How Did 15-18 Year Old Kids Organize A Nationwide Movement In Less Than A Week?

[Rustic]

I am aware. I was saying that you would be banning at least half of all firearms in the US, and it wouldn't just be the rifles normally described as "assault weapons," but also a great many types of pistol, as well. Deciding to ban what would work out to 150,000,000+ weapons seems unlikely to pass Supreme Court scrutiny, based on what I've read about previous rulings.

You also seem to be indicating that semi-automatic firearms cannot have been designed for self defense.

I hope you're not equating a ban with confiscation. Banning the sale, manufacture, importation, distribution, marketing of such weapons will, eventually, slow the flow of such weapons onto our streets and into the hands of those incapable of owning them responsibly.

I might add a buy back program offering 150% of market value for such weapons in the first two years, 100% in the following year and 75% for the next year and a half. Anything to make these 'swords' into 'ploughshares'. I'd melt them down and cast manhole covers to be used to improve our infrastructure.

Self defense means stopping an attacker and creating a means of escape for the victim. It doesn't mean assuming the role of hero gunslinger.

Sounds like Communist Russia to me

Then I suggest a rudimentary Political Science course offered by a community college near you.

Why would you want to take everybody’s firearms away other than being a control freak? LOL

Not everyone's firearms. Just the firearms that pose a clear and present danger to public health.

OK, you don’t know anything about firearms why would you be the one who controls everybody? You do realize that all sporting rifles are the same?

 

[Rustic]

WTF does that mean?

Has this thread been too stressful for you? Maybe you should take a break. All of this lying is wearing you out!

It means stopping a knife is easier than stopping a shooter.

Appeasement is in your blood it seems, fucking pussy

No one says one must negotiate with a knife wielding maniac Mr. Fucking Pussy.

You should come up with a better moniker! 'Fucking Pussy' isn't something I'd call myself, but you go with whatever feels right for you. Signing off at the end of your posts isn't really necessary by the way. But I will with this one. I'm more clever than you.

Getting along is way overrated

Because fear, tension and animosity work so well?

Appeasement is for pussies

 

[Nosmo King]

I hope you're not equating a ban with confiscation. Banning the sale, manufacture, importation, distribution, marketing of such weapons will, eventually, slow the flow of such weapons onto our streets and into the hands of those incapable of owning them responsibly.

I might add a buy back program offering 150% of market value for such weapons in the first two years, 100% in the following year and 75% for the next year and a half. Anything to make these 'swords' into 'ploughshares'. I'd melt them down and cast manhole covers to be used to improve our infrastructure.

Self defense means stopping an attacker and creating a means of escape for the victim. It doesn't mean assuming the role of hero gunslinger.

Sounds like Communist Russia to me

Then I suggest a rudimentary Political Science course offered by a community college near you.

Why would you want to take everybody’s firearms away other than being a control freak? LOL

Not everyone's firearms. Just the firearms that pose a clear and present danger to public health.

OK, you don’t know anything about firearms why would you be the one who controls everybody? You do realize that all sporting rifles are the same?

All sporting rifles are the same? A deer rifle is the same as an AR15? A bolt action rifles n .22 is the same as an AR15?

 

[Montrovant]

Is your definition of assault weapons semi-automatic weapons? That's......ridiculous, really. There are all sorts of semi-automatic weapons. Also, assault weapons is often a pretty vague term.

Magazine capacity is a somewhat different issue.

Let us then define "assault weapon".

My definition would include, but not be limited by these attributes; a weapon using a semi or fully automatic firing system and can be fed by a magazine containing ten or more rounds. A weapon whose rounds are fired in a tumbling trajectory rather than a smooth spiral trajectory.

It's the rate of fire that puts the 'mass' in 'mass shooting'. Revolvers containing six or fewer rounds, bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns containing eight or fewer rounds would be acceptable as these weapons are designed for self defense or sport.

My great fear is that the debate will be bogged down by cosmetics as the previous assault weapon ban debate was. Grips, stocks, flash suppressors have nothing to do with the essential problem of rate of fire.

I think that you would be including half or more of the firearms in the US, including rifles and pistols. I question whether a law banning all such weapons would pass USSC review.

Limiting magazine capacity, on the other hand, seems more likely to be considered acceptable.

I outlined which weapons would be protected and not banned. Revolvers holding six rounds or fewer, bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns containing eight or fewer rounds. These guns are designed and used for sport or self defense.

I am aware. I was saying that you would be banning at least half of all firearms in the US, and it wouldn't just be the rifles normally described as "assault weapons," but also a great many types of pistol, as well. Deciding to ban what would work out to 150,000,000+ weapons seems unlikely to pass Supreme Court scrutiny, based on what I've read about previous rulings.

You also seem to be indicating that semi-automatic firearms cannot have been designed for self defense.

I hope you're not equating a ban with confiscation. Banning the sale, manufacture, importation, distribution, marketing of such weapons will, eventually, slow the flow of such weapons onto our streets and into the hands of those incapable of owning them responsibly.

I might add a buy back program offering 150% of market value for such weapons in the first two years, 100% in the following year and 75% for the next year and a half. Anything to make these 'swords' into 'ploughshares'. I'd melt them down and cast manhole covers to be used to improve our infrastructure.

Self defense means stopping an attacker and creating a means of escape for the victim. It doesn't mean assuming the role of hero gunslinger.

Self defense also does not mean 'only what you can do with 6 bullets'.

Look, I'm not even trying to argue the effectiveness of a ban such as you propose. What I'm doing is arguing that it probably cannot be accomplished simply through legislation. It would likely require a Constitutional amendment, because I think the SCOTUS is unlikely to allow any such law to stand, if challenged.

 

[Rustic]

Sounds like Communist Russia to me

Then I suggest a rudimentary Political Science course offered by a community college near you.

Why would you want to take everybody’s firearms away other than being a control freak? LOL

Not everyone's firearms. Just the firearms that pose a clear and present danger to public health.

OK, you don’t know anything about firearms why would you be the one who controls everybody? You do realize that all sporting rifles are the same?

All sporting rifles are the same? A deer rifle is the same as an AR15? A bolt action rifles n .22 is the same as an AR15?

Ok, a .223 is a .22 caliber cartridge.
A deer rifle? That could mean any one of thousands of cartridges, are you fucking stupid? Be more specific.
AR15 what? .223 or 6.8spc or 6.5 creedmoor or 300blk???
A bolt action n .22 caliber cartridges? What? A 22lr? .223? 22-250? .222? Which one?
You need to quit watching so many Hollywood movies made by child molesting Hollywood types…

 

[ABikerSailor]

Sounds like Communist Russia to me

Then I suggest a rudimentary Political Science course offered by a community college near you.

Why would you want to take everybody’s firearms away other than being a control freak? LOL

Not everyone's firearms. Just the firearms that pose a clear and present danger to public health.

OK, you don’t know anything about firearms why would you be the one who controls everybody? You do realize that all sporting rifles are the same?

All sporting rifles are the same? A deer rifle is the same as an AR15? A bolt action rifles n .22 is the same as an AR15?

Not quite the same, but kinda close when it was first produced. The AR 15 was originally designed as a semi automatic version of the M16 military rifle. And, it only carried 5 rounds in the magazine in the original version.

Original version? I'm cool with. It seems to be a decent gun, and, in lower rounds downrange before reloading, I'm also cool with.

30 to 100 rounds before reloading? Not cool with. If you're hunting and need more than 5 rounds before reloading, you are a crappy shot and lousy hunter in my opinion. I grew up with only carrying 3 rounds before having to hike back 1 to 2 miles through forest if I missed the first 3.

The only time you need more than 7 rounds is if you are in a serious firefight. And that generally only happens to the military, or SWAT teams.

 

[Rustic]

Then I suggest a rudimentary Political Science course offered by a community college near you.

Why would you want to take everybody’s firearms away other than being a control freak? LOL

Not everyone's firearms. Just the firearms that pose a clear and present danger to public health.

OK, you don’t know anything about firearms why would you be the one who controls everybody? You do realize that all sporting rifles are the same?

All sporting rifles are the same? A deer rifle is the same as an AR15? A bolt action rifles n .22 is the same as an AR15?

Not quite the same, but kinda close when it was first produced. The AR 15 was originally designed as a semi automatic version of the M16 military rifle. And, it only carried 5 rounds in the magazine in the original version.

Original version? I'm cool with. It seems to be a decent gun, and, in lower rounds downrange before reloading, I'm also cool with.

30 to 100 rounds before reloading? Not cool with. If you're hunting and need more than 5 rounds before reloading, you are a crappy shot and lousy hunter in my opinion. I grew up with only carrying 3 rounds before having to hike back 1 to 2 miles through forest if I missed the first 3.

The only time you need more than 7 rounds is if you are in a serious firefight. And that generally only happens to the military, or SWAT teams.

Speak for yourself, You have no right to dictate what other people want for magazine capacity.
Anyway, Most states have laws were you cannot have any more than six rounds in your magazine for larger game like deer. As far as small game like varmint, coyotes, prairie dogs, ground chuck’s, squirrels, rabbits, Coons, hogs, etc. Magazine capacity is unlimited as it should be. Why reload when shooting vermin?
AR15’s are no where near military grade so most likely no one’s going to be in a serious firefight voluntarily.
As far as you walking uphill both ways on your little hunting trips that should be a personal choice you have no right to force any of that shit on anyone else because that makes you a fucking spineless control freak.

 

[Ame®icano]

Sick twisted grinning goons with CBS reporter.

*Survivors*

 

[MindWars]

 

[Ame®icano]

CBS "movement"

 

[Ame®icano]

View attachment 178045

... no smile when you forget your lines...

 

[Marion Morrison]

Is your never ending empty rhetoric what you intend to replace Constitutionally protected rights with ...

.

No rights are absolute. If fully automatic firing systems can be restricted, semi-automatic firing systems can be too.

Do you think restricting weapons that are semi-auto would pass SCOTUS review? Semi-auto is very much common use; I would guess that half or more of the guns in the US are semi-auto. According to this, about 40% of pistols and rifles in the US were semi-auto in 1997: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio....ttpsredir=1&article=1679&context=urban_facpub

I think it is unlikely that the Supreme Court would accept much restriction on semi-automatic firearms as a whole.

At one point most of the patent medicines contained opium. At one point most of the insecticides sprayed on crops contained DDT.

Justice Scalia in his opinion on the Heller case cited no rights are absolute.

Not confiscation but banning the further sale, import, manufacture and distribution of semi-automatic firing systems and high capacity magazines. No one's right to self defense would be infringed.

Are opium or DDT Constitutionally protected rights? There is a higher bar involved here.

No, no rights are absolute. However, that does not mean that rights can be changed on a whim, ignoring all previous rulings or precedent.

Semi-automatic is a very low bar to try to set. I don't think it would work without a new amendment.

I contend that the semi-automatic firing system fed by a high capacity magazine is not a constitutionally protected right. And citing that position is not taken on a whim. It is cited on the bullet riddled corpses of innocent Americans. If other weapons can be banned due to their unnecessary lethality, assault weapons can be too.

Is your definition of assault weapons semi-automatic weapons? That's......ridiculous, really. There are all sorts of semi-automatic weapons. Also, assault weapons is often a pretty vague term.

Magazine capacity is a somewhat different issue.

Let us then define "assault weapon".

My definition would include, but not be limited by these attributes; a weapon using a semi or fully automatic firing system and can be fed by a magazine containing ten or more rounds. A weapon whose rounds are fired in a tumbling trajectory rather than a smooth spiral trajectory.

It's the rate of fire that puts the 'mass' in 'mass shooting'. Revolvers containing six or fewer rounds, bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns containing eight or fewer rounds would be acceptable as these weapons are designed for self defense or sport.

My great fear is that the debate will be bogged down by cosmetics as the previous assault weapon ban debate was. Grips, stocks, flash suppressors have nothing to do with the essential problem of rate of fire.

Your definition of assault weapons is wrong! End of discussion on that point. Educate yourself..

Where did you get this bullshit about tumbling rounds? Have you ever seen a round for an AR-15? They don't tumble you moron! They would have zero accuracy. That is point of why it is a rifle! The bullet spins like a football spirals.

Once that round hits its target, it tumbles, not spirals.

This from a guy that has no clue about guns? Oh please.

 

[Ame®icano]

.This guy popps up wherever CBS needs him. California?

 

[Marion Morrison]

Then I suggest a rudimentary Political Science course offered by a community college near you.

Why would you want to take everybody’s firearms away other than being a control freak? LOL

Not everyone's firearms. Just the firearms that pose a clear and present danger to public health.

OK, you don’t know anything about firearms why would you be the one who controls everybody? You do realize that all sporting rifles are the same?

All sporting rifles are the same? A deer rifle is the same as an AR15? A bolt action rifles n .22 is the same as an AR15?

Not quite the same, but kinda close when it was first produced. The AR 15 was originally designed as a semi automatic version of the M16 military rifle. And, it only carried 5 rounds in the magazine in the original version.

Original version? I'm cool with. It seems to be a decent gun, and, in lower rounds downrange before reloading, I'm also cool with.

30 to 100 rounds before reloading? Not cool with. If you're hunting and need more than 5 rounds before reloading, you are a crappy shot and lousy hunter in my opinion. I grew up with only carrying 3 rounds before having to hike back 1 to 2 miles through forest if I missed the first 3.

The only time you need more than 7 rounds is if you are in a serious firefight. And that generally only happens to the military, or SWAT teams.

Or multiple home invaders. You have no right to dictate how many bullets people can have in their guns.

I have one gun with 25 rounds in it, and another with 20 in it right now.

The one I count on has 5 rounds in it, however if it fails and I can get to the others, that'd be good.

 

[Ame®icano]

Reading the script in front of the green screen.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Reading the script in front of the green screen.

Very interesting!

The first video shows 2017 but it does seem strange that he happens to be in BOTH videos.

There is also a YoutUbe video showing he graduated from high school in California in 2015!

 

[AvgGuyIA]

These little kids can't even decide which videogame to play next. Yet have managed to set a date for a March on our nation's capitol in less than a week. Is anyone really buying this? Not to mention they magically came up with the same tired old talking points Democrats have failingly foisted for decades...
So... How'd they do it? Or did they at all...?

.Russians. We have learned Russians are behind all Leftist and SJW protests.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

When the iPhone X.1 is released, these kids will forget all about this and stand in line for hours to get that new phone upgrade.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

99'9% of those kids were never in harms way.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Reading the script in front of the green screen.

Very interesting!

The first video shows 2017 but it does seem strange that he happens to be in BOTH videos.

There is also a YoutUbe video showing he graduated from high school in California in 2015!

Is it the same guy? If so, the whole thing is bullshit. I'm very good with faces like that, if I could see both next to each other. F'rinstance they were saying this guy was the Broward shooter in an Antifa T-shirt, but it wasn't him.