



They defined Militia properly. In the era, in context, it was every able bodied white male. So today the Militia would be everyone.

If the Ax Murderer gets away because the cop didn’t have Probable Cause. Blame the cop. Not the Constitution. The cop knew what he was doing was wrong. He did it anyway. That isn’t the fault of the Constitution. That is the fault of the cop who couldn’t be bothered to do the job right. 

Imagine how dumb someone would look arguing with the ref at a football game. What do you mean we can’t throw a forward pass once we pass the line of scrimmage? That’s bullshit. You just want us to lose.

You and the others who hate the Constitution sound just like that. There are plenty of countries where Civil Rights are nonexistent.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 27, 2021)

SavannahMann said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > SavannahMann said:
> ...



And it reloads much slower.  It takes two hands and one must come outside the trigger guard.  Plus the rifle must rotate to it's side and the mag needs a slight forward rotation to disengage it.  On the other hand, the AR has a release where the trigger finger never leaves the trigger guard, the rifle stays in it's ready position, the mag drops out with no force needed and the other hand just slams the new one in.  

The AR put an end to the use of the Garand style weapons from mass shootings and the AR style said, with a smirk on it's bottom receiver, "Here, hold my beer".


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 27, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...




You are a doofus........a useful idiot for gun control....

Magazines don't matter in a mass public shooting...

He used a rifle and killed 10 people....with magazines...

He could have used a sawn off shotgun, a double barreled shotgun and a .22 caliber bolt action rifle........zero magazines here.....and killed 13 people...like the Cumbria, Shooter in Britain used....

He could have walked into any Boulder gun store and purchased......

A 7 shot, pump action shotgun.....and murdered 12, not 10 people, like the Navy Yard shooter...

A 5 shot, pump action shotgun.....and murdered 20 people and wounded 70, like the Kerch, Russia shooter...with the local police station 100 yards away....





He could have purchased  9mm pistol, and a .22 caliber pistol with a 10 round magazine and murdered 32 people like the Virginia tech shooter...



He could have purchased 2, 9mm pistols and murdered 24 people, like the Luby's cafe shooter....



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

Magazines have no bearing on how many are killed in a mass public shooting.


----------



## SavannahMann (Mar 27, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...



When you hit the release on a Mini 14 mag it falls away. I know. I have one. Rocking a loaded mag is easy and quick. It is basically the same set up as the AK. That is to say the detent and Rock the magazine up until it locks. It does not take long at all.

Thirty round mags are easy to find. I got mine from Brownells when I was ordering other things from there.

The only thing I don’t like about the Mini is the rear sight. It’s terrible. Thankfully there are lots of options and I picked one that worked with what my intentions were for the weapon.

The Mini-14 is cheap. Reliable. Rugged. Most Ruger products can have those labels attached however.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 27, 2021)

SavannahMann said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > SavannahMann said:
> ...



For everyday shooting, I prefer the Mini as well.  But you have to admit, it reloads much slower.  And the AR is designed to reload in less than a second without much of a delay in firing.  There is a reason the AR type of weapons have completely replaced the ones based on the M-1A like the M-14.


----------



## woodwork201 (Mar 28, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> You think a maniac is concerned about clinking when he walks?


I wonder if this guy clinked when he walked:









						Man arrested at Atlanta grocery with six guns, body armor, police say
					

No one was injured, and the man's motives are unknown. But the incident at a Publix comes days after two mass shootings.




					www.nbcnews.com


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 28, 2021)

2aguy said:


> The democrat party is releasing violent, known, repeat gun offenders from jail and prison over and over again....these are the guys doing almost all of the gun murder and gun crime....and you vote for the democrat party, the party created by actual slave rapists long after the Founding of this country.....



We lock up 2 million people.  Locking people up isn't the answer. 



2aguy said:


> The Founders defined militia just fine....you are a shithead who just doesn't want people to own and carry guns for self defense.



A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.  Guns are more a danger to the people that own them than the people they want to defend themselves from. 

The thing is, when the Founding Slave Rapists wrote the constitution, only the wealthy could really afford guns. They expected the militia to be the landed gentry, not the rabble.  



2aguy said:


> Public school teachers molest children at a far higher rate than any religious group....yet children have to attend public schools....you moron.



Actually, they really don't.  There are just a lot more public school employees than religious groups.  Of course, the thing about pedos is they go where they can get at kids.  Public schools have methods to find and weed out these people.   Religious groups hide them because they BE RIGHT WITH JAY-A-ZUS! 





"Well, at least they didn't take our guns!!!"


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 28, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > The democrat party is releasing violent, known, repeat gun offenders from jail and prison over and over again....these are the guys doing almost all of the gun murder and gun crime....and you vote for the democrat party, the party created by actual slave rapists long after the Founding of this country.....
> ...



*We lock up 2 million people. Locking people up isn't the answer.*


What part of the democrats releasing, over and over again, the violent gun criminals do you not understand.   It isn't normal Americans who own guns who are doing the shooting....it is the same criminals the democrats keep releasing over and over again no matter how many times they are arrested for gun crimes as convicted felons...

So it doesn't matter if we temporarily lock up violent gun criminals if the democrats let them back out to shoot people........what part of that is so hard for you to understand?

*A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy. Guns are more a danger to the people that own them than the people they want to defend themselves from.*

Kellerman who did the study that came up with the "43 times more likely" myth, was forced to do the research over when other academics pointed out how flawed his methods were....he then changed the 43 times number to 2.7, but he was still using flawed data to get even that number.....

Below is the study where he changed the number from 43 to 2.7 and below that is the explanation as to why that number isn't even accurate.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7;

------------


Nine Myths Of Gun Control

Myth #6 "A homeowner is 43 times as likely to be killed or kill a family member as an intruder"

To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists repeat Dr. Kellermann's long discredited claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder." [17] This fallacy , fabricated using tax dollars, is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defense lobby.

The honest measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected not Kellermann's burglar or rapist body count.

Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator. [3]

Any study, such as Kellermann' "43 times" fallacy, that only counts bodies will expectedly underestimate the benefits of gun a thousand fold.

Think for a minute. Would anyone suggest that the only measure of the benefit of law enforcement is the number of people killed by police? Of course not. The honest measure of the benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved by deaths and injuries averted, and the property protected. 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun. [2]

*Kellermann recently downgraded his estimate to "2.7 times," [18] but he persisted in discredited methodology. He used a method that cannot distinguish between "cause" and "effect." His method would be like finding more diet drinks in the refrigerators of fat people and then concluding that diet drinks "cause" obesity.*


Also, he studied groups with high rates of violent criminality, alcoholism, drug addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse .


From such a poor and violent study group he attempted to generalize his findings to normal homes

*Interestingly, when Dr. Kellermann was interviewed he stated that, if his wife were attacked, he would want her to have a gun for protection.[19] Apparently, Dr. Kellermann doesn't even believe his own studies.


-----
*

Public Health and Gun Control: A Review



Since at least the mid-1980s, Dr. Kellermann (and associates), whose work had been heavily-funded by the CDC, published a series of studies purporting to show that persons who keep guns in the home are more likely to be victims of homicide than those who don¹t.

In a 1986 NEJM paper, Dr. Kellermann and associates, for example, claimed their "scientific research" proved that defending oneself or one¹s family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counter productive, claiming* "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."8

In a critical review and now classic article published in the March 1994 issue of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Dr. Edgar Suter, Chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), found evidence of "methodologic and conceptual errors," such as prejudicially truncated data and the listing of "the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors."5 *

Moreover, the gun control researchers failed to consider and underestimated the protective benefits of guns.

Dr. Suter writes: "The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives and medical costs saved, the injuries prevented, and the property protected ‹ not the burglar or rapist body count.

Since only 0.1 - 0.2 percent of defensive uses of guns involve the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000."5

In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4 Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology.

*He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.

For example, 

53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested, 

31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use, 32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight, and 

17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required. 
Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability.*

In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered.

*Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home. One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.*

All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5

*It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.*

Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 28, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > The democrat party is releasing violent, known, repeat gun offenders from jail and prison over and over again....these are the guys doing almost all of the gun murder and gun crime....and you vote for the democrat party, the party created by actual slave rapists long after the Founding of this country.....
> ...



* Public schools have methods to find and weed out these people. *


You don't know what you are talking about........the teachers unions protect the child molestors in the public schools, you doofus...

there is a paywall for this link....so I have the story in a link below...









						‘Extraordinary and appalling’ handling of sexual violence cases in Chicago Public Schools leads to federal oversight
					

Chicago Public Schools agrees to far-reaching federal monitoring to correct "systemic failures" in handling of sexual misconduct complaints against staff and students.




					www.chicagotribune.com
				





*In order to dig deeper into this scandal, the Tribune cross-referenced CPS data with Chicago police data. From 2008 to 2017, police investigated approximately 523 reports of sexual abuse at school or on school grounds in Chicago. In terms of context, that is one reported incident per week over a 10-year span.*
*
After cross-referencing the data, the Tribune isolated 108 reported incidents for an in-depth examination. Of those incidents, 72 involved CPS employees committing sexual misconduct against students.
*
*Despite the in-depth nature of the Tribune report, it remains difficult to nail down an exact number of sexual abuse incidents in CPS schools. Part of the problem relates to the CPS approach to these events. *

*CPS administrators admit that there was not a formal process for investigating and handling reports of alleged sexual misconduct.  


Further compounding the problem, the CPS background check process failed to identify employees with criminal backgrounds and histories of sexual misconduct. Furthermore, the CPS system failed to share information with other districts about reported sexual abuse incidents in the recent past.*

*Even when students reported sexual abuse, the CPS system failed to notify law enforcement or a welfare department. That is a violation of the Illinois state requirement for reporting such incidents to appropriate authorities.*





__





						Loading…
					





					johnprior.attorney


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 28, 2021)

2aguy said:


> What part of the democrats releasing, over and over again, the violent gun criminals do you not understand. It



We lock up 2 million people.  If locking people up solved the problem, we would be there by now 



2aguy said:


> In order to dig deeper into this scandal, the _Tribune_ cross-referenced CPS data with Chicago police data. From 2008 to 2017, police investigated approximately 523 reports of sexual abuse at school or on school grounds in Chicago. In terms of context, that is one reported incident per week over a 10-year span.
> 
> *After cross-referencing the data, the Tribune isolated 108 reported incidents for an in-depth examination. Of those incidents, 72 involved CPS employees committing sexual misconduct against students.*



Okay.  So that's 523 reports of sexual abuse, not only by staff but by other students...  (in fact, most of those reports were about students.)  So that comes out to 53 reports a year out of a system that has 355,000 students  and 41,000 staff.  

Nowhere near the level of malfeasance by the Roman Catholic Church, which for years engaged in a conspiracy to hide pedophile priests and move them from parish to parish.


----------



## freyasman (Mar 28, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > SavannahMann said:
> ...


Light 'Em Up || Cowboy Action Shooting Promo - YouTube


----------



## freyasman (Mar 28, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > The democrat party is releasing violent, known, repeat gun offenders from jail and prison over and over again....these are the guys doing almost all of the gun murder and gun crime....and you vote for the democrat party, the party created by actual slave rapists long after the Founding of this country.....
> ...


False.





(Damn, you lie *a lot.*)


----------



## woodwork201 (Mar 29, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> And our murder rate is more due to the fact that we do not enforce our federal gun laws than it is to law abiding citizens owning guns



Actually, it is not lack of enforcement on gun laws that makes our murder rate so high; it's the lack of enforcement on all of our laws that makes the rate so high.  When murderers walk the streets gang members learn that a few years in the boy's club is far more valuable to their reputation and they get out to commit murder all over again.

How many murderers commit murder as their first crime?  Or even their first crime known to the police?

If new gun laws are not the answer to gun violence then neither were the old laws.  We fought against the old laws as ineffective, even on the assumption that they would be enforced.  Were we wrong?  Would the gun laws be effective if enforced?  And if they would be effective, why wouldn't new gun laws be effective if enforced?

Gun laws are not the answer to gun crime.  Enforce laws against robbery - with your finger in the pocket, a knife, a bat, or a gun, it's all the same.


----------



## woodwork201 (Mar 29, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > But we DO lock up 2 million people. We still have massive crime.
> ...



And yet the left think that prisons are a deterrent, adding cruel and unusual prison sentences and excessive fines do work because they're planning them against otherwise-legal gun owners.  Oh, wait; they're admitting that law abiding citizens follow the law and criminals do not.  They're counting on otherwise-law-abiding citizens following the law to avoid their excessive prison sentences while they admit that criminals do not follow the law and prison sentences are pointless. 

They openly admit what we've always argued: gun control has no effect on criminal behavior.


----------



## woodwork201 (Mar 29, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> You are talking about a hunting rifle for the 308.  What are you going to have, 5 in the mag and one in the tube?  Now load 30 in the Mag.  The Rifle is going to have to be strengthened to handle that mag and the whole gun is going to have to gain considerable weight.  You just entered into a whole new world.  It no longer functions as a hunting or a sporting rifle.  It's become a battle rifle.



Most .308's only take 20 rounds but, otherwise, you accurately describe my battle rifle.  I do love knowing I have it if needed.


----------



## woodwork201 (Mar 29, 2021)

2aguy said:


> If you like this, read the judges opinion from the 9th Circuit when he put an injunction on the magazine ban they wanted to pass.....the whole opinion is just great...
> 
> http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...JieJ6BMiBtRS0jdYT2id4OKm6suWAzGqo1V9eoe_wL9aA
> 
> ...



More very good stuff; I'm going to have to spend some time to read it thoroughly.  I've spent a lot of time studying both Heller and McDonald but reading more analysis always exposes new (to me) ideas.

But I need to point out something most gun owners and, to my knowledge, most legal scholars writing on the topic, miss.  We like *common use *because argues in defense of the AR or many other weapons the left is attacking, including guns like pump shotguns and all semi-autos.  

But there's serious danger in the _*common use *_argument: Any new class of guns could be banned quickly by Congress and/or possibly even the BATFE or executive order before they come into common use.  For instance, before the Shockwave class of shotguns were in common use, when very first introduced, they could have been banned - in fact probably still could since the're not nearly as common as other classes of guns.  The AR certainly could have been banned, under _*common use, *_during the 60s when it wasn't yet in common use.  Granted, any ban at all is is unconstitutional, but to depend on _*common use*_ leaves the right to keep and bear any new class of arms at serious risk.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 30, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> And yet the left think that prisons are a deterrent, adding cruel and unusual prison sentences and excessive fines do work because they're planning them against otherwise-legal gun owners. Oh, wait; they're admitting that law abiding citizens follow the law and criminals do not. They're counting on otherwise-law-abiding citizens following the law to avoid their excessive prison sentences while they admit that criminals do not follow the law and prison sentences are pointless.



Oh, I don't expect to throw gun nuts in jail.  Just send the ATF over to confiscate their guns.   If they get new guns, send the ATF in again to confiscate their new guns.  Eventually, they'll get the message.  

Of course, a key part to my plan would be to hold gun sellers accountable for who they sell to.  So all those nice Asians ladies who got shot up, their families can sue the gun store that sold to THIS GUY.


----------



## freyasman (Mar 30, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> woodwork201 said:
> 
> 
> > And yet the left think that prisons are a deterrent, adding cruel and unusual prison sentences and excessive fines do work because they're planning them against otherwise-legal gun owners. Oh, wait; they're admitting that law abiding citizens follow the law and criminals do not. They're counting on otherwise-law-abiding citizens following the law to avoid their excessive prison sentences while they admit that criminals do not follow the law and prison sentences are pointless.
> ...


Go ahead and send the ATF, hell, go ahead and send every fed you can find, lol.









						The Mathematics of Countering Tyranny - Gun Confiscation Fail - Rawles
					

The Mathematics of Countering Tyranny by James Wesley Rawles - Gun Confiscation - AR-15s. Estimates on number of guns in US.




					survivalblog.com
				




We'll come get you when we're done with them.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 30, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Oh, I don't expect to throw gun nuts in jail. Just send the ATF over to confiscate their guns. If they get new guns, send the ATF in again to confiscate their new guns. Eventually, they'll get the message.
> 
> Of course, a key part to my plan would be to hold gun sellers accountable for who they sell to. So all those nice Asians ladies who got shot up, their families can sue the gun store that sold to THIS GUY.



Atta boy Joe, spoken like a true Nazi.

Gun stores and sellers only sell firearms to who the federal government permits.  It's not their call, it's your precious federal governments call.  Of course the feds can only use information in their possession to deny gun ownership.  When you have a misfit creating a racist policies like the Promise Program, then the feds have no idea who they should be denying gun sales to.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 30, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> And yet the left think that prisons are a deterrent, adding cruel and unusual prison sentences and excessive fines do work because they're planning them against otherwise-legal gun owners. Oh, wait; they're admitting that law abiding citizens follow the law and criminals do not. They're counting on otherwise-law-abiding citizens following the law to avoid their excessive prison sentences while they admit that criminals do not follow the law and prison sentences are pointless.
> 
> They openly admit what we've always argued: gun control has no effect on criminal behavior.



Correct, but the sheep don't know that, only their leaders do.  The sheep only believe what they are told, and that is if you disarm law abiding citizens, the criminals will be happy to turn in their guns.  Of course their leaders know that could never be the end result.  The end result will be a society where only the police and criminals have guns which makes the rest of us potential victims to crime.  

Victims are one of the Democrat party's largest support groups, so it makes political sense that they create more victim groups; expanding the tent as politicians like to call it.  Look at what's going on today.  Thanks to this George Floyd thing, riots permitted in commie cities, defunding the police departments, violent crime and murders have never seen such a sharp increase in many years.  Democrats love it.  The more dead innocent Americans, the better.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 30, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> If new gun laws are not the answer to gun violence then neither were the old laws. We fought against the old laws as ineffective, even on the assumption that they would be enforced. Were we wrong? Would the gun laws be effective if enforced? And if they would be effective, why wouldn't new gun laws be effective if enforced?
> 
> Gun laws are not the answer to gun crime. Enforce laws against robbery - with your finger in the pocket, a knife, a bat, or a gun, it's all the same.



When NYC had their Stop and Frisk law, it greatly reduced violent crime and murders, especially among minorities.  They got rid of the law and now murders are back up to high levels once again.  

The point?  A strong enough deterrent works every time it's tried.  So when deterrents don't work, it's not because they can't.  It means our deterrents are not strong enough.  However you can't get this salient point through the heads of the left. 

I read an article a couple years ago by a Chicago police officer.  His claim was that he busts people with an illegal gun, and they bust them again two months later.  They are releasing those people as fast as they can catch them.  

Carrying an illegal gun............5 years minimum prison sentence. 
Using a gun in the commission of a crime.........20 years minimum prison sentence. 
Being found with a stolen gun..........10 years minimum prison sentence. 
Murder with a gun.........death penalty or life in prison. 
Straw buyers........10 years minimum prison sentence. 

Penalties like these would show great improvement in our crime situation.  Plus we need a national liability protection for law abiding citizens who use their firearm in self-defense that's ruled a justified shooting.   It's so logical that a 5 year old can understand by penalizing the criminals harsher instead of trying to turn law abiding citizens into criminals, you will have much favorable results.  So why does the left try to do the latter?  What party do most criminals who vote belong to?  And secondly, how many liberals do you know that have common sense?


----------



## woodwork201 (Mar 30, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> When NYC had their Stop and Frisk law, it greatly reduced violent crime and murders, especially among minorities.  They got rid of the law and now murders are back up to high levels once again.



That's true; given enough unconstitutional authoritarian behavior by government, most crimes will stop.  For instance, Myanmar has a murder rate about half of that in the US... Oh, wait.. they still have murders.



Ray From Cleveland said:


> The point?  A strong enough deterrent works every time it's tried.  So when deterrents don't work, it's not because they can't.  It means our deterrents are not strong enough.  However you can't get this salient point through the heads of the left.



It is not the business or the role of government to stop or prevent crime.  It is the business of the government to punish crime.  As gun owners, we often refer to those Supreme Court cases that hold that it is not the obligation of the police to protect an individual but is, instead, their job to protect the community.  And the Court is correct.  

Punishing crime is a communal responsibility - I can't, for instance, create my own court and my own jail and put my neighbor in it.  I cannot, and should not, depend on the police to protect me and stop a robbery or, in the case of at least one such Court case, a rape or murder.  Preventing or stopping crime is an individual responsibility.

To suggest that it is the role of government to prevent crime would mean that a bank needs no vault and no guards.  A liquor store in the ghetto needs no bullet proof glass and no guards.  The government will protect them and prevent any crime on their premises.

So the problem we have with unconstitutional behaviors such as Stop-and-Frisk, is that they're only needed because the victims of bad actors do not have the ability to protect themselves; they've been disarmed.

The cry should not be for more authoritarian, but ultimately unsuccessful, crime prevention on the streets; it should be to eliminate government infringements on our ability to defend ourselves.  Even in Myanmar, they can't prevent crime. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> I read an article a couple years ago by a Chicago police officer.  His claim was that he busts people with an illegal gun, and they bust them again two months later.  They are releasing those people as fast as they can catch them.
> 
> Carrying an illegal gun............5 years minimum prison sentence.
> Using a gun in the commission of a crime.........20 years minimum prison sentence.
> ...



Enhanced sentencing for guns only serves to vilify the gun.  You admit that the gun, itself, is evil.  I know  you intend well but that is absolutely the result and the intent of enhanced sentencing for gun crimes.

Carrying an illegal gun............5 years minimum prison sentence. - Since there's no constitutional authority for an illegal gun, carrying an illegal gun is impossible.
Using a gun in the commission of a crime.........20 years minimum prison sentence. - Punish the crime, not the gun.  If you rob a 7-11, go to prison for 20 years, whether you used a gun, a knife, or a baseball bat.
Being found with a stolen gun..........10 years minimum prison sentence. - Being found with stolen property is a crime.  Punish the crime, not the gun.
Murder with a gun.........death penalty or life in prison. - How about death penalty or life in prison for murder, regardless of the weapon? Is the person murdered with a gun more dead than the person murdered with rat poison?
Straw buyers........10 years minimum prison sentence. - Since banning some people from owning guns, there's no constitutional support for even the concept of a straw buyer.  Even if you argue that it is constitutional (you'd be wrong), the idea of straw buying is only intended to keep prohibited persons from buying guns.  This can only work with universal background checks and complete gun registration so that the government can track, identify, and enforce background checks.  Do you support universal background checks?


----------



## JimH52 (Mar 30, 2021)

Mass Murderers...and you....rejoice.


----------



## woodwork201 (Mar 30, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Of course, a key part to my plan would be to hold gun sellers accountable for who they sell to.  So all those nice Asians ladies who got shot up, their families can sue the gun store that sold to THIS GUY.



Are you suggesting that the store that sold liquor to a drunk driver should get sued along with the dealer that sold him the car, the insurance company that sold him insurance, and the store that sold him the clothes he wore to the bar?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 30, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> It is not the business or the role of government to stop or prevent crime. It is the business of the government to punish crime. As gun owners, we often refer to those Supreme Court cases that hold that it is not the obligation of the police to protect an individual but is, instead, their job to protect the community. And the Court is correct.
> 
> Punishing crime is a communal responsibility - I can't, for instance, create my own court and my own jail and put my neighbor in it. I cannot, and should not, depend on the police to protect me and stop a robbery or, in the case of at least one such Court case, a rape or murder. Preventing or stopping crime is an individual responsibility.
> 
> ...



Punishment is for the sole purpose of providing a deterrent not only to the individual for the future, but the public as well. You don't pet your dog and give it a treat when it shits on your living room floor, and you don't give your child a trip to Disneyland if they broke out your neighbors windows with a baseball bat.  

I don't believe in rehabilitation centers, I believe in jail, and if we had prisons like in the classic movie Cool Hand Luke, you'd see how people would avoid going there. 


As for self-defense, I think my avatar says it all. 



woodwork201 said:


> Enhanced sentencing for guns only serves to vilify the gun. You admit that the gun, itself, is evil. I know you intend well but that is absolutely the result and the intent of enhanced sentencing for gun crimes.
> 
> Carrying an illegal gun............5 years minimum prison sentence. - Since there's no constitutional authority for an illegal gun, carrying an illegal gun is impossible.
> Using a gun in the commission of a crime.........20 years minimum prison sentence. - Punish the crime, not the gun. If you rob a 7-11, go to prison for 20 years, whether you used a gun, a knife, or a baseball bat.
> ...



You can't vilify or punish an inanimate article like a gun.  Yes, it's illegal to carry a gun if you are a convicted felon.  It's illegal in most states to carry a gun unless you are licensed. Until the high courts rule otherwise, those are the laws of our land.  You are entitled to an opinion just like I am, but it's the courts that rule what the Constitution allows or doesn't allow. 

Extra scrutiny should be given to guns given the fact our country is in conflict with the use of guns. It also gives an advantage to the victim.  If I'm a store owner and somebody tries to rob me with a bat or knife, I have the advantage because I'm legally allowed to use my gun for self-defense.  A criminal may risk a couple of years in prison for robbing a store, but he's less likely to risk 25 years (5 for the robbery and 20 for the gun) to rob that store using a firearm.  

Buying a gun for somebody that's not allowed to own a gun is no different than if sell your prescribed opiod pain medication on the streets.  It's illegal for other people to have it but you.


----------



## TNHarley (Mar 30, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> I've got a lot of feedback, but no explanation of why anyone needs high-powered weaponry.


Why does a married couple need a huge house with 4 bedrooms?
Answer : It isnt any of your business.


----------



## woodwork201 (Mar 30, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> You can't vilify or punish an inanimate article like a gun.  Yes, it's illegal to carry a gun if you are a convicted felon.  It's illegal in most states to carry a gun unless you are licensed. Until the high courts rule otherwise, those are the laws of our land.  You are entitled to an opinion just like I am, but it's the courts that rule what the Constitution allows or doesn't allow.
> 
> Extra scrutiny should be given to guns given the fact our country is in conflict with the use of guns. It also gives an advantage to the victim.  If I'm a store owner and somebody tries to rob me with a bat or knife, I have the advantage because I'm legally allowed to use my gun for self-defense.  A criminal may risk a couple of years in prison for robbing a store, but he's less likely to risk 25 years (5 for the robbery and 20 for the gun) to rob that store using a firearm.
> 
> Buying a gun for somebody that's not allowed to own a gun is no different than if sell your prescribed opiod pain medication on the streets.  It's illegal for other people to have it but you.



This is why, in the end, we'll lose the protections on the right to keep and bear arms.  When gun owners admit that guns are evil, we've pretty much lost even the gun owners.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 30, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> This is why, in the end, we'll lose the protections on the right to keep and bear arms. When gun owners admit that guns are evil, we've pretty much lost even the gun owners.



Some gun owners do, conservatives don't.  It's been that way for decades. 

The only way you are going to lose rights is by voting Democrat. It's the President that gets to choose who is on the courts right up to the Supreme Court.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 30, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, a key part to my plan would be to hold gun sellers accountable for who they sell to.  So all those nice Asians ladies who got shot up, their families can sue the gun store that sold to THIS GUY.
> ...



Well, the liquor store already can be prosecuted and sued, IF the guy was already drunk when he bought the booze.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 30, 2021)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Well, the liquor store already can be prosecuted and sued, IF the guy was already drunk when he bought the booze.



So can a bar, but the difference is that the seller of alcohol was complicit in the criminal actions of their customer.  The gun store owner has no idea if he's selling to somebody that's going to shoot at targets or go to a movie theater and try to kill as many Americans as possible.  All the gun store does is run your name through the federal background check, and if they give the clearance, the gun store sells him the gun.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 30, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, the liquor store already can be prosecuted and sued, IF the guy was already drunk when he bought the booze.
> ...



All very true.  And I would assume that if you went into a gun store, spitting in rage and shouting, "I'm gonna kill that bastard!  Gimme a gun!" they would decline to sell you one.


----------



## freyasman (Mar 30, 2021)

JimH52 said:


> Mass Murderers...and you....rejoice.


Who are you talking about?

I haven't seen anyone "rejoice", except maybe the folks who are pushing an agenda that they want to use this sort of shit for.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 30, 2021)

freyasman said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > Mass Murderers...and you....rejoice.
> ...



I'd say the way the likes of Jim and his masters leapt on top of the dead bodies before they were even cold to start evangelizing for their agenda was pretty close to rejoicing.


----------



## freyasman (Mar 30, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> woodwork201 said:
> 
> 
> > This is why, in the end, we'll lose the protections on the right to keep and bear arms. When gun owners admit that guns are evil, we've pretty much lost even the gun owners.
> ...


His point is that it doesn't matter how well you play, if the game itself is rigged.

Step off the path, stop playing their game......how do they cheat you at the card tables if you never set foot in the casino?








						3dprintergobrrr
					

Buy 3D printers & supplies for cryptocurrency!



					3dprintergobrrr.com


----------



## freyasman (Mar 30, 2021)




----------



## daveman (Mar 30, 2021)

JimH52 said:


> Mass Murderers...and you....rejoice.


Seems to me it's the irrational gun-haters rejoicing.  They're always please to have a stack of still-warm bodies from which to preach disarming law-abiding people.


----------



## woodwork201 (Mar 31, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> The only way you are going to lose rights is by voting Democrat. It's the President that gets to choose who is on the courts right up to the Supreme Court.



Reagan signed FOPA.  Bush 43 said he'd sign an assault weapons ban if it came to his desk.  Reports are that as high as 72 per cent of Americans, some reports even as high as 90+ per cent, support enhanced background checks for all gun transfers.  That's a lot of gun owners supporting it.

There are a lot of conservative gun owners that support gun control measures past and future.  There's a huge difference between a "conservative" and  a "constitutionalist".  I can't count how many times I've read or heard from conservatives that felons should not be allowed to own guns or support the current background check system.  That's OK that conservatives have different views but they're gun controllers as much as is Joe Biden.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 31, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> I've got a lot of feedback, but no explanation of why anyone needs high-powered weaponry.



Not just for the same reason the police and military need them, but for the additional reasons that the police and military already HAVE them, and the police and military are always the most corrupt and dangerous because they are mercenaries working for whomever pays them.

How do you expect a democratic republic to ever survive is you don't have an armed population that can defend itself from the police and military when they turn against the democracy?


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 31, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > The only way you are going to lose rights is by voting Democrat. It's the President that gets to choose who is on the courts right up to the Supreme Court.
> ...



Fascists always support gun control because they do not trust the average person.
Those of the wealthy elite always want gun control because they would otherwise have to pay them more and not make as much profit.
As an actual liberal and not a fake Biden supporter, I am totally against gun control because it is against the egalitarian principles of a democratic republic.
Sure there are criminals you can't trust, but you lock them up.
If they are not locked up, then you have to treat them as equals in all ways, including firearms.
Otherwise this is not a democratic republic, but just another dictatorship.


----------



## Mercurialmind (Mar 31, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Hey...Daryl hunt........you were saying about the colorado AR-15 ban?
> 
> *Now, a Colorado judge has tossed the AR-15 ban in the trash bin, along with the provision prohibiting ownership of magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. That’s the backdoor gun ban right there. It’s not just about the rifle. It’s about curbing constitutional gun rights by these magazine laws. *
> 
> ...


A Petition for Stronger Gun Laws

Just common freakin' sense!


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 31, 2021)

freyasman said:


> Go ahead and send the ATF, hell, go ahead and send every fed you can find, lol.
> 
> https://survivalblog.com/2018/05/15/mathematics-countering-tyranny/
> We'll come get you when we're done with them.



Yup.  Because shooting federal agents will make you guys really popular.  Just ask David Koresh. 

Did you hear the Branch Davidians broke up into two sects?  Orthodox and Extra Crispy! 

Q: What are they gonna call the TV Miniseries about David Koresh?
A: A Match Made in Heaven.

Q: What were David KorASH's Last Words?
A: "No, Bud Light!"
   "Just kidding, I'm not really God."
   "OW!!!!" 

Q: What does Waco stand for?
A: What a cook out!


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 31, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Fascists always support gun control because they do not trust the average person.
> Those of the wealthy elite always want gun control because they would otherwise have to pay them more and not make as much profit.
> As an actual liberal and not a fake Biden supporter, I am totally against gun control because it is against the egalitarian principles of a democratic republic.
> Sure there are criminals you can't trust, but you lock them up.
> ...



Guy, here's the thing.  

We are awash in guns and we lock up more people than any other country in the world.  

Yet we have the highest crime rates in the industrialized world.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 31, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> So can a bar, but the difference is that the seller of alcohol was complicit in the criminal actions of their customer. The gun store owner has no idea if he's selling to somebody that's going to shoot at targets or go to a movie theater and try to kill as many Americans as possible. All the gun store does is run your name through the federal background check, and if they give the clearance, the gun store sells him the gun.



You're really going to tell me that the gun seller that sold this guy an AR-15 and a 100 round magazine didn't know he was up to no good? 





His school knew he was nuts, they were in the process of expelling him.


----------



## freyasman (Mar 31, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> freyasman said:
> 
> 
> > Go ahead and send the ATF, hell, go ahead and send every fed you can find, lol.
> ...


Well, it may not make me popular, but it will make them all dead, so then what do you plan to do?


----------



## freyasman (Mar 31, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Fascists always support gun control because they do not trust the average person.
> ...


No we don't.


----------



## Lysistrata (Mar 31, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > I've got a lot of feedback, but no explanation of why anyone needs high-powered weaponry.
> ...


I have to think about what you are suggesting, that every adult in the U.S. population be armed against some assault by the police and military. Women's clinics, black institutions, including black Christian churches, synagogues and mosques, establishments where LGBTs gather: should we guard them all with assault weaponry against assaults by the police and military, and/or other people, like "militia" gangsters?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 31, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> You're really going to tell me that the gun seller that sold this guy an AR-15 and a 100 round magazine didn't know he was up to no good?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, because that was the expression on his face when he bought the gun.  I await your video of that. 

So now you think on top of a FEDERAL background check, the gun store should start calling their schools too?  Then you wonder why we don't want to see Democrats in any form of power in this country?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 31, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Guy, here's the thing.
> 
> We are awash in guns and we lock up more people than any other country in the world.
> 
> Yet we have the highest crime rates in the industrialized world.



Why do you people continue to lie when proven wrong repeatedly in the past?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 31, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Reagan signed FOPA. Bush 43 said he'd sign an assault weapons ban if it came to his desk. Reports are that as high as 72 per cent of Americans, some reports even as high as 90+ per cent, support enhanced background checks for all gun transfers. That's a lot of gun owners supporting it.
> 
> There are a lot of conservative gun owners that support gun control measures past and future. There's a huge difference between a "conservative" and a "constitutionalist". I can't count how many times I've read or heard from conservatives that felons should not be allowed to own guns or support the current background check system. That's OK that conservatives have different views but they're gun controllers as much as is Joe Biden.



What you are reading are phony polls because who can define what additional gun restrictions are?  If you asked them that, you'd get all kinds of different answers. 

The truth of the matter is any state can create any gun restriction they desire as long as it's constitutional.  Just look at what they're doing in Virginia.  So why don't they?  Because in many places around the country, it would be political suicide.  Even after our reps passed our CCW program, it was signed by a Democrat governor.  He had little choice.  Sign the CCW law or be a one-term Governor, and the next Governor will sign it.  

Facts are that as time goes on, more and more Americans are getting behind the idea of self-defense and usage of firearms.  When I bought my first gun back in the early 80's after my apartment was broken into, a friend of mine and I went to the range so I could get used to it.  Back then you had your choice of booths, only a few people there, and only the men would be shooting as their wives and girlfriends sat behind the glass reading a magazine or having some girl talk.  

Go to the range today, you're lucky to get a booth within an hour, and two additional ranges opened up in our area.  Now the woman are on the range enjoying their guns right along with their male companions.  In fact two years ago, I read a local newspaper column that stated there were more female CCW applicants than male.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 31, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Fascists always support gun control because they do not trust the average person.
> ...




Wrong...the democrat party keeps releasing the most violent gun offenders over and over again....locking them up doesn't mean anything if democrats keep letting them back out.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 31, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...




We don't need military weapons, but AR-15s are good for that.  Mass public shooters attack gun free zones.  So if churches, schools and other places simply allow people to carry their legal guns with them, mass public shooters will run out of places to attack.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 31, 2021)

Mercurialmind said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Hey...Daryl hunt........you were saying about the colorado AR-15 ban?
> ...



Stronger gun laws are inherently illegal in a democratic republic.
You can not legally create a 2 tiered society, where bad guys like mercenary police and military have weapons that average people then can not.  
You can not have people are not currently imprisoned for a crime,  who have less rights than others.
If there are dangerous people, then you have a competency hearing and you institutionalize them.
You do not instead try to make the entire nation into an institution.
Anyone who does not understand this is a clear and present danger to the democratic republic, and is a traitor who would cause the end of the democratic republic and the start of even more of a dictatorship than we already have.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 31, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Fascists always support gun control because they do not trust the average person.
> ...



Just like in Prohibition, when you try to make something like drugs illegal, all it does is jack up prices and make it more enticing.
The other causes of crime are unfair law, unfair poverty, lack of opportunity, education too expensive, no unions, etc.
The number of guns has nothing to do with the amount of crime, because criminals always get guns if they want them, because they will get them illegally.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 31, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > So can a bar, but the difference is that the seller of alcohol was complicit in the criminal actions of their customer. The gun store owner has no idea if he's selling to somebody that's going to shoot at targets or go to a movie theater and try to kill as many Americans as possible. All the gun store does is run your name through the federal background check, and if they give the clearance, the gun store sells him the gun.
> ...



So then obviously the problem was there was no free program to divert problem individuals like this into some sort of care.
Expecting to turn the whole society into a mental institution with laws reducing rights for some and not others,  is insane.
That is totally backwards, upside down, and can only totally destroy what is left of our supposed democratic republic.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 31, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...



As long as the majority of the population is armed, then the wealthy elite who control the police and military won't attempt a total take over.  
That is because they are only concerned with profits, and almost any armed resistance greatly cuts into profits.
Just look at government abuses in the past, and what stopped them.
Like it took the 1967 riots to get actual civil rights laws enforced.
It took riots and bombings to end the illegal war in Vietnam.
It took riots by Black Lives Matter to slow the murders by police.

But imagine what would happen if there were total gun control?
Then the dictators would have nothing at all to fear, and all these protestors could just be rounded up and shot, like they did in Chile.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Mar 31, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...


You are completely ignorant about the subject.  The M1 was the WWII rifle you are referring to and it held a clip of EIGHT rounds, not a magazine of 20.  Post war the Italians modified some M1s to accept 20 round magazines but the US never used them.  The M1A was a civilian version of the M14 built by Springfield Armory and is still in production.  The M14 is not acceptable for civilian use because it's designed for selective fire (semi or full auto).  All it needs is the selector switch to be installed and that can be done by unit armorers.  The thirty round mag has been the standard M16/M4 magazine since the late seventies.  It holds up to combat usage very well.  Finally, you are wrong about the weight of both the M1 and the M1A.  The M1 weighed nine and a half pounds and the M1A weighs between seven point eight and eleven pounds depending on configuration the M14 weighed nine point two pounds.   Carrying a nine to twelve pound rifle all day is no big deal, During my second tour in the Army I carried a twenty two pound M60 machine all day and never felt it to be a problem.  Twelve pounds is not a prohibitive weight for a combat arm, the Brown Bess musket the British Army carried for 110 years weighed nearly eleven pounds. The SMLE the British Army carried during WWII weighed over nine pounds.  The L1A1 the British Army carried weighted nine and a half pounds.  The WWII Mauser K98 weighed nine pounds. The M1 Thompson submachine gun you referred to weighed eleven pounds  Do a little research before you post and stop embarrassing yourself.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Mar 31, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


Go to the CMP website, they ship directly to your home address if it's a rifle.  Currently they only sell M1903 Springfields, M1917 Enfields and M1 Garands.  Plus M1911 pistols, but I didn't look at the shipping for the pistols.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Mar 31, 2021)

SavannahMann said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> > SavannahMann said:
> ...


You were definitely armed differently than when I was a 12B20 in the seventies.  I was in 4th Engineer Battalion (Combat) a mechanized unit, our squads were armed with two 203s, one M60, two M3 Grease Guns, a M2 fifty caliber and the rest carried M16A1s.  The squad leader and track driver carried the Grease Guns.  We actually had more weapons than people to fire them.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 31, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > AZrailwhale said:
> ...



You are technically correct about details a the M1A being an 8 round stripper clip, etc., but you still are missing the point.
The .223 was still switched to because it was less than half the weight, 
And we are not just talking about one magazine, but in Vietnam, they wanted to carry a weeks worth at a time, that they would burn off rapidly for suppression fire.  So you would be talking about 8 or 10 magazines, so it would start to add up.

But the idea of restricting ammunition to reduce loss of life makes no sense.
There is never any practical way that could ever happen.
Things like magazine size or limits on how much ammunition one can own or possess, are impossible to enforce.
Even with things like revolvers, what the cavalry did in the Civil War to create an assault weapon was to just carry 2 percussion cap revolvers, giving them 10 shots before needing to reload.
Again showing how assault weapon is a use, not a actual item.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 31, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > AZrailwhale said:
> ...



but not in many states that require 100% background checks.  For those, they have to send the gun to a licensed gun dealer.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 31, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> > AZrailwhale said:
> ...



I wasn't in the army although I was involved in the early 70s for parameter defense.  We each had 6 M-16s (actually converted AR-15 Model 601s) with boxes and boxes of ammo.  The SPs in the bunker wielded the M-60.  The attacks were always done at night and they brought their lunch.  Afterwards, I couldn't do my regular job because I was spent and completely deaf for days.  You couldn't see the enemy.  But you knew they were there.  We strafed the fence over and over again for hours until the sun broke the sky.  I was only involved in one of those but that was just one too many.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 31, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...



Not exactly correct.  CMP is a licensed dealer, and licensed dealers can ship direct to you.  CMP does a 100% background check, so supersedes any state laws.  But CMP has been shipping to an FFL of your choice, not for the background check, but for the finger print identity check.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Mar 31, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > It's an easy fix.
> ...


That's because of HIPPA laws that prevent reporting, not bad background checks.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Mar 31, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...


I don't know about now but during Vietnam when I got my TS the FBI did the investigating.  I know because family and friend, some I hadn't had contact with for years contacted me and asked my why the FBI was investigating me.


----------



## freyasman (Mar 31, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...


Yes.

Everyone should be willing and able (and "able" means having the tools necessary) to defend themselves and their people.

Gun up, gear up, post guards, hell, set up machine gun positions on the roof if you want...... then wait and see exactly who it is that actually comes after you.
 (Hint; it *won't* be a bunch of regular Christian/traditional family white guys who voted for Trump, because we don't give a shit what you do, we just want to be left alone.)


----------



## freyasman (Mar 31, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> woodwork201 said:
> 
> 
> > Reagan signed FOPA. Bush 43 said he'd sign an assault weapons ban if it came to his desk. Reports are that as high as 72 per cent of Americans, some reports even as high as 90+ per cent, support enhanced background checks for all gun transfers. That's a lot of gun owners supporting it.
> ...


Guns for defense is going in society like weed smoking; everyone who isn't a petty little tyrant is fine with it, and more and more places are simply going to nullify the federal laws against it.

In the meantime, the 3d printers go "BRRRR....." just like the pot farmers keep growing.





I really don't worry much about guns being banned; logistically, it's just not something that can ever be done. I just don't want to see a bunch of families massacred while the fedbois try and enforce that bullshit.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Mar 31, 2021)

freyasman said:


> Guns for defense is going in society like weed smoking; everyone who isn't a petty little tyrant is fine with it, and more and more places are simply going to nullify the federal laws against it.
> 
> In the meantime, the 3d printers go "BRRRR....." just like the pot farmers keep growing.



The comment made to me is a good percentage of Americans want to see stricter gun laws.  I find that hard to believe given the growing interest in guns and self-defense in this country.  I think no matter what law they pass, if they can pass it, will be challenged in the courts, perhaps right up to the Supreme Court.  I mean really, making people pay $800.00 to see a shrink before they can posses a gun?  Nobody should be able to force you into paying for a right, nor forcing you to reveal your personal life to a complete stranger.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 31, 2021)

It does not matter how many people WANT background checks.
Everyone not legally institutionalized has the right to defend themselves with any weapons they want.
No one has the authority to turn our democratic republic into an institution where some people do not have equal rights.
That is what background checks do, as well as allowing government to collect a list of who has what arms.
That is illegal.
If someone is dangerous, then institutionalize them, not try to turn our whole country into a fascist institution.
There is no means by which background checks can be made legal.
They are inherently illegal.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 31, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > AZrailwhale said:
> ...



Not in many states.  Maybe where you live but not here.  You have to purchase the gun in person and have the background check ran right then.  I don't think I want to live in a state that would sell to anyone without that.  So you stay where you are at and be happy.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 31, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



When I got mine, it was a rubber stamp.  I was already in the Service with a Secret and I had already been investigated in order for my Sister to get her TS for the FBI.


----------



## freyasman (Mar 31, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...


Wait...... your sister is a fed?


That explains a lot, actually.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 31, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...



The normal routine that an ordinary FFL uses does not have to apply to CMP which is a federal entity already, and can run under any different regulations the federal government decides to use.
There is no reason the background check can't be run ahead of time, and remote.
All that then has to be then done in person is the ID verification, not the background check.
And that can be done by anyone the CMP trusts, like the US Post Office, for example.
Your state has nothing at all to do with it.
Federal law trumps state law, so the federal government always does exactly what it wants, regardless of what state you live in.
What you also are forgetting is that the whole purpose of the CMP is to get more guns into the hands of the public.
It is what their mandate is.


----------



## Lysistrata (Mar 31, 2021)

freyasman said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...



EVERYBODY just wants to be left alone, not just "regular Christian/traditional family white guys who voted for Trump." What you are totally blind to is that everyone, meaning every who is not in this group, as well as the people in it, is sending the exact same message.


----------



## freyasman (Mar 31, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> freyasman said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...


Am I?

I don't think so. 

Claiming that people are attacking you doesn't make it so.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 31, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...



You keep saying that over and over.  And the Tooth Fairy will deliver your new toy like you planned.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 1, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Fascists always support gun control because they do not trust the average person.
> ...


That  just means we're locking up the wrong people and not keeping locked up the ones we should.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 1, 2021)

freyasman said:


> Well, it may not make me popular, but it will make them all dead, so then what do you plan to do?



Sorry, man, when the ATF shows up, you'll be crying like a little baby, "Please don't take my guns, I love them!!!" 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Yeah, because that was the expression on his face when he bought the gun. I await your video of that.
> 
> So now you think on top of a FEDERAL background check, the gun store should start calling their schools too? Then you wonder why we don't want to see Democrats in any form of power in this country?



yes, I do.  

I expect the same level of scrutiny for buying a gun that you should have when getting a job. 

When I got my last job, they did a full background check on me.  They talked to several of my former co-workers and employers.   They checked my credit.  They checked my criminal record.  They made me pee in a cup.  

If they had performed that kind of background check on Holmes, they would have found he was nuts and his school was in the process of expelling him for being.. nuts.  

But since you are a free market kind of guy, I'm all for a free market solution.  Let the gun industry run it's own background checks, and let the victims of gun violence take the gun industry to court when some fool who thinks he's The Joker buys a gun and shoots up a theater.   I promise you, the gun industry will very tightly control who they are giving guns to after that.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 1, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> That just means we're locking up the wrong people and not keeping locked up the ones we should.



No, it means we are locking up too many people and creating a permanent criminal class.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 1, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Just like in Prohibition, when you try to make something like drugs illegal, all it does is jack up prices and make it more enticing.
> The other causes of crime are unfair law, unfair poverty, lack of opportunity, education too expensive, no unions, etc.
> The number of guns has nothing to do with the amount of crime, because criminals always get guns if they want them, because they will get them illegally.



Actually, Prohibition did bring down the amount of alcohol consumed, and even after the 22nd Amendment, the levels of alcohol consumption never reached their pre-Prohibition level.   The same could be said of banning drugs.  Pre-Drug bans, you had 1 million addicts in a population of less than 100 million. 

Now, you might be on to something, are guns addictive and brain altering?  I sometimes think so when I read posts from people like 2AGuy, who has a clear gun fetish.   Someone who has a social drink once a week is not the same as a chronic alcoholic, and someone who is stockpiling guns probably has serious issues as well.


----------



## August West (Apr 1, 2021)

We don`t need no stinking background checks. Just open up enough car doors and you`ll have one. I wonder if these guns are now in the hands of criminals?
Metro Police: 12 guns stolen from vehicles last week | News | wsmv.com


----------



## Flash (Apr 1, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> woodwork201 said:
> 
> 
> > That just means we're locking up the wrong people and not keeping locked up the ones we should.
> ...




With a couple of dozen or more street thugs shooting each other in Chicago every day don't you think that the Democrats running that city aren't locking up enough?


----------



## freyasman (Apr 1, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> freyasman said:
> 
> 
> > Well, it may not make me popular, but it will make them all dead, so then what do you plan to do?
> ...


Tell the fedbois I said; "Good luck "

LOLOLOLOL


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 1, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> yes, I do.
> 
> I expect the same level of scrutiny for buying a gun that you should have when getting a job.
> 
> ...



Getting a job is not a constitutional right, so as always with your comparisons.




If we are to make gun companies liable for the actions of their customers, then let's do that across the board.  Car companies can be sued for DUI injuries and deaths, companies that manufacture swimming pools and boats be liable for drownings, food companies and restaurants be liable if somebody chokes to death on their products,  Microsoft and Apple liable if somebody uses their product to scam people, set people up for robbery, or lure children into sex acts.  Let's just sue them all.  If one of your customers can't get a job and commits suicide, you are liable if his family sues you for writing his resume.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 1, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> That just means we're locking up the wrong people and not keeping locked up the ones we should.



It means our deterrents are not strong enough.  The solution?  Make them stronger.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 1, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> woodwork201 said:
> 
> 
> > That just means we're locking up the wrong people and not keeping locked up the ones we should.
> ...



We don't enforce our federal gun laws at all.  If we did then we would have more of a deterrent


----------



## Ben Thomson (Apr 1, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Hey...Daryl hunt........you were saying about the colorado AR-15 ban?
> 
> *Now, a Colorado judge has tossed the AR-15 ban in the trash bin, along with the provision prohibiting ownership of magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. That’s the backdoor gun ban right there. It’s not just about the rifle. It’s about curbing constitutional gun rights by these magazine laws. *
> 
> ...


If you need more than ten rounds to hit what your aiming at maybe you don't need a gun.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 1, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Hey...Daryl hunt........you were saying about the colorado AR-15 ban?
> ...




Wow....did you take all morning to come up with that stupid post?


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 1, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > yes, I do.
> ...




The alcohol industry might have something to say about this too........since the death and destruction created by alcohol would be a trial lawyers wet dream.....if they could sue them ......


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 1, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> freyasman said:
> 
> 
> > Well, it may not make me popular, but it will make them all dead, so then what do you plan to do?
> ...



*When I got my last job, they did a full background check on me.  They talked to several of my former co-workers and employers.   They checked my credit.  They checked my criminal record.  They made me pee in a cup.*

*And since they still hired you, you show us what a failure background checks are........*


----------



## Ben Thomson (Apr 1, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Ben Thomson said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


Nope..about ten seconds to figure out why some people should not have guns...stop whining over not being able to have extended magazines. Go to the range and learn how to hit what your aiming at with the first shot


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 1, 2021)

August West said:


> We don`t need no stinking background checks. Just open up enough car doors and you`ll have one. I wonder if these guns are now in the hands of criminals?
> Metro Police: 12 guns stolen from vehicles last week | News | wsmv.com




Yeah.....shitheads like you have made almost every public space gun free zones by force of law...

Then, when normal gun owners have to leave their guns in their car to get grocery's, the criminals can steal them from their cars...

The solution is to get rid of gun free zones so normal Americans don't have to leave their guns in their cars...

You idiot.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 1, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Ben Thomson said:
> ...




Shit head...we aren't talking extended magazines.......millions of pistols come with magazines that hold 12-19 rounds.....standard.

Since you posted what you just posted, you reveal yourself to be an idiot....but thanks for postin...


----------



## August West (Apr 1, 2021)

2aguy said:


> August West said:
> 
> 
> > We don`t need no stinking background checks. Just open up enough car doors and you`ll have one. I wonder if these guns are now in the hands of criminals?
> ...


Normal people don`t ride around with guns in their cars. Gun pussies do.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 1, 2021)

August West said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > August West said:
> ...



Normal people don't consider you to be a normal person, or to know anything about them.


----------



## Vrenn (Apr 1, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Ben Thomson said:
> ...



You've never been under fire.  While I am not a proponent of large cap mags, I do know that you will probably need at least 3 to hit an actual bad guy to bring him down under pressure.  Do you need thirty?  No.  Do you need 15, probably not but the courts have place the limits of 15.  Not 10 but 15.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 1, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> Nope..about ten seconds to figure out why some people should not have guns...stop whining over not being able to have extended magazines. Go to the range and learn how to hit what your aiming at with the first shot



Spoken by yet another person that never shot a gun before.  When confronted with danger, you don't have time to stand there, breathe in and breathe out concentrating on your target.  Your life is on the line and you shoot as quickly and accurately was you can.  Statistically even our highly trained police officers miss 50% of their shots at suspects.  The more distance between you and your attacker, the more missed shots you will likely have.  

Get your gun knowledge from somewhere else than a movie theater.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 1, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Ben Thomson said:
> 
> 
> > Nope..about ten seconds to figure out why some people should not have guns...stop whining over not being able to have extended magazines. Go to the range and learn how to hit what your aiming at with the first shot
> ...



And what the hell are you supposed to do if you have more than one assailant?  Morph into Annie Oakley and take them all out with one shot each?  Yeah, that'll happen.


----------



## freyasman (Apr 1, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Hey...Daryl hunt........you were saying about the colorado AR-15 ban?
> ...


If you think you know shit about shooting people and how all that works, you're ignorant. If you think you should have any say at all in what other people own or carry, you're ethically challenged and morally retarded.

Go ahead, keep posting like a simpleton and embarrassing yourself; it's funny to watch.


----------



## freyasman (Apr 1, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Ben Thomson said:
> ...


They're standard magazines, not "extended". They are the exact capacity the firearm was designed to use, standard, from the factory.
Using terms like "extended", or "high capacity" is an attempt to steer the narrative, and it's a sign of dishonesty on the part of the people using it.

You people simply can't be trusted. And you think we're going to disarm, or even gear down, knowing how untrustworthy and dishonest you are?
GTFOH


----------



## freyasman (Apr 1, 2021)

2aguy said:


> August West said:
> 
> 
> > We don`t need no stinking background checks. Just open up enough car doors and you`ll have one. I wonder if these guns are now in the hands of criminals?
> ...


It's a vehicle, not a holster.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 1, 2021)

Cecilie1200 said:


> And what the hell are you supposed to do if you have more than one assailant? Morph into Annie Oakley and take them all out with one shot each? Yeah, that'll happen.



They are just puppets.  Saying that less capacity magazines will do anything about crime in our country is like saying if we made beer with .01% less alcohol, that will stop drunk driving.  

People like him never shot a gun in their lives and join in on a conversation that has a lot of gun owners and shooters, then make idiotic remarks like that trying to convince us they know what they are talking about.  

But you know, I'm the kind of guy that believes in compromise.  If the Democrats really believe that smaller magazines will solve all our gun problems, sign a contract with Republicans that states after we mandate all these smaller magazines, nobody will ever bring up a gun issue again as long as there's a Democrat party, and I'll support it.


----------



## freyasman (Apr 1, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > And what the hell are you supposed to do if you have more than one assailant? Morph into Annie Oakley and take them all out with one shot each? Yeah, that'll happen.
> ...


No.


They can't be dealt with in any way; they can't be trusted.

They will _always_ lie, and they will _never_ honor any agreements. Treat them accordingly.


Tell them *"No."* and kill them when they disregard that.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 1, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > And what the hell are you supposed to do if you have more than one assailant? Morph into Annie Oakley and take them all out with one shot each? Yeah, that'll happen.
> ...



I gotta say, I'm with Freya on this:  you could get Democrats to sign that deal in blood, and I STILL wouldn't trust them to leave it alone.  Also, I'm not even remotely willing to leave even one small aspect of my decisions on protecting myself up to them.  My safety is not an issue to be decided by committee, because I'M the only one who's going to have to live with the results.

I'm not a gun enthusiast, or a hunter, or any of those other things.  My perspective is that of a woman who once had her life threatened by a murderer on a dark street, with no help anywhere in sight, and got away only by the grace of God.  I don't have any of the fancy stats, or encyclopedic knowledge of various types, or categorical memorization of laws in different states.  I know how to put a bullet where I aim it.  I also know this:  I will never have to depend on only the grace of God to get away safely ever, ever again.  And it's not up for compromise.


----------



## freyasman (Apr 1, 2021)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


Guns are good, but don't forget that nothing says; *"Get your hands off me!!"* like a face full of pepper spray and a shank to the scrotum. 

You can't put a tourniquet on the taint.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 1, 2021)

Cecilie1200 said:


> I gotta say, I'm with Freya on this: you could get Democrats to sign that deal in blood, and I STILL wouldn't trust them to leave it alone. Also, I'm not even remotely willing to leave even one small aspect of my decisions on protecting myself up to them. My safety is not an issue to be decided by committee, because I'M the only one who's going to have to live with the results.
> 
> I'm not a gun enthusiast, or a hunter, or any of those other things. My perspective is that of a woman who once had her life threatened by a murderer on a dark street, with no help anywhere in sight, and got away only by the grace of God. I don't have any of the fancy stats, or encyclopedic knowledge of various types, or categorical memorization of laws in different states. I know how to put a bullet where I aim it. I also know this: I will never have to depend on only the grace of God to get away safely ever, ever again. And it's not up for compromise.



You, I, and anybody that's pro-gun knows the Democrats would never sign anything like that. It would only be a dog and pony show to demonstrate to the public that smaller magazines is just one stepping stone to their ultimate goal of a disarmed public.  In other words, to show people they would never stop at smaller magazines and be happy with that.  

So we don't compromise, but make it look like we are trying to compromise and they are refusing to meet us half-way.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 1, 2021)

freyasman said:


> No.
> 
> 
> They can't be dealt with in any way; they can't be trusted.
> ...



With a normal divided government, we could just say no.  My fear is however that they have all the poker chips now.  They run the entire federal government.  They can make any laws they want and we could only hope the courts side with us when we challenge them.  And to be honest, I really lost trust in our courts even though we have the upper hand.  Kavanaugh has proved to be a great disappointment and that goes double for Benedict Roberts.


----------



## freyasman (Apr 1, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> freyasman said:
> 
> 
> > No.
> ...


You're still thinking about courts and laws?


TINVOWOOT


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 1, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Just like in Prohibition, when you try to make something like drugs illegal, all it does is jack up prices and make it more enticing.
> The other causes of crime are unfair law, unfair poverty, lack of opportunity, education too expensive, no unions, etc.
> The number of guns has nothing to do with the amount of crime, because criminals always get guns if they want them, because they will get them illegally.



In one breath, you speak like a conservative and then you follow it up with pure socialism.

What laws are unfair?  Name some.

What is unfair about poverty?  Poverty is a choice.  I was poor as a kid, very poor, but I worked hard to get the skills to get ahead.  My mother chose to be poor when I was a kid and I chose to not be.  We both made choices.  Poverty is a choice.

Education is not at all too expensive.  What it actually is, is too inexpensive.  When people have to work for something, to earn it, they'll appreciate it and take advantage of it.  Education is a perfect example of that.  Kids go through 12 years of free government education and, when it's all over, they cannot read, cannot write, cannot do very basic and simple mathematics.  Government needs to stay out of it - at least more than local/community government.

Unions?  I'm indifferent to the concept.  The reality is that unions are very corrupt and their leaders are simply revenuers for the DNC.  On the other hand, it is unions that got us the 40-hour workweek that we all enjoy.  Corporations control the jobs and then want to negotiate with employees individually.  Giving the employees a way to control the labor and they can negotiate on a more even keel - big labor versus big jobs.  Then again, many do well without a union.  But lack of unions has nothing to do with crime - other than that more unions leads to more financial crimes.  Criminals don't work; don't have jobs, and would not have any use for a union.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 1, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> freyasman said:
> 
> 
> > No.
> ...


Don't forget Gorsuch - who once claimed original intent and the meaning of words at the time of passing a law counted and then threw that all out when he decided that protection from discrimination based on sex included discrimination based on a person's favorite sexual position or perversions.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 1, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> It means our deterrents are not strong enough.  The solution?  Make them stronger.



That's right.  Gangs, whether white, black, latino, or other, view prison time as the men's club time.  They know that most of them will get out so it's like training camp for them.  The hard-core lifers are the camp counselors but they can kill you when you can't master the skill.

It needs to be a far more miserable experience than it is.  Sheriff-Arpaio-style meals and work camps.  Actually, I think he was far too easy on prisoners but it would be a good start.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 1, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> We don't enforce our federal gun laws at all.  If we did then we would have more of a deterrent



So you're suggesting that gun control and gun laws would work if only they were more strictly enforced?


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 1, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> If you need more than ten rounds to hit what your aiming at maybe you don't need a gun.



There are plenty of examples on the google that prove you wrong.  Plenty of accounts where the police fire dozens of shots and hit their target once or twice.  Or fire dozens of shots and nobody at all gets hit.  There are plenty of accounts of large groups storming a home in a home invasion.

You're right, though, if I am shooting at a target 100 yards away; I should be able to hit it within  10 shots.  Running, moving, targets, targets that may be shooting back, is a totally different thing.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 1, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> But you know, I'm the kind of guy that believes in compromise.  If the Democrats really believe that smaller magazines will solve all our gun problems, sign a contract with Republicans that states after we mandate all these smaller magazines, nobody will ever bring up a gun issue again as long as there's a Democrat party, and I'll support it.



They promised border security in 1986 if Reagan would compromise on amnesty - and then, immediately, broke their promise.  

They could all promise to walk off a cliff like lemmings and I wouldn't make a deal with a Democrat.


----------



## Batcat (Apr 1, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...



“Guns are designed to be pointed at other people.” 

WRONG!

The only time you should ever point a firearm at someone is when they are attacking you or someone else with the intention of putting their victim in a hospital or six feet under.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 1, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> That's right. Gangs, whether white, black, latino, or other, view prison time as the men's club time. They know that most of them will get out so it's like training camp for them. The hard-core lifers are the camp counselors but they can kill you when you can't master the skill.
> 
> It needs to be a far more miserable experience than it is. Sheriff-Arpaio-style meals and work camps. Actually, I think he was far too easy on prisoners but it would be a good start.



My idea is to have prisons like in the classic movie Cool Hand Luke.  If prisons were like that today, we'd have a lot less occupants in them.  

In the black community, serving time in prison is what's known as street cred.  A person who served time is viewed with reverence by those who are on their path to prison as well.  They look up to them.  They are their mentors.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Apr 1, 2021)

Lysistrata said:


> Please explain why this is so important to you to have an AR-15. We had guns in the house in leather locked bags and we shot them. I even pulled the trigger when my father sighted. He taught me to never pull a gun on any living being. I violated this teaching once, in Castroville, Texas, when I was 12 and practicing with my aunt's pistol. I shot at a spider on the back of the garage.
> 
> Explain yourself and why you would need an assault weapon.






If it's not being used to commit a crime it's none of your business.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 2, 2021)

freyasman said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...



I prefer not letting attackers get close enough to me for pepper spray and shanking, if at all possible.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 2, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > I gotta say, I'm with Freya on this: you could get Democrats to sign that deal in blood, and I STILL wouldn't trust them to leave it alone. Also, I'm not even remotely willing to leave even one small aspect of my decisions on protecting myself up to them. My safety is not an issue to be decided by committee, because I'M the only one who's going to have to live with the results.
> ...



I prefer to make it look like the "champions of women's rights" are demanding that women live in constant fear and danger of being helplessly raped and murdered.  Since, y'know, that actually IS what they're doing.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 2, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Ben Thomson said:
> 
> 
> > If you need more than ten rounds to hit what your aiming at maybe you don't need a gun.
> ...



Also, crimes are frequently not committed in well-lighted shooting galleries, where you're calm and prepared.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 2, 2021)

Batcat said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> ...



Guns have a lot of their deterrent effect by simply being present, or by the mere possibility that they MIGHT be present.  This is why mass shootings invariably take place in "gun free zones".


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 2, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > We don't enforce our federal gun laws at all.  If we did then we would have more of a deterrent
> ...



It's criminal control not gun control and it works





__





						Project Exile, U.S. Attorney's Office -- Eastern District of Virginia
					





					ojjdp.ojp.gov
				












						In just three years, Project Exile has startled critics and supporters with a message so strong it makes criminals drop guns. Now everyone from the NRA to the Million Mom March to Congress wants a piece of the action.
					

Growing Exile




					www.styleweekly.com


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 2, 2021)

Flash said:


> With a couple of dozen or more street thugs shooting each other in Chicago every day don't you think that the Democrats running that city aren't locking up enough?



Chicago had a sensible gun ban.  Then the National Rampage Association got it overturned in court, and our murder rate doubled..

No, locking people up isn't solving the problem.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 2, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > With a couple of dozen or more street thugs shooting each other in Chicago every day don't you think that the Democrats running that city aren't locking up enough?
> ...


you'll never admit that we lock up the wrong people will you?

60% of people in jails right now are not convicted of any crime, and we lock up people for nonviolent drug offenses and property damage more than we lock up the violent criminals that are actually the danger to society.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 2, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> woodwork201 said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...



It's gun control.  Criminals are only controlled when in jail or prison.  You pretend to be pro-gun, and support the 2nd Amendment but you're clearly anti-2nd-Amendment.  If the old gun laws work then certainly more must work.  All we need to do is create them and enforce them - and call it criminal control.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 2, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > woodwork201 said:
> ...



Read the links.

Project exile put criminals in federal prisons for breaking federal gun laws.  There were no new gun laws passed.

And you're a fucking idiot if you think I am not pro 2nd amendment.  And FYI I have not once supported new gun laws because the federal gun laws we already have on the books are adequate.


----------



## August West (Apr 2, 2021)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


I`ve never known a woman who lived in constant fear of being helplessly raped and murdered. Is this your wife you`re describing?


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 2, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> woodwork201 said:
> 
> 
> > It's gun control.  Criminals are only controlled when in jail or prison.  You pretend to be pro-gun, and support the 2nd Amendment but you're clearly anti-2nd-Amendment.  If the old gun laws work then certainly more must work.  All we need to do is create them and enforce them - and call it criminal control.
> ...



The Federal gun laws we have on the books are gun control and in violation of the 2nd Amendment and you openly support them and you've just stated that gun control, if enforced, works.  You're a gun controller.  Oh, sure, you're pro-gun, but  you're certainly NOT pro-2nd-Amendment.  You're an idiot if you think I'm going to fall for your lies.  

You support gun control.  In fact, you want existing gun control enforced.  That you haven't yet openly supported new infringements on the right to keep and bear arms does not, in any way, alter the fact that you openly admit that you support the current infringements on the right to keep and bear arms.

If you don't see the hypocrisy in what you're saying, if you can't see that, in your heart, you support gun control, you're the idiot.  You support the gun control you like and object to the controls you don't like.  You can't have it both ways, though, the 2nd Amendment doesn't allow for some infringements.  You're a gun controller; you're just in denial.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 2, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > woodwork201 said:
> ...



I have no problem denying felons their right to bear arms.  I have no problem denying people who obtain guns via illegal means their right to bear arms.

With rights come responsibilities.

You might want every excon to be able to buy a gun as he walks out of the door of prison I think it's a bad idea.


----------



## August West (Apr 2, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > woodwork201 said:
> ...


The SC Heller decision said we can regulate guns and that`s why you won`t see a gun vending machine in our schools. These unfortunate children are having their rights infringed.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 2, 2021)

August West said:


> woodwork201 said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...



Children have no gun rights


----------



## August West (Apr 2, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> woodwork201 said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


The ex con only needs to open up a few car doors and he`ll have a gun. 12 irresponsible gun owners gave guns to criminals in just one week in Nashville. 
Metro Police: 12 guns stolen from vehicles last week | News | wsmv.com


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 2, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> you'll never admit that we lock up the wrong people will you?
> 
> 60% of people in jails right now are not convicted of any crime, and we lock up people for nonviolent drug offenses and property damage more than we lock up the violent criminals that are actually the danger to society.



And when Chicago proposed non-cash bails for non-violent offenders, the Police Unions screamed bloody murder. 

I agree we lock up people for non-violent offenses. 

MERE gun possession is a non-violent offense.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 2, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > you'll never admit that we lock up the wrong people will you?
> ...


Illegal gun possession is a federal crime punishable by a 5 year sentence in federal prison.

When that law is enforced, crime rates drop, the murder rate drops but you don't want to enforce that law.  Why is that?


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 2, 2021)

August West said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > woodwork201 said:
> ...



So now the victims of a crime are responsible for that crime right?


----------



## August West (Apr 2, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> August West said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


If the gun owner doesn`t care enough about his gun to secure it, he has no business having one but I wouldn`t charge him/her with a crime. Why leave a gun in your car overnight? It can`t protect the car. The idiots that are caught trying to take a gun on an airplane should lose their gun rights for at least 10 years. 10 days in jail with work release and a minimum $10,000 fine. would be nice too. I like the number 10 for first offense.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 2, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> And when Chicago proposed non-cash bails for non-violent offenders, the Police Unions screamed bloody murder.
> 
> I agree we lock up people for non-violent offenses.
> 
> MERE gun possession is a non-violent offense.



Then don't complain when some hot head not supposed to be carrying a gun takes it out and kills somebody.  You are in this forum complaining about crimes committed with guns all the time, but you want to blame the guns instead of the people who use them.  

Our stance is just the opposite.  You punish the bad people with the guns, while you on the left want to punish all people good and bad for the actions of a few.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 2, 2021)

August West said:


> The ex con only needs to open up a few car doors and he`ll have a gun. 12 irresponsible gun owners gave guns to criminals in just one week in Nashville.
> Metro Police: 12 guns stolen from vehicles last week | News | wsmv.com



What the story says is that 5 of the guns stolen were in unlocked cars.  That means the other 7 were locked and broken into.  Those people no more "gave a felon" their gun than they did if the felon broke into their homes and stole jewelry and money.  

While I admit those with the unlocked cars were not caring and pretty irresponsible, I say we change the law to a 15 year minimum prison sentence for each gun a person steals whether the car is locked or not.  That's how you solve the problem; not by punishing the victim.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 2, 2021)

August West said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > August West said:
> ...



You do realize if the gun is in a locked car that it is secured don't you?

If a gun is in a locked house it is secured as well.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 2, 2021)

August West said:


> I`ve never known a woman who lived in constant fear of being helplessly raped and murdered. Is this your wife you`re describing?



Actually most women live in fear the rest of their lives after suffering the mental and physical trauma of something like being raped or attempted rape.  Before people were allowed to carry in most states, all a woman could do is sit home in the corner and only leave the house without fear when accompanied by a male companion.  Do you think that 65 year old lady in NYC that was brutally attacked by that animal won't live in fear the rest of her life?  Unfortunately she lives in a commie city and state and would not be able to get a license to carry a firearm.

A few years ago I read a story that our state had more female CCW applicants than male.  I say good for them.  Nobody male or female should have to live in fear or allow their lives to be ruined because they were a helpless victim.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 2, 2021)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Guns have a lot of their deterrent effect by simply being present, or by the mere possibility that they MIGHT be present. This is why mass shootings invariably take place in "gun free zones".



Bingo!  

When our state was considering a CCW program, I was a member of the former blog Topix discussing the subject with other people in my state.  An opponent of the law asked me why I'd like to see the program passed.  I told him my mother is 73 years old, never drove a car in her life, and likes to walk to places like stores and church.  He asked me if the law was passed, would my elderly mother pack a gun with her?  I told him no she wouldn't, but the criminal doesn't know that.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 2, 2021)

Cecilie1200 said:


> I prefer to make it look like the "champions of women's rights" are demanding that women live in constant fear and danger of being helplessly raped and murdered. Since, y'know, that actually IS what they're doing.



I couldn't agree more, but women will not ban together to make it a women's issue like they did in the 70's during the women's lib movement.  Back then women held rallies taking their bras off and burning them.  I don't think you'd ever see anything like that today, but if they did, boy would that put Democrats in a terrible position.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 2, 2021)

August West said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...



Do you know a lot of men named Cecilie?  Or are you trying to accuse me of being a lesbian?  Did you not read the prior posts before presuming to "respond" to them?


----------



## August West (Apr 2, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> August West said:
> 
> 
> > The ex con only needs to open up a few car doors and he`ll have a gun. 12 irresponsible gun owners gave guns to criminals in just one week in Nashville.
> ...


Why does a gun need to be left in the car overnight? Do they not know that locked cars get broken into every day?


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 2, 2021)

August West said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > August West said:
> ...



The operative word is locked.

It is not the owner of the car that is at fault if some piece of shit breaks into his LOCKED car.

I suppose you think women who get raped are "asking for it" too right?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 2, 2021)

August West said:


> Why does a gun need to be left in the car overnight? Do they not know that locked cars get broken into every day?



When you carry a gun, it's easy to do.  At first you are extremely conscious of it, but after a while it gets to be like anything else.  People lock themselves out of their house and car all the time.  You leave home forgetting your wallet or phone and have to turn back.  After a while it just becomes and unconscious action like anything else.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 2, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Children have no gun rights



Where does it say that?  Do not children have the right to defend themselves?  It happens many times that a child is forced to use a gun to protect themselves and their siblings. 

Just like telling children their grounded without having a trial with jury by their peers and an attorney to represent them, parents have the right to limit the child's possession or ownership but government does not.  For the first 179 years of this country it was perfectly legal for a child to buy a gun.  Most parents (remember when parents actually had control of their children?) didn't allow it.  Most gun shops wouldn't sell to a child, either, but doesn't mean that a child does not have the right to defend their own life and the life of others where they're able.  The right to keep and bear arms stems from that right and other rights that we as adults, and children, too, enjoy.

In fact, there's no Federal restriction on minors buying a rifle at any age, in a private sale.  The only Federal restriction is on licensed gun dealers selling a long gun to someone under 18 and a handgun to someone under 21.  It is also illegal, separately, for someone under the age of 18 to buy or possess a handgun so minors can't legally buy a handgun even privately.









						1960s Unrest Was The Impetus For The First Gun Age Limits
					

You have to be 21 to buy a handgun at a store, but only 18 to get one at a gun show.




					www.history.com


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 2, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> I have no problem denying felons their right to bear arms.  I have no problem denying people who obtain guns via illegal means their right to bear arms.
> 
> With rights come responsibilities.
> 
> You might want every excon to be able to buy a gun as he walks out of the door of prison I think it's a bad idea.



You're entitled to your opinion and there are certainly some good arguments to be made in support of it.  Even so, the Constitution doesn't permit it and your support of it with the current state of the Constitution means you are neither a constitutionalist nor a supporter of the 2nd Amendment.  

Like Handgun Control, Inc (HCI), you're a gun controller and support violations of the Constitution and infringements on the right to keep and bear arms.  The only difference between you and them is in which gun control measures you support.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 2, 2021)

August West said:


> The SC Heller decision said we can regulate guns and that`s why you won`t see a gun vending machine in our schools. These unfortunate children are having their rights infringed.



Unfortunately, the Constitution says you can't regulate them in any way that infringes on the right to keep and bear arms.  Allowable regulation might be something like requiring gun manufacturers to meet SAAMI pressure standards.  Telling a wife she can't have a gun in the house because her husband was convicted, served his time, and released from prison for felony littering is not what the Founders intended.

The Supreme Court was wrong and, I believe, they knew they were wrong.  They just didn't have the political fortitude to do the right thing so they narrowly ruled on Heller and left all sorts of commentary to make sure Heller didn't get used to advance any further restorations of the right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 2, 2021)

August West said:


> Why does a gun need to be left in the car overnight? Do they not know that locked cars get broken into every day?


So do homes.  So do gunshops.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 2, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> August West said:
> 
> 
> > Why does a gun need to be left in the car overnight? Do they not know that locked cars get broken into every day?
> ...



I came home sick, very sick, one day from work and forgot to lock my car.  In the morning, I found my handgun had been stolen.  Was it carelessness?  August West might or others might say so.  When people are sick they're not working or thinking to capacity.  Still, it was the fault of the thief who stole the gun.  

I called the local police and they didn't want to even take a report.  When I insisted, they agreed I could go to the station and fill out a report.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 2, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> You're entitled to your opinion and there are certainly some good arguments to be made in support of it. Even so, the Constitution doesn't permit it and your support of it with the current state of the Constitution means you are neither a constitutionalist nor a supporter of the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Like Handgun Control, Inc (HCI), you're a gun controller and support violations of the Constitution and infringements on the right to keep and bear arms. The only difference between you and them is in which gun control measures you support.



Then do you also support states removing the right to vote for a convicted felon?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 2, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> I came home sick, very sick, one day from work and forgot to lock my car. In the morning, I found my handgun had been stolen. Was it carelessness? August West might or others might say so. When people are sick they're not working or thinking to capacity. Still, it was the fault of the thief who stole the gun.
> 
> I called the local police and they didn't want to even take a report. When I insisted, they agreed I could go to the station and fill out a report.



The only time I take my gun is when I'm traveling at night, or need to go downtown.  My sister is a great and generous cook and holds all the family doings.  When I get home, I have a ton of food to take upstairs and perhaps some gifts on my birthday or Christmas.  It's dark, it's freezing or snowing outside half the time, and I try to make it a one trip deal.  

When I get in the house and realize I forgot my gun because my focus was on all the stuff I had to take inside.  I'm not going back out there to get it.  My gun is in the console, in a locked car, in a locked garage.  I'll get it in the morning the next day.  

Now if somebody breaks into my garage, and then into my car, finds the gun and uses it to rob a store or shoot and kill a gang member, I shouldn't be held responsible.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 2, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Then do you also support states removing the right to vote for a convicted felon?



I don't have a strong opinion on whether felons should or should not be allowed to vote but the Constitution allows for the restriction:



			
				14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America said:
			
		

> Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, *except for participation in rebellion, or other crime,* the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 2, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> woodwork201 said:
> 
> 
> > I came home sick, very sick, one day from work and forgot to lock my car. In the morning, I found my handgun had been stolen. Was it carelessness? August West might or others might say so. When people are sick they're not working or thinking to capacity. Still, it was the fault of the thief who stole the gun.
> ...


My carry guns include an S&W M&P in .40 or a Springfield 1911 in .45 ACP.  Those go in the house at night.  I keep a Taurus revolver with a couple speed clips and an AR-15 pistol in the truck at all times, allowing for the fact that they might get stolen and I'm prepared to accept the loss.  I often travel a few hundred miles in a day going through multiple cities and I need to make sure I have the best chance possible of getting home.  I can't keep bad guys from doing bad guy stuff.


----------



## August West (Apr 2, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> August West said:
> 
> 
> > Why does a gun need to be left in the car overnight? Do they not know that locked cars get broken into every day?
> ...


Homeowners can use their guns to shoot an intruder. Can the car shoot the gun to protect itself? Gun shop owners have a high level of concern for the merchandise and tend to keep their stuff secure. I`ve heard that they actually have cameras and stuff!


----------



## Batcat (Apr 2, 2021)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...



I have had firearms pointed at me four times in my life. It’s an experience you don’t forget. Three handguns and a shotgun.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 2, 2021)

August West said:


> woodwork201 said:
> 
> 
> > August West said:
> ...



Homeowners can shoot intruders but car owners can't?  What a stupid idea that you compare property to humans instead of property to property or humans to humans.  Houses can't shoot intruders either.

Sometimes homeowners are home; sometimes they are not.  Sometimes car owners are in the car; sometimes they are not.  Sometimes gun shop owners are in the shop; sometimes they are not.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 2, 2021)

Damaged Eagle said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > Please explain why this is so important to you to have an AR-15. We had guns in the house in leather locked bags and we shot them. I even pulled the trigger when my father sighted. He taught me to never pull a gun on any living being. I violated this teaching once, in Castroville, Texas, when I was 12 and practicing with my aunt's pistol. I shot at a spider on the back of the garage.
> ...





And it almost never is.


Here is an indication of how lawful gun owners are.

*CCW Permit Holders Charged/Convicted*

StateYearCrimeCharged or
Convicted% of Total
ConvictionsOut of Total
Violent CrimesLouisianna2016Any Felony160.00922015Any Felony190.012325,2082014Any Felony150.010923,983Michigan2016Aggravated Assault170.0032015Aggravated Assault110.0022016Violent Crime220.05341,2312015Violent Crime180.0035242,348Minnesota2015Any Assault007,0942014Any Assault002013Any Assault002012Any Assault002011Any Assault002010Any Assault00Oregon2016Any Felony190.0074Oklahoma2016Any Felony200.00712015Any Felony160.006216,5062014Any Felony150.00692013Any Felony150.00782012Any Felony10? Unknown due
to no permit dataTennessee2016Any Assault02015Any Assault040,4002016Any Felony290.00492015Any Felony310.0061Texas2016Aggravated Assault80.000672015Aggravated Assault100.001167,727
The percentage of total convictions indicates how many concealed carry permit holders account for the crime compared to the general population. As an example if we look at Texas in 2015 you will see that just 0.0011 of permit holders accounted for the crime of aggravated assault.







						Concealed Carry Permit Holders Crime Statistics (updated)
					

Check out the concealed carry permit holders crime statistics? We can tell you how many CCW permit holders have committed crimes in seven states.




					www.gunstocarry.com


----------



## freyasman (Apr 2, 2021)

Cecilie1200 said:


> freyasman said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


I'd prefer it if my wife and my girlfriend could start getting along, but we can't always get what we want, can we?

I'm just suggesting adding tools to the toolbox, is all.

Creepology: Self-defense for your social life by Anna Valdiserri (goodreads.com) 
This is a good read as well.


----------



## freyasman (Apr 2, 2021)

August West said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > woodwork201 said:
> ...


"Gave"???


----------



## freyasman (Apr 2, 2021)

August West said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > August West said:
> ...


It was Nashville, right?
They were probably going clubbing, it's a live music town. You can't take your guns into the clubs, so you leave it in the car.

That's what I used to do when I was there.


----------



## freyasman (Apr 2, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > August West said:
> ...


A lot of the anti-gun crowd think people should face prosecution for failing to report that their guns have been stolen. But the truth is, most people don't bother because they know damn good and well that doing so is a waste of time.
The cops aren't going to recover it, and if by some chance they do, they only rarely ever tell you..... it's most likely to end up in some cop's collection.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 2, 2021)

freyasman said:


> A lot of the anti-gun crowd think people should face prosecution for failing to report that their guns have been stolen. But the truth is, most people don't bother because they know damn good and well that doing so is a waste of time.
> The cops aren't going to recover it, and if by some chance they do, they only rarely ever tell you..... it's most likely to end up in some cop's collection.



They may recover it, you never know. The more important thing however is that they know it was stolen in the event it becomes a murder weapon.  They will trace the weapon back to whoever it is they have as the owner.


----------



## freyasman (Apr 2, 2021)

Batcat said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Batcat said:
> ...


I've had that happen to me a lot.
Thing is, on more than one occasion, my read on the person doing it convinced me that person had no _intent_ to shoot me, they were just posturing. That they weren't already firing at me when I saw them was an indicator as well. So, I wasn't too worried about them.

OTOH, I have had a couple or 3 encounters with guys whose intent to kill me was broadcast so loud and clear in their face and demeanor that I repositioned myself to make it harder for them to reach me, and checked all my tools. One of these was an inmate wearing a waist chain, cuffs, and leg shackles and he _still_ made my neck hair rise.

*People* are dangerous; guns are just tools.
In addition, many people are dangerous as fuck, as in people that have stacked bodies to the ceiling, but if they show no _intent_ to do me or mine harm, they are not a concern to me.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 2, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Homeowners can shoot intruders but car owners can't? What a stupid idea that you compare property to humans instead of property to property or humans to humans. Houses can't shoot intruders either.



In my state they extended the Castle Doctrine to our vehicles.  If you are licensed and in your vehicle and somebody breaks in, it's no different than somebody breaking into your home.  Shoot to kill.


----------



## freyasman (Apr 2, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> freyasman said:
> 
> 
> > A lot of the anti-gun crowd think people should face prosecution for failing to report that their guns have been stolen. But the truth is, most people don't bother because they know damn good and well that doing so is a waste of time.
> ...


I have never once seen that happen.

I have never met or even heard of, a single gun owner being visited by LE about a gun stolen from them and used in a crime, unless it was to tell them they found his gun, and no, he can't have it back for at least a few more years because it's evidence.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 2, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Illegal gun possession is a federal crime punishable by a 5 year sentence in federal prison.
> 
> When that law is enforced, crime rates drop, the murder rate drops but you don't want to enforce that law. Why is that?



Because I don't think that the Prison-Industrial Complex works. 

If he has an illegal gun, you take away his gun.  Period.  Full fucking stop.  

The other problem I have with these laws is that when they are 'enforced", it's usually against poor people and people of color.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 2, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Because I don't think that the Prison-Industrial Complex works.
> 
> If he has an illegal gun, you take away his gun. Period. Full fucking stop.
> 
> The other problem I have with these laws is that when they are 'enforced", it's usually against poor people and people of color.



Maybe because it's poor people of color mostly breaking those laws?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 2, 2021)

freyasman said:


> I have never once seen that happen.
> 
> I have never met or even heard of, a single gun owner being visited by LE about a gun stolen from them and used in a crime, unless it was to tell them they found his gun, and no, he can't have it back for at least a few more years because it's evidence.



*Every year, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives conducts hundreds of thousands of gun traces at the request of law enforcement officials. The purpose of a trace is to identify the custody of a firearm through the supply chain, from manufacturer to dealer to buyer. 

But while requesting a trace is a standard part of police work, the failed investigation into Richardson’s killing is an example of a common way they fall short. Because firearms can legally change hands on the secondary market without a paper trail, it is sometimes impossible for police to track a gun to its final handler.*









						How a Gun Trace Works
					

Tracking a firearm's chain of custody is standard operating procedure for law enforcement — but the agency responsible for handling requests frequently can't answer essential questions.




					www.thetrace.org


----------



## freyasman (Apr 2, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> freyasman said:
> 
> 
> > I have never once seen that happen.
> ...


But have you ever heard of them questioning the original owner about some shooting it was used in?
I haven't.


----------



## August West (Apr 3, 2021)

2aguy said:


> August West said:
> 
> 
> > We don`t need no stinking background checks. Just open up enough car doors and you`ll have one. I wonder if these guns are now in the hands of criminals?
> ...


The "gun free zone" nonsense was put to bed a long time ago. More firearms in schools, malls, movie theaters, etc. is a really stupid idea.
The Gun-Free Zone Myth: No relationship between Gun-Free Zones and Mass Shootings – Armed With Reason


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 3, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > Children have no gun rights
> ...



YEah you go ahead and believe a 5 year old has the right to buy firearms.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 3, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > I have no problem denying felons their right to bear arms.  I have no problem denying people who obtain guns via illegal means their right to bear arms.
> ...


Since the federal gun laws on the books have not been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court it doesn't matter if you think they are unconstitutional or not


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 3, 2021)

freyasman said:


> August West said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


this idiot thinks that when you are roobed you give your property away.

He probably thinks women who have been raped said yes.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 3, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > Illegal gun possession is a federal crime punishable by a 5 year sentence in federal prison.
> ...


so then you're not serious about controlling crime.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 3, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Maybe because it's poor people of color mostly breaking those laws?



Or maybe white people get a break.

You know, Aunt Becky gets 11 days and the black lady gets 5 years. 

Rush Limbaugh gets rehab and the poor black kid gets jail.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 3, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> so then you're not serious about controlling crime.



Sure I am.  First thing, realize what we are doing doesn't work. 

Second thing, fix the underlying CAUSES of crime- racism, poverty, mental illness

Third things, get rid of the fucking guns because they make being a criminal a lot easier than it would be if they weren't available.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 3, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > so then you're not serious about controlling crime.
> ...



I agree.  Not enforcing federal gun laws doesn't work.  What does work is enforcing federal gun laws. It's been done and it worked.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 3, 2021)

August West said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > August West said:
> ...




And that link is a lie.....when mass public shooters don't have a direct relationship with the victims in a target location, they pick gun free zones....you idiot...

That is how that link lies.....the shooter this week who targeted the business and killed 4, it was a gun free zone but he had a connection to that business...they think the 9 year old who was murdered in the attack was his son....

The mass public shooter who chose their targets not based on past relationships choose gun free zones.....

The Sandy Hook shooter chose that school because although he went to that school, he also went to the middle school and the highschool.....but the middel and high school had police liaison officers, who had guns......he also chose Sandy Hook because he wanted the most helpless victims...

The Colorado theater shooter...passed up several theaters that were showing the same movie at the same time...but they allowed concealed carry....the theater he chose prohibited concealed carry.

The South Carolina church shooter told immediate friends he had thought of shooting up government buildings but they had armed security, the church did not....

Mass Shootings in Gun-Free Zones | The American Spectator | USA News and PoliticsThe American Spectator | USA News and Politics

According to ABC News, El Paso law enforcement officials advise that, moments before his killing rampage, the shooter cased the Walmart “looking for Mexicans.” While that may be so, it is nevertheless true that, consistent with his “manifesto,” his recon was also calculated to make sure that he would be attacking in a low-security area. In that regard, the Walmart store had no armed security guard, no police presence, and was located in a shopping mall that was a self-proclaimed “gun-free zone.”
Similarly, in the Dayton, Ohio, mass shooting on Sunday, which immediately followed the El Paso murders, the victims were attacked as they exited a nightspot that was a gun-free zone. 
And, in the Garlic Festival shootings in Gilroy, California last week, the victims were trapped inside a fenced area after going through metal detectors to make sure that they were disarmed. The shooter avoided the metal detectors by cutting through the fence and then attacking a victim pool that the Gilroy authorities had rendered incapable of defending themselves.
So it is that these most recent massacres share the one common element of almost all mass casualty shootings: gun-free zones.In addition to the El Paso shooter’s “manifesto,” there is abundant anecdotal evidence that mass casualty shooters prefer gun-free zones. For example, in 2016, Dearborn Heights, Michigan, ISIS supporter Khalil Abu Rayyan had an online discussion with an undercover FBI agent in which he discussed his plan for a “martyrdom operation” by attacking a Detroit church. He told the agent that this would be an easy target because “people are not allowed to carry guns in church.” Fortunately, Abu Rayyan was arrested before he could achieve martyrdom.
Similarly, in 2015, Elliot Rodger murdered six people in a Santa Barbara, California, gun-free zone. In his 141-page “manifesto,” he explained that in planning his attack he had decided against launching it in other locations where someone with a gun might be present to cut short his killing spree.
In the 2012 Aurora, Colorado, theater massacre, the killer’s diary showed that he had decided against attacking an airport because of its “substantial security.” And, out of the seven movie theaters within 20 minutes of the shooter’s home, he chose the only one that had posted signs declaring it to be a gun-free zone.
Given this record, anyone concerned with eliminating — or at least substantially reducing — mass public shootings must ask whether or not gun-free zones pose a danger to the public by attracting killers who prefer an unarmed victim pool and should give serious consideration to the following propositions:



3/3-/18

Orlando, Pulse Night club shooter wanted to attack Disney land

Pulse shooter's initial target was Disney site, prosecutors say


Prosecutors say the Orlando nightclub shooter intended to attack Disney World’s shopping and entertainment complex by hiding a gun in a stroller but became spooked by police and chose the gay club as his target.

3/5/18
Profile of a School Shooter | National Review

The second thing: The shooter reveals that he thought seriously about whether his target would be a “gun free zone.” I mention this not to endorse any particular policy, but to make it clear that it is by no means rare for those who would do harm to first scope out their destinations and to make sure that they won’t encounter much resistance. The shooter openly explains that he chose the local elementary school, rather than the school he was really angry with (his own), because it lacked an armed guard. He also admits to having researched how long it took cops to respond in the area (15 minutes), and how long it would be before SWAT was on site (45 minutes). This echoes comments made by the shooter at Isla Vista, who considered carrying out his attack on Halloween, but decided against it because there’d be “too many cops walking around during an event like Halloween, and cops are the only ones who can hinder my plans.”

*The actual story linked above...*



> “I HAVE TO BEAT **** **** . .” he wrote nine days before the Sept. 28, 2016, shooting in a misspelled reference to the Sandy Hook killer,**** ****. “Atleast 40.”
> 
> *Two days later, he debated whether he should attack his middle school, from which he’d been expelled, or his elementary school, just up the road.
> 
> ...



=========


The Colorado theater shooter evidence...

Did Colorado shooter single out Cinemark theater because it banned guns?

Yet, neither explanation is right. Instead, out of all the movie theaters within 20 minutes of his apartment showing the new Batman movie that night, it was the only one where guns were banned. In Colorado, individuals with permits can carry concealed handgun in most malls, stores, movie theaters, and restaurants. But private businesses can determine whether permit holders can carry guns on their private property.
Most movie theaters allow permit holders carrying guns. But the Cinemark movie theater was the only one with a sign posted at the theater’s entrance.
A simple web search and some telephone calls reveal how easily one can find out how Cinemark compared to other movie theaters. According to mapquest.com and movies.com, there were seven movie theaters showing "The Dark Knight Rises" on July 20th within 20 minutes of the killer’s apartment at 1690 Paris St, Aurora, Colorado. At 4 miles and an 8-minute car ride, the Cinemark’s Century Theater wasn't the closest. Another theater was only 1.2 miles (3 minutes) away.
There was also a theater just slightly further away, 10 minutes. It is the "home of Colorado's largest auditorium," according to their movie hotline greeting message. The potentially huge audience ought to have been attractive to someone trying to kill as many people as possible. Four other theaters were 18 minutes, two at 19 minutes, and 20 minutes away. But all of those theaters allowed permitted concealed handguns.
So why would a mass shooter pick a place that bans guns? The answer should be obvious, though it apparently is not clear to the media – disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them as sitting ducks


FBI: Dearborn Heights ISIS supporter planned to attack Detroit church

In conversation's between Abu-Rayyan and the undercover agent, Abu-Rayyan described his desire to commit a martyrdom operation.

The complaint filed in federal court doesn’t specify which Detroit church he was allegedly planning to attack, only that it was close and could seat 6,000 members.

The complaint quotes Abu-Rayyan saying:

_*“It's easy, and a lot of people go there. Plus people are not allowed to carry guns in church. Plus it would make the news. Everybody would've heard. Honestly I regret not doing it. If I can't do jihad in the Middle East, I would do my jihad over here."*_

He had also told the undercover agent that a church would be an easy target because people are not allowed to carry guns there and that it would make the news.

----------------
Minnesota…...

Minnesota teen made bombs, stockpiled guns in prep for school massacre: police

The unhinged teen told cops, after being busted Tuesday, that he planned to shoot his sister, mom and dad with a .22-caliber rifle before he went to a rural field and set a fire to distract cops.
The 11th-grader then said he planned to go to Waseca Junior and Senior High School where he would toss Molotov cocktails and explode pressure-cooker bombs to try and kill “as many students as he could” in the cafeteria during lunchtime.
About 1,000 students, in 7th through 12th grade, attend the school.
LaDue, according to the notebook of his plan, would kill the school resource officer before continuing to kill other students. He was prepared to be gunned down by a SWAT Team, police said.


************************


Vince Vaughn is right about guns (and was brave to be so honest) | Fox News

Last June, Elliot Rodger, who killed six people in Santa Barbara, Calif., explained his own choice. In his 141-page “Manifesto,” Rodger turned down alternate targets because he worried that someone with a gun would cut short his killing spree.

That same month, Justin Bourque shot to death three people in Canada. His Facebook page made fun of gun bans, with pictures of defenseless victims explaining to killers that they weren’t allowed to have guns.

The diary of the Aurora, Colorado, “Batman” movie theater killer, James Holmes, was finally released this past week. It was clear that he was considering both attacking an airport and a movie theater, but he turned down the airport option because he was concerned about their “substantial security.”

Of course, there are numerous other examples such as the Columbine killersopposing the concealed carry law that was then working its way through the state legislature. The bill would have allowed people to carry permitted concealed handguns on school property. The killers timed their attack for the very day that final passage of the law was planned for in the legislature.

If you go to the link for the Colorado theater shooter they have a photo of his journal where he has notes about airports…..he lists one of the items…."Substantial Security"

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/james-holmes-notebook-dragged.pdf
**************

Sandy hook, did not have police resource officer

Building a safer Sandy Hook |  News21: Gun Wars

The high school and middle school, which already had armed resource officers, doubled down on security and restricted all visitors that didn’t have prior permission to enter.
Lupica: Morbid find suggests murder-obsessed gunman Adam Lanza plotted Newtown, Conn.'s Sandy Hook massacre for years

They don’t believe this was just a spreadsheet. They believe it was a score sheet,” he continued. “This was the work of a video gamer, and that it was his intent to put his own name at the very top of that list. They believe that he picked an elementary school because he felt it was a point of least resistance, where he could rack up the greatest number of kills. That’s what (the Connecticut police) believe.”

The man paused and said, “They believe that (Lanza) believed that it was the way to pick up the easiest points. It’s why he didn’t want to be killed by law enforcement. In the code of a gamer, even a deranged gamer like this little bastard, if somebody else kills you, they get your points. They believe that’s why he killed himself.
-----

It really was like he was lost in one of his own sick games. That’s what we heard. That he learned something from his game that you learn in (police) school, about how if you’re moving from room to room — the way he was in that school — you have to reload before you get to the next room. Maybe he has a 30-round magazine clip, and he’s only used half of it. But he’s willing to dump 15 rounds and have a new clip before he arrives in the next room.”

*****************

MILLER: What would have prevented Lanza from mass murder at Sandy Hook?

The shooter only stopped when the police arrived. He had plenty of ammunition and was prepared to continue changing magazines and reloading.
The rifle found near Lanza had a magazine only half-empty. Police found two empty 30-round magazines duct-taped together in a tactical configuration at the scene.
*Gun-control advocates often cite “high-capacity” magazines as a cause of gun violence, but the sophisticated way Lanza prepared his weapons showed how easy it is to change a magazine of any size and reload, even in an active shooter situation.*
----------

It is a shame that Mrs. Lanza gave her mentally ill son access to firearms. If the mother had locked her guns and not allowed her son to enjoy shooting — which the report says was a pastime he enjoyed — perhaps that would have prevented the shooting with those guns.
However, Lanza planned this killing over a long period of time. He conducted drive-by runs to the school. He had a spreadsheet of mass murders and studied school shootings. Even if he didn’t have access to his mother’s guns, one can presume he would have stolen them from another home.
*And if he had tried to buy a rifle, he would have passed the FBI background check because there’s nothing in his records preventing him from owning a firearm. *
-------
*Blame school security?*
The school doors were locked and secure at 9:30 a.m. with a video camera and buzzer system that can allow entry after that time from three monitoring locations. Lanza simply shot through the plate-glass window next to the lobby door to enter the school.
A 911 call was made at 9:35 a.m. It took less than five minutes for the police to get to the school. About a minute later, Lanza shot and killed himself. The first officer entered the school at 9:44 a.m.
In that tight time frame, it seems the only thing that could have stopped Lanza was a good guy inside the school with a gun. There were no armed security guards at Sandy Hook Elementary School, nor did any of the staff have a weapons.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 3, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > so then you're not serious about controlling crime.
> ...




If the democrat party judges, prosecutors and politicians would stop releasing violent gun offenders over and over again, that would stop the gun crime problem....

If you arrested and kept felons caught with guns locked up for 20-30 years for that violation, that would stop gun crime and murder.

If you kept gun criminals who use guns in crimes locked up for life, that would stop gun crime cold.......you would see a 95% or more drop in gun crime over night...

*But no....the democrat party keeps releasing the actual gun criminals who do all of the shootings in these democrat party controlled cities..

You have to explain that, and you won't..*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 3, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Or maybe white people get a break.
> 
> You know, Aunt Becky gets 11 days and the black lady gets 5 years.
> 
> Rush Limbaugh gets rehab and the poor black kid gets jail.



Not for the same thing which I already gave you a link to.  As always Joe


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 3, 2021)

freyasman said:


> But have you ever heard of them questioning the original owner about some shooting it was used in?
> I haven't.



We know more responsible people most likely so we don't have any personal experience with that.  But the fact of the matter is they always make attempts to trace the gun to the suspect.  Successful?  Probably only part of the time.  But if their research leads them to only 10% of the murderers, that's 10% more put in prison we don't have to worry about.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 3, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Or maybe white people get a break.
> ...




Aunt Becky likely didn't use a gun during the act of selling drugs, and likely doesn't have a lifetime of crime going back to her teen years.........

You know, little things like that change the equation....


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 3, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Aunt Becky likely didn't use a gun during the act of selling drugs, and likely doesn't have a lifetime of crime going back to her teen years.........
> 
> You know, little things like that change the equation....



I explained that to him repeatedly, but you know what it's like trying to make a liberal see something outside of their paradigm.  

What he's making reference to is an earlier discussion we had about that college scam where the rich and famous mothers were paying off administrators  to get their kids in the school.  He made the comparison to some black lady who sneaked her kid into a suburban high school where she didn't live.  She also had a criminal history and another criminal case pending in court when they busted her.  She got a few years in prison over those things while the wealthy college mom got a slap on the hand. 

I tried to explain to him the difference between ripping off the taxpayers and paying off a big shot in college.  He thinks it's the same thing.  As you pointed out, I also explained that the wealthy college mother never so much as had an outstanding parking ticket while the mother with the kid in public school had a record,  but he's convinced it was irrelevant and all about race.  Forget the fact it wasn't even the same judge in both cases.  

My mother and sister are very religious and devout Catholics.  Until today my sister is convinced she was followed around by an angel as a child, and my mother thinks she seen Mother Mary.  I have a cousin who believes in ghosts, and he never lived anywhere that he didn't experience a ghost in the house.  I had an old friend that believed in martians, and swore up and down he seen a flying saucer about 100 feet from where he was sitting one night.  

If you believe in something strong enough, you will see it with your own eyes whether it's real or just part of your imagination.


----------



## freyasman (Apr 3, 2021)

August West said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > August West said:
> ...


No it wasn't.
That's just people lying to you.


----------



## freyasman (Apr 3, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


Prison industry *is* pretty fucked up in this country but you don't tear something down if you don't even understand why it was built in the first place. 
All kinds of  fuckery and bad shit ensues.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 3, 2021)

freyasman said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...




The old idea that when a lefty is walking in a field and sees a fence, they get angry and tear it down, simply because it exists....

A conservative sees the same fence and says to themselves.....why did they put this fence up?


----------



## freyasman (Apr 3, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> freyasman said:
> 
> 
> > But have you ever heard of them questioning the original owner about some shooting it was used in?
> ...


I'm just saying if a pistol is used in a shooting during a carjacking or a robbery, the cops don't go to the guy who bought it 8 years ago and then had it stolen from his truck, and begin treating him as a suspect in the shooting; _that_ doesn't happen. 
Unless they actually recover the gun, they can't trace it at all, and they know damn good and well the guy in the suburbs who bought it back when, wasn't involved in some gang beef shooting at a waffle house, or a robbery.


----------



## freyasman (Apr 3, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Aunt Becky likely didn't use a gun during the act of selling drugs, and likely doesn't have a lifetime of crime going back to her teen years.........
> ...


JoeB131 is just a lying troll; you can't explain anything to him. His only interest in truth is to try and squash it wherever he can.


----------



## freyasman (Apr 3, 2021)

2aguy said:


> freyasman said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


Sometimes a fence is a good thing. For example, I almost hit a cow in the road last week, lol.


----------



## OKTexas (Apr 3, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Hey...Daryl hunt........you were saying about the colorado AR-15 ban?
> 
> *Now, a Colorado judge has tossed the AR-15 ban in the trash bin, along with the provision prohibiting ownership of magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. That’s the backdoor gun ban right there. It’s not just about the rifle. It’s about curbing constitutional gun rights by these magazine laws. *
> 
> ...




Boulder has been a commie stronghold for a few decades now, they'll keep trying to deprive their citizens of their rights, bet on it.

.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 3, 2021)

freyasman said:


> I'm just saying if a pistol is used in a shooting during a carjacking or a robbery, the cops don't go to the guy who bought it 8 years ago and then had it stolen from his truck, and begin treating him as a suspect in the shooting; _that_ doesn't happen.
> Unless they actually recover the gun, they can't trace it at all, and they know damn good and well the guy in the suburbs who bought it back when, wasn't involved in some gang beef shooting at a waffle house, or a robbery.



Most gun crimes seldom happening with the criminal using a legal gun.  But what they do is find out where the gun went after it left the buyers hands hopefully leading to the ultimate user of the person who committed the crime.  If a crime was committed with a gun you owned but sold to somebody at a gun show or out of the paper, you could at least give them a description of the buyer if you didn't take his information or snapshot of his drivers license. 

One of the first things they do I'm sure is to run the gun to see it's history.  If it was reported stolen two years ago, they won't even bother you because you don't know who stole your gun and can't help them.  If it's stolen from your home and you don't report it, you won't be able to file a claim with your insurance company because you need a police report for that. 

The last gun I purchased was 10 years ago.  After I paid for the gun, the store had to fire a shot from it to get the ballistics from the bullet that identifies the gun, and they send that information to authorities for them to enter it in the national database.  So even if there is no gun, they know by ballistics that the bullet came from your weapon.


----------



## freyasman (Apr 3, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> freyasman said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just saying if a pistol is used in a shooting during a carjacking or a robbery, the cops don't go to the guy who bought it 8 years ago and then had it stolen from his truck, and begin treating him as a suspect in the shooting; _that_ doesn't happen.
> ...


Ballistics is not the exact science they make it out to be, and new barrels and extractors change all that anyway.
My point is, I have heard a lot of people express concern over a gun they owned at one time being used in a crime, or buying a used gun, for fear of it having been used in a crime at some point..... and that is simply not something to be concerned about.

No one ever gets in trouble because of that shit, it doesn't happen.


----------



## freyasman (Apr 3, 2021)

Speaking of fences you want to keep....


----------



## Dragonlady (Apr 3, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > you'll never admit that we lock up the wrong people will you?
> ...



Notice how all federal law enforcement is built around offences black men can easily be charged with, thus stripping them of their voting rights.  Do you think it's an accident that since Ronald Reagan was elected, the number of black and brown men in federal penitentiaries has skyrocked 80,000 in 1980, to nearly 800,000 in 2008?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 3, 2021)

Dragonlady said:


> Notice how all federal law enforcement is built around offences black men can easily be charged with



It has?  What offenses might those be?


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 3, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> I agree. Not enforcing federal gun laws doesn't work. What does work is enforcing federal gun laws. It's been done and it worked.



Good. Let's pass some meaningful laws and enforce them.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 3, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Aunt Becky likely didn't use a gun during the act of selling drugs, and likely doesn't have a lifetime of crime going back to her teen years.........
> 
> You know, little things like that change the equation....



Neither did the lady who got five years.  All she did was enroll her kid in another school district where they aren't shooting the students. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> I explained that to him repeatedly, but you know what it's like trying to make a liberal see something outside of their paradigm.
> 
> What he's making reference to is an earlier discussion we had about that college scam where the rich and famous mothers were paying off administrators to get their kids in the school. He made the comparison to some black lady who sneaked her kid into a suburban high school where she didn't live. She also had a criminal history and another criminal case pending in court when they busted her. She got a few years in prison over those things while the wealthy college mom got a slap on the hand.



The criminal conduct was some undercover cop asked her where they could score hookers and drugs ,and she told them.  She didn't sell the drugs herself.  They only targeted her AFTER she fought the school district on the residency issue.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> I tried to explain to him the difference between ripping off the taxpayers and paying off a big shot in college. He thinks it's the same thing. As you pointed out, I also explained that the wealthy college mother never so much as had an outstanding parking ticket while the mother with the kid in public school had a record, but he's convinced it was irrelevant and all about race. Forget the fact it wasn't even the same judge in both cases.



Actually, what the rich white lady did was infinitely worse, because her child wasn't in any real danger.  

Of course it's about race. Everything in this country is about race.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 3, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Not for the same thing which I already gave you a link to. As always Joe



Actually, it's exactly the same thing. 

The system treats white people differently than it treats people of color.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 3, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, it's exactly the same thing.
> 
> The system treats white people differently than it treats people of color.



No, they treat people differently based on their conduct in court, their conduct with police, their conduct with the jailer, their past criminal record among other things.  

Sneaking your kid into a public school you are not paying for is robbing the taxpayers.  Paying off some dress shirt to get your kid into their college hurts nobody, and don't say it hurts the people that deserved to be there, because they will just find the next best college or one even better.  They stole nothing from nobody.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 3, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> The criminal conduct was some undercover cop asked her where they could score hookers and drugs ,and she told them. She didn't sell the drugs herself. They only targeted her AFTER she fought the school district on the residency issue.



No, you can't get charged for telling the cops that.  You have to set it up.  That happened to one of my Facebook friends.  He met some guy at a bar and they became friends.  Eight months later, his new friend asked him if he had any nose candy.  He said he didn't deal with that shit, but another friend of his did.  They met at his house and the next thing he knew, his front door was being rammed down. His new friend was undercover.  They arrested him too for setting the deal up.  Much like this woman, he not only didn't sell any drugs, he never took drugs in his life outside of pot.



JoeB131 said:


> Actually, what the rich white lady did was infinitely worse, because her child wasn't in any real danger.
> 
> Of course it's about race. Everything in this country is about race.



The rich white lady was not only going to pay for her child's college, she gave the administrator more money and didn't rip off the public at the same time.  If your kid is not a problem and you want them to go to a better school, you apply for a school voucher that the Republicans stood behind and Democrats fought to stop to take care of their vermin in the teachers union.  

Everything in this country is not about race.  Everything in your head is.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 3, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Sneaking your kid into a public school you are not paying for is robbing the taxpayers. Paying off some dress shirt to get your kid into their college hurts nobody, and don't say it hurts the people that deserved to be there, because they will just find the next best college or one even better. They stole nothing from nobody.



You got it completely wrong.  

Sneaking your kid into a better school hurts nobody, and probably HELPS society in the long run as he will get a decent education. 

Getting your kid admission to college she didn't earn actually does hurt the person who didn't get in but earned it.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 3, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> The rich white lady was not only going to pay for her child's college, she gave the administrator more money and didn't rip off the public at the same time. If your kid is not a problem and you want them to go to a better school, you apply for a school voucher that the Republicans stood behind and Democrats fought to stop to take care of their vermin in the teachers union.



No, she ripped off the person who got good grades but didn't pay off an administrator.  

That's infinitely worse. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> No, you can't get charged for telling the cops that. You have to set it up. That happened to one of my Facebook friends. He met some guy at a bar and they became friends. Eight months later, his new friend asked him if he had any nose candy. He said he didn't deal with that shit, but another friend of his did. They met at his house and the next thing he knew, his front door was being rammed down. His new friend was undercover. They arrested him too for setting the deal up. Much like this woman, he not only didn't sell any drugs, he never took drugs in his life outside of pot.



1) Nice people you hang around with...  really classy. 
2) You make my point, that what was done to this woman was entrapment...


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 3, 2021)

Dragonlady said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...




Those black and brown men are incarcerated in democrat party controlled cities.

The Crack epidemic?   The black community leaders wanted longer sentences for crack cocaine because of the violence associated with it....that's why.   Also, when the democrat party destroyed the public schools and destroyed the black families in the cities the democrat party controlled, they created a feeding ground for crime and violence..........

The democrat party doesn't care about blacks, hispanics, asians or whites.....they just care about votes every 2 years.....


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 3, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Sneaking your kid into a public school you are not paying for is robbing the taxpayers. Paying off some dress shirt to get your kid into their college hurts nobody, and don't say it hurts the people that deserved to be there, because they will just find the next best college or one even better. They stole nothing from nobody.
> ...




Hey...shit head......I agree......you shouldn't have to sneak your kid into another school....you should just be able to use the public funds designated for education to send your kid to whatever school you can get that kid into.....it is shitheads like you that prevent black and hispanic kids from escaping democrat party crap schools...that is you, you idiot.

You fight school choice...you fight vouchers.....you want those kids trapped in the schools that do not teach them....not us.

It is your system that forces that mother to only send her kid to the school in her neighborhood instead of to whatever school they can get into...that's on you.

School Choice, school vouchers where the whole freight of the tuition follows the kid would give minority kids a future....but you don't want that.  You want them trapped.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 3, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> No, she ripped off the person who got good grades but didn't pay off an administrator.
> 
> That's infinitely worse.



So how much money did it cost this person she ripped off?  



JoeB131 said:


> 1) Nice people you hang around with... really classy.
> 2) You make my point, that what was done to this woman was entrapment...



Who said I hung around with him?  He was a guy who loaded and unloaded my truck that sent me a friend request on Facebook.  He's a white guy who got entrapped too so what's your point?  They were both setup the same way.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 3, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> You got it completely wrong.
> 
> Sneaking your kid into a better school hurts nobody, and probably HELPS society in the long run as he will get a decent education.
> 
> Getting your kid admission to college she didn't earn actually does hurt the person who didn't get in but earned it.



How did it hurt them when they probably went to another equal or better school and got accepted?

Over half of my property taxes go to support our schools.  So don't give me this bullshit that when some lowlife brings their kids into our school system is not ripping me off.  The more kids in our schools, the more classrooms they need to have. The more classrooms they need to have, the more teachers they need to hire with wages and benefits that we pay for.   the more classrooms and teachers, the higher our taxes go.  

We had this exact same problem years ago.  Lowlife kids were coming here from Cleveland to go to our suburban schools.  Teachers assaulted once a month or more, drug activity on the grounds, police constantly being called to those schools to break up gang fights.  People with civilized children moving out because of the dangerous environment lowlife kids created. 

People who sneak their lowlife violent criminal children into our school system should be locked up for the minimum of 10 years.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 4, 2021)

2aguy said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...



Once again, and I'll say it every time I see your suggestion: If an armed robber robs you with a knife, are you any less robbed?  Raped at knife point instead of at gun point - any less raped?  There's no such thing as a gun crime.  Punish crime and lock up criminals and crime will go down.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 4, 2021)

2aguy said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...



There's no such thing as public money.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 4, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Since the federal gun laws on the books have not been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court it doesn't matter if you think they are unconstitutional or not



My question is, do you think they're unconstitutional?  You certainly support them.  You're a gun controller.  Just accept it.  Wear it.  Be proud of your views.  Get the t-shirt.  

You keep arguing that the government does have the right to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms if they infringe in ways you approve.  Once you've agreed that they have the right to infringe, or to go against the Constitution in any thing or in any way, then all that's left is to decide who it is that gets to decide what's OK and what's not.  Guess what.  You're not the one that gets to decide.  That means that you're deciding for me, and I object to that, and someone else is going to decide for you and you will, in the end, object when you realize that they have gone beyond what you hoped they'd do.

If a law was the law until it was declared unconstitutional then anyone who violated the law before such a declaration must still be a criminal, it was the law of the land when they broke it, so they must complete their sentence before being freed.  Do you believe that?  Or do you believe that once a law is declared unconstitutional, everyone convicted based on that law must be freed, proving that an unconstitutional law is actually not the law at all.

You show us why, in the end, the ability to exercise the right to keep and bear arms in the  United States will, for all intents and purposes, be taken from  us.  Most people, literally most, who claim to support the right to keep and bear arms, who claim to be pro-gun, who claim to be pro-2nd Amendment, who claim to be constitutionalists, are absolutely none of the above.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 4, 2021)

freyasman said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


I agree that we lock up too many people.  Most people in state, local and county jails are awaiting trial.  The fact that so many people who haven't been convicted of anything are in jail is proof that our justice system needs an overhaul.

IMO the only people that should be in prison are violent offenders and that we should at this point just decriminalize possession of any drugs


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 4, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > Since the federal gun laws on the books have not been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court it doesn't matter if you think they are unconstitutional or not
> ...


Like I said I have no problem denying convicted felons the right to own firearms.  They have proven through their actions that they are not responsible enough to own firearms.  I really don't have a problem with those that are adjudicated to be mentally ill are denied the right to own firearms.

As far as everyone else more power to them.  I think that anyone who isn't a convicted felon or adjudicated to be mentally ill should be able to buy as many guns as they want and I support Constitutional carry.

Why do you want convicted felons and the mentally ill to own firearms?


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 4, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> freyasman said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just saying if a pistol is used in a shooting during a carjacking or a robbery, the cops don't go to the guy who bought it 8 years ago and then had it stolen from his truck, and begin treating him as a suspect in the shooting; _that_ doesn't happen.
> ...


 I don't buy or sell guns in private purchases.  I don't want to buy a gun that was used in any crimes and I don't want to sell to a person that might commit crimes with the gun I sell him.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 4, 2021)

Dragonlady said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


The 14th amendment makes it legal to use prisoners as slave labor.  Until we change that it will always be profitable to lock people up.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 4, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Hey...shit head......I agree......you shouldn't have to sneak your kid into another school....you should just be able to use the public funds designated for education to send your kid to whatever school you can get that kid into.....it is shitheads like you that prevent black and hispanic kids from escaping democrat party crap schools...that is you, you idiot.



Nope, subsidizing the Catholic Church is not a solution.  Try to keep on topic The issue is why the nice white lady got 11 days at a resort, and the black lady got 5 years of hard time. 



2aguy said:


> You fight school choice...you fight vouchers.....you want those kids trapped in the schools that do not teach them....not us.



Because they aren't solutions.   Vouchers will just be another middle class entitlement.  (AKA White People Welfare), because the problem with School Choice is that St. Mary's won't take the kid with ADHD, the kid with Down Syndrome or the kid who has violence issues.  They'll happily take the nice white middle class kid who was probably doing just fine at a suburban public school. 



2aguy said:


> It is your system that forces that mother to only send her kid to the school in her neighborhood instead of to whatever school they can get into...that's on you.
> 
> School Choice, school vouchers where the whole freight of the tuition follows the kid would give minority kids a future....but you don't want that. You want them trapped.



No, we don't want more resources drained from the public schools... The problem is that School Choice really doesn't work.  Milwaukee tried it.  The kids with vouchers did the same as the kids who remained in public schools. 

The agenda is that unionized teachers are a powerful force for reform.. and you can't have that.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 4, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> So how much money did it cost this person she ripped off?



Probably a lifetime of missed opportunities when she had to go to a second or third tier school. 

you do get there's a reason why these rich assholes spent so much money to get their underachieving kids into good schools, right?  Because having a degree from Harvard of Stanford opens a lot more doors than a state university or a community college.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Over half of my property taxes go to support our schools. So don't give me this bullshit that when some lowlife brings their kids into our school system is not ripping me off. The more kids in our schools, the more classrooms they need to have. The more classrooms they need to have, the more teachers they need to hire with wages and benefits that we pay for. the more classrooms and teachers, the higher our taxes go.



Tell us again how not racist you are Ray, that shit never gets old. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> We had this exact same problem years ago. Lowlife kids were coming here from Cleveland to go to our suburban schools. Teachers assaulted once a month or more, drug activity on the grounds, police constantly being called to those schools to break up gang fights. People with civilized children moving out because of the dangerous environment lowlife kids created.
> 
> People who sneak their lowlife violent criminal children into our school system should be locked up for the minimum of 10 years.



yeah, that'll teach them.. and if that doesn't work, we get some thug cop to shoot them for playing with toys.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 4, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



You don't understand the point................

The anti-gun extremists use crime as an excuse to take guns away from normal people, while they release violent gun criminals over and over again......to undermine their argument, you show that 1) they don't care about stopping actual crime, and 2) the way you actually stop the gun crime they focus on is by stopping criminals........not taking guns from normal gun owners.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 4, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Hey...shit head......I agree......you shouldn't have to sneak your kid into another school....you should just be able to use the public funds designated for education to send your kid to whatever school you can get that kid into.....it is shitheads like you that prevent black and hispanic kids from escaping democrat party crap schools...that is you, you idiot.
> ...




Moron....we subsidize Notre Dame with federal tax dollars...you idiot.......

You don't want school choice and vouchers because you don't care about the kids.......you want to protect the teachers unions...you idiot.

Vouchers are not an entitlement, they focus the resources on the kid, rather than the teachers union....this allows as many children as possible to get an education vs. trapping all of the in destructive, democrat party run schools......

Teachers unions aren't for reform of any sort.....they are one of the poisons that are destroying the lives of inner city children...you idiot......

Vouchers and Choice will save lives.......


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 4, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Hey...shit head......I agree......you shouldn't have to sneak your kid into another school....you should just be able to use the public funds designated for education to send your kid to whatever school you can get that kid into.....it is shitheads like you that prevent black and hispanic kids from escaping democrat party crap schools...that is you, you idiot.
> ...




Hey....shit head......the religious and private schools have been back in class since August....full schedules, Lunch, recess, P.E.......the teachers unions have kept the inner city schools out since this mess started......they don't care about the kids.......since the kids don't spread the Chinese flu...you moron....

The teachers unions have robbed poor, minority kids of over a year of education.....a year they will never make up, and which will wreck their lives even more......

The teachers unions are a poison on our education system.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 4, 2021)

2aguy said:


> You don't want school choice and vouchers because you don't care about the kids.......you want to protect the teachers unions...you idiot.



Naw, I don't want it because it doesn't work.  Now, for those playing along at home, I was a product of Catholic education.  I even went to De La Salle High School (You should know that one, being from Chicago).   The thing was, because my parents were fronting their own money to inflict their awful religion on me, they where actually involved and committed. 

you give a voucher to a parent who isn't committed, he's not going to suddenly be committed because you gave him a voucher.  



2aguy said:


> Vouchers are not an entitlement, they focus the resources on the kid, rather than the teachers union....this allows as many children as possible to get an education vs. trapping all of the in destructive, democrat party run schools......



But they'll end up becoming an entitlement.  I know my parents would have LOVED to have gotten vouchers to send the five of us to Catholic Schools.  Particularly in the 1970's when Nixon and Ford really messed up the economy.  The problem is, when you institute voucher, how do you determine who gets them?  You'd have to make them available to the people sending their kids to private schools now.  

The other end of the equation- as stated- is that the Catholic schools won't suddenly open the doors to the gang-bangers, the learning disabled, etc.   They'll just pick the students that will give them the highest chance of keeping those numbers up.   School "Choice" works both ways.  



2aguy said:


> Teachers unions aren't for reform of any sort.....they are one of the poisons that are destroying the lives of inner city children...
> 
> Vouchers and Choice will save lives.......



Again, Milwaukee tried it and it failed miserable.  A lot of the new schools that popped up to meet the new demand were closed pretty quickly when it was determined they couldn't even reach the Public School's low standards on testing.  In fact, 41% of the schools participating were closed down in one year. 





__





						School failure in Milwaukee's school voucher program
					

By Amber M. Northern, Ph.D.




					fordhaminstitute.org
				






2aguy said:


> Hey..........the religious and private schools have been back in class since August....full schedules, Lunch, recess, P.E.......the teachers unions have kept the inner city schools out since this mess started......they don't care about the kids.......since the kids don't spread the Chinese flu...you moron....
> 
> The teachers unions have robbed poor, minority kids of over a year of education.....a year they will never make up, and which will wreck their lives even more......
> 
> The teachers unions are a poison on our education system.



yes, Covid (TRUMP PLAGUE) has been a tragedy.... Too bad we didn't have a COMPETENT president to deal with it. 

Again, if you are wealthy enough to send your kids to Catholic Schools, you are wealthy enough to get regular medical treatment and screening.   Poorer kids and communities have been more vulnerable to TRUMP PLAGUE since it broke out.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 4, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > You don't want school choice and vouchers because you don't care about the kids.......you want to protect the teachers unions...you idiot.
> ...




You point to one place....maybe.......and each time they are fighting the teachers unions.   Meanwhile, vouchers and choice give families that do care about their children but who are stuck in democrat party controlled schools the chance to educate their children without assholes like you telling them they have to stay in hell hole schools  simply because you want to make sure the teachers unions can funnel money to democrat party politicians......

Vouchers put the money under the control of the parent, not the teachers union.....Choice, just like every other product, will improve education for all children....the teachers unions and the democrat party have a monopoly....and that is why public education sucks.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 4, 2021)

2aguy said:


> You point to one place....maybe.......and each time they are fighting the teachers unions. Meanwhile, vouchers and choice give families that do care about their children but who are stuck in democrat party controlled schools the chance to educate their children without assholes like you telling them they have to stay in hell hole schools simply because you want to make sure the teachers unions can funnel money to democrat party politicians......
> 
> Vouchers put the money under the control of the parent, not the teachers union.....Choice, just like every other product, will improve education for all children....the teachers unions and the democrat party have a monopoly....and that is why public education sucks.



you just ignored all the points I made, didn't you.

Okay. Here's a simple thought exercise ... let's see if you can keep up.  I'll make the numbers small so you can keep up. 

You have a Public School system that has 100 Students, and spends $10,000 a student.  You now give each family a voucher.  But then you also have 30 Students who are currently enrolled in a Catholic School.  They also claim vouchers. So now you are taking that $1,000,000 and dividing it 130 ways instead of 100 ways.   Not to mention all the additional administration required to make sure that none of those vouchers are going to scam schools like the 41% of the schools in Milwaukee that popped up and had to be closed down because they couldn't even meet minimum requirements.  So let's take about 10% off the top of the budget for administration. 

So now instead of spending $10,000 a student, you are spending $6923 per student.  Of course, the Catholic school isn't taking any more students than they were before...that would require a major investment in infrastructure.  So who is going to create all these new classrooms?   Where are you going to find teachers?  You think someone is going to rush out to get what a Catholic school pays.  (My mother and my niece both taught at Catholic Schools... the pay ain't great!)

The problem here is that with a "choice" model, means you are going to get cheaper, not necessarily better. that's probably fine when you are buying widgets, but educating your kid, not so much.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 4, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > You point to one place....maybe.......and each time they are fighting the teachers unions. Meanwhile, vouchers and choice give families that do care about their children but who are stuck in democrat party controlled schools the chance to educate their children without assholes like you telling them they have to stay in hell hole schools simply because you want to make sure the teachers unions can funnel money to democrat party politicians......
> ...



Moron.......

When you have a market, you have people who create the product for that market....

1)  Public schools that have to compete for educational dollars will improve.....or they close down and another school opens up to take it's place.

2) New schools will open up to educate the millions of newly freed children.

3) Competition, as it does in every other aspect of society, will improve both public and private education.

4) Special needs children will get more help because schools will open to help them....versus the shitty democrat party public schools who can't or won't help them.

And the key is?  You dumb ass......

*The parents can leave bad schools and take their money with them......do you not understand that?   You don't understand that point........right now they are stuck....they can only move from one bad democrat party controlled school to another if they are poor......they have no ability to change schools when the school they are in sucks.......

With money following the student.........just like in college with the fucking G.I. Bill.......you get better education, not worse.........

Our universities are the best in the world because they have to compete for students...public shit hole schools controlled by the democrat party can churn out kids who can't read, or do math, and the administrators and teachers still get paid..........the parents can't escape...you idiot.

With Vouchers and Choice, the parents can escape......*


----------



## freyasman (Apr 4, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > freyasman said:
> ...


And what I was pointing out, is that _that_ really isn't a concern.
Now, I most always buy new as well, but that's mostly because I want to be able to return it if I get a defective product. 

A lot of people advocate private face to face sales to avoid a record the government can use to figure out who has what, but personally, I don't care..... if they come hard looking for our guns, that's the time to be killing them, not coming up with a good story to tell them.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 4, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> The problem here is that with a "choice" model, means you are going to get cheaper, not necessarily better. that's probably fine when you are buying widgets, but educating your kid, not so much.



That should be up to the parents to decide--not the government.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 4, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Hey....shit head......the religious and private schools have been back in class since August....full schedules, Lunch, recess, P.E.......the teachers unions have kept the inner city schools out since this mess started......they don't care about the kids.......since the kids don't spread the Chinese flu...you moron....
> 
> The teachers unions have robbed poor, minority kids of over a year of education.....a year they will never make up, and which will wreck their lives even more......
> 
> The teachers unions are a poison on our education system.



Of course the teachers union fought to keep teachers out of school.  I say that's fine.  But if you're not going to do the job you are getting paid for sitting at home, then you don't get paid.  You'd see how fast they would have opened the schools safely.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 4, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> No, we don't want more resources drained from the public schools... The problem is that School Choice really doesn't work. Milwaukee tried it. The kids with vouchers did the same as the kids who remained in public schools.
> 
> The agenda is that unionized teachers are a powerful force for reform.. and you can't have that.



So where do you get this idea that voucher money comes from public schools?  It's a federal voucher just like HUD people get.  The public school is still being funded by tax dollars and not one dime less.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 4, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Probably a lifetime of missed opportunities when she had to go to a second or third tier school.
> 
> you do get there's a reason why these rich assholes spent so much money to get their underachieving kids into good schools, right? Because having a degree from Harvard of Stanford opens a lot more doors than a state university or a community college.



It's also peer pressure from others of their kind who do have kids in those schools.  If somebody does not get a seat at a prestigious school, they'll simply go to the next one, not a community college or state university.



JoeB131 said:


> Tell us again how not racist you are Ray, that shit never gets old.



I have one better:  tell us again me where I mentioned anything about race. 



JoeB131 said:


> yeah, that'll teach them.. and if that doesn't work, we get some thug cop to shoot them for playing with toys.



It will prevent people from trying to sneak their kids into schools where they don't belong.  A strong enough deterrent works every time it's tried.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 5, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Moron.......
> 
> When you have a market, you have people who create the product for that market....
> 
> 1) Public schools that have to compete for educational dollars will improve.....or they close down and another school opens up to take it's place.



Except those schools won't be any better.  They'll probably be worse.  Anyone can open a store front in a strip mall, call it a school, collect their money for a year and close down.  That's exactly what happened in Milwaukee, where 41% of the "schools" that opened to get those sweet, sweet vouchers closed down in a year. 



2aguy said:


> 2) New schools will open up to educate the millions of newly freed children.



Same problem.  these schools will come and go... someone will make money, and the kids won't get any better education. 



2aguy said:


> 3) Competition, as it does in every other aspect of society, will improve both public and private education.



Except that's not true.  Do you think "Competition" has made the news media any better?  It's made it more profitable, but you look at Fox and MSNBC, it isn't any better.  



2aguy said:


> 4) Special needs children will get more help because schools will open to help them....versus the shitty democrat party public schools who can't or won't help them.



You think anyone is going to spend the money on Special Needs kids.   Now, here's the thing.  If you give each parent a voucher, and you have your private school, and parents come to you with your $6923.00 voucher, are you going to take little Timmy, who you can educate for probably $5000, or are you going to take little Corky, who you have to spend a lot of money accommedating, and then you have to hire specialists and spend $20,000 on him?  This isn't complicated.   There's a reason why Catholic Schools don't take the special needs kids. 



2aguy said:


> The parents can leave bad schools and take their money with them......do you not understand that? You don't understand that point........right now they are stuck....they can only move from one bad democrat party controlled school to another if they are poor......they have no ability to change schools when the school they are in sucks.......



That's a good reason to improve the schools. The thing is, the first line of defense on education isn't the school, it's the parent.  if you aren't making your kid do his homework, letting him watch TV for six hours a day when he should be studying, giving him a voucher isn't going to fix that.  

The reason why private schools work is because the parents ARE invested.  



2aguy said:


> With money following the student.........just like in college with the fucking G.I. Bill.......you get better education, not worse.........



Wow, Dick Tiny, the master of bad analogies.   Here's what you get with a lot of these for profit colleges.









						How Corinthian Colleges, a for-profit behemoth, suddenly imploded | Reveal
					

Corinthian Colleges was one of the world’s largest for-profit college chains – and one of the biggest moneymakers. But even in a boom-and-bust business, its closure and bankruptcy in 2015 was a remarkable collapse.




					revealnews.org
				





Of America’s $1.3 trillion in student debt, about $260 billion was racked up by students at for-profit colleges: technical schools that offer expensive vocational programs and the prospect of high-paying jobs.

Some for-profit schools deliver the goods. But studies show that students at these schools take on more debt than other students – and have more trouble landing good jobs.





2aguy said:


> Our universities are the best in the world because they have to compete for students...public shit hole schools controlled by the democrat party can churn out kids who can't read, or do math, and the administrators and teachers still get paid..........the parents can't escape...you idiot.



Our universities are the best in the world because they are run by liberals and funded by the government.  

I'm not sure why you are using universities as  good example, as the cost of a college education has increased by ridiculous amounts...  If you ran public education that way with vouchers, pricing would explode.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 5, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Moron.......
> ...




Giving parents choice and vouchers allows them to improve the education of their children.....you want control more than you want actual results......

Our universities are the best in the world because they actually have to compete for students...the public schools do not....that is why they suck.

Special needs?  You give them a bigger voucher, you twit......then you will have schools that open up to cater to their needs.....instead of the public schools that warehouse them....you idiot...

Competition makes everything better...from cellphones, to cars to healthcare.....you simply want control ........no matte how many lives the public schools destroy.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 5, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> August West said:
> 
> 
> > I`ve never known a woman who lived in constant fear of being helplessly raped and murdered. Is this your wife you`re describing?
> ...



I hate to break it to guys, but every woman with any sense of self-preservation lives all the time with the fear of being sexually assaulted.  I'm not saying we're hyperventilating and freaking out like a herpetophobe stepping on a snake or anything, but it's something that's always there and always factored into our daily decisions.

Ever known a woman who asked a security guard or a male colleague to walk her to her car when she works late?  Refused to go for a walk or a jog at night by herself?  Went on a first date with a guy and insisted on meeting him at the restaurant rather than having him pick her up at home?  Texted or called a family member or friend to let them know where she was if she was going somewhere unusual to her normal routine?  I could go on and on listing everyday adjustments any woman with a brain in her head makes to her everyday life because of the ever-present possibility of being assaulted that's in the back of her mind.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 5, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > I prefer to make it look like the "champions of women's rights" are demanding that women live in constant fear and danger of being helplessly raped and murdered. Since, y'know, that actually IS what they're doing.
> ...



Sad thing is, far too many women these days have been brainwashed by our batshit crazy society into believing they're far safer than they actually are, and can make bad decisions with impunity.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 5, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > August West said:
> ...



Oh, yeah.  If that gun ever gets used in a crime, you definitely want an official police report stating that it was stolen from you, so you won't be accused of the crime.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 5, 2021)

August West said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > August West said:
> ...



"Look, I found a blog that says what I want to hear, so that means it's settled!!!"


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 5, 2021)

freyasman said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > freyasman said:
> ...



They don't IF they know it was stolen.  Without a police report stating that it was, they have no reason to think he doesn't still have it.

It's kinda like cars.  If a car is used in a hit-and-run, and the cops find it abandoned a couple of miles away, they're gonna contact the guy on record as owning the car to find out where he was at the time, even if he bought that car years ago . . . unless they have a report in their system telling them that the car was stolen from him.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 5, 2021)

Dragonlady said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...



Oh, goody, more lectures on dealing with a heterogenous population from the Village Idiot of the Great WHITE North.

Tell us all about black and brown men when your racist ass lives somewhere that actually HAS some.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 5, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > No, we don't want more resources drained from the public schools... The problem is that School Choice really doesn't work. Milwaukee tried it. The kids with vouchers did the same as the kids who remained in public schools.
> ...



Well, sort of.  If I understand correctly, how much money a school gets depends on its enrollment.  So theoretically, if you remove your kid from the rolls of a public school, they wouldn't be getting funding for that particular student.  Of course, there are always more where he came from, so . . .


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 5, 2021)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Well, sort of. If I understand correctly, how much money a school gets depends on its enrollment. So theoretically, if you remove your kid from the rolls of a public school, they wouldn't be getting funding for that particular student. Of course, there are always more where he came from, so . . .



If the school is receiving federal dollars, but I'm sure most schools, especially in the suburbs, are mostly or entirely funded by local taxpayers like we do here.  

60% of the property taxes I pay go to our schools.  Depending on the situation, the state contributes to certain schools as well.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 5, 2021)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Oh, goody, more lectures on dealing with a heterogenous population from the Village Idiot of the Great WHITE North.
> 
> Tell us all about black and brown men when your racist ass lives somewhere that actually HAS some.



I already asked her what laws blacks are more prone to violate than anybody else.  She couldn't give me one.  

The left view blacks as a certain group of people who are not like everybody else. Kind of like the kid on the short bus.  It's my hope that one day soon, they will realize how they've been pandered to and didn't get much in return for their votes; how Democrats have been separating them from all other human beings in this country.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 5, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Like I said I have no problem denying convicted felons the right to own firearms.  They have proven through their actions that they are not responsible enough to own firearms.  I really don't have a problem with those that are adjudicated to be mentally ill are denied the right to own firearms.
> 
> As far as everyone else more power to them.  I think that anyone who isn't a convicted felon or adjudicated to be mentally ill should be able to buy as many guns as they want and I support Constitutional carry.
> 
> Why do you want convicted felons and the mentally ill to own firearms?



I want the Constitution followed.  I want government that is bound by the legal authority that created it and that does not, can not, assume power or authority over the governed that the governed did not grant them.

I want there to be a chance for reform and forgiveness in the penal system.  Serve your time and get out of prison and have all of your rights.  I want those who have paid their debt to society to be able to defend themselves and their families just as you are able to defend yourself and your family.  I want those families to be able to defend themselves without attainder because their loved one was once, often as a minor or very young adult, convicted of possession of marijuana or of felony littering.

I want convicted felons to have free speech.  If ever accused of another crime after being a convicted felon, I want them to have the right to an attorney and to a fair trial with a jury of their peers.  I want them to not have to quarter soldiers in their homes in times of peace.  Why do you not want convicted felons to have any of these rights?

And what about those convicted of misdemeanors? Many of those are banned from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.

And what about those convicted of absolutely nothing at all that are banned and are not insane?  All it takes is an angry partner filing a restraining order and your guns will be confiscated under federal law.

And what about those in states with red-flag laws?  Not even a protective order hearing before their guns are taken.

Why do you want the government to pick and choose to whom human and constitutionally protected rights apply?

You clearly do NOT support constitutional carry.  The Constitution requires that everyone be allowed to keep and bear arms and you want only those with government approval to keep or bear arms.  You ignore the fact that if the Government can strip anyone of the right to keep and bear arms, or any right, for that matter, then those whose rights they have not stripped are operating with government permission - just the thing that those who actually advocate constitutional carry understand: no government permission required.

Your views have much more in common with the views of Handgun Control, Inc. than they have with James Madison.  You are a gun controller.  I don't point this out in an attempt to insult you.  What I'd prefer is that you think about this statement: you have more in common with HCI than with the Founders.  Your comments indicate that you might think about yourself differently.  Just think about your stance and what it means.  You say you're a constitutionalist but you push views that are very anti-constitution.  

If your views are emotionally based then think about whether you want laws based on emotion.  If you want gun control because you think it's the answer to crime and that safety from crime is more important for society than is liberty, that's OK, too.  You're entitled to your opinion.  My hope is that you, and others reading this who might agree with you, think about the implications to liberty and to our constitutional form of government when liberties are restricted without constitutional authority to do so - or to use a different way of saying the same thing: by tyranny.

If tyranny is your choice and you want to keep gun control that exists today, in spite of the fact that those laws violate the Constitution (again, that's tyranny) then just own up to it; admit that you're a gun controller.  And you can buy one of these shirts:


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 5, 2021)

Cecilie1200 said:


> I hate to break it to guys, but every woman with any sense of self-preservation lives all the time with the fear of being sexually assaulted. I'm not saying we're hyperventilating and freaking out like a herpetophobe stepping on a snake or anything, but it's something that's always there and always factored into our daily decisions.
> 
> Ever known a woman who asked a security guard or a male colleague to walk her to her car when she works late? Refused to go for a walk or a jog at night by herself? Went on a first date with a guy and insisted on meeting him at the restaurant rather than having him pick her up at home? Texted or called a family member or friend to let them know where she was if she was going somewhere unusual to her normal routine? I could go on and on listing everyday adjustments any woman with a brain in her head makes to her everyday life because of the ever-present possibility of being assaulted that's in the back of her mind.



But don't you think there is a thick line between being concerned about a possibility and having lived that fear?  I mean, I've never been robbed outside of somebody breaking into my apartment when I wasn't home, but if it's dark outside, I take my gun with me just in case out of concern. 

Now had I been robbed in the past, pistol whipped to nearly an inch of my life, I'd be walking around with a gun day or night anywhere I go, even if I were with other people.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 5, 2021)

2aguy said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



The solution is not vouchers; it's getting the Federal Government out of education; there's no constitutional authority for it.  Reform local education by voting locally and restore parental voice in local education.  If a community wants to fund a local school, that's the community's choice.  What is taught in the school is the communities choice.  Paying for public school should be on the parents who use it.  The rest of us should not have to pay.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 5, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > Like I said I have no problem denying convicted felons the right to own firearms.  They have proven through their actions that they are not responsible enough to own firearms.  I really don't have a problem with those that are adjudicated to be mentally ill are denied the right to own firearms.
> ...


Yeah IDGAF about criminals.

Never will


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 5, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> The solution is not vouchers; it's getting the Federal Government out of education; there's no constitutional authority for it. Reform local education by voting locally and restore parental voice in local education. If a community wants to fund a local school, that's the community's choice. What is taught in the school is the communities choice. Paying for public school should be on the parents who use it. The rest of us should not have to pay.



I don't know about that.  I have no problem funding our schools.  What I have a problem with is how it's funded. 

Here you are taxed on your property value set by the county.  I nor any of my tenants have had kids in our public school and never have.  But I'm willing to bet I pay more property tax than the parents two streets down who have three of four kids in our school system.  

I'm willing to do my part, but I want parents to do even a larger part--not less.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 5, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, sort of. If I understand correctly, how much money a school gets depends on its enrollment. So theoretically, if you remove your kid from the rolls of a public school, they wouldn't be getting funding for that particular student. Of course, there are always more where he came from, so . . .
> ...



As with anything having to do with the government, it's complicated.  School funding is, of course, a mix of federal, state, and local money, mostly state and local.  Every state has a formula they use to determine how much each school gets, and where that money is going to come from.

The most common formula is the Foundation Grant:  the state sets a minimum amount per student.  They require each district to assess a property tax percentage rate, with the minimum amount set by the state, and estimate how much each district will get from that.  Wealthy areas, of course, will raise far more money from their property tax than poorer areas will.  The state gets to fill in the gap to reach the minimum.

States also have the option of saying that any money raised by a district over a certain amount per student can be "recaptured" by the state, to be redistributed to other districts.  So if your state allows for this option, your property tax might be going to fund schools somewhere else in your state.

Still and all, the point is that the amount of money a specific school gets is calculated per student enrolled there


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 5, 2021)

If I start a thread titled, "School Funding - Should vouchers be allowed?", could we discuss gun control there?


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 5, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Yeah IDGAF about criminals.
> 
> Never will



Good.  I'm glad you finally admit that you're not a constitutionalist.  Acknowledgement is the first step.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 5, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > I hate to break it to guys, but every woman with any sense of self-preservation lives all the time with the fear of being sexually assaulted. I'm not saying we're hyperventilating and freaking out like a herpetophobe stepping on a snake or anything, but it's something that's always there and always factored into our daily decisions.
> ...



Oh, I'm definitely a lot more sensitive to the possibility of being assaulted now that I've had it proven to me that it really can happen.

My point, however, is that all women with even a teaspoonful of brains live with that in the back of their minds all the time.  It's to a greater or lesser degree depending on the woman and her life experiences, but we all have it.


----------



## freyasman (Apr 5, 2021)

Cecilie1200 said:


> freyasman said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...


Yeah, and when the cops come around you hand them your lawyer's business card and tell them to direct all questions to him. Bye now, because I don't talk to cops in situations like this.
Don't come back without a warrant.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 5, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Yeah IDGAF about criminals.
> 
> Never will



But what you mostly don't care about, regardless of your claims to the contrary, is the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 5, 2021)

freyasman said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > freyasman said:
> ...



Seems like an unnecessarily hostile amount of trouble to go to.  I want to deliberately set up an antagonism of the cops because why?  Easier in my eyes to just file a police report when the gun was stolen, so that they don't waste their time bothering me at all.


----------



## freyasman (Apr 5, 2021)

Cecilie1200 said:


> freyasman said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


Ask any lawyer, or even any person who has ever dealt with the American "justice" system, if, when the cops come around asking questions about a crime, should you go ahead and just answer all their questions without a lawyer present?

Get back to me and let me know what their answers are.

(I'll bet they'll be unanimous, btw.)


----------



## freyasman (Apr 5, 2021)

Cecilie1200 said:


> freyasman said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...







__





						Law of Self Defense Principles Softcover – Law of Self Defense
					






					lawofselfdefense.com


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 5, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> If I start a thread titled, "School Funding - Should vouchers be allowed?", could we discuss gun control there?



In most any topic one thing leads to another and after a while, It's a totally different discussion.  It would be kinda boring to discuss the topic only and probably wouldn't last very long.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 5, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Giving parents choice and vouchers allows them to improve the education of their children.....you want control more than you want actual results......



No, I don't want to piss away money on something that has been proven not to work, for all the reasons stated above you clearly didn't have a good enough education to understand. 



2aguy said:


> Our universities are the best in the world because they actually have to compete for students...the public schools do not....that is why they suck.



First, our universities are not the "Best in the world".   We have some good colleges most of us will never attend.  We have some okay ones that will get you a decent job after college, and we have some truly awful ones that are scams.   

We really can't run our public schools that way.  



2aguy said:


> Special needs? You give them a bigger voucher, you twit......then you will have schools that open up to cater to their needs.....instead of the public schools that warehouse them....you idiot...



Clearly, you don't know the level of work that goes into special needs kids, or how they get an inordinate amount of money spent on them. 

By the way, before they started mainstreaming them, that's EXACTLY what they did with them. They warehoused them  



2aguy said:


> Competition makes everything better...from cellphones, to cars to healthcare.....you simply want control ........no matte how many lives the public schools destroy.



Competition does not make everything better.   

It often makes things worse as people do a race to the bottom.  LIke when Michigan privatized it's waterworks, and the people of Flynt ended up drinking poison. 









						From Pittsburgh to Flint, the Dire Consequences of Giving Private Companies Responsibility for Ailing Public Water Systems
					

The private water company Veolia had contracts with both Flint and Pittsburgh around the time that lead levels rose in their drinking water.




					theintercept.com


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 5, 2021)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > August West said:
> ...




Yep.....I understand that, which is why I support he 2nd Amendment....democrats see powerless women as fair game.....which is why they want to keep them unarmed.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 5, 2021)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...




And with vouchers that changes......the money follows the kid....so if the school sucks, the kids leave and take the money......all the incentive in the world to improve the school since money is now dependent on performance, rather than simple attendance.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 5, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> If I start a thread titled, "School Funding - Should vouchers be allowed?", could we discuss gun control there?




Joe started this...he likes to derail threads about guns and gun issues.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 5, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Giving parents choice and vouchers allows them to improve the education of their children.....you want control more than you want actual results......
> ...




You can't privatize something that is already screwed up and then blame the private company....and, when you have have the government contracting the work, the level of abuse goes through the roof versus two private companies.....

the problem was the government having anything to do with that.....


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 5, 2021)

2aguy said:


> You can't privatize something that is already screwed up and then blame the private company....and, when you have have the government contracting the work, the level of abuse goes through the roof versus two private companies.....
> 
> the problem was the government having anything to do with that.....



Uh, who do you think is going to contract the work when you go to vouchers, dummy?  Who do you think is going to decide which schools are eligible for voucher programs and which ones aren't?


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 6, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> In most any topic one thing leads to another and after a while, It's a totally different discussion.  It would be kinda boring to discuss the topic only and probably wouldn't last very long.


C'mon; I was being facetious.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 6, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah IDGAF about criminals.
> ...



If you victimize fellow citizens then you get what you deserve.

Why the fuck should anyone who doesn;t care about the rights of others deserve to have their rights respected?


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 6, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah IDGAF about criminals.
> ...



You're wrong again of course.

I wonder if you'd be saying the same things if you or your wife was a victim of a violent crime. 

Would you be so keen on letting the violent assholes who raped your wife buy guns when they got out of prison?

Would you be defending the 2nd amendment rights of the 3 or 4 guys who ambushed you and put you in the hospital for a few weeks?

I highly doubt it.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 6, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> You're wrong again of course.
> 
> I wonder if you'd be saying the same things if you or your wife was a victim of a violent crime.
> 
> ...



So we are in agreement that SOME people shouldn't have guns.  Awesome.  

Either you think gun ownership is a "right", or you think it's a privilege that should be limited by need and responsibility.  

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, here's the standard I would hold. 

Are you a cop or a soldier, in a "Well-Regulated Militia"?  Nope.  No gun for you.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 6, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > You're wrong again of course.
> ...


When you commit a violent crime YOU give up your rights no one takes them from you.

And law abiding civilians have the right to own firearms.  I will never agree that they don't.

Commit a violent crime you give up your rights.
Commit a crime with a gun you give up your rights.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 6, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> When you commit a violent crime YOU give up your rights no one takes them from you.
> 
> And law abiding civilians have the right to won firearms. I will never agree that they don't.



Not at all.  When you are convicted of a crime, you lose some privileges. 

You still have all your constitutional rights.  Do you lose your right to free speech? To a trial? To be free of unreasonable searches and seizures? To not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment?  Of course you don't. 

So either gun ownership is a right or a privilege. If it's a right, everyone should have access to guns.  If it's a privilege, then we should limit who gets them.  

I'm just for more limits on the privilege than you are.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 6, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > When you commit a violent crime YOU give up your rights no one takes them from you.
> ...



Like I said criminals voluntarily give up their rights.  By committing crimes a person has made the choice to violate the rights of fellow citizens. 

Anyone who is law abiding has the right to own a firearm.  The second you become a convicted criminal you hace voluntarily given up that right.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 6, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Not at all. When you are convicted of a crime, you lose some privileges.
> 
> You still have all your constitutional rights. Do you lose your right to free speech? To a trial? To be free of unreasonable searches and seizures? To not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment? Of course you don't.
> 
> ...



Gun ownership is a right listed in the US Constitution, therefore it's not a privilege.  Driving is a privilege.  

In many states you can't vote either if you are a convicted felon.  The commies are trying to change that because if criminals could vote, they'll all vote Democrat.  

With rights comes responsibility.  If you've demonstrated you are incapable of handling responsibility such as voting or firearms, those rights are taken away.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 6, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> You're wrong again of course.
> 
> I wonder if you'd be saying the same things if you or your wife was a victim of a violent crime.
> 
> ...



You're far too easy on rapists.  The problem is not whether they buy a gun when they get out of prison; the problem is that they get out of prison.  The problem I would have to consider is whether they should be breathing air if they got out of prison.  But if a rapist got out of jail and wanted a gun, there's no law that would stop them from getting a gun.  Your gun control only stops the truly reformed from having a gun; it doesn't even slow down gun access for the felon that is still criminally inclined.

So many so-called gun rights supporters, self-proclaimed constitutionalists, go along with the left in creating bad laws in an attempt to fix problems that those laws don't really fix.  Do you think a ban on gun ownership stops a rapist from owning a gun?  If that worked then all we had to do is make rape illegal and, if your comments represent reality rather than example, your wife would not have been raped.  

Or, if rape convictions resulted in 20 or 30 years in prison as it did 50 years ago, there'd be far fewer rapes; that is the law that you should be advocating for, not a silly, pointless, completely ineffective, law that claims to, but completely fails to, prevent their access to an inanimate object.

There was a time in this country when rape was a capital offense, punishable by death.  That's too much because it incentivizes the rapist to kill their victim but 20 to 30 years would be a great disincentive to breaking the law.

Once again,  your words speak loudly.  If your "what if" is real, I am sorry for your wife and for you.  But that doesn't mean the Government can violate the very Constitution that created it.  If you think they can and should then you are not a constitutionalist. 

I'm sure you've heard it, possibly even said it: I may hate your speech but I'll fight to the death to defend your right to say it.  That's the kind of things that constitutionalists say - and they mean it.  If  your story is true then I understand, but disagree with, your emotional reaction against rapists, but I still don't understand your stance against felony litterers.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 6, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...



I've asked it more than once but you completely ignore it.  Does a convicted felon give up his right to a trial by jury of his peers in any future charge?  Does he give up his right to free speech?  Can he be banned from owning a Bible?  The police can search him or his house at will for the rest of his life?  No more need for a warrant or probable cause?

I understand your emotional-based views.  The point here is that you don't understand them.  You have understandable, even if wrong, reactions to crime and experience in your own life but you don't realize, or won't admit, apparently even to yourself, that you are no longer a constitutionalist and you certainly do not support the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 6, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Not at all. When you are convicted of a crime, you lose some privileges.
> ...



No; if someone has demonstrated that they are a danger to society and they've been convicted to back that up, then the solution is to keep them in prison.  Why in the world would people be OK with a rapist who is still a threat being let out of prison as long as we make it illegal for him to own a gun, especially considering that the law against it has zero impact on dangerous felons owning guns.

By the way, the Constitution allows for preventing people from voting for having committed crimes.  There's no such mention for any other protection or restriction in the Constitution.

If you want the government to strip rights for crimes, just show me where the Constitution allows for it.  Otherwise, you're suggesting that the Constitution is just a recommendation to government rather than a limit to government.  If you believe that, you have more in common with Thurgood Marshall than you have with Antonin Scalia.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 6, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > When you commit a violent crime YOU give up your rights no one takes them from you.
> ...



Of course the Constitution explicitly states that it is a right and not a privilege.  

But you're absolutely right that the only difference between you and many, so-called, gun rights supporters is how many restrictions or which restrictions you want.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 6, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > You're wrong again of course.
> ...



I never proclaimed to be a constitutionalist.  You said I claimed to be a constitutionalist.  

The only what if that is true in my case is the latter.

I was ambushed by a few pieces of shit and wound up with a fractured eye orbital, some permanent vision impairment in one eye, a grade 4 concussion, 3 broken ribs and a ruptured spleen.  

And you want to tell me these assholes have the right to buy fucking guns even though they have proven they are irresponsible pieces of shit.

As far as I'm concerned by committing that crime they voluntarily forfeited their rights.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 6, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Once again I never claimed to be a constituionalist.

If you think I did then quote the post.

And if a piece of shit felon commits another crime he gets tried for that crime.

I see no reason to allow him to buy firearms so he can use them in more crimes.

Like I said anyone who commits violence on another has voluntarily forfeited his rights as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 6, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> No; if someone has demonstrated that they are a danger to society and they've been convicted to back that up, then the solution is to keep them in prison. Why in the world would people be OK with a rapist who is still a threat being let out of prison as long as we make it illegal for him to own a gun, especially considering that the law against it has zero impact on dangerous felons owning guns.
> 
> By the way, the Constitution allows for preventing people from voting for having committed crimes. There's no such mention for any other protection or restriction in the Constitution.
> 
> If you want the government to strip rights for crimes, just show me where the Constitution allows for it. Otherwise, you're suggesting that the Constitution is just a recommendation to government rather than a limit to government. If you believe that, you have more in common with Thurgood Marshall than you have with Antonin Scalia.



I'm not constitutional expert, but I'm totally unaware where the Constitution gives government the ability to strip that right.  Actually the right for everybody to vote was annexed later on.  The founders didn't think everybody should have the right to vote, only those with a dog in the race.

We can't keep criminals in prison forever for something like rape or selling dope.  Anybody that leaves prison is a potential future problem and a society risk.  We have one of the highest recidivism rates in the world. Life in prison would be considered cruel and unusual punishment for anything less than death.  Not allowing certain criminals not to have the right to bear arms is the least we can do to protect our society from them causing others harm.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 6, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...



Well, and we all know how much Democrats love people feeling like helpless victims, because that's always their power base.  Under no circumstances do Democrats EVER want people to feel strong, independent, and able to handle their own business.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 6, 2021)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Well, and we all know how much Democrats love people feeling like helpless victims, because that's always their power base. Under no circumstances do Democrats EVER want people to feel strong, independent, and able to handle their own business.



If everybody in the US did that, who would need Democrats around anymore?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 6, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



You do know that, by definition, the government strips rights in punishment for crimes by imprisoning and executing people, right?  It's sort of inherent in the whole process, and has been since . . . forever.  Not sure the Founding Fathers or anyone else ever felt the need to spell out something that "water is wet" obvious.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 6, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, and we all know how much Democrats love people feeling like helpless victims, because that's always their power base. Under no circumstances do Democrats EVER want people to feel strong, independent, and able to handle their own business.
> ...



Basically.  But people who feel afraid and helpless will vote for damned near anything to try to alleviate that feeling.  Emotions cloud one's reasoning abilities, which is why Democrats spend so much time trying to rile people up with emotional appeals.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 6, 2021)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Basically. But people who feel afraid and helpless will vote for damned near anything to try to alleviate that feeling. Emotions cloud one's reasoning abilities, which is why Democrats spend so much time trying to rile people up with emotional appeals.



It's also their reason for being so anti-gun.  They don't care that we have guns, what they care about is that we can take care of ourselves with them.  

If they are able to strip law abiding citizens of their guns, then only the police and criminals will have them.  Violent crime and robberies hit a new high, and people will stupidly beg the Democrats to do something about the big crime they created.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 6, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Basically. But people who feel afraid and helpless will vote for damned near anything to try to alleviate that feeling. Emotions cloud one's reasoning abilities, which is why Democrats spend so much time trying to rile people up with emotional appeals.
> ...



Emotional women have been a voting gold mine for Democrats for a long time.  But a woman who feels strong and empowered to take charge of her own personal safety may carry that over to other aspects of her life and stop feeling afraid and helpless and in need of Daddy Government to take care of her.  We can't have that.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 6, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> I'm not constitutional expert, but I'm totally unaware where the Constitution gives government the ability to strip that right.  Actually the right for everybody to vote was annexed later on.  The founders didn't think everybody should have the right to vote, only those with a dog in the race.
> 
> We can't keep criminals in prison forever for something like rape or selling dope.  Anybody that leaves prison is a potential future problem and a society risk.  We have one of the highest recidivism rates in the world. Life in prison would be considered cruel and unusual punishment for anything less than death.  Not allowing certain criminals not to have the right to bear arms is the least we can do to protect our society from them causing others harm.



Actually, we could keep criminals in prison forever for rape.  Selling dope is not a violent crime.  If dope sellers engage in violence to protect their territories or otherwise then convict them of the violence and keep them in prison appropriately.  

The average rape sentence in the US is 12.2 years.  Average sentence served is 61% of that, or roughly 7.5 years.  2% of rapists get less than 6 months.  Another 2% get less than a year.  https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/tssp16.pdf


Literally, greater than 50% of those charged with rape have at least one prior felony conviction.  8% of them have more than 10 prior rape convictions.  This is the Democratic war on women in America.  We cannot continue to let these violent animals back into society.  To suggest that we can let them into society as long as we don't let them buy a new gun from a gun store is absolutely absurd.  Do you really, honestly, believe that your wife is safer because you didn't let a criminal with 10 rape convictions buy a gun at a gun shop?  Do you really, honestly, believe that that little piece of shit deterrent is any deterrent at all?  

By the way, only 11% of rapes include a weapon other than physical strength.  Only 6% of rapists use a gun; 4% of rapists use a knife.  If  you could actually keep guns out of the hands of violent repeat offenders, it would not reduce rapes a single iota.  The rapist would either use a knife or would use his hands.  The weapon of rape is a dick, not a gun.  If you want to reduce rapes, please see your doctor and turn in your weapon.  






						Perpetrators of Sexual Violence: Statistics | RAINN
					

Three out of four rapes are committed by someone known to the victim.




					www.rainn.org
				










Gun control does not prevent rapes.  What it does is to increase rapes because many women cannot defend themselves.  How many women live in a home where a family member was convicted of a felony, including non-violent felonies, and cannot now have a gun in the home to defend themselves.  How many women served time in prison after being pushed by a man they mistakenly fell for to do drugs so the man could get his way with her.  Now she's a felon and can't defend herself.

Gun control increases crime; it does not reduce crime.  Take some time; think it through; study the actual data about crime, and reconsider your pro-gun-control views.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 6, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> I'm not constitutional expert, but I'm totally unaware where the Constitution gives government the ability to strip that right.  Actually the right for everybody to vote was annexed later on.  The founders didn't think everybody should have the right to vote, only those with a dog in the race.



Read the 14th Amendment, section 2.  I was careful to not suggest that it grants the power; I said that the power was allowed for, as in mentioned or acknowledged.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 6, 2021)

Cecilie1200 said:


> You do know that, by definition, the government strips rights in punishment for crimes by imprisoning and executing people, right?  It's sort of inherent in the whole process, and has been since . . . forever.  Not sure the Founding Fathers or anyone else ever felt the need to spell out something that "water is wet" obvious.



Imprisoning those who are found guilty of crimes is found in common law, which is acknowledged throughout history.  When imprisoned, obviously, as water is wet, a prisoner cannot have access to their guns.  For 189 years in the United States, from 1789 to 1968, prisoners retained their right to their guns, were able to retrieve their guns, and carry their guns, once released from prison.  It was known, as water is wet, that the Constitution did not allow for their right to keep and bear arms to be infringed.

If you're right, and I'm wrong, you make all the argument needed by the gun controllers to do anything they wish.  It's as obvious as water is wet that getting 100% of guns out of the hands of the people would end all gun crime - except that it won't because many gun crimes are committed by law enforcement and military.

If you're right and I'm wrong, you make all the argument  needed that the Constitution is a living document and that the government has any power they need, regardless of original intent or the actual words in the Constitution, as long as it is as obvious as is that water is wet, to do any thing they want and to ignore the Constitution.

The Constitution expressly forbids gun control as we know it.  If you want to change it, consider changing the Constitution.  If you support gun control, you're a gun controller and not a constitutionalist.  In fact, you're a subject just as would be if we had a king.  Government owns you and you live, move, exist, breathe, at their will.  The alternative is that government, government of the people, by the people, for the people.  Which are you?  A free human being with a government created by the people, and limited by the Constitution, or are you a subject of a government that has ultimate power over you and your existence is at the good will of the government.  If the latter, please explain how the government got that power.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 6, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > You do know that, by definition, the government strips rights in punishment for crimes by imprisoning and executing people, right?  It's sort of inherent in the whole process, and has been since . . . forever.  Not sure the Founding Fathers or anyone else ever felt the need to spell out something that "water is wet" obvious.
> ...



My, that's an awful lot of unsubstantiated assertions you made there.  You'll excuse me if I wait on responding to them as though they're serious until such time as you make them serious by providing some evidence as to their factual nature.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 6, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Literally, greater than 50% of those charged with rape have at least one prior felony conviction. 8% of them have more than 10 prior rape convictions. This is the Democratic war on women in America. We cannot continue to let these violent animals back into society. To suggest that we can let them into society as long as we don't let them buy a new gun from a gun store is absolutely absurd. Do you really, honestly, believe that your wife is safer because you didn't let a criminal with 10 rape convictions buy a gun at a gun shop? Do you really, honestly, believe that that little piece of shit deterrent is any deterrent at all?
> 
> By the way, only 11% of rapes include a weapon other than physical strength. Only 6% of rapists use a gun; 4% of rapists use a knife. If you could actually keep guns out of the hands of violent repeat offenders, it would not reduce rapes a single iota. The rapist would either use a knife or would use his hands. The weapon of rape is a dick, not a gun. If you want to reduce rapes, please see your doctor and turn in your weapon.



They could use anything they want, but an armed victim is what will stop them.  Now, if the attacker does use a gun, then it's a matter of who shoots first.  If a rapist uses a knife, then the gun beats a knife hands down in any conflict. Not only does the woman win, she has the right to put him in a grave where he belongs.  

If he rapes a woman using a gun, then that's additional prison time: one for rape and the other for using a firearm he wasn't allowed to have, because losing that right not only stops somebody from buying a new firearm, they are not allowed to be in possession of one either.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 7, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Like I said criminals voluntarily give up their rights. By committing crimes a person has made the choice to violate the rights of fellow citizens.
> 
> Anyone who is law abiding has the right to own a firearm. The second you become a convicted criminal you hace voluntarily given up that right.



But then it stops being a "right" and becomes a "privilege"... that's the point.  Rights can't be given by governments, they can only be given by God or Nature.  

So now that we've established gun ownership is a privilege, we can have the rational discussion about who shouldn't have the privilege. 

Criminals? Absolutely.  Let's have real background checks to make sure that doesn't happen.
Crazy People.  Sure. 
People who done think that they needs them their gun to overthrow the government, Cleetus?  Sure.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 7, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> They could use anything they want, but an armed victim is what will stop them. Now, if the attacker does use a gun, then it's a matter of who shoots first. If a rapist uses a knife, then the gun beats a knife hands down in any conflict. Not only does the woman win, she has the right to put him in a grave where he belongs.



Except that never happens.  According to the FBI, there were only 200 cases a year of justifiable homicide with a gun by a civilian compared to 15,000 gun homicides a year which are regular street crime and domestic violence. 

It's like saying it's good you have an angry pit bull, when it never actually takes out a burglar, but it has managed to maul several of the neighborhood kids. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> If he rapes a woman using a gun, then that's additional prison time: one for rape and the other for using a firearm he wasn't allowed to have, because losing that right not only stops somebody from buying a new firearm, they are not allowed to be in possession of one either.



Again, we lock up 2 million people. The police make 10 million arrests a year.  Arrests and prisons aren't stopping crime, buddy.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 7, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > Like I said criminals voluntarily give up their rights. By committing crimes a person has made the choice to violate the rights of fellow citizens.
> ...


No it doesn't.  A person can voluntarily give up their rights.

And you say you want to keep guns out of the hands of criminal but you refuse to say that we should enforce the federal gun laws we already have on the books.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 7, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> No it doesn't. A person can voluntarily give up their rights.
> 
> And you say you want to keep guns out of the hands of criminal but you refuse to say that we should enforce the federal gun laws we already have on the books.



I'm saying those laws are kind of meaningless if they are selectively enforced.  

For instance, prostitution is illegal where I live.  Which means, yeah, if you have a girl in the short skirt walking down the street in fishnets, the cops are going to bust her ass.  

But they'll ignore the Massage Parlor, the Strip Club and the Escort Service because those places know how to skirt the edges of the law.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 7, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > No it doesn't. A person can voluntarily give up their rights.
> ...



And you keep calling for more and more gun laws and you think those will be enforced when the federal gun laws we already have aren't?

Like I said when we enforce federal gun laws they work.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 7, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> And you keep calling for more and more gun laws and you think those will be enforced when the federal gun laws we already have aren't?
> 
> Like I said when we enforce federal gun laws they work.



You can keep saying that, but our gun laws are so lax that they might as well not have them.  

Let's get some meaningful laws and enforce them across the board, then we can talk.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 7, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > And you keep calling for more and more gun laws and you think those will be enforced when the federal gun laws we already have aren't?
> ...



Bullshit.

Tell me exactly which federal laws are you talking about?

The one that prohibits convicted felons and the adjudicated mentally ill or those with an order of protection against them from possessing firearms?


And you don't think the results in Richmond VA were meaningful?  The murder rate cut by 33% on one year  and another 20% the next and a 30% reduction in armed robberies are just meaningless in your tiny mind?

Like I said you aren't serious about about reducing the crime or murder rates all you want to do is ban guns.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 7, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Like I said you aren't serious about about reducing the crime or murder rates all you want to do is ban guns.



He's a leftist.  What they do is support stupidity, then when their ideas are a total flop, they just shrug their shoulders and say "well, we tried!"  

Removing firearms from law abiding people can only increase violent crime and murders since one side has all the guns and the other side has no way to defend themselves.  They don't care about the lives of the American people.  Look at who they voted for President.  Now this dementia patient is letting all these illegals in with Covid and busing them all across the country.  Forget how many Americans will get sick or die because of his actions, they just want more foreigners here for power.  Look at how they stick up for Cuomo who killed thousands of senior citizens.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 7, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Except that never happens. According to the FBI, there were only 200 cases a year of justifiable homicide with a gun by a civilian compared to 15,000 gun homicides a year which are regular street crime and domestic violence.
> 
> It's like saying it's good you have an angry pit bull, when it never actually takes out a burglar, but it has managed to maul several of the neighborhood kids.



Correct, not a lot of shootings.  However statistics show that citizens use their firearms in this country between 1 to 4 million times a year to stop crime.  Without those firearms, we would have 1 to 4 million more crimes a year.  You leftists have zero common sense.  

Given the fact most people killed with firearms are criminals themselves, your leftist idea is to try and reduce their deaths and greatly bring up the deaths of innocent Americans.  This is why you people should never be in charge of anything.  Try to save the lowlifes at the cost of the good people because even your puppet masters know that if you disarm society, the criminals will never give up their guns. 



JoeB131 said:


> Again, we lock up 2 million people. The police make 10 million arrests a year. Arrests and prisons aren't stopping crime, buddy.



So what are you saying, we shouldn't have prisons?


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 8, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> woodwork201 said:
> 
> 
> > Literally, greater than 50% of those charged with rape have at least one prior felony conviction. 8% of them have more than 10 prior rape convictions. This is the Democratic war on women in America. We cannot continue to let these violent animals back into society. To suggest that we can let them into society as long as we don't let them buy a new gun from a gun store is absolutely absurd. Do you really, honestly, believe that your wife is safer because you didn't let a criminal with 10 rape convictions buy a gun at a gun shop? Do you really, honestly, believe that that little piece of shit deterrent is any deterrent at all?
> ...



Extra prison time for the gun only serves to vilify the gun.  It is admitting that the gun is evil and if you use an evil tool in your crime we will punish you more.  That the law makes it illegal to be in possession of a gun doesn't matter: they're criminals.  By definition they ignore the law.  And if rape won't keep them in prison then that's the problem.  A woman raped at knife point is no less raped than the woman raped at gun point.  

Why do you want to lessen the punishment of rapists who use a knife or use their  own hands and brute strength to force the woman into compliance?


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 8, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Bullshit.
> 
> Tell me exactly which federal laws are you talking about?
> 
> The one that prohibits convicted felons and the adjudicated mentally ill or those with an order of protection against them from possessing firearms?



Which people can get around in private sales or sales at gun shows... that's the whole point.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 8, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Correct, not a lot of shootings. However statistics show that citizens use their firearms in this country between 1 to 4 million times a year to stop crime. Without those firearms, we would have 1 to 4 million more crimes a year. You leftists have zero common sense.



Yeah, those claims have no credibility....  They would have you believe that 99.999% of the time where you have a confrontation between a gun nut and a criminal, that the gun nut would refrain from firing, and that the criminal would be deterred by the mere site of a gun.  It just doesn't pass the laugh test.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Given the fact most people killed with firearms are criminals themselves, your leftist idea is to try and reduce their deaths and greatly bring up the deaths of innocent Americans. This is why you people should never be in charge of anything. Try to save the lowlifes at the cost of the good people because even your puppet masters know that if you disarm society, the criminals will never give up their guns.



Most Americans killed by guns are killed in suicides and domestic violence.  the fact that one third of our country has a "police record" doesn't make them criminals.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> So what are you saying, we shouldn't have prisons?



I'm saying prison should be restricted to just murderers and rapists... not property and drug criminals.   This is what the Europeans and Japanese do, and they lock up less than 100,000 people and have nowhere near our crime levels. 

Take the "War on Drugs".  we've quadrupled the prison population trying to "just say no", and frankly, we've made ourselves less safe.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 8, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > Bullshit.
> ...



So that's the only law you want passed?

Since when?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 8, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Yeah, those claims have no credibility.... They would have you believe that 99.999% of the time where you have a confrontation between a gun nut and a criminal, that the gun nut would refrain from firing, and that the criminal would be deterred by the mere site of a gun. It just doesn't pass the laugh test.



In most cases a criminal only uses a gun to force compliance.  They never had any intention on actually firing the weapon.  Even our very own FBI statistics show Americans use their guns over a million times a year for self-defense or to stop a crime.  I know you think you know more than the FBI and all these other research groups, but trust me, you're not that slick.  

Two guys follow a woman out of the store to her car.  When she approaches her car, they attempt to steal her purse.  They are not armed.  I see what's going on and pull out my gun ordering them to stop.  They run away as fast as they can.  See, this is an instance where I used my gun to stop a crime.  The police come out to try and find the robbers, take our statements, and that's the end of it; probably won't even be reported on our local news.  

Just because you are unaware of things going on doesn't mean they don't happen.  



JoeB131 said:


> Most Americans killed by guns are killed in suicides and domestic violence. the fact that one third of our country has a "police record" doesn't make them criminals.



The fact is that people who wish to commit suicide will do so with or without a gun.  The other fact is that if some guy wants to kill his wife, he will do so with or without a gun.  People don't kill other people because they have a gun, they kill other people or themselves because they want to kill.  The gun is just a tool. 



JoeB131 said:


> I'm saying prison should be restricted to just murderers and rapists... not property and drug criminals. This is what the Europeans and Japanese do, and they lock up less than 100,000 people and have nowhere near our crime levels.
> 
> Take the "War on Drugs". we've quadrupled the prison population trying to "just say no", and frankly, we've made ourselves less safe.



Great.  If you ever come home and find somebody broke into your house and stole 10K of valuables, don't call the police because you think that person should not be in prison.  After all, I'm sure when somebody breaks into a home in Japan or Europe, the police don't do anything about it.  

You said earlier that prison doesn't stop people from committing any crime, so why should rapists and murderers be any different?   

I'd dig up the story but I know you won't read anything that goes against your false beliefs.  But CVS drug stores are closing up many of their outlets in San Francisco.  Why San Francisco?  Because their commie leadership made shoplifting a minor offense.  In fact if you call police about a shoplifter, they won't even come out unless the merchandise stolen exceeds $1,000.  So people are looting these stores on a daily basis and they can't stay open.  The ones that stay open have such high prices people can't afford to shop there.  

This is the world leftists want to create for us.  It's why we either keep Democrats out of power, or divide the country into two countries instead.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 8, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Extra prison time for the gun only serves to vilify the gun. It is admitting that the gun is evil and if you use an evil tool in your crime we will punish you more. That the law makes it illegal to be in possession of a gun doesn't matter: they're criminals. By definition they ignore the law. And if rape won't keep them in prison then that's the problem. A woman raped at knife point is no less raped than the woman raped at gun point.
> 
> Why do you want to lessen the punishment of rapists who use a knife or use their own hands and brute strength to force the woman into compliance?



Vilify the gun?  What are you getting at, do you think guns will develop an inferiority complex or something?  

If a woman fights back and gets lucky, she may be able to escape a person with a knife.  But if he has a gun, she's not going to escape him then.  If she pokes him in the eyes she only has seconds to get away.  If she's in a bit of a distance when he regains his sight back, he can still shoot her.  

Guns are not the only weapon, but the ultimate weapon which is why criminals shouldn't have them.  A guy attacking a woman is brought to a halt if he has a knife but she has a gun.  If they both have guns, that could get ugly, especially for the victim.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 8, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> woodwork201 said:
> 
> 
> > Extra prison time for the gun only serves to vilify the gun. It is admitting that the gun is evil and if you use an evil tool in your crime we will punish you more. That the law makes it illegal to be in possession of a gun doesn't matter: they're criminals. By definition they ignore the law. And if rape won't keep them in prison then that's the problem. A woman raped at knife point is no less raped than the woman raped at gun point.
> ...



Hey, nothing's ever 100% perfect.  But if we both have guns, at least we're on something approaching a level playing field.  If I don't have a gun, I'm at a huge disadvantage whether he has a gun or not.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 8, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> woodwork201 said:
> 
> 
> > Extra prison time for the gun only serves to vilify the gun. It is admitting that the gun is evil and if you use an evil tool in your crime we will punish you more. That the law makes it illegal to be in possession of a gun doesn't matter: they're criminals. By definition they ignore the law. And if rape won't keep them in prison then that's the problem. A woman raped at knife point is no less raped than the woman raped at gun point.
> ...



6% or rapes involve a gun.  Of those 6%, how many do you think would have occurred if the rapist could not get a gun - if the gun wasn't simply the convenient weapon?  I'll tell you how many: 100% of the 6% would still have occurred. 

You're wrong when you suggest that laws against convicted criminals from having guns will have the effect of keeping convicted felons from having guns.  We, gun rights advocating community, have long argued that gun laws don't work because criminals, by definition, don't follow the law.  Laws against felons having guns only prevent the felons who have taken a law-abiding path after prison from having guns.

If you think that laws forbidding felons from having guns actually prevent crimes then you admit that you believe gun control works.  And if you support unconstitutional gun laws then you also admit that you believe that the Constitution is a guideline and not an actual restriction on government; you admit that you believe the government can do anything they wish, Constitution be damned.

The only difference between you and Handgun Control, Inc. is just how much gun control you want.

It is very sad now many who claim to be gun rights advocates are actually just lesser gun controllers.  The worst part, is that all of those agree the government can do things not granted in the Constitution.  These are authoritarians not constitutionalists.  They (you?) believe the government can exceed its constitutional authority as long as they are enforcing ideas you like.

It's not the left that will destroy our country; it's the fake-right that will hand it over to the left because the fake-right doesn't have the backbone to stand up for the Constitution. 

Honestly, we're doomed.  The constitutional era is over.  The authoritarian  era is ahead.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 8, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, those claims have no credibility.... They would have you believe that 99.999% of the time where you have a confrontation between a gun nut and a criminal, that the gun nut would refrain from firing, and that the criminal would be deterred by the mere site of a gun. It just doesn't pass the laugh test.
> ...



So the person will commit suicide with or without the gun.  The wife killer will kill with or without the gun.   And after you make those arguments you argue that the rapist won't rape without the gun?  Really?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 8, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> So the person will commit suicide with or without the gun. The wife killer will kill with or without the gun. And after you make those arguments you argue that the rapist won't rape without the gun? Really?



Where did I ever say that?


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 8, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Vilify the gun?  What are you getting at, do you think guns will develop an inferiority complex or something?



I was clear; you make the gun evil in the eyes of those who don't know better.  If the gun yields longer sentences then the gun must be more evil than the knife.  

The whole idea of a gun crime is flawed.  Oh, sure, brandishing is a crime that is  a gun crime - the gun is the crime.  But murder with a gun is murder.  The dead is no more dead than the knife crime or the anti-freeze crime.  How silly would that be if the FBI published specs on anti-freeze crime?  Murder is murder.  It's the person who commits the murder, not the weapon.  Rape is rape.  The weapon used to force compliance makes no difference.

Additionally, the gun is not necessarily more dangerous in a close-quarter struggle than the knife.  I don't ever want to be in the position of struggling for a knife or a gun but I can possibly deflect a gun.  In fact, in many circumstances, you'd be surprised just how easy it is to take  your handgun away from you.  Grabbing your edged weapon by the blade is a whole different story.

Unless a gun is more evil than a knife then there's no justification for an extra penalty for the gun.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 8, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> woodwork201 said:
> 
> 
> > So the person will commit suicide with or without the gun. The wife killer will kill with or without the gun. And after you make those arguments you argue that the rapist won't rape without the gun? Really?
> ...


If you didn't say it, you certainly implied it.  Why else would you expect rapes to go down if criminals can't get guns.  Where's the benefit of criminals not legally having guns if it doesn't lead to less crime?


----------



## freyasman (Apr 8, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, those claims have no credibility.... They would have you believe that 99.999% of the time where you have a confrontation between a gun nut and a criminal, that the gun nut would refrain from firing, and that the criminal would be deterred by the mere site of a gun. It just doesn't pass the laugh test.
> ...


You realize you are arguing and attempting to use reason and facts with a poster that is a deliberate liar, right?
Nothing you tell him is going to matter, because he is a hack, and only here to spread lies and bullshit.

You get that, right?


----------



## freyasman (Apr 8, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Vilify the gun?  What are you getting at, do you think guns will develop an inferiority complex or something?
> ...


Here's an expert on that subject;


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 8, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> If you didn't say it, you certainly implied it. Why else would you expect rapes to go down if criminals can't get guns. Where's the benefit of criminals not legally having guns if it doesn't lead to less crime?



The benefit of it is if they do commit a crime with a gun, it's added years to their sentence and we can put them away for much longer.  Even for minor offenses like stealing.  If a cop chases a guy down who stole something and he has a gun on him as well, he'll get much more time in prison than he would have gotten for whatever he stole even though he didn't use the gun for the theft.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 8, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Vilify the gun?  What are you getting at, do you think guns will develop an inferiority complex or something?
> ...



There we can disagree.  I studied martial arts to black belt.  I learned how to disarm somebody with a knife.  I learned how to disarm somebody with a club, but there is no way do disarm somebody with a gun unless he doesn't see you and you sneak up behind him.  

My teacher did teach me one move with a gun, but it was stupid.  He put a fake gun against my belly (which never happens in real life) and you simultaneously back handed the gun away while moving your body to the left in a side stance.   By his own admission, the move was stupid because nobody with a gun is going to get within reaching distance of their victim, plus  you're likely to get shot anyway.  Off the record he said your best defense against somebody with a gun is give them everything they want.  However in CCW class, I learned that statistically, most shootings by CCW holders were within 6 feet of the criminal.  

If somebody gets into a car accident, that person is responsible.  They may get a ticket and have to get their insurance company to pay for the damage.   If that person gets into an accident because they were drinking alcohol, they get arrested and taken to jail.  In doing that the officer is not stigmatizing the alcohol, he's stigmatizing the person who used alcohol illegally and irresponsibly.


----------



## freyasman (Apr 8, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> woodwork201 said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...


You ever try to take a knife away from someone in the real?


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 8, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> woodwork201 said:
> 
> 
> > If you didn't say it, you certainly implied it. Why else would you expect rapes to go down if criminals can't get guns. Where's the benefit of criminals not legally having guns if it doesn't lead to less crime?
> ...



Then what you're really advocating is a lesser sentence for using a knife in a rape instead of a gun in a rape.  If the rapist is currently getting 12 years, and you think they need 22 years (adding the rape with the gun possession) then give the rapist 22 years - even if the rape was with a knife.

The thing you're proposing makes 89% less protected than the 11% that use a weapon.  It makes 94% of raped women less protected than the 6%  that were raped by a man with a gun.  Let's protect them all.  Let's punish all rapists.

I am totally lost on how you cannot see that.  I truly believe it's emotion and compassion that makes some gun-rights advocates want to do something to help but if you consider it logically, using arguments you, yourself, have made, you must see the fallacy in your argument.

Help all women, not just 6%.


----------



## Winston (Apr 8, 2021)

K9Buck said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > And that has been upheld in various courts.
> ...



That is just stupid.  The law was overturned based on the state's preemption law.  It didn't have a damn thing to do with the Constitution.  I mean did you miss this part, 

*"The Court has determined that only Colorado state (or federal) law can prohibit the possession, sale, and transfer of assault weapons and large capacity magazines," Hartman wrote in the ruling. *

I mean this is absolutely comical.  Townhall makes a big rah rah, spouts off about constitutional rights and the second amendment and right there, from the Judge himself, let me quote it again,

* only Colorado state (or federal) law can prohibit the possession, sale, and transfer of assault weapons and large capacity magazines," *

Obviously, this judge believes that state and federal governments can prohibit both assault weapons and large capacity magazines.  Hell, I will go further, local governments could as well as long as there is not a preemption law in effect in that state.

I mean I swear, your righties are just totally ignorant.  You have no critical reading skills, are as gullible as a toddler, and the really sad part, outlets like Townhall absolutely feast on that ignorance.  I mean I will agree with one thing, this nation is going to hell in a handbasket, but it doesn't have a damn thing to do with Biden, or the left.  It is because of the rampant flippin ignorance of you morons on the right.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 8, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> woodwork201 said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...



I don't have a black belt but I've studied martial arts for several years and I had different experience and training.  Taking a knife away is a far more dangerous, but not impossible, task in many situations.  I won't say I can always take a gun away and I won't say the knife can never be taken away.  But I'd much rather grab your gun than to grab your knife.  It actually takes more surprise to get the knife than the gun.  

In order to take a knife I have to get to pressure points to force the release or I have to grab the blade.  To take the gun, I have simply to move it just a couple inches to point it away from me and then use the attacker's own weakness and movement to take the gun.  To take the knife I have to risk getting sliced while trying to grab the knife or getting past the knife to grab a wrist or forearm to get to pressure points.

There are also techniques to use the attacker's own momentum, turning his knife against him even while he holds it.  That only works in a limited set of attacks.

All that said, it sounds like you're in the same boat as me: neither of us have had to do it in real life against real attackers and I hope neither of us do.  

Still, whether the gun or the knife is safer for the woman being raped to fight back against is not a legitimate argument for gun control.  Do you want to give the maximum penalty to 6% of rapists or to 100% of rapists.  The gun is a red herring; nothing more than a distraction.  Get it out of the rape argument and start fighting for long sentences in terrible conditions for rapists and murderers.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 8, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> My teacher did teach me one move with a gun, but it was stupid.  He put a fake gun against my belly (which never happens in real life) and you simultaneously back handed the gun away while moving your body to the left in a side stance.   By his own admission, the move was stupid because nobody with a gun is going to get within reaching distance of their victim, plus  you're likely to get shot anyway.



Please explain to me how a rapist with a gun is going to commit a rape without getting within reaching distance of their victim... That's a man I need to meet.


----------



## Winston (Apr 8, 2021)

Vrenn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...



I knew he was full of shit.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 8, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> So that's the only law you want passed?
> 
> Since when?



Here's my list of laws. 

1) End the gun show loophole
2) End private sales loopholes
3) Hold gun manufacturers civilly responsible for gun violence.  

That's all you need to do, really.  Watch how fast the gun industry cleans up it's act after that.


----------



## Winston (Apr 8, 2021)

Muhammed said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > I've got a lot of feedback, but no explanation of why anyone needs high-powered weaponry.
> ...


 
With a .223 caliber?  You are delusional.  AR-15's chambered in .223, or even .22 are for suckers and fools.  The whole reason there is such an uproar to protect them is because they are the most profitable guns made.


----------



## Muhammed (Apr 8, 2021)

Winston said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...


And in your delusional mind, NERF guns are deadlier than AR-15s.

You're an idiot.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 8, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Please explain to me how a rapist with a gun is going to commit a rape without getting within reaching distance of their victim... That's a man I need to meet.



He's not going to do her with the gun in his hand.  He's only going to get her compliance until he no longer needs a gun.  He jumps in her car in a dark parking garage, has her drive over to a secluded area, and then he manhandles the situation from there.  If she has a gun and notices him following her to her car, she can be prepared to draw in a fraction of a second if he gets too close.


----------



## freyasman (Apr 8, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > So that's the only law you want passed?
> ...


No.


Fuck off.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 8, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> I don't have a black belt but I've studied martial arts for several years and I had different experience and training. Taking a knife away is a far more dangerous, but not impossible, task in many situations. I won't say I can always take a gun away and I won't say the knife can never be taken away. But I'd much rather grab your gun than to grab your knife. It actually takes more surprise to get the knife than the gun.
> 
> In order to take a knife I have to get to pressure points to force the release or I have to grab the blade. To take the gun, I have simply to move it just a couple inches to point it away from me and then use the attacker's own weakness and movement to take the gun. To take the knife I have to risk getting sliced while trying to grab the knife or getting past the knife to grab a wrist or forearm to get to pressure points.
> 
> ...



I don't know where you studied at, but it doesn't sound like a real swift place.  Rule 1 when disarming an attacker:  Never ever go after the weapon, you only go after the hand or arm the weapon is in.  If you go after the weapon, you will lose that fight.  I never learned one move that involved touching a weapon until it was under your control.  

Trust me, you're not going to slap a gun away before a person shoots.  As I stated, you will never get close enough to that person, and I don't care how fast you are, pulling that trigger is only a fraction of a second.  

We can't lock up rapists forever.  When they are done serving their sentence, there is always a chance they will rape again.  If they do rape a person using a gun, they will get significantly more time in prison while committing the act, and that's why you don't restore that right back.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Apr 8, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > so then you're not serious about controlling crime.
> ...


The underlying cause of crime is that the criminal wants something someone else has.  Period.


----------



## Winston (Apr 8, 2021)

Muhammed said:


> Winston said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...



What is it about .223 that you don't understand?  For self-defense they suck ass, a shotgun is much better.  Even most pistols are better.  Morons buy an AR-15 because they like to play pretend soldier, unless they just like can plinking, because that is what they are really good for.  Sure, the bullet velocity is really high, but give me a shotgun in close quarters, in the dark, in a home invasion situation over an AR-15 every single day.  Like I said, all you fans of the AR-15 are merely pawns being used by the gun manufacturers to support their cash cow.  The margins on those guns are insane.


----------



## freyasman (Apr 8, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


Those are "resource predators". There is such a thing as a "process predator" and they are different and usually much worse to deal with. There is also some overlap between the 2.


----------



## westwall (Apr 8, 2021)

Winston said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...







Yes, your sock puppet doesn't know shit.  That's plain as day.


----------



## westwall (Apr 8, 2021)

Winston said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Winston said:
> ...







You're an idiot.  You don't know anymore than all of your other sock puppets do, fakey mcfakerson.



For self defense they are among the best.  Very low overpenetration risk, so safe to use in your house.  Extremely accurate, so even beginners can use them well.  Ergonomics are among the best ever, so even mental midgets, like you, can learn how to use them.

Like I said, you are a moron who knows nothing.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Apr 8, 2021)

The 


JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > You point to one place....maybe.......and each time they are fighting the teachers unions. Meanwhile, vouchers and choice give families that do care about their children but who are stuck in democrat party controlled schools the chance to educate their children without assholes like you telling them they have to stay in hell hole schools simply because you want to make sure the teachers unions can funnel money to democrat party politicians......
> ...


The parents of those private school kids are paying exactly the same taxes the parents of the public school kids are.  The tax money should follow the student.  Without restrictions, parents who care will send their kids to schools that educate their kids.  So public schools that don’t perform will lose students to schools, both public and private, that will perform.  The schools that perform will be rewarded and survive, those that don’t will sit empty except for the students whose parents don’t care about education.  The students in the performing schools will get an education, those in the schools who don’t will fail


----------



## K9Buck (Apr 8, 2021)

Winston said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > Vrenn said:
> ...




Idiots like you are how guys like Stalin, Hitler, and Mao came to power.  You're too fucking stupid to learn from history.


----------



## Winston (Apr 8, 2021)

westwall said:


> Winston said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...



You are absolutely full of shit.  If the AR-15 has a low overpenetration risk then it also has a low risk of doing any damn damage.  But the high velocity coming out of AR-15 give it an overpenetration risk.  And yeah, maybe it is good for beginners, WHICH IS STUPID.  If you are a beginner you probably should take your chances without the damn gun.  If you want to protect yourself with a gun, GET SOME FREAKING TRAINING.  I mean that is the problem.  You flippin morons don't know shit about a gun while all the time spouting facts and figures and pretending like you know all about them.  They are a tool, and a fool with a tool is dangerous.  You ever hear the saying, a man with a hammer thinks everything is a nail.  Yeah, that pretty much sums up most AR-15 owners.  They think the gun is great for everything.  That is total bullshit.  They are the man with a hammer, and it is really kind of sad.

Most of them have no respect whatsoever for the gun.  Most of them live in some fantasy world where they are going to waste some imaginary home invader, when odds say they are much more likely to kill a family member or themselves with that gun.  I can tell you, there is not a single gun in my house.  Like the founding fathers, all my guns are at the "armory", a hidden room at Pop's house.  And every single one of those guns has a purpose.  Like I said, they are a tool.  I was raised with them, taught to respect them, shot competitively, was sponsored by the NRA on a rifle team, was eliminated in the regionals for the Olympics, hunt quail with a .410 double barrel, which is probably the most impressive thing that I have mentioned and I doubt you understand the significance.  But it makes for good eating.

Finally, there is this damn fantasy, that the second amendment was put in place in case the government got out of hand and the citizens could then overthrow it with force, because of all those guns they owned.  Stupid as hell.  Insurrection is illegal.  Do you really think the founders created an avenue to allow for insurrection.  I mean there are some numbnuts sitting in various jail cells learning that lesson the hard way.  And it is complete delusion for anyone to believe that, armed with their AR-15's, they are going to overthrow the government and defeat the US Army.  I mean really?  Well hell, pass that shit to me, I could use a hit.


----------



## Winston (Apr 8, 2021)

K9Buck said:


> Winston said:
> 
> 
> > K9Buck said:
> ...



LMAO, I bet I have forgot more about history than you will ever know.


----------



## westwall (Apr 8, 2021)

Winston said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Winston said:
> ...








Wow, you are completely ignorant of ballistics aren't you.  Go read up on how bullets react when they hit bodies and then get back to us when you have a brain.


----------



## westwall (Apr 8, 2021)

Winston said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > Winston said:
> ...







Unlikely, given your moronic posts.


----------



## Winston (Apr 8, 2021)

westwall said:


> Winston said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You tell me how the higher velocity of an AR-15 round results in a lower overpenetration risk.  I mean I do know basic physics, force equals mass times what hoss, freaking WHAT?


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 8, 2021)

Winston said:


> With a .223 caliber?  You are delusional.  AR-15's chambered in .223, or even .22 are for suckers and fools.  The whole reason there is such an uproar to protect them is because they are the most profitable guns made.



More people are killed with .22 calibers than any other.  

The reason there's an uproar to protect AR-15s is because the Constitution guarantees our right to own them - that and the fact they're extremely fun to shoot.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Apr 8, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > So that's the only law you want passed?
> ...


No it won’t because we wouldn’t have a gun industry.  People like you  would sue them out of business with frivolous lawsuits within months,


----------



## Winston (Apr 8, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Winston said:
> 
> 
> > With a .223 caliber?  You are delusional.  AR-15's chambered in .223, or even .22 are for suckers and fools.  The whole reason there is such an uproar to protect them is because they are the most profitable guns made.
> ...



The hell you say.  You want to show me where the Constitution specifically guarantees you the right to own an AR-15.  I mean this is news to me.  What, did the founders have some kind of crystal ball that told them that in the future there will be this punk ass gun made to look like it is a military rifle that will provide huge profits for the gun manufacturers as it is sold to morons and fools with tiny ass peckers to make them feel like a man and it should be constitutionally protected?  I mean I got to see that shit.  Can't believe I missed it.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 8, 2021)

Winston said:


> The hell you say. You want to show me where the Constitution specifically guarantees you the right to own an AR-15.



Very simple:  An AR-15 is considered an arm.  The Constitution gives us the right to bear arms.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 8, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> No it won’t because we wouldn’t have a gun industry. People like you would sue them out of business with frivolous lawsuits within months,



That's why he and the communists want it.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 8, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> He's not going to do her with the gun in his hand.  He's only going to get her compliance until he no longer needs a gun.  He jumps in her car in a dark parking garage, has her drive over to a secluded area, and then he manhandles the situation from there.  If she has a gun and notices him following her to her car, she can be prepared to draw in a fraction of a second if he gets too close.



You clearly know more about the mind of a rapist than do I.  But nothing in these stories suggest your way is the way of these rapists:









						Girl, 15, raped at gunpoint in Queens: cops
					

Police said the teen was walking near Henley Road and Kingston Place in Jamaica Hills at about 8 p.m. Saturday when a man approached her and pointed a gun at her.




					www.nydailynews.com
				












						Man arrested in gunpoint rape attempt in Brooklyn
					

Seth Roman, 20, of the Bronx, was arrested around 5:15 p.m. Sunday in connection to the Thursday night attack in East New York, police said.




					nypost.com
				












						Moradabad school student raped at gunpoint, thrown off terrace on resisting: Police | Bareilly News - Times of India
					

MORADABAD: A 19-year-old school student was allegedly raped by her neighbour in her house at gunpoint and thrown off the terrace as she tried to raise.




					timesofindia.indiatimes.com
				




And, in these cases, it is even more clear that the rapist didn't do it your way; they clearly kept the gun because they raped with the gun:



			Man indicted on charges of rape with a gun, aggravated burglary
		










						Maniac woman ‘raped female victim with a gun, tortured her with drill then poured acid into her wounds’ over £150 debt
					

A MANIAC female criminal known as “Seven” tortured and raped a woman over a measly £150 “debt,” it is claimed. Laura Ann Palmer, 35, accused the woman of stealing $180 (£150…




					www.thesun.co.uk
				





Honestly, I expected better from you based on your posts I've seen so far.  You're just twisting every logical argument to make it fit your emotion based gun control objectives.  That's what I'd expect from the most left of the leftists here.  Laws preventing rapists from having guns do nothing to prevent rapes any more than do laws against rape serve to reduce rape.

So you really believe that rape sentences should be reduced for rapists that use a knife?  You're a gun controller, just as are any of the most left on this board and Joe Biden, himself.  The only difference between you and Joe Biden, you and David Chipman, is the amount of gun control you're calling for.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 8, 2021)

Winston said:


> The hell you say.  You want to show me where the Constitution specifically guarantees you the right to own an AR-15.  I mean this is news to me.  What, did the founders have some kind of crystal ball that told them that in the future there will be this punk ass gun made to look like it is a military rifle that will provide huge profits for the gun manufacturers as it is sold to morons and fools with tiny ass peckers to make them feel like a man and it should be constitutionally protected?  I mean I got to see that shit.  Can't believe I missed it.



Really?  That must be in that set of history that you bragged about having forgotten.  Here's where it says it:



			
				The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America said:
			
		

> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringe


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 8, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Winston said:
> 
> 
> > The hell you say. You want to show me where the Constitution specifically guarantees you the right to own an AR-15.
> ...


Even more, it explicitly forbids the government from infringing on that right.  Some on the left will claim that you can still bear arms if they restrict the arms you can bear.  It says, shall not be infringed".  Period.


----------



## westwall (Apr 8, 2021)

Winston said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Winston said:
> ...









High velocity, low weight of projectile, equals low overpenetration.  A 9mm weighing 147 grains (as a high percentage of defensive loads do)
 will penetrate cleanly through an entire house.  A 5.56 will die in the first wall it hits 80% of the time.  If the wall has any sort of insulation, that jumps to 95%.

Like I said, you don't know anything about the subject, and your understanding of physics is faulty as well.


----------



## Muhammed (Apr 8, 2021)

Winston said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Winston said:
> ...


Nothing. I'm very familiar with it.

I suspect that you're on drugs.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 8, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Even more, it explicitly forbids the government from infringing on that right. Some on the left will claim that you can still bear arms if they restrict the arms you can bear. It says, shall not be infringed". Period.



Or they promote this BS the founders could never imagine the weapons we have today.  Do they really think we are that stupid to believe them? 

Our founders wrote an amendment process for changing times.  The Constitution was never written as (the leftists claim) a living document.  If it's a living document, then it's not a Constitution at all.  Our founders realized that arms would advance and we would not be using muskets and rifles for eternity.  

Unfortunately here is what I see:  Biden (like he did today) is going to make a bunch of arms laws that violate the Constitution. We will be spending millions on fighting it to the Supreme Court.  When the court rules against the communists, they will bring up packing the courts to get their way, and of course it will be packed with a bunch of other communists.  

He attacked gun shows, yet most of the sellers are licensed dealers.  It doesn't matter whether a licensed dealer is selling a gun out of his store, out of his house, or out at a gun show.  All purchasers from that dealer need to get a background check first.  Furthermore is how many weapons were purchased by mass shooters from a gun show?  How many murderers purchased from a gun show?  No mass murderers that I know of, and very few murderers got their weapons from those shows.  Why?  Because these are responsible people.  Even if they are not a licensed dealer, they still demand positive identification from the buyer to have on record.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 8, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> And, in these cases, it is even more clear that the rapist didn't do it your way; they clearly kept the gun because they raped with the gun:



I reviewed your posts and nowhere did the first two links state the rapist continued holding a gun during the act.  The last one was from another country somewhere and we are talking about the US here.  



woodwork201 said:


> Honestly, I expected better from you based on your posts I've seen so far. You're just twisting every logical argument to make it fit your emotion based gun control objectives. That's what I'd expect from the most left of the leftists here. Laws preventing rapists from having guns do nothing to prevent rapes any more than do laws against rape serve to reduce rape.
> 
> So you really believe that rape sentences should be reduced for rapists that use a knife? You're a gun controller, just as are any of the most left on this board and Joe Biden, himself. The only difference between you and Joe Biden, you and David Chipman, is the amount of gun control you're calling for.



Your last link, the same thing.  It was obviously not in this country.  Nowhere in that article does it state he held the gun to her during the act.  

I never said a rapist should get a reduced sentence if a knife is used.  You twisted what I said.  What I really said is that a convicted felon using a gun they were not legally allowed to have will get additional time because they used a firearm.  Once a felon is released from prison, he is allowed to carry a knife within legal length.  If he uses that knife to commit rape, then it's just part of the atttack.  However a felon using a firearm is an additional crime which means he gets additional time in prison.  There is no reduced anything here.


----------



## Muhammed (Apr 9, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > So that's the only law you want passed?
> ...


Fuck off, you low IQ piece of shit authoritarian scumbag.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 9, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> The underlying cause of crime is that the criminal wants something someone else has. Period.



Not at all.  The rest of the industrial world has nowhere near out crime rates. 

Why? 

They treat addiction as a medical problem.
They have extensive social programs to fight poverty.
They don't let every citizen have a gun who wants one. 

So while the US has to lock up 2 million people, the Japanese only lock up 69,000.  The Germans only lock up 78,000.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 9, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> No it won’t because we wouldn’t have a gun industry. People like you would sue them out of business with frivolous lawsuits within months,



Oh, we'd have a gun industry... but it would be a more responsible one.  

One that actually didn't sell a semi-automatic and a 100 round clip to this guy.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 9, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > So that's the only law you want passed?
> ...




Yeah.....

There is no gun show loophole......that you guys keep lying about this shows you can't be trusted.

There are no private loopholes.

After we hold car makers, pool makers, and everyone else responsible for 3rd, 4th, 5th party users of their products then we can look at gun makers.......

Punishing people for things they didn't do is just what fascists like you enjoy.......it doesn't solve any actual crime, but it does give you an adrenaline rush of power.....


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 9, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > And you keep calling for more and more gun laws and you think those will be enforced when the federal gun laws we already have aren't?
> ...




Moron, the gun laws aren't lax.....the democrat party prosecutors plea bargain down gun charges, the democrat party judges let violent, repeat gun offenders out on no cash bail and then give light sentences for repeat gun offenders....and democrat party politicians pass laws allowing violent, repeat gun offenders to get no cash bail and light sentences.

We don't have a gun problem, we have a problem with a political party that releases repeat gun offenders over and over again, the ones actually committing over 95% of our gun crime, and then they make war on the police...

That is our problem..


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 9, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Yeah.....
> 
> There is no gun show loophole......that you guys keep lying about this shows you can't be trusted.
> 
> ...



Less than 4000 people a year drown in ALL BODIES of water. 

Guns are designed to kill people. that's why there should be greater scrutiny in who gets them.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 9, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Moron, the gun laws aren't lax.....the democrat party prosecutors plea bargain down gun charges, the democrat party judges let violent, repeat gun offenders out on no cash bail and then give light sentences for repeat gun offenders....and democrat party politicians pass laws allowing violent, repeat gun offenders to get no cash bail and light sentences.



Guy, the police arrest 10 million people every year, and we only have 2 million prison cells.  

Do the fucking math.  Most people who get arrested are going to get plea bargains.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 9, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > woodwork201 said:
> ...




No...you don't understand.....if you lock up gun offenders for long periods of time, they will stop carrying and using guns.    This is how they stopped the yakuza in Japan from using guns more often.....they even point a gun in a crime, they go away for life.......yakuza stopped carrying guns.....they still use them when they want them, but random gun crime went down.

we need to focus on gun criminals in order to keep uninformed Americans from giving power to anti-gun extremists to ban and confiscate guns....


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 9, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah.....
> ...




4,000 people.......that is more than the number of innocent people murdered by guns each year...

in 2019, there were 10,258 gun murders...70-80%, likely more, of the victims were criminals...murdered by other criminals....that leaves 2,051 innocent victims of gun murder....far lower than deaths by pool..........and of those, the majority are the friends and family of criminals....caught in the crossfire of actual criminals they know....


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 9, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Moron, the gun laws aren't lax.....the democrat party prosecutors plea bargain down gun charges, the democrat party judges let violent, repeat gun offenders out on no cash bail and then give light sentences for repeat gun offenders....and democrat party politicians pass laws allowing violent, repeat gun offenders to get no cash bail and light sentences.
> ...




Shit head...you do the math....when you keep releasing the guys doing the shooting, you don't stop the shooting....you idiot......you lock up the shooters and the shootings stop.

If you catch them, then let them go, they go and shoot some more...which has been pointed out to you over and over again..

It doesn't matter how many people you lock up, if you keep releasing the ones responsible for shooting guns at other people....you idiot.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 9, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> woodwork201 said:
> 
> 
> > If you didn't say it, you certainly implied it. Why else would you expect rapes to go down if criminals can't get guns. Where's the benefit of criminals not legally having guns if it doesn't lead to less crime?
> ...




Exactly.....and then criminals will stop committing crimes with guns.....and they will stop carrying guns which gang bangers use for random shootings when they get mad........


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 9, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...




Rapists don't need guns to commit rape, women are smaller and weaker than most men, so rapists rarely have to use guns to do what they want to women........

We need to undercut the power of anti-gun extremists to use uninformed Americans in order to get the power to ban and confiscate guns....

We need to lock up the tiny number of criminals who use guns for crime...if we lock them up and keep them locked up, our gun crime rate goes down over 95%......reducing the emotional power the gun grabbers have over uninformed Americans...


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 9, 2021)

freyasman said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...




Yes......but joe is a punching bag......we use him to present rational arguments, to organize our information, and when people who may look at these threads, they get those arguments and information they won't get anywhere else, as they are bombarded daily with anti-gun messages from democrat party media.

We get better, but like the punching bag a boxer uses to get better, the boxer gets better, but the punching bag remains a big bag filled with sand....that is joe.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 9, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > woodwork201 said:
> ...




Criminals are rational actors and respond to consequences......Japan shows this....if a criminal gets 30 years as a felon in possession of a gun, he won't carry that gun on a daily basis...cutting down on random shootings.

If the criminal would get a couple of years for a rape, but gets life in prison if he uses a gun during the commission of that rape...he won't use the gun....

This is about taking away the argument from gun grabbers, reducing the number of gun criminals they can drag out to take our guns.....


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 9, 2021)

2aguy said:


> 4,000 people.......that is more than the number of innocent people murdered by guns each year...



No, we have 39,000 gun deaths a year.  Most of those people did not deserve to die.  THe only difference is when someone drowns, we don't say, "Well, that guy got convicted of smoking pot when he was 19, that makes him a criminal", because that would be, you know, retarded.  

A lot of drowning deaths are proceeded by the words, "Hold my beer". But we don't make moral judgements about people who showed bad judgement before they discovered they weren't as good of swimmers as they though they were.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 9, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Shit head...you do the math....when you keep releasing the guys doing the shooting, you don't stop the shooting....you idiot......you lock up the shooters and the shootings stop.



Except we aren't talking about releasing "Shooters", we are talking about releasing people who got caught carrying a gun.   

Again - 10 million arrests, 2 million prison cells.  Where do you put the other 8 million people?  And that's every year.   You'll have to throw out the current prisoners to make room for some of the new ones.  

The real problem is that you take a gun away from one of these guys, they can just get another, because the gun industry has made it soooo darned easy to get guns.   The NRA wants criminals to get guns so every tiny-peckered white guy wants one, too.  



2aguy said:


> Criminals are rational actors and respond to consequences......Japan shows this....if a criminal gets 30 years as a felon in possession of a gun, he won't carry that gun on a daily basis...cutting down on random shootings.



Japan has banned privately owned guns since the Meiji Restoration.  You keep leaving that part out. 



2aguy said:


> in 2019, there were 10,258 gun murders...70-80%, likely more, of the victims were criminals...murdered by other criminals....that leaves 2,051 innocent victims of gun murder....far lower than deaths by pool..........and of those, the majority are the friends and family of criminals....caught in the crossfire of actual criminals they know....



Actually, it was 14,500...  and the number for 2020's are going to be horrible because all these "law abiding" gun owners were locked in their houses with their spouses for months.  

Not to mention the 23,000 people a year who die of self-inflicted gun shot wounds.  

But the important thing is, you need your guns to feel better about your shortcomings.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 9, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Except we aren't talking about releasing "Shooters", we are talking about releasing people who got caught carrying a gun.
> 
> Again - 10 million arrests, 2 million prison cells. Where do you put the other 8 million people? And that's every year. You'll have to throw out the current prisoners to make room for some of the new ones.
> 
> The real problem is that you take a gun away from one of these guys, they can just get another, because the gun industry has made it soooo darned easy to get guns. The NRA wants criminals to get guns so every tiny-peckered white guy wants one, too.




In NYC they had a Stop and Frisk policy.  Violent crime and gun crime reduced significantly and saved a lot of lives, particularly black lives.  Why?  Because anybody illegally carrying a gun could get busted for just the gun if searched.  They got rid of Stop and Frisk, and gun crime and murders went back up.  Guess what?  It had nothing to do with the NRA. 

While some murders are planned, most are just reactionary out of anger.  I see it here all the time.  Two guys get into a verbal argument at a bar, they both go outside to fight, and one of them pulls a gun and shoots the other one.  I'm sure it goes on in Chicago ten-fold.   Now, if these people didn't have a gun, they would have fought, one man wins and the other man loses, and that's the extent of the violence. 

One was carrying a gun illegally.  He was drinking at the bar when he used the gun.  He illegally shot another man.  What does he get for carrying the gun illegally?  Maybe a year at most.  In possession of a firearm under disability?  Maybe a few months if that.  The most time he will get is for assault with a deadly weapon or murder if the victim doesn't survive. 

Make illegally in possession of a firearm a minimum of five years, you'd see a lot less people carrying guns that shouldn't have them.  A minimum of 20 years for using a firearm in commission of any crime, you'll see crimes with gun use drop in half.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 9, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Less than 4000 people a year drown in ALL BODIES of water.
> 
> Guns are designed to kill people. that's why there should be greater scrutiny in who gets them.



Guns are no more designed to kill people than a bow and arrow.  A gun is designed to put a projectile through the air at an intended target.  It's the individual that decides what the intended target it, not the gun manufacturer.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 9, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Oh, we'd have a gun industry... but it would be a more responsible one.
> 
> One that actually didn't sell a semi-automatic and a 100 round clip to this guy.



And then that guy would be able to sue them for discriminating of his looks.  Hey Joe, how about a gun store not selling to any blacks?  You on board with that?


----------



## Rigby5 (Apr 9, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah.....
> ...



That makes no sense because everyone has the inherent right of defense.
You can't try to create multiple tiers of rights in a democratic republic.
If there are dangerous people, they need to be institutionalized, not try to make our whole society into an institution.
And just passing gun control laws is going to stop them from getting guns about as successfully as drug laws stopped people from being able to get drugs.
The likely effect will likely be to increase gun use, not decrease it.

And no, guns are not designed to kill people.
The military purposely went from .308 caliber down to .223 caliber because they decided you use up more enemy resources if you wound instead of killing.
For civilians, 99.9% of gun uses are to just scare criminals way, without having to kill anyone.


----------



## Rigby5 (Apr 9, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > 4,000 people.......that is more than the number of innocent people murdered by guns each year...
> ...



First of all, half those are suicides so do not at all count in any way.
Some of those are accidents, which are going to happen to careless people anyway.
And the cause of most of those that are crimes are actually due to the War on Drugs, which entices people with huge profits, but is a cash economy, so then quickly devolves into guns and shootings.

And it clearly makes no sense to try to reduce gun deaths by passing more laws because anyone intent on committing a crime with a gun already intends to risk far greater penalty than the gun law.

It is gun control that caused police to increase not only in number, but also in corruption, abuse, and outright murder.
We need more armed citizens in order to decrease the abuses of police.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 9, 2021)

Winston said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > Winston said:
> ...



Well, you've definitely forgotten a lot about grammar, since you didn't know that the correct word would be "forgotten".


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 9, 2021)

Winston said:


> woodwork201 said:
> 
> 
> > Winston said:
> ...



Ah, yes, I remember this leftist attempt at being clever . . . and how badly it failed because leftists aren't equipped for cleverness.

You should realize that if you want to define "keep and bear arms" in the 2nd Amendment to mean ONLY firearm technology that existed at the time of the Founding, you're going to have to ALSO define the 1st Amendment according to ONLY the media technology that existed then.  Are you really prepared to only have freedom of speech as it relates to newpapers and giving speeches in a town square?

Next time you want to make a lame attempt at being smart, please don't try it with an argument that your side already lost years ago, please.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 9, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > 4,000 people.......that is more than the number of innocent people murdered by guns each year...
> ...



No we had 10,235 gun murders, according to the FBI and  23,941 suicides using a gun...

Suicide is not a gun issue, it is a mental health issue...the Japanese kill themselves at massively higher rates than Americans do and they use trains, buildings and house hold cleaners...

When people drown morons like you don't say ban all swimming pools.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 9, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Shit head...you do the math....when you keep releasing the guys doing the shooting, you don't stop the shooting....you idiot......you lock up the shooters and the shootings stop.
> ...




Japanese Yakuza get guns easily.....fully automatic weapons and grenades.....their last gang war was in 2011, and they called it the Season of the Pineapples because of all the grenades they were throwing at each other.....and hand grenades are illegal in Japan......

Japan stopped the Yakuza using guns by giving them massively long prison sentences.....possess a gun its 15 year, use a gun you get life......and the Yakuza now only use guns when they want a rival murdered knowing that whoever uses the gun is gone forever.....

As to the increase in the gun crime rate, that didn't go up because of the pandemic...it went up because shit heads like you are making war on the police...as is the entire democrat party...so the police aren't policing anymore....and the criminals know it...

Again...it is the policies of morons like you and the democrats that create our gun crime levels in democrat party controlled cities.....you moron.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 9, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Over a 3rd of the deaths are suicides....which is why joe and the other anti-gun extremists lie about the deaths and lump them in with gun murder.......suicide mixed in with intentional breaking the law....


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 9, 2021)

Winston said:


> woodwork201 said:
> 
> 
> > Winston said:
> ...




Yeah.....you should read the Heller decision......it explains it for you...

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),*

*Then....Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller extends his analysis in Friedman v Highland Park..*
*

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.*
*
*_


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 9, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> > The underlying cause of crime is that the criminal wants something someone else has. Period.
> ...




They have never had our criminal violence...until now....now they have imported violent 3rd world killers to run their illegal drug businesses and they aren't afraid to use guns to enforce their territories...


And.....Europeans have left it to their governments to murder innocent men, women and children...

American criminals kill other criminals....European governments murder innocent men, women and children.....after they disarmed their citizens, they murdered 12 million people who never committed any crime...

You prefer government murder...of innocents....


The Japanese are also far more law abiding and they submit to authority as a reflex....their police have massive powers over them and have a 95% conviction rate ....that is how they keep all crime low in Japan...you know this, and you lie about it...

Japan: Gun Control and People Control

*Japan's low crime rate has almost nothing to do with gun control, and everything to do with people control. Americans, used to their own traditions of freedom, would not accept Japan's system of people controls and gun controls.*
*


Robbery in Japan is about as rare as murder. Japan's annual robbery rate is 1.8 per 100,000 inhabitants; America's is 205.4. Do the gun banners have the argument won when they point to these statistics? No, they don't. A realistic examination of Japanese culture leads to the conclusion that gun control has little, if anything, to do with Japan's low crime rates. Japan's lack of crime is more the result of the very extensive powers of the Japanese police, and the distinctive relation of the Japanese citizenry to authority. Further, none of the reasons which have made gun control succeed in Japan (in terms of disarming citizens) exist in the U.S.*

*The Japanese criminal justice system bears more heavily on a suspect than any other system in an industrial democratic nation. One American found this out when he was arrested in Okinawa for possessing marijuana: he was interrogated for days without an attorney, and signed a confession written in Japanese that he could not read. He met his lawyer for the first time at his trial, which took 30 minutes.

Unlike in the United States, where the Miranda rule limits coercive police interrogation techniques, Japanese police and prosecutors may detain a suspect indefinitely until he confesses. (Technically, detentions are only allowed for three days, followed by ten day extensions approved by a judge, but defense attorneys rarely oppose the extension request, for fear of offending the prosecutor.) Bail is denied if it would interfere with interrogation.

Even after interrogation is completed, pretrial detention may continue on a variety of pretexts, such as preventing the defendant from destroying evidence. Criminal defense lawyers are the only people allowed to visit a detained suspect, and those meetings are strictly limited.

Partly as a result of these coercive practices, and partly as a result of the Japanese sense of shame, the confession rate is 95%.*
*
For those few defendants who dare to go to trial, there is no jury. Since judges almost always defer to the prosecutors' judgment, the trial conviction rate for violent crime is 99.5%.
Of those convicted, 98% receive jail time.

In short, once a Japanese suspect is apprehended, the power of the prosecutor makes it very likely the suspect will go to jail. And the power of the policeman makes it quite likely that a criminal will be apprehended.

The police routinely ask "suspicious" characters to show what is in their purse or sack. In effect, the police can search almost anyone, almost anytime, because courts only rarely exclude evidence seized by the police -- even if the police acted illegally.

The most important element of police power, though, is not authority to search, but authority in the community. Like school teachers, Japanese policemen rate high in public esteem, especially in the countryside. Community leaders and role models, the police are trained in calligraphy and Haiku composition. In police per capita, Japan far outranks all other major democracies.

15,000 koban "police boxes" are located throughout the cities. Citizens go to the 24-hour-a-day boxes not only for street directions, but to complain about day-to-day problems, such as noisy neighbors, or to ask advice on how to raise children. Some of the policemen and their families live in the boxes. Police box officers clear 74.6% of all criminal cases cleared. Police box officers also spend time teaching neighborhood youth judo or calligraphy. The officers even hand- write their own newspapers, with information about crime and accidents, "stories about good deeds by children, and opinions of
residents."

The police box system contrasts sharply with the practice in America. Here, most departments adopt a policy of "stranger policing." To prevent corruption, police are frequently rotated from one neighborhood to another. But as federal judge Charles Silberman writes, "the cure is worse than the disease, for officers develop no sense of identification with their beats, hence no emotional stake in improving the quality of life there."

Thus, the U.S. citizenry does not develop a supportive relationship with the police. One poll showed that 60% of police officers believe "it is difficult to persuade people to give patrolmen the information they need."

The Japanese police do not spend all their time in the koban boxes. As the Japanese government puts it: "Home visit is one of the most important duties of officers assigned to police boxes." Making annual visits to each home in their beat, officers keep track of who lives where, and which family member to contact in case of emergency. The police also check on all gun licensees, to make sure no gun has been stolen or misused, that the gun is securely stored, and that the licensees are emotionally stable.

Gun banners might rejoice at a society where the police keep such a sharp eye on citizens' guns. But the price is that the police keep an eye on everything.

Policemen are apt to tell people reading sexually-oriented magazines to read something more worthwhile. Japan's major official year-end police report includes statistics like "Background and Motives for Girls' Sexual Misconduct." In 1985, the police determined that 37.4% of the girls had been seduced, and the rest had had sex "voluntarily." For the volunteers, 19.6% acted "out of curiosity", while for 18.1%, the motive was "liked particular boy." The year-end police report also includes sections on labor demands, and on anti-nuclear or anti-military demonstrations.*


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 9, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> > No it won’t because we wouldn’t have a gun industry. People like you would sue them out of business with frivolous lawsuits within months,
> ...




Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop guys like this.......they also stop rapes, robberies and murders.......


----------



## Winston (Apr 9, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Winston said:
> 
> 
> > The hell you say. You want to show me where the Constitution specifically guarantees you the right to own an AR-15.
> ...



So, we have the right to nuclear weapons now.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 9, 2021)

Winston said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Winston said:
> ...



Do you have the facility and resources necessary to keep the radioactive components from endangering the people around it, and to keep them safe from theft?

If so, then knock yourself out.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 9, 2021)

Winston said:


> So, we have the right to nuclear weapons now.



Even if you could find a way to get nuclear arms, you'd never be able to afford them.  You don't need nuclear arms to defend yourself, hunt, or target practice.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 9, 2021)

Winston said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Winston said:
> ...




That would fit the "Dangerous and Unusual...."   See Heller.....AR-15 rifles...however, do not fit "Dangerous and Unusual...."



> https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf
> 
> *Opinion of the Court[edit]*
> 
> Ihttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf




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.


----------



## Winston (Apr 9, 2021)

2aguy said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...



Actually, we do hold pool makers responsible, right down to the companies that make the pool drain.  You ever hear of Sta-Rite?  General Motors has paid out billions, hell 4.8 billion dollars in punitive damage in one case involving one family.  I mean even Johnson and Johnson had to take responsibility for their talcum powder.  But gun manufacturers, they get immunity.  For what freakin damn reason.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 9, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Winston said:
> 
> 
> > So, we have the right to nuclear weapons now.
> ...



Well, here was the point I was making.  Leftists always throw out, "Well, nuclear weapon" as a gotcha, because they think it's absurd, and they assume everyone else thinks like they do.

I have personally no problem with applying the same standard to owning a nuclear weapon as I do to guns.  I am doing Winston the courtesy of assuming, for the sake of argument, that he's a reasonably intelligent, decent, law-abiding person who has no desire to go around nuking cities willy-nilly, or to see his neighbors die of radiation poisoning, or to have someone who would want those things get the ability to make them happen.

Therefore, as long as he had the capabilities to reasonably prevent any of those things happening, I wouldn't feel any more bothered by him having a nuclear weapon than I do by him owning a gun.  Why should I?  So long as the above requirements are met, his owning a nuke is no danger to me.  And - here's the operative point - _so long as the same requirements are met, neither is someone owning an AR-15, or any other gun._

Admittedly, meeting those requirements is a lot easier for a gun than it is for a nuke.  But it isn't the immediate "Gotcha!!" that leftists assume it is when they blather it out, and they really need to retire the whole asinine attempt at shutting down conversation.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 9, 2021)

Winston said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Sorry, not the same thing.  We do NOT hold pool makers, or car makers, or any other manufacturer responsible _in the same way that leftists want to hold gun manufacturers responsible_.  Your own examples prove it.  Sta-Rite wasn't sued because their product worked exactly as it was supposed to and someone used it incorrectly and got hurt; they were sued because their product was badly made and inherently unsafe.  Likewise, talcum powder is inherently unsafe; it's not like it was a perfectly safe product and someone decided to eat the whole bottle instead of sprinkling it on their tush and died.  I don't know which General Motors case you're talking about, since you were very vague, but I'm guessing it also wasn't a case of a perfectly functional car that someone chose to drive into oncoming traffic.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 9, 2021)

Winston said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


Not the same.

If you buy a new gun and it blows up in your hand the first time you fire it you can sue that gun manufacturer.

But holding a manufacturer responsible for anything another person does with their product is another thing entirely.

Are GM and Budweiser a held responsible for the guy who gets drunk and kills people when he plows into a gaggle of grannies?


----------



## Winston (Apr 9, 2021)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Winston said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Nope, wrong about Sta-Rite. They were sued, not for how the product was made, but because they did not put a warning label on the product concerning removing the drain cover.  The product was made correctly.  The drain was installed correctly by the installer.  But some kids, being kids, took the drain cover off.  And a girl had her insides sucked out.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 9, 2021)

Winston said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Winston said:
> ...



Yeah, um, providing explanations as to how to use it properly is part of making the product.  Moron.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 9, 2021)

Winston said:


> Actually, we do hold pool makers responsible, right down to the companies that make the pool drain. You ever hear of Sta-Rite? General Motors has paid out billions, hell 4.8 billion dollars in punitive damage in one case involving one family. I mean even Johnson and Johnson had to take responsibility for their talcum powder. But gun manufacturers, they get immunity. For what freakin damn reason.



If you find a big screen you wanted on Craigslist, and the seller said he'll meet you in some empty parking lot somewhere and robs you, do you get to sue Craigslist?   

So we take the liability protection from gun manufacturers and sellers.  Now every commie city and individual can sue those entities, even a criminal who was shot by police, what do you think would happen to those places?  If you guess they'd have to close up, you'd be exactly right. 

The Communists are looking for ways around the Constitution because they hate the document and it interferes with their desire to have total control over the people. Now you see Dementia talking about ghost guns.  What does he really want to do?  He wants to make it illegal for people to get parts for their guns when they want to alter them or it needs repair.  Because once people sue the gun manufacturers and stores out of business, there will be no place to buy firearms from.   

_Sanders also voted in favor of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005, which provided some protections for licensed manufacturers, dealers, sellers of firearms or ammunition, and trade associations from civil lawsuits resulting from the misuse of firearms or ammunition. But gun makers and dealers did not receive a “total pass,” as Clinton claimed._

_As the Congressional Research Service pointed out in a 2012 report, the legislation included six exceptions where civil suits could still be brought, including cases in which a firearm seller acted with negligence, cases involving the transfer of a firearm with the knowledge that it would be used to commit a crime, and cases in which manufacturers and sellers marketed or sold a firearm in violation of state or federal law._









						FactChecking the Fourth Democratic Debate - FactCheck.org
					

Sunday showdown in South Carolina: Democrats highlight differences on health care, guns and more.




					www.factcheck.org


----------



## Winston (Apr 9, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Winston said:
> 
> 
> > So, we have the right to nuclear weapons now.
> ...



Well I got news for you.  You don't need an AR-15 to defend yourself, hunt, or target practice.

I mean I am not really understanding where this whole belief about no limits on "arms" ownership even came from.  Sawed off shotguns are banned.  Is that unconstitutional now?  And maybe I couldn't afford a nuclear weapon.  But there are a couple military fighter jets based at the local airport.  They are required to have all their offensive systems removed, they call it demilitarization.  But fighter jets are certainly "arms".

Here is the thing.  The second amendment was always interpreted as a collective right, not an individual right.  Almost every legitimate scholar of the time period agrees with that interpretation.  Even the NRA supported limitations on gun ownership, lobbying for the Gun Control Act of 1968, which vastly expanded gun regulations in response to the killings of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy.

While you can go to dozens of pro-gun websites and find small quotes from Thomas Jefferson or George Mason concerning individual gun ownership, the truth of the matter is that during the debates, both during the Second Continental Congress and the debates in the State houses, there was very little mention of hunting, almost nothing was said about personal defense.  Nope, gun ownership was a collective right born of the necessity of a Militia.  That was what the debate was about.  Honestly, at the time individual ownership of guns was dangerous.  That was why most cities required guns to be stored at the armory.  It was to prevent Native Americans from raiding a home and stealing the guns.  Which is precisely what happened right here where I am sitting more than three hundred years ago.  In 1700 there were over a hundred white settlers living in this part of Western North Carolina.  By 1720 you could count them on your hands.  To the east, Native Americans had killed hundreds of settlers, women impaled on stakes, infanticide, it was absolutely brutal.  All that was fresh on the memory of the founding fathers, they knew vividly the dangers of "arms" falling into enemy hands.  Today, no one even knows about the "Indian Wars" like the Tuscarora War, the most brutal of them all.

Nope, you, and other gun proponents adamantly claiming an individual second amendment right, and especially this ordeal about assault weapons, are mere pawns in a game about MONEY and PROFITS.  I mean, for the love of morality, we have a professional army, there is no draft, and militias are little more than another professional fighting force.  The founders would be appalled.  A professional army violates everything that they stood for, that they fought for.  A professional army and an individual right to bear arms that has no relationship whatsoever to a militia.  Damn skippy, the founders are turning in their graves.  I mean there is a whole lot of things wrong with America right now, it don't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.  But this shit is not about right and about left.  There is no right and left to ETHICS.  This nation was founded during a time of great ethical awareness.  Voltaire, Kant, Rousseau, Burke, Smith, Hegal, Bentham.  I mean it was the golden age.  But a divided society, constructed that way on purpose I might add, with competing camps siloed in their own echo chambers, has absolutely destroyed this nation.  There is no better place to break out, to find real freedom from our slave masters, than the topic of gun control, the second amendment.  Time we returned to our roots and re-establish a nation dedicated to a more perfect Union, establishing Justice, insuring domestic Tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general Welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.


----------



## Winston (Apr 9, 2021)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Winston said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Moron?  Wow, stupid bitch.  So, if a gun manufacturer doesn't clearly indicate within the packaging that it is imperative to keep that gun secure and unloaded and some little kid finds Daddy's loaded gun and accidently shoots his friend, which has happened TWICE IN THE LAST FREAKIN MONTH in my area, then the families can sue the gun manufacturer?  Is that what you are saying?  I mean pull your freakin head out of your ass.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 9, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> woodwork201 said:
> 
> 
> > And, in these cases, it is even more clear that the rapist didn't do it your way; they clearly kept the gun because they raped with the gun:
> ...



I didn't say that those first links said that the rapist put down the gun.  I said that they didn't make any claim that the gun was put down.  You said that the rapist puts down the gun before the rape.  I'd like to see where you get such an idea.  Please share your findings, research, or experience.  Otherwise, it's just plain bullshit.

And you think US rapists with guns behave differently than rapists with guns in other countries?  Really?

And you most certainly did say that rapists with guns should get longer sentences which absolutely means that rapists without guns should get lesser sentences.    

 You're justifying your support for gun control on longer sentences for just 6% of convicted rapists rather than supporting longer sentences for all rapists.  The logic doesn't hold and you know it.  You simply support gun control and that lame excuse supports your support for gun control.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 9, 2021)

Winston said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Winston said:
> ...



You're trying to compare a pool pump, which most people who aren't mechanics or pool repairmen wouldn't know anything about, to guns.  AND you're comparing knowing how a pool pump operates to knowing not to leave a gun where a kid can get ahold of it, and YOU are telling ME to pull my head out of my ass?

Yeah, I'll get right on valuing YOUR opinion.  Any moment now, it's sure to happen.

Seriously, does anyone NOT know that guns shouldn't be left where kids can find them?  ANYONE?  Is this just an admission from you that YOU are fucking stupid enough to need a label on your gun saying, "Now, be sure not to give this to kids" in order to not do that?  Likewise, I'm sure most people know not to drop a pool pump on their foot, but that's about the only actual comparison here that's valid.

So take your apples-and-oranges comparisons and your sad attempts to make them relevant and shove them UP your ass . . . just as soon as you pull YOUR head out of the way.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 9, 2021)

Winston said:


> Well I got news for you. You don't need an AR-15 to defend yourself, hunt, or target practice.
> 
> I mean I am not really understanding where this whole belief about no limits on "arms" ownership even came from. Sawed off shotguns are banned. Is that unconstitutional now? And maybe I couldn't afford a nuclear weapon. But there are a couple military fighter jets based at the local airport. They are required to have all their offensive systems removed, they call it demilitarization. But fighter jets are certainly "arms".
> 
> ...



Yet another one who believes they can tell me what I do or don't need when it comes to a firearm.  It's none of your business what kind of firearm I own.  Yes, Americans of yesteryear did own guns.  People out in the wilderness did have to worry about Indians, and since there were no Kroger stores at the time, they actually had to go hunt for their food or starve. 

So what's so bad about an AR or AK?  It looks scary.  And because it looks scary, Democrats want to forbid us from owning scary looking firearms.  But anybody who knows Democrats understands that is just one of many stepping stones.  If the Republicans approached the Democrats, and stated they will go along with banning AR's and AK's provided they sign a contract with America they will never bring up the firearms issue again win, lose or draw, do you think the Democrats would sign it?  Of course not.  

I remember as a teen when the left said let gays out of the closet.  That's all we ask, just let them out of the closet and we'll be happy.  Fast forward to today, and gays are adopting children, forced states to accept their marriage, and lip kissing on a park bench in front of your children.  

I remember when they said they wanted lead out of the gasoline to make our air cleaner.  That's all they want, just get the lead out of gasoline.  Fast forward to today, and there are over 3 dozen blends of gasoline for cleaner burning purposes.  But lead was just the start.  They've been eliminating products ever since one by one in the name of the environment. 

I remember when they said they wanted to ban smoking in movie theaters.  That's all they wanted, just ban tobacco in movie theaters.  Fast forward to today, some places you can't even have a cigarette outside on the beach.  It's banned almost everywhere indoors, and even some apartment buildings.  

So anybody that tells me that if we go along with these Democrat bans, they'll be happy, they obviously don't know the record of the Democrat party.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 9, 2021)

Winston said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Winston said:
> ...


No, I don't need an AR-15 for target shooting or home defense.  So what?  What about them make you think I shouldn't have one?  How are they different from any other rifle that makes you afraid of them?

Please post one quote from the Founders that  implies that the 2nd Amendment was about a collective right?

And what makes you think we don't still need a militia?  Do you think the National Guard is going to protect us from tyrannical government?

And, yes, the ban on sawed-off shotguns is illegal.  Short-barreled shotguns are commonly used in the military and the Supreme Court, in Miller, ruled that the right protected military weapons over and above other weapons.  

Please provide any historical evidence that "most cities" required gun owners to store their guns in an armory.  Please provide a list of cities with any such requirement.  Please provide the Supreme Court ruling that such a requirement was constitutional.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 9, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Less than 4000 people a year drown in ALL BODIES of water.
> 
> Guns are designed to kill people. that's why there should be greater scrutiny in who gets them.



So you admit that your goal is the removal of all guns from the hands of the people.  Otherwise, you'd understand and acknowledge that fewer than 500 people are killed each year by long-guns of any type.  Pools are far, far, more dangerous than all long-guns combined, in the United States.

So you think there should be greater scrutiny on whose life is worth saving and whose life is not worth saving?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 9, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > woodwork201 said:
> ...



How bright does a rapist need to be to realize that holding onto a gun when you're close enough to your victim to be forcibly having sex with her gives her the possibility of taking it away from him and shooting him?  Or, for that matter, the possibility of it going off accidentally?  You pretty much only have to have had sex at some point to see the logistical problems there.

Not saying it never happens, but as a matter purely of efficiency, one would be better off using the gun to intimidate and gain compliance so that the victim can be subdued in some other fashion for the long-term.  Cops use their guns in the same way.  Have you ever seen a cop arresting and cuffing a suspect while still holding his gun in one hand?  No, you haven't.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 9, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> I didn't say that those first links said that the rapist put down the gun. I said that they didn't make any claim that the gun was put down. You said that the rapist puts down the gun before the rape. I'd like to see where you get such an idea. Please share your findings, research, or experience. Otherwise, it's just plain bullshit.
> 
> And you think US rapists with guns behave differently than rapists with guns in other countries? Really?
> 
> ...



No, it is not a reduced sentence for using any other weapon.  It's an ADDITIONAL offense for using a gun. 

Now I don't want to get too involved in your personal life, but when I'm having sex, there is no way I could hold a gun while I'm doing it.  Maybe you are more keyed down than I am.  So your articles didn't claim they held the gun throughout the action, but it didn't say they didn't either.  So your articles proved nothing.  

I also didn't say only a rapist should get additional charges for using a gun, I said any unlawful act using a gun.  A convicted felon cannot even have one in the house unless they live with another person who is not a felon making claim the gun is theirs.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 9, 2021)

2aguy said:


> No...you don't understand.....if you lock up gun offenders for long periods of time, they will stop carrying and using guns.    This is how they stopped the yakuza in Japan from using guns more often.....they even point a gun in a crime, they go away for life.......yakuza stopped carrying guns.....they still use them when they want them, but random gun crime went down.
> 
> we need to focus on gun criminals in order to keep uninformed Americans from giving power to anti-gun extremists to ban and confiscate guns....



Are you seriously going to call yourself 2aguy and suggest that the United States follow Japan's lead in gun control?  Japan has the most restrictive gun control on the entire planet:





__





						Gun Control in Japan - Conservapedia
					






					www.conservapedia.com
				




If organized crime is using guns to commit murder, then arrest organized crime murderers and charge them with murder.

You, like Joe Biden, think that we need to reduce or eliminate gun crime.  Gun crime should not be a category of crime.  The murdered is no more dead when they were killed with a gun than if they were killed with a knife or a Samurai sword.

You're wrong.  I understand completely.  I understand that gun control is unconstitutional.  It is you and other fake conservatives, fake gun-rights advocates, and fake supporters of the 2nd Amendment who do not understand.  When you allow some unconstitutional gun control, you concede to the Government the power and authority to do whatever they want, even to violate explicit restrictions in the Constitution.  Since you have surrendered that power, you, and unfortunately me, too, must now beg the government for permission to exercise any right.

What you need to focus on is crime, and not the fantasy of "gun crime".  You need to focus on requiring the Government to limit their actions to those permitted explicitly in the Constitution.  You need to focus on defending the 2nd Amendment.  It's more than a screen name.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 9, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> woodwork201 said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't say that those first links said that the rapist put down the gun. I said that they didn't make any claim that the gun was put down. You said that the rapist puts down the gun before the rape. I'd like to see where you get such an idea. Please share your findings, research, or experience. Otherwise, it's just plain bullshit.
> ...



So you now admit that it's the gun and not the rape that you want punished.  Earlier you said your wish was to make sure rapists got longer sentences and that one way to extend those sentences was the gun-crime add-on.

And you're wrong about a felon having a gun in the house if there's a not-forbidden-person in the house.  Here's one example; there are more.









						NJ Court: Husband Loses Gun Rights Because Wife Is a Felon
					

Last week a New Jersey appellate court upheld the ruling that a southern New Jersey man cannot own guns because his wife is a felon "who's been accused of domestic violence."




					www.breitbart.com
				




I only ask one thing: that you admit you support gun control and that you're not a defender of the 2nd Amendment protections of the right to keep and bear arms.  You want "reasonable gun control measures" just like all other gun controllers.  You only disagree with them on what is or is not reasonable.


----------



## Winston (Apr 9, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Winston said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...



Dealing with the easiest first.  Historical evidence that cities required gun owners to store their guns in the armory.  What the fuck do you think the battle of Lexington and Concord was all about?  Just exactly where were the British marching?  I mean shit, this is basic history, which of course they don't teach in elementary school anymore which is probably why you missed it.

To the banning of sawed off shotguns.  Last I checked, it is still in effect.  Hell, has anyone filed a suit to protest it.  Sorry, but your lame ass opinion means absolutely nothing.  And no, dumbass, sawed off shotguns are not commonly used in the military.  I mean WTF version of reality do you live in.

But you want quotes from the founders.  Sorry, you can find the debates online if you look hard enough.  Problem is if you google second amendment debate you get bombarded with five hundred damn lame ass nutcase gun proponent websites pushing single line quotes that are not in context.  But I will give you a quote, from a Republican appointed Supreme Court Justice,

*During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

In 2008, the Supreme Court overturned Chief Justice Burger’s and others’ long-settled understanding of the Second Amendment’s limited reach by ruling, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that there was an individual right to bear arms. I was among the four dissenters.

That decision — which I remain convinced was wrong and certainly was debatable — has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power. Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option*

www.urbanreviewstl.com/2019/08/opinion-repeal-2nd-amendment-to-return-to-collective-rights-over-individual-rights/

There you have it.  You dumbass shits done overplayed your hand.  In the end, when enough people get killed in mass shootings which seem to be epidemic now, your precious second amendment is going to be eliminated.  You got one hope, reinstitute the draft, eliminate the professional standing army, and then perhaps you might be able to preserve your precious second amendment.  But who the hell am I kidding.  You gun nuts are all hat and no cattle.  To actually use your precious AR-15 to defend anything other than your own precious ass is the last thing you self-absorbed pieces of shit would do.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 9, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Criminals are rational actors and respond to consequences......Japan shows this....if a criminal gets 30 years as a felon in possession of a gun, he won't carry that gun on a daily basis...cutting down on random shootings.
> 
> If the criminal would get a couple of years for a rape, but gets life in prison if he uses a gun during the commission of that rape...he won't use the gun....
> 
> This is about taking away the argument from gun grabbers, reducing the number of gun criminals they can drag out to take our guns.....



You really need to change your screen name if you're going to promote Japanese-style gun control for the US.  You are every bit the gun controller that JoeB131 is.  You and he simply disagree on some of the infringements to implement.


----------



## freyasman (Apr 9, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Except we aren't talking about releasing "Shooters", we are talking about releasing people who got caught carrying a gun.
> ...


Bearing arms is a right; how are you going to make possession of one a crime?


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 9, 2021)

Winston said:


> Dealing with the easiest first.  Historical evidence that cities required gun owners to store their guns in the armory.  What the fuck do you think the battle of Lexington and Concord was all about?  Just exactly where were the British marching?  I mean shit, this is basic history, which of course they don't teach in elementary school anymore which is probably why you missed it.


You're going to claim those battles as evidence that, in the United States, which didn't yet exist, required guns to be kept in an armory?  There was a freaking war fought over those rules.  So you admit that you made it up about most cities in the United States having the armory rule.  That explains your anger in the rest of your post; liars generally do react with anger when caught in a lie.



Winston said:


> To the banning of sawed off shotguns.  Last I checked, it is still in effect.  Hell, has anyone filed a suit to protest it.  Sorry, but your lame ass opinion means absolutely nothing.  And no, dumbass, sawed off shotguns are not commonly used in the military.  I mean WTF version of reality do you live in.


There are plenty of unconstitutional laws in effect, gun-related or otherwise.  That they are in effect does not make them constitutional.  Even a leftist must admit that, considering all the lawsuits the left files against existing law.

And I didn't say that sawed-off shotguns are used in the military; I said that short-barreled shotguns are used in the military.  Here's just one article about them but you could spend 6 months reading about short-barreled shotguns in military use:









						An Official Journal Of The NRA | Combat Shotguns Of The Vietnam War
					

Shotguns with familiar names—Ithaca, Remington, Winchester, Savage and Stevens—served American troops with distinction in the steaming jungles of Vietnam.




					www.americanrifleman.org
				




The sawed-off shotgun was not banned because it was sawed off; it was banned if sawing it off made it a short-barreled shotgun.  I can saw off my 30-inch Ithaca to 18.25 inches and be perfectly legal.  Sawed-off shotguns are not banned; short-barreled shotguns are.



Winston said:


> But you want quotes from the founders.  Sorry, you can find the debates online if you look hard enough.  Problem is if you google second amendment debate you get bombarded with five hundred damn lame ass nutcase gun proponent websites pushing single line quotes that are not in context.  But I will give you a quote, from a Republican appointed Supreme Court Justice,



I asked for quotes from the Founders because you said that they treated gun rights as a collective right.  Now you admit that you can't support that statement.  Yet another made-up lie and you're acting like a 12-year-old, trying to make sure that no one questions your lies because the cost of questioning is your anger.  So the Founders actually did NOT view it as a collective right.  You cannot provide a single quote to back up your lie.



Winston said:


> *During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”
> 
> In 2008, the Supreme Court overturned Chief Justice Burger’s and others’ long-settled understanding of the Second Amendment’s limited reach by ruling, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that there was an individual right to bear arms. I was among the four dissenters.
> 
> ...



Justice Stevens was among the most liberal justices in modern times.  If you recall, he dissented in Heller.  That means that his opinion was in the minority.  You argue that the ban on short-barreled shotguns is constitutional because no majority of Supreme Court Justices have declared it unconstitutional and then claim Stevens is right on a case that the Court did decide.  You really like to have it both ways.

So, in reality, my opinion is the only one that matters to me, just as yours is to you.  That the Supreme Court ruled something constitutional or did not rule it so is pretty meaningless.  That Burger's Court claimed that the 2nd Amendment protected a collective right was overturned.  Did the Constitution change?  No; new Justices came with different opinions.  That the Supreme Court overturns itself from time to time, that 9 brilliant legal scholars disagree on simple points of law, just proves that their opinions are, literally, nothing more than their opinions.  Often, though, the left wing of the Court actually knows that they're lying so their expressed "opinion" is not actually their opinion; it's their agenda.

Generally, Supreme Court Justices are smart people.  I'm always interested in their opinions and consider both sides, the decision and the dissent, in forming my own opinions but, in the end, the Constitution is not difficult to understand and I understand it quite well.



Winston said:


> There you have it.  You dumbass shits done overplayed your hand.  In the end, when enough people get killed in mass shootings which seem to be epidemic now, your precious second amendment is going to be eliminated.  You got one hope, reinstitute the draft, eliminate the professional standing army, and then perhaps you might be able to preserve your precious second amendment.  But who the hell am I kidding.  You gun nuts are all hat and no cattle.  To actually use your precious AR-15 to defend anything other than your own precious ass is the last thing you self-absorbed pieces of shit would do.



And yet you say nothing about the mass shootings every single day in Chicago.  Like all leftists, you hate minorities and you only use them to further your socialist agenda.


----------



## freyasman (Apr 9, 2021)

Winston said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Winston said:
> ...


Why wouldn't we?


----------



## freyasman (Apr 9, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Winston said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...


I don't care, I'm keeping mine.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 9, 2021)

2aguy said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > AZrailwhale said:
> ...



All that, and, yet, you use the Japanese as the standard of the success of the gun control you like.  You still don't see what's wrong with your pro-gun-control arguments?


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 9, 2021)

Winston said:


> Actually, we do hold pool makers responsible, right down to the companies that make the pool drain.  You ever hear of Sta-Rite?  General Motors has paid out billions, hell 4.8 billion dollars in punitive damage in one case involving one family.  I mean even Johnson and Johnson had to take responsibility for their talcum powder.  But gun manufacturers, they get immunity.  For what freakin damn reason.



More lies.  We hold companies responsible when they knowingly produce and market a defective device.  Ford, Firestone, GM, and many others paid for choosing an acceptable level of deaths over the expense of fixing known flaws in their products.  But we have never once held an automaker responsible for the death caused by a drunk driver or for a drunk person who jumped into a pool.

These are totally different from the case of holding the maker of a tool responsible for someone else's intentional, illegal, use of that tool.

Considering that more people are killed each year with hammers or other blunt objects, we don't hold Estwing responsible when someone beats their spouse to death with an Estwing hammer.


----------



## freyasman (Apr 9, 2021)

Winston said:


> woodwork201 said:
> 
> 
> > Winston said:
> ...


All bullshit.


----------



## freyasman (Apr 9, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Winston said:
> 
> 
> > Dealing with the easiest first.  Historical evidence that cities required gun owners to store their guns in the armory.  What the fuck do you think the battle of Lexington and Concord was all about?  Just exactly where were the British marching?  I mean shit, this is basic history, which of course they don't teach in elementary school anymore which is probably why you missed it.
> ...


He's just a liar, and a wanna-be bully, why are you wasting time with a piece of shit like him?


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 9, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> No, it is not a reduced sentence for using any other weapon.  It's an ADDITIONAL offense for using a gun.



Rapist 1 uses a gun.  He gets 12 years for rape and 10 years for the gun.
Rapist 2 uses a knife.  He gets 12 years for rape.

Which one got  the lesser sentence?  This is Sesame Street level stuff.  Surely you can figure it out.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 9, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Rapist 1 uses a gun. He gets 12 years for rape and 10 years for the gun.
> Rapist 2 uses a knife. He gets 12 years for rape.
> 
> Which one got the lesser sentence? This is Sesame Street level stuff. Surely you can figure it out.



You didn't say a lesser sentence you said a reduced sentence.  Better go back to Sesame street.  A reduced sentence is a sentence that has been reduced.  The judge sentenced him to 12 years in prison for rape, but suspended 4 of those years.  That's a reduced sentence.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 9, 2021)

freyasman said:


> Bearing arms is a right; how are you going to make possession of one a crime?



We already have.  If you are a felon it's illegal for you in most states to be in possession of a firearm.  Just like you lost your right to vote in most states.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 9, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> So you now admit that it's the gun and not the rape that you want punished.



No, I want the person punished for both.



woodwork201 said:


> And you're wrong about a felon having a gun in the house if there's a not-forbidden-person in the house. Here's one example; there are more.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Part of a penalty for committing a crime is losing some rights like firearm possession and voting in most states.  Just like you don't have a right to choose where you live if you've been convicted of pedophilia.  You can't live X amount of distance of a school, and that distance is determined state by state.  You can be discriminated against when looking for work if you were a convicted felon.  I won't rent any of my apartments to convicted felons.  I have in the past and it led to nothing but huge problems and costs I didn't need.


----------



## freyasman (Apr 9, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> freyasman said:
> 
> 
> > Bearing arms is a right; how are you going to make possession of one a crime?
> ...


And that's wrong, IMO.


----------



## Winston (Apr 9, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Winston said:
> 
> 
> > Dealing with the easiest first.  Historical evidence that cities required gun owners to store their guns in the armory.  What the fuck do you think the battle of Lexington and Concord was all about?  Just exactly where were the British marching?  I mean shit, this is basic history, which of course they don't teach in elementary school anymore which is probably why you missed it.
> ...



Look asshole, I am busier than a one legged man in an ass kicking contest.  Yes, damn skippy, the founders talked very little about owning a gun as a means of self defense.  Unlike you, I have spent time wearing the white gloves and going through historical documents at major universities.  Why is it that for two hundred damn years every judge, every court, saw the second amendment as a collective right?  That alone ought to give you cause to think for a moment.  And Stevens, he was appointed by a Republican.  WTF, does that not mean anything?

Being straight up, I have forgotten more about American history, especially colonial history, than your ass will ever fucking know.  I mean I am knee deep into the subject at the moment in a graduate level course at a top ten university.  The second amendment is a collective right, period.  Only fools, morons, and bought and paid assholes believe otherwise.  Embrace the fact that you are a useful idiot in a topic that just might destroy this country.  I mean it is absolutely comical, that you think your damn ass knows more about law, and the C
onstitution, than judges that have spent years, did you get that YEARS, studying law.  Yep, your stupid ass just knows that it is wrong to ban sawed off shotguns.  I mean what kind of self-absorbed asshole actually believes they know more than almost a hundred years of jurist prudence.  I mean  I doubt that dumbass SCOTUS justice Barret is even that self-consumed.  Should you be the next SCOTUS appointment?

But the part that really shows your ignorance is that bit about mass shootings in Chicago.  I mean you don't want to get me started on that shit.  The fact that you bring it up reveals how damn freaking ignorant your ass really is.  I would be happy to explain to you how all those gangbangers in Chicago get their "arms".  Hell, I know a dude that made a fortune getting those arms to them.  At least until he wound up in a federal pen.  You are just one of many of the useful idiots that the gun manufacturers depend upon.  You should be proud of yourself.


----------



## freyasman (Apr 9, 2021)

Winston said:


> woodwork201 said:
> 
> 
> > Winston said:
> ...


You're full of shit.

Plain and simple.




Now fuck off.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 9, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> You didn't say a lesser sentence you said a reduced sentence.  Better go back to Sesame street.  A reduced sentence is a sentence that has been reduced.  The judge sentenced him to 12 years in prison for rape, but suspended 4 of those years.  That's a reduced sentence.



I'll admit to having used both words, reduced and lesser.  In post 1120, the last one that you quoted and responded using "reduced" I used lesser.  But it's semantics.  Lessened is a recognized synonym for reduced.  









						Synonyms of reduced | Thesaurus.com
					

Synonyms for reduced from Thesaurus.com, the world’s leading online source for synonyms, antonyms, and more.




					www.thesaurus.com
				




Bottom line is that you support lesser sentences for rapists that use a knife.  You're OK with rapists who use a knife being released sooner than those who use a gun simply because they chose the convenience of a gun to gain control over their victim.  I can't find any polls to support it but I'll bet you a month's wages that women raped by men with knives and women raped by men with no weapons other than their hands and their dicks disagree with you.  They want their rapists in jail for as long as possible.  And they represent 94% of rape victims.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 9, 2021)

Winston said:


> woodwork201 said:
> 
> 
> > Winston said:
> ...



Take your white gloves off your private parts and tell us some of those quotes that you read in those documents in university libraries.  You keep telling us how smart you are while demonstrating how ignorant you are.

No, that Stevens was appointed by a Republican means nothing.  The only thing that means a thing is what he has said and done on the Court.

You claim that the Justices must certainly know more about the Constitution than do I because they spent years studying law?  Well, that's an idiotic statement on its face.  The question is how many years did they study the Constitution and, then, what did they do with what they learned.  Since 5 Justices agree with me on the individual right, and 4 Justices lied, it's clear that one cannot make any judgment on Constitution based solely on what the Supreme Court says.

If I'm a useful idiot because I disagree with Stevens, then you're also saying that Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, Kennedy, and Alito are idiots.  Somehow, you put yourself above them, being smarter than the majority, and accuse me?  Typical, hot-headed, angry, hating, from the left.  All the years that Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter, and Breyer spent studying the law and they still got it wrong.

And I don't believe for a second that you're in a graduate level American History course at a top 10 college.  People who are in those courses are able to communicate and debate, presenting ideas, logic, supporting evidence, and reason.  You've demonstrated absolutely no ability to do any of those.  You're ignorant of the law of the Constitution, and of history and you have no ability to communicate or make a point.

You say you're too busy to provide supporting evidence for your arguments but you're not too busy to continue making long, meaningless, unsupported, and angry, posts to anyone who challenges you.

And, no, you have not forgotten more than I know about early American history but it's quite clear that you've forgotten all that YOU ever knew, if you ever knew anything, about early American history.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 9, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> freyasman said:
> 
> 
> > Bearing arms is a right; how are you going to make possession of one a crime?
> ...



And you're suggesting that it's constitutional?  At least Blues Man admits he doesn't care about the Constitution; he's an authoritarian and wants government to enforce his will on the masses in the same way Antifa and the left want it.  Does that also apply to you?


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 9, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Part of a penalty for committing a crime is losing some rights like firearm possession and voting in most states.  Just like you don't have a right to choose where you live if you've been convicted of pedophilia.  You can't live X amount of distance of a school, and that distance is determined state by state.  You can be discriminated against when looking for work if you were a convicted felon.  I won't rent any of my apartments to convicted felons.  I have in the past and it led to nothing but huge problems and costs I didn't need.



I'll ask once again but, just as Blues Man refused multiple times to answer, you'll refuse to answer again, I'm sure.

If a person is convicted of felony littering, and then later is accused of rape, can he be surgically castrated and his dick removed without a trial and without an attorney?  Could they torture him until he confesses and refuse to let him call as witnesses in his defense his entire extended family who will testify, and has videos and photos to back it up, that he was with them at a family reunion at the time of the rape?

Or would those actions violate a whole bunch of his rights, even those explicitly protected by the Constitution.

If your answer is, as was Blues Man's, that people surrender their rights when they commit a crime, please also provide the constitutional authority, or even common law authority, for that.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 9, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> I'll ask once again but, just as Blues Man refused multiple times to answer, you'll refuse to answer again, I'm sure.
> 
> If a person is convicted of felony littering, and then later is accused of rape, can he be surgically castrated and his dick removed without a trial and without an attorney? Could they torture him until he confesses and refuse to let him call as witnesses in his defense his entire extended family who will testify, and has videos and photos to back it up, that he was with them at a family reunion at the time of the rape?
> 
> ...



I can probably site a court decision that ruled that way. 

I never said you lose all your rights, what I said is that you lose some of your rights. You get to keep most of them.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 9, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> I'll admit to having used both words, reduced and lesser. In post 1120, the last one that you quoted and responded using "reduced" I used lesser. But it's semantics. Lessened is a recognized synonym for reduced.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm sure women who were truly raped would like to see them spend the rest of their lives in prison.  For a woman, being raped is the most traumatic thing that happened in their lives.  It's not like if a woman would rape a guy.  Most of us would sit back and enjoy it. 

I don't know what you can't understand about additional crimes.  In our state and many others, a murderer doesn't get the death penalty unless he or she killed in a commission of another crime.  If somebody is robbing a store and the clerk pulls out a gun but the robber kills the clerk first, he is up for the death penalty.  If he and the clerk got into an argument, and he kills the clerk, then all he can get is life in prison.  Do you understand additional crimes now?  

It's not that one murder is less severe than the other.  The clerk is dead either way.  But by him robbing the store when he killed the clerk is an additional crime; a crime that is added to the murder charge.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 9, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> I can probably site a court decision that ruled that way.
> 
> I never said you lose all your rights, what I said is that you lose some of your rights. You get to keep most of them.



You get to keep some of them?  When you get to keep some of them that makes them privileges and not rights.  And, once again, you don't really address the question.  If they can lose their right to keep and bear arms simply because Congress wanted it that way, could Congress strip felons of all those other rights?

And, please do, _*cite *_a court decision supporting denying a convicted felon the right to a trial or to an attorney or any other right other than to vote or to own guns - and let me remind you that the 14th Amendment allows for removing the right to vote for crimes.  No such allowance is made for the right to keep and bear arms; that right is explicitly protected from any infringement.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 9, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> woodwork201 said:
> 
> 
> > I'll admit to having used both words, reduced and lesser. In post 1120, the last one that you quoted and responded using "reduced" I used lesser. But it's semantics. Lessened is a recognized synonym for reduced.
> ...



You're insisting on additional crimes to fix the wrong problem.  The problem isn't that we need to add crimes to get the death penalty for murder; the right fix is to allow the death penalty for murder.  You think we need to add the gun crime to get criminals in jail long enough to dissuade them from future crimes but you're wrong.  What we need to do is to put them in prison longer for rape, for robbery, for murder.  Your solution doesn't solve the sentencing problem because it only applies to those crimes committed with guns.  We need the deterrent of long, harsh, sentences to apply to all violent crimes, to include rape, robbery, and murder, among others.

But extra sentences for using a gun in a crime is a red herring to this thread.  We're discussing infringements on the right to keep and bear arms.  As part of that, we were discussing whether felons should own guns.  Blocking felons from owning guns is an infringement.  Blocking people from owning short barreled shotguns and rifles is an infringements.  Blocking people from owning AR-15s is an infringement.  To allow any of these infringements is to allow that the Constitution is no longer any impediment to the tyranny of government and you accept that.  I do not accept it.  I may not be able to stop it or fight it, but I will never call any of it acceptable.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 9, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> If somebody is robbing a store and the clerk pulls out a gun but the robber kills the clerk first, he is up for the death penalty.  If he and the clerk got into an argument, and he kills the clerk, then all he can get is life in prison.  Do you understand additional crimes now?
> 
> It's not that one murder is less severe than the other.  The clerk is dead either way.  But by him robbing the store when he killed the clerk is an additional crime; a crime that is added to the murder charge.



Notice that in your example here the robber can get the death penalty without the addition of a gun crime.  If the law is broken and doesn't allow the death penalty for murder without special circumstances then change the law.  Don't create new laws just to create the special circumstances.  For one thing, it let's anyone who didn't break the special circumstance to get off lighter.

And, in spite of your argument and that of 2aguy, you're not doing gun rights any favor by letting the anti-gunners control the debate and allowing them to define the gun as part of the evil.  The gun did nothing wrong; a person did.  Whether they used a knife, a gun, or a pencil, it's all the same.  When you give special circumstance to the gun you allow the left to say the gun, itself, is part of the evil.  You've fallen into their trap.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 9, 2021)

Winston said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Gun makers do not get immunity from product liability, they have protection against lawfare by left wing anti-gun lawyers...

Do you understand this?


Yes....for faulty products......democrats want to strip the Lawful Commerce in Arms act so anti-gun leftist lawyers can sue gun makers and gun stores when criminals use their guns illegally for crime.

We are not talking product liability, we are talking LawFare, against gun makers....

What we are talking about is someone drowning their wife in a pool, and then the family suing the pool company because they made the pool.....

Big difference.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 9, 2021)

Winston said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Winston said:
> ...





Winston said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Winston said:
> ...




Do you understand that the AR-15 is simply a regular rifle?  There is nothing special about it...

Do you understand that the AR-15 is not a "Weapon of War?"  That it has never been used by the military as a rifle?

Do you understand that the pump action shotgun, and the bolt action rifle are current weapons in use by our military and military forces around the world?

D


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 9, 2021)

Winston said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Winston said:
> ...




The AR-15 is not a special type of weapon.....it is a regular, standard, semi-automatic rifle, no different from any other semi-automatic rifle, pistol or shotgun....

It is not a "Weapon of War."  It has never been used by our military.....

The pump action shotgun, the bolt action rifle are both, actual military weapons....the AR-15 is not...

Do you understand that?

And the Right to keep and bear arms has always been an individual Right, the only reason the Supreme Court stated it as such is because people like you refuse to understand the 2nd Amendment....

It is like understanding that Water is Wet.....and then people like start saying...no, Water isn't Wet, so the Supreme Court has to come in and say, yes......Water is Wet...

These Rights do not exist because of the Constitution...as Scalia Writes....the Right to keep and Bear arms for self defense is a Right that exists outside of the Constitution....has always existed as a function of being a human being.....

Guns weren't stored in an Armory, large quantities of powder were stored in the colonial armories because......there was a risk of exploding....every male member was required to show with their rifle, maybe a pistol, and a quantity of powder......

Where do you guys make this stuff up...

Yeah....the indians come to your farm, and you don't have a rifle because it is in the town armory?   Really, you believe that?


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 9, 2021)

Winston said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Winston said:
> ...




You are the idiot.......the democrats want to be able to sue the gun maker when the gang banger steals your gun, sells it to another gang member who then uses it to murder a rival gang member....

They want the family of the murdered gang member to be able to sue the gun maker.....you twit.......that is what you don't understand...


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 9, 2021)

Winston said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Winston said:
> ...




Here....to help you and others understand...

The AR-15 is a regular rifle....it is not special in any way.......it is a semi-automatic rifle, just like every other semi-automatic rifle, pistol and shotgun.....it fires one bullet, for one pull of the trigger, just like all the other rifles, pistols and shotguns.

What has your panties in a bunch is the wrapping paper....the way it looks...that's all.

For example....

You have a Formula one racer.

You take the engine out.

You have a smart car.

You take that engine out, and put it in the body of the formula one racer.

The car with the body of the Formula One Racer, and the engine of the Smart car.........is not a Formula One Racer.....it just has the body of the racer.

Dittos the AR-15...it is not a military weapon, it just has the body of an M4 or M16, the insides are nothing more than a regular rifle.....

You are reacting to the looks of the gun, not the way the gun functions...this is why we don't take your opinions seriously.....we do take your desire to give power to the gun grabbers deadly seriously...


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Apr 9, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Winston said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...



Do you understand THEY DON'T GIVE A FUK"  ?

These are insane people who believe the human condition can only be "improved" through subjugation and complete control by a few authoritarians.

And you're "reasoning" with them?

Not sure who's crazier


----------



## freyasman (Apr 9, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Winston said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


He understands just fine.


These folks are liars who want to steal your property and leave you helpless. Don't talk to them..... treat them like the trash they are and throw them out into the street.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 9, 2021)

H


Winston said:


> woodwork201 said:
> 
> 
> > Winston said:
> ...




Hey....shit head......

The cities where they get the guns for Chicago are less violent than Chicago....even though they have access to the same fucking guns.........Houston and Miami are not anywhere near as dangerous as Chicago...

And.......Los Angeles, and New York.....with the same exact gun laws are not as deadly as chicago...and their gang members live close to Texas, Arizona, Vermont and Main....where guns are easier to get.....so you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.


The problem in Chicago....is the fact that it has been controlled by democrats since 1932.....

It is the catch and release policies, and the war on police that have created the gun crime problem in Chicago.....not guns from Indiana....where they have less gun crime than in chicago..

The democrat party judges release violent repeat gun offenders on bail, and sentence them to short prison sentences for repeat gun offenses....

The democrat party prosecutors plea bargain away felony gun possession for these criminals........

The democrats in Springfield are passing laws that reduce the sentences for gun crimes....and attacking the police..

That is why Chicago has the gun crime it has...

Do not Blame normal Americans who own guns for self defense, sport and competition for the gun crimes created by the democrat party.

So sell that Bullshit to biden voters...they are dumb enough to buy it.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 9, 2021)

Winston said:


> woodwork201 said:
> 
> 
> > Winston said:
> ...


*
than judges that have spent years, did you get that YEARS, studying law. Yep, your stupid ass just knows that it is wrong to ban sawed off shotguns. I mean what kind of self-absorbed asshole actually believes they know more than almost a hundred years of jurist prudence.*


So...shitbird...you know nothing about Miller, do you?

In that case, the other side didn't show to contest the case at the Supreme Court...

*On March 30, 1939, the Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points:*


*The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and so is within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.*
*The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas and so used it in interstate commerce.*
*The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.*
*The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230," was never used in any militia organization.*
*Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the Supreme Court. A lack of financial support and procedural irregularities prevented counsel from traveling.[4]
*
*Miller was found shot to death in April, before the decision had been rendered.[5]*





__





						United States v. Miller - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




So this case was never really argued before the Supreme Court...

And tell us, oh wise one.....what makes a Sawed off shotgun different from any other short barreled shotgun.......

You know....like this














						Mossberg Shockwave: Short-Barreled Fun Without the NFA Hassle
					

Short-barreled shotguns look serious and intimidating. They’re handy in tight spaces and pack a punch well above their weight class




					www.tactical-life.com


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 9, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...




They are not pro-gun control arguments, they show that you control criminals, not guns......


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 9, 2021)

2aguy said:


> woodwork201 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Restricting who can have a gun is gun control.  It's gun control that you're proposing.  You support existing gun control.  That's why the ban on felons owning guns was part of "The Gun Control Act" of 1968.  You're falling into the anti-gun trap if you think otherwise.

Enhanced background checks is criminal control and is crazy person control.  Banning guns for those who have a protective order filed is domestic abuser control.    No matter who they ban from having guns,  it can be phrased as controlling the group of people instead of gun control but it's all just gun control.  Every bit of it is an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.

Don't claim to support the 2nd Amendment when you support infringements on the right to keep and bear arms. It's OK to disagree on gun control but you need to be more honest.  You support gun control.   You support infringements on the right to keep and bear arms so  you don't support the 2nd Amendment.  

You and others here support the right to keep and bear arms, you like guns, but you like the infringements, the gun control, that you like.   To allow that the government has the power to enact such infringements when the Constitution clearly forbids it means that, even though  you like guns, you do not support the Constitution and you do not support the 2nd Amendment.  Just understand that, accept that it is your view, and quit pretending you support the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 9, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Notice that in your example here the robber can get the death penalty without the addition of a gun crime. If the law is broken and doesn't allow the death penalty for murder without special circumstances then change the law. Don't create new laws just to create the special circumstances. For one thing, it let's anyone who didn't break the special circumstance to get off lighter.
> 
> And, in spite of your argument and that of 2aguy, you're not doing gun rights any favor by letting the anti-gunners control the debate and allowing them to define the gun as part of the evil. The gun did nothing wrong; a person did. Whether they used a knife, a gun, or a pencil, it's all the same. When you give special circumstance to the gun you allow the left to say the gun, itself, is part of the evil. You've fallen into their trap.



No, the robber does not get the death penalty without using a firearm to kill the clerk.  If the robber kills somebody in the commission of another crime, then the death penalty is on.  If the attacker used a firearm to kill the clerk and that is his only infraction, he only faces life in prison at the max. Personally, I think anybody that murders another person should get the death penalty with or without a gun. 

It's like the leftists position that we have people in prison for possession of a recreational narcotic.  Only very few cases of that.  Most people serving time for possession were in the act of committing another crime.  The drug charge was just icing on the cake.   It's two separate charges:  One for stealing a car out of somebody's garage, and an additional charge for having a half oz of meth when the police busted him.   The crook will get more time in prison because he has two criminal charges against him than one.

So it's the exact same thing with guns.  A convicted felon is not allowed to be in possession of a firearm.  He robbed the store with a firearm he was not legally allowed to have.  He faces the charge of robbery and the charge of being in a possession of a firearm.  Yes, he will get more time than somebody who was legally allowed to own a firearm and used it to rob a store.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 9, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> You get to keep some of them? When you get to keep some of them that makes them privileges and not rights. And, once again, you don't really address the question. If they can lose their right to keep and bear arms simply because Congress wanted it that way, could Congress strip felons of all those other rights?
> 
> And, please do, _*cite *_a court decision supporting denying a convicted felon the right to a trial or to an attorney or any other right other than to vote or to own guns - and let me remind you that the 14th Amendment allows for removing the right to vote for crimes. No such allowance is made for the right to keep and bear arms; that right is explicitly protected from any infringement.



Losing your right to bear arms was not a congressional act, it's a state act.  Furthermore when you do commit a crime and become a felon, you surrendered your rights because you knew well ahead of time that if caught, you would lose those rights.  They weren't taken from you, you offered to give them up.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 9, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> woodwork201 said:
> 
> 
> > Notice that in your example here the robber can get the death penalty without the addition of a gun crime. If the law is broken and doesn't allow the death penalty for murder without special circumstances then change the law. Don't create new laws just to create the special circumstances. For one thing, it let's anyone who didn't break the special circumstance to get off lighter.
> ...



Your example didn't mention any weapon. What if the armed robber killed the clerk with a baseball bat?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 10, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Your example didn't mention any weapon. What if the armed robber killed the clerk with a baseball bat?



Then you have two charges:  Murder and robbery.  But the suspect will not be charged with being in possession of a firearm under disability.  The death penalty either way.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 10, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> woodwork201 said:
> 
> 
> > You get to keep some of them? When you get to keep some of them that makes them privileges and not rights. And, once again, you don't really address the question. If they can lose their right to keep and bear arms simply because Congress wanted it that way, could Congress strip felons of all those other rights?
> ...


How can you argue or defend that which you know nothing about?  No wonder we're losing the battle to keep the right to keep and bear arms from being infringed.  From the middle of the page, middle column, page 177 of the ATF's Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide.



			https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/docs/atf-p-5300-4pdf/download
		




> Under the provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), convicted felons and certain other persons are prohibited from possessing or receiving firearms.



The history of felon bans is that the Federal Firearms Act, 1938, enacted a ban against violent felons owning or possessing guns.  That was changed with the Gun Control Act of 1968 to include all felons.  Which was changed in 1997 by the Lautenberg Amendment to include misdemeanor domestic violence.. which will be changed again in 2021 if Biden gets his way to include even more crimes into the prohibited persons list.  For instance, for several years, and including this year, the left has been pushing "no-fly, no-buy".  Schumer has promised, in 2016, that they will not give up until it's passed.  Now he controls the Senate.









						No, "No Fly, No Buy" Is Not Something We Can Agree On
					

The latest bad idea from the gun control side.




					bearingarms.com
				












						Gun-control Advocates Push for Using No-fly List to Ban Gun Sales - The New American
					

Gun-control advocates have now zeroed in on using the notoriously inaccurate "no-fly" list, constructed with no constitutional safeguards, as the latest tool to restrict our rights to keep and bear arms. by Steve Byas




					thenewamerican.com
				




Because people like you enable Congress to violate the Constitution and strip rights without any constitutional authority to do so, they have been expanding the infringements to include more and more people.  Do you think that right-wing-wacko-gun-forum members (by their definition) won't be on that list soon enough?





__





						republicans are all terrorists at DuckDuckGo
					

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.




					duckduckgo.com
				





And, no, there are no provisions in the Constitution for surrendering your rights.  One unrelated act, even if criminal, cannot be used as an explicit surrendering  your rights.  That's ludicrous.  For instance, in Medina v. Barr, Mr. Medina was convicted in 1990 of lying on a mortgage application, a felony. 

If, as you say, Mr. Medina voluntarily surrendered his right to keep and bear arms when he signed that application then didn't he also voluntarily surrender his right to trial by jury?  To an attorney?  To not have to house soldiers in his house?  To go to church or speak freely and openly against the government?


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 10, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Then you have two charges:  Murder and robbery.  But the suspect will not be charged with being in possession of a firearm under disability.  The death penalty either way.



Then your gun add-on wasn't needed anyway, was it?


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 10, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > woodwork201 said:
> ...



Death penalty....that was easy...


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 10, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Then you have two charges:  Murder and robbery.  But the suspect will not be charged with being in possession of a firearm under disability.  The death penalty either way.
> ...



This is my plan....

I support a life sentence on any criminal who uses a gun for an actual gun crime..... and 30 years if a criminal is caught in possession of a gun, even if they are not using it at that moment for crime.

This will dry up gun crime over night. Criminals will stop using guns for robberies, rapes and murders.....and those who do will be gone forever......

Criminals will also stop walking around with guns in their pants......which is the leading cause of random gang shootings in our cities. if they are stopped by police, with a gun in their pants, they are gone for 30 years...they will stop carrying those guns, and random gang violence will end.

You implement this with two other things...

1) No More Bargaining Away the Gun Charge.........it must be against the law to bargain away a gun charge as part of a plea deal....this stops.

2) When a criminal is arrested for any crime, and booked in...they will be read the announcement that any use of a gun in a crime is a life sentence without parole, owning or carrying a gun as a felon is a 30 year sentence without parole....when they are released from custody...the same will be read to them again....when they meet their parole officer it will be read to them again.....the U.S. government will also buy and send out Public announcements on this policy on t.v. radio. and cable......

That is how you stop gun crime over night.

Mass shooters are different..... but with only 93 people killed in mass public shootings in 2018, they are not the major problem in gun crime.

The value in my plan......it actually targets the individuals actually using guns to commit crimes and murder people....

It does not require new background check laws, it does not require gun licensing, licensing gun owners, gun registration, new taxes, fees or regulations on guns...

By making gun crime a life sentence, criminals will stop using guns for crime and will stop carrying guns around for protection.....

Also....a nurse, with a legal gun, driving from Pennsylvania, to New Jersey, will not be considered a gun criminal.....that will end. Criminals with a record of crime, caught with a gun will get 30 years, no deals.....and criminals who use guns for actual crime...robbing the local store, rape, robbery, murder.....life without parole...

This, of course, eliminates the need for more gun control laws...we can already do this.....

Mass shooters


1) end gun free zones

2) get the media to stop covering mass shootings like it is the Oscars.....

3) We are already seeing this...get people who know these nuts to report these nuts....

4) Make sure the police who know these nuts arrest these nuts when they have the chance so they will pop on background checks....

What does each do to stop mass shooters....

1) keeps shooters from targeting people, since they target gun free zones.

2) The media not covering it like they are the criminal oscars deters copycats...just like they stopped covering teen suicides to stop the copycat effect

3) The only way to stop mass shooters, since they commit no other crime, is for family, coworkers and neighbors to report their violent behavior....the Odessa shooter should have felonies for the crimes he was committing but they didn't report his shooting his weapon from his front porch.... 

4) The Parkland shooter had 33 contacts with police and numerous contacts with police at his school.....due to Obama's "Promise Program" the police never arrested him for the felonies he committed....so he didn't pop on the background chec


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 10, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Death penalty....that was easy...


That's right.  If the law doesn't allow the death penalty, or other desired punishment, then get the law changed to do the right thing.  Don't fall for the left's tricks and word games of gun crimes.  Punish criminals for what they do, regardless of the tools they use to do it.

To be transparent, I almost never support a death penalty sentence; there have been too many (one is too many) cases where someone on death row, or even someone executed, was later proven to be innocent.  

But for this discussion, the death penalty argument is as good as any when we talk about crime and punishment.  If it's the desired outcome in a person's community or state, then get the law changed to support that outcome without tricks of secondary crimes or special circumstances.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 10, 2021)

2aguy said:


> woodwork201 said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...


You support gun control.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 10, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > 4,000 people.......that is more than the number of innocent people murdered by guns each year...
> ...


Most of those people took their own lives and that is their choice


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 10, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


And you also don't hold Budweiser responsible for the idiot who drowns after he says hold my beer do you?


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 10, 2021)

Winston said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Winston said:
> ...


And who made you the arbiter of what other people need?

I can come up with a long list of shit I don't think you need but unlike you I mind my own fucking business.

And FYI I don't own an AR 15 but IDGAF if another law abiding person does.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 10, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> In NYC they had a Stop and Frisk policy. Violent crime and gun crime reduced significantly and saved a lot of lives, particularly black lives. Why? Because anybody illegally carrying a gun could get busted for just the gun if searched. They got rid of Stop and Frisk, and gun crime and murders went back up. Guess what? It had nothing to do with the NRA.



Except no one in NYC has a good opinion of Guiliani or Bloomberg today because of this racist policy. 

Stop and Frisk is some poor fool getting shot 54 times because he reached for a cell phone. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> While some murders are planned, most are just reactionary out of anger. I see it here all the time. Two guys get into a verbal argument at a bar, they both go outside to fight, and one of them pulls a gun and shoots the other one. I'm sure it goes on in Chicago ten-fold. Now, if these people didn't have a gun, they would have fought, one man wins and the other man loses, and that's the extent of the violence.



Wow, Ray.  This is exactly my point.  Most people shouldn't own guns.  



Rigby5 said:


> First of all, half those are suicides so do not at all count in any way.



Uh, they count to the people who care about them.  

I knew a lady whose teenage son killed himself with that gun she bought for protection.   My nextdoor neighbor killed himself.   Um, yeah, they do count


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 10, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> And you also don't hold Budweiser responsible for the idiot who drowns after he says hold my beer do you?



Budweiser does a lot to promote responsible drinking.  

The gun industry is the opposite of that.  

Point is, bars can be sued if they kept serving someone who was obviously impaired.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 10, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > woodwork201 said:
> ...




Wow..... you are an idiot.

 I support criminal control....


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 10, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > And you also don't hold Budweiser responsible for the idiot who drowns after he says hold my beer do you?
> ...




You are an idiot.  You are a dumb shit......

Essentially, you want the beer maker sued if the guy buying the beer drives his car into a school.........

That is what you want for gun makers and gun stores....you doofus.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 10, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > In NYC they had a Stop and Frisk policy. Violent crime and gun crime reduced significantly and saved a lot of lives, particularly black lives. Why? Because anybody illegally carrying a gun could get busted for just the gun if searched. They got rid of Stop and Frisk, and gun crime and murders went back up. Guess what? It had nothing to do with the NRA.
> ...




A lot of people who know you kill themselves......try to be less boring, they might be less likely to shoot themselves to escape being around you.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 10, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Budweiser does a lot to promote responsible drinking.
> 
> The gun industry is the opposite of that.
> 
> Point is, bars can be sued if they kept serving someone who was obviously impaired.



How does the gun industry do the opposite of that?  You don't see billboards about guns, you don't get flyers in the mail, they don't run television  or radio commercials, and the only time you see guns even advertised is if you subscribe to a hunting or gun magazine.  Maybe if you bought a gun somewhere, the gun shop will send you solicitations.  

I don't watch commercials anymore, but how does Budweiser promote responsible drinking?  At the end of the commercial they say "Drink responsibly."  Big deal  Two seconds out of a 30 second commercial.  

The only time a bar can get sued is if they knew the patron was drunk.  A gun shop has no idea of ill intent by a customer.  They run his name through a federal background check and it's either permitted to sell that customer a weapon or it isn't.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 10, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Budweiser does a lot to promote responsible drinking.
> ...



They run his name through a federal background check and it's either permitted to sell that customer a weapon or it isn't.


Let's explain that so even joe might........might be able to understand...

This means...joe, that according to your own god.....Government......the individual in the background check has committed no crime that would prevent them from owning a gun..... your god, Government, says they are okay to own that weapon.

Who am I kidding....joe is a moron...he doesn't understand or care about truth, facts or reality.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 10, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Except no one in NYC has a good opinion of Guiliani or Bloomberg today because of this racist policy.
> 
> Stop and Frisk is some poor fool getting shot 54 times because he reached for a cell phone.



So who got shot 54 times during a stop and frisk incident in NYC?  How is it a racist policy when it saved black lives?  They didn't like the policy and had it stopped.  Afterwards more black people got killed.  Smart move, but we all know the lack of logic when it comes to the left. 

The point is that it worked.  I know you don't like that, but the results are the results.  



JoeB131 said:


> Wow, Ray. This is exactly my point. Most people shouldn't own guns.



They broke the law.  What more do you want?  In our state you cannot carry a concealed firearm unless you go through class and get a license for it.  Whether it's concealed or open carry, you cannot touch a drop of alcohol while carrying.  It's likely people who do shit like that are ex-cons anyhow, and you cannot be in possession of a firearm if you were a convicted felon.  

Most people shouldn't own guns when it's a tiny, tiny fraction of people who break the law?  Now you see why we don't want people with your mentality in charge of anything in our country?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 10, 2021)

2aguy said:


> They run his name through a federal background check and it's either permitted to sell that customer a weapon or it isn't.
> 
> 
> Let's explain that so even joe might........might be able to understand...
> ...



Joe loves to use apples to oranges comparisons.   I guess it's because he knows he loses the debate with an actual apples to apples comparison.  

You compared the manufacture of beer and the manufacturer of weapons.  Losing the debate, he switches it to a manufacturer of weapons and somebody knowingly serving a drunk at a bar.  Why?  Because he knows how stupid it would be if a parent could sue Microsoft computers if their child was targeted by a child molester over the internet.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 10, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > And you also don't hold Budweiser responsible for the idiot who drowns after he says hold my beer do you?
> ...



The gun industry does nothing to promote crime or murder.

And a bar is NOT a manufacturer.  You should want people to be able to sue Jack Daniels if a person gets drunk and crashes into a bridge abutment then you should want to sue Ford for not putting breathalyzer lock outs on all their cars.

Because of course the person who downed a bottle of JD isn't responsible for anything.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 10, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Wow..... you are an idiot.
> 
> I support criminal control....



Is preventing someone from owning guns an infringement on their right to keep and bear arms?

You're a gun controller as surely as is David Chipman.  The only difference between him and you is the amount of gun control you want to see.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 10, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > In NYC they had a Stop and Frisk policy. Violent crime and gun crime reduced significantly and saved a lot of lives, particularly black lives. Why? Because anybody illegally carrying a gun could get busted for just the gun if searched. They got rid of Stop and Frisk, and gun crime and murders went back up. Guess what? It had nothing to do with the NRA.
> ...



I know three people who committed suicide - one was my brother suffering from PTSD after 3 tours in Vietnam.  None of the three used a gun.  One used pills, one hung himself, and the third used car exhaust.  People who use a gun for suicide just choose it because it's convenient.  Those who don't have convenient access to a gun choose other means.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 10, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> I know three people who committed suicide - one was my brother suffering from PTSD after 3 tours in Vietnam. None of the three used a gun. One used pills, one hung himself, and the third used car exhaust. People who use a gun for suicide just choose it because it's convenient. Those who don't have convenient access to a gun choose other means.



It's why in CA, they installed safety nets around the Golden Gate bridge.  They had people jumping off of it left and right.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 10, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Budweiser does a lot to promote responsible drinking.
> 
> The gun industry is the opposite of that.
> 
> Point is, bars can be sued if they kept serving someone who was obviously impaired.



If a bar knowingly serves a drunk that doesn't have a ride, they should get sued.  If a gun shop sells a gun to someone standing at the counter saying their next stop with the new gun was going to be an elementary school, then the gun shop could, and should, be sued. 

But there's a big difference between the bar and the gun shop.  The gun shop never, ever, ever, makes the decision alone on whether a purchaser is a threat to society.  In every single gun sale from any gun shop in the United States, it is the FBI that makes the claim that the person buying the gun is not known to be a threat to society.  So, if you want to sue someone, sue the FBI.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 10, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> woodwork201 said:
> 
> 
> > I know three people who committed suicide - one was my brother suffering from PTSD after 3 tours in Vietnam. None of the three used a gun. One used pills, one hung himself, and the third used car exhaust. People who use a gun for suicide just choose it because it's convenient. Those who don't have convenient access to a gun choose other means.
> ...


Really?  That almost sounds fun - if I didn't have such a fear of heights.  Don't tell my son; he'd probably head there in a minute just to try it.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 10, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > In NYC they had a Stop and Frisk policy. Violent crime and gun crime reduced significantly and saved a lot of lives, particularly black lives. Why? Because anybody illegally carrying a gun could get busted for just the gun if searched. They got rid of Stop and Frisk, and gun crime and murders went back up. Guess what? It had nothing to do with the NRA.
> ...


I agree about stop-and-frisk; it's clearly unconstitutional, as are Terry stops.  Now some self-proclaimed constitutionalist will jump in to tell me about Supreme Court rulings to the contrary, claiming that the Supreme Court rulings make it constitutional and will completely fail to make the same statement about any anti-gun ruling that the Supreme Court makes... Leave the Court out of it; we all know that the Founders would be spinning in their graves over those policies.

You're right, though, with enough government intervention into our lives crime could be reduced.  For instance, Myanmar has a pretty totalitarian form of government and they've succeeded in getting their murder rate all the way down to half of what ours is.  See, that's the problem with gun control and people control: separately or together, they can't stop all crime.  And crime is the price of liberty: our country is more dangerous than is Myanmar - well, except for the danger of an authoritarian government.  

But we accept the danger over loss of liberty.  And when you start talking about just how unnecessarily dangerous the United States is, try to understand that the solution is not surrendering our liberty; it's appropriate punishment of criminals that will make us safer; quit releasing violent criminals back into society.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 10, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> They broke the law.  What more do you want?  In our state you cannot carry a concealed firearm unless you go through class and get a license for it.  Whether it's concealed or open carry, you cannot touch a drop of alcohol while carrying.  It's likely people who do shit like that are ex-cons anyhow, and you cannot be in possession of a firearm if you were a convicted felon.
> 
> Most people shouldn't own guns when it's a tiny, tiny fraction of people who break the law?  Now you see why we don't want people with your mentality in charge of anything in our country?



You and Joe seem to agree more than you disagree.  You think that anyone who has ever committed a crime should not be allowed to own a gun and Joe thinks anyone who might commit a crime should not be allowed to own a gun.  Hardly a hair's difference between you.  And you also seem OK with getting permission and mandatory training in order to exercise a basic human, constitutionally protected, right.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 10, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> You and Joe seem to agree more than you disagree. You think that anyone who has ever committed a crime should not be allowed to own a gun and Joe thinks anyone who might commit a crime should not be allowed to own a gun. Hardly a hair's difference between you. And you also seem OK with getting permission and mandatory training in order to exercise a basic human, constitutionally protected, right.



No, Joe and I are not on the same page of anything.  Joe wants to disarm society including law abiding citizens.  I want to disarm people who have a much higher potential to misuse the firearm and have proven themselves to be a criminal element.  

Every person knows the penalties of committing a crime. You get arrested, spend time in prison, likely won't be able to find a job when you get out, lose your right to vote and to possess a firearm.  

Now if you are legal to own a firearm, then yes, I want to see people trained and licensed before they take that gun out into the street.  I used to go to the range all the time when I was younger.  Several times you had some kids there that were acting like idiots.  One pair two booths from us shot a hole into the ceiling, and were laughing like hell.  We moved down to the furthest booth from them.  

There are some people not responsible enough to carry a firearm in the street.   Those people will not spare the expense and time to get a license, and that's the way I want to keep it.  If they do, at least there's a chance they will switch their thought process and realize guns are not toys.  They can kill people.


----------



## Winston (Apr 10, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Budweiser does a lot to promote responsible drinking.
> ...



I believe you are letting the gun shop owner off easy.  And the government certainly does.  You are correct, a bar can be found liable if they sell alcohol to someone that is drunk and that someone has an accident and kills someone.  They don't get to say, we looked at his ID and he was old enough to buy it, so we sold it to him.

That is essentially what you are saying, and the government agrees with you, that if the gun shop runs the background check and it comes up clear, they can sell the gun.  So if some dude with crazy ass eyes, reeking of body odor and disheveled clothes, comes storming in and demanding a gun, like right now, while muttering under his breath audibly, "I am going to get that SOB, if he passes the background check, sell him the  gun.  Are you starting to see the difference here?


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Apr 10, 2021)

Winston said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Should car dealers be held to the same standard?


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 10, 2021)

Winston said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Are you serious?  The government does agree with us on this: the gun shop could and would get sued in that case.  Where the government and I (we, if I may take the liberty) disagree is that the government doesn't care if the gun shop gets sued for every shooting and, now, the government doesn't care if the gun maker gets sued.  But no one, ever, anywhere, has suggested that the gun shop couldn't or shouldn't get sued in the example you gave.  But the really obvious flaw in your argument is that  your example has never, ever, happened.   You can't show a single case where a gun shop ever sold a gun to someone who said they were going to "get" someone.

On the other point, though, I can't tell you how many times I've gone into a gun shop reeking of BO and filthy, disheveled, clothes at the end of a hard day at work.  As for interpreting the meaning of any look in my eyes, well, I don't think the gun shop owner has the proper training to decipher that.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 10, 2021)

Winston said:


> I believe you are letting the gun shop owner off easy. And the government certainly does. You are correct, a bar can be found liable if they sell alcohol to someone that is drunk and that someone has an accident and kills someone. They don't get to say, we looked at his ID and he was old enough to buy it, so we sold it to him.
> 
> That is essentially what you are saying, and the government agrees with you, that if the gun shop runs the background check and it comes up clear, they can sell the gun. So if some dude with crazy ass eyes, reeking of body odor and disheveled clothes, comes storming in and demanding a gun, like right now, while muttering under his breath audibly, "I am going to get that SOB, if he passes the background check, sell him the gun. Are you starting to see the difference here?



I think what you should do is scroll back to my FactCheck post about the debate between Hillary and Bernie Sanders on this topic.  It clearly states that if a gun shop owner was exposed to that info, he could be held liable.  In fact there are a total of a half-dozen instances where the shop could still be held liable.  If you can't find it or don't have time to look for it (I'm sure it's on the last five pages or so) then let me know and I'll post it again.  The liability protection clause doesn't cover every and all situations.  

What the liability protection clause does is deter ambulance chasers; people who will sue even though they really have no case, and it's a one in a hundred chance of being successful.  Because of this law, there is zero chance of them winning a case such as a woman who lost a husband to firearm violence, or my city suing  Smith and Wesson because most of the murder weapons happen to be Smith and Wesson.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 11, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Essentially, you want the beer maker sued if the guy buying the beer drives his car into a school.........



The Beer can't kill anyone by itself... The gun can.  In fact, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE GUN IS DESIGNED TO DO, KILL PEOPLE.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 11, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Essentially, you want the beer maker sued if the guy buying the beer drives his car into a school.........
> ...


A gun can't kill anyone by itself you idiot.

Someone has to pull the trigger.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 11, 2021)

Winston said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


If the government give a gun dealer permission to sell a gun then the beef is with the fucking government.

So sue the fucking ATF.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 11, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Should car dealers be held to the same standard?



Sure.  

A car dealer before he'll sell you a care will make sure you have a license to drive a car. He will make sure you have insurance. He will do a thorough credit check to make sure you can pay him back.  He'll certainly check your police record to make sure you don't have a history of driving recklessly.  

Furthermore, we have police that issue 40 million traffic citations a year, to make sure people are using their cars safely.  

Furthermore, car companies have spent decades making their cars safer, unlike the gun industry, which has been making their products deadlier.  

If the Car companies acted like the Gun Industry, then this would be next years models.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 11, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Winston said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...


How about holding the Louisville Slugger company liable if someone uses a baseball bat to kill a person?


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 11, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> A gun can't kill anyone by itself you idiot.
> 
> Someone has to pull the trigger.



Good point. That's why we need to restrict who can get them.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 11, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> > Should car dealers be held to the same standard?
> ...



No he doesn't.  You do not need a drivers license to buy a car.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 11, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > A gun can't kill anyone by itself you idiot.
> ...


We already do.

We just don't enforce the restrictions


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 11, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> No he doesn't. You do not need a drivers license to buy a car.



Last car I bought, that's the first thing they asked for. 

And this is a place I had been taking my previous car to for service for the last 10 years.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 11, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> We already do.
> 
> We just don't enforce the restrictions



I agree, we don't.  The restrictions aren't thorough enough to have meaningful enforcement.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 11, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> A car dealer before he'll sell you a care will make sure you have a license to drive a car. He will make sure you have insurance. He will do a thorough credit check to make sure you can pay him back. He'll certainly check your police record to make sure you don't have a history of driving recklessly.




A dealership does not check out your driving record, their insurance company does if you use their insurance to get home.  If you refuse their insurance because you have your own, they don't check anything except your coverage by the company you are using.  That's what I did when I bought my last car a year and a half ago. 

Dealerships don't check out your credit history.  They deal with banks and they submit your loan application to them, and it's approved or disapproved.  

Yes, they make a copy of your drivers license like a gun store runs your name through a national data base to see if you are legally allowed to purchase a firearm.  Now you can lie on that application and get a gun anyway, but you will end up in jail for doing so unless your name is Hunter Biden.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 11, 2021)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> A dealership does not check out your driving record, their insurance company does if you use their insurance to get home. If you refuse their insurance because you have your own, they don't check anything except your coverage by the company you are using. That's what I did when I bought my last car a year and a half ago.
> 
> Dealerships don't check out your credit history. They deal with banks and they submit your loan application to them, and it's approved or disapproved.



The point is, someone checks these things out....


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 11, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> The point is, someone checks these things out....



Yes they do, just like a gun store checks you out to purchase a firearm.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 11, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > No he doesn't. You do not need a drivers license to buy a car.
> ...



Were you financing it?

I have bought cars for cash and was never asked for a license.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 11, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > We already do.
> ...


of course they are.

Like I said they did it in Richmond VA and in the first year the murder rate dropped 33% and another 20% the second year, armed robberies dropped by 30% in the same 2 years.

So once again your issue is with the federal government and law enforcement not with licensed firearm dealers that comply with everything the government asks them to do.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 11, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Like I said they did it in Richmond VA and in the first year the murder rate dropped 33% and another 20% the second year, armed robberies dropped by 30% in the same 2 years.



one small city... meh... doesn't impress me.


----------



## freyasman (Apr 11, 2021)

JoeB131 
The answer is; "No".

You are not going to get the restrictions you want, we will all ignore them if they do try to enact them, and we will kill anyone who tries to enforce them, and then we will come looking for the people who advocate for them..... people like you, for instance.


Get over it already.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 11, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > Like I said they did it in Richmond VA and in the first year the murder rate dropped 33% and another 20% the second year, armed robberies dropped by 30% in the same 2 years.
> ...



Like I said you have no interest in reducing the crime or the murder rates all you care about is banning guns.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 12, 2021)

freyasman said:


> The answer is; "No".
> 
> You are not going to get the restrictions you want, we will all ignore them if they do try to enact them, and we will kill anyone who tries to enforce them, and then we will come looking for the people who advocate for them..... people like you, for instance.
> 
> ...



Guy, eventually, the majority of us are going to get sick and tired of you nuts and your fetish. 

And if a few of you get the David Koresh Treatment, I'm kind of fine with that.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 12, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Like I said you have no interest in reducing the crime or the murder rates all you care about is banning guns.



Yes, banning guns would reduce crime and murder rates.... 

The problem is, you guys are all keen on keeping your fetish.  I'm really not.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 12, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > Like I said you have no interest in reducing the crime or the murder rates all you care about is banning guns.
> ...



And putting people who break federal gun laws in prison does reduce crime and murder but you would rather not concentrate on the actual criminals

And I don't have any fetish.  I have a few guns that are nothing but self defense tools.  I don't collect guns. I don't own an AR 15 and I don't need people like you telling me what I need or don't need.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 12, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> freyasman said:
> 
> 
> > The answer is; "No".
> ...


you would like the idea of fire bombing children


----------



## freyasman (Apr 12, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> freyasman said:
> 
> 
> > The answer is; "No".
> ...


Well, you got the talking part done.

Come and get me.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 12, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> And putting people who break federal gun laws in prison does reduce crime and murder but you would rather not concentrate on the actual criminals
> 
> And I don't have any fetish. I have a few guns that are nothing but self defense tools. I don't collect guns. I don't own an AR 15 and I don't need people like you telling me what I need or don't need.



Again, when you guys get your nuts under control, then you can get back to me about what you can own. 

The ironic thing is, sensible gun laws would still allow most of you to enjoy your fetish. 



freyasman said:


> Well, you got the talking part done.
> 
> Come and get me.



Again, I don't remove a rabid possum from my crawlspace, I call a professional for that. 

Same thing with gun nuts...  





More of this, please.


----------



## freyasman (Apr 12, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > And putting people who break federal gun laws in prison does reduce crime and murder but you would rather not concentrate on the actual criminals
> ...


I look forward to cutting your head off some day soon.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 12, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > And putting people who break federal gun laws in prison does reduce crime and murder but you would rather not concentrate on the actual criminals
> ...


They aren't my gun nuts.

And you have yet to tell me which of the federal gun laws we do not enforce aren't sensible.

You refuse to answer that question because you don't give a single fuck about reducing crime or murder rates.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 12, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > And putting people who break federal gun laws in prison does reduce crime and murder but you would rather not concentrate on the actual criminals
> ...



Like I said I'm not surprised that you endorse the fire bombing of children you fucking misanthrope


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 12, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Again, when you guys get your nuts under control, then you can get back to me about what you can own.
> 
> The ironic thing is, sensible gun laws would still allow most of you to enjoy your fetish.



Sensible like requiring a federal gun license from the same party that's trying to outlaw Voter-ID across the country?  Making people pay $800.00 for a psychological exam which includes friends, family and coworkers and only be able to get the license if that leftist anti-gun shrink says it's okay?  Taking away reasonable liability protection for firearm manufacturers and sellers so commies can't sue them out of business?  

What you on the left consider sensible, normal people don't.  You want to make us pay $800.00 for a psychological exam to exercise our constitutional rights, then let's do the same to vote.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Apr 12, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Yes, banning guns would reduce crime and murder rates....
> 
> The problem is, you guys are all keen on keeping your fetish. I'm really not.



Then let us keep our guns and you don't buy one.  Oh, that's right, that goes against the liberal ideology that if a liberal doesn't want to have something, nobody should have it.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 13, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Like I said I'm not surprised that you endorse the fire bombing of children you fucking misanthrope



Naw, those were just 20th Trimester abortions of people who would have grown up to be scumbag cultists... 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Then let us keep our guns and you don't buy one. Oh, that's right, that goes against the liberal ideology that if a liberal doesn't want to have something, nobody should have it.



You mean like abortions and gay marriage?  Oh, no, wait that's you guys.


----------

