Supreme Court Won’t Hear Challenge to Assault Weapons Ban

So basically sporting rifles that scare you because what you see on TV and Movies is your only reason for banning them?

 

Everyone knows AR-15s are fully semi-automatic and therefore dangerous!

If you have an assault finger they're capable of 1200 rounds per minute.

 

Start a thread about the nations 3rd largest killer and I'll be happy to join in

 

First, I never said anything about "for the children". Adults and kids are killing adults and kid with the common denominator being guns.
Your metaphor makes sense only to you. Weather you understand that or not makes no difference to me.

 

Yep, made a mistake. Didn't know we were graded on grammar.Let me know when you want to get back to the subject.

 

Chronic lower respiratory diseases?

 

It was hyperbole. Learn to recognize a rhetorical device.
I assure you everyone understands but you.

 

why do you want criminals to have an advantage over honest people? no one can be so stupid as to believe people who already own guns illegally are going to follow such a stupid law

did you know you can buy 30 round magazines all over the USA freely, with no ID ?

we get the fact that you are a gun hater. can you even tell us what an assault weapon is?

- - - Updated - - -

Long arms count for less than 2% and that includes 22 caliber rifles, pump shotguns, side by side shotguns "assault weapons" etc. as the chief of a City in NJ said back during the clinton ban-his officers had a greater chance of being killed by an escaped tiger from the zoo than being shot with an "assault weapon"

 

that's really stupid given that handguns are used in the vast majority of killings and they already found that a handgun ban is unconstitutional

why do you want criminals to be better armed than honest people?

- - - Updated - - -

why don't you tell us what makes the difference

we need a laugh

and why the bottom rifle is "more dangerous"

go ahead-this ought to be amusing

- - - Updated - - -

that's the purpose of gun bans. the people who passed them are liberals. they are trying to punish people like us who vote against banoid politicians

 

Roberts has proven his goal in life is to get good press from left wing legal commentators. He also is a big fan of letting legislators mostly do what they want. Alito is hard to figure on this one other than justices are powerful and ultimately many of them don't want common people to have competition forms of power

- - - Updated - - -

need has no relevance in constitutional issues

 

that's beyond idiotic. every civilian police department in the USA issues "assault weapons"

those weapons are just as useful for other civilians to use for self defense against the same criminals

your comments are beyond silly. no one has ever lost a gun fight by having too many rounds in their weapon

I spent 24 years as a federal LEO-your comments are completely at odds with known reality

 

same with the Parisians

- - - Updated - - -

to those of us who actually understand constitutional rights- its a brilliant analogy

I will use it the next time I lecture a law school class on constitutional rights

- - - Updated - - -

to those of us who actually understand constitutional rights- its a brilliant analogy

I will use it the next time I lecture a law school class on constitutional rights

 

that's one of the stupidest things I have ever heard on this issue. the only mistake Scalia made was even acknowledging that the Commerce clause crap is a proper basis for federal gun laws

and he has to do that because he realizes a proper ruling on the CC would wipe away Medicare, social security, Title VII and all these things Scalia doesn't want to see thrown out

 

why do you want criminals to have a monopoly on firearms? I have to assume most gun banners are criminal supporters, criminals or criminal enablers. its the only thing that makes sense/ You want to punish honest people for owning guns. what sort of hysteria causes this
no one with a functioning mind who has seen what happened in Chicago or DC can believe a gun ban will stop criminals

so we have to assume that your false claims about wanting to stop crime is a facade for something more sinister in your jihad against constitutional rights

 

so why don't you give up your guns and stop trying to take them away from those of us who aren't afraid of them?

anything civilian police own=so should other civilians be able to buy and possess

 

why should the public be able to own the same weapons as police and SWAT teams?

 

ITs called the second amendment-you ought to read it sometime

police don't have a greater right or power to shoot someone than people like you and me

and we both face the same type of criminals

why should I have lesser defensive means than a government minion

 

its their job to run towards trouble and risk their lives to help others.

even die to help others.

they also go through thorough training and supervision.


the general public? nope.

 

that's a brain dead distinction

they choose when and where they confront a criminal

the rest of us have no choice

try again Ron. remember I have 30 years as a prosecutor. I know this topic inside and out since I was the use of force expert for a county sheriff's department and then the federal government

 

Such a law will do practically nothing to stop crime since rifles generally are a small component of gun crime, and full-auto rifles are practically never used. When they are, they're usually illegal since they're so much cheaper and more readily available.

Nothing the gun control crowd proposes reduces that 8788 gun murders per year figure significantly. It does however (*)(*)(*)(*) over a lot of legal sport shooters, hunters and collectors. The AWB reduces that 8788 gun murders per year figure by 48. And that's all such "assault weapons", legal or not.

I'm willing to let other Prohibitionist states trample their gun freedom, but only so long as they respect the equal right of their neighbors to have permissive policy. Time to repeal the NFA.

 

The police are not required to protect you, as per the supreme court rulings.

Many police shoot their weapon once a year when they qualify.

Your average police officer has less ability with a firearm than those of us who train at least once a week.

Academy graduates are 13% more accurate than someone who has never fired a weapon before.

Wearing a uniform doesn't make you a better shot.

 

You seem to see a lot of things that others don't see. IMO, some of them aren't even there.

Your trolling, childish insults and attempts to minimize dangers which are real are noted.

I'm sure you're familiar with the news maxim which says, "when it bleeds, it leads" and I'm also sure you're seen it on your local stations as well. So, when there is a lot of bleeding, then that rises to national prominence and only succeeds in driving more gun sales, thereby putting more guns, particularly weapons of war, on the street. The gun lobby sells, and a fair number of people believe, that arming themselves to the max will keep them protected. Nonsense and every stat out there says so.

From a short Google search, your 8788 is an FBI number from 2010 and it is far from inclusive (crime stats there are generally under-reported). It also has absolutely nothing to do with gun deaths of all kinds in the country. Then again, if you want more deaths by gun, just put more of them out there. Hell, we already lead the world in deaths by gun:

Given that most guns are owned by fewer numbers of people (the majority NOT having guns in the house), it's not unimaginable seeing a not-too-distant future with stricter regulations. Perhaps a few more bloody mass murders with corpses scattered here and there around the country should do it. And, yes, I hold people like you as partially responsible for those deaths. Call it illogical if you will, but then again, believing that you are somehow freer or safer if you have one or more assault rifles on premise strike me as completely illogical.

 

Well, your fear of a scary looking rifle that uses a weaker intermediate cartridge and is used in very few crimes then claiming the gun violence in the US will be stopped by banning it is certainly unwitting trolling. Like the NYT article claiming why they need to be banned showing the picture of two rifles and two handguns yet not mentioning the handguns which the SB shooters used and which are used in the huge majority of gun crimes shows the disconnect between fantasy and reality.

You have fallen for an emotional argument instead of using your intellect.

 

When it comes to mass shootings, one simple reality remains constant: people with malicious intent will always have legal access to two semi-auto pistols with 10rd detachable magazines. Like at the Virginia Tech shooting - he just slammed 17 magazines out for a total of 170 rounds. No gun control is presently proposing to restrict this legal access. So use that as your baseline. Even in totalitarian Australia, any citizen can (if they jump through the hoops) get a semi-automatic handgun with detachable magazines.

[hr][/hr]

By definition, a cosmetic difference poses no danger. Are you trying to do what would reduce gun homicides, or are you trying to ban scary looking guns? All rifles together account for 350 gun homicides per year out of a total of 8,300. They are practically insignificant. You do not stop mass shootings through "Assault Weapons" bans. You simply push them to slightly less effective methods. Virginia Tech style-shootings will always be an option for anyone unable to get access to a rifle which is impossible to conceal and offers very little additional benefit.

As anyone who has actually used full-auto rifles will tell you, they are extremely difficult to control to those unfamiliar with their proper function. Do not be fooled into thinking that you can kill as many people as the rate of fire will permit - you will inevitably end up using it in bursts which do not offer a significant advantage over semi-auto mechanisms. Which would be most suited to an active shooter situation is by no means a settled question.

As for the "assault features", what an absolute joke. What is a bayonet lug going to do for you in a mass shooting? A pistol grip? Jack (*)(*)(*)(*), if you think you can fire two full auto rifles properly one in each hand you have been watching way too many Rambo flicks. You would almost certainly cause more casualties using a single semi-auto weapon accurately. What serious use is a telescoping stock? Practically none.

Prohibiting these weapons for 300,000,000 people in order to slightly impede mass shooters, forcing them to only (lol) perpetrate the most deadly mass shooting in US history. The gun grabbers don't even attempt to do any sort of balance of liberty and security here, it's absurd.

[hr][/hr]

Ensure that you keep your right to bear arms. The ability to keep arms is overrated as (*)(*)(*)(*) - I own firearms and enjoy their use, but they only have a sporting use to me, as the state has de facto prohibited self-defence, ensures that you just keep the gun and its ammunition locked in separate 4x bolted safes, and will charge you for manslaughter if you defend yourself or your family.

Cherish your right to carry, while it still lasts. Once it goes it will never come back - the rise in CCW permits over the US since 1987 is unlike any other retreat of government in recorded history. Feel lucky - you are.

 

To me a good percentage of these laws are "feel good" laws - a way to essentially "do nothing" and pretend one is helping simply to appease certain voter demographics. The effectiveness of the laws isn't necessary; it's simply a way for the government to say they "did something" in response to a tragedy.

Reminds me a lot of the "soda ban" laws which were proposed - apparently preventing someone from ordering a 16oz soda instead of a 12oz soda at a restaurant or baseball game is going to "curb obesity" - because we all know that people become obese from ordering an overpriced drink the one time a month the go to a restaurant, not from the calories upon calories of junk food that they scarf down every day of the week. (Not even mentioning the fact that most restaurants offer free soda refills).

If there was a serious proposal to curb obesity, it would be eliminating junk food purchases with EBT and welfare benefits, yet that wasn't up for discussion.