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

[tyroneweaver]

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

Any bets on what yesterday's shooter used?

I bet it was an AR style rifle with a large capacity magazine. The gold standard for mass shootings all over the USA.

and every single one was on the FBI's watch dog list, but they're to busy watching guys like me.

Why would they be watching you?

free white and 21

No.

Well, would you believe I was in Dallas on Nov 23, 1963

No

How about Austin Texas August 1, 1966

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Given the deadly potential of guns, that isn't good enough.

Here's the real problem. If there was legal liability, gun manufacturers would change how they do business. they would be the ones performing REAL background checks, instead of selling to every crazy who wants a gun hoping to scare the straights into wanting them, too.

No, because a gun manufacturer has no contact with the end customer, that's what a gun seller does. And again, a licensed dealer does background checks on ALL customers buying a firearm from their store or a gun show. Yes, they still have to do that check even at a gun show by law.

Apple sells around 20 million computers a year. Do you think they should do a criminal search on 20 million people every year to make sure the consumer doesn't use their products to rob people, scam people, or to lure children into sex acts? Of course not. That's ridiculous.

So why do the commies want this liability lifted? Because it would give them the ability to sue all gun makers and sellers out of business, and firearms would be virtually impossible to purchase.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Then those background checks are inadequate.

They should treat the background check like an actual background check. For instance, when I got my last job, they did a background check. They called several of my former coworkers and employers.

They should do that with guns. Ask your co-workers and neighbors if you are a nut or not. My guess, they wouldn't be too keen on that.

Coworkers and neighbors do not have the professional training to make that determination, furthermore they may be people you are on the outs with, and let's face it, a lot of people have that coworker or neighbor they have conflicts with including you, and you've wrote about that repeatedly.

Your claim is that one supervisor only took white woman to lunch. Forget the fact that most people of a particular race tend to gravitate towards each other. Forget the fact he took out young attractive white girls maybe hoping to get their interest. You said he did it because "you concluded" he was racist.

Now if a the feds contacted you about that supervisor during a background check, and they took your false conclusion that your supervisor was racist, they won't allow him to buy a gun? They have no idea you are a self-hating white. They have no idea that your entire life revolves around race. They are just going to take your word for it that your supervisor is a racist. See what I mean?

 

[2aguy]

I said just as horrific, run through a crowd slashing with an edged weapon and you get horrific results. If you did the same with any firearm, you'd get swarmed the first time you stopped for a magazine change. At close range I very much doubt you'd get nearly as many kills/injuries as the guy with the edged weapon.

Sandy Hook. Guy was able to reload several times. Columbine. Atlanta. Boulder yesterday. This is a crock and you know it.

Not that it matters, you guys want the mass shooters to have access to bigger and bigger magazines, so they never need to reload.

Shithead...every ******* gun store and licensed gun dealer has to do federal background checks.....you lying asshole.

Then those background checks are inadequate.

They should treat the background check like an actual background check. For instance, when I got my last job, they did a background check. They called several of my former coworkers and employers.

They should do that with guns. Ask your co-workers and neighbors if you are a nut or not. My guess, they wouldn't be too keen on that.

The thing we find out after every last one of these mass shootings is that everyone in the person's life knew he was nuts.

You have been shown, over and over that magazine size has nothing to do with how many people are killed......you simply see an opportunity to ban guns by banning magazines....you are a twit.

The Pulse Nightclub shooter had an extensive background check for his security job. He had a background check for every single gun he bought. He was accused, by a co-worker, of being a terrorist...so the FBI.....the FBI.....did a complete background check into the guy....including 3 interviews with Federal agents, and also an undercover approach by federal agents........

He passed all of them, you doofus.........

Background checks do not catch mass public shooters because the majority commit no prior crimes.......and then the ones who have mental problems get passed along by the very ******* government you worship....

You are an idiot.

 

[2aguy]

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?

Uh, guy, I have no problem with holding criminals responsible...that's not the point.

The point is, when you have easy access to guns, any fool can have a "really bad day" and become a criminal.

The guy who shot all the Asian hookers had no criminal record. He just had a "really bad day" and easy access to guns.

Wrong.....you lying asshole.......90% of murderers have long histories of crime and violence dating back to their teen years with, on average, 6 years of crime before they commit the murder.......

 

[2aguy]

it's not impossible.

In fact anyone can contact a FFL in their area to do a background check for the purpose of a gun sale.

I obey our federal gun laws and if I was to sell a gun to a person I didn't know I would have a BG check done.

But I'm more likely to trade a gun in at a gun store than I am to sell it on Craigs list

That's nice. But some asshole out there is selling them on Craig's List... and that's the problem.

It's an easy fix.

Just require all gun sales be subject to a BG check.

No one should have an issue with that.

But even more important is the enforcement of our federal gun laws already on the books.

I do....because they won't open the NICS system to regular people..........you have to go through a firearms dealer or the police.....and they can charge you for it or delay it, or refuse to do it.

Joe doesn't care about background checks....he doesn't care about universal background checks.....they want universal background checks as the trojan horse to get gun registration which he knows they need to really ban and confiscate guns.....

 

[2aguy]

Apples and oranges. If a bartender knowingly serves you enough times to allow you to get drunk, he or she is liable because they participated in your irresponsible actions. Gun manufacturers only sell to licensed gun dealers, and those dealers order firearms based on consumer demand. The manufacturers have no idea who will be buying their products, and the licensed dealer has no idea of how their customers will use the product they buy from them, no different than the sales person at the dealership you buy an automobile from.

Given the deadly potential of guns, that isn't good enough.

Here's the real problem. If there was legal liability, gun manufacturers would change how they do business. they would be the ones performing REAL background checks, instead of selling to every crazy who wants a gun hoping to scare the straights into wanting them, too.

Out of curiosity. What is a Real Background Check?

According to joe, a real background check is any background check that makes it impossible for people to buy, own or carry guns.......

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wrong.....you lying asshole.......90% of murderers have long histories of crime and violence dating back to their teen years with, on average, 6 years of crime before they commit the murder.......

And if we ever implemented Joe's suggestion, the next thing you know he would be complaining that a lot of blacks can't legally purchase firearms, and that the regulation is racist.

 

[2aguy]

Wrong.....you lying asshole.......90% of murderers have long histories of crime and violence dating back to their teen years with, on average, 6 years of crime before they commit the murder.......

And if we ever implemented Joe's suggestion, the next thing you know he would be complaining that a lot of blacks can't legally purchase firearms, and that the regulation is racist.

Except joe calls them "Darkies," not blacks.......

 

[SavannahMann]

Apples and oranges. If a bartender knowingly serves you enough times to allow you to get drunk, he or she is liable because they participated in your irresponsible actions. Gun manufacturers only sell to licensed gun dealers, and those dealers order firearms based on consumer demand. The manufacturers have no idea who will be buying their products, and the licensed dealer has no idea of how their customers will use the product they buy from them, no different than the sales person at the dealership you buy an automobile from.

Given the deadly potential of guns, that isn't good enough.

Here's the real problem. If there was legal liability, gun manufacturers would change how they do business. they would be the ones performing REAL background checks, instead of selling to every crazy who wants a gun hoping to scare the straights into wanting them, too.

Out of curiosity. What is a Real Background Check?

According to joe, a real background check is any background check that makes it impossible for people to buy, own or carry guns.......

I heard it tossed about. I am honestly curious as to what he considers a Real Background Check. I am always willing to listen and consider. It is possible he has an idea with merit. I won’t know u til he describes this Real Background Check.

 

[2aguy]

Apples and oranges. If a bartender knowingly serves you enough times to allow you to get drunk, he or she is liable because they participated in your irresponsible actions. Gun manufacturers only sell to licensed gun dealers, and those dealers order firearms based on consumer demand. The manufacturers have no idea who will be buying their products, and the licensed dealer has no idea of how their customers will use the product they buy from them, no different than the sales person at the dealership you buy an automobile from.

Given the deadly potential of guns, that isn't good enough.

Here's the real problem. If there was legal liability, gun manufacturers would change how they do business. they would be the ones performing REAL background checks, instead of selling to every crazy who wants a gun hoping to scare the straights into wanting them, too.

Out of curiosity. What is a Real Background Check?

According to joe, a real background check is any background check that makes it impossible for people to buy, own or carry guns.......

I heard it tossed about. I am honestly curious as to what he considers a Real Background Check. I am always willing to listen and consider. It is possible he has an idea with merit. I won’t know u til he describes this Real Background Check.

He wants the police to be able to go to all of your family and neighbors and employer, and give them a veto on your ability to own a gun.....that is what he means

 

[LuckyDuck]

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.

Nah.....sue the automobile manufacturers.

 

[SavannahMann]

Apples and oranges. If a bartender knowingly serves you enough times to allow you to get drunk, he or she is liable because they participated in your irresponsible actions. Gun manufacturers only sell to licensed gun dealers, and those dealers order firearms based on consumer demand. The manufacturers have no idea who will be buying their products, and the licensed dealer has no idea of how their customers will use the product they buy from them, no different than the sales person at the dealership you buy an automobile from.

Given the deadly potential of guns, that isn't good enough.

Here's the real problem. If there was legal liability, gun manufacturers would change how they do business. they would be the ones performing REAL background checks, instead of selling to every crazy who wants a gun hoping to scare the straights into wanting them, too.

Out of curiosity. What is a Real Background Check?

According to joe, a real background check is any background check that makes it impossible for people to buy, own or carry guns.......

I will skip the veto power of neighbors for the moment. I have a question though. How do we pay for what is in essence a Top Secret Background Investigation on any and all Gun Buyers? Half of the current cops would be tied up in background investigations.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The Texas Constitution, Article 1, Section 23 states:

"Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime."

The U.S. Constitution states:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What seems to be the confusion? NOTHING in THE PLAIN LANGUAGE of either of those constitutional provisions states that the FedGov can limit my right to certain firearms.

 

[JoeB131]

It's an easy fix.

Just require all gun sales be subject to a BG check.

No one should have an issue with that.

I would agree, if you ACTUALLY did background checks.

The guy in Boulder- Had a long history of mental illness and was convicted of assault in 2018. Was still able to get a gun.

The guy in Atlanta- had a history of mental illness.

 

[JoeB131]

I will skip the veto power of neighbors for the moment. I have a question though. How do we pay for what is in essence a Top Secret Background Investigation on any and all Gun Buyers? Half of the current cops would be tied up in background investigations.

Why would that be a bad thing. The whole reason why we had riots all last summer was too many guys who shouldn't be cops got those jobs and kept shooting black people until they got fed up with it.

 

[freyasman]

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.

Oh great. Another one who is an expert with flawed information.

The average rifleman still carries the M-4 or M-16A4 because the factors that made it a good choice remain true today. Those who carry the M-14’s are snipers. The heavier round is more accurate at longer ranges. The semi-automatic weapon is faster to fire than the bolt action rifle of my own era. It is not a common issue rifle for the average soldier. It is used by the long range shooters for obvious reasons.

A Squad and Platoon has a mix of weapons. Because someone carries the light automatic weapon chambered for the 5.56 cartridge does not mean it is going to be given to everyone.

A mix of weapons gives the squad and platoon leadership tools to deal with various situations. Grenade Launchers, Machine Guns, Rifles, Squad Automatic Weapons, Anti-Armor. The mix gives the unit flexibility.

In my day as a Combat Engineer our squad was armed as follows. A M-60 Machine Gun. 2 M-203 40 MM Grenade Launchers attached to rifles. Everyone else had standard M-16A2 rifles. Each Squad also had a M-67 90MM Recoilless Rifle. The Lieutenant and the Machine Gunners were also issued M-9 Pistols.

We did not have snipers. We were a unit of Combat Engineers. But we were combat troops so we had enough firepower to deal with most situations we were liable to get into. We normally broke off into squads and supported Infantry Companies on attacks or defense.

Each unit has a mix of weapons. Just as each unit brings something to the party. Combined Arms means using these various parts to creat a whole that is much more than the sum of the parts.

Mostly correct, but we did have "Designated Marksmen" in rifle squads starting in Afghanistan, mostly due to the longer ranges of the engagements there.
I carried a scoped M14 with a bipod there in 2003 and filled that slot, even though I was an NCO, (I just really wanted the M14, lol).

 

[freyasman]

it's not impossible.

In fact anyone can contact a FFL in their area to do a background check for the purpose of a gun sale.

I obey our federal gun laws and if I was to sell a gun to a person I didn't know I would have a BG check done.

But I'm more likely to trade a gun in at a gun store than I am to sell it on Craigs list

That's nice. But some asshole out there is selling them on Craig's List... and that's the problem.

It's an easy fix.

Just require all gun sales be subject to a BG check.

No one should have an issue with that.

But even more important is the enforcement of our federal gun laws already on the books.

I do.


I don't have to prove I am not a felon to anyone before I exercise fundamental rights. The only thing the government or it's agents are allowed to presume about anyone, is that they are citizens in good standing and innocent of all wrong doing, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.

That's what presumption of innocence means.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why would that be a bad thing. The whole reason why we had riots all last summer was too many guys who shouldn't be cops got those jobs and kept shooting black people until they got fed up with it.

There is no law that states a cop cannot shoot a black person if he or she fears for their safety, the safety of others, or presume their life is on the line. They already demonstrated (as I have) the maneuver used by the officer in Mn is common by police, and taught in the police academies across the country. The reason we had riots is because we have so many stupid people and a brainwashing media to rile them up.

 

[daveman]

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?

Uh, guy, I have no problem with holding criminals responsible...that's not the point.

The point is, when you have easy access to guns, any fool can have a "really bad day" and become a criminal.

The guy who shot all the Asian hookers had no criminal record. He just had a "really bad day" and easy access to guns.

Mass murderers have easy access to rental trucks. To pressure cookers. To the chemicals needed to make Sarin gas. To knives.

But since people don't resist leftist tyranny with rental trucks, pressure cookers, chemicals, and knives, you don't give a shit.

You can **** off, you Commie bastard.