quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
You are probably correct Mike.

If I had ever witnessed any compromise between Right and Left being anything other than pulling the plug on leak in a damn…I would go along. But instead…the domino effect of decreasing liberty ALWAYS emerges — time and time again. The Patriot Act is a good example.

These days I have decided it is just time to make stand. From my studies…I believe it is a fundamental right envisioned by our Founders and it is a hill I am willing to die on.

What do your "studies" tell you the "well-regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment refers to?

A militia that's organized, trained and properly equipped; kind of like the difference between a current college football team and a pick up game involving students who wanted to and were able to play. One thing people often overlook is that back then your weapon was kept in the home so as not to have the enemy take take them from a central armory.
Well regulated as shit to do with laws or rules.

States had standing Militias. Citizens of the state were a pool to expand standing militias in times of duress.

That is why a well regulated militia is found in the 2nd. The militia was the tool to secure state sovereignty against a fed government. This, Congress was barred, restrained from passing laws restricting the use of arms. Otherwise, Congress would be able to to disarm a state or states. That is all the 2nd Originally meant. That is a historic, legal fact. It cannot be argued.

It's also notable that they used "abridged" when referring to individual Rights like speech and assembly and "infringed" when referring to collective Rights like maintaining a militia.

quote:

Originally posted by Schrodinger:
Lane, you still have not addressed the issue: If the intent was that all American citizens have right to bear arms, why include “well regulated militia?” Either it was a fuck up or “well regulated militia” means something different than all American citizens. And for that matter, why include “well regulated?” And what is the difference between a “well regulated militia” and just a “militia?”
Tell us how you are a member of a well regulated militia. Does it have a name, a charter or meetings?

If you can’t get to that point from what I wrote above…you don’t want to.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by nute:
I don't now about the latest one but it seems many mass shootings in the US are related to mental issues.

It would appear there are two ways to address that -
1) Increase accessibility of mental healthcare and decouple it from "ability to pay"
2) Institute a gun licensing system which includes a check of the applicants mental health history

As an outsider I don't understand the US resistance to some sort of "permit to own" a firearm. It would seem a sensible way of preventing those with a criminal record or mental health problem from owning a firearm.

One of the fundamental differences^^^between Americans and Europeans displayed in real-time.

It would require a reset for those who own to register, after which no permit = jail.

At the end of the day it's your country and your problem. If it was here id struggle to accept that a couple of mass shootings/day is a price worth paying for the status quo.

Its your country, if the regularity of spree shootings is a price worth paying for the status quo its your (collective) choice. But Mike has a point, digging your heels in as the opposition to the status quo mounts may prove counter productive in the long run.

Dont forget the words " the rights of the people"
It shows up in several amendments, and does not pertain to only "certain" people.

Again, Back40, Go read the cases. The Bill of Rights were for limitations upon the Federal Government that the people created. That language is not a distinction in the original intent of the Bill of Rights.

Historically, we had two sets of rights. Rights created by being state citizens. The Federal Government could not enforce or protect these state rights. We had Federal Rights. What few rights the individual possessed Federally ovule not be enforced or seen as a restriction upon states.

quote:

Originally posted by nute:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by nute:
I don't now about the latest one but it seems many mass shootings in the US are related to mental issues.

It would appear there are two ways to address that -
1) Increase accessibility of mental healthcare and decouple it from "ability to pay"
2) Institute a gun licensing system which includes a check of the applicants mental health history

As an outsider I don't understand the US resistance to some sort of "permit to own" a firearm. It would seem a sensible way of preventing those with a criminal record or mental health problem from owning a firearm.

One of the fundamental differences^^^between Americans and Europeans displayed in real-time.

It would require a reset for those who own to register, after which no permit = jail.

At the end of the day it's your country and your problem. If it was here id struggle to accept that a couple of mass shootings/day is a price worth paying for the status quo.

Its your country, if the regularity of spree shootings is a price worth paying for the status quo its your (collective) choice. But Mike has a point, digging your heels in as the opposition to the status quo mounts may prove counter productive in the long run.

And I admitted he may be correct.

From what I have seen from our government…I remain a hold out.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Again, Back40, Go read the cases. The Bill of Rights were for limitations upon the Federal Government that the people created. That language is not a distinction.

Those cases were “opinions” written by a different set of Justices.

Justice Scilla does not disagree when you read his opinions. They are not just mere opinions. They are the legal, historic fact. Technically, they have not been overturned.

You cannot change 200 plus years of legal fact. Though you try.

When I speak of state rights and fed rights in this contexts. I am not referring to rights of states. I am referring to we as citizens have rights that are granted through the status of being a citizen of that state vs. being a citizen of the Federal Government.

Texas’ greatest critical thinker does not know what he is talking about. He also does not and refuses to read a case. NRA bumper stickers match his false desire.

Anyone who says anything other than what I have written, which is a distillation of case law concerning the “original intent” is lying at this point.

quote:

Originally posted by nute:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by nute:
I don't now about the latest one but it seems many mass shootings in the US are related to mental issues.

It would appear there are two ways to address that -
1) Increase accessibility of mental healthcare and decouple it from "ability to pay"
2) Institute a gun licensing system which includes a check of the applicants mental health history

As an outsider I don't understand the US resistance to some sort of "permit to own" a firearm. It would seem a sensible way of preventing those with a criminal record or mental health problem from owning a firearm.

One of the fundamental differences^^^between Americans and Europeans displayed in real-time.

It would require a reset for those who own to register, after which no permit = jail.

At the end of the day it's your country and your problem. If it was here id struggle to accept that a couple of mass shootings/day is a price worth paying for the status quo.

Its your country, if the regularity of spree shootings is a price worth paying for the status quo its your (collective) choice. But Mike has a point, digging your heels in as the opposition to the status quo mounts may prove counter productive in the long run.

A solid majority of the American People support bans on both high-capacity magazines and assault weapons.

Just out of interest what defines an assault rifle?

quote:

Originally posted by nute:
Just out of interest what defines an assault rifle?

It was originally a marketing term dreamed up by gun manufacturers and remains ill-defined. It's kinda like porn, "I know it when I see it." It's most generally applied to semi-automatic rifles with large, detachable magazines based on or made to resemble battle rifles like the AR-15, AK-47, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Justice Scilla does not disagree when you read his opinions. They are not just mere opinions. They are the legal, historic fact. Technically, they have not been overturned.

You cannot change 200 plus years of legal fact. Though you try.

When I speak of state rights and fed rights in this contexts. I am not referring to rights of states. I am referring to we as citizens have rights that are granted through the status of being a citizen of that state vs. being a citizen of the Federal Government.

Texas’ greatest critical thinker does not know what he is talking about. He also does not and refuses to read a case. NRA bumper stickers match his false desire.

Anyone who says anything other than what I have written, which is a distillation of case law concerning the “original intent” is lying at this point.

“Cannot” is not accurate.

quote:

Originally posted by nute:
Just out of interest what defines an assault rifle?

You tell and we will both know. One of the issues.

quote:

Originally posted by nute:
Just out of interest what defines an assault rifle?

The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban tried to define them with a bunch of extraneous shit like flash hiders and bayonet lugs and pistol grips, all of which gun makers were able to design around.

It's much simpler to define and ban "Detachable magazines for centerfire weapons capable of holding more than 6 rounds." Plus it doesn't take anybody's guns away.

We don't get these huge death tolls because a gun looks like what a soldier would carry, we get huge death tolls because of the volume of fire that a semi-automatic with 20 or 30 round magazines can deliver in a short time.

Cheers, just wondered if there was an official definition. As far as the media is concerned you'd think it was anything black.

quote:

Originally posted by Schrodinger:
Lane, you still have not addressed the issue: If the intent was that all American citizens have right to bear arms, why include “well regulated militia?” Either it was a fuck up or “well regulated militia” means something different than all American citizens. And for that matter, why include “well regulated?” And what is the difference between a “well regulated militia” and just a “militia?”
Tell us how you are a member of a well regulated militia. Does it have a name, a charter or meetings?

I'm guessing that you are over 45 years, but if you aren't, then YOU are a member of Oregon's unorganized Militia.

https://law.justia.com/codes/o...396/section-396-105/

Colorado has a similar establishment of our Militia but the state government has long chosen to ignore it's existence.
Our State Constitution goes as far as requiring the militia to be trained (well regulated) in the same tactics and weapons common to the US Armed Forces.
Obviously, none of this happens.

quote:

One big difference though Ben, those involved in opiates have chosen that path, when these mass shootings play out on TV the victims in no way have chosen to be the target of the shooter.

We have much more sympathy for those that are completely innocent, as we should.

Maybe, but gang members most definitely choose their path and they are included in the homicide and mass shooting data.
Also, lots of opiate overdoses are accidental such as fentanyl laced cigarettes and unaccompanied minors getting into their parent's stash. Those kids don't choose that path.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by TomP:

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:
We've had something over 500 mass shootings this year requiring 3 or more dead. Requiring 4 or more is on this chart. Some definitions require only 3, I'm told. That would change the chart numbers considerably. 500 mass shootings would mean at least 1500 fatalities, not the peak on this chart of 100. Mass shootings have skyrocketed since the ban expired, but that may not have had a lot to do with the increase. It's a piece of the puzzle. And the puzzle has a lot of pieces.

Since the push to ban magazines starts at 10 rounds, why not make the chart start at 10 casualties?

20…JB Weld puts 2 end to end nicely.

But, I guess we could outlaw JB Weld while we are at it.

As is, it's part of an argument for banning repeating firearms with capacities over four rounds.

Any doubters out there who believe this will stop at 10 round magazines?

Or maybe boot up an effort to ban drawings for making them, like the attempt to outlaw Defense Distributed's Zero Percent AR-15 kit (small problem with our Constitution's First Amendment there...).

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by nute:
Just out of interest what defines an assault rifle?

The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban tried to define them with a bunch of extraneous shit like flash hiders and bayonet lugs and pistol grips, all of which gun makers were able to design around.

It's much simpler to define and ban "Detachable magazines for centerfire weapons capable of holding more than 6 rounds." Plus it doesn't take anybody's guns away.

We don't get these huge death tolls because a gun looks like what a soldier would carry, we get huge death tolls because of the volume of fire that a semi-automatic with 20 or 30 round magazines can deliver in a short time.

I don't believe this necessarily so. We get huge death tolls because nuts want to kill a whole bunch of people. They then kill a bunch of people because nobody stops them. Regards, Bill.

The NFA defines restricted arms. I have always argued that the NFA preempted these state bans. However, no one has ever made that argument in Court.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by nute:
Just out of interest what defines an assault rifle?

The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban tried to define them with a bunch of extraneous shit like flash hiders and bayonet lugs and pistol grips, all of which gun makers were able to design around.

It's much simpler to define and ban "Detachable magazines for centerfire weapons capable of holding more than 6 rounds." Plus it doesn't take anybody's guns away.

We don't get these huge death tolls because a gun looks like what a soldier would carry, we get huge death tolls because of the volume of fire that a semi-automatic with 20 or 30 round magazines can deliver in a short time.

A 20” barreled Browning Auto-5 12g made in 1905 with 00 buck and a bandolier of shells to allow loading while shooting will accomplish the same effect. Or a Benelli M2 or etc etc.

quote:

Originally posted by Bivoj:
Funny how some always want to restrict others for criminal activity of some others
I think our biggest problem is instant information, 15 min of fame, copy cats that drives few to do unspeakable crimes and notice I don’t even speak of inner city shootings as that’s totally different beast
Ultimately, 2nd protects us from criminals and from government in ways as well and if history is any lesson, disarming populace is first step to tyranny

Well written!

.

quote:

Originally posted by Schrodinger:
Lane, you still have not addressed the issue: If the intent was that all American citizens have right to bear arms, why include “well regulated militia?” Either it was a fuck up or “well regulated militia” means something different than all American citizens. And for that matter, why include “well regulated?” And what is the difference between a “well regulated militia” and just a “militia?”
Tell us how you are a member of a well regulated militia. Does it have a name, a charter or meetings?

Lame answered your question cat.

Regulated had a different meaning at the time the bill of rights was written. Its easy to look up if you want to learn....of you just want to argue and obfuscate... well there you are.....

By the way....when the first amendment was written there where no typewriters, word processors or computers.....and All Gore hadn't invented the Internet yet either.....

You also might want to look up what was considered the militia at the time of writing as well.....

There is a whole lot of writing as to intent regarding the bill of rights....the Federalist papers....


.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The Second Amendment never granted an individual right to possess a firearm.

The Second was simply a restriction upon Congress to keep Congress from disarming state militias which all state adult males would belong to at the time. The Second never had nor did it intend to confers right upon any individual.

Go read
City of Baltimore v Barron
US v Curikshsnk
Presser v Illinois
Slaughter House cases
Heller and McDonald

Justice Scalia even recognized the Second did not confer an individual right. He never held the right to possess a firearm, in and of itself was a fundamental right.

What Heller and McDonald say is the right to self defense in our system was a long, historical recognized fundamental right. That this right to self defense extended to using arms in common use at the ratification of the 2nd Amendment being handguns. Thus, Heller and McDonald Incorporate the 2nd as Justice Scilla wrote arms in common use were necessary to give affect to this right of self defense and other legal purposes.

Just wow!!!!

That's a real stretch of jurisprudence......

The Federalist Papers are not authoritative. They were propaganda to gain support for the Constitution.

Go read the cases. All states had standing militias. The intent was to keep Congress from disarming state militias. That is not my interpretation. That is straight from the cases.

Go read.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
You are probably correct Mike.

If I had ever witnessed any compromise between Right and Left being anything other than pulling the plug on leak in a damn…I would go along. But instead…the domino effect of decreasing liberty ALWAYS emerges — time and time again. The Patriot Act is a good example.

These days I have decided it is just time to make stand. From my studies…I believe it is a fundamental right envisioned by our Founders and it is a hill I am willing to die on.

What do your "studies" tell you the "well-regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment refers to?

A militia that's organized, trained and properly equipped; kind of like the difference between a current college football team and a pick up game involving students who wanted to and were able to play. One thing people often overlook is that back then your weapon was kept in the home so as not to have the enemy take take them from a central armory.
Well regulated as shit to do with laws or rules.

States had standing Militias. Citizens of the state were a pool to expand standing militias in times of duress.

That is why a well regulated militia is found in the 2nd. The militia was the tool to secure state sovereignty against a fed government. This, Congress was barred, restrained from passing laws restricting the use of arms. Otherwise, Congress would be able to to disarm a state or states. That is all the 2nd Originally meant. That is a historic, legal fact. It cannot be argued.

Every citizen with some "qulificatioms" was a part of the US militia.

Where do get this stuff?

quote:

Originally posted by Huvius:

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by nute:
I don't now about the latest one but it seems many mass shootings in the US are related to mental issues.

It would appear there are two ways to address that -
1) Increase accessibility of mental healthcare and decouple it from "ability to pay"
2) Institute a gun licensing system which includes a check of the applicants mental health history

As an outsider I don't understand the US resistance to some sort of "permit to own" a firearm. It would seem a sensible way of preventing those with a criminal record or mental health problem from owning a firearm.

It would require a reset for those who own to register, after which no permit = jail.

At the end of the day it's your country and your problem. If it was here id struggle to accept that a couple of mass shootings/day is a price worth paying for the status quo.

Most if not all off the larger mass shootings involved someone for which red flags were thrown yet they slipped through the cracks or the warnings were ignored. As Matt Dillon would say, "I can't run him out of town if he hasn't done anything."

I'd be more open to licensing, registration if it afforded me the same privileges as licensing, registering a vehicle does. Unlike my vehicle I'm extremely limited to where I can use my firearms.

We already have a background check process but that doesn't seem all that effective when mental health comes into play. Not hard to simply lie on the form - just ask Hunter...

I do find it quite interesting that the 3.6 gun deaths per 100K citizens generates such outrage but the 32.4 opioid deaths per 100K hardly gets any notice anymore.
Is it really the prevention of deaths and protection of our young citizens?
Sure doesn't look like it... It's just easier to shake down the firearms industry and law abiding citizens than it is an illicit drug market.

HEAR, HEAR!!!!!

.

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The Second Amendment never granted an individual right to possess a firearm.

The Second was simply a restriction upon Congress to keep Congress from disarming state militias which all state adult males would belong to at the time. The Second never had nor did it intend to confers right upon any individual.

Go read
City of Baltimore v Barron
US v Curikshsnk
Presser v Illinois
Slaughter House cases
Heller and McDonald

Justice Scalia even recognized the Second did not confer an individual right. He never held the right to possess a firearm, in and of itself was a fundamental right.

What Heller and McDonald say is the right to self defense in our system was a long, historical recognized fundamental right. That this right to self defense extended to using arms in common use at the ratification of the 2nd Amendment being handguns. Thus, Heller and McDonald Incorporate the 2nd as Justice Scilla wrote arms in common use were necessary to give affect to this right of self defense and other legal purposes.

Just wow!!!!

That's a real stretch of jurisprudence......

There is no stretch to it. It is what those cases say. It does not matter if you like it. Go read them. It is not a stretch. It is the original intent of the Bill of Rights collectively and specifically to the 2nd. Go read.

What you think is not what it was.

Technically, those holding are not overturned directly. Justice Scilla expressly refused to overturn the Slaughterhouse Cases. Instead, he goes through a different doctrine. That being selective Incorporation through “Substantive Due Process” of the 14th Amendment.

Go read. I have posted exact language with full citation multiple times.

Your understanding was never correct.

At this point you are not ignorant. You are just a lier. My job is not to tell you what you want to hear, or what feels good. My job is to tell you what the Constitution, through its Amendments then and now.

I Do not want you take my word for it. I have given you the cases go read them yourself.

I can send you a draft of brief I have pending in Circuit Court in the issue. It is just 16ish pages of the above with chapter and versus.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by nute:
Just out of interest what defines an assault rifle?

The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban tried to define them with a bunch of extraneous shit like flash hiders and bayonet lugs and pistol grips, all of which gun makers were able to design around.

It's much simpler to define and ban "Detachable magazines for centerfire weapons capable of holding more than 6 rounds." Plus it doesn't take anybody's guns away.

We don't get these huge death tolls because a gun looks like what a soldier would carry, we get huge death tolls because of the volume of fire that a semi-automatic with 20 or 30 round magazines can deliver in a short time.

A 20” barreled Browning Auto-5 12g made in 1905 with 00 buck and a bandolier of shells to allow loading while shooting will accomplish the same effect. Or a Benelli M2 or etc etc.

Then why have none of the recent mass killings featured such?

No tube-fed shotgun will ever be able to sustain the volume of fire a semi rifle with detachable magazines can, no matter who's handling it, and you damned well know it.

You can post that crap on your church newsletter and I guess people will buy it but on AR the knowledge of guns is a mite better; nobody here is buying that bullshit.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by nute:
Just out of interest what defines an assault rifle?

The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban tried to define them with a bunch of extraneous shit like flash hiders and bayonet lugs and pistol grips, all of which gun makers were able to design around.

It's much simpler to define and ban "Detachable magazines for centerfire weapons capable of holding more than 6 rounds." Plus it doesn't take anybody's guns away.

We don't get these huge death tolls because a gun looks like what a soldier would carry, we get huge death tolls because of the volume of fire that a semi-automatic with 20 or 30 round magazines can deliver in a short time.

I don't believe this necessarily so. We get huge death tolls because nuts want to kill a whole bunch of people. They then kill a bunch of people because nobody stops them. Regards, Bill.

I think your joy in life is to disagree with something so I won't interrupt.

Knowledge you are apparently lacking. We had this conversation in your absence and consensus was with my assertion.

We are not talking about sustained fire for hours against waves of NVA. We are talking entering a place of unsuspecting civilians and sustaining fire for 15 - 30 minutes. This shooter or the Sandy Hook Shooter or the Uvalde shooter — all would have accomplished the same with an A-5 with buckshot.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Knowledge you are apparently lacking. We had this conversation in your absence and consensus was with my assertion.

We are not talking about sustained fire for hours against waves of NVA. We are talking entering a place of unsuspecting civilians and sustaining fire for 15 - 30 minutes. This shooter or the Sandy Hook Shooter or the Uvalde shooter — all would have accomplished the same with an A-5 with buckshot.

I do not believe that to be so. I can shoot a firearm (bolt, double, semi, lever) within kill accuracy faster than most people. That includes reloading.

I cannot keep up with anyone with basic understanding of how to use a box feed, button detach magazine with 20 plus round. The same goes for 10 rounders.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Knowledge you are apparently lacking. We had this conversation in your absence and consensus was with my assertion.

We are not talking about sustained fire for hours against waves of NVA. We are talking entering a place of unsuspecting civilians and sustaining fire for 15 - 30 minutes. This shooter or the Sandy Hook Shooter or the Uvalde shooter — all would have accomplished the same with an A-5 with buckshot.

I will willingly grant your superior knowledge of veterinary medicine and even some aspects of wildlife management but on this you are talking out of your ass. The ability to fire 20 or 30 rounds uninterrupted, execute a 2-second reload and repeat , as many times as your supply of ammo permits, is a far greater threat to unarmed victims than you with any tube-fed shotgun ever produced even if you have a pair and a loader.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Knowledge you are apparently lacking. We had this conversation in your absence and consensus was with my assertion.

We are not talking about sustained fire for hours against waves of NVA. We are talking entering a place of unsuspecting civilians and sustaining fire for 15 - 30 minutes. This shooter or the Sandy Hook Shooter or the Uvalde shooter — all would have accomplished the same with an A-5 with buckshot.

Then why aren’t mass shooters using A5’s with buckshot? Your statement is complete speculation.

I just watched a report about Uvalde breaking ground on a new school to replace Robb Elementary. The report included interviews with parents of these small children killed in the attack. There is no way I could look these parents in the eye and tell them that my right to buy an AR15 without enhanced review is more important than trying to keep such weapons out of the hands of mass shooters. No way I could tell them that me having to wait to get an AR15, to have to go through a comprehensive background check, etc. is not worth the possibility of reducing the likelihood of another elementary school shooting. It is no accident that mass shooters use semiautomatic assault rifles and high capacity magazine pistols. All the talk about mass shooters just using something else if denied access to the clear weapons of choice is just rank speculation aimed at deflection.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Knowledge you are apparently lacking. We had this conversation in your absence and consensus was with my assertion.

We are not talking about sustained fire for hours against waves of NVA. We are talking entering a place of unsuspecting civilians and sustaining fire for 15 - 30 minutes. This shooter or the Sandy Hook Shooter or the Uvalde shooter — all would have accomplished the same with an A-5 with buckshot.

Kindly point me to this conversation because it appears your "consensus" is broken.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Knowledge you are apparently lacking. We had this conversation in your absence and consensus was with my assertion.

We are not talking about sustained fire for hours against waves of NVA. We are talking entering a place of unsuspecting civilians and sustaining fire for 15 - 30 minutes. This shooter or the Sandy Hook Shooter or the Uvalde shooter — all would have accomplished the same with an A-5 with buckshot.

Then why aren’t mass shooters using A5’s with buckshot? Your statement is complete speculation.

I just watched a report about Uvalde breaking ground on a new school to replace Robb Elementary. The report included interviews with parents of these small children killed in the attack. There is no way I could look these parents in the eye and tell them that my right to buy an AR15 without enhanced review is more important than trying to keep such weapons out of the hands of mass shooters. No way I could tell them that me having to wait to get an AR15, to have to go through a comprehensive background check, etc. is not worth the possibility of reducing the likelihood of another elementary school shooting. It is no accident that mass shooters use semiautomatic assault rifles and high capacity magazine pistols. All the talk about mass shooters just using something else if denied access to the clear weapons of choice is just rank speculation aimed at deflection.

I have the video of the Buffalo NY shooter with the AR. You and I cannot do that with a shotgun with a tube magazine.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Knowledge you are apparently lacking. We had this conversation in your absence and consensus was with my assertion.

We are not talking about sustained fire for hours against waves of NVA. We are talking entering a place of unsuspecting civilians and sustaining fire for 15 - 30 minutes. This shooter or the Sandy Hook Shooter or the Uvalde shooter — all would have accomplished the same with an A-5 with buckshot.

Then why aren’t mass shooters using A5’s with buckshot? Your statement is complete speculation.

I just watched a report about Uvalde breaking ground on a new school to replace Robb Elementary. The report included interviews with parents of these small children killed in the attack. There is no way I could look these parents in the eye and tell them that my right to buy an AR15 without enhanced review is more important than trying to keep such weapons out of the hands of mass shooters. No way I could tell them that me having to wait to get an AR15, to have to go through a comprehensive background check, etc. is not worth the possibility of reducing the likelihood of another elementary school shooting. It is no accident that mass shooters use semiautomatic assault rifles and high capacity magazine pistols. All the talk about mass shooters just using something else if denied access to the clear weapons of choice is just rank speculation aimed at deflection.

I have the video of the Buffalo NY shooter with the AR. You and I cannot do that with a shotgun with a tube magazine.

But Lane has a consensus!

From 1983 to 1993, there were 11 murderous rampages in U.S. post offices. On August 20, 1986, the worst of these incidents took place in Edmond, Oklahoma. Pat Sherrill, who was about to be fired, killed 14 mail workers, wounded another five, and then shot himself to death as the SWAT team arrived.

Army trained and used a 1911.

And I never said they were “equal” weapons.

I said: In any of the situations mentioned (the only one I exclude is Las Vegas), give the shooter a short barreled Browning Auto-5 (a gun in common use by hunters since 1905) and the casualties stay the same and I don’t see the incident disappearing.

There is a reason extended mag shotguns are called trench guns, or riot guns. Maximum damage in close situations of multiple targets.
Round count, one for one is not the comparison.
A 9+1 extended mag 12 ga, with No 4 buckshot. 24-28 pellets per shell, call it 25. That is 250 projectiles without reloading.
There is a reason James Holmes, the movie theater shooter killed 12 and injured 62 with a shotgun.
Heym, come brag to me how fast you are shooting and loading, while running and taking fire yourself. Another schoolboy wanna-be, tough guy.