CDZ Do "liberals" really want to ban the AR-15 ?

[JQPublic1]

If they do, they haven't been serious about it. They have ignored one of the most convenient tools for getting that message across to the public. That tool is graphics. Before you protest consider this:


When I was in high school, we were shown graphic scenes of traffic accident fatalities in vivid color. Those imagers still haunt me to day, and definitely had an immediate effect on most of us. We didn't stop driving but most students didn't speed as much or drink and drive as much for weeks.

Also consider this: There are places where you could walk down a busy thoroughfare and see poster sized images of aborted fetuses in vivid color. Those images, undoubtedly caused a lot of public backlash against abortion and contributed greatly to the RW Pro-Life cause.

But we have been spared the images of the mangled bodies of children killed at Sandy Hook by weapons like the AR-15. The liberals have not been as aggressive as the conservatives have at getting depictions of carnage posted and published. Liberals, if you want to be taken seriously on banning weapons like the AR-15 post images of the massacred people in Florida and of Sandy Hook. Bring those images forth to dwell on the public conscience. Be as dogged in that quest as the RW zealots have been in theirs.

 

[Two Thumbs]

There's no such thing as a liberal.

They all died off.

No 'liberal' would be for banning our rights, it goes against the very definition of the word.

 

[JQPublic1]

There's no such thing as a liberal.

They all died off.

No 'liberal' would be for banning our rights, it goes against the very definition of the word.

I used the term "liberal' loosely. But anyone who has been on these boards for any length of time knows how UNIVERSAL it has become as a euphemism for anyone who doesn't wholly agree with RW conservative principles. But the op is not about that. It is about a method to put teeth into the ban on Assault type rifles or those rifles with the potential to be assault rifles with a little modification.

 

[candycorn]

No.

What impact would be had by having this weapon and allowing (among others) and MP5 or Uzi or whatever?

You’ve got to accept 2 truths. The 2nd Amendment isn’t going anywhere. And with or without it, there is ALWAYS a potential of a mass shooting as long as firearms exist. We can’t uninvent them so they will exist; just like as long as there are large rocks and room for them to move in accordance to the laws of gravity, you’ll have people crushed by the rocks. Now one is a law of nature and it is immutable. One was set up by our founders 240 years ago and (for some reason), our nation (liberals, conservatives, libertarians, anarchists, democrats, republicans, indies, greens, men, women, kids, elderly, young, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, possibly native American, tall, short, fat, thin, left handed, right handed, well spoken, toothless hick, GLBT, LGBT, and even Dennis Rodman) lives in total fear of changing a word of what they wrote!!! Sure, the average business may have to update it’s business plan every 6 months on the short end, every 5 years on the high end but for some reason, most Americans wouldn’t think of changing our nation’s business plan after 240 years!!! I don’t get it but it never-the-less is the truth. If you’re watching this behavior from Mars, you’re rolling on your back laughing at us. I’m pretty sure sickos in Europe are laughing at us too.

Anyway, back to weapons…

Celebrated Supreme Court Justice Scalia wrote that there are limits on rights that can be placed by society. If you use Scalia as a sage on the topic, that would indicate that legal minds are calibrated to allow limits to the 2nd Amendment. When you start banning weapons from the public (even though its a comical argument that someone hunting deer needs such a robust weapon or that you need such a robust weapon to defend your home), you are going down the wrong track. Hell, someone could invent an AR-17 tomorrow with twice the firepower…then you start the legislation all over again.

What is possible is that you put barriers between people and acquisition to where if you really want a gun and can pass the appropriate background checks, you get one. These are the limitations we’re talking about.

 

[DGS49]

Today's Leftists (the term, "liberal" has become meaningless) oppose the possession of firearms by anyone, and if the truth be known, they resent the people who own firearms.

The main differences between an "assault weapon" and a deer rifle are that an assault weapon looks fearsome and can be had with larger bullet capacity. But legal assault weapons are not "automatic weapons."

Most Leftists are not aware that "automatic weapons" (firearms that fire continuously with a single pull of the trigger) have been banned in this country for decades, and you STILL hear newscasters referring to single-shot Assault Weapons as "automatic weapons."

It is undoubtedly true that the "assault weapons" used in recent massacres probably resulted in more people being shot than if the perps had used pistols or hunting rifles. This is mainly due to the high-capacity magazines.

But most firearm-homicides in this country, by far, are committed with handguns by thugs in urban areas. And no one is going anywhere with a ban on handguns.

So Leftists focus on Assault Weapons because they know they can't ban handguns and their REAL objective - the total banning of firearms - is just a pipedream.

 

[Two Thumbs]

There's no such thing as a liberal.

They all died off.

No 'liberal' would be for banning our rights, it goes against the very definition of the word.

I used the term "liberal' loosely. But anyone who has been on these boards for any length of time knows how UNIVERSAL it has become as a euphemism for anyone who doesn't wholly agree with RW conservative principles. But the op is not about that. It is about a method to put teeth into the ban on Assault type rifles or those rifles with the potential to be assault rifles with a little modification.

this thread is about using fear to undermine our Constitutional rights.

something a liberal would never do, but leftist do on a regular basis.

 

[JQPublic1]

You’ve got to accept 2 truths. The 2nd Amendment isn’t going anywhere. And with or without it, there is ALWAYS a potential of a mass shooting as long as firearms exist. We can’t uninvent them so they will exist;

I embrace the 2nd Amendment. I am not advocating the ban of all weapons, just the type that seem to be a favorite for mass murder. That includes all of the rifles you mentioned but especially to the AR-15 and others based on the m-16 prototype.

Celebrated Supreme Court Justice Scalia wrote that there are limits on rights that can be placed by society. If you use Scalia as a sage on the topic, that would indicate that legal minds are calibrated to allow limits to the 2nd Amendment. When you start banning weapons from the public (even though its a comical argument that someone hunting deer needs such a robust weapon or that you need such a robust weapon to defend your home), you are going down the wrong track. Hell, someone could invent an AR-17 tomorrow with twice the firepower…then you start the legislation all over again.

Many legal minds are corrupted by greed and or political expediency. Lobbyists hired by the NRA work diligently to keep legislators on their side. The only voice the general public has is through those called "liberals" by RW zealots. IMHO, those so-called "liberals" have not done enough to make their case. They haven't been GRAPHIC enough.
Once public opinion has been swayed by ubiquitous graphics showing the carnage these weapons have inflicted on innocent children, women and men. No amount of lobbying is going to be enough to ban them and high capacity magazines completely.

What is possible is that you put barriers between people and acquisition to where if you really want a gun and can pass the appropriate background checks, you get one. These are the limitations we’re talking about.

That has been tried for years. It isn't people with criminal records that are committing these unprovoked mass murders , it is people off the criminal radar. You can't really stop people like that with cursory background checks.

 

[JQPublic1]

There's no such thing as a liberal.

They all died off.

No 'liberal' would be for banning our rights, it goes against the very definition of the word.

I used the term "liberal' loosely. But anyone who has been on these boards for any length of time knows how UNIVERSAL it has become as a euphemism for anyone who doesn't wholly agree with RW conservative principles. But the op is not about that. It is about a method to put teeth into the ban on Assault type rifles or those rifles with the potential to be assault rifles with a little modification.

this thread is about using fear to undermine our Constitutional rights.

something a liberal would never do, but leftist do on a regular basis.

There are many "conservatives" on this board that would disagree with you. They live by the use of that term (liberal) to describe the hated left. But I really don't care which term you use to describe leftists, I just want to emphasize that the people who want assault type rifles banned are not too serious about it. BTW your Constitutional right to own and buy weapons would not be abrogated by a ban on certain weapons.

 

[candycorn]

You’ve got to accept 2 truths. The 2nd Amendment isn’t going anywhere. And with or without it, there is ALWAYS a potential of a mass shooting as long as firearms exist. We can’t uninvent them so they will exist;

I embrace the 2nd Amendment. I am not advocating the ban of all weapons, just the type that seem to be a favorite for mass murder. That includes all of the rifles you mentioned but especially to the AR-15 and others based on the m-16 prototype.

I wasn’t trying to say “you” s in JQPublic but the larger “we”. My bad.

Celebrated Supreme Court Justice Scalia wrote that there are limits on rights that can be placed by society. If you use Scalia as a sage on the topic, that would indicate that legal minds are calibrated to allow limits to the 2nd Amendment. When you start banning weapons from the public (even though its a comical argument that someone hunting deer needs such a robust weapon or that you need such a robust weapon to defend your home), you are going down the wrong track. Hell, someone could invent an AR-17 tomorrow with twice the firepower…then you start the legislation all over again.

Many legal minds are corrupted by greed and or political expediency. Lobbyists hired by the NRA work diligently to keep legislators on their side. The only voice the general public has is through those called "liberals" by RW zealots. IMHO, those so-called "liberals" have not done enough to make their case. They haven't been GRAPHIC enough.
Once public opinion has been swayed by ubiquitous graphics showing the carnage these weapons have inflicted on innocent children, women and men. No amount of lobbying is going to be enough to ban them and high capacity magazines completely.

My point was that anytime you make a law to outlaw something, the suppliers immediately change the name of the product. Ironically right now I’m watching a Fronline episode about Draftkings/Fan Duel and they are talking about how their product is an “entertainment” product and not a gambling website.

They take your money; they give you more if you win; they keep it if you lose. Basically the definition of gambling.

What is possible is that you put barriers between people and acquisition to where if you really want a gun and can pass the appropriate background checks, you get one. These are the limitations we’re talking about.

That has been tried for years. It isn't people with criminal records that are committing these unprovoked mass murders , it is people off the criminal radar. You can't really stop people like that with cursory background checks.

Nothing will stop all rampage shootings. That the right wing makes that the only standard of success is pretty smart on their part.

 

[JQPublic1]

Today's Leftists (the term, "liberal" has become meaningless) oppose the possession of firearms by anyone, and if the truth be known, they resent the people who own firearms.

You do realize how diverse the so-called "left" is, don't you. Many of them embrace the 2nd Amendment as much as you do. Some you call "leftists" are coservative on MOST things and "liberal" on others. There is really no clear dividing line between RW and LW on all issues.

The main differences between an "assault weapon" and a deer rifle are that an assault weapon looks fearsome and can be had with larger bullet capacity. But legal assault weapons are not "automatic weapons."

Most Leftists are not aware that "automatic weapons" (firearms that fire continuously with a single pull of the trigger) have been banned in this country for decades, and you STILL hear newscasters referring to single-shot Assault Weapons as "automatic weapons."

I think you are wrong in your assumption about "leftists" once again.. Many "leftists" are war veterans.They know what an assault rifle is and what it takes to modify some semi-automatic rifles into assault rifles.

It is undoubtedly true that the "assault weapons" used in recent massacres probably resulted in more people being shot than if the perps had used pistols or hunting rifles. This is mainly due to the high-capacity magazines

High capacity magazines did contribute to the number of people killed and or shot but if the rounds used by the killer are like the ones I loaded into my M-16 during my military service, the carnage would be hellish. The round makes a small entrance hole and a huge exit wound. People shot in the face would have the back of their heads blown away and people shot in the back of the head would have no face afterwards. I don't think I need to describe how other parts of the body would be impacted by a hit.

But most firearm-homicides in this country, by far, are committed with handguns by thugs in urban areas. And no one is going anywhere with a ban on handguns.

So Leftists focus on Assault Weapons because they know they can't ban handguns and their REAL objective - the total banning of firearms - is just a pipedream.

Well, if you kew the facts you wouldn't give "leftists" as a group such a bad rap. Obama's presidency is almost up and you still have your guns and ammo. But before I finish here I want to to know the truth about who is committing the most murders in metropolitan counties…yes, the same counties where urban thugs live. You might be surprised to know that White people are doing most of the killings in those counties BY FAR> Need proof: Here is the FBI data:

 

[GaryDog]

There's no such thing as a liberal.

They all died off.

No 'liberal' would be for banning our rights, it goes against the very definition of the word.

I used the term "liberal' loosely. But anyone who has been on these boards for any length of time knows how UNIVERSAL it has become as a euphemism for anyone who doesn't wholly agree with RW conservative principles. But the op is not about that. It is about a method to put teeth into the ban on Assault type rifles or those rifles with the potential to be assault rifles with a little modification.

this thread is about using fear to undermine our Constitutional rights.

something a liberal would never do, but leftist do on a regular basis.

The NRA thanks you for lining their pockets. Because that's literally all you're doing.

 

[M14 Shooter]

They do.

They cannot present a sound argument as to why; all of their arguments to that effect are rooted in fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[2aguy]

No.

What impact would be had by having this weapon and allowing (among others) and MP5 or Uzi or whatever?

You’ve got to accept 2 truths. The 2nd Amendment isn’t going anywhere. And with or without it, there is ALWAYS a potential of a mass shooting as long as firearms exist. We can’t uninvent them so they will exist; just like as long as there are large rocks and room for them to move in accordance to the laws of gravity, you’ll have people crushed by the rocks. Now one is a law of nature and it is immutable. One was set up by our founders 240 years ago and (for some reason), our nation (liberals, conservatives, libertarians, anarchists, democrats, republicans, indies, greens, men, women, kids, elderly, young, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, possibly native American, tall, short, fat, thin, left handed, right handed, well spoken, toothless hick, GLBT, LGBT, and even Dennis Rodman) lives in total fear of changing a word of what they wrote!!! Sure, the average business may have to update it’s business plan every 6 months on the short end, every 5 years on the high end but for some reason, most Americans wouldn’t think of changing our nation’s business plan after 240 years!!! I don’t get it but it never-the-less is the truth. If you’re watching this behavior from Mars, you’re rolling on your back laughing at us. I’m pretty sure sickos in Europe are laughing at us too.

Anyway, back to weapons…

Celebrated Supreme Court Justice Scalia wrote that there are limits on rights that can be placed by society. If you use Scalia as a sage on the topic, that would indicate that legal minds are calibrated to allow limits to the 2nd Amendment. When you start banning weapons from the public (even though its a comical argument that someone hunting deer needs such a robust weapon or that you need such a robust weapon to defend your home), you are going down the wrong track. Hell, someone could invent an AR-17 tomorrow with twice the firepower…then you start the legislation all over again.

What is possible is that you put barriers between people and acquisition to where if you really want a gun and can pass the appropriate background checks, you get one. These are the limitations we’re talking about.

Yeah.,.......he had 2 background checks....one for work, where he carried a gun, and one to buy the guns...passed both, then he had 12 months of surveillance by FBI agents looking for signs of trouble, 3 inter views with trained FBI interrogators, and they even tossed an under cover agent at him to see what he was doing...oh, and they also did and extensive records and background check on him....

and what is this you are saying about passing the appropriate background check...this guy passed even more than that....

The club was a gun free zone...that made the difference, France doesn't have background checks because you can't own AR-15s, Sig Carbines or even fully automatic rifles. they are completely illegal there......and terrorists on French, government, Terrorist watch lists got fully automatic weapons and used them to murder 140 people....

 

[2aguy]

Today's Leftists (the term, "liberal" has become meaningless) oppose the possession of firearms by anyone, and if the truth be known, they resent the people who own firearms.

You do realize how diverse the so-called "left" is, don't you. Many of them embrace the 2nd Amendment as much as you do. Some you call "leftists" are coservative on MOST things and "liberal" on others. There is really no clear dividing line between RW and LW on all issues.

The main differences between an "assault weapon" and a deer rifle are that an assault weapon looks fearsome and can be had with larger bullet capacity. But legal assault weapons are not "automatic weapons."

Most Leftists are not aware that "automatic weapons" (firearms that fire continuously with a single pull of the trigger) have been banned in this country for decades, and you STILL hear newscasters referring to single-shot Assault Weapons as "automatic weapons."

I think you are wrong in your assumption about "leftists" once again.. Many "leftists" are war veterans.They know what an assault rifle is and what it takes to modify some semi-automatic rifles into assault rifles.

It is undoubtedly true that the "assault weapons" used in recent massacres probably resulted in more people being shot than if the perps had used pistols or hunting rifles. This is mainly due to the high-capacity magazines

High capacity magazines did contribute to the number of people killed and or shot but if the rounds used by the killer are like the ones I loaded into my M-16 during my military service, the carnage would be hellish. The round makes a small entrance hole and a huge exit wound. People shot in the face would have the back of their heads blown away and people shot in the back of the head would have no face afterwards. I don't think I need to describe how other parts of the body would be impacted by a hit.

But most firearm-homicides in this country, by far, are committed with handguns by thugs in urban areas. And no one is going anywhere with a ban on handguns.

So Leftists focus on Assault Weapons because they know they can't ban handguns and their REAL objective - the total banning of firearms - is just a pipedream.

Well, if you kew the facts you wouldn't give "leftists" as a group such a bad rap. Obama's presidency is almost up and you still have your guns and ammo. But before I finish here I want to to know the truth about who is committing the most murders in metropolitan counties…yes, the same counties where urban thugs live. You might be surprised to know that White people are doing most of the killings in those counties BY FAR> Need proof: Here is the FBI data:

View attachment 78351

High capacity magazines did contribute to the number of people killed and or shot but if the rounds used by the killer are like the ones I loaded into my M-16 during my military service, the carnage would be hellish.

Wrong on all counts.....the virginia tech shooter used a pistol and murdered 32....actual research shows that magazine capacity has no bearing on the casualty count..the shooters and their rate of fire are not impacted by magazine capacity.........

And the rounds you used...are what he used.....and they are not Hellish.....

You are pretending to know about guns......good to know....

Obama stacked the federal bench.....hoping one day to appoint more than one Supreme Court Justice to replace the conservatives.....and he focused on that because his priority was destroying the American health care system and he knew that he would lose support if democrats lost seats fighting for gun control.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Why does the NRA support a ban on publicly owned hand grenades. How anti 2nd amendment them!

 

[JQPublic1]

They do.

They cannot present a sound argument as to why; all of their arguments to that effect are rooted in fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

No "sound" argument is needed if pictures of assault type rifle victims are dis[played as vividly as those displayed by abortion protestors or the gory scenes of traffic fatalities shown in high school driver's ed classes.

 

[Two Thumbs]

There's no such thing as a liberal.

They all died off.

No 'liberal' would be for banning our rights, it goes against the very definition of the word.

I used the term "liberal' loosely. But anyone who has been on these boards for any length of time knows how UNIVERSAL it has become as a euphemism for anyone who doesn't wholly agree with RW conservative principles. But the op is not about that. It is about a method to put teeth into the ban on Assault type rifles or those rifles with the potential to be assault rifles with a little modification.

this thread is about using fear to undermine our Constitutional rights.

something a liberal would never do, but leftist do on a regular basis.

There are many "conservatives" on this board that would disagree with you. They live by the use of that term (liberal) to describe the hated left. But I really don't care which term you use to describe leftists, I just want to emphasize that the people who want assault type rifles banned are not too serious about it. BTW your Constitutional right to own and buy weapons would not be abrogated by a ban on certain weapons.

IKR

As long as I can buy plastic spoorks I still have the right to bear arms

 

[Two Thumbs]

There's no such thing as a liberal.

They all died off.

No 'liberal' would be for banning our rights, it goes against the very definition of the word.

I used the term "liberal' loosely. But anyone who has been on these boards for any length of time knows how UNIVERSAL it has become as a euphemism for anyone who doesn't wholly agree with RW conservative principles. But the op is not about that. It is about a method to put teeth into the ban on Assault type rifles or those rifles with the potential to be assault rifles with a little modification.

this thread is about using fear to undermine our Constitutional rights.

something a liberal would never do, but leftist do on a regular basis.

The NRA thanks you for lining their pockets. Because that's literally all you're doing.

I support the free market.
I support freedom
I support the Constitution


Why don't you?

Do you think more laws will stop the violence?

look up how many laws and bans on arms there already are, then ask yourself that again.

if you still think it's yes, there's no hope for you

 

[320 Years of History]

The pathos-driven warrant suggested by the OP, though quite macabre, could well work if combined with the rational appeals that have been tried to date. Rhetoric 101: make a strong rational argument and drive it home with an emotion inspiring warrant, but the warrant alone won't do the trick.

What's clear is that the rational approach alone hasn't worked; a more poignant solution is needed. Strangely, the video sequences showing several sanguinary survivors is insufficiently inspiring. Perhaps we can blame bloody video games and crime dramas for our cultural insouciance toward the reality of death by gunshot.

This is what gunshot violence looks like in video games, idealized art and television

(Boston Massacre)


​

Warning Following Links Contain Violent Graphic Imagery

http://uhaweb.hartford.edu/DBUTLER/violentgames2.jpg


http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/629/images/04.jpg



This is what it actually looks like when people get shot:

Warning Following Links Contain Violent Graphic Imagery
http://chronicpainreliefoptions.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/gunshot6.jpg

http://www.podiatrytoday.com/files/imagecache/normal/PT0114Gunshot1.png

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BHmn2ObCUAEqJm1.jpg

http://guncarrier.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/how-to-treat-a-gunshot-wound-3.jpg

http://www.documentingreality.com/f...346665d1332380431-gunshot-wound-deaths-66.jpg

​

 

[JQPublic1]

Wrong on all counts.....the virginia tech shooter used a pistol and murdered 32....actual research shows that magazine capacity has no bearing on the casualty count..the shooters and their rate of fire are not impacted by magazine capacity.........

How can I be wrong on all counts when I never mentioned the Virginia Tech shooter. The majority of mass shooters in the 21st century seem to prefer an assault TYPE rifle. That is a fact. But if you want to draw attention to semi-automatic pistols having high capacity magazines, those can be included too. Frankly though, I realize that any ban is going to be an uphill battle and near impossible to pull off. Australia was faced with that dilemma and I was surprised to learn that when their ban was initiated on assault style weapons over 640, 00 were turned and compensated for.

And the rounds you used...are what he used.....and they are not Hellish.....

I didn't say the rounds were hellish, I said the carnage caused by them is hellish.

You are pretending to know about guns......good to know....

Obama stacked the federal bench.....hoping one day to appoint more than one Supreme Court Justice to replace the conservatives.....and he focused on that because his priority was destroying the American health care system and he knew that he would lose support if democrats lost seats fighting for gun control.

I know the end results of what these semi automatic rapid fire weapons are capable of and I want those results publicly displayed so everyone can know. Don't you want the public to know? Don't you think they will buy into your logic after viewing such gore in HD? I don't think you do…. you don't want the majority to be swayed by seeing the end results of mass killing personal weapons.

Obama has nothing to do with any of this, his term is nearly over and you still have your guns.
It is one thing to think thugs are killing each other but when mass shooters, one after another, continue to kill innocent people and children by the dozens in one fell swoop, that warrants action.
Something more than background checks are needed because several of the shooters had no criminal history. And if a deeper probe into the mind of buyers is instituted, there would hardly be anyone fit to own such weapons. Half the crowd here on USMB would be barred for harboring racist and seditious sentiments. But we know how that goes don't we? Corruption is just under the surface and it would rise to prominence so that a select few can-circumvent the system.