Supreme Court Allows Sandy Hook Families' Case Against Remington Arms To Proceed

[Ghost of a Rider]

Irrelevant. First, you are entitled to your opinion, but you are still not qualified to make an informed assessment of her mental state. In other words, she wasn’t nuts just because you say so.

No, she was nuts because she was stocking up on guns like the Zombies were about to show up.

She wasn’t “stocking up” on guns, she was a gun enthusiast and enjoyed shooting them for sport. She likely had the guns before she started caching food. And she was not stocking food for zombies, it was for an economic collapse.

You can keep using the word “zombies” for dramatic effect but it doesn’t change two fundamental truths: 1) She was not prepping for zombies and 2) You still don’t know that she was crazy.

No, not everyone should. Not everyone should drive a vehicle either. Not everyone should own a motorcycle, a boat, a jet-ski, a lawnmower, be a cop, be an airline pilot, bus driver, ferry captain...

Okay.... now that we've established that, let's have some sensible standards on who can own a gun.

Oh, wait, that's not where you were going, was it?

By all means, lay out some common sense standards by which we should decide who should have guns and who should not. Keep in mind though that these standards cannot:

1) infringe on the basic 2nd Amendment rights.
2) involve profiling based on behaviors and actions that are NOT against the law.
3) political party affiliation.
4) support for a particular politician or political candidate.
5) support for gun rights organizations.
6) personal opinions of any person.

Others may come to mind but this is a good starting point.

Right now, at this very moment, one or more of these people will get themselves or others killed through incompetence, negligence or sheer stupidity. And it’s always easy to say, after the fact, that this person should never have been a truck driver or a police officer or whatever.

Yes, it is... it's also easy to tell who shouldn't have a gun before they buy one.

Other than obvious legal criteria such as criminal record and citizenship and the like, how?

Now, if you licensed guns the way we license cars, we probably wouldn't have an issue... Most people would be fine with handguns, but if you want your anti-Zombie Arsenal, you better show cause.

Nope. It’s not against the law to prepare for any apocalypse, zombie or otherwise. It might be considered weird or eccentric but it is not against the law. Also, weird and eccentric doesn’t kill people, intent to kill kills people.

Weapons with full auto capability were designed for battlefields. The current AR-15 for civilian use was not.

You realize that the design of the gun was entirely for the battlefield. It was designed to be lightweight, to have a smaller caliber round that tumbles to inflict maximum damage (My Drill Instructor pointed out that an M16 was a 22 caliber, a good varmit gun... good for shooting varmits, like Russians). It has a short barrel to be easily used in jungles,

But it’s not full auto. Therefore, no different from any other semiautomatic firearm of comparable firepower.

In short- a gun no civilian has any good reason to have.

Fortunately for us but unfortunately for you, “good reason” is not a criterion for determining these types of things. Given that we have a Constitutional right to own firearms, I am not required to prove “good reason” to purchase a firearm. The burden is on the government or state to prove good reason not to allow a person to purchase a firearm.

Expanding on this, given that the AR-15 is no different than say, the M-14, other than aesthetic styling that makes it look like a combat-ready military weapon, “good reason” is not a criterion that should be applied to one but not the other.
If I purchase an M-14 for sport but don’t need a “good reason” other than this, why should I need a “good reason” in addition to the purpose of sport and target shooting to purchase an AR-15 with the same fire rate and comparable firepower?

“No good reason” is an extremely slippery slope because once you employ this in the case of firearms, how long before they use it to deny other things like motorcycles?
Given the current climate change mania, I would not be surprised at all if this was used to deny us the right to purchase motorcycles, four wheelers and jet-skis in the future.

 

[JoeB131]

One wonders how many times you think you need to repeat the same lies, before they will become true.

Sorry, man, your cult has been lying to you for your whole life...

Joseph Smith was a two-bit con man who liked little girls, just like David Koresh... His end was just as comical.

Your Drill Sargent was a moron....it was simply made to be light weight so Grunts could carry more of them....you idiot.

No, it was designed to inflict maximum damage for a smaller caliber. The term "tumbling" is inaccurate, though.

https://www.quora.com/How-did-the-r...effective-to-550-yards-with-a-tumbling-bullet

 

[JoeB131]

She wasn’t “stocking up” on guns, she was a gun enthusiast and enjoyed shooting them for sport. She likely had the guns before she started caching food. And she was not stocking food for zombies, it was for an economic collapse.

You can keep using the word “zombies” for dramatic effect but it doesn’t change two fundamental truths: 1) She was not prepping for zombies and 2) You still don’t know that she was crazy.

Well, yeah, if she thought Zombies were an actual thing, she might have been really nuts.. That she thought rampaging bands of Negroes were going to show up makes her nuts and racist. Thanks for clarifying.

By all means, lay out some common sense standards by which we should decide who should have guns and who should not. Keep in mind though that these standards cannot:

1) infringe on the basic 2nd Amendment rights.

Okay. "Are any of you in a Well-Regulated Militia? No? No gun for you. Problem solved. Now we can proceed with the rest to deny guns to the crazies.

Other than obvious legal criteria such as criminal record and citizenship and the like, how?

Well, if you want more than one, or want one designed for a battlefield. If you think you need a gun because you think society is about to collapse. If your neighbors all report, "That bitch is crazy"

As I've said, the best argument for gun control is a conversation with a gun nut.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

She wasn’t “stocking up” on guns, she was a gun enthusiast and enjoyed shooting them for sport. She likely had the guns before she started caching food. And she was not stocking food for zombies, it was for an economic collapse.

You can keep using the word “zombies” for dramatic effect but it doesn’t change two fundamental truths: 1) She was not prepping for zombies and 2) You still don’t know that she was crazy.

Well, yeah, if she thought Zombies were an actual thing, she might have been really nuts.. That she thought rampaging bands of Negroes were going to show up makes her nuts and racist. Thanks for clarifying.

Who the fuck said anything about “negroes”?

By all means, lay out some common sense standards by which we should decide who should have guns and who should not. Keep in mind though that these standards cannot:

1) infringe on the basic 2nd Amendment rights.

Okay. "Are any of you in a Well-Regulated Militia? No? No gun for you. Problem solved. Now we can proceed with the rest to deny guns to the crazies.

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”.

Sorry, but it doesn’t get any clearer than that.

Other than obvious legal criteria such as criminal record and citizenship and the like, how?

Well, if you want more than one,

Irrelevant. If we have the right to own firearms then how many we own is immaterial.

or want one designed for a battlefield.

You said “gun”, not “AR_15”. And ARs for civilian use are not designed for the battlefield.

If you think you need a gun because you think society is about to collapse.

Irrelevant. It’s not against the law to have an opinion.

If your neighbors all report, "That bitch is crazy"

In Nancy Lanza’s case, they didn’t. And even if they did, their opinion that she is/was crazy does not supercede her opinion that society will collapse.

As I've said, the best argument for gun control is a conversation with a gun nut.

Would that be because the “gun nut” simply adheres to the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms or because his debate opponent uses melodramatic and sensational but untrue terms like “Tardy McTardo”, “zombie apocalypse” and “negroes”?

If you say “zombie apocalypse” often enough, you just may convince yourself that it’s true.

 

[JoeB131]

Dude, if you want me to keep feeding your need for attention, learn to use the quote feature properly.

 

[2aguy]

One wonders how many times you think you need to repeat the same lies, before they will become true.

Sorry, man, your cult has been lying to you for your whole life...

Joseph Smith was a two-bit con man who liked little girls, just like David Koresh... His end was just as comical.

Your Drill Sargent was a moron....it was simply made to be light weight so Grunts could carry more of them....you idiot.

No, it was designed to inflict maximum damage for a smaller caliber. The term "tumbling" is inaccurate, though.

https://www.quora.com/How-did-the-r...effective-to-550-yards-with-a-tumbling-bullet

Moron.......the military chose that size round so they could carry more of it...you idiot.....

Why did the US military switch from 7.62 to 5.56 rounds?

The smaller rounds weighed less, allowing troops to carry more ammunition into the fight. They also created less recoil, making it easier to level the weapon back onto the target between rounds and making automatic fire easier to manage. Tests showed that troops equipped with smaller 5.56mm rounds could engage targets more efficiently and effectively than those firing larger, heavier bullets.

5.56×45mm NATO - Wikipedia

There has been much debate of the allegedly poor performance of the bullet on target in regard to stopping power, lethality, and range.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Dude, if you want me to keep feeding your need for attention, learn to use the quote feature properly.

And if you want me to keep feeding your need for attention, just keep coming back like you’ve been doing all along but pretend you are not.

 

[JoeB131]

And if you want me to keep feeding your need for attention, just keep coming back like you’ve been doing all along but pretend you are not.

Naw, I'm just mocking your ass now... . but if you make it too much of an effort by not using the quote feature properly, I'm not going to bother.

 

[JoeB131]

Moron.......the military chose that size round so they could carry more of it...you idiot.....

Why did the US military switch from 7.62 to 5.56 rounds?

The smaller rounds weighed less, allowing troops to carry more ammunition into the fight. They also created less recoil, making it easier to level the weapon back onto the target between rounds and making automatic fire easier to manage. Tests showed that troops equipped with smaller 5.56mm rounds could engage targets more efficiently and effectively than those firing larger, heavier bullets.

5.56×45mm NATO - Wikipedia

There has been much debate of the allegedly poor performance of the bullet on target in regard to stopping power, lethality, and range.

Does the 5.56 not meet your "manhood" requirements?

 

[JoeB131]

Irrelevant. If we have the right to own firearms then how many we own is immaterial.

Good point. Good thing the Second Amendment is about Militias and not guns.

In Nancy Lanza’s case, they didn’t. And even if they did, their opinion that she is/was crazy does not supercede her opinion that society will collapse.

Actually, that was just evidence of how crazy she was... which again- funny up until the point her own pet "Zombie" killed a bunch of kids.

Would that be because the “gun nut” simply adheres to the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms or because his debate opponent uses melodramatic and sensational but untrue terms like “Tardy McTardo”, “zombie apocalypse” and “negroes”?

If you say “zombie apocalypse” often enough, you just may convince yourself that it’s true.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

And if you want me to keep feeding your need for attention, just keep coming back like you’ve been doing all along but pretend you are not.

Naw, I'm just mocking your ass now... . but if you make it too much of an effort by not using the quote feature properly, I'm not going to bother.

Uh huh. So I guess that means that if I properly quote your inaccuracies and assumptions, you’ll continue to pretend you’re not doing the exact same thing I am? Got it.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Irrelevant. If we have the right to own firearms then how many we own is immaterial.

Good point. Good thing the Second Amendment is about Militias and not guns.

And what does a militia use? That’s right, guns. Who are the militia? That’s right, civilians.

In Nancy Lanza’s case, they didn’t. And even if they did, their opinion that she is/was crazy does not supercede her opinion that society will collapse.

Actually, that was just evidence of how crazy she was... which again- funny up until the point her own pet "Zombie" killed a bunch of kids.

Opinion. And the neighbors still did not say she was crazy.

You may as well face the fact that there was no legal reason to bar Nancy Lanza from owning firearms. Your opinion that she was crazy for being a prepper is just that: opinion, and is not reason enough to prohibit a person from owning firearms in any case.

Deal with it.

Would that be because the “gun nut” simply adheres to the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms or because his debate opponent uses melodramatic and sensational but untrue terms like “Tardy McTardo”, “zombie apocalypse” and “negroes”?

If you say “zombie apocalypse” often enough, you just may convince yourself that it’s true.

View attachment 292917[/QUOTE]

I guess you already have.

 

[2aguy]

Moron.......the military chose that size round so they could carry more of it...you idiot.....

Why did the US military switch from 7.62 to 5.56 rounds?

The smaller rounds weighed less, allowing troops to carry more ammunition into the fight. They also created less recoil, making it easier to level the weapon back onto the target between rounds and making automatic fire easier to manage. Tests showed that troops equipped with smaller 5.56mm rounds could engage targets more efficiently and effectively than those firing larger, heavier bullets.

5.56×45mm NATO - Wikipedia

There has been much debate of the allegedly poor performance of the bullet on target in regard to stopping power, lethality, and range.

Does the 5.56 not meet your "manhood" requirements?

Moron....you stated things out of your ass about why the military uses that specific round......I corrected your ignorance and stupidity...

 

[Bob Blaylock]

No, she was nuts because she was stocking up on guns like the Zombies were about to show up.

You can keep using the word “zombies” for dramatic effect but it doesn’t change two fundamental truths: 1) She was not prepping for zombies and 2) You still don’t know that she was crazy.

It seems to me that going on and and on and on about “zombies”, as JoeB131 has been, when everyone knows there are no zombies, and nobody else has said anything about zombies, is a pretty good indication of who is crazy, and who is not; wouldn't you agree? Throw in his other bizarre obsessions and conspiracy theories about how Catholics and Mormons and Jews and conservatives, and everyone else are all out to get him, and I think it rather reinforces the point.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

That she thought rampaging bands of Negroes were going to show up makes her nuts and racist. Thanks for clarifying.

Who the fuck said anything about “negroes”?

JoeB131 did. Nobody else.

So, who's the real racist, here?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Good point. Good thing the Second Amendment is about Militias and not guns.

And what does a militia use? That’s right, guns. Who are the militia? That’s right, civilians.

“I ask, sir, who are the militia? It consists of the whole people except for a few public officials.”—George Mason​

And to whom does the right to keep and bear arms belong? And to what extent, under what circumstances, is government permitted to infringe this right?

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”​

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Does the 5.56 not meet your "manhood" requirements?

Moron....you stated things out of your ass about why the military uses that specific round......I corrected your ignorance and stupidity...

I'm pretty sure that earlier in this thread, he claimed to have served as some sort of weapons specialist in the military, a position which, if he had really held it, would make it impossible for him to have the extreme degree of ignorance about firearms that he so blatantly displays. But the, I think it's already very solidly established that among his other issues, he's a pathological liar.

 

[JoeB131]

You may as well face the fact that there was no legal reason to bar Nancy Lanza from owning firearms. Your opinion that she was crazy for being a prepper is just that: opinion, and is not reason enough to prohibit a person from owning firearms in any case.

Trust me, after the jury takes Remington to the cleaners.... the gun industry will be the ones demanding to not sell to the Nancy Lanzas of the world.

I'm pretty sure that earlier in this thread, he claimed to have served as some sort of weapons specialist in the military, a position which, if he had really held it, would make it impossible for him to have the extreme degree of ignorance about firearms that he so blatantly displays. But the, I think it's already very solidly established that among his other issues, he's a pathological liar.

sorry, dude. MOS 76Y- Supply Specialist/Armorer... Could probably still field strip the M16A1 blindfolded. I just don't masturbate over guns like you nuts do.

Moron....you stated things out of your ass about why the military uses that specific round......I corrected your ignorance and stupidity...

No, I stated the ammo was designed SPECIFICALLY for combat... which it was. The "Tumbling" was a term that was used, probably not terribly accurately, within the military itself, to describe the wounds these weapons inflict.... Probably really sucks to be a six year old hit by one.

 

[JoeB131]

It seems to me that going on and and on and on about “zombies”, as JoeB131 has been, when everyone knows there are no zombies, and nobody else has said anything about zombies, is a pretty good indication of who is crazy, and who is not; wouldn't you agree? Throw in his other bizarre obsessions and conspiracy theories about how Catholics and Mormons and Jews and conservatives, and everyone else are all out to get him, and I think it rather reinforces the point.

Naw, Mormon Bob, I use the term "Zombie" to point out the absurdity of an average citizen owning ten guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition in a nice white suburb... that's just fucking crazy...

JoeB131 did. Nobody else.

So, who's the real racist, here?

That would be the guy who belongs to a cult that claims dark skin is a curse from God...

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Naw, Mormon Bob, I use the term "Zombie" to point out the absurdity of an average citizen owning ten guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition in a nice white suburb... that's just fucking crazy...

Congratulations. You're proven how absurd you are. Not that that was ever in any doubt.

That would be the guy who belongs to a cult that claims dark skin is a curse from God...

And you've proven what a racist and general bigot you are. Not that that was ever in any doubt.

And if you imagine that you've proven anything about anyone other than yourself, then you've just proven how delusional and batshit crazy you are. Not that that was ever in any doubt.