Huge win for long gun lovers !!!!

[TheDefiantOne]

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

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

1. To use for recreational purposes

2. To use for self defense

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

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

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

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

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

I'll address your statements point for point:

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

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

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

4. You are talking about the sleazy dodges by greedy retailers, which doesn't change the fact that when the ban lifted the original style weapons flew off the shelves, skyrocketing sales and the mass murders using them dramatically increased America’s Failed Attempt to Ban Assault Weapons

5. I am unaware of a proposed national law that entails confiscation. Could you post such source information? Thanks.

 

[TheDefiantOne]

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

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

1. To use for recreational purposes

2. To use for self defense

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

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

4. Firepower superiority.

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

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

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

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

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


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

A more detailed quote from Friedman...

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

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

That analysis misreads Heller.

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


Pete Buttigieg supported even more draconian confiscation and laws.

A more objective take: FactCheck Q&A: did government gun buybacks reduce the number of gun deaths in Australia?

Please provide the "draconian" measures of Buttigieg's proposal....given that he's position has NOTHING to do with that part of gov't.

 

[2aguy]

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

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

1. To use for recreational purposes

2. To use for self defense

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

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

4. Firepower superiority.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

en.wikipedia.org

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

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

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

No...they were not on the list because they were popular in mass public shootings. The reason they were on the list is the anti-gunners thought they could get away with banning them, so they did. Then lost control of the House of Representatives......a government body they had total control over for about 40 years.....and why they stopped pushing gun control until obama came along.

 

[2aguy]

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

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

1. To use for recreational purposes

2. To use for self defense

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

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

4. Firepower superiority.

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

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

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

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

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


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

A more detailed quote from Friedman...

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

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

That analysis misreads Heller.

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

AR's aren't capable of firing automatic.

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

Wrong.....what makes them attractive to mass public shooters is you shitheads. You have made the AR-15 seem far deadlier than it deserves...you have pushed to make it illegal, so you have simply made it sexier for them.

A matter of fact is this...

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you know what the difference was between these attacks?

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

What makes the difference?

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

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

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

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

 

[Colin norris]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



Do you know what the difference was between these attacks?



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



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



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



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



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



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





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



What makes the difference?



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



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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And what are you and your buddies gonna do about it?? Storm the WH?
Take on those pillaging hordes who legistlate against you?
You'll do nothing. You're all piss and wind. If the government legislated anything it's the military you will be facing. Not a pack of Rambos like you.

 

[2aguy]

Judge Rules California's ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Unconstitutional

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

www.breitbart.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.

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

Why do Americans prefer the AR-15.....

-it is light, easy to shoot, and different people in a home can use the rifle just as easily....the M1 is long, and can't be customized for several family members to use.

-the AR-15 is shorter and has lighter recoil than the 30.06

-the .223/5.56 round also is less likely to over penetrate the outside wall of a house...

-the AR-15 is easy to customize...you can also have both a laser, a light, as well as any other optic.....the original M1 is made of wood....and you can't put those items on it...

The AR-15 is a good choice for home defense, you idiot......

Woman can shoot the AR-15 much easier than they can shoot the M-1.....

YOu really don't think about your topics....do you?

 

[2aguy]

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

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

1. To use for recreational purposes

2. To use for self defense

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

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

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

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

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

I'll address your statements point for point:

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

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

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

4. You are talking about the sleazy dodges by greedy retailers, which doesn't change the fact that when the ban lifted the original style weapons flew off the shelves, skyrocketing sales and the mass murders using them dramatically increased America’s Failed Attempt to Ban Assault Weapons

5. I am unaware of a proposed national law that entails confiscation. Could you post such source information? Thanks.

We have 20 million AR-15 rifles in private hands in the U.S....

They were used for mass public shootings 4 times in 2019 killing a grand total of

41

Deer kill 200 people a year.

Ladders kill 300 people a year.

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

20 million, and growing, AR-15 rifles in private hands....they were used 4 times in mass public shootings...

Killed in each shooting?

7
9
22
3

US mass shootings, 1982–2024: Data from Mother Jones’ investigation

The full data set from our in-depth investigation into mass shootings.

www.motherjones.com

Compared to...

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

Virginia Tech...2 pistols....32 killed

Virginia Beach shooting....15 killed, 2 hand guns


Fort Hood shooting....13 killed....2 hand guns...

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

Navy Yard shooting....12 killed, pump action shotgun

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

 

[2aguy]

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

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

1. To use for recreational purposes

2. To use for self defense

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

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

4. Firepower superiority.

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

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

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

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

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


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

A more detailed quote from Friedman...

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

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

That analysis misreads Heller.

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


Pete Buttigieg supported even more draconian confiscation and laws.

A more objective take: FactCheck Q&A: did government gun buybacks reduce the number of gun deaths in Australia?

Please provide the "draconian" measures of Buttigieg's proposal....given that he's position has NOTHING to do with that part of gov't.

They are not telling the truth.....

This is Australia now...

Gun city: Young, dumb and armed

The notion that a military-grade weapon could be in the hands of local criminals is shocking, but police have already seized at least five machine guns and assault rifles in the past 18 months. The AK-47 was not among them.

Only a fortnight ago, law enforcement authorities announced they were hunting another seven assault rifles recently smuggled into the country. Weapons from the shipment have been used in armed robberies and drive-by shootings.

These are just a handful of the thousands of illicit guns fuelling a wave of violent crime in the world’s most liveable city.

----

Despite Australia’s strict gun control regime, criminals are now better armed than at any time since then-Prime Minister John Howard introduced a nationwide firearm buyback scheme in response to the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.

Shootings have become almost a weekly occurrence, with more than 125 people, mostly young men, wounded in the past five year

-----------

While the body count was higher during Melbourne’s ‘Underbelly War’ (1999-2005), more people have been seriously maimed in the recent spate of shootings and reprisals.

Crimes associated with firearm possession have also more than doubled, driven by the easy availability of handguns, semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and, increasingly, machine guns, that are smuggled into the country or stolen from licensed owners.

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

These weapons have been used in dozens of recent drive-by shootings of homes and businesses, as well as targeted and random attacks in parks, shopping centres and roads.

“They’re young, dumb and armed,” said one former underworld associate, who survived a shooting attempt in the western suburbs several years ago.

“It used to be that if you were involved in something bad you might have to worry about [being shot]. Now people get shot over nothing - unprovoked.”

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

Gun crime soars
In this series, Fairfax Media looks at Melbourne’s gun problem and the new breed of criminals behind the escalating violence.

The investigation has found:

• There have been at least 99 shootings in the past 20 months - more than one incident a week since January 2015
• Known criminals were caught with firearms 755 times last year, compared to 143 times in 2011
• The epicentre of the problem is a triangle between Coolaroo, Campbellfield and Glenroy in the north-west, with Cranbourne, Narre Warren and Dandenong in the south-east close behind
• Criminals are using gunshot wounds to the arms and legs as warnings to pay debts
• Assault rifles and handguns are being smuggled into Australia via shipments of electronics and metal parts

In response to the violence, it can be revealed the state government is planning to introduce new criminal offences for drive-by shootings, manufacturing of firearms with new technologies such as 3D printers, and more police powers to keep weapons out of the hands of known criminals.

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

The second part of the series....

Gun city: Gunslingers of the North West


========================
'Thousands' of illegal guns tipped to be handed over in firearms amnesty

Asked roughly how many he expected to be handed in, Mr Keenan said: "Look I certainly think the number will be in the thousands."

The Australian Crime Commission estimated in 2012 there were at least 250,000 illegal guns in Australia. But a Senate report noted last year it was impossible to estimate how many illicit weapons are out there.

And despite Australia's strict border controls, the smuggling of high-powered military-style firearms is also a growing problem.

 

[2aguy]

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

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

1. To use for recreational purposes

2. To use for self defense

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

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

4. Firepower superiority.

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

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

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

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

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


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

A more detailed quote from Friedman...

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

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

That analysis misreads Heller.

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


Pete Buttigieg supported even more draconian confiscation and laws.

A more objective take: FactCheck Q&A: did government gun buybacks reduce the number of gun deaths in Australia?

Please provide the "draconian" measures of Buttigieg's proposal....given that he's position has NOTHING to do with that part of gov't.

Major shootings in Australia...why aren't they counted as mass public shootings......?

Because the shooters failed to kill 3 or more people.....even though they had guns, and fired at people in public locations...they were just bad shots........

Shots fired in Launceston siege
A siege in the Tasmanian city of Launceston has ended with police arresting a 24-year-old man and a woman, 40, after 33 shots were fired at police.
Police had brought in negotiators, a heavily armoured Bearcat truck and evacuated residents from the street during the 18 hour stand-off which began on Friday afternoon.

Timeline of major crimes in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• 16 January 1998 to 15 June 2009 – Melbourne gangland killings – A series of 35 murders of crime figures and their associates that began with the slaying of Alphonse Gangitano in his home, most likely by Jason Moran, the latest victim being Des Moran who was murdered in Ascot Vale on 15 June 2009.
• 
  
• 
  
• 16 August 1998 – Victorian police officers Gary Silk and Rodney Miller were shot dead in an ambush by Bendali Debs and Jason Joseph Roberts in the Moorabbin Police murders.
• 3 August 1999 – La Trobe University shooting – Jonathan Brett Horrocks walked into the cafeteria in La Trobe university in Melbourne Victoria armed with a 38 caliber revolver handgun and opened fire killing Leon Capraro the boss and manager off the cafeteria and wounding a woman who was a student at the university.
• 13 March 2000 – Millewa State Forest Murders – Barbara and Stephen Brooks and Stacie Willoughby were found dead, all three having been shot execution style and left in the forest.[60][61]
• 26 May 2002 – A Vietnamese man walked into a Vietnamese wedding reception in Cabramatta Sydney, New South Wales armed with a handgun and opened fire wounding seven people.
• • 14 October 2002 – Dr. Margret Tobin, the South Australian head of Mental Health Services, was shot dead by Jean Eric Gassy as she walked out of a lift in her office building.
  • 21 October 2002 – Monash University shooting – Huan Xiang opened fire in a tutorial room, killing two and injuring five.
  • 25 October 2003 – Greenacre double murder – A man and a woman are shot dead in a house in the suburb of Greenacre, Sydney which was the result of a feud between two Middle Eastern crime families, 24-year-old Ziad Abdulrazak was shot 10 times in the chest and head and 22-year-old Mervat Hamka was shot twice in the neck while she slept in her bedroom, up to 100 shots were fired into the house from four men who were later arrested and convicted of the murders.
  • 26 July 2004 – Security guard Karen Brown shot dead armed robber William Aquilina in a Sydney carpark after he violently bashed her and stole the hotel's takings. Brown was charged with murder but acquitted on the grounds of self-defence.[66][67]
• 18 June 2007 – Melbourne CBD shooting – Christopher Wayne Hudson opened fire on three people, killing one and seriously wounding two others who intervened when Hudson was assaulting his girlfriend at a busy Melbourne intersection during the morning peak. He gave himself up to police in Wallan, Victoria on 20 June.[71]
• 10 April 2010 – Rajesh Osborne shot and killed his three children, 12 year-old Asia, 10-year-old Jarius and 7-year-old Grace before killing himself in Roxburgh, Victoria.[citation needed]
• 28 April 2011 – 2011 Hectorville siege – Donato Anthony Corbo shot dead Kobus and Annetjie Snyman and their son-in-law Luc Mombers and seriously wounded Mr Mombers' 14-year-old son Marcel and a police officer at Hectorville, South Australia before being arrested after an eight-hour stand off.
• 1
• 29 January 2012 – Giovanni Focarelli, son of Comancheros gang member Vincenzo Focarelli, was shot dead whilst Vincenzo survived the fourth attempt on his life.[79]
• 28 April 2012 – A man opened fire in a busy shopping mall in Robina on the Gold Coast shooting Bandidos bikie Jacques Teamo. A woman who was an innocent bystander was also injured from a shotgun blast to the leg. Neither of the victims died, but the incident highlighted the recent increase in gun crime across major Australian cities including Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide.[citation needed]
• 23 May 2012 – Christopher 'Badness' Binse, a career criminal well known to police, was arrested after a 44-hour siege at an East Keilor home in Melbourne's north west. During the siege, Binse fired several shots at police and refused to co-operate with negotiators; eventually tear gas had to be used to force him out of the house, at which point he refused to put down his weapon and was then sprayed with a volley of non-lethal bullets.[citation needed]
• 15 December 2012 – Aaron Carlino murdered drug dealer Stephen Cookson in his East Perth home by shooting him twice in the head and then he cut up and dismembered his body. He buried his arms legs and torso in the backyard of his house and he wrapped his head in a plastic bag and dumped it on Rottnest Island. The head of Cookson was later found washed up on Rottnest Island by an 11-year-old girl. Carlino was convicted of the murder and was sentenced to life in prison.[citation needed]
• 8 March 2013 – Queen Street mall siege – Lee Matthew Hiller entered the shopping mall on Queen Street Brisbane Queensland armed with a revolver and threatened shoppers and staff with the revolver, causing a 90-minute siege which ended when Hiller was shot and wounded in the arm by a police officer from the elite Specialist Emergency Response Team. Hiller was then later taken to hospital and was treated for his injury; he pleaded gulity to 20 charges and was sentenced to four-and-a-half years in jail with a non-parole period of two years and three months.[citation needed]
• 29 July 2013 – Two bikie gang associates, Vasko Boskovski and Bassil Hijazi were shot dead in two separate shooting incidents minutes apart in South West Sydney. The previous week Bassil Hijazi had survived a previous attempt against his life after he was shot inside his car.[citation needed]
• 9 September 2014 – Lockhart massacre – Geoff Hunt shot and killed his wife, Kim, his 10-year-old son Fletcher, and his daughters Mia, eight and Phoebe, six before killing himself on a farm in Lockhart in the Riverina district near Wagga Wagga New South Wales. The body of Geoff Hunt and a firearm are later found in a dam on the farm by police divers and a suicide note written by Geoff Hunt is also found inside the house on the farm.[citation needed]
• 22 October 2014 – Wedderburn shootings – Ian Jamieson shot dead Peter Lockhart, Peter's wife Mary and Mary's son Greg Holmes on two farm properties in Wedderburn, Victoria over a property dispute. Jamieson surrendered to police after a three-and-a-half hour siege.[citation needed]
• 7 November 2014 – Jordy Brook carjacked a Channel 7 news cameraman at gun point during a crime spree on the Sunshine Coast, Queensland. He was later captured and arrested by police after luring police on a high speed chase and crashing the car.[citation needed]
• 12 November 2014 – Jamie Edwards and Joelene Joyce a married couple who were drug dealers are found shot dead in a car on a highway in the town of Moama, New South Wales.[86]

• 15 December 2014 – 2014 Sydney hostage crisis – Seventeen people were taken hostage in a cafe in Martin Place, Sydney by Man Haron Monis. The hostage crisis was resolved in the early hours of 16 December, sixteen hours after it commenced, when armed police stormed the premises. Monis and two hostages were killed in the course of the crisis.[87]
• 27 June 2015 – Hermidale triple murder – the bodies of three people, two men and a woman are found shot dead on a property in a rural farming community in the town of Hermidale west of Nyngan, the bodies of 28-year-old Jacob Cumberland his father 59-year-old Stephen Cumberland and a 36-year-old woman were found with gun shot wounds, the body of Jacob Cumberland was found on the drive way of the property, the body of the 36-year-old woman was found in the backyard of the property and the body of Stephen Cumberland was found in a burnt out caravan on the property. 61-year-old Allan O'Connor is later arrested and charged with the murders.

• 10 September 2015 – A 49-year-old woman is shot dead in a Mc Donald's restaurant in Gold Coast by her 57-year-old ex partner, who then turned the gun on himself afterwards and shot himself dead.
• 
  
• 2 October 2015 - 2015 Parramatta shooting On 2 October 2015, Farhad Khalil Mohammad Jabar, a 15-year-old boy, shot and killed Curtis Cheng, an unarmed police civilian finance worker, outside the New South Wales Police Force headquarters in Parramatta, Australia. Jabar was subsequently shot and killed by special constables who were protecting the police station.

 

[2aguy]

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

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

1. To use for recreational purposes

2. To use for self defense

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

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

4. Firepower superiority.

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

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

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

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

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


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

A more detailed quote from Friedman...

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

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

That analysis misreads Heller.

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


Pete Buttigieg supported even more draconian confiscation and laws.

A more objective take: FactCheck Q&A: did government gun buybacks reduce the number of gun deaths in Australia?

Please provide the "draconian" measures of Buttigieg's proposal....given that he's position has NOTHING to do with that part of gov't.

And here.......actual research vs the democrat party FactCheck....

Australia’s 1996 Gun Confiscation Didn’t Work | National Review

University of Melbourne researchers Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi concluded their 2008 report on the matter with the statement, “There is little evidence to suggest that [the Australian mandatory gun-buyback program] had any significant effects on firearm homicides.”

“Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy that helps to placate the public’s fears,” the reported continued, “the evidence so far suggests that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths.”

A 2007 report, “Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?” by Jeanine Baker and Samara McPhedran similarly concluded that the buyback program did not have a significant long-term effect on the Australian homicide rate.

The Australian gun-homicide rate had already been quite low and had been steadily falling in the 15 years prior to the Port Arthur massacre. And while the mandatory buyback program did appear to reduce the rate of accidental firearm deaths, Baker and McPhedran found that “the gun buy-back and restrictive legislative changes had no influence on firearm homicide in Australia.”

=======

2007 report..

http://c3.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/Baker and McPhedran 2007.pdf

Conclusions Examination of the long-term trends indicated that the only category of sudden death that may have been influenced by the introduction of the NFA was firearm suicide
------

However, this effect must be considered in light of the findings for suicide (non-firearm). Homicide patterns (firearm and non-firearm) were not influenced by the NFA, the conclusion being that the gun buy-back and restrictive legislative changes had no influence on firearm homicide in Australia. The introduction of the NFA appeared to have a negative effect on accidental firearm death. However, over the time period investigated, there was a relatively small number of accidental deaths per annum, with substantial variability. Any conclusions regarding the effect of the NFA on accidental firearm death should be approached with caution
=========

2008 report...


http://c8.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/Lee and Suardi 2008.pdf

In this paper, we re-analyze the same data on firearm deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means to identifying impacts of the NFA.

The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates.
-------

6. Conclusion

This paper takes a closer look at the effects of the National Firearms Agreement on gun deaths.

Using a battery of structural break tests, there is little evidence to suggest that it had any significant effects on firearm homicides and suicides.

In addition, there also does not appear to be any substitution effects – that reduced access to firearms may have led those bent on committing homicide or suicide to use alternative methods.

 

[2aguy]

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

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

1. To use for recreational purposes

2. To use for self defense

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

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

4. Firepower superiority.

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

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

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

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

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


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

A more detailed quote from Friedman...

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

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

That analysis misreads Heller.

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


Pete Buttigieg supported even more draconian confiscation and laws.

A more objective take: FactCheck Q&A: did government gun buybacks reduce the number of gun deaths in Australia?

Please provide the "draconian" measures of Buttigieg's proposal....given that he's position has NOTHING to do with that part of gov't.

Actual research....

Did Australia’s Ban on Semiauto Firearms Really Reduce Violence? A Critique of the Chapman et al. (2016) Study by Gary Kleck :: SSRN

In reality, their own data, along with information from other widely available sources, indicates that:
1. The NFA did not reduce the prevalence of gun ownership in Australia.
2. The NFA only temporarily reduced the total number of guns in civilian hands; within 20 years imports of new guns cancelled out the subtractions from the gun stock produced by buybacks and gun destruction programs.
3. The NFA did not reduce Australia’s homicide rate.
4. The NFA did not reduce Australia’s suicide rate.
5. The NFA appears to have increased the rate of fatal gun accidents.
6. There is no strong evidence that the NFA reduced mass shootings in Australia. Such crimes were extremely rare even before implementation of the NFA, and were unlikely to become common even if the NFA had never been implemented
-----------

In contrast to the spin placed on their findings by the authors, here is what their findings actually indicated regarding the NFA’s impact on homicide and suicide rates.

In assessing these findings, readers should keep in mind that the authors did not directly control for a single other factor that might have affected violence trends, but simply compared mortality rate trends before the NFA with trends after the NFA, and hinted to readers that if violence rates trended more downward (or less upward) after 1996 than before 1996, the NFA was probably responsible.

-----

Their findings, however, did not support this expectation at all. While the authors were correct in noting that both homicide and suicide declined overall after 1996, gun violence was already declining before the NFA was passed, and post-1996 declines were no stronger for firearms homicides or suicides than for nonfirearms homicides or suicides.

Even more crucial, homicides and suicides not involving firearms declined every bit as much as those involving firearms (Table 3), indicating that something other than gun controls were causing reductions in homicides and suicides in general, regardless of whether guns were used.

The authors acknowledged that gun violence did not decline any more after 1996 than nongun violence did (p. 298), but they appear to have missed the crucial significance of this pattern of findings for the credibility of their claim that the NFA reduced violence.
-----

As to what those declines in violence were due to, nothing in the research by Chapman and his colleagues offers any clues.

The authors did not control for a single confounding variable in their analyses of national violence trends, so they had no basis for knowing what did cause the post-1996 violence declines, and no basis for ruling out the possibility that their findings reflected effects of other variables other than the NFA.
-----

The 2006 report suggests a different explanation for why their 2016 paper did not address gun accidents. The results of the earlier analysis indicated that unintentional firearms deaths actually increased after the NFA was implemented. ----

Given what the authors did emphasize, they appear to have believed that the NFA’s effects were instead primarily due to the ban and buyback of semi-auto long guns and pump shotguns and rifles.

The authors do not cite any evidence that these specific kinds of firearms were used to commit any significant share of homicides or suicides in Australia prior to the NFA.

In fact, pre-NFA Australian firearm violence rarely involved the banned types of guns. Mouzos (2000) reported than only 10% of homicides committed in 1992-1999 in Australia (excluding the Port Arthur incident) were committed with firearms banned by the NFA.

If Chapman et al. had any evidence to the contrary - that a large share of pre-NFA Australian homicides (or suicides) had been committed with the banned types of firearms - they presumably would have provided it. They did not
------
There was a strategic benefit to the authors failure to provide any explanation of how banning these types of firearms would reduce mass shootings. If the authors had explicitly endorsed the idea that the banned guns encourage mass shootings because the enable shooters to fire many rounds in a short period of time, their arguments could be discredited by evidence that mass shooters in Australia rarely shot many rounds in short periods of time.


Refraining from offering any hypothesis as to how or why the gun bans would reduce mass shootings helps make the hypothesis that NFA eliminated gun massacres evidence-proof. The significance of this omission will become clear in the next section.
----

A useful comparison can be made with New Zealand, the nation that is probably most similar to Australia. New Zealand has not implemented any significant new gun controls since 1996 (Wikipedia, “Guns Laws in New Zealand” 2017) but, like Australia, it has not experienced a single mass shooting since six people were killed in Raurimu, New Zealand on February 8, 1997 (Wikipedia, “List of Massacres in New Zealand” 2017). If New Zealand can provide a relevant guide, its recent history suggests that Australia would probably not have experienced any mass shootings after 1996 even if it had not implemented the NFA. In any case, New Zealand’s experience certainly demonstrates that a nation very similar to Australia can go 20 years without a mass shooting, without it being attributable strict gun controls.


Conclusions As best one can tell from the available evidence, Australia’s massive 1996 gun control effort was a failure. It did not reduce either suicide or homicide rates below what, based on pre1996 trends, they would have been in the absence of the NFA, and may even have increased the number of fatal gun accidents.


Based on national surveys, the gun bans and buybacks did not make any contribution to the decline in the share of Australian households that owned guns that had already been going on before 1996, and may have even slowed this decline. Although the NFA produced a temporary reduction in the gun stock, it had no long-term effect on the number of guns in civilian hands in Australia, since the nearly million guns that were surrendered and destroyed were counterbalanced by over a million new civilian guns imported into the country in the first 19 years after the ban.

 

[Flash]

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

It is actually none of your business what we prefer.

 

[Flash]

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

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

1. To use for recreational purposes

2. To use for self defense

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

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

4. Firepower superiority.

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

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

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

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

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


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

A more detailed quote from Friedman...

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

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

That analysis misreads Heller.

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

AR's aren't capable of firing automatic.

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

The swimming pool I have is much more likely to cause a death than the 30 AR-15s that I have.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

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

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

1. To use for recreational purposes

2. To use for self defense

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

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

4. Firepower superiority.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

en.wikipedia.org

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

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

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

So called assault rifles are used in a minority of mass shootings.

The weapon isn't the problem. The people carrying out these attacks are the problem. The semi-automatic, magazine fed rifle has been on the civilian market since 1904. Looooong before mass shootings became en vogue.

If you want to blame someone for AR style rifles being used in mass shootings, you can blame you and the rest of the anti-gun idiots for advertising it as the most efficient killing tool ever invented. It's you people that perpetuate moronic myths like the "tumbling bullet", or stupid shit like, "an AR bullet is going to travel all through the body causing more damage". The latter is my favorite moronic myth, BTW...lol.

People like you are the best advertisement the AR-15 ever had. Good job!

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Judge Rules California's ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Unconstitutional

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

www.breitbart.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.

The M-1 carbine can do everything an AR can do.

 

[bodecea]

Judge Rules California's ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Unconstitutional

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

www.breitbart.com

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

Since when does Biden run California?

Remember the Mulford Act? Reagan and the NRA got rid of open carry because of scary black men with guns.

 

[2aguy]

Judge Rules California's ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Unconstitutional

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

www.breitbart.com

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

Since when does Biden run California?

Remember the Mulford Act? Reagan and the NRA got rid of open carry because of scary black men with guns.

And...? That was a mistake...

However....when there were guys a few years back walking down the street with AR-15 rifles on slings...going to grocery stores with the rifles..... it was cry babies/bullies, like you who screeched the loudest about them......

Apparently, you only want black panther criminals to be able to carry loaded rifles in public.....

I, however, have no problem with anyone carrying a gun in public...

If the democrat party brown shirts, blm and antifa, are not burning and looting in your neighborhood...however, carrying a long gun in public is rude behavior....long guns are for when you have a high expectation of actual violence......handguns are what you carry just in case.....

 

[2aguy]

Judge Rules California's ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Unconstitutional

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

www.breitbart.com

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

Since when does Biden run California?

Remember the Mulford Act? Reagan and the NRA got rid of open carry because of scary black men with guns.

So...please...tell us...do you support black men being able to carry guns in public? Or are you like the original democrats who made laws to make sure blacks and indians couldn't own guns?

 

[miketx]

Judge Rules California's ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Unconstitutional

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

www.breitbart.com

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

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

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

Perhaps you vile lying scum would consider stopping your catch and release programs?

 

[miketx]

Every American can own these fake assault weapons

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

Perhaps you vile lying scum would consider stopping your catch and release programs?