Leftists Now Clamoring To Get Guns And Finding Out It's Not That Easy

[2aguy]

"First came the panic buying of hand sanitizer. Then, people panic bought toilet paper. Now, food shelves are emptying and firearm and ammunition sales are through the roof. The COVID19 outbreak might be bad for the stock market, but it’s certainly been a boon for very specific sectors of the economy. The gun industry, used to such boom/bust cycles, knows how to respond – but other sectors might not be so acclimated.

Here at Omaha Outdoors, we’ve been inundated with inquiries from out-of-state folks – many from California – asking if we can ship them a gun directly. The answer is, of course, no. Despite what politicians and many in popular media claim, you can’t buy a gun online and have it shipped to your house. Well, you could, if you were a federally licensed firearm dealer (or federally licensed curio and relic collector) and your home was your place of business. Other than that, no, you can’t buy a gun online and have it shipped, especially across state lines, to your home."

A Lot of People Are Finding Out You Can’t Just Buy a Gun Online - Omaha Outdoors

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

I never tire of proving these anti-gun idiots wrong.

How effective are my guns against COVID-19? Having been in biomedical research for over a quarter of a century, including a stint in an infectious diseases division of a top tier US pharma company I musty admit, I had not considered that.

I am guessing the NRA is using the coronavirus ans a marketing opportunity. There is no problems that guns cannot solve.

Since the NRA doesn't market guns, you dope.......how do you actually come up with your B.S......

 

[Mac-7]

"First came the panic buying of hand sanitizer. Then, people panic bought toilet paper. Now, food shelves are emptying and firearm and ammunition sales are through the roof. The COVID19 outbreak might be bad for the stock market, but it’s certainly been a boon for very specific sectors of the economy. The gun industry, used to such boom/bust cycles, knows how to respond – but other sectors might not be so acclimated.

Here at Omaha Outdoors, we’ve been inundated with inquiries from out-of-state folks – many from California – asking if we can ship them a gun directly. The answer is, of course, no. Despite what politicians and many in popular media claim, you can’t buy a gun online and have it shipped to your house. Well, you could, if you were a federally licensed firearm dealer (or federally licensed curio and relic collector) and your home was your place of business. Other than that, no, you can’t buy a gun online and have it shipped, especially across state lines, to your home."

A Lot of People Are Finding Out You Can’t Just Buy a Gun Online - Omaha Outdoors

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

I never tire of proving these anti-gun idiots wrong.

How effective are my guns against COVID-19? Having been in biomedical research for over a quarter of a century, including a stint in an infectious diseases division of a top tier US pharma company I musty admit, I had not considered that.

I am guessing the NRA is using the coronavirus ans a marketing opportunity. There is no problems that guns cannot solve.

Since the NRA doesn't market guns, you dope.......how do you actually come up with your B.S......

The left is actually anti American gun owner but does not want to confront gun owners directly

so they pretend that the NRA is to blame for all their troubles

 

[2aguy]

So but the assault weapon ban of the 90'sc reduced mass shootings.

This is either a lie, or a statement of abject ignorance.
You choose.

I am 100% correct.
The Assault Weapon Ban Saved Lives | Stanford Law School

Since the majority of mass public shootings are done with handguns...this "study" doesn't pass the basic test of logic. If a shooter didn't have a rifle, he would simply have acquired one or more pistols or a shotgun or one of the rifles that wasn't on the ban list....

You dope.

This is why research by anti-gun extremists can't be trusted for truth or accuracy......they make up their crap....

And murder with rifles declined after the ban was lifted, you moron....all murders with rifles.....you dope...

With all the concern about assault weapons, how has the share of murders with rifles changed over time? - Crime Prevention Research Center

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.

 

[2aguy]

So but the assault weapon ban of the 90'sc reduced mass shootings.

This is either a lie, or a statement of abject ignorance.
You choose.

I am 100% correct.
The Assault Weapon Ban Saved Lives | Stanford Law School

And, moron....from your link....

Figures 1 and 2 tell the story graphically: the body count from gun massacres was visibly restrained during the AWB and rose sharply after 2004 when President Bush reneged on his campaign promise to renew it.

First...again, the majority of mass public shootings are done with handguns.....you freaking moron..........and this is also after the ban was lifted.....you moron......so if they couldn't get a rifle listed on the ban list......they could simply have gotten a rifle not on the ban list.....you moron......or used pistols or shotguns......

The Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 people with 2 pistols....the Luby's cafe shooter killed 24 with 2 pistols....you dope.

2nd.......the reason the death rate in mass public shootings has gone up is mass public shooters learned from the previous shooters and learned from what they did.....you moron......they plan their attacks 6 months to 2 years in advance and study how the other mass shooters conducted their shootings.......something you link doesn't even try to acknowledge.....

So this "study" is crap from the outset....

 

[2aguy]

So but the assault weapon ban of the 90'sc reduced mass shootings.

This is either a lie, or a statement of abject ignorance.
You choose.

I am 100% correct.
The Assault Weapon Ban Saved Lives | Stanford Law School

And now....actual research...

A Suspiciously Selective, Logically Shaky Analysis of Mass Shooting Data Claims the Federal 'Assault Weapon' Ban 'Really Did Work'

Contrary to Donohue and Boulouta's implication, neither rate of fire nor the capacity to accept detachable magazines distinguished the guns covered by the 1994 law from the guns that remained legal. In any case, the numbers do not suggest that the ban had much of an impact on the weapons used by mass shooters.
By my count, guns covered by the ban were used in six out of 16 mass shootings (38 percent) in the decade before it was enacted, compared to five out of 15 (33 percent) while it was in effect.
Even leaving aside the functional similarity between banned and legal guns, it seems clear that the slight change in the mix of weapons cannot explain the 23 percent drop in fatalities, especially since the two deadliest pre-ban mass shootings, accounting for nearly a third of the fatalities during that 10-year period, were carried out with ordinary handguns.
What about after the ban expired? In the subsequent decade, there was indeed a big increase in mass shootings and fatalities caused by them. Based on the Mother Jonestally, there were 36 mass shootings with nearly 300 fatalities. Is that because "assault weapons" were easier to get? Again, the numbers suggest otherwise.
Guns that would have been covered by the 1994 ban—or, in at least one case, would be covered by the revised version that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who sponsored the original ban, has introduced—were used in seven of those attacks, or 19 percent. In other words, "assault weapons" were less commonly used in mass shootings after the ban than they were during it.
Donohue and Boulouta claim that the expiration of the federal ban "permitt[ed] the gun industry to flood the market with increasingly powerful weapons that allow for faster killing." But so-called assault weapons are no "faster" or more "powerful" than functionally similar guns that do not fall into that arbitrary category.
They fire the same ammunition at the same rate with the same muzzle velocity. The causal mechanism that Donohue and Boulouta have in mind is therefore rather mysterious, since banning "assault weapons," even if it made all of them disappear overnight, would leave mass shooters with plenty of equally deadly alternatives.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf

The decline in the use of AWs has been due primarily to a reduction in the use of assault pistols (APs), which are used in crime more commonly than assault rifles (ARs). There has not been a clear decline in the use of ARs, though assessments are complicated by the rarity of crimes with these weapons and by substitution of post-ban rifles that are very similar to the banned AR models.
--------
Looking at the nation’s gun crime problem more broadly, however, AWs and LCMs were used in only a minority of gun crimes prior to the 1994 federal ban, and AWs were used in a particularly small percentage of gun crimes.
-----

The relative rarity of AW use in crime can be attributed to a number of factors. Many AWs are long guns, which are used in crime much less often than handguns.
-----

Even so, most survey evidence on the actual use of AWs suggests that offenders rarely use AWs in crime.
Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

and they are unconstitutional so says the 14th amendment

Unless they meet the due process requirement. Once again, you left that part out. Tell you what. I am going to make some demands to USMB. See if you agree with them. Since you like to only use part of the Constitution, I get to do the same thing. Here are my demands.

I only want to see post by people that only agree with me so we need to modify the 1st amendment. So you will have all your posts deleted and you will be banned for life

We are going to modify the 4th amendment to read that if you post one single post (just before you are banned for life) the Government shall seize your computer after ransacking your home without notice.

We are going to charge you with a crime (We'll make something up) and hold you in jail forever without allowing you to go to trial, have legal representation. In affect, make you dissappear. Yes, let's modify the 6th amendment for you rtwingnutjobs only.

While we are at it, just for you rtwingnutjobs, you can't get a jury under the 7th amendment but that's not a problem with the modified 6th amendment.

Let's throw out the 8th in your case while we are at it. No bail at all. And Hogs will live better than you.

Now, I demand these things or I am going to throw myself to the ground in a fit of rage. (and probably miss)

Careful, Ladies, The 19th may be next (ducking)

you do realize due process deals with the judicial system it has nothing to do with the creation of laws.
the 14th amendment was created to protect blacks from laws created by democrats that deprive them of rights other citizens have that are protected by the federal government.

And it's since been accepted for much more. So what if it was originally written to protect the Blacks. It has since been found for other uses. The wording doesn't say "Nigras" (as was the common name of the time), it says,

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Many of the Jim Crow Laws were done without due process and over time, were all found to be unconstitutional. You honestly believe that it only applied to persecuted Blacks? I am part Irish and it had a profound affect on the Irish Communities as well. They finally had to take down the "No Irish" signs in America.

And there are a ton of things that has nothing to do with race, religion or color that it applies to as well. Simple things that you take for granted like Driving a Car, how you keep your yard, and more. Communities (States, Counties and Cities) can create these laws as long as they are done within due process for public safety. This is why the Gun Regs have been upheld in all level of courts. They are presented as Public Safety and that falls well within the Due Process. Due Process is much more than protecting a Criminals rights.

You don't get it, states cannot create laws that restrict the Federally protected rights of its citizens that other U.S. Citizens enjoy, whether or not a leftist court rules for an unconstitutional law does not make it Constitutional
I have a feeling the courts will not be so left-leaning after the president leaves the white house.

One huge problem. Every new Justice goes through a mini bootcamp before they make their first ruling. They become Constitutionalists pretty fast. You want party rulings. Well, you aren't going to get it. The only time that may happen is when it's iffy at best on which way it can go and the Legislation hasn't done it's job. You are still waiting for the Supreme Court to rerule on Roe V Wade. Newsflash, cupcake: even the most right wingers on the supreme court have already stated that it's the law and they aren't go to overrule the previous ruling.

As for 2nd Amendment, the ONLY time the modern Supreme Court has touched the 2nd Amendment was Heller V D.C. only because there is no state Federal court to rule on it. And even then, they didn't give you what you keep crying about. Heller V is the gold standard now for Gun Regulations and it's the basis for the other rulings by the courts that allows the States, Counties and Cities to create various gun regulations. The reason for that is, the Supreme Court can only rule on Federal Matters when the lower courts are ruling on State Matters. The 2nd Amendment applies to the Feds except for the ruling that came out of Heller V. Don't look for the Supreme Court to overturn the State or District Federal Courts because that's state not federal.

I'll say it again, if you don't like the state you are living in and it's laws, move to one that you do like.

the only problem is making your interpretation constitutionally valid. And that's not my problem.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Dumbass look at the 14th amendment sectin one
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This means no state can create a law that would deprive citizens of that state that other citizens in other states have that are protected by the U.S. Constitution
It kills your due process bullshit argument time to move your goal post

Wrong.

See the Slaughter-House Cases (1873) with regard to the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment.

In essence, the 14th Amendment codifies the doctrine of inalienable rights, where the protected liberties of citizens who reside in the states cannot be violated by state government – even if a law enacted by the state reflects the will of the majority of the people.

The courts decide when a state has acted contrary to the 14th Amendment and violated the rights of citizens residing in that state.

And the courts have determined that states which have enacted UBCs have governed in accordance with the 14th Amendment.

you really suck at reading comprehension what in the hell do you think inalienable rights are? self-defense is an inalienable right which means the right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right.

According to Heller V D.C, you have the right to have a reasonable handgun in your home. The State, County or City has the right to require reasonable licensing and documentation for you to possess that reasonable handgun in your home. Anything else can be regulated by the State, County or City to include a total ban on a specific gun as long as it's done for public safety meeting the Due process requirement.

For instance, Mag Capacities. 10 round capacity limits do not meet the Due Process. But 15 does. It was first upheld in 2013 for Colorado in a Federal Court. Colorado went into the procedings with a 10 round capacity but during the deliberation, they lawyers picked up pretty quick that that wouldn't fly. The Colorado Congress modified the law that very day to read 15 and it sailed right on through. The cited Heller V D.C. as reasonable. It met the Due Process requirements.

The State determines the Mag Limits. Some have 15, some have 20 while others don't have any limits. As Judge Young of Boston said, "If you don't like the laws where you are, MOVE".

you have a right to self defense regradless where you are at

True, within reason. As per the Heller V ruling. And the State, County and City has the right to place requirements on when, where and how you can defend yourself outside the home.

right to self defense has no limitations it doesn't stop outside you home

 

[bigrebnc1775]

just like the citizens of North Carolina voted for amendment 2 the sex you were born with is the bathroom you use it was struck down as unconstitutional therefore you argument is moot

It was struck down because it was against the constitution. While I disagree with the ruling I accept it because I accept ALL of the Constitution.

and gun laws that deprive the rights of citizens from the same rights other U.S. Citizens have would also be unconstitutional

When it's done by a State, County or City, and it meets the due process requirement then it's not the U.S. Citizen, it's the State Citizen. Every Citizen in that State has the same rights and privileges. Now you want to take away the States Rights. What's next, you going to ban Rocky Road Ice Cream and only allow Pumpernickle?

Due process you dumb fuck is a judicial process not a legislative process

Every law must meet the Due Process yardstick. If it doesn't, the courts should rule that it doesn't and overturn it. When a law is being passed, the question of Due Process is very high on the list before it's considered. Well, at least it should be. For instance; trying to pass a law limiting the number of held rounds in a handgun to 10. Due to Heller V, that does not meet the due process requirement. And has been ruled as such by even the 9th Circuit Court. But 15 rounds does meet the "Reasonable" requirement. How does that affect due process? Simple. If you have a 10 round or less mag, no problem. But if you have a Mag with less 20, the Manufacturer must offer it as a 15 shot mag. They do this by either inserting plugs or rivets in the 20 round. Much like the old 7 shot shotguns had to have at least 2 dummy rounds in it to drop the tube capacity to 5. The AR-15 is different where they have to manufacture a new 15 round mag from scratch.

I think another word for "Due Process" is "Reasonable". And ALL Citizens shall be treated with the same reasonable process. Your ideas of "Reasonable" is outside the normal citizens idea of "Normal" or "Reasonable". When you finally realize that you will be much, much happier.

due process is a judicial process and no dumbass there is no other word for due process
you are writing shit as if you get paid by the word

 

[Daryl Hunt]

"First came the panic buying of hand sanitizer. Then, people panic bought toilet paper. Now, food shelves are emptying and firearm and ammunition sales are through the roof. The COVID19 outbreak might be bad for the stock market, but it’s certainly been a boon for very specific sectors of the economy. The gun industry, used to such boom/bust cycles, knows how to respond – but other sectors might not be so acclimated.

Here at Omaha Outdoors, we’ve been inundated with inquiries from out-of-state folks – many from California – asking if we can ship them a gun directly. The answer is, of course, no. Despite what politicians and many in popular media claim, you can’t buy a gun online and have it shipped to your house. Well, you could, if you were a federally licensed firearm dealer (or federally licensed curio and relic collector) and your home was your place of business. Other than that, no, you can’t buy a gun online and have it shipped, especially across state lines, to your home."

A Lot of People Are Finding Out You Can’t Just Buy a Gun Online - Omaha Outdoors

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

I never tire of proving these anti-gun idiots wrong.

How effective are my guns against COVID-19? Having been in biomedical research for over a quarter of a century, including a stint in an infectious diseases division of a top tier US pharma company I musty admit, I had not considered that.

I am guessing the NRA is using the coronavirus ans a marketing opportunity. There is no problems that guns cannot solve.

Since the NRA doesn't market guns, you dope.......how do you actually come up with your B.S......

The left is actually anti American gun owner but does not want to confront gun owners directly

so they pretend that the NRA is to blame for all their troubles

Rave on lunatic.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Unless they meet the due process requirement. Once again, you left that part out. Tell you what. I am going to make some demands to USMB. See if you agree with them. Since you like to only use part of the Constitution, I get to do the same thing. Here are my demands.

I only want to see post by people that only agree with me so we need to modify the 1st amendment. So you will have all your posts deleted and you will be banned for life

We are going to modify the 4th amendment to read that if you post one single post (just before you are banned for life) the Government shall seize your computer after ransacking your home without notice.

We are going to charge you with a crime (We'll make something up) and hold you in jail forever without allowing you to go to trial, have legal representation. In affect, make you dissappear. Yes, let's modify the 6th amendment for you rtwingnutjobs only.

While we are at it, just for you rtwingnutjobs, you can't get a jury under the 7th amendment but that's not a problem with the modified 6th amendment.

Let's throw out the 8th in your case while we are at it. No bail at all. And Hogs will live better than you.

Now, I demand these things or I am going to throw myself to the ground in a fit of rage. (and probably miss)

Careful, Ladies, The 19th may be next (ducking)

you do realize due process deals with the judicial system it has nothing to do with the creation of laws.
the 14th amendment was created to protect blacks from laws created by democrats that deprive them of rights other citizens have that are protected by the federal government.

And it's since been accepted for much more. So what if it was originally written to protect the Blacks. It has since been found for other uses. The wording doesn't say "Nigras" (as was the common name of the time), it says,

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Many of the Jim Crow Laws were done without due process and over time, were all found to be unconstitutional. You honestly believe that it only applied to persecuted Blacks? I am part Irish and it had a profound affect on the Irish Communities as well. They finally had to take down the "No Irish" signs in America.

And there are a ton of things that has nothing to do with race, religion or color that it applies to as well. Simple things that you take for granted like Driving a Car, how you keep your yard, and more. Communities (States, Counties and Cities) can create these laws as long as they are done within due process for public safety. This is why the Gun Regs have been upheld in all level of courts. They are presented as Public Safety and that falls well within the Due Process. Due Process is much more than protecting a Criminals rights.

You don't get it, states cannot create laws that restrict the Federally protected rights of its citizens that other U.S. Citizens enjoy, whether or not a leftist court rules for an unconstitutional law does not make it Constitutional
I have a feeling the courts will not be so left-leaning after the president leaves the white house.

One huge problem. Every new Justice goes through a mini bootcamp before they make their first ruling. They become Constitutionalists pretty fast. You want party rulings. Well, you aren't going to get it. The only time that may happen is when it's iffy at best on which way it can go and the Legislation hasn't done it's job. You are still waiting for the Supreme Court to rerule on Roe V Wade. Newsflash, cupcake: even the most right wingers on the supreme court have already stated that it's the law and they aren't go to overrule the previous ruling.

As for 2nd Amendment, the ONLY time the modern Supreme Court has touched the 2nd Amendment was Heller V D.C. only because there is no state Federal court to rule on it. And even then, they didn't give you what you keep crying about. Heller V is the gold standard now for Gun Regulations and it's the basis for the other rulings by the courts that allows the States, Counties and Cities to create various gun regulations. The reason for that is, the Supreme Court can only rule on Federal Matters when the lower courts are ruling on State Matters. The 2nd Amendment applies to the Feds except for the ruling that came out of Heller V. Don't look for the Supreme Court to overturn the State or District Federal Courts because that's state not federal.

I'll say it again, if you don't like the state you are living in and it's laws, move to one that you do like.

the only problem is making your interpretation constitutionally valid. And that's not my problem.

The courts have decided what is and what isn't constitutional, not me nor I. It's up to them to interpret it and they have. And the power to regulate firearms is clearly put into the States, Counties and Cities hands. Not in your hands nor mine. And that is constitutional.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Wrong.

See the Slaughter-House Cases (1873) with regard to the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment.

In essence, the 14th Amendment codifies the doctrine of inalienable rights, where the protected liberties of citizens who reside in the states cannot be violated by state government – even if a law enacted by the state reflects the will of the majority of the people.

The courts decide when a state has acted contrary to the 14th Amendment and violated the rights of citizens residing in that state.

And the courts have determined that states which have enacted UBCs have governed in accordance with the 14th Amendment.

you really suck at reading comprehension what in the hell do you think inalienable rights are? self-defense is an inalienable right which means the right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right.

According to Heller V D.C, you have the right to have a reasonable handgun in your home. The State, County or City has the right to require reasonable licensing and documentation for you to possess that reasonable handgun in your home. Anything else can be regulated by the State, County or City to include a total ban on a specific gun as long as it's done for public safety meeting the Due process requirement.

For instance, Mag Capacities. 10 round capacity limits do not meet the Due Process. But 15 does. It was first upheld in 2013 for Colorado in a Federal Court. Colorado went into the procedings with a 10 round capacity but during the deliberation, they lawyers picked up pretty quick that that wouldn't fly. The Colorado Congress modified the law that very day to read 15 and it sailed right on through. The cited Heller V D.C. as reasonable. It met the Due Process requirements.

The State determines the Mag Limits. Some have 15, some have 20 while others don't have any limits. As Judge Young of Boston said, "If you don't like the laws where you are, MOVE".

you have a right to self defense regradless where you are at

True, within reason. As per the Heller V ruling. And the State, County and City has the right to place requirements on when, where and how you can defend yourself outside the home.

right to self defense has no limitations it doesn't stop outside you home

The State, County and Cities have the right to require you to have permits, licensing, etc. if they deem it's necessary. You want to go armed in NYC, it's your right but you have to have the proper permits and registrations to do it. The last thing cities the size of NYC needs is for every block corner to be another OK Corral. But requiring armed people on the street to receive the training and licensing seems to work out well.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

It was struck down because it was against the constitution. While I disagree with the ruling I accept it because I accept ALL of the Constitution.

and gun laws that deprive the rights of citizens from the same rights other U.S. Citizens have would also be unconstitutional

When it's done by a State, County or City, and it meets the due process requirement then it's not the U.S. Citizen, it's the State Citizen. Every Citizen in that State has the same rights and privileges. Now you want to take away the States Rights. What's next, you going to ban Rocky Road Ice Cream and only allow Pumpernickle?

Due process you dumb fuck is a judicial process not a legislative process

Every law must meet the Due Process yardstick. If it doesn't, the courts should rule that it doesn't and overturn it. When a law is being passed, the question of Due Process is very high on the list before it's considered. Well, at least it should be. For instance; trying to pass a law limiting the number of held rounds in a handgun to 10. Due to Heller V, that does not meet the due process requirement. And has been ruled as such by even the 9th Circuit Court. But 15 rounds does meet the "Reasonable" requirement. How does that affect due process? Simple. If you have a 10 round or less mag, no problem. But if you have a Mag with less 20, the Manufacturer must offer it as a 15 shot mag. They do this by either inserting plugs or rivets in the 20 round. Much like the old 7 shot shotguns had to have at least 2 dummy rounds in it to drop the tube capacity to 5. The AR-15 is different where they have to manufacture a new 15 round mag from scratch.

I think another word for "Due Process" is "Reasonable". And ALL Citizens shall be treated with the same reasonable process. Your ideas of "Reasonable" is outside the normal citizens idea of "Normal" or "Reasonable". When you finally realize that you will be much, much happier.

due process is a judicial process and no dumbass there is no other word for due process
you are writing shit as if you get paid by the word

Your tag is interesting. Once again, you just took part of it and left out the rest of it.

Text. In Luke chapter 11, the parable is as follows: When the strong man, fully armed, guards his own dwelling, his goods are safe. But when someone stronger attacks him and overcomes him, he takes from him his whole armour in which he trusted, and divides his spoils.

It's a Parable. It means that the Devil is the strong man. And God is the Stronger one. It has nothing to do with weapons of any kind. It means, put your faith in God and the Devil will be overcome. Once again, you took something out of context and in this case, it is the Bible, Heathen.

The Strong Man Armed, Luke ch.11 vv.21-22 « Sermons « Bible Sermons Online - Bible-Sermons.org.uk

 

[RealDave]

So but the assault weapon ban of the 90'sc reduced mass shootings.

This is either a lie, or a statement of abject ignorance.
You choose.

I am 100% correct.
The Assault Weapon Ban Saved Lives | Stanford Law School

And, moron....from your link....

Figures 1 and 2 tell the story graphically: the body count from gun massacres was visibly restrained during the AWB and rose sharply after 2004 when President Bush reneged on his campaign promise to renew it.

First...again, the majority of mass public shootings are done with handguns.....you freaking moron..........and this is also after the ban was lifted.....you moron......so if they couldn't get a rifle listed on the ban list......they could simply have gotten a rifle not on the ban list.....you moron......or used pistols or shotguns......

The Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 people with 2 pistols....the Luby's cafe shooter killed 24 with 2 pistols....you dope.

2nd.......the reason the death rate in mass public shootings has gone up is mass public shooters learned from the previous shooters and learned from what they did.....you moron......they plan their attacks 6 months to 2 years in advance and study how the other mass shooters conducted their shootings.......something you link doesn't even try to acknowledge.....

So this "study" is crap from the outset....

The numbers were reduced.

You can lie, whine, stomp your feet. It will not change that fact.

 

[RealDave]

So but the assault weapon ban of the 90'sc reduced mass shootings.

This is either a lie, or a statement of abject ignorance.
You choose.

I am 100% correct.
The Assault Weapon Ban Saved Lives | Stanford Law School

And now....actual research...

A Suspiciously Selective, Logically Shaky Analysis of Mass Shooting Data Claims the Federal 'Assault Weapon' Ban 'Really Did Work'

Contrary to Donohue and Boulouta's implication, neither rate of fire nor the capacity to accept detachable magazines distinguished the guns covered by the 1994 law from the guns that remained legal. In any case, the numbers do not suggest that the ban had much of an impact on the weapons used by mass shooters.
By my count, guns covered by the ban were used in six out of 16 mass shootings (38 percent) in the decade before it was enacted, compared to five out of 15 (33 percent) while it was in effect.
Even leaving aside the functional similarity between banned and legal guns, it seems clear that the slight change in the mix of weapons cannot explain the 23 percent drop in fatalities, especially since the two deadliest pre-ban mass shootings, accounting for nearly a third of the fatalities during that 10-year period, were carried out with ordinary handguns.
What about after the ban expired? In the subsequent decade, there was indeed a big increase in mass shootings and fatalities caused by them. Based on the Mother Jonestally, there were 36 mass shootings with nearly 300 fatalities. Is that because "assault weapons" were easier to get? Again, the numbers suggest otherwise.
Guns that would have been covered by the 1994 ban—or, in at least one case, would be covered by the revised version that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who sponsored the original ban, has introduced—were used in seven of those attacks, or 19 percent. In other words, "assault weapons" were less commonly used in mass shootings after the ban than they were during it.
Donohue and Boulouta claim that the expiration of the federal ban "permitt[ed] the gun industry to flood the market with increasingly powerful weapons that allow for faster killing." But so-called assault weapons are no "faster" or more "powerful" than functionally similar guns that do not fall into that arbitrary category.
They fire the same ammunition at the same rate with the same muzzle velocity. The causal mechanism that Donohue and Boulouta have in mind is therefore rather mysterious, since banning "assault weapons," even if it made all of them disappear overnight, would leave mass shooters with plenty of equally deadly alternatives.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf

The decline in the use of AWs has been due primarily to a reduction in the use of assault pistols (APs), which are used in crime more commonly than assault rifles (ARs). There has not been a clear decline in the use of ARs, though assessments are complicated by the rarity of crimes with these weapons and by substitution of post-ban rifles that are very similar to the banned AR models.
--------
Looking at the nation’s gun crime problem more broadly, however, AWs and LCMs were used in only a minority of gun crimes prior to the 1994 federal ban, and AWs were used in a particularly small percentage of gun crimes.
-----

The relative rarity of AW use in crime can be attributed to a number of factors. Many AWs are long guns, which are used in crime much less often than handguns.
-----

Even so, most survey evidence on the actual use of AWs suggests that offenders rarely use AWs in crime.
Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.

Another bullshit article from a bullshit website.

When they use all gun crimes in their argument,. they are being dishonest fucks.

 

[RealDave]

"First came the panic buying of hand sanitizer. Then, people panic bought toilet paper. Now, food shelves are emptying and firearm and ammunition sales are through the roof. The COVID19 outbreak might be bad for the stock market, but it’s certainly been a boon for very specific sectors of the economy. The gun industry, used to such boom/bust cycles, knows how to respond – but other sectors might not be so acclimated.

Here at Omaha Outdoors, we’ve been inundated with inquiries from out-of-state folks – many from California – asking if we can ship them a gun directly. The answer is, of course, no. Despite what politicians and many in popular media claim, you can’t buy a gun online and have it shipped to your house. Well, you could, if you were a federally licensed firearm dealer (or federally licensed curio and relic collector) and your home was your place of business. Other than that, no, you can’t buy a gun online and have it shipped, especially across state lines, to your home."

A Lot of People Are Finding Out You Can’t Just Buy a Gun Online - Omaha Outdoors

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

I never tire of proving these anti-gun idiots wrong.

How effective are my guns against COVID-19? Having been in biomedical research for over a quarter of a century, including a stint in an infectious diseases division of a top tier US pharma company I musty admit, I had not considered that.

I am guessing the NRA is using the coronavirus ans a marketing opportunity. There is no problems that guns cannot solve.

Since the NRA doesn't market guns, you dope.......how do you actually come up with your B.S......

They market gun ownership for the gun & ammo manufacturing. They dupe people like you & you make stupid posts. They have you advocating for easy access to powerful weapons to be used in mass killings.

 

[2aguy]

"First came the panic buying of hand sanitizer. Then, people panic bought toilet paper. Now, food shelves are emptying and firearm and ammunition sales are through the roof. The COVID19 outbreak might be bad for the stock market, but it’s certainly been a boon for very specific sectors of the economy. The gun industry, used to such boom/bust cycles, knows how to respond – but other sectors might not be so acclimated.

Here at Omaha Outdoors, we’ve been inundated with inquiries from out-of-state folks – many from California – asking if we can ship them a gun directly. The answer is, of course, no. Despite what politicians and many in popular media claim, you can’t buy a gun online and have it shipped to your house. Well, you could, if you were a federally licensed firearm dealer (or federally licensed curio and relic collector) and your home was your place of business. Other than that, no, you can’t buy a gun online and have it shipped, especially across state lines, to your home."

A Lot of People Are Finding Out You Can’t Just Buy a Gun Online - Omaha Outdoors

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

I never tire of proving these anti-gun idiots wrong.

How effective are my guns against COVID-19? Having been in biomedical research for over a quarter of a century, including a stint in an infectious diseases division of a top tier US pharma company I musty admit, I had not considered that.

I am guessing the NRA is using the coronavirus ans a marketing opportunity. There is no problems that guns cannot solve.

Since the NRA doesn't market guns, you dope.......how do you actually come up with your B.S......

They market gun ownership for the gun & ammo manufacturing. They dupe people like you & you make stupid posts. They have you advocating for easy access to powerful weapons to be used in mass killings.

Again...the majority of mass public shootings and even gang shootings aren't rifles...but hand guns......


Since your main point is wrong...what else do you have?

 

[2aguy]

So but the assault weapon ban of the 90'sc reduced mass shootings.

This is either a lie, or a statement of abject ignorance.
You choose.

I am 100% correct.
The Assault Weapon Ban Saved Lives | Stanford Law School

And now....actual research...

A Suspiciously Selective, Logically Shaky Analysis of Mass Shooting Data Claims the Federal 'Assault Weapon' Ban 'Really Did Work'

Contrary to Donohue and Boulouta's implication, neither rate of fire nor the capacity to accept detachable magazines distinguished the guns covered by the 1994 law from the guns that remained legal. In any case, the numbers do not suggest that the ban had much of an impact on the weapons used by mass shooters.
By my count, guns covered by the ban were used in six out of 16 mass shootings (38 percent) in the decade before it was enacted, compared to five out of 15 (33 percent) while it was in effect.
Even leaving aside the functional similarity between banned and legal guns, it seems clear that the slight change in the mix of weapons cannot explain the 23 percent drop in fatalities, especially since the two deadliest pre-ban mass shootings, accounting for nearly a third of the fatalities during that 10-year period, were carried out with ordinary handguns.
What about after the ban expired? In the subsequent decade, there was indeed a big increase in mass shootings and fatalities caused by them. Based on the Mother Jonestally, there were 36 mass shootings with nearly 300 fatalities. Is that because "assault weapons" were easier to get? Again, the numbers suggest otherwise.
Guns that would have been covered by the 1994 ban—or, in at least one case, would be covered by the revised version that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who sponsored the original ban, has introduced—were used in seven of those attacks, or 19 percent. In other words, "assault weapons" were less commonly used in mass shootings after the ban than they were during it.
Donohue and Boulouta claim that the expiration of the federal ban "permitt[ed] the gun industry to flood the market with increasingly powerful weapons that allow for faster killing." But so-called assault weapons are no "faster" or more "powerful" than functionally similar guns that do not fall into that arbitrary category.
They fire the same ammunition at the same rate with the same muzzle velocity. The causal mechanism that Donohue and Boulouta have in mind is therefore rather mysterious, since banning "assault weapons," even if it made all of them disappear overnight, would leave mass shooters with plenty of equally deadly alternatives.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf

The decline in the use of AWs has been due primarily to a reduction in the use of assault pistols (APs), which are used in crime more commonly than assault rifles (ARs). There has not been a clear decline in the use of ARs, though assessments are complicated by the rarity of crimes with these weapons and by substitution of post-ban rifles that are very similar to the banned AR models.
--------
Looking at the nation’s gun crime problem more broadly, however, AWs and LCMs were used in only a minority of gun crimes prior to the 1994 federal ban, and AWs were used in a particularly small percentage of gun crimes.
-----

The relative rarity of AW use in crime can be attributed to a number of factors. Many AWs are long guns, which are used in crime much less often than handguns.
-----

Even so, most survey evidence on the actual use of AWs suggests that offenders rarely use AWs in crime.
Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.

Another bullshit article from a bullshit website.

When they use all gun crimes in their argument,. they are being dishonest fucks.

And you are lying......they aren't using just all crime, you doofus..........and when you isolate for mass public shootings....."

Please....for mass public shootings...since the majority of mass public shootings are done with hand guns.......why would someone with the intent of comitting a mass public shooting, who wanted a rifle on the ban list during the Assault Weapon ban....not get a different rifle, not on the ban list, or use one or more pistols......(Virginia Tech...2 pistols 32 killed, Luby's cafe, 2 pistols, 24 killed) Or a shotgun......?

Can you please explain how your theory makes any sense with those facts?

 

[2aguy]

So but the assault weapon ban of the 90'sc reduced mass shootings.

This is either a lie, or a statement of abject ignorance.
You choose.

I am 100% correct.
The Assault Weapon Ban Saved Lives | Stanford Law School

And, moron....from your link....

Figures 1 and 2 tell the story graphically: the body count from gun massacres was visibly restrained during the AWB and rose sharply after 2004 when President Bush reneged on his campaign promise to renew it.

First...again, the majority of mass public shootings are done with handguns.....you freaking moron..........and this is also after the ban was lifted.....you moron......so if they couldn't get a rifle listed on the ban list......they could simply have gotten a rifle not on the ban list.....you moron......or used pistols or shotguns......

The Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 people with 2 pistols....the Luby's cafe shooter killed 24 with 2 pistols....you dope.

2nd.......the reason the death rate in mass public shootings has gone up is mass public shooters learned from the previous shooters and learned from what they did.....you moron......they plan their attacks 6 months to 2 years in advance and study how the other mass shooters conducted their shootings.......something you link doesn't even try to acknowledge.....

So this "study" is crap from the outset....

The numbers were reduced.

You can lie, whine, stomp your feet. It will not change that fact.

No...they weren't...but thanks for playing....

Again...weapon of choice for mass public shooters....hand guns.....

 

[Mac-7]

"First came the panic buying of hand sanitizer. Then, people panic bought toilet paper. Now, food shelves are emptying and firearm and ammunition sales are through the roof. The COVID19 outbreak might be bad for the stock market, but it’s certainly been a boon for very specific sectors of the economy. The gun industry, used to such boom/bust cycles, knows how to respond – but other sectors might not be so acclimated.

Here at Omaha Outdoors, we’ve been inundated with inquiries from out-of-state folks – many from California – asking if we can ship them a gun directly. The answer is, of course, no. Despite what politicians and many in popular media claim, you can’t buy a gun online and have it shipped to your house. Well, you could, if you were a federally licensed firearm dealer (or federally licensed curio and relic collector) and your home was your place of business. Other than that, no, you can’t buy a gun online and have it shipped, especially across state lines, to your home."

A Lot of People Are Finding Out You Can’t Just Buy a Gun Online - Omaha Outdoors

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

I never tire of proving these anti-gun idiots wrong.

How effective are my guns against COVID-19? Having been in biomedical research for over a quarter of a century, including a stint in an infectious diseases division of a top tier US pharma company I musty admit, I had not considered that.

I am guessing the NRA is using the coronavirus ans a marketing opportunity. There is no problems that guns cannot solve.

Since the NRA doesn't market guns, you dope.......how do you actually come up with your B.S......

The left is actually anti American gun owner but does not want to confront gun owners directly

so they pretend that the NRA is to blame for all their troubles

Rave on lunatic.

Knowing how easily gun grabbers change colors in order to blend with their surrounding I bet your gonna tell me you are a lifelong NRA member

 

[Daryl Hunt]

How effective are my guns against COVID-19? Having been in biomedical research for over a quarter of a century, including a stint in an infectious diseases division of a top tier US pharma company I musty admit, I had not considered that.

I am guessing the NRA is using the coronavirus ans a marketing opportunity. There is no problems that guns cannot solve.

Since the NRA doesn't market guns, you dope.......how do you actually come up with your B.S......

The left is actually anti American gun owner but does not want to confront gun owners directly

so they pretend that the NRA is to blame for all their troubles

Rave on lunatic.

Knowing how easily gun grabbers change colors in order to blend with their surrounding I bet your gonna tell me you are a lifelong NRA member

I used to be a member until they let stupid people like you in.