Sandy Hook families reach $73 million settlement with gun manufacturer Remington

[bluesmoke]

do you believe that state laws banning AR 15s are constitutional in light of Heller, McDonald and a few other cases.

Until said otherwise by the SC, they are constitutional and in place as law. If in a state of such law, would you defy that law?

 

[TurtleDude]

Until said otherwise by the SC, they are constitutional and in place as law. If in a state of such law, would you defy that law?

hard to say. I would hope most people would defy gun bans

 

[Rucker61]

Until said otherwise by the SC, they are constitutional and in place as law. If in a state of such law, would you defy that law?

Could you provide support for those bans, Constitutionally? Debate why those bans would be Constitutional.

 

[Rich2018]

You make no sense. Really. See you on another thread.

About as much as a three headed match.

 

[RF667799]

About as much as a three headed match.

Ever in search of allies...

 

[bluesmoke]

Yes, I abide by them. I swore an oath on three different occasions to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

My point that people who are in opposition to new gun laws require that those laws be Constitutional, effective and enforceable. Those pushing for new laws ignore those requirements.

None of this matters. In 1994 when the AR-15 was banned for the first time it had never been used in a mass shooting. When Heller in 2008 affirmed that handguns were protected by the 2nd Amendment, the two worst mass shootings in US history had been committed with handguns.

With regards to the number of deaths, handguns are far and away the most commonly used type of firearm. That's true now, it was true in 2008 and it's been the case for nearly all of the 20th century. The number of deaths in any shooting don't give the government any extra Constitutional authority over the rights of the people.

Sorry, somehow I must have misunderstood what you meant when you wrote "our country would have done what civilized countries do and have the AR style gun killed and buried..."
Every civilized country that has banned the AR-15 included confiscation in that same law, and used that law to confiscate AR-15s. If we were to do as other civilized countries do in regards to the AR-15, that necessitates confiscation.

The 2nd Amendment protects all bearable arms in common use for lawful purposes. A ban on AR-15s would violate that protection, ie, be unconstitutional.

When the AR-15 is "killed and buried", and some other class of firearms moves into first place for " a higher ratio of death compared to other firearms", would you feel the need to ban those, too?

Typically I post that as a question. Looking back at my post on this topic, I may have omitted the question mark.

In any case, anyone pushing for an "assault weapons" ban is asking the government to ignore the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and SCOTUS.

Prove it to GCAs? Likely not. I'm prepared to debate the topic, however, using the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and SCOTUS decisions. Isn't debate the entire purpose of this forum?



If the government banned handguns, would that law be Constitutional?

The handgun is and always has been the gun of choice for mass shootings. In 2008 SCOTUS affirmed that the handgun was protected by the Second Amendment. By 2008, the two worst mass shootings in US history had been committed by shooters using handguns. Evidently the greatest number of deaths isn't a factor in the ability of the government to ban a class of firearms.

2008 was 44 years after the introduction of the AR-15 to civilian ownership. At that time not a single AR-15 had been used by a civilian in a mass shooting.


Most popular what? It's not the most popular type of firearm for mass shootings, according to Mother Jones or any other tracker.

The tracking of mass shootings has certainly increased?

We can debate "civilized", but the UK, Australia and New Zealand all passed laws banning military style semiautomatic rifles, including the AR-15, and required confiscation of all such weapons.

Does Section 2(h)(ii) work for you? That's the definition that a ban would use.

Text - H.R.1808 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Assault Weapons Ban of 2022

Text for H.R.1808 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Assault Weapons Ban of 2022

www.congress.gov

True. None of the US bans required it. Given that there are 25 million AR-15s out there, what's the purpose of a non-confiscatory ban that grandfathers 25 million firearms? Given that according to Mother Jones they been used in mass shootings less than 25 times in 56 years, does it really protect anything?

And they don't even use the same definition state to state. Heavy barrel AR-15s are recognized has having a legitimate sporting use by the Maryland ban and are not classified as "assault weapons".
An Ohio bill (SB260) would have classified as "assault weapons" every semiautomatic weapon capable of accepting a "large capacity" magazine. That would have meant that since an 11 round magazine is available, my Glock 43 with a standard 6 shot magazine would be an "assault weapon".

Which means nothing. See Baltimore Radio v Maryland.

Given that according to Heller and Caetano, all bearable arms in common use for lawful purposes are protected by the Second Amendment, such "ban" cannot be considered Constitutional.

You repeat the lie, even after reducing the number of "every" civilized country to 3, that these countries "...required confiscation of all such weapons." You're a dishonest debater. Like I said, see you on another thread.

 

[TurtleDude]

Could you provide support for those bans, Constitutionally? Debate why those bans would be Constitutional.

I think the answer is NO-there are several gun banners who can only support gun banning statutes with "they have yet to be struck down so they are proper"

 

[RF667799]

You repeat the lie, even after reducing the number of "every" civilized country to 3, that these countries "...required confiscation of all such weapons." You're a dishonest debater. Like I said, see you on another thread.

Instead of accusing the poster of lying and running off, why not provide a counter example? An accusation of lying is pretty worthless without that.

 

[Rucker61]

You repeat the lie, even after reducing the number of "every" civilized country to 3, that these countries "...required confiscation of all such weapons." You're a dishonest debater. Like I said, see you on another thread.

Did the UK not pass a law requiring confiscation of all handguns?

Did Australia not pass a law requiring confiscation of all military style semiautomatic rifles?

Did New Zealand not pass a law requiring confiscation of all military style semiautomatic rifles?

 

[RF667799]

You repeat the lie, even after reducing the number of "every" civilized country to 3, that these countries "...required confiscation of all such weapons." You're a dishonest debater. Like I said, see you on another thread.

Looking back, his reply was a direct answer to your question: "What civilized country has passed law to confiscate AR style rifles, in addition to banning the gun?"

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but my review definitively shows that Rucker wasn't the one with a dishonest approach here.

 

[Rich2018]

I think the answer is NO-there are several gun banners who can only support gun banning statutes with "they have yet to be struck down so they are proper"

Well that's the case with every law.

 

[Fledermaus]

Well that's the case with every law.

Not really.

 

[bluesmoke]

Now your just moving the goalposts in order to misrepresent the data on several points.

You know handguns are the firearm of choice among mass shooters. So now you are using death toll of the shooting incident as a deciding factor, even though that doesn't represent the choice of firearm used by mass shooters.

Notice you use the words "The higher the death toll, the more likely the weapon of choice is an AR style rifle"

"More likely" isn't fact, but an opinion in order to misrepresent the data yet agian.

You can complain about moving the goalposts all you want. My point is that assault style rifles result in the most kills per incident than any other weapon. They have become the weapon of choice for the deadliest mass shooters.

https://www.axios.com/deadliest-mass-shootings-common-4211bafd-da85-41d4-b3b2-b51ff61e7c86.html

The AR-15, et al, style rifle has become, by far, the most popular gun in America. Unlike the US, civilized countries respond to mass shootings.

 

[bluesmoke]

so your attitude is that if criminals start using something that millions have used legally, that justifies denying the millions their ability to continue to own or buy that firearm. I think the reason why the bannerrhoids target those rifles is

1) they tend to be owned by people who are more serious about their second amendment rights

2) they are seen as a threat to an authoritarian government

3) they are the MOST militia suitable weapons and the bannerrhoids figure if they can achieve a legal ban-then every other firearm can be banned afterwards

1) Deadly serious.

2) If we had an authoritarian govt, those people with semi-rifles couldn't do ****.

3) That's the slippery slope, domino, come get us CT that your militia believes.

 

[bluesmoke]

and in the last 30 years in california, less than FIVE people a year have died in mass shootings.Anti Rights coalition advocates want to use mass shootings as the "norm" (when they are not) so as to promote their gun bans since most shootings involve felons-often inner city blacks-a group that doesn't help the propaganda of the anti rights movement

Good. CA gun safety laws are working.

Why mention "inner city blacks"? What's the relevance?

 

[Rucker61]

You can complain about moving the goalposts all you want. My point is that assault style rifles result in the most kills per incident than any other weapon. They have become the weapon of choice for the deadliest mass shooters.

In 2008, the weapon of choice of the "deadliest mass shooters" was the handgun. Our worst two mass shootings at that time, the Luby's shooting and the Virginia Tech shooting had 24 and 32 dead, respectively. SCOTUS still held that the Second Amendment protected handguns.

https://www.axios.com/deadliest-mass-shootings-common-4211bafd-da85-41d4-b3b2-b51ff61e7c86.html

The AR-15, et al, style rifle has become, by far, the most popular gun in America. Unlike the US, civilized countries respond to mass shootings.

Funny, Australia still allows 9mm handguns, so they can still have mass shootings with 32 dead.
The UK's response to Cumbria where a .22 bolt action rifle and an antique 12 bore double barrel shotgun was use to kill 12 people was to ban nothing.

What do you think would happen if the 2021-2022 AWB in Congress was passed and upheld by SCOTUS?

 

[Linuxcooldude]

You can complain about moving the goalposts all you want. My point is that assault style rifles result in the most kills per incident than any other weapon. They have become the weapon of choice for the deadliest mass shooters.

https://www.axios.com/deadliest-mass-shootings-common-4211bafd-da85-41d4-b3b2-b51ff61e7c86.html

The AR-15, et al, style rifle has become, by far, the most popular gun in America. Unlike the US, civilized countries respond to mass shootings.

More goalposts moving by cherry picking the data, such as:

"They have become the weapon of choice for the deadliest mass shooters."

You always have stipulations to your argument which essentially makes it moot.

Weapon of choice (AR-15) only applies if they are actually used. But the fact is, they are rarely used in mass shootings, which is handguns by far.

 

[bluesmoke]

And mass shootings are a fairly recent phenomenon.

At least, a hundred yrs recent. It took from May 31 – June 1, 1921, to kill about 836 black people in the Tulsa race massacre. Oh, wait. That was a massacre, not all was a mass shooting. Many were killed by fire. Anyway, a lot were killed by firearm.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Good. CA gun safety laws are working.

Why mention "inner city blacks"? What's the relevance?

In regards to mass shootings? No...statistically mass shooting are still less than 1% nationally.

 

[TurtleDude]

1) Deadly serious.

2) If we had an authoritarian govt, those people with semi-rifles couldn't do ****.

3) That's the slippery slope, domino, come get us CT that your militia believes.

are you going to be part of the storm troopers who confiscate guns or are you going to sit back and hide while others do it?

 

[HangLow]

More goalposts moving by cherry picking the data, such as:

"They have become the weapon of choice for the deadliest mass shooters."

You always have stipulations to your argument which essentially makes it moot.

Weapon of choice (AR-15) only applies if they are actually used. But the fact is, they are rarely used in mass shootings, which is handguns by far.

​

 

[TurtleDude]

View attachment 67386771​

can any of the people who throw that term around actually define what makes something an "assault weapon"? the pieces of shit who passed an "assault weapon ban" thought stuff like a pistol grip or a flash hider made something so dangerous it had to be banned even though more people are beaten to death each year than are killed with the firearms the turds banned in 1994

 

[Rucker61]

View attachment 67386771​

The total number of people killed by a citizen using a firearm defined as an "assault weapon" is about 400.

If you want to kill a lot of innocent people, you need air power.

"By March 2002, the first six months of U.S. bombing in Afghanistan had killed possibly as many civilians as had been massacred by al Qaeda’s genocidal attack on the World Trade Center in New York."

". In 1971, the town of Angkor Borei was heavily bombed, ending up burnt and levelled by B-52’s and T-28’s. Whole families were trapped in trenches they had dug underneath their homes. One hundred people were killed, and 200 houses destroyed."

"In March l973, the U.S. carpet bombardment spread across the whole country. Around Phnom Penh alone, 3,000 civilians were killed in three weeks. UPI reported: “Refugees swarming into the capital from target areas report dozens of villages… have been destroyed and as much as half their population killed or maimed in the current bombing raids.”

The bombardment intensified to 3,600 tons per day. William Shawcross reported in Sideshow: Kissinger, Nixon and the Destruction of Cambodia, that the “wholesale carnage” shocked the chief of the political section in the U.S. Embassy, William Harben. One night, he said, “a mass of peasants” went out on a funeral procession and “walked straight into” a bombing raid. “Hundreds were slaughtered.” Donald Dawson, a young Air Force captain, flew twenty-five B-52 missions but refused to fly again when he heard a Cambodian wedding party had been razed by B-52’s. In one village eighty people died when B-52’s hit the village and its pagoda in 1973. A nearby village was annihilated; a single family survived."

Collateral Damage Means Real People - Institute for Policy Studies

We now know that Rumsfeld urges using "the force necessary to prevail, plus some" and rejects "promising ... not to permit collateral damage."

ips-dc.org

 

[Rich2018]

hard to say. I would hope most people would defy gun bans

You actually WANT people to break the law...

What happened to RW mantra of "rule of law" ?

Seem your version of Republicanism is mob rule


On the left, we follow peaceful protest and working to change the law...you obviously favor actions like the J6 insurrection riot.

 

[Roadvirus]

On the left, we follow peaceful protest and working to change the law..

Yeah. Your side showed us how peaceful your protests can be during the summer of 2020 up to mid-2021.