Gun Control and Logic

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If you use the term "Assault Rifle" you are right. But when you use the term "AR-15 and it's various clones" then you are wrong in both the voters and the Courts. Stop making shit up.

Or IOW a common rifle chambered for 5.56 mm rounds that has some black plastic accessories

If a M-2 were mass produced in huge quantity, it could be called a Common Rifle as well and be chambered for 20mm and have plastic accessories. Does that make it a common rifle? Should that be allowed to be mounted on every CJ-5 and 7 jeep out there and be driven down the roads? A line has to be drawn somewhere between firearms meant for Combat and meant for Hunting.

You do know that fully automatic firearms are not what we are discussing don't you?

So how about a valid comparison.

There are MILLIONS of AR 15 rifles in the hands of civilians. M I L L I O N S

and a minuscule fraction of them have ever been used to commit any crime

The intent of the AR-15 was for war, not for hunting. The intent of the M-2 is for war, not for hunting. The intent of the conventional hunting rifle is for hunting although it's been used for war. The intent of a handgun is for personal and home protection although it's been used for war. You can go back in the way back when machine but using the recent court rulings, we need to keep it in todays world. The uses of everything except the AR-15 of all the weapons we keep discussing are for civilian uses while the AR has a primary use in war even though it can be used as a varmint rifle. A M-2 can be used as an elephant gun if you are skilled enough but that doesn't make it a sporting rifle.

and the 2nd amendment was for weapons of war not for hunting,,,,

Wrong.

The Second Amendment is about weapons for self-defense, and the individual right to possess a handgun for lawful self-defense – having nothing to do with ‘war.’

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Wrong.

The Second Amendment is about weapons for self-defense, and the individual right to possess a handgun for lawful self-defense – having nothing to do with ‘war.’

WRONG

The "why" doesn't fucking matter. The "what" does.

What is the "what" in the 2A?

Federal government shall make no gun laws.

But, then, here comes the clumsy-ass 14th making the protections of the 2A applicable to state and local governments.

And, fuck off with your bullshit about the SC incorporation. That shit is ass backwards. The shitty language of the 14th is clear and always has been. Just like the right to arms is clearly an individual right. The only reason there had to be a SC case about it is because idiot commie faggots who think they are smart (like you) try to bullshit their cocksucking way around the plain language.

.

 

[2aguy]

We have been through this over and over. The AR looks like it does because of the function it has. It doesn't have the functions it has because of the looks. And those functions are not to go hunting Wabbits, silly Wabbit. It's there to go to war with. It's the reason it's the weapon of choice for the well dressed fashionable Mass Murdering Fashion Conscience going for the all time record for mass killings. It's the same reason it is the go to weapon for combat. You can make every fairytale excuse in the book but you can't change that. You change the look and you change the function. There are many militaries in the world using the box stock AR-15 model 750 for their military weapon and that includes the Mexican Army because it's much easier for them to purchase the AR-15 Model 750 than the AR-15 Model 604 and get it exported. The Model 750 does the same job and takes the same ammo and is cheaper but is still Mil Spec. You keep denying this and you keep losing to common sense. Well, cupcake, keep losing while the rest of us keep winning.

Many firearms are based on military counterparts, in fact it is probably the majority. Modern bolt action rifles based on the Mauser 98, various iterations of the M1 Garand action, and let's not forget the Colt Single Action Army...

Bottom line, your contention that an undefined "military function" disqualifies a weapon for civilian ownership is simply ridiculous.

Bottom line, your contention that an undefined "military function" disqualifies a weapon for civilian ownership is simply ridiculous

And actual Supreme Court rulings support that contention.....Miller in particular.....as well as Caetano v Masschusetts...in fact, a weapons utility as a military weapon makes it a protected rifle under Supreme Court precedent...

 

[2aguy]

You forget that you have to charge the weapon. And that takes two hands when you first put the first mag in. And you have to hit the release to charge it when to slam the bolt forward. Now, tell me again exactly how it's done, step by step. And please specify the exact model number of the gun so I can research it fully. You don't mind if I don't take just your word for it.

I've seen enough. NO it operates fine for a single hand on mag change. It's light and uses some steel pieces which is a huge plus. It's light. All in all, as a plinker it's going to be a fun gun. That being said, it's short, real short. At 50 yds, it's not accurate at all. It lacks power. The 9mm just doesn't make it. I don't see it being used for varmints. And you are better off with a 9mm handgun for home defense. While they tried to make it like an AR, it failed miserably. It's a toy. Better to buy a 9mm handgun and a decent varmint rifle than this one unless you just want to spend a lot of ammo shooting at beer cans at short range.

It's a Beretta CX4 Storm, operation is identical to an AR, and I'm not understanding how it "takes two hands". There aren't any magazine fed rifles or pistols that only take one, unless perhaps you straps some weird mag-holder to your leg and poke the weapon down on it lol.

In any event you haven't answered the question, and you've added yet another element - ammo. So is it the history, the features, the ammo, or all of the above?

Daryl isn't a rational human being.....arguing with him is only good as an exercise. Much like a boxer punching a punching bag, the boxer improves various skills, but the punching bag remains a punching bag.......

 

[Blues Man]

but you still ignore the 2nd so whats that make you???

I am using the whole constitution, not just the part that I interpret to read whatever I want it to read. Remember, the original interpretation of "Thou Shalt not Kill" was actually "Thou Shalt not commit Murder".

BUT YOU IGNORE THE 2ND OPENLY,,,,

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is pretty clear

Yes, shall not be infringed by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. But under the 14th amendment, the state and lower governments have the right to regulate almost anything. The only thing that they can't ban completely (among other things) is the right for you to protect your home with a reasonable amount of force. You interpret the 2nd amendment for your own ends and ignore the 14th completely.

States are not allowed to pass laws that are unconstitutional as the states have agreed that the Constitution, which includes all the amendments ever passed supersedes the states laws and that the states only have the power to make laws where the Constitution has not specifically granted that power to the federal government.

Which means that no state government can pass laws that prohibit freedom of speech and religion
No state can pass laws that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms
No state can pass a law that forces people to house soldiers
No state can pass a law that allows search and seizures without probable cause
No state can pass a law that can abolish the Grand Jury for capital crimes

need I go on or do you get the drift yet?

Your first one is wrong, dead wrong. It's the Feds that are not allowed to do the first three things on your list. You just twisted it around. Since the Feds aren't allowed to force the States, therefore, you think the states aren't allow to allow the Feds to do it? That's nutcase logic.

The last two are straight from the 14th amendment. Meanwhile, I suggest you read the 10th amendment. That opens up the powers of the state by a very large margin. Again, you are trying to misinterpret one Amendment while throwing all the rest of the Constitution out the window. You need to either follow all of it or none of it.

So if you're right, and you're not, give me an example where a state was allowed to pass a law prohibiting freedom of religion
And actually the last two are referring to the Fourth and .Fifth amendments

So why don't you stop pretending to be some sort of Constitutional scholar

 

[Blues Man]

There is not even majority support for an assault weapons ban among democrats let alone a total ban on guns.

If you use the term "Assault Rifle" you are right. But when you use the term "AR-15 and it's various clones" then you are wrong in both the voters and the Courts. Stop making shit up.

Or IOW a common rifle chambered for 5.56 mm rounds that has some black plastic accessories

If a M-2 were mass produced in huge quantity, it could be called a Common Rifle as well and be chambered for 20mm and have plastic accessories. Does that make it a common rifle? Should that be allowed to be mounted on every CJ-5 and 7 jeep out there and be driven down the roads? A line has to be drawn somewhere between firearms meant for Combat and meant for Hunting.

You do know that fully automatic firearms are not what we are discussing don't you?

So how about a valid comparison.

There are MILLIONS of AR 15 rifles in the hands of civilians. M I L L I O N S

and a minuscule fraction of them have ever been used to commit any crime

The intent of the AR-15 was for war, not for hunting. The intent of the M-2 is for war, not for hunting. The intent of the conventional hunting rifle is for hunting although it's been used for war. The intent of a handgun is for personal and home protection although it's been used for war. You can go back in the way back when machine but using the recent court rulings, we need to keep it in todays world. The uses of everything except the AR-15 of all the weapons we keep discussing are for civilian uses while the AR has a primary use in war even though it can be used as a varmint rifle. A M-2 can be used as an elephant gun if you are skilled enough but that doesn't make it a sporting rifle.

The genesis of any firearm that ever existed has it's root in war

That argument is old and tired not to mention irrelevant.

 

[Blues Man]

Daryl Hunt - How about this one? Is it civilian or military? Should it be legal for civilians?

View attachment 254411

I don't see the same features that an AR-15/M-16/M-4 have that differentiates them from a civilian rifle. I would say that this is a very fancy civilian rifle.

And once again we see that an assault weapon ban is only concerned with how a rifle looks.

Buy an AR 15 without a folding stock, without a pistol grip, flash suppressor, or any of a couple other doodads and it's 100% legal even in CO

 

[sakinago]

You forget that you have to charge the weapon. And that takes two hands when you first put the first mag in. And you have to hit the release to charge it when to slam the bolt forward. Now, tell me again exactly how it's done, step by step. And please specify the exact model number of the gun so I can research it fully. You don't mind if I don't take just your word for it.

I've seen enough. NO it operates fine for a single hand on mag change. It's light and uses some steel pieces which is a huge plus. It's light. All in all, as a plinker it's going to be a fun gun. That being said, it's short, real short. At 50 yds, it's not accurate at all. It lacks power. The 9mm just doesn't make it. I don't see it being used for varmints. And you are better off with a 9mm handgun for home defense. While they tried to make it like an AR, it failed miserably. It's a toy. Better to buy a 9mm handgun and a decent varmint rifle than this one unless you just want to spend a lot of ammo shooting at beer cans at short range.

It's a Beretta CX4 Storm, operation is identical to an AR, and I'm not understanding how it "takes two hands". There aren't any magazine fed rifles or pistols that only take one, unless perhaps you straps some weird mag-holder to your leg and poke the weapon down on it lol.

In any event you haven't answered the question, and you've added yet another element - ammo. So is it the history, the features, the ammo, or all of the above?

I already covered this. It's a toy. It's a cross between a 9mm handgun and a daisy red rider. It lacks power and accuracy so that alone disqualifies it. Now, build the same weapon just a bit bigger, better quality and a more lethal caliber and it might qualify. But as it stands, it's just another plinker.

It’s basically a semi auto machine pistol. So if caliber, distance, and stopping power are the issue, then smgs are fine?

 

[progressive hunter]

Or IOW a common rifle chambered for 5.56 mm rounds that has some black plastic accessories

If a M-2 were mass produced in huge quantity, it could be called a Common Rifle as well and be chambered for 20mm and have plastic accessories. Does that make it a common rifle? Should that be allowed to be mounted on every CJ-5 and 7 jeep out there and be driven down the roads? A line has to be drawn somewhere between firearms meant for Combat and meant for Hunting.

You do know that fully automatic firearms are not what we are discussing don't you?

So how about a valid comparison.

There are MILLIONS of AR 15 rifles in the hands of civilians. M I L L I O N S

and a minuscule fraction of them have ever been used to commit any crime

The intent of the AR-15 was for war, not for hunting. The intent of the M-2 is for war, not for hunting. The intent of the conventional hunting rifle is for hunting although it's been used for war. The intent of a handgun is for personal and home protection although it's been used for war. You can go back in the way back when machine but using the recent court rulings, we need to keep it in todays world. The uses of everything except the AR-15 of all the weapons we keep discussing are for civilian uses while the AR has a primary use in war even though it can be used as a varmint rifle. A M-2 can be used as an elephant gun if you are skilled enough but that doesn't make it a sporting rifle.

and the 2nd amendment was for weapons of war not for hunting,,,,

Wrong.

The Second Amendment is about weapons for self-defense, and the individual right to possess a handgun for lawful self-defense – having nothing to do with ‘war.’

what case law backs that up mr case law clayton????

it sucks debating the 2nd amendment with people like you that dont even know why we have it

 

[Hale]

Daryl isn't a rational human being.....arguing with him is only good as an exercise. Much like a boxer punching a punching bag, the boxer improves various skills, but the punching bag remains a punching bag.......

Sadly this appears to be true. Between his ever-changing objections and lack of actual knowledge, it was starting to show. But when he declared a 9mm carbine to be a toy, his trolling nature became obvious. It was still fun, even if he did have to run away.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I already covered this. It's a toy. It's a cross between a 9mm handgun and a daisy red rider. It lacks power and accuracy so that alone disqualifies it. Now, build the same weapon just a bit bigger, better quality and a more lethal caliber and it might qualify. But as it stands, it's just another plinker.

So you have no bottom line, and you believe that certain firearms should be banned subject to your personal discretion? You started with history, went to features, then quickly changed to caliber when I let you know the Beretta is 9mm...

Let's recap. So far, you've stated these factors that you believe should disqualify a firearm from civilian ownership:

1. original design intent
2. unspecified features/functions suited to combat use
3. caliber
4. accuracy
5. range

I'm beginning to think you're just trolling, or perhaps you really think you have some mystical ability to look at a firearm and evaluate it's lethality. So for the last time: In your opinion, what should disqualify a firearm from civilian ownership?

The Legislators, Voters and Courts agree with me. The Fruitcakes agree with you. Guess which side is making the laws? Yes, 5 years ago, it was you fruitcakes but today it's the Legislators, voters and courts. Don't it suck to be you.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

We have been through this over and over. The AR looks like it does because of the function it has. It doesn't have the functions it has because of the looks. And those functions are not to go hunting Wabbits, silly Wabbit. It's there to go to war with. It's the reason it's the weapon of choice for the well dressed fashionable Mass Murdering Fashion Conscience going for the all time record for mass killings. It's the same reason it is the go to weapon for combat. You can make every fairytale excuse in the book but you can't change that. You change the look and you change the function. There are many militaries in the world using the box stock AR-15 model 750 for their military weapon and that includes the Mexican Army because it's much easier for them to purchase the AR-15 Model 750 than the AR-15 Model 604 and get it exported. The Model 750 does the same job and takes the same ammo and is cheaper but is still Mil Spec. You keep denying this and you keep losing to common sense. Well, cupcake, keep losing while the rest of us keep winning.

Many firearms are based on military counterparts, in fact it is probably the majority. Modern bolt action rifles based on the Mauser 98, various iterations of the M1 Garand action, and let's not forget the Colt Single Action Army...

Bottom line, your contention that an undefined "military function" disqualifies a weapon for civilian ownership is simply ridiculous.

Bottom line, your contention that an undefined "military function" disqualifies a weapon for civilian ownership is simply ridiculous

And actual Supreme Court rulings support that contention.....Miller in particular.....as well as Caetano v Masschusetts...in fact, a weapons utility as a military weapon makes it a protected rifle under Supreme Court precedent...

McDonald removes that prerequisite. As does Heller. This is because the weapons of war differs tremendously from the guns of hunting and sport. That is, unless your sport is hunting mass students in enclosed spaces. There are weapons of war that cannot be allowed in the normal civilian hands. The only question remains is, where do we draw the line. You have your line while others have theirs. And who ends up defining that line? The Legislators, Governors, Presidents, Voters and the Courts. We are in a process of the lines being redrawn once again. It appears that your Greats and Grands were a hell of a lot smarter and more stable than you are and didn't need those lines drawn because they not only knew those lines but operated inside those lines as a society. Not so today so we have to legally draw those lines because of stupid people like you.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I am using the whole constitution, not just the part that I interpret to read whatever I want it to read. Remember, the original interpretation of "Thou Shalt not Kill" was actually "Thou Shalt not commit Murder".

BUT YOU IGNORE THE 2ND OPENLY,,,,

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is pretty clear

Yes, shall not be infringed by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. But under the 14th amendment, the state and lower governments have the right to regulate almost anything. The only thing that they can't ban completely (among other things) is the right for you to protect your home with a reasonable amount of force. You interpret the 2nd amendment for your own ends and ignore the 14th completely.

States are not allowed to pass laws that are unconstitutional as the states have agreed that the Constitution, which includes all the amendments ever passed supersedes the states laws and that the states only have the power to make laws where the Constitution has not specifically granted that power to the federal government.

Which means that no state government can pass laws that prohibit freedom of speech and religion
No state can pass laws that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms
No state can pass a law that forces people to house soldiers
No state can pass a law that allows search and seizures without probable cause
No state can pass a law that can abolish the Grand Jury for capital crimes

need I go on or do you get the drift yet?

Your first one is wrong, dead wrong. It's the Feds that are not allowed to do the first three things on your list. You just twisted it around. Since the Feds aren't allowed to force the States, therefore, you think the states aren't allow to allow the Feds to do it? That's nutcase logic.

The last two are straight from the 14th amendment. Meanwhile, I suggest you read the 10th amendment. That opens up the powers of the state by a very large margin. Again, you are trying to misinterpret one Amendment while throwing all the rest of the Constitution out the window. You need to either follow all of it or none of it.

So if you're right, and you're not, give me an example where a state was allowed to pass a law prohibiting freedom of religion
And actually the last two are referring to the Fourth and .Fifth amendments

So why don't you stop pretending to be some sort of Constitutional scholar

Wow, a spinning top that keeps wobbling and twisting and turning. You just went all over the place and said nothing.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Daryl Hunt - How about this one? Is it civilian or military? Should it be legal for civilians?

View attachment 254411

I don't see the same features that an AR-15/M-16/M-4 have that differentiates them from a civilian rifle. I would say that this is a very fancy civilian rifle.

And once again we see that an assault weapon ban is only concerned with how a rifle looks.

Buy an AR 15 without a folding stock, without a pistol grip, flash suppressor, or any of a couple other doodads and it's 100% legal even in CO

Not quite. Some of those "Do Dads" will get it bounced. It's not the "Do Dads" that will get it bounced, it's the rails to mount them that will get it bounced.

It isn't the looks that makes it a weapon of war, it's the function. And the looks of the AR is because of it's functions. What Colorado did was to remove some of those functions. The end result? The Cult of the AR was ended. Today, the Gun Shops have many, many Bargain ARs to be had just sitting gathering dust on the shelves. Before the 2013 law, they were selling like hotcakes. In order for the Gun Shops to sell the ARs they had in stock, they had to remove the rails and mounts and fill in the mounting screws so they could not be used. Plus, they had to remove the other items on the ban list. Those same ARs on the shelves used to have all the goodies you seem to want. Sorry, they just ain't there. And the Gunnutter Cult pretty well went away. Along with it, the Mass Shootings went with it. After 3 something had to be done and that was just part of it. And we stopped being the Mass Shooting Capital of the World. We handed that off to Florida and Texas who can't seem to learn their lesson very well.

 

[Hale]

The Legislators, Voters and Courts agree with me. The Fruitcakes agree with you. Guess which side is making the laws? Yes, 5 years ago, it was you fruitcakes but today it's the Legislators, voters and courts. Don't it suck to be you.

Since you can't answer direct questions or support your own position, your troll status is now Official. You might want to reconsider your approach and avoid firearms debates, though - it's also become apparent that you are a Total Poser on this topic.

 

[Hale]

Not quite. Some of those "Do Dads" will get it bounced. It's not the "Do Dads" that will get it bounced, it's the rails to mount them that will get it bounced.

It isn't the looks that makes it a weapon of war, it's the function. And the looks of the AR is because of it's functions. What Colorado did was to remove some of those functions. The end result? The Cult of the AR was ended. Today, the Gun Shops have many, many Bargain ARs to be had just sitting gathering dust on the shelves. Before the 2013 law, they were selling like hotcakes. In order for the Gun Shops to sell the ARs they had in stock, they had to remove the rails and mounts and fill in the mounting screws so they could not be used. Plus, they had to remove the other items on the ban list. Those same ARs on the shelves used to have all the goodies you seem to want. Sorry, they just ain't there. And the Gunnutter Cult pretty well went away. Along with it, the Mass Shootings went with it. After 3 something had to be done and that was just part of it. And we stopped being the Mass Shooting Capital of the World. We handed that off to Florida and Texas who can't seem to learn their lesson very well.

Wow. Right after I point out your Poser status, you make a post like this! It's almost like you needed to provide iron-clad proof of your ignorance of firearms. Thanks for the clarification and admission!

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You forget that you have to charge the weapon. And that takes two hands when you first put the first mag in. And you have to hit the release to charge it when to slam the bolt forward. Now, tell me again exactly how it's done, step by step. And please specify the exact model number of the gun so I can research it fully. You don't mind if I don't take just your word for it.

I've seen enough. NO it operates fine for a single hand on mag change. It's light and uses some steel pieces which is a huge plus. It's light. All in all, as a plinker it's going to be a fun gun. That being said, it's short, real short. At 50 yds, it's not accurate at all. It lacks power. The 9mm just doesn't make it. I don't see it being used for varmints. And you are better off with a 9mm handgun for home defense. While they tried to make it like an AR, it failed miserably. It's a toy. Better to buy a 9mm handgun and a decent varmint rifle than this one unless you just want to spend a lot of ammo shooting at beer cans at short range.

It's a Beretta CX4 Storm, operation is identical to an AR, and I'm not understanding how it "takes two hands". There aren't any magazine fed rifles or pistols that only take one, unless perhaps you straps some weird mag-holder to your leg and poke the weapon down on it lol.

In any event you haven't answered the question, and you've added yet another element - ammo. So is it the history, the features, the ammo, or all of the above?

I already covered this. It's a toy. It's a cross between a 9mm handgun and a daisy red rider. It lacks power and accuracy so that alone disqualifies it. Now, build the same weapon just a bit bigger, better quality and a more lethal caliber and it might qualify. But as it stands, it's just another plinker.

It’s basically a semi auto machine pistol. So if caliber, distance, and stopping power are the issue, then smgs are fine?

You brought up ONE weapon. You need to stick with that instead of trolling for generalizations. I gave a pretty accurate description of your one weapon after viewing one world class shooter operate it on a mixed range. Yes, he had a ball but he also missed a bunch due to a lot of factors. It might be extremely lethal if it were a full auto but as a semi auto with limited ammo, it's a plinker. It is too large to replace a handgun so it even fails there. You have to fill ALL of the features of the AR to be considered the equal of the AR because the AR fills ALL of the criteria that Stoner required it to fill. And nothing on the market today does a better job.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Daryl isn't a rational human being.....arguing with him is only good as an exercise. Much like a boxer punching a punching bag, the boxer improves various skills, but the punching bag remains a punching bag.......

Sadly this appears to be true. Between his ever-changing objections and lack of actual knowledge, it was starting to show. But when he declared a 9mm carbine to be a toy, his trolling nature became obvious. It was still fun, even if he did have to run away.

You are very lacking in everything. In that specific gun, it ended up being a plinker. It didn't fit the bill as either a rifle or a handgun. It wasn't accurate or have the power of the rifle. It was too large for a pistol. Let's face it, someone was really desperate to make a different gun that day and missed the mark and made a toy. If you see it as anything else then your opinion should be put in a mason jar and buried in the back yard. Or you could put it out at 100 yards and shoot at it with this gun and it would be perfectly safe..
'

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The Legislators, Voters and Courts agree with me. The Fruitcakes agree with you. Guess which side is making the laws? Yes, 5 years ago, it was you fruitcakes but today it's the Legislators, voters and courts. Don't it suck to be you.

Since you can't answer direct questions or support your own position, your troll status is now Official. You might want to reconsider your approach and avoid firearms debates, though - it's also become apparent that you are a Total Poser on this topic.

Let's see, IF I give the answer you want then I am not a troll. But then I would be a dupe. If I give the legal answer then I am a troll. But then I am also legally correct. You don't mind if I don't mind being legally correct while you are just a proven fruitcake.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Not quite. Some of those "Do Dads" will get it bounced. It's not the "Do Dads" that will get it bounced, it's the rails to mount them that will get it bounced.

It isn't the looks that makes it a weapon of war, it's the function. And the looks of the AR is because of it's functions. What Colorado did was to remove some of those functions. The end result? The Cult of the AR was ended. Today, the Gun Shops have many, many Bargain ARs to be had just sitting gathering dust on the shelves. Before the 2013 law, they were selling like hotcakes. In order for the Gun Shops to sell the ARs they had in stock, they had to remove the rails and mounts and fill in the mounting screws so they could not be used. Plus, they had to remove the other items on the ban list. Those same ARs on the shelves used to have all the goodies you seem to want. Sorry, they just ain't there. And the Gunnutter Cult pretty well went away. Along with it, the Mass Shootings went with it. After 3 something had to be done and that was just part of it. And we stopped being the Mass Shooting Capital of the World. We handed that off to Florida and Texas who can't seem to learn their lesson very well.

Wow. Right after I point out your Poser status, you make a post like this! It's almost like you needed to provide iron-clad proof of your ignorance of firearms. Thanks for the clarification and admission!

Funny you should mention this. It worked here. We don't need any more gun regs. Ours works and work well across the entire state. We went from one of the Bloodiest to the safest in a matter of about a year without an confiscations. We didn't even slow down the sales. In fact, once people got over the petty bickering you keep trying to keep going, no one noticed anything was different. Only that we weren't dying as much and our school children were safer and we could go see a movie without fear. Damn it all, we removed fear and that is about the worst thing that could ever happen to you fear mongers.

It must suck real bad to be you.