Want gun control? Fight smart.

[OldLady]

The number of private citizens that legally owned/purchased the firearms the Assault Weapons Ban identified as "assault weapons" ... Doubled during the ban.
That's why it was allowed to expire ... Because it was so stupid all it accomplished was encouraging more people to purchase firearms the ban was supposed to limit.
Link?

How about you show me a link were the Assault Weapons Ban actually banned the purchase of what it identified as an assault weapon.
I can save you the time because it didn't ...

It forbid the purchase of a semi-automatic firearm that included more than one of the following items ...
Pistol grip, flash suppressor, folding stock, or grenade launcher.

Those components (while beneficial) are not essential parts of the firearm or mechanism.
All of them can be purchased and attached to the firearm aftermarket (except maybe the grenade launcher).

It didn't forbid the purchase of the core components of the firearm ... Because that would violate the Constitution.

.

Sounds like it didn't go far enough, then.

So you WANT to violate the COTUS.

Again, the following guns, including the Colt AR-15, were outlawed (despite the information given to us by Mike). The Supreme Court refused to take up any challenges to the law during it's ten years. So you can call it what you want, but COTUS did not rule it unconstitutional. If they thought it was, don't you think they would have accepted one of the many cases challenging it?

The ban defined the following semi-automatic firearms, as well as any copies or duplicates of them in any caliber, as assault weapons:

Name of firearm Preban federal legal status
Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (AKs) (all models) Imports banned in 1989*
Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil Imports banned in 1989*
Beretta AR-70 (SC-70) Imports banned in 1989*
Colt AR-15 Legal
Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN-LAR, FNC Imports banned in 1989*
SWD (MAC type) M-10, M-11, M11/9, M12 Legal
Steyr AUG Imports banned in 1989*
INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Legal
Revolving cylinder shotguns such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12 Legal

The banned or legal information at the end of each listing is "Preban status" To see the chart clearly, to the link. Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia

 

[miketx]

Aside from the usual gaslighters and kooks, this thread nominated for OP of the Month thus far

Thanks OL

Yes helping criminals is always a win for you scum

 

[OldLady]

...
If it can fire dozens of bullets per minute into a crowd, we don't need it on the streets.

It doesn't mention that anywhere in the Second Amendment ...
You are going to have to change the Constitution if you are going to try and make it mean something it doesn't already.

.

There are different interpretations of the 2nd Amendment and I'm not a constitutional scholar, so I'm not going to get into it with you. However, I certainly don't think that EVERYONE believes as you do that the 2nd is an automatic stop sign forbidding regulation on gun ownership. You are stating an opinion as a fact.

What does "shall not be infringed" mean to you?

How many times do I have to tell you, I'm not getting into it?

 

[BlackSand]

Again, the following guns, including the Colt AR-15, were outlawed (despite the information given to us by Mike). The Supreme Court refused to take up any challenges to the law during it's ten years. So you can call it what you want, but COTUS did not rule it unconstitutional. If they thought it was, don't you think they would have accepted one of the many cases challenging it?

The ban defined the following semi-automatic firearms, as well as any copies or duplicates of them in any caliber, as assault weapons:

Name of firearm Preban federal legal status
Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (AKs) (all models) Imports banned in 1989*
Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil Imports banned in 1989*
Beretta AR-70 (SC-70) Imports banned in 1989*
Colt AR-15 Legal
Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN-LAR, FNC Imports banned in 1989*
SWD (MAC type) M-10, M-11, M11/9, M12 Legal
Steyr AUG Imports banned in 1989*
INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Legal
Revolving cylinder shotguns such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12 Legal

The banned or legal information at the end of each listing is "Preban status" To see the chart clearly, to the link. Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia

Yeah .. So we agree ... The weapons that were banned are in accordance with pre-ban status.

What I have indicated all long is that what is necessary to make all of those weapons compliant with the ban requirements to be available for purchase ...
Does not include anything that cannot be altered or sold separately ... Allowing the purchase of the same core weapon.

If you ban selling cars with tires ... Most cars would be banned.
If you sell cars without tires ... And sell tires ... You can buy a car without tires and put tires on it ...

The reason the firearms weren't actually banned ... Only the condition they were sold in was altered ...
Is because they would have to violate the Constitution to ban the firearm.

The Colt AR-15 with a pistol grip and a flash suppressor (as it was manufactured at the point the ban was passed) was banned from purchase.
The Assault Weapons Ban did not ban the Colt AR-15 without a flash suppressor from purchase ...
Nor did it ban the flash suppressor purchase ... So you could buy a flash suppressor and have the same Colt AR-15 that was banned.

.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

Armed teachers. Why do ignore the only real answer?

Not familiar with sarcasm?

Ya gotta cut Mikey some slack........some days he's a little slow on the uptake. But we keep him around like a lost puppy

I recognize rights trashing scum when I read them.

down Fido

Poor Fido was dropped on his head.

Not at all.........he does make a great point of arming teachers. A concept that is becoming quite popular in areas where it's available

 

[OldLady]

Again, the following guns, including the Colt AR-15, were outlawed (despite the information given to us by Mike). The Supreme Court refused to take up any challenges to the law during it's ten years. So you can call it what you want, but COTUS did not rule it unconstitutional. If they thought it was, don't you think they would have accepted one of the many cases challenging it?

The ban defined the following semi-automatic firearms, as well as any copies or duplicates of them in any caliber, as assault weapons:

Name of firearm Preban federal legal status
Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (AKs) (all models) Imports banned in 1989*
Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil Imports banned in 1989*
Beretta AR-70 (SC-70) Imports banned in 1989*
Colt AR-15 Legal
Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN-LAR, FNC Imports banned in 1989*
SWD (MAC type) M-10, M-11, M11/9, M12 Legal
Steyr AUG Imports banned in 1989*
INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Legal
Revolving cylinder shotguns such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12 Legal

The banned or legal information at the end of each listing is "Preban status" To see the chart clearly, to the link. Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia

Yeah .. So we agree ... The weapons that were banned are in accordance with pre-ban status.

What I have indicated all long is that what is necessary to make all of those weapons compliant with the ban requirements to be available for purchase ...
Does not include anything that cannot be altered or sold separately ... Allowing the purchase of the same core weapon.

If you ban selling cars with tires ... Most cars would be banned.
If you sell cars without tires ... And sell tires ... You can buy a car without tires and put tires on it ...

The reason the firearms weren't actually banned ... Only the condition they were sold in was altered ...
Is because they would have to violate the Constitution to ban the firearm.

The Colt AR-15 with a pistol grip and a flash suppressor (as it was manufactured at the point the ban was passed) was banned from purchase.
The Assault Weapons Ban did not ban the Colt AR-15 without a flash suppressor from purchase ...
Nor did it ban the flash suppressor purchase ... So you could buy a flash suppressor and have the same Colt AR-15 that was banned.

.

The Assault Weapons Ban did not ban the Colt AR-15 without a flash suppressor from purchase ...
Nor did it ban the flash suppressor purchase ... So you could buy a flash suppressor and have the same Colt AR-15 that was banned.
I find it hard to believe that even Congress is that stupid. You totally sure about this?

 

[BlackSand]

The Assault Weapons Ban did not ban the Colt AR-15 without a flash suppressor from purchase ...
Nor did it ban the flash suppressor purchase ... So you could buy a flash suppressor and have the same Colt AR-15 that was banned.
I find it hard to believe that even Congress is that stupid. You totally sure about this?

I am not saying that Congress is stupid Old Lady ...
I am saying that is what they did and because there was nothing else they could do.

I think the problem that you are really having ...
Is accepting the fact you were foolish enough to fall for a cheap ruse.

Sorry, I am not trying to be ugly ... Your government did that to you.




Edit:
It is impossible to find accurate data on the number of "assault weapons" (not that people won't try to tell you) ...
Because there isn't an uniform definition of "assault weapon" as far as manufacturers and dealers are concerned.

Estimates were 1.5 million in 1994 and over 3 million today (private ownership) ...
But even the people making the estimate indicated they had to use formulas.


.

 

[hunarcy]

...
If it can fire dozens of bullets per minute into a crowd, we don't need it on the streets.

It doesn't mention that anywhere in the Second Amendment ...
You are going to have to change the Constitution if you are going to try and make it mean something it doesn't already.

.

There are different interpretations of the 2nd Amendment and I'm not a constitutional scholar, so I'm not going to get into it with you. However, I certainly don't think that EVERYONE believes as you do that the 2nd is an automatic stop sign forbidding regulation on gun ownership. You are stating an opinion as a fact.

What does "shall not be infringed" mean to you?

How many times do I have to tell you, I'm not getting into it?

Yeah,I can see how you’d want to not have to defend such a position as you have adopted

 

[OldLady]

The Assault Weapons Ban did not ban the Colt AR-15 without a flash suppressor from purchase ...
Nor did it ban the flash suppressor purchase ... So you could buy a flash suppressor and have the same Colt AR-15 that was banned.
I find it hard to believe that even Congress is that stupid. You totally sure about this?

I am not saying that Congress is stupid Old Lady ...
I am saying that is what they did and because there was nothing else they could do.

I think the problem that you are really having ...
Is accepting the fact you were foolish enough to fall for a cheap ruse.

Sorry, I am not trying to be ugly ... Your government did that to you.




Edit:
It is impossible to find accurate data on the number of "assault weapons" (not that people won't try to tell you) ...
Because there isn't an uniform definition of "assault weapon" as far as manufacturers and dealers are concerned.

Estimates were 1.5 million in 1994 and over 3 million today (private ownership) ...
But even the people making the estimate indicated they had to use formulas.


.

This wasn't intended to be just another gun thread. Do you have any ideas that might help curtail mass shootings in our country?

 

[OldLady]

...
If it can fire dozens of bullets per minute into a crowd, we don't need it on the streets.

It doesn't mention that anywhere in the Second Amendment ...
You are going to have to change the Constitution if you are going to try and make it mean something it doesn't already.

.

There are different interpretations of the 2nd Amendment and I'm not a constitutional scholar, so I'm not going to get into it with you. However, I certainly don't think that EVERYONE believes as you do that the 2nd is an automatic stop sign forbidding regulation on gun ownership. You are stating an opinion as a fact.

What does "shall not be infringed" mean to you?

How many times do I have to tell you, I'm not getting into it?

Yeah,I can see how you’d want to not have to defend such a position as you have adopted

There are plenty of threads where you can argue the constitutionality of gun control laws. What are your ideas for curtailing mass shootings in this country?

 

[OldLady]

Aside from the usual gaslighters and kooks, this thread nominated for OP of the Month thus far

Thanks OL

Yes helping criminals is always a win for you scum

Do you have any ideas for how to curtail mass shootings in this country?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

It doesn't mention that anywhere in the Second Amendment ...
You are going to have to change the Constitution if you are going to try and make it mean something it doesn't already.

.

There are different interpretations of the 2nd Amendment and I'm not a constitutional scholar, so I'm not going to get into it with you. However, I certainly don't think that EVERYONE believes as you do that the 2nd is an automatic stop sign forbidding regulation on gun ownership. You are stating an opinion as a fact.

What does "shall not be infringed" mean to you?

How many times do I have to tell you, I'm not getting into it?

Yeah,I can see how you’d want to not have to defend such a position as you have adopted

There are plenty of threads where you can argue the constitutionality of gun control laws. What are your ideas for curtailing mass shootings in this country?

More armed people to confront the killers. Otherwise we turn the whole country into Bataclan night club where 130 people were killed and 352 injured by three men and not a single opposing weapon.

France is gun control and this is what happens.

 

[hunarcy]

It doesn't mention that anywhere in the Second Amendment ...
You are going to have to change the Constitution if you are going to try and make it mean something it doesn't already.

.

There are different interpretations of the 2nd Amendment and I'm not a constitutional scholar, so I'm not going to get into it with you. However, I certainly don't think that EVERYONE believes as you do that the 2nd is an automatic stop sign forbidding regulation on gun ownership. You are stating an opinion as a fact.

What does "shall not be infringed" mean to you?

How many times do I have to tell you, I'm not getting into it?

Yeah,I can see how you’d want to not have to defend such a position as you have adopted

There are plenty of threads where you can argue the constitutionality of gun control laws. What are your ideas for curtailing mass shootings in this country?

Deal effectively with the mentally ill. It is the only way to stop mass shooters

 

[TNHarley]

OldLady

Why in the world do you expect to have reasonable discussion when you dont even want to consider constitutional rights?

 

[BlackSand]

This wasn't intended to be just another gun thread. Do you have any ideas that might help curtail mass shootings in our country?

I am not sure about curtailing mass shootings ...
I mean I have ideas ... But they are more desire driven than possible to legislate.

The best I do have to offer is ... FASTER Saves Lives

It doesn't deal with stopping someone from attempting a mass shooting.
It is all about what to do when someone does.

Parts of it deal with staff training and armed resistance ...
But even if you don't use that part ... There is training for tactical critical combat care (TC3 - Military Grade).
That is important when first responders cannot attend to victims until a building is cleared.

Certainly not a perfect answer ... But something I would like to make available for those who want to pursue those measures.
Not to mention that the training is non profit and free to all institutions.





Edit and Important Side Note:
During the deadliest school shooting to date (Virginia Tech) ... The shooter only used 2 handguns.
He still shot 170 rounds ... Killing 33 and wounding 23.

.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Bag checks and car checks.....alrdy been over this ...libs wont agree though cause its not about safety to them its about disarmament

 

[usmbguest5318]

...
If it can fire dozens of bullets per minute into a crowd, we don't need it on the streets.

It doesn't mention that anywhere in the Second Amendment ...
You are going to have to change the Constitution if you are going to try and make it mean something it doesn't already.

.

There are different interpretations of the 2nd Amendment and I'm not a constitutional scholar, so I'm not going to get into it with you. However, I certainly don't think that EVERYONE believes as you do that the 2nd is an automatic stop sign forbidding regulation on gun ownership. You are stating an opinion as a fact.

What does "shall not be infringed" mean to you?

How many times do I have to tell you, I'm not getting into it?

Yeah,I can see how you’d want to not have to defend such a position as you have adopted

Wow! You really don't get that "shall not be infringed" is not among the debatable(-d) parts of the 2nd. Nobody but you thinks that is a part of the 2nd that's in dispute. Understanding that is why nobody with any sense is going to engage with you on what "shall not be infringed" means.

• History of the Second Amendment
• https://www.azcdl.org/Reynolds_ACriticalGuidetotheSecondAmendment.pdf
  
• The Embarrassing Second Amendment | Wilson Quarterly
  
• https://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2132&context=vulr
  
• https://amgoa.org/legal-reviews/Kates-Handgun-Prohib-And-Orig-Mng-of-2nd.pdf

Everything about the debate of guns and the 2nd comes down to the same thing much about the Constitution always has been: strict vs. broad constructionist interpretations.

 

[OldLady]

It doesn't mention that anywhere in the Second Amendment ...
You are going to have to change the Constitution if you are going to try and make it mean something it doesn't already.

.

There are different interpretations of the 2nd Amendment and I'm not a constitutional scholar, so I'm not going to get into it with you. However, I certainly don't think that EVERYONE believes as you do that the 2nd is an automatic stop sign forbidding regulation on gun ownership. You are stating an opinion as a fact.

What does "shall not be infringed" mean to you?

How many times do I have to tell you, I'm not getting into it?

Yeah,I can see how you’d want to not have to defend such a position as you have adopted

Wow! You really don't get that "shall not be infringed" is not among the debatable(-d) parts of the 2nd. Nobody but you think that is a part of the 2nd that's in dispute. Understanding that is why nobody with any sense is going to engage with you on what "shall not be infringed" means.

• History of the Second Amendment
• https://www.azcdl.org/Reynolds_ACriticalGuidetotheSecondAmendment.pdf
  
• The Embarrassing Second Amendment | Wilson Quarterly
  
• https://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2132&context=vulr
  
• https://amgoa.org/legal-reviews/Kates-Handgun-Prohib-And-Orig-Mng-of-2nd.pdf

Everything about the debate of guns and the 2nd comes down to the same thing much about the Constitution always has been: strict vs. broad constructionist interpretations.

I don't recall a lot of discussion about curbing gun rights until people started abusing the privilege of ownership and began shooting up the place. Someone had an excellent point yesterday--I don't remember if it was here or somewhere else, but....
50 years ago more people owned guns but there was less gun violence. Mass shootings were rare. What has changed in the past 50 years? Not the Constitution.

 

[hunarcy]

It doesn't mention that anywhere in the Second Amendment ...
You are going to have to change the Constitution if you are going to try and make it mean something it doesn't already.

.

There are different interpretations of the 2nd Amendment and I'm not a constitutional scholar, so I'm not going to get into it with you. However, I certainly don't think that EVERYONE believes as you do that the 2nd is an automatic stop sign forbidding regulation on gun ownership. You are stating an opinion as a fact.

What does "shall not be infringed" mean to you?

How many times do I have to tell you, I'm not getting into it?

Yeah,I can see how you’d want to not have to defend such a position as you have adopted

Wow! You really don't get that "shall not be infringed" is not among the debatable(-d) parts of the 2nd. Nobody but you thinks that is a part of the 2nd that's in dispute. Understanding that is why nobody with any sense is going to engage with you on what "shall not be infringed" means.

• History of the Second Amendment
• https://www.azcdl.org/Reynolds_ACriticalGuidetotheSecondAmendment.pdf
  
• The Embarrassing Second Amendment | Wilson Quarterly
  
• https://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2132&context=vulr
  
• https://amgoa.org/legal-reviews/Kates-Handgun-Prohib-And-Orig-Mng-of-2nd.pdf

Everything about the debate of guns and the 2nd comes down to the same thing much about the Constitution always has been: strict vs. broad constructionist interpretations.

As you apparently don’t have the reading comprehension of a second grader, I encourage you to not try to engage with me. I never said or I implied that “shall not be infringed” was debatable. So take your sermon and go annoy someone who doesn’t have you on ignore

 

[Old Rocks]

I would love to know what law would have stopped that kid from shooting up the school.

Two things. Real mental health intervention. A law that required someone to have a class 3 license before they could buy a weapon of war. For that is what the AR 15 is.

Had there been early intervention, that kid might not have wanted that gun at all. Had there been laws that required the extensive background checks for such weapons, he would not have been able to get the guns he had.

Now I have owned guns for over 60 years. And am proficient with both rifles and pistols, so don't go off on me concerning being a gun hater. But I am not willing to sacrifice any more children on the alter of the gun.