Maybe it is the scary looking gun

[2aguy]

Gun control that 2nd Amendment advocates fear will come from the courts when the interpretation of "well-regulated militia" is reinterpreted and defined.

It was already detailed in Heller v. District of Columbia...you should read it sometime...

 

[2aguy]

Gun control that 2nd Amendment advocates fear will come from the courts when the interpretation of "well-regulated militia" is reinterpreted and defined.

There is only one way to interpret "shall not be infringed".



The guns lefties want to control aren't for hunting dear. The argument literally boils down to: "Do you believe in the individual having the right to the use of force or don't you?"

If you do the guns stay and shall not be infringed.

If not. Then only the state has the right to the use of force and you support full confiscation and government control.

What flavor of freedom the people enjoy is largely irrelevant. This one really is black and white yes or no.

You ignore the first part of the, so it is dopes like you who will enable the anti-gun advocates to lose our gun rights. There are loopholes and weaknesses in the 2nd.

No...there aren't.....there are democrats who keep letting killers out of jail, they are the ones murdering 99% of all gun victims.....and the democrats keep letting them out, over and over again......until the democrats stop doing that, our gun murder rate will be the same...but even with that...as more Americans own and carry guns...our gun murder rate has gone down, not up....

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

 

[2aguy]

I'm afraid you're missing the point.

I'm not missing the point, since your argument is based on false premise. You're afraid for no reason.

My argument is that perhaps the very styling of the gun is what makes it more attractive as a weapon with which to commit a gun massacre.

What "styling of the gun" you're referring to? Different shootings were done with different guns. Get your facts straight first, since most shootings were done with semi auto handguns.

For example, Columbine shooting was done with Savage-Springfield pump action shotgun, Hi Point 995 carbine, Stevens 311D double-barreled sawed-off shotgun, and TEC-9 SA handgun.
Fort Hood shooting was done with FN Five-Seven and Smith & Wesson revolver .357 magnum.
Virginia Tech was done with Walther P22 SA handgun, .22 caliber, and Glock 19 SA handgun, 9 mm.

But, but, but... AR-15!!!!!!! ReeeEEE....

If other weapons are just as effective in terms of rate of fire and lethality of round trajectory, why aren't those weapons used as often as the military style weapons?

Other weapons are just as effective, as I sampled above.

Also, I'd like you to refer the shooting where military style weapons were used. I heard of only one, and it was the biggest massacre in US history. Waco, Texas, military style weapons were used by the US government.

If cultural aspects like video games and movies can bear blame, why not cultural aspects like the style of the weapon itself?

I don't see a reason why video games should bear blame more than bad parenting, or more than indoctrination is government schools.

It seems that there are unfortunate people much more interested in protecting guns than protecting the public against lunatic gunmen.

Nobody is protecting guns. What is see is protecting of constitutional rights.

Now, since I answered your questions, you answer mine.

If a police officer shoot an unarmed man, do you blame an officer or a gun?

Let us give the benefit of the doubt to the police officer and assume he was not mentally deranged at the time of the shooting. Further, let us assume the situation the policeman faced was chock full of high tension. And let us further assume that the officer used a gun issued by the department. So, given those assumptions, let us blame the cop.

No need to assume anything. Mentally deranged cannot be police officers. It doesn't matter who issued the gun. It could be personal gun in officer's hand.

OK, let's blame a cop.

Then, in Parkland shooting, or Sandy Hook shooting, why to blame AR-15 and not shooters?

Blame is not an all,or nothI got commodity. I speculated the look of the AR may be responsive ble because it may attract the unstable. The AR made it easy to rack up a high body count quickly. It made it possible to kill kids through doors and walls.

More unstable mass shooters used pistols......the AR-15 civilian rifle isn't the most popular weapon in mass shootings, hand guns are.

 

[Ame®icano]

Gun control that 2nd Amendment advocates fear will come from the courts when the interpretation of "well-regulated militia" is reinterpreted and defined.

There is only one way to interpret "shall not be infringed".



The guns lefties want to control aren't for hunting dear. The argument literally boils down to: "Do you believe in the individual having the right to the use of force or don't you?"

If you do the guns stay and shall not be infringed.

If not. Then only the state has the right to the use of force and you support full confiscation and government control.

What flavor of freedom the people enjoy is largely irrelevant. This one really is black and white yes or no.

You ignore the first part of the, so it is dopes like you who will enable the anti-gun advocates to lose our gun rights. There are loopholes and weaknesses in the 2nd.

You quoted one part of the 2nd Amendment, I quoted the other.

On which quoted part anti gun advocates are focusing more, yours or mine?

By the way, what do you think it's a purpose of the 2nd in general?

 

[Camp]

Gun control that 2nd Amendment advocates fear will come from the courts when the interpretation of "well-regulated militia" is reinterpreted and defined.

There is only one way to interpret "shall not be infringed".



The guns lefties want to control aren't for hunting dear. The argument literally boils down to: "Do you believe in the individual having the right to the use of force or don't you?"

If you do the guns stay and shall not be infringed.

If not. Then only the state has the right to the use of force and you support full confiscation and government control.

What flavor of freedom the people enjoy is largely irrelevant. This one really is black and white yes or no.

You ignore the first part of the, so it is dopes like you who will enable the anti-gun advocates to lose our gun rights. There are loopholes and weaknesses in the 2nd.

You quoted one part of the 2nd Amendment, I quoted the other.

On which quoted part anti gun advocates are focusing more, yours or mine?

By the way, what do you think it's a purpose of the 2nd in general?

We are banking on, depending on, the court continuing to have a majority conservative or Republican pro-gun members. I am merely expressing an opinion of what direction the court could or may go if the pro-gun majority is lost.

Purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to maintain a militia and armed population capable of challenging tyranny from the federal or other government or non-government entities, foreign and domestic.

 

[francoHFW]

When the hell did people have automatics? link?

Firearm Owners Protection Act - Wikipedia

See, this is why ignorant people should get the fuck out of the gun debate. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Let us make the decisions.

Here, stupid.
Question after Orlando: Are assault rifles banned? No, only fully automatic are ...
PolitiFact › statements › jun › ron-johnson
Jun 20, 2016 · One law in 1935 all but banned automatic weapons like the Tommy gun. And another in 1986 prohibited fully automatic weapons, except for pre-existing weapons that were grandfathered i

PolitiFact should get their "facts" straight. AR-15 is not an assault weapon.

If anything that could kill is called "assault", then we should ban all assault hammers, assault trucks, assault hands, assault swimming pools.

What the hell is it then, a hunting rifle?

 

[francoHFW]

But everybody, especially the semi insane, loves the ARs. Nobody gives a s*** about gun free zones. Never meant a damn thing d u h.

End loopholes in background checks, ban bump stocks and conversion kits, raise age to 21. I don't like that last one- ok limit them to bolt action- but you people have perverted guns totally.

Mass shooters in custody state they picked gun free zones, dumb ass.....the notes of dead mass shooters state they picked gun free zones...dumb ass....

There is no background check loophole, and bump stocks were used one time and likely kept people alive.

Bulshit, super dupe. Take your AR and go fight the government you love so much as a patriot, you goddamn stupid assholes.

Soooo....you are told your post is crap....so you attack me......nothing you posted is true or accurate, that is on you.....not me....

No background check loopholes? How can you be so stupid?

There are no background check loopholes. That is a fact.

Just private sellers at gun shows who sell thousands of guns....

 

[francoHFW]

Maybe it is the scary looking gun

Yes, it is a scary looking gun - especially when combined with a Rambo mentality and/or mental illness and high-capacity magazines.

looks just like a sporting rifle... If shooting people is Sport. It's a crazy NRA GOP world! Now what would a high school kid want with that? Only brainwashed tools would support that crap..

Every accessory that I can see in that pic serves a purpose.

Would you criticize a man who who thought had too many tools in his shop?

Looks like a serial killer to me LOL.

In the wake of the Orlando shootings, the AR-15 and weapons like it are in the spotlight because, once again, a semi-automatic rifle was used in the shooting. This time, it was technically a Sig Sauer MCX, but it's in the same classification of gun. It's a category of weapon called “military” or “assault rifles.”Jun 16, 2016
Stop Saying AR-15s Aren't Assault Rifles ...
HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost › ar15s-...

And again....those rifles have never been in the military, never been used by the military......you can't lie and make it true....

They look like psycho weapons and are used like psycho weapons by psychos LOL. Whatever happened to hunting rifles and shotguns. That was plenty before this NRA Madness by brainwashed chumps.

 

[Camp]

When the hell did people have automatics? link?

Firearm Owners Protection Act - Wikipedia

See, this is why ignorant people should get the fuck out of the gun debate. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Let us make the decisions.

Here, stupid.
Question after Orlando: Are assault rifles banned? No, only fully automatic are ...
PolitiFact › statements › jun › ron-johnson
Jun 20, 2016 · One law in 1935 all but banned automatic weapons like the Tommy gun. And another in 1986 prohibited fully automatic weapons, except for pre-existing weapons that were grandfathered i

PolitiFact should get their "facts" straight. AR-15 is not an assault weapon.

If anything that could kill is called "assault", then we should ban all assault hammers, assault trucks, assault hands, assault swimming pools.

What the hell is it then, a hunting rifle?

Have you ever hunted wild boar in the deep woods?

 

[Timmy]

Bath tubs kill more people than AR15’s do every year... fact

They kill more Americans than terrorists. So we shouldn’t bother fighting terror ?

These lame death count comparisons are embarrassing.

 

[jc456]

I'm afraid you're missing the point.

I'm not missing the point, since your argument is based on false premise. You're afraid for no reason.

My argument is that perhaps the very styling of the gun is what makes it more attractive as a weapon with which to commit a gun massacre.

What "styling of the gun" you're referring to? Different shootings were done with different guns. Get your facts straight first, since most shootings were done with semi auto handguns.

For example, Columbine shooting was done with Savage-Springfield pump action shotgun, Hi Point 995 carbine, Stevens 311D double-barreled sawed-off shotgun, and TEC-9 SA handgun.
Fort Hood shooting was done with FN Five-Seven and Smith & Wesson revolver .357 magnum.
Virginia Tech was done with Walther P22 SA handgun, .22 caliber, and Glock 19 SA handgun, 9 mm.

But, but, but... AR-15!!!!!!! ReeeEEE....

If other weapons are just as effective in terms of rate of fire and lethality of round trajectory, why aren't those weapons used as often as the military style weapons?

Other weapons are just as effective, as I sampled above.

Also, I'd like you to refer the shooting where military style weapons were used. I heard of only one, and it was the biggest massacre in US history. Waco, Texas, military style weapons were used by the US government.

If cultural aspects like video games and movies can bear blame, why not cultural aspects like the style of the weapon itself?

I don't see a reason why video games should bear blame more than bad parenting, or more than indoctrination is government schools.

It seems that there are unfortunate people much more interested in protecting guns than protecting the public against lunatic gunmen.

Nobody is protecting guns. What is see is protecting of constitutional rights.

Now, since I answered your questions, you answer mine.

If a police officer shoot an unarmed man, do you blame an officer or a gun?

Let us give the benefit of the doubt to the police officer and assume he was not mentally deranged at the time of the shooting. Further, let us assume the situation the policeman faced was chock full of high tension. And let us further assume that the officer used a gun issued by the department. So, given those assumptions, let us blame the cop.

No need to assume anything. Mentally deranged cannot be police officers. It doesn't matter who issued the gun. It could be personal gun in officer's hand.

OK, let's blame a cop.

Then, in Parkland shooting, or Sandy Hook shooting, why to blame AR-15 and not shooters?

Blame is not an all,or nothI got commodity. I speculated the look of the AR may be responsive ble because it may attract the unstable. The AR made it easy to rack up a high body count quickly. It made it possible to kill kids through doors and walls.

based on what? let's see your psych evaluations.

 

[jc456]

Bath tubs kill more people than AR15’s do every year... fact

They kill more Americans than terrorists. So we shouldn’t bother fighting terror ?

These lame death count comparisons are embarrassing.

I don't think that's right, but it isn't worth the effort for your ass. you can just post that up on a link.

 

[francoHFW]

When the hell did people have automatics? link?

Firearm Owners Protection Act - Wikipedia

See, this is why ignorant people should get the fuck out of the gun debate. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Let us make the decisions.

Here, stupid.
Question after Orlando: Are assault rifles banned? No, only fully automatic are ...
PolitiFact › statements › jun › ron-johnson
Jun 20, 2016 · One law in 1935 all but banned automatic weapons like the Tommy gun. And another in 1986 prohibited fully automatic weapons, except for pre-existing weapons that were grandfathered i

PolitiFact should get their "facts" straight. AR-15 is not an assault weapon.

If anything that could kill is called "assault", then we should ban all assault hammers, assault trucks, assault hands, assault swimming pools.

What the hell is it then, a hunting rifle?

Have you ever hunted wild boar in the deep woods?

There are plenty of other semi-automatic hunting rifles without the gaudy psycho styling

 

[jc456]

Firearm Owners Protection Act - Wikipedia

See, this is why ignorant people should get the fuck out of the gun debate. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Let us make the decisions.

Here, stupid.
Question after Orlando: Are assault rifles banned? No, only fully automatic are ...
PolitiFact › statements › jun › ron-johnson
Jun 20, 2016 · One law in 1935 all but banned automatic weapons like the Tommy gun. And another in 1986 prohibited fully automatic weapons, except for pre-existing weapons that were grandfathered i

PolitiFact should get their "facts" straight. AR-15 is not an assault weapon.

If anything that could kill is called "assault", then we should ban all assault hammers, assault trucks, assault hands, assault swimming pools.

What the hell is it then, a hunting rifle?

Have you ever hunted wild boar in the deep woods?

There are plenty of other semi-automatic hunting rifles without the gaudy psycho styling

Then what difference does it make?

 

[Timmy]

Bath tubs kill more people than AR15’s do every year... fact

They kill more Americans than terrorists. So we shouldn’t bother fighting terror ?

These lame death count comparisons are embarrassing.

I don't think that's right, but it isn't worth the effort for your ass. you can just post that up on a link.

How many terror attacks did we have last year? How many people killed . So few that you can’t even think of them.

I’m just using the inane argument you gun nuts are using .

 

[Ame®icano]

Gun control that 2nd Amendment advocates fear will come from the courts when the interpretation of "well-regulated militia" is reinterpreted and defined.

There is only one way to interpret "shall not be infringed".



The guns lefties want to control aren't for hunting dear. The argument literally boils down to: "Do you believe in the individual having the right to the use of force or don't you?"

If you do the guns stay and shall not be infringed.

If not. Then only the state has the right to the use of force and you support full confiscation and government control.

What flavor of freedom the people enjoy is largely irrelevant. This one really is black and white yes or no.

You ignore the first part of the, so it is dopes like you who will enable the anti-gun advocates to lose our gun rights. There are loopholes and weaknesses in the 2nd.

You quoted one part of the 2nd Amendment, I quoted the other.

On which quoted part anti gun advocates are focusing more, yours or mine?

By the way, what do you think it's a purpose of the 2nd in general?

We are banking on, depending on, the court continuing to have a majority conservative or Republican pro-gun members. I am merely expressing an opinion of what direction the court could or may go if the pro-gun majority is lost.

Purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to maintain a militia and armed population capable of challenging tyranny from the federal or other government or non-government entities, foreign and domestic.

No argument from me here. Maybe just a clarification.

The Second Amendment isn't to combat a tyrannical government, it's to repel the possibility of there being one. The founders had just fought a horrible and bloody war to establish their government, I don't think they wanted anybody fighting it.

The Second Amendment was the attempt to circumvent that possibility. The US government is not supposed to have a standing federal army in peacetime. It intended to replace a federal army by instead arming and training every able bodied American that did not object based upon religious reasons.

Every county of every state is supposed to have a militia, that in times of war would take command from its state militia which itself would be marshaled by the Commander in Chief in times of war, but only in times of war. The rest of the time the states would control their own regions with no federal oversight as long as the constitution was being upheld.

It was one of the most ambitious attempts at perpetuating true liberty in the history of mankind. Landed gentry deliberately ceded its power to the people. That is the true intent of the Second Amendment. No tyrant was ever intended to be able to exist in the USA.

But Americans forgot that responsibilities go along with rights, and now all they know is simplistic industry marketing, they do not understand the profound beauty of the Second Amendment. We let a federal military exist and get out of control and now it is much too big for democracy to wield. But why bother convincing them that their guns won't help?

They can't stop the MIC with guns, they can't stop the MIC at all. You can't stop something that has the option of taking everybody everywhere with it when it dies. That's true, sure. But disarming doesn't achieve anything either. All it would accomplish would be to ensure that America can never ever return to its intended path. It may balkanize some day and in doing so, find its way home. They need the guns.

My 2c.

 

[Ame®icano]

Firearm Owners Protection Act - Wikipedia

See, this is why ignorant people should get the fuck out of the gun debate. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Let us make the decisions.

Here, stupid.
Question after Orlando: Are assault rifles banned? No, only fully automatic are ...
PolitiFact › statements › jun › ron-johnson
Jun 20, 2016 · One law in 1935 all but banned automatic weapons like the Tommy gun. And another in 1986 prohibited fully automatic weapons, except for pre-existing weapons that were grandfathered i

PolitiFact should get their "facts" straight. AR-15 is not an assault weapon.

If anything that could kill is called "assault", then we should ban all assault hammers, assault trucks, assault hands, assault swimming pools.

What the hell is it then, a hunting rifle?

Have you ever hunted wild boar in the deep woods?

There are plenty of other semi-automatic hunting rifles without the gaudy psycho styling

Left is not after "psycho styling" they're after all of them.

It's slippery slope, as usual. Once you got "psycho" looking one, matter of time before you name the next boogeymen.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Bath tubs kill more people than AR15’s do every year... fact

and psycho mothers use bathtubs to kill their own children

If you care about children you would ban bathtubs

 

[francoHFW]

Here, stupid.
Question after Orlando: Are assault rifles banned? No, only fully automatic are ...
PolitiFact › statements › jun › ron-johnson
Jun 20, 2016 · One law in 1935 all but banned automatic weapons like the Tommy gun. And another in 1986 prohibited fully automatic weapons, except for pre-existing weapons that were grandfathered i

PolitiFact should get their "facts" straight. AR-15 is not an assault weapon.

If anything that could kill is called "assault", then we should ban all assault hammers, assault trucks, assault hands, assault swimming pools.

What the hell is it then, a hunting rifle?

Have you ever hunted wild boar in the deep woods?

There are plenty of other semi-automatic hunting rifles without the gaudy psycho styling

Then what difference does it make?

Ask the psycho Mass murderers that have to use them...

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'm afraid you're missing the point.

I'm not missing the point, since your argument is based on false premise. You're afraid for no reason.

My argument is that perhaps the very styling of the gun is what makes it more attractive as a weapon with which to commit a gun massacre.

What "styling of the gun" you're referring to? Different shootings were done with different guns. Get your facts straight first, since most shootings were done with semi auto handguns.

For example, Columbine shooting was done with Savage-Springfield pump action shotgun, Hi Point 995 carbine, Stevens 311D double-barreled sawed-off shotgun, and TEC-9 SA handgun.
Fort Hood shooting was done with FN Five-Seven and Smith & Wesson revolver .357 magnum.
Virginia Tech was done with Walther P22 SA handgun, .22 caliber, and Glock 19 SA handgun, 9 mm.

But, but, but... AR-15!!!!!!! ReeeEEE....

If other weapons are just as effective in terms of rate of fire and lethality of round trajectory, why aren't those weapons used as often as the military style weapons?

Other weapons are just as effective, as I sampled above.

Also, I'd like you to refer the shooting where military style weapons were used. I heard of only one, and it was the biggest massacre in US history. Waco, Texas, military style weapons were used by the US government.

If cultural aspects like video games and movies can bear blame, why not cultural aspects like the style of the weapon itself?

I don't see a reason why video games should bear blame more than bad parenting, or more than indoctrination is government schools.

It seems that there are unfortunate people much more interested in protecting guns than protecting the public against lunatic gunmen.

Nobody is protecting guns. What is see is protecting of constitutional rights.

Now, since I answered your questions, you answer mine.

If a police officer shoot an unarmed man, do you blame an officer or a gun?

Let us give the benefit of the doubt to the police officer and assume he was not mentally deranged at the time of the shooting. Further, let us assume the situation the policeman faced was chock full of high tension. And let us further assume that the officer used a gun issued by the department. So, given those assumptions, let us blame the cop.

No need to assume anything. Mentally deranged cannot be police officers. It doesn't matter who issued the gun. It could be personal gun in officer's hand.

OK, let's blame a cop.

Then, in Parkland shooting, or Sandy Hook shooting, why to blame AR-15 and not shooters?

Blame is not an all,or nothI got commodity. I speculated the look of the AR may be responsive ble because it may attract the unstable. The AR made it easy to rack up a high body count quickly. It made it possible to kill kids through doors and walls.

And you speculate wrongly as you have been told many times already