If banning rifles is a winner for democrats, why do they want to hide it from voters?

[Dan Stubbs]

If we go by the majority of the population, some gun regulation is needed. In fact it's running pretty high that more gun regulation is needed. But it runs even higher that we should have the right to own sane fire arms. The Feds can really only rule on Insane Weapons. Not common sense weapons. The Feds just don't have the right to rule on the lower forms of fire arms. But the States, Counties, Common Wealths and Municipalities do have that right. But even they can't take away the right of sane home defense firearms in the home. This is where we stand today on the various federal court rulings. I don't see any change coming even with one more republican supreme court judge being appointed since the 2nd and the 14th amendment pretty well covers it already.

We have all the gun laws we need to stop criminals..... we don't need any more.

According to the 2nd and 14th Amendment, it's not up to the Feds to make that determination. It's up to the lower governments. And it's not up to just you either. That's the beauty of the system that was setup. If you don't like the way it's set up in one state, you have the option to move to another that is more to your liking. I suggest the state of "Rough and Ready".

Wrong.....just like voting, owning and carrying a gun is a Right...states do not get to regulate a Right out of existence.....

No, the States don't have the right to right out of existance. But they do have the right to regulate the rights. It says so in the 14th amendment that you so conveniently overlook. Cowboys had the right to have their firearms in Dallas before 1871. They had the right to fire their firearms as well. But when they started exercising those rights by haphazardly shooting up the town and killing citizens with errant shots, the City passed a No Firearms on the Streets regulation in 1871 and it was vigorously enforced even by gun force. In Tombstone, the OK Corral wasn't about cattle rustling or anything quite as dramatic. It was about the Cowboys refusing to take their guns off when entering into Tombstone. The Earps did what many other marshals did and they enforced the law. No different than the Marshals in Dallas or Kansas City or any other western town or city. Like any other thing, when the public feels threatened or they feel their public safety is in jepordy then they have the right to pass regulations to relieve those fears.

And if you find that where you are is passing regulations that you don't like you have the option to move to another location that is not passing those laws. Simple as that. I suggest you move to the State of Rough and Ready (there is a historical message there).

Nope...... please read D.C v Heller, Caetano v Massachusetts and Friedman v Highland Park, Scalia's dissent on why they should have taken the case......he explains it so even you can understand it...

And the gun control laws in Tombstone didn't work either.....as the shoot out demonstrated.....

I will give up my guns when the press gives up the freedom of the press.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

This is the thing you anti gunners don't realize about the teenagers from Parkland..... teenagers eat tidepods, play Fortnight, and snort condoms.... Those of us who understand the history of mankind and human nature, want to protect the Bill of Rights... So, while teenagers forget, we remember....and we are going to remember in November what you want to do to our gun Rights....

This is why the gun control extremist groups are telling the gun control extremist democrats to not say they want to ban Assault rifles.......

Dem Candidate Tedra Cobb Tells Supporters She Wants ‘Assault Rifle’ Ban But ‘Cannot Say That’ in Public

Tedra Cobb, the Democratic candidate in New York's 21st Congressional District, told a group of teenage supporters that she supports a ban on certain firearms but won't say so publicly for fear of losing her election.

"When I was at this thing today, it was the first table I was at, a woman said, ‘How do you feel about assault rifles?' And I said they should be banned," Cobb can be heard saying in the video recorded by one of the attendees. "And I said, you know, people were getting up to go, to go get their lunch because it was a buffet, and I just said to her, I want you to know Cindy, I cannot say that."

When the woman pushed back on Cobb keeping quiet on how she feels about banning certain firearms, Cobb said coming out in favor of a gun ban would lead to her losing her bid against Republican incumbent Elise Stefanik.

"And she said, ‘Well, I want you to' and I said, ‘I won't win,'" Cobb said. "I said Moms Demand [Action] says, and Tricia Pleau said, ‘Do not say that you want an assault rifle ban because you will not win.'"

Tricia Pleau is a member of the New York chapter of the gun-control group Moms Demand Action.

Cobb's campaign website features a page on "Addressing Gun Violence" detailing her support for a number of gun-control measures but does not feature any language supporting a specific ban on any firearms.

Chris Martin, regional press secretary of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Cobb's comments are disqualifying.

"Tedra Cobb knows that she's wildly out of touch with the district, so she's desperately trying to hide her liberal agenda from voters," Martin said. "First, she was forced to admit that she raised taxes over 20 times, and now she's being exposed for lying to voters about her support for an assault weapons ban and taking guns away from law-abiding citizens."

The Cobb campaign did not respond to a request for comment from the Free Beacon but did issue a statement to The Post Star.

why did you say simply "rifles" in your title instead of "Assault Rifles", which is what she actually said?

Because there is no such thing as an Assault rifle...... as a democrat she means AR-15 rifle....which means nothing since the AR-15 rifle is not an assault rifle.

You back to this crap again. In combat, there is no real difference between an AR-15 and a M-16A-4. While one will have a 3 shot burst setting, it is rarely used since it just wastes ammo and the 2nd and 3rd shot goes off center. The AR-15 Model 601 was introduced to Maylasia in 1959 after the US Army turned it down as an Assault Rifle that could be used by a young, scared kid with little training. In a matter of a couple of hours of training, that kid could be pumping adrenaline, scared out of his wits with incoming fire and operate the rifle, reload, charge it and keep firing and never take his finger off the trigger or have to rotate the rifle for any reason. The USAF adopted it in 1964 in a test. USAF didn't want to spend the time training their people the M-14 or carry that heavy thing around with all that heavy ammo. Their initial purchase of 4000 AR-15 Model 601s proved to be a success. The Army finally bought them in 1967. The Army model was different. They cheapened up the rifle a bit. The USAF model was the AR-15 Model 601 while the Army model was the AR-15 Model 602. When the Army took possession of their new Rifle, it was stamped the M-16 since all military rifles used the M designation. In 1967. The AF stamped M-16 on their AR-15 Model 601s. The Model 601 saw service in the AF until about 1992. There were over 7000 of these purchase overall. The Army found out that they Full Auto Feature was worthless and just wasted armor. Hence the upgrades and introduction of the Model 603 that had the 3 shot burst in the place of the full auto. The AF followed suit with their model 604.

When the Civilian AR-15 was introduced, the only real difference was the receiver. It wouldn't accept the full auto or the 3 shot parts from the M-16 or the Model 601. They also cheapened it up a bit and made it so it could fire only the lower powered 223 and not the 556 Nato Round. Yes, there were some 556 non nato rounds that it could fire but they were expensive and performed about like the 223 so why buy them. The Civilian AR-15 has the same basic features that made the original AR-15 Model 601 the world beater is was and the M-16 the world beater is still is. It's designed so that in combat, an 18 year old kid, with little training, that is scared out of his mind, can easily operate it and kill an enemy and carry it for a long distance with little fatigue.

You can call a duck a goose if you want but if walks like a duck and quacks like it's a duck, it's a duck.

Sorry..... the AR-15 is a specifically protected rifle, as are all semi automatic rifles.......you guys don't get to ban them.

Federal judge upholds Massachusetts ban on AR-15, large capacity magazines
Oh, really. Last time I checked, not only were there many municipalities but also entire states like California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Washington, D.C that specifically ban or highly regulate the AR-15 specifically by name. The Ban has been upheld him Federal Court. Here is the ruling in the Boston Federal Court.

"The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to ‘bear arms,’" U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, wrote in a decision Thursday in Boston, dismissing a lawsuit over the state law.


Just stop making shit up.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

If we go by the majority of the population, some gun regulation is needed. In fact it's running pretty high that more gun regulation is needed. But it runs even higher that we should have the right to own sane fire arms. The Feds can really only rule on Insane Weapons. Not common sense weapons. The Feds just don't have the right to rule on the lower forms of fire arms. But the States, Counties, Common Wealths and Municipalities do have that right. But even they can't take away the right of sane home defense firearms in the home. This is where we stand today on the various federal court rulings. I don't see any change coming even with one more republican supreme court judge being appointed since the 2nd and the 14th amendment pretty well covers it already.

We have all the gun laws we need to stop criminals..... we don't need any more.

According to the 2nd and 14th Amendment, it's not up to the Feds to make that determination. It's up to the lower governments. And it's not up to just you either. That's the beauty of the system that was setup. If you don't like the way it's set up in one state, you have the option to move to another that is more to your liking. I suggest the state of "Rough and Ready".

Wrong.....just like voting, owning and carrying a gun is a Right...states do not get to regulate a Right out of existence.....

No, the States don't have the right to right out of existance. But they do have the right to regulate the rights. It says so in the 14th amendment that you so conveniently overlook. Cowboys had the right to have their firearms in Dallas before 1871. They had the right to fire their firearms as well. But when they started exercising those rights by haphazardly shooting up the town and killing citizens with errant shots, the City passed a No Firearms on the Streets regulation in 1871 and it was vigorously enforced even by gun force. In Tombstone, the OK Corral wasn't about cattle rustling or anything quite as dramatic. It was about the Cowboys refusing to take their guns off when entering into Tombstone. The Earps did what many other marshals did and they enforced the law. No different than the Marshals in Dallas or Kansas City or any other western town or city. Like any other thing, when the public feels threatened or they feel their public safety is in jepordy then they have the right to pass regulations to relieve those fears.

And if you find that where you are is passing regulations that you don't like you have the option to move to another location that is not passing those laws. Simple as that. I suggest you move to the State of Rough and Ready (there is a historical message there).

Nope...... please read D.C v Heller, Caetano v Massachusetts and Friedman v Highland Park, Scalia's dissent on why they should have taken the case......he explains it so even you can understand it...

And the gun control laws in Tombstone didn't work either.....as the shoot out demonstrated.....

When you try and use and use a dissent as law, you are quoting what the losing side of the ruling said. The Winning side said the opposite and that became the law or is the constitutional ruling. Stop presenting it like the dissent is the law. It's not. You only look foolish each time you do.

And the gun laws in Tombstone worked. It got enforced the way it got enforced in Dallas, Kansas City., Dodge City, Las Vegas, Denver, and a lot of other places. You didn't hear about those shoot outs because they didn't make the Penny Dreadfuls or Dime Novels and the Marshals were famous like the Earps. You can be assured, things got mighty quiet right after that and people turned in their guns at the city limits or didn't bring them with them when the entered religiously. The Wild West wasn't so wild anymore. Again, stop making shit up.

 

[Skull Pilot]

They know stating their gun control intent is not (yet) a winning proposition. They are wise to tone that down.
Never fear, they will never (as long as it's allowed) stop their march to disarm America

Remember in November....any vote for a democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment....

Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are the reasons to vote for Trump....... and Ginsburg and Breyer are two reasons to vote for Republican Senators in November....

Voting either Rep or Dem will have no change to the 2nd amendment. Not one iota. You are still trying to use fear. Well fear this, the more you lie like this and try to instill fear the more common sense people will rebel against your ideals since they are based strictly on fear and hate.

Yeah protecting peoples' rights is hateful

Protecting only a handful of peoples rights while stomping all over everyone elses rights certainly is hateful. Not following ALL of the Constitution of the United States with such vigor is hateful. Allowing a Supreme Court, or any other court, to make rulings that creates new laws is hateful. We are looking for the SCOTUS to protect the Constitution of the United States and our Laws, not make new laws. That's not the Job of the President either. That's the job of Congress with the cooperation of the President. And the Congress needs to make new laws that are inside of ALL of the Constitution of the United States as well. Or amend the Constitution legally. If they can't do this without working on the fears of the people then we need to send the whole lot of them packing. If the Justices can't do their jobs (and they usually do their jobs) we need to send them packing. If the President doesn't do his job we need to send him packing. All the crying about how bad the Supreme Court has become is just a cover up to make us not look at how corrupt and mismanaged the other two branches have become.

So, keep spreading that hate. But we need to remember that a Supreme Court Justice should only rule on what is within the Whole of the Constitution of the United States and nothing more. Otherwise, they just refuse to rule if they can't. And you will notice, they are refusing to rule quite a bit these days.

Since when is any amendment in the Bill of Rights hateful? And how does protecting any and all of the Bill of Rights hateful?

Seems to me you want everyone to be subject to what YOU think their rights should be and I hate to tell you this but that ain't how it works and you're old enough that you should know this

how many times the the Supreme Court have to rule on the same subject?

Once should be enough

 

[Skull Pilot]

This is the thing you anti gunners don't realize about the teenagers from Parkland..... teenagers eat tidepods, play Fortnight, and snort condoms.... Those of us who understand the history of mankind and human nature, want to protect the Bill of Rights... So, while teenagers forget, we remember....and we are going to remember in November what you want to do to our gun Rights....

This is why the gun control extremist groups are telling the gun control extremist democrats to not say they want to ban Assault rifles.......

Dem Candidate Tedra Cobb Tells Supporters She Wants ‘Assault Rifle’ Ban But ‘Cannot Say That’ in Public

Tedra Cobb, the Democratic candidate in New York's 21st Congressional District, told a group of teenage supporters that she supports a ban on certain firearms but won't say so publicly for fear of losing her election.

"When I was at this thing today, it was the first table I was at, a woman said, ‘How do you feel about assault rifles?' And I said they should be banned," Cobb can be heard saying in the video recorded by one of the attendees. "And I said, you know, people were getting up to go, to go get their lunch because it was a buffet, and I just said to her, I want you to know Cindy, I cannot say that."

When the woman pushed back on Cobb keeping quiet on how she feels about banning certain firearms, Cobb said coming out in favor of a gun ban would lead to her losing her bid against Republican incumbent Elise Stefanik.

"And she said, ‘Well, I want you to' and I said, ‘I won't win,'" Cobb said. "I said Moms Demand [Action] says, and Tricia Pleau said, ‘Do not say that you want an assault rifle ban because you will not win.'"

Tricia Pleau is a member of the New York chapter of the gun-control group Moms Demand Action.

Cobb's campaign website features a page on "Addressing Gun Violence" detailing her support for a number of gun-control measures but does not feature any language supporting a specific ban on any firearms.

Chris Martin, regional press secretary of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Cobb's comments are disqualifying.

"Tedra Cobb knows that she's wildly out of touch with the district, so she's desperately trying to hide her liberal agenda from voters," Martin said. "First, she was forced to admit that she raised taxes over 20 times, and now she's being exposed for lying to voters about her support for an assault weapons ban and taking guns away from law-abiding citizens."

The Cobb campaign did not respond to a request for comment from the Free Beacon but did issue a statement to The Post Star.

why did you say simply "rifles" in your title instead of "Assault Rifles", which is what she actually said?

There is no such thing as a civilian "assault rifle"

 

[Daryl Hunt]

They know stating their gun control intent is not (yet) a winning proposition. They are wise to tone that down.
Never fear, they will never (as long as it's allowed) stop their march to disarm America

Remember in November....any vote for a democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment....

Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are the reasons to vote for Trump....... and Ginsburg and Breyer are two reasons to vote for Republican Senators in November....

Voting either Rep or Dem will have no change to the 2nd amendment. Not one iota. You are still trying to use fear. Well fear this, the more you lie like this and try to instill fear the more common sense people will rebel against your ideals since they are based strictly on fear and hate.

Yeah protecting peoples' rights is hateful

Protecting only a handful of peoples rights while stomping all over everyone elses rights certainly is hateful. Not following ALL of the Constitution of the United States with such vigor is hateful. Allowing a Supreme Court, or any other court, to make rulings that creates new laws is hateful. We are looking for the SCOTUS to protect the Constitution of the United States and our Laws, not make new laws. That's not the Job of the President either. That's the job of Congress with the cooperation of the President. And the Congress needs to make new laws that are inside of ALL of the Constitution of the United States as well. Or amend the Constitution legally. If they can't do this without working on the fears of the people then we need to send the whole lot of them packing. If the Justices can't do their jobs (and they usually do their jobs) we need to send them packing. If the President doesn't do his job we need to send him packing. All the crying about how bad the Supreme Court has become is just a cover up to make us not look at how corrupt and mismanaged the other two branches have become.

So, keep spreading that hate. But we need to remember that a Supreme Court Justice should only rule on what is within the Whole of the Constitution of the United States and nothing more. Otherwise, they just refuse to rule if they can't. And you will notice, they are refusing to rule quite a bit these days.

Since when is any amendment in the Bill of Rights hateful? And how does protecting any and all of the Bill of Rights hateful?

Seems to me you want everyone to be subject to what YOU think their rights should be and I hate to tell you this but that ain't how it works and you're old enough that you should know this

how many times the the Supreme Court have to rule on the same subject?

Once should be enough

One would think that they would only have to rule once. But it appears your bunch keeps bringing it up from different directions expecting different rulings. Yet they make the same ruling over and over. They can do no otherwise. They can only rule on the constitutionality of it. Usually, they don't bother ruling on it because it's nonsense. You just take the dissent as a victory and hound everyone with it as it it was the ruling. The fact remains that your rights to own a specific gun is NOT a given. What they have ruled on is that you have the right to own, purchase and have in your home a traditional handgun, rifle or shotgun. All others can be regulated and even banned by any state or lower government as they see fit under the 14th amendment. You keep forgetting that part of the Constitution of the United States but the Supreme Court has not. Some states and lower governments have deemed the AR-15 specifically as a danger and have either banned it or heavily regulated it and it's withstood the NRA trying to bounce it in Federal Court. How many times do they have to make the same ruling before your bunch stops this nonsense expecting a different outcome. You want a different outcome, change the Constitution of the United States 14th amendment and the various state and local laws. Now, stop making shit up.

 

[2aguy]

This is the thing you anti gunners don't realize about the teenagers from Parkland..... teenagers eat tidepods, play Fortnight, and snort condoms.... Those of us who understand the history of mankind and human nature, want to protect the Bill of Rights... So, while teenagers forget, we remember....and we are going to remember in November what you want to do to our gun Rights....

This is why the gun control extremist groups are telling the gun control extremist democrats to not say they want to ban Assault rifles.......

Dem Candidate Tedra Cobb Tells Supporters She Wants ‘Assault Rifle’ Ban But ‘Cannot Say That’ in Public

Tedra Cobb, the Democratic candidate in New York's 21st Congressional District, told a group of teenage supporters that she supports a ban on certain firearms but won't say so publicly for fear of losing her election.

"When I was at this thing today, it was the first table I was at, a woman said, ‘How do you feel about assault rifles?' And I said they should be banned," Cobb can be heard saying in the video recorded by one of the attendees. "And I said, you know, people were getting up to go, to go get their lunch because it was a buffet, and I just said to her, I want you to know Cindy, I cannot say that."

When the woman pushed back on Cobb keeping quiet on how she feels about banning certain firearms, Cobb said coming out in favor of a gun ban would lead to her losing her bid against Republican incumbent Elise Stefanik.

"And she said, ‘Well, I want you to' and I said, ‘I won't win,'" Cobb said. "I said Moms Demand [Action] says, and Tricia Pleau said, ‘Do not say that you want an assault rifle ban because you will not win.'"

Tricia Pleau is a member of the New York chapter of the gun-control group Moms Demand Action.

Cobb's campaign website features a page on "Addressing Gun Violence" detailing her support for a number of gun-control measures but does not feature any language supporting a specific ban on any firearms.

Chris Martin, regional press secretary of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Cobb's comments are disqualifying.

"Tedra Cobb knows that she's wildly out of touch with the district, so she's desperately trying to hide her liberal agenda from voters," Martin said. "First, she was forced to admit that she raised taxes over 20 times, and now she's being exposed for lying to voters about her support for an assault weapons ban and taking guns away from law-abiding citizens."

The Cobb campaign did not respond to a request for comment from the Free Beacon but did issue a statement to The Post Star.

why did you say simply "rifles" in your title instead of "Assault Rifles", which is what she actually said?

Because there is no such thing as an Assault rifle...... as a democrat she means AR-15 rifle....which means nothing since the AR-15 rifle is not an assault rifle.

You back to this crap again. In combat, there is no real difference between an AR-15 and a M-16A-4. While one will have a 3 shot burst setting, it is rarely used since it just wastes ammo and the 2nd and 3rd shot goes off center. The AR-15 Model 601 was introduced to Maylasia in 1959 after the US Army turned it down as an Assault Rifle that could be used by a young, scared kid with little training. In a matter of a couple of hours of training, that kid could be pumping adrenaline, scared out of his wits with incoming fire and operate the rifle, reload, charge it and keep firing and never take his finger off the trigger or have to rotate the rifle for any reason. The USAF adopted it in 1964 in a test. USAF didn't want to spend the time training their people the M-14 or carry that heavy thing around with all that heavy ammo. Their initial purchase of 4000 AR-15 Model 601s proved to be a success. The Army finally bought them in 1967. The Army model was different. They cheapened up the rifle a bit. The USAF model was the AR-15 Model 601 while the Army model was the AR-15 Model 602. When the Army took possession of their new Rifle, it was stamped the M-16 since all military rifles used the M designation. In 1967. The AF stamped M-16 on their AR-15 Model 601s. The Model 601 saw service in the AF until about 1992. There were over 7000 of these purchase overall. The Army found out that they Full Auto Feature was worthless and just wasted armor. Hence the upgrades and introduction of the Model 603 that had the 3 shot burst in the place of the full auto. The AF followed suit with their model 604.

When the Civilian AR-15 was introduced, the only real difference was the receiver. It wouldn't accept the full auto or the 3 shot parts from the M-16 or the Model 601. They also cheapened it up a bit and made it so it could fire only the lower powered 223 and not the 556 Nato Round. Yes, there were some 556 non nato rounds that it could fire but they were expensive and performed about like the 223 so why buy them. The Civilian AR-15 has the same basic features that made the original AR-15 Model 601 the world beater is was and the M-16 the world beater is still is. It's designed so that in combat, an 18 year old kid, with little training, that is scared out of his mind, can easily operate it and kill an enemy and carry it for a long distance with little fatigue.

You can call a duck a goose if you want but if walks like a duck and quacks like it's a duck, it's a duck.

Sorry..... the AR-15 is a specifically protected rifle, as are all semi automatic rifles.......you guys don't get to ban them.

Federal judge upholds Massachusetts ban on AR-15, large capacity magazines
Oh, really. Last time I checked, not only were there many municipalities but also entire states like California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Washington, D.C that specifically ban or highly regulate the AR-15 specifically by name. The Ban has been upheld him Federal Court. Here is the ruling in the Boston Federal Court.

"The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to ‘bear arms,’" U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, wrote in a decision Thursday in Boston, dismissing a lawsuit over the state law.


Just stop making shit up.

And they are unConstitutional.... they ignored Heller, and now, if Kavanaugh gets confirmed it will be overturned... considering that that circuit ignored D.C. v Heller, Caetano v Massachusetts, Friedman v Highland Park, Miller v United States...... Those judges are ignoring Supreme Court decisions..

You are wrong.

This is Scalia, telling the Court why they should have taken that case and told the circuit they were wrong.....Scalia wrote the opinion in D.C. v Heller and here he explains to that judge how he is wrong....

If Kavanaugh get seated on the court....look for that illegal decision to be overturned.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

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.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

This is the thing you anti gunners don't realize about the teenagers from Parkland..... teenagers eat tidepods, play Fortnight, and snort condoms.... Those of us who understand the history of mankind and human nature, want to protect the Bill of Rights... So, while teenagers forget, we remember....and we are going to remember in November what you want to do to our gun Rights....

This is why the gun control extremist groups are telling the gun control extremist democrats to not say they want to ban Assault rifles.......

Dem Candidate Tedra Cobb Tells Supporters She Wants ‘Assault Rifle’ Ban But ‘Cannot Say That’ in Public

Tedra Cobb, the Democratic candidate in New York's 21st Congressional District, told a group of teenage supporters that she supports a ban on certain firearms but won't say so publicly for fear of losing her election.

"When I was at this thing today, it was the first table I was at, a woman said, ‘How do you feel about assault rifles?' And I said they should be banned," Cobb can be heard saying in the video recorded by one of the attendees. "And I said, you know, people were getting up to go, to go get their lunch because it was a buffet, and I just said to her, I want you to know Cindy, I cannot say that."

When the woman pushed back on Cobb keeping quiet on how she feels about banning certain firearms, Cobb said coming out in favor of a gun ban would lead to her losing her bid against Republican incumbent Elise Stefanik.

"And she said, ‘Well, I want you to' and I said, ‘I won't win,'" Cobb said. "I said Moms Demand [Action] says, and Tricia Pleau said, ‘Do not say that you want an assault rifle ban because you will not win.'"

Tricia Pleau is a member of the New York chapter of the gun-control group Moms Demand Action.

Cobb's campaign website features a page on "Addressing Gun Violence" detailing her support for a number of gun-control measures but does not feature any language supporting a specific ban on any firearms.

Chris Martin, regional press secretary of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Cobb's comments are disqualifying.

"Tedra Cobb knows that she's wildly out of touch with the district, so she's desperately trying to hide her liberal agenda from voters," Martin said. "First, she was forced to admit that she raised taxes over 20 times, and now she's being exposed for lying to voters about her support for an assault weapons ban and taking guns away from law-abiding citizens."

The Cobb campaign did not respond to a request for comment from the Free Beacon but did issue a statement to The Post Star.

why did you say simply "rifles" in your title instead of "Assault Rifles", which is what she actually said?

There is no such thing as a civilian "assault rifle"

Tell that to the latest mass shootings that used the AR-15. A full blown M-16A-4 would have done the same job.

 

[2aguy]

We have all the gun laws we need to stop criminals..... we don't need any more.

According to the 2nd and 14th Amendment, it's not up to the Feds to make that determination. It's up to the lower governments. And it's not up to just you either. That's the beauty of the system that was setup. If you don't like the way it's set up in one state, you have the option to move to another that is more to your liking. I suggest the state of "Rough and Ready".

Wrong.....just like voting, owning and carrying a gun is a Right...states do not get to regulate a Right out of existence.....

No, the States don't have the right to right out of existance. But they do have the right to regulate the rights. It says so in the 14th amendment that you so conveniently overlook. Cowboys had the right to have their firearms in Dallas before 1871. They had the right to fire their firearms as well. But when they started exercising those rights by haphazardly shooting up the town and killing citizens with errant shots, the City passed a No Firearms on the Streets regulation in 1871 and it was vigorously enforced even by gun force. In Tombstone, the OK Corral wasn't about cattle rustling or anything quite as dramatic. It was about the Cowboys refusing to take their guns off when entering into Tombstone. The Earps did what many other marshals did and they enforced the law. No different than the Marshals in Dallas or Kansas City or any other western town or city. Like any other thing, when the public feels threatened or they feel their public safety is in jepordy then they have the right to pass regulations to relieve those fears.

And if you find that where you are is passing regulations that you don't like you have the option to move to another location that is not passing those laws. Simple as that. I suggest you move to the State of Rough and Ready (there is a historical message there).

Nope...... please read D.C v Heller, Caetano v Massachusetts and Friedman v Highland Park, Scalia's dissent on why they should have taken the case......he explains it so even you can understand it...

And the gun control laws in Tombstone didn't work either.....as the shoot out demonstrated.....

When you try and use and use a dissent as law, you are quoting what the losing side of the ruling said. The Winning side said the opposite and that became the law or is the constitutional ruling. Stop presenting it like the dissent is the law. It's not. You only look foolish each time you do.

And the gun laws in Tombstone worked. It got enforced the way it got enforced in Dallas, Kansas City., Dodge City, Las Vegas, Denver, and a lot of other places. You didn't hear about those shoot outs because they didn't make the Penny Dreadfuls or Dime Novels and the Marshals were famous like the Earps. You can be assured, things got mighty quiet right after that and people turned in their guns at the city limits or didn't bring them with them when the entered religiously. The Wild West wasn't so wild anymore. Again, stop making shit up.

No, moron...... This wasn't a ruling by the Supreme Court, the court didn't take the case, the dissent was telling the rest of the Supreme Court why they should have taken the case... not taking the case does not create Precedent.

Scalia wrote the opinion on Heller..... he told the idiot on the circuit court how he was breaking the law by upholding the ban......

The gun laws did not work in Tombstone, considering one Earp was shot dead and the other was maimed for life ...... law abiding citizens obeyed the law, the criminals did not.......just like now.

The Wild West wasn't wild.... the Hollywood West was wild.

 

[2aguy]

This is the thing you anti gunners don't realize about the teenagers from Parkland..... teenagers eat tidepods, play Fortnight, and snort condoms.... Those of us who understand the history of mankind and human nature, want to protect the Bill of Rights... So, while teenagers forget, we remember....and we are going to remember in November what you want to do to our gun Rights....

This is why the gun control extremist groups are telling the gun control extremist democrats to not say they want to ban Assault rifles.......

Dem Candidate Tedra Cobb Tells Supporters She Wants ‘Assault Rifle’ Ban But ‘Cannot Say That’ in Public

Tedra Cobb, the Democratic candidate in New York's 21st Congressional District, told a group of teenage supporters that she supports a ban on certain firearms but won't say so publicly for fear of losing her election.

"When I was at this thing today, it was the first table I was at, a woman said, ‘How do you feel about assault rifles?' And I said they should be banned," Cobb can be heard saying in the video recorded by one of the attendees. "And I said, you know, people were getting up to go, to go get their lunch because it was a buffet, and I just said to her, I want you to know Cindy, I cannot say that."

When the woman pushed back on Cobb keeping quiet on how she feels about banning certain firearms, Cobb said coming out in favor of a gun ban would lead to her losing her bid against Republican incumbent Elise Stefanik.

"And she said, ‘Well, I want you to' and I said, ‘I won't win,'" Cobb said. "I said Moms Demand [Action] says, and Tricia Pleau said, ‘Do not say that you want an assault rifle ban because you will not win.'"

Tricia Pleau is a member of the New York chapter of the gun-control group Moms Demand Action.

Cobb's campaign website features a page on "Addressing Gun Violence" detailing her support for a number of gun-control measures but does not feature any language supporting a specific ban on any firearms.

Chris Martin, regional press secretary of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Cobb's comments are disqualifying.

"Tedra Cobb knows that she's wildly out of touch with the district, so she's desperately trying to hide her liberal agenda from voters," Martin said. "First, she was forced to admit that she raised taxes over 20 times, and now she's being exposed for lying to voters about her support for an assault weapons ban and taking guns away from law-abiding citizens."

The Cobb campaign did not respond to a request for comment from the Free Beacon but did issue a statement to The Post Star.

why did you say simply "rifles" in your title instead of "Assault Rifles", which is what she actually said?

There is no such thing as a civilian "assault rifle"

Tell that to the latest mass shootings that used the AR-15. A full blown M-16A-4 would have done the same job.

A rental Truck used by a muslim in France killed more people than every mass shooter did using an AR-15...... and at Virginia tech, a guy with 2 pistols killed 32 people..... you have no clue what you are talking about.

 

[2aguy]

Remember in November....any vote for a democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment....

Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are the reasons to vote for Trump....... and Ginsburg and Breyer are two reasons to vote for Republican Senators in November....

Voting either Rep or Dem will have no change to the 2nd amendment. Not one iota. You are still trying to use fear. Well fear this, the more you lie like this and try to instill fear the more common sense people will rebel against your ideals since they are based strictly on fear and hate.

Yeah protecting peoples' rights is hateful

Protecting only a handful of peoples rights while stomping all over everyone elses rights certainly is hateful. Not following ALL of the Constitution of the United States with such vigor is hateful. Allowing a Supreme Court, or any other court, to make rulings that creates new laws is hateful. We are looking for the SCOTUS to protect the Constitution of the United States and our Laws, not make new laws. That's not the Job of the President either. That's the job of Congress with the cooperation of the President. And the Congress needs to make new laws that are inside of ALL of the Constitution of the United States as well. Or amend the Constitution legally. If they can't do this without working on the fears of the people then we need to send the whole lot of them packing. If the Justices can't do their jobs (and they usually do their jobs) we need to send them packing. If the President doesn't do his job we need to send him packing. All the crying about how bad the Supreme Court has become is just a cover up to make us not look at how corrupt and mismanaged the other two branches have become.

So, keep spreading that hate. But we need to remember that a Supreme Court Justice should only rule on what is within the Whole of the Constitution of the United States and nothing more. Otherwise, they just refuse to rule if they can't. And you will notice, they are refusing to rule quite a bit these days.

Since when is any amendment in the Bill of Rights hateful? And how does protecting any and all of the Bill of Rights hateful?

Seems to me you want everyone to be subject to what YOU think their rights should be and I hate to tell you this but that ain't how it works and you're old enough that you should know this

how many times the the Supreme Court have to rule on the same subject?

Once should be enough

One would think that they would only have to rule once. But it appears your bunch keeps bringing it up from different directions expecting different rulings. Yet they make the same ruling over and over. They can do no otherwise. They can only rule on the constitutionality of it. Usually, they don't bother ruling on it because it's nonsense. You just take the dissent as a victory and hound everyone with it as it it was the ruling. The fact remains that your rights to own a specific gun is NOT a given. What they have ruled on is that you have the right to own, purchase and have in your home a traditional handgun, rifle or shotgun. All others can be regulated and even banned by any state or lower government as they see fit under the 14th amendment. You keep forgetting that part of the Constitution of the United States but the Supreme Court has not. Some states and lower governments have deemed the AR-15 specifically as a danger and have either banned it or heavily regulated it and it's withstood the NRA trying to bounce it in Federal Court. How many times do they have to make the same ruling before your bunch stops this nonsense expecting a different outcome. You want a different outcome, change the Constitution of the United States 14th amendment and the various state and local laws. Now, stop making shit up.

Wrong.... that is not what Heller said..... and the Supreme Court has specifically protected the AR-15 rifle and all other Bearable arms that are in common use for lawful purposes..... those towns and state governments are breaking the law....

They don't have to change the law, the Supreme Court needs one more real Justice appointed to the court....oh,yeah, and that just happened.....

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 Heller...

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.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

why did you say simply "rifles" in your title instead of "Assault Rifles", which is what she actually said?

Because there is no such thing as an Assault rifle...... as a democrat she means AR-15 rifle....which means nothing since the AR-15 rifle is not an assault rifle.

You back to this crap again. In combat, there is no real difference between an AR-15 and a M-16A-4. While one will have a 3 shot burst setting, it is rarely used since it just wastes ammo and the 2nd and 3rd shot goes off center. The AR-15 Model 601 was introduced to Maylasia in 1959 after the US Army turned it down as an Assault Rifle that could be used by a young, scared kid with little training. In a matter of a couple of hours of training, that kid could be pumping adrenaline, scared out of his wits with incoming fire and operate the rifle, reload, charge it and keep firing and never take his finger off the trigger or have to rotate the rifle for any reason. The USAF adopted it in 1964 in a test. USAF didn't want to spend the time training their people the M-14 or carry that heavy thing around with all that heavy ammo. Their initial purchase of 4000 AR-15 Model 601s proved to be a success. The Army finally bought them in 1967. The Army model was different. They cheapened up the rifle a bit. The USAF model was the AR-15 Model 601 while the Army model was the AR-15 Model 602. When the Army took possession of their new Rifle, it was stamped the M-16 since all military rifles used the M designation. In 1967. The AF stamped M-16 on their AR-15 Model 601s. The Model 601 saw service in the AF until about 1992. There were over 7000 of these purchase overall. The Army found out that they Full Auto Feature was worthless and just wasted armor. Hence the upgrades and introduction of the Model 603 that had the 3 shot burst in the place of the full auto. The AF followed suit with their model 604.

When the Civilian AR-15 was introduced, the only real difference was the receiver. It wouldn't accept the full auto or the 3 shot parts from the M-16 or the Model 601. They also cheapened it up a bit and made it so it could fire only the lower powered 223 and not the 556 Nato Round. Yes, there were some 556 non nato rounds that it could fire but they were expensive and performed about like the 223 so why buy them. The Civilian AR-15 has the same basic features that made the original AR-15 Model 601 the world beater is was and the M-16 the world beater is still is. It's designed so that in combat, an 18 year old kid, with little training, that is scared out of his mind, can easily operate it and kill an enemy and carry it for a long distance with little fatigue.

You can call a duck a goose if you want but if walks like a duck and quacks like it's a duck, it's a duck.

Sorry..... the AR-15 is a specifically protected rifle, as are all semi automatic rifles.......you guys don't get to ban them.

Federal judge upholds Massachusetts ban on AR-15, large capacity magazines
Oh, really. Last time I checked, not only were there many municipalities but also entire states like California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Washington, D.C that specifically ban or highly regulate the AR-15 specifically by name. The Ban has been upheld him Federal Court. Here is the ruling in the Boston Federal Court.

"The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to ‘bear arms,’" U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, wrote in a decision Thursday in Boston, dismissing a lawsuit over the state law.


Just stop making shit up.

And they are unConstitutional.... they ignored Heller, and now, if Kavanaugh gets confirmed it will be overturned... considering that that circuit ignored D.C. v Heller, Caetano v Massachusetts, Friedman v Highland Park, Miller v United States...... Those judges are ignoring Supreme Court decisions..

You are wrong.

This is Scalia, telling the Court why they should have taken that case and told the circuit they were wrong.....Scalia wrote the opinion in D.C. v Heller and here he explains to that judge how he is wrong....

If Kavanaugh get seated on the court....look for that illegal decision to be overturned.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

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.

But they didn't rule on it, did they. Oh, they heard it but elected to kick it back to the lower court. Meaning, the ruling at the Supreme Court would be the same as the lower court so why take the time. A dissent is a losing argument not a winning argument. It means nothing.

Heller only says that the government can't ban traditional Handguns nor can they force them to be rendered inoperative in the homes. That's it. It didn't deal with anything else. It can be taken a step further if you wish and include other traditional firearms like hunting rifles and shotguns. But the AR has been proven in Federal Court that it's NOT considered a traditional Rifle. it's been specifically singled out by name as a non traditional firearm and can be banned and heavily regulated at the state and local levels.

And there aren't 5 million people out there with the AR-15. There has been about 5 million manufactured by various companies but most are owned by just a few people. You need to stop making up shit.

 

[2aguy]

Because there is no such thing as an Assault rifle...... as a democrat she means AR-15 rifle....which means nothing since the AR-15 rifle is not an assault rifle.

You back to this crap again. In combat, there is no real difference between an AR-15 and a M-16A-4. While one will have a 3 shot burst setting, it is rarely used since it just wastes ammo and the 2nd and 3rd shot goes off center. The AR-15 Model 601 was introduced to Maylasia in 1959 after the US Army turned it down as an Assault Rifle that could be used by a young, scared kid with little training. In a matter of a couple of hours of training, that kid could be pumping adrenaline, scared out of his wits with incoming fire and operate the rifle, reload, charge it and keep firing and never take his finger off the trigger or have to rotate the rifle for any reason. The USAF adopted it in 1964 in a test. USAF didn't want to spend the time training their people the M-14 or carry that heavy thing around with all that heavy ammo. Their initial purchase of 4000 AR-15 Model 601s proved to be a success. The Army finally bought them in 1967. The Army model was different. They cheapened up the rifle a bit. The USAF model was the AR-15 Model 601 while the Army model was the AR-15 Model 602. When the Army took possession of their new Rifle, it was stamped the M-16 since all military rifles used the M designation. In 1967. The AF stamped M-16 on their AR-15 Model 601s. The Model 601 saw service in the AF until about 1992. There were over 7000 of these purchase overall. The Army found out that they Full Auto Feature was worthless and just wasted armor. Hence the upgrades and introduction of the Model 603 that had the 3 shot burst in the place of the full auto. The AF followed suit with their model 604.

When the Civilian AR-15 was introduced, the only real difference was the receiver. It wouldn't accept the full auto or the 3 shot parts from the M-16 or the Model 601. They also cheapened it up a bit and made it so it could fire only the lower powered 223 and not the 556 Nato Round. Yes, there were some 556 non nato rounds that it could fire but they were expensive and performed about like the 223 so why buy them. The Civilian AR-15 has the same basic features that made the original AR-15 Model 601 the world beater is was and the M-16 the world beater is still is. It's designed so that in combat, an 18 year old kid, with little training, that is scared out of his mind, can easily operate it and kill an enemy and carry it for a long distance with little fatigue.

You can call a duck a goose if you want but if walks like a duck and quacks like it's a duck, it's a duck.

Sorry..... the AR-15 is a specifically protected rifle, as are all semi automatic rifles.......you guys don't get to ban them.

Federal judge upholds Massachusetts ban on AR-15, large capacity magazines
Oh, really. Last time I checked, not only were there many municipalities but also entire states like California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Washington, D.C that specifically ban or highly regulate the AR-15 specifically by name. The Ban has been upheld him Federal Court. Here is the ruling in the Boston Federal Court.

"The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to ‘bear arms,’" U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, wrote in a decision Thursday in Boston, dismissing a lawsuit over the state law.


Just stop making shit up.

And they are unConstitutional.... they ignored Heller, and now, if Kavanaugh gets confirmed it will be overturned... considering that that circuit ignored D.C. v Heller, Caetano v Massachusetts, Friedman v Highland Park, Miller v United States...... Those judges are ignoring Supreme Court decisions..

You are wrong.

This is Scalia, telling the Court why they should have taken that case and told the circuit they were wrong.....Scalia wrote the opinion in D.C. v Heller and here he explains to that judge how he is wrong....

If Kavanaugh get seated on the court....look for that illegal decision to be overturned.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

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.

But they didn't rule on it, did they. Oh, they heard it but elected to kick it back to the lower court. Meaning, the ruling at the Supreme Court would be the same as the lower court so why take the time. A dissent is a losing argument not a winning argument. It means nothing.

Heller only says that the government can't ban traditional Handguns nor can they force them to be rendered inoperative in the homes. That's it. It didn't deal with anything else. It can be taken a step further if you wish and include other traditional firearms like hunting rifles and shotguns. But the AR has been proven in Federal Court that it's NOT considered a traditional Rifle. it's been specifically singled out by name as a non traditional firearm and can be banned and heavily regulated at the state and local levels.

And there aren't 5 million people out there with the AR-15. There has been about 5 million manufactured by various companies but most are owned by just a few people. You need to stop making up shit.

No.... they didn't hear the case...... You keep making up things that are not in the rulings. This dissent was not on the ruling on the case, twit....that dissent was against the lack of 4 judges voting to hear the case....

You are wrong....... I gave you what Scalia said specifiacally about the AR-15, and he wrote the opinion in Heller.......he stated the AR-15 by name, twit.....

It was specifically labeled as being in common use for lawful purposes........ you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[2aguy]

Because there is no such thing as an Assault rifle...... as a democrat she means AR-15 rifle....which means nothing since the AR-15 rifle is not an assault rifle.

You back to this crap again. In combat, there is no real difference between an AR-15 and a M-16A-4. While one will have a 3 shot burst setting, it is rarely used since it just wastes ammo and the 2nd and 3rd shot goes off center. The AR-15 Model 601 was introduced to Maylasia in 1959 after the US Army turned it down as an Assault Rifle that could be used by a young, scared kid with little training. In a matter of a couple of hours of training, that kid could be pumping adrenaline, scared out of his wits with incoming fire and operate the rifle, reload, charge it and keep firing and never take his finger off the trigger or have to rotate the rifle for any reason. The USAF adopted it in 1964 in a test. USAF didn't want to spend the time training their people the M-14 or carry that heavy thing around with all that heavy ammo. Their initial purchase of 4000 AR-15 Model 601s proved to be a success. The Army finally bought them in 1967. The Army model was different. They cheapened up the rifle a bit. The USAF model was the AR-15 Model 601 while the Army model was the AR-15 Model 602. When the Army took possession of their new Rifle, it was stamped the M-16 since all military rifles used the M designation. In 1967. The AF stamped M-16 on their AR-15 Model 601s. The Model 601 saw service in the AF until about 1992. There were over 7000 of these purchase overall. The Army found out that they Full Auto Feature was worthless and just wasted armor. Hence the upgrades and introduction of the Model 603 that had the 3 shot burst in the place of the full auto. The AF followed suit with their model 604.

When the Civilian AR-15 was introduced, the only real difference was the receiver. It wouldn't accept the full auto or the 3 shot parts from the M-16 or the Model 601. They also cheapened it up a bit and made it so it could fire only the lower powered 223 and not the 556 Nato Round. Yes, there were some 556 non nato rounds that it could fire but they were expensive and performed about like the 223 so why buy them. The Civilian AR-15 has the same basic features that made the original AR-15 Model 601 the world beater is was and the M-16 the world beater is still is. It's designed so that in combat, an 18 year old kid, with little training, that is scared out of his mind, can easily operate it and kill an enemy and carry it for a long distance with little fatigue.

You can call a duck a goose if you want but if walks like a duck and quacks like it's a duck, it's a duck.

Sorry..... the AR-15 is a specifically protected rifle, as are all semi automatic rifles.......you guys don't get to ban them.

Federal judge upholds Massachusetts ban on AR-15, large capacity magazines
Oh, really. Last time I checked, not only were there many municipalities but also entire states like California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Washington, D.C that specifically ban or highly regulate the AR-15 specifically by name. The Ban has been upheld him Federal Court. Here is the ruling in the Boston Federal Court.

"The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to ‘bear arms,’" U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, wrote in a decision Thursday in Boston, dismissing a lawsuit over the state law.


Just stop making shit up.

And they are unConstitutional.... they ignored Heller, and now, if Kavanaugh gets confirmed it will be overturned... considering that that circuit ignored D.C. v Heller, Caetano v Massachusetts, Friedman v Highland Park, Miller v United States...... Those judges are ignoring Supreme Court decisions..

You are wrong.

This is Scalia, telling the Court why they should have taken that case and told the circuit they were wrong.....Scalia wrote the opinion in D.C. v Heller and here he explains to that judge how he is wrong....

If Kavanaugh get seated on the court....look for that illegal decision to be overturned.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

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.

But they didn't rule on it, did they. Oh, they heard it but elected to kick it back to the lower court. Meaning, the ruling at the Supreme Court would be the same as the lower court so why take the time. A dissent is a losing argument not a winning argument. It means nothing.

Heller only says that the government can't ban traditional Handguns nor can they force them to be rendered inoperative in the homes. That's it. It didn't deal with anything else. It can be taken a step further if you wish and include other traditional firearms like hunting rifles and shotguns. But the AR has been proven in Federal Court that it's NOT considered a traditional Rifle. it's been specifically singled out by name as a non traditional firearm and can be banned and heavily regulated at the state and local levels.

And there aren't 5 million people out there with the AR-15. There has been about 5 million manufactured by various companies but most are owned by just a few people. You need to stop making up shit.

There are at least 8 million AR-15s in private hands now, after Scalia wrote Heller....... and over 16 million semi automatic rifles that match the fictional description of "Assault Rifles."


You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

This is the thing you anti gunners don't realize about the teenagers from Parkland..... teenagers eat tidepods, play Fortnight, and snort condoms.... Those of us who understand the history of mankind and human nature, want to protect the Bill of Rights... So, while teenagers forget, we remember....and we are going to remember in November what you want to do to our gun Rights....

This is why the gun control extremist groups are telling the gun control extremist democrats to not say they want to ban Assault rifles.......

Dem Candidate Tedra Cobb Tells Supporters She Wants ‘Assault Rifle’ Ban But ‘Cannot Say That’ in Public

Tedra Cobb, the Democratic candidate in New York's 21st Congressional District, told a group of teenage supporters that she supports a ban on certain firearms but won't say so publicly for fear of losing her election.

"When I was at this thing today, it was the first table I was at, a woman said, ‘How do you feel about assault rifles?' And I said they should be banned," Cobb can be heard saying in the video recorded by one of the attendees. "And I said, you know, people were getting up to go, to go get their lunch because it was a buffet, and I just said to her, I want you to know Cindy, I cannot say that."

When the woman pushed back on Cobb keeping quiet on how she feels about banning certain firearms, Cobb said coming out in favor of a gun ban would lead to her losing her bid against Republican incumbent Elise Stefanik.

"And she said, ‘Well, I want you to' and I said, ‘I won't win,'" Cobb said. "I said Moms Demand [Action] says, and Tricia Pleau said, ‘Do not say that you want an assault rifle ban because you will not win.'"

Tricia Pleau is a member of the New York chapter of the gun-control group Moms Demand Action.

Cobb's campaign website features a page on "Addressing Gun Violence" detailing her support for a number of gun-control measures but does not feature any language supporting a specific ban on any firearms.

Chris Martin, regional press secretary of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Cobb's comments are disqualifying.

"Tedra Cobb knows that she's wildly out of touch with the district, so she's desperately trying to hide her liberal agenda from voters," Martin said. "First, she was forced to admit that she raised taxes over 20 times, and now she's being exposed for lying to voters about her support for an assault weapons ban and taking guns away from law-abiding citizens."

The Cobb campaign did not respond to a request for comment from the Free Beacon but did issue a statement to The Post Star.

why did you say simply "rifles" in your title instead of "Assault Rifles", which is what she actually said?

There is no such thing as a civilian "assault rifle"

Tell that to the latest mass shootings that used the AR-15. A full blown M-16A-4 would have done the same job.

A rental Truck used by a muslim in France killed more people than every mass shooter did using an AR-15...... and at Virginia tech, a guy with 2 pistols killed 32 people..... you have no clue what you are talking about.

We had our van or truck bombing in Oklahoma City. We have since changed things where the chemicals needed to make such a bomb are very difficult to get. Oh, you can get them but red flags will be popping up high and fast while you are trying to get it. What happens in France isn't the United States. I do hope we are smarter and better prepared than that.

As for Virginia Tech, it was the first of many. No one even conceived that something like that could ever happen. No one was prepared either physically, logistically or mentally. The shooter had an open ticket. Right after that, changes were made making it much harder to move from building to build like that without raising red flags after the first shots were fired. Today, you get only a few chances before you are stopped cold. Today, they go for congested crowds where the body counts can be the highest. Going from building to building just isn't done.

Now, stop making shit up.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You back to this crap again. In combat, there is no real difference between an AR-15 and a M-16A-4. While one will have a 3 shot burst setting, it is rarely used since it just wastes ammo and the 2nd and 3rd shot goes off center. The AR-15 Model 601 was introduced to Maylasia in 1959 after the US Army turned it down as an Assault Rifle that could be used by a young, scared kid with little training. In a matter of a couple of hours of training, that kid could be pumping adrenaline, scared out of his wits with incoming fire and operate the rifle, reload, charge it and keep firing and never take his finger off the trigger or have to rotate the rifle for any reason. The USAF adopted it in 1964 in a test. USAF didn't want to spend the time training their people the M-14 or carry that heavy thing around with all that heavy ammo. Their initial purchase of 4000 AR-15 Model 601s proved to be a success. The Army finally bought them in 1967. The Army model was different. They cheapened up the rifle a bit. The USAF model was the AR-15 Model 601 while the Army model was the AR-15 Model 602. When the Army took possession of their new Rifle, it was stamped the M-16 since all military rifles used the M designation. In 1967. The AF stamped M-16 on their AR-15 Model 601s. The Model 601 saw service in the AF until about 1992. There were over 7000 of these purchase overall. The Army found out that they Full Auto Feature was worthless and just wasted armor. Hence the upgrades and introduction of the Model 603 that had the 3 shot burst in the place of the full auto. The AF followed suit with their model 604.

When the Civilian AR-15 was introduced, the only real difference was the receiver. It wouldn't accept the full auto or the 3 shot parts from the M-16 or the Model 601. They also cheapened it up a bit and made it so it could fire only the lower powered 223 and not the 556 Nato Round. Yes, there were some 556 non nato rounds that it could fire but they were expensive and performed about like the 223 so why buy them. The Civilian AR-15 has the same basic features that made the original AR-15 Model 601 the world beater is was and the M-16 the world beater is still is. It's designed so that in combat, an 18 year old kid, with little training, that is scared out of his mind, can easily operate it and kill an enemy and carry it for a long distance with little fatigue.

You can call a duck a goose if you want but if walks like a duck and quacks like it's a duck, it's a duck.

Sorry..... the AR-15 is a specifically protected rifle, as are all semi automatic rifles.......you guys don't get to ban them.

Federal judge upholds Massachusetts ban on AR-15, large capacity magazines
Oh, really. Last time I checked, not only were there many municipalities but also entire states like California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Washington, D.C that specifically ban or highly regulate the AR-15 specifically by name. The Ban has been upheld him Federal Court. Here is the ruling in the Boston Federal Court.

"The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to ‘bear arms,’" U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, wrote in a decision Thursday in Boston, dismissing a lawsuit over the state law.


Just stop making shit up.

And they are unConstitutional.... they ignored Heller, and now, if Kavanaugh gets confirmed it will be overturned... considering that that circuit ignored D.C. v Heller, Caetano v Massachusetts, Friedman v Highland Park, Miller v United States...... Those judges are ignoring Supreme Court decisions..

You are wrong.

This is Scalia, telling the Court why they should have taken that case and told the circuit they were wrong.....Scalia wrote the opinion in D.C. v Heller and here he explains to that judge how he is wrong....

If Kavanaugh get seated on the court....look for that illegal decision to be overturned.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

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.

But they didn't rule on it, did they. Oh, they heard it but elected to kick it back to the lower court. Meaning, the ruling at the Supreme Court would be the same as the lower court so why take the time. A dissent is a losing argument not a winning argument. It means nothing.

Heller only says that the government can't ban traditional Handguns nor can they force them to be rendered inoperative in the homes. That's it. It didn't deal with anything else. It can be taken a step further if you wish and include other traditional firearms like hunting rifles and shotguns. But the AR has been proven in Federal Court that it's NOT considered a traditional Rifle. it's been specifically singled out by name as a non traditional firearm and can be banned and heavily regulated at the state and local levels.

And there aren't 5 million people out there with the AR-15. There has been about 5 million manufactured by various companies but most are owned by just a few people. You need to stop making up shit.

There are at least 8 million AR-15s in private hands now, after Scalia wrote Heller....... and over 16 million semi automatic rifles that match the fictional description of "Assault Rifles."


You don't know what you are talking about.

According to the FBI, there are only about 5 million. And, again, what scalia said means nothing. It's not a ruling. What came out of the Boston Federal Court that upheld the Massachusetts AR-15 Ban does. The ruling doesn't mean that the Mini-14 is included. Or any of the semi auto hunting rifles or shotguns that are traditional. It means just the AR-15 and it's derivatives are specifically included. The Federal Court agrees with me and disagrees with you. Now, stop making shit up.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You back to this crap again. In combat, there is no real difference between an AR-15 and a M-16A-4. While one will have a 3 shot burst setting, it is rarely used since it just wastes ammo and the 2nd and 3rd shot goes off center. The AR-15 Model 601 was introduced to Maylasia in 1959 after the US Army turned it down as an Assault Rifle that could be used by a young, scared kid with little training. In a matter of a couple of hours of training, that kid could be pumping adrenaline, scared out of his wits with incoming fire and operate the rifle, reload, charge it and keep firing and never take his finger off the trigger or have to rotate the rifle for any reason. The USAF adopted it in 1964 in a test. USAF didn't want to spend the time training their people the M-14 or carry that heavy thing around with all that heavy ammo. Their initial purchase of 4000 AR-15 Model 601s proved to be a success. The Army finally bought them in 1967. The Army model was different. They cheapened up the rifle a bit. The USAF model was the AR-15 Model 601 while the Army model was the AR-15 Model 602. When the Army took possession of their new Rifle, it was stamped the M-16 since all military rifles used the M designation. In 1967. The AF stamped M-16 on their AR-15 Model 601s. The Model 601 saw service in the AF until about 1992. There were over 7000 of these purchase overall. The Army found out that they Full Auto Feature was worthless and just wasted armor. Hence the upgrades and introduction of the Model 603 that had the 3 shot burst in the place of the full auto. The AF followed suit with their model 604.

When the Civilian AR-15 was introduced, the only real difference was the receiver. It wouldn't accept the full auto or the 3 shot parts from the M-16 or the Model 601. They also cheapened it up a bit and made it so it could fire only the lower powered 223 and not the 556 Nato Round. Yes, there were some 556 non nato rounds that it could fire but they were expensive and performed about like the 223 so why buy them. The Civilian AR-15 has the same basic features that made the original AR-15 Model 601 the world beater is was and the M-16 the world beater is still is. It's designed so that in combat, an 18 year old kid, with little training, that is scared out of his mind, can easily operate it and kill an enemy and carry it for a long distance with little fatigue.

You can call a duck a goose if you want but if walks like a duck and quacks like it's a duck, it's a duck.

Sorry..... the AR-15 is a specifically protected rifle, as are all semi automatic rifles.......you guys don't get to ban them.

Federal judge upholds Massachusetts ban on AR-15, large capacity magazines
Oh, really. Last time I checked, not only were there many municipalities but also entire states like California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Washington, D.C that specifically ban or highly regulate the AR-15 specifically by name. The Ban has been upheld him Federal Court. Here is the ruling in the Boston Federal Court.

"The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to ‘bear arms,’" U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, wrote in a decision Thursday in Boston, dismissing a lawsuit over the state law.


Just stop making shit up.

And they are unConstitutional.... they ignored Heller, and now, if Kavanaugh gets confirmed it will be overturned... considering that that circuit ignored D.C. v Heller, Caetano v Massachusetts, Friedman v Highland Park, Miller v United States...... Those judges are ignoring Supreme Court decisions..

You are wrong.

This is Scalia, telling the Court why they should have taken that case and told the circuit they were wrong.....Scalia wrote the opinion in D.C. v Heller and here he explains to that judge how he is wrong....

If Kavanaugh get seated on the court....look for that illegal decision to be overturned.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

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.

But they didn't rule on it, did they. Oh, they heard it but elected to kick it back to the lower court. Meaning, the ruling at the Supreme Court would be the same as the lower court so why take the time. A dissent is a losing argument not a winning argument. It means nothing.

Heller only says that the government can't ban traditional Handguns nor can they force them to be rendered inoperative in the homes. That's it. It didn't deal with anything else. It can be taken a step further if you wish and include other traditional firearms like hunting rifles and shotguns. But the AR has been proven in Federal Court that it's NOT considered a traditional Rifle. it's been specifically singled out by name as a non traditional firearm and can be banned and heavily regulated at the state and local levels.

And there aren't 5 million people out there with the AR-15. There has been about 5 million manufactured by various companies but most are owned by just a few people. You need to stop making up shit.

No.... they didn't hear the case...... You keep making up things that are not in the rulings. This dissent was not on the ruling on the case, twit....that dissent was against the lack of 4 judges voting to hear the case....

You are wrong....... I gave you what Scalia said specifiacally about the AR-15, and he wrote the opinion in Heller.......he stated the AR-15 by name, twit.....

It was specifically labeled as being in common use for lawful purposes........ you don't know what you are talking about.

You mean the lack of 5 judges to hear it. They voted 5 to 4 not to hear the case. Stop making shit up.

 

[iceberg]

They know stating their gun control intent is not (yet) a winning proposition. They are wise to tone that down.
Never fear, they will never (as long as it's allowed) stop their march to disarm America

Yea they just won't ever say it or tell anyone. Should be a successful march huh? Esp if the majority don't want it.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Voting either Rep or Dem will have no change to the 2nd amendment. Not one iota. You are still trying to use fear. Well fear this, the more you lie like this and try to instill fear the more common sense people will rebel against your ideals since they are based strictly on fear and hate.

Yeah protecting peoples' rights is hateful

Protecting only a handful of peoples rights while stomping all over everyone elses rights certainly is hateful. Not following ALL of the Constitution of the United States with such vigor is hateful. Allowing a Supreme Court, or any other court, to make rulings that creates new laws is hateful. We are looking for the SCOTUS to protect the Constitution of the United States and our Laws, not make new laws. That's not the Job of the President either. That's the job of Congress with the cooperation of the President. And the Congress needs to make new laws that are inside of ALL of the Constitution of the United States as well. Or amend the Constitution legally. If they can't do this without working on the fears of the people then we need to send the whole lot of them packing. If the Justices can't do their jobs (and they usually do their jobs) we need to send them packing. If the President doesn't do his job we need to send him packing. All the crying about how bad the Supreme Court has become is just a cover up to make us not look at how corrupt and mismanaged the other two branches have become.

So, keep spreading that hate. But we need to remember that a Supreme Court Justice should only rule on what is within the Whole of the Constitution of the United States and nothing more. Otherwise, they just refuse to rule if they can't. And you will notice, they are refusing to rule quite a bit these days.

Since when is any amendment in the Bill of Rights hateful? And how does protecting any and all of the Bill of Rights hateful?

Seems to me you want everyone to be subject to what YOU think their rights should be and I hate to tell you this but that ain't how it works and you're old enough that you should know this

how many times the the Supreme Court have to rule on the same subject?

Once should be enough

One would think that they would only have to rule once. But it appears your bunch keeps bringing it up from different directions expecting different rulings. Yet they make the same ruling over and over. They can do no otherwise. They can only rule on the constitutionality of it. Usually, they don't bother ruling on it because it's nonsense. You just take the dissent as a victory and hound everyone with it as it it was the ruling. The fact remains that your rights to own a specific gun is NOT a given. What they have ruled on is that you have the right to own, purchase and have in your home a traditional handgun, rifle or shotgun. All others can be regulated and even banned by any state or lower government as they see fit under the 14th amendment. You keep forgetting that part of the Constitution of the United States but the Supreme Court has not. Some states and lower governments have deemed the AR-15 specifically as a danger and have either banned it or heavily regulated it and it's withstood the NRA trying to bounce it in Federal Court. How many times do they have to make the same ruling before your bunch stops this nonsense expecting a different outcome. You want a different outcome, change the Constitution of the United States 14th amendment and the various state and local laws. Now, stop making shit up.

Wrong.... that is not what Heller said..... and the Supreme Court has specifically protected the AR-15 rifle and all other Bearable arms that are in common use for lawful purposes..... those towns and state governments are breaking the law....

They don't have to change the law, the Supreme Court needs one more real Justice appointed to the court....oh,yeah, and that just happened.....

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 Heller...

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.

You left out the real meat of the ruling.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban
on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an
entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the
lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scru-
tiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this
prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense
of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional
muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the
home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and
is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument
that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbi-
trarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that
a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing
requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment
rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and
must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

Much like you keep leaving out the 14th amendment out of the Constitution of the United States when you keep screaming, "It's Unconstitutional". You only want to use that short part sentense that you believe agrees with you. Instead, you are just making shit up. Stop it.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

They know stating their gun control intent is not (yet) a winning proposition. They are wise to tone that down.
Never fear, they will never (as long as it's allowed) stop their march to disarm America

Yea they just won't ever say it or tell anyone. Should be a successful march huh? Esp if the majority don't want it.

The majority wants stricter gun regulations. Not gun banning but regulations. But that is done at the State and local level, not at the Federal Level as per the Constitution of the United States.