Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
...and it could easily have been less had someone had the means to stop him.Every person on this board who has ever claimed that 'shall not be infringed' means that such a denial of purchase violated the 2nd amendment
did in fact want this person to have gotten that AR15.
It is, btw, a reasonable speculation that the death toll could have easily been double or triple what was had he gone in with that rifle.
Wrong. States should be able to restrict sales within the state to be made to their own residents only. (That might help the situation in Chicago where the thugs buy in nearby states...but I doubt it. Most of them are likely criminals already and have to get their guns on the black market.)
It's okay by me to do away with mail order guns and sales to non-residents of any one state. Local gun shops should not be restricted in any other way. And I wouldn't mind a requirement for background checks for sales at gun shows....just not for private sales or gifts to individuals legal gun owners.
No, you don't. You thought an AR-15 is .22 caliber
The bullet is .22 caliber...that's a fact.
Yup, it's .223 caliber --one one thousandth of an inch bigger than a .22.
You'd have to have a micrometer to tell the difference.
Tyrannical Virginia Gun Law Kept DC Shooter From Buying AR-15
"Aaron Alexis, who was unable to purchase the AR-15 he wanted last week because Virginia law prohibits the sale of such weapons to out-of-state buyers. Instead, he bought a law-enforcement-style shotgun an 870 Remington pump-action which he used in his deadly rampage Monday.
Read more at Tyrannical Virginia Gun Law Kept DC Shooter From Buying AR-15 "
"Its probably worth noting that Alexis had to pump the shotgun each time he fired, and that the Remington has a standard seven-round magazine. An AR-15, on the other hand, fires a round with each pull of the trigger, with a rate of fire much faster than a shotguns, and typical magazines hold 20 to 30 rounds, although higher-capacity magazines 60 to 100 rounds are also popular. In the Newtown massacre, Adam Lanza managed to fire 155 rounds in under five minutes.
Read more at Tyrannical Virginia Gun Law Kept DC Shooter From Buying AR-15 "
But, of course, NRA teaches us that laws like this don't work, and that free access to guns saves lives....
Tyrannical Virginia Gun Law Kept DC Shooter From Buying AR-15
"Aaron Alexis, who was unable to purchase the AR-15 he wanted last week because Virginia law “prohibits the sale of such weapons to out-of-state buyers.” Instead, he bought “a law-enforcement-style shotgun — an 870 Remington pump-action” — which he used in his deadly rampage Monday.
Read more at Tyrannical Virginia Gun Law Kept DC Shooter From Buying AR-15 "
"It’s probably worth noting that Alexis had to pump the shotgun each time he fired, and that the Remington has a standard seven-round magazine. An AR-15, on the other hand, fires a round with each pull of the trigger, with a rate of fire much faster than a shotgun’s, and typical magazines hold 20 to 30 rounds, although higher-capacity magazines — 60 to 100 rounds — are also popular. In the Newtown massacre, Adam Lanza managed to fire 155 rounds in under five minutes.
Read more at Tyrannical Virginia Gun Law Kept DC Shooter From Buying AR-15 "
But, of course, NRA teaches us that laws like this don't work, and that free access to guns saves lives....
awesome, but aren't like 12 people still dead?
oh and did you know Adam Lanza didn't use an AR-15
never heard of extension tubes for shotgun rounds?
I bow to your superior knowledge of shotguns. I own 5 guns, and none of them are shotguns.
But it still has nothing to do with the issue. The shooter was denied the right to purchase a much more lethal weapon by giun laws that worked. It is too bad that such law did not also apply to to a shotgun.
It's funny that these same people that are now claiming a shotgun is more effective and lethal than an AR-15 before were insisting that banning assault weapons would deny citizens the right to own that more effective AR-15 for self-defense,
and, remember,
they mocked Joe Biden for touting the effectiveness of a shotgun.
yes...people...some of us don't forget your idiotic flip flopping.
Actually you have Mr. Conservative, Ronald Reagan, to thank for it. Because he closed all the mental hospitals, including any of those which could have accommodated Aaron Alexis and other mass shooters in the past -- and those who might emerge in the future because there is no place to properly contain them. Ronald Reagan dumped thousands of crazies onto the public streets.
Ronald Reagan, The Man From General Electric, a professional faker and tool of the corporatocracy, was one of the worst things that ever happened to this Nation.
You seem to forget that the ACLU sued to have those in mental health hospitals released.
Reagan just happened to be President when it happened.
which I fully agree with in this instance.
I bow to your superior knowledge of shotguns. I own 5 guns, and none of them are shotguns.
But it still has nothing to do with the issue. The shooter was denied the right to purchase a much more lethal weapon by gun laws that worked. It is too bad that such law did not also apply to to a shotgun.
What state (or district) was he a resident of?
If he was a resident of Texas, he shouldn't have been able to buy anything in Virginia.
Edit...that's an extremely crappy sentence.
How about...
Of which state was he a resident at the time of the purchase?
I bow to your superior knowledge of shotguns. I own 5 guns, and none of them are shotguns.
But it still has nothing to do with the issue. The shooter was denied the right to purchase a much more lethal weapon by giun laws that worked. It is too bad that such law did not also apply to to a shotgun.
It's funny that these same people that are now claiming a shotgun is more effective and lethal than an AR-15 before were insisting that banning assault weapons would deny citizens the right to own that more effective AR-15 for self-defense,
and, remember,
they mocked Joe Biden for touting the effectiveness of a shotgun.
yes...people...some of us don't forget your idiotic flip flopping.
Joe Biden was touting the NOISE a shotgun makes as effective in scaring off a potential burglar, not it's effectiveness as a weapon. He deserved to be mocked, since it against the law to discharge a firearm in most city limits, so he was encouraging people to commit a criminal act.
Of course it is about what they might do.
.
Who is denied purchase of a firearm with NO history of behaviour in their life that disqualifies them?
Who is denied purchase of a firearm solely on what they 'might do' someday?
Nobody, which is the way I like it. You, on the other hand, want to ban everyone from buying one on the basis of what might happen.
Still not buying that CBS and the New York Times story is wrong, although I will be the first to acknowledge it if either print a retraction.
As far as I am concerned, this is a gun law that worked. Another point I would make is that that, even if a shotgun was more dangerous than an AR-15 with a 100 round drum, the story indicates that he bought the shotgun BECAUSE they insisted that they would have to ship the AR-15 to Texas, which tells me that both of these dangerous guns should have been subject to the same gun control laws. As to the issue of federal vs state laws, I see no common sense in a legal system that says that a person in DC can drive 5 miles to Virginia to buy a gun which DC denies him. We learned in Georgia in 1865 that there is a very real and firm limit on State's rights.
It's funny that these same people that are now claiming a shotgun is more effective and lethal than an AR-15 before were insisting that banning assault weapons would deny citizens the right to own that more effective AR-15 for self-defense,
and, remember,
they mocked Joe Biden for touting the effectiveness of a shotgun.
yes...people...some of us don't forget your idiotic flip flopping.
Joe Biden was touting the NOISE a shotgun makes as effective in scaring off a potential burglar, not it's effectiveness as a weapon. He deserved to be mocked, since it against the law to discharge a firearm in most city limits, so he was encouraging people to commit a criminal act.
You lie.
Here is an example of a thread from 5 months ago where the gun nuts take exactly the OPPOSITE position on shotgun vs. AR-15 than they are taking now:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...hy-we-need-high-capacity-mags-for-guns-3.html
See? Some of the inmates here forget that there is actually a RECORD of what they've said here that can be easily accessed.
Who is denied purchase of a firearm with NO history of behaviour in their life that disqualifies them?
Who is denied purchase of a firearm solely on what they 'might do' someday?
Nobody, which is the way I like it. You, on the other hand, want to ban everyone from buying one on the basis of what might happen.
What purpose does it serve you to lie about what I believe?
Do you get accolades from the idiots? Do you think that approval from idiots is anything other than the fact that you think and speak in a way that idiots appreciate?
Still not buying that CBS and the New York Times story is wrong, although I will be the first to acknowledge it if either print a retraction.
As far as I am concerned, this is a gun law that worked. Another point I would make is that that, even if a shotgun was more dangerous than an AR-15 with a 100 round drum, the story indicates that he bought the shotgun BECAUSE they insisted that they would have to ship the AR-15 to Texas, which tells me that both of these dangerous guns should have been subject to the same gun control laws. As to the issue of federal vs state laws, I see no common sense in a legal system that says that a person in DC can drive 5 miles to Virginia to buy a gun which DC denies him. We learned in Georgia in 1865 that there is a very real and firm limit on State's rights.
It was, in fact, a short barrelled tactical weapon.
...although I am still intrigued with the visualization of deer hunting with a shotgun!
I bow to your superior knowledge of shotguns. I own 5 guns, and none of them are shotguns.
But it still has nothing to do with the issue. The shooter was denied the right to purchase a much more lethal weapon by giun laws that worked. It is too bad that such law did not also apply to to a shotgun.
It's funny that these same people that are now claiming a shotgun is more effective and lethal than an AR-15 before were insisting that banning assault weapons would deny citizens the right to own that more effective AR-15 for self-defense,
and, remember,
they mocked Joe Biden for touting the effectiveness of a shotgun.
yes...people...some of us don't forget your idiotic flip flopping.
I bow to your superior knowledge of shotguns. I own 5 guns, and none of them are shotguns.
But it still has nothing to do with the issue. The shooter was denied the right to purchase a much more lethal weapon by gun laws that worked. It is too bad that such law did not also apply to to a shotgun.
What state (or district) was he a resident of?
If he was a resident of Texas, he shouldn't have been able to buy anything in Virginia.
Edit...that's an extremely crappy sentence.
How about...
Of which state was he a resident at the time of the purchase?
Why not? I'm pretty sure that the Virginia (my state) law doesn't have a prohibition of such a sale if it's a shotgun or a rifle, as long as the person has the proper ID (DL, Passport, Birth certificate).
Has anyone else noticed that each time a mass shooting occurs, the gun rights extremists around here escalate their extremism to an even higher level??
No. It's just you.
The nuts around here are now against any background checks whatsoever, and now against anyone with mental issues being denied the right to buy a gun
Who is denied purchase of a firearm with NO history of behaviour in their life that disqualifies them?
Who is denied purchase of a firearm solely on what they 'might do' someday?
I am beginning to believe you are a victim of mental retardation. What do you think the underlying reason is for denying convicted felons and people with histories of mental illness the right to bear arms?
Why are you avoiding the issue?
Someone should take your computer away from you. You are abusing it.
Why didn't you answer my question?
Do convicted pedophiles get denied work at schools, daycare centers etc., ONLY because of what they might do?
Have they done nothing themselves to lose their opportunity to work at those places?
What is wrong with you?
