Ten Gun Myths and Memes-- Shot Down

[Quantum Windbag]

Americans have more AR15's than they do iPads.

Apple says they have sold 100 million iPads worlwide, the FBI estimates there are 200 million guns in the US, do the math.

 

[Dubya]

Americans have more AR15's than they do iPads.

Apple says they have sold 100 million iPads worlwide, the FBI estimates there are 200 million guns in the US, do the math.

It adds up to you making it up.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Apple says they have sold 100 million iPads worlwide, the FBI estimates there are 200 million guns in the US, do the math.

It adds up to you making it up.

I am not you.

Number of iPads sold by Apple by quarter - Yahoo! Finance

How many guns are in the United States of America

 

[Bfgrn]

And nothing being proposed would ban "dangerous and unusual weapons." They would ban weapons "in common use for defense" which is a criterion the court set.
Look like you fail again, hairboy.

The assault weapons and large clips have deemed THEMSELVES 'dangerous and unusual weapons' by the human carnage they have inflicted on innocent citizens and children.

There is NO need for any law abiding citizen to own that much instant firepower...NONE.

I guess you could say that if you choose to ignore the fact that they have proven to be less lethal than blunt objects in overall statistics.

The cognitive disconnect going on in your tiny little pea brain is really shocking. Let's see Virginia Tech student Seung-Hui Cho show up on campus with a blunt object and kill 33 people and injure 23...or Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold kill 15 people and injure 24 at Columbine High School with blunt objects...or James Holmes walk into a crowded theater with a blunt object and kill 12 people and injure 58?

The blunt object is that tiny little pea sitting on top of your shoulders.

 

[Dubya]

Apple says they have sold 100 million iPads worlwide, the FBI estimates there are 200 million guns in the US, do the math.

It adds up to you making it up.

I am not you.

Number of iPads sold by Apple by quarter - Yahoo! Finance

How many guns are in the United States of America

You said AR-15s and not guns. You said sold in America and not the world. Post the fucking facts and stop the bullshit! This is what you commented on:

Quote: Originally Posted by Uncensored2008
Americans have more AR15's than they do iPads.

 

[Bfgrn]

I notice you skipped over my proof that somebody is openly admitting they want to ban guns. Even the ones that claim they don't want to ban guns, like Obama, are saying that there is no political capital to ban them, not that they do not want to ban them.

Now I understand, you are ADHD. I answered that in the post you originally responded to, and answered it again in my dismissal of your ignorant response. Tell me Einstein, is the blogger Myrddin who you cite as someone calling for a ban on guns someone in power??? I already said you could find ''some people (who) say they are", but are not in a position of power. And, if you read the blog Myrddin posted, he sounds more for moderate gun control, but has seen how the NRA and moron paranoid absolutists like you will not even discuss sensible gun laws, so maybe it's time to really push back, and call for a total ban, so moderate changes can be made.

I support the 2nd amendment. I don't believe we should ever ban all guns, or even most guns. And I honestly believe President Obama supports the 2nd amendment, and would never call for a total ban of guns even if he had the power. But you right wing turds always forget that we are a nation of laws, not edicts. NO president has the power to make any drastic changes without Congress passing laws, and the Courts deeming them Constitutional.

Sure you did.

You know, the only way you can make your argument is for me to be as extreme and absolutist as you are. Otherwise, you have no argument, just dogma, ignorance and paranoia.

I support the 2nd amendment and have a very moderate view of the 2nd amendment, you can't argue against it, so you have to make me be for banning all guns. I am NOT for banning all guns.

You have been firing blanks right from the start.

 

[OKTexas]

The assault weapons and large clips have deemed THEMSELVES 'dangerous and unusual weapons' by the human carnage they have inflicted on innocent citizens and children.

There is NO need for any law abiding citizen to own that much instant firepower...NONE.

I guess you could say that if you choose to ignore the fact that they have proven to be less lethal than blunt objects in overall statistics.

The cognitive disconnect going on in your tiny little pea brain is really shocking. Let's see Virginia Tech student Seung-Hui Cho show up on campus with a blunt object and kill 33 people and injure 23...or Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold kill 15 people and injure 24 at Columbine High School with blunt objects...or James Holmes walk into a crowded theater with a blunt object and kill 12 people and injure 58?

The blunt object is that tiny little pea sitting on top of your shoulders.

Well like the typical liberal emotion appears to be getting the better of you and preventing you from staying on point. First there were no assault weapons used at VA Tech., he used two semi-auto pistols with standard magazines. The others did indeed use those scarey black utility rifles, but you don't make policies effecting 320,000,000 people base on the actions of 4. If you think you do then my little pea brain is far superior to what ever you have. So carry on spouting your ridiculousness and every one will keep laughing at your expense.

 

[Pogo]

Americans have more AR15's than they do iPads.

Apple says they have sold 100 million iPads worlwide, the FBI estimates there are 200 million guns in the US, do the math.

I see reading is not your strong suit. Oh wait, I already knew that.

I also already knew what the best-guess numbers were before I challenged Pol Potsticker to back up his preposterous post. He at least had to good sense to abstain from response.

A Thirty-three million iPads... (though it could be as low as 19 million)

B 3.75 million AR-15s

Do the math.

Bu the estimates, for every AR-15 there are 8.8 iPads. Based on the research behind QW's post, I think we know who's using that eight-tenths of an iPad...

 

[varelse]

criminals are universally democrats.

Here, you dropped your hat

 

[varelse]

Americans have more AR15's than they do iPads.

But the Cupertino, CA.-based technology giant said earlier this month at the launch of the iPad mini in California that it had sold only 100 million iPads in the two-and-a-half years the tablet has been on sale.
Apple forecast to sell 102m iPads, 194m iPhones in 2013: analyst | ZDNet

We don't know how many have been sold, so we have to estimate how many are manufactured each year. A number of manufacturers now predominantly make AR15-style rifles - so if we can work out how many rifles each makes each year and how many are exported, we can get close to a final number.
And the best place to get that data is from the statistics section of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which records how many weapons are manufactured by each US company each year. The data shows just over 2m rifles produced for domestic use by these manufacturers from 2000 to 2010 - the data does not come any more recent than that unfortunately.

How many AR15 rifles have been sold in the US? | News | guardian.co.uk

 

[varelse]

There is NO need for any law abiding citizen to own that much instant firepower...NONE.

I'm not sure you grasp the concept

The assault weapons and large clips have deemed THEMSELVES 'dangerous and unusual weapons' by the human carnage they have inflicted on innocent citizens and children.

There is NO need for any law abiding citizen to own that much instant firepower...NONE.

In Miller vs. U.S. it was ruled that in order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, in common use at the time, and supplied by the individual citizen. Any restriction such as magazine or ammo would hinder the preservation and efficiency of a well regulated militia.

How can they be considered a "well regulated militia" when none of the guns are registered?

Not "well regulated" at all in that case.

Regulation has more to do with training and discipline than consistency of equipment.

Most of the gun folks here agree with calls for increased training for those who purchase or own firearms.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I support the 2nd amendment and have a very moderate view of the 2nd amendment,

There is only ONE view of the Second Amendment:

Shall not be infringed

Any other view is a paradox, for it contradicts the very purpose of the Second Amendment in its entirety, the ultimate form of popular recourse against tyranny, thus no potential tyrants may restrict it, IT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Actually, my above post was so good, I adopted it into my signature. George Mason would be proud.

 

[hortysir]

All weapons, really?

I personally think as a member of the U.S. Military, semi auto weapons should be banned.

Do you think that all weapons should be allowed?

How about the machine guns that were made illegal in 1939?

Why?
Almost every gun is semiauto

 

[Bigfoot]

Quote: Originally Posted by ABikerSailor
All weapons, really?

I personally think as a member of the U.S. Military, semi auto weapons should be banned.

Do you think that all weapons should be allowed?

How about the machine guns that were made illegal in 1939?

LOL, I have been hunting with semi-auto rifles since I was 12 years old. I can't believe how stupid some of the people who post on the Internet are. ~laughs~

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And nothing being proposed would ban "dangerous and unusual weapons." They would ban weapons "in common use for defense" which is a criterion the court set.
Look like you fail again, hairboy.

The assault weapons and large clips have deemed THEMSELVES 'dangerous and unusual weapons' by the human carnage they have inflicted on innocent citizens and children.

There is NO need for any law abiding citizen to own that much instant firepower...NONE.

In Miller vs. U.S. it was ruled that in order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, in common use at the time, and supplied by the individual citizen. Any restriction such as magazine or ammo would hinder the preservation and efficiency of a well regulated militia.

In Miller vs. U.S. it was ruled that in order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, in common use at the time, and supplied by the individual citizen. Any restriction such as magazine or ammo would hinder the preservation and efficiency of a well regulated militia.

How can they be considered a "well regulated militia" when none of the guns are registered?

Not "well regulated" at all in that case.

I'm part of the well regulated militia
10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Where did you two go?

 

[Bfgrn]

There is NO need for any law abiding citizen to own that much instant firepower...NONE.

I'm not sure you grasp the concept

I do understand the 'concept'...

When you read the background writings of the Framers regarding the Second Amendment in full context you would know our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check. It was all about protecting the American government from both foreign and domestic threats.

Poring over the first-hand documents from 1789 that detailed the First Congress’ debate on arms and militia, you’ll see a constant theme: the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the American government.

The James Madison resolution on the issue clearly stated that the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed” since a “well-regulated militia” is the “best security of a free country.”

Virginia’s support of a right to bear arms was based on the same rationale: “A well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State”

Ultimately, as we know the agreed upon 2nd Amendment reads: “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.”

That reads like a conditional statement. If we as a fledgling new nation are committed to our own security, then it’s best we have a regulated militia. And to maintain this defensive militia, we must allow Americans to keep and bear arms.

The other defensive option would have been a standing army.

But at the time, our Founding Fathers believed a militia was the one best defense for the nation since a standing army was, to quote Jefferson, “an engine of oppression.”

Our Founding Fathers were scared senseless of standing armies. It was well-accepted among the Members of Congress during that first gun debate that “standing armies in a time of peace are dangerous to liberty.” Those were the exact words used in the state of New York’s amendment to the gun debate.

Later, in an 1814 letter to Thomas Cooper, Jefferson wrote of standing armies: “The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.”

Had the early framers of the Constitution embraced a standing army during times of peace, then there would be no need for a regulated militia, and thus no need for the 2nd Amendment.

more

 

[Bfgrn]

I support the 2nd amendment and have a very moderate view of the 2nd amendment,

There is only ONE view of the Second Amendment:

Shall not be infringed

Any other view is a paradox, for it contradicts the very purpose of the Second Amendment in its entirety, the ultimate form of popular recourse against tyranny, thus no potential tyrants may restrict it, IT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Thank you for proving my point....

And you are wrong... even the far right wing robes Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito say you are wrong, in clear language even a pea brain should understand.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

Held:

2. 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.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I support the 2nd amendment and have a very moderate view of the 2nd amendment,

There is only ONE view of the Second Amendment:

Shall not be infringed

Any other view is a paradox, for it contradicts the very purpose of the Second Amendment in its entirety, the ultimate form of popular recourse against tyranny, thus no potential tyrants may restrict it, IT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Thank you for proving my point....

And you are wrong... even the far right wing robes Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito say you are wrong, in clear language even a pea brain should understand.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

Held:

2. 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.

In Miller vs. U.S. it was ruled that in order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, in common use at the time, and supplied by the individual citizen. Any restriction such as magazine or ammo would hinder the preservation and efficiency of a well regulated militia.

 

[Bfgrn]

There is only ONE view of the Second Amendment:



Any other view is a paradox, for it contradicts the very purpose of the Second Amendment in its entirety, the ultimate form of popular recourse against tyranny, thus no potential tyrants may restrict it, IT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Thank you for proving my point....

And you are wrong... even the far right wing robes Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito say you are wrong, in clear language even a pea brain should understand.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

Held:

2. 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.

In Miller vs. U.S. it was ruled that in order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, in common use at the time, and supplied by the individual citizen. Any restriction such as magazine or ammo would hinder the preservation and efficiency of a well regulated militia.

AGAIN, the far right wing robes Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito say you are wrong, in clear language even a pea brain should understand.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.