CDZ Do "liberals" really want to ban the AR-15 ?

[2aguy]

The pathos-driven warrant suggested by the OP, though quite macabre, could well work if combined with the rational appeals that have been tried to date. Rhetoric 101: make a strong rational argument and drive it home with an emotion inspiring warrant, but the warrant alone won't do the trick.

What's clear is that the rational approach alone hasn't worked; a more poignant solution is needed. Strangely, the video sequences showing several sanguinary survivors is insufficiently inspiring. Perhaps we can blame bloody video games and crime dramas for our cultural insouciance toward the reality of death by gunshot.

This is what gunshot violence looks like in video games, idealized art and television

(Boston Massacre)


​

This is what it actually looks like when people get shot:

I hope my friend 2AGUY is taking all of this in. And these are just the pictures of adults.

Yeah...that is the thing....we know that you anit gunners pray for these mass shootings and wade through the blood of the victims to drag their bodies in front of the camera...we get that....

See, mass shootings do not help the cause of the pro 2nd Amendment side.....when an armed citizen stops an attacker with a gun.....there are fewer dead, if any....and no pictures to go with that.....since most defensive gun use is accomplished without firing a shot....we don't have pictures to show....since the people saved by the good guy with the gun is still alive.....

In reality...what your pictures will show...is what happens when you disarm normal, law abiding people......the carnage that results...as we saw in this nightclub.....where time after time there were opportunities for a civilian with a gun to stop the shooter, if they had only had a gun themselves....

Those pictures are what you create....when you create gun free zones, and disarm normal people...

So you have to lie....and say that those pictures represent the good people owning guns...and it is a lie.....the entire anti gun movement is based on lies.....thanks for showing that.....and admitting it.

I don't have to lie when images can speak for my cause. You have interpreted the use of those images as an indictment of all gun owners. It is not. It is an indictment of the weapons that caused the carnage.

I do agree that "soft" targets like gun free zones and school yards are particularly vulnerable to this type of attack. But I don't think most school kids are going to be armed and ready to defend themselves. Some inner city schools might have such students but are you suggesting the child victims of Sandy Hook and Stockton should have had guns. Or maybe the teachers should be armed in every school. Is that the answer?

You mentioned the Florida massacre as an example of how vulnerable a gun free zone can be. But did you consider that in a barroom setting where alcohol is served it isn'a a good idea to have a bunch of inebriated people with guns in a crowded room? That is the scene at hand; but ,did you know there was a security guard present? I don't know if he/she was armed but the guard was the first one to die according to the Joe Madison talk show during an interview with survivors.

Good people owning guns? Are there any good people owning guns, especially assault rifle type guns? Jesus didn't carry a gun but none of us are like Him. I think liberals are closer than conservatives who love guns designed to assist in violating the Commandment that reads: THOU SHALT NOT KILL!

I do agree that "soft" targets like gun free zones and school yards are particularly vulnerable to this type of attack. But I don't think most school kids are going to be armed and ready to defend themselves. Some inner city schools might have such students but are you suggesting the child victims of Sandy Hook and Stockton should have had guns. Or maybe the teachers should be armed in every school. Is that the answer?


The Sandy Hook Shooter planned his attack for years.......both the middle school and the high school had armed security...do he chose the elementary school because he didn't want to be stopped by someone with a gun...

You mentioned the Florida massacre as an example of how vulnerable a gun free zone can be. But did you consider that in a barroom setting where alcohol is served it isn'a a good idea to have a bunch of inebriated people with guns in a crowded room? That is the scene at hand; but ,did you know there was a security guard present? I don't know if he/she was armed but the guard was the first one to die according to the Joe Madison talk show during an interview with survivors.

Virginia allowed concealed carry in bars last year...the bar crime rate went down 5.9%......just like people go to bars and drive.....and they don't drink because they are driving the car so everyone else can drink...why is it you guys can't think past that and realize gun owners at a bar don't have to drink when they are armed.....of course you know that you just pretend you don't...it defeats you false argument.....

And the security guard was an off duty police officer.....and how much good did he do for the 49 dead and 50 injured.......the entire time of the shooting the killer talked to 911 3 times, facebooked the entire encounter, called a journalist, and texted his wife.....as actual surviviors have shown in their statements....armed civilians in that club could have stopped that killer.......

You need to lie because you want guns banned...but it is obvious lives could have been saved by armed civilians........

 

[2aguy]

If they do, they haven't been serious about it. They have ignored one of the most convenient tools for getting that message across to the public. That tool is graphics. Before you protest consider this:


When I was in high school, we were shown graphic scenes of traffic accident fatalities in vivid color. Those imagers still haunt me to day, and definitely had an immediate effect on most of us. We didn't stop driving but most students didn't speed as much or drink and drive as much for weeks.

Also consider this: There are places where you could walk down a busy thoroughfare and see poster sized images of aborted fetuses in vivid color. Those images, undoubtedly caused a lot of public backlash against abortion and contributed greatly to the RW Pro-Life cause.

But we have been spared the images of the mangled bodies of children killed at Sandy Hook by weapons like the AR-15. The liberals have not been as aggressive as the conservatives have at getting depictions of carnage posted and published. Liberals, if you want to be taken seriously on banning weapons like the AR-15 post images of the massacred people in Florida and of Sandy Hook. Bring those images forth to dwell on the public conscience. Be as dogged in that quest as the RW zealots have been in theirs.

My view, as a Liberal, is that America is so messed up, changing laws slightly to ban or not ban isn't going to make much difference. So many things don't work properly, from democracy to education and beyond, that the US is going downhill and individual laws on insignificant things like this don't matter much any more.

I wouldn't be so quick to give up on America. Keep hope alive. Fight 'til the end. Anything worth loving is worth fighting for.. That goes for gun advocates as well as their opposition. May good sense and good moral judgement prevail in either case. Hail to the 2nd amendment!

The 2A is so abused as it is, people who claim it means a right to carry, for example, and they're trying to say it enough until it becomes true.

I'll leave that interpretation up to the Supreme Court. Whatever they say is the law of the land.! Americans on both sides of the issue just need to marshal their resources to get USSC justices elected who think as they do! May the best organized and people oriented side win!

And the Supreme Court has become so politicized it's ridiculous.

Yes....and the left started this with Bork...

 

[regent]

Why do so many liberals and others fear mass shootings? Killing people is the price we have pay to have guns.

 

[JQPublic1]

If they do, they haven't been serious about it. They have ignored one of the most convenient tools for getting that message across to the public. That tool is graphics. Before you protest consider this:


When I was in high school, we were shown graphic scenes of traffic accident fatalities in vivid color. Those imagers still haunt me to day, and definitely had an immediate effect on most of us. We didn't stop driving but most students didn't speed as much or drink and drive as much for weeks.

Also consider this: There are places where you could walk down a busy thoroughfare and see poster sized images of aborted fetuses in vivid color. Those images, undoubtedly caused a lot of public backlash against abortion and contributed greatly to the RW Pro-Life cause.

But we have been spared the images of the mangled bodies of children killed at Sandy Hook by weapons like the AR-15. The liberals have not been as aggressive as the conservatives have at getting depictions of carnage posted and published. Liberals, if you want to be taken seriously on banning weapons like the AR-15 post images of the massacred people in Florida and of Sandy Hook. Bring those images forth to dwell on the public conscience. Be as dogged in that quest as the RW zealots have been in theirs.

My view, as a Liberal, is that America is so messed up, changing laws slightly to ban or not ban isn't going to make much difference. So many things don't work properly, from democracy to education and beyond, that the US is going downhill and individual laws on insignificant things like this don't matter much any more.

I wouldn't be so quick to give up on America. Keep hope alive. Fight 'til the end. Anything worth loving is worth fighting for.. That goes for gun advocates as well as their opposition. May good sense and good moral judgement prevail in either case. Hail to the 2nd amendment!

The 2A is so abused as it is, people who claim it means a right to carry, for example, and they're trying to say it enough until it becomes true.

I'll leave that interpretation up to the Supreme Court. Whatever they say is the law of the land.! Americans on both sides of the issue just need to marshal their resources to get USSC justices elected who think as they do! May the best organized and people oriented side win!

And the Supreme Court has become so politicized it's ridiculous.

I thought that too until Justice Roberts sided with Obama on the PPACA.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Stop patting yourself on the back. So-called "leftists" have fought in all of our wars and have been overrepresented in our voluntary armed forces. < That is one of the biggest lies ever told. Every single last human knows that its mostly cons in the volunteer military. "Leftists" don't have to talk about their patriotism, they prove it with action by fighting for this country while a lot of RW sunshine patriots mouth the words but never serve. They never prove anything except their hate for the country Sorry but "Leftists" have contributed or supported America just as much or more than many on the right.. hate is not support

There is no "right" to own an AR-15 type rifle. Its the right to bear arms, therefore we have the right to an AR. Our elected officials make that determination based on public opinion and sentiments aroused by multiple mass shootings. WRONG, our rights are not up for debate.The NRA is the RW lobby organization but that voice is going to be less effective in legislative circles as the numbers of mass murders with AR-15 style rifles continue to rise.


JQPublic1

 

[JQPublic1]

Stop patting yourself on the back. So-called "leftists" have fought in all of our wars and have been overrepresented in our voluntary armed forces. < That is one of the biggest lies ever told. Every single last human knows that its mostly cons in the volunteer military. "Leftists" don't have to talk about their patriotism, they prove it with action by fighting for this country while a lot of RW sunshine patriots mouth the words but never serve. They never prove anything except their hate for the country Sorry but "Leftists" have contributed or supported America just as much or more than many on the right.. hate is not support

There is no "right" to own an AR-15 type rifle. Its the right to bear arms, therefore we have the right to an AR. Our elected officials make that determination based on public opinion and sentiments aroused by multiple mass shootings. WRONG, our rights are not up for debate.The NRA is the RW lobby organization but that voice is going to be less effective in legislative circles as the numbers of mass murders with AR-15 style rifles continue to rise.


JQPublic1

1. Black soldiers are overrepresented in the military. Are you saying they are conservatives? They certainly aren't "conservative" at the ballot box.

2. The hate for RW White male hegemony is not the same as hate for this country. Don't confuse the two.

3. The right to bear arms is not abrogated by banning AR-15 style rifles for civilian use as long as other weapons are accessible to the public. Banning ALL weapons would be a violation of the 2nd Amendment. BTW, I am ambivalent on the banning of assault style rifles since any determined person can find ways to acquire one despite the ban.There are people who legally own fully automatic weapons right now due to manufacturing date technicalities. and other legal loopholes.

4.Bottom line: I don't want to put my life or the lives of others in the hands of some "responsible" conservative "good guy." or anyone else for that matter just because they passed a background check. With the good ol' boy system still in place, there are people who pass background checks that shouldn't just because they know the Sheriff. However, Those RW "good guys" are killing each other in large numbers , especially in metropolitan counties. There might be significantly fewer homicides in that sector if the Australian ban model were to be applied.

 

[JQPublic1]

this thread is about using fear to undermine our Constitutional rights.

something a liberal would never do, but leftist do on a regular basis.

The NRA thanks you for lining their pockets. Because that's literally all you're doing.

I support the free market.
I support freedom
I support the Constitution


Why don't you?

Do you think more laws will stop the violence?

look up how many laws and bans on arms there already are, then ask yourself that again.

if you still think it's yes, there's no hope for you

I'd like to intervene here: Here is a report on the Australian ban:

"Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms: faster falls in firearm deaths, firearm suicides, and a decade without mass shootings

Background: After a 1996 firearm massacre in Tasmania in which 35 people died, Australian governments united to remove semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns and rifles from civilian possession, as a key component of gun law reforms.

Objective: To determine whether Australia’s 1996 major gun law reforms were associated with changes in rates of mass firearm homicides, total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides, and whether there were any apparent method substitution effects for total homicides and suicides.

Design: Observational study using official statistics. Negative binomial regression analysis of changes in firearm death rates and comparison of trends in pre–post gun law reform firearm-related mass killings. Setting: Australia, 1979–2003.

Main outcome measures: Changes in trends of total firearm death rates, mass fatal shooting incidents, rates of firearm homicide, suicide and unintentional firearm deaths, and of total homicides and suicides per 100 000 population.

Results: In the 18 years before the gun law reforms, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia, and none in the 10.5 years afterwards. Declines in firearm-related deaths before the law reforms accelerated after the reforms for total firearm deaths (p = 0.04), firearm suicides (p = 0.007) and firearm homicides (p = 0.15), but not for the smallest category of unintentional firearm deaths, which increased. No evidence of substitution effect for suicides or homicides was observed. The rates per 100 000 of total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides all at least doubled their existing rates of decline after the revised gun laws. Conclusions: Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms were followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides. Total homicide rates followed the same pattern. Removing large numbers of rapid-firing firearms from civilians may be an effective way of reducing mass shootings, firearm homicides and firearm suicides."

http://jeffsachs.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Australia-Gun-Law-Reforms.pdf

Australia is a big Island surrounded by water so getting weapons into the country is a little harder and easier to control than doing it here.

Also this country already had one assault weapon ban from 1994 to 2004 and mass shootings still occur within the U.S. borders and lone wolf terrorist attacks still happen but with bombs instead.

So you can not compare Australia to the U.S. because even though it can work on a Island does not mean it will work here in the States which is surrounded by two other countries and has a massive cartel problem that import illegal materials daily...

Actually, he can't even do that...they didn't have mass shootings before the confiscation...they had one big one and confiscated their guns........and they have had many shootings that would have been mass shootings but the guy with the gun, including muslim terrorists, didn't pull the trigger or he failed to kill enough people...check out my list and you will see, they had guns...they could have walked into schools, theater , malls, or public buildings...

And eventually that will happen...just like France..........

 

[JQPublic1]

If they do, they haven't been serious about it. They have ignored one of the most convenient tools for getting that message across to the public. That tool is graphics. Before you protest consider this:


When I was in high school, we were shown graphic scenes of traffic accident fatalities in vivid color. Those imagers still haunt me to day, and definitely had an immediate effect on most of us. We didn't stop driving but most students didn't speed as much or drink and drive as much for weeks.

Also consider this: There are places where you could walk down a busy thoroughfare and see poster sized images of aborted fetuses in vivid color. Those images, undoubtedly caused a lot of public backlash against abortion and contributed greatly to the RW Pro-Life cause.

But we have been spared the images of the mangled bodies of children killed at Sandy Hook by weapons like the AR-15. The liberals have not been as aggressive as the conservatives have at getting depictions of carnage posted and published. Liberals, if you want to be taken seriously on banning weapons like the AR-15 post images of the massacred people in Florida and of Sandy Hook. Bring those images forth to dwell on the public conscience. Be as dogged in that quest as the RW zealots have been in theirs.

You're correct and if the Progressive wanted to ban the AR-15 they would be working harder than waiting for the next lone wolf attack and praying it is the AR-15 or another semi-automatic weapon that kills scores of people.

Also let stop with the nonsense and admit that President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi failed the Progressive left on this issue. From 2009 to 2011 the Progressive Left had a House and Senate that could have passed another Assault Weapon Ban and did not, so why did they fail the Progressive Left?

Also why is it that President Obama waited until his own party lost the House to make their argument about having another Assault Weapon Ban?

Why wait until the GOP was in power of the House and now the Senate to push this agenda?

Simple, it is a wedge issue like immigration and he is using the Assault Weapon Ban to score political points with the hope the American people will forget his own Party did nothing when they had the chance to do something.

I am against anymore laws that will not do a damn thing and if President Obama had really cared about stopping those Semi-Automatic weapons like the AR-15 getting into the hands of criminals and terrorists then his own political party should have done something when they had the power to do something and not expect the opposition party to do their job for them...

When Obama became president none of the 10 massacres during his administration had taken place. Gun reform legislation was' not on his agenda until the body count of innocents started to rise precipitously. But he no longer had a majority democrat congress by then.

Excuses after excuses and Mass shootings have been going on forever...

So when the Assault Weapon Ban expired in 2004 why didn't the 2009 Congress introduce a new Assault Weapons Ban?

You can not say that because something did not happen at this point or that point is a true excuse when you already had the law on the books before, so why the failure?

The NRA lobby is doing a great job for gun advocates. You kow how"failures" coincide with RW corruption don't you1

 

[JQPublic1]

The NRA thanks you for lining their pockets. Because that's literally all you're doing.

I support the free market.
I support freedom
I support the Constitution


Why don't you?

Do you think more laws will stop the violence?

look up how many laws and bans on arms there already are, then ask yourself that again.

if you still think it's yes, there's no hope for you

I'd like to intervene here: Here is a report on the Australian ban:

"Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms: faster falls in firearm deaths, firearm suicides, and a decade without mass shootings

Background: After a 1996 firearm massacre in Tasmania in which 35 people died, Australian governments united to remove semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns and rifles from civilian possession, as a key component of gun law reforms.

Objective: To determine whether Australia’s 1996 major gun law reforms were associated with changes in rates of mass firearm homicides, total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides, and whether there were any apparent method substitution effects for total homicides and suicides.

Design: Observational study using official statistics. Negative binomial regression analysis of changes in firearm death rates and comparison of trends in pre–post gun law reform firearm-related mass killings. Setting: Australia, 1979–2003.

Main outcome measures: Changes in trends of total firearm death rates, mass fatal shooting incidents, rates of firearm homicide, suicide and unintentional firearm deaths, and of total homicides and suicides per 100 000 population.

Results: In the 18 years before the gun law reforms, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia, and none in the 10.5 years afterwards. Declines in firearm-related deaths before the law reforms accelerated after the reforms for total firearm deaths (p = 0.04), firearm suicides (p = 0.007) and firearm homicides (p = 0.15), but not for the smallest category of unintentional firearm deaths, which increased. No evidence of substitution effect for suicides or homicides was observed. The rates per 100 000 of total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides all at least doubled their existing rates of decline after the revised gun laws. Conclusions: Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms were followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides. Total homicide rates followed the same pattern. Removing large numbers of rapid-firing firearms from civilians may be an effective way of reducing mass shootings, firearm homicides and firearm suicides."

http://jeffsachs.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Australia-Gun-Law-Reforms.pdf

Yeah...not true...the Australians had few mass shootings before the ban......in fact they have had 3 since the ban....they just pretend they didn't happen

The suicide rate was falling and then stopped falling.....

And now there has been in an increase in gun crime in Australia....they don't report that in the U.S. and gun ownership levels are now back to where they were before the confiscation......

Sorry, but I'd like to see a link backing your assertions that Australia's ban on assault type rifles and pump shotguns has failed. And why would that knowledge be surpassed in the USA if it had? Fox News would be all over it!

I just listed just the shootings that could have been mass shootings if the shooter just decided to shoot more people.....every one of them was stopped....by the mass shooter.....

Good Luck is not how you measure the success of gun control laws.....and that is all Australia has....good luck.....gun crime is going up there...I have posted the links to the news articles from Australia on this numerous times....

Oh well, I guess Fox News never saw your links!!

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

You want graphics then lets be honest.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

 

[JQPublic1]

A killer armed with a 30 round magazine doesn't have to take his eyes off his targets until has fired 30 times. A 15 or 10 round magazine would take a second to extract and put another magazine in; and then he would have to re- aim his weapon at moving targets. BTW no 30 round magazines were used in this demonstration that I saw but I couldn't watch the whole thing because my computer kept loading the video sporadically. I am still not convinced that a 5 or 10 round magazine is as efficient as a 30 round magazine for committing mass murder.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

They do.

They cannot present a sound argument as to why; all of their arguments to that effect are rooted in fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

No "sound" argument is needed if pictures of assault type rifle victims are dis[played as vividly as those displayed by abortion protestors or the gory scenes of traffic fatalities shown in high school driver's ed classes.

After you ban firearms that you consider 'assault rifles' because of the victims pictures I'm sure that next you could display pictures of victims of 30-06 or 30-03 rifles, which are not considered by such as you as assault rifles, so you can have them banned next.

The logic of this argument is inane and full of holes.

While in turn you can not even remain civil over the concept of limiting all government officials who are not military to the same level of firearms you demand that all private citizens be limited too.

Here's a novel concept... Enforce the existing laws with maximum punishments.

*****SMILE*****

 

[regent]

After reading a number of these posts I'm beginning to believe that a gun was not involved in the Orlando killing. Perhaps it was poison gas or some type of deadly flypaper, but, no guns seem to have been involved.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

.....Good people owning guns? Are there any good people owning guns, especially assault rifle type guns? Jesus didn't carry a gun but none of us are like Him. I think liberals are closer than conservatives who love guns designed to assist in violating the Commandment that reads: THOU SHALT NOT KILL!

​

So now you're suggesting that good people can't own guns?

Looks like you're also suggesting that only Christians can be good people.

Sounds like a lot of discrimination on your part to me especially since I don't consider myself Christian.

So does this mean in your eyes I'm going to go to Hell because I not only have firearms but don't follow your Christian values and therefore am a bad person?

You do like tying yourself up in knots don't you?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

1. Black soldiers are overrepresented in the military. Are you saying they are conservatives? They certainly aren't "conservative" at the ballot box.

So now you're saying that all black people are progressive liberals?.... I seriously doubt that.

2. The hate for RW White male hegemony is not the same as hate for this country. Don't confuse the two.

The only hate I'm seeing is your constant hate for RW white males. You appear to have a lot of it.

3. The right to bear arms is not abrogated by banning AR-15 style rifles for civilian use as long as other weapons are accessible to the public. Banning ALL weapons would be a violation of the 2nd Amendment. BTW, I am ambivalent on the banning of assault style rifles since any determined person can find ways to acquire one despite the ban.There are people who legally own fully automatic weapons right now due to manufacturing date technicalities. and other legal loopholes.

If you want to go this route then all people that work in law enforcement and security both public and private, who are not military, should be held to the same standards.

So that would mean those SWAT guys are going to have to give up their assault type weapons also right?

4.Bottom line: I don't want to put my life or the lives of others in the hands of some "responsible" conservative "good guy." or anyone else for that matter just because they passed a background check. With the good ol' boy system still in place, there are people who pass background checks that shouldn't just because they know the Sheriff. However, Those RW "good guys" are killing each other in large numbers , especially in metropolitan counties. There might be significantly fewer homicides in that sector if the Australian ban model were to be applied.

So if the local police force or sheriffs department are all a bunch of conservatives aren't you already putting your life in in the hands of some 'responsible' conservative 'good guy' who happened to pass a background check?

Looks like you just can't make up your mind on this... Perhaps you should move to Harlem, South Chicago, or some other place like that to be out of the reach of those kind of guys so you can be 'safe' from all those RW conservative white males.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

A killer armed with a 30 round magazine doesn't have to take his eyes off his targets until has fired 30 times. A 15 or 10 round magazine would take a second to extract and put another magazine in; and then he would have to re- aim his weapon at moving targets. BTW no 30 round magazines were used in this demonstration that I saw but I couldn't watch the whole thing because my computer kept loading the video sporadically. I am still not convinced that a 5 or 10 round magazine is as efficient as a 30 round magazine for committing mass murder.

What makes you think a guy that is familiar with the firearm needs to take his eyes of his targets to reload his firearm?

Your ignorance in the use of firearms is telling.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Two Thumbs]

If they do, they haven't been serious about it. They have ignored one of the most convenient tools for getting that message across to the public. That tool is graphics. Before you protest consider this:


When I was in high school, we were shown graphic scenes of traffic accident fatalities in vivid color. Those imagers still haunt me to day, and definitely had an immediate effect on most of us. We didn't stop driving but most students didn't speed as much or drink and drive as much for weeks.

Also consider this: There are places where you could walk down a busy thoroughfare and see poster sized images of aborted fetuses in vivid color. Those images, undoubtedly caused a lot of public backlash against abortion and contributed greatly to the RW Pro-Life cause.

But we have been spared the images of the mangled bodies of children killed at Sandy Hook by weapons like the AR-15. The liberals have not been as aggressive as the conservatives have at getting depictions of carnage posted and published. Liberals, if you want to be taken seriously on banning weapons like the AR-15 post images of the massacred people in Florida and of Sandy Hook. Bring those images forth to dwell on the public conscience. Be as dogged in that quest as the RW zealots have been in theirs.

You're correct and if the Progressive wanted to ban the AR-15 they would be working harder than waiting for the next lone wolf attack and praying it is the AR-15 or another semi-automatic weapon that kills scores of people.

Also let stop with the nonsense and admit that President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi failed the Progressive left on this issue. From 2009 to 2011 the Progressive Left had a House and Senate that could have passed another Assault Weapon Ban and did not, so why did they fail the Progressive Left?

Also why is it that President Obama waited until his own party lost the House to make their argument about having another Assault Weapon Ban?

Why wait until the GOP was in power of the House and now the Senate to push this agenda?

Simple, it is a wedge issue like immigration and he is using the Assault Weapon Ban to score political points with the hope the American people will forget his own Party did nothing when they had the chance to do something.

I am against anymore laws that will not do a damn thing and if President Obama had really cared about stopping those Semi-Automatic weapons like the AR-15 getting into the hands of criminals and terrorists then his own political party should have done something when they had the power to do something and not expect the opposition party to do their job for them...

When Obama became president none of the 10 massacres during his administration had taken place. Gun reform legislation was' not on his agenda until the body count of innocents started to rise precipitously. But he no longer had a majority democrat congress by then.

Excuses after excuses and Mass shootings have been going on forever...

So when the Assault Weapon Ban expired in 2004 why didn't the 2009 Congress introduce a new Assault Weapons Ban?

You can not say that because something did not happen at this point or that point is a true excuse when you already had the law on the books before, so why the failure?

The NRA lobby is doing a great job for gun advocates. You kow how"failures" coincide with RW corruption don't you1

Military No Longer Republican Bastion

Demographics of Active Duty U.S. Military – Statistic Brain

Being as XXXX as you are should hurt, a lot.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I'm done with this thread jq is just another socialist poser that has no grasp on reality.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

A killer armed with a 30 round magazine doesn't have to take his eyes off his targets until has fired 30 times. A 15 or 10 round magazine would take a second to extract and put another magazine in; and then he would have to re- aim his weapon at moving targets. BTW no 30 round magazines were used in this demonstration that I saw but I couldn't watch the whole thing because my computer kept loading the video sporadically. I am still not convinced that a 5 or 10 round magazine is as efficient as a 30 round magazine for committing mass murder.

This wasn't about efficiency. The video demonstrates that there is no significant time lag time in firing rounds when a shooter has to reload because of lower capacity magazines. They even demonstrate a person being rushed while reloading starting at 25 feet the person never gets closer than 5 feet before the shooter continues to fire.