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

[daveman]

You're more likely to be killed by a practicing doctor than you are a legal gun owner.

And there you are, insisting government take over healthcare and kill even more people.

You can stop pretending you care about people.

If I'm seeing a doctor, I'm probably already in bad shape. Doctors aren't breaking into shopping malls and theaters committing malpractice.

No, they commit malpractice in their offices and in hospitals. You know, where you go to see them.

You're on the wrong side of this issue. Just like every other issue.

 

[JoeB131]

How many laws do we need before criminals start obeying them?

By that logic, we should get rid of all laws, because Criminals break those, too!

Murder laws? We had 19,000 murders. Clearly the murder laws aren't dissuading murderers.

 

[daveman]

we need to enforce our federal guns laws.

When Richmond VA did the murder rate was cut almost in half

Criminal control is what makes the difference

No, we need to hold the gun industry accountable.

The law we need to pass, allowing the victims of gun violence to hold gun sellers and manufacturers responsible when they sell to people who shouldn't own guns.

And we should be able to sue liquor distillers when a drunk driver kills our families!

That's you. That's how stupid you sound.

 

[daveman]

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.

When a firearm is needed, the body's adrenaline is pumping and even trained police officers, actually "miss" half the time when shooting. A semi-automatic rifle actually makes hitting the target easier, even if your adrenaline is going and if there is a home-invasion, or armed robbers in your home and a serious threat to your life.
Also, a knife, sword, hammer, screwdriver, bat, or even your fists are literally, "assault weapons," when you are "assaulting" someone and semi-automatic rifles with a ten, twenty, or thirty round magazine, are separately being called, "assault weapons" to simply make you think they are "more scary" than other things used in a crime.
Separately, read the Second Amendment......AND......the Federalist Papers by our founding fathers.
The right to bear arms wasn't to ensure hunting...although even nations with strict gun laws, allow for their citizens to have hunting weapons. The founding fathers saw where civilian groups gathered together, forming guerilla militias, were critical to winning the war against England and wanted to ensure that should any future tyrannical government, whether foreign...or...domestic attempt to conquer this nation and take away the rights under our Constitution, civilian militias could form and assist in defending the individual states.
It has been said that Emperor Hirohito considered invading the United States with ground troops, but was dissuaded by his generals, as, "there would be a gun under every blade of grass." Whether that is a factual quote, I don't know. However, not long ago, our chief adversary, China, has said that they perceive American citizens owning firearms as a "problem." That should be a hint to definitely...."keep the firearms, including AR-15 style rifles," in the hands of "LAW-ABIDING Citizens." For the LITERALLY TENS OF MILLIONS of "law-abiding" citizens are literally that....law-abiding and NOT committing any crimes with their firearms and that includes the millions of AR-15 style semi-automatic rifles with large capacity magazines in their hands.

When is a firearm needed by an average citizen? why a firearm that sprays bullets? If, on the off-chance, that someone invades your house, a pistol will do nicely. No "tyrannical government" has invaded this country. These pigs that call themselves "militias" here in the 21st Century are ignorant white gangs, just like there are black gangs like the Crips and the Bloods, and they should be treated the same way.

BTW: you speak of "tyrannical government." Would you agree that women, LGBTs, non-white folks, and people of different faiths have the same rights to defend ourselves from it? Should we all march against some trash like trump and abbott and company carrying AR-15s and use them if necessary? You are the one referring to "TENS OF MILLIONS of "law-abiding" citizens". Last night I saw a news piece about a black militia group and a Black woman spoke about taking firearms practice. It was good to see. She explained that her intent was defensive only. I'm of European ancestry, but I have to agree with her. What if some tyrant like trump or abbott or their trashy friends try to pull their tyrannical shit on Americans again? You are advocating that we just shoot them. Do you agree that sic semper tyrannis applies to everyone?

Like I said.... cvnt.

Thanks . . . prick. Do you make much standing on a street corner? Any customers? You ho's are disgusting. Stand up and be an American and a man, for a change.

Wait, are we using the actual definition of "man", or the leftist Pajama Boi definition?

 

[JoeB131]

No, they commit malpractice in their offices and in hospitals. You know, where you go to see them.

Exactly. Which means if I don't want to die of malpractice, don't go to a doctor's office or hospital. (I might die of whatever I should have gone there for to start with, but whatever.)

Now, It's clear you can't go to a supermarket without risking getting shot. Or go get a massage, or go see a movie, or go to concert, without running the risk that someone who NEVER should have had a gun got a gun.

So as I always say, when they identify a mass shooter, they almost always find out two things.

1) Everyone in his life knew he was nuts.
2) He was able to get a gun, anyway.

 

[daveman]

How many laws do we need before criminals start obeying them?

By that logic, we should get rid of all laws, because Criminals break those, too!

Murder laws? We had 19,000 murders. Clearly the murder laws aren't dissuading murderers.

Maybe if you leftists would hold criminals accountable for their actions, it'd improve.

 

[JoeB131]

And we should be able to sue liquor distillers when a drunk driver kills our families!

That's you. That's how stupid you sound.

Was the booze designed to drive a car? Um. No.

The thing is, bars are obligated by law NOT to get you so shit-faced drunk you are going to run someone over. We have BASSET training, and a bar owner can be held liable if he let you get so drunk you went out and killed someone.

Same thing with gun shops.

The problem is, the gun makers have been marketing to the crazies for years. Not the responsible gun owner. He buys one gun, maybe takes it out once a year for target practice, eventually sticks it in his closet and forgets it. He's not a source of return sales.

Nope. The gun industry markets to the crazies... That's why they oppose background checks, waiting periods or anything else that might reduce gun sales.

 

[JoeB131]

Maybe if you leftists would hold criminals accountable for their actions, it'd improve.

We lock up 2 million people and have another 7 million on probation or parole.
We are one of the last civilized countries that still has capital punishment.

If punishment was going to get us there, we'd have the lowest crime rates in the industrialized world, not the highest.

 

[daveman]

No, they commit malpractice in their offices and in hospitals. You know, where you go to see them.

Exactly. Which means if I don't want to die of malpractice, don't go to a doctor's office or hospital. (I might die of whatever I should have gone there for to start with, but whatever.)

Now, It's clear you can't go to a supermarket without risking getting shot. Or go get a massage, or go see a movie, or go to concert, without running the risk that someone who NEVER should have had a gun got a gun.

So as I always say, when they identify a mass shooter, they almost always find out two things.

1) Everyone in his life knew he was nuts.
2) He was able to get a gun, anyway.

Then your beef is with the Federal agencies who conduct background checks, not with legal gun owners.

But you don't dare criticize them. You want law-abiding Americans unable to resist your wished-for totalitarianism.

Here's an idea: Why don't you try disarming criminals first? You know, as a trial run. Let me know how it works out for you.

 

[Flash]

How many laws do we need before criminals start obeying them?

By that logic, we should get rid of all laws, because Criminals break those, too!

Murder laws? We had 19,000 murders. Clearly the murder laws aren't dissuading murderers.

You are confused about this Moon Bat so let me explain it to you. Take notes because I will quiz you later.

The filthy ass minorities commit the great majority of the gun crimes in this country and will continue to do so regardless of any gun control bullshit the Libtards manages to enact.

They will not adhere to any new law like they don't adhere to the existing ones.

Despicable gun control laws only infringes upon the Constitutional rights of law abiding citizens that would never commit a crime in the first place.

Case in point. Stupid background checks. The Muslim terrorist in Bolder passed a Federal NICS background check and them six days later killed Americans. The law did nothing to stop him for doing an evil deed.

Gun control laws are oppressive for law abiding Americans in addition to be in violation of the Constitution but they sure make you dumb idiot Moon Bats feel good, don't they? Dumbasses!

 

[daveman]

And we should be able to sue liquor distillers when a drunk driver kills our families!

That's you. That's how stupid you sound.

Was the booze designed to drive a car? Um. No.

The thing is, bars are obligated by law NOT to get you so shit-faced drunk you are going to run someone over. We have BASSET training, and a bar owner can be held liable if he let you get so drunk you went out and killed someone.

Same thing with gun shops.

The problem is, the gun makers have been marketing to the crazies for years. Not the responsible gun owner. He buys one gun, maybe takes it out once a year for target practice, eventually sticks it in his closet and forgets it. He's not a source of return sales.

Nope. The gun industry markets to the crazies... That's why they oppose background checks, waiting periods or anything else that might reduce gun sales.

Gosh. I didn't know the only place you're allowed to drink is at bars.

No, you stupid Commie bastard. We're not going to disarm so you can herd us onto boxcars.

 

[daveman]

Maybe if you leftists would hold criminals accountable for their actions, it'd improve.

We lock up 2 million people and have another 7 million on probation or parole.
We are one of the last civilized countries that still has capital punishment.

If punishment was going to get us there, we'd have the lowest crime rates in the industrialized world, not the highest.

Again -- your problem is with Government. The Government you refuse to hold accountable.

The funny part is, you want to give Government even more power over individual lives -- and you think everything will then be fine.

Dumbass.

 

[JoeB131]

Then your beef is with the Federal agencies who conduct background checks, not with legal gun owners.

No, my beef is with the NRA and the gun makers who've made it impossible to conduct background checks.

But you don't dare criticize them. You want law-abiding Americans unable to resist your wished-for totalitarianism.

Again, guy, guns don't prevent totalitarianism. Never have, never will. Germany had a shit load of guns before Hitler came to power, despite attempts to limit gun ownership. Hitler actually loosened the gun laws (for Germans, not the Jews) and there were lots of guns in Germany, but the "Good Germans" never rose up.

Here's the reality... if the ATF came for you tomorrow, they'd get you. Most of your neighbors wouldn't get involved.

Here's an idea: Why don't you try disarming criminals first? You know, as a trial run. Let me know how it works out for you.

Here's an idea, how about we get the gun industry to stop flooding the streets with guns...

 

[JoeB131]

Again -- your problem is with Government. The Government you refuse to hold accountable.

The funny part is, you want to give Government even more power over individual lives -- and you think everything will then be fine.

Says the guy who was spent most of his life sucking off the government teet.

The problem isn't government, the problem is government does exactly what we want them to. Nobody wins on the "let's try something else" platform. They get elected promising to punish people...

 

[Cecilie1200]

we need to enforce our federal guns laws.

When Richmond VA did the murder rate was cut almost in half

Criminal control is what makes the difference

No, we need to hold the gun industry accountable.

The law we need to pass, allowing the victims of gun violence to hold gun sellers and manufacturers responsible when they sell to people who shouldn't own guns.

And we should be able to sue liquor distillers when a drunk driver kills our families!

That's you. That's how stupid you sound.

AND the manufacturer of the car they were driving while drunk.

 

[AZrailwhale]

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.

He'd have gone down to the hardware store and bought a twenty buck machete. The end result would have been just as horrific or even more. There was a lot more carnage in edged weapon battles than in firearm's ones.

 

[AZrailwhale]

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.

No it was chosen because it was a light and small round and soldiers could carry a lot of ammo.

In fact the military has long thought the 5.56 round was under powered and are currently reintroducing the 6.8 mm

Ammo Firm Unveils 6.8mm Cartridge for Army’s Next-Gen Squad Weapon | Military.com

www.military.com

I joined the Army in 1988. The articles I saw in gun magazines then, and since, were that the Military was switching from the 5.56 to some other round. Since that time, the beginnings of the A2 era, every couple years it is another weapon or ammo that will replace the M-16 or the 5.56.

They remain.

Why? NATO is a part of it. Our allies have the same ammo so we can supply each other in case of war. The same 5.56 round we use is able to be used in literally dozens of rifle types by a hundred countries.

List of 5.56×45mm NATO firearms

Many nations (both NATO and non-NATO members) use the 5.56 mm NATO cartridge in their rifles. Examples include: Argentina FARA 83 Australian F88 Austeyr assault rifle and F89 Minimi machine gun. (ADI Thales also supplies ammunition) Austrian Steyr AUG and the Steyr ACR (Flechette) assault rifle...

military.wikia.org

The other part is that the same factors that led to our decisions before remain. Weight of weapon. Weight of ammo. Effectiveness. Reliability. And wound dynamics. The 5.56 checks the blocks.

The reel place the 5.56 comes up short is range. That's why the M-14 was reintroduced in Afghanistan in some units, The AKs were outranging the M-4s.

 

[JoeB131]

He'd have gone down to the hardware store and bought a twenty buck machete. The end result would have been just as horrific or even more. There was a lot more carnage in edged weapon battles than in firearm's ones.

Not really. tell you what... Let's get a bunch of mannequins, you take out as many as you can with a machette in five minutes, I'll take out as many as I can with an AR15...

I'll betcha I'll inflict damage on more of them.

 

[daveman]

Then your beef is with the Federal agencies who conduct background checks, not with legal gun owners.

No, my beef is with the NRA and the gun makers who've made it impossible to conduct background checks.

But you don't dare criticize them. You want law-abiding Americans unable to resist your wished-for totalitarianism.

Again, guy, guns don't prevent totalitarianism. Never have, never will. Germany had a shit load of guns before Hitler came to power, despite attempts to limit gun ownership. Hitler actually loosened the gun laws (for Germans, not the Jews) and there were lots of guns in Germany, but the "Good Germans" never rose up.

Here's the reality... if the ATF came for you tomorrow, they'd get you. Most of your neighbors wouldn't get involved.

Here's an idea: Why don't you try disarming criminals first? You know, as a trial run. Let me know how it works out for you.

Here's an idea, how about we get the gun industry to stop flooding the streets with guns...

Oh, look. A leftist once again demanding all-powerful government and refusing to hold criminals responsible.

Don't you ever get tired of being a dumbass?

 

[AZrailwhale]

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

You are talking about a hunting rifle for the 308. What are you going to have, 5 in the mag and one in the tube? Now load 30 in the Mag. The Rifle is going to have to be strengthened to handle that mag and the whole gun is going to have to gain considerable weight. You just entered into a whole new world. It no longer functions as a hunting or a sporting rifle. It's become a battle rifle.

Wrong, the M-1A is a civilian version of the M-14 and was designed to handle a 20 round mag just like a M-16 or AR-15 was, you can easily get 30 round M-1A mags cheaply, I just looked and they are thirty bucks each. The civilian version of the AK-47 handles a thirty round mag and the IMI Galil handles a 35 round mag. Unless you are humping the boonies all day the weight difference between 5.56 and 7.62 is inconsequential.