Families can sue gun maker for Sandy Hook school massacre: court

  
Via:  bob-nelson  •  3 months ago  •  363 comments

Families can sue gun maker for Sandy Hook school massacre: court
Families of schoolchildren gunned down in the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre can sue Remington Outdoor Co Inc, a Connecticut court ruled on Thursday, in a setback for gun makers long shielded from liability in mass shootings.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


original

In a 4-3 ruling widely expected to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, Connecticut’s highest court found the lawsuit could proceed based on a state law protecting consumers against fraudulent marketing.

“The Connecticut Supreme Court has blown a very large hole into the federal immunity for firearms manufacturers in lawsuits alleging criminal misuse of the products they sell,” said Timothy Lytton, a law professor at Georgia State University and author of a book on gun litigation.

Remington did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Bob Nelson
1  seeder  Bob Nelson    3 months ago

Look at the gun in the image.

What possible use can it have, with such a big magazine, other than to kill as many people as quickly as possible?

No hunter needs more than two rounds before reloading. No Target shooter needs more than one.

Big magazines... and guns designed to empty them as fast as possible... are only useful for killing lots of people very quickly.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1  MUVA  replied to  Bob Nelson @1    3 months ago

They are also fun to shoot and large capacity clips  are convenient cutting down on reload times. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.1.1  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  MUVA @1.1    3 months ago
They are also fun to shoot and large capacity clips  are convenient cutting down on reload times. 

Seriously? That's your justification for everyone, including all nutcases, having easy access to such murder tools?

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.2  MUVA  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.1.1    3 months ago

No it is my opinion that it makes shooting more convenient and you have more fun.

 
 
 
WallyW
1.1.3  WallyW  replied to  MUVA @1.1.2    3 months ago
That's your justification for everyone, including all nutcases, having easy access to such murder tools?

No one here has ever said or claimed that.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.1.4  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  MUVA @1.1.2    3 months ago

So, Remington advertising the Bushmaster as a "great combat weapon" is alright? That is what the family's are fighting about in court, that Remington advertises there assault style guns as combat weapons.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
1.1.5  KDMichigan  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.1.4    3 months ago
that Remington advertises there assault style guns as combat weapons.

What is wrong with that? Maybe you need to read the 2nd Amendment. It doesn't say you have a right to bare arms to shoot wildlife. The 2nd Amendment doesn't have a freaking thing to do with hunting.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.1.6  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  KDMichigan @1.1.5    3 months ago
What is wrong with that? Maybe you need to read the 2nd Amendment. It doesn't say you have a right to bare arms to shoot wildlife. The 2nd Amendment doesn't have a freaking thing to do with hunting.

So, you think it's alright for civilians to own combat weapons? What combat are they going to be in? Does a civilian need a fully automatic weapon to kill Bambi with or, to shoot Donald Duck?

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.1.7  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  KDMichigan @1.1.5    3 months ago

And, where in the hell did I mention the Second Amendment???

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.1.8  Tacos!  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.1.6    3 months ago
So, you think it's alright for civilians to own combat weapons?

I do. It's the reason we have a Second Amendment.

Does a civilian need a fully automatic weapon

Very few people have fully automatic weapons. They are difficult and exceedingly expensive to acquire. By far, most firearms are semi-automatic. i.e. one trigger pull equals one round discharged.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
1.1.9  KDMichigan  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.1.6    3 months ago
Does a civilian need a fully automatic weapon to kill Bambi with or, to shoot Donald Duck?

Semantics aside you will never get it because you don't understand the 2nd Amendment. It doesn't have a fucking thing to do with hunting.

My view on the 2nd is I should have access to the same automatic weapons are military has. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.1.10  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  KDMichigan @1.1.9    3 months ago
My view on the 2nd...

And my view is that you should be allowed single-shot weapons like the Continentals had.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
1.1.11  KDMichigan  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.1.10    3 months ago

Like how you cut off the rest of my comment. 

When the 2nd amendment was written civilians had the same arms as the military.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.1.12  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  KDMichigan @1.1.11    3 months ago
Like how you cut off the rest of my comment. 

Those three little dots:

original

  are called an ellipsis:

el·lip·sis
noun: ellipsis; plural noun: ellipses

the omission from speech or writing of a word or words that are superfluous or able to be understood from contextual clues.

An ellipsis is used when the words that follow are perfectly obvious, which is the case here, since your post preceded immediately mine.

OK?

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.1.13  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Tacos! @1.1.8    3 months ago
I do. It's the reason we have a Second Amendment.

So, you would be alright with someone driving an Abrams tank down main street during rush hour? Got it.

Very few people have fully automatic weapons. They are difficult and exceedingly expensive to acquire. By far, most firearms are semi-automatic. i.e. one trigger pull equals one round discharged.

And, all we want is for those kinds of laws and, restrictions to be placed on guns that aren't fully automatic and, restrictions on the size magazine allowed by law.

While I got ya here I have one more question for you and, I'd like an honest answer to it. Let's say there was a Ford commercial for the F-150 and, the voice over gave the usually thing about it being "Ford tough" but, then it changed, just a little, the Ford in the commercial is driving down a city street and, the voice over says, "and, the Ford F 150 is great for running over pedestrians who get in your way", would you be alright with that kind of advertising? Because that is the kind of advertising that Remington has been doing for a few years now in it's advertising of the Bushmaster and, the AR-15.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.1.14  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  KDMichigan @1.1.11    3 months ago
When the 2nd amendment was written civilians had the same arms as the military.

When the Second Amendment was written we didn't have a standing army, we had a militia, they used their own guns for that and, those guns were expensive for the time. If they didn't need them for hunting the guns were kept at one of three armory's, that's why the British got the jump on us at the start of the war of 1812.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.1.15  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.1.6    3 months ago

If you really knew anything about firearms you would know that the AR-15 is solely single and semi-automatic fire only as in one pull one shot.

 
 
 
squiggy
1.1.16  squiggy  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.1.6    3 months ago

"Does a civilian need a fully automatic weapon to kill Bambi with or, to shoot Donald Duck?"

The OP has frequently cited intelectual dishonesty here and you should be held to that standard as well, and not be allowed to sensationalize what was never the topic.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.1.17  Tacos!  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.1.13    3 months ago
So, you would be alright with someone driving an Abrams tank down main street during rush hour?

Why would I want that during rush hour? And for no stated reason? If you're going to ask questions, please don't troll. Ask a question that makes sense. There is nothing in anything I said that justifies your ridiculous question.

Here's a reason that is consistent with the intent behind the 2nd Amendment: If that tank is driving down Main Street to overthrow a totalitarian dictator who has taken control of the government and won't relinquish power, then hell yeah, I want him driving down Main Street! I'll help!

And, all we want is for those kinds of laws and, restrictions to be placed on guns that aren't fully automatic

Why? So only the rich and connected people can have guns?

restrictions on the size magazine allowed by law.

Why? Because it makes it a little bit easier to commit less than 1% of all firearm murders? Why should millions of good people sacrifice their ability to defend themselves because a handful of assholes decide to commit murder?

that is the kind of advertising that Remington has been doing

Where is the Remington ad that says "go murder people?"

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.1.18  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  squiggy @1.1.16    3 months ago
The OP has frequently cited intelectual dishonesty here and you should be held to that standard as well, and not be allowed to sensationalize what was never the topic.

The problem here is the advertising that is done by Remington and, other gun makers. Remington has advertised their assault style weapons as "combat arms for civilians" so, my question is relevant to the discussion. 

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.1.19  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.1.15    3 months ago
If you really knew anything about firearms you would know that the AR-15 is solely single and semi-automatic fire only as in one pull one shot.

I do realize that but, if one pays 200 dollars to a level III arms dealer and, is approved by the ATF one can own a  fully automatic weapon, in some states. Now, when I learned about firearms I was about 12 years old, I learned with a single shot .22 Remington, a 12 gauge shotgun, a 10 gauge shotgun that one hurt, an M1 carbine, a 308 semi-auto rifle and, a 30-06 lever action, when I joined the Army I trained with an M-16, M-72 and, an M-203. Have a nice day.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.1.20  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Tacos! @1.1.17    3 months ago
Where is the Remington ad that says "go murder people?"

Of course the ads don't say that directly but, they imply it,

320320Now, why would a company want to advertise, in their own words, a military rifle for civilians or, tell someone considering buying a gun that, their "man card would be reissued"? What, don't you have any balls unless you have this in your hands? It's obvious to anyone looking at these ads what they are selling here, a weapon for killing humans, not for target practice, not for hunting, unless it's a human or, a kid in a school.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.1.21  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.1.20    3 months ago

You'd think that ad ran in The Onion. Sadly, no...

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1.22  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.1.10    3 months ago

That is not an argument put forth by serious individuals.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.1.23  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.1.19    3 months ago

I stand properly rebuked. My apologies. Thank you for your service and have a good day.

 
 
 
squiggy
1.1.24  squiggy  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.1.10    3 months ago

You should have really let the Supreme Court in on your opinions before those poor judges had to go it alone on DC v Heller and Caetano v Massachusetts.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.1.25  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.1.23    3 months ago

It's alright Doc, I don't wear it like a sign on here so, not many know about it.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.1.26  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  squiggy @1.1.24    3 months ago
You should have really let the Supreme Court in on your opinions

Does a Supreme Court decision preclude opposing opinions?

 
 
 
squiggy
1.1.27  squiggy  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.1.26    3 months ago

Certainly not. I've always advocated for freedom - even the kind that allows you to live insulated in your fantasy land.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.1.28  Tacos!  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.1.20    3 months ago
they imply it

No, they don't. That's ridiculous.

It's obvious to anyone looking at these ads what they are selling here, a weapon for killing humans

Yes. Sure. A weapon for killing humans legally. That means in self-defense or in defense of others. "Murder" is an unlawful killing and no law-abiding corporation is endorsing that in any way.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.1.29  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Tacos! @1.1.28    3 months ago
Yes. Sure. A weapon for killing humans legally.

Thanks for finally admitting that the use for the AR-15 is to kill humans, not to hunt animals during season or, to use for target practice, unless of course those targets are humans.

"Murder" is an unlawful killing and no law-abiding corporation is endorsing that in any way.

And, all persons are lawful citizens until they commit a crime. Making a weapon like the AR-15 available with thirty round mags or, higher rounds mags and, advertising them as "combat ready" means they are ready for the mass killing of humans, not deer, it gives the impression in the advertisements that "you too can be like our combat troops with this weapon", "go out and, kill your enemy's", to some, as we have seen, their enemy's are anyone who seems to be of the "they", the invisible enemy of the Right.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
1.1.30  livefreeordie  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.1.29    3 months ago

It is for all those purposes and rightfully so.  I want every legitimate weapon I can have at my dislocated against the two biggest threats to life and liberty;  criminals and tyrannical government, just as our founders stated.

when no criminal and no government has these arms then and only then should we consider giving them up

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.31  MUVA  replied to  livefreeordie @1.1.30    3 months ago

I'm going to buy a semi auto BAR for anti vehicle use like this one.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.1.32  Tacos!  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.1.29    3 months ago
Thanks for finally admitting that the use for the AR-15 is to kill humans

I have never claimed otherwise. However, it is also used by some people for the other things.

advertising them as "combat ready" means they are ready for the mass killing of humans

No, it means it's a good weapon if you find yourself in a combat situation. Many weapons - firearms or otherwise - can be used to murder lots of people. There is zero reason to think that Remington has any interest in promoting mass murder.

"go out and, kill your enemy's"

Again, there is zero reason to think anyone at Remington thinks it's a good idea to actually hunt human beings.

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.1.33  Split Personality  replied to  MUVA @1.1.31    3 months ago

Isn't that the guy who demos how not to smash your thumb in an M-1 ?

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.1.34  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  livefreeordie @1.1.30    3 months ago

I was actually waiting for you to respond to me at some point since the new rules and, buttons came out. Bye, bye.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.1.35  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Tacos! @1.1.32    3 months ago
Again, there is zero reason to think anyone at Remington thinks it's a good idea to actually hunt human beings.

Unfortunately for them that is not what is implied in their advertising otherwise they wouldn't be getting sued by the Sandy Hook family's and, the courts in Connecticut wouldn't have agreed with their lawsuit. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.1.36  Tacos!  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.1.35    3 months ago
the courts in Connecticut wouldn't have agreed with their lawsuit

Saying a suit can proceed is not the same as ruling on the merits.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.1.37  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Tacos! @1.1.36    3 months ago
Saying a suit can proceed is not the same as ruling on the merits.

True, except that what you and, others are forgetting or, not getting is that this isn't about the Second Amendment, it's about freedom in advertising, is a company allowed to advertise that their product can be used to kill people, that is the question that is being asked by the people of Sandy Hook.

 
 
 
Krishna
1.1.39  Krishna  replied to  KDMichigan @1.1.5    3 months ago
It doesn't say you have a right to bare arms to shoot wildlife.

But it doesn't say your arms must be covered either! jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

(Perhaps the problem is the fault of our public school systems?)

 
 
 
charger 383
1.1.40  charger 383  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.1.10    3 months ago

that was the same as the British Army had

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.1.41  gooseisgone  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.1.4    3 months ago
That is what the family's are fighting about in court, that Remington advertises there assault style guns as combat weapons

Why the person purchased the firearm is of no concern to these family, she did not commit the crime.  A criminal murdered the owner of the firearm, stole the firearm and committed the crime. 

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.1.42  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.41    3 months ago
Why the person purchased the firearm is of no concern to these family, she did not commit the crime.  A criminal murdered the owner of the firearm, stole the firearm and committed the crime. 

She bought the guns for her and, her son to use, her son murdered her and, took the guns to the school to use to kill children and, this isn't about what he did or, who bought the guns, it is about the way they are advertised by the company. It would be the same as any car maker advertising their cars as great weapons to run over pedestrians.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.1.43  gooseisgone  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.1.42    3 months ago
it is about the way they are advertised by the company

Please provide any proof of your claim that advertising had anything to do with these crimes. If he went to Afghanistan and shot some people you may have a point. Did their advertising cause him to murder his mom!!!    He killed his mom and 20 children he was mentally ill and just plain evil, advertising had nothing to do with it.

 
 
 
Snuffy
1.2  Snuffy  replied to  Bob Nelson @1    3 months ago
Look at the gun in the image. What possible use can it have, with such a big magazine, other than to kill as many people as quickly as possible?

ummmm,  the Remington Model 870 DM is a pump-action shotgun.  It comes with two sizes of magazines,  a 3 round and a 6 round magazine. Hardly a "big" magazine.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.2.1  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Snuffy @1.2    3 months ago
the Remington Model 870 DM is a pump-action shotgun.  It comes with two sizes of magazines,  a 3 round and a 6 round magazine. Hardly a "big" magazine.

You make my point. Why does anyone need three rounds... much less six?

 
 
 
Snuffy
1.2.2  Snuffy  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.1    3 months ago
You make my point

Nope,  didn't make your point. You tried to imply that the big scary gun "with such a big magazine" would have no use except to kill large numbers of people quickly.

I pointed out several things.  Such as this is a shotgun,  and that big magazine only holds either 3 or 6 rounds.  Hardly what someone would use to kill large numbers of people quickly.  And why would anybody need three rounds, must less six?  You ever go partridge hunting?  Bird hunting of any type?  Hell,  try dove hunting. Those little buggers are fast and can change directions within a half a body length.

To be honest, you present your arguments like you have no experience with guns at all. I don't know you and don't know what experience you have, but IMO you present these arguments as if  you have no real knowledge of the subject.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.2.3  XDm9mm  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.1    3 months ago
Why does anyone need three rounds... much less six?

Where does "NEED" come into play?   There are many 'things' you don't NEED but have.

What I own is essentially NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

Period, end of story.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.2.4  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Snuffy @1.2.2    3 months ago

So you're going to shoot the duck six times...   jrSmiley_26_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.2.5  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2.3    3 months ago
What I own is essentially NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

No. There are lots of things that are prohibited for private ownership.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.2.6  XDm9mm  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.5    3 months ago
There are lots of things that are prohibited for private ownership.

And that's YOUR business how exactly?   

If you don't like the freedoms we have in this country, don't come back and piss and moan about it.

It really is that simple.

 
 
 
Snuffy
1.2.7  Snuffy  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.4    3 months ago
So you're going to shoot the duck six times...

Didn't mention ducks,  I said doves.  But you said ducks so I'll stay on your topic ..

No, if the duck I shoot actually falls and dies with one shot I will not shoot that duck again. But ducks seldom fly alone and while every state has different daily bag limits most states allow for multiple ducks to be taken each day. So if I kill one duck and still have more shells in my shotgun I will try for more ducks.  

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.2.8  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2.6    3 months ago
And that's YOUR business how exactly? If you don't like the freedoms we have in this country, don't come back and piss and moan about it. It really is that simple.

Amazing!

[deleted]

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
1.2.9  Nowhere Man  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.8    3 months ago

The Wisdom of Archie.....

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.2.10  XDm9mm  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.8    3 months ago
I'm going to frame that!

I hope you print it out and display it on the wall of your France flat.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.2.11  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Snuffy @1.2.7    3 months ago

You're saying that you fire six rounds in quick succession... at ducks and doves.

Right.......

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.2.12  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2.10    3 months ago

"France flat"  jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Snuffy
1.2.13  Snuffy  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.11    3 months ago

Nowhere in my posts did I say anything about firing all rounds in quick succession. You are just adding nonsense and throwing things out there to try to make your posting make sense.  But all you are doing is proving that  you really have no knowledge of what you are talking about.

There is a phrase for people who participate in online forums who just toss out crap and and who appear to be without an understanding of the subject or the person they are talking to,  so to you all I can say is 'Have a nice day'.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.2.14  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Snuffy @1.2.13    3 months ago
Nowhere in my posts did I say anything about firing all rounds in quick succession.

Do you agree, then, that no hunter needs more than two rounds before reloading?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.2.15  XDm9mm  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.14    3 months ago
Do you agree, then, that no hunter needs more than two rounds before reloading?

I don't know about "Snuffy", but personally, I can go through a lot more than two, or ten, or twenty, or thirty....   it's all predicated on exactly what one is hunting, where the hunting is happening and what the intended target is.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.2.16  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2.15    3 months ago

As a hunter, you sometimes need more than two rounds before reloading...

Oh.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.2.17  XDm9mm  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.16    3 months ago
As a hunter, you sometimes need more than two rounds before reloading...

Yep....  as I noted and YOU ignored:

 it's all predicated on exactly what one is hunting, where the hunting is happening and what the intended target is.
 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.2.18  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2.17    3 months ago

Do you need more than two rounds for deer? For squirrel? For fish in a barrel?

For what, oh great hunter?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.2.19  XDm9mm  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.18    3 months ago
For what, oh great hunter?

Obviously, you've never been hunting feral hogs, or any of a plethora of other hunting targets.

Oh, not "great", but pretty good.

 
 
 
WallyW
1.2.20  WallyW  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.4    3 months ago

Now the comments border on stupid.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.2.21  1stwarrior  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.18    3 months ago

When are you going to learn how to carry on a discussion Bob?  So far, on this thread, you've not said a thing regarding the pros/cons of the thread and are starting to sound like a badly broken record.

Some people who hunt will usually go to a range to practice to ensure their sights are calibrated for the proposed distance they will be shooting/hunting.

I will usually go to the range with a box of ammo (50 cartridges) for sighting and fun.  When I go hunting, I will usually carry 10 rounds that, more than likely, I'll never need.  BUT, when other hunters advise me of the potential hazards, i.e. bears, rhumba of snakes, cougars/pumas, bob cats, stupid azz drunks, that/those round(s) not needed for game are my potential protection factor.

Now, this thread is about a ridiculous decision made by a CT court - which will be appealed and remanded.  How 'bout getting off your "digging" phase and start discussing the topic.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.2.22  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2.19    3 months ago

How many times have you fired more than two rounds at an animal?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.2.23  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  1stwarrior @1.2.21    3 months ago

How often have you fired more than two rounds at a game animal?

 
 
 
cjcold
1.2.24  cjcold  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.1    3 months ago
Why does anyone need three rounds... much less six?

Because the bad guys tend to carry AR-15s that can shoot 100 rounds without reloading.

My extreme long range rifle only holds 1 round.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.2.25  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  cjcold @1.2.24    3 months ago
My extreme long range rifle only holds 1 round.

That's sensible.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.2.26  1stwarrior  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.23    3 months ago

Never Bob - 'course I'm a former Marine, was on the Marine Corps and the U.S.C.G rifle teams, am a recipient of the Gold Distinguished Shooting Medal, spent 27 months in 'Nam in the mud and "stuff" and have always come home with game that I shot with ONE shot.  "Course, again, I'm a firm believer of "One Shot, One Kill" - but I'll never wear the white feather.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.2.27  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  1stwarrior @1.2.26    3 months ago
I'm a firm believer of "One Shot, One Kill"

An honorable ideal. I mean that very seriously.

... and it doesn't require a thirty-round magazine ...

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.2.28  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.1    3 months ago

More than one assailant perhaps?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.2.29  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.2.28    3 months ago
More than one assailant perhaps?

OK... Let's look at this seriously.

Are you saying that you would aim-fire-aim-fire-aim-fire-aim-fire-aim-fire... while your adversaries do nothing?

If there's more than one armed adversary, then the best thing to do is bug out!

And if your adversaries are not armed, then a two-shot weapon is quite enough.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.2.30  Tacos!  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.18    3 months ago
Do you need more than two rounds for deer? For squirrel? For fish in a barrel? For what, oh great hunter?

Some prey fight back and are pretty deadly. Heck, even if you aren't hunting the really dangerous animals, they're still out there in the wilderness. If I'm in the back country, I have a weapon even if I'm only fishing, hiking, or camping.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.2.31  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.30    3 months ago

How often do you think you need thirty rounds?

 
 
 
JBB
1.2.32  JBB  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.31    3 months ago

Statistically just introducing a gun into a home multiplies the chances that a family member will die of gunfire. By far and away, your family is much safer not having any guns in your home. Gun aficionados just cannot grasp this simple fact. 

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.2.33  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Snuffy @1.2.7    3 months ago

So, would you take an AR-15 full auto capable to go duck hunting or, a shotgun?

 
 
 
livefreeordie
1.2.34  livefreeordie  replied to  JBB @1.2.32    3 months ago

Total Nonsense

There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed.  There are approx 350 Million firearms owned by Americans.   U.S. population 324,059,091 as of Wednesday, June 22, 2016.  Do the math:  0.000000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year.  Statistically speaking, this is insignificant!  What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:

• 65%  of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws

• 15%  are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified

• 17%  are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – gun violence

• 3%  are accidental discharge deaths

So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100.  Still too many?  Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?

• 480 homicides (9.4%)  were in Chicago

• 344 homicides (6.7%)  were in Baltimore

• 333 homicides (6.5%)  were in Detroit

• 119 homicides (2.3%)  were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)

So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities.  All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.

This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state.  That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others.  For example, California had 1,169  and Alabama had 1.

Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far?  California, of course, but understand, so it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equally, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault all is done by criminals and thinking that criminals will obey laws is ludicrous. That's why they are criminals.

But what about other deaths each year?

• 40,000+ die from a drug overdose–THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!

• 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths

• 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide) 

Now it gets good:

• 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital!

• 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point?  If Obama and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.).   A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides......Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!

So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple.:

Taking away guns gives control to governments.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.2.35  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.29    3 months ago

You have onbiously never been in a situation requiring shooting at more than one armed assailant or you would know better. I have and believe me I was damned glad I had the firepower and the ammo needed or I would not be here typing this!

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.2.36  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.2.35    3 months ago
You have onbiously never been in a situation requiring shooting at more than one armed assailant or you would know better.

Actually, I have been. Several times. Vietnam.

[deleted]

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.2.37  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.36    3 months ago

You are not the only one who was in Vietnam Bob. I flew as medical aircrew on Marine UH-1 SAR and medevac birds. Including the one shot out from underneath me resulting in a not so gentle landing in dry rice paddy outside Danang. Was pinned in the aircraft for over an hour with Charlie closing in and trying to protect my patient at the same time. I left a piece of me and a lot of my blood in that Huey before I was done. Alternated my fire between a M-16 and a .45 to keep the bad guys back while waiting for a rescue bird. So yes, I do know what it it like both in and out of 20 years oh military service. I took a solemb oath to preserve and defend life many years ago. I took that oath very seriously then and I still take it very seriously even today! And by the way, your comment about the drug business was a pretty low brow and unwarranted comment.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.2.39  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.2.37    3 months ago
And by the way, your comment about the drug business was a pretty low brow and unwarranted comment.

That was a joke, Doc... I assumed you were talking about action in service.

What happens in service is different. We had weapons whose announced purpose was to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. Very similar to an AR15...

Those are exactly the kind of arm that should not be in civilian hands.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.2.40  Tacos!  replied to  Snuffy @1.2    3 months ago

A lot of people think any all-black gun with a curved magazine is some cutting edge military-issue weapon. And some of them think that weapon will kill people all by itself or turn ordinary people into mass murderers.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.2.41  Tacos!  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.31    3 months ago
How often do you think you need thirty rounds?

Depends on just how determined the bear is.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.2.42  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.41    3 months ago

Is this really your reasoned justification for allowing more or less free circulation of hundreds of millions of firearms ?

 
 
 
MUVA
1.2.43  MUVA  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.42    3 months ago

Freedom is the reason and no matter what some little tirant says we get to keep our freedoms for now anyway.

 
 
 
Snuffy
1.2.44  Snuffy  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.2.33    3 months ago
So, would you take an AR-15 full auto capable to go duck hunting or, a shotgun?

I don't understand.  In 1.1.19 you show that you actually have some knowledge of weapons and have some experience. And then you ask this question when in 1.2.7 the only gun mentioned is a shotgun. Now the only reason I can think of for such an obviously troll-like question is that you want to instigate something. Seems to me a conversation would do more good then this. After all,  you can state your stance on gun control AND have a conversation at the same time.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.2.45  Freedom Warrior  replied to  livefreeordie @1.2.34    3 months ago

Irrefutable logic that unfortunately be completely ignored by those who ideological bent is to ban gun ownership. 

I'd wish they would just come clean and tell us the real reason they choose reiterate ad nauseum their left wing propaganda. It's obviously not for any noble purpose or their actions would speak louder than their words.

 

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.2.46  Tacos!  replied to  livefreeordie @1.2.34    3 months ago
It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers!

I might actually surrender my weapons before I'd surrender cheeseburgers. I'm not 100% positive, but it's definitely something I gotta think about.

 
 
 
Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉
1.2.47  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.46    3 months ago

I would keep the weapons for the Violent Vegan Revolution. 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.2.48  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.46    3 months ago

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.2.49  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.2.48    3 months ago

Now I'm hungry!

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.2.50  Tacos!  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.42    3 months ago
Is this really your reasoned justification for allowing more or less free circulation of hundreds of millions of firearms ?

No, it's just one reason. The main legal reason is the preservation of liberty as enshrined in the 2nd Amendment. Governments can not be trusted.

My main personal reason is as a tool to protect my life and the life of my family from violent criminals. Cops do not magically appear the instant a burglar enters a home so I need to be prepared to take care of things on my own.

Walking in the woods and keeping my head up for bears is just recreation for me, although I do have relatives in other parts of the country who actually shoot to put food on the table every year.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.2.51  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.39    3 months ago

If that was a joke, it was a very bad one and highly uncalled for!

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.2.52  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉ @1.2.47    3 months ago

Aliens from Vega?

Call out the militia!    jrSmiley_29_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.2.53  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.50    3 months ago

The law is not a justification. The law follows need.

If you truly believe that civilians with AR15s are our defense against some mythical government takeover... we need not waste any more time. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.2.54  Tacos!  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.53    3 months ago
The law is not a justification. The law follows need.

Yes, and I explained the need. Governments cannot be trusted. I said that. C'mon Bob, read the comments before replying.

If you truly believe that civilians with AR15s are our defense

They are. You just haven't it thought it through. The framers understood that the government military force might be better armed and better trained, but they would be vastly outnumbered by an armed citizenry united in the purpose of liberty and justice. James Madison explained this when he wrote Federalist Paper No. 46.

Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it.

Today, the numbers have grown, but the proportions and the logic derived thereby remain similar. Current active military in the United States Armed Forces is about 1.4 million people. Over 1/10th of them are scattered around the world. Within the United States, though, there is at least one gun for every man, woman, and child. By most estimates, over a third of households has a gun (not long ago, it was half).

against some mythical government takeover.

There's a reason it's mythical - an armed citizenry. That's what Madison was talking about when he wrote of the need:

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.2.55  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.54    3 months ago

If you truly believe that civilians with AR15s are our defense against some mythical government takeover... we need not waste any more time. 

 
 
 
Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉
1.2.56  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.55    3 months ago

Who's we?  (By the way Bob, I learned that technique from you, just call me your padawan!)

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.2.57  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉ @1.2.56    3 months ago
Who's we?

Lemme see.... "We" always includes the speaker. That would be me. "We" also always includes the person spoken to, in this case Tacos!. There could be others, but I see no indication of that.

So it seems pretty obvious that this "we" is just Tacos! and I. 

Why did you ask?

What technique did you learn from me? I'm profoundly honored, of course, since I have learned so very much from you...

 
 
 
Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉
1.2.58  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.57    3 months ago
What technique did you learn from me?

When you highlight the use of a vague pronoun and ask? Who is we, they etc 

I'm a fan! I'm not kidding it's a favorite of mine.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.2.59  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Snuffy @1.2.44    3 months ago

Snuffy, it's a question any hunter should be able to answer immediately, just as you did, I was making it simple for those who wouldn't know the answer to make an "educated" guess. The only time I ever hunted duck with anything other than a shotgun was when I had my .22 single action and, caught some ducks swimming in a pond, I got two before they flew off, they went well with the rabbits I got earlier.

Remington, Colt and, Bushmaster have all advertised the AR-15 as a combat weapon, below is a sample of the advertisements for this weapon by the company's so, since you answered my post I have a question for you, why would a civilian need a combat weapon who's only purpose is to kill people for "target practice" or, "hunting"?

 
 
 
MUVA
1.2.60  MUVA  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.2.59    3 months ago

Why wouldn't you be able to have any weapon you want if you are only shooting targets?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.2.61  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉ @1.2.58    3 months ago
When you highlight the use of a vague pronoun and ask? Who is we, they etc

I guess I'm too naive. When I ask, it's because I don't know. Too often, people use pronouns without thought, so I ask. 

In this particular case, I could have said "I need not waste any more time" but I thought it more polite to indicate that Tacos! could also save time.

Then, too, there are people who use "we" to include the addressee without their permission. This may be thoughtlessness, or may be an an attempt at intellectual entrapment. In these cases, with their own special obscurity, asking "who" sometimes clarifies the situation.

Naive.....

 
 
 
squiggy
1.2.62  squiggy  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.1    3 months ago

"Why does anyone need three rounds... much less six?"

Because that's what Joey 'The Pump' Biden recommended.

 
 
 
Snuffy
1.2.63  Snuffy  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.2.59    3 months ago
Remington, Colt and, Bushmaster have all advertised the AR-15 as a combat weapon, below is a sample of the advertisements for this weapon by the company's so, since you answered my post I have a question for you, why would a civilian need a combat weapon who's only purpose is to kill people for "target practice" or, "hunting"?

ah, but you should know that just because something is advertised one way does not make it true. Hell, Dodge advertises my 2014 Challenger as having comfortable seating for five adults. Having been in my back seat, the only way three adults can be comfortable back their is if they are all the size of Billy Barty or Warwick Davis.

As for your question, I object to two pieces of your question. First you want to talk about need and IMO need doesn't have any place in this type of conversation. There are only a few things that people "need" and everything else is a desire. Like all desires,  if you can afford it, there are no laws against it, you are not prohibited from having it and you don't mis-use it then the desire is not an issue. The second piece I object to is that you want to define a combat weapon as a weapon who's only purpose is to kill people. Now maybe we went to different schools but I always understood desire, such as who's only purpose in life is to kill people,  to be a conscious thought which really cannot be ascribed to an inanimate object like a weapon.

So for me to properly answer your question I need to change it to "why would a civilian desire a combat weapon, which is highly effective in killing people and animals, for target practice or hunting?"

And my answer is so long as the person is an honest and moral person, who passes all legal background checks, the weapon in question is legal and the person does not plan on mis-using it, then I would have no issue with said civilian owning a military combat weapon.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.2.64  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  MUVA @1.2.60    3 months ago

Oh gosh, I don't know, if you can have any weapon you want why not a small Nuke as well, I mean let's go all the way.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.2.65  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Snuffy @1.2.63    3 months ago
ah, but you should know that just because something is advertised one way does not make it true. Hell, Dodge advertises my 2014 Challenger as having comfortable seating for five adults. Having been in my back seat, the only way three adults can be comfortable back their is if they are all the size of Billy Barty or Warwick Davis.

Does Dodge advertise its Challenger as the perfect car to run down pedestrians?

And my answer is so long as the person is an honest and moral person, who passes all legal background checks, the weapon in question is legal and the person does not plan on mis-using it, then I would have no issue with said civilian owning a military combat weapon.

You mean like all of the mass shooters before they went on their rampages were? I'm sure every one of them passed their background checks just fine when they bought their guns.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.2.66  Tacos!  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.55    3 months ago
If you truly believe that civilians with AR15s are our defense against some mythical government takeover... we need not waste any more time. 

I'll say it again. It's not mythical. Study history. Study current events around the world. It happens. It doesn't happen where the people cannot be bullied.

 
 
 
Snuffy
1.2.67  Snuffy  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.2.65    3 months ago
Does Dodge advertise its Challenger as the perfect car to run down pedestrians?

Seeing how my earlier response on this was to your statement on how they had advertised the AR-15 as a combat weapon and as nowhere in that advertisement did it state that the AR-15 was the perfect weapon to kill pedestrians, then your attempt to reply with hyperbole can be ignored.

You mean like all of the mass shooters before they went on their rampages were? I'm sure every one of them passed their background checks just fine when they bought their guns

I stand by what I stated earlier. However if they were planning on a rampage when they purchased the weapon then they did not meet with the criteria I laid out and therefor yes, I would have issue with them owning ANY weapon. 

Please read this next paragraph before you respond. I understand that you feel the best approach is to remove certain types of weapons from public ownership and use. And that's fine,  you're entitled to your opinions on this. I hold different beliefs and prefer to hold the individual accountable and not pre-judge people by removing choices from them. There are many objects in this world that can be mis-used and can cause damage and death to large groups of people. We can't remove all of these objects from public use, and IMO the reason why we don't have half the worlds population killed off weekly is that most people are honest and moral. So I would rather not get into a back and forth on trying to make points based on cherry-picking your comments. A conversation on possible solutions,  how they could be implemented and what the impact of existing laws would be, or a conversation on other solutions would be good. A conversation based on hyperbole is nothing more than mental masturbation in an attempt to make points. Now if this means you don't want to respond to me anymore, that's ok and I can live with that. But I don't want to play a game of back and forth based on cherry picking parts of sentences and exaggerate in a reply.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.2.68  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Snuffy @1.2.67    3 months ago
Seeing how my earlier response on this was to your statement on how they had advertised the AR-15 as a combat weapon and as nowhere in that advertisement did it state that the AR-15 was the perfect weapon to kill pedestrians, then your attempt to reply with hyperbole can be ignored.

I was trying to make a point Snuffy. In the lawsuit filed by the family's of the Sandy Hook shooting it is stated that Remington advertised that the AR-15 is a "combat weapon" for civilians, now anyone using logic and, nothing more can say that what Remington did was say that the AR-15 has one purpose in its existence, to kill people, any other manufacturer of anything, if they were to advertise that their product was "great for killing humans" would either be sued or, would be required to remove that product from the shelves of stores immediately. Now, my using your comment was an inspirational moment for me since it was a Dodge Challenger that was used  at Charlottesville to run over counter protesters there, if Dodge had advertised before Charlottesville that there Challenger was "great for running over pedestrians" don't you think that the people who were run over by that car that day would have legal standing to sue Dodge? If you do then, why not Remington for its advertising?

I stand by what I stated earlier. However if they were planning on a rampage when they purchased the weapon then they did not meet with the criteria I laid out and therefor yes, I would have issue with them owning ANY weapon.

I'm glad we can agree on this, however, how does anyone know what is anyones mind when they go to purchase a firearm, that being said, should a company like Remington be allowed to advertise their weapons as "combat weapons"?

Please read this next paragraph before you respond. I understand that you feel the best approach is to remove certain types of weapons from public ownership and use. And that's fine, you're entitled to your opinions on this. I hold different beliefs and prefer to hold the individual accountable and not pre-judge people by removing choices from them.

And, yes, I do believe that some weapons shouldn't be in the market place for civilians, one of those is indeed the AR-15 and, the past two years has given us more than enough evidence of this with the rise of domestic terrorism. That being said, I also believe that there are certain people who should never be allowed to own any guns at all.

There are many objects in this world that can be mis-used and can cause damage and death to large groups of people. We can't remove all of these objects from public use, and IMO the reason why we don't have half the worlds population killed off weekly is that most people are honest and moral.

I agree with you in this, the proof is in the amount of people in this country who actually support Donald Trump. Out of that group I would say that there are about 30% who actually think he is speaking to them directly and, that 30% is the group that worry's me most since they are the ones who would walk into a Mosque or, Synagogue and, shoot it up.

So I would rather not get into a back and forth on trying to make points based on cherry-picking your comments. A conversation on possible solutions, how they could be implemented and what the impact of existing laws would be, or a conversation on other solutions would be good.

I have long believed that any mass shooting like Sandy Hook or, Los Vegas needed to be listed as a terrorist act and, any group or, organization that condones such an act should be put on the terrorist watch list as well as any members of said groups.

A conversation based on hyperbole is nothing more than mental masturbation in an attempt to make points. Now if this means you don't want to respond to me anymore, that's ok and I can live with that. But I don't want to play a game of back and forth based on cherry picking parts of sentences and exaggerate in a reply.

Agreed and, to let you know, the only reason I do that is to try to make a point, to get people to think beyond there support of one man or, an idea so, think about the idea of any car maker advertising that their vehicles would make great killing machines and, think what that impact would be on society and, whether you would support that company's advertisement or, if you would condemn it and, support someone suing them over it.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.2.69  MUVA  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.2.68    3 months ago

The new toyota and honda commercials show some of their cars as race cars does that mean people can sue when a family member crashes cause by speed or reckless driving?  

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.2.70  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  MUVA @1.2.69    3 months ago
The new toyota and honda commercials show some of their cars as race cars does that mean people can sue when a family member crashes cause by speed or reckless driving?  

We'll have to wait and, see if anyone does sue them for it and, if they win the case. So far, the state of Connecticut agrees with the Sandy Hook family's in their suit against Remington Arms.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.71  Texan1211  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.2.70    3 months ago

Only until the Conn. court is struck down.

Which it will be.

By SCOTUS or a lower court with more sense.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.2.72  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.71    3 months ago
Only until the Conn. court is struck down.

Which it will be.

By SCOTUS or a lower court with more sense.

The Connecticut courts already made their rulings, it went to the highest court in the state, the only one left is the SCOTUS so, Roberts is more than likely to look at this without Constitutional protection, since the case involves the advertisement of the product and, isn't involving the second amendment.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.73  Texan1211  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.2.72    3 months ago

yeah. good luck with that.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.2.74  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.14    3 months ago

Sometimes people do miss...

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.2.76  1stwarrior  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.2.72    3 months ago

The next one is the appellate court - then, possibly, SCOTUS.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.2.77  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.2.74    3 months ago

So they have a second round ....

 
 
 
Snuffy
1.2.78  Snuffy  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.2.68    3 months ago
I was trying to make a point Snuffy. In the lawsuit filed by the family's of the Sandy Hook shooting it is stated that Remington advertised that the AR-15 is a "combat weapon" for civilians, now anyone using logic and, nothing more can say that what Remington did was say that the AR-15 has one purpose in its existence, to kill people, any other manufacturer of anything, if they were to advertise that their product was "great for killing humans" would either be sued or, would be required to remove that product from the shelves of stores immediately. Now, my using your comment was an inspirational moment for me since it was a Dodge Challenger that was used  at Charlottesville to run over counter protesters there, if Dodge had advertised before Charlottesville that there Challenger was "great for running over pedestrians" don't you think that the people who were run over by that car that day would have legal standing to sue Dodge? If you do then, why not Remington for its advertising?

I think you're reading in what you want to see to be honest. The ad didn't say anything about a weapon that was great for killing people,  it could just as easily be read as 'a combat weapon for civilians to allow you to help defend freedom in this great country'.  All depends on how you want to look at it and I submit that with your desire to see these types of guns removed from the public can aid you in seeing your interpretation of the ad.  Don't think we're going to come to any agreement on this point to be honest. But that's why we have courts.

I'm glad we can agree on this, however, how does anyone know what is anyones mind when they go to purchase a firearm, that being said, should a company like Remington be allowed to advertise their weapons as "combat weapons"?

I think this goes hand in hand with the above. As we do not have the ability to read minds, so long as they have not committed any infraction that would legally prevent them from owning or possessing any weapon then I don't agree with not allowing them to purchase an AR-15 regardless of how the weapon is advertised. I still strongly believe in holding the individual responsible. Even if an advertisement stated that it makes the killing of other people so much easier,  murder is still illegal and morally wrong. I guess what I'm trying to say is that to an honest and moral person, no advertisement is going to make them go out and kill people,  but to a dishonest or moral person the absence of any such advertisement is not going to prevent them either.

I have long believed that any mass shooting like Sandy Hook or, Los Vegas needed to be listed as a terrorist act and, any group or, organization that condones such an act should be put on the terrorist watch list as well as any members of said groups.

I agree that they were terrorist acts,  but I think we have to be careful about placing any group on a watch list. I think the government has made it too easy to be put on a terrorist watch list now. IMO they need to come up with a better definition of who or what would belong on there than the current process which only needs one complaint made.

I agree with your final point, but want to remind you that preconceived ideas can influence any outcome. If a person is predisposed to believe, for example, that semi-automatic guns are too dangerous and should be removed from public ownership, then I can see where that person may be unconsciously willing to believe something from an advertisement that really isn't there. Truth like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.2.79  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.77    3 months ago

I know you got my meaning. You just cannot admit it and are probably just being obtuse just for your own s & g's... 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.2.80  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.2.79    3 months ago
I know you got my meaning.

No. You do not know what is going on in my head.

That's a big problem on NT: members thinking they know what's going on in another's head... but not bothering to ask.

I took your post at level zero: "Sometimes people miss." That seemed to me to mean, they sometimes need another shot... so I recalled that they would always have a second round.

Now... if you meant something else... you probably should reformulate.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.2.81  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  1stwarrior @1.2.76    3 months ago
The next one is the appellate court - then, possibly, SCOTUS.

We will see what happens but, I think you will be crying over the answer.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.2.82  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Snuffy @1.2.78    3 months ago
I agree with your final point, but want to remind you that preconceived ideas can influence any outcome. If a person is predisposed to believe, for example, that semi-automatic guns are too dangerous and should be removed from public ownership, then I can see where that person may be unconsciously willing to believe something from an advertisement that really isn't there. 

When I was young simi-automatic guns would hold about five or, six rounds in them, now they can hold as many as a hundred, there is no reason for that kind of fire power at any time, unless you have a criminal intent in mind.

Truth like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Actually, truth like facts, can't be truth for one and, a lie for another, if it is true that the sky is blue for me, then that same sky has to blue for everyone. Opinions can be like beauty but, not truth.

 
 
 
Snuffy
1.2.83  Snuffy  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.2.82    3 months ago
When I was young simi-automatic guns would hold about five or, six rounds in them, now they can hold as many as a hundred, there is no reason for that kind of fire power at any time, unless you have a criminal intent in mind.

The box magazine similar to what we have with today's firearms was patented in Britain (No. 483) by Mowbray Walker, George Henry Money and Francis Little in 1867. The M-1 Garand held a fixed magazine that was fed by an 8 round clip. The Soviet SKS carbine (also introduced in WW2) also had a fixed magazine that held 10 rounds. Both riles were semi-automatics. The M1911 came standard with a 7 round detachable magazine. So while the larger pan and drum magazines of the early 20th Century were normally held for fully automatic rifles,  only some semi-automatic rifles from the 40's and 50's were built that internal magazines small. Even my much newer  (purchased 4 years ago) Ruger 10/22 initially came with a 6 round magazine. But I also picked up two 50 round magazines as that little 22 is fun to take to the range. And I really don't have a criminal intent in mind.

I simply must reject your above statement that there is no reason for a large magazine unless you have criminal intent in mind. A very simple reason is the desire to shoot more rounds at a range without having to stop every minute to reload. Again, the size of the tool should not be the issue but the intent of the person wielding the tool is the deciding factor.

Actually, truth like facts, can't be truth for one and, a lie for another, if it is true that the sky is blue for me, then that same sky has to blue for everyone. Opinions can be like beauty but, not truth.

Yes, you are correct.  I phrased that poorly. What I was trying to say is that having preconceived ideas can color what someone accepts as truth. You are very much correct that doing so does not change facts, but if someone tries hard to accept only one vision then they can skew the truth to what they want it to be. Hell, we see that every day in Washington.

 
 
 
Snuffy
1.2.84  Snuffy  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.2.82    3 months ago

We are very likely not going to change each others minds on this but I have enjoyed our conversation. I accept that you feel some weapons should not be in the hands of the public and I feel that the public (so long as you are not legally prevented by past actions from possessing) should be able to own and possess the same individual firearms that our military uses.

I understand that you feel if these weapons were not in public use then the number of mass shootings would be reduced. I disagree,  I feel that people who want to kill will just move to different weapons and that will not change. In my opinion, the only way to really reduce the occurence is to outlaw ALL guns and go door to door to collect them. And the likelihood of that occurring is slim to none.

I would rather that we try to change behavior from the other end.

  1. How about changes to the reporting laws so that all states must forward all information to the NICS system. I'm even in favor of eliminating the three day wait and not allow the sale to complete until the NICS review is complete.
  2. How about actually prosecuting people who lie when filling out the 4473 form?
  3. How about adding a life skills class to primary and elementary schooling? This class can teach many topics that children really should know when they come out of high school but seldom do. And in this class that would be taught in every year, there would be a section on 'age appropriate' weapons safety.
  4. Find some way within HIPPA laws to assist our medical community to be able to report people who should not possess firearms. This needs to be carefully done and would need, I think, to go in front of a judge. As an example, in the case of Jared Loughner, he had been talking with a counselor at his college but she never took any further action because of HIPPA laws and privacy concerns.
  5. PSA commercials during prime-time viewing. They used to have them back in the 60's and 70's,  why not bring them back.

Out of the five initial suggestions I feel that number 3 would make the largest impact. We hear all the time about children finding a gun in their families home and playing with it, usually to a disasterous ending. I grew up in a home where the guns were not hidden away. I knew from a very young age where the guns were and where the ammunition was. My dad kept his guns in a very pretty glass front gun case that was not locked. I was also trained from a very young age that I was not to touch them and that they were not toys. My father took me out when he went shooting so there wasn't any unbridled curiousity about guns,  I knew early on what they could do. I think that's missing from so many of our children and their entire knowledge at an early age is what they see on TV where a guy who was shot last night is on a new movie tonight.

Short of banning guns (or even only some types of guns), what other ideas do you have that you think might help?

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.2.85  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Snuffy @1.2.83    3 months ago
I simply must reject your above statement that there is no reason for a large magazine unless you have criminal intent in mind. A very simple reason is the desire to shoot more rounds at a range without having to stop every minute to reload. Again, the size of the tool should not be the issue but the intent of the person wielding the tool is the deciding factor.

Your first paragraph I'm not going to dispute since I know that those weapons came with the magazines you describe there, however, those are not the magazines that I was talking about, seven rounds or, ten rounds is sufficient for their use, what I am talking about are those magazines that can be sold separately that hold 30 to 100 rounds in them. There is no reason for these except to kill as many people as possible in a short amount of time, as was done at Sandy Hook and, in Los Vegas. Now, like I've said, it's up to the company to decide how they will advertise their product but, they must be made libel for any thing that happens because of that advertising, if someone looks at it and, see's advertising that even seems to condone the killing of people in mass then the company must be held accountable for that advertising.

One thing that can be done to DISCOURAGE mass shootings is to stop selling the large magazines I mentioned in my above paragraph, also, there has been no one who has given a VALID reason to own an AR-15 or, similar weapon on this or, any other site I visit, except for the killing of humans.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.2.86  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Snuffy @1.2.84    3 months ago
Out of the five initial suggestions I feel that number 3 would make the largest impact. We hear all the time about children finding a gun in their families home and playing with it, usually to a disasterous ending. I grew up in a home where the guns were not hidden away. I knew from a very young age where the guns were and where the ammunition was. My dad kept his guns in a very pretty glass front gun case that was not locked. I was also trained from a very young age that I was not to touch them and that they were not toys. My father took me out when he went shooting so there wasn't any unbridled curiousity about guns,  I knew early on what they could do. I think that's missing from so many of our children and their entire knowledge at an early age is what they see on TV where a guy who was shot last night is on a new movie tonight.

My father kept his 1911 in his desk in the living room until he sold it after I was born, it wasn't until I was old enough to understand the use of firearms that any reappeared in his home my mom refused to have them in the home and, my brother-in-law had many in his, I learned to shoot from my brother in law and, my father, my brother in law taught me to hunt and, track, set traps and, find my way in the woods without a compass. I learned early that each firearm had a purpose in existence, none of them were used out of that purpose in the home and, all but one was meant for hunting animals, not men.

Short of banning guns (or even only some types of guns), what other ideas do you have that you think might help?

Well, to be honest, with all the shit that has gone down over the past two years I'm beginning to think it might not be a bad idea to consider banning all guns but, I also understand that as long as we have the Second Amendment that won't and, shouldn't happen. That doesn't mean we can't ban certain weapons from ownership and, we can't ban certain magazines from ownership as well. I have said from the beginning that certain people, those with mental illness's should be banned from owning guns of any kind and, so that you know I'm not singling them out because of some prejudice, I suffer from mental illness and, I feel that I shouldn't own guns because of that, I haven't owned a gun for close to twenty years now. All of the five ideas that you listed are good except I'm not sure how number 3 would fit into the school system or, anywhere else, it worries me, a group of kids with weapons and, only one or, two adults to supervise them during that time, I'm thinking more of a school prank than a Columbine situation. Some kid gets it into his mind it would be "fun" to point a gun at another student or something like that.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
1.2.87  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.2.81    3 months ago
We will see what happens but, I think you will be crying over the answer.

the rightwing controlled scotus which just ruled painful executions are constitutional is going to rule that the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act is unconstitutional?

are ya sure you have thought this thru?

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.2.88  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @1.2.87    3 months ago
the rightwing controlled scotus

Thanks for admitting that Trump and, McConnell have an agenda to stack the courts with Reich wing judges and, justices. Oops, sorry, I meant to say Rightwing judges and, justices.

 
 
 
Krishna
1.2.89  Krishna  replied to  Snuffy @1.2    3 months ago
It comes with two sizes of magazines,  a 3 round and a 6 round magazine. Hardly a "big" magazine.

I suppose its a matter of how many people you want to kill-- and how quickly you want to do it!

If you're a good shot-- or can get close enough, you might be able to shoot 5 people with the larger magazine. I'm no expert on the subject-- but I wonder-- how long does it take to load a second 6 round magazine so you can up your kill score to 12 people?

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
1.2.90  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.2.88    3 months ago

like its any kind of secret plot

  •  rightwing presidents pick rightwing justices

and

  • leftwing presidents pick leftwing justices

OMG, you have cracked the code... alert cnn asap

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
KDMichigan
1.2.91  KDMichigan  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.2.88    3 months ago
Thanks for admitting that Trump and, McConnell have an agenda to stack the courts

Bahahahaha LMAO that is one of the main reasons I voted for President Trump. I would much rather have a constitutionalist  judge than a left wing one that decides cases on feelings. 

Trump bringing back the balance to are appointed Judges is a awesome thing. We have a new fear though of coastal flooding, not from global warming but all the liberal tears.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.2.92  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @1.2.90    3 months ago

Eight Ball maybe you forgot or, maybe it doesn't bother you that a Republican majority leader in the Senate blocked a SCOTUS nominee's hearing for almost a year to, "See who would be elected president", which is the first time that has happened in ever and, that that same Senator decided he would do everything he could to block, disrupt and, prevent a president from getting anything done because he didn't like that president either because of his skin color or, because of what party he belonged to, either way, it was the wrong reason to block the nominations that he did block and, yes, there was more than one nomination blocked during Obama's administration and, not for any reason other than the president who made the nominations. What would you have been saying if it was a Democrat leader of the Senate who did that to a Republican president?

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.93  Texan1211  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @1.2.90    3 months ago

The sheer brilliance of that discovery rather boggles the mind, no?

LMFAO!!!!

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.2.94  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  KDMichigan @1.2.91    3 months ago
Bahahahaha LMAO that is one of the main reasons I voted for President Trump.

Too bad he has a different idea in mind.

I would much rather have a constitutionalist  judge than a left wing one that decides cases on feelings. 

So, what is a Constitutionalist judge to you? Someone who see's things your way and, no other? The Constitution has been followed by Ginsburgh and, all the other justices on the court, up to now, you can't prove otherwise, just because you disagree with what some of them have ruled doesn't mean they aren't following the law and, the Constitution.

Trump bringing back the balance to are appointed Judges is a awesome thing.

Trump has a problem, he requires a "loyalty oath" from those he appoints, not an oath to the Constitution and, the United States an oath to Donald J. Trump.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
1.2.95  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.2.28    3 months ago

Remington 870 Wingmaster....improved cylinder......No2 shot or larger for home protection, and you don't really have to aim!

Common sense says we should be able to limit ALL magazines to nothing more than nine rounds.... that of a 9mm semi-auto handgun.  We as a country should be able to start the discussions there.

For the record, I've hunted Ruffeled Grouse, Chukar, and Quail..... I cant ever remember squeezing off more than three rounds at any time.

Hope you've been well Doc....

 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.96  Texan1211  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @1.2.90    3 months ago
OMG, you have cracked the code... alert cnn asap

Can a scoop by little Rachel be far off?

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
1.2.97  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.2.95    3 months ago
  We as a country should be able to start the discussions there. For the record, I've hunted Ruffeled Grouse, Chukar, and Quail

the 2nd amendment is not about hunting...  end of that discussion.

the entire bill of rights protects the states from a potentially rouge federal government.

being necessary to the security of a free state

any who would undermine, limit, or remove any part of our bill of rights cannot be trusted.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
1.2.98  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.2.92    3 months ago
maybe it doesn't bother you that a Republican majority leader in the Senate blocked a SCOTUS nominee's hearing for almost a year to, "See who would be elected president",

does not bother me because its not true.

we blocked obamas supreme court pick simply because he did not have our consent.

Q) in this last election why do you think the right focused on holding the senate? 

  A) judical power.    (nominees to the courts are moving right along as we speak)

Q) when we said we are going to take our country back did we really mean "ask" if we can take our country back?

     A) of course not, this is not a game. this is political warfare at its finest.

cheers :)

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.2.99  XDm9mm  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.2.94    3 months ago
Trump has a problem, he requires a "loyalty oath" from those he appoints,

You DO have a copy of this purported "loyalty oath" don't you?   Is it another figment of your imagination, or you 'heard about it from some unnamed anonymous highly placed source'?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.2.100  XDm9mm  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.2.95    3 months ago
Common sense says we should be able to limit ALL magazines to nothing more than nine rounds.... that of a 9mm semi-auto handgun.

Uhmmmm, I suggest you do a little CURRENT shopping.

Glock 17  9mm,  17 + 1

Springfield Armory XDm9MM (yeah my favorite carry handgun) 19 + 1.

Now, as to this;

We as a country should be able to start the discussions there.

How about we as a country start the conversation by ENFORCING the nearly 20,000 already on the books laws, BEFORE we go adding more?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.2.101  XDm9mm  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.2.94    3 months ago
So, what is a Constitutionalist judge to you?

One that applies the Constitution as written and not try to contort the document to what the judge would LIKE it to say or mean.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
1.2.102  FLYNAVY1  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2.100    3 months ago

.....on the books laws...

Sorry XD.... That's the same old tired mindless NRA bullshit.  I burned my card in "92".

Responsible hunting...fine.

Household & personal protection....works for me.

Precision, practice and control related to target shooting.... excellent.

Shooting shit up cause' you can....... irresponsible gun ownership.

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.2.103  Split Personality  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.2.102    3 months ago
Shooting shit up cause' you can....... irresponsible gun ownership.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
1.2.104  FLYNAVY1  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @1.2.97    3 months ago

So like so many other topics, your mind is a closed as your prepper bunker is....

And like so many that want to cite the 2nd, you fail to read and consider the whole amendment.  

We'll leave it at that.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.2.105  MUVA  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.2.104    3 months ago

Hubris instead of a argument nice. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.2.106  XDm9mm  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.2.102    3 months ago
.....on the books laws... Sorry XD.... That's the same old tired mindless NRA bullshit.  I burned my card in "92".

Don't worry.  I and the millions of other NRA members will carry your water for you.

But, do you have a problem enforcing existing laws before writing new laws?  Or just a problem with enforcing laws?

Responsible hunting...fine.
Household & personal protection....works for me. Precision, practice and control related to target shooting.... excellent.

Glad you will allow that.  Thanks.

Shooting shit up cause' you can....... irresponsible gun ownership.

First, where did you get that from my post.  Second, what the fuck does that have to do with numbers of rounds a magazine can hold?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.2.107  XDm9mm  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.2.104    3 months ago
So like so many other topics, your mind is a closed as your prepper bunker is....

Not too denigrating are you?   Do you speak to your wife and kids that way?

And like so many that want to cite the 2nd, you fail to read and consider the whole amendment.  

Well, here's those 27 words;

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

And here's yet one more time I'll need to educate people about the meaning of those first four words, 

Again, what is the meaning of “well regulated”?

Dr. Robert J. Cottrol is the editor of the book “Gun Control and the Constitution: Sources and Explorations on the Second Amendment.” And Cottrol, a Second Amendment expert and legal historian, is the Harold Paul Green Research Professor of Law at George Washington University. He says the words “well regulated” refer to proficiency and top-notch training.

“This was written at a time when there was relatively little in the way of formal training in marksmanship on the part of armies and usually less on the part of militias,” Cottrol said. “The idea was that familiarity gained with weapons in private pursuits would translate into a militia that could be mobilized when needed.”

Are the two words applicable to guns?

Cottrol said he didn’t think so, adding, “That would have implied a degree of regulation by the federal government — and remember that the Second Amendment was originally conceived as a limitation on the power of the federal government.”

Source:  https://www.insidesources.com/well-regulated-really-mean/

Considering the entire Constitution and Amendments were written to essentially CONTAIN the power of the Federal Government over the people, I will submit that it was the founders intention that the government keep their hands off of the guns of the people.   Lest you forget, the Revolutionary War started in Lexington and Concord Massachusetts.  You do know don't you that the British were marching on those towns from Boston with the GOAL of confiscating the arms of the people.  In other words disarm them and make them defenseless against the power of the well armed British Army.

Now further consideration needs to be given to the Constitution and Amendments in general.  All of the rights we enjoy are individual rights.  Knowing that, can you or anyone explain why the 2nd Amendment would be carved out of all of those individual rights and be written as a 'collective' right?

We'll leave it at that.

So to quote you;  

We'll leave it at that.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
1.2.108  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.2.104    3 months ago
So like so many other topics, your mind is a closed

sorry brudda,

I'm immune to sophist arguments.

but in case your wondering...

the states militias are well regulated via the states gun laws. 

don't like it? talk to your state govt.

letting a potentially rogue future federal govt regulate the arms state militias have would be absurd and in direct conflict with the intent to secure the states from tyrannical bs

have a great day

cheers :)

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.2.109  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @1.2.98    3 months ago
we blocked obamas supreme court pick simply because he did not have our consent.

Really? Try again.

https://www.politicususa.com/2017/04/02/mitch-mcconnell-falls-chuck-todd-calls-bs-blocking-merrick-garland.html

In 2016, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said: "One of my proudest moments was when I told Obama, 'You will not fill this Supreme Court vacancy,'" and in 2017, he said, "Apparently there's yet a new standard now, which is not to confirm a Supreme Court nominee at all. I think that's something the American people simply will not tolerate."

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mitch-mcconnell-one-of-my-proudest-moments/

Now, if this had been Harry Reid doing this to Bush you all would have been up in arms.

Q) in this last election why do you think the right focused on holding the senate? 

Because the Right knew they would lose the House and, didn't want to lose the Senate as well, that is also why there was rampant election fraud by the Republicans in certain areas.

  A) judical power.    (nominees to the courts are moving right along as we speak) Q) when we said we are going to take our country back did we really mean "ask" if we can take our country back?

This still bothers me, take it back from whom exactly?

     A) of course not, this is not a game. this is political warfare at its finest.

This answer also bothers me, "warfare" is something you fight if you have an enemy, I have differing opinions from folks, especially on here but, I don't consider them an enemy, I consider them Americans like me with different political views. In case you didn't know, that is allowed in this country and, it doesn't make us enemy's that is an alt-Right fallacy.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.2.110  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2.99    3 months ago
 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.2.111  XDm9mm  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.2.110    3 months ago
Not an unnamed source but, there is this,

You really need to actually READ the articles you use as the basis for your belief.

Here's the first four words of the Post article;

There are now multiple reports  (please note the complete absence of NAMED 'sources')

And of course as one reads further into the "article", it is none other than that ever so truthful (//S//) James Comey.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.2.112  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2.101    3 months ago
One that applies the Constitution as written and not try to contort the document to what the judge would LIKE it to say or mean.

Ok, let's look at the Second Amendment.....as written.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

"A well regulated Militia", translates to a well regulated civilian army with ties to the official military.

The Militia Acts of 1792 were a pair of statutes enacted by the second United States Congress in 1792. The acts provided for the organization of the state militias and provided for the President of the United States to take command of the state militias in times of imminent invasion or insurrection. This authority was used to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794.

In other words, the National Guard of each state. At the time there were no real arms manufacturers in the U.S. so, those who could afford to buy guns usually enlisted in the militia or, as we call it today, the National Guard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.2.113  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2.111    3 months ago
And of course as one reads further into the "article", it is none other than that ever so truthful (//S//) James Comey.

It's amazing to me that folks like you loved Comey when he came out with his October surprise but, as soon as he goes against Donald Trump and, says that Trump is lying and, that Trump wanted him to take a loyalty oath it's "Oh my god that lying piece of shit Comey", "Hang him from the nearest tree, how dare he speak out against the Great Trump our new god!"

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.2.114  XDm9mm  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.2.109    3 months ago
that is an alt-Right fallacy.

That destroyed your entire post.  Thanks for sharing.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.2.115  XDm9mm  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.2.113    3 months ago
It's amazing to me that folks like you

Dig that hole your digging a little deeper Galen.  jrSmiley_76_smiley_image.gif

Thanks again.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.2.116  XDm9mm  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.2.112    3 months ago
"A well regulated Militia", translates to a well regulated civilian army with ties to the official military.
The Militia Acts of 1792 were a pair of statutes enacted by the second United States Congress in 1792. The acts provided for the organization of the state militias and provided for the President of the United States to take command of the state militias in times of imminent invasion or insurrection. This authority was used to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794.
In other words, the National Guard of each state. At the time there were no real arms manufacturers in the U.S. so, those who could afford to buy guns usually enlisted in the militia or, as we call it today, the National Guard.

You really do need to keep up on CURRENT law.   Here's what CURRENT US LAW, as written in U.S.Code has to say about the "MILITIA";

10 U.S. Code § 246. Militia: composition and classes
     (a)  The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of             age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are                       members of the National Guard.
     (b) The classes of the militia are—
          (1)  the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
          (2)  the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Now, PLEASE pay close attention to the following words contained within that CURRENT LAW of the United States
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
In other words, you, me and every other person of legal age withing the United States.
If you don't like that, then call your Congressperson and or Senators and get the law changed.  Until such time as you accomplish that, WE ARE THE UNORGANIZED MILITIA.
 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.2.117  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2.114    3 months ago
That destroyed your entire post.  Thanks for sharing.

It's amazing how you come on here and, half quote things that people have said to try to make a point, I believe the full sentence in that post was this,

In case you didn't know, that is allowed in this country and, it doesn't make us enemy's that is an alt-Right fallacy.

And, that was in reference to this quote from my post,

This answer also bothers me, "warfare" is something you fight if you have an enemy, I have differing opinions from folks, especially on here but, I don't consider them an enemy, I consider them Americans like me with different political views.

Which was in response to your answer to your own question,

A) of course not, this is not a game. this is political warfare at its finest.

Now, 9mm, let's look at what was said by both of us. You, according to your own words, consider some Americans your enemy since you consider politics, warfare. I replied that I don't consider politics warfare, I consider it a difference of opinion, then I stated that it is the Alt-Right that believes in political warfare and, considers those "on the other side" as the enemy. Do you consider most Americans your enemy?

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.2.118  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2.115    3 months ago
Dig that hole your digging a little deeper Galen.

I think you are the one that is doing all the digging here, are you really trying to tell us that you didn't think Comey was the greatest thing since sliced bread when he decided to open up the email investigation again when Weiners emails were discovered and, Comey pulled his October surprise? Really? jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.2.119  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2.116    3 months ago
In other words, you, me and every other person of legal age withing the United States.
If you don't like that, then call your Congressperson and or Senators and get the law changed.  Until such time as you accomplish that, WE ARE THE UNORGANIZED MILITIA.

And, here we have a case of foot in mouth disease by 9mm, who originally stated, after I asked him,

Q: So, what is a Constitutionalist judge to you?
9mm: One that applies the Constitution as written and not try to contort the document to what the judge would LIKE it to say or mean.

And, so that there was no mistake as to what the Founders had in mind I added the law of the time which clarified what was meant by Militia.

The Militia Acts of 1792 were a pair of statutes enacted by the second United States Congress in 1792. The acts provided for the organization of the state militias and provided for the President of the United States to take command of the state militias in times of imminent invasion or insurrection. This authority was used to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794.

The Founders were explicit in what they meant, not what you 9mm or, anyone else thinks they meant, a militia that is controlled by the states and, by the president, in other words, the National Guard.

 
 
 
WallyW
1.3  WallyW  replied to  Bob Nelson @1    3 months ago
No hunter needs more than two rounds before reloading. No Target shooter needs more than one.

Says who? Some anti-gun nut?

Manufacturers can't be held responsible for how customers use their products.

The Supreme Court will reverse this

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.3.1  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  WallyW @1.3    3 months ago
Says who?

Says I. If you disagree, you're welcome to explain.

 
 
 
Snuffy
1.3.2  Snuffy  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.3.1    3 months ago
If you disagree, you're welcome to explain.

It does no good to explain to you because you don't want to listen. Several people in this thread have tried to explain their positions to you and you just ignore what they say or toss out some garbage to try to make your point.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.3.3  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Snuffy @1.3.2    3 months ago

Example?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.3.4  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.3.3    3 months ago

C'mon, Snuffy!

You claim I don't listen. That's not true. I do listen... very carefully. "Listening carefully" does not mean accepting nonsense as truth.

After a hundred Comments, no one has yet given me any reason for the private ownership of firearms capable of more than one shot before reloading. They are unable to do so because there is no reason. The only use for a rapid-fire weapon with a big magazine is to kill lots of people very quickly.

Two shots are enough for hunting. Two shots are enough for target shooting. Two shots are not enough for mass murder. Duh!

You say I don't listen... but when I ask for examples... you vanish.

 
 
 
Snuffy
1.3.5  Snuffy  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.3.4    3 months ago

Damn,  I'm not allowed to have a life away from this board according to your comment here then.  I didn't vanish,  I was off doing things more fun that this.

As for examples,  I shouldn't have to provide anything.  Look at your conversations above with me and with XDm9mm.  Both are threads that show you were provided with what you asked for but it didn't fit with your preconceived ideas so you ignored it. At least you would see that if you would be honest with yourself, but I doubt that you can do that based on what I have seen in your replies.

And an easy reply to your question above,  "no one has yet given me any reason for the private ownership of firearms capable of more than one shot before reloading".  You have been given several reasons but you choose to not accept them. So what if someone's 100lb daughter is home alone and a 225 lb drug crazed man breaks into the house. There are many reports of police having to shoot an individual high on some drugs because the person doesn't realize due to the drugs they have been shot. Do you think it's reasonable for the daughter to ask the drug-crazed man to wait while she reloads?  come on,  be honest for a change.

I still stand by another comment I made on this post. It's not the size of the gun or the size of the magazine that makes it dangerous, it's the mind and the behavior of the person holding the gun. In the hands of a law abiding honest person and automatic weapon would be harmless,  in the hands of a deranged amoral person a pencil can be very dangerous.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.3.6  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Snuffy @1.3.5    3 months ago
Both are threads that show you were provided with what you asked for...

No. I was provided with... something. Saying nonsense is not an adequate response.

You have been given several reasons...

No. I have been given explanations of why people have mass-murder weapons... but I have not been given any reason why they need them. NEED. NEED. People like to have them, obviously. That was not my question.

I repeat, no one has explained why they need weapons that were literally designed to kill a maximum of people in a minimum of time.

So what if someone's 100lb daughter is home alone and a 225 lb drug crazed man breaks into the house.

Two rounds are more than enough. This ultra-rare event is not a serious justification for thirty thousand gun deaths every year. It is flimsy obfuscation.

It's not the size of the gun or the size of the magazine that makes it dangerous, it's the mind and the behavior of the person holding the gun. In the hands of a law abiding honest person and automatic weapon would be harmless,  in the hands of a deranged amoral person a pencil can be very dangerous.

I agree completely. Our recent history has demonstrated very clearly that we are incapable of keeping our hundreds of millions of firearms in safe conditions. If you have a serious proposition, I would like to hear it.

 
 
 
Snuffy
1.3.7  Snuffy  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.3.6    3 months ago
No. I have been given explanations of why people have mass-murder weapons... but I have not been given any reason why they need them. NEED. NEED. People like to have them, obviously. That was not my question.

I repeat, no one has explained why they need weapons that were literally designed to kill a maximum of people in a minimum of time.

Well in 1.3.4 you asked for a reason,  now you state need. I'll grant that you did state need in the very first post. However I don't think need is the correct verb here. Who are you to determine what people may want in their lives,  and need doesn't really become part of the question. All people need is food, water and air. Everything else becomes part of the want. And considering that there are millions of these scary rapid-fire guns in ownership just here in the United States,  you are not doing a good job of showing your need to control them. Why do you NEED to have them banned?

So what if someone's 100lb daughter is home alone and a 225 lb drug crazed man breaks into the house.

Two rounds are more than enough. This ultra-rare event is not a serious justification for thirty thousand gun deaths every year. It is flimsy obfuscation.

Ignoring the 30K gun deaths every year (and your numbers are out of date) for this one example I think we can safely paraphrase the comment from Obama.  "If it saves just one life, it's worth it".

I agree completely. Our recent history has demonstrated very clearly that we are incapable of keeping our hundreds of millions of firearms in safe conditions. If you have a serious proposition, I would like to hear it.

The below is a start that can be discussed. I happen to think these are "common-sense" changes that don't make instant criminals out of honest people.

  1. How about changes to the reporting laws so that all states must forward all information to the NICS system. I'm even in favor of eliminating the three day wait and not allow the sale to complete until the NICS review is complete.
  2. How about actually prosecuting people who lie when filling out the 4473 form?
  3. How about adding a life skills class to primary and elementary schooling? This class can teach many topics that children really should know when they come out of high school but seldom do. And in this class that would be taught in every year, there would be a section on 'age appropriate' weapons safety.
  4. Find some way within HIPPA laws to assist our medical community to be able to report people who should not possess firearms. This needs to be carefully done and would need, I think, to go in front of a judge. As an example, in the case of Jared Loughner, he had been talking with a counselor at his college but she never took any further action because if HIPPA laws and privacy concerns.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.3.8  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.3.6    3 months ago

That is a blanket statement in your last paragraph is totally unfair to myself and countless others in this country who are safe and responsible gun owners. Come on Bob, I thought you were better than that!

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.3.9  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.3.8    3 months ago
Our recent history has demonstrated very clearly that we are incapable of keeping our hundreds of millions of firearms in safe conditions. If you have a serious proposition, I would like to hear it.

Doc... We have a mass shooting every week. That pretty well demonstrates that we (all of us together) are incapable of keeping our hundreds of millions of firearms in safe conditions.

The fact that 99% do things right doesn't really change much for the kids who get blasted into bloody rags...

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.3.10  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  WallyW @1.3    3 months ago
The Supreme Court will reverse this

Maybe, lately Roberts has been pretty fickle on what he has decided and, I think this will be no exception. It's about the way Remington advertises the AR-15, not about gun rights so, he may decide in favor of Sandy Hook.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.3.11  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  WallyW @1.3    3 months ago

Sometimes you miss...

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.4  1stwarrior  replied to  Bob Nelson @1    3 months ago

Interesting Bob - A large quantity of unused ammunition was recovered inside the school along with three semi-automatic firearms found with Lanza: a .223-caliber Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle, a 10mm Glock 20SF handgun, and a 9mm SIG Sauer P226 handgun. Outside the school, an Izhmash Saiga-12 shotgun was found in the car Lanza had driven. 

The Bushmaster rifle was/is not made by Remington and the rifle you have used for your thread has absolutely no bearing on the "attempted" discussion for the thread.

If the "Court" is specifically stating Remington - definitely gonna be appealed and remanded to the lower court.

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.4.1  Split Personality  replied to  1stwarrior @1.4    3 months ago
Interesting Bob - A large quantity of unused ammunition was recovered inside the school along with three semi-automatic firearms found with Lanza: a .223-caliber Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle, a 10mm Glock 20SF handgun, and a 9mm SIG Sauer P226 handgun. Outside the school, an Izhmash Saiga-12 shotgun was found in the car Lanza had driven.  The Bushmaster rifle was/is not made by Remington

But Remington does make the .223 ammo which was also found in the school

And Bushmasters are designated as either .223 Remington or .556 Nato....

so that could cause some confusion....

 
 
 
 
Split Personality
1.4.3  Split Personality  replied to  1stwarrior @1.4.2    3 months ago

and as I said, without being difficult,

Bushmasters are often designated as either Remington or NATO.

https://www.cheaperthandirt.com/category/bushmaster/firearms/rifles/semi-automatic/223-remington-and-556-nato.do

and apparently the courts believe that, as advertised, Remington Outdoor Company owns Bushmaster Firearms.

384

Subsidiary
Founded 1973; 46 years ago
Headquarters Madison, North Carolina, U.S.
Key people
Jim Marcotuli (CEO)
Owner Remington Outdoor Company
Website https://www.bushmaster.com/
 
 
 
cjcold
1.4.4  cjcold  replied to  Split Personality @1.4.1    3 months ago

My Bushmaster Carbon 15 is designated .556 NATO but actually shoots some .223 more accurately.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.4.5  1stwarrior  replied to  Split Personality @1.4.3    3 months ago

Bushmaster Firearms was a company in Bangor, Maine, that went bankrupt and was purchased by Richard Dyke in 1976 and moved to Windham, Maine. According to a Maine newspaper, it was later sold by Dyke to Cerberus while Krause Publications says it was first acquired by Quality Products Company, in 1990.[1] Dyke would sell the business in 2006 for 70 million dollars to Cerberus Capital Management. The company became part of the Freedom Group, owned by Cerberus Capital Management, in April 2006.[2] In December 2010, Freedom Group announced that operations at the Windham, Maine, facility would cease as of March 2011.[3] Windham Weaponry was founded by the former Bushmaster owners in 2011 in Windham, ME in order "to put Maine people back to work who lost their jobs" when Bushmaster moved out of state in March 2011.[4]

In December 2012, Cerberus Capital Management announced its intention to sell Bushmaster's parent company, Freedom Group.[8] In a press release, Cerberus stated that they would "retain a financial advisor to design and execute a process to sell [their] interests in Freedom Group" (Freedom includes the former Bushmaster company).[9] Cerberus indicated that the decision to sell the company stemmed from publicity surrounding the use of a Bushmaster rifle in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. According to the company: "It is apparent that the Sandy Hook tragedy was a watershed event that has raised the national debate on gun control to an unprecedented level."[8][10]

Cerberus announced in late 2013 that it had failed to deliver on its promise to divest itself of the Freedom Arms group and has come up with a plan to buy out some Cerberus investors. Those who chose to give up their shares would get paid off by an unidentified lender.[11]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushmaster_Firearms_International

Don't see anything 'bout Remington in the above.

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.4.6  Split Personality  replied to  1stwarrior @1.4.5    3 months ago

Like I said, I am NOT trying to be being difficult, here.

Go to the same page and look at the company logo to the right of your excerpt from Wiki.  It's staring right at you.

BushMaster is a subsidiary of Remington Outdoor Company.

Hence, the lawsuits are against Remington.

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.4.7  Split Personality  replied to  Split Personality @1.4.6    3 months ago

or search on Remington Outdoor Company

384
 
 
 
Split Personality
1.4.8  Split Personality  replied to  Split Personality @1.4.7    3 months ago

 
 
 
katrix
1.5  katrix  replied to  Bob Nelson @1    3 months ago
No Target shooter needs more than one.

Never shot skeet, have you?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.5.1  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  katrix @1.5    3 months ago
Never shot skeet, have you?

Actually, I have... a very long time ago.

Do you really fire more than two rounds on a single "Pull!"? That's pretty good!

What's the most you've fired?

 
 
 
cjcold
1.5.2  cjcold  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.5.1    3 months ago

It's grins and giggles to throw up a handful of blue rock and see how many I can hit in the air with my Berretta semi-auto shotgun. Used to play shotgun golf with a reprobate author in Aspen. Have a device that screws onto the end of a AR-15 that launches golf balls. Used to shoot in long range pistol competition out to 500 meters with a 7mm single shot pistol.

We agree on most things Bob but I grew up in a small town culture that has fun with guns so we will have to disagree on this one. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.5.3  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  cjcold @1.5.2    3 months ago

If we want to get down to brass tacks... this kind of thing can be managed.

(Full disclosure: I had an M3 "Grease Gun" in Vietnam, and got a great kick out of loading magazines "all tracer"... The barrel didn't do very well, though.)

I see no problem with "gun clubs", where "more than two-shot" guns could be kept safely under lock and key... with serious penalties for violations. At such a place, you could play sparklers, or blast away with a .50 caliber machine gun, or whatever.

The problem is that guns capable of mass murder are too available. That problem of mass murder will not be solved as long as those guns remain... available.

 
 
 
katrix
1.5.4  katrix  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.5.1    3 months ago

You said no target shooter needs more than one.   Your words. 

And .. if you're hunting or just camping or fishing in the backwoods with a rifle, you might want to have more than two shots available if you're charged by a bear.  Does this happen often?  No, but you'd better be prepared if it does. My ground tour of a native site in Alaska with my Mom years ago .. our little 23 year old guide had her rifle with her, just in case.  And I'm pretty sure it had more than just 2 rounds in it.  Not one person complained when she explained why she had it.  It was more for female moose that time of year than bears.

If 3 men break into your house .. you want 2 bullets to confront them with?  Hell, do you want 2 bullets if it's just 2 men?  Are you that good of a shot?

You're acting hysterical. I'm in favor of reasonable gun control, but when you make statements like this, you lose all credibility.

And when I target shoot with a rifle at my annual BOW weekend, I have six rounds in the magazine.  We all do. The instructors work with us after they see our first shot, and then help us improve as we continue shooting.  Then we all clear our guns, announce that the range is cold, and go check our targets.  The next time it's our turn, the instructors help us improve further.  It's stupid to have one bullet in a magazine and then have to change it out each time we shoot.  Because of safety rules, that would add a long time to the class; I can't be reloading my gun while other people are shooting in a class. 

You really need to learn more before you argue so much.  I am for more gun control than you might think, and people like you do not help people like me get our points across.  AR-15s are not these magical demon guns which are dramatically different than any other semi-auto.

Every state has a Becoming an Outdoor Woman workshop, btw.  These are amazing!  Last year I enjoyed the archery the most; couldn't make it into the blacksmith workshop, alas.  The chainsaw class was cool.  We had options for rifle, handgun, muzzle loader, shotgun, tree identification, outdoor cooking, fly tying, fly fishing, outdoor photography, Appalachian basket weaving, and much more ... simply wonderful.

Some states' workshops teach you how to butcher a deer, sail a sailboat, and more.  All depends on where you live, but apparently each state has one.  Sponsored in part by hunting and fishing licenses.  Tell the women in your lives about these! Very affordable and the price includes the lodging, craft materials, instructors, ammo, food, all supplies for all classes ... under $200 for an entire weekend.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.6  Tacos!  replied to  Bob Nelson @1    3 months ago
What possible use can it have, with such a big magazine, other than to kill as many people as quickly as possible?

In an emergency self-defense situation, a larger magazine is good if you want to be more confident about your ability to disable or kill just one or two people. In a crisis, people are horribly inaccurate shots - even from just a few feet away.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.6.1  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Tacos! @1.6    3 months ago
In a crisis, people are horribly inaccurate shots - even from just a few feet away.

That's probably a very good argument for not letting people have weapons that can spray bullets all over hell and gone!

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.6.2  Tacos!  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.6.1    3 months ago
weapons that can spray bullets all over hell and gone!

When does that happen? People defend themselves with guns (often without firing a shot) every day. It doesn't typically result in bullets being sprayed all over etc.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.6.3  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Tacos! @1.6.2    3 months ago

I'm sorry... I thought that's what you meant by "people are horribly inaccurate shots - even from just a few feet away".

There have indeed been a few cases of guns being used to chase off (or wound, or kill) intruders. A few cases, over the years, in a country of 325 million people... do not really convince me.

There have also been a few cases of Black people being shot by police for no apparent reason. Would you draw the general conclusion that police randomly shoot Black people? No. You contextualize.

"Stand your ground" success stories are the same thing. Very rare instances being generalized. Statistics tell us that homes without guns are safer than homes with guns, primarily because of accidents.

 
 
 
dave-2693993
1.6.4  dave-2693993  replied to  Tacos! @1.6    3 months ago
In a crisis, people are horribly inaccurate shots - even from just a few feet away.

Hey, no offense there Tacos! (really, no offense), but speak for yourself there. lol.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
1.6.5  livefreeordie  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.6.3    3 months ago

A few? That’s a lie perpetuated by those who don’t believe in our natural rights

Here are the real facts that matter on firearms

Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day. [1] This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. [2]

* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.[3]

* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.[4]

* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.[5]

* Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).[6] And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."[7]

  • Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year. [8] Many of these self-defense handguns could be labeled as "Saturday Night Specials."

States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%; [10] and * If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and over 11,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.[11]

* Vermont: one of the safest five states in the country. In Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission... without paying a fee... or without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. And yet for ten years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the top-five, safest states in the union -- having three times received the "Safest State Award."[12

https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm

Unearthed Government Data: Defensive Firearm Uses Far More Frequent Than Gun Control Advocates Claim

To answer that question, let's first recall that a 2013 Obama administration-commissioned review, executed in partnership with the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), pegged the relevant number at between half-a-million and three million:

"Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals," says the report, which was completed in June and ignored in the mainstream press. The study, which was farmed out by the CDC to the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, also revealed that while there were "about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008," the estimated number of defensive uses of guns ranges "from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year."

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2018/04/23/defensive-gun-uses-study-n2473447

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.6.6  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  livefreeordie @1.6.5    3 months ago

... and thirty thousand deaths by firearm every year...

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.6.7  Drakkonis  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.6.1    3 months ago
That's probably a very good argument for not letting people have weapons that can spray bullets all over hell and gone!

Uh, you should review the number of shots fired and number of shots that actually hit their target in police shootings. In one police shooting in my city, something like 8 police officers shot 22 rounds and only hit the perp 3 times. The others went all over the place. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.6.8  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Drakkonis @1.6.7    3 months ago

jrSmiley_30_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉
1.6.9  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.6.1    3 months ago

I have a 100 round clip for my Ak47. Reloading is a pain in the ass.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.6.10  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tacos! @1.6    3 months ago

I own a Mossberg M702 Tactical Plinkster. It is .22 caliber, is black and generally resembles a AR-15. Comes with a 10 round magazine. I bought it for target shooting and home protection. One day, I was coming back from the range and stopped at Wal-Mart to get some milk on the way home in Southeastern AZ. The gun was laying in the back of my SUV. When I raised the tailgate to put the milk in the back, the lady parked next to me was putting her groceries in her trunk notices my rifle and demanded to know why I had a assault rifle in my car? I patiently tried to explain to her that it was only a .22 caliber rifle that was  semi auto and only for target practice. She then stated "But it is black and shaped like a assault rifle, so it must be one!" I just told  whatever, got in my car car and drove away. All the while this woman is calling me a redneck right wing gun nut. I looked at the back of her car. She had CA plates, and Obama/Biden and Greenpeace  bumper stickers. Go figure...

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.6.11  Tacos!  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.6.10    3 months ago

Conversely, I have a Mini-14 I inherited, which is basically an AR-15, but it comes with a wooden stock, and I don't have a bunch of accessories on it, so it's not scary.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.6.12  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Drakkonis @1.6.7    3 months ago

Looks like they need more range rime...

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.6.13  Tacos!  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.6.3    3 months ago
I'm sorry... I thought that's what you meant by "people are horribly inaccurate shots - even from just a few feet away"

I perceive a difference between missing the target and "spraying bullets all over hell and gone." You make it sound like scores of innocent bystanders drop dead every time a person uses a gun to defend themselves.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.6.14  Tacos!  replied to  dave-2693993 @1.6.4    3 months ago
Hey, no offense there Tacos! (really, no offense), but speak for yourself there.

I understand, but I am speaking to the statistics. People who study gun fights have produced ample evidence of what I am talking about. Whether it's the old West or the modern day city, combatants have emptied their guns at their opponents and hit nothing. In a crisis, I could grab the gun with five shots, but I'd rather have the one with 17.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.6.15  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Tacos! @1.6.13    3 months ago
You make it sound like scores of innocent bystanders drop dead every time a person uses a gun to defend themselves.

Oh? I said nothing like that.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.6.16  Tacos!  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.6.15    3 months ago

Then there's not much point to the spraying bullets talk or being concerned about it.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.6.17  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Tacos! @1.6.16    3 months ago
Then there's not much point

Nope 

 
 
 
squiggy
1.7  squiggy  replied to  Bob Nelson @1    3 months ago

"What possible use can it have, with such a big magazine,"

... but the tube mag has been fine for 150 years.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.7.1  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  squiggy @1.7    3 months ago

So?

 
 
 
squiggy
1.7.2  squiggy  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.7.1    3 months ago

Are you being purposefully obtuse? There hasn't been a criticism of the ubiquitous five round tubular magazine for 150 years yet the three-round detachable is a disaster? Only for you.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.8  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Bob Nelson @1    3 months ago

Why would anybody think that "need" has any bearing on this discussion?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.8.1  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.8    3 months ago
Why would anybody think that "need" has any bearing on this discussion?

Thirty thousand gun deaths every year.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.8.2  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.8.1    3 months ago

The only "need" pertinent here is the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. More than ever it needs to be respected.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.8.3  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.8.2    3 months ago

Thirty thousand gun deaths every year.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.8.4  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.8.3    3 months ago
Thirty thousand gun deaths every year.

Of which, many are suicides, and a percentage is the number shot by police, most of which are warranted.

A substantial number is also for gang related activities.

But you already know all this, so "30k gun deaths" is a little misleading, as is typical for people opposed to our current gun laws.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.8.5  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Texan1211 @1.8.4    3 months ago

It really does baffle me why they continue to cling to those disingenuous sorts of arguments.  I suppose I have come to think of it as nothing is going to come between a dog and his bone.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.8.6  It Is ME  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.8    3 months ago
Why would anybody think that "need" has any bearing on this discussion?

It's a "Thing" !

"THE" gun TYPE, is only as "Important" as "Liberals want it to be !

In Chicago or the like.....Definitely…..NOT SO MUCH !

Can't WAIT for thee "Okay" to go and sue Car manufacturers for "Making" the Specific Car that a drunk driver used to "Kill" a pedestrian ! That's gonna be fun to watch !

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.8.7  Freedom Warrior  replied to  It Is ME @1.8.6    3 months ago

I mentinoed that as well down in # 14.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.8.8  It Is ME  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.8.7    3 months ago
I mentinoed that as well down in # 14.

a 2 fir jrSmiley_15_smiley_image.gif.....Love like minded with actual "Common Sense" jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
squiggy
1.8.9  squiggy  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.8.1    3 months ago

"Thirty thousand gun deaths every year."

Since 2/3 of those are suicides, just how will your magazine capacity limits affect that? Can you tell us, roughly, how many gun shots to the head that these people inflict on themselves? More than 5?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.8.10  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  squiggy @1.8.9    3 months ago

You're really going there?

You don't think that the easy availability of firearms is important in suicides? You need to read up a bit. Or a lot...

And then... do you mean you're ok with ten thousand firearm murders every year?

On abortion, are you "pro-life"?

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.8.11  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.8.10    3 months ago
And then... do you mean you're ok with ten thousand firearm murders every year?

He didn't say he was okay with any murders. And you know he didn't.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.8.12  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @1.8.11    3 months ago
He didn't say he was okay with any murders.

His post ignored ten thousand firearm murders every year. I asked for clarification.

What's your problem?

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.8.13  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.8.12    3 months ago
ignored ten thousand firearm murders every year. I asked for clarification.
What's your problem?

Must he acknowledge it in every single post for you, or can you just answer what he asked?

I have no real problems.

I know how to tune out bullshit.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.8.14  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @1.8.13    3 months ago
Must he...

He may do whatever he pleases... including ignore ten thousand firearm murders every year.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.8.15  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.8.14    3 months ago

Come on, be honest at kleast.

That is like saying you ignored all the suicides by guns, or that you ignored all the deaths caused by illegal aliens.

I suppose it is easier to claim someone did state something or ignored something than to have an HONEST, good-faith debate about it.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.8.16  Tacos!  replied to  squiggy @1.8.9    3 months ago
2/3 of those are suicides

Now there's some folks that only need one round. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.8.17  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @1.8.15    3 months ago
And then... do you mean you're ok with ten thousand firearm murders every year?

Ummm.... Tex??

Do you see that hook-shaped gizmo at that end of the sentence? It's called a "question mark". It indicates that the sentence is a question, rather than an affirmation.

You apparently understood an affirmation. That was a 180° error.

The lesson in English is free of charge.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.8.18  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.8.17    3 months ago
And then... do you mean you're ok with ten thousand firearm murders every year?
Ummm.... Tex??
Do you see that hook-shaped gizmo at that end of the sentence? It's called a "question mark". It indicates that the sentence is a question, rather than an affirmation.
You apparently understood an affirmation. That was a 180° error.
The lesson in English is free of charge.

Based on his post which you responded to, it was either an inane question or a poor attempt to argue that which wasn't in dispute.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.8.19  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @1.8.18    3 months ago

You know, Tex... I've seen this phenomenon before.

You aren't actually reading what I write. You have a stereotype "Bob" in mind, and you know what that "Bob" must think and say. So you dialogue with your own puppet.

You pay no attention to what I actually say.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.8.20  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.8.19    3 months ago
ou know, Tex... I've seen this phenomenon before.
You aren't actually reading what I write. You have a stereotype "Bob" in mind, and you know what that "Bob" must think and say. So you dialogue with your own puppet.
You pay no attention to what I actually say.

Sorry, Bob, but I DID read your post, AND the post you responded to.

Either it is an inane question based on what you were replying to, or just intellectually dishonest.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.8.21  Greg Jones  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.8.10    3 months ago
ten thousand firearm murders every year?

Are you talking about responsible gun owners with legally obtained weapons, or murders committed by criminals and gang members, who shouldn't have guns to begin with.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.8.22  Texan1211  replied to  Greg Jones @1.8.21    3 months ago
Are you talking about responsible gun owners with legally obtained weapons, or murders committed by criminals and gang members, who shouldn't have guns to begin with.

You know, if we just passed yet more laws, (and don't bother to enforce them) the criminals will stop being criminals...…….SMH

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.8.23  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Greg Jones @1.8.21    3 months ago

Both, Greg.

They're inseparable.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.8.24  Texan1211  replied to  Greg Jones @1.8.21    3 months ago
Are you talking about responsible gun owners with legally obtained weapons, or murders committed by criminals and gang members, who shouldn't have guns to begin with.

He is talking about all gun owners.

I liken it to wanting to outlaw drugs because people die from prescription drugs because they abuse them. it won't actually stop people from being addicts, and it will hurt millions who take the drugs as prescribed.

OIW, a pretty dumb idea.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.8.25  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Texan1211 @1.8.24    3 months ago

As has been said before, deliberately obtuse. Some people fall back on that tactic in a no win scenario....

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.8.26  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @1.8.24    3 months ago
He is talking...

See what I mean?

You are so sure you know what I think that you feel free to tell others what I mean.

When you control all aspects of a conversation... you may tranquilly convince yourself that you're right. Congratulations!

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.8.27  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.8.26    3 months ago
He is talking...
See what I mean?
You are so sure you know what I think that you feel free to tell others what I mean.
When you control all aspects of a conversation... you may tranquilly convince yourself that you're right. Congratulations!

Okay, I can pretend that you simply never posted THIS before I wrote what you quoted:

Both, Greg.
They're inseparable.

Own your words, Bob.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.8.28  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @1.8.27    3 months ago
I liken it to wanting to outlaw drugs because people die from prescription drugs because they abuse them. it won't actually stop people from being addicts, and it will hurt millions who take the drugs as prescribed.

jrSmiley_43_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.8.29  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.8.28    3 months ago

Yes, Bob, very good.

I DID write those words and stick by them. Never denied it.

That is the difference between us.

 
 
 
Krishna
1.8.30  Krishna  replied to  Greg Jones @1.8.21    3 months ago
or murders committed by criminals and gang members, who shouldn't have guns to begin with.

But those gang members have a right to those guns (after all, having effective background checks would be a violation of their second amendment rights! :-(

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.8.31  XDm9mm  replied to  Krishna @1.8.30    3 months ago
background checks

You ARE aware are you not that we DO have background checks.  

And while we're here, please show exactly why the criminals and gang members would even attempt to obtain their ILLEGALLY POSSESSED guns legally.   It's already illegal for them to own guns, so do you REALLY believe that violating one more law would stop them?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
1.9  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Bob Nelson @1    3 months ago
Look at the gun in the image.

Without that thing wearing the hat, that gun won't do a damn thing.  But, hey, lets keep going after the inanimate object.

What possible use can it have,

What business is it of yours?  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.10  Vic Eldred  replied to  Bob Nelson @1    3 months ago

It took the Connecticut Court a long time to act. I'm not sure how much consolation it gives to the families of victims, but I hope the lawsuit proceeds.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
2  Nowhere Man    3 months ago
“The Connecticut Supreme Court has blown a very large hole into the federal immunity for firearms manufacturers in lawsuits alleging criminal misuse of the products they sell,”

Well that's a nice piece of legal sounding bullshite.....

It is not just an exemption for firearms manufacturers, it is an exemption that has been in legal existence for hundreds of years hearkening back to English common law...

A manufacturer cannot be held legally liable for deliberate misuse of their product......

It will go up the federal chain of courts and be struck down..... probably long before it reaches the Supreme Court....

Otherwise, expect 40,000+ lawsuits a year from the drunk driver victims families suing the car manufacturers for not making their cars drunk driving proof.....

Cars are not intended to be driven drunk....

Eliminate the principle for one industry, you eliminate it for all....

 
 
 
katrix
2.1  katrix  replied to  Nowhere Man @2    3 months ago

I have to agree.  If the guns are legal when manufactured and sold, how can the manufacturers legally be sued? 

There are now blow-and-go options available for cars, to use your example - should we sue all car manufacturers who aren't making those standard equipment in all their vehicles?

Of course, cigarette companies were sued, but I seem to recall that had a lot to do with them deliberately making their products more addictive ... but I still thought it was weird.  The people who sued knew how bad smoking was for them.  And now I think there are lawsuits against opioid manufacturers. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
2.2  Snuffy  replied to  Nowhere Man @2    3 months ago

Agreed. But this is what we have come to expect when you have a segment of the population that would rather not hold a person responsible for what they do. IMO, this is as bad as OAC who's suggestion around holding banks responsible would also include holding them accountable for financing the purchase of the car that a drunk drove.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.3  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Nowhere Man @2    3 months ago
A manufacturer cannot be held legally liable for deliberate misuse of their product

... but if the only logical purpose for the product is to slaughter people, then there has been no "misuse".

The AR 15 and its brethren have no logical purpose other than to slaughter people. Their manufacturers should be held responsible for the results.

 
 
 
cjcold
2.3.1  cjcold  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.3    3 months ago

The AR-15 is likely the most perfect all around rifle ever made (next to the AK-74). It is America's rifle.

I believe in thorough background checks for all gun purchases (like that's going to do any good).

Used to be a NRA member but quit when they became just a shill for the gun industry.

Here in the land of OZ one does not even need a carry permit anymore for open or concealed carry.

I would actually prefer more stringent laws on who could carry.

There are millions of responsible AR-15 owners for every one who develops a case of bad wiring.

I agree with the ban on bump stocks (turned mine in as per law to the local marshal, he gave it back).

Live way out here where friendship rather than strict interpretation of laws rule.

One of the few bastions of the old west left.

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.3.2  Tacos!  replied to  cjcold @2.3.1    3 months ago
The AR-15 is likely the most perfect all around rifle ever made

I concur. I'd have one, but I live in California and the state regs have taken a lot of the joy out of owning and operating one.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.3.3  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  cjcold @2.3.1    3 months ago
I believe in thorough background checks for all gun purchases (like that's going to do any good).

I agree that it would not do any good as long as it has no teeth. How about this: Every gun sold must be test-fired and it's characteristics entered into a database... and then linked to the buyer, who will be considered an accessory in any crime committed with that gun.

Gun owners might get a bit more serious about storing their weapons.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
2.3.4  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  cjcold @2.3.1    3 months ago

One of the few times where we are in complete agreement. I also am all for strict background checks as you said. Here in Arizona we have open carry, but I prefer to have a state approved concealed carry permit as there are situations that are covered during the course that many are not aware of. I live in the middle of the Sonora Desert on the Arizona/Mexican border. Lots of drug and illegal smuggling going on in my area. I will soon be moving to a 135 acre piece of property out in the desert and I need firearms for protection for my property and my family and the AR-15 style weapon suits my purposes.

 
 
 
Snuffy
2.3.5  Snuffy  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.3.3    3 months ago
I agree that it would not do any good as long as it has no teeth. How about this: Every gun sold must be test-fired and it's characteristics entered into a database... and then linked to the buyer, who will be considered an accessory in any crime committed with that gun. Gun owners might get a bit more serious about storing their weapons.

About the only thing I see this might slow down is the straw purchaser who goes into a gun store and legally purchases several guns and then sells said guns out of his trunk to people who cannot legally purchase guns. But do to this would require changing federal laws as it's currently illegal for the feds to maintain a database of who owns what gun. Additionally with the slow and poor performance of some federal workers, I would hate for someone who purchased a gun,  then sold it to another person (how do you force this test at a federal level if the sale is made within the state as the federal government can't interfere with intrastate commerce) and then the gun was stolen from the new owner and used in a crime.  Does the original owner volunteer the information that he sold his gun to this person? Or does the new owner have to register it?  And what happens if the paperwork is sent in, but the federal workers are lax in getting the information entered into the database?  In this case the original owner would be held responsible when he should not have.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.3.6  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.3    3 months ago
The AR 15 and its brethren have no logical purpose other than to slaughter people.

that part is true enough...

the bill of rights protects the states from a rouge federal government.

to do that we need the same arms the feds have.

if the fed's do not fear us, they will own us.   

the founder's intentions could not be more clear on this subject

anyone who would undermine, limit, or remove any part of our bill of rights simply cannot be trusted.

so, now you know why we need the same arms the feds have. and why we don't trust liberals.

btw california's high capacity magazine ban just got shot down as well

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6866617/Judge-blocks-Californias-high-capacity-ammunition-ban.html

cheers :)

 
 
 
Split Personality
2.4  Split Personality  replied to  Nowhere Man @2    3 months ago
A manufacturer cannot be held legally liable for deliberate misuse of their product......

And the purpose of most guns is to kill. Kill large animals. Mostly mammals but large birds and reptiles too.

So how are they being misused?

Otherwise, expect 40,000+ lawsuits a year from the drunk driver victims families suing the car manufacturers for not making their cars drunk driving proof

Which is why we have civil courts in addittion to criminal courts.

Cars are not intended to be driven drunk....

Exactly.  So what  problem do the two things have in common?

People.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.4.1  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Split Personality @2.4    3 months ago
And the purpose of most guns is to kill. Kill large animals

Really?

Do you know many hunters who fire more than two rounds at the animal they are hunting?

What is the purpose of a thirty-round magazine? Or even a six-round magazine?

To kill people.

 
 
 
Split Personality
2.4.2  Split Personality  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.4.1    3 months ago

Really? 

Was there something I didn't make clear in that post?

People ARE large Mammals/animals are they not?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.4.3  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Split Personality @2.4.2    3 months ago

People are large mammals, but larger mammals are not necessarily people .

That was unclear. 

 
 
 
WallyW
2.4.4  WallyW  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.4.1    3 months ago

Your argument is not logical. Hunters don't want to kill people. The number of rounds they have is irrelevant.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.4.5  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  WallyW @2.4.4    3 months ago
Your argument is not logical. Hunters don't want to kill people. The number of rounds they have is irrelevant.

If a person doesn't want to kill people, they don't need more than two rounds. How is that not logical?

 
 
 
Split Personality
2.4.6  Split Personality  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.4.5    3 months ago

If anyone wants to kill people, 2 rounds are 2 too many, right?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.4.7  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Split Personality @2.4.6    3 months ago

If anyone wants to kill lots of people, two rounds definitely are not enough. 

 
 
 
cjcold
2.4.8  cjcold  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.4.1    3 months ago

I shoot at targets a mile away just for the fun of it.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.4.9  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  cjcold @2.4.8    3 months ago

That's very cool!

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.5  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Nowhere Man @2    3 months ago
Cars are not intended to be driven drunk....

The normal purpose of a car is not deadly. The normal purpose of rapid-fire gun with big magazine is to slaughter people. Do you see the difference now?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.5.1  XDm9mm  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.5    3 months ago
The normal purpose of rapid-fire gun with big magazine is to slaughter people.

According to who exactly?  YOU?

Laughable.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.5.2  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  XDm9mm @2.5.1    3 months ago

Give us a different reason... if you can.

The AR 15 has proven itself to be very effective for slaughtering people.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.5.3  XDm9mm  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.5.2    3 months ago
Give us a different reason... if you can.

Target shooting, hunting, self defense.

Besides, YOU have no bearing telling me what I can or can't own, nor what I should or should not want.  It really is as simple as that.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.5.4  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  XDm9mm @2.5.3    3 months ago

Thirty rounds for target shooting...

   ... head for shelter!!

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.5.5  XDm9mm  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.5.4    3 months ago
  ... head for shelter!!

Obviously, you have no experience in such things.

Thanks for the fear mongering.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
2.5.6  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.5.2    3 months ago

So were rocks, spears, knives, axes, and halbreds in the middle ages to name a few and they killed more people than guns ever have so what's your point?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.5.7  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.5.6    3 months ago

You equate rocks and AR15s... Interesting. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
2.5.8  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.5.7    3 months ago

You deny that a well placed rock can kill? I've seen it...

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.5.9  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.5.8    3 months ago

Are you really equating rocks and AR15s? Seriously?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
2.5.10  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.5.9    3 months ago

I am stating that a rock can kill you just as dead as a AR-15. So my answer is that, under certain circumstances, yes I am. Again, are you denying that a well placed rock can kill you just as dead?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.5.11  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.5.10    3 months ago

OK. Your "honesty" is... also interesting. 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
2.5.12  r.t..b...  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.5.10    3 months ago
a well placed rock can kill you just as dead?

That could be slipperiest slope ever. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
2.5.13  1stwarrior  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.5.10    3 months ago

True Ed - hell, I've seen folks with butter knives who can put the fear of death in ya.

 
 
 
cjcold
2.5.14  cjcold  replied to  1stwarrior @2.5.13    3 months ago

Yep. That's why airlines don't even allow nail clippers.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
2.5.15  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  r.t..b... @2.5.12    3 months ago

Slippery perhaps, but still relevant.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3  Texan1211    3 months ago

If the manufacturer loses this case, I am pretty confident they will appeal and a higher court will vacate whatever the lower court decided.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1  XDm9mm  replied to  Texan1211 @3    3 months ago
higher court will vacate whatever the lower court decided.

I'm confident a higher court will tell the Connecticut Supreme Court to pound sand.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4  XDm9mm    3 months ago

While the Connecticut Supreme Court THINKS it can vacate Federal law and permit the lawsuit to go on, it will be overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States.

What they are permitting is authorizing a lawsuit against a manufacturer for the ILLEGAL actions of a psychotic individual, using a legally manufactured product for the commission of an illegal act.

That's akin to allowing the victims run down in the terrorist attack in New York suing the the manufacturer of the vehicle used and holding them responsible.

The insanity of some purportedly intelligent jurists is on glaring display.

 
 
 
lady in black
5  lady in black    3 months ago

Not sure how I feel about this.....I'm torn......

 
 
 
r.t..b...
5.1  r.t..b...  replied to  lady in black @5    3 months ago

A difficult issue, hence the acrimony. The 2nd Amendment is not threatened if certain weapons are deemed too dangerous is it? Could it not be argued that pistols, small magazine rifles and shotguns are untouchable, but semi-automatic weapons should be banned? (and please, no semantics lectures on caliber, specs, etc.) Grandfather them in, allow them to be rented at your local range, but if we were to quit manufacturing them, would anyone's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness really be infringed upon?

And this lawsuit will not change the status quo, but can hopefully spur necessary, reasonable discussion. Just my opinion.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
5.1.1  XDm9mm  replied to  r.t..b... @5.1    3 months ago
The 2nd Amendment is not threatened if certain weapons are deemed too dangerous is it?

It most certainly is.  It is that proverbial 'slippery slope' if you will.   There are also those four ending words....   "....shall not be infringed."

It's akin to telling people they have the 1st Amendment rights, as long as they don't use "X" or "Y" words.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
5.1.2  r.t..b...  replied to  XDm9mm @5.1.1    3 months ago
It's akin to telling people they have the 1st Amendment rights, as long as they don't use "X" or "Y" words.

But there are cases where that has indeed been adjudicated. I think it would be cool to fire a bazooka, but that is an armament that has been deemed too dangerous. Where is the line drawn and why can we not further define what is allowed under the Amendment if it is deemed in the best interest of the general public? 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
5.1.3  XDm9mm  replied to  r.t..b... @5.1.2    3 months ago
Where is the line drawn and why can we not further define what is allowed under the Amendment if it is deemed in the best interest of the general public?

You've confused what is considered military ordinance with common usage firearms.

And there are places where you most certainly can fire a bazooka, or drive and fire a tank.  Just sayin.

What I have yet to understand is why, when we have all of the "gun legislation" that we do, and a horrible incident happens, do they think more onerous regulations on firearms will miraculously stop what the 20 plus thousand laws and regulations before have not.   And, in all that anti-gun legislation, there is never any mention of holding the one common denominator responsible for his/her actions.  The individual responsible for MISUSING the firearm (tool) and violating very likely multiple laws in the process.

Let's face facts.  Laws are meant for nothing more than to deter those already law biding citizens from venturing over to the "dark side" and for punishing those people who do cross the line.   There is NO LAW that has ever been written that has stopped some individual/group from doing something illegal.  If that were possible, we would have no prisons as those people never would have violated the law to begin with.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
5.1.4  r.t..b...  replied to  XDm9mm @5.1.3    3 months ago
There is NO LAW that has ever been written that has stopped some individual/group from doing something illegal. 

Agreed, but we're wandering away from the contention that some 'tools' should be banned. I appreciate your analysis of legislation vis-a-vis law abiding citizens and understand the frustration when our laws are broken by the minute. I guess I just have trouble with putting semi-automatic weapons under the same umbrella as 'common usage firearms'. Make them available at that facility where you can fire a bazooka or tank. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
5.1.5  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  r.t..b... @5.1.4    3 months ago

Gun-nuts don't like to recognize that mass murder is impossible without weapons-designed-for-mass-murder. 

A weapon-designed-for-mass-murder can be used for something else. A screwdriver can be used as a hammer, too. But that's not what it does best.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
5.1.6  XDm9mm  replied to  r.t..b... @5.1.4    3 months ago
I guess I just have trouble with putting semi-automatic weapons under the same umbrella as 'common usage firearms'.

Semi automatic rifles have been the most popular gun sold since the early 1900's.   Hell, they were 'invented' in the 1880's.

And semi automatic rifles are the most owned type in America.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
5.1.7  r.t..b...  replied to  XDm9mm @5.1.6    3 months ago
Hell, they were 'invented' in the 1880's.

I don't pretend to be the gun expert here, but I think you know the type of weaponry we were discussing. Unless you feel that is a nugget of wisdom that will bolster your argument. 

 
 
 
WallyW
5.1.8  WallyW  replied to  r.t..b... @5.1    3 months ago
but can hopefully spur necessary, reasonable discussion.

If one is talking to an anti-gun nut, such a discussion is not likely to happen.

And if certain weapons are banned and sales of them stop, what about the millions in circulation, including those in the hands of criminals and killers. The gun grabbers never seem to think about that. The gun confiscation program in Australia really worked, didn't it.

 
 
 
Snuffy
5.1.9  Snuffy  replied to  r.t..b... @5.1.4    3 months ago
I guess I just have trouble with putting semi-automatic weapons under the same umbrella as 'common usage firearms'

The vast majority of guns in use and sold today are semi-automatic so by definition that puts them into the 'common use' category. IMO the size of the tool doesn't make it any more dangerous than the next.  After all,  common physics tells us that a car moving at 80 mph will cause more damage to a body if it hits it than a car moving at 10 mph.  But we don't see people screaming to lower the speed limits for this...   It still comes down to the same thing,  the intent of the person who wields it.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
5.1.10  XDm9mm  replied to  r.t..b... @5.1.7    3 months ago
I don't pretend to be the gun expert here, but I think you know the type of weaponry we were discussing

Yes... the AR-15...   which is a SEMI AUTOMATIC rifle no different in function than a Ruger 10/22 or a Remington Nylon and ANY OTHER SEMI AUTOMATIC RIFLE IN THE HANDS OF THE CIVILIAN POPULATION.

The only thing about the AR-15 is APPEARANCE to the M-16's the military used.   It's that 'scary looking' black rifle.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
5.1.11  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Snuffy @5.1.9    3 months ago
After all,  common physics tells us that a car moving at 80 mph will cause more damage to a body if it hits it than a car moving at 10 mph.  But we don't see people screaming to lower the speed limits for this... 

Assimilating cars and rapid-fire, large-magazine firearms is intellectual dishonesty .

Cars are designed to transport people.

Rapid-fire, large-magazine firearms are designed to kill people.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
5.1.12  r.t..b...  replied to  Snuffy @5.1.9    3 months ago
IMO the size of the tool doesn't make it any more dangerous than the next.

Point taken. I'll respectfully disagree.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
5.1.13  r.t..b...  replied to  WallyW @5.1.8    3 months ago
If one is talking to an anti-gun nut, such a discussion is not likely to happen.

And certainly not likely to happen if 'gun grabbers' and confiscation is the first argument proffered.

 
 
 
MUVA
5.1.14  MUVA  replied to  r.t..b... @5.1.7    3 months ago

A AR 15 is a semi automatic rifle it just looks cool.

 
 
 
Split Personality
5.1.15  Split Personality  replied to  WallyW @5.1.8    3 months ago
The gun confiscation program in Australia really worked, didn't it.

Depends on your perspective and your reason to keep bringing up Australia.

Your chances of being killed by a firearm in Australia is 0.0000084 including suicides.

Your chances of being killed by a firearm in America is 1.96%

So Americans are 233% more likely to die by firearms than an Aussie.

As far as suicide by any means, that ranks 15th in AU with 2,200 per 25 million.

In the USA suicide ranks 10th leading cause of death with over 45,000 per year

 
 
 
Ender
5.1.16  Ender  replied to  WallyW @5.1.8    3 months ago
New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said Saturday morning that "our gun laws will change" following the mass shooting at two Christchurch mosques that left 49 people dead. https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/15/asia/new-zealand-gun-control-intl/index.html
 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.17  Tacos!  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.1.5    3 months ago
mass murder is impossible without weapons-designed-for-mass-murder. 

In 2014, a handful of men killed 31 people in China with nothing more than knives.

In 2013, 3 people were killed and 264 injured (some, pretty horribly) by a couple of exploding pressure cookers.

In 2010, 500 people in Nigeria were killed with machetes.

In 1995, using a truck filled with fertilizer, Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people, injured another 680, and destroyed a building.

In 1978, a lunatic named Jim Jones murdered over 900 people with Kool-Aid.

In 1990, 87 people were murdered in New York using gasoline and some matches.

The deadliest mass murder at a school took place in 1928 at Bath Consolidated School in Michigan. 45 dead and 58 injured by dynamite.

On September 11, 2001, almost 3,000 people were murdered with airplanes. No link cuz I figure you might have heard about it.

By the way, put the issue into the larger context of murder, in general. Mass shootings constitute about 0.2% of homicide incidents. Of course, more people die per incident in a mass shooting, but they still only amount to about 1% of total homicide victims. 

So we have a lot angst, argument and debate over 1% of the homicides. What about the other 99% that tick away day after day? No one ever seems to want to have a "national conversation" or a constitutional amendment to address those deaths.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
5.1.18  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.17    3 months ago

So... all told... you think it's all cool?

 
 
 
cjcold
5.1.19  cjcold  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.1.5    3 months ago

I know how to make a bomb out of normal kitchen ingredients. Own a few guns but am not a gun nut.

It's not all black or white. There are varying shades of grey.

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.20  Tacos!  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.1.18    3 months ago
So... all told... you think it's all cool?

No, I think there's a lot we could improve. I wouldn't disarm the American people, though. 

One of the more important things we need to face is that guns are not turning law-abiding people into murderers. The sheer number of privately owned guns in America may be staggering to contemplate but the number of gun owners who actually use their guns to commit murder is miniscule.

There have long been murders in the United States, but there are reasons for those murders that have nothing to do with guns. So, why threaten the rights and sovereignty of law-abiding American citizens (who are the only people who actually comply with gun laws) when we could be focusing our efforts on the murderers themselves?

If you're a politician, it's very easy to slap together some legislation and tell yourself (or your voters) that you did something about gun violence, but such measures are mainly good for show and little else. The underlying causes are more complex and harder to solve.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
5.1.21  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.20    3 months ago

I agree with what you say here... but... you also say that much can be done.

I do not believe that anything can be done as long as there are hundreds of millions (literally) of firearms floating around, practically uncontrolled.

It's perfectly true that almost all gun owners are responsible. Absolutely true.

It is also absolutely true that weekly gun massacres are not acceptable.

If we are not satisfied with weekly massacres, then we must do something... something that we actually believe will be effective. The usual "background check BS" is just that: BS.

So... what do we do?

 
 
 
squiggy
5.1.22  squiggy  replied to  r.t..b... @5.1.7    3 months ago

"...know the type of weaponry we were discussing..."

Yes. The OP has assailed two-shot firearms as excessive.

 
 
 
Phoenyx13
5.1.23  Phoenyx13  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.20    3 months ago
I wouldn't disarm the American people, though.

you just showed everyone @5.1.17 that if, by some extremely slim chance, we outlawed guns or whatever that the American people still wouldn't be disarmed. This is a very dishonest argument to make - claim that taking away guns disarms everyone, yet provide tons of examples of ways people have committed killings without guns. (btw, i don't support taking away everyone's guns.. so let's just cut that assumption out immediately)

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.24  Tacos!  replied to  Phoenyx13 @5.1.23    3 months ago
This is a very dishonest argument to make - claim that taking away guns disarms everyone, yet provide tons of examples of ways people have committed killings without guns.

The argument was a response to the claim that mass murder isn't possible without a weapon designed for mass murder. The implication being that is we eliminated guns, mass murder would end. There's nothing dishonest about showing that to be untrue.

 
 
 
Phoenyx13
5.1.25  Phoenyx13  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.24    3 months ago
The argument was a response to the claim that mass murder isn't possible without a weapon designed for mass murder. The implication being that is we eliminated guns, mass murder would end. There's nothing dishonest about showing that to be untrue.

that's fine - but you stated:

I wouldn't disarm the American people, though.

which you contradicted in @5.1.17 - so taking away guns wouldn't disarm the American people as you clearly pointed out (and pointed out that mass murders wouldn't stop either)

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.26  Tacos!  replied to  Phoenyx13 @5.1.25    3 months ago
taking away guns wouldn't disarm the American people

Yes it would. It's simple language skills. Is a gun an "arm?" as in firearm? Yes, it is. Is taking it away "disarming?" Yes it is. That doesn't mean a person couldn't come up with some other way to harm a person. You can hurt a person with your bare hands, but if I take your gun from you, I have still disarmed you. That's what the word means. But by your tortured logic, no one could ever be disarmed. That doesn't make sense. I have no idea what the point of this silly exercise of yours is.

 
 
 
Phoenyx13
5.1.27  Phoenyx13  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.26    3 months ago
Yes it would. It's simple language skills. Is a gun an "arm?" as in firearm? Yes, it is. Is taking it away "disarming?" Yes it is. That doesn't mean a person couldn't come up with some other way to harm a person. You can hurt a person with your bare hands, but if I take your gun from you, I have still disarmed you. That's what the word means. But by your tortured logic, no one could ever be disarmed. That doesn't make sense. I have no idea what the point of this silly exercise of yours is

it surely makes sense, you do take away one option but they are still armed with knives (as you pointed out) and other weapons, correct ? or did they suddenly lose those "arms" too when you took away the guns ?

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.28  Tacos!  replied to  Phoenyx13 @5.1.27    3 months ago

So you agree with me that by your logic it's impossible to ever disarm anyone and this is therefore a pointless debate.

Or, you could come back from the edge and acknowledge that by "arms" the writers of the 2nd Amendment meant "firearms."

 
 
 
Phoenyx13
5.1.29  Phoenyx13  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.28    3 months ago
So you agree with me that by your logic it's impossible to ever disarm anyone and this is therefore a pointless debate. Or, you could come back from the edge and acknowledge that by "arms" the writers of the 2nd Amendment meant "firearms."

it is a pointless debate - because as you pointed out.. take away guns and everyone is still armed - you proved that yourself and posted links to back it up.

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.30  Tacos!  replied to  Phoenyx13 @5.1.29    3 months ago

That's just really a dumb argument. I don't know why you keep bothering with it.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
5.2  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  lady in black @5    3 months ago
I'm torn.....

No as badly as the children of Sandy Hook.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
5.2.1  XDm9mm  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.2    3 months ago

Nor as badly as these poor souls:

8 dead in rampage, 'cowardly' truck attack on NYC bike path in Manhattan

https://abc7ny.com/8-dead-in-rampage-cowardly-truck-attack-on-nyc-bike-path/2588484/

or maybe these poor people:

Injured Man Dies Three Weeks After France Truck Attack, Bringing Toll to 85

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/france-truck-attack/injured-man-dies-three-weeks-after-france-truck-attack-bringing-n623231

The simple point is Bob.....   you can't predict exactly what people will do, nor the tools they use to fulfill their abhorrent desires.  Nor can you legislate evil out of existence, no matter how we all wish it was possible.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
5.2.2  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  XDm9mm @5.2.1    3 months ago

A car has a worthwhile purpose. It can be misused.

An AR15 has no worthwhile purpose. It is meant to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible.

Assimilating the two is despicable intellectual dishonesty.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
5.2.3  XDm9mm  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.2.2    3 months ago
Assimilating the two is despicable intellectual dishonesty.

Claims the master of intellectual dishonesty.

My AR platform firearms have many purposes....  and not one of them is to kill as many people as possible.   That's distinctly YOUR perspective of them.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
5.2.4  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  XDm9mm @5.2.3    3 months ago
My AR platform firearms have many purposes

Which are what?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
5.2.5  XDm9mm  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.2.4    3 months ago
Which are what?

I already told you in earlier posts.   Go review them.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
5.2.6  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  XDm9mm @5.2.5    3 months ago

Cool!

Once again, you have implied that you have pertinent experience... without ever explicitly saying so... and then when asked for details, you fade away.

[deleted]

 
 
 
XDm9mm
5.2.7  XDm9mm  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.2.6    3 months ago
Once again, you have implied that you have pertinent experience...

Go back and review what I've already posted.  [deleted]

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
5.2.8  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  XDm9mm @5.2.7    3 months ago

[deleted/taunting]

 
 
 
XDm9mm
5.2.9  XDm9mm  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.2.8    3 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
5.2.10  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  XDm9mm @5.2.9    3 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
cjcold
5.2.11  cjcold  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.2.2    3 months ago

Yep, I own several AR-15 AR-10 platforms. It's fun to stretch them out to a 1000 yards.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
5.2.12  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  cjcold @5.2.11    3 months ago

Would a single-shot rifle be less fun?

 
 
 
squiggy
5.2.13  squiggy  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.2    3 months ago

"No as badly as the children of Sandy Hook."

Good answer. Blythely dismissing a fence-sitter is a win for the other side. Just axe all those stupid West Virginia coal miners.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
5.2.14  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  squiggy @5.2.13    3 months ago
Just axe all those stupid West Virginia coal miners.

Excellent Comment. Great pertinence!

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
5.2.15  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  squiggy @5.2.13    3 months ago
Just axe all those stupid West Virginia coal miners.

Excellent Comment. Great pertinence!

 
 
 
charger 383
5.2.16  charger 383  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.2.12    3 months ago

of course it is less fun, why do you think they sell a lot of them and extra magazines?  People like them and are willing to pay money for them

 
 
 
cjcold
5.2.17  cjcold  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.2.12    3 months ago

My single shot Barrett in .50 cal is lots of fun even though my shoulder hurts after a few shots.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
5.2.18  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  cjcold @5.2.17    3 months ago

That's an "elephant gun", isn't it? I seem to remember the name.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
5.2.19  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  charger 383 @5.2.16    3 months ago

I'm sure there'd be an even greater adrenaline rush from a bazooka.

 
 
 
Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉
5.2.20  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.2.4    3 months ago

I maintain a huge arsenal of military rifles for the inevitable violent communist revolution that is coming. 

It's my duty as an American to be prepared for tyranny. The Founding Fathers told me to.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
5.2.21  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉ @5.2.20    3 months ago
I maintain a huge arsenal of military rifles for the inevitable violent communist revolution that is coming.  It's my duty as an American to be prepared for tyranny. The Founding Fathers told me to.

The problem, Bf, is that there are many on the right who think your words are serious.

They really imagine themselves in a pickup truck full o' good 'ol buddies, blazin' away at them Commies!

 
 
 
Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉
5.2.22  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.2.21    3 months ago

There are so many guns in this country there isn't much you can do about it. Gun confiscation, collection would never happen.

Good luck finding a law enforcement agency that supports enforcing it.

 
 
 
It Is ME
5.2.23  It Is ME  replied to  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉ @5.2.22    3 months ago
There are so many guns in this country.....

….that "LEGALLY" own guns, If there was a REAL Gun Problem, we'd KNOW IT ! 

Seems we have MORE a "NUT JOB People" problem.....but that doesn't make for a good "News?.....STORY ! jrSmiley_26_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
5.2.24  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.2.21    3 months ago

No doubt there are many that would rather fight than die under an authoritarian left wing dystopian idiocracy.  THen there are the others who we won't mention by name.

The founding fathers risked it all gainst all odds.  I have no reason believe that resistance will be futile.  

Telling the truth may appear to be a revolutionary construct to you, but that is more a consequence of living in a time of universal deception.

 
 
 
Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉
5.2.25  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉  replied to  Freedom Warrior @5.2.24    3 months ago

The history of Marxist tyranny and genocide in the 20th century alone is enough reason to maintain a healthy armory.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
5.2.26  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉ @5.2.25    3 months ago

I understand the sentiment, but it will take a lot more than a healthy armory to defeat the authoritarian ideologies now being embraced by the Democratic Party.

 
 
 
squiggy
6  squiggy    3 months ago

A Connecticut court would be anti-gun?

 
 
 
KDMichigan
7  KDMichigan    3 months ago

This whole thread is ridiculous.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I don't see anything in there about how many bullets are needed to shoot a deer or duck.

Seems to me when we have a certain group of people touting the greatness of socialism, the 2nd Amendment is never more necessary and is why the founding fathers stipulated it.

 

 
 
 
cjcold
7.1  cjcold  replied to  KDMichigan @7    3 months ago
to shoot a deer or duck.

How many would be needed to take out a home invasion crew? Coming from a banking family who has been trained in hostage negotiation, I say shoot first and shoot accurately.

 
 
 
Tacos!
8  Tacos!    3 months ago

Sue away! I don't think anything will come of it, but we have more lawyers than any other country. Might as well give some of them some work.

 
 
 
charger 383
9  charger 383    3 months ago

Our well armed citizens are what protect us from criminals and would be dictators,  since the armed citizens took their freedom,  very few other countries have had kept the same form of government and freedom as long as we have

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
10  The Magic Eight Ball    3 months ago
widely expected to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court,

and the supreme court will overturn this ruling.  count on it.

cheers :)

 
 
 
Jasper2529
12  Jasper2529    3 months ago
“The Connecticut Supreme Court has blown a very large hole into the federal immunity for firearms manufacturers in lawsuits alleging criminal misuse of the products they sell,”

"a very large hole"? By that wacky reasoning, we can sue manufacturers when we're guilty of misusing:

  • aspirin, Ibuprofen, Acetaminophen, cough/cold/gastro products, etc.
  • grills and turkey fryers.
  • chainsaws, snowblowers, knives, hatchets, etc.   
 
 
 
r.t..b...
13  r.t..b...    3 months ago

The argument comes down to ones' definition of liberty. When the inevitable next incident involving AR-15 type weapons are considered  collateral damage in preserving my 2nd Amendment rights, that is but the price of liberty. Do you have the courage to explain your rationale to the victims (dead and survivors) of that same incident, those that have had all their liberties extinguished for your 2nd Amendment right to bear such a weapon. I doubt anyone has the willingness to do so face to face with a mourning family member.

 
 
 
charger 383
13.1  charger 383  replied to  r.t..b... @13    3 months ago

I ain't scared to

A shooting is very bad

If citizens are disarmed, there is a very good chance the leaders will become uncontrolled tyrants, they will round up those they don't like and those who's stuff they want and more will be legally shot then.  

A civilian population that is well armed is the best way to stay free.  

 
 
 
Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉
13.1.1  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉  replied to  charger 383 @13.1    3 months ago
A civilian population that is well armed is the best way to stay free.  

Yes sir!

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
13.1.2  Freedom Warrior  replied to  charger 383 @13.1    3 months ago

I'd prefer not to think of it as the "best way".    But folks may not be given a choice based on what I am witnessing from left wing extremists.

 
 
 
charger 383
13.1.3  charger 383  replied to  Freedom Warrior @13.1.2    3 months ago

knowing we are well armed is a major deterrence to would be tyrants  and other bad people

 
 
 
Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉
13.1.4  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉  replied to  charger 383 @13.1.3    3 months ago

Exactly and it was the reason the Japanese decided on Hawaii and not the mainland.

 
 
 
It Is ME
13.1.5  It Is ME  replied to  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉ @13.1.4    3 months ago

"To fight the United States is like fighting the whole world. But it has been decided. So I will fight the best I can."

Isoroku Yamamoto

He and His Country.....LOST !

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
13.1.6  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉ @13.1.4    3 months ago

Japan's troops would have been crushed by mainland militia, but occupied Hawaii with ease...

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
14  Freedom Warrior    3 months ago

Anybody wanna bet that they won't be suing auto makers for drunk driving fatalities?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
15  Ed-NavDoc    3 months ago

I stand properly rebuked. My apologies. Thank you for your service and have a good day.

 
 
 
Tacos!
16  Tacos!    3 months ago

The question is often asked - and has been asked here: "Why do you need so many rounds?" The simple answer is: shooters miss. But they need to hit their target, so they need to be able to shoot again. Immediately.

Here is a link to a report on shootings by New York City police officers. It's kind of old, but the findings are still relevant to our discussion because the basic facets of combat shooting haven't really changed.

HIT POTENTIAL IN GUN FIGHTS

The Police Officer's potential for hitting his adversary during armed confrontation has increased over the years and stands at slightly over 25% of the rounds fired.
In 1990 the overall Police hit potential was 19%. Where distances could be determined, the hit percentages at distances under 15 yards were:

Less than 3 yards ..... 38%

3 yards to 7 yards .. 11.5%

7 yards to 15 yards .. 9.4%

In 1992 the overall Police hit potential was 17%. Where distances could be determined, the hit percentages at distances under 15 yards were:

Less than 3 yards ..... 28%

3 yards to 7 yards .... 11%

7 yards to 15 yards . 4.2%

So, if you want to a hit a person one time - and you're within ten feet of them - you can reasonably expect to have to fire four times. If they're across the room or down the hall, you might fire ten times or more and still miss.

And this is for cops who have been trained in the combat use of their firearm, practice frequently, and encounter life-threatening situations on a daily basis. Just imagine the contrast in emotional state for an ordinary civilian who has just had someone break into their house in the middle of the night.

THE DISCONNECT BETWEEN RANGE MARKSMANSHIP & COMBAT HITSMANSHIP

It has been assumed that if a man can hit a target at 50 yards he can certainly do the same at three feet. That assumption is not borne out by the reports.

An attempt was made to relate an Officer's ability to strike a target in a combat situation to his range qualification scores. After making over 200 such comparisons, no firm conclusion was reached.

So if you have a firearm for self-defense, it's perfectly reasonable that you might want a magazine with 10, 20, 30 or more rounds in it. After all, this is the device that is intended to save your life. You don't want to run out of ammo in the middle of that fight.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
17  Jeremy Retired in NC    3 months ago

So not only are people STILL blaming an inanimate object, now they can go after the maker of that inanimate object.

 
 
 
Ender
17.1  Ender  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @17    3 months ago

If one can sue McDonald's for spilling hot coffee on their lap, why not this?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
17.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @17    3 months ago

To people like that, it is so much easier to deny that people with guns kill people rather than guns alone kill people. That kind of logic escapes most thinking people...

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
18  Ed-NavDoc    3 months ago

Sometimes you miss...

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
JBB
Jack_TX
zuksam
Jim of the Great Northwoods
PJ
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
GregTx


98 visitors