More Liberal tears. Banning assualt weapons & magazines doesn't lower homicide

[2aguy]

We don't care about mass shootings in this country.

But you stupid Liberals sure as hell care about taking away our Constitutional rights, even when the studies prove that it doesn't do anything to curtail crime.

Taking assault weapons and high capacity magazines does not take away your right to bear arms.

You don't have the right to bear any and all arms, but you can still defend yourself, poke holes in targets and animals and have boyish dun with your beer buddies.

You are a liar. The right in in the BoR's traitor. Shall not be infringed.

It seems there are hundreds, if not thousands of choices of arms to bear. Why is a semi-automatic with a high capacity clip so bloody necessary? Could you not defend your property with a shot gun or revolver?

You are using loaded terms...do you want a serious answer?

A semi-automatic rifle is a standard rifle...it is not special, it is not more deadly than any other gun..... and a 30 round magazine for any gun is standard, not high capacity. And the judge in the California Ruling explains this far better than I can...

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...JieJ6BMiBtRS0jdYT2id4OKm6suWAzGqo1V9eoe_wL9aA

(12.) the critical “pause”

The State argues that smaller magazines create a “critical pause” in the shooting of a mass killer. “The prohibition of LCMs helps create a “critical pause” that has been proven to give victims an opportunity to hide, escape, or disable a shooter.” Def. Oppo., at 19.

This may be the case for attackers. On the other hand, from the perspective of a victim trying to defend her home and family, the time required to re-load a pistol after the tenth shot might be called a “lethal pause,” as it typically takes a victim much longer to re-load (if they can do it at all) than a perpetrator planning an attack.

In other words, the re-loading “pause” the State seeks in hopes of stopping a mass shooter, also tends to create an even more dangerous time for every victim who must try to defend herself with a small-capacity magazine. The need to re-load and the lengthy pause that comes with banning all but small-capacity magazines is especially unforgiving for victims who are disabled, or who have arthritis, or who are trying to hold a phone in their off-hand while attempting to call for police help.

The good that a re-loading pause might do in the extremely rare mass shooting incident is vastly outweighed by the harm visited on manifold law-abiding, citizen-victims who must also pause while under attack. This blanket ban without any tailoring to these types of needs goes to show § 32310’s lack of reasonable fit.

=======

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...JieJ6BMiBtRS0jdYT2id4OKm6suWAzGqo1V9eoe_wL9aA

When a group of armed burglars break into a citizen’s home at night, and the homeowner in pajamas must choose between using their left hand to grab either a telephone, a flashlight, or an extra 10-round magazine, the burden is severe. When one is far from help in a sparsely populated part of the state, and law enforcement may not be able to respond in a timely manner, the burden of a 10-round limit is severe.

When a major earthquake causes power outages, gas and water line ruptures, collapsed bridges and buildings, and chaos, the burden of a 10-round magazine limit is severe.

When food distribution channels are disrupted and sustenance becomes scarce while criminals run rampant, the burden of a 10-round magazine limit is severe.

Surely, the rights protected by the Second Amendment are not to be trimmed away as unnecessary because today’s litigation happens during the best of times. It may be the best of times in Sunnyvale; it may be the worst of times in Bombay Beach or Potrero. California’s ban covers the entire state at all times.

 

[Flash]

[ I don't know why or for what purpose one must feel the necessity to be armed.

People buy firearms for all kinds of reasons. I buy them mostly for recreational purposes. In fact probably more buy them for recreational purposes than they do for self defense.

Why do you have guns,

None of your goddamn business. According to the Bill of Rights none of us do have to provide a reason to own a firearm. The reason is already stated; "necessary for the security of a free state".

If you don't want a gun then don't buy one. I don't give a shit. Jut leave me the fuck alone.

 

[Nosmo King]

We don't care about mass shootings in this country.

But you stupid Liberals sure as hell care about taking away our Constitutional rights, even when the studies prove that it doesn't do anything to curtail crime.

Taking assault weapons and high capacity magazines does not take away your right to bear arms.

You don't have the right to bear any and all arms, but you can still defend yourself, poke holes in targets and animals and have boyish dun with your beer buddies.

You are a liar. The right in in the BoR's traitor. Shall not be infringed.

It seems there are hundreds, if not thousands of choices of arms to bear. Why is a semi-automatic with a high capacity clip so bloody necessary? Could you not defend your property with a shot gun or revolver?

You are using loaded terms...do you want a serious answer?

A semi-automatic rifle is a standard rifle...it is not special, it is not more deadly than any other gun..... and a 30 round magazine for any gun is standard, not high capacity. And the judge in the California Ruling explains this far better than I can...

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...JieJ6BMiBtRS0jdYT2id4OKm6suWAzGqo1V9eoe_wL9aA

(12.) the critical “pause”

The State argues that smaller magazines create a “critical pause” in the shooting of a mass killer. “The prohibition of LCMs helps create a “critical pause” that has been proven to give victims an opportunity to hide, escape, or disable a shooter.” Def. Oppo., at 19.

This may be the case for attackers. On the other hand, from the perspective of a victim trying to defend her home and family, the time required to re-load a pistol after the tenth shot might be called a “lethal pause,” as it typically takes a victim much longer to re-load (if they can do it at all) than a perpetrator planning an attack.

In other words, the re-loading “pause” the State seeks in hopes of stopping a mass shooter, also tends to create an even more dangerous time for every victim who must try to defend herself with a small-capacity magazine. The need to re-load and the lengthy pause that comes with banning all but small-capacity magazines is especially unforgiving for victims who are disabled, or who have arthritis, or who are trying to hold a phone in their off-hand while attempting to call for police help.

The good that a re-loading pause might do in the extremely rare mass shooting incident is vastly outweighed by the harm visited on manifold law-abiding, citizen-victims who must also pause while under attack. This blanket ban without any tailoring to these types of needs goes to show § 32310’s lack of reasonable fit.

=======

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...JieJ6BMiBtRS0jdYT2id4OKm6suWAzGqo1V9eoe_wL9aA

When a group of armed burglars break into a citizen’s home at night, and the homeowner in pajamas must choose between using their left hand to grab either a telephone, a flashlight, or an extra 10-round magazine, the burden is severe. When one is far from help in a sparsely populated part of the state, and law enforcement may not be able to respond in a timely manner, the burden of a 10-round limit is severe.

When a major earthquake causes power outages, gas and water line ruptures, collapsed bridges and buildings, and chaos, the burden of a 10-round magazine limit is severe.

When food distribution channels are disrupted and sustenance becomes scarce while criminals run rampant, the burden of a 10-round magazine limit is severe.

Surely, the rights protected by the Second Amendment are not to be trimmed away as unnecessary because today’s litigation happens during the best of times. It may be the best of times in Sunnyvale; it may be the worst of times in Bombay Beach or Potrero. California’s ban covers the entire state at all times.

So the absolute necessity, the prime virtue of a rifle fitted with a semi-automatic firing system and a 30 round clip is defense during the improbable most cinematic, fantastic circumstance imaginable.

 

[miketx]

We don't care about mass shootings in this country.

But you stupid Liberals sure as hell care about taking away our Constitutional rights, even when the studies prove that it doesn't do anything to curtail crime.

Taking assault weapons and high capacity magazines does not take away your right to bear arms.

You don't have the right to bear any and all arms, but you can still defend yourself, poke holes in targets and animals and have boyish dun with your beer buddies.

You are a liar. The right in in the BoR's traitor. Shall not be infringed.

It seems there are hundreds, if not thousands of choices of arms to bear. Why is a semi-automatic with a high capacity clip so bloody necessary? Could you not defend your property with a shot gun or revolver?

Tell you what traitor, when the police stop using them I will.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

the automatic weapons bans needs to be lifted
I want a new machine gun wahhh


really i do

 

[Flash]

[


The FACTS ARE CLEAR. To anyone seeking to go after the cause of gun violence or curb gun violence, attacking assault-style looking weapons using magazines allowing you to shoot more than once before reloading (a feature almost universal with every pistol handgun) simply have ignored the data from our own DOJ:

Most gun crimes in this country are committed by gang bangers, druggies and thugs living in the Democrat controlled big city shitholes. They mostly use cheap stolen handguns.

Yes they may use a semi auto pistol because most pistols are semi auto but most of the time only one or two rounds are fired in the crime.

As the study indicated passing new laws won't do a damn thing because the people that commit the crimes don't even adhere to the existing laws so it just a waste of time that deprives citizens from their Constitutional rights.

 

[Flash]

But you stupid Liberals sure as hell care about taking away our Constitutional rights, even when the studies prove that it doesn't do anything to curtail crime.

Taking assault weapons and high capacity magazines does not take away your right to bear arms.

You don't have the right to bear any and all arms, but you can still defend yourself, poke holes in targets and animals and have boyish dun with your beer buddies.

You are a liar. The right in in the BoR's traitor. Shall not be infringed.

It seems there are hundreds, if not thousands of choices of arms to bear. Why is a semi-automatic with a high capacity clip so bloody necessary? Could you not defend your property with a shot gun or revolver?

You are using loaded terms...do you want a serious answer?

A semi-automatic rifle is a standard rifle...it is not special, it is not more deadly than any other gun..... and a 30 round magazine for any gun is standard, not high capacity. And the judge in the California Ruling explains this far better than I can...

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...JieJ6BMiBtRS0jdYT2id4OKm6suWAzGqo1V9eoe_wL9aA

(12.) the critical “pause”

The State argues that smaller magazines create a “critical pause” in the shooting of a mass killer. “The prohibition of LCMs helps create a “critical pause” that has been proven to give victims an opportunity to hide, escape, or disable a shooter.” Def. Oppo., at 19.

This may be the case for attackers. On the other hand, from the perspective of a victim trying to defend her home and family, the time required to re-load a pistol after the tenth shot might be called a “lethal pause,” as it typically takes a victim much longer to re-load (if they can do it at all) than a perpetrator planning an attack.

In other words, the re-loading “pause” the State seeks in hopes of stopping a mass shooter, also tends to create an even more dangerous time for every victim who must try to defend herself with a small-capacity magazine. The need to re-load and the lengthy pause that comes with banning all but small-capacity magazines is especially unforgiving for victims who are disabled, or who have arthritis, or who are trying to hold a phone in their off-hand while attempting to call for police help.

The good that a re-loading pause might do in the extremely rare mass shooting incident is vastly outweighed by the harm visited on manifold law-abiding, citizen-victims who must also pause while under attack. This blanket ban without any tailoring to these types of needs goes to show § 32310’s lack of reasonable fit.

=======

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...JieJ6BMiBtRS0jdYT2id4OKm6suWAzGqo1V9eoe_wL9aA

When a group of armed burglars break into a citizen’s home at night, and the homeowner in pajamas must choose between using their left hand to grab either a telephone, a flashlight, or an extra 10-round magazine, the burden is severe. When one is far from help in a sparsely populated part of the state, and law enforcement may not be able to respond in a timely manner, the burden of a 10-round limit is severe.

When a major earthquake causes power outages, gas and water line ruptures, collapsed bridges and buildings, and chaos, the burden of a 10-round magazine limit is severe.

When food distribution channels are disrupted and sustenance becomes scarce while criminals run rampant, the burden of a 10-round magazine limit is severe.

Surely, the rights protected by the Second Amendment are not to be trimmed away as unnecessary because today’s litigation happens during the best of times. It may be the best of times in Sunnyvale; it may be the worst of times in Bombay Beach or Potrero. California’s ban covers the entire state at all times.

So the absolute necessity, the prime virtue of a rifle fitted with a semi-automatic firing system and a 30 round clip is defense during the improbable most cinematic, fantastic circumstance imaginable.

Only improbable to you.

 

[miketx]

But you stupid Liberals sure as hell care about taking away our Constitutional rights, even when the studies prove that it doesn't do anything to curtail crime.

Taking assault weapons and high capacity magazines does not take away your right to bear arms.

You don't have the right to bear any and all arms, but you can still defend yourself, poke holes in targets and animals and have boyish dun with your beer buddies.

You are a liar. The right in in the BoR's traitor. Shall not be infringed.

It seems there are hundreds, if not thousands of choices of arms to bear. Why is a semi-automatic with a high capacity clip so bloody necessary? Could you not defend your property with a shot gun or revolver?

You are using loaded terms...do you want a serious answer?

A semi-automatic rifle is a standard rifle...it is not special, it is not more deadly than any other gun..... and a 30 round magazine for any gun is standard, not high capacity. And the judge in the California Ruling explains this far better than I can...

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...JieJ6BMiBtRS0jdYT2id4OKm6suWAzGqo1V9eoe_wL9aA

(12.) the critical “pause”

The State argues that smaller magazines create a “critical pause” in the shooting of a mass killer. “The prohibition of LCMs helps create a “critical pause” that has been proven to give victims an opportunity to hide, escape, or disable a shooter.” Def. Oppo., at 19.

This may be the case for attackers. On the other hand, from the perspective of a victim trying to defend her home and family, the time required to re-load a pistol after the tenth shot might be called a “lethal pause,” as it typically takes a victim much longer to re-load (if they can do it at all) than a perpetrator planning an attack.

In other words, the re-loading “pause” the State seeks in hopes of stopping a mass shooter, also tends to create an even more dangerous time for every victim who must try to defend herself with a small-capacity magazine. The need to re-load and the lengthy pause that comes with banning all but small-capacity magazines is especially unforgiving for victims who are disabled, or who have arthritis, or who are trying to hold a phone in their off-hand while attempting to call for police help.

The good that a re-loading pause might do in the extremely rare mass shooting incident is vastly outweighed by the harm visited on manifold law-abiding, citizen-victims who must also pause while under attack. This blanket ban without any tailoring to these types of needs goes to show § 32310’s lack of reasonable fit.

=======

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...JieJ6BMiBtRS0jdYT2id4OKm6suWAzGqo1V9eoe_wL9aA

When a group of armed burglars break into a citizen’s home at night, and the homeowner in pajamas must choose between using their left hand to grab either a telephone, a flashlight, or an extra 10-round magazine, the burden is severe. When one is far from help in a sparsely populated part of the state, and law enforcement may not be able to respond in a timely manner, the burden of a 10-round limit is severe.

When a major earthquake causes power outages, gas and water line ruptures, collapsed bridges and buildings, and chaos, the burden of a 10-round magazine limit is severe.

When food distribution channels are disrupted and sustenance becomes scarce while criminals run rampant, the burden of a 10-round magazine limit is severe.

Surely, the rights protected by the Second Amendment are not to be trimmed away as unnecessary because today’s litigation happens during the best of times. It may be the best of times in Sunnyvale; it may be the worst of times in Bombay Beach or Potrero. California’s ban covers the entire state at all times.

So the absolute necessity, the prime virtue of a rifle fitted with a semi-automatic firing system and a 30 round clip is defense during the improbable most cinematic, fantastic circumstance imaginable.

I don't think you know what you are saying, or your hatred for Americans combined with advanced TDS has befuddled your mind and you don't care how ridiculous your remarks are anymore. Each of of the situations in gun free zones and in other places where mass shootings occurred, were the EXACT kind of a place an event of "cinematic fantastic circumstance unimaginable" happened, and such a rifle with a "high capacity clip" would have been ideal to potentially contain the madman.

 

[sparky]

what's the worry? one could always bludgeon a libtard to death?

~S~

 

[Kondor3]

I suspect the stupid Liberals will be crying themselves to sleep. Their precious oppressive gun laws that they want doesn't lower killings.

Study: ‘Assault Weapons’ and Magazine Bans Do Not Lower Homicide Rates

A study on state-level gun control laws in the U.S. shows that bans on “high-capacity” magazines and “assault weapons” do not lower homicide rates.


The study was headed by Boston University School of Public Health’s Michael Siegel and another listed study author was Harvard gun control advocate David Hemenway.


The study, The Impact of State Firearm Laws on Homicide and Suicide Deaths in the USA, 1991–2016: a Panel Study, isolated four states to study ten different types of gun control to see if certain gun controls were successful in reducing homicide and/or suicide rates. Via their research, they discovered that “high-capacity” magazine and “assault weapons” bans do not lower homicide rates.

Did the study say anything about high-capacity magazines and assault weapons having an impact on Mass Shootings?

 

[Nosmo King]

Taking assault weapons and high capacity magazines does not take away your right to bear arms.

You don't have the right to bear any and all arms, but you can still defend yourself, poke holes in targets and animals and have boyish dun with your beer buddies.

You are a liar. The right in in the BoR's traitor. Shall not be infringed.

It seems there are hundreds, if not thousands of choices of arms to bear. Why is a semi-automatic with a high capacity clip so bloody necessary? Could you not defend your property with a shot gun or revolver?

You are using loaded terms...do you want a serious answer?

A semi-automatic rifle is a standard rifle...it is not special, it is not more deadly than any other gun..... and a 30 round magazine for any gun is standard, not high capacity. And the judge in the California Ruling explains this far better than I can...

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...JieJ6BMiBtRS0jdYT2id4OKm6suWAzGqo1V9eoe_wL9aA

(12.) the critical “pause”

The State argues that smaller magazines create a “critical pause” in the shooting of a mass killer. “The prohibition of LCMs helps create a “critical pause” that has been proven to give victims an opportunity to hide, escape, or disable a shooter.” Def. Oppo., at 19.

This may be the case for attackers. On the other hand, from the perspective of a victim trying to defend her home and family, the time required to re-load a pistol after the tenth shot might be called a “lethal pause,” as it typically takes a victim much longer to re-load (if they can do it at all) than a perpetrator planning an attack.

In other words, the re-loading “pause” the State seeks in hopes of stopping a mass shooter, also tends to create an even more dangerous time for every victim who must try to defend herself with a small-capacity magazine. The need to re-load and the lengthy pause that comes with banning all but small-capacity magazines is especially unforgiving for victims who are disabled, or who have arthritis, or who are trying to hold a phone in their off-hand while attempting to call for police help.

The good that a re-loading pause might do in the extremely rare mass shooting incident is vastly outweighed by the harm visited on manifold law-abiding, citizen-victims who must also pause while under attack. This blanket ban without any tailoring to these types of needs goes to show § 32310’s lack of reasonable fit.

=======

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...JieJ6BMiBtRS0jdYT2id4OKm6suWAzGqo1V9eoe_wL9aA

When a group of armed burglars break into a citizen’s home at night, and the homeowner in pajamas must choose between using their left hand to grab either a telephone, a flashlight, or an extra 10-round magazine, the burden is severe. When one is far from help in a sparsely populated part of the state, and law enforcement may not be able to respond in a timely manner, the burden of a 10-round limit is severe.

When a major earthquake causes power outages, gas and water line ruptures, collapsed bridges and buildings, and chaos, the burden of a 10-round magazine limit is severe.

When food distribution channels are disrupted and sustenance becomes scarce while criminals run rampant, the burden of a 10-round magazine limit is severe.

Surely, the rights protected by the Second Amendment are not to be trimmed away as unnecessary because today’s litigation happens during the best of times. It may be the best of times in Sunnyvale; it may be the worst of times in Bombay Beach or Potrero. California’s ban covers the entire state at all times.

So the absolute necessity, the prime virtue of a rifle fitted with a semi-automatic firing system and a 30 round clip is defense during the improbable most cinematic, fantastic circumstance imaginable.

I don't think you know what you are saying, or your hatred for Americans combined with advanced TDS has befuddled your mind and you don't care how ridiculous your remarks are anymore. Each of of the situations in gun free zones and in other places where mass shootings occurred, were the EXACT kind of a place an event of "cinematic fantastic circumstance unimaginable" happened, and such a rifle with a "high capacity clip" would have been ideal to potentially contain the madman.

So you imagine cadres of hero gunslingers on the streets, in classrooms, at theaters amd going to concerts with AR-15s slung over their shoulders?

 

[Flash]

I suspect the stupid Liberals will be crying themselves to sleep. Their precious oppressive gun laws that they want doesn't lower killings.

Study: ‘Assault Weapons’ and Magazine Bans Do Not Lower Homicide Rates

A study on state-level gun control laws in the U.S. shows that bans on “high-capacity” magazines and “assault weapons” do not lower homicide rates.


The study was headed by Boston University School of Public Health’s Michael Siegel and another listed study author was Harvard gun control advocate David Hemenway.


The study, The Impact of State Firearm Laws on Homicide and Suicide Deaths in the USA, 1991–2016: a Panel Study, isolated four states to study ten different types of gun control to see if certain gun controls were successful in reducing homicide and/or suicide rates. Via their research, they discovered that “high-capacity” magazine and “assault weapons” bans do not lower homicide rates.

Did the study say anything about high-capacity magazines and assault weapons having an impact on Mass Shootings?

The highest casualty mass killings in this country were done with fertilizer and airplanes.

Actually, what you stupid Moon Bats call "mass shootings" are statistically insignificant. More people are usually during a three day weekend in Chicago by Democrat voting scumbags than are killed in any "mass shooting".

A mass shooting is always tragic as is any killing. More tragic is the tremendous crime, including nightly murders, that happens on the streets of these Democrat control big city shitholes. Cities that already have stringent gun control laws that never work.

 

[LeftofLeft]

We don't care about mass shootings in this country.

There is no respect for life in this country. Guns are a means. We now live in a culture that would rather pull out their cell phones and offer commentary on an animal thug kicking a defenseless 78 year old woman in the face on an NYC Subway at 3 AM as opposed to helping her.

 

[miketx]

You are a liar. The right in in the BoR's traitor. Shall not be infringed.

It seems there are hundreds, if not thousands of choices of arms to bear. Why is a semi-automatic with a high capacity clip so bloody necessary? Could you not defend your property with a shot gun or revolver?

You are using loaded terms...do you want a serious answer?

A semi-automatic rifle is a standard rifle...it is not special, it is not more deadly than any other gun..... and a 30 round magazine for any gun is standard, not high capacity. And the judge in the California Ruling explains this far better than I can...

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...JieJ6BMiBtRS0jdYT2id4OKm6suWAzGqo1V9eoe_wL9aA

(12.) the critical “pause”

The State argues that smaller magazines create a “critical pause” in the shooting of a mass killer. “The prohibition of LCMs helps create a “critical pause” that has been proven to give victims an opportunity to hide, escape, or disable a shooter.” Def. Oppo., at 19.

This may be the case for attackers. On the other hand, from the perspective of a victim trying to defend her home and family, the time required to re-load a pistol after the tenth shot might be called a “lethal pause,” as it typically takes a victim much longer to re-load (if they can do it at all) than a perpetrator planning an attack.

In other words, the re-loading “pause” the State seeks in hopes of stopping a mass shooter, also tends to create an even more dangerous time for every victim who must try to defend herself with a small-capacity magazine. The need to re-load and the lengthy pause that comes with banning all but small-capacity magazines is especially unforgiving for victims who are disabled, or who have arthritis, or who are trying to hold a phone in their off-hand while attempting to call for police help.

The good that a re-loading pause might do in the extremely rare mass shooting incident is vastly outweighed by the harm visited on manifold law-abiding, citizen-victims who must also pause while under attack. This blanket ban without any tailoring to these types of needs goes to show § 32310’s lack of reasonable fit.

=======

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...JieJ6BMiBtRS0jdYT2id4OKm6suWAzGqo1V9eoe_wL9aA

When a group of armed burglars break into a citizen’s home at night, and the homeowner in pajamas must choose between using their left hand to grab either a telephone, a flashlight, or an extra 10-round magazine, the burden is severe. When one is far from help in a sparsely populated part of the state, and law enforcement may not be able to respond in a timely manner, the burden of a 10-round limit is severe.

When a major earthquake causes power outages, gas and water line ruptures, collapsed bridges and buildings, and chaos, the burden of a 10-round magazine limit is severe.

When food distribution channels are disrupted and sustenance becomes scarce while criminals run rampant, the burden of a 10-round magazine limit is severe.

Surely, the rights protected by the Second Amendment are not to be trimmed away as unnecessary because today’s litigation happens during the best of times. It may be the best of times in Sunnyvale; it may be the worst of times in Bombay Beach or Potrero. California’s ban covers the entire state at all times.

So the absolute necessity, the prime virtue of a rifle fitted with a semi-automatic firing system and a 30 round clip is defense during the improbable most cinematic, fantastic circumstance imaginable.

I don't think you know what you are saying, or your hatred for Americans combined with advanced TDS has befuddled your mind and you don't care how ridiculous your remarks are anymore. Each of of the situations in gun free zones and in other places where mass shootings occurred, were the EXACT kind of a place an event of "cinematic fantastic circumstance unimaginable" happened, and such a rifle with a "high capacity clip" would have been ideal to potentially contain the madman.

So you imagine cadres of hero gunslingers on the streets, in classrooms, at theaters amd going to concerts with AR-15s slung over their shoulders?

lol! You are SICK. I shut down your bull shit and you keep slinging it!

 

[Kondor3]

...The highest casualty mass killings in this country were done with fertilizer and airplanes...

Irrelevant to either the question or the answer.

...Actually, what you stupid Moon Bats call "mass shootings" are statistically insignificant...

Tell that to the ghosts of the children of Columbine or Sandy Hook or Parkland or San Bernadino et al...

 

[The2ndAmendment]

We don't care about mass shootings in this country.

But you stupid Liberals sure as hell care about taking away our Constitutional rights, even when the studies prove that it doesn't do anything to curtail crime.

I am pro-2nd Amendment. But this is another thing...we don't care about mass shootings in this country.

We care about them but not enough to curtail the Constitutional rights of 330,000,000 Americans.

Not when "mass shootings" have a relatively very small percentage of the crimes committed.

The great majority of gun crimes in this country are committed by druggies, gang bangers and street thugs mostly located in the Democrat voting big city shitholes.

Banning a rural Georgia farm family or somebody living in the suburbs of Tampa from having high capacity magazines or an AR 15 will do nothing to stop the vast majority of gun crimes in this country.

Having high capacity magazines only benefits mass killers.

You're correct, which is why I want them to defend myself from communists (Democrats) when SHTF:
picture removed

 

[Flash]

...The highest casualty mass killings in this country were done with fertilizer and airplanes...

Irrelevant to either the question or the answer.

...Actually, what you stupid Moon Bats call "mass shootings" are statistically insignificant...

Tell that to the ghosts of the children of Columbine or Sandy Hook or Parkland or San Bernadino et al...

What I care about is my Constitutional rights and the deaths of those children, no matter how tragic, is not an excuse to take away my rights.

Taking away my Constitutional rights will not prevent more tragic deaths but it will diminish my liberties and the liberties of all Americans and that ain't right.

Are you as concerned about the deaths of a million American children killed on demand every year, for the sake of convince, as you are for the relatively minor number that are killed by deranged sickos?

Why should I have my liberties taken away because somebody does something illegal with a firearm? Everyday in this country there are millions of Americans that use fire arms legally. Why are you an asshole?

 

[miketx]

...The highest casualty mass killings in this country were done with fertilizer and airplanes...

Irrelevant to either the question or the answer.

...Actually, what you stupid Moon Bats call "mass shootings" are statistically insignificant...

Tell that to the ghosts of the children of Columbine or Sandy Hook or Parkland or San Bernadino et al...

You tell them as you try to disarm their parents so they cant stop any criminal from killing them or others.

 

[Lesh]

That Vegas mass shooter sure would have had a lot of trouble firing so many rounds with small
magazines...

And how many times has there been a Vegas mass shooter? Once in 240 years.

I guess we should ban all air travel since one time in American history four planes killed 3,000 of us in one day.

Actually mass shootings are happening with greater frequency

No....they aren't, they are about the same as they always were......

Actually they're getting deadlier

Cause ya know...assault weapons
Mass Shootings Are Getting Deadlier, Not More Frequent

 

[Lesh]

AND more frequent

If you think mass shootings are becoming more frequent, and worse — you're right