Banning AR-15s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

ah yes, ordinances from a couple of western towns and laws meant to keep blacks from owning arms in slave state are enough to invalidate the second amendment.

Legal to keep guns away from blacks but not legal to keep guns away from rednecks. What a country!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m going to buy another just because of this hyperventilation. The first I have kitted ip over my fireplace in Fairfax.

Great, unsecured and visible from a window. But at least you'll have the other one to mount over your commode. Then you'll be ready to chase down the guy who tries to snatch the first one if you don't trip over your own pants.

Realistically, he's going to stay hidden in the bathroom. That's how these things typically go.

Really? https://youtu.be/IFhkcgdkrY8?si=tmmAZH_9j50cF7s6

NP, but not even watching whatever BS this is, every post about actual data, research, and solutions about reducing gun homicides is met with middle school level talk and deflection.

Republicans are NOT serious about focusing on the number one cause of death for children in America. Instead, it's about deflection re: Gender which (last I checked) doesn't show up as a leading statistical cause of death on any list. Deflection, deflection, deflection.

Stop and Frisk is the only supposedly serious solution offered, but the research on Stop and Frisk was not remotely definitive and many studies (when you don't cherry pick one to prove your point) found it didn't actually do anything, on top of the potential for constitutional infringement of rights (which 2a activists should take seriously or they are hypocrites).

NYC says hi

NYC implementation of Stop and Frisk was found to be unconstitutional and numerous studies did NOT find that it impacted crime. One did, others didn't. Do you not understand how research works?

As liberals say, constitution is flexible. Studies said one thing, but Times Square was sure as hell safer, as were other areas

Universal mandatory background checks, a persistent searchable database, et cetera are not unconstitutional. Background checks have been upheld, restrictions on felons have been upheld, a database is not an infringement. It can and should be done.

Just curious, but what benefit do you see with a searchable database? Searchable for what exactly?

I think if the database showed that someone who is not a licensed gun dealer bought 200 9mm pistols over the span of a year it ought to raise some red flags - and maybe someone should go and visit that person and check to make sure they still have every one of those 200 pistols in their possession. If not, they need to disclose every person they went to.

How do you think a lot of these gangs and thugs get guns? There is an entire underground black market for guns that needs to be shut down.

+1 Ability to bulk buy and traffic from red states is ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US will never ban nor rid AR15s or any firepower out en masse in public hands now. It's too late to bring back the genie in the bottle.

The lobby is too strong and too rich to defeat. What we may do short of "banning" is to enact slow (very slow) progressive changes by way of ammunition/background checks/safety laws/training and education checks in order to use firearms. It would be very slow road and very small changes that would be able to pass however.

It is the same as the healthcare system in US I have said - it's impossible to change to what makes sense because it's now reality. Too many are used to the system established. Tailoring it is our only chance but any change is going to be miniscule.

In your dreams NRA. Blah blah all you want. At some point, if the money and power on the other side gets control of SCOTUS then you will be pushed back. You showed even exactly how it is done so thank you for that I suppose.

see you in 30 years when another 500 million guns would've been made/sold.

Abortion was a legal protected right and then presto chango, it was gone. The shock has worn off and the realization of how to get what you want is setting in. In 30 years, Roe and the assault weapons ban will be back.

that is cool and all, but in 30 years i will be able to print an AR from my 3d printer (heck i can do that now).

I can do all kinds of illegal garbage right now, I don't need to wait 30 years. So what. People make crap choices every day. Always will.

God willing in less than 30 years you will be protected and sentenced for illegal weapons and your uterus will legally be no one's business other than your own.

and who will you get to enforce your unconsitituional laws? you better hope AI bots are advanced enough because every abled bodied male won't.

I guess the able bodied females will have to get it done as usual.

Yes, you'll keyboard us to death.

Kinda. The laws will get changed with organized political action. That is how they overturned Roe and that is how the gun laws will be changed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:AR-15s should be confiscated.
They have no place in a civilized nation. None.
They are weapons of racism. White supremacists love them because they give these weak people a feeling of power. They have no reason to feel superior in their lives, so they look to their skin color to give them some feeling of superiority, irrational as that concept is.
Confiscate all AR-15s in the USA today. We'll have far fewer mass shootings. Horrible that people like the PP are defending these horrific weapons of mass killing.
Get rid of them now.
If you need a gun, get a shotgun.

You loons who turn everything into a race issue are as much to blame as everyone who owns an AR15. People are getting shot regardless of race of the shooters and the victims. Just stop it already.

I'm beginning to think it's some sort of AI bot that is posting these inane idiocies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m going to buy another just because of this hyperventilation. The first I have kitted ip over my fireplace in Fairfax.

Great, unsecured and visible from a window. But at least you'll have the other one to mount over your commode. Then you'll be ready to chase down the guy who tries to snatch the first one if you don't trip over your own pants.

Realistically, he's going to stay hidden in the bathroom. That's how these things typically go.

Really? https://youtu.be/IFhkcgdkrY8?si=tmmAZH_9j50cF7s6

NP, but not even watching whatever BS this is, every post about actual data, research, and solutions about reducing gun homicides is met with middle school level talk and deflection.

Republicans are NOT serious about focusing on the number one cause of death for children in America. Instead, it's about deflection re: Gender which (last I checked) doesn't show up as a leading statistical cause of death on any list. Deflection, deflection, deflection.

Stop and Frisk is the only supposedly serious solution offered, but the research on Stop and Frisk was not remotely definitive and many studies (when you don't cherry pick one to prove your point) found it didn't actually do anything, on top of the potential for constitutional infringement of rights (which 2a activists should take seriously or they are hypocrites).

NYC says hi

NYC implementation of Stop and Frisk was found to be unconstitutional and numerous studies did NOT find that it impacted crime. One did, others didn't. Do you not understand how research works?

As liberals say, constitution is flexible. Studies said one thing, but Times Square was sure as hell safer, as were other areas

Ah, so you ARE saying you don't care about the constitution. Thanks for at least being honest.

I’m saying the democrats only support the parts of the constitution they like

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m going to buy another just because of this hyperventilation. The first I have kitted ip over my fireplace in Fairfax.

Great, unsecured and visible from a window. But at least you'll have the other one to mount over your commode. Then you'll be ready to chase down the guy who tries to snatch the first one if you don't trip over your own pants.

Realistically, he's going to stay hidden in the bathroom. That's how these things typically go.

Really? https://youtu.be/IFhkcgdkrY8?si=tmmAZH_9j50cF7s6

NP, but not even watching whatever BS this is, every post about actual data, research, and solutions about reducing gun homicides is met with middle school level talk and deflection.

Republicans are NOT serious about focusing on the number one cause of death for children in America. Instead, it's about deflection re: Gender which (last I checked) doesn't show up as a leading statistical cause of death on any list. Deflection, deflection, deflection.

Stop and Frisk is the only supposedly serious solution offered, but the research on Stop and Frisk was not remotely definitive and many studies (when you don't cherry pick one to prove your point) found it didn't actually do anything, on top of the potential for constitutional infringement of rights (which 2a activists should take seriously or they are hypocrites).

NYC says hi

NYC implementation of Stop and Frisk was found to be unconstitutional and numerous studies did NOT find that it impacted crime. One did, others didn't. Do you not understand how research works?

As liberals say, constitution is flexible. Studies said one thing, but Times Square was sure as hell safer, as were other areas

Ah, so you ARE saying you don't care about the constitution. Thanks for at least being honest.

I’m saying the democrats only support the parts of the constitution they like

SCOTUS only supports the parts of the constitution they like. Get the right justices on scouts and the constitution says what they decide it says.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m going to buy another just because of this hyperventilation. The first I have kitted ip over my fireplace in Fairfax.

Great, unsecured and visible from a window. But at least you'll have the other one to mount over your commode. Then you'll be ready to chase down the guy who tries to snatch the first one if you don't trip over your own pants.

Realistically, he's going to stay hidden in the bathroom. That's how these things typically go.

Really? https://youtu.be/IFhkcgdkrY8?si=tmmAZH_9j50cF7s6

NP, but not even watching whatever BS this is, every post about actual data, research, and solutions about reducing gun homicides is met with middle school level talk and deflection.

Republicans are NOT serious about focusing on the number one cause of death for children in America. Instead, it's about deflection re: Gender which (last I checked) doesn't show up as a leading statistical cause of death on any list. Deflection, deflection, deflection.

Stop and Frisk is the only supposedly serious solution offered, but the research on Stop and Frisk was not remotely definitive and many studies (when you don't cherry pick one to prove your point) found it didn't actually do anything, on top of the potential for constitutional infringement of rights (which 2a activists should take seriously or they are hypocrites).

NYC says hi

NYC implementation of Stop and Frisk was found to be unconstitutional and numerous studies did NOT find that it impacted crime. One did, others didn't. Do you not understand how research works?

As liberals say, constitution is flexible. Studies said one thing, but Times Square was sure as hell safer, as were other areas

Ah, so you ARE saying you don't care about the constitution. Thanks for at least being honest.

I’m saying the democrats only support the parts of the constitution they like

SCOTUS only supports the parts of the constitution they like. Get the right justices on scouts and the constitution says what they decide it says.

translation: “court is too conservative”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Wanna get guns out of the hands of people that should not have them? Get back to stop and frisk. That gets guns off the street. If your immediate reaction is to say something about race or profiling, then you aren’t really serious about implementing effective means.

Stop and frisk is like trying to close the barn door after the horses are already out.

How about we MANDATE a hard requirement on background checks for EVERY transfer of ownership of a gun to INCLUDE anyone diagnosed with mental illness to include depression (given the millions of gun suicides) and including anyone with a history of domestic or workplace violence or anger management issues and that EVERY TRANSFER goes into a PERSISTENT SEARCHABLE database. And, any "lost" or "stolen" gun must be reported IMMEDIATELY along with facing consequences for not properly storing or securing your gun. And anyone not complying gets an immediate felony and jail time.

From there on out, every gun used in a crime that is recovered on the streets is traced back to where it came from and the person who possessed it supplied it gets a mandatory felony and jail time.

Doing that would shut down a HUGE percentage of the problems and stop a lot of the fcking around that's contributing to our gun violence epidemic.

You replied to me. I certainly support most of what you say here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m going to buy another just because of this hyperventilation. The first I have kitted ip over my fireplace in Fairfax.

Great, unsecured and visible from a window. But at least you'll have the other one to mount over your commode. Then you'll be ready to chase down the guy who tries to snatch the first one if you don't trip over your own pants.

Realistically, he's going to stay hidden in the bathroom. That's how these things typically go.

Really? https://youtu.be/IFhkcgdkrY8?si=tmmAZH_9j50cF7s6

NP, but not even watching whatever BS this is, every post about actual data, research, and solutions about reducing gun homicides is met with middle school level talk and deflection.

Republicans are NOT serious about focusing on the number one cause of death for children in America. Instead, it's about deflection re: Gender which (last I checked) doesn't show up as a leading statistical cause of death on any list. Deflection, deflection, deflection.

Stop and Frisk is the only supposedly serious solution offered, but the research on Stop and Frisk was not remotely definitive and many studies (when you don't cherry pick one to prove your point) found it didn't actually do anything, on top of the potential for constitutional infringement of rights (which 2a activists should take seriously or they are hypocrites).

NYC says hi

NYC implementation of Stop and Frisk was found to be unconstitutional and numerous studies did NOT find that it impacted crime. One did, others didn't. Do you not understand how research works?

As liberals say, constitution is flexible. Studies said one thing, but Times Square was sure as hell safer, as were other areas

Ah, so you ARE saying you don't care about the constitution. Thanks for at least being honest.

I’m saying the democrats only support the parts of the constitution they like

SCOTUS only supports the parts of the constitution they like. Get the right justices on scouts and the constitution says what they decide it says.

translation: “court is too conservative”

Exactly. The rulings change as the court make up changes. They blab on about settled law or whatever. That is not how it works. Each side needs to control the court to interpret the constitution. It is not settled document. Not privacy, not gun rights. That is how it goes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of the liberal arguments are based on emotion and talking points. They have zero understanding about firearms. I showed libs pictures of 3006, .308win and .223 next to each other and asked them which one would they ban. They all say 3006, and have no idea the smallest one, the .223 is the one the ar-15 uses

real question..do you wank it to your guns?

How simple of a human do you have to be to have an obsession with a weapon? Do you really have nothing better going on in your life?

I don't have a single friend who owns a gun. You know what we all own? Beautiful homes and large investment accounts so we can spend time with our family and insulate us from morons like you.

They own guns to compensate. They need something to make them feel powerful.

"Real" men, I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m going to buy another just because of this hyperventilation. The first I have kitted ip over my fireplace in Fairfax.

Great, unsecured and visible from a window. But at least you'll have the other one to mount over your commode. Then you'll be ready to chase down the guy who tries to snatch the first one if you don't trip over your own pants.

Realistically, he's going to stay hidden in the bathroom. That's how these things typically go.

Really? https://youtu.be/IFhkcgdkrY8?si=tmmAZH_9j50cF7s6

NP, but not even watching whatever BS this is, every post about actual data, research, and solutions about reducing gun homicides is met with middle school level talk and deflection.

Republicans are NOT serious about focusing on the number one cause of death for children in America. Instead, it's about deflection re: Gender which (last I checked) doesn't show up as a leading statistical cause of death on any list. Deflection, deflection, deflection.

Stop and Frisk is the only supposedly serious solution offered, but the research on Stop and Frisk was not remotely definitive and many studies (when you don't cherry pick one to prove your point) found it didn't actually do anything, on top of the potential for constitutional infringement of rights (which 2a activists should take seriously or they are hypocrites).

NYC says hi

NYC implementation of Stop and Frisk was found to be unconstitutional and numerous studies did NOT find that it impacted crime. One did, others didn't. Do you not understand how research works?

As liberals say, constitution is flexible. Studies said one thing, but Times Square was sure as hell safer, as were other areas

Ah, so you ARE saying you don't care about the constitution. Thanks for at least being honest.

I’m saying the democrats only support the parts of the constitution they like

SCOTUS only supports the parts of the constitution they like. Get the right justices on scouts and the constitution says what they decide it says.

translation: “court is too conservative”

Court is too out of touch with reality. Justice Ahole and Justice Tickhead are clueless and lack all self awareness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

ah yes, ordinances from a couple of western towns and laws meant to keep blacks from owning arms in slave state are enough to invalidate the second amendment.

Legal to keep guns away from blacks but not legal to keep guns away from rednecks. What a country!

It was more than a few towns.

[Anonymous]

There’s some crazy gun nut activist talking points on this thread. Wow. Musket being worse than an ar-15 due to infections from scraps of dirty clothes? What the actual f? People died of infections from musket shots because there weren’t antibiotics then, you dimwit. The only time I wish there had been more AR-15s was for the union during the civil war to make sure fewer confederates were able to procreate after the war.

Realizing of course, that might make me, the great grandson of slave owning southerners, not exist.

Look, I grew up with guns. I own guns. I vote pretty conservative. I don’t like the libs. I hate woke stuff. I do believe the government is an ever present threat to our individual liberties and that one day they might turn on the people (look no further than Trump for example).

That said, the fact that I can buy a shotgun as easy as I can buy an AR-15 is absolutely bananas. Ban them, don’t ban them, I don’t care - but we need to start delineating guns based on danger posed. The purchasers and sellers of high capacity, semi-automatic rifles have demonstrated that they are incapable of self-regulating.

The people who can’t possibly fathom additional hoops to jump through to get access to these weapons are some variety of extremist. All the more reason we should limit access.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of the liberal arguments are based on emotion and talking points. They have zero understanding about firearms. I showed libs pictures of 3006, .308win and .223 next to each other and asked them which one would they ban. They all say 3006, and have no idea the smallest one, the .223 is the one the ar-15 uses

I'm guessing you're still planning to arrive at your point. What more about firearms do they need to understand?

There are tons of technical differences, cosmetic differences, that lead to varying forms of leathality, or in some cases don't have any effect at all.

Often times the features that people want to ban don't really make the firearm more leathal or in some cases effect the accuracy.

A big one is wanting to ban semi automatics. Now you have banned nearly all rifles and handguns being sold today because that type of action is what is used instead of a revolver (think old time cowboy gun).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of the liberal arguments are based on emotion and talking points. They have zero understanding about firearms. I showed libs pictures of 3006, .308win and .223 next to each other and asked them which one would they ban. They all say 3006, and have no idea the smallest one, the .223 is the one the ar-15 uses

I'm guessing you're still planning to arrive at your point. What more about firearms do they need to understand?

There are tons of technical differences, cosmetic differences, that lead to varying forms of leathality, or in some cases don't have any effect at all.

Often times the features that people want to ban don't really make the firearm more leathal or in some cases effect the accuracy.

A big one is wanting to ban semi automatics. Now you have banned nearly all rifles and handguns being sold today because that type of action is what is used instead of a revolver (think old time cowboy gun).

Semi automatic is not a cosmetic difference. What a bunch of bullsh#t.