57
   

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

 
 
RABEL222
 
  4  
Reply Wed 18 Sep, 2019 04:05 pm
@vikorr,
Come on people. Don't argue with baldy and ollie. After all they are both supreme court justices and have interpreted the second amendment as to its real meaning. The right to shoot whom ever one wants to. Especially school children.
Region Philbis
 
  3  
Reply Thu 19 Sep, 2019 07:47 am
Quote:
2017 marked first year firearms killed more people than car accidents: study

The number of Americans who died from firearms surpassed those who died in car accidents for the first time in 2017,
according to a new far-reaching report on gun violence.

The report, released Wednesday by Democratic members of the congressional Joint Economic Committee (JEC), found
that nearly 40,000 people were killed in the U.S. by a gun, including approximately 2,500 school-age children.

“That is over 100 people per day and more than five children killed each day,” the report stated.

In 2017, 37,133 people died in motor vehicle crashes, according to the Department of Transportation.

Additionally, the report found that race and where you live are key indicators in tracking gun violence and deaths. The
report found that rural states have the highest rates of gun violence “measured as a share of their economies,” including
Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana and West Virginia.
(source)
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 19 Sep, 2019 08:51 am
@Baldimo,
Baldimo wrote:

and will be ruling against you again in this session when they take on the New York anti-gun law.


Is this actually on the docket?!

I so hope so.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 19 Sep, 2019 08:55 am
@McGentrix,
It is on the docket at the moment.

But the Supreme Court will have a hearing in a couple weeks where they will decide whether to keep it on the docket or whether to drop it.

A group of progressive senators have issued a threat to the Supreme Court telling them to drop it:

http://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/democratic-senators-threaten-supreme-court/
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 19 Sep, 2019 09:17 am
@RABEL222,
Quote:
Come on people. Don't argue with baldy and ollie. After all they are both supreme court justices and have interpreted the second amendment as to its real meaning.

We haven't done anything but read the already laid out SCOTUS rulings on such cases. Heller being one of the key rulings.

Quote:
The right to shoot whom ever one wants to. Especially school children.

Why are you lying about people's stance on the 2nd Amendment? When you can't use facts and logic, you resort to lies and smears? The only people who want to see kids gunned down is the left. Why keep the "gun free zones"?

0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  3  
Reply Thu 19 Sep, 2019 11:09 am
Colt is ending production of AR-15s
Source: American Military News

Colt Firearms will be ending its production and sales of its AR-15 rifles due to lack of public demand.

In a decision criticized by some gunowners and attributed to mismanagement, Colt said it simply isn’t selling enough of the rifles in the civilian marketplace to continue devoting the resources into it.

Colt President and CEO, Dennis Veilleux, released a statement on Thursday saying, “The fact of the matter is that over the last few years, the market for modern sporting rifles has experienced significant excess manufacturing capacity. Given this level of manufacturing capacity, we believe there is adequate supply for modern sporting rifles for the foreseeable future.”

Veilleux added that Colt is seeing high demand in its military and law enforcement sales.


Read more: https://americanmilitarynews.com/2019/09/colt-is-ending-production-of-ar-15s/
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 19 Sep, 2019 11:53 am
@bobsal u1553115,
H&K's MR556A1 is a better gun.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Sep, 2019 02:44 pm
I am no fan of Beto, BUT --

Michael Moore
1 hr ·
Here is a lesson for Democrats on how to have some courage—and what happens when you quit cowering and take a stand. A week ago Thursday at the ABC News Democratic presidential debate, candidate Beto O’Rourke made this proclamation, one that no Democratic candidate had ever made: “Hell yes we are going to take away your AR-15, your AK-47s!” The audience in Houston went crazy with wild applause, many leaping to their feet to show their approval of what he just said. But the Democratic Party establishment was aghast. They went into immediate damage control, dispatching their pundits to the talk shows to try to distance the Party from O’Rourke’s comments. They were convinced that his bold warning to gun nuts would hurt the Democrats next November. For years the Dems have been afraid to be seen as anti-gun. Democratic candidates always make sure they do photo ops firing guns to show their support for the Second Amendment. O’Rourke just came out & said it: I’m going to do everything I can to stop the sales of military weapons to civilians. If you have one of these mass-killing weapons we will buy it back from you. But make no mistake: AR-15s, just like tanks, rocket launchers & weapons-grade plutonium are not “arms” protected by the constitution and you will have to turn them over if you possess them. Fellow Democrats immediately attacked him. EVEN THOUGH 78% OF AMERICANS DO NOT OWN A GUN, Dem Party leaders are afraid to do anything more than background checks (which nearly all of our recent mass shooters would have passed).
Yet, just 1 week after Beto uttered what the majority of Americans feel, this announcement came from the headquarters of Colt Guns, the maker of the AR-15: “We will no longer sell the AR-15 to the public.” BOOM! Barely a week after he said it, the AR-15 was taken off the market. The connection was crystal clear: Once it got said out loud, and the threat to end the AR-15 was cheered on by the public, Colt read the writing on the wall — get in front of this now or the public will be coming to ban more than just the AR-15! And so the lesson for the Democrats & everyone else: Sometimes change does occur when just ONE person has the guts to say it.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Sep, 2019 03:10 pm
@edgarblythe,
Anything people feel strongly about enough to vote against, is in a way worth double that sections population - if they are voting against you, then you take votes from your side, and add them to the other.

However in normal circumstances a given group may vote 50:50. If that groups population constitutes 22% of the entire population - you have 11% that would normally vote for your party, now voting for the other party - which would be a 22% swing against your party

The question is - how many of your oppositions normal voters, would change their vote to vote for your party because of the new policy.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Sep, 2019 03:22 pm
@vikorr,
All you can do is present the facts in as digestible a manner as you know how and let the people freely vote. Of course, eliminating gerrymander and voter suppression would give a fair result.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 21 Sep, 2019 04:55 pm
@edgarblythe,
That's not what the Democrats are doing though.

The Democrats are lying about ordinary weapons and acting as if they are some sort of military weapons.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 21 Sep, 2019 05:08 pm
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:
The question is - how many of your oppositions normal voters, would change their vote to vote for your party because of the new policy.

This policy would not make much difference when it comes to votes. What it would do is waste the Democrats' time and energy.

Every bit of time and energy that the Democrats waste in a futile struggle against the NRA, is time and energy that they aren't spending on other achievements.

Look at Barack Obama's second term. He spent the entire first hundred days of his second term fighting with the NRA.

And what did Barack Obama achieve in his second term? Nothing at all.

And then in 2016 the voters were so tired of "President Do-nothing" that they elected the biggest change candidate that they could find.

If Democrats want to continue wasting all of their time and energy achieving nothing at all, the NRA is more than ready to help them along their path to failure.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 21 Sep, 2019 05:14 pm
@edgarblythe,
Michael Moore wrote:
Here's a lesson for Democrats on how to have courage -- and what happens when you quit cowering and take a stand. A week ago Thursday at the ABC News Democratic presidential debate, candidate Beto O'Rourke made this proclamation, one that no Democratic presidential candidate had EVER made:

"Hell yes we are going to take away your AR-15, your AK-47s!"

The audience in Houston went crazy with wild applause, many leaping to their feet to show their approval of what he just said.

Progressives hate the Constitution and want to violate people's civil liberties for fun.


Michael Moore wrote:
But the Democratic Party establishment was aghast. They went into immediate damage control, dispatching their pundits to the talk shows to try to distance the Party from O'Rourke's comments. They were convinced that his bold warning to gun nuts would hurt the Democrats in November 2020. For years the Democrats have been afraid to be seen as anti-gun.

The American people like the Constitution, and don't like it when progressives try to violate their civil liberties for fun.


Michael Moore wrote:
Democratic candidates always make sure they do photo ops firing guns to show their support for the 2nd Amendment.

They've never fooled anyone. Everyone knows that progressives hate the Constitution and want to violate our civil liberties for fun.


Michael Moore wrote:
O'Rourke just came out and said it: I'm going to do everything I can to stop the sales of military weapons to civilians.

Michael Moore is lying again. I know, not a surprise.

O'Rourke is not talking about military weapons. He is talking about banning ordinary rifles.


Michael Moore wrote:
If you have one of these mass-killing guns we will buy it back from you. But make no mistake: AR-15s, just like tanks, rocket launchers and weapons-grade plutonium are not "arms" protected by the constitution and you will have to turn them over if you possess them.

Yet another lie from Michael Moore. Ordinary rifles like the AR-15s are very much covered by the Second Amendment. There is no compelling government interest in outlawing pistol grips on rifles.


Michael Moore wrote:
Fellow Democrats immediately attacked him -- EVEN THOUGH 78% OF AMERICANS DO NOT OWN A GUN, Dem Party leaders are afraid to do anything more than background checks (which nearly all mass shooters would've passed). Yet, just one week after Beto said what the majority of Americans want, this announcement came from the headquarters of Colt Guns, the maker of the AR-15:

"We will no longer sell the AR-15 to the public." -Colt.

BOOM! Barely a week after Beto said it, the AR-15 was taken off the market. The connection was crystal clear: Once it got said out loud, and the threat made by Beto to Colt to end the AR-15 was cheered on by the public, Colt read the writing on the wall -- get in front of this now or the American people will be coming to ban more than just the AR-15. And thus the lesson for the Democrats and everyone else was so obvious: Sometimes change can occur when just ONE person has the guts to say it.

Does this mean that the left no longer wants to ban pistol grips on rifles?

If so, good.


edgarblythe wrote:
I am no fan of Beto, BUT --

It's pretty disgusting the way he wants to violate our civil liberties for fun. It shows the importance of keeping Republicans in power to protect our civil liberties.
glitterbag
 
  2  
Reply Sat 21 Sep, 2019 10:13 pm
@oralloy,
blah blab blahhhhh, blahbitty blah blah........
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 21 Sep, 2019 10:44 pm
@glitterbag,
I must say, your arguments are getting a bit better. Or perhaps I should say a bit less-bad.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  4  
Reply Sun 22 Sep, 2019 01:46 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

That's not what the Democrats are doing though.

The Democrats are lying about ordinary weapons and acting as if they are some sort of military weapons.


While working for Armalite in the 1950’s Eugene Stoner designed the AR15 and later the M16 to give our lite infantrymen an advantage over the AK47. The weapon was created for our military to travel lighter and be able to carry more ammo.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 22 Sep, 2019 10:28 am
@snood,
Stoner designed guns with full-auto capability for our soldiers. He did not try to foist any semi-auto-only guns onto the military.
snood
 
  3  
Reply Sun 22 Sep, 2019 11:21 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

Stoner designed guns with full-auto capability for our soldiers. He did not try to foist any semi-auto-only guns onto the military.

Your ilk can probably bog everyone down with semantics and get away with it, but it doesn’t affect some simple truths.
An assault rifle is by definition capable of firing in automatic mode.
Semi automatic rifles are assault weapons. The operative word is assault.

The ability to fire large quantities of bullets as fast as you can pull a trigger is not something that was developed for sports or hunting though it can be used that way. The capability was developed for killing large numbers of people accurately and quickly. It was developed because of the needs of the soldier in combat.

Thus “military style assault weapon”. The only people who try to act like this is nebulous are you and your ilk. Just like everyone but dedicated perverts understand porn when they see it, everyone but deranged gun nuts understands what an assault weapon is when another mass shooter uses one.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 22 Sep, 2019 11:57 am
@snood,
snood wrote:
Your ilk can probably bog everyone down with semantics and get away with it, but it doesn't affect some simple truths.

Facts are semantics?



snood wrote:
An assault rifle is by definition capable of firing in automatic mode.

Correct.



snood wrote:
Semi automatic rifles are assault weapons. The operative word is assault.

The ability to fire large quantities of bullets as fast as you can pull a trigger is not something that was developed for sports or hunting though it can be used that way. The capability was developed for killing large numbers of people accurately and quickly. It was developed because of the needs of the soldier in combat.

Thus "military style assault weapon".

That is incorrect. Assault weapons:

a) are capable of either full-auto or burst-fire

b) accept detachable magazines

c) fire rounds that are less powerful than a standard deer rifle, and

d) are effective at a range of 300 meters.


This means that semi-auto-only guns are not assault weapons.

This means that guns with fixed magazines are not assault weapons.

This means that guns that fire rounds equal-to or greater-than the power of a standard deer rifle are not assault weapons.

This means that guns that fire handgun/shotgun/rimfire rounds are not assault weapons.



snood wrote:
The only people who try to act like this is nebulous are you and your ilk.

We are not acting like anything is even remotely nebulous. When you refer to a gun using the wrong terminology, you are flat out wrong.



snood wrote:
Just like everyone but dedicated perverts understand porn when they see it, everyone but deranged gun nuts understands what an assault weapon is when another mass shooter uses one.

No assault weapon has ever been used in a mass shooting in the US.

Assault weapons have been very tightly regulated for the past 85 years, and people are not allowed to own them unless they were manufactured and registered more than 33 years ago.
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Sun 22 Sep, 2019 11:59 am
@snood,
So the AR-15 is not an assault rifle, but it is an assault weapon; or is it an assault style weapon? Tell me the difference between a rifle and a weapon, and then tell me the difference between an assault weapon and an assault style weapon. And then tell me the difference between an assault rifle and an assault style rifle.

And when you finish doing that, tell me when the Army started using assault style weapons or assault style rifles.

Then we can all be clear as to what you're talking about.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.57 seconds on 04/24/2024 at 10:50:43