Nobody needs an AK47 with a 30 round magazine

[M14 Shooter]

ever heard of the tenth amendment? your understanding of constitutional scholarship appears to be less honest than your claim of being a "right winger". only a dishonest moron could claim "Shall not be infringed" requires registration. only a complete fool argues that ANYTHING in the Bill of Rights delegates power to the federal government

go away bug. You know nothing of constitutional law. stop pretending you do

Know what's great about the new forum software?
It -completely- removes all content from those you put on ignore. You don't see -anything- from them, including people who quote them.

 

[turtledude]

ever heard of the tenth amendment? your understanding of constitutional scholarship appears to be less honest than your claim of being a "right winger". only a dishonest moron could claim "Shall not be infringed" requires registration. only a complete fool argues that ANYTHING in the Bill of Rights delegates power to the federal government

go away bug. You know nothing of constitutional law. stop pretending you do

Know what's great about the new forum software?
It -completely- removes all content from those you put on ignore. You don't see -anything- from them, including people who quote them.

thanks-but I am a moon bat basher and bashing moon bats is what I do. I wouldn't see any prey then

 

[skookerasbil]

I love my Saiga AK but for those looking at getting something for home sefense due to all the fuckedupedness going on in the world, strongly consider this weapon. A Mossberg 930......here is a vid of a guy throwing over 2 pounds of lead at a target in less than 4 seconds. Use of 00 buck shot shells ensures you can remove a head at 20 paces.....of course with just one round.

I own one of those shotguns but not the 700 dollar additional capacity rotary magazine. The Miculeck custom Mossberg can be bought in 9 or 10 shot variations for about 600 dollars. That is half what I paid for my FnH SLP competition shotgun or my son's Remington VersaMax Competition shotgun. It works just as well (In all fairness I have only put 130 shells through it)

but for a home defense shotgun, its a great choice

Mine is only 4+1....have to get around to getting the Choate extension which will give me 6+1. Could ghost load and make it a 7+1 if I had to. Of course, if one is in too deep, better have a back-up weapon. Those FnH's are sweet.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

0.00295% of guns in the US are involved in a murder each year.
99.99704% are not.
Your claim is unjustifiable.

listen moron, you are lying. so stop it. I forget daily more about gun issues than you will ever learn.

What prohibits registration is the tenth amendment and the second amendment

The second amendment makes gun registration necessary. We need it to support a well regulated militia

The tenth amendment has no bearing on gun registration. States can require stricter rules if they prefer, but it has no bearing on registration

You've never heard of Selective Service?

Any person over the age of 18 is considered part of the militia. There is no need for gun registration. A completely asinine thing to say.

Ever hear of a well regulated militia being necessary for a free state?

The draft doesn't cut it

ever heard of the tenth amendment? your understanding of constitutional scholarship appears to be less honest than your claim of being a "right winger". only a dishonest moron could claim "Shall not be infringed" requires registration. only a complete fool argues that ANYTHING in the Bill of Rights delegates power to the federal government

go away bug. You know nothing of constitutional law. stop pretending you do

And your understanding of Constitutional case law is clearly nonexistent.

As Justice Scalia reaffirmed in Heller, our rights are not absolute, and are subject to reasonable restrictions by government, including the Second Amendment right:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

The issue therefore is not whether the state has the authority to place restrictions on the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment, as in fact it does, but which restrictions are appropriate and Constitutional, and which are not – including the registration of firearms.

The Constitution affords Congress powers both expressed and implied (McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the Bill of Rights and the case law that is its progeny place limits on those powers.

 

[Dr Grump]

ntries.
Yawn.
Two questions, to again render your point moot:
-What % of the guns in the UK, Germany, Canada, Australia and France are used to commit murder?
-How does the murder rate in the US compare to the UK, Germnay, Canada, Australia and France once you back out the murders committed with guns?

1) A lot lower than the US
2) Huh? The whole point of the argument is how guns perpetuate and increase the number of murder victims, so it endemic to the argument. It's like asking stats about VD and then saying take out anything relating to herpes, Gonorrhea, AIDs, genital warts and Chlamydia first before we discuss. Just being silly.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Yes -- because, as we all know, a knife is the weapon of choice in a gunfight.
:roll:

Trained combat knife fighter isn't going to be apparent until you're already bleeding. Reaction time to someone within 10 feet intending to kill you with a knife is less than a second. And trying to swing up a rifle to fire will easily be deflected. If by some fluke you manage to fire a full barrel AK the recoil's gonna prove too much to control with one hand putting you at further disadvantage.

But please, continue in your "I've seen people dual-wield full sized rifles in movies so think it's a good idea" delusions.

 

[2aguy]

It is a problem if the number of deaths caused by guns per 100,000 far outweighs those of other civilised countries. Mass shooting have buttoned off in the US over the past six months, but the previous 2/3 years there was almost one a month. That occur in Ireland? Sweden? France? Germany? Canada? Australia? NZ?

Sorry Shooter, the prevalence of guns in your society is directly related to the people killed by such guns. Look, I'm not under the illusion that the US will get rid of its guns. It will never happen - too many people love their peashooters, lobby groups abound and you have the second. But please, don't piss on me and tell me it's raining that the plethora of guns you have in your society haven't been the cause of death, misery and mayhem for large parts of your society.

Well, sadly, the anti-gun side of the argument...like your point above only ever mentions the criminal use of guns...

Each year there are 11-12,000 murders with guns in the United States, committed mostly in very small sections of major cities by drug gangs, in cities largely controlled by democrat party social policies....the 24 most violent cities in America have been under democrat control for decades...

The part of the equation the anti-gunners hope is ignored is how many times a year guns are,used to stop crime and save lives...they ignore it and don't mention it because the numbers,put to shame their anti-gun argument...

Each year over 250-350,000 crimes are stopped and lives are saved by victims using guns for protection. That's right...11-12,000 vs 250-350,000 so it is easy to see why the anti-gunners ignore the other side of the equation.

Keep in mind...250-350,000 is probably low...it doesn't include the lives saved,when a criminal is shot or captured by a victim...For example...there was a woman with a concealed carry permit who was raped...because the college campus she was on would not allow her to carry her gun...it had a "gun free zone" policy which she obeyed because she is a law abiding citizen...she was raped by a man with a gun...because he ignored the gun free zone policy...she stated in her testimony that if she had had her gun, she could have stopped the rape...this would have stopped the rapist from raping another two women, the second woman who he killed....so the number is probably far higher...

Even the number given by the anti-gun researchers, which under counts these defensive/life saving gun uses puts the number at over 100,000 crimes stopped and lives saved..

so tell me...which is better...disarming those 250-350,000 people, and thus making them victims...or stopping those crimes and saving those lives...

The anti-gunners would let those people be raped, robbed, beaten or murdered because for them...the victims matter less than their fear and hatred of guns...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It is a problem if the number of deaths caused by guns per 100,000 far outweighs those of other civilised countries. Mass shooting have buttoned off in the US over the past six months, but the previous 2/3 years there was almost one a month. That occur in Ireland? Sweden? France? Germany? Canada? Australia? NZ?

Sorry Shooter, the prevalence of guns in your society is directly related to the people killed by such guns. Look, I'm not under the illusion that the US will get rid of its guns. It will never happen - too many people love their peashooters, lobby groups abound and you have the second. But please, don't piss on me and tell me it's raining that the plethora of guns you have in your society haven't been the cause of death, misery and mayhem for large parts of your society.

Well, sadly, the anti-gun side of the argument...like your point above only ever mentions the criminal use of guns...

Each year there are 11-12,000 murders with guns in the United States, committed mostly in very small sections of major cities by drug gangs, in cities largely controlled by democrat party social policies....the 24 most violent cities in America have been under democrat control for decades...

The part of the equation the anti-gunners hope is ignored is how many times a year guns are,used to stop crime and save lives...they ignore it and don't mention it because the numbers,put to shame their anti-gun argument...

Each year over 250-350,000 crimes are stopped and lives are saved by victims using guns for protection. That's right...11-12,000 vs 250-350,000 so it is easy to see why the anti-gunners ignore the other side of the equation.

Keep in mind...250-350,000 is probably low...it doesn't include the lives saved,when a criminal is shot or captured by a victim...For example...there was a woman with a concealed carry permit who was raped...because the college campus she was on would not allow her to carry her gun...it had a "gun free zone" policy which she obeyed because she is a law abiding citizen...she was raped by a man with a gun...because he ignored the gun free zone policy...she stated in her testimony that if she had had her gun, she could have stopped the rape...this would have stopped the rapist from raping another two women, the second woman who he killed....so the number is probably far higher...

Even the number given by the anti-gun researchers, which under counts these defensive/life saving gun uses puts the number at over 100,000 crimes stopped and lives saved..

so tell me...which is better...disarming those 250-350,000 people, and thus making them victims...or stopping those crimes and saving those lives...

The anti-gunners would let those people be raped, robbed, beaten or murdered because for them...the victims matter less than their fear and hatred of guns...

Are you truly this ignorant or this much of a liar and partisan demagogue.


No one is advocating 'taking away' guns from anyone, to do so would be unwarranted, logistically impossible, and un-Constitutional.


In every jurisdiction in the United States every person who is allowed to own or possess a firearm by law in fact has access to a firearm for self-defense.


Moreover, private property cannot be 'confiscated' absent due process and just compensation, rendering the notion of 'disarming' citizens unfounded idiocy.


The ignorance and stupidity you exhibit concerning firearms does more to jeopardize the Second Amendment right than any “anti-gunner.”

 

[2aguy]

Hmmm...obviously you don't follow the tactics,of the anti-gun crowd as they do their best to get categories,of guns outlawed...and then "grandfather" whatever guns are still in private hands but make it impossible to pass those guns on to relatives...assault rifle bans, bans on certain types,of guns....one of my guns came in a case...on the case was the statement...."not legal in California"...in New Jersey, once the first "dumb" gun comes on the market their law states that three years from that date all guns sold will have to be "dumb" guns or they won't be allowed in the state...since the alleged smart gun tech sucks...they will have achieved a ban of all guns in everything but name...

Chicago...has fought gun stores,locating inside the city and even with a court order to allow it, they are going to force any gun store in the most remote and hard to access location to make it almost impossible for a gun store to succeed....and try to get a gun in New York State...you need a lawyer to help you get through the red tape,,,

So you need to do your homework...they are trying to get rid of as many guns as they can and if they could they would do it in one fell swoop...Anti gunners will do it piecemeal until then...and they will use dumb things like background checks and gun registration to make it harder and harder for regular people to afford owning a gun for self defense...

 

[M14 Shooter]

ntries.
Yawn.
Two questions, to again render your point moot:
-What % of the guns in the UK, Germany, Canada, Australia and France are used to commit murder?
-How does the murder rate in the US compare to the UK, Germnay, Canada, Australia and France once you back out the murders committed with guns?

1) A lot lower than the US

Show this to be true. Post numbers and citations.

2) Huh?

I didn't think you'd get it.
When you back the gun-related murders out of the US murder rate, you'll find a number as large as if not larger that the total murder rate of those other countries. Conclusion?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes -- because, as we all know, a knife is the weapon of choice in a gunfight.
:roll:

Trained combat knife fighter isn't going to be apparent until you're already bleeding.

Oh, I see...
So now its not armed shop owner against mob of looters, its armed shop owner against trained knife fighters intent on murder.
Thank you for negating your point.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Didn't negate a thing, and you're only burying yourself further. By all means continue.

@ US Marines, if you're intent was to quick-kill a target, would rather have two full-sized AK-47s, one in each hand, or your standard issue combat knife? Setting's a store entrance. Defender doesn't yet realize your intent or are a hostile threat so you'll be able to walk right on up to him.

 

[rightwinger]

0.00295% of guns in the US are involved in a murder each year.
99.99704% are not.
Your claim is unjustifiable.

It's not the amount of guns used, it's the amount of homicides that occur and how they occur....that matters...

Um.... if more guns = more murders, then its the number guns used compared to the number of guns not used is impossibly relevant
A hugely overwhelming majority of guns are never used to commit a crime; this fact destroys your position in toto.

Statistics are cool aren't they?

And guns used in murder are usually only used once. Think of all the time that gun was not used in killing someone?

 

[turtledude]

some retard disagreed with my claim that guns in private circulation has gone up but crime has gone down. I'd like them to post some statistics supporting their claim. I bet they cannot

 

[turtledude]

0.00295% of guns in the US are involved in a murder each year.
99.99704% are not.
Your claim is unjustifiable.

listen moron, you are lying. so stop it. I forget daily more about gun issues than you will ever learn.

What prohibits registration is the tenth amendment and the second amendment

The second amendment makes gun registration necessary. We need it to support a well regulated militia

The tenth amendment has no bearing on gun registration. States can require stricter rules if they prefer, but it has no bearing on registration

You've never heard of Selective Service?

Any person over the age of 18 is considered part of the militia. There is no need for gun registration. A completely asinine thing to say.

Ever hear of a well regulated militia being necessary for a free state?

The draft doesn't cut it

ever heard of the tenth amendment? your understanding of constitutional scholarship appears to be less honest than your claim of being a "right winger". only a dishonest moron could claim "Shall not be infringed" requires registration. only a complete fool argues that ANYTHING in the Bill of Rights delegates power to the federal government

go away bug. You know nothing of constitutional law. stop pretending you do

And your understanding of Constitutional case law is clearly nonexistent.

As Justice Scalia reaffirmed in Heller, our rights are not absolute, and are subject to reasonable restrictions by government, including the Second Amendment right:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

The issue therefore is not whether the state has the authority to place restrictions on the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment, as in fact it does, but which restrictions are appropriate and Constitutional, and which are not – including the registration of firearms.

The Constitution affords Congress powers both expressed and implied (McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the Bill of Rights and the case law that is its progeny place limits on those powers.

Unlike you , I understand that Scalia is what we call a "faint hearted originalist". He assumes that the federal government actually was delegated the power to regulate small arms but he has NEVER EVER attempted to make an argument WHY or WHERE because he would realize that such an argument would render his august status a bit tainted. Rather, he is unwilling to overturn the ND era nonsense on the grounds it would cause too much Trauma (Such as getting rid of social security and overturning the convictions of thousands of people who have federal gun charges). I know this because several of his law clerks are people I know well including Professor Steven Calabresi who explained Scalia's reasoning at the Taft Lecture at the U of Cincinnati Law school in November 2012 (Steve and I were at Yale together).

the problem with this nonsense is not whether the 2A is limited but whether the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT was ever properly delegated any authority to restrict the underlying natural right of citizens to be armed. the commerce clause fiction created by the FDR administration might somewhat justify restrictions on the actions of federally licensed dealers but many federal gun control laws are blatant violations of the 10A--a fact that the supreme court has studiously avoided (so as not to look like idiots). It was avoided in MILLER and HELLER but in Lopez the Court found a 10A violation saying that the gun free school zones did not have a sufficient nexus with "interstate commerce"

Heller doesn't really help you anti gun types because the stuff you quote is dicta anyway

 

[M14 Shooter]

Didn't negate a thing, and you're only burying yourself further. By all means continue.

Your argument presumes the presence of "trained combat knife fighters" who intend to murder the shopkeeper whereas in reality we have bands of thugs intent on looting. So, while you may be correct under the circumstances you present, your argument has nothing to do with the reality of the situation at hand and is therefore meaningless.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Your argument presumes the presence of "trained combat knife fighters" who intend to murder the shopkeeper whereas in reality we have bands of thugs intent on looting. So, while you may be correct under the circumstances you present, your argument has nothing to do with the reality of the situation at hand and is therefore meaningless.

My arguement assumes any threat that shopkeeper has to face will be too close to him by the time he detects it, and trying to swing either rifle up to fire will fail because the would-be target's too close. And if the assailant has a knife, he's fucked.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your argument presumes the presence of "trained combat knife fighters" who intend to murder the shopkeeper whereas in reality we have bands of thugs intent on looting. So, while you may be correct under the circumstances you present, your argument has nothing to do with the reality of the situation at hand and is therefore meaningless.

My argument...

... centers around the presence of "trained combat knife fighters" who intend to murder the shopkeeper.
And thus, because it has nothing to do with the reality of the situation at hand,. it fails.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

... centers around the presence of "trained combat knife fighters" who intend to murder the shopkeeper.
And thus, because it has nothing to do with the reality of the situation at hand,. it fails.

Go to school kiddo. You don't have clue one what you're talking about.

 

[The Rabbi]

Your argument presumes the presence of "trained combat knife fighters" who intend to murder the shopkeeper whereas in reality we have bands of thugs intent on looting. So, while you may be correct under the circumstances you present, your argument has nothing to do with the reality of the situation at hand and is therefore meaningless.

My argument...

... centers around the presence of "trained combat knife fighters" who intend to murder the shopkeeper.
And thus, because it has nothing to do with the reality of the situation at hand,. it fails.

I have to agree. While what DeltaE writes is true, it is not relevant to the situation, namely out of control hordes of young black men intent on burning and looting. For that, hokey religions and antique weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side.