Huge win for long gun lovers !!!!

[Flash]

There is no reason for anyone to own a AR-15.

You moron. I already explained to you the reasons to own an AR-15

1. To use for recreational purposes

2. To use for self defense

3. To have for the "necessary for the security of a free state".

Just because pathetic little pussies like you don't have a use for one don't meant the rest of us don't.

You rail like a petulant child. Here's something for the adult part of you to ponder: How many weapons were banned in 1994? How many weapons weren't banned in 1994? Are you telling the reading audience that you couldn't defend yourself or shoot targets or fulfill your mental security of a free state with the plethora of weapons NOT on the list?

I don't have to tell you jackshit. I choose to use the AR-15 because they are excellent for recreation, self defense and to kick you Socialist's ass if we ever have to. I have 30 of them. Just because you are a little ***** that is frightened of the scary Black Rifes don't mean the rest of us are. Mind your own ******* business. If you are too scared to own one that is fine. Not all of us are little pussies like you.

 

[2aguy]

More people are killed in car accidents, than assault rifles per year.!Are we going to ban automobiles?! Hand guns kill more people per year than Assault rifles. Why the focus on Assault rifles. The government wants to eliminate the States militia in America.

That is yet another moronic meme that the NRA loved to promote. Since there are a hell of a lot more cars on the roads than weapons in general circulation, you are bound to have more fatal accidents ... and the key word is ACCIDENT, because cars were NOT designed to kill people. The AR-15 is a highly versatile weapon that gives one great accuracy....it does EXACTLY what it was designed to do....KILL with accuracy for one or more targets.

When the 1994 AWB was in place, you STILL had access to a slew of handguns, rifles, shotguns in numerous styles and variations. The second the GOP let that law sunset, AR-15's flew off the shelves and became the weapon of choice for the majority of mass shooters in the last 2 decades or so. A matter of fact, a matter of history.
Oh, and if "the government" wanted to eliminate the State militia, it would have done so when the National Guard was created. However, militias that are recognized by the various states still exist and function: These states have their own armies not under the control of the Commander In Chief - We Are The Mighty

Moron, there are more guns in the country than cars...

600 million guns in private hands and over 19.4 million Americans can legally carry guns in public for self defense.....

The intentional illegal use of guns......

10,235 gun murders in 2019.

Accidental car deaths?

39,107.......

You don't know what you are talking about.....

Of the 10,235 gun murders over 70-80% of the victims are criminals, and of the rest the majority are friends and family of the criminals....and these shootings take place in democrat party controlled cities because of their actions and policies toward repeat gun offenders....they keep letting them out of jail and prison...

You just proved my point....the previous comparison of car deaths to gun deaths is sheer stupidity, because we are talking about ACCIDENTS as opposed to intentional shootings that have resulted in murders.

And how on God's green earth do you think that this "collateral damage" approach justify's the increase in the murders with weapons previously banned? Expand your critical analysis beyond your limited vocabulary.

Moron......you prove my point...

Gun murder is the intentional illegal use of a gun. The majority of the victims are not innocent people but criminals engaged in crime, and the friends and family of criminals hit by mistake.



Car Accidents are worse because they are not intentional....and we allow 16 year olds to drive cars, unsupervised........

You idiots compare illegal gun use to accidents, instead of comparing accidents to accidents...you do this for one reason..

600 million guns in private hands, 20 million AR-15 rifles, over 19.4 million Americans can carry their guns legally in public places for self defense....

Accidental gun deaths, in a country of over 320 million people?

2019....

Guns.....486

cars....37,595

Comparing accidents to accidents doesn't help you....so you move the goal posts....and even then....you can't get the number you want.....

you think it through, do you? You babble, throw out a lot stuff and don't stop to analyze what you say. You have yet to justify allowing 26 to 40% of mass shooting deaths by assault rifles that were on the 1994 ban to stay in the open market. Are you saying that those subsequent deaths are acceptable? Collateral damage for your psychological need to have these weapons in the mix?
Once again, you keep doubling down on the sheer stupidity of comparing traffic deaths to gun deaths. Intentional gun deaths due to mass shootings, murders, criminal invasion & assaults, etc. are NOT a comparative to car accidental deaths. Period. Guns have one purpose....to kill or practice to kill (food, self defense, offensive moves). Cars have one purpose....transportation. Got that? I hope so, because if you paid attention to the chronology of the post, I DID NOT ORIGINATE THIS ABSURD COMPARISON.

No...dipshit....I am saying the rifle played no difference......as I have shown you with the facts of other mass public shootings.

You don't care about the deaths, you simply have an irrational fixation on the AR-15......a regular rifle, that is no different from any other rifle, pistol or shotgun.....


73 mass public shooting deaths in 2019....over 37,595 deaths in cars..........

Your irrational......I would say insane....fixation on the rifle is media driven....as the facts show......you hear left wing asshats screech..."AR-15....AR-15..." it sinks into your tiny brain and you simply start repeating it....

 

[2aguy]

More people are killed in car accidents, than assault rifles per year.!Are we going to ban automobiles?! Hand guns kill more people per year than Assault rifles. Why the focus on Assault rifles. The government wants to eliminate the States militia in America.

That is yet another moronic meme that the NRA loved to promote. Since there are a hell of a lot more cars on the roads than weapons in general circulation, you are bound to have more fatal accidents ... and the key word is ACCIDENT, because cars were NOT designed to kill people. The AR-15 is a highly versatile weapon that gives one great accuracy....it does EXACTLY what it was designed to do....KILL with accuracy for one or more targets.

When the 1994 AWB was in place, you STILL had access to a slew of handguns, rifles, shotguns in numerous styles and variations. The second the GOP let that law sunset, AR-15's flew off the shelves and became the weapon of choice for the majority of mass shooters in the last 2 decades or so. A matter of fact, a matter of history.
Oh, and if "the government" wanted to eliminate the State militia, it would have done so when the National Guard was created. However, militias that are recognized by the various states still exist and function: These states have their own armies not under the control of the Commander In Chief - We Are The Mighty

Moron, there are more guns in the country than cars...

600 million guns in private hands and over 19.4 million Americans can legally carry guns in public for self defense.....

The intentional illegal use of guns......

10,235 gun murders in 2019.

Accidental car deaths?

39,107.......

You don't know what you are talking about.....

Of the 10,235 gun murders over 70-80% of the victims are criminals, and of the rest the majority are friends and family of the criminals....and these shootings take place in democrat party controlled cities because of their actions and policies toward repeat gun offenders....they keep letting them out of jail and prison...

You just proved my point....the previous comparison of car deaths to gun deaths is sheer stupidity, because we are talking about ACCIDENTS as opposed to intentional shootings that have resulted in murders.

And how on God's green earth do you think that this "collateral damage" approach justify's the increase in the murders with weapons previously banned? Expand your critical analysis beyond your limited vocabulary.

Idiot.....rifle deaths going down up to 2015.....going up and down over the years......

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

ucr.fbi.gov

And yet:

How many US mass shootings have there been in 2024?

Explaining some of the key statistics behind gun ownership and attacks linked to guns in the US.

www.bbc.com

there's something really wrong with a person who keeps trying to tell people that increase in mass shooting deaths is not really as bad as it seems...for what end? Like you can't get a gun or semi-auto rifle, or hunting rifle or shot gun? Before or after the 1994 ban. Seriously, what is your problem?

I listed every mass public shooting since 1982.......there is not an increase in mass public shootings in any way that matters.....

The ban did nothing...actual research shows the ban did nothing....

73 total deaths in mass public shootings in 2019.......using all types of guns.....which means the AR-15 was responsible for less than 73 deaths in mass public shootings...

Again...

Deer kill 200 people a year....

Ladders kill 300 people a year

lawn mowers kill between 90-100 people a year.......

Sell your irrational, insane fixation on the AR-15 to dumb people....the people who voted for joe biden....

Those of us who deal with facts, truth and reality get tired of your stupidity....

 

[2aguy]

There is no reason for anyone to own a AR-15.

You moron. I already explained to you the reasons to own an AR-15

1. To use for recreational purposes

2. To use for self defense

3. To have for the "necessary for the security of a free state".

Just because pathetic little pussies like you don't have a use for one don't meant the rest of of don't.

4. Firepower superiority.

If you couldn't defend your home or self with the plethora of weapons that were available during the 1994 ban, then I'd say you're just a bad shot or have some serious psychological issues.

Idiot.......that list, with idiots like you in charge gets bigger and bigger if we let you have power......

The Right to own and carry a gun is a Right........because you will allow us to have a bolt action .22 pistol is not what a Right allows....you idiot.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

A more detailed quote from Friedman...

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411.

Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller.

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409.

Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412.


Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.

You're boring me, son. Individual court rulings don't change the fact that NO GUN LAW EVER BANNED OWNERSHIP OR CONFISCATED WEAPONS IN GENERAL. The whine and foot stamping concerns specific weapons. None of your quotes changes the FACTS that YOU cannot own a military grade weapon (full auto) or explosives. Also, it does not change the FACT that the when the 1994 ban ended the AR-15 became the weapons of choice for some of the worst mass shootings in the last 30 years.

This near insane "I want it just because I want it" attitudes towards guns only benefits the gun lobby, the manufacturers and the retailers. The victims that I have listed time and again are of no consequence to you, as you repeatedly ignore such. Carry on.

It isn't any court...you idiot...Heller was the Supreme Court....as was the ruling in Caetano.....Scalia, the guy who wrote the opinion in Heller, also stated in Friedman that the AR-15 is a protected rifle...by name....

 

[TheDefiantOne]

There is no reason for anyone to own a AR-15.

You moron. I already explained to you the reasons to own an AR-15

1. To use for recreational purposes

2. To use for self defense

3. To have for the "necessary for the security of a free state".

Just because pathetic little pussies like you don't have a use for one don't meant the rest of us don't.

You rail like a petulant child. Here's something for the adult part of you to ponder: How many weapons were banned in 1994? How many weapons weren't banned in 1994? Are you telling the reading audience that you couldn't defend yourself or shoot targets or fulfill your mental security of a free state with the plethora of weapons NOT on the list?

I don't have to tell you jackshit. I choose to use the AR-15 because they are excellent for recreation, self defense and to kick you Socialist's ass if we ever have to. I have 30 of them. Just because you are a little ***** that is frightened of the scary Black Rifes don't mean the rest of us are. Mind your own ******* business. If you are too scared to own one that is fine. Not all of us are little pussies like you.

And there you have it, dear readers....yet another LaPierre knock off who doesn't have the intellectual courage and honesty to answer a simple, rational and logical question. Instead, we get insults, childish petulance and highly suspect chest beating about his gun collection. If his claim is true, I as a neighbor would be worried about 1 man with a short fuse, proud willful ignorance and inability to critically think owning 30 weapons.

Once I've reduced people like Flash to the mouth frothing point he's at now, I just dump them in IA, as all he's good for is this and regurgitation of disproved/dubious mantras.

 

[TheDefiantOne]

More people are killed in car accidents, than assault rifles per year.!Are we going to ban automobiles?! Hand guns kill more people per year than Assault rifles. Why the focus on Assault rifles. The government wants to eliminate the States militia in America.

That is yet another moronic meme that the NRA loved to promote. Since there are a hell of a lot more cars on the roads than weapons in general circulation, you are bound to have more fatal accidents ... and the key word is ACCIDENT, because cars were NOT designed to kill people. The AR-15 is a highly versatile weapon that gives one great accuracy....it does EXACTLY what it was designed to do....KILL with accuracy for one or more targets.

When the 1994 AWB was in place, you STILL had access to a slew of handguns, rifles, shotguns in numerous styles and variations. The second the GOP let that law sunset, AR-15's flew off the shelves and became the weapon of choice for the majority of mass shooters in the last 2 decades or so. A matter of fact, a matter of history.
Oh, and if "the government" wanted to eliminate the State militia, it would have done so when the National Guard was created. However, militias that are recognized by the various states still exist and function: These states have their own armies not under the control of the Commander In Chief - We Are The Mighty

Moron, there are more guns in the country than cars...

600 million guns in private hands and over 19.4 million Americans can legally carry guns in public for self defense.....

The intentional illegal use of guns......

10,235 gun murders in 2019.

Accidental car deaths?

39,107.......

You don't know what you are talking about.....

Of the 10,235 gun murders over 70-80% of the victims are criminals, and of the rest the majority are friends and family of the criminals....and these shootings take place in democrat party controlled cities because of their actions and policies toward repeat gun offenders....they keep letting them out of jail and prison...

You just proved my point....the previous comparison of car deaths to gun deaths is sheer stupidity, because we are talking about ACCIDENTS as opposed to intentional shootings that have resulted in murders.

And how on God's green earth do you think that this "collateral damage" approach justify's the increase in the murders with weapons previously banned? Expand your critical analysis beyond your limited vocabulary.

Moron......you prove my point...

Gun murder is the intentional illegal use of a gun. The majority of the victims are not innocent people but criminals engaged in crime, and the friends and family of criminals hit by mistake.



Car Accidents are worse because they are not intentional....and we allow 16 year olds to drive cars, unsupervised........

You idiots compare illegal gun use to accidents, instead of comparing accidents to accidents...you do this for one reason..

600 million guns in private hands, 20 million AR-15 rifles, over 19.4 million Americans can carry their guns legally in public places for self defense....

Accidental gun deaths, in a country of over 320 million people?

2019....

Guns.....486

cars....37,595

Comparing accidents to accidents doesn't help you....so you move the goal posts....and even then....you can't get the number you want.....

you think it through, do you? You babble, throw out a lot stuff and don't stop to analyze what you say. You have yet to justify allowing 26 to 40% of mass shooting deaths by assault rifles that were on the 1994 ban to stay in the open market. Are you saying that those subsequent deaths are acceptable? Collateral damage for your psychological need to have these weapons in the mix?
Once again, you keep doubling down on the sheer stupidity of comparing traffic deaths to gun deaths. Intentional gun deaths due to mass shootings, murders, criminal invasion & assaults, etc. are NOT a comparative to car accidental deaths. Period. Guns have one purpose....to kill or practice to kill (food, self defense, offensive moves). Cars have one purpose....transportation. Got that? I hope so, because if you paid attention to the chronology of the post, I DID NOT ORIGINATE THIS ABSURD COMPARISON.

No...dipshit....I am saying the rifle played no difference......as I have shown you with the facts of other mass public shootings.

You don't care about the deaths, you simply have an irrational fixation on the AR-15......a regular rifle, that is no different from any other rifle, pistol or shotgun.....


73 mass public shooting deaths in 2019....over 37,595 deaths in cars..........

Your irrational......I would say insane....fixation on the rifle is media driven....as the facts show......you hear left wing asshats screech..."AR-15....AR-15..." it sinks into your tiny brain and you simply start repeating it....

You really should think before you type, as I'm beginning to feel sorry for your proud willful ignorance and insipid stubbornness.

Once again, you make the assinine claim that assault weapons (no junior, using the generic term "rifles" doesn't smoke screen the crux of the discussion) "played no difference"....then you fairly dance with glee that 26% of the mass shooting deaths were by one particular assault weapon.

I have asked you time and again: a re you saying that those subsequent deaths are acceptable? Why? So you can have a weapon just because you want it? Are you saying it's the ONLY weapon capable to suit your need for home protection? Hunting? Target practice? To date, you don't have an honest, intelligent answer.....just moronic accusations (if I didn't care about people getting killed, then why advocate to remove THE WEAPON OF CHOICE for a large portion of those mass shootings?)

Since the majority of people use their cars on a daily basis, then you have a large portion of ACCIDENTS. Since the majority of rational, legit gun owners DO NOT COMMIT MASS MURDER, then the ratio in that vein is relatively "small" to thos that do. But as I said many times before on this thread, that is of small comfort to the victim's mass shootings' families.. and as stats shows, those numbers are creeping up!

So do continue to try and BS your way past simple logic...the objective reader sees you for what you are about. Unless you actually have an adult and rational response beyond your parroting the SOS, I'll just leave you to wail and rail.

 

[TheDefiantOne]

More people are killed in car accidents, than assault rifles per year.!Are we going to ban automobiles?! Hand guns kill more people per year than Assault rifles. Why the focus on Assault rifles. The government wants to eliminate the States militia in America.

That is yet another moronic meme that the NRA loved to promote. Since there are a hell of a lot more cars on the roads than weapons in general circulation, you are bound to have more fatal accidents ... and the key word is ACCIDENT, because cars were NOT designed to kill people. The AR-15 is a highly versatile weapon that gives one great accuracy....it does EXACTLY what it was designed to do....KILL with accuracy for one or more targets.

When the 1994 AWB was in place, you STILL had access to a slew of handguns, rifles, shotguns in numerous styles and variations. The second the GOP let that law sunset, AR-15's flew off the shelves and became the weapon of choice for the majority of mass shooters in the last 2 decades or so. A matter of fact, a matter of history.
Oh, and if "the government" wanted to eliminate the State militia, it would have done so when the National Guard was created. However, militias that are recognized by the various states still exist and function: These states have their own armies not under the control of the Commander In Chief - We Are The Mighty

Moron, there are more guns in the country than cars...

600 million guns in private hands and over 19.4 million Americans can legally carry guns in public for self defense.....

The intentional illegal use of guns......

10,235 gun murders in 2019.

Accidental car deaths?

39,107.......

You don't know what you are talking about.....

Of the 10,235 gun murders over 70-80% of the victims are criminals, and of the rest the majority are friends and family of the criminals....and these shootings take place in democrat party controlled cities because of their actions and policies toward repeat gun offenders....they keep letting them out of jail and prison...

You just proved my point....the previous comparison of car deaths to gun deaths is sheer stupidity, because we are talking about ACCIDENTS as opposed to intentional shootings that have resulted in murders.

And how on God's green earth do you think that this "collateral damage" approach justify's the increase in the murders with weapons previously banned? Expand your critical analysis beyond your limited vocabulary.

Idiot.....rifle deaths going down up to 2015.....going up and down over the years......

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

ucr.fbi.gov

And yet:

How many US mass shootings have there been in 2024?

Explaining some of the key statistics behind gun ownership and attacks linked to guns in the US.

www.bbc.com

there's something really wrong with a person who keeps trying to tell people that increase in mass shooting deaths is not really as bad as it seems...for what end? Like you can't get a gun or semi-auto rifle, or hunting rifle or shot gun? Before or after the 1994 ban. Seriously, what is your problem?

I listed every mass public shooting since 1982.......there is not an increase in mass public shootings in any way that matters.....

The ban did nothing...actual research shows the ban did nothing....

73 total deaths in mass public shootings in 2019.......using all types of guns.....which means the AR-15 was responsible for less than 73 deaths in mass public shootings...

Again...

Deer kill 200 people a year....

Ladders kill 300 people a year

lawn mowers kill between 90-100 people a year.......

Sell your irrational, insane fixation on the AR-15 to dumb people....the people who voted for joe biden....

Those of us who deal with facts, truth and reality get tired of your stupidity....

Okay folks, here's the bottom line for this cretin's mentality on the subject, "..... there is not an increase in mass public shootings in any way that matters.....

This joker doesn't give a damn as to how many people have been killed by assault weapon mass shootings in the last 20 years or more....to him it's all about his fanatical devotion to the LaPierre mandate from the NRA....it doesn't matter that the weapons of choice for such killings was purchased AFTER it's ban was dissolved via GOP vote. Nope, it doesn't matter because he WANTS it, and if he can't get it (assuming the cretin actually has bought one), then this country is on the path to communism Never mind the slew of weapons available during the 1994 ban....nope, it's all or nothing....TFB for the victims.

So finally I got this joker to cop to his sociopathic indifference to Americans in general (no one ever polled the victims families as to how the victims felt about gun control) for his bizarre logic and beliefs. That being done, I no longer will waste time giving him a platform to parrot his pathetic drivel. I'm done with him.

 

[Flash]

There is no reason for anyone to own a AR-15.

You moron. I already explained to you the reasons to own an AR-15

1. To use for recreational purposes

2. To use for self defense

3. To have for the "necessary for the security of a free state".

Just because pathetic little pussies like you don't have a use for one don't meant the rest of us don't.

You rail like a petulant child. Here's something for the adult part of you to ponder: How many weapons were banned in 1994? How many weapons weren't banned in 1994? Are you telling the reading audience that you couldn't defend yourself or shoot targets or fulfill your mental security of a free state with the plethora of weapons NOT on the list?

I don't have to tell you jackshit. I choose to use the AR-15 because they are excellent for recreation, self defense and to kick you Socialist's ass if we ever have to. I have 30 of them. Just because you are a little ***** that is frightened of the scary Black Rifes don't mean the rest of us are. Mind your own ******* business. If you are too scared to own one that is fine. Not all of us are little pussies like you.

And there you have it, dear readers....yet another LaPierre knock off who doesn't have the intellectual courage and honesty to answer a simple, rational and logical question. Instead, we get insults, childish petulance and highly suspect chest beating about his gun collection. If his claim is true, I as a neighbor would be worried about 1 man with a short fuse, proud willful ignorance and inability to critically think owning 30 weapons.

Once I've reduced people like Flash to the mouth frothing point he's at now, I just dump them in IA, as all he's good for is this and regurgitation of disproved/dubious mantras.

You haven't answered the question I asked you.

What is your ******* agenda in taking away AR-15s?

Is it to reduce gun crime or to prevent us Patriots from letting you Left Wing shitheads from destroy the Constitution?

You can't be honest, can you?

You little anti gun nut pussies never have the courage to explain your confusion, do you?

 

[TheDefiantOne]

There is no reason for anyone to own a AR-15.

You moron. I already explained to you the reasons to own an AR-15

1. To use for recreational purposes

2. To use for self defense

3. To have for the "necessary for the security of a free state".

Just because pathetic little pussies like you don't have a use for one don't meant the rest of of don't.

4. Firepower superiority.

If you couldn't defend your home or self with the plethora of weapons that were available during the 1994 ban, then I'd say you're just a bad shot or have some serious psychological issues.

Idiot.......that list, with idiots like you in charge gets bigger and bigger if we let you have power......

The Right to own and carry a gun is a Right........because you will allow us to have a bolt action .22 pistol is not what a Right allows....you idiot.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

A more detailed quote from Friedman...

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411.

Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller.

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409.

Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412.


Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.

You're boring me, son. Individual court rulings don't change the fact that NO GUN LAW EVER BANNED OWNERSHIP OR CONFISCATED WEAPONS IN GENERAL. The whine and foot stamping concerns specific weapons. None of your quotes changes the FACTS that YOU cannot own a military grade weapon (full auto) or explosives. Also, it does not change the FACT that the when the 1994 ban ended the AR-15 became the weapons of choice for some of the worst mass shootings in the last 30 years.

This near insane "I want it just because I want it" attitudes towards guns only benefits the gun lobby, the manufacturers and the retailers. The victims that I have listed time and again are of no consequence to you, as you repeatedly ignore such. Carry on.

It isn't any court...you idiot...Heller was the Supreme Court....as was the ruling in Caetano.....Scalia, the guy who wrote the opinion in Heller, also stated in Friedman that the AR-15 is a protected rifle...by name....

No shyte, Sherlock! Scalia also said: Scalia: There Are 'Undoubtedly' Limits To A Person's Right To Carry Guns





Even Scalia Would Allow Today’s Gun-Control Proposals

You're done! You've previously admitted that you feel the deaths of those by assault weapons in the last 20 years or so were of no significant consequence. That is just plain sick. Adios.

 

[TheDefiantOne]

There is no reason for anyone to own a AR-15.

You moron. I already explained to you the reasons to own an AR-15

1. To use for recreational purposes

2. To use for self defense

3. To have for the "necessary for the security of a free state".

Just because pathetic little pussies like you don't have a use for one don't meant the rest of us don't.

You rail like a petulant child. Here's something for the adult part of you to ponder: How many weapons were banned in 1994? How many weapons weren't banned in 1994? Are you telling the reading audience that you couldn't defend yourself or shoot targets or fulfill your mental security of a free state with the plethora of weapons NOT on the list?

I don't have to tell you jackshit. I choose to use the AR-15 because they are excellent for recreation, self defense and to kick you Socialist's ass if we ever have to. I have 30 of them. Just because you are a little ***** that is frightened of the scary Black Rifes don't mean the rest of us are. Mind your own ******* business. If you are too scared to own one that is fine. Not all of us are little pussies like you.

And there you have it, dear readers....yet another LaPierre knock off who doesn't have the intellectual courage and honesty to answer a simple, rational and logical question. Instead, we get insults, childish petulance and highly suspect chest beating about his gun collection. If his claim is true, I as a neighbor would be worried about 1 man with a short fuse, proud willful ignorance and inability to critically think owning 30 weapons.

Once I've reduced people like Flash to the mouth frothing point he's at now, I just dump them in IA, as all he's good for is this and regurgitation of disproved/dubious mantras.

You haven't answered the question I asked you.

What is your ******* agenda in taking away AR-15s?

Is it to reduce gun crime or to prevent us Patriots from letting you Left Wing shitheads from destroy the Constitution?

You can't be honest, can you?

You little anti gun nut pussies never have the courage to explain your confusion, do you?

Only a complete idiot would think they could lie in a posted medium. The chronology of the posts Shows Flash NOT answering a simple question, and then thinking all will ignore his dodge as he tries to shift the discussion to one of his accusatory and false premise queries.

Once exposed for such lame tactics and intellectual dishonesty, people like Flash are dumped in IA, as they are a waste of time and space when seeking an adult discussion.

 

[Flash]

There is no reason for anyone to own a AR-15.

You moron. I already explained to you the reasons to own an AR-15

1. To use for recreational purposes

2. To use for self defense

3. To have for the "necessary for the security of a free state".

Just because pathetic little pussies like you don't have a use for one don't meant the rest of of don't.

4. Firepower superiority.

If you couldn't defend your home or self with the plethora of weapons that were available during the 1994 ban, then I'd say you're just a bad shot or have some serious psychological issues.

Idiot.......that list, with idiots like you in charge gets bigger and bigger if we let you have power......

The Right to own and carry a gun is a Right........because you will allow us to have a bolt action .22 pistol is not what a Right allows....you idiot.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

A more detailed quote from Friedman...

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411.

Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller.

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409.

Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412.


Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.

You're boring me, son. Individual court rulings don't change the fact that NO GUN LAW EVER BANNED OWNERSHIP OR CONFISCATED WEAPONS IN GENERAL. The whine and foot stamping concerns specific weapons. None of your quotes changes the FACTS that YOU cannot own a military grade weapon (full auto) or explosives. Also, it does not change the FACT that the when the 1994 ban ended the AR-15 became the weapons of choice for some of the worst mass shootings in the last 30 years.

This near insane "I want it just because I want it" attitudes towards guns only benefits the gun lobby, the manufacturers and the retailers. The victims that I have listed time and again are of no consequence to you, as you repeatedly ignore such. Carry on.

It isn't any court...you idiot...Heller was the Supreme Court....as was the ruling in Caetano.....Scalia, the guy who wrote the opinion in Heller, also stated in Friedman that the AR-15 is a protected rifle...by name....

No shyte, Sherlock! Scalia also said: Scalia: There Are 'Undoubtedly' Limits To A Person's Right To Carry Guns





Even Scalia Would Allow Today’s Gun-Control Proposals

You're done! You've previously admitted that you feel the deaths of those by assault weapons in the last 20 years or so were of no significant consequence. That is just plain sick. Adios.

We don't know what restrictions Scalia had in mind do we? However, what we do know is that Scalia said that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right protected by the Constitution. As 2ag has pointed out to you Scalia said that the government can't ban the AR.

You haven't answered the question I have asked several times.

Do you want to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms by restricting the most popular firearm in America to prevent gun crime?

Or are you afraid that Patriots will use these firearms to hold the government accountable for oppression? Oppression that you filthy little Left Wing scumbags want?

Stop being a little chickenshit and running away from the question. It makes you look like a pathetic little *****.

 

[Flash]

 

[2aguy]

More people are killed in car accidents, than assault rifles per year.!Are we going to ban automobiles?! Hand guns kill more people per year than Assault rifles. Why the focus on Assault rifles. The government wants to eliminate the States militia in America.

That is yet another moronic meme that the NRA loved to promote. Since there are a hell of a lot more cars on the roads than weapons in general circulation, you are bound to have more fatal accidents ... and the key word is ACCIDENT, because cars were NOT designed to kill people. The AR-15 is a highly versatile weapon that gives one great accuracy....it does EXACTLY what it was designed to do....KILL with accuracy for one or more targets.

When the 1994 AWB was in place, you STILL had access to a slew of handguns, rifles, shotguns in numerous styles and variations. The second the GOP let that law sunset, AR-15's flew off the shelves and became the weapon of choice for the majority of mass shooters in the last 2 decades or so. A matter of fact, a matter of history.
Oh, and if "the government" wanted to eliminate the State militia, it would have done so when the National Guard was created. However, militias that are recognized by the various states still exist and function: These states have their own armies not under the control of the Commander In Chief - We Are The Mighty

Moron, there are more guns in the country than cars...

600 million guns in private hands and over 19.4 million Americans can legally carry guns in public for self defense.....

The intentional illegal use of guns......

10,235 gun murders in 2019.

Accidental car deaths?

39,107.......

You don't know what you are talking about.....

Of the 10,235 gun murders over 70-80% of the victims are criminals, and of the rest the majority are friends and family of the criminals....and these shootings take place in democrat party controlled cities because of their actions and policies toward repeat gun offenders....they keep letting them out of jail and prison...

You just proved my point....the previous comparison of car deaths to gun deaths is sheer stupidity, because we are talking about ACCIDENTS as opposed to intentional shootings that have resulted in murders.

And how on God's green earth do you think that this "collateral damage" approach justify's the increase in the murders with weapons previously banned? Expand your critical analysis beyond your limited vocabulary.

Moron......you prove my point...

Gun murder is the intentional illegal use of a gun. The majority of the victims are not innocent people but criminals engaged in crime, and the friends and family of criminals hit by mistake.



Car Accidents are worse because they are not intentional....and we allow 16 year olds to drive cars, unsupervised........

You idiots compare illegal gun use to accidents, instead of comparing accidents to accidents...you do this for one reason..

600 million guns in private hands, 20 million AR-15 rifles, over 19.4 million Americans can carry their guns legally in public places for self defense....

Accidental gun deaths, in a country of over 320 million people?

2019....

Guns.....486

cars....37,595

Comparing accidents to accidents doesn't help you....so you move the goal posts....and even then....you can't get the number you want.....

you think it through, do you? You babble, throw out a lot stuff and don't stop to analyze what you say. You have yet to justify allowing 26 to 40% of mass shooting deaths by assault rifles that were on the 1994 ban to stay in the open market. Are you saying that those subsequent deaths are acceptable? Collateral damage for your psychological need to have these weapons in the mix?
Once again, you keep doubling down on the sheer stupidity of comparing traffic deaths to gun deaths. Intentional gun deaths due to mass shootings, murders, criminal invasion & assaults, etc. are NOT a comparative to car accidental deaths. Period. Guns have one purpose....to kill or practice to kill (food, self defense, offensive moves). Cars have one purpose....transportation. Got that? I hope so, because if you paid attention to the chronology of the post, I DID NOT ORIGINATE THIS ABSURD COMPARISON.

No...dipshit....I am saying the rifle played no difference......as I have shown you with the facts of other mass public shootings.

You don't care about the deaths, you simply have an irrational fixation on the AR-15......a regular rifle, that is no different from any other rifle, pistol or shotgun.....


73 mass public shooting deaths in 2019....over 37,595 deaths in cars..........

Your irrational......I would say insane....fixation on the rifle is media driven....as the facts show......you hear left wing asshats screech..."AR-15....AR-15..." it sinks into your tiny brain and you simply start repeating it....

You really should think before you type, as I'm beginning to feel sorry for your proud willful ignorance and insipid stubbornness.

Once again, you make the assinine claim that assault weapons (no junior, using the generic term "rifles" doesn't smoke screen the crux of the discussion) "played no difference"....then you fairly dance with glee that 26% of the mass shooting deaths were by one particular assault weapon.

I have asked you time and again: a re you saying that those subsequent deaths are acceptable? Why? So you can have a weapon just because you want it? Are you saying it's the ONLY weapon capable to suit your need for home protection? Hunting? Target practice? To date, you don't have an honest, intelligent answer.....just moronic accusations (if I didn't care about people getting killed, then why advocate to remove THE WEAPON OF CHOICE for a large portion of those mass shootings?)

Since the majority of people use their cars on a daily basis, then you have a large portion of ACCIDENTS. Since the majority of rational, legit gun owners DO NOT COMMIT MASS MURDER, then the ratio in that vein is relatively "small" to thos that do. But as I said many times before on this thread, that is of small comfort to the victim's mass shootings' families.. and as stats shows, those numbers are creeping up!

So do continue to try and BS your way past simple logic...the objective reader sees you for what you are about. Unless you actually have an adult and rational response beyond your parroting the SOS, I'll just leave you to wail and rail.

I have shown that the gun in a mass public shooting doesn't matter....the range is too close for it to make a difference.....so your irrational, insane fixation on the AR-15 rifle is silly.

there were 10 mass public shootings in 2019.....in a country of over 320 million people..

There were 73 people killed in 2019 in mass public shootings......

4 of the 10....less than 50% used rifles.....not to mention other guns

killed in each shooting...

7
9
22
3

In the Virginia Tech shooting, the killer used two pistols....murdered 32.

The Luby's Cafe shooting....the killer used two pistols...killed 24

So far, they killed more people than the guys with rifles....yet you are fixated on the rifle.

Then we go to

Kerch, Russia, 5 shot, pump action shotgun...killed 20, wounded 70.

The navy yard shooting....5 shot, pump action shotgun....killed 12.

You are irrational....you are insanely focused on the wrong element of mass public shootings...

1) you need to focus on mental health, and reporting deranged people by friends and family to prevent the shootings

2) you need to focus on ending gun free zones......the actual majority of mass public shootings happen in gun free zones.....when a good person can shoot back, the killer stops murdering innocent people, commits suicide, surrenders, runs away, is injured or killed

The AR-15 rifle is no different from any other rifle....you have allowed the media to implant dumb ideas in your head.....

 

[2aguy]

More people are killed in car accidents, than assault rifles per year.!Are we going to ban automobiles?! Hand guns kill more people per year than Assault rifles. Why the focus on Assault rifles. The government wants to eliminate the States militia in America.

That is yet another moronic meme that the NRA loved to promote. Since there are a hell of a lot more cars on the roads than weapons in general circulation, you are bound to have more fatal accidents ... and the key word is ACCIDENT, because cars were NOT designed to kill people. The AR-15 is a highly versatile weapon that gives one great accuracy....it does EXACTLY what it was designed to do....KILL with accuracy for one or more targets.

When the 1994 AWB was in place, you STILL had access to a slew of handguns, rifles, shotguns in numerous styles and variations. The second the GOP let that law sunset, AR-15's flew off the shelves and became the weapon of choice for the majority of mass shooters in the last 2 decades or so. A matter of fact, a matter of history.
Oh, and if "the government" wanted to eliminate the State militia, it would have done so when the National Guard was created. However, militias that are recognized by the various states still exist and function: These states have their own armies not under the control of the Commander In Chief - We Are The Mighty

Moron, there are more guns in the country than cars...

600 million guns in private hands and over 19.4 million Americans can legally carry guns in public for self defense.....

The intentional illegal use of guns......

10,235 gun murders in 2019.

Accidental car deaths?

39,107.......

You don't know what you are talking about.....

Of the 10,235 gun murders over 70-80% of the victims are criminals, and of the rest the majority are friends and family of the criminals....and these shootings take place in democrat party controlled cities because of their actions and policies toward repeat gun offenders....they keep letting them out of jail and prison...

You just proved my point....the previous comparison of car deaths to gun deaths is sheer stupidity, because we are talking about ACCIDENTS as opposed to intentional shootings that have resulted in murders.

And how on God's green earth do you think that this "collateral damage" approach justify's the increase in the murders with weapons previously banned? Expand your critical analysis beyond your limited vocabulary.

Moron......you prove my point...

Gun murder is the intentional illegal use of a gun. The majority of the victims are not innocent people but criminals engaged in crime, and the friends and family of criminals hit by mistake.



Car Accidents are worse because they are not intentional....and we allow 16 year olds to drive cars, unsupervised........

You idiots compare illegal gun use to accidents, instead of comparing accidents to accidents...you do this for one reason..

600 million guns in private hands, 20 million AR-15 rifles, over 19.4 million Americans can carry their guns legally in public places for self defense....

Accidental gun deaths, in a country of over 320 million people?

2019....

Guns.....486

cars....37,595

Comparing accidents to accidents doesn't help you....so you move the goal posts....and even then....you can't get the number you want.....

you think it through, do you? You babble, throw out a lot stuff and don't stop to analyze what you say. You have yet to justify allowing 26 to 40% of mass shooting deaths by assault rifles that were on the 1994 ban to stay in the open market. Are you saying that those subsequent deaths are acceptable? Collateral damage for your psychological need to have these weapons in the mix?
Once again, you keep doubling down on the sheer stupidity of comparing traffic deaths to gun deaths. Intentional gun deaths due to mass shootings, murders, criminal invasion & assaults, etc. are NOT a comparative to car accidental deaths. Period. Guns have one purpose....to kill or practice to kill (food, self defense, offensive moves). Cars have one purpose....transportation. Got that? I hope so, because if you paid attention to the chronology of the post, I DID NOT ORIGINATE THIS ABSURD COMPARISON.

No...dipshit....I am saying the rifle played no difference......as I have shown you with the facts of other mass public shootings.

You don't care about the deaths, you simply have an irrational fixation on the AR-15......a regular rifle, that is no different from any other rifle, pistol or shotgun.....


73 mass public shooting deaths in 2019....over 37,595 deaths in cars..........

Your irrational......I would say insane....fixation on the rifle is media driven....as the facts show......you hear left wing asshats screech..."AR-15....AR-15..." it sinks into your tiny brain and you simply start repeating it....

You really should think before you type, as I'm beginning to feel sorry for your proud willful ignorance and insipid stubbornness.

Once again, you make the assinine claim that assault weapons (no junior, using the generic term "rifles" doesn't smoke screen the crux of the discussion) "played no difference"....then you fairly dance with glee that 26% of the mass shooting deaths were by one particular assault weapon.

I have asked you time and again: a re you saying that those subsequent deaths are acceptable? Why? So you can have a weapon just because you want it? Are you saying it's the ONLY weapon capable to suit your need for home protection? Hunting? Target practice? To date, you don't have an honest, intelligent answer.....just moronic accusations (if I didn't care about people getting killed, then why advocate to remove THE WEAPON OF CHOICE for a large portion of those mass shootings?)

Since the majority of people use their cars on a daily basis, then you have a large portion of ACCIDENTS. Since the majority of rational, legit gun owners DO NOT COMMIT MASS MURDER, then the ratio in that vein is relatively "small" to thos that do. But as I said many times before on this thread, that is of small comfort to the victim's mass shootings' families.. and as stats shows, those numbers are creeping up!

So do continue to try and BS your way past simple logic...the objective reader sees you for what you are about. Unless you actually have an adult and rational response beyond your parroting the SOS, I'll just leave you to wail and rail.

then you fairly dance with glee that 26% of the mass shooting deaths were by one particular assault weapon.

No...idiot....I pointed out that you claimed that the majority of mass public shootings were done with AR-15s......you claimed it, and then in one of your links...in the very title, it said 26%.......it made you look like an idiot.....and then, with more posts, you proved you actually are an idiot...

Mass public shootings numbered 10 in 2019....73 killed....

Deer kill 200 people a year.

Ladders kill 300 people a year.

Lawn mowers kill between 90-100 people a year.

There are 20 million AR-15 rifles in private hands...and that number is growing...

4 were used in 2019 for mass public shootings........

4 out of 20 million....

You are an idiot...you are irrational, likely insane.....you are fixated on a rifle because your brain has been subjected to anti-gun extremists feeding you crap for a long time...

We don't take people like you seriously, but we do take what you want to do seriously....

 

[2aguy]

There is no reason for anyone to own a AR-15.

You moron. I already explained to you the reasons to own an AR-15

1. To use for recreational purposes

2. To use for self defense

3. To have for the "necessary for the security of a free state".

Just because pathetic little pussies like you don't have a use for one don't meant the rest of of don't.

4. Firepower superiority.

If you couldn't defend your home or self with the plethora of weapons that were available during the 1994 ban, then I'd say you're just a bad shot or have some serious psychological issues.

Idiot.......that list, with idiots like you in charge gets bigger and bigger if we let you have power......

The Right to own and carry a gun is a Right........because you will allow us to have a bolt action .22 pistol is not what a Right allows....you idiot.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

A more detailed quote from Friedman...

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411.

Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller.

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409.

Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412.


Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.

You're boring me, son. Individual court rulings don't change the fact that NO GUN LAW EVER BANNED OWNERSHIP OR CONFISCATED WEAPONS IN GENERAL. The whine and foot stamping concerns specific weapons. None of your quotes changes the FACTS that YOU cannot own a military grade weapon (full auto) or explosives. Also, it does not change the FACT that the when the 1994 ban ended the AR-15 became the weapons of choice for some of the worst mass shootings in the last 30 years.

This near insane "I want it just because I want it" attitudes towards guns only benefits the gun lobby, the manufacturers and the retailers. The victims that I have listed time and again are of no consequence to you, as you repeatedly ignore such. Carry on.

It isn't any court...you idiot...Heller was the Supreme Court....as was the ruling in Caetano.....Scalia, the guy who wrote the opinion in Heller, also stated in Friedman that the AR-15 is a protected rifle...by name....

No shyte, Sherlock! Scalia also said: Scalia: There Are 'Undoubtedly' Limits To A Person's Right To Carry Guns





Even Scalia Would Allow Today’s Gun-Control Proposals

You're done! You've previously admitted that you feel the deaths of those by assault weapons in the last 20 years or so were of no significant consequence. That is just plain sick. Adios.

See.....you don't think, you don't read..........


This is what Scalia stated when he wrote the Majority opinion in the Heller decision...and his further opinion in Friedman v Highland Park....where he says, you dumb shit......that the AR-15, by name, is a protected rifle....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

And from Caetano v Massachusetts...

Opinion of the Court[edit]



In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

------





As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment.



First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).



Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.


Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581. Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.



If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis

--

 

[2aguy]

There is no reason for anyone to own a AR-15.

You moron. I already explained to you the reasons to own an AR-15

1. To use for recreational purposes

2. To use for self defense

3. To have for the "necessary for the security of a free state".

Just because pathetic little pussies like you don't have a use for one don't meant the rest of of don't.

4. Firepower superiority.

If you couldn't defend your home or self with the plethora of weapons that were available during the 1994 ban, then I'd say you're just a bad shot or have some serious psychological issues.

Idiot.......that list, with idiots like you in charge gets bigger and bigger if we let you have power......

The Right to own and carry a gun is a Right........because you will allow us to have a bolt action .22 pistol is not what a Right allows....you idiot.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

A more detailed quote from Friedman...

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411.

Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller.

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409.

Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412.


Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.

You're boring me, son. Individual court rulings don't change the fact that NO GUN LAW EVER BANNED OWNERSHIP OR CONFISCATED WEAPONS IN GENERAL. The whine and foot stamping concerns specific weapons. None of your quotes changes the FACTS that YOU cannot own a military grade weapon (full auto) or explosives. Also, it does not change the FACT that the when the 1994 ban ended the AR-15 became the weapons of choice for some of the worst mass shootings in the last 30 years.

This near insane "I want it just because I want it" attitudes towards guns only benefits the gun lobby, the manufacturers and the retailers. The victims that I have listed time and again are of no consequence to you, as you repeatedly ignore such. Carry on.

It isn't any court...you idiot...Heller was the Supreme Court....as was the ruling in Caetano.....Scalia, the guy who wrote the opinion in Heller, also stated in Friedman that the AR-15 is a protected rifle...by name....

No shyte, Sherlock! Scalia also said: Scalia: There Are 'Undoubtedly' Limits To A Person's Right To Carry Guns





Even Scalia Would Allow Today’s Gun-Control Proposals

You're done! You've previously admitted that you feel the deaths of those by assault weapons in the last 20 years or so were of no significant consequence. That is just plain sick. Adios.

Moron, your second link lies............I just posted exactly what Scalia wrote in the majority opinion in Heller..........

Your link......

Even more importantly, Justice Scalia limited the Second Amendment right to the kinds of weapons “in common use at the time” of the amendment’s passage. Total bans on assault-style weapons are completely constitutional (though the law expired in 2004).

Even Scalia Would Allow Today’s Gun-Control Proposals

Republicans should stop using the Constitution as cover. All gun control measures being debated today would be perfectly legal under the Supreme Court’s last major gun decision.

www.thedailybeast.com

From what Scalia actually stated in the Heller decision....




https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way.

Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Now tell us....do you see how your very link got it completely wrong? Did you read Heller? Did you read your own link?

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

There is no reason for anyone to own a AR-15.

You moron. I already explained to you the reasons to own an AR-15

1. To use for recreational purposes

2. To use for self defense

3. To have for the "necessary for the security of a free state".

Just because pathetic little pussies like you don't have a use for one don't meant the rest of of don't.

4. Firepower superiority.

If you couldn't defend your home or self with the plethora of weapons that were available during the 1994 ban, then I'd say you're just a bad shot or have some serious psychological issues.

You obviously don't understand what "firepower superiority" means.

List the weapons that can outgun an AR-15/AK-47/FN-FAL/or like firearms. I double dog dare ya to tackle that argument.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

I have no fear of AR15s
I do have a fear of hidden pistols

Ahh, but it 's not about your personal fear (real or perceived), it's about the FACT that a formally banned weapon has been the favorite choice of mass shooters for the past few years. What the judge did was just green light more of the same:

Fact check: AR-15 style rifles used in 11 mass shootings since 2012

Of 12 shootings listed, including the Sandy Hook, Pulse, Las Vegas, and Boulder shootings, 11 used AR-15 style rifles. But a post is missing context.

www.usatoday.com

The judge cannot be overturned and it was a T judge ..I bet

Small consolation for the next mass shooting victims.

If you’re worried about violence, ask Democrats why they’ve released tens of thousands of violent felons from prison early.

Check yourself before pointing the finger:

About 3,100 federal inmates to be released early under new U.S. law

Roughly 3,100 U.S. inmates, including many convicted of drug offenses, will be released early from federal prisons for good behavior under a criminal justice reform law signed last year by President Donald Trump, the Justice Department said on Friday.

www.reuters.com

Did Va. Democrats OK an early release plan for many violent inmates?

Del. Nick Freitas, R-Culpeper, says Democrats in the General Assembly have opened prison gates for the early release of

www.politifact.com

YOU CANNOT JUSTIFY THE RE-INTRODUCTION OF A HIGHLY EFFECTIVE WEAPON MARKETED TO THE AVERAGE CIVILIAN POPULATION THAT HAS BEEN USED AS THE WEAPON OF CHOICE FOR MASS MURDERERS.

There, you just said it yourself: AR/AK weapons are "highly effective". Why would you deny the citizenry to the most effective self-defense firearm available?

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

This is the right decision made by the Federal Judge. As I stated in another post. Any Assault weapon ban, or magazine capacity reduction,or any weapons ban is an infringement on the 2nd amendment of the United States Constitution. We don't need Politicians telling us what weapons, we can or can not have. Assault weapons , handguns, are not alive. We need more mental health workers to deal with people before they go out and try to harm people. Not punishing everyone with these illegal weapons bans.

That is not true. The late Antonin Scalia said that ownership of firearms is not absolute.

Scalia was referring to SAM's and nukes and shit like that.

 

[TheDefiantOne]

There is no reason for anyone to own a AR-15.

You moron. I already explained to you the reasons to own an AR-15

1. To use for recreational purposes

2. To use for self defense

3. To have for the "necessary for the security of a free state".

Just because pathetic little pussies like you don't have a use for one don't meant the rest of of don't.

4. Firepower superiority.

If you couldn't defend your home or self with the plethora of weapons that were available during the 1994 ban, then I'd say you're just a bad shot or have some serious psychological issues.

You obviously don't understand what "firepower superiority" means.

List the weapons that can outgun an AR-15/AK-47/FN-FAL/or like firearms. I double dog dare ya to tackle that argument.

Again, you can't defend your home with a .45 caliber semi-automatic? Or a shotgun? Or a hunting rifle? Last time I checked, the distance from one end of a standard living room is a hell of a lot shorter than the average distance from a hunter to a deer... so you have a good chance of blowing a perp off their feet in addition to possibly killing them outright. A .45 caliber ain't no pea shooter, and a shotgun (single barrell, pump action or double barrell) let loose in a house is serious nasty damage to man and walls/furniture/fridge, etc.

As to your absurd challenge, here are some official stats that should (hopefully) set you straight as to alluding to what is needed to defend a home....pay particular attention to page #2 https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

Oh, and here's a history lesson for you regarding of what the Afghan's had against the Russians back in the day

List of military equipment used by the mujahideen during the Soviet–Afghan War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org