Another mass shooting. Another assault rifle

[Wry Catcher]

Premise one is a lie ("Many LWs want to ban all guns"); no one in authority has ever proposed legislation to ban all guns. Most of us believe guns need to be controlled, and kept out of the hands of those who have a demonstrated a lack of self control (drugs, alcohol, domestic violence, etc.).

Any tool can be an assault weapon, from a hammer or screw driver to a a knife or a gun. Assault with a Deadly Weapon is a felony, though no real harm to the victim needs to have occurred.

It is already against the law for a felon to buy, own or carry a gun. If they are caught doing any of those things they can be arrested.....this can already be done, under current law.

If you use a gun to commit an actual crime, rape, robbery, murder, attempted murder, you can already be arrested...under current law, using any type of firearm.

We already have the laws for gun crimes........yet the anti gunners want more laws that solely target law abiding people, who have not, and do not use their guns to commit crimes....

Why is that?

Q. How do felons acquire a gun.

Q. What laws are in place and enforced to prevent the sale of a gun to a felon, by a private party.

Q. The 2nd A. which you argue is clear in its "shall not be infringed" phrase, allows the state to deny this right to felons.

A. They buy it via illegal avenues from other criminals
A It is illegal to knowingly sell a gun to a felon in almost every state and more and more states are now requiring that all private gun sales be brokered by am Federally licensed dealer who is obligated to run a background check and keep a record of the transaction

A. Felons are denied other rights as well

But, but, but the only Right not to be infringed is the Second Amendment. Isn't that what you've always posted?

You can't have it both ways, if you agree a felon can be denied this Right, it opens the door for less restrictive gun controls, such as licensing and registration.

I don't know if I have always posted that

besides no one here is saying that everyone should be able to own firearms.

But if I am a law abiding citizen and pass every background check imaginable why should I be told I cannot own a certain rifle or a 15 round magazine?

Because elections have consequences. If the NRA and its supporters do not become pragmatic, and continue to enable mass murder by policy - not by intent - then The People will finally say, "enough".

How many murders have been committed by individuals with a gun who have never been arrested, never been civilly detained as a danger to themselves or others?

Where do you believe the line should be drawn, as to who should be allowed to own, possess or have in his or her custody or control a gun?

Why do we license drivers, pilots, doctors, contractors, cars and register cars, boats and airplanes ownership?

 

[williepete]

You have far too many guns and that is why you are killing each other. Ban guns and then lock up anyone caught with one. That would make everyone safer.

Oh look. Another Brit wants to disarm us. Our King wanted to do that a while back.

We don't have a King anymore.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You have far too many guns and that is why you are killing each other. Ban guns and then lock up anyone caught with one. That would make everyone safer.

Oh look. Another Brit wants to disarm us. Our King wanted to do that a while back.

We don't have a King anymore.

True, we now have Donald the First; a believer in the Divine Right of Presidents.

Donald the First ought to read some history, in particular the fate of Charles I of Great Britain.

 

[williepete]

Donald the First ought to read some history, in particular the fate of Charles I of Great Britain.

So you are publically advocating beheading Trump like Charles I? Seems to be a leftist trend these days.

Let us know how that interview with the Secret Service goes. I won't report you but I'm sure the Mods will notice this.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It is already against the law for a felon to buy, own or carry a gun. If they are caught doing any of those things they can be arrested.....this can already be done, under current law.

If you use a gun to commit an actual crime, rape, robbery, murder, attempted murder, you can already be arrested...under current law, using any type of firearm.

We already have the laws for gun crimes........yet the anti gunners want more laws that solely target law abiding people, who have not, and do not use their guns to commit crimes....

Why is that?

Q. How do felons acquire a gun.

Q. What laws are in place and enforced to prevent the sale of a gun to a felon, by a private party.

Q. The 2nd A. which you argue is clear in its "shall not be infringed" phrase, allows the state to deny this right to felons.

A. They buy it via illegal avenues from other criminals
A It is illegal to knowingly sell a gun to a felon in almost every state and more and more states are now requiring that all private gun sales be brokered by am Federally licensed dealer who is obligated to run a background check and keep a record of the transaction

A. Felons are denied other rights as well

But, but, but the only Right not to be infringed is the Second Amendment. Isn't that what you've always posted?

You can't have it both ways, if you agree a felon can be denied this Right, it opens the door for less restrictive gun controls, such as licensing and registration.

I don't know if I have always posted that

besides no one here is saying that everyone should be able to own firearms.

But if I am a law abiding citizen and pass every background check imaginable why should I be told I cannot own a certain rifle or a 15 round magazine?

Because elections have consequences. If the NRA and its supporters do not become pragmatic, and continue to enable mass murder by policy - not by intent - then The People will finally say, "enough".

How many murders have been committed by individuals with a gun who have never been arrested, never been civilly detained as a danger to themselves or others?

Where do you believe the line should be drawn, as to who should be allowed to own, possess or have in his or her custody or control a gun?

Why do we license drivers, pilots, doctors, contractors, cars and register cars, boats and airplanes ownership?

OK so how is the NRA "enabling mass murder"?

This should be good.

The line should be drawn at criminal behavior. Anyone convicted of any crime (not just felonies) should not have a gun. Anyone determined via due process to be mentally ill should not be able to own a gun.


You cannot hold law abiding people responsible for the acts of an extremely small percentage of the population that are criminals.

If we apply your logic to all crimes then I can ask you how many times has a person with no criminal record raped someone? Robbed someone? Beat someone within an inch of his life?

Are you responsible for those people who commit those acts because you also have a penis with which to rape and hands with which to strike?

Should we just treat everyone like the criminal to be they are and suspend the fourth and fifth amendments in the attempt to prevent all the people who have never before committed a crime from going rogue?

Really what does it matter if I own 1 or 100 AR 15 rifles with 10 30 round magazines for each one if I am a law abiding citizen?

Is the ownership of that particular gun going to all of a sudden make me a criminal and a mass murderer?

What does it matter if my 9 mm concealed carry gun has a 10 or 15 round magazine if I am a law abiding citizen?

How will my ownership of any weapon increase the likelihood that some criminal will use a similar weapon to kill, rob, rape or otherwise brutalize someone?

 

[2aguy]

Correct, it is a tool for use in killing in mass, especially when equipped with a large magazine and a quick release magnet.

No.....wrong...again...The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the United States, over 5 million in private hands.....and in 35 years how many people have been murdered with one......less than 167, ...in 35 years....hardly a mass killing weapon...

Knives on the other hand...kill over 1,500 every single year. Knives are actually deadlier by body count than these rifles....

AJune 2016 article: "At least 84 people have been killed and 119 have been injured so far this year in 86 shooting incidents involving assault-style rifles, according to data compiled by the Gun Violence Archive, a not-for-profit corporation that tracks gun violence. Those numbers include the casualties at Pulse nightclub over the weekend."

84 in half of 2016. Assault type rifles. Yet you are claiming 137 in 35 years........

It's pretty clear why you didn't include a link to that article, isn't it? Could it be that most of those killed were killed by terrorists? Would you be happier is the terrorists just used trucks to commit mass murder?

The fact remains, most murders are done with handguns and involve gang-bangers shooting other gang-bangers or domestic violence. More than half of the "gun violence" (a term the LW antigunners love to toss around) are suicides. Gang-bangers is an inner-city crime problem. Domestic violence and suicides are a mental health issue. If the LW really gave a shit about saving lives, they'd focus on fixing those areas and less on shredding the Constitution for their authoritarian agenda.

I think I looked up what he was talking about.....I think they include pistols, shotguns and some bolt action rifles as "Assault weapons" I would have to see his link...which he didn't give yet......to be sure...

Correct. It depends if they have "military" features such as a pistol grip, thumb grip or detachable magazine. Example:

Assault Weapons Ban summary - United States Senator for California

• All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
• All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
• 157 specifically-named firearms (listed at the end of this page).

MILLER: Feinstein's list of 157 banned guns - Washington Times
None of these guns function any differently than any other standard semi-automatic weapon. What makes a gun get on Mrs. Feinstein’s list is that it appears scary to her. We really should be governing by fact and not not emotion.

Here is the list of 157 makes and models of banned guns:

Thanks.....this is one of the Bait and Switch tricks of the anti gunners....people here "Assault Weapon" and they thing a weapon that looks like the AR-15........

And then, when it comes time to push a ballot or pass legislation, the uninformed doen't pay attention because all they care about is the "Assault Weapon"....which they think is a rifle that looks like an AR-15.......... and then anti gunners start banning regular pistols, shot guns, magazines, and anything else they can sneak in...

You can never, ever trust anti gunners......they are the same people that banned and burned books...they are the book burners of the 2nd Amendment....

 

[2aguy]

AJune 2016 article: "At least 84 people have been killed and 119 have been injured so far this year in 86 shooting incidents involving assault-style rifles, according to data compiled by the Gun Violence Archive, a not-for-profit corporation that tracks gun violence. Those numbers include the casualties at Pulse nightclub over the weekend."

84 in half of 2016. Assault type rifles. Yet you are claiming 137 in 35 years........

It's pretty clear why you didn't include a link to that article, isn't it? Could it be that most of those killed were killed by terrorists? Would you be happier is the terrorists just used trucks to commit mass murder?

The fact remains, most murders are done with handguns and involve gang-bangers shooting other gang-bangers or domestic violence. More than half of the "gun violence" (a term the LW antigunners love to toss around) are suicides. Gang-bangers is an inner-city crime problem. Domestic violence and suicides are a mental health issue. If the LW really gave a shit about saving lives, they'd focus on fixing those areas and less on shredding the Constitution for their authoritarian agenda.

I think I looked up what he was talking about.....I think they include pistols, shotguns and some bolt action rifles as "Assault weapons" I would have to see his link...which he didn't give yet......to be sure...

Correct. It depends if they have "military" features such as a pistol grip, thumb grip or detachable magazine. Example:

Assault Weapons Ban summary - United States Senator for California

• All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
• All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
• 157 specifically-named firearms (listed at the end of this page).

MILLER: Feinstein's list of 157 banned guns - Washington Times
None of these guns function any differently than any other standard semi-automatic weapon. What makes a gun get on Mrs. Feinstein’s list is that it appears scary to her. We really should be governing by fact and not not emotion.

Here is the list of 157 makes and models of banned guns:

and no one can tell me how a rifle with a pistol grip is more deadly than a rifle without a pistol grip

It's not, but for the anti-gun Left, it's a step to a complete semi-auto ban. In their view, if a 10-bullet magazine limit is good, then a 5-bullet magazine limit is better. Semi-autos shoot too fast so bolt action will save lives. etc.

The judge who blocked the new California magazine ban and confiscation law, temporarily, explained the slippery slope argument in his ruling...it is a classic...

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...rra_Order-Granting-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf

(n) a slippery slope


What is clear from the preliminary evidence presented is that individuals who intend to engage in mass gun violence typically make plans. They use multiple weapons and come loaded with extra ammunition.

They pick the place and the time and do much harm before police can intervene. Persons with violent intentions have used large capacity magazines, machine guns, hand grenades and pipe bombs, notwithstanding laws criminalizing their possession or use.

Trying to legislatively outlaw the commonly possessed weapon de jour is like wearing flip flops on a slippery slope.
A downhill slide is not hard to foresee.

Tragically, when 30-round magazines are banned, attackers will use 15 or 17- round magazines.

If magazines holding more than 10 rounds are banned they will use multiple 10-round magazines.

If all semi-automatic weapons are banned they will use

40 17cv1017-BEN Case 3:17-cv-01017-BEN-JLB Document 28 Filed 06/29/17 PageID.4156 Page 40 of 66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
shotguns and revolvers.

All of these scenarios already occur.

Because revolvers and handguns are the quintessential home defense weapon protected by the Second Amendment and specifically approved in Heller, and because the average defensive gun use involves firing 2.2 rounds (according to the State’s experts), states could rationalize a ban on possession of rounds in excess of three per weapon. Criminals intent on 13 violence would then equip themselves with multiple weapons.


The State could then rationalize a one-weapon-per-individual law.

Since “merely” brandishing a firearm is usually effective as a defense to criminal attack (according to the State’s experts), it could be argued that a one-revolver-with-one-round-per-individual ban is a reasonable experiment in state police power as a means to protect citizens and law enforcement officers from gun violence.


Statutes disarming law-abiding responsible citizen gun owners reflect an opinion on gun policy. Courts are not free to impose their own policy choices on sovereign states. But as Heller explains, the Second Amendment takes certain policy choices and removes them beyond the realm of debate. Disarming California’s law-abiding citizenry is not a constitutionally-permissible policy choice.

 

[2aguy]

AJune 2016 article: "At least 84 people have been killed and 119 have been injured so far this year in 86 shooting incidents involving assault-style rifles, according to data compiled by the Gun Violence Archive, a not-for-profit corporation that tracks gun violence. Those numbers include the casualties at Pulse nightclub over the weekend."

84 in half of 2016. Assault type rifles. Yet you are claiming 137 in 35 years........

It's pretty clear why you didn't include a link to that article, isn't it? Could it be that most of those killed were killed by terrorists? Would you be happier is the terrorists just used trucks to commit mass murder?

The fact remains, most murders are done with handguns and involve gang-bangers shooting other gang-bangers or domestic violence. More than half of the "gun violence" (a term the LW antigunners love to toss around) are suicides. Gang-bangers is an inner-city crime problem. Domestic violence and suicides are a mental health issue. If the LW really gave a shit about saving lives, they'd focus on fixing those areas and less on shredding the Constitution for their authoritarian agenda.

I think I looked up what he was talking about.....I think they include pistols, shotguns and some bolt action rifles as "Assault weapons" I would have to see his link...which he didn't give yet......to be sure...

Correct. It depends if they have "military" features such as a pistol grip, thumb grip or detachable magazine. Example:

Assault Weapons Ban summary - United States Senator for California

• All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
• All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
• 157 specifically-named firearms (listed at the end of this page).

MILLER: Feinstein's list of 157 banned guns - Washington Times
None of these guns function any differently than any other standard semi-automatic weapon. What makes a gun get on Mrs. Feinstein’s list is that it appears scary to her. We really should be governing by fact and not not emotion.

Here is the list of 157 makes and models of banned guns:

and no one can tell me how a rifle with a pistol grip is more deadly than a rifle without a pistol grip

Why have one if it presents no advantage?

It does, it is easy to shoot. The pistol grip isn't part of what makes it easy to shoot, it is merely an accessory.

 

[2aguy]

It is already against the law for a felon to buy, own or carry a gun. If they are caught doing any of those things they can be arrested.....this can already be done, under current law.

If you use a gun to commit an actual crime, rape, robbery, murder, attempted murder, you can already be arrested...under current law, using any type of firearm.

We already have the laws for gun crimes........yet the anti gunners want more laws that solely target law abiding people, who have not, and do not use their guns to commit crimes....

Why is that?

Q. How do felons acquire a gun.

Q. What laws are in place and enforced to prevent the sale of a gun to a felon, by a private party.

Q. The 2nd A. which you argue is clear in its "shall not be infringed" phrase, allows the state to deny this right to felons.

A. They buy it via illegal avenues from other criminals
A It is illegal to knowingly sell a gun to a felon in almost every state and more and more states are now requiring that all private gun sales be brokered by am Federally licensed dealer who is obligated to run a background check and keep a record of the transaction

A. Felons are denied other rights as well

But, but, but the only Right not to be infringed is the Second Amendment. Isn't that what you've always posted?

You can't have it both ways, if you agree a felon can be denied this Right, it opens the door for less restrictive gun controls, such as licensing and registration.

Please...tell the class what licensing law abiding gun owners does to stop gun crimes or prevent gun crimes......

Considering that criminals cannot buy, own or carry a gun, they can't get a license for a gun......so what is the point?

And before you say...so we know who owns the gun.....again, what does that do to stop or solve a gun crime?

Be brave...answer the question.

Keeping in mind that the criminals in this country steal their guns, from homes, stores, train cars and cars......so if a gun is found, the original owner has no connection to the actual crime.

If a criminal gets the gun from a straw buyer...someone who can pass a background check, both at a store and at a private sale, we can find out that straw buyer when we arrest the criminal who actually used the gun for the crime...right? Again, the license did nothing to stop or prevent that crime.

And since most of the time a straw buyer is the baby momma of the criminal, or the criminals grandmother....prosecutors do not tend to prosecute them for their gun selling....since juries don't like to convict baby momma's who say they had to get the gun or the gang would beat the shit out of them.....

So please....tell the class why we need to license guns...

Gee why not just hand out guns to everyone? Criminals, crazy people, kids, etc According to you, that will stop gun violence.

Licensing will make it more difficult for criminals to buy guns. The more difficult, the more likely they will be caught.

If a person is stopped for whatever reason & is carrying an unlicensed gun, it is then a crime & the person arrested & gun taken - BEFORE a crime a committed with it.

No one said to arm everyone...that is the fake arugment you use when you know you are losing.....and as my link shows...as LAW ABIDING gun owners own and carry guns...the actual crime rates have dropped......

You can't hide this fact.....

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 15.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...


-- 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.
====

 

[2aguy]

It is already against the law for a felon to buy, own or carry a gun. If they are caught doing any of those things they can be arrested.....this can already be done, under current law.

If you use a gun to commit an actual crime, rape, robbery, murder, attempted murder, you can already be arrested...under current law, using any type of firearm.

We already have the laws for gun crimes........yet the anti gunners want more laws that solely target law abiding people, who have not, and do not use their guns to commit crimes....

Why is that?

Q. How do felons acquire a gun.

Q. What laws are in place and enforced to prevent the sale of a gun to a felon, by a private party.

Q. The 2nd A. which you argue is clear in its "shall not be infringed" phrase, allows the state to deny this right to felons.

A. They buy it via illegal avenues from other criminals
A It is illegal to knowingly sell a gun to a felon in almost every state and more and more states are now requiring that all private gun sales be brokered by am Federally licensed dealer who is obligated to run a background check and keep a record of the transaction

A. Felons are denied other rights as well

But, but, but the only Right not to be infringed is the Second Amendment. Isn't that what you've always posted?

You can't have it both ways, if you agree a felon can be denied this Right, it opens the door for less restrictive gun controls, such as licensing and registration.

Please...tell the class what licensing law abiding gun owners does to stop gun crimes or prevent gun crimes......

Considering that criminals cannot buy, own or carry a gun, they can't get a license for a gun......so what is the point?

And before you say...so we know who owns the gun.....again, what does that do to stop or solve a gun crime?

Be brave...answer the question.

Keeping in mind that the criminals in this country steal their guns, from homes, stores, train cars and cars......so if a gun is found, the original owner has no connection to the actual crime.

If a criminal gets the gun from a straw buyer...someone who can pass a background check, both at a store and at a private sale, we can find out that straw buyer when we arrest the criminal who actually used the gun for the crime...right? Again, the license did nothing to stop or prevent that crime.

And since most of the time a straw buyer is the baby momma of the criminal, or the criminals grandmother....prosecutors do not tend to prosecute them for their gun selling....since juries don't like to convict baby momma's who say they had to get the gun or the gang would beat the shit out of them.....

So please....tell the class why we need to license guns...

Gee why not just hand out guns to everyone? Criminals, crazy people, kids, etc According to you, that will stop gun violence.

Licensing will make it more difficult for criminals to buy guns. The more difficult, the more likely they will be caught.

If a person is stopped for whatever reason & is carrying an unlicensed gun, it is then a crime & the person arrested & gun taken - BEFORE a crime a committed with it.

A gun license is first...a tax on the Right to own a gun, therefore unConstitutional according to Murdoch v. Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court decision.

Second, if a person is stopped and the cop runs their name for warrants and complaints.....and they see they are a felon, they will check them for guns...if they find the gun, they can arrest them...since they can't buy, own or carry a gun so they can't get a license to begin with....but they get arrested because they already can't carry or own the gun....

No license scheme is required to do this...

If they stop you, and you are not a felon or a criminal, and you have a gun and you weren't committing a crime with it....you go on your merry way.....no need to license the gun owner.......

Do you see now why licensing does nothing to stop crime or mass shooters....? And how it is needless bureaucratic paperwork simply to create legal jepoardy for the law abiding gun owner?

You want a lack of filling out a piece of paper to be a crime that will lock up a person who has not used a gun to commit a crime...that is what you want...right? And that makes sense to you?

 

[2aguy]

Many LWs want to ban all guns. This forum is replete with that idea. However, shredding the Constitution isn't a practical path for them. Slowly eating away at individual rights and eroding the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment in particular works much better for them. They use words like "for the children" and "common sense" but when it comes down to the nitty-gritty it's statements that mean restricting all free citizens from exercising their natural right of self-defense.

BTW, there is not such thing as an "assault rifle" much less an "assault type rifle". It's a fabricated term used by the anti-gun left that means "scary-looking rifle".

What is the difference between these two rifles, RealDave?

Would you call CPS on the parents of this young man?

Premise one is a lie ("Many LWs want to ban all guns"); no one in authority has ever proposed legislation to ban all guns. Most of us believe guns need to be controlled, and kept out of the hands of those who have a demonstrated a lack of self control (drugs, alcohol, domestic violence, etc.).

Any tool can be an assault weapon, from a hammer or screw driver to a a knife or a gun. Assault with a Deadly Weapon is a felony, though no real harm to the victim needs to have occurred.

It is already against the law for a felon to buy, own or carry a gun. If they are caught doing any of those things they can be arrested.....this can already be done, under current law.

If you use a gun to commit an actual crime, rape, robbery, murder, attempted murder, you can already be arrested...under current law, using any type of firearm.

We already have the laws for gun crimes........yet the anti gunners want more laws that solely target law abiding people, who have not, and do not use their guns to commit crimes....

Why is that?

A person is seen by law enforcement carrying an assault type rifle.

Without a ban, that is not illegal & the officer has no cause to stop him for ID to determine if he is a felon, if he is one.

Lanza was not a felon.

Yes...he does have cause, twit...it is called disturbing the peace....he can then see if the guy is a felon, if he is he can arrest him.

So you admit that carrying a assault rifle is disturbing the peace.

If it is done in a way that disturbs the peace. Carrying a legal weapon is not a crime or a criminal act, but carrying a gun to create a public reaction can be disturbing the peace and allows an officer to approach and question the person doing it.....they can then run them for warrants and prior convictions.....if they are a felon, they can arrest them, without needing a licensing scheme....if not, they ask them to put their guns back in their cars or take them home or they can be fined for disturbing the peace and take it to court to argue their case...

All polite, no problem...

 

[2aguy]

Look buttweed, I am aware of semi-automatic rifles and that would not be considered assault type weapons.

One difference is in available clip / magazine size

Wrong again. My mini 14 which is not classified as an "assault" rifle can take a 30 round magazine

I was referring to the semi automatic deer rifles.

any rifle that accepts a detachable magazine can accommodate literally any number of rounds the magazine is made to hold

you might want to learn a little bit more about firearms before you post any more so you don't look like even more of an idiot

So, all of these semi-automatic deer rifles have clips?

Yes, some are detachable, some are internal.

Example: 10 round internal magazine. Reloadable with stripper clips.

That is a California compliant gun....and it was actually a war gun, unlike the AR-15.......

 

[2aguy]

It is already against the law for a felon to buy, own or carry a gun. If they are caught doing any of those things they can be arrested.....this can already be done, under current law.

If you use a gun to commit an actual crime, rape, robbery, murder, attempted murder, you can already be arrested...under current law, using any type of firearm.

We already have the laws for gun crimes........yet the anti gunners want more laws that solely target law abiding people, who have not, and do not use their guns to commit crimes....

Why is that?

Q. How do felons acquire a gun.

Q. What laws are in place and enforced to prevent the sale of a gun to a felon, by a private party.

Q. The 2nd A. which you argue is clear in its "shall not be infringed" phrase, allows the state to deny this right to felons.

A. They buy it via illegal avenues from other criminals
A It is illegal to knowingly sell a gun to a felon in almost every state and more and more states are now requiring that all private gun sales be brokered by am Federally licensed dealer who is obligated to run a background check and keep a record of the transaction

A. Felons are denied other rights as well

But, but, but the only Right not to be infringed is the Second Amendment. Isn't that what you've always posted?

You can't have it both ways, if you agree a felon can be denied this Right, it opens the door for less restrictive gun controls, such as licensing and registration.

I don't know if I have always posted that

besides no one here is saying that everyone should be able to own firearms.

But if I am a law abiding citizen and pass every background check imaginable why should I be told I cannot own a certain rifle or a 15 round magazine?

Because elections have consequences. If the NRA and its supporters do not become pragmatic, and continue to enable mass murder by policy - not by intent - then The People will finally say, "enough".

How many murders have been committed by individuals with a gun who have never been arrested, never been civilly detained as a danger to themselves or others?

Where do you believe the line should be drawn, as to who should be allowed to own, possess or have in his or her custody or control a gun?

Why do we license drivers, pilots, doctors, contractors, cars and register cars, boats and airplanes ownership?

How does the NRA enable mass murderers....please, explain this to the class........what law has the NRA supported that allows someone to commit mass murder...

I know that the gun free zones you people have passed have led to mass murder...since these shooters target gun free zones...yet you take no repsonibility for that....

The line is drawn easily........if you have committed violent felonies, you can't buy, own or carry a gun, if you are caught in possession of a gun you go to jail for 30 years.

If you are caught committing a crime with a gun, rape, robbery or murder, you go to jail for 30 years.

If you are determined by due process, both through the medical profession and the courts to be dangerous to yourself and others......you don't get to buy a gun....but you do have an actual appeals process that you can go to to fight for your Rights.....

The Right to own a gun is exactly a Right, none of the others are a Right...do you understand the difference? The government cannot use taxes, fees or tests to prevent you from exercising a Right......they are prohibited from doing that.....

The 2nd Amendment defines that Right, District of Columbia v. Heller defines that Right, Murdoch v. Pennsylvania defines that Right, Miller and Caetano, and Cruikshank define that Right......

Just those things alone mean you cannot license gun ownership...because any fee or paperwork created by the government can be used to keep citizens from exercising that Right...

Democrats used Poll Taxes and Literacy tests to Keep blacks from their Right to vote.....that was found UnConstitutional.....they tried to block religious groups with fees....in Murdoch v. Pennsylvania...that was unConstitutional and stated you cannot charge a fee for the exercise of a Right...

here is Murdoch....

Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)



4. A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113.

5. The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise. P. 319 U. S. 114.

6. That the ordinance is "nondiscriminatory," in that it applies also to peddlers of wares and merchandise, is immaterial. The liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment are in a preferred position. P. 319 U. S. 115.

7. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and exists independently of state authority, the inquiry as to whether the State has given something for which it can ask a return is irrelevant. P. 319 U. S. 115.

8. A community may not suppress, or the State tax, the dissemination of views because they are unpopular, annoying, or distasteful. P. 319 U. S. 116.

------

Page 319 U. S. 108



The First Amendment, which the Fourteenth makes applicable to the states, declares that

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . ."

It could hardly be denied that a tax laid specifically on the exercise of those freedoms would be unconstitutional. Yet the license tax imposed by this ordinance is, in substance, just that.

 

[Votto]

Mass shooting in hospital where the shooter used an assault type rifle.

But hey, if only doctors were armed.

This is not acceptable.

He should have used a knife or bomb.

 

[Boss]

Thanks.....this is one of the Bait and Switch tricks of the anti gunners....people here "Assault Weapon" and they thing a weapon that looks like the AR-15........

And then, when it comes time to push a ballot or pass legislation, the uninformed doen't pay attention because all they care about is the "Assault Weapon"....which they think is a rifle that looks like an AR-15.......... and then anti gunners start banning regular pistols, shot guns, magazines, and anything else they can sneak in...

You can never, ever trust anti gunners......they are the same people that banned and burned books...they are the book burners of the 2nd Amendment....

Exactly.... The Progressives are constantly moving forward. They are NEVER content! They will (every one of them) sit here and lie through their shit-stained teeth, claiming they don't want to ban all guns.... that's EXACTLY what they want! It's NOT about "saving lives" or "preventing mass shootings" ....it's about disarming the general public so they can implement totalitarianism. Anything else they try to get you to believe is BULLSHIT!

 

[Wry Catcher]

Q. How do felons acquire a gun.

Q. What laws are in place and enforced to prevent the sale of a gun to a felon, by a private party.

Q. The 2nd A. which you argue is clear in its "shall not be infringed" phrase, allows the state to deny this right to felons.

A. They buy it via illegal avenues from other criminals
A It is illegal to knowingly sell a gun to a felon in almost every state and more and more states are now requiring that all private gun sales be brokered by am Federally licensed dealer who is obligated to run a background check and keep a record of the transaction

A. Felons are denied other rights as well

But, but, but the only Right not to be infringed is the Second Amendment. Isn't that what you've always posted?

You can't have it both ways, if you agree a felon can be denied this Right, it opens the door for less restrictive gun controls, such as licensing and registration.

I don't know if I have always posted that

besides no one here is saying that everyone should be able to own firearms.

But if I am a law abiding citizen and pass every background check imaginable why should I be told I cannot own a certain rifle or a 15 round magazine?

Because elections have consequences. If the NRA and its supporters do not become pragmatic, and continue to enable mass murder by policy - not by intent - then The People will finally say, "enough".

How many murders have been committed by individuals with a gun who have never been arrested, never been civilly detained as a danger to themselves or others?

Where do you believe the line should be drawn, as to who should be allowed to own, possess or have in his or her custody or control a gun?

Why do we license drivers, pilots, doctors, contractors, cars and register cars, boats and airplanes ownership?

How does the NRA enable mass murderers....please, explain this to the class........what law has the NRA supported that allows someone to commit mass murder...

I know that the gun free zones you people have passed have led to mass murder...since these shooters target gun free zones...yet you take no repsonibility for that....

The line is drawn easily........if you have committed violent felonies, you can't buy, own or carry a gun, if you are caught in possession of a gun you go to jail for 30 years.

If you are caught committing a crime with a gun, rape, robbery or murder, you go to jail for 30 years.

If you are determined by due process, both through the medical profession and the courts to be dangerous to yourself and others......you don't get to buy a gun....but you do have an actual appeals process that you can go to to fight for your Rights.....

The Right to own a gun is exactly a Right, none of the others are a Right...do you understand the difference? The government cannot use taxes, fees or tests to prevent you from exercising a Right......they are prohibited from doing that.....

The 2nd Amendment defines that Right, District of Columbia v. Heller defines that Right, Murdoch v. Pennsylvania defines that Right, Miller and Caetano, and Cruikshank define that Right......

Just those things alone mean you cannot license gun ownership...because any fee or paperwork created by the government can be used to keep citizens from exercising that Right...

Democrats used Poll Taxes and Literacy tests to Keep blacks from their Right to vote.....that was found UnConstitutional.....they tried to block religious groups with fees....in Murdoch v. Pennsylvania...that was unConstitutional and stated you cannot charge a fee for the exercise of a Right...

here is Murdoch....

Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)



4. A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113.

5. The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise. P. 319 U. S. 114.

6. That the ordinance is "nondiscriminatory," in that it applies also to peddlers of wares and merchandise, is immaterial. The liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment are in a preferred position. P. 319 U. S. 115.

7. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and exists independently of state authority, the inquiry as to whether the State has given something for which it can ask a return is irrelevant. P. 319 U. S. 115.

8. A community may not suppress, or the State tax, the dissemination of views because they are unpopular, annoying, or distasteful. P. 319 U. S. 116.

------

Page 319 U. S. 108



The First Amendment, which the Fourteenth makes applicable to the states, declares that

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . ."

It could hardly be denied that a tax laid specifically on the exercise of those freedoms would be unconstitutional. Yet the license tax imposed by this ordinance is, in substance, just that.

You're so obsessed and biased you cannot comprehend a simple explanation. The NRA enables gun violence when they oppose every single effort to keep guns out of the hands of persons who should never own, possess or have a gun in their custody or control.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Which is a greater infringement:

1. When a parent loses a child to gun violence
2. When a citizen is required to secure a license to own, possess, etc. a gun

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Mass shooting in hospital where the shooter used an assault type rifle.

But hey, if only doctors were armed.

"Assault type rifle" A.K.A it has scare looking plastic pieces on it.

 

[2aguy]

A. They buy it via illegal avenues from other criminals
A It is illegal to knowingly sell a gun to a felon in almost every state and more and more states are now requiring that all private gun sales be brokered by am Federally licensed dealer who is obligated to run a background check and keep a record of the transaction

A. Felons are denied other rights as well

But, but, but the only Right not to be infringed is the Second Amendment. Isn't that what you've always posted?

You can't have it both ways, if you agree a felon can be denied this Right, it opens the door for less restrictive gun controls, such as licensing and registration.

I don't know if I have always posted that

besides no one here is saying that everyone should be able to own firearms.

But if I am a law abiding citizen and pass every background check imaginable why should I be told I cannot own a certain rifle or a 15 round magazine?

Because elections have consequences. If the NRA and its supporters do not become pragmatic, and continue to enable mass murder by policy - not by intent - then The People will finally say, "enough".

How many murders have been committed by individuals with a gun who have never been arrested, never been civilly detained as a danger to themselves or others?

Where do you believe the line should be drawn, as to who should be allowed to own, possess or have in his or her custody or control a gun?

Why do we license drivers, pilots, doctors, contractors, cars and register cars, boats and airplanes ownership?

How does the NRA enable mass murderers....please, explain this to the class........what law has the NRA supported that allows someone to commit mass murder...

I know that the gun free zones you people have passed have led to mass murder...since these shooters target gun free zones...yet you take no repsonibility for that....

The line is drawn easily........if you have committed violent felonies, you can't buy, own or carry a gun, if you are caught in possession of a gun you go to jail for 30 years.

If you are caught committing a crime with a gun, rape, robbery or murder, you go to jail for 30 years.

If you are determined by due process, both through the medical profession and the courts to be dangerous to yourself and others......you don't get to buy a gun....but you do have an actual appeals process that you can go to to fight for your Rights.....

The Right to own a gun is exactly a Right, none of the others are a Right...do you understand the difference? The government cannot use taxes, fees or tests to prevent you from exercising a Right......they are prohibited from doing that.....

The 2nd Amendment defines that Right, District of Columbia v. Heller defines that Right, Murdoch v. Pennsylvania defines that Right, Miller and Caetano, and Cruikshank define that Right......

Just those things alone mean you cannot license gun ownership...because any fee or paperwork created by the government can be used to keep citizens from exercising that Right...

Democrats used Poll Taxes and Literacy tests to Keep blacks from their Right to vote.....that was found UnConstitutional.....they tried to block religious groups with fees....in Murdoch v. Pennsylvania...that was unConstitutional and stated you cannot charge a fee for the exercise of a Right...

here is Murdoch....

Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)



4. A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113.

5. The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise. P. 319 U. S. 114.

6. That the ordinance is "nondiscriminatory," in that it applies also to peddlers of wares and merchandise, is immaterial. The liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment are in a preferred position. P. 319 U. S. 115.

7. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and exists independently of state authority, the inquiry as to whether the State has given something for which it can ask a return is irrelevant. P. 319 U. S. 115.

8. A community may not suppress, or the State tax, the dissemination of views because they are unpopular, annoying, or distasteful. P. 319 U. S. 116.

------

Page 319 U. S. 108



The First Amendment, which the Fourteenth makes applicable to the states, declares that

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . ."

It could hardly be denied that a tax laid specifically on the exercise of those freedoms would be unconstitutional. Yet the license tax imposed by this ordinance is, in substance, just that.

You're so obsessed and biased you cannot comprehend a simple explanation. The NRA enables gun violence when they oppose every single effort to keep guns out of the hands of persons who should never own, possess or have a gun in their custody or control.

You say that as if it is true...or factual...and it isn't true, or factual......

What efforts do they oppose.....

Do you mean when they oppose California Democrats releasing violent gun criminals...do you mean like that....?

There is nothing about this issue that you post that is even remotely true or accurate....

California Democrats hate the gun, not the gunman – Orange County Register

Now that Democrats have supermajorities in the California state Legislature, they’ve rolled into Sacramento with a zest for lowering the state’s prison population and have interpreted St. Augustine’s words of wisdom to mean, “Hate the gun, not the gunman.”

I say this because, once they finally took a break from preaching about the benefits of stricter gun control, the state Senate voted to loosen sentencing guidelines for criminals convicted of gun crimes.

Currently, California law requires anyone who uses a gun while committing a felony to have their sentence increased by 10 years or more in prison — on top of the normal criminal penalty. If enacted, Senate Bill 620 would eliminate that mandate.

The bill, which passed on a 22-14 party-line vote, with support only from Democrats, now heads to the state Assembly for consideration.

Republicans and the National Rifle Association have vowed to campaign against it.

Why have Democrats suddenly developed a soft spot for criminals convicted of gun crimes? The bill’s author, state Sen. Steve Bradford, D-Gardena, says that he was motivated to write the bill after a 17-year-old riding in a car involved in a drive-by shooting was sentenced to 25 years in prison, even though he claims that he wasn’t the one who pulled the trigger.

and for all those anti-gunners who want to know where criminals get guns....well...this law lowers the prison time for those who give guns to criminals.....

Why is that?

Prop. 57, for example, very deceptively and fundamentally changed the definition of what constitutes a “non-violent” offense.

Now criminals convicted of the following crimes are eligible to be released from prison early:

........... drive-by shooting, assault with a deadly weapon, taking a hostage, domestic violence involving trauma,

supplying a firearm to a gang member,

l
felon obtaining a firearm,

discharging a firearm on school grounds

Tell us Wrycatcher.....who is letting out these criminals...who is supporting letting out these gun criminals...the NRA.......or anti gun democrats....

Care to explain how your post is not based in the facts, the truth or realilty?

 

[2aguy]

Which is a greater infringement:

1. When a parent loses a child to gun violence
2. When a citizen is required to secure a license to own, possess, etc. a gun

What does one have to do with the other...other than you trying to get block any argument against licesnsing by dragging out the dead body of a child......

What does an unConstitutional Licensing scheme that won't stop criminals, mass shooters or accidents have to do with a child killed by a criminal who can't get a gun license in the first place....

Let me repeat that....

You said "loses a child to gun violence" The majority of people who commit gun violence can't buy, own or carry a gun because they are criminls...that means they can't get a license for the illegal gun in the first place...

So again...what relationship do the two points have....other than you trying to guilt gun owners by dragging out the body of a dead child?