So it your position that video games cause rampage murder with guns...

[Papageorgio]

They need to build a wall between them and us. That will help keep guns and illegals out.

Canada, unlike United State, recorded only three mass shootings between 2000 and 2014.

Can somebody post hos many we had during that time?

why three?

Is three less than what the US had during that time?

so, not clear your point. so you brag about gun laws that actually don't work, you just proved it, you said three of them. if there is one it's too many, the fact three is a wave of a hand tells me who you really are.

If gun laws in Canada controlled rampage shootings to just three in 14 years, I say write them into law here. Shows they're effective.

2000 - 2014 I looked it up and Canada has had 16, Since 2014 they have had 10. What source are you using?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The question then is, How do they make video games that only causes white people to commit mass murder with automatic weapons?

That is not the opinion of ANY rational person. It's just a convenient scapegoat

 

[my2¢]

The question then is, How do they make video games that only causes white people to commit mass murder with automatic weapons?

I never got into video games (I was in college when Pong was released), will only guess that non-whites react with drive-by shootings?

 

[2aguy]

ARs and the like are least of this country’s worry’s, Cars, alcohol, lawn mowers, bath tubs, hammers, knives, etc. All have higher body counts then people using ARs.
None of which are an right like firearm ownership is.
It’s American thing you obviously don’t understand... lol

Post the source of this so-called data.

Use the Google... lol

Out of the millions of ARs owned legally by Americans what is percentage of them are used in Violent crime?
Basically a percentage off of an percentage at best... Cars for instance kill far more people. And vehicle ownership is not even an right, it a privilege. Firearm ownership is an absolute right less someone ***** it up for themselves.

Like I said political correctness makes people ******* retarded.

And you can own a gun. Just not an assault rifle. No place for them in our society.

AR-15s are not assault rifles...to begin with......and you were told you are an idiot in the Supreme Court ruling in Heller.... and the followup in Friedman v Highland Park as well as Caetano v Masschusetts.....not to forget Miller as well....you moron.

SPLITTING HAIRS OVER WHETHER THEY ARE TECHNICALLY ASSAULT RIFLES IS PICKING UP THE PEANUTS WHILE BEING TRAMPLED BY THE ELEPHANTS.

No, actually, it isn't....one is a military weapon, protected for civilian use by the Bill of Rights, the other is a civilian and police weapon, protected by the Bill of Rights......

 

[2aguy]

Lol
Firearms have nothing to do with violent behavior, because they do not change the person or control the person.
It all comes back to the individual, Blaming an inanimate object Is childish at Best

Says the purported gun dealer.

The AR15 the Ohio shooter was carrying, killed or injured nearly 30 people in 30 seconds before the police shot him in a hail of bullets. This rifle is sold with advertising it's ability to take out multiple targets quickly with maximum internal damage. This is the preferred weapon of mass shooters everywhere. A gun with no reasonable value except to raise the body count.

Other countries have a tradition of hunting too. Canada also has a tradition of retail hunting and fishing. Rich people flying in to hunt tropies, although many of the trophy species are now facing extinction, like Grizzlies, and polar bears. Restrictions on gun ownership and people killing weapons and handguns have done NOTHING to curb legitmate hunters or the industries built around them in other countries.

My husband's family owns a huge hunting camp near Huntsville, which they bought more than 50 years ago, which sleeps 60. There's a big shindig there at the end of every deer season. One of my brothers went deer hunting for two weeks every year, throughout his adult life. I've enjoyed moose and deer, killed by family members. One of my Toronto neighbours went duck hunting every fall. The Lake Erie community where I now live is on the duck migration route, and hunters are currently spiffing up their blinds.

If gun ownership made people safer, then the USA wouldn't be the most dangerous country in the first world. It would be the safest.

ARs and the like are least of this country’s worry’s, Cars, alcohol, lawn mowers, bath tubs, hammers, knives, etc. All have higher body counts then people using ARs.
None of which are an right like firearm ownership is.
It’s American thing you obviously don’t understand... lol

You have a right to bare arms. The constitution says nothing about AR's.

What do you mean you don't have a right to those things? I thought in America we are free. If we are, then you do have a right to a knife or hammer or lawn mower. This argument is stupid. Accidents happen.

What you should not be free to do is possess a wmd.

Here.....this shows you are an idiot.

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

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

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

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

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.

IT DOESN'T ******* MATTER WHAT YOU CALL THEM, IT MATTERS THAT AR15'S ARE THE WEAPON OF CHOICE FOR MASS KILLERS, AND THE GUN IS DESIGNED TO INFLICT MAXIMUM DEATH AND DAMAGE TO VICTIMS.

You are wrong, the hand gun is the weapon of choice of mass shooters...you dope....you don't even know the basic facts on this issue but you stamp your feet and screech..." take me seriously..."

 

[2aguy]

Lol
Firearms have nothing to do with violent behavior, because they do not change the person or control the person.
It all comes back to the individual, Blaming an inanimate object Is childish at Best

Says the purported gun dealer.

The AR15 the Ohio shooter was carrying, killed or injured nearly 30 people in 30 seconds before the police shot him in a hail of bullets. This rifle is sold with advertising it's ability to take out multiple targets quickly with maximum internal damage. This is the preferred weapon of mass shooters everywhere. A gun with no reasonable value except to raise the body count.

Other countries have a tradition of hunting too. Canada also has a tradition of retail hunting and fishing. Rich people flying in to hunt tropies, although many of the trophy species are now facing extinction, like Grizzlies, and polar bears. Restrictions on gun ownership and people killing weapons and handguns have done NOTHING to curb legitmate hunters or the industries built around them in other countries.

My husband's family owns a huge hunting camp near Huntsville, which they bought more than 50 years ago, which sleeps 60. There's a big shindig there at the end of every deer season. One of my brothers went deer hunting for two weeks every year, throughout his adult life. I've enjoyed moose and deer, killed by family members. One of my Toronto neighbours went duck hunting every fall. The Lake Erie community where I now live is on the duck migration route, and hunters are currently spiffing up their blinds.

If gun ownership made people safer, then the USA wouldn't be the most dangerous country in the first world. It would be the safest.

ARs and the like are least of this country’s worry’s, Cars, alcohol, lawn mowers, bath tubs, hammers, knives, etc. All have higher body counts then people using ARs.
None of which are an right like firearm ownership is.
It’s American thing you obviously don’t understand... lol

You have a right to bare arms. The constitution says nothing about AR's.

What do you mean you don't have a right to those things? I thought in America we are free. If we are, then you do have a right to a knife or hammer or lawn mower. This argument is stupid. Accidents happen.

What you should not be free to do is possess a wmd.

Here.....this shows you are an idiot.

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

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

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

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

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.

IT DOESN'T ******* MATTER WHAT YOU CALL THEM, IT MATTERS THAT AR15'S ARE THE WEAPON OF CHOICE FOR MASS KILLERS, AND THE GUN IS DESIGNED TO INFLICT MAXIMUM DEATH AND DAMAGE TO VICTIMS.

Hey...dipstick....

Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994).

The AR-15 is the civilian version of the military's M-16 rifle, and is, unless modified, a semiautomatic weapon. The M-16, in contrast, is a selective fire rifle that allows the operator, by rotating a selector switch, to choose semiautomatic or automatic fire.

 

[sealybobo]

Says the purported gun dealer.

The AR15 the Ohio shooter was carrying, killed or injured nearly 30 people in 30 seconds before the police shot him in a hail of bullets. This rifle is sold with advertising it's ability to take out multiple targets quickly with maximum internal damage. This is the preferred weapon of mass shooters everywhere. A gun with no reasonable value except to raise the body count.

Other countries have a tradition of hunting too. Canada also has a tradition of retail hunting and fishing. Rich people flying in to hunt tropies, although many of the trophy species are now facing extinction, like Grizzlies, and polar bears. Restrictions on gun ownership and people killing weapons and handguns have done NOTHING to curb legitmate hunters or the industries built around them in other countries.

My husband's family owns a huge hunting camp near Huntsville, which they bought more than 50 years ago, which sleeps 60. There's a big shindig there at the end of every deer season. One of my brothers went deer hunting for two weeks every year, throughout his adult life. I've enjoyed moose and deer, killed by family members. One of my Toronto neighbours went duck hunting every fall. The Lake Erie community where I now live is on the duck migration route, and hunters are currently spiffing up their blinds.

If gun ownership made people safer, then the USA wouldn't be the most dangerous country in the first world. It would be the safest.

ARs and the like are least of this country’s worry’s, Cars, alcohol, lawn mowers, bath tubs, hammers, knives, etc. All have higher body counts then people using ARs.
None of which are an right like firearm ownership is.
It’s American thing you obviously don’t understand... lol

Post the source of this so-called data.

Use the Google... lol

Out of the millions of ARs owned legally by Americans what is percentage of them are used in Violent crime?
Basically a percentage off of an percentage at best... Cars for instance kill far more people. And vehicle ownership is not even an right, it a privilege. Firearm ownership is an absolute right less someone ***** it up for themselves.

Like I said political correctness makes people ******* retarded.

And you can own a gun. Just not an assault rifle. No place for them in our society.

AR-15s are not assault rifles...to begin with......and you were told you are an idiot in the Supreme Court ruling in Heller.... and the followup in Friedman v Highland Park as well as Caetano v Masschusetts.....not to forget Miller as well....you moron.

Doesn't matter what the supreme court says. If the government bans AR's then guess you won't be able to buy them anymore. The Supreme's can suck a dick.

 

[Papageorgio]

ARs and the like are least of this country’s worry’s, Cars, alcohol, lawn mowers, bath tubs, hammers, knives, etc. All have higher body counts then people using ARs.
None of which are an right like firearm ownership is.
It’s American thing you obviously don’t understand... lol

Post the source of this so-called data.

Use the Google... lol

Out of the millions of ARs owned legally by Americans what is percentage of them are used in Violent crime?
Basically a percentage off of an percentage at best... Cars for instance kill far more people. And vehicle ownership is not even an right, it a privilege. Firearm ownership is an absolute right less someone ***** it up for themselves.

Like I said political correctness makes people ******* retarded.

And you can own a gun. Just not an assault rifle. No place for them in our society.

AR-15s are not assault rifles...to begin with......and you were told you are an idiot in the Supreme Court ruling in Heller.... and the followup in Friedman v Highland Park as well as Caetano v Masschusetts.....not to forget Miller as well....you moron.

Doesn't matter what the supreme court says. If the government bans AR's then guess you won't be able to buy them anymore. The Supreme's can suck a dick.

So the Supreme Court can't render a law unconstitutional?

 

[sealybobo]

Says the purported gun dealer.

The AR15 the Ohio shooter was carrying, killed or injured nearly 30 people in 30 seconds before the police shot him in a hail of bullets. This rifle is sold with advertising it's ability to take out multiple targets quickly with maximum internal damage. This is the preferred weapon of mass shooters everywhere. A gun with no reasonable value except to raise the body count.

Other countries have a tradition of hunting too. Canada also has a tradition of retail hunting and fishing. Rich people flying in to hunt tropies, although many of the trophy species are now facing extinction, like Grizzlies, and polar bears. Restrictions on gun ownership and people killing weapons and handguns have done NOTHING to curb legitmate hunters or the industries built around them in other countries.

My husband's family owns a huge hunting camp near Huntsville, which they bought more than 50 years ago, which sleeps 60. There's a big shindig there at the end of every deer season. One of my brothers went deer hunting for two weeks every year, throughout his adult life. I've enjoyed moose and deer, killed by family members. One of my Toronto neighbours went duck hunting every fall. The Lake Erie community where I now live is on the duck migration route, and hunters are currently spiffing up their blinds.

If gun ownership made people safer, then the USA wouldn't be the most dangerous country in the first world. It would be the safest.

ARs and the like are least of this country’s worry’s, Cars, alcohol, lawn mowers, bath tubs, hammers, knives, etc. All have higher body counts then people using ARs.
None of which are an right like firearm ownership is.
It’s American thing you obviously don’t understand... lol

Post the source of this so-called data.

Use the Google... lol

Out of the millions of ARs owned legally by Americans what is percentage of them are used in Violent crime?
Basically a percentage off of an percentage at best... Cars for instance kill far more people. And vehicle ownership is not even an right, it a privilege. Firearm ownership is an absolute right less someone ***** it up for themselves.

Like I said political correctness makes people ******* retarded.

And you can own a gun. Just not an assault rifle. No place for them in our society.

all guns are assault weapons if you use them that way,,,,

and since the 2nd A was specifically for weapons of war your opinion means nothing

How can they do this?

Which firearms are regulated under the NFA? | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Which firearms are regulated under the NFA?
(1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length;


But the constitution says I can have a firearm. Isn't it unconstitutional that I can't own a shotgun with less than a 18 inch barrel?



Listen, all we are going to do is list AR's as Title 2 weapons. You'll get over it.

Title II weapons - Wikipedia

 

[2aguy]

ARs and the like are least of this country’s worry’s, Cars, alcohol, lawn mowers, bath tubs, hammers, knives, etc. All have higher body counts then people using ARs.
None of which are an right like firearm ownership is.
It’s American thing you obviously don’t understand... lol

Post the source of this so-called data.

Use the Google... lol

Out of the millions of ARs owned legally by Americans what is percentage of them are used in Violent crime?
Basically a percentage off of an percentage at best... Cars for instance kill far more people. And vehicle ownership is not even an right, it a privilege. Firearm ownership is an absolute right less someone ***** it up for themselves.

Like I said political correctness makes people ******* retarded.

And you can own a gun. Just not an assault rifle. No place for them in our society.

AR-15s are not assault rifles...to begin with......and you were told you are an idiot in the Supreme Court ruling in Heller.... and the followup in Friedman v Highland Park as well as Caetano v Masschusetts.....not to forget Miller as well....you moron.

Doesn't matter what the supreme court says. If the government bans AR's then guess you won't be able to buy them anymore. The Supreme's can suck a dick.

Yes....again with the penis obsession....what is it with you and the other anti-gunners....

Let me guess...you are obsessed with the penis...so much so that whenever we talk about guns, you start to get excited, thinking about the penis.....so much so that you can't stop thinking about the penis....so you want everyone to stop talking about guns so you don't start thinking about the penis....

Look, banning 600 million guns so you can stop thinking about the penis is the wrong way to go about it.....go get a shrink you sicko and leave normal people alone.

 

[2aguy]

ARs and the like are least of this country’s worry’s, Cars, alcohol, lawn mowers, bath tubs, hammers, knives, etc. All have higher body counts then people using ARs.
None of which are an right like firearm ownership is.
It’s American thing you obviously don’t understand... lol

Post the source of this so-called data.

Use the Google... lol

Out of the millions of ARs owned legally by Americans what is percentage of them are used in Violent crime?
Basically a percentage off of an percentage at best... Cars for instance kill far more people. And vehicle ownership is not even an right, it a privilege. Firearm ownership is an absolute right less someone ***** it up for themselves.

Like I said political correctness makes people ******* retarded.

And you can own a gun. Just not an assault rifle. No place for them in our society.

all guns are assault weapons if you use them that way,,,,

and since the 2nd A was specifically for weapons of war your opinion means nothing

How can they do this?

Which firearms are regulated under the NFA? | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Which firearms are regulated under the NFA?
(1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length;


But the constitution says I can have a firearm. Isn't it unconstitutional that I can't own a shotgun with less than a 18 inch barrel?



Listen, all we are going to do is list AR's as Title 2 weapons. You'll get over it.

Title II weapons - Wikipedia

They are protected, asshat.....please...get someone you know who can read to read the Heller decision to you...since you obviously can't read plain writing...

 

[sealybobo]

Post the source of this so-called data.

Use the Google... lol

Out of the millions of ARs owned legally by Americans what is percentage of them are used in Violent crime?
Basically a percentage off of an percentage at best... Cars for instance kill far more people. And vehicle ownership is not even an right, it a privilege. Firearm ownership is an absolute right less someone ***** it up for themselves.

Like I said political correctness makes people ******* retarded.

And you can own a gun. Just not an assault rifle. No place for them in our society.

AR-15s are not assault rifles...to begin with......and you were told you are an idiot in the Supreme Court ruling in Heller.... and the followup in Friedman v Highland Park as well as Caetano v Masschusetts.....not to forget Miller as well....you moron.

SPLITTING HAIRS OVER WHETHER THEY ARE TECHNICALLY ASSAULT RIFLES IS PICKING UP THE PEANUTS WHILE BEING TRAMPLED BY THE ELEPHANTS.

what about assault rocks???
should they be banned too???

No. You can throw as many rocks as you can with your two arms. What you can't do is build a gun that can take 400 rocks and shoot them in one direction with one pull of your trigger. Or a gun where you can pull the trigger once and they come out one at a time like an automatic weapon.

• Some states and localities place additional restrictions on certain semi-automatic firearms that they have defined as assault weapons, or on magazines that can hold more than a certain number of rounds of ammunition.

 

[petro]

While a direct link can never be determined, since the issue is far deeper than one single cause.
Violent imagery gives a killer ideas on style and weapons as some movies over glorify extreme violence that didn't exist several decades ago.
Add stress, social situations and drugs and that imagery will have an effect on that small percentage of anti socials.
Reckoning With The Matrix’s Gun Problem
Giving them a platform for their perceived grievances via the media definetly gives rise to copy cats.
How can anyone ignore the effect of the media when kids nationwide were in the emergency room for copying stupid shit on the internet? Tide Pods, busted testicles, kids choking on cinnamon.

 

[sealybobo]

Post the source of this so-called data.

Use the Google... lol

Out of the millions of ARs owned legally by Americans what is percentage of them are used in Violent crime?
Basically a percentage off of an percentage at best... Cars for instance kill far more people. And vehicle ownership is not even an right, it a privilege. Firearm ownership is an absolute right less someone ***** it up for themselves.

Like I said political correctness makes people ******* retarded.

And you can own a gun. Just not an assault rifle. No place for them in our society.

AR-15s are not assault rifles...to begin with......and you were told you are an idiot in the Supreme Court ruling in Heller.... and the followup in Friedman v Highland Park as well as Caetano v Masschusetts.....not to forget Miller as well....you moron.

Doesn't matter what the supreme court says. If the government bans AR's then guess you won't be able to buy them anymore. The Supreme's can suck a dick.

So the Supreme Court can't render a law unconstitutional?

Oh yea I guess they could.

 

[progressive hunter]

Use the Google... lol

Out of the millions of ARs owned legally by Americans what is percentage of them are used in Violent crime?
Basically a percentage off of an percentage at best... Cars for instance kill far more people. And vehicle ownership is not even an right, it a privilege. Firearm ownership is an absolute right less someone ***** it up for themselves.

Like I said political correctness makes people ******* retarded.

And you can own a gun. Just not an assault rifle. No place for them in our society.

AR-15s are not assault rifles...to begin with......and you were told you are an idiot in the Supreme Court ruling in Heller.... and the followup in Friedman v Highland Park as well as Caetano v Masschusetts.....not to forget Miller as well....you moron.

SPLITTING HAIRS OVER WHETHER THEY ARE TECHNICALLY ASSAULT RIFLES IS PICKING UP THE PEANUTS WHILE BEING TRAMPLED BY THE ELEPHANTS.

what about assault rocks???
should they be banned too???

No. You can throw as many rocks as you can with your two arms. What you can't do is build a gun that can take 400 rocks and shoot them in one direction with one pull of your trigger. Or a gun where you can pull the trigger once and they come out one at a time like an automatic weapon.

• Some states and localities place additional restrictions on certain semi-automatic firearms that they have defined as assault weapons, or on magazines that can hold more than a certain number of rounds of ammunition.

so catapults are illegal???

 

[sealybobo]

While a direct link can never be determined, since the issue is far deeper than one single cause.
Violent imagery gives a killer ideas on style and weapons as some movies over glorify extreme violence that didn't exist several decades ago.
Add stress, social situations and drugs and that imagery will have an effect on that small percentage of anti socials.
Reckoning With The Matrix’s Gun Problem
Giving them a platform for their perceived grievances via the media definetly gives rise to copy cats.
How can anyone ignore the effect of the media when kids nationwide were in the emergency room for copying stupid shit on the internet? Tide Pods, busted testicles, kids choking on cinnamon.

Generation X kids could go out and find a job at Ford or GM and make a great living with benefits. Today's generation can't afford college and without college they'll have to go get a job at Walmart. No wonder they are so angry.

And most of the older white blue collar men who snap lost their good jobs during the Bush Great Recession and today they are working at Walmart. And they are being told the reason they are struggling is because of illegal immigrants. There is some truth to it but the fact is it's not the immigrants fault. It's the business owners who hired them because they didn't want to pay white male Americans an American wage.

 

[sealybobo]

And you can own a gun. Just not an assault rifle. No place for them in our society.

AR-15s are not assault rifles...to begin with......and you were told you are an idiot in the Supreme Court ruling in Heller.... and the followup in Friedman v Highland Park as well as Caetano v Masschusetts.....not to forget Miller as well....you moron.

SPLITTING HAIRS OVER WHETHER THEY ARE TECHNICALLY ASSAULT RIFLES IS PICKING UP THE PEANUTS WHILE BEING TRAMPLED BY THE ELEPHANTS.

what about assault rocks???
should they be banned too???

No. You can throw as many rocks as you can with your two arms. What you can't do is build a gun that can take 400 rocks and shoot them in one direction with one pull of your trigger. Or a gun where you can pull the trigger once and they come out one at a time like an automatic weapon.

• Some states and localities place additional restrictions on certain semi-automatic firearms that they have defined as assault weapons, or on magazines that can hold more than a certain number of rounds of ammunition.

so catapults are illegal???

How many can they throw at a time 11? Then yes, we may make them illegal. LOL

 

[sealybobo]

Says the purported gun dealer.

The AR15 the Ohio shooter was carrying, killed or injured nearly 30 people in 30 seconds before the police shot him in a hail of bullets. This rifle is sold with advertising it's ability to take out multiple targets quickly with maximum internal damage. This is the preferred weapon of mass shooters everywhere. A gun with no reasonable value except to raise the body count.

Other countries have a tradition of hunting too. Canada also has a tradition of retail hunting and fishing. Rich people flying in to hunt tropies, although many of the trophy species are now facing extinction, like Grizzlies, and polar bears. Restrictions on gun ownership and people killing weapons and handguns have done NOTHING to curb legitmate hunters or the industries built around them in other countries.

My husband's family owns a huge hunting camp near Huntsville, which they bought more than 50 years ago, which sleeps 60. There's a big shindig there at the end of every deer season. One of my brothers went deer hunting for two weeks every year, throughout his adult life. I've enjoyed moose and deer, killed by family members. One of my Toronto neighbours went duck hunting every fall. The Lake Erie community where I now live is on the duck migration route, and hunters are currently spiffing up their blinds.

If gun ownership made people safer, then the USA wouldn't be the most dangerous country in the first world. It would be the safest.

ARs and the like are least of this country’s worry’s, Cars, alcohol, lawn mowers, bath tubs, hammers, knives, etc. All have higher body counts then people using ARs.
None of which are an right like firearm ownership is.
It’s American thing you obviously don’t understand... lol

You have a right to bare arms. The constitution says nothing about AR's.

What do you mean you don't have a right to those things? I thought in America we are free. If we are, then you do have a right to a knife or hammer or lawn mower. This argument is stupid. Accidents happen.

What you should not be free to do is possess a wmd.

Here.....this shows you are an idiot.

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

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

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

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

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.

IT DOESN'T ******* MATTER WHAT YOU CALL THEM, IT MATTERS THAT AR15'S ARE THE WEAPON OF CHOICE FOR MASS KILLERS, AND THE GUN IS DESIGNED TO INFLICT MAXIMUM DEATH AND DAMAGE TO VICTIMS.

Hey...dipstick....

Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994).

The AR-15 is the civilian version of the military's M-16 rifle, and is, unless modified, a semiautomatic weapon. The M-16, in contrast, is a selective fire rifle that allows the operator, by rotating a selector switch, to choose semiautomatic or automatic fire.

You just better hope your favorite gun doesn't get put on the list.

Oh, and when they come to your home to take your guns, please do what you tell black men to do when the cops approach them. Do what you are ******* told. The time and place to fight them is in court or at the ballot box.

You right wing nuts who say they'll have to pry the gun from your cold dead hands are hypocrites. You tell black people to obey but you say you won't when the law comes knocking on your door. Interesting.

 

[petro]

And they are being told the reason they are struggling is because of illegal immigrants

So if you agree that media messaging causes violence it stands to reason that media violent imagery will also have an effect.

 

[Papageorgio]

ARs and the like are least of this country’s worry’s, Cars, alcohol, lawn mowers, bath tubs, hammers, knives, etc. All have higher body counts then people using ARs.
None of which are an right like firearm ownership is.
It’s American thing you obviously don’t understand... lol

You have a right to bare arms. The constitution says nothing about AR's.

What do you mean you don't have a right to those things? I thought in America we are free. If we are, then you do have a right to a knife or hammer or lawn mower. This argument is stupid. Accidents happen.

What you should not be free to do is possess a wmd.

Here.....this shows you are an idiot.

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

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

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

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

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.

IT DOESN'T ******* MATTER WHAT YOU CALL THEM, IT MATTERS THAT AR15'S ARE THE WEAPON OF CHOICE FOR MASS KILLERS, AND THE GUN IS DESIGNED TO INFLICT MAXIMUM DEATH AND DAMAGE TO VICTIMS.

Hey...dipstick....

Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994).

The AR-15 is the civilian version of the military's M-16 rifle, and is, unless modified, a semiautomatic weapon. The M-16, in contrast, is a selective fire rifle that allows the operator, by rotating a selector switch, to choose semiautomatic or automatic fire.

You just better hope your favorite gun doesn't get put on the list.

Oh, and when they come to your home to take your guns, please do what you tell black men to do when the cops approach them. Do what you are ******* told. The time and place to fight them is in court or at the ballot box.

You right wing nuts who say they'll have to pry the gun from your cold dead hands are hypocrites. You tell black people to obey but you say you won't when the law comes knocking on your door. Interesting.

You need some pot and alcohol to balance the cocaine high you are on.