Major prewar battles in Middle East. Americans need their AR-15 assault rifles.Who says we don't need them?!

[Crepitus]

We see a major escalation of middle East issues. Who says we don't need assault rifles to defend ourselves.?!!. This is why I oppose any bans on assault rifles. We have a major conflict brewing in Israel and the Gaza Strip.Many are armed with fully automatic AK-47 with 30 round magazines.!! Yet we have people saying in America that we don't need assault rifles.? How are Americans going to defend themselves without an AR-15 assault rifle? You gun control people answer this question.

I wonder how many children can be slaughtered in their classrooms with AK-47's and 30 round clips; or families eating popcorn with their kids at a movie theater; or a couple of 17 year old kids on their first date at a concert. Gee with these weapons made legal and with 30 round magazines imagine how many funeral homes can be profitable. Isn't that what the gun lobby is all about, profits?

Magazine Capacity has no effect on the number killed in a mass public shooting.

The two things that make an actual difference?

1) the gun free status of the target location

2) how long it takes until a good guy with a gun shoots back at the shooter, since mass public shooters commit suicide, surrender, or run away as soon as someone shoots back at them.

Magazine Capacity has nothing to do with either one of those things...

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals
Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary Kleck :: SSRN

I.

Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings?
========
In sum, in nearly all LCM-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading.

Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shooters’ rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooter’s need to change magazines.
==========

The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading.


LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings.

News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined.

There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload.

In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change.


Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.

--------

We did not employ the oft-used definition of “mass murder” as a homicide in which four or more victims were killed, because most of these involve just four to six victims (Duwe 2007), which could therefore have involved as few as six rounds fired, a number that shooters using even ordinary revolvers are capable of firing without reloading.

LCMs obviously cannot help shooters who fire no more rounds than could be fired without LCMs, so the inclusion of “nonaffectable” cases with only four to six victims would dilute the sample, reducing the percent of sample incidents in which an LCM might have affected the number of casualties.

Further, had we studied only homicides with four or more dead victims, drawn from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports, we would have missed cases in which huge numbers of people were shot, and huge numbers of rounds were fired, but three or fewer of the victims died.


For example, in one widely publicized shooting carried out in Los Angeles on February 28, 1997, two bank robbers shot a total of 18 people - surely a mass shooting by any reasonable standard (Table 1).

Yet, because none of the people they shot died, this incident would not qualify as a mass murder (or even murder of any kind).

Exclusion of such incidents would bias the sample against the proposition that LCM use increases the number of victims by excluding incidents with large numbers of victims. We also excluded shootings in which more than six persons were shot over the entire course of the incident but shootings occurred in multiple locations with no more than six people shot in any one of the locations, and substantial periods of time intervened between episodes of shooting. An example is the series of killings committed by Rodrick Dantzler on July 7, 2011.

Once eligible incidents were identified, we searched through news accounts for details related to whether the use of LCMs could have influenced the casualty counts.

Specifically, we searched for

(1) the number of magazines in the shooter’s immediate possession,

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,

(3) the number of guns in the shooter’s immediate possession during the incident,

(4) the types of guns possessed,

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,

(6) the number of rounds fired,

(7) the duration of the shooting from the first shot fired to the last, and (8) whether anyone intervened to stop the shooter.

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

We identified 23 total incidents in which more than six people were shot at a single time and place in the U.S. from 1994 through 2013 and that were known to involve use of any magazines with capacities over ten rounds.


Table 1 summarizes key details of the LCMinvolved mass shootings relevant to the issues addressed in this paper.

(Table 1 about here) What fraction of all mass shootings involve LCMs?

There is no comprehensive listing of all mass shootings available for the entire 1994-2013 period, but the most extensive one currently available is at the Shootingtracker.com website, which only began its coverage in 2013.

-----



-----

The offenders in LCM-involved mass shootings were also known to have reloaded during 14 of the 23 (61%) incidents with magazine holding over 10 rounds.

The shooters were known to have not reloaded in another two of these 20 incidents and it could not be determined if they reloaded in the remaining seven incidents.

Thus, even if the shooters had been denied LCMs, we know that most of them definitely would have been able to reload smaller detachable magazines without interference from bystanders since they in fact did change magazines.

The fact that this percentage is less than 100% should not, however, be interpreted to mean that the shooters were unable to reload in the other nine incidents.

It is possible that the shooters could also have reloaded in many of these nine shootings, but chose not to do so, or did not need to do so in order to fire all the rounds they wanted to fire. This is consistent with the fact that there has been at most only one mass shootings in twenty years in which reloading a semiautomatic firearm might have been blocked by bystanders intervening and thereby stopping the shooter from doing all the shooting he wanted to do. All we know is that in two incidents the shooter did not reload, and news accounts of seven other incidents did not mention whether the offender reloaded.

----

For example, a story in the Hartford Courant about the Sandy Hook elementary school killings in 2012 was headlined “Shooter Paused, and Six Escaped,” the text asserting that as many as six children may have survived because the shooter paused to reload (December 23, 2012). ''

The author of the story, however, went on to concede that this was just a speculation by an unnamed source, and that it was also possible that some children simply escaped when the killer was shooting other children.

There was no reliable evidence that the pauses were due to the shooter reloading, rather than his guns jamming or the shooter simply choosing to pause his shooting while his gun was still loaded.

The plausibility of the “victims escape” rationale depends on the average rates of fire that shooters in mass shootings typically maintain.

If they fire very fast, the 2-4 seconds it takes to change box-type detachable magazines could produce a slowing of the rate of fire that the shooters otherwise would have maintained without the magazine changes, increasing the average time between rounds fired and potentially allowing more victims to escape during the betweenshot intervals.

On the other hand, if mass shooters fire their guns with the average interval between shots lasting more than 2-4 seconds, the pauses due to additional magazine changes would be no longer than the pauses the shooter typically took between shots even when not reloading.

In that case, there would be no more opportunity for potential victims to escape than there would have been without the additional magazine changes

--

2aguy, defender of mass murders everywhere. What would they do without folks like you to ensure they are well armed with the most up to date, lethal hardware money can buy?

Do you understand, dumb ass...that it is you and the other anti-gunners that help mas public shooters? That your fixation with gun free zones creates target locations where the victims can't save themselves....?

Two things determine how many people are killed in a mass public shooting....and you enable both of them...

1) is the target location a gun free zone...mass public shooters pick gun free zones for their attacks...you want gun free zones...so you are helping mass public shooters, not me.

2) How long does it take for a good person with a gun to shoot back at the killer....the faster you can get a good person with a gun to shoot back at the attacker, the more lives you save....since mass public shooters commit suicide, surrender or run away, as soon as someone starts shooting back...they stop killing unarmed people, and commit suicide, run away, or surrender......and your policies that make civilians defenseless actually helps mass public shooters...this is all on you, not me.

Don't blame this on me. You're the one who keeps increasing the supply of available.firearms.

 

[2aguy]

We see a major escalation of middle East issues. Who says we don't need assault rifles to defend ourselves.?!!. This is why I oppose any bans on assault rifles. We have a major conflict brewing in Israel and the Gaza Strip.Many are armed with fully automatic AK-47 with 30 round magazines.!! Yet we have people saying in America that we don't need assault rifles.? How are Americans going to defend themselves without an AR-15 assault rifle? You gun control people answer this question.

I wonder how many children can be slaughtered in their classrooms with AK-47's and 30 round clips; or families eating popcorn with their kids at a movie theater; or a couple of 17 year old kids on their first date at a concert. Gee with these weapons made legal and with 30 round magazines imagine how many funeral homes can be profitable. Isn't that what the gun lobby is all about, profits?

Magazine Capacity has no effect on the number killed in a mass public shooting.

The two things that make an actual difference?

1) the gun free status of the target location

2) how long it takes until a good guy with a gun shoots back at the shooter, since mass public shooters commit suicide, surrender, or run away as soon as someone shoots back at them.

Magazine Capacity has nothing to do with either one of those things...

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals
Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary Kleck :: SSRN

I.

Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings?
========
In sum, in nearly all LCM-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading.

Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shooters’ rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooter’s need to change magazines.
==========

The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading.


LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings.

News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined.

There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload.

In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change.


Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.

--------

We did not employ the oft-used definition of “mass murder” as a homicide in which four or more victims were killed, because most of these involve just four to six victims (Duwe 2007), which could therefore have involved as few as six rounds fired, a number that shooters using even ordinary revolvers are capable of firing without reloading.

LCMs obviously cannot help shooters who fire no more rounds than could be fired without LCMs, so the inclusion of “nonaffectable” cases with only four to six victims would dilute the sample, reducing the percent of sample incidents in which an LCM might have affected the number of casualties.

Further, had we studied only homicides with four or more dead victims, drawn from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports, we would have missed cases in which huge numbers of people were shot, and huge numbers of rounds were fired, but three or fewer of the victims died.


For example, in one widely publicized shooting carried out in Los Angeles on February 28, 1997, two bank robbers shot a total of 18 people - surely a mass shooting by any reasonable standard (Table 1).

Yet, because none of the people they shot died, this incident would not qualify as a mass murder (or even murder of any kind).

Exclusion of such incidents would bias the sample against the proposition that LCM use increases the number of victims by excluding incidents with large numbers of victims. We also excluded shootings in which more than six persons were shot over the entire course of the incident but shootings occurred in multiple locations with no more than six people shot in any one of the locations, and substantial periods of time intervened between episodes of shooting. An example is the series of killings committed by Rodrick Dantzler on July 7, 2011.

Once eligible incidents were identified, we searched through news accounts for details related to whether the use of LCMs could have influenced the casualty counts.

Specifically, we searched for

(1) the number of magazines in the shooter’s immediate possession,

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,

(3) the number of guns in the shooter’s immediate possession during the incident,

(4) the types of guns possessed,

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,

(6) the number of rounds fired,

(7) the duration of the shooting from the first shot fired to the last, and (8) whether anyone intervened to stop the shooter.

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

We identified 23 total incidents in which more than six people were shot at a single time and place in the U.S. from 1994 through 2013 and that were known to involve use of any magazines with capacities over ten rounds.


Table 1 summarizes key details of the LCMinvolved mass shootings relevant to the issues addressed in this paper.

(Table 1 about here) What fraction of all mass shootings involve LCMs?

There is no comprehensive listing of all mass shootings available for the entire 1994-2013 period, but the most extensive one currently available is at the Shootingtracker.com website, which only began its coverage in 2013.

-----



-----

The offenders in LCM-involved mass shootings were also known to have reloaded during 14 of the 23 (61%) incidents with magazine holding over 10 rounds.

The shooters were known to have not reloaded in another two of these 20 incidents and it could not be determined if they reloaded in the remaining seven incidents.

Thus, even if the shooters had been denied LCMs, we know that most of them definitely would have been able to reload smaller detachable magazines without interference from bystanders since they in fact did change magazines.

The fact that this percentage is less than 100% should not, however, be interpreted to mean that the shooters were unable to reload in the other nine incidents.

It is possible that the shooters could also have reloaded in many of these nine shootings, but chose not to do so, or did not need to do so in order to fire all the rounds they wanted to fire. This is consistent with the fact that there has been at most only one mass shootings in twenty years in which reloading a semiautomatic firearm might have been blocked by bystanders intervening and thereby stopping the shooter from doing all the shooting he wanted to do. All we know is that in two incidents the shooter did not reload, and news accounts of seven other incidents did not mention whether the offender reloaded.

----

For example, a story in the Hartford Courant about the Sandy Hook elementary school killings in 2012 was headlined “Shooter Paused, and Six Escaped,” the text asserting that as many as six children may have survived because the shooter paused to reload (December 23, 2012). ''

The author of the story, however, went on to concede that this was just a speculation by an unnamed source, and that it was also possible that some children simply escaped when the killer was shooting other children.

There was no reliable evidence that the pauses were due to the shooter reloading, rather than his guns jamming or the shooter simply choosing to pause his shooting while his gun was still loaded.

The plausibility of the “victims escape” rationale depends on the average rates of fire that shooters in mass shootings typically maintain.

If they fire very fast, the 2-4 seconds it takes to change box-type detachable magazines could produce a slowing of the rate of fire that the shooters otherwise would have maintained without the magazine changes, increasing the average time between rounds fired and potentially allowing more victims to escape during the betweenshot intervals.

On the other hand, if mass shooters fire their guns with the average interval between shots lasting more than 2-4 seconds, the pauses due to additional magazine changes would be no longer than the pauses the shooter typically took between shots even when not reloading.

In that case, there would be no more opportunity for potential victims to escape than there would have been without the additional magazine changes

--

2aguy, defender of mass murders everywhere. What would they do without folks like you to ensure they are well armed with the most up to date, lethal hardware money can buy?

Do you understand, dumb ass...that it is you and the other anti-gunners that help mas public shooters? That your fixation with gun free zones creates target locations where the victims can't save themselves....?

Two things determine how many people are killed in a mass public shooting....and you enable both of them...

1) is the target location a gun free zone...mass public shooters pick gun free zones for their attacks...you want gun free zones...so you are helping mass public shooters, not me.

2) How long does it take for a good person with a gun to shoot back at the killer....the faster you can get a good person with a gun to shoot back at the attacker, the more lives you save....since mass public shooters commit suicide, surrender or run away, as soon as someone starts shooting back...they stop killing unarmed people, and commit suicide, run away, or surrender......and your policies that make civilians defenseless actually helps mass public shooters...this is all on you, not me.

Don't blame this on me. You're the one who keeps increasing the supply of available.firearms.

Gun free zones, and taking guns away from normal people gets people killed...that's on you.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Let’s face it America

Nothing beats an AR 15 with a 50 round magazine if you want to hunt small School Children

View attachment 489953

You complain a lot

 

[Rye Catcher]

Let’s face it America

Nothing beats an AR 15 with a 50 round magazine if you want to hunt small School Children

View attachment 489953

we can always count on you for showing us what an idiot you are,,

I’m an idiot?

You are the one fighting to make sure assassins and mass murderers have the firepower of their choice

no I'm not,, I'm fighting to make sure good people are allowed to defend themselves from guys your referring to and also governments intent on enslaving the people,,,

I know its hard for someone like you to understand,, but what can I do about your ignorance??

Save me your Red Dawn fantasies.

You don’t need a 50 round magazine to defend yourself. If you think you are capable of taking on a modern trained and equipped Army......I have sad news for you

Not needing it has nothing to do with the right to have it.

The 2nd amendment is not and never has come with shall not infringe. This is the BIG LIE.

There is no mention of guns, per se; the word is ARMS and no one has the absolute right to own all matter of ARMS. From Nuclear Weapons to push button & gravity knives there are limits to what can be owned, possess or in the custody and control of every person who is living within the border of the US.

 

[danielpalos]

vietnam and Afghanistan prove you wrong,,

No, they don't. All those "wars" proved is that right wingers can't seem to win their wars even with the largest military in the world and over ten to twenty years.

 

[2aguy]

Let’s face it America

Nothing beats an AR 15 with a 50 round magazine if you want to hunt small School Children

View attachment 489953

we can always count on you for showing us what an idiot you are,,

I’m an idiot?

You are the one fighting to make sure assassins and mass murderers have the firepower of their choice

no I'm not,, I'm fighting to make sure good people are allowed to defend themselves from guys your referring to and also governments intent on enslaving the people,,,

I know its hard for someone like you to understand,, but what can I do about your ignorance??

Save me your Red Dawn fantasies.

You don’t need a 50 round magazine to defend yourself. If you think you are capable of taking on a modern trained and equipped Army......I have sad news for you

Not needing it has nothing to do with the right to have it.

The 2nd amendment is not and never has come with shall not infringe. This is the BIG LIE.

There is no mention of guns, per se; the word is ARMS and no one has the absolute right to own all matter of ARMS. From Nuclear Weapons to push button & gravity knives there are limits to what can be owned, possess or in the custody and control of every person who is living within the border of the US.

No, the big lie is you think you can ban whatever you don't like....that is the lie.....And Scalia and the Supreme Court have done a good job at showing that you don't know what you are talking about....

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.

--------

Alito.....on Caetano v Massachusetts...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Opinion of the Court[edit]

Ihttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Opinion of the Court[edit]



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

------





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



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



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



If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Let’s face it America

Nothing beats an AR 15 with a 50 round magazine if you want to hunt small School Children

View attachment 489953

we can always count on you for showing us what an idiot you are,,

I’m an idiot?

You are the one fighting to make sure assassins and mass murderers have the firepower of their choice

no I'm not,, I'm fighting to make sure good people are allowed to defend themselves from guys your referring to and also governments intent on enslaving the people,,,

I know its hard for someone like you to understand,, but what can I do about your ignorance??

Save me your Red Dawn fantasies.

You don’t need a 50 round magazine to defend yourself. If you think you are capable of taking on a modern trained and equipped Army......I have sad news for you

Not needing it has nothing to do with the right to have it.

The 2nd amendment is not and never has come with shall not infringe. This is the BIG LIE.

There is no mention of guns, per se; the word is ARMS and no one has the absolute right to own all matter of ARMS. From Nuclear Weapons to push button & gravity knives there are limits to what can be owned, possess or in the custody and control of every person who is living within the border of the US.

No, the big lie is you think you can ban whatever you don't like....that is the lie.....And Scalia and the Supreme Court have done a good job at showing that you don't know what you are talking about....

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.

--------

Alito.....on Caetano v Massachusetts...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Opinion of the Court[edit]

Ihttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Opinion of the Court[edit]



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

------





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



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



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



If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636.

Yep, you use BIG LIES about Heller too. Scalia stated clearly in Heller exactly what I posted; not everyone has the right to possess, own or have in their custody or control a firearm.

All of your gun posts are wet dreams.

 

[2aguy]

Let’s face it America

Nothing beats an AR 15 with a 50 round magazine if you want to hunt small School Children

View attachment 489953

we can always count on you for showing us what an idiot you are,,

I’m an idiot?

You are the one fighting to make sure assassins and mass murderers have the firepower of their choice

no I'm not,, I'm fighting to make sure good people are allowed to defend themselves from guys your referring to and also governments intent on enslaving the people,,,

I know its hard for someone like you to understand,, but what can I do about your ignorance??

Save me your Red Dawn fantasies.

You don’t need a 50 round magazine to defend yourself. If you think you are capable of taking on a modern trained and equipped Army......I have sad news for you

Not needing it has nothing to do with the right to have it.

The 2nd amendment is not and never has come with shall not infringe. This is the BIG LIE.

There is no mention of guns, per se; the word is ARMS and no one has the absolute right to own all matter of ARMS. From Nuclear Weapons to push button & gravity knives there are limits to what can be owned, possess or in the custody and control of every person who is living within the border of the US.

No, the big lie is you think you can ban whatever you don't like....that is the lie.....And Scalia and the Supreme Court have done a good job at showing that you don't know what you are talking about....

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.

--------

Alito.....on Caetano v Massachusetts...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Opinion of the Court[edit]

Ihttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Opinion of the Court[edit]



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

------





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



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



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



If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636.

Yep, you use BIG LIES about Heller too. Scalia stated clearly in Heller exactly what I posted; not everyone has the right to possess, own or have in their custody or control a firearm.

All of you gun posts are wet dreams.

Since that isn't my position, you are an idiot for saying it is......

You assholes think that you get to ban any gun you want.....and any piece of equipment, not based on reason,but because of your mental health issues.

 

[Lastamender]

Let’s face it America

Nothing beats an AR 15 with a 50 round magazine if you want to hunt small School Children

View attachment 489953

we can always count on you for showing us what an idiot you are,,

I’m an idiot?

You are the one fighting to make sure assassins and mass murderers have the firepower of their choice

no I'm not,, I'm fighting to make sure good people are allowed to defend themselves from guys your referring to and also governments intent on enslaving the people,,,

I know its hard for someone like you to understand,, but what can I do about your ignorance??

Save me your Red Dawn fantasies.

You don’t need a 50 round magazine to defend yourself. If you think you are capable of taking on a modern trained and equipped Army......I have sad news for you

Not needing it has nothing to do with the right to have it.

The 2nd amendment is not and never has come with shall not infringe. This is the BIG LIE.

There is no mention of guns, per se; the word is ARMS and no one has the absolute right to own all matter of ARMS. From Nuclear Weapons to push button & gravity knives there are limits to what can be owned, possess or in the custody and control of every person who is living within the border of the US.

The Big Lie is that there was no fraud.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Let’s face it America

Nothing beats an AR 15 with a 50 round magazine if you want to hunt small School Children

View attachment 489953

we can always count on you for showing us what an idiot you are,,

I’m an idiot?

You are the one fighting to make sure assassins and mass murderers have the firepower of their choice

no I'm not,, I'm fighting to make sure good people are allowed to defend themselves from guys your referring to and also governments intent on enslaving the people,,,

I know its hard for someone like you to understand,, but what can I do about your ignorance??

Save me your Red Dawn fantasies.

You don’t need a 50 round magazine to defend yourself. If you think you are capable of taking on a modern trained and equipped Army......I have sad news for you

Not needing it has nothing to do with the right to have it.

The 2nd amendment is not and never has come with shall not infringe. This is the BIG LIE.

There is no mention of guns, per se; the word is ARMS and no one has the absolute right to own all matter of ARMS. From Nuclear Weapons to push button & gravity knives there are limits to what can be owned, possess or in the custody and control of every person who is living within the border of the US.

No, the big lie is you think you can ban whatever you don't like....that is the lie.....And Scalia and the Supreme Court have done a good job at showing that you don't know what you are talking about....

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.

--------

Alito.....on Caetano v Massachusetts...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Opinion of the Court[edit]

Ihttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Opinion of the Court[edit]



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

------





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



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



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



If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636.

Yep, you use BIG LIES about Heller too. Scalia stated clearly in Heller exactly what I posted; not everyone has the right to possess, own or have in their custody or control a firearm.

All of your gun posts are wet dreams.

Since that isn't my position, you are an idiot for saying it is......

You assholes think that you get to ban any gun you want.....and any piece of equipment, not based on reason,but because of your mental health issues.

Another damn lie wrapped in a personal attack about my mental health.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Let’s face it America

Nothing beats an AR 15 with a 50 round magazine if you want to hunt small School Children

View attachment 489953

we can always count on you for showing us what an idiot you are,,

I’m an idiot?

You are the one fighting to make sure assassins and mass murderers have the firepower of their choice

no I'm not,, I'm fighting to make sure good people are allowed to defend themselves from guys your referring to and also governments intent on enslaving the people,,,

I know its hard for someone like you to understand,, but what can I do about your ignorance??

Save me your Red Dawn fantasies.

You don’t need a 50 round magazine to defend yourself. If you think you are capable of taking on a modern trained and equipped Army......I have sad news for you

Not needing it has nothing to do with the right to have it.

The 2nd amendment is not and never has come with shall not infringe. This is the BIG LIE.

There is no mention of guns, per se; the word is ARMS and no one has the absolute right to own all matter of ARMS. From Nuclear Weapons to push button & gravity knives there are limits to what can be owned, possess or in the custody and control of every person who is living within the border of the US.

The Big Lie is that there was no fraud.

Prove it, by posting a thread with the evidence that the election was stolen; on a topic other than this obsession by gun owners who seem to have a fetish for their toys.

 

[progressive hunter]

Let’s face it America

Nothing beats an AR 15 with a 50 round magazine if you want to hunt small School Children

View attachment 489953

we can always count on you for showing us what an idiot you are,,

I’m an idiot?

You are the one fighting to make sure assassins and mass murderers have the firepower of their choice

no I'm not,, I'm fighting to make sure good people are allowed to defend themselves from guys your referring to and also governments intent on enslaving the people,,,

I know its hard for someone like you to understand,, but what can I do about your ignorance??

Save me your Red Dawn fantasies.

You don’t need a 50 round magazine to defend yourself. If you think you are capable of taking on a modern trained and equipped Army......I have sad news for you

Not needing it has nothing to do with the right to have it.

The 2nd amendment is not and never has come with shall not infringe. This is the BIG LIE.

There is no mention of guns, per se; the word is ARMS and no one has the absolute right to own all matter of ARMS. From Nuclear Weapons to push button & gravity knives there are limits to what can be owned, possess or in the custody and control of every person who is living within the border of the US.

No, the big lie is you think you can ban whatever you don't like....that is the lie.....And Scalia and the Supreme Court have done a good job at showing that you don't know what you are talking about....

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.

--------

Alito.....on Caetano v Massachusetts...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Opinion of the Court[edit]

Ihttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Opinion of the Court[edit]



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

------





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



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



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



If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636.

Yep, you use BIG LIES about Heller too. Scalia stated clearly in Heller exactly what I posted; not everyone has the right to possess, own or have in their custody or control a firearm.

All of your gun posts are wet dreams.

Since that isn't my position, you are an idiot for saying it is......

You assholes think that you get to ban any gun you want.....and any piece of equipment, not based on reason,but because of your mental health issues.

Another damn lie wrapped in a personal attack about my mental health.

its not a personal attack when its true,,

 

[Lastamender]

Let’s face it America

Nothing beats an AR 15 with a 50 round magazine if you want to hunt small School Children

View attachment 489953

we can always count on you for showing us what an idiot you are,,

I’m an idiot?

You are the one fighting to make sure assassins and mass murderers have the firepower of their choice

no I'm not,, I'm fighting to make sure good people are allowed to defend themselves from guys your referring to and also governments intent on enslaving the people,,,

I know its hard for someone like you to understand,, but what can I do about your ignorance??

Save me your Red Dawn fantasies.

You don’t need a 50 round magazine to defend yourself. If you think you are capable of taking on a modern trained and equipped Army......I have sad news for you

Not needing it has nothing to do with the right to have it.

The 2nd amendment is not and never has come with shall not infringe. This is the BIG LIE.

There is no mention of guns, per se; the word is ARMS and no one has the absolute right to own all matter of ARMS. From Nuclear Weapons to push button & gravity knives there are limits to what can be owned, possess or in the custody and control of every person who is living within the border of the US.

The Big Lie is that there was no fraud.

Prove it, by posting a thread with the evidence that the election was stolen; on a topic other than this obsession by gun owners who seem to have a fetish for their toys.

You people are proving it for me.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We see a major escalation of middle East issues.

lol

Having nothing to do whatsoever with Americans and AR 15s.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The President and the Democrats want an assault weapons ban. How do Americans defend themselves in the middle East??!! With sling shots??!

This is a lie.

Not all Democrats support an AWB – including in the Senate; there won’t be a ‘new’ AWB, regardless what Biden wants.

This is just more baseless rightwing demagoguery.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We see a major escalation of middle East issues. Who says we don't need assault rifles to defend ourselves.?!!. This is why I oppose any bans on assault rifles. We have a major conflict brewing in Israel and the Gaza Strip.Many are armed with fully automatic AK-47 with 30 round magazines.!! Yet we have people saying in America that we don't need assault rifles.? How are Americans going to defend themselves without an AR-15 assault rifle? You gun control people answer this question.

I wonder how many children can be slaughtered in their classrooms with AK-47's and 30 round clips; or families eating popcorn with their kids at a movie theater; or a couple of 17 year old kids on their first date at a concert. Gee with these weapons made legal and with 30 round magazines imagine how many funeral homes can be profitable. Isn't that what the gun lobby is all about, profits?

There are more effective ways to combat gun crime and violence than ‘bans’ – but most on the reprehensible right refuse to enter into a good-faith exploration of how to do that.

Conservatives want to continue to propagate lies about ‘bans’ for some perceived partisan advantage.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We need Assault rifles. There should be no Bans. There is war starting in the middle
East.!!.There could be civil war in America,!!

Not sure I get the connection.

That's because there isn't one.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Depends on how far we go with defunding and disbanding police.

This is a lie.

No one advocates ‘disbanding’ or ‘defunding’ the police.

Indeed, the reforms proposed actually benefit sworn officers by freeing them from addressing issues they’re ill-suited to address, such as mental illness and homelessness.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

governments intent on enslaving the people,,,

Ignorant nonsense.

Insurrectionist dogma is as ridiculous as it is wrong.

 

[mudwhistle]

Let’s face it America

Nothing beats an AR 15 with a 50 round magazine if you want to hunt small School Children

View attachment 489953

we can always count on you for showing us what an idiot you are,,

I’m an idiot?

You are the one fighting to make sure assassins and mass murderers have the firepower of their choice

no I'm not,, I'm fighting to make sure good people are allowed to defend themselves from guys your referring to and also governments intent on enslaving the people,,,

I know its hard for someone like you to understand,, but what can I do about your ignorance??

Save me your Red Dawn fantasies.

You don’t need a 50 round magazine to defend yourself. If you think you are capable of taking on a modern trained and equipped Army......I have sad news for you

Not needing it has nothing to do with the right to have it.

The 2nd amendment is not and never has come with shall not infringe. This is the BIG LIE.

There is no mention of guns, per se; the word is ARMS and no one has the absolute right to own all matter of ARMS. From Nuclear Weapons to push button & gravity knives there are limits to what can be owned, possess or in the custody and control of every person who is living within the border of the US.

Absolute nonsense.
"Arms" is whatever is needed to defend yourself from government oppression.....like the British, or our own abusive government.
If everyone has a musket....then you have the right to own one.
If everyone has an AR 15....then everyone has the right to own one...if that's what it takes to keep a corrupt government, federal, state, or local, from infringing on your rights.....then so be it.
If the call to take up arms against a Totalitarian government.....and the call for a militia is made to take the fight to the enemy, foreign or domestic, then that right shall not be infringed by the federal government.
It doesn't say anything about states.
There is where the great threat to security lies.