Colorado judge strikes down AR-15 ban, and over 10 round magazine ban....good.

[Ray From Cleveland]

I am not placing you on ignore because you do make some sense. Okay, not a lot of it, but some. I am not wanting to ban the AR. But I am in favor of regulating it to make it not be the weapon of choice for the New Body Count Record Holder in the Schools, Movies and such. That got old fast, real fast. To date, the record was set in Nevada. And something as simple as requiring the use of 15 round mags would have slowed things down a bit. I am not after stopping the shootings (not going to happen)_ but I am after reducing the body count and putting a big dent in the Cult Status. If reducing the number of rounds per mag does it (and it obviously has) then that's a good thing.

I also don't ding States, Counties and Cities that pass their own regulations to make their citizens feel safer. I do condemn the state next to them that won't and export all the nasties to the ones that have when it's found that this is a huge problem (i.e. Illinois v Indiana). And this one isn't about just the AR, it's about ALL firearms.

Of course, Kansas has a lot of nerve complaining that people are going right across the border and legally buying MJ when they same thing is happening with the 30 round mags purchased in Kansas. But Stoners rarely are mass shooters because they just don't care.....what was I saying again?

Okay, so let's go through this:

What you are saying is that we implement some sort of firearm ban, in this case, a limited magazine. Upon this law being passed, and millions of Americans who don't comply now being criminals upon the discovery, arrest, and conviction for having a 15 round magazine, it's worth it because it's better if a maniac kills only 49 students in a school shooting instead of 50? Because after all, I posted a video (if you bothered to watch it) how effortlessly a magazine can be changed. In other words, it wouldn't make any difference in the world.

Even if you are satisfied with only 49 students getting killed instead of 50, do you think your party would share your same satisfaction, and stop pushing for more restrictions?

 

[2aguy]

And packing a M-16 for days on end tells me exactly what the AR was intended for. Not oncew have any of you countered the fact that the design and construction of the AR is for wholesale killing people. You gunnutters are going in my ignore file where you belong. Just like you are for most of America.

That makes no sense. How is the AR intended to kill people? Looking at it that way, all guns are intended for killing people. The AR is no different than any firearm whereas if you use it for evil means, it will kill people.

This is one of the points I think all of us are making here. Outlaw or ban ARs/ AK's. Kooks will turn to an alternative weapon for mass shootings. Then we ban those brands. So they move to another model, and we ban those as well. It keeps going down the list until just about everything but a revolver is banned in the US.

You can debate us all you like, but we pro-gunners know where this is going and where the anti-gunners are hoping it ends up. That's why we need to stop it here and now.

I am not placing you on ignore because you do make some sense. Okay, not a lot of it, but some. I am not wanting to ban the AR. But I am in favor of regulating it to make it not be the weapon of choice for the New Body Count Record Holder in the Schools, Movies and such. That got old fast, real fast. To date, the record was set in Nevada. And something as simple as requiring the use of 15 round mags would have slowed things down a bit. I am not after stopping the shootings (not going to happen)_ but I am after reducing the body count and putting a big dent in the Cult Status. If reducing the number of rounds per mag does it (and it obviously has) then that's a good thing.

I also don't ding States, Counties and Cities that pass their own regulations to make their citizens feel safer. I do condemn the state next to them that won't and export all the nasties to the ones that have when it's found that this is a huge problem (i.e. Illinois v Indiana). And this one isn't about just the AR, it's about ALL firearms.

Of course, Kansas has a lot of nerve complaining that people are going right across the border and legally buying MJ when they same thing is happening with the 30 round mags purchased in Kansas. But Stoners rarely are mass shooters because they just don't care.....what was I saying again?

You are a moron. The shooter in Vegas was firing from hundreds of yards away from a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night, from a concealed and elevated position. This is the only mass public shooting where the AR-15 had an advantage because of the long range shooting involved.....and, dipstick......if he had 10 round magazines, it wouldn't have mattered since he was in a secure room where he could have had them stacked up to the roof and changed them out easily...

You don't know what you are talking about, you are either a troll or a useful idiot for the anti-gun extremists..

There isn't one mass public shooting where the AR-15 gave the shooter an advantage over a semi-automatic pistol, rifle or shotgun of another type........you don't know what you are talking about.

And that crap about "regulating" the AR-15 to make them safer is just B.S. in an attempt to make your crap sound reasonable.......

 

[westwall]

And packing a M-16 for days on end tells me exactly what the AR was intended for. Not oncew have any of you countered the fact that the design and construction of the AR is for wholesale killing people. You gunnutters are going in my ignore file where you belong. Just like you are for most of America.

That makes no sense. How is the AR intended to kill people? Looking at it that way, all guns are intended for killing people. The AR is no different than any firearm whereas if you use it for evil means, it will kill people.

This is one of the points I think all of us are making here. Outlaw or ban ARs/ AK's. Kooks will turn to an alternative weapon for mass shootings. Then we ban those brands. So they move to another model, and we ban those as well. It keeps going down the list until just about everything but a revolver is banned in the US.

You can debate us all you like, but we pro-gunners know where this is going and where the anti-gunners are hoping it ends up. That's why we need to stop it here and now.

I am not placing you on ignore because you do make some sense. Okay, not a lot of it, but some. I am not wanting to ban the AR. But I am in favor of regulating it to make it not be the weapon of choice for the New Body Count Record Holder in the Schools, Movies and such. That got old fast, real fast. To date, the record was set in Nevada. And something as simple as requiring the use of 15 round mags would have slowed things down a bit. I am not after stopping the shootings (not going to happen)_ but I am after reducing the body count and putting a big dent in the Cult Status. If reducing the number of rounds per mag does it (and it obviously has) then that's a good thing.

I also don't ding States, Counties and Cities that pass their own regulations to make their citizens feel safer. I do condemn the state next to them that won't and export all the nasties to the ones that have when it's found that this is a huge problem (i.e. Illinois v Indiana). And this one isn't about just the AR, it's about ALL firearms.

Of course, Kansas has a lot of nerve complaining that people are going right across the border and legally buying MJ when they same thing is happening with the 30 round mags purchased in Kansas. But Stoners rarely are mass shooters because they just don't care.....what was I saying again?

You are a moron. The shooter in Vegas was firing from hundreds of yards away from a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night, from a concealed and elevated position. This is the only mass public shooting where the AR-15 had an advantage because of the long range shooting involved.....and, dipstick......if he had 10 round magazines, it wouldn't have mattered since he was in a secure room where he could have had them stacked up to the roof and changed them out easily...

You don't know what you are talking about, you are either a troll or a useful idiot for the anti-gun extremists..

There isn't one mass public shooting where the AR-15 gave the shooter an advantage over a semi-automatic pistol, rifle or shotgun of another type........you don't know what you are talking about.

And that crap about "regulating" the AR-15 to make them safer is just B.S. in an attempt to make your crap sound reasonable.......

He's a lying troll sock. I already proved he doesn't know anything about the subject. He claimed to have been a gun dealer, but couldn't name the license needed. The moron even called it an NFL.

 

[Vrenn]

I am not placing you on ignore because you do make some sense. Okay, not a lot of it, but some. I am not wanting to ban the AR. But I am in favor of regulating it to make it not be the weapon of choice for the New Body Count Record Holder in the Schools, Movies and such. That got old fast, real fast. To date, the record was set in Nevada. And something as simple as requiring the use of 15 round mags would have slowed things down a bit. I am not after stopping the shootings (not going to happen)_ but I am after reducing the body count and putting a big dent in the Cult Status. If reducing the number of rounds per mag does it (and it obviously has) then that's a good thing.

I also don't ding States, Counties and Cities that pass their own regulations to make their citizens feel safer. I do condemn the state next to them that won't and export all the nasties to the ones that have when it's found that this is a huge problem (i.e. Illinois v Indiana). And this one isn't about just the AR, it's about ALL firearms.

Of course, Kansas has a lot of nerve complaining that people are going right across the border and legally buying MJ when they same thing is happening with the 30 round mags purchased in Kansas. But Stoners rarely are mass shooters because they just don't care.....what was I saying again?

Okay, so let's go through this:

What you are saying is that we implement some sort of firearm ban, in this case, a limited magazine. Upon this law being passed, and millions of Americans who don't comply now being criminals upon the discovery, arrest, and conviction for having a 15 round magazine, it's worth it because it's better if a maniac kills only 49 students in a school shooting instead of 50? Because after all, I posted a video (if you bothered to watch it) how effortlessly a magazine can be changed. In other words, it wouldn't make any difference in the world.

Even if you are satisfied with only 49 students getting killed instead of 50, do you think your party would share your same satisfaction, and stop pushing for more restrictions?

You keep talking about banning. I haven't said a thing about it. This is just one more "Routine" that you gunnutters have that you try and instill fear and awe into other gun owners. Talk to me about regulation.

As for the dead body count, it started out with pistols and 9mm semi auto rifles. Got a pretty good body count. But it switched to 30+ round mags (lots of them) and the AR and the new body count was established. There is no way that one person can get over 50 dead and over 400 wounded with hand guns. But, obviously, it can (and has been) done using ARs. The common fruitcake with mass shooting on his mind might get 9 or 10 (20 on a good day) and wound not many more than that before he's brought down using a handgun or standard semi auto rifle. But that same shooter can use an AR with a 30+ mag (4 or them) and easily bag 40. and wound over 100. Common sense says, limit the mag size to 15 and you halve the dead body count in half.

Actually, the majority of the Population agrees with me at 57% for stricter firearms regulations. It's even supported by 31% of the Republicans. https://www.npr.org/2019/10/20/771278167/poll-number-of-americans-who-favor-stricter-gun-laws-continues-to-grow

Share of Americans who favor stricter gun laws has increased since 2017Poll: 90% of Registered Voters Want Firearms Background Checks

Americans underestimate public support for key gun policies

There is a lot more out there. Either you work with us or you might lose a hell of a lot more than you think. If for one second the politicos believe you are unhinged, they may swing way to far to the fringe. And it would take decades to swing it back. Work to get common sense gun regulations where you don't have to turn your gun in or even register it nor have a license to own it in most states. Or you can keep going like you are and ALA California.

 

[woodwork201]

I am not placing you on ignore because you do make some sense. Okay, not a lot of it, but some. I am not wanting to ban the AR. But I am in favor of regulating it to make it not be the weapon of choice for the New Body Count Record Holder in the Schools, Movies and such. That got old fast, real fast. To date, the record was set in Nevada. And something as simple as requiring the use of 15 round mags would have slowed things down a bit. I am not after stopping the shootings (not going to happen)_ but I am after reducing the body count and putting a big dent in the Cult Status. If reducing the number of rounds per mag does it (and it obviously has) then that's a good thing.

I also don't ding States, Counties and Cities that pass their own regulations to make their citizens feel safer. I do condemn the state next to them that won't and export all the nasties to the ones that have when it's found that this is a huge problem (i.e. Illinois v Indiana). And this one isn't about just the AR, it's about ALL firearms.

Of course, Kansas has a lot of nerve complaining that people are going right across the border and legally buying MJ when they same thing is happening with the 30 round mags purchased in Kansas. But Stoners rarely are mass shooters because they just don't care.....what was I saying again?

Okay, so let's go through this:

What you are saying is that we implement some sort of firearm ban, in this case, a limited magazine. Upon this law being passed, and millions of Americans who don't comply now being criminals upon the discovery, arrest, and conviction for having a 15 round magazine, it's worth it because it's better if a maniac kills only 49 students in a school shooting instead of 50? Because after all, I posted a video (if you bothered to watch it) how effortlessly a magazine can be changed. In other words, it wouldn't make any difference in the world.

Even if you are satisfied with only 49 students getting killed instead of 50, do you think your party would share your same satisfaction, and stop pushing for more restrictions?

You keep talking about banning. I haven't said a thing about it. This is just one more "Routine" that you gunnutters have that you try and instill fear and awe into other gun owners. Talk to me about regulation.

As for the dead body count, it started out with pistols and 9mm semi auto rifles. Got a pretty good body count. But it switched to 30+ round mags (lots of them) and the AR and the new body count was established. There is no way that one person can get over 50 dead and over 400 wounded with hand guns. But, obviously, it can (and has been) done using ARs. The common fruitcake with mass shooting on his mind might get 9 or 10 (20 on a good day) and wound not many more than that before he's brought down using a handgun or standard semi auto rifle. But that same shooter can use an AR with a 30+ mag (4 or them) and easily bag 40. and wound over 100. Common sense says, limit the mag size to 15 and you halve the dead body count in half.

Actually, the majority of the Population agrees with me at 57% for stricter firearms regulations. It's even supported by 31% of the Republicans. https://www.npr.org/2019/10/20/771278167/poll-number-of-americans-who-favor-stricter-gun-laws-continues-to-grow

Share of Americans who favor stricter gun laws has increased since 2017Poll: 90% of Registered Voters Want Firearms Background Checks

Americans underestimate public support for key gun policies

There is a lot more out there. Either you work with us or you might lose a hell of a lot more than you think. If for one second the politicos believe you are unhinged, they may swing way to far to the fringe. And it would take decades to swing it back. Work to get common sense gun regulations where you don't have to turn your gun in or even register it nor have a license to own it in most states. Or you can keep going like you are and ALA California.

Your logic is very flawed. Cutting magazine capacity in half does not equate to cutting body count in half. That's a ludicrous statement. It simply means that the shooter must change mags more often - a task that takes less than 2 seconds.

The beauty of being a constitutional republic instead of a democracy is that the majority doesn't get to vote to take the rights away from the minority. Polls don't mean crap. What it takes to change the rules is two-thirds of both houses of Congress and then greater than 50% of the legislators in three-quarters of the states to ratify a change to the Constitution.

 

[freyasman]

Please explain why this is so important to you to have an AR-15. We had guns in the house in leather locked bags and we shot them. I even pulled the trigger when my father sighted. He taught me to never pull a gun on any living being. I violated this teaching once, in Castroville, Texas, when I was 12 and practicing with my aunt's pistol. I shot at a spider on the back of the garage.

Explain yourself and why you would need an assault weapon.

The AR-15 is not an "Assault" weapon, it is just a common semi-automatic rifle.....so your premise is a lie from the start.

The AR-15 is a great civilian and police rifle, easy to clean and maintain, it can be equipped with accessories that help people shoot it, from lasers to lights, it is customizable for different sized people, including the ability for different sized people in the same home to use it easily with adjustable stocks. It is easy to shoot for smaller people, unlike 12 gauge shot guns, it is lightweight which makes it good for home defense where you might have to hold it one handed while calling the police on your phone.............

The AR-15 is a really good rifle for civilians...for all of those reasons....and it is nothing more than a regular rifle....

The only reason you shitheads are demonizing the outside look of this rifle is that you figure if you can ban the AR-15, which is just a semi-automatic rifle no different from any other semi-automatic rifle.....that then gives you the ability to go to uninformed people and say......"See....you let us ban this rifle because we made you think it was different and more dangerous.......all the other semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns work the exact same way, so now we are going to ban those too...and you can't say anything since you let us ban the AR-15 which is the same as those other weapons."

We know who you are, we know what you want.........and we are going to fight you every step of the way.

Fine. Fight it through legislation the way it should be done in the first place. But the problem with the AR was that it reached cult status and no mass shooter, today, leaves home dressed any other way. It just wouldn't be proper.

And the AR is still a Model 6XX no matter how you spell it. You can call it the Colt Model 6920 or the Colt Model 750 (out of production) or you can piece on together from after market parts. In the end, it's still part of the Colt Model 6XX Family. It's not designed with hunting for food. It's was designed from the ground up to kill other humans. Not one part has any other use. And there is no way you can give it the drop dead looks of a fine Hunting Rifle.

So your opposition is IT LOOKS SCARY.

Run along, Fudd.

No. You are just using the same tired rhetoric that you have used over and over and have failed with. The fact still remains that not one ounce of the AR was designed for anything other than to kill people as quickly and efficiently as possible in inexperienced hands.

You can kill people with a .22 Derringer. You can kill people with a Barrett .50 sniper rifle.

News flash: You can kill people with any firearm, including the hunting rifles you seem to not realize are firearms.

Homework: Tell me the differences between an AR-15 and the popular Ruger Mini-14 hunting rifle.

I would be happy if one of these stupid Moon Bats could tell me how my firearms are a threat to them or how taking my AR 15s away or my magazines will make them safer.

They want to bully you, maybe to death, and they don't want to get shot for it.

That simple.

 

[freyasman]

And packing a M-16 for days on end tells me exactly what the AR was intended for. Not oncew have any of you countered the fact that the design and construction of the AR is for wholesale killing people. You gunnutters are going in my ignore file where you belong. Just like you are for most of America.

That makes no sense. How is the AR intended to kill people? Looking at it that way, all guns are intended for killing people. The AR is no different than any firearm whereas if you use it for evil means, it will kill people.

This is one of the points I think all of us are making here. Outlaw or ban ARs/ AK's. Kooks will turn to an alternative weapon for mass shootings. Then we ban those brands. So they move to another model, and we ban those as well. It keeps going down the list until just about everything but a revolver is banned in the US.

You can debate us all you like, but we pro-gunners know where this is going and where the anti-gunners are hoping it ends up. That's why we need to stop it here and now.

I am not placing you on ignore because you do make some sense. Okay, not a lot of it, but some. I am not wanting to ban the AR. But I am in favor of regulating it to make it not be the weapon of choice for the New Body Count Record Holder in the Schools, Movies and such. That got old fast, real fast. To date, the record was set in Nevada. And something as simple as requiring the use of 15 round mags would have slowed things down a bit. I am not after stopping the shootings (not going to happen)_ but I am after reducing the body count and putting a big dent in the Cult Status. If reducing the number of rounds per mag does it (and it obviously has) then that's a good thing.

I also don't ding States, Counties and Cities that pass their own regulations to make their citizens feel safer. I do condemn the state next to them that won't and export all the nasties to the ones that have when it's found that this is a huge problem (i.e. Illinois v Indiana). And this one isn't about just the AR, it's about ALL firearms.

Of course, Kansas has a lot of nerve complaining that people are going right across the border and legally buying MJ when they same thing is happening with the 30 round mags purchased in Kansas. But Stoners rarely are mass shooters because they just don't care.....what was I saying again?

In other words, you want to tell other people what they can and cannot do, and you're mightily pissed off that all those people are telling you to **** right off, you nosy little ******* busybody.






You're the problem.

Now **** off, you nosy little ******* busybody.

 

[freyasman]

Please explain why this is so important to you to have an AR-15. We had guns in the house in leather locked bags and we shot them. I even pulled the trigger when my father sighted. He taught me to never pull a gun on any living being. I violated this teaching once, in Castroville, Texas, when I was 12 and practicing with my aunt's pistol. I shot at a spider on the back of the garage.

Explain yourself and why you would need an assault weapon.

The AR-15 is not an "Assault" weapon, it is just a common semi-automatic rifle.....so your premise is a lie from the start.

The AR-15 is a great civilian and police rifle, easy to clean and maintain, it can be equipped with accessories that help people shoot it, from lasers to lights, it is customizable for different sized people, including the ability for different sized people in the same home to use it easily with adjustable stocks. It is easy to shoot for smaller people, unlike 12 gauge shot guns, it is lightweight which makes it good for home defense where you might have to hold it one handed while calling the police on your phone.............

The AR-15 is a really good rifle for civilians...for all of those reasons....and it is nothing more than a regular rifle....

The only reason you shitheads are demonizing the outside look of this rifle is that you figure if you can ban the AR-15, which is just a semi-automatic rifle no different from any other semi-automatic rifle.....that then gives you the ability to go to uninformed people and say......"See....you let us ban this rifle because we made you think it was different and more dangerous.......all the other semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns work the exact same way, so now we are going to ban those too...and you can't say anything since you let us ban the AR-15 which is the same as those other weapons."

We know who you are, we know what you want.........and we are going to fight you every step of the way.

Fine. Fight it through legislation the way it should be done in the first place. But the problem with the AR was that it reached cult status and no mass shooter, today, leaves home dressed any other way. It just wouldn't be proper.

And the AR is still a Model 6XX no matter how you spell it. You can call it the Colt Model 6920 or the Colt Model 750 (out of production) or you can piece on together from after market parts. In the end, it's still part of the Colt Model 6XX Family. It's not designed with hunting for food. It's was designed from the ground up to kill other humans. Not one part has any other use. And there is no way you can give it the drop dead looks of a fine Hunting Rifle.

So your opposition is IT LOOKS SCARY.

Run along, Fudd.

No. You are just using the same tired rhetoric that you have used over and over and have failed with. The fact still remains that not one ounce of the AR was designed for anything other than to kill people as quickly and efficiently as possible in inexperienced hands.

Actually, the 5.56mm round wasn't designed to kill people, it was designed to INJURE them. If you kill a soldier on the battlefield, you take one person out of the force equation, if you wound one person, you take at least three people (the injured person plus at least two people caring for him) out of the force equation. If you want a round designed to kill people, look no further than the .45 ACP shot by the M1911 pistol. It was specifically designed for one shot stopping power by the US Army when the then standard .38 round took multiple hits to stop charging Morro guerillas.

Actually, the 45ACP rarely kills in one shot. It has a tremendous shot value and drops the recipient. Normally, if you get them proper care, they will live from one shot. But you may have to punch 16 holes with a 9mm or 6 holes with a 38spc to get the same initial effect and very few people make it to the emergency room under those conditions.

You believe some weird shit, guy.

 

[freyasman]

Yeah, have to agree with this meme

The want to disarm women making them easy prey.......and they also support huge transgender "men" posing as women in sports killing sports for real women.

Ya know....why does the Left have this raging hatred for women ?

Because only the fugliest and most fucked up ones will give them any.

Any woman with her shit halfway together doesn't want any part of those limp-dicks.

 

[freyasman]

I am not placing you on ignore because you do make some sense. Okay, not a lot of it, but some. I am not wanting to ban the AR. But I am in favor of regulating it to make it not be the weapon of choice for the New Body Count Record Holder in the Schools, Movies and such. That got old fast, real fast. To date, the record was set in Nevada. And something as simple as requiring the use of 15 round mags would have slowed things down a bit. I am not after stopping the shootings (not going to happen)_ but I am after reducing the body count and putting a big dent in the Cult Status. If reducing the number of rounds per mag does it (and it obviously has) then that's a good thing.

I also don't ding States, Counties and Cities that pass their own regulations to make their citizens feel safer. I do condemn the state next to them that won't and export all the nasties to the ones that have when it's found that this is a huge problem (i.e. Illinois v Indiana). And this one isn't about just the AR, it's about ALL firearms.

Of course, Kansas has a lot of nerve complaining that people are going right across the border and legally buying MJ when they same thing is happening with the 30 round mags purchased in Kansas. But Stoners rarely are mass shooters because they just don't care.....what was I saying again?

Okay, so let's go through this:

What you are saying is that we implement some sort of firearm ban, in this case, a limited magazine. Upon this law being passed, and millions of Americans who don't comply now being criminals upon the discovery, arrest, and conviction for having a 15 round magazine, it's worth it because it's better if a maniac kills only 49 students in a school shooting instead of 50? Because after all, I posted a video (if you bothered to watch it) how effortlessly a magazine can be changed. In other words, it wouldn't make any difference in the world.

Even if you are satisfied with only 49 students getting killed instead of 50, do you think your party would share your same satisfaction, and stop pushing for more restrictions?

You keep talking about banning. I haven't said a thing about it. This is just one more "Routine" that you gunnutters have that you try and instill fear and awe into other gun owners. Talk to me about regulation.

As for the dead body count, it started out with pistols and 9mm semi auto rifles. Got a pretty good body count. But it switched to 30+ round mags (lots of them) and the AR and the new body count was established. There is no way that one person can get over 50 dead and over 400 wounded with hand guns. But, obviously, it can (and has been) done using ARs. The common fruitcake with mass shooting on his mind might get 9 or 10 (20 on a good day) and wound not many more than that before he's brought down using a handgun or standard semi auto rifle. But that same shooter can use an AR with a 30+ mag (4 or them) and easily bag 40. and wound over 100. Common sense says, limit the mag size to 15 and you halve the dead body count in half.

Actually, the majority of the Population agrees with me at 57% for stricter firearms regulations. It's even supported by 31% of the Republicans. https://www.npr.org/2019/10/20/771278167/poll-number-of-americans-who-favor-stricter-gun-laws-continues-to-grow

Share of Americans who favor stricter gun laws has increased since 2017Poll: 90% of Registered Voters Want Firearms Background Checks

Americans underestimate public support for key gun policies

There is a lot more out there. Either you work with us or you might lose a hell of a lot more than you think. If for one second the politicos believe you are unhinged, they may swing way to far to the fringe. And it would take decades to swing it back. Work to get common sense gun regulations where you don't have to turn your gun in or even register it nor have a license to own it in most states. Or you can keep going like you are and ALA California.

3dprintergobrrr – Agoristics



LOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

[SavannahMann]

Thank you for verifying that I am correct about the AR Cult being real. But the Sane have all but removed the cult. We don't have to ban the weapon, just regulate it enough that the Cult dies off. What a shock to your system.

No, what we really need to do is way up the penalties for using a firearm in the commission of a crime. 25 years minimum for armed robbery using a gun is a nice place to start. All premeditated murders using a gun an instant death penalty is another. 10 years minimum for felon carrying a concealed weapon.

This is what we need to do. But the Democrats are not going after the bad guys with a gun, they are going after the good guys with a gun instead.

There is oonly a fraction of a second between a law abiding citizen with a gun and a criminal with a gun. And that is what "Regulation" is all about.

Good gosh you are full of shit. There is an enormous gulf between a good guy with a gun, and a criminal. If there weren't all of you idiots would have been killed long ago, along with all the other Americans out there.

There are more guns than people, you moronic twit. Guns aren't the problem. Never have been. It's evil people who are constantly allowed out of prison to prey on defenseless people.

Do you not find it weird that gangbangers regularly do less than 5 years in prison for murdering people?

If you really wanted to reduce crime you would address that fact.

But you don't because you don't give a shit about reducing crime. It's all about power with you fascists.

Oh good. We are going to deal with facts? Great. Tell me why Norway has a Recidivism rate that is about 20 percent while our rate is nearly double that. Tell me why we have one of the highest prison populations in the world. Our tough on crime bullshit doesn’t seem to be paying rewards, unless you are in the business of building prisons that is.

 

[Blues Man]

Hey...Daryl hunt........you were saying about the colorado AR-15 ban?

Now, a Colorado judge has tossed the AR-15 ban in the trash bin, along with the provision prohibiting ownership of magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. That’s the backdoor gun ban right there. It’s not just about the rifle. It’s about curbing constitutional gun rights by these magazine laws.

A host of firearms that aren’t AR-15 rifles have magazines with more than 10 rounds. This law would effectively ban them too.


We all see what you’re doing here, liberal America (via Free Beacon):

A judge struck down Boulder, Colorado's ban on the possession of AR-15s and magazines holding more than 10 rounds on Monday.
Colorado state judge Andrew Hartman ruled the city's gun ban violated the state's preemption law, which prevents localities from imposing gun regulations above and beyond state law. Judge Hartman's ruling declares the ordinance invalid and immediately bars the city from enforcing the ban.
"The Court has determined that only Colorado state (or federal) law can prohibit the possession, sale, and transfer of assault weapons and large capacity magazines," Hartman wrote in the ruling.
The ruling is the latest in a string of victories for gun advocates who have used state preemption laws to overturn strict local gun regulations. A Washington court struck down a local ordinance on gun storage in February 2021, and a Pennsylvania court struck down Pittsburgh's attempt to regulate the use of AR-15s inside city limits in October 2019.
Jon Caldara, a longtime Boulder resident who openly flouted the AR-15 ban, said he was "thrilled" by the ruling. The former Denver Post columnist and Independence Institute president publicly announced he would not comply with the order to turn over his AR-15 or ammunition magazines when the ban was instituted in 2019. He filed a separate federal suit against the ordinance and said his family has received backlash from supporters ever since.
"I was probably the most publicly known criminal in Boulder," he told the Washington Free Beacon. "That made us social outcasts. And it was really bad. My daughter got bullied at school for our position."

Colorado Judge Takes a Katana to Boulder's AR-15 Ban

We touched on this back in 2018. Boulder, Colorado was pushing to ban owning AR-15 rifles. They’re c

townhall.com

I agree with the ruling since that was already established by the 9th Circuit Federal Court. But the State Law reads 15 as being the max. And that has been upheld in various courts.

And that is just dumb. Limiting bullets was simply a way to back door ban various types of pistols that take 15-19 rounds in their magazine. It was stupid and pointless.......

It's the law and has been upheld in Federal Courts.

No.....left wing judges on the federal courts have ignored the Supreme Court rullings on Heller, McDonald, Caetano, and Scalia in Friedman....

Reread Heller V. It doesn't say what you claim it does and,so far, it's been the basis for all Gun Court rulings.

I have read heller and I know the left wing judges ignore it.....and then make up their own rulings.......

And in Scalia's Dissent in Friedman he specifically states that the AR-15 is protected under the 2nd Amendment......by name. And since he wrote the decision in Heller, his statement in Friedman explains the AR-15 is protected............

I did a search for Friedman V and came up with quite a bit but it's about economics. How about giving us the rest of the Friedman V title so we can research it.

Here.....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf


The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

Do you know what Dissenting means for the Courts? It means you lost your argument and it was ruled the other way.

Now for the real Ruling.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/14-3091/14-3091-2015-04-27.html
That is ARIE S. FRIEDMAN, ET AL. v. CITY OFHIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS in it's entirety. Banning the AR style (and the ruling specifically uses "AR" in it's ruling along with high capacity mags has been upheld in many Court Rulings from the East Coast to the West Coast. Those that just say "Assault Rifles" never passes muster in the courts because that includes a lot of fine hunting rifles. But by putting in a phrase of "AR and it's clones" makes it dead legal. This ruling supported the other court rulings. And does NOT go against Heller or McDonald at all.

Yes......they court did not hear that case...but....Scalia wrote the opinion in Heller......the opinion that rules how the court should have ruled on hearing that case.....and he stated, as the Majority opinion writer in Heller, that AR-15 rifles are protected rifles, by name...this is not a minority opinion writer commenting, this is the man who wrote the opinion in Heller so whatever he writes after goes directly to the meaning of Heller...

It is completely against Heller and ignores what the Supreme Court has stated not only in Heller but Miller, Caetano, and Scalia in Friedman.....

There was no ruling in Heller about any long guns. Again, you quote the losing side. The Winning side in Heller just dealt with handguns and licensing for DC.

No...it didn't.....it stated...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Also.....Caetano v Massachusetts....Which came after Heller.....

Opinion of the Court[edit]



In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

------





As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056.

But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment.



First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).



Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.

Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.



If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636.

The Stun Gun was a bad decision and was overturned. As for Heller, here is the overview direct from Heller and NOT from the dissent which dissent is from the losing side. Here it is from the winning side.

64 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER Opinion of the Court In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. * * *

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgunownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating thatproblem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policychoices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what isnot debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. It is so ordered.

All the other crap you bring up is from the dissent which means nothing legally.

The Dissent from Scalia is in Friedman.......not Heller......

Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Heller, when the court refused to slap down the lower court by not taking the case, Scalia went on to explain Heller further.....stating that the AR-15 is protected....he wrote the opinion in Heller so it isn't a just a dissent.....the dissent was against them not doing their job and taking the case....his explanation in the Dissent is completely relevant to what he stated in Heller....

And Heller isn't just about handguns........

Scalia stated in Heller....

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

You don't know what you are talking about.....that, right there, states that all bearable arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment under the majority opinion of the United States Supreme Court.....It also confirms the ruling in Miller....and just after Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that "Dangerous and Unusual" can't be used to ban guns.......using the case of stun guns as a way to define dangerous and unusual and those terms effect on Second Amendment law...

Show me the quote where Scalia specifically said that the AR was protected. I mean the whole paragraph. Your Red statement doesn't make sense until they overturn the 1934 NFA law.

an AR15 is a basic commonplace small caliber semiautomatic rifle and small caliber semiautomatic rifles have been on the civilian market for over 100 years.

The question is why do you think it needs to be banned?

And exactly where did I EVER say that they should be banned? What I stated is, they need to be regulated. Such as mag capacity. I agree with the courts in that 10 is too few and 15 is just enough. This breaks the cult status. And when that happened, the handgun once again became the weapon of choice. It also limited the body count. We may not be able to stop or even slow down the number of gun crimes but we can limit the body counts of those crimes.

why do they need to be regulated any more than any other small caliber rifle?

I have an old .22 rifle with a 17 shot internal magazine. I suppose you think that's too much?

And you can't get away from the fact that Ar15s are not used in crimes to any great degree so the gun isn't really the problem.

 

[Blues Man]

still parroting that debunked 43 times bullshit I see

and we have gun crime because we do not enforce the federal gun laws we have on the books

Yes, the NRA has done a great job of making the ATF a toothless tiger...

Of course, if the ATF started doing it's job, you'd ***** about that, too. You guys are still trying to make Randy Weaver and David Koresh into heroes.

This is a well known lie you ignorant clod. It was PROVEN a lie decades ago.

If it were, then you guys would support a more complete study of the subject, not ban all studies on gun violence.

The reality- Most gun deaths are suicides, accidents and domestic violence. Cases of criminals shooting people are the exception, and cases of civilians killing bad guys are so rare they barely register.

The ATF isn't needed to enforce our federal gun laws. When the city of Richmond started enforcing federal gun laws in cooperation with the US attorney's office murders, gun crimes and crime in general was reduced significantly.

The only thing you got right is that most gun deaths are suicides and that isn't a crime.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Oh good. We are going to deal with facts? Great. Tell me why Norway has a Recidivism rate that is about 20 percent while our rate is nearly double that. Tell me why we have one of the highest prison populations in the world. Our tough on crime bullshit doesn’t seem to be paying rewards, unless you are in the business of building prisons that is.

The problem is we let leftist judges turn our prisons into playgrounds. You go there, get three squares a day plus snacks if your friends or family donate money to your prison account or you take a job in the prison. You get a field to go outside and throw a football around, a pool room, a library, cable television, limited access to the internet, a private room to use if you want to knock up your wife or girlfriend and start a family. Now if you need a vacation, just sue the state for serving you grape jello instead of cherry, and they take you out for your court dates.

Prison might be hell for most of us, but for lowlifes, it's a better life than many of them had in the outside world. Want to see prisons be a deterrent? Watch the classic movie Cool Hand Luke. If prisons were like that today, you'd see that recidivism rate drop like a boulder off a cliff.

 

[Blues Man]

Thank you for verifying that I am correct about the AR Cult being real. But the Sane have all but removed the cult. We don't have to ban the weapon, just regulate it enough that the Cult dies off. What a shock to your system.

No, what we really need to do is way up the penalties for using a firearm in the commission of a crime. 25 years minimum for armed robbery using a gun is a nice place to start. All premeditated murders using a gun an instant death penalty is another. 10 years minimum for felon carrying a concealed weapon.

This is what we need to do. But the Democrats are not going after the bad guys with a gun, they are going after the good guys with a gun instead.

There is oonly a fraction of a second between a law abiding citizen with a gun and a criminal with a gun. And that is what "Regulation" is all about.

Good gosh you are full of shit. There is an enormous gulf between a good guy with a gun, and a criminal. If there weren't all of you idiots would have been killed long ago, along with all the other Americans out there.

There are more guns than people, you moronic twit. Guns aren't the problem. Never have been. It's evil people who are constantly allowed out of prison to prey on defenseless people.

Do you not find it weird that gangbangers regularly do less than 5 years in prison for murdering people?

If you really wanted to reduce crime you would address that fact.

But you don't because you don't give a shit about reducing crime. It's all about power with you fascists.

Oh good. We are going to deal with facts? Great. Tell me why Norway has a Recidivism rate that is about 20 percent while our rate is nearly double that. Tell me why we have one of the highest prison populations in the world. Our tough on crime bullshit doesn’t seem to be paying rewards, unless you are in the business of building prisons that is.

For one thing most of the people in state and county jails have not been convicted of any crime but are awaiting trial. If we overhauled our arraignment and bail policies we could cut the population of our jails by about 60%.

Then factor in that we lock up people for nonviolent crimes that could be part of some alternative sentencing practices.

you might want to actually research the issue

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You keep talking about banning. I haven't said a thing about it. This is just one more "Routine" that you gunnutters have that you try and instill fear and awe into other gun owners. Talk to me about regulation.

As for the dead body count, it started out with pistols and 9mm semi auto rifles. Got a pretty good body count. But it switched to 30+ round mags (lots of them) and the AR and the new body count was established. There is no way that one person can get over 50 dead and over 400 wounded with hand guns. But, obviously, it can (and has been) done using ARs. The common fruitcake with mass shooting on his mind might get 9 or 10 (20 on a good day) and wound not many more than that before he's brought down using a handgun or standard semi auto rifle. But that same shooter can use an AR with a 30+ mag (4 or them) and easily bag 40. and wound over 100. Common sense says, limit the mag size to 15 and you halve the dead body count in half.

Actually, the majority of the Population agrees with me at 57% for stricter firearms regulations. It's even supported by 31% of the Republicans. https://www.npr.org/2019/10/20/771278167/poll-number-of-americans-who-favor-stricter-gun-laws-continues-to-grow

Share of Americans who favor stricter gun laws has increased since 2017Poll: 90% of Registered Voters Want Firearms Background Checks

Americans underestimate public support for key gun policies

There is a lot more out there. Either you work with us or you might lose a hell of a lot more than you think. If for one second the politicos believe you are unhinged, they may swing way to far to the fringe. And it would take decades to swing it back. Work to get common sense gun regulations where you don't have to turn your gun in or even register it nor have a license to own it in most states. Or you can keep going like you are and ALA California.

You avoided the question totally, so one more time: Would you and your party be satisfied with 49 people killed in a mass murder instead of 50, and would that stop them from seeking even more restrictions on guns? And don't tell me you could kill more people with an AR and 30 round clip than any semi-automatic handgun with a 15 round clip. That's blatantly false. That's not a personal opinion, I showed you a video supporting my point. Both the AR and any semi-automatic hand gun works the exact same way. Every time you pull the trigger, it shoots a round.

A nut with a gun perfectly willing to kill total strangers only stops when a good guy with a gun arrives on the scene. Until that time, he will keep killing until he runs out of ammo. Once somebody else with a gun gets there, the shooter either kills himself or surrenders.

What you are talking about here is writing policy or law that makes you feel better, but doesn't accomplish anything. What would accomplish much more is a movement to get rid of gun-free zones. That way any shooter no matter what kind of weapon they have always has to fear somebody in his target area will fire back.

 

[JoeB131]

You didn't answer my question Moon Bat.

How are my firearms a threat to your ***** ass?

you mean other than you might have a "Really bad day" and shoot up some place that I am at.

The best argument for gun control is a five minute conversation with a gun nut.

 

[Blues Man]

You didn't answer my question Moon Bat.

How are my firearms a threat to your ***** ass?

you mean other than you might have a "Really bad day" and shoot up some place that I am at.

The best argument for gun control is a five minute conversation with a gun nut.

So lets break it down by the numbers.

in 2019 10189 people were murdered by a person using a firearm. (Notice I didn't say murdered by a gun. That's because guns can't murder anyone)

That's .003% of the population.

So for the entire year of 2019 you had a .003% chance of being murdered by a person with a gun.

 

[JoeB131]

You are confused about this Moon Bat.

There is not what you stupid uneducated Moon Bats call "gun" violence. It is just crime and it is mostly in our Democrat controlled big city shitholes among mostly minority demographics. The crimes are mostly among gang bangers, druggies, street thugs and other assorted lowlifes. You know, the core voting block for the Democrat Party. The ones that don't obey the existing laws now, no less any more law you idiots want to pass.

That's not true, either. In fact, according to the National Gang Center, only 2200 murders a year are "Gang related". That is out of 19,000 homicides a year in the US. Most homicides are domestic violence. Not to mention the 19,000 gun suicides every year..

We don't need to study jackshit because we know where the crime is at an who is doing it and passing more stringent gun control laws ain't gonna change anything. Passing oppressive laws that only law abiding citizens will obey that don't commit the crime won't change anything.

Again- what upset the gun lobby is that it found that a gun in the home was 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy. This panicked the Gun Lobby. OH MY GOD, they're on to us!!!

 

[SavannahMann]

Oh good. We are going to deal with facts? Great. Tell me why Norway has a Recidivism rate that is about 20 percent while our rate is nearly double that. Tell me why we have one of the highest prison populations in the world. Our tough on crime bullshit doesn’t seem to be paying rewards, unless you are in the business of building prisons that is.

The problem is we let leftist judges turn our prisons into playgrounds. You go there, get three squares a day plus snacks if your friends or family donate money to your prison account or you take a job in the prison. You get a field to go outside and throw a football around, a pool room, a library, cable television, limited access to the internet, a private room to use if you want to knock up your wife or girlfriend and start a family. Now if you need a vacation, just sue the state for serving you grape jello instead of cherry, and they take you out for your court dates.

Prison might be hell for most of us, but for lowlifes, it's a better life than many of them had in the outside world. Want to see prisons be a deterrent? Watch the classic movie Cool Hand Luke. If prisons were like that today, you'd see that recidivism rate drop like a boulder off a cliff.

You are an idiot.

Prisons are little more than warehouses. We don’t do anything but keep them.

Getting tough results in the prisoners getting tough too. That is why the recidivism rate is so high. The prisoners learn nothing but aggression and more violence. You reinforce the wrong lessons.

Norway has a lower rate because they spend the time to retrain the people. To rehabilitate them. Finland has been closing prisons because of the success of their similar programs. But we Americans know better. We will get tougher. So what if something else works better. We demand the worst and we get it.

Then when the prisoner completes his sentence. We barely allow them to have menial labor jobs. We don’t want ex cons near us. To make sure we pass laws to make it even tougher for the ex con to get jobs.

We don’t want to hear about successful programs. We want more agony. Just because it hasn’t worked yet doesn’t mean it won’t if we get tougher. Like the Communists. You are an idiot. It doesn’t work. It never has. But like a religious belief you cling to it as the future.