This Republican has got it right.

[Winston]

Funny how a guy calling himself Winston would mislabel guns then support government banning them ignoring our Constitutional rights for the non-problem of "assault weapons" (sic) crime.

That while you ignore the real issues. Of course you do, it's a total misdirection by totalitarian government supporters like you, Big Brother

I suspect that this Winston has never read Nineteen Eighty-Four, and is completely unaware that “Winston” is the name of the main character therein.

George Orwell was a committed Socialist.

Yes, he was. And why did he write 1984? So seriously you think it is supporting totalitarian government? Maybe Bob's right, you didn't read it

Why did he write 1984? I am so glad that you asked. First, why Winston, as I have explained to you before but understanding that your lack of intelligence, like Orwell's sheep in Animal Farm, makes you understanding difficult to attain. Winston worked for the Ministry of Information. It was his job to change history, and it bothered him that he was, in a very real sense, a historical revisionist. I have been "Winston" on discussion boards for more than twenty years. I post "truth", have always argued against revisionist, and believe facts matter.

1984 examined the role of truth and facts, and how they are manipulated, within politics. Like in this very thread. I have posted a link to a academic white paper, conducted by professors at, arguably, one of the most conservative universities in the country. The statistical methodology used is there for anyone to examine. The conclusions of the study include the reality, that assault weapons are the weapon of choice among hardcore criminals, especially those willing to attack law enforcement officers. That assault weapons, while involved in only a fraction of all crimes, are disproportionately involved in mass shootings and attacks against law enforcement.

I have also disputed the "untruth" that law enforcement opposes a ban on assault weapons, by posting the official statement of the International Association of Police Chiefs. Sticking to the facts, pointing out the truth, is what I do, and Winston is a quite appropriate moniker.

But like I said, Animal Farm is more applicable here. Napoleon believed in arming the animals. Snowball believed in building alliances with the animals on neighboring farms and improving education. Napoleon presented no real new ideas, he only attacked those of Snowball, and arguments were shut down when the sheep yelled, "Four legs good, two legs bad" and drowned out any opposition. Trump is Napoleon, you are your cohorts are the sheep, truth does not matter, and all you do is yell the equivalent of "Four legs good, two legs bad". Winston will stand with truth, present facts, and hope there are some on this messageboard that can siphon through your horseshit and see that TRUTH.

My God you can't stop blustering. None of that explains how you are Winston when you are a huge Big Brother supporter.

Here's the funny thing that you don't realize. Winston was NOT a Big Brother supporter. Sorry, should have given you a spoiler alert ...

You are the Big Brother supporter.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

Banning assault weapons so that criminals don't use them to commit mass murder or attack police officers is a legitimate function of the government created by our founders. Telling people who they can marry, what bathroom they are supposed to use, or even who can come in to this country, IS NOT.

that might be true if the 2nd A didnt say otherwise,,,

The second amendment said "arms", not "any arms", not "all arms", just "arms". Hell, even Scalia, in Heller, admitted that the government did have the "right" to regulate firearms as long as it was not a significant "infringement" on the possession of "arms". Until you make an effective argument, that the previous assault weapon ban significantly affected the ability of citizens to own "arms", it is completely constitutional to restore that ban.

it didnt say "some arms"
and if you understood what regulate meant in this context you would know it means good working condition and well supplied,, and as we know a militia is just a civilian military so that means it was for military grade weapons,,,


anything else you would like to know??

I am sorry, but Miller is dead. Heller now rules. The second amendment is based on the individual right to self-defense. Besides, the whole militia to take over the government is total horseshit.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

The militia was for protection against invaders, and rounding up escaped slaves. There is no "constitutional right to insurrection". If there was, why even have a section on Treason within the Constitution.

 

[progressive hunter]

Funny how a guy calling himself Winston would mislabel guns then support government banning them ignoring our Constitutional rights for the non-problem of "assault weapons" (sic) crime.

That while you ignore the real issues. Of course you do, it's a total misdirection by totalitarian government supporters like you, Big Brother

I suspect that this Winston has never read Nineteen Eighty-Four, and is completely unaware that “Winston” is the name of the main character therein.

George Orwell was a committed Socialist.

Yes, he was. And why did he write 1984? So seriously you think it is supporting totalitarian government? Maybe Bob's right, you didn't read it

Why did he write 1984? I am so glad that you asked. First, why Winston, as I have explained to you before but understanding that your lack of intelligence, like Orwell's sheep in Animal Farm, makes you understanding difficult to attain. Winston worked for the Ministry of Information. It was his job to change history, and it bothered him that he was, in a very real sense, a historical revisionist. I have been "Winston" on discussion boards for more than twenty years. I post "truth", have always argued against revisionist, and believe facts matter.

1984 examined the role of truth and facts, and how they are manipulated, within politics. Like in this very thread. I have posted a link to a academic white paper, conducted by professors at, arguably, one of the most conservative universities in the country. The statistical methodology used is there for anyone to examine. The conclusions of the study include the reality, that assault weapons are the weapon of choice among hardcore criminals, especially those willing to attack law enforcement officers. That assault weapons, while involved in only a fraction of all crimes, are disproportionately involved in mass shootings and attacks against law enforcement.

I have also disputed the "untruth" that law enforcement opposes a ban on assault weapons, by posting the official statement of the International Association of Police Chiefs. Sticking to the facts, pointing out the truth, is what I do, and Winston is a quite appropriate moniker.

But like I said, Animal Farm is more applicable here. Napoleon believed in arming the animals. Snowball believed in building alliances with the animals on neighboring farms and improving education. Napoleon presented no real new ideas, he only attacked those of Snowball, and arguments were shut down when the sheep yelled, "Four legs good, two legs bad" and drowned out any opposition. Trump is Napoleon, you are your cohorts are the sheep, truth does not matter, and all you do is yell the equivalent of "Four legs good, two legs bad". Winston will stand with truth, present facts, and hope there are some on this messageboard that can siphon through your horseshit and see that TRUTH.

My God you can't stop blustering. None of that explains how you are Winston when you are a huge Big Brother supporter.

Here's the funny thing that you don't realize. Winston was NOT a Big Brother supporter. Sorry, should have given you a spoiler alert ...

You are the Big Brother supporter.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

Banning assault weapons so that criminals don't use them to commit mass murder or attack police officers is a legitimate function of the government created by our founders. Telling people who they can marry, what bathroom they are supposed to use, or even who can come in to this country, IS NOT.

that might be true if the 2nd A didnt say otherwise,,,

The second amendment said "arms", not "any arms", not "all arms", just "arms". Hell, even Scalia, in Heller, admitted that the government did have the "right" to regulate firearms as long as it was not a significant "infringement" on the possession of "arms". Until you make an effective argument, that the previous assault weapon ban significantly affected the ability of citizens to own "arms", it is completely constitutional to restore that ban.

it didnt say "some arms"
and if you understood what regulate meant in this context you would know it means good working condition and well supplied,, and as we know a militia is just a civilian military so that means it was for military grade weapons,,,


anything else you would like to know??

I am sorry, but Miller is dead. Heller now rules. The second amendment is based on the individual right to self-defense. Besides, the whole militia to take over the government is total horseshit.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

The militia was for protection against invaders, and rounding up escaped slaves. There is no "constitutional right to insurrection". If there was, why even have a section on Treason within the Constitution.

you sound scared,,,

 

[meaner gene]

all that doesnt really matter since the 2nd A was specific for military grade weapons,,

Not since the latest USSC interpretation. The court went full individual right, and precluded their use in service to the military.

 

[progressive hunter]

all that doesnt really matter since the 2nd A was specific for military grade weapons,,

Not since the latest USSC interpretation. The court went full individual right, and precluded their use in service to the military.

thats the established military not the civilian one,,

 

[John T. Ford]

you sound scared,,,

And, dumb ....

 

[OKTexas]

What is an assault rifle and how does it differ from a regular rifle?

One is designed to kill 20 people in 10 seconds and the other one isn't.
One is designed for military use and warfare, the other one isn't.
Any other incredibly stupid questions?

They know you mean combat weapons. The ones with no legitimate purpose.

And the ones that commit roughly zero percent of the murders in this country.

So just to be clear, you read the Constitution and find where it says we need to justify needing our Constitutional rights protected. I don't see that qualification, can you show me where it says that?

Does that work with free speech? Religion? Due process? You think they start with a judicial hearing where you first prove you need them before you get them? You are actually this stupid, aren't you?

A little more than zero percent.

Results suggest assault weapons (primarily assault-type rifles) account for 2-12% of guns used in crime in general (most estimates suggest less than 7%) and 13-16% of guns used in murders of police. Assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics together generally account for 22 to 36% of crime guns, with some estimates upwards of 40% for cases involving serious violence including murders of police. Assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics appear to be used in a higher share of firearm mass murders (up to 57% in total)

Criminal Use of Assault Weapons and High-Capacity Semiautomatic Firearms: an Updated Examination of Local and National Sources - PubMed

Policies restricting semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines are intended to reduce gunshot victimizations by limiting the stock of semiautomatic firearms with large ammunition capacities and other military-style features conducive to criminal use. The federal...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

You know, if you Republicans really wanted to show your support for law enforcement, you would support a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

I do not believe your numbers are accurate.
This is from the DOJ:
{...
Eighty-six percent of the time (in 1.1 million violent
crimes) the weapons were handguns.
...}

Guns Used in Crime

Handguns Used in More Than One Million Violent Crimes, The Use of Semi-Automatic Guns In Murders Is Increasing U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ADVANCE FOR RELEASE AT 5 P.M. EDT BJS SUNDAY, JULY 9, 1995 202-307-0784 HANDGUNS USED IN MORE THAN ONE MILLION VIOLENT CRIMES THE USE OF SEMI-AUTOMATIC GUNS...

bjs.ojp.gov

Shotguns are #2, rifles are the lowest, and assault rifles are less then 1%, although increasing.

Police do NOT at all support any assault weapons ban.
That is because laws like assault weapons bans do not reduce the number of them in the hands of the criminals at all, but instead only decrease the number of weapons in the hands of honest people.
So assault weapons bans always increase crime and force police to work harder to defend the honest population the misguided law disarmed.

Anyone who understands and believes in a democratic republic, can't be for any gun control.

Here is the thing, if you gun nuts have to make up shit to support your argument, well your argument is pretty damn weak. Police DO support an assault weapons ban.

First passed in 1994, the assault weapons ban required domestic gun manufacturers to stop production of semi-automatic assault weapons and ammunition magazines holding more than ten rounds except for military or police use. While the ban was in place, it was remarkably effective in reducing the number of crimes involving assault weapons. In the period of the ban, (1994-2004) the proportion of assault weapons traced to crimes fell by a dramatic 66 percent. Semi-Automatic assault weapons are routinely the weapons of choice for gang members and drug dealers. They are regularly encountered in drug busts and are all too often used against police officers. The IACP has been a strong supporter of the assault weapons ban since 1992, and our membership has approved several reauthorizations of support in the years since. The membership took this action because we, as law enforcement executives, understand that the criminal use of semiautomatic assault weapons pose a grave risk to our officers and the communities they are sworn to protect.

https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/2019-05/IACP%20Firearms%20Position%20Paper_2018%20(1).pdf

That is directly from the Firearms Policy Position Statement of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. Why do you Republicans not support law enforcement?

Ban on assault weapons didn’t reduce violence

The federal assault-weapons ban, scheduled to expire in September, is not responsible for the nation’s steady decline in gun-related violence and its renewal likely will achieve little, according to an independent study commissioned by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ).

www.washingtontimes.com

DOJ Study Fails to Show 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Worked

ivn.us

.

LOL, the second source gave a link to the study, I suggest you at least scan it.

https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/173405.pdf

From that study, a DIRECT QUOTE.

This suggests that the weapons became more available generally, but they must have become less accessible to criminals because there was at least a short-term decrease in criminal use of the banned weapons.

That was also supported by the policy statement from the International Association of Chiefs of Police. Banning assault weapons will reduce the use of assault weapons by criminals. Why do you not support law enforcement? Thanks for playing.

The fact is there was no substantial reduction in crime, because criminals don't follow the law. You commies don't care about crime, you only care about controlling a disarmed population, just like all the commie regimes before. You want my hog gun, feel free to come and try to take it.

.

 

[meaner gene]

Who would have thought for the last 229 years America has gotten the Founding Father's intent for the 2nd Amendment wrong.

DUMBASS !!!!!!

How long did they get "equal protection" wrong, before Brown v Board of Education?

 

[OKTexas]

You're all wrong. THIS gun will kill 20 people in 10 seconds.

Don't think I'd want one, but this beast would be a blast to borrow for awhile.

Yeah, try shooting that from the hip. LMAO

.

 

[toobfreak]

This man gets it.

Hey! You found an idiot just like you! Someone who:

A). Doesn't get it that the 2A has NOTHING to do with HUNTING SPORTS.

B). Doesn't know that true assault weapons came under strict federal control in 1934.

C). That true assault weapons are used in virtually ZERO percent of the crimes.

The advent of light, affordable, full auto machine guns to the public resulted in no particular crime problem.

THEN THE GOVERNMENT GOT INVOLVED AND PROHIBITED LIQUOR, which set the stage for the mobs. Prohibition was followed by an increase in organized crime, who were heavy users of machine guns culminating in the St. Valentines Day Massacre, along with the ability of citizens to fight back better against the government, which fueled the effort by government to clamp down on their sales.

So you see, WE NEVER HAD A GUN PROBLEM, until THE GOVERNMENT GOT INVOLVED and tried to prohibit alcohol, and they have been trying to deal with the mess they started ever since, wasting untold billions of dollars just as they've wasted untold billions on the "war on drugs."

 

[Colin norris]

The VOR
Of course he is. It wouldn't be the fact he has his head screwed on properly.
Nothing to do with he recognises the filthy gun culture and egotistical use of assault weapons as penile extensions.
Of course not. He's just an idiot.

 

[OKTexas]

I've had access to guns all my life and have owned them for 58+ years. Not one of them have harmed a person, would you call that responsible gun ownership?

Are you actually responsible with them or are you just a statistical anomaly?

Are you a troll or just an ignorant assed commie?

He's got a point. So many gun owners point out use of firearms for personal protection, or for protection of others. The "if only an armed citizen was there to stop the crime" argument. Yet as you admitted, only a very tiny fraction of them ever used their weapons to protect someone.

Kinda like justifying needing a Porsche 911 twin turbo because it can do 200 mph. But you never go even half that fast.

So you call 2 million defensive uses of firearms a year a "small fraction"? You are obviously ignorant on the topic. Perhaps you should quit while you're behind.

.

 

[toobfreak]

What is an assault rifle and how does it differ from a regular rifle?

Any other incredibly stupid questions?

No, still just laughing at your incredibly stupid remarks!

 

[meaner gene]

Hey! You found an idiot just like you! Someone who:

B). Doesn't know that true assault weapons came under strict federal control in 1934.

Flag on the play. They couldn't have controlled "assault weapons" prior to their invention.

An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. Assault rifles were first put into mass production and accepted into widespread service during World War II. The first assault rifle to see major usage was the German StG 44, a development of the earlier Mkb 42.

 

[Ringel05]

This man gets it.
I don't understand why other Republicans don't.

View attachment 508750

Here's the only assault weapon I own:

All the rest are sporting or home defense weapons:

Almost forgot my other assault weapon, my reproduction 1874 Sharps Carbine:

The Kel Tec 12 guage on the red background is one I was unfamiliar with.
Had to look it up.
Looks nice.
A bullpup shotgun.

That one is an interwebz image, I bought mine last Monday and am still customizing it. I'm leaving the carry handle on mine but mounting a red/green dot on it and adding a custom rail attachment to the pump handle with a vertical grip. The KS7 is the KSGs little brother and one of the hottest shotguns on the market today, 7+1 in 3 inch and 9+1 in shorties. I love mine.

 

[toobfreak]

the filthy gun culture

Is what keeps you free, is what saved the mainland here during WWII, and is why you have a USA in the first place.

Move out and don't come back if you don't like it.

I'd rather have ten machine guns in the hands of one good patriot than a single .22 peashooter in the hands of a progressive democrat.

YOU CAN'T be an American, a Constitutionalist or a Patriot if you don't like guns!

 

[Winston]

Funny how a guy calling himself Winston would mislabel guns then support government banning them ignoring our Constitutional rights for the non-problem of "assault weapons" (sic) crime.

That while you ignore the real issues. Of course you do, it's a total misdirection by totalitarian government supporters like you, Big Brother

I suspect that this Winston has never read Nineteen Eighty-Four, and is completely unaware that “Winston” is the name of the main character therein.

George Orwell was a committed Socialist.

Yes, he was. And why did he write 1984? So seriously you think it is supporting totalitarian government? Maybe Bob's right, you didn't read it

Why did he write 1984? I am so glad that you asked. First, why Winston, as I have explained to you before but understanding that your lack of intelligence, like Orwell's sheep in Animal Farm, makes you understanding difficult to attain. Winston worked for the Ministry of Information. It was his job to change history, and it bothered him that he was, in a very real sense, a historical revisionist. I have been "Winston" on discussion boards for more than twenty years. I post "truth", have always argued against revisionist, and believe facts matter.

1984 examined the role of truth and facts, and how they are manipulated, within politics. Like in this very thread. I have posted a link to a academic white paper, conducted by professors at, arguably, one of the most conservative universities in the country. The statistical methodology used is there for anyone to examine. The conclusions of the study include the reality, that assault weapons are the weapon of choice among hardcore criminals, especially those willing to attack law enforcement officers. That assault weapons, while involved in only a fraction of all crimes, are disproportionately involved in mass shootings and attacks against law enforcement.

I have also disputed the "untruth" that law enforcement opposes a ban on assault weapons, by posting the official statement of the International Association of Police Chiefs. Sticking to the facts, pointing out the truth, is what I do, and Winston is a quite appropriate moniker.

But like I said, Animal Farm is more applicable here. Napoleon believed in arming the animals. Snowball believed in building alliances with the animals on neighboring farms and improving education. Napoleon presented no real new ideas, he only attacked those of Snowball, and arguments were shut down when the sheep yelled, "Four legs good, two legs bad" and drowned out any opposition. Trump is Napoleon, you are your cohorts are the sheep, truth does not matter, and all you do is yell the equivalent of "Four legs good, two legs bad". Winston will stand with truth, present facts, and hope there are some on this messageboard that can siphon through your horseshit and see that TRUTH.

My God you can't stop blustering. None of that explains how you are Winston when you are a huge Big Brother supporter.

Here's the funny thing that you don't realize. Winston was NOT a Big Brother supporter. Sorry, should have given you a spoiler alert ...

You are the Big Brother supporter.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

Banning assault weapons so that criminals don't use them to commit mass murder or attack police officers is a legitimate function of the government created by our founders. Telling people who they can marry, what bathroom they are supposed to use, or even who can come in to this country, IS NOT.

that might be true if the 2nd A didnt say otherwise,,,

The second amendment said "arms", not "any arms", not "all arms", just "arms". Hell, even Scalia, in Heller, admitted that the government did have the "right" to regulate firearms as long as it was not a significant "infringement" on the possession of "arms". Until you make an effective argument, that the previous assault weapon ban significantly affected the ability of citizens to own "arms", it is completely constitutional to restore that ban.

it didnt say "some arms"
and if you understood what regulate meant in this context you would know it means good working condition and well supplied,, and as we know a militia is just a civilian military so that means it was for military grade weapons,,,


anything else you would like to know??

I am sorry, but Miller is dead. Heller now rules. The second amendment is based on the individual right to self-defense. Besides, the whole militia to take over the government is total horseshit.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

The militia was for protection against invaders, and rounding up escaped slaves. There is no "constitutional right to insurrection". If there was, why even have a section on Treason within the Constitution.

you sound scared,,,

Oh yeah, I am so scared. You yahoos are all mouth. I bet not a single one of you even knows what the Appleseed project is.

 

[meaner gene]

So you call 2 million defensive uses of firearms a year a "small fraction"? Y

It's smaller than COVID-19 deaths, which you called a tiny fraction.

99.4% of guns are never used for defense.
98% of people tested with COVID survive.

 

[Winston]

you sound scared,,,

And, dumb ....

I am willing to bet I know more about the American Revolution and the founding of this nation than you will ever know.

 

[toobfreak]

You're all wrong. THIS gun will kill 20 people in 10 seconds.

Yeah, try shooting that from the hip. LMAO

Jesse did it to kill space aliens!

 

[Winston]

I've had access to guns all my life and have owned them for 58+ years. Not one of them have harmed a person, would you call that responsible gun ownership?

Are you actually responsible with them or are you just a statistical anomaly?

Are you a troll or just an ignorant assed commie?

He's got a point. So many gun owners point out use of firearms for personal protection, or for protection of others. The "if only an armed citizen was there to stop the crime" argument. Yet as you admitted, only a very tiny fraction of them ever used their weapons to protect someone.

Kinda like justifying needing a Porsche 911 twin turbo because it can do 200 mph. But you never go even half that fast.

So you call 2 million defensive uses of firearms a year a "small fraction"? You are obviously ignorant on the topic. Perhaps you should quit while you're behind.

.

That two million number is laughable. Post the study, I am not going to bother to look for it. I know it was based on a phone survey, "Have you used a gun for a defensive reason". "Yeah, just last night, I heard some noise behind the house and I grabbed by assault weapon and shot in the woods. I know I hit them". But nobody showed up at an emergency room within a hundred miles and all it really was was a limb brushing against the window pane. Damn but you gun nuts are a hoot.