CDZ Gun Lovers, complete this sentence

[flacaltenn]

What weapons are those? VA Tech shooter used handguns. Oswald used a single shot carbine.

Oswald wasn't a mass shooter. He killed only one man, even though that one guy was a very important one.

He killed a President, and wounded a Governor in a moving vehicle with a SINGLE SHOT rifle from 600 yards.. Multiple shots. I think that's part of the calculus of mayhem here.

Wrong.

It was not a single shot rifle. It was magazine fed. A single shot rifle is a weapon which can only be loaded with one round at a time.

It also was not 600 yards or even close.

All three shots he fired were from less than 100 yards.

It's bolt action. Not EVEN semi-auto..

Yes but still magazine fed.

Big deal.. It's how fast you work the bolt. Point simply WAS --- it doesn't take an AR to get into the history books.

 

[2aguy]

Oswald wasn't a mass shooter. He killed only one man, even though that one guy was a very important one.

He killed a President, and wounded a Governor in a moving vehicle with a SINGLE SHOT rifle from 600 yards.. Multiple shots. I think that's part of the calculus of mayhem here.

Wrong.

It was not a single shot rifle. It was magazine fed. A single shot rifle is a weapon which can only be loaded with one round at a time.

It also was not 600 yards or even close.

All three shots he fired were from less than 100 yards.

It's bolt action. Not EVEN semi-auto..

Yes but still magazine fed.

Big deal.. It's how fast you work the bolt. Point simply WAS --- it doesn't take an AR to get into the history books.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Sorry LWNJ's, you don't know what you are talking about - case law is settled.

The phrase "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is an appositive phrase that does not act as a condition to bear arms. This was confirmed by the Supreme Court DC V Heller (2008). You can remove the phrase and the meaning of the amendment is clear:

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.

Molon Labe

Clearly liberals know exactly what they're talking about, given the fact they accept and follow that case law, where their proposed measures are perfectly consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, having never been invalidated by the Supreme Court.

Indeed, it's conservatives who have come to loathe Heller/McDonald.

 

[2aguy]

Sorry LWNJ's, you don't know what you are talking about - case law is settled.

The phrase "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is an appositive phrase that does not act as a condition to bear arms. This was confirmed by the Supreme Court DC V Heller (2008). You can remove the phrase and the meaning of the amendment is clear:

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.

Molon Labe

Clearly liberals know exactly what they're talking about, given the fact they accept and follow that case law, where their proposed measures are perfectly consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, having never been invalidated by the Supreme Court.

Indeed, it's conservatives who have come to loathe Heller/McDonald.

No, dipshit....the lower courts are ignoring Heller and McDonald, Caetano and Miller and all the other Supreme Court Precedents.......you are such a doofus...

Supreme Court’s Silence Clouds Gun Control Debate

In the decade since the Court officially recognized the individual right to armed self-defense, it has passed up one opportunity after another to clarify the boundaries of that right. "The right to keep and bear arms is apparently this Court's constitutional orphan," Justice Clarence Thomas observed last week as the Court declined to hear yet another Second Amendment case.

That case involved California's 10-day waiting period for buying firearms, which applies even when state and federal background checks take less time and even when the buyer has previously been cleared and already owns a gun. In 2014 a federal judge ruled that the waiting period violates the Second Amendment rights of people who are buying additional firearms or who hold concealed-carry licenses.

overturned that decision in 2016, Thomas noted, "it did so without requiring California to submit relevant evidence, without addressing petitioners' arguments to the contrary, and without acknowledging the District Court's factual findings." That highly deferential approach, he said, was clearly inappropriate for an enumerated constitutional right and inconsistent with the Court's Second Amendment precedents.

Thomas suggested that his colleagues would have been keen to correct such a blatant error if the case had implicated a different amendment. "Our continued refusal to hear Second Amendment cases only enables this kind of defiance," he wrote.

It was not the first time Thomas had complained about the Court's neglect of the Second Amendment. Last year he and Justice Neil Gorsuch strenuously objected when the Court declined to review a 9th Circuit decision upholding California's requirement that concealed-carry licenses be issued only for "good cause," which gives local officials broad discretion to reject applicants.

Thomas called the 9th Circuit's focus on concealed guns, as opposed to the more general right to armed self-defense outside the home, "untenable" and "indefensible." He noted that the Second Amendment protects the right to "bear" as well as "keep" weapons, adding, "I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen."

In 2015 Thomas was similarly skeptical of the idea that guns arbitrarily identified as "assault weapons" are beyond the scope of the Second Amendment. He wrote that the Court should have reviewed a decision in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit upheld an "assault weapon" ban imposed by the city of Highland Park, Illinois, which covered "many of the most commonly owned semiautomatic firearms."

The Supreme Court's 2008 decision overturning the District of Columbia's handgun ban made it clear, Thomas said, that the Second Amendment encompasses "firearms that millions of Americans commonly own for lawful purposes." Yet the 7th Circuit upheld Highland Park's ban based on little more than "speculation about the law's potential policy benefits," including the possibility that it "may increase the public's sense of safety."

The illusion of safety is the main thing such laws have to offer, since they target features that make guns look scarier without making them more lethal. "If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all)," Thomas observed, "then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing."

Given the recent agitation for a new federal ban on so-called assault weapons, Thomas's warning is as relevant as ever. But the courts will not be compelled to act on it until his colleagues stop treating the right to arms as a constitutional orphan.

 

[Dale Smith]

Dale Smith, post: 19403129

No, it doesn't apply to rocket launchers or bazookas but semi-automatic weapons definitely fall under the second amendment and being well armed as it pertains to the militia (which is us)

You said you are in the militia. We must therefore assume that in strict compliance with the Second Amendment that your militia is well regulated.

I must also assume that joining your militia requires the mere purchase of an assault rifle and a strong desire to play with it.

The Vegas and Parkland High shooters must therefore be considered members of your Second Amendment Militia.

Why won't you answer questions about what those militia members have done?

No, it's about private citizens being able to defend themselves and join together if need be should tyranny become unbearable. No one "regulated" the Minutemen. The first and second amendments were placed that high for a reason that should be obvious even to you if you had critical thinking skills. The Las Vegas patsy Stephen Paddock was a third party contractor with the CIA running guns into border states and I do not believe that the body that was removed from that hotel wasn't Stephen Paddock at all. The number "13" that he had tattooed on his neck wasn't on the corpse that was removed from the hotel. Like the Parkland shooter, numerous witnesses claimed that there were more than one shooter....one of them was a teacher, BTW. Just like Sandy Hoax, Aurora, Charleston, etc, etc.....those were Operation Gladio type events where some were actually collateral damage and others were simply faked events to push the disarming of citizens. The leftard clown posse has been willing pawns of the very globalist .0001 percent that YOUR side claims to be fighting against. They have worked the leftist commies like a crack whore and on so many fronts.

 

[2aguy]

Sorry LWNJ's, you don't know what you are talking about - case law is settled.

The phrase "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is an appositive phrase that does not act as a condition to bear arms. This was confirmed by the Supreme Court DC V Heller (2008). You can remove the phrase and the meaning of the amendment is clear:

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.

Molon Labe

Clearly liberals know exactly what they're talking about, given the fact they accept and follow that case law, where their proposed measures are perfectly consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, having never been invalidated by the Supreme Court.

Indeed, it's conservatives who have come to loathe Heller/McDonald.

No, dipshit....the lower courts are ignoring Heller and McDonald, Caetano and Miller and all the other Supreme Court Precedents.......you are such a doofus...

Supreme Court’s Silence Clouds Gun Control Debate

In the decade since the Court officially recognized the individual right to armed self-defense, it has passed up one opportunity after another to clarify the boundaries of that right. "The right to keep and bear arms is apparently this Court's constitutional orphan," Justice Clarence Thomas observed last week as the Court declined to hear yet another Second Amendment case.

That case involved California's 10-day waiting period for buying firearms, which applies even when state and federal background checks take less time and even when the buyer has previously been cleared and already owns a gun. In 2014 a federal judge ruled that the waiting period violates the Second Amendment rights of people who are buying additional firearms or who hold concealed-carry licenses.

overturned that decision in 2016, Thomas noted, "it did so without requiring California to submit relevant evidence, without addressing petitioners' arguments to the contrary, and without acknowledging the District Court's factual findings." That highly deferential approach, he said, was clearly inappropriate for an enumerated constitutional right and inconsistent with the Court's Second Amendment precedents.

Thomas suggested that his colleagues would have been keen to correct such a blatant error if the case had implicated a different amendment. "Our continued refusal to hear Second Amendment cases only enables this kind of defiance," he wrote.

It was not the first time Thomas had complained about the Court's neglect of the Second Amendment. Last year he and Justice Neil Gorsuch strenuously objected when the Court declined to review a 9th Circuit decision upholding California's requirement that concealed-carry licenses be issued only for "good cause," which gives local officials broad discretion to reject applicants.

Thomas called the 9th Circuit's focus on concealed guns, as opposed to the more general right to armed self-defense outside the home, "untenable" and "indefensible." He noted that the Second Amendment protects the right to "bear" as well as "keep" weapons, adding, "I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen."

In 2015 Thomas was similarly skeptical of the idea that guns arbitrarily identified as "assault weapons" are beyond the scope of the Second Amendment. He wrote that the Court should have reviewed a decision in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit upheld an "assault weapon" ban imposed by the city of Highland Park, Illinois, which covered "many of the most commonly owned semiautomatic firearms."

The Supreme Court's 2008 decision overturning the District of Columbia's handgun ban made it clear, Thomas said, that the Second Amendment encompasses "firearms that millions of Americans commonly own for lawful purposes." Yet the 7th Circuit upheld Highland Park's ban based on little more than "speculation about the law's potential policy benefits," including the possibility that it "may increase the public's sense of safety."

The illusion of safety is the main thing such laws have to offer, since they target features that make guns look scarier without making them more lethal. "If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all)," Thomas observed, "then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing."

Given the recent agitation for a new federal ban on so-called assault weapons, Thomas's warning is as relevant as ever. But the courts will not be compelled to act on it until his colleagues stop treating the right to arms as a constitutional orphan.

Oooops.....I didn't realize this was in the CDZ......I insulted another poster....I apologize.....

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Dale Smith, post: 19411012

No one "regulated" the Minutemen.

I was referring to the Second Amendment in The Bill of Rights.

I take it your imaginary playground militia is not to be regulated. So you are shitting on our founding fathers and James Madison who wrote the Second Amendment expressing it applies to 'a well regulated militia'.

Why must you disregard the language written by the framers?

Why not follow the Constitution.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.

Lay aside what you perceive as a constitutional right. Lay aside any obfuscation over the verbal semantics (don't try to define 'assault rifle').

Simply justify your need of an assault rifle.

Perhaps if we fully understand your need for one or two or thirty of them, we could understand why assault weapons are, indeed, a necessity. Show us the virtue of the assault rifle. Why are they good?

Some folks have good experiences with guns. Some folks are the sinue and bone of America's gun culture. Some folks are true sportsmen and women and enjoy the outdoors and their love of the hunt. Some folks are dedicated target shooters keen on hitting their mark be it paper or a clay pigeon. I fully support these wholesome and healthy activities.

But some folks have had tragic experiences with guns. Some are the survivors of gun violence. Some are the victims of gun violence. Some folks have sadly lost loved ones to gun violence. And some live in neighborhoods which tragically experience gun violence on an all too regular basis. Please have empathy for them. They have suffered too long under the threat of the havoc guns bring into their lives.

We have had far too many mass shootings in this nation. No other nation suffers this level of gun violence. We are not beset with a greater number cases of mental illness than other nations. There is something foul about the numbers of shooting victims here compared with other natione in the developed world.

What do you suppose is our unique American problem?

So please, as sincerely as possible, answer this simple question: 'I absolutely need an assault rifle because_____'.

Let us all understand.

2% of gun violence is by rifles.

But you already know that.

 

[Dale Smith]

Dale Smith, post: 19411012

No one "regulated" the Minutemen.

I was referring to the Second Amendment in The Bill of Rights.

I take it your imaginary playground militia is not to be regulated. So you are shitting on our founding fathers and James Madison who wrote the Second Amendment expressing it applies to 'a well regulated militia'.

Why must you disregard the language written by the framers?

Why not follow the Constitution.

Regulated by whom? Having the very "gubermint" that one may have to stand up against "regulate" what you may possess kind of defeats the purpose and only makes sense to uninformed types like yourself.

 

[007]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.

... of my duty to protect myself from a tyrannical government as the 2nd Amendment states.

Now let's play another game... compete this statement...

I absolutely want to see all guns in America confiscated because _______________________

 

[Nosmo King]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.

Lay aside what you perceive as a constitutional right. Lay aside any obfuscation over the verbal semantics (don't try to define 'assault rifle').

Simply justify your need of an assault rifle.

Perhaps if we fully understand your need for one or two or thirty of them, we could understand why assault weapons are, indeed, a necessity. Show us the virtue of the assault rifle. Why are they good?

Some folks have good experiences with guns. Some folks are the sinue and bone of America's gun culture. Some folks are true sportsmen and women and enjoy the outdoors and their love of the hunt. Some folks are dedicated target shooters keen on hitting their mark be it paper or a clay pigeon. I fully support these wholesome and healthy activities.

But some folks have had tragic experiences with guns. Some are the survivors of gun violence. Some are the victims of gun violence. Some folks have sadly lost loved ones to gun violence. And some live in neighborhoods which tragically experience gun violence on an all too regular basis. Please have empathy for them. They have suffered too long under the threat of the havoc guns bring into their lives.

We have had far too many mass shootings in this nation. No other nation suffers this level of gun violence. We are not beset with a greater number cases of mental illness than other nations. There is something foul about the numbers of shooting victims here compared with other natione in the developed world.

What do you suppose is our unique American problem?

So please, as sincerely as possible, answer this simple question: 'I absolutely need an assault rifle because_____'.

Let us all understand.

2% of gun violence is by rifles.

But you already know that.

You're right. Nothing to see here! Move along, and tough break about those kids in Parkland, those congregants in Sutherland Springs, those concert goers in Las Vegas and those club goers in Orlando.

Just the cost of doing business because these AR 15s are bitchin' and far cooler than any of those who died.

 

[Nosmo King]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.

... of my duty to protect myself from a tyrannical government as the 2nd Amendment states.

Now let's play another game... compete this statement...

I absolutely want to see all guns in America confiscated because _______________________

I don't want to see all the guns in America confiscated.

And good luck fending off that so-called tyranny with your AR! Has there been precedent indicating success in such a situation?

 

[Weatherman2020]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.

... of my duty to protect myself from a tyrannical government as the 2nd Amendment states.

Now let's play another game... compete this statement...

I absolutely want to see all guns in America confiscated because _______________________

I don't want to see all the guns in America confiscated.

And good luck fending off that so-called tyranny with your AR! Has there been precedent indicating success in such a situation?

Sure you don't. That's why you're after rifles which are involved in 2% of the crimes leaving 98% gun violence unaddressed.

 

[007]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.

... of my duty to protect myself from a tyrannical government as the 2nd Amendment states.

Now let's play another game... compete this statement...

I absolutely want to see all guns in America confiscated because _______________________

I don't want to see all the guns in America confiscated.

And good luck fending off that so-called tyranny with your AR! Has there been precedent indicating success in such a situation?

Alone I couldn't, but you know that. As a mass citizen army we could.

 

[007]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.

... of my duty to protect myself from a tyrannical government as the 2nd Amendment states.

Now let's play another game... compete this statement...

I absolutely want to see all guns in America confiscated because _______________________

I don't want to see all the guns in America confiscated.

And good luck fending off that so-called tyranny with your AR! Has there been precedent indicating success in such a situation?

You do realize that an AR-15 is simply cosmetics... don't you?

You do know that there are FAR more dangerous and powerful firearms than the AR-15... right?

 

[Weatherman2020]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.

... of my duty to protect myself from a tyrannical government as the 2nd Amendment states.

Now let's play another game... compete this statement...

I absolutely want to see all guns in America confiscated because _______________________

I don't want to see all the guns in America confiscated.

And good luck fending off that so-called tyranny with your AR! Has there been precedent indicating success in such a situation?

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.

... of my duty to protect myself from a tyrannical government as the 2nd Amendment states.

Now let's play another game... compete this statement...

I absolutely want to see all guns in America confiscated because _______________________

I don't want to see all the guns in America confiscated.

And good luck fending off that so-called tyranny with your AR! Has there been precedent indicating success in such a situation?

If 11 million Europeans were armed, how long do you think Hitler would have lasted with Russia and the West squeezing him from 2 sides?

 

[Zander]

Dale Smith, post: 19411012

No one "regulated" the Minutemen.

I was referring to the Second Amendment in The Bill of Rights.

I take it your imaginary playground militia is not to be regulated. So you are shitting on our founding fathers and James Madison who wrote the Second Amendment expressing it applies to 'a well regulated militia'.

Why must you disregard the language written by the framers?

Why not follow the Constitution.

You're wrong. All of the founders wanted an armed citizenry.

The phrase "a well regulated Militia," in the 2nd Amendment merely states a reason for recognizing the people's right to be armed, not a purpose for or a limitation on that right.

The "Bill of Rights" is a collection of rights for the PEOPLE, not the state.

-------------------------------

The Founding Fathers feared the rise of a despotic State with a standing army the sole possessor of arms. In a free State, the first line of defense was a Militia drawn from the people, not a standing army. And to remain free, it was necessary that the people have a right to possess arms so that they could form a militia when necessary.

"The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so." --Thomas Jefferson to T. Cooper, 1814.
​

A free people, therefore, cannot completely disarm themselves and rely entirely on a standing army, save at the risk of losing their liberties as a result of some untoward event. A despotic State would fear to have an armed people that might rise in rebellion against it. But a free state encourages an armed people for its own protection, and in Jefferson's time, that meant a militia.

"For a people who are free and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security." --Thomas Jefferson: 8th Annual Message, 1808.
​

It must be remembered that arms were needed to protect the colonists, not only from the British or a despotic government, but also from Indians, possibly sea-borne marauders, foreign invaders and various predators on human society. Arms serve other uses also, such as hunting for food animals and personal protection while in the wilds. These uses were not addressed by the Amendment, because with the most important use secured, the other uses would be assured under that protective umbrella.

Since the right of the people to their own defense was necessary for their liberty, and since the people's right to liberty is a natural right, whatever was necessary to assure that liberty is an auxiliary right. Possessing arms may therefore be considered an auxiliary right necessary to secure our inalienable rights, for as Jefferson said:

"It is a principle that the right to a thing gives a right to the means without which it could not be used, that is to say, that the means follow their end." --Thomas Jefferson: Miss. River Instructions, 1791.
​

In other words, a right to liberty gives a right to the arms without which liberty could not be defended and secured. This is the primary purpose that the right to keep and bear arms serves, and this is the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment. It is not because there is something intrinsic in arms that gives this right. Keeping and bearing arms is not an inalienable right, granted us by God, like the right of expatriation, or the use of our faculties, or the other natural rights identified by Jefferson:

"The evidence of [the] natural right [of expatriation], like that of our right to life, liberty, the use of our faculties, the pursuit of happiness, is not left to the feeble and sophistical investigations of reason, but is impressed on the sense of every man. We do not claim these under the charters of kings or legislators, but under the King of Kings." --Thomas Jefferson to J. Manners, 1817.​

More here....Jeffersonian Perspective: Guns & 2nd Amendment

 

[Dale Smith]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.

Lay aside what you perceive as a constitutional right. Lay aside any obfuscation over the verbal semantics (don't try to define 'assault rifle').

Simply justify your need of an assault rifle.

Perhaps if we fully understand your need for one or two or thirty of them, we could understand why assault weapons are, indeed, a necessity. Show us the virtue of the assault rifle. Why are they good?

Some folks have good experiences with guns. Some folks are the sinue and bone of America's gun culture. Some folks are true sportsmen and women and enjoy the outdoors and their love of the hunt. Some folks are dedicated target shooters keen on hitting their mark be it paper or a clay pigeon. I fully support these wholesome and healthy activities.

But some folks have had tragic experiences with guns. Some are the survivors of gun violence. Some are the victims of gun violence. Some folks have sadly lost loved ones to gun violence. And some live in neighborhoods which tragically experience gun violence on an all too regular basis. Please have empathy for them. They have suffered too long under the threat of the havoc guns bring into their lives.

We have had far too many mass shootings in this nation. No other nation suffers this level of gun violence. We are not beset with a greater number cases of mental illness than other nations. There is something foul about the numbers of shooting victims here compared with other natione in the developed world.

What do you suppose is our unique American problem?

So please, as sincerely as possible, answer this simple question: 'I absolutely need an assault rifle because_____'.

Let us all understand.

2% of gun violence is by rifles.

But you already know that.

You're right. Nothing to see here! Move along, and tough break about those kids in Parkland, those congregants in Sutherland Springs, those concert goers in Las Vegas and those club goers in Orlando.

Just the cost of doing business because these AR 15s are bitchin' and far cooler than any of those who died.

Those kids AT the Parkland school were let down on the federal and local level by those you believe will protect you...they stood down.....the NRA didn't have a damn thing to do about it. It wasn't the NRA that caused the sheriff deputies to "stand down" or the "rent a cop" to hide behind a car. Perhaps they knew that there was more than one shooter and that the collateral damage of some kids was worth it in the long run in order to accomplish the goal of more draconian gun laws if not outright total confiscation.

This event in Florida drives home the point that you are responsible for you and your family's protection because the "authorities" are not going to do so. They are great at SWAT teaming residences of people that they know are unarmed...I'll give them that much.

 

[Zander]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.

Lay aside what you perceive as a constitutional right. Lay aside any obfuscation over the verbal semantics (don't try to define 'assault rifle').

Simply justify your need of an assault rifle.

Perhaps if we fully understand your need for one or two or thirty of them, we could understand why assault weapons are, indeed, a necessity. Show us the virtue of the assault rifle. Why are they good?

Some folks have good experiences with guns. Some folks are the sinue and bone of America's gun culture. Some folks are true sportsmen and women and enjoy the outdoors and their love of the hunt. Some folks are dedicated target shooters keen on hitting their mark be it paper or a clay pigeon. I fully support these wholesome and healthy activities.

But some folks have had tragic experiences with guns. Some are the survivors of gun violence. Some are the victims of gun violence. Some folks have sadly lost loved ones to gun violence. And some live in neighborhoods which tragically experience gun violence on an all too regular basis. Please have empathy for them. They have suffered too long under the threat of the havoc guns bring into their lives.

We have had far too many mass shootings in this nation. No other nation suffers this level of gun violence. We are not beset with a greater number cases of mental illness than other nations. There is something foul about the numbers of shooting victims here compared with other natione in the developed world.

What do you suppose is our unique American problem?

So please, as sincerely as possible, answer this simple question: 'I absolutely need an assault rifle because_____'.

Let us all understand.

2% of gun violence is by rifles.

But you already know that.

You're right. Nothing to see here! Move along, and tough break about those kids in Parkland, those congregants in Sutherland Springs, those concert goers in Las Vegas and those club goers in Orlando.

Just the cost of doing business because these AR 15s are bitchin' and far cooler than any of those who died.

If Ar-15's were not available, he would have used another weapon. That's the thing about crazy people. .....

 

[Nosmo King]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.

... of my duty to protect myself from a tyrannical government as the 2nd Amendment states.

Now let's play another game... compete this statement...

I absolutely want to see all guns in America confiscated because _______________________

I don't want to see all the guns in America confiscated.

And good luck fending off that so-called tyranny with your AR! Has there been precedent indicating success in such a situation?

Alone I couldn't, but you know that. As a mass citizen army we could.

And that mass citizen army can be found where?

I didn't buy that Michigan Militia crap even before Tim McViegh became its poster boy. What you might see as tyranny, I see as a policy dispute.