“Hell yes we are going to take your AR-15”

[Leo123]

If the military wants to take us they can come take us. We don't have nearly enough semi autos out there to stop them if they wanted to systematically come in and "take us" one city/town at a time.

So that "in balance" you refer to already exists.

Do we have tanks? Drones with bombs strapped to them? RPG's? Nukes? So stop worrying. You're already fucked if they want to **** you. But once it becomes gorilla war then you have your 45 or 357 or glock.

Good thing our forefathers didn't think that way.

Hey, good idea. Let's dig them up and ask them. Or have a seance.

No need Daryl, just read American history. Apparently you know nothing about it.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

course Criminals will break the law same as they have always done RWinger . As example --- See how illegal Drugs are sold all over the USA and then to make thing easy the state starts selling drugs LEGALLY so that they can get the Tax money that the state imposes RWinger .

If you sell a gun to a criminal, you are a criminal

If you take a gun from a non-violent citizen who is lawfully in possession by whatever means (including government force), you are a ******* criminal and you deserved to be executed.

Don't be a criminal. You'll live longer.

.

If a weapon is declared unlawful possession of one is against the law

If you use that weapon you belong in jail

we are not in said fantasy land just yet, now are we? so you're calling people criminals for breaking laws that don't exist at this time.

btw - have you reported me yet?

I reported you to the SFPS (Society for Prevention of Stupidity).

 

[Leo123]

the US military doesn't use the AR15.

Oh, stop this nonsense. They use the AR-15 Model 604. But they are stamped with M-16A-4 before it's delivered to comply with the Military identifying program.

The M-16a-4 is an ADAPTION of the AR-15. It is NOT an AR-15.

Everyone knows this.
Everyone.

Everyone except Daryl the 'rump' guy.

RUMP RUMP RUMP RUMP RUMP
View attachment 280089

Yep, that's all you think about.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

If the military wants to take us they can come take us. We don't have nearly enough semi autos out there to stop them if they wanted to systematically come in and "take us" one city/town at a time.

So that "in balance" you refer to already exists.

Do we have tanks? Drones with bombs strapped to them? RPG's? Nukes? So stop worrying. You're already fucked if they want to **** you. But once it becomes gorilla war then you have your 45 or 357 or glock.

Good thing our forefathers didn't think that way.

Hey, good idea. Let's dig them up and ask them. Or have a seance.

No need Daryl, just read American history. Apparently you know nothing about it.

Facts get in their way. I also read the various court rulings and notice they are shying away from those with me around. So the only thing they have left is their little digs. I can live with that. It means they admit defeat on a regular basis and are too dense or stupid to see it.

 

[iceberg]

course Criminals will break the law same as they have always done RWinger . As example --- See how illegal Drugs are sold all over the USA and then to make thing easy the state starts selling drugs LEGALLY so that they can get the Tax money that the state imposes RWinger .

If you sell a gun to a criminal, you are a criminal

If you take a gun from a non-violent citizen who is lawfully in possession by whatever means (including government force), you are a ******* criminal and you deserved to be executed.

Don't be a criminal. You'll live longer.

.

If a weapon is declared unlawful possession of one is against the law

If you use that weapon you belong in jail

we are not in said fantasy land just yet, now are we? so you're calling people criminals for breaking laws that don't exist at this time.

btw - have you reported me yet?

I reported you to the SFPS (Society for Prevention of Stupidity).

Well if anyone knows how to find that group, you'd be the one.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Oh, stop this nonsense. They use the AR-15 Model 604. But they are stamped with M-16A-4 before it's delivered to comply with the Military identifying program.

The M-16a-4 is an ADAPTION of the AR-15. It is NOT an AR-15.

Everyone knows this.
Everyone.

Everyone except Daryl the 'rump' guy.

RUMP RUMP RUMP RUMP RUMP
View attachment 280089

Yep, that's all you think about.

It reminds me of a Flintstones Episode of the little Dino under the sink that works as a Garbage Disposal. "It's a living".

 

[Daryl Hunt]

If you sell a gun to a criminal, you are a criminal

If you take a gun from a non-violent citizen who is lawfully in possession by whatever means (including government force), you are a ******* criminal and you deserved to be executed.

Don't be a criminal. You'll live longer.

.

If a weapon is declared unlawful possession of one is against the law

If you use that weapon you belong in jail

we are not in said fantasy land just yet, now are we? so you're calling people criminals for breaking laws that don't exist at this time.

btw - have you reported me yet?

I reported you to the SFPS (Society for Prevention of Stupidity).

Well if anyone knows how to find that group, you'd be the one.

I drive the While Panel Truck. And can we have your current location? I think we have a FEMA bed open. Well, not a bed, but a piece of the floor and a nice shiny aluminum colored blanket.

 

[jc456]

We just don't want everyone/anyone having that kind of killing power. Like the Vegas Shooter. No one should be able to have that kind of firepower. If AR15's are deemed too much firepower for any tom dick or harry to have, I'll be ok with that. I don't know much about the AR15. Or bump stocks or any of that shit. I hear NYC makes a GAYR 15. Doesn't hold as many rounds. Maybe you can have one of those. LOL.

Yea, **** what the founding fathers said. I mean, I agree with the second amendment but if "the right to bare arms" ends up meaning a rampage a day, something has to be done.

Oh and kiss my ass with that progressivism bullshit. You guys can spin anything and you'll tie the most right wing radical to us and never accept blame for any of the crazies when most of them are on your side. Like the guy who killed the abortion doctor. Bill O'Reilly got him worked up by calling him Tiller the Baby Killer.

If you are referring to abortion, I hardly think that's why these crazy white men are shooting up America. We need to figure out what's making white men so crazy. Hell they're scarier than ISIS.

Why do I have to first tell you where you can get a gun that will kill 1000 people with one pull of the trigger. If the government has one, should every dick like you be able to own one? You guys are really ******* retarded.

except i can do the same with almost any semi-automatic rifle.

what is "retarded" is you can't see that or comprehend it, so you/the left simply widens what you want banned cause you can't define it. it's a pure reactionary move that never works.

we had them banned at one point, DID GUN CRIMES GO DOWN?

I didn't say it's a cure all. We don't even blink when someone takes a handgun and commits a crime. Par for the course. Shit happens. What are you gonna do. I get that. No one said any of these regulations would be a cure all. But, maybe some of these guys wouldn't have gotten their hands on guns if we did better background checks. And maybe if the Vegas Shooter couldn't get his hands on such powerful weapons, a lot more people would be alive today. We can't let every man and woman in America have the kind of power a soldier has. Name one other country that does this? And we have more citizens die every year from gun violence than probably every other country combined.

P.S. There hasn't been a mass shooting in a couple weeks. This will die down and we will not pass any legislation. Don't worry about it. I'm just telling you what should happen. Better background checks and only 10 rounds in your mag pal.

the fact we don't blink where far more of the problem shows itself is quite telling on us as a whole. we focus on the big bright nasty things out there and react.

not think. react. 2 very different approaches with vastly different outcomes. but thinking takes time and usually requires putting emotion aside. putting emotion aside isn't easy these days. for any of us.

i'm all for better background checks. and while i don't see the "gun show loophole" as a huge issue, i also don't have much of a problem closing it. but will we enforce this new law or simply get mad and pass more if/when it doesn't have the intended results because it wasn't THOUGHT out, just a reaction to a problem?

if you're at a gun show buying from a private individual, great. go to the FFL dealer a booth down and have them run a background check for you. have the gov wave the fee for these one-off sales and now even the $25 isn't the issue.

but to date, our background checks have let a lot of shit through it should not have. fix that THEN put more people through it. this false sense of security given when reactionary laws are passed is why we keep demanding MORE laws. that request to me is a sign you don't want to think about it, just SOMETHING MUST BE DONE.

Good post. Can't argue. Even if we ban all rifles then crazies will just start using glocks and then the left will want to ban 10 round glock handguns. I get it

That is the first post that Iceboy has posted I agree with. But then you take it to the extreme. Exactly where have I and others like me ever said we should ban ANY firearms. Regulate yes, ban no. And to the best of my knowledge, no firearm has been outright banned EVER in the United States of America.

what's an assault weapon? I'll wait.

Wiggle time, tic toc

 

[Daryl Hunt]

OK. How about pointing out which volume in "The Law of the Land" cares how many times you pull the trigger to determine if it is constitutional.

there isn't one; which makes this criteria pointless.

So that gun nut made another goofy claim. Imagine that.

i put those right next to the gun grabbers making goofy claims.

******* disneyland around here at times there so much "Goofy".

For most gun nuts, anybody who isn't a gun nut is a gun grabber.

for most gun grabbers, any form of asking for details on what they want banned is tantamount to insurrection.

we can do this shit all day. you seldom if ever get to the meat of a topic, instead lobbing out genercisms as if they have a point or place in intelligent discussion.

i tried several times today to dig deeper into what you are saying and it simply didn't end well.

No, you dictated what you wanted to hear. I even saw the two of you agree on a couple of items. Since you agreed with him on a couple of items I guess the makes you a gun grabber as well. You may have to turn in your secrit dekodur ring on this one.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The Puckle gun could fire 9 shots per minute. I'm not seeing much comparison to the rate of fire for modern guns.

That's because it was designed over THREE HUNDRED years ago, idiot. Right around the same time as the piano and tuning fork were first being invented. No one was comparing it to a modern machine gun. That was unbelievable state of the art for its day. Jesus, talking to you, is like talking to a babbling idiot. I feel like I need a frontal lobotomy to come down to your level of itinerant stupidity.

Yet you presented it as proof that the founding fathers were able to envision the modern fire power we have today. Make up your mind which way you want to go on that.

Do you honestly believe that they had no ability whatsoever to envision improvements in weaponry?

It doesn't even ******* matter. It says do not infringe, there should be no infringement whatsoever. recent supreme court cases have indicated that weapons in common use or protected. I don't agree with that finding but it does screw over your argument. If you don't like it, amend. Otherwise shut your ******* commie mouth.

. it's really that simple amend or shut the **** up.

.

You're dealing with a total ******* idiot who like Rightwinger, no matter what you say or present in B&W, they will simply deny and try to deliberately twist things around because THEY SIMPLY DO NOT WANT YOU TO OWN GUNS.

PERIOD.

They find you a personal threat to their existence.

It's not about crime, safety or anything else. They know they cannot be trusted with guns so assume you are like them. You might as well talk to the wall because they have a dream that involves telling others how they can and cannot live their lives. The best thing they could do is donate their bodies to science so we can dissect their brains to find out what went wrong with them.

called them both on it quite politely today (for the most part!) and bulldog would simply refuse to answer direct questions and rightwinger did what he always does only this time he turned me into the internet police.

both are just here to stir up shit.

I specifically answered you. You just didn't like my answers because they were not rank and file with what you demanded to hear. Life isn't like that. It sucks to be you.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Like always, you missed the ******* point--that the founders contemplated advancements in technology and still we have the 2nd.

Next.

.

And that brings us back to fully automatic weapons. They are severely regulated yet nothing in the constitution prevents that. Why would it be perfectly legal to regulate fully automatic weapons, but not AR 15s

Because AR-15s are NOT fully automatic weapons. They are simi-automatic (one shot per trigger pull) exactly the same as probably half the firearms in existence. They are quite common and in general use. Infringement on the Right to keep and bear arms. UnConstitutional. End of story.

The constitution doesn't seem to care how many times you have to pull the trigger. If I'm wrong, perhaps you could point out which clause mentions that.

The Constitution doesn't; the law of the land does.

And what determines the "Law of the Land"? Could it be the best armed and the willingness to use it to express your point of view whether it be with your fist or a gun?

The government makes and enforces the law. If that is a good description of government ,then I guess so.

 

[iceberg]

That's because it was designed over THREE HUNDRED years ago, idiot. Right around the same time as the piano and tuning fork were first being invented. No one was comparing it to a modern machine gun. That was unbelievable state of the art for its day. Jesus, talking to you, is like talking to a babbling idiot. I feel like I need a frontal lobotomy to come down to your level of itinerant stupidity.

Yet you presented it as proof that the founding fathers were able to envision the modern fire power we have today. Make up your mind which way you want to go on that.

Do you honestly believe that they had no ability whatsoever to envision improvements in weaponry?

It doesn't even ******* matter. It says do not infringe, there should be no infringement whatsoever. recent supreme court cases have indicated that weapons in common use or protected. I don't agree with that finding but it does screw over your argument. If you don't like it, amend. Otherwise shut your ******* commie mouth.

. it's really that simple amend or shut the **** up.

.

You're dealing with a total ******* idiot who like Rightwinger, no matter what you say or present in B&W, they will simply deny and try to deliberately twist things around because THEY SIMPLY DO NOT WANT YOU TO OWN GUNS.

PERIOD.

They find you a personal threat to their existence.

It's not about crime, safety or anything else. They know they cannot be trusted with guns so assume you are like them. You might as well talk to the wall because they have a dream that involves telling others how they can and cannot live their lives. The best thing they could do is donate their bodies to science so we can dissect their brains to find out what went wrong with them.

called them both on it quite politely today (for the most part!) and bulldog would simply refuse to answer direct questions and rightwinger did what he always does only this time he turned me into the internet police.

both are just here to stir up shit.

I specifically answered you. You just didn't like my answers because they were not rank and file with what you demanded to hear. Life isn't like that. It sucks to be you.

Actually I'm not reading 90% of your posts because I'm currently protesting idiocy.

But you carry on rambling. Rightwinger is impressed.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

this talk about NUKE's , Drones with Missiles is just silly . Second Amendment is about Small Arms issued and carried by the individual Comat soldier and primarily owned as a hedge against Tyranny . These Small Arms can also be used for other Lawful purposes like self defense ,and all other legal purposes . The RARE 'Black Swan events of Walmart shootings are no reason to mess with Americans RIGHT to effective and efficient Weapons . ----------- Heck , ALL weapons protected by the Second were Weapons of WAR from the very beginning in the USA and weapons of war are what is protected by the Second Sealy .

the whole NUKE argument is stupid. while it does point out "look, weapons CAN be regulated" great. so can voting privlidges. so can speech. so can a lot of things. the question is, where do you draw the line.

since the gun-grabbers can't define an "assault rifle" in a manner that only effects the AR15, they broaden the scope and move the line.

the fight isn't about the AR15 in the end, it's about where the line is drawn.

------------------------------------ should be no line because as you say or as I say , the line can always be redrawn Iceberg .

it's always being redrawn. they banned AR's before and it didn't do a lick of good.

What happened the last time the US banned some semi-automatic guns

The final report concluded the ban’s success in reducing crimes committed with banned guns was “mixed.” Gun crimes involving assault weapons declined. However, that decline was “offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns equipped with [large-capacity magazines].”

so - we ban one and other gun use rises. the rest is a mixed bag of cherry picking. my overall concern is when other gun violence rises, we once again address the guns.

not the reason for the violence.

Your own ******* article explains why the ban didn't work. LOOPHOLES!!! Close the mother ******* loopholes

Though the ban applied to many semi-automatic firearms, there were some important loopholes. It contained a “features test” provision which specifically prohibited semi-automatic weapons containing two or more military-style features, such as a folding or telescoping stock and a flash hider. As a result, gun manufacturers could — and did — make minor cosmetic changes that removed the features to transform banned firearms into legal ones.

CLOSE THE LOOPHOLES! This isn't rocket science. It's common sense shit you gun nuts won't allow.

The 2 or more features didn't hold up in Federal Court. If you use just the word "Assault" then that has no real legal meaning. What has been upheld in court is when you are get very specific. Like Boston and California and a few other places that worded it as "Ar-15 and it's various clones". I think one even specifically included the AK the same way. The morons in Oregon, this year, worded theirs Assault Rifle and that's going to bounce like a bad check.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

"What’s the purpose for an AR15?"
Exactly like any other firearm it's purpose is make holes in things that are out of reach. It is used for target shooting/competition, hunting to feed families, defense of home family livestock and self, emergency preparedness, collection, and investment. The reasons a person might want one are none of your business.

"Like a machine gun we might deem ar15s too dangerous for the general public to possess."
You do not have the right or the authority to do. UnConstitutional. Nor is the AR-15 any more dangerous than any other gun car or jet aircraft.

"We can’t stop nuts from taking a semi auto pistol that carries ten rounds. But at least most of the people hav a chance to get away."
Really? Exactly how do you intend to do that? High capacity magazines are common and long-lasting and easily fabricated? Also almost all weapons that use any sort of magazine can be converted to handle high capacity magazines. And even if could make such a ban effective I doubt if the police and military will appreciate the handicap.

"Your right is taking the rights away from all the people who die because even dumb Americans can buy wmds."
Untrue. Obviously you are the one advocating taking people's rights away. Does the word "tyranny" ring any bells with you.?

That's a good point. A semi auto handgun is just as powerful or can be but it's not as good from far away. So if you take one into a crowd and people start running you'll kill much fewer people with the handgun. And a CCW holder in the room might have a chance against you. I say ban assault rifles. I have a pretty powerful Ruger 450 Bushmaster. It only holds 4 rounds. That should be legal. It's a hunting gun. I like the person who said the purpose of a AR15 is to put holes in things. What things? Is it used to hunt deer or bear? Ok, how many bullets do you need? We should only allow 4 round magazines. If you can't hit the bear in 4 shots you suck and should be eaten by the bear.

If you are shooting paper plates then you just have to reload after 4 shots. Apparently you guys say that won't slow you down one bit so don't cry about nuthin.

AR-15s are not assault rifles. Nor are they especially powerful. What do you really want banned? They are indeed used to hunt all manner of things. They are especially favored by women and other smallish people who have difficulty handling more powerful rounds. They are indeed used to hunt deer and bear. They are also used to hunt wild hogs which can be quite dangerous and may show up in groups of two doz. or more and in many places there is no limit on how many you can or should kill due to the damage they do to the land and other species. View attachment 280039 View attachment 280039 View attachment 280039 View attachment 280039 View attachment 280044

My ruger 450 bushmaster only holds 3 in the mag and one in the chamber.

So you want to allow wmd's that are killing American citizens on a daily basis for the rare time that DOZENS of wild dogs will attack someone? What a crock of bullshit.

Show me the last time a person was attacked by DOZENS of wild dogs and used an AR15 to save their lives.

You can have a AR15 as long as you pass the background check.

And as all of you have said, limiting the number of rounds you can have in your magazine isn't going to slow you up one bit. So now PLEASE make the argument that you NEED 10 rounds in the mag because any less will slow you up. I want to see you guys contradict yourselves on this one.

That is an impressive Hunting Rifle. With that much quality and with the price of a junk AR, it's a steal.

 

[Leo123]

this talk about NUKE's , Drones with Missiles is just silly . Second Amendment is about Small Arms issued and carried by the individual Comat soldier and primarily owned as a hedge against Tyranny . These Small Arms can also be used for other Lawful purposes like self defense ,and all other legal purposes . The RARE 'Black Swan events of Walmart shootings are no reason to mess with Americans RIGHT to effective and efficient Weapons . ----------- Heck , ALL weapons protected by the Second were Weapons of WAR from the very beginning in the USA and weapons of war are what is protected by the Second Sealy .

the whole NUKE argument is stupid. while it does point out "look, weapons CAN be regulated" great. so can voting privlidges. so can speech. so can a lot of things. the question is, where do you draw the line.

since the gun-grabbers can't define an "assault rifle" in a manner that only effects the AR15, they broaden the scope and move the line.

the fight isn't about the AR15 in the end, it's about where the line is drawn.

------------------------------------ should be no line because as you say or as I say , the line can always be redrawn Iceberg .

it's always being redrawn. they banned AR's before and it didn't do a lick of good.

What happened the last time the US banned some semi-automatic guns

The final report concluded the ban’s success in reducing crimes committed with banned guns was “mixed.” Gun crimes involving assault weapons declined. However, that decline was “offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns equipped with [large-capacity magazines].”

so - we ban one and other gun use rises. the rest is a mixed bag of cherry picking. my overall concern is when other gun violence rises, we once again address the guns.

not the reason for the violence.

Your own ******* article explains why the ban didn't work. LOOPHOLES!!! Close the mother ******* loopholes

Though the ban applied to many semi-automatic firearms, there were some important loopholes. It contained a “features test” provision which specifically prohibited semi-automatic weapons containing two or more military-style features, such as a folding or telescoping stock and a flash hider. As a result, gun manufacturers could — and did — make minor cosmetic changes that removed the features to transform banned firearms into legal ones.

CLOSE THE LOOPHOLES! This isn't rocket science. It's common sense shit you gun nuts won't allow.

The 2 or more features didn't hold up in Federal Court. If you use just the word "Assault" then that has no real legal meaning. What has been upheld in court is when you are get very specific. Like Boston and California and a few other places that worded it as "Ar-15 and it's various clones". I think one even specifically included the AK the same way. The morons in Oregon, this year, worded theirs Assault Rifle and that's going to bounce like a bad check.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And that brings us back to fully automatic weapons. They are severely regulated yet nothing in the constitution prevents that. Why would it be perfectly legal to regulate fully automatic weapons, but not AR 15s

Because AR-15s are NOT fully automatic weapons. They are simi-automatic (one shot per trigger pull) exactly the same as probably half the firearms in existence. They are quite common and in general use. Infringement on the Right to keep and bear arms. UnConstitutional. End of story.

The constitution doesn't seem to care how many times you have to pull the trigger. If I'm wrong, perhaps you could point out which clause mentions that.

The Constitution doesn't; the law of the land does.

And what determines the "Law of the Land"? Could it be the best armed and the willingness to use it to express your point of view whether it be with your fist or a gun?

The government makes and enforces the law. If that is a good description of government ,then I guess so.

We, the People make the laws or we elect the representatives to do it for us. the Law just enforces those laws.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Yet you presented it as proof that the founding fathers were able to envision the modern fire power we have today. Make up your mind which way you want to go on that.

Do you honestly believe that they had no ability whatsoever to envision improvements in weaponry?

It doesn't even ******* matter. It says do not infringe, there should be no infringement whatsoever. recent supreme court cases have indicated that weapons in common use or protected. I don't agree with that finding but it does screw over your argument. If you don't like it, amend. Otherwise shut your ******* commie mouth.

. it's really that simple amend or shut the **** up.

.

You're dealing with a total ******* idiot who like Rightwinger, no matter what you say or present in B&W, they will simply deny and try to deliberately twist things around because THEY SIMPLY DO NOT WANT YOU TO OWN GUNS.

PERIOD.

They find you a personal threat to their existence.

It's not about crime, safety or anything else. They know they cannot be trusted with guns so assume you are like them. You might as well talk to the wall because they have a dream that involves telling others how they can and cannot live their lives. The best thing they could do is donate their bodies to science so we can dissect their brains to find out what went wrong with them.

called them both on it quite politely today (for the most part!) and bulldog would simply refuse to answer direct questions and rightwinger did what he always does only this time he turned me into the internet police.

both are just here to stir up shit.

I specifically answered you. You just didn't like my answers because they were not rank and file with what you demanded to hear. Life isn't like that. It sucks to be you.

Actually I'm not reading 90% of your posts because I'm currently protesting idiocy.

But you carry on rambling. Rightwinger is impressed.

Sorry, only one Fruitcake award per day per fruitcake and you already received yours.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Your own ******* article explains why the ban didn't work. LOOPHOLES!!! Close the mother ******* loopholes

How, exactly, do you plan to do that?
What specific language would you use?

The lawmakers will do it. And the gun lobbyists will not have a seat at the table.

Gun grabbers shouldn't either.

NO ONE should be at the table until they exhibit in depth knowledge on guns and history of them COUPLED WITH research into the violence itself.

Guns are nt the problem in as much as the violent society we are creating.

True but we should close all loopholes, do background checks, and maybe even limit these AR15's to 10 round magazines.

Just saying.

And remember, I love my guns too. I don't want anyone taking my guns either. But I was happy when I went to Dunhams and tried to buy my Ruger 450 Bushmaster and they said I was not able to take the gun home that day. It would take 3-30 days. Why? I don't know. Could it be the violence in my history that came up when they did a search on me? I was never convicted of anything but maybe they saw I was arrested for assault 10 years ago. I was justified and was standing my ground/defending myself and got off but maybe they saw that. Could it be the time I beat the shit out of my neighbor but he never pressed charges? I'm sure that incident is on my record even though I was never charged. Could it be because 4 years ago I had a medical marijuana card? Even though it's legal in Michigan it's still a federal crime.

I was really worried they would not let me buy a gun because I smoke pot.

Anyways, about 15 days later Dunhams called and said I could pick up my gun. They must have done a good background check on me. I didn't mind. I hope they do that for everyone from now on.

In 2013, the Colorado Law that stated 10 round mags was bounced. The very next day the Legislature introduced a 15 round law. The NRA didn't contest that one. Since then, that law has been contested once and that was for California when they introduced the 10 round max. The Federal 3 panel judges agreed that that was too little. But in their dissertation, one of the Judges talked bout a 15 round capacity that fell well within the Heller V DC ruling. He nicknamed it the "Heller Clause". California has since went to the 15 round capacity law.

 

[sealybobo]

If the military wants to take us they can come take us. We don't have nearly enough semi autos out there to stop them if they wanted to systematically come in and "take us" one city/town at a time.

So that "in balance" you refer to already exists.

Do we have tanks? Drones with bombs strapped to them? RPG's? Nukes? So stop worrying. You're already fucked if they want to **** you. But once it becomes gorilla war then you have your 45 or 357 or glock.

Good thing our forefathers didn't think that way.

Hey, good idea. Let's dig them up and ask them. Or have a seance.

No need Daryl, just read American history. Apparently you know nothing about it.

Facts get in their way. I also read the various court rulings and notice they are shying away from those with me around. So the only thing they have left is their little digs. I can live with that. It means they admit defeat on a regular basis and are too dense or stupid to see it.

Question is why do you fight every idea we throw out there. You like murder

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Your own ******* article explains why the ban didn't work. LOOPHOLES!!! Close the mother ******* loopholes

How, exactly, do you plan to do that?
What specific language would you use?

The lawmakers will do it. And the gun lobbyists will not have a seat at the table.

Gun grabbers shouldn't either.

NO ONE should be at the table until they exhibit in depth knowledge on guns and history of them COUPLED WITH research into the violence itself.

Guns are nt the problem in as much as the violent society we are creating.

True but we should close all loopholes, do background checks, and maybe even limit these AR15's to 10 round magazines.

Just saying.

And remember, I love my guns too. I don't want anyone taking my guns either. But I was happy when I went to Dunhams and tried to buy my Ruger 450 Bushmaster and they said I was not able to take the gun home that day. It would take 3-30 days. Why? I don't know. Could it be the violence in my history that came up when they did a search on me? I was never convicted of anything but maybe they saw I was arrested for assault 10 years ago. I was justified and was standing my ground/defending myself and got off but maybe they saw that. Could it be the time I beat the shit out of my neighbor but he never pressed charges? I'm sure that incident is on my record even though I was never charged. Could it be because 4 years ago I had a medical marijuana card? Even though it's legal in Michigan it's still a federal crime.

I was really worried they would not let me buy a gun because I smoke pot.

Anyways, about 15 days later Dunhams called and said I could pick up my gun. They must have done a good background check on me. I didn't mind. I hope they do that for everyone from now on.

i don't think ANYTHING should be done without it directly coordinating to stopping ANY KNOWN PAST MASS SHOOTING.

outlawing the AR15 - won't help. far too many out there and you'll never close that door again.

we have more than enough laws to say what those people do is illegal, but laws seldom change behavior. so until we can figure out what to do i am NOT for doing something for a false sense of security.

10 round mags. great, they just go get the millions of 30 round mags out there. but lets say those are gone, now they just tape 3 mags together and it takes just another second or 2 to swap over. in the end, doing this may make you feel good but it simply won't stop anyone from doing this.

why can we not spend our time trying to understand WHY these people keep doing these things and working it from that angle?

are we out to stop the violence, or control guns?

they are far from the same thing.

Taping Mags together is a Hollyweird Invention. It never happened in real combat. You don't take the time to fumble with turning the mag, you hit the release with one hand while bringing up a fresh mag with the other.

And we don't need to ban the AR, just regulate it to remove the Cult. And you are part of the Cult. You have some of the responsibility for those mass shootings as well since part of the reason they do it is because they are part of that same cult.

You want to minimize the mass shootings, break the AR cult like we have done in Colorado. And we did it without banning the AR on iota.