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

[2aguy]

So that's the only law you want passed?

Since when?

Here's my list of laws.

1) End the gun show loophole
2) End private sales loopholes
3) Hold gun manufacturers civilly responsible for gun violence.

That's all you need to do, really. Watch how fast the gun industry cleans up it's act after that.

Yeah.....

There is no gun show loophole......that you guys keep lying about this shows you can't be trusted.

There are no private loopholes.

After we hold car makers, pool makers, and everyone else responsible for 3rd, 4th, 5th party users of their products then we can look at gun makers.......

Punishing people for things they didn't do is just what fascists like you enjoy.......it doesn't solve any actual crime, but it does give you an adrenaline rush of power.....

 

[2aguy]

And you keep calling for more and more gun laws and you think those will be enforced when the federal gun laws we already have aren't?

Like I said when we enforce federal gun laws they work.

You can keep saying that, but our gun laws are so lax that they might as well not have them.

Let's get some meaningful laws and enforce them across the board, then we can talk.

Moron, the gun laws aren't lax.....the democrat party prosecutors plea bargain down gun charges, the democrat party judges let violent, repeat gun offenders out on no cash bail and then give light sentences for repeat gun offenders....and democrat party politicians pass laws allowing violent, repeat gun offenders to get no cash bail and light sentences.

We don't have a gun problem, we have a problem with a political party that releases repeat gun offenders over and over again, the ones actually committing over 95% of our gun crime, and then they make war on the police...

That is our problem..

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah.....

There is no gun show loophole......that you guys keep lying about this shows you can't be trusted.

There are no private loopholes.

After we hold car makers, pool makers, and everyone else responsible for 3rd, 4th, 5th party users of their products then we can look at gun makers.......

Less than 4000 people a year drown in ALL BODIES of water.

Guns are designed to kill people. that's why there should be greater scrutiny in who gets them.

 

[JoeB131]

Moron, the gun laws aren't lax.....the democrat party prosecutors plea bargain down gun charges, the democrat party judges let violent, repeat gun offenders out on no cash bail and then give light sentences for repeat gun offenders....and democrat party politicians pass laws allowing violent, repeat gun offenders to get no cash bail and light sentences.

Guy, the police arrest 10 million people every year, and we only have 2 million prison cells.

Do the ******* math. Most people who get arrested are going to get plea bargains.

 

[2aguy]

Literally, greater than 50% of those charged with rape have at least one prior felony conviction. 8% of them have more than 10 prior rape convictions. This is the Democratic war on women in America. We cannot continue to let these violent animals back into society. To suggest that we can let them into society as long as we don't let them buy a new gun from a gun store is absolutely absurd. Do you really, honestly, believe that your wife is safer because you didn't let a criminal with 10 rape convictions buy a gun at a gun shop? Do you really, honestly, believe that that little piece of shit deterrent is any deterrent at all?

By the way, only 11% of rapes include a weapon other than physical strength. Only 6% of rapists use a gun; 4% of rapists use a knife. If you could actually keep guns out of the hands of violent repeat offenders, it would not reduce rapes a single iota. The rapist would either use a knife or would use his hands. The weapon of rape is a dick, not a gun. If you want to reduce rapes, please see your doctor and turn in your weapon.

They could use anything they want, but an armed victim is what will stop them. Now, if the attacker does use a gun, then it's a matter of who shoots first. If a rapist uses a knife, then the gun beats a knife hands down in any conflict. Not only does the woman win, she has the right to put him in a grave where he belongs.

If he rapes a woman using a gun, then that's additional prison time: one for rape and the other for using a firearm he wasn't allowed to have, because losing that right not only stops somebody from buying a new firearm, they are not allowed to be in possession of one either.

Extra prison time for the gun only serves to vilify the gun. It is admitting that the gun is evil and if you use an evil tool in your crime we will punish you more. That the law makes it illegal to be in possession of a gun doesn't matter: they're criminals. By definition they ignore the law. And if rape won't keep them in prison then that's the problem. A woman raped at knife point is no less raped than the woman raped at gun point.

Why do you want to lessen the punishment of rapists who use a knife or use their own hands and brute strength to force the woman into compliance?

No...you don't understand.....if you lock up gun offenders for long periods of time, they will stop carrying and using guns. This is how they stopped the yakuza in Japan from using guns more often.....they even point a gun in a crime, they go away for life.......yakuza stopped carrying guns.....they still use them when they want them, but random gun crime went down.

we need to focus on gun criminals in order to keep uninformed Americans from giving power to anti-gun extremists to ban and confiscate guns....

 

[2aguy]

Yeah.....

There is no gun show loophole......that you guys keep lying about this shows you can't be trusted.

There are no private loopholes.

After we hold car makers, pool makers, and everyone else responsible for 3rd, 4th, 5th party users of their products then we can look at gun makers.......

Less than 4000 people a year drown in ALL BODIES of water.

Guns are designed to kill people. that's why there should be greater scrutiny in who gets them.

4,000 people.......that is more than the number of innocent people murdered by guns each year...

in 2019, there were 10,258 gun murders...70-80%, likely more, of the victims were criminals...murdered by other criminals....that leaves 2,051 innocent victims of gun murder....far lower than deaths by pool..........and of those, the majority are the friends and family of criminals....caught in the crossfire of actual criminals they know....

 

[2aguy]

Moron, the gun laws aren't lax.....the democrat party prosecutors plea bargain down gun charges, the democrat party judges let violent, repeat gun offenders out on no cash bail and then give light sentences for repeat gun offenders....and democrat party politicians pass laws allowing violent, repeat gun offenders to get no cash bail and light sentences.

Guy, the police arrest 10 million people every year, and we only have 2 million prison cells.

Do the ******* math. Most people who get arrested are going to get plea bargains.

Shit head...you do the math....when you keep releasing the guys doing the shooting, you don't stop the shooting....you idiot......you lock up the shooters and the shootings stop.

If you catch them, then let them go, they go and shoot some more...which has been pointed out to you over and over again..

It doesn't matter how many people you lock up, if you keep releasing the ones responsible for shooting guns at other people....you idiot.

 

[2aguy]

If you didn't say it, you certainly implied it. Why else would you expect rapes to go down if criminals can't get guns. Where's the benefit of criminals not legally having guns if it doesn't lead to less crime?

The benefit of it is if they do commit a crime with a gun, it's added years to their sentence and we can put them away for much longer. Even for minor offenses like stealing. If a cop chases a guy down who stole something and he has a gun on him as well, he'll get much more time in prison than he would have gotten for whatever he stole even though he didn't use the gun for the theft.

Exactly.....and then criminals will stop committing crimes with guns.....and they will stop carrying guns which gang bangers use for random shootings when they get mad........

 

[2aguy]

Yeah, those claims have no credibility.... They would have you believe that 99.999% of the time where you have a confrontation between a gun nut and a criminal, that the gun nut would refrain from firing, and that the criminal would be deterred by the mere site of a gun. It just doesn't pass the laugh test.

In most cases a criminal only uses a gun to force compliance. They never had any intention on actually firing the weapon. Even our very own FBI statistics show Americans use their guns over a million times a year for self-defense or to stop a crime. I know you think you know more than the FBI and all these other research groups, but trust me, you're not that slick.

Two guys follow a woman out of the store to her car. When she approaches her car, they attempt to steal her purse. They are not armed. I see what's going on and pull out my gun ordering them to stop. They run away as fast as they can. See, this is an instance where I used my gun to stop a crime. The police come out to try and find the robbers, take our statements, and that's the end of it; probably won't even be reported on our local news.

Just because you are unaware of things going on doesn't mean they don't happen.

Most Americans killed by guns are killed in suicides and domestic violence. the fact that one third of our country has a "police record" doesn't make them criminals.

The fact is that people who wish to commit suicide will do so with or without a gun. The other fact is that if some guy wants to kill his wife, he will do so with or without a gun. People don't kill other people because they have a gun, they kill other people or themselves because they want to kill. The gun is just a tool.

I'm saying prison should be restricted to just murderers and rapists... not property and drug criminals. This is what the Europeans and Japanese do, and they lock up less than 100,000 people and have nowhere near our crime levels.

Take the "War on Drugs". we've quadrupled the prison population trying to "just say no", and frankly, we've made ourselves less safe.

Great. If you ever come home and find somebody broke into your house and stole 10K of valuables, don't call the police because you think that person should not be in prison. After all, I'm sure when somebody breaks into a home in Japan or Europe, the police don't do anything about it.

You said earlier that prison doesn't stop people from committing any crime, so why should rapists and murderers be any different?

I'd dig up the story but I know you won't read anything that goes against your false beliefs. But CVS drug stores are closing up many of their outlets in San Francisco. Why San Francisco? Because their commie leadership made shoplifting a minor offense. In fact if you call police about a shoplifter, they won't even come out unless the merchandise stolen exceeds $1,000. So people are looting these stores on a daily basis and they can't stay open. The ones that stay open have such high prices people can't afford to shop there.

This is the world leftists want to create for us. It's why we either keep Democrats out of power, or divide the country into two countries instead.

So the person will commit suicide with or without the gun. The wife killer will kill with or without the gun. And after you make those arguments you argue that the rapist won't rape without the gun? Really?

Rapists don't need guns to commit rape, women are smaller and weaker than most men, so rapists rarely have to use guns to do what they want to women........

We need to undercut the power of anti-gun extremists to use uninformed Americans in order to get the power to ban and confiscate guns....

We need to lock up the tiny number of criminals who use guns for crime...if we lock them up and keep them locked up, our gun crime rate goes down over 95%......reducing the emotional power the gun grabbers have over uninformed Americans...

 

[2aguy]

Yeah, those claims have no credibility.... They would have you believe that 99.999% of the time where you have a confrontation between a gun nut and a criminal, that the gun nut would refrain from firing, and that the criminal would be deterred by the mere site of a gun. It just doesn't pass the laugh test.

In most cases a criminal only uses a gun to force compliance. They never had any intention on actually firing the weapon. Even our very own FBI statistics show Americans use their guns over a million times a year for self-defense or to stop a crime. I know you think you know more than the FBI and all these other research groups, but trust me, you're not that slick.

Two guys follow a woman out of the store to her car. When she approaches her car, they attempt to steal her purse. They are not armed. I see what's going on and pull out my gun ordering them to stop. They run away as fast as they can. See, this is an instance where I used my gun to stop a crime. The police come out to try and find the robbers, take our statements, and that's the end of it; probably won't even be reported on our local news.

Just because you are unaware of things going on doesn't mean they don't happen.

Most Americans killed by guns are killed in suicides and domestic violence. the fact that one third of our country has a "police record" doesn't make them criminals.

The fact is that people who wish to commit suicide will do so with or without a gun. The other fact is that if some guy wants to kill his wife, he will do so with or without a gun. People don't kill other people because they have a gun, they kill other people or themselves because they want to kill. The gun is just a tool.

I'm saying prison should be restricted to just murderers and rapists... not property and drug criminals. This is what the Europeans and Japanese do, and they lock up less than 100,000 people and have nowhere near our crime levels.

Take the "War on Drugs". we've quadrupled the prison population trying to "just say no", and frankly, we've made ourselves less safe.

Great. If you ever come home and find somebody broke into your house and stole 10K of valuables, don't call the police because you think that person should not be in prison. After all, I'm sure when somebody breaks into a home in Japan or Europe, the police don't do anything about it.

You said earlier that prison doesn't stop people from committing any crime, so why should rapists and murderers be any different?

I'd dig up the story but I know you won't read anything that goes against your false beliefs. But CVS drug stores are closing up many of their outlets in San Francisco. Why San Francisco? Because their commie leadership made shoplifting a minor offense. In fact if you call police about a shoplifter, they won't even come out unless the merchandise stolen exceeds $1,000. So people are looting these stores on a daily basis and they can't stay open. The ones that stay open have such high prices people can't afford to shop there.

This is the world leftists want to create for us. It's why we either keep Democrats out of power, or divide the country into two countries instead.

You realize you are arguing and attempting to use reason and facts with a poster that is a deliberate liar, right?
Nothing you tell him is going to matter, because he is a hack, and only here to spread lies and bullshit.

You get that, right?

Yes......but joe is a punching bag......we use him to present rational arguments, to organize our information, and when people who may look at these threads, they get those arguments and information they won't get anywhere else, as they are bombarded daily with anti-gun messages from democrat party media.

We get better, but like the punching bag a boxer uses to get better, the boxer gets better, but the punching bag remains a big bag filled with sand....that is joe.

 

[2aguy]

Extra prison time for the gun only serves to vilify the gun. It is admitting that the gun is evil and if you use an evil tool in your crime we will punish you more. That the law makes it illegal to be in possession of a gun doesn't matter: they're criminals. By definition they ignore the law. And if rape won't keep them in prison then that's the problem. A woman raped at knife point is no less raped than the woman raped at gun point.

Why do you want to lessen the punishment of rapists who use a knife or use their own hands and brute strength to force the woman into compliance?

Vilify the gun? What are you getting at, do you think guns will develop an inferiority complex or something?

If a woman fights back and gets lucky, she may be able to escape a person with a knife. But if he has a gun, she's not going to escape him then. If she pokes him in the eyes she only has seconds to get away. If she's in a bit of a distance when he regains his sight back, he can still shoot her.

Guns are not the only weapon, but the ultimate weapon which is why criminals shouldn't have them. A guy attacking a woman is brought to a halt if he has a knife but she has a gun. If they both have guns, that could get ugly, especially for the victim.

6% or rapes involve a gun. Of those 6%, how many do you think would have occurred if the rapist could not get a gun - if the gun wasn't simply the convenient weapon? I'll tell you how many: 100% of the 6% would still have occurred.

You're wrong when you suggest that laws against convicted criminals from having guns will have the effect of keeping convicted felons from having guns. We, gun rights advocating community, have long argued that gun laws don't work because criminals, by definition, don't follow the law. Laws against felons having guns only prevent the felons who have taken a law-abiding path after prison from having guns.

If you think that laws forbidding felons from having guns actually prevent crimes then you admit that you believe gun control works. And if you support unconstitutional gun laws then you also admit that you believe that the Constitution is a guideline and not an actual restriction on government; you admit that you believe the government can do anything they wish, Constitution be damned.

The only difference between you and Handgun Control, Inc. is just how much gun control you want.

It is very sad now many who claim to be gun rights advocates are actually just lesser gun controllers. The worst part, is that all of those agree the government can do things not granted in the Constitution. These are authoritarians not constitutionalists. They (you?) believe the government can exceed its constitutional authority as long as they are enforcing ideas you like.

It's not the left that will destroy our country; it's the fake-right that will hand it over to the left because the fake-right doesn't have the backbone to stand up for the Constitution.

Honestly, we're doomed. The constitutional era is over. The authoritarian era is ahead.

Criminals are rational actors and respond to consequences......Japan shows this....if a criminal gets 30 years as a felon in possession of a gun, he won't carry that gun on a daily basis...cutting down on random shootings.

If the criminal would get a couple of years for a rape, but gets life in prison if he uses a gun during the commission of that rape...he won't use the gun....

This is about taking away the argument from gun grabbers, reducing the number of gun criminals they can drag out to take our guns.....

 

[JoeB131]

4,000 people.......that is more than the number of innocent people murdered by guns each year...

No, we have 39,000 gun deaths a year. Most of those people did not deserve to die. THe only difference is when someone drowns, we don't say, "Well, that guy got convicted of smoking pot when he was 19, that makes him a criminal", because that would be, you know, retarded.

A lot of drowning deaths are proceeded by the words, "Hold my beer". But we don't make moral judgements about people who showed bad judgement before they discovered they weren't as good of swimmers as they though they were.

 

[JoeB131]

Shit head...you do the math....when you keep releasing the guys doing the shooting, you don't stop the shooting....you idiot......you lock up the shooters and the shootings stop.

Except we aren't talking about releasing "Shooters", we are talking about releasing people who got caught carrying a gun.

Again - 10 million arrests, 2 million prison cells. Where do you put the other 8 million people? And that's every year. You'll have to throw out the current prisoners to make room for some of the new ones.

The real problem is that you take a gun away from one of these guys, they can just get another, because the gun industry has made it soooo darned easy to get guns. The NRA wants criminals to get guns so every tiny-peckered white guy wants one, too.

Criminals are rational actors and respond to consequences......Japan shows this....if a criminal gets 30 years as a felon in possession of a gun, he won't carry that gun on a daily basis...cutting down on random shootings.

Japan has banned privately owned guns since the Meiji Restoration. You keep leaving that part out.

in 2019, there were 10,258 gun murders...70-80%, likely more, of the victims were criminals...murdered by other criminals....that leaves 2,051 innocent victims of gun murder....far lower than deaths by pool..........and of those, the majority are the friends and family of criminals....caught in the crossfire of actual criminals they know....

Actually, it was 14,500... and the number for 2020's are going to be horrible because all these "law abiding" gun owners were locked in their houses with their spouses for months.

Not to mention the 23,000 people a year who die of self-inflicted gun shot wounds.

But the important thing is, you need your guns to feel better about your shortcomings.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Except we aren't talking about releasing "Shooters", we are talking about releasing people who got caught carrying a gun.

Again - 10 million arrests, 2 million prison cells. Where do you put the other 8 million people? And that's every year. You'll have to throw out the current prisoners to make room for some of the new ones.

The real problem is that you take a gun away from one of these guys, they can just get another, because the gun industry has made it soooo darned easy to get guns. The NRA wants criminals to get guns so every tiny-peckered white guy wants one, too.

In NYC they had a Stop and Frisk policy. Violent crime and gun crime reduced significantly and saved a lot of lives, particularly black lives. Why? Because anybody illegally carrying a gun could get busted for just the gun if searched. They got rid of Stop and Frisk, and gun crime and murders went back up. Guess what? It had nothing to do with the NRA.

While some murders are planned, most are just reactionary out of anger. I see it here all the time. Two guys get into a verbal argument at a bar, they both go outside to fight, and one of them pulls a gun and shoots the other one. I'm sure it goes on in Chicago ten-fold. Now, if these people didn't have a gun, they would have fought, one man wins and the other man loses, and that's the extent of the violence.

One was carrying a gun illegally. He was drinking at the bar when he used the gun. He illegally shot another man. What does he get for carrying the gun illegally? Maybe a year at most. In possession of a firearm under disability? Maybe a few months if that. The most time he will get is for assault with a deadly weapon or murder if the victim doesn't survive.

Make illegally in possession of a firearm a minimum of five years, you'd see a lot less people carrying guns that shouldn't have them. A minimum of 20 years for using a firearm in commission of any crime, you'll see crimes with gun use drop in half.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Less than 4000 people a year drown in ALL BODIES of water.

Guns are designed to kill people. that's why there should be greater scrutiny in who gets them.

Guns are no more designed to kill people than a bow and arrow. A gun is designed to put a projectile through the air at an intended target. It's the individual that decides what the intended target it, not the gun manufacturer.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Oh, we'd have a gun industry... but it would be a more responsible one.

One that actually didn't sell a semi-automatic and a 100 round clip to this guy.

And then that guy would be able to sue them for discriminating of his looks. Hey Joe, how about a gun store not selling to any blacks? You on board with that?

 

[Rigby5]

Yeah.....

There is no gun show loophole......that you guys keep lying about this shows you can't be trusted.

There are no private loopholes.

After we hold car makers, pool makers, and everyone else responsible for 3rd, 4th, 5th party users of their products then we can look at gun makers.......

Less than 4000 people a year drown in ALL BODIES of water.

Guns are designed to kill people. that's why there should be greater scrutiny in who gets them.

That makes no sense because everyone has the inherent right of defense.
You can't try to create multiple tiers of rights in a democratic republic.
If there are dangerous people, they need to be institutionalized, not try to make our whole society into an institution.
And just passing gun control laws is going to stop them from getting guns about as successfully as drug laws stopped people from being able to get drugs.
The likely effect will likely be to increase gun use, not decrease it.

And no, guns are not designed to kill people.
The military purposely went from .308 caliber down to .223 caliber because they decided you use up more enemy resources if you wound instead of killing.
For civilians, 99.9% of gun uses are to just scare criminals way, without having to kill anyone.

 

[Rigby5]

4,000 people.......that is more than the number of innocent people murdered by guns each year...

No, we have 39,000 gun deaths a year. Most of those people did not deserve to die. THe only difference is when someone drowns, we don't say, "Well, that guy got convicted of smoking pot when he was 19, that makes him a criminal", because that would be, you know, retarded.

A lot of drowning deaths are proceeded by the words, "Hold my beer". But we don't make moral judgements about people who showed bad judgement before they discovered they weren't as good of swimmers as they though they were.

First of all, half those are suicides so do not at all count in any way.
Some of those are accidents, which are going to happen to careless people anyway.
And the cause of most of those that are crimes are actually due to the War on Drugs, which entices people with huge profits, but is a cash economy, so then quickly devolves into guns and shootings.

And it clearly makes no sense to try to reduce gun deaths by passing more laws because anyone intent on committing a crime with a gun already intends to risk far greater penalty than the gun law.

It is gun control that caused police to increase not only in number, but also in corruption, abuse, and outright murder.
We need more armed citizens in order to decrease the abuses of police.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And that has been upheld in various courts.

It's unconstitutional. But who cares about the constitution, right? Individual rights don't serve the interests of the party and the party comes first, right?

That is just stupid. The law was overturned based on the state's preemption law. It didn't have a damn thing to do with the Constitution. I mean did you miss this part,

"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.

I mean this is absolutely comical. Townhall makes a big rah rah, spouts off about constitutional rights and the second amendment and right there, from the Judge himself, let me quote it again,

only Colorado state (or federal) law can prohibit the possession, sale, and transfer of assault weapons and large capacity magazines,"

Obviously, this judge believes that state and federal governments can prohibit both assault weapons and large capacity magazines. Hell, I will go further, local governments could as well as long as there is not a preemption law in effect in that state.

I mean I swear, your righties are just totally ignorant. You have no critical reading skills, are as gullible as a toddler, and the really sad part, outlets like Townhall absolutely feast on that ignorance. I mean I will agree with one thing, this nation is going to hell in a handbasket, but it doesn't have a damn thing to do with Biden, or the left. It is because of the rampant flippin ignorance of you morons on the right.

Idiots like you are how guys like Stalin, Hitler, and Mao came to power. You're too ******* stupid to learn from history.

LMAO, I bet I have forgot more about history than you will ever know.

Well, you've definitely forgotten a lot about grammar, since you didn't know that the correct word would be "forgotten".

 

[Cecilie1200]

With a .223 caliber? You are delusional. AR-15's chambered in .223, or even .22 are for suckers and fools. The whole reason there is such an uproar to protect them is because they are the most profitable guns made.

More people are killed with .22 calibers than any other.

The reason there's an uproar to protect AR-15s is because the Constitution guarantees our right to own them - that and the fact they're extremely fun to shoot.

The hell you say. You want to show me where the Constitution specifically guarantees you the right to own an AR-15. I mean this is news to me. What, did the founders have some kind of crystal ball that told them that in the future there will be this punk ass gun made to look like it is a military rifle that will provide huge profits for the gun manufacturers as it is sold to morons and fools with tiny ass peckers to make them feel like a man and it should be constitutionally protected? I mean I got to see that shit. Can't believe I missed it.

Ah, yes, I remember this leftist attempt at being clever . . . and how badly it failed because leftists aren't equipped for cleverness.

You should realize that if you want to define "keep and bear arms" in the 2nd Amendment to mean ONLY firearm technology that existed at the time of the Founding, you're going to have to ALSO define the 1st Amendment according to ONLY the media technology that existed then. Are you really prepared to only have freedom of speech as it relates to newpapers and giving speeches in a town square?

Next time you want to make a lame attempt at being smart, please don't try it with an argument that your side already lost years ago, please.