Huge win for long gun lovers !!!!

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Im

i

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

If AR's are rarely used in crimes, then they're no danger to society and there's no need to ban them. Right?

Were you asleep or out of the country in a place with no international news in the last 20 years or so? Because that's the only reason to try to weasel pass the FACT of the AR-15 showing up in a LOT of mass shootings. Yep, the weapon of choice for a LOT of yahoos and nut cases that did EXACTLY as it advertisement said.

That's why they were on the 1994 AWB list. And only a fool would try to minimize the damage they have caused since re-introduced to the general public. Right?

So called assault rifles are used in a minority of mass shootings.

The weapon isn't the problem. The people carrying out these attacks are the problem. The semi-automatic, magazine fed rifle has been on the civilian market since 1904. Looooong before mass shootings became en vogue.

If you want to blame someone for AR style rifles being used in mass shootings, you can blame you and the rest of the anti-gun idiots for advertising it as the most efficient killing tool ever invented. It's you people that perpetuate moronic myths like the "tumbling bullet", or stupid shit like, "an AR bullet is going to travel all through the body causing more damage". The latter is my favorite moronic myth, BTW...lol.

People like you are the best advertisement the AR-15 ever had. Good job!

OMG! Did you just dust off that old bullhorn, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"? No kidding? The thing is, unlike a Warner Bros. cartoon, the assault weapons (yeah, that's how the military, police, and federal law enforcement categorzies them) in question don't spring tiny sneakered feet and chase people around while blazing away. PEOPLE USE THE WEAPONS TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE. And the AR-15 was among the top choice for that purpose in the last 20 years or so. That you can't/won't deal with that reality is pretty pathetic, because it shows a total disregard for fellow human beings lives...."colateral damage" to keep your psychological gun safety zone.

less then 400 murders a year are committed using any rifle that includes all other rifles. so explain to me the dire threat of the AR15?

Why not ask the surviving family members of that 400? I'm just speaking out as a concerned citizen with empathy.

it is sad for them but 100's of millions do not lose rights because of 400 or even 10000 people

But what "rights" are you talking about exactly? Before and after the 1994 AWB, any law abiding citizen had the "right" to a slew of various handguns (revolver or semi-auto), rifles (bolt, semi-auto), shotguns (double barreled, pump action). BEFORE YOU OR I WERE BORN THE LAW EXISTED THAT PROHIBITED MILITARY GRADE WEAPONRY IN THE HANDS OF CIVILIANS. That means you couldn't and can't mount a .50 caliber machine gun on your roof, or stroll the streets strapped with an Uzi. That a law was passed that added a relative small portion of weapons to that list is NOT a denial of your rights, as you NEVER had the "right" to anything you want regarding civilian weaponry.

I've asked at least 2 of your like minded brethren as to whether they are saying that they couldn't adequately defend themselves and/or home & family with a large caliber revolver, or a hunting rifle or shotgun, much less a semi-auto handgun (all available before and after the 1994 AWB. To date, no answer. Also, I asked if they just considered all the people killed by formerly banned assault rifles/weapons like the AR-15 (when it was reinstated on the open market upon the 1994 AWB sunset) in mass shootings acceptable collateral damage for their perceived comfort zone of accessibility to these weapons. Again, no answer.

Can you give an answer?

Should this rifle be outlawed?View attachment 503686

Was it on the 1994 AWB? If not, then no. If so, then yes.

Now, have you mustered the intellectual courage to answer my questions or not?

You keep saying "weapon of war". Why the inconsistancy? Is it because you know the "weapon of war" catch phrase used scare people?

Pardon? Please copy & paste where I used the phrase "weapon of war". I'll wait. Until then, quit stalling and just honestly answer the questions. If you can't or won't, then honestly say so.

Post #276. You said "military grade weaponry".

I've answered every question you've asked and you damn well know it.

And since when does "military grade weaponry" translates to "weapons of war"? Didn't you and your cohorts blather endlessly how a club can be categorized as a weapon of war? Now if you found that to be stupid, then don't play stupid and try to adjust definitions to suit your blather.

And stop lying...the chronology of the posts shows how you've consistently dodge pertinent questions.

I'm tired of your childish BS.....just another NRA armchair "expert" sycophant short on facts and logic but long on supposition and conjecture. You're done.

I accept your surrender...lol

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Judge Rules California's ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Unconstitutional

California's "assault weapons" ban was ruled unconstitutional Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

www.breitbart.com

Very good news
Xiden lost and safe long guns will be allowed

Right....so when the next yahoo or nut case buys his AR-15 and blows away a group of innocent people for whatever absurd or insane reason, please dust off all the old excuses and have them ready, because laPierre is having a bit of financial trouble with the IRS, I here.

Oh, and be sure to mail your justifications to the surviving family members. Judge Roger T. Benitez won't give a damn, as it's all academics and ideology to him.

What you wrote makes no sense because the WWII, M-1 carbine is almost identical to the AR-15.
About the same energy, rate of fire, weight, magazine capacity, cost, etc.
So there is nothing new or remotely more dangerous about the AR-15 than any small caliber rifle.
In fact, a person armed with 2 Glock-21 pistols likely is much more dangerous because they have more shots, can fire 2 directions at once, and can reload one while still firing the other.

1. This ain't WWII....the AR-15 design is an easier handle and highly more adaptable for the individual user's varied purposes, as advertised. "about the same" is a misleading statement, unless you can provide proof that the M-1 carbine can have all the attachments and use the lighter weight ammo.

2. If your assertions are true, then explain to the reading audience why gun enthusiasts, nut jobs, basic anti-gov't yahoos prefer the AR-15 ("America's rifle") to a weapon that was NEVER ON THE BAN LIST? We are talking about the original M-1, not it's subsequent models.

3. How many folk in the general population do you know that can accurately shoot two hand guns at the same time, or are ambidextrous?

Bottom line: what you wrote doesn't stand up to close examination.

2.

The M-1 carbine can do everything an AR can do.

Saying it and proving it are two wholly different things. If you can't meet a simple burden of proof as requested in #1 of my previous response, then debating with you further would be he equivalent of debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

And of course, you don't dare respond to #2 & #3. Carry on.

The proof is in pudding. A .30 Carbine round is as lethal as a .223 Remington. It's as accurate at 100 yds, or less, as a .223. The weight and dimensions are roughly the same as an AR. There's no arguing any of that.

Then you should have no problem providing a valid source documentation to back up your personal assertion. That is "proof"....facts, NOT opinion. Just provide the facts from a reliable source that the .30 Carbine was used in mass shootings, and how many times. The reading audience awaits.

I never said M-1 Carbines were used in mass shootings. I said that an M-1 Carbine is just as effective and lethal as an AR-15 and that's a fact.

If you anti-gun types moronically advertised the M-1, or the Mini-14, or even a pump shotgun with a three round capacity as the most lethal firearm ever, you would see them used more often.

And if that is the case and the M-1 was available, then why is the AR-15 more popular? Why didn't the mass shooters go for the better type of weapon, as you allude to?

And last time I checked, it was gun retailers and the manufacturers that advertised the AR-15 as the best for what it does....."anti-gun" types don't control or do such advertising. If you can provide proof regarding such advertising, then do so. If not, stop making stuff up.

Because the anti-gun idiots have tricked a lot of people into thinking the AR-15 is the most lethal, accurate firearm in history...lol.

The average mass shooter nutjob doesn't know enough about firearms to even have heard of an M-1 Carbine, but thanks to you and your gun ban idiot pals, they have definitely heard of an AR-15.

They don't use the FN-FAL, H&K 91, H&K 93, M-1 Carbine, Sprinfield M1A. The few that use an AR choose an AR because you people have moronically been it's best salesman. Good job!...lol

You have a fanatical belief that your opinion, supposition & conjecture are parallel to valid history and documented facts. Hint: they're not even close. You have no proof of what you say.

You make statements you can't factually back up, claims that have NO basis in reality or recent history, and then you just blow smoke and double down on your silliness. In short, your insipid stubbornness renders you useless in a rational, fact based and logical debate. So I'll shortly leave you to your self aggrandizement and kudos from your like minded compadres.

talk about being fanatical you have a fanatic belief that semiautomatic weapons are not protected by the second amendment.
You are wrong and take your fanatic ass elsewhere

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Im

i

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

If AR's are rarely used in crimes, then they're no danger to society and there's no need to ban them. Right?

Were you asleep or out of the country in a place with no international news in the last 20 years or so? Because that's the only reason to try to weasel pass the FACT of the AR-15 showing up in a LOT of mass shootings. Yep, the weapon of choice for a LOT of yahoos and nut cases that did EXACTLY as it advertisement said.

That's why they were on the 1994 AWB list. And only a fool would try to minimize the damage they have caused since re-introduced to the general public. Right?

So called assault rifles are used in a minority of mass shootings.

The weapon isn't the problem. The people carrying out these attacks are the problem. The semi-automatic, magazine fed rifle has been on the civilian market since 1904. Looooong before mass shootings became en vogue.

If you want to blame someone for AR style rifles being used in mass shootings, you can blame you and the rest of the anti-gun idiots for advertising it as the most efficient killing tool ever invented. It's you people that perpetuate moronic myths like the "tumbling bullet", or stupid shit like, "an AR bullet is going to travel all through the body causing more damage". The latter is my favorite moronic myth, BTW...lol.

People like you are the best advertisement the AR-15 ever had. Good job!

OMG! Did you just dust off that old bullhorn, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"? No kidding? The thing is, unlike a Warner Bros. cartoon, the assault weapons (yeah, that's how the military, police, and federal law enforcement categorzies them) in question don't spring tiny sneakered feet and chase people around while blazing away. PEOPLE USE THE WEAPONS TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE. And the AR-15 was among the top choice for that purpose in the last 20 years or so. That you can't/won't deal with that reality is pretty pathetic, because it shows a total disregard for fellow human beings lives...."colateral damage" to keep your psychological gun safety zone.

less then 400 murders a year are committed using any rifle that includes all other rifles. so explain to me the dire threat of the AR15?

Why not ask the surviving family members of that 400? I'm just speaking out as a concerned citizen with empathy.

it is sad for them but 100's of millions do not lose rights because of 400 or even 10000 people

But what "rights" are you talking about exactly? Before and after the 1994 AWB, any law abiding citizen had the "right" to a slew of various handguns (revolver or semi-auto), rifles (bolt, semi-auto), shotguns (double barreled, pump action). BEFORE YOU OR I WERE BORN THE LAW EXISTED THAT PROHIBITED MILITARY GRADE WEAPONRY IN THE HANDS OF CIVILIANS. That means you couldn't and can't mount a .50 caliber machine gun on your roof, or stroll the streets strapped with an Uzi. That a law was passed that added a relative small portion of weapons to that list is NOT a denial of your rights, as you NEVER had the "right" to anything you want regarding civilian weaponry.

I've asked at least 2 of your like minded brethren as to whether they are saying that they couldn't adequately defend themselves and/or home & family with a large caliber revolver, or a hunting rifle or shotgun, much less a semi-auto handgun (all available before and after the 1994 AWB. To date, no answer. Also, I asked if they just considered all the people killed by formerly banned assault rifles/weapons like the AR-15 (when it was reinstated on the open market upon the 1994 AWB sunset) in mass shootings acceptable collateral damage for their perceived comfort zone of accessibility to these weapons. Again, no answer.

Can you give an answer?

Should this rifle be outlawed?View attachment 503686

Was it on the 1994 AWB? If not, then no. If so, then yes.

Now, have you mustered the intellectual courage to answer my questions or not?

You keep saying "weapon of war". Why the inconsistancy? Is it because you know the "weapon of war" catch phrase used scare people?

Pardon? Please copy & paste where I used the phrase "weapon of war". I'll wait. Until then, quit stalling and just honestly answer the questions. If you can't or won't, then honestly say so.

Post #276. You said "military grade weaponry".

I've answered every question you've asked and you damn well know it.

And since when does "military grade weaponry" translates to "weapons of war"? Didn't you and your cohorts blather endlessly how a club can be categorized as a weapon of war? Now if you found that to be stupid, then don't play stupid and try to adjust definitions to suit your blather.

And stop lying...the chronology of the posts shows how you've consistently dodge pertinent questions.

I'm tired of your childish BS.....just another NRA armchair "expert" sycophant short on facts and logic but long on supposition and conjecture. You're done.

ok we'll go with AR15 are weapons of war
U.S. vs. Miller 1939 In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.

In 1994 AR15's were not in common use of the time they are now.

 

[Flash]

Im

i

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

If AR's are rarely used in crimes, then they're no danger to society and there's no need to ban them. Right?

Were you asleep or out of the country in a place with no international news in the last 20 years or so? Because that's the only reason to try to weasel pass the FACT of the AR-15 showing up in a LOT of mass shootings. Yep, the weapon of choice for a LOT of yahoos and nut cases that did EXACTLY as it advertisement said.

That's why they were on the 1994 AWB list. And only a fool would try to minimize the damage they have caused since re-introduced to the general public. Right?

So called assault rifles are used in a minority of mass shootings.

The weapon isn't the problem. The people carrying out these attacks are the problem. The semi-automatic, magazine fed rifle has been on the civilian market since 1904. Looooong before mass shootings became en vogue.

If you want to blame someone for AR style rifles being used in mass shootings, you can blame you and the rest of the anti-gun idiots for advertising it as the most efficient killing tool ever invented. It's you people that perpetuate moronic myths like the "tumbling bullet", or stupid shit like, "an AR bullet is going to travel all through the body causing more damage". The latter is my favorite moronic myth, BTW...lol.

People like you are the best advertisement the AR-15 ever had. Good job!

OMG! Did you just dust off that old bullhorn, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"? No kidding? The thing is, unlike a Warner Bros. cartoon, the assault weapons (yeah, that's how the military, police, and federal law enforcement categorzies them) in question don't spring tiny sneakered feet and chase people around while blazing away. PEOPLE USE THE WEAPONS TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE. And the AR-15 was among the top choice for that purpose in the last 20 years or so. That you can't/won't deal with that reality is pretty pathetic, because it shows a total disregard for fellow human beings lives...."colateral damage" to keep your psychological gun safety zone.

less then 400 murders a year are committed using any rifle that includes all other rifles. so explain to me the dire threat of the AR15?

Why not ask the surviving family members of that 400? I'm just speaking out as a concerned citizen with empathy.

it is sad for them but 100's of millions do not lose rights because of 400 or even 10000 people

But what "rights" are you talking about exactly? Before and after the 1994 AWB, any law abiding citizen had the "right" to a slew of various handguns (revolver or semi-auto), rifles (bolt, semi-auto), shotguns (double barreled, pump action). BEFORE YOU OR I WERE BORN THE LAW EXISTED THAT PROHIBITED MILITARY GRADE WEAPONRY IN THE HANDS OF CIVILIANS. That means you couldn't and can't mount a .50 caliber machine gun on your roof, or stroll the streets strapped with an Uzi. That a law was passed that added a relative small portion of weapons to that list is NOT a denial of your rights, as you NEVER had the "right" to anything you want regarding civilian weaponry.

I've asked at least 2 of your like minded brethren as to whether they are saying that they couldn't adequately defend themselves and/or home & family with a large caliber revolver, or a hunting rifle or shotgun, much less a semi-auto handgun (all available before and after the 1994 AWB. To date, no answer. Also, I asked if they just considered all the people killed by formerly banned assault rifles/weapons like the AR-15 (when it was reinstated on the open market upon the 1994 AWB sunset) in mass shootings acceptable collateral damage for their perceived comfort zone of accessibility to these weapons. Again, no answer.

Can you give an answer?

Should this rifle be outlawed?View attachment 503686

Was it on the 1994 AWB? If not, then no. If so, then yes.

Now, have you mustered the intellectual courage to answer my questions or not?

You keep saying "weapon of war". Why the inconsistancy? Is it because you know the "weapon of war" catch phrase used scare people?

Pardon? Please copy & paste where I used the phrase "weapon of war". I'll wait. Until then, quit stalling and just honestly answer the questions. If you can't or won't, then honestly say so.

Post #276. You said "military grade weaponry".

I've answered every question you've asked and you damn well know it.

And since when does "military grade weaponry" translates to "weapons of war"? Didn't you and your cohorts blather endlessly how a club can be categorized as a weapon of war? Now if you found that to be stupid, then don't play stupid and try to adjust definitions to suit your blather.

And stop lying...the chronology of the posts shows how you've consistently dodge pertinent questions.

I'm tired of your childish BS.....just another NRA armchair "expert" sycophant short on facts and logic but long on supposition and conjecture. You're done.

ok we'll go with AR15 are weapons of war
U.S. vs. Miller 1939 In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.

In 1994 AR15's were not in common use of the time they are now.

That is the thing in the Miller case that most of the anti gun nut Moon Bats always want to ignore.

Just like they ignore the fact in Heller that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right protected the same as free speech and freedom of religion.

 

[Flash]

talk about being fanatical you have a fanatic belief that semiautomatic weapons are not protected by the second amendment.
You are wrong and take your fanatic ass elsewhere

He doesn't want them protected and that is the reason he is so confused with his silly bullshit.

 

[TheDefiantOne]

Judge Rules California's ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Unconstitutional

California's "assault weapons" ban was ruled unconstitutional Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

www.breitbart.com

Very good news
Xiden lost and safe long guns will be allowed

Right....so when the next yahoo or nut case buys his AR-15 and blows away a group of innocent people for whatever absurd or insane reason, please dust off all the old excuses and have them ready, because laPierre is having a bit of financial trouble with the IRS, I here.

Oh, and be sure to mail your justifications to the surviving family members. Judge Roger T. Benitez won't give a damn, as it's all academics and ideology to him.

What you wrote makes no sense because the WWII, M-1 carbine is almost identical to the AR-15.
About the same energy, rate of fire, weight, magazine capacity, cost, etc.
So there is nothing new or remotely more dangerous about the AR-15 than any small caliber rifle.
In fact, a person armed with 2 Glock-21 pistols likely is much more dangerous because they have more shots, can fire 2 directions at once, and can reload one while still firing the other.

1. This ain't WWII....the AR-15 design is an easier handle and highly more adaptable for the individual user's varied purposes, as advertised. "about the same" is a misleading statement, unless you can provide proof that the M-1 carbine can have all the attachments and use the lighter weight ammo.

2. If your assertions are true, then explain to the reading audience why gun enthusiasts, nut jobs, basic anti-gov't yahoos prefer the AR-15 ("America's rifle") to a weapon that was NEVER ON THE BAN LIST? We are talking about the original M-1, not it's subsequent models.

3. How many folk in the general population do you know that can accurately shoot two hand guns at the same time, or are ambidextrous?

Bottom line: what you wrote doesn't stand up to close examination.

2.

The M-1 carbine can do everything an AR can do.

Saying it and proving it are two wholly different things. If you can't meet a simple burden of proof as requested in #1 of my previous response, then debating with you further would be he equivalent of debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

And of course, you don't dare respond to #2 & #3. Carry on.

The proof is in pudding. A .30 Carbine round is as lethal as a .223 Remington. It's as accurate at 100 yds, or less, as a .223. The weight and dimensions are roughly the same as an AR. There's no arguing any of that.

Then you should have no problem providing a valid source documentation to back up your personal assertion. That is "proof"....facts, NOT opinion. Just provide the facts from a reliable source that the .30 Carbine was used in mass shootings, and how many times. The reading audience awaits.

I never said M-1 Carbines were used in mass shootings. I said that an M-1 Carbine is just as effective and lethal as an AR-15 and that's a fact.

If you anti-gun types moronically advertised the M-1, or the Mini-14, or even a pump shotgun with a three round capacity as the most lethal firearm ever, you would see them used more often.

And if that is the case and the M-1 was available, then why is the AR-15 more popular? Why didn't the mass shooters go for the better type of weapon, as you allude to?

And last time I checked, it was gun retailers and the manufacturers that advertised the AR-15 as the best for what it does....."anti-gun" types don't control or do such advertising. If you can provide proof regarding such advertising, then do so. If not, stop making stuff up.

Because the anti-gun idiots have tricked a lot of people into thinking the AR-15 is the most lethal, accurate firearm in history...lol.

The average mass shooter nutjob doesn't know enough about firearms to even have heard of an M-1 Carbine, but thanks to you and your gun ban idiot pals, they have definitely heard of an AR-15.

They don't use the FN-FAL, H&K 91, H&K 93, M-1 Carbine, Sprinfield M1A. The few that use an AR choose an AR because you people have moronically been it's best salesman. Good job!...lol

You have a fanatical belief that your opinion, supposition & conjecture are parallel to valid history and documented facts. Hint: they're not even close. You have no proof of what you say.

You make statements you can't factually back up, claims that have NO basis in reality or recent history, and then you just blow smoke and double down on your silliness. In short, your insipid stubbornness renders you useless in a rational, fact based and logical debate. So I'll shortly leave you to your self aggrandizement and kudos from your like minded compadres.

talk about being fanatical you have a fanatic belief that semiautomatic weapons are not protected by the second amendment.
You are wrong and take your fanatic ass elsewhere

And this, dear readers, is what I'm talking about.....here Reb makes an accusation that he cannot prove with any quote from me that states what he claims in no uncertain terms. That makes him a liar. Once I reduce jokers like Reb to this state, I just ignore them as the waste of time & space they are.

 

[TheDefiantOne]

Im

i

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

If AR's are rarely used in crimes, then they're no danger to society and there's no need to ban them. Right?

Were you asleep or out of the country in a place with no international news in the last 20 years or so? Because that's the only reason to try to weasel pass the FACT of the AR-15 showing up in a LOT of mass shootings. Yep, the weapon of choice for a LOT of yahoos and nut cases that did EXACTLY as it advertisement said.

That's why they were on the 1994 AWB list. And only a fool would try to minimize the damage they have caused since re-introduced to the general public. Right?

So called assault rifles are used in a minority of mass shootings.

The weapon isn't the problem. The people carrying out these attacks are the problem. The semi-automatic, magazine fed rifle has been on the civilian market since 1904. Looooong before mass shootings became en vogue.

If you want to blame someone for AR style rifles being used in mass shootings, you can blame you and the rest of the anti-gun idiots for advertising it as the most efficient killing tool ever invented. It's you people that perpetuate moronic myths like the "tumbling bullet", or stupid shit like, "an AR bullet is going to travel all through the body causing more damage". The latter is my favorite moronic myth, BTW...lol.

People like you are the best advertisement the AR-15 ever had. Good job!

OMG! Did you just dust off that old bullhorn, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"? No kidding? The thing is, unlike a Warner Bros. cartoon, the assault weapons (yeah, that's how the military, police, and federal law enforcement categorzies them) in question don't spring tiny sneakered feet and chase people around while blazing away. PEOPLE USE THE WEAPONS TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE. And the AR-15 was among the top choice for that purpose in the last 20 years or so. That you can't/won't deal with that reality is pretty pathetic, because it shows a total disregard for fellow human beings lives...."colateral damage" to keep your psychological gun safety zone.

less then 400 murders a year are committed using any rifle that includes all other rifles. so explain to me the dire threat of the AR15?

Why not ask the surviving family members of that 400? I'm just speaking out as a concerned citizen with empathy.

it is sad for them but 100's of millions do not lose rights because of 400 or even 10000 people

But what "rights" are you talking about exactly? Before and after the 1994 AWB, any law abiding citizen had the "right" to a slew of various handguns (revolver or semi-auto), rifles (bolt, semi-auto), shotguns (double barreled, pump action). BEFORE YOU OR I WERE BORN THE LAW EXISTED THAT PROHIBITED MILITARY GRADE WEAPONRY IN THE HANDS OF CIVILIANS. That means you couldn't and can't mount a .50 caliber machine gun on your roof, or stroll the streets strapped with an Uzi. That a law was passed that added a relative small portion of weapons to that list is NOT a denial of your rights, as you NEVER had the "right" to anything you want regarding civilian weaponry.

I've asked at least 2 of your like minded brethren as to whether they are saying that they couldn't adequately defend themselves and/or home & family with a large caliber revolver, or a hunting rifle or shotgun, much less a semi-auto handgun (all available before and after the 1994 AWB. To date, no answer. Also, I asked if they just considered all the people killed by formerly banned assault rifles/weapons like the AR-15 (when it was reinstated on the open market upon the 1994 AWB sunset) in mass shootings acceptable collateral damage for their perceived comfort zone of accessibility to these weapons. Again, no answer.

Can you give an answer?

Should this rifle be outlawed?View attachment 503686

Was it on the 1994 AWB? If not, then no. If so, then yes.

Now, have you mustered the intellectual courage to answer my questions or not?

You keep saying "weapon of war". Why the inconsistancy? Is it because you know the "weapon of war" catch phrase used scare people?

Pardon? Please copy & paste where I used the phrase "weapon of war". I'll wait. Until then, quit stalling and just honestly answer the questions. If you can't or won't, then honestly say so.

Post #276. You said "military grade weaponry".

I've answered every question you've asked and you damn well know it.

And since when does "military grade weaponry" translates to "weapons of war"? Didn't you and your cohorts blather endlessly how a club can be categorized as a weapon of war? Now if you found that to be stupid, then don't play stupid and try to adjust definitions to suit your blather.

And stop lying...the chronology of the posts shows how you've consistently dodge pertinent questions.

I'm tired of your childish BS.....just another NRA armchair "expert" sycophant short on facts and logic but long on supposition and conjecture. You're done.

ok we'll go with AR15 are weapons of war
U.S. vs. Miller 1939 In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.

In 1994 AR15's were not in common use of the time they are now.

If you're going to pick up the gauntlet for Billy, then you should try to be a little more intellectually honest and astute. All you've done is created a definition for your own purpose then build on that revisionist take by taking a court case to prove one point. thing is, you didn't read it through

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.

UNITED STATES v. MILLER et al.

www.law.cornell.edu

Bottom line: Like Billy, you avoid the questions I asked which is the crux of your revelry and whining. I've got no problem with law abiding citizens owning weapons for hunting or self defense....but there are laws and regulations that have existed since the 1700's regarding types of weapons, how they are kept, etc. I've deconstructed every argument Billy put up to justify putting assault weapons previously banned back in circulation. No sense in repeating those points with you.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Im

i

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

If AR's are rarely used in crimes, then they're no danger to society and there's no need to ban them. Right?

Were you asleep or out of the country in a place with no international news in the last 20 years or so? Because that's the only reason to try to weasel pass the FACT of the AR-15 showing up in a LOT of mass shootings. Yep, the weapon of choice for a LOT of yahoos and nut cases that did EXACTLY as it advertisement said.

That's why they were on the 1994 AWB list. And only a fool would try to minimize the damage they have caused since re-introduced to the general public. Right?

So called assault rifles are used in a minority of mass shootings.

The weapon isn't the problem. The people carrying out these attacks are the problem. The semi-automatic, magazine fed rifle has been on the civilian market since 1904. Looooong before mass shootings became en vogue.

If you want to blame someone for AR style rifles being used in mass shootings, you can blame you and the rest of the anti-gun idiots for advertising it as the most efficient killing tool ever invented. It's you people that perpetuate moronic myths like the "tumbling bullet", or stupid shit like, "an AR bullet is going to travel all through the body causing more damage". The latter is my favorite moronic myth, BTW...lol.

People like you are the best advertisement the AR-15 ever had. Good job!

OMG! Did you just dust off that old bullhorn, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"? No kidding? The thing is, unlike a Warner Bros. cartoon, the assault weapons (yeah, that's how the military, police, and federal law enforcement categorzies them) in question don't spring tiny sneakered feet and chase people around while blazing away. PEOPLE USE THE WEAPONS TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE. And the AR-15 was among the top choice for that purpose in the last 20 years or so. That you can't/won't deal with that reality is pretty pathetic, because it shows a total disregard for fellow human beings lives...."colateral damage" to keep your psychological gun safety zone.

less then 400 murders a year are committed using any rifle that includes all other rifles. so explain to me the dire threat of the AR15?

Why not ask the surviving family members of that 400? I'm just speaking out as a concerned citizen with empathy.

it is sad for them but 100's of millions do not lose rights because of 400 or even 10000 people

But what "rights" are you talking about exactly? Before and after the 1994 AWB, any law abiding citizen had the "right" to a slew of various handguns (revolver or semi-auto), rifles (bolt, semi-auto), shotguns (double barreled, pump action). BEFORE YOU OR I WERE BORN THE LAW EXISTED THAT PROHIBITED MILITARY GRADE WEAPONRY IN THE HANDS OF CIVILIANS. That means you couldn't and can't mount a .50 caliber machine gun on your roof, or stroll the streets strapped with an Uzi. That a law was passed that added a relative small portion of weapons to that list is NOT a denial of your rights, as you NEVER had the "right" to anything you want regarding civilian weaponry.

I've asked at least 2 of your like minded brethren as to whether they are saying that they couldn't adequately defend themselves and/or home & family with a large caliber revolver, or a hunting rifle or shotgun, much less a semi-auto handgun (all available before and after the 1994 AWB. To date, no answer. Also, I asked if they just considered all the people killed by formerly banned assault rifles/weapons like the AR-15 (when it was reinstated on the open market upon the 1994 AWB sunset) in mass shootings acceptable collateral damage for their perceived comfort zone of accessibility to these weapons. Again, no answer.

Can you give an answer?

Should this rifle be outlawed?View attachment 503686

Was it on the 1994 AWB? If not, then no. If so, then yes.

Now, have you mustered the intellectual courage to answer my questions or not?

You keep saying "weapon of war". Why the inconsistancy? Is it because you know the "weapon of war" catch phrase used scare people?

Pardon? Please copy & paste where I used the phrase "weapon of war". I'll wait. Until then, quit stalling and just honestly answer the questions. If you can't or won't, then honestly say so.

Post #276. You said "military grade weaponry".

I've answered every question you've asked and you damn well know it.

And since when does "military grade weaponry" translates to "weapons of war"? Didn't you and your cohorts blather endlessly how a club can be categorized as a weapon of war? Now if you found that to be stupid, then don't play stupid and try to adjust definitions to suit your blather.

And stop lying...the chronology of the posts shows how you've consistently dodge pertinent questions.

I'm tired of your childish BS.....just another NRA armchair "expert" sycophant short on facts and logic but long on supposition and conjecture. You're done.

ok we'll go with AR15 are weapons of war
U.S. vs. Miller 1939 In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.

In 1994 AR15's were not in common use of the time they are now.

If you're going to pick up the gauntlet for Billy, then you should try to be a little more intellectually honest and astute. All you've done is created a definition for your own purpose then build on that revisionist take by taking a court case to prove one point. thing is, you didn't read it through

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.

UNITED STATES v. MILLER et al.

www.law.cornell.edu

Bottom line: Like Billy, you avoid the questions I asked which is the crux of your revelry and whining. I've got no problem with law abiding citizens owning weapons for hunting or self defense....but there are laws and regulations that have existed since the 1700's regarding types of weapons, how they are kept, etc. I've deconstructed every argument Billy put up to justify putting assault weapons previously banned back in circulation. No sense in repeating those points with you.

Talk about being dishonest look in the mirror. The Miller court ruled a sawed-off shotgun was not used by the military so it was not a second amendment protected weapon. Then they laid out what type of weapon was protected

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Judge Rules California's ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Unconstitutional

California's "assault weapons" ban was ruled unconstitutional Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

www.breitbart.com

Very good news
Xiden lost and safe long guns will be allowed

Right....so when the next yahoo or nut case buys his AR-15 and blows away a group of innocent people for whatever absurd or insane reason, please dust off all the old excuses and have them ready, because laPierre is having a bit of financial trouble with the IRS, I here.

Oh, and be sure to mail your justifications to the surviving family members. Judge Roger T. Benitez won't give a damn, as it's all academics and ideology to him.

What you wrote makes no sense because the WWII, M-1 carbine is almost identical to the AR-15.
About the same energy, rate of fire, weight, magazine capacity, cost, etc.
So there is nothing new or remotely more dangerous about the AR-15 than any small caliber rifle.
In fact, a person armed with 2 Glock-21 pistols likely is much more dangerous because they have more shots, can fire 2 directions at once, and can reload one while still firing the other.

1. This ain't WWII....the AR-15 design is an easier handle and highly more adaptable for the individual user's varied purposes, as advertised. "about the same" is a misleading statement, unless you can provide proof that the M-1 carbine can have all the attachments and use the lighter weight ammo.

2. If your assertions are true, then explain to the reading audience why gun enthusiasts, nut jobs, basic anti-gov't yahoos prefer the AR-15 ("America's rifle") to a weapon that was NEVER ON THE BAN LIST? We are talking about the original M-1, not it's subsequent models.

3. How many folk in the general population do you know that can accurately shoot two hand guns at the same time, or are ambidextrous?

Bottom line: what you wrote doesn't stand up to close examination.

2.

The M-1 carbine can do everything an AR can do.

Saying it and proving it are two wholly different things. If you can't meet a simple burden of proof as requested in #1 of my previous response, then debating with you further would be he equivalent of debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

And of course, you don't dare respond to #2 & #3. Carry on.

The proof is in pudding. A .30 Carbine round is as lethal as a .223 Remington. It's as accurate at 100 yds, or less, as a .223. The weight and dimensions are roughly the same as an AR. There's no arguing any of that.

Then you should have no problem providing a valid source documentation to back up your personal assertion. That is "proof"....facts, NOT opinion. Just provide the facts from a reliable source that the .30 Carbine was used in mass shootings, and how many times. The reading audience awaits.

I never said M-1 Carbines were used in mass shootings. I said that an M-1 Carbine is just as effective and lethal as an AR-15 and that's a fact.

If you anti-gun types moronically advertised the M-1, or the Mini-14, or even a pump shotgun with a three round capacity as the most lethal firearm ever, you would see them used more often.

And if that is the case and the M-1 was available, then why is the AR-15 more popular? Why didn't the mass shooters go for the better type of weapon, as you allude to?

And last time I checked, it was gun retailers and the manufacturers that advertised the AR-15 as the best for what it does....."anti-gun" types don't control or do such advertising. If you can provide proof regarding such advertising, then do so. If not, stop making stuff up.

Because the anti-gun idiots have tricked a lot of people into thinking the AR-15 is the most lethal, accurate firearm in history...lol.

The average mass shooter nutjob doesn't know enough about firearms to even have heard of an M-1 Carbine, but thanks to you and your gun ban idiot pals, they have definitely heard of an AR-15.

They don't use the FN-FAL, H&K 91, H&K 93, M-1 Carbine, Sprinfield M1A. The few that use an AR choose an AR because you people have moronically been it's best salesman. Good job!...lol

You have a fanatical belief that your opinion, supposition & conjecture are parallel to valid history and documented facts. Hint: they're not even close. You have no proof of what you say.

You make statements you can't factually back up, claims that have NO basis in reality or recent history, and then you just blow smoke and double down on your silliness. In short, your insipid stubbornness renders you useless in a rational, fact based and logical debate. So I'll shortly leave you to your self aggrandizement and kudos from your like minded compadres.

talk about being fanatical you have a fanatic belief that semiautomatic weapons are not protected by the second amendment.
You are wrong and take your fanatic ass elsewhere

And this, dear readers, is what I'm talking about.....here Reb makes an accusation that he cannot prove with any quote from me that states what he claims in no uncertain terms. That makes him a liar. Once I reduce jokers like Reb to this state, I just ignore them as the waste of time & space they are.

your words you post are proof enough that you are an antigun fanatic
SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPONS ARE IN COMMON USE AND ARE PROTECTED BY THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

 

[Flash]

Im

Talk about being dishonest look in the mirror. The Miller court ruled a sawed-off shotgun was not used by the military so it was not a second amendment protected weapon. Then they laid out what type of weapon was protected

The irony is that the Court really didn't do its homework. Sawed off shotguns were used by the military in WWI. By their own definition Miller was innocent.

Too bad he chickened shitted out and didn't show up for court. He could have beat the charges. The NFA could have been overturned.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Im

i

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

If AR's are rarely used in crimes, then they're no danger to society and there's no need to ban them. Right?

Were you asleep or out of the country in a place with no international news in the last 20 years or so? Because that's the only reason to try to weasel pass the FACT of the AR-15 showing up in a LOT of mass shootings. Yep, the weapon of choice for a LOT of yahoos and nut cases that did EXACTLY as it advertisement said.

That's why they were on the 1994 AWB list. And only a fool would try to minimize the damage they have caused since re-introduced to the general public. Right?

So called assault rifles are used in a minority of mass shootings.

The weapon isn't the problem. The people carrying out these attacks are the problem. The semi-automatic, magazine fed rifle has been on the civilian market since 1904. Looooong before mass shootings became en vogue.

If you want to blame someone for AR style rifles being used in mass shootings, you can blame you and the rest of the anti-gun idiots for advertising it as the most efficient killing tool ever invented. It's you people that perpetuate moronic myths like the "tumbling bullet", or stupid shit like, "an AR bullet is going to travel all through the body causing more damage". The latter is my favorite moronic myth, BTW...lol.

People like you are the best advertisement the AR-15 ever had. Good job!

OMG! Did you just dust off that old bullhorn, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"? No kidding? The thing is, unlike a Warner Bros. cartoon, the assault weapons (yeah, that's how the military, police, and federal law enforcement categorzies them) in question don't spring tiny sneakered feet and chase people around while blazing away. PEOPLE USE THE WEAPONS TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE. And the AR-15 was among the top choice for that purpose in the last 20 years or so. That you can't/won't deal with that reality is pretty pathetic, because it shows a total disregard for fellow human beings lives...."colateral damage" to keep your psychological gun safety zone.

less then 400 murders a year are committed using any rifle that includes all other rifles. so explain to me the dire threat of the AR15?

Why not ask the surviving family members of that 400? I'm just speaking out as a concerned citizen with empathy.

it is sad for them but 100's of millions do not lose rights because of 400 or even 10000 people

But what "rights" are you talking about exactly? Before and after the 1994 AWB, any law abiding citizen had the "right" to a slew of various handguns (revolver or semi-auto), rifles (bolt, semi-auto), shotguns (double barreled, pump action). BEFORE YOU OR I WERE BORN THE LAW EXISTED THAT PROHIBITED MILITARY GRADE WEAPONRY IN THE HANDS OF CIVILIANS. That means you couldn't and can't mount a .50 caliber machine gun on your roof, or stroll the streets strapped with an Uzi. That a law was passed that added a relative small portion of weapons to that list is NOT a denial of your rights, as you NEVER had the "right" to anything you want regarding civilian weaponry.

I've asked at least 2 of your like minded brethren as to whether they are saying that they couldn't adequately defend themselves and/or home & family with a large caliber revolver, or a hunting rifle or shotgun, much less a semi-auto handgun (all available before and after the 1994 AWB. To date, no answer. Also, I asked if they just considered all the people killed by formerly banned assault rifles/weapons like the AR-15 (when it was reinstated on the open market upon the 1994 AWB sunset) in mass shootings acceptable collateral damage for their perceived comfort zone of accessibility to these weapons. Again, no answer.

Can you give an answer?

Should this rifle be outlawed?View attachment 503686

Was it on the 1994 AWB? If not, then no. If so, then yes.

Now, have you mustered the intellectual courage to answer my questions or not?

You keep saying "weapon of war". Why the inconsistancy? Is it because you know the "weapon of war" catch phrase used scare people?

Pardon? Please copy & paste where I used the phrase "weapon of war". I'll wait. Until then, quit stalling and just honestly answer the questions. If you can't or won't, then honestly say so.

Post #276. You said "military grade weaponry".

I've answered every question you've asked and you damn well know it.

And since when does "military grade weaponry" translates to "weapons of war"? Didn't you and your cohorts blather endlessly how a club can be categorized as a weapon of war? Now if you found that to be stupid, then don't play stupid and try to adjust definitions to suit your blather.

And stop lying...the chronology of the posts shows how you've consistently dodge pertinent questions.

I'm tired of your childish BS.....just another NRA armchair "expert" sycophant short on facts and logic but long on supposition and conjecture. You're done.

ok we'll go with AR15 are weapons of war
U.S. vs. Miller 1939 In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.

In 1994 AR15's were not in common use of the time they are now.

If you're going to pick up the gauntlet for Billy, then you should try to be a little more intellectually honest and astute. All you've done is created a definition for your own purpose then build on that revisionist take by taking a court case to prove one point. thing is, you didn't read it through

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.

UNITED STATES v. MILLER et al.

www.law.cornell.edu

Bottom line: Like Billy, you avoid the questions I asked which is the crux of your revelry and whining. I've got no problem with law abiding citizens owning weapons for hunting or self defense....but there are laws and regulations that have existed since the 1700's regarding types of weapons, how they are kept, etc. I've deconstructed every argument Billy put up to justify putting assault weapons previously banned back in circulation. No sense in repeating those points with you.

According to that ruling, although it says shotgun and not rifle, the rifles with a barrel shorter than 16 inches can't be regulated because the armed forces have used rifles with barrels less than 16 inches for decades.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Judge Rules California's ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Unconstitutional

California's "assault weapons" ban was ruled unconstitutional Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

www.breitbart.com

Very good news
Xiden lost and safe long guns will be allowed

Right....so when the next yahoo or nut case buys his AR-15 and blows away a group of innocent people for whatever absurd or insane reason, please dust off all the old excuses and have them ready, because laPierre is having a bit of financial trouble with the IRS, I here.

Oh, and be sure to mail your justifications to the surviving family members. Judge Roger T. Benitez won't give a damn, as it's all academics and ideology to him.

What you wrote makes no sense because the WWII, M-1 carbine is almost identical to the AR-15.
About the same energy, rate of fire, weight, magazine capacity, cost, etc.
So there is nothing new or remotely more dangerous about the AR-15 than any small caliber rifle.
In fact, a person armed with 2 Glock-21 pistols likely is much more dangerous because they have more shots, can fire 2 directions at once, and can reload one while still firing the other.

1. This ain't WWII....the AR-15 design is an easier handle and highly more adaptable for the individual user's varied purposes, as advertised. "about the same" is a misleading statement, unless you can provide proof that the M-1 carbine can have all the attachments and use the lighter weight ammo.

2. If your assertions are true, then explain to the reading audience why gun enthusiasts, nut jobs, basic anti-gov't yahoos prefer the AR-15 ("America's rifle") to a weapon that was NEVER ON THE BAN LIST? We are talking about the original M-1, not it's subsequent models.

3. How many folk in the general population do you know that can accurately shoot two hand guns at the same time, or are ambidextrous?

Bottom line: what you wrote doesn't stand up to close examination.

2.

The M-1 carbine can do everything an AR can do.

Saying it and proving it are two wholly different things. If you can't meet a simple burden of proof as requested in #1 of my previous response, then debating with you further would be he equivalent of debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

And of course, you don't dare respond to #2 & #3. Carry on.

The proof is in pudding. A .30 Carbine round is as lethal as a .223 Remington. It's as accurate at 100 yds, or less, as a .223. The weight and dimensions are roughly the same as an AR. There's no arguing any of that.

Then you should have no problem providing a valid source documentation to back up your personal assertion. That is "proof"....facts, NOT opinion. Just provide the facts from a reliable source that the .30 Carbine was used in mass shootings, and how many times. The reading audience awaits.

I never said M-1 Carbines were used in mass shootings. I said that an M-1 Carbine is just as effective and lethal as an AR-15 and that's a fact.

If you anti-gun types moronically advertised the M-1, or the Mini-14, or even a pump shotgun with a three round capacity as the most lethal firearm ever, you would see them used more often.

And if that is the case and the M-1 was available, then why is the AR-15 more popular? Why didn't the mass shooters go for the better type of weapon, as you allude to?

And last time I checked, it was gun retailers and the manufacturers that advertised the AR-15 as the best for what it does....."anti-gun" types don't control or do such advertising. If you can provide proof regarding such advertising, then do so. If not, stop making stuff up.

Because the anti-gun idiots have tricked a lot of people into thinking the AR-15 is the most lethal, accurate firearm in history...lol.

The average mass shooter nutjob doesn't know enough about firearms to even have heard of an M-1 Carbine, but thanks to you and your gun ban idiot pals, they have definitely heard of an AR-15.

They don't use the FN-FAL, H&K 91, H&K 93, M-1 Carbine, Sprinfield M1A. The few that use an AR choose an AR because you people have moronically been it's best salesman. Good job!...lol

You have a fanatical belief that your opinion, supposition & conjecture are parallel to valid history and documented facts. Hint: they're not even close. You have no proof of what you say.

You make statements you can't factually back up, claims that have NO basis in reality or recent history, and then you just blow smoke and double down on your silliness. In short, your insipid stubbornness renders you useless in a rational, fact based and logical debate. So I'll shortly leave you to your self aggrandizement and kudos from your like minded compadres.

talk about being fanatical you have a fanatic belief that semiautomatic weapons are not protected by the second amendment.
You are wrong and take your fanatic ass elsewhere

And this, dear readers, is what I'm talking about.....here Reb makes an accusation that he cannot prove with any quote from me that states what he claims in no uncertain terms. That makes him a liar. Once I reduce jokers like Reb to this state, I just ignore them as the waste of time & space they are.

You've failed to support your argument throughout this entire thread...lol

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

i

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

If AR's are rarely used in crimes, then they're no danger to society and there's no need to ban them. Right?

Were you asleep or out of the country in a place with no international news in the last 20 years or so? Because that's the only reason to try to weasel pass the FACT of the AR-15 showing up in a LOT of mass shootings. Yep, the weapon of choice for a LOT of yahoos and nut cases that did EXACTLY as it advertisement said.

That's why they were on the 1994 AWB list. And only a fool would try to minimize the damage they have caused since re-introduced to the general public. Right?

So called assault rifles are used in a minority of mass shootings.

The weapon isn't the problem. The people carrying out these attacks are the problem. The semi-automatic, magazine fed rifle has been on the civilian market since 1904. Looooong before mass shootings became en vogue.

If you want to blame someone for AR style rifles being used in mass shootings, you can blame you and the rest of the anti-gun idiots for advertising it as the most efficient killing tool ever invented. It's you people that perpetuate moronic myths like the "tumbling bullet", or stupid shit like, "an AR bullet is going to travel all through the body causing more damage". The latter is my favorite moronic myth, BTW...lol.

People like you are the best advertisement the AR-15 ever had. Good job!

OMG! Did you just dust off that old bullhorn, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"? No kidding? The thing is, unlike a Warner Bros. cartoon, the assault weapons (yeah, that's how the military, police, and federal law enforcement categorzies them) in question don't spring tiny sneakered feet and chase people around while blazing away. PEOPLE USE THE WEAPONS TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE. And the AR-15 was among the top choice for that purpose in the last 20 years or so. That you can't/won't deal with that reality is pretty pathetic, because it shows a total disregard for fellow human beings lives...."colateral damage" to keep your psychological gun safety zone.

less then 400 murders a year are committed using any rifle that includes all other rifles. so explain to me the dire threat of the AR15?

Why not ask the surviving family members of that 400? I'm just speaking out as a concerned citizen with empathy.

it is sad for them but 100's of millions do not lose rights because of 400 or even 10000 people

But what "rights" are you talking about exactly? Before and after the 1994 AWB, any law abiding citizen had the "right" to a slew of various handguns (revolver or semi-auto), rifles (bolt, semi-auto), shotguns (double barreled, pump action). BEFORE YOU OR I WERE BORN THE LAW EXISTED THAT PROHIBITED MILITARY GRADE WEAPONRY IN THE HANDS OF CIVILIANS. That means you couldn't and can't mount a .50 caliber machine gun on your roof, or stroll the streets strapped with an Uzi. That a law was passed that added a relative small portion of weapons to that list is NOT a denial of your rights, as you NEVER had the "right" to anything you want regarding civilian weaponry.

I've asked at least 2 of your like minded brethren as to whether they are saying that they couldn't adequately defend themselves and/or home & family with a large caliber revolver, or a hunting rifle or shotgun, much less a semi-auto handgun (all available before and after the 1994 AWB. To date, no answer. Also, I asked if they just considered all the people killed by formerly banned assault rifles/weapons like the AR-15 (when it was reinstated on the open market upon the 1994 AWB sunset) in mass shootings acceptable collateral damage for their perceived comfort zone of accessibility to these weapons. Again, no answer.

Can you give an answer?

there is a RIGHT to have military relevant weapons as encoded by the 2nd and adjudicated by the Supreme Court. what there is not is an unrestricted right to fully automatic weapons or crew served weapons. the ar 15 is nothing more then a semi automatics rifle like any other semi auto available.

Wrong.

The Supreme Court has ruled only that the prohibition of the possession of handguns violates the Second Amendment.

The Court has never addressed the issue as to whether any rifle and carbine – save that of an SBR/shotgun – is within the scope of the Second Amendment, including the AR 15.

 

[Flash]

i

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

If AR's are rarely used in crimes, then they're no danger to society and there's no need to ban them. Right?

Were you asleep or out of the country in a place with no international news in the last 20 years or so? Because that's the only reason to try to weasel pass the FACT of the AR-15 showing up in a LOT of mass shootings. Yep, the weapon of choice for a LOT of yahoos and nut cases that did EXACTLY as it advertisement said.

That's why they were on the 1994 AWB list. And only a fool would try to minimize the damage they have caused since re-introduced to the general public. Right?

So called assault rifles are used in a minority of mass shootings.

The weapon isn't the problem. The people carrying out these attacks are the problem. The semi-automatic, magazine fed rifle has been on the civilian market since 1904. Looooong before mass shootings became en vogue.

If you want to blame someone for AR style rifles being used in mass shootings, you can blame you and the rest of the anti-gun idiots for advertising it as the most efficient killing tool ever invented. It's you people that perpetuate moronic myths like the "tumbling bullet", or stupid shit like, "an AR bullet is going to travel all through the body causing more damage". The latter is my favorite moronic myth, BTW...lol.

People like you are the best advertisement the AR-15 ever had. Good job!

OMG! Did you just dust off that old bullhorn, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"? No kidding? The thing is, unlike a Warner Bros. cartoon, the assault weapons (yeah, that's how the military, police, and federal law enforcement categorzies them) in question don't spring tiny sneakered feet and chase people around while blazing away. PEOPLE USE THE WEAPONS TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE. And the AR-15 was among the top choice for that purpose in the last 20 years or so. That you can't/won't deal with that reality is pretty pathetic, because it shows a total disregard for fellow human beings lives...."colateral damage" to keep your psychological gun safety zone.

less then 400 murders a year are committed using any rifle that includes all other rifles. so explain to me the dire threat of the AR15?

Why not ask the surviving family members of that 400? I'm just speaking out as a concerned citizen with empathy.

it is sad for them but 100's of millions do not lose rights because of 400 or even 10000 people

But what "rights" are you talking about exactly? Before and after the 1994 AWB, any law abiding citizen had the "right" to a slew of various handguns (revolver or semi-auto), rifles (bolt, semi-auto), shotguns (double barreled, pump action). BEFORE YOU OR I WERE BORN THE LAW EXISTED THAT PROHIBITED MILITARY GRADE WEAPONRY IN THE HANDS OF CIVILIANS. That means you couldn't and can't mount a .50 caliber machine gun on your roof, or stroll the streets strapped with an Uzi. That a law was passed that added a relative small portion of weapons to that list is NOT a denial of your rights, as you NEVER had the "right" to anything you want regarding civilian weaponry.

I've asked at least 2 of your like minded brethren as to whether they are saying that they couldn't adequately defend themselves and/or home & family with a large caliber revolver, or a hunting rifle or shotgun, much less a semi-auto handgun (all available before and after the 1994 AWB. To date, no answer. Also, I asked if they just considered all the people killed by formerly banned assault rifles/weapons like the AR-15 (when it was reinstated on the open market upon the 1994 AWB sunset) in mass shootings acceptable collateral damage for their perceived comfort zone of accessibility to these weapons. Again, no answer.

Can you give an answer?

there is a RIGHT to have military relevant weapons as encoded by the 2nd and adjudicated by the Supreme Court. what there is not is an unrestricted right to fully automatic weapons or crew served weapons. the ar 15 is nothing more then a semi automatics rifle like any other semi auto available.

Wrong.

The Supreme Court has ruled only that the prohibition of the possession of handguns violates the Second Amendment.

The Court has never addressed the issue as to whether any rifle and carbine – save that of an SBR/shotgun – is within the scope of the Second Amendment, including the AR 15.

If the Justices read the Second Amendment and see the thing that says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed then they have no choice but to rule in flavor of the right to keep and bear arms. After all it is necessary for the security of the free state.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

yes there is that's the end game plan registration then forced buyback then confiscation
Then a lot of black gun owners dead in the street.

This is a lie.

It fails as a strawman fallacy.

The courts have consistently held that the registration of firearms is perfectly Constitutional.

The notion that registration is the ‘gateway’ to the ‘forced’ buy back of firearms is ignorant idiocy and demagoguery, as is the lie about ‘confiscation.’

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If gun grabbers thought they could they would ban and confiscate handguns as handguns are the weapon of choice in criminal activities and often mass murders.

This is a lie.

There are no ‘gun grabbers.’

No one seeks to ‘confiscate’ guns – this is nothing but rightwing demagoguery and dishonesty.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

it is sad for them but 100's of millions do not lose rights because of 400 or even 10000 people

This is a lie.

No one has ‘lost’ any rights.

The states and local jurisdictions have enacted firearm regulatory measures consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence – no rights ‘lost,’ no rights ‘violated,’ no rights ‘infringed.’

 

[RetiredGySgt]

i

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

If AR's are rarely used in crimes, then they're no danger to society and there's no need to ban them. Right?

Were you asleep or out of the country in a place with no international news in the last 20 years or so? Because that's the only reason to try to weasel pass the FACT of the AR-15 showing up in a LOT of mass shootings. Yep, the weapon of choice for a LOT of yahoos and nut cases that did EXACTLY as it advertisement said.

That's why they were on the 1994 AWB list. And only a fool would try to minimize the damage they have caused since re-introduced to the general public. Right?

So called assault rifles are used in a minority of mass shootings.

The weapon isn't the problem. The people carrying out these attacks are the problem. The semi-automatic, magazine fed rifle has been on the civilian market since 1904. Looooong before mass shootings became en vogue.

If you want to blame someone for AR style rifles being used in mass shootings, you can blame you and the rest of the anti-gun idiots for advertising it as the most efficient killing tool ever invented. It's you people that perpetuate moronic myths like the "tumbling bullet", or stupid shit like, "an AR bullet is going to travel all through the body causing more damage". The latter is my favorite moronic myth, BTW...lol.

People like you are the best advertisement the AR-15 ever had. Good job!

OMG! Did you just dust off that old bullhorn, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"? No kidding? The thing is, unlike a Warner Bros. cartoon, the assault weapons (yeah, that's how the military, police, and federal law enforcement categorzies them) in question don't spring tiny sneakered feet and chase people around while blazing away. PEOPLE USE THE WEAPONS TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE. And the AR-15 was among the top choice for that purpose in the last 20 years or so. That you can't/won't deal with that reality is pretty pathetic, because it shows a total disregard for fellow human beings lives...."colateral damage" to keep your psychological gun safety zone.

less then 400 murders a year are committed using any rifle that includes all other rifles. so explain to me the dire threat of the AR15?

Why not ask the surviving family members of that 400? I'm just speaking out as a concerned citizen with empathy.

it is sad for them but 100's of millions do not lose rights because of 400 or even 10000 people

But what "rights" are you talking about exactly? Before and after the 1994 AWB, any law abiding citizen had the "right" to a slew of various handguns (revolver or semi-auto), rifles (bolt, semi-auto), shotguns (double barreled, pump action). BEFORE YOU OR I WERE BORN THE LAW EXISTED THAT PROHIBITED MILITARY GRADE WEAPONRY IN THE HANDS OF CIVILIANS. That means you couldn't and can't mount a .50 caliber machine gun on your roof, or stroll the streets strapped with an Uzi. That a law was passed that added a relative small portion of weapons to that list is NOT a denial of your rights, as you NEVER had the "right" to anything you want regarding civilian weaponry.

I've asked at least 2 of your like minded brethren as to whether they are saying that they couldn't adequately defend themselves and/or home & family with a large caliber revolver, or a hunting rifle or shotgun, much less a semi-auto handgun (all available before and after the 1994 AWB. To date, no answer. Also, I asked if they just considered all the people killed by formerly banned assault rifles/weapons like the AR-15 (when it was reinstated on the open market upon the 1994 AWB sunset) in mass shootings acceptable collateral damage for their perceived comfort zone of accessibility to these weapons. Again, no answer.

Can you give an answer?

there is a RIGHT to have military relevant weapons as encoded by the 2nd and adjudicated by the Supreme Court. what there is not is an unrestricted right to fully automatic weapons or crew served weapons. the ar 15 is nothing more then a semi automatics rifle like any other semi auto available.

Wrong.

The Supreme Court has ruled only that the prohibition of the possession of handguns violates the Second Amendment.

The Court has never addressed the issue as to whether any rifle and carbine – save that of an SBR/shotgun – is within the scope of the Second Amendment, including the AR 15.

Liar heller did so with the statement weapons in common use.

 

[Batcat]

If gun grabbers thought they could they would ban and confiscate handguns as handguns are the weapon of choice in criminal activities and often mass murders.

This is a lie.

There are no ‘gun grabbers.’

No one seeks to ‘confiscate’ guns – this is nothing but rightwing demagoguery and dishonesty.

How about….

[VIDEO] Beto O'Rourke Promises to Confiscate Semi-Automatic Guns

pjmedia.com

Must See: 5 Specific Times Democrats Wanted To Confiscate Your Guns

The New York Times created quite a stir recently when they ran a front page op-ed – the first of

thepoliticalinsider.com

An older article that discusses gun confiscation that didn’t happen but still is pertinent as it mentions gun grabbers.

California to Ban all Semi-Automatic Guns, Confiscate Firearms and Limit Ammo Sales

California calling for door-to-door gun confiscations; ban of all semi-automatic handguns, shotguns and rifles; making possession of over 500 rounds of ammo a felony; and a list of proposals that will instantly criminalize law abiding gun owners...

offgridsurvival.com

Gun grabbed do indeed exist.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

yes there is that's the end game plan registration then forced buyback then confiscation
Then a lot of black gun owners dead in the street.

This is a lie.

It fails as a strawman fallacy.

The courts have consistently held that the registration of firearms is perfectly Constitutional.

The notion that registration is the ‘gateway’ to the ‘forced’ buy back of firearms is ignorant idiocy and demagoguery, as is the lie about ‘confiscation.’

just because you think that lie will work doesn't mean it works
You're just that stupid
Dumb ass what is the purpose of a forced gun buyback?
What's the purpose of a gun registration?
Do you believe criminals will some how register their guns?
What courts have went out of their constitutional authority and made such a decree?