Huge win for long gun lovers !!!!

[2aguy]

In 1788, at the constitutional ratification convention in Virginia, a major source of contention was that the draft constitution had placed the training and arming of the states’ militia under federal control. Virginians Patrick Henry and George Mason balked, and raised the specter of a massive slave revolt left unchecked because Congress could not be trusted to summon the forces to protect the plantation owners. Mason warned that if and when Virginia’s enslaved rose up (as they had before), whites would be left “defenseless”. Patrick Henry explained that white plantation owners would be abandoned because “the north detests slavery”. In short, Black people had to be subjugated and contained and state control of the militia was the way to do that.​

America’s gun obsession is rooted in slavery | Carol Anderson

A series of slave revolts terrified white residents and helped fuel the rationale for gun ownership

www.theguardian.com

​

Dipshit.......militias existed long before slavery.....and existed in all of the colonies you idiot.........

Again....

Actual gun control was first and foremost to keep slaves, free blacks and indians from having guns...

Gun control is racist.

 

[busybee01]

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.

 

[2aguy]

In 1788, at the constitutional ratification convention in Virginia, a major source of contention was that the draft constitution had placed the training and arming of the states’ militia under federal control. Virginians Patrick Henry and George Mason balked, and raised the specter of a massive slave revolt left unchecked because Congress could not be trusted to summon the forces to protect the plantation owners. Mason warned that if and when Virginia’s enslaved rose up (as they had before), whites would be left “defenseless”. Patrick Henry explained that white plantation owners would be abandoned because “the north detests slavery”. In short, Black people had to be subjugated and contained and state control of the militia was the way to do that.​

America’s gun obsession is rooted in slavery | Carol Anderson

A series of slave revolts terrified white residents and helped fuel the rationale for gun ownership

www.theguardian.com

​

The truth....

first.....none of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights were in the original Constitution...you idiot....including the 1st Amendment, and all the others including the 5th Amendment...so the 2nd Amendment wasn't special in that regard, you doofus...Some of the Founder didn't think a Bill of Rights was necessary, but smarter founders understood that people like you existed...so they codified Rights that pre-dated the Constitution...

Then....

Not only are Anderson’s historical claims entirely inaccurate, but the publication of her book represents the larger, continued effort by American leftists to degrade and distort the American founding.

The entire premise of the Second Amendment was not to protect the institution of slavery as Anderson suggests, but rather to provide the American citizenry with a necessary tool to prevent encroachments by their federal government.

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” stated James Madison in June 1789. “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”


Samuel Adams made the same sentiments a year prior during the Massachusetts ratifying convention, where he proclaimed “the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…”

Having recently lived under the thumb of Great Britain, the Founders understood that the capacity for government to infringe on the rights of its people was universal and that such tyranny could certainly exist in America. As a result, the Founders viewed the individual right to keep and bear arms as essential in preserving the freedom and liberty of the American citizenry.
----

Anderson’s attempt to make racism the reason behind the establishment of the Second Amendment falls in lockstep with Marxist curricula like the New York Times’ 1619 Project. The goal isn’t merely to just falsify our history, but to do so in a way that breeds further division within the country. Rather than divide us by economic status or class, this kind of “racial Marxism” seeks to pit Americans against one another based on race.

Historian Falsely Claims The Second Amendment Was Created To Protect Slavery

The goal isn’t merely to just falsify our history, but to do so in a way that breeds further division within the country.

thefederalist.com

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

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?

Very few

 

[2aguy]

In 1788, at the constitutional ratification convention in Virginia, a major source of contention was that the draft constitution had placed the training and arming of the states’ militia under federal control. Virginians Patrick Henry and George Mason balked, and raised the specter of a massive slave revolt left unchecked because Congress could not be trusted to summon the forces to protect the plantation owners. Mason warned that if and when Virginia’s enslaved rose up (as they had before), whites would be left “defenseless”. Patrick Henry explained that white plantation owners would be abandoned because “the north detests slavery”. In short, Black people had to be subjugated and contained and state control of the militia was the way to do that.​

America’s gun obsession is rooted in slavery | Carol Anderson

A series of slave revolts terrified white residents and helped fuel the rationale for gun ownership

www.theguardian.com

​

How about going back to the actual Roots of the Right to Bear Arms....England......you twit...

To understand the Second Amendment, you must go back to 1688, when England had its Glorious Revolution, which was glorious because Parliament kicked out King James II without firing a shot. The British then invited William III and Mary (James's daughter) to occupy the throne subject to Parliament's rules. These Rules were articulated in the Declaration of Rights in the English Bill of Rights from 1689.

The seventh articulated right holds that those of the king's "subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law." When the king's subjects traveled to the raw, untamed new world, they took seriously their right to bear arms, one that quickly transferred itself to all free men, regardless of color.

People needed weapons to hunt (no cellophane-packed meat in grocery stores back then) and to defend themselves against neighbors, hostile Native Americans, the French, and the Spanish. From the earliest years of colonial settlements, they had formed mandatory militias made up of all able-bodied men for community defense against this multitude of threats.

By 1775, Americans were angry that the British continuously denied them their rights under the Bill of Rights, something Parliament was able to do by claiming that the rights applied only to the king, not Parliament. In April 1775, British general Thomas Gage received instructions from Secretary of State William Legge, Earl of Dartmouth: disarm the rebels. That was why the British marched on Lexington and Concord when Paul Revere made his famous ride. The first shots in the American Revolution occurred because a tyrannical government tried to seize its citizens' weapons.

It is true that, following 1739's Stono Rebellion in what is now South Carolina, Southerners seized guns from Blacks.

And that's the important point: those among the colonists and, after the Revolution, the Americans who wanted to subordinate Blacks deprived them of their inherent right to possess arms.

Put another way, the Second Amendment wasn't intended to control Blacks;

gun control was meant to control Blacks. The Southerners knew that if Blacks had the right to bear arms, slavery would quickly have ended.

The Second Amendment isn't racist

For leftists, history isn't about understanding and learning from the past. It's about rewriting the past to suit their present needs. The latest example is the claim from Carol Anderson, a race-obsessed academic at Emor...

www.americanthinker.com

And those who wanted to keep blacks as slaves, made laws keeping them from owning guns.......they later became the democrat party...

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

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.

Can we own this?

 

[2aguy]

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.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

I have no fear of AR15s
I do have a fear of hidden pistols

Ahh, but it 's not about your personal fear (real or perceived), it's about the FACT that a formally banned weapon has been the favorite choice of mass shooters for the past few years. What the judge did was just green light more of the same:

Fact check: AR-15 style rifles used in 11 mass shootings since 2012

Of 12 shootings listed, including the Sandy Hook, Pulse, Las Vegas, and Boulder shootings, 11 used AR-15 style rifles. But a post is missing context.

www.usatoday.com

The judge cannot be overturned and it was a T judge ..I bet

Small consolation for the next mass shooting victims.

If more people were armed, there would be fewer mass shooting victims.

 

[2aguy]

View attachment 497508

Fact check: AR-15 style rifles used in 11 mass shootings since 2012

Of 12 shootings listed, including the Sandy Hook, Pulse, Las Vegas, and Boulder shootings, 11 used AR-15 style rifles. But a post is missing context.

www.usatoday.com

AR-15 Rifles Were Used in 26 Percent of the Last 80 Mass Shootings in U.S.

AR-15s were used in the Las Vegas shooting, the Parkland, Florida, shooting and Monday's shooting in Boulder, Colorado.

www.newsweek.com

Idiot...

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.

 

[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.

Innocent people are far far more likely to get shot with a cheap handgun in the hands of a street thug in a Black ghetto than from an AR-15.

The great majority of people that get shot with guns are druggies, gang bangers and street thugs in Democrat control big city shitholes.

So lets get all the cards on the table; a weapon that has been PROVEN to be the favorite choice of the majority of mass shooters in the last 20 years or so has to stay in circulation because gang bangers can gain easier access to Saturday Night Specials and the lot. And since YOU introduced race into the discussion, it seems you're okay that the majority of victims of the AR-15's used in mass shootings have NOT been black folk.

Nope, it's all cool with you so long as some psychological comfort zone of "don't let the liberals win" is sated. A sad statement that you don't give a damn about the following. Carry on.
newsweek.com/ar-15-rifles-were-used-26-percent-last-80-mass-shootings-america-1578107

Fact check: AR-15 style rifles used in 11 mass shootings since 2012

Of 12 shootings listed, including the Sandy Hook, Pulse, Las Vegas, and Boulder shootings, 11 used AR-15 style rifles. But a post is missing context.

www.usatoday.com

Moron.......your own links show it isn't used in even half of the mass public shootings...you idiot.....

How is 26% a majority, you dumb shit......and even that number is likely wrong....

 

[busybee01]

This is the right decision made by the Federal Judge. As I stated in another post. Any Assault weapon ban, or magazine capacity reduction,or any weapons ban is an infringement on the 2nd amendment of the United States Constitution. We don't need Politicians telling us what weapons, we can or can not have. Assault weapons , handguns, are not alive. We need more mental health workers to deal with people before they go out and try to harm people. Not punishing everyone with these illegal weapons bans.

That is not true. The late Antonin Scalia said that ownership of firearms is not absolute.

No.....that isn't what he said....but thanks for pulling that anti-gun talking point out of your ass.....

Yes that is what he said. He also said more.

Scalia pointed out Sunday that that the Second Amendment “obviously” doesn’t apply to weapons that can’t be hand-carried, and modern-day weapons like “hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes” weren’t factored in at the time of the writing of the Constitution.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

I want a grenade launcher..

Bugger that. Suitcase nuke or nothing.

There's no such thing as a suitcase nuke.

 

[2aguy]

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

Moron, there are more guns in the country than cars...

600 million guns in private hands and over 19.4 million Americans can legally carry guns in public for self defense.....

The intentional illegal use of guns......

10,235 gun murders in 2019.

Accidental car deaths?

39,107.......

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

Of the 10,235 gun murders over 70-80% of the victims are criminals, and of the rest the majority are friends and family of the criminals....and these shootings take place in democrat party controlled cities because of their actions and policies toward repeat gun offenders....they keep letting them out of jail and prison...

 

[2aguy]

This is the right decision made by the Federal Judge. As I stated in another post. Any Assault weapon ban, or magazine capacity reduction,or any weapons ban is an infringement on the 2nd amendment of the United States Constitution. We don't need Politicians telling us what weapons, we can or can not have. Assault weapons , handguns, are not alive. We need more mental health workers to deal with people before they go out and try to harm people. Not punishing everyone with these illegal weapons bans.

That is not true. The late Antonin Scalia said that ownership of firearms is not absolute.

No.....that isn't what he said....but thanks for pulling that anti-gun talking point out of your ass.....

Yes that is what he said. He also said more.

Scalia pointed out Sunday that that the Second Amendment “obviously” doesn’t apply to weapons that can’t be hand-carried, and modern-day weapons like “hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes” weren’t factored in at the time of the writing of the Constitution.

The AR-15 can be hand carried, you idiot........and .....

What Scalia actually said in Heller and his opinion in Friedman v Highland Park...where he states the AR-15 rifle is protected...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001),


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.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

This is the right decision made by the Federal Judge. As I stated in another post. Any Assault weapon ban, or magazine capacity reduction,or any weapons ban is an infringement on the 2nd amendment of the United States Constitution. We don't need Politicians telling us what weapons, we can or can not have. Assault weapons , handguns, are not alive. We need more mental health workers to deal with people before they go out and try to harm people. Not punishing everyone with these illegal weapons bans.

That is not true. The late Antonin Scalia said that ownership of firearms is not absolute.

No.....that isn't what he said....but thanks for pulling that anti-gun talking point out of your ass.....

Yes that is what he said. He also said more.

Scalia pointed out Sunday that that the Second Amendment “obviously” doesn’t apply to weapons that can’t be hand-carried, and modern-day weapons like “hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes” weren’t factored in at the time of the writing of the Constitution.

And no one is arguing that we should be allowed to own surface-to-air missiles, or nukes, or grenade launches, or indirect fire weapons. Any comparison of a semi-automatic rifle to a SAM is fucking moronic. Doing so proves how lame the Left's anti-gun argument really is.

 

[2aguy]

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

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.

You should stop pulling this crap out of your butt.....

The AR-15 is not the weapon of choice for the majority of mass public shootings, you idiot...not even close....

Gun Control Myths: The lie that AR-15s are the weapon of choice of Mass Public Shooters - Crime Prevention Research Center

Here is an all too typical Twitter post making the claim that AR-15s are the weapon of choice for mass public shooters. But you have to wonder though if all this media coverage that these are the best weapons for mass public shooters actually causes more of these particular guns to be used than...

crimeresearch.org

With all the concern about assault weapons since the federal ban sunset in 2004, it is interesting to see what a small share of murders are committed with any type of rifle and how even that share has fallen over time. The percentage of firearm murders with rifles was 4.8% prior to the ban starting in September 1994, 4.9% from 1995 to 2004 when the ban was in effect, and just 3.6% after that (3.9% if you look at just the first ten years after the an ended). The data is from the FBI UCR reports.

The average rate of firearm murders committed with rifles after the assault weapons ban was statistically significantly less than the rate during the ban at the 0.0001 percent level for a two-tailed t-test. There was no statistically significant difference in rates for the period before the ban with the assault weapon ban period.

There are similar drops over time if one looks at the share of total murders committed with rifles.

One moment, please...

 

[2aguy]

This is the right decision made by the Federal Judge. As I stated in another post. Any Assault weapon ban, or magazine capacity reduction,or any weapons ban is an infringement on the 2nd amendment of the United States Constitution. We don't need Politicians telling us what weapons, we can or can not have. Assault weapons , handguns, are not alive. We need more mental health workers to deal with people before they go out and try to harm people. Not punishing everyone with these illegal weapons bans.

That is not true. The late Antonin Scalia said that ownership of firearms is not absolute.

No.....that isn't what he said....but thanks for pulling that anti-gun talking point out of your ass.....

Yes that is what he said. He also said more.

Scalia pointed out Sunday that that the Second Amendment “obviously” doesn’t apply to weapons that can’t be hand-carried, and modern-day weapons like “hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes” weren’t factored in at the time of the writing of the Constitution.

So...genius...the M60 Machine gun and the Squad Automatic Weapon are both hand held...........you really, really need to actually do some research on your own.....

 

[Colin norris]

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?

Not enough. We need you to shit your pants more.

We will get machine guns back before I die.

You'll have to get a carry bag for your excess testosterone and a wheel barrow for your ego.
As if that gun will make the community safer. What a joke.

It'll make me safer. The Community can fuck off.

How will it make you safer?
Think about that. What you mean is you feel safer but you don't know. It gives you an ego boost so now you are safer. Yep. Got it. That's logical.

 

[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 us don't.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

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?

Not enough. We need you to shit your pants more.

We will get machine guns back before I die.

You'll have to get a carry bag for your excess testosterone and a wheel barrow for your ego.
As if that gun will make the community safer. What a joke.

It'll make me safer. The Community can fuck off.

How will it make you safer?
Think about that. What you mean is you feel safer but you don't know. It gives you an ego boost so now you are safer. Yep. Got it. That's logical.

Do you lock your doors? Wear seatbelts?