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

[Ray From Cleveland]

2boy is a nutcase and will forever be in my ignore file. You, the other hand, actually discuss things. It's okay to disagree with me but do it respectfully. And I show the same thing.

Now, let's talk about power. The AR is on the weak side for a rifle bullet but it's still at least 3 times more powerful than a .357. It's penetration is many times that of your 9mm. You fire into a crowd, that one bullet goes through 2 and lodges into a third person or maybe even into the wall. Now, do it by pressing the trigger as fast as you can you can easily fire more than 400 rounds per minute not including Mag changes. I would figure that a person fluttering the trigger (including mag changes) can run through 4 mags in less than a minute. You don't need bump stocks at all. Just lots of ammo and large capacity mags. In the Aurora shooting, the shooter did almost all his shooting with his mothers AR with a 100 round mag. Luckily, it jammed right around round #50 or 56. he also had a handgun and a shotgun but those were spent pretty quick. He had the record until LV. But the wounded were staggering. There were many times the wounded than the dead. It's a target rich environment. Movie Houses and Concerts are all like that. Schools are for the functionally stupid mass shooter going for the record. What made the Movie House more of a potential death trap versus the outdoor concert, the movie house has no where to run to. The outdoor concert starts out target rich but it ends up people dispersing in every which direction fast. There also was a difference between a stupid, unskilled Teen versus an experienced shooter like in LV. We've already seen what a combat veteran can do with a handgun (California). Imagine if a recent Combat
Veteran were to load up like he was going into battle with an AR. How many people would die or be wounded in a target rich environment.

The days of the Turkey Shoot in the Schools is over. And the new record holder will have some pretty tall shoes to fill. But it will happen again unless we use Regulations to limit the body count. And that is all I am getting at. We won't stop some sicko from trying it but we can make it harder for him to get the equipment to do it without banning the actual rifle itself.

It won't make any difference in the world. I could kill just as many people with my 9mm as I can with my .357. Strength is irrelevant here, because mass shooters are not looking for blowing people into pieces, all they are looking for is a high death count and the ability to carry a large arsenal to their target. You could kill a lot of people with a .22 if you were using hollow points.

The movie guy passed several other theaters on his way to his selected one. Why was that? Because he selected a target that was a gun-free zone, like most mass shooters do. In Vegas, even if people were armed, it's very unlikely that anybody could send a handgun round to that exact room hitting the shooter. In essence, it was pretty much the same as choosing a gun-free zone; nobody had the ability to stop him.

Given the fact that most deaths caused by firearms are not with mass shootings, why are you so focused on them anyway? Most firearm deaths are done with handguns and not AR's. You will find more casualties and deaths during a holiday weekend in Chicago than you will with most mass shootings, which occur once or twice a year. And I mean real mass shootings that don't fit the FBI description of four or more deaths.

If you do have 2aguy on ignore as you claim, it's not because he's a nutcase, it's because you have no argument against him, his research, his sources, or extensive knowledge on firearms. So my suggestion is if you really want to know our side of the issue, take him off ignore, and you will learn a lot of things you never knew before.

 

[Vrenn]

No it doesn't. It says you have the right to bear arms. It doesn't say what arms or where you can have them. You want it to read the way you think it does, get a 2/3rds Congress Vote for it or go the Continental Congress Route.

No, it doesn't say we have the right to keep and bear arms. It acknowledges the right to keep and bear arms and says that the right "shall not be infringed." It says what it says. It is you that, if you want it to say something else, would have to get it amended. And a 2/3 vote of Congress isn't enough; you should read the Constitution.

It's written at 8-grade level so if you need a tutor, I googled one for you: Smart Reading Program for Kids that need help with reading and comprehension

So far, you have been losing in the courts and the Constitutional Scholars. Does that mean you are smarter than they are or are you just so deep in your message you can't see reality. The Feds have to be very careful on how they approach the 2nd Amendment because it was originally written with them in mind. But the States have a bit more leeway. And that stands in the courts. That means that I don't have to do a thing. The courts and I agree. You don't agree so it's you that needs to get that 2/3rds vote to rewrite it.

 

[Vrenn]

2boy is a nutcase and will forever be in my ignore file. You, the other hand, actually discuss things. It's okay to disagree with me but do it respectfully. And I show the same thing.

Now, let's talk about power. The AR is on the weak side for a rifle bullet but it's still at least 3 times more powerful than a .357. It's penetration is many times that of your 9mm. You fire into a crowd, that one bullet goes through 2 and lodges into a third person or maybe even into the wall. Now, do it by pressing the trigger as fast as you can you can easily fire more than 400 rounds per minute not including Mag changes. I would figure that a person fluttering the trigger (including mag changes) can run through 4 mags in less than a minute. You don't need bump stocks at all. Just lots of ammo and large capacity mags. In the Aurora shooting, the shooter did almost all his shooting with his mothers AR with a 100 round mag. Luckily, it jammed right around round #50 or 56. he also had a handgun and a shotgun but those were spent pretty quick. He had the record until LV. But the wounded were staggering. There were many times the wounded than the dead. It's a target rich environment. Movie Houses and Concerts are all like that. Schools are for the functionally stupid mass shooter going for the record. What made the Movie House more of a potential death trap versus the outdoor concert, the movie house has no where to run to. The outdoor concert starts out target rich but it ends up people dispersing in every which direction fast. There also was a difference between a stupid, unskilled Teen versus an experienced shooter like in LV. We've already seen what a combat veteran can do with a handgun (California). Imagine if a recent Combat
Veteran were to load up like he was going into battle with an AR. How many people would die or be wounded in a target rich environment.

The days of the Turkey Shoot in the Schools is over. And the new record holder will have some pretty tall shoes to fill. But it will happen again unless we use Regulations to limit the body count. And that is all I am getting at. We won't stop some sicko from trying it but we can make it harder for him to get the equipment to do it without banning the actual rifle itself.

It won't make any difference in the world. I could kill just as many people with my 9mm as I can with my .357. Strength is irrelevant here, because mass shooters are not looking for blowing people into pieces, all they are looking for is a high death count and the ability to carry a large arsenal to their target. You could kill a lot of people with a .22 if you were using hollow points.

The movie guy passed several other theaters on his way to his selected one. Why was that? Because he selected a target that was a gun-free zone, like most mass shooters do. In Vegas, even if people were armed, it's very unlikely that anybody could send a handgun round to that exact room hitting the shooter. In essence, it was pretty much the same as choosing a gun-free zone; nobody had the ability to stop him.

Given the fact that most deaths caused by firearms are not with mass shootings, why are you so focused on them anyway? Most firearm deaths are done with handguns and not AR's. You will find more casualties and deaths during a holiday weekend in Chicago than you will with most mass shootings, which occur once or twice a year. And I mean real mass shootings that don't fit the FBI description of four or more deaths.

If you do have 2aguy on ignore as you claim, it's not because he's a nutcase, it's because you have no argument against him, his research, his sources, or extensive knowledge on firearms. So my suggestion is if you really want to know our side of the issue, take him off ignore, and you will learn a lot of things you never knew before.

ALL the movie houses were gun free zones as per state law. You are just making things up about his motives for picking that particular theater. he came in from an exit door. I wonder who left that open for him or if he entered before, jammed it so he could enter a few minutes later with his weapons. He fired from the side where he could move up and down the outside path to get the most saturation. The scenerio would fit ANY movie theater in the area. The results would have been the same regardless.

Again, the high body count mass murders have all been done by the AR with high capacity Mags since they tightened up the schools. That moved the new top sites to the Movie Houses, Outdoor Concerts, school picnics, bars and even a Walmart. Walmart removed itself from that equation so they were left with the other places which are ALL Gun Free Zones except for the Outdoor Concerts and we all know how well that worked out. The one that was NOT a gun free zone is the new record holder because the others tightened themselves up to prevent the mass shootings.

2boy quotes Klek and that makes him a fruitcake. He stays on ignore and you just went on it as well. I don't have the time nor the inclination to feed your insanity any further.

 

[woodwork201]

You are just making things up because you think they sound reasonable and no one will challenge what you say.....you are wrong.

Haha.. He's finding out otherwise. But whichever 503c is paying his time to be here isn't grading him on performance, only on post count.

 

[woodwork201]

The 2nd Amendment was originally written for fear of what King George did in 1775.

Perhaps they wrote it for what Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi will do in 2021.

 

[woodwork201]

Unfortunately that was not our decision to have some restrictions on rights. That was decided by the US Supreme Court.

The debate we were having is a privilege vs a right. A privilege is something government allows you to do or have. A right doesn't need the permission of government. It's already in the Constitution. And we don't convert rights to privileges because if we did, then it's no longer a right. It's like if we made driving an automobile a right. If we did that, then it's no longer a privilege from the state.

Nothing in the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the ability to change it. They're not mentioned in Article V. Just because we, as a nation, have been suckered into believing they have that power doesn't make it so. I may not be willing to take on the government in armed revolt to assert my right but I don't accept at all that the restrictions are constitutional - they are not. Never, ever, will I agree, imply, infer, or support in any other way, any violation of the Constitution as being allowed.

I do have to consider that they have more guns than do we (because they've, unconstitutionally, prevented us from having them) and comply with the tyranny but I will never call it anything except tyranny. It is not the starting point of a debate; it's not the starting point of a negotiation. It's tyranny, plain and simple.

 

[woodwork201]

The difference is a revolver and a semi-automatic are apples and oranges. Two different styles of semi-automatics is just about the same thing. They both shoot the same way.

There have been views on gun control, and I believe submitted in Congress but I'm not going to spend the hours needed to validate that, that define a semi-automatic weapon as any weapon that when you fire a round readies the weapon to fire the next round with no more than pulling the trigger. This is absolutely designed to include a revolver as a semi-automatic.

You and I know that's not the traditional definition but, if they get it into law, only single-shots will be allowed.

 

[woodwork201]

I have enough experience in Combat to know. I put myself in that situation and come to those conclusions. I know the weapons, the limitations and the strengths. If you can't do that, you shouldn't be in this discussion.

Ray already gave you examples of handgun shooting with far more than 20 dead and even more shot.l

Actually, you appear to know very little about guns, equipment, and strategies. I own several magazine pouches that have 10 individual compartments. Some have smaller pouches for my 1911 mags, others have larger pouches for my 16+ capacity magazines. I don't use the belt loops on them; they just go in my range bag, but they all have belt loops. A shooter could easily wear two of those, one in front and one in back. He could easily wear a MOLLE vest loaded with another couple dozen magazines and put it all under a winter jacket and no one would ever know.

Honestly, reading your posts, I don't think you're as naive as this idea sounds; I don't think even you believe what you're posting.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Why do you need such "firepower"? I am entitled to an explanation because I live in this country and guns are designed to be pointed at other people

Because people have different wants and you're trying to tell others their want is wrong for them.

Someone buys a Bugatti Veyron and you're asking, "Why do want/need such engine power?".

Just because someone doesn't want/need a gun or car, doesn't mean others must follow suit, and when they buy a gun or car, they choose the model that they want.

 

[woodwork201]

So far, you have been losing in the courts and the Constitutional Scholars. Does that mean you are smarter than they are or are you just so deep in your message you can't see reality. The Feds have to be very careful on how they approach the 2nd Amendment because it was originally written with them in mind. But the States have a bit more leeway. And that stands in the courts. That means that I don't have to do a thing. The courts and I agree. You don't agree so it's you that needs to get that 2/3rds vote to rewrite it.

Well, what would be the good of rewriting it if the Federal Government, including the courts ignore it? What could we possibly rewrite that is more plain than "shall not be infringed." You have even the most (supposedly) justice in recent times, Justice Scalia, claiming that reasonable infringements are OK. So we could rewrite it all day long and it would make no difference.

So let's quit playing games and just call it what it is. You and the courts want it infringed and you are getting away with it. That's tyranny but, hey, if you can get away with it then you don't care.

Also, the states have no leeway. The authors of the Constitution demonstrated quite clearly that they're able to assign to the appropriate scope. For instance, the 1st Amendment says, Congress shall make now law. They actually left that open to the States. The 2nd Amendment describes the necessity of the militia, a State organization, indicating that the 2nd Amendment was clearly directed at the entire union, both the States and the Federal Government.

In any case, incorporation certainly requires that the 2nd Amendment applies to the States. There has been a long-standing fallacy that some of the Bill of Rights could be incorporated and other parts not. Whether one believes that they applied to the States from ratification or from the 14th Amendment, there is no possible logical argument for selective incorporation. Selective incorporation was nothing more than the Court beginning what is now their standard practice of changing the law and the Constitution according to their own political whims.

As nonsensical as the idea of selective incorporation has always been, the Court did order it incorporated in McDonald so, no, the states have zero leeway in gun control: shall not be infringed.

 

[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.

But when they are, it's usually devistating. Much more than your little popgun could ever be or even a sane handgun.

Rifles of any kind are used in 2% of murders. And I don't own an AR15 because I have no use for a small caliber rifle. The old .22 was given to me a long time ago and I haven't shot it in years because a .22 is useless for anything but plinking cans

and WTF is a sane handgun?

FYI I own more handguns than rifles as my primary reason for owning firearms is self defense

 

[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

You had me until that last sentence.

and I care why?

 

[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.

Actually the percentage is far lower than that since something like eighty percent of gun deaths are criminal on criminal violence. If you are a law-abiding citizen living in a normal area your chance of dying by any kind of violence drops to nearly zero.

no the percentage stays the same because even those are murders but with all such statistics there will be variables I just didn't feel the need to do that deep of a dive on the stats

 

[Blues Man]

But guns get misused. All I am trying to do is to agree with the "LAW" that limits the amount of ammo carried. That, alone, keeps the body count to a lower level when they ARE misused.

You have zero evidence to backup that claim.

That is logic. Let’s say I have a five shot revolver. Obviously I can’t shoot fifty people. At least not without reloading nine times.

Conversely if the revolver is a .357 Magnum, the damage done would be significantly worse than if I was using a less powerful cartridge of the type normally found in high capacity magazines.

And the damage from a .44 Magnum would be catastrophic by comparison.

That is something the focus on magazine capacity crew never understands. If High Capacity Mags are not available people will gravitate towards the more powerful cartridges again. A .308 is roughly speaking twice as powerful as a .223 and that means more damage to the person.

In fact a .30 cal rifle cartridge is probably going to be a through and through wound. In other words there is a good possibility that you will wound a second firing into a crowd.

But people don’t understand science. And ballistics as well as firearms are a science. Even pro gun people allow bias to influence them.

Which due to size of gun and cartridge size and weight limits the number of rounds available. In the Military, there is a huge size and power difference between an Assault Rifle (.556) versus a full blown Battle Rifle (7.62 or bigger). And the cost of the Battle Rifle (even in semi auto) will far exceed most fruitcake shooters pocket books. And trying to use a hunting version is just stupid.

Bullshit.

I have semiautomatic rifles chambered for 7.62 and 6.8 mm

They aren't that expensive

 

[SavannahMann]

But guns get misused. All I am trying to do is to agree with the "LAW" that limits the amount of ammo carried. That, alone, keeps the body count to a lower level when they ARE misused.

You have zero evidence to backup that claim.

That is logic. Let’s say I have a five shot revolver. Obviously I can’t shoot fifty people. At least not without reloading nine times.

Conversely if the revolver is a .357 Magnum, the damage done would be significantly worse than if I was using a less powerful cartridge of the type normally found in high capacity magazines.

And the damage from a .44 Magnum would be catastrophic by comparison.

That is something the focus on magazine capacity crew never understands. If High Capacity Mags are not available people will gravitate towards the more powerful cartridges again. A .308 is roughly speaking twice as powerful as a .223 and that means more damage to the person.

In fact a .30 cal rifle cartridge is probably going to be a through and through wound. In other words there is a good possibility that you will wound a second firing into a crowd.

But people don’t understand science. And ballistics as well as firearms are a science. Even pro gun people allow bias to influence them.

Which due to size of gun and cartridge size and weight limits the number of rounds available. In the Military, there is a huge size and power difference between an Assault Rifle (.556) versus a full blown Battle Rifle (7.62 or bigger). And the cost of the Battle Rifle (even in semi auto) will far exceed most fruitcake shooters pocket books. And trying to use a hunting version is just stupid.

Really? You do know with your extensive Military Experience that the 5.56 was chosen because it created “Militarily Significant Wounds” don’t you? The idea for the readers who don’t know is that one wounded soldier takes four people out of the battle. Two to carry the wounded and one to provide security, or carry excess equipment.

A dead guy takes one off the field. A wounded takes several. And the screams of the wounded demoralize the remaining soldiers. Making them less likely to be aggressive.

The other reason the 5.56 was chosen was suppression fire. Most rounds fired are meant to get the other guy to keep his head down. The 5.56 would allow the soldier to carry more ammo with the same weight.

How would the Las Vegas shooting have played out with a .308 hunting rifle? First. The slower fire would have delayed the discovery longer. Second. The numbers killed would probably have been higher. Third, by picking his shots he would have been able to hit one with a high likelihood of hitting two. I could go on.

In nearly all the mass shooting situations a different weapon would have done more damage. A shotgun in the school shootings. Two or more wounded with every trigger pull as one example.

The one thing the mass shootings have in common is the shooters use the technique of spray and pray. Random fire to maybe hit someone. By firing into crowds they increase the likelihood of hitting someone. But as statistics show roughly 10% of those hit actually die. If we are intending to save lives why do anything to increase the probability of someone dying?

A weapon is not a magic wand of death.

 

[JoeB131]

Breonna taylors boyfriend shot at the police.......he caused her death, not the police. You idiot.

If he had been a white guy shooting at ATF agents, he'd be your ******* hero. Silly Darkie, Rights are for White People.

Koresh could have been taken into custody at anytime, easily, but the ATF made the call to raid the entire compound......getting those children killed in the process....

Again, no children were killed in the ATF's Raid on Feb 23rd, where six ARMED cultists were killed shooting at clearly identified ATF Agents serving a valid warrant. Unlike Breonna's boyfriend, who had no idea who was knocking down his door in the middle of the night, Koresh knew those guys were ATF.

The purpose of the raid was not to just arrest Koresh, it was to seize the stockpile of illegally modified guns specified in the warrant.

What you leave out is that there were 53 days where the cultist held out, and then finally decided to burn themselves and their children alive because their fake Jesus was going to jail as a *****.

 

[JoeB131]

Of the domestic violence, you idiot.....they are done by drug addicts, alcoholics and people with previous criminal records.......

We are not the only country with this problem...just ask England where London is unsafe for women and girls...according to their own mayor...you dunce.

Again, the Brits consider sexual assault anyone who plays a little grabass. American only consider it when body fluids are exchanged. Sexual Assault isn't really a good measure, as it's not heavily reported and poorly prosecuted.

Murder, on the other hand. VERY EASY to count. You have a dead body.

We have lost. The Brit have few. This isn't complicated.

 

[JoeB131]

No, it has not been taken yet. What they have in their gun bill now is forcing all gun purchasers to submit to a psychological exam at the cost of $800.00, get a federal license, and anybody you may have had a disagreement with can voice their opposition to you getting that license in which to buy that gun. It may be an ex-wife, an ex-girlfriend, a neighbor or family member. The shrink will be the one questioning these people, and I'm sure a lot of good people won't be able to get one, because the Democrats will likely choose who those shrinks are, which will be anti-gun leftists like themselves.

again, if you have a neighbor or a family member who says, "Holy Shit, that's guy's crazy", that sounds like a great reason to keep them from getting guns.

Every last time we have a mass shooting, we find out everyone in the guy's life KNEW he was crazy, and he was able to get a gun anyway.

Imagine what would have happened on Tuesday if the Massage Parlor Shooter had to pay $800.00 bucks and they asked his family who just threw him out for watching Porn if he should have a gun.

 

[JoeB131]

In their minds, if you have a hobby you enjoy, that makes you a nut. Well why aren't people who love sports considered nuts, or people who go to movies constantly, or people who collect coins and have several cars?

Because you can't kill a person with a movie or a coin.

 

[2aguy]

No it doesn't. It says you have the right to bear arms. It doesn't say what arms or where you can have them.

And it doesn't say what arms you can't.

Our founders realized that the primitive gun would not likely be the same weapon in 200 years from the writing of the Constitution, or even 50 years. They knew arms would change but didn't restrict that right to only those arms. Arms are arms. It's like saying we could have a law that women can't vote in the primaries because the Constitution was not explicit in the right to vote. Voting is voting and a right of all people.

You have it backwards really. If you want to have the Constitution to have exclusions for certain weapons, then you actually need an amendment, not an amendment to include them. A right to bear arms means all arms regardless of the arms of the day.

The Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment for the day. Since then, 2/3rds of it no longer applies. A single state or even a group of states doesn't have the money nor the power to go up against the Federal Government. Even the clause that limited the Federal Army to just 75,000 got thrown out the window in 1898. Had it not, Spain would have kicked Americas butt soundly. And it was cemented in the 1916/17 Federal National Guard Act. So do we keep the US Army at the 75,000 limit or has it been completely thrown out? The 2nd Amendment was originally written for fear of what King George did in 1775.

No...you are wrong again...Heller.....

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.

--------