Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, September 14, 2019

Beto O'Rourke Goes Off on Gun Control at Debate: Hell Yes, We're Going to Take Your AR-15, Your AK-47!'

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Why dont they ever say, "Criminals, we are coming for YOUR guns". Why is it always the law abiding citizens idiots like this guy are trying to take weapons from?

#1 | Posted by boaz at 2019-09-13 03:17 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Good!!

#2 | Posted by qcp at 2019-09-13 09:16 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Why is it always the law abiding citizens idiots like this guy are trying to take weapons from?"

Probably because the worst mass shooters were not criminals before the mass shooting. Take away military style weapons of war and tell the idiots who think they need them to go pound sand. I just don't really care if they like the idea or not.

#3 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-13 09:24 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I just don't really care if they like the idea or not.

Of course you dont. You dont care about someone else's freedoms they hold dear.

And that makes you a monster.

#4 | Posted by boaz at 2019-09-13 10:24 AM | Reply

Rest assured, Beto will never be our President after saying something like this..

#5 | Posted by boaz at 2019-09-13 10:24 AM | Reply

Rest assured, Beto will never be our President after saying something like this..

#5 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Rest assured, Democrats will be coming for your guns soon.

#6 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-09-13 10:27 AM | Reply

Take away military style weapons of war

Yawn. Take away your inflammatory, ignorant rhetoric and go pound sand.

How's that sound?

and tell the idiots who think they need them to go pound sand. I just don't really care if they like the idea or not.

Like it or not, you have a Constitutional amendment to navigate.

So take a deep breath, collect your thoughts and make a real, doable attempt at solving the issue.

#7 | Posted by jpw at 2019-09-13 10:50 AM | Reply

"Take away military style weapons of war"

The Springfield M1 Garand?

#8 | Posted by HanoverFist at 2019-09-13 10:51 AM | Reply

And that makes you a monster.

#4 | Posted by boaz

Says the guy who denies trans people their rights because it makes him feel icky.

#9 | Posted by jpw at 2019-09-13 10:53 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

It's too bad we let the assault weapons ban lapse. Forced confiscation of these weapons is probably a bridge too far politically at this point, but Beto isn't wrong:

Beto O'Rourke @BetoORourke

You can't own a grenade launcher or drive a tank down the street. These AR-15s and AK-47s are weapons of war"and we need to buy back every single one of them.

#10 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-13 11:05 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Rest assured, Beto will never be our President after saying something like this..
#5 | POSTED BY BOAZ "

Pendejo O'Rourke will never win a national office of importance again. He ruined his brand with this horrible presidential run. Harris is also done nationally - she will never be president.

I have a feeling there are a bunch of Dems frantically trying to draft Oprah right now because the crop of losers on the stage have no chance at beating Trump.

#11 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-13 11:16 AM | Reply

I heard Beto is cash strapped, this must be his plan to get donations from the NRA, gun and bullet manufacturers.

#12 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2019-09-13 11:38 AM | Reply

"Like it or not, you have a Constitutional amendment to navigate."

More accurately we have a SC that ignores parts of the Amendment about firearms, intentionally, politically, corruptly. We've had assault weapons bans before and the court, at that time, did not strike it down but the court since 2000 has been entirely a Republican owned and operated body. Former member Sandra Day O'Connor even said as much.

#13 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-13 11:44 AM | Reply

#10 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday, Actually you can drive a tank down the street, most need a slow moving vehicle emblem but not much more. The tank can't have a working cannon or machine guns, but their are very few laws that control tracked vehicles except where they impede traffic.

#14 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-09-13 11:44 AM | Reply

Forced confiscation of these weapons is probably a bridge too far

"Probably"? If it's up to me, it will never be a bridge.

Put it like this, the day guns are confiscated is the day abortion is made illegal.

You dont mess with my right, I wont mess with yours, deal?

#15 | Posted by boaz at 2019-09-13 11:46 AM | Reply

#10 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday, The truth is anything can be a weapon of war. A few hundred pounds of fertilizer proved that in 1995.

#16 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-09-13 11:49 AM | Reply

#10 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY AT 2019-09-13 11:05 AM | FLAG: FYI, 'buy back' is a misnomer as you cannot 'buy back' something that you did not sell in the first place.

#17 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-09-13 11:57 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

More accurately we have a SC that ignores parts of the Amendment about firearms, intentionally, politically, corruptly.

For the sake of argument let's say I agree (please don't rehash this, it's been done a million times here) with the above.

It's still irrelevant to the fact that moving forward you have to deal within the framework of the 2nd amendment and existing case law.

It's that simple.

We've had assault weapons bans before and the court, at that time, did not strike it down but the court since 2000 has been entirely a Republican owned and operated body. Former member Sandra Day O'Connor even said as much.

#13 | Posted by danni

One, see above.

Two, the "assault weapon" ban wasn't really a ban. It banned import and cosmetic features but did nothing to remove the existing pool of weapons in people's hands.

You'd be moving into uncharted territory doing what Beto is saying he'll do.

#18 | Posted by jpw at 2019-09-13 12:26 PM | Reply

Of course you dont. You dont care about someone else's freedoms they hold dear.
And that makes you a monster.

#4 | POSTED BY BOAZ

WTF is wrong with you?

Should I care about your freedom to drive as fast as you want or drive as drunk as you want?

Should I care about your freedom to steal whatever you want or not pay taxes?

Should I care about your freedom to own a nuclear bomb?

Freedoms have limits. You don't NEED an AR-15 for anything including home protection.

As a cop friend of mine said, the best weapon to protect your home is a shotgun. Everyone knows the sound of a shotgun when you rack it and everyone goes white when they hear it.

That said, I don't think taking AR-15s is the answer or will solve anything. I like mine. But if the government demands I give it up, I will.

#19 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-09-13 12:44 PM | Reply

#19 | Posted by Sycophant, When a government says you don't need a gun, that is the time you need a gun. Unpleasant history to remember, the leading cause of violent death in the last century was not war, or conflicts like revolutions or civil strife, it was governments in power murdering their own citizens. If you say it can't happen here, you are dead wrong.

#20 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-09-13 01:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

You don't NEED an AR-15 for anything including home protection.

You dont get to tell me what I need.

Hell, we dont NEED abortions. Most women are using abortion as birth control, there's truly no need for it.

But if the government demands I give it up, I will.

One difference between me and you. The government shouldnt be demanding anything from the American people. I will give up nothing.

#21 | Posted by boaz at 2019-09-13 01:17 PM | Reply

When a government says you don't need a gun, that is the time you need a gun.

You do realize that if ARs and AKs are banned that still leaves...oh I don't know...a few thousand other types of guns available for purchase, right?

It doesn't even close the market on .223/5.56 or 7.62 chambered guns.

#22 | Posted by jpw at 2019-09-13 01:21 PM | Reply

It's a slippery slope JPW,

If they ban one thing, they can ban and take another. It's the same analogy with why liberals wont accept a banning of abortion after four or five months. They think abortion will be banned outright.

#23 | Posted by boaz at 2019-09-13 01:35 PM | Reply

Should I care about your freedom to drive as fast as you want or drive as drunk as you want? Synco

Poor analogy, to be corrected, you would say that because some people drive fast and drunk we should ban cars.

#24 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-09-13 01:49 PM | Reply

Should I care about your freedom to steal whatever you want or not pay taxes? - synco

Well according to the debate last nite I shouldn't go to prison for it.

#25 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-09-13 01:50 PM | Reply

#23 I don't agree.

If they succeed in banning ARs and AKs (big IF) it will be harder, public support wise, to ban something else.

Especially if that something else is a more widely owned model or type.

#26 | Posted by jpw at 2019-09-13 02:16 PM | Reply

What kind of loser ------- needs an AK? Seriously.

#27 | Posted by moder8 at 2019-09-13 02:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#27 | Posted by moder8 Why is it your business? A lot of people just like to shoot guns.
I do not like AKs or AR15s, they are for the most part junk. Cheep mass produced and just good enough to do the job. AKs generally are not very accurate, pressed frame and very dependable. Soviet soldiers were not trained to fire at targets at more than 100 meters equipped with the general issue AK47. The M16/AR15 is reasonably accurate cast frame and not very dependable. The prime problem is exhaust gas is used to operate the recoil mechanism which enter the bolt and receiver leaving residue which accumulates with use. It has to be cleaned. It has small parts and they are easy to loose in the field.

#28 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-09-13 03:51 PM | Reply

27... doesn't matter, you don't get to decide what someone else feels they need.

#29 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2019-09-13 04:21 PM | Reply

"27... doesn't matter, you don't get to decide what someone else feels they need."

Yes we do.
That's the whole reason for the Second Amendment, actually.

#30 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-13 04:22 PM | Reply

Based on the 2nd amendment, I deem that snoofy doesn't need internet access.

That makes sense to you Snoofy?

#31 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2019-09-13 04:56 PM | Reply

It doesn't even make sense to you.

Why do you get to have guns?
Because the Founders said so.
End of conversation.

#32 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-13 05:12 PM | Reply

#32 | Posted by snoofy Be glad that you are not required to have a firearm or two in your home. That was legally required in many states.

#33 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-09-13 07:13 PM | Reply

"#32 | Posted by snoofy Be glad that you are not required to have a firearm or two in your home. That was legally required in many states.

#33 | POSTED BY DOCNJO AT 2019-09-13 07:13 PM "

Kennesaw GA, (pop 33,000) where I lived for 13 years, has a mandatory gun ownership ordinance.

VIolent crime is 2% and only one murder in the last 6 years -- far, far lower than Atlanta 25 miles away.

townhall.com

www.cnn.com

#34 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-13 07:20 PM | Reply

...has a mandatory gun ownership ordinance.

They can actually force you to buy something whether you want to or not?

Good thing it's not insurance... :p

#35 | Posted by REDIAL at 2019-09-13 07:38 PM | Reply

"#32 | Posted by snoofy Be glad that you are not required to have a firearm or two in your home. That was legally required in many states."

Why would I care? Not really any different than a fire detector in my home, right?
Does it have to be kept loaded or something?

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-13 08:11 PM | Reply

These guys are their own worst enemies. Half of America own an average of two guns (I own the rest, so if you need a spare just ask).

#37 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2019-09-14 12:39 AM | Reply

beta is inspiring more voters who will be against his fantasy run for president of the third world. Leftists never know when to stop pushing, and always end up making enemies where there weren't any before, lol. We just wanted to be left alone, but you people just can't stop pushing, can you?

#38 | Posted by berserkone at 2019-09-14 06:20 AM | Reply

You can't own a grenade launcher or drive a tank down the street.

#10 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY AT 2019-09-13 11:05 AM | REPLY

You can own both, and there are street legal tanks and armored scouts and attack vehicles. I have friends that own them.

#39 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-09-14 08:37 AM | Reply

It was much easier to import until 9/11 too. New customs regs have created headaches for vintage military vehicle and aircraft collectors.

#40 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-09-14 08:40 AM | Reply

I liked when Beto proclaimed he was coming for our guns that all of the rest of the Democratic candidate shouted "No! That's not our position. We are never coming for your guns that's what we've said for the last 50 years"
Shut up Beto!
Yet there wasn't even a whisper from the other candidate. Their silence was a tacit approval.

#41 | Posted by homerj at 2019-09-14 09:51 AM | Reply

What's weird to me is the inability of some to recognize that all of our Constitutional rights have exceptions. The 1st Amendment right to free speech does not protect someone falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. Why? Because it threatens public safety. Why do gun rights champions not recognize that the kinds of weaponry used in mass shootings, designed specifically to inflict the most possible damage on its targets, and the abilty to fire so many rounds so rapidly also threatens public safety. What is the "redeeming social value" (also a 1st Amendment limitation) of that kind of weaponry?

Don't give me the argument that they are needed to protect you from government tyranny. If they can protect you from the government, how would the government confiscate them?

#42 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2019-09-14 11:25 AM | Reply

Don't give me the argument that they are needed to protect you from government tyranny. If they can protect you from the government, how would the government confiscate them?

Bwaaahahahahaha *looks for popcorn*

#43 | Posted by jpw at 2019-09-14 11:33 AM | Reply

If they can protect you from the government, how would the government confiscate them?

That is a good question, how will the government confiscate my guns? Better question is who is going to be first in line to try?

(Disclaimer for the CIA/NSA/FBI reading this: I don't actually own any guns nor do I have any intention of buying one. I also do not advocate violence in general and certainly not against a duly appointed government official)

#44 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2019-09-14 11:44 AM | Reply

The result of (violently) resisting confiscation would be martial law. Duh.

#45 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2019-09-14 11:47 AM | Reply

You can own both, and there are street legal tanks and armored scouts and attack vehicles. I have friends that own them.

#39 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

I was thinking the same thing. One of those apocalypse survivor shows a guy owned one (armored scout vehicle) and drove his kid to school in it each day. She hated it if you are wondering.

#46 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2019-09-14 11:55 AM | Reply

#45

Sure but as I referenced in #46 there are a ton of people with a ton of guns who have plans for just such a scenario. Some of the plans are pretty freaking stupid but some would probably require major military force to dig out.

Not sure how down the military will be with bombing US citizens who just want to be left alone and aren't doing anything wrong other than owning a constitutionally protected item. God willing we will never find out because that will be the end of America as we know it no matter who wins.

#47 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2019-09-14 11:59 AM | Reply

The part that pisses me off is that saying crap like that sets the gun control debate back. Once you have said I'm coming for your guns no one will give an inch on reasonable gun control. You have made the argument all or nothing and eliminated any chance of compromise.

#48 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2019-09-14 12:03 PM | Reply

I don't like firearms, but Uncle Sam made me become qualified to use both an AR and a .38 revolver. I refuse to talk about any guns I own or don't own or might own.

I believe if I were to own any firearms, I would have a predilection for the AK over the AR, and for a semi-automatic handgun over a revolver, likely 9mm because of the ubiquity of the ammunition.

Ammosecsuals debate the efficacy of whatever they're shooting. It's all wind in sails, according to DEVO.

#49 | Posted by john47 at 2019-09-14 12:18 PM | Reply

And Mexico will pay for it!?

#50 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-09-14 12:20 PM | Reply

The minute that mandatory gun removal is enacted, millions will be mysteriously stolen.
No gun...no buy back.
Now what?

#51 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2019-09-14 12:23 PM | Reply

"(Beto) makes an obvious joke, and you humorless prigs go ballistic."

Lol

#52 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-09-14 12:26 PM | Reply

Like it or not, you have a Constitutional amendment to navigate

Assault weapons were banned in 1994 and the ban survived every single Constitutional challenge.

I realize the Court is now stacked with partisan operatives but an Amendment should not be necessary in theory to ban AR-15s.

#53 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-14 12:33 PM | Reply

The problem is that many want to assert the "slippery slope" argument. There was no pushback from "gun owners" when the government banned and confiscated tommy guns in the '30s as a result of the public (and law enforcement) being fed up with the gang wars. The massive increase in private firearms to now more than 390 million guns since that time invalidates the slippery slope argument. The 2nd Amendment doesn't speak to the ability of the government to limit the lethality of legal weapons.

The way it has been proposed, no one would be "knocking on doors" looking for weapons. "Law abiding gun owners" would simply sell the (AR/AK) weapons back to the government. Those who do not would no longer be "law abiding gun owners", but nobody is stupid enough to think that trying to "confiscate" them is a good idea.

#54 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2019-09-14 12:33 PM | Reply

Why is it your business? A lot of people just like to shoot guns

Yep. Thousands of innocent people get sprayed down by assault weapons because you like to play with your boom boom stick. Seems like a fair trade off.

#55 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-14 12:35 PM | Reply

Cool.

If you want to confiscate guns...then put your name on a list to be the one doing the confiscation.

You're dead the second you meet my father.

Is it worth it?

#56 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-14 12:53 PM | Reply

And he'll end up either dead or in prison. Is it worth it?

#57 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2019-09-14 12:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

People with this attitude are the ones who shouldn't have access to guns.

#58 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2019-09-14 12:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"And he'll end up either dead or in prison. Is it worth it?"

He'll be dead. But so would you, assuming you had the balls to be the one kicking in the door.

And honestly...you don't have that kind of balls.

#59 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-14 01:15 PM | Reply

Since you all seem to think there are no limits to self defense.. I want a tank, attack helicopter and a few cruise missles... to defend myself... government has them so I need them too

Hand guns and shotguns are more then enough to defend yourself IMO

#60 | Posted by 503jc69 at 2019-09-14 01:15 PM | Reply

"People with this attitude are the ones who shouldn't have access to guns."

You mean the ones who don't see themselves as slaves?

#61 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-14 01:17 PM | Reply

If you want to confiscate guns...then put your name on a list to be the one doing the confiscation.

Uh huh.

If you want sewers, you be the one to go down the manhole and clean them!

If you want laws, go be a cop!

Any other moronic arguments for the thread?

#62 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-14 01:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I like how the only argument gun freaks can come up with against banning AR-15s is "i'll kill you!" Really illustrative.

#63 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-14 01:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Since you all seem to think there are no limits to self defense.. I want a tank, attack helicopter and a few cruise missles... to defend myself... government has them so I need them too"

You can buy tanks, helicopters, fighters, ships...whatever you want. Have a nut.

#64 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-14 01:20 PM | Reply

The part that pisses me off is that saying crap like that sets the gun control debate back. Once you have said I'm coming for your guns no one will give an inch on reasonable gun control. You have made the argument all or nothing and eliminated any chance of compromise.

Particularly since he's not a viable candidate. It was a selfish, last ditch effort to squeeze a little more donation money.

#65 | Posted by jpw at 2019-09-14 01:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Assault weapons were banned in 1994 and the ban survived every single Constitutional challenge.

I realize the Court is now stacked with partisan operatives but an Amendment should not be necessary in theory to ban AR-15s.

#53 | POSTED BY JOE

I addressed that.

Enacting Beto's stated plan (ie a "buy back" that's mandatory) is an escalation and uncharted ground.

Comparing the two and acting as if you can predict outcomes is foolish at best.

#66 | Posted by jpw at 2019-09-14 01:24 PM | Reply

And honestly...you don't have that kind of balls.

#59 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Neither do you...

Do you honestly not feel stupid posting that kind of stuff?

#67 | Posted by jpw at 2019-09-14 01:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Enacting Beto's stated plan (ie a "buy back" that's mandatory) is an escalation and uncharted ground.

Pffff. An escalation? The 1994 ban made possession a crime, meaning your weapons could be taken from you without compensation. You think paying people for them is somehow less constitutional?

#68 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-14 01:27 PM | Reply

You mean the ones who don't see themselves as slaves?

#61 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

The ones who'd rather be stupid and dead over a single firearm...

#69 | Posted by jpw at 2019-09-14 01:28 PM | Reply

"I like how the only argument gun freaks can come up with against banning AR-15s is "i'll kill you!" Really illustrative."

So I can assume you're not going to be the dude kicking down doors to confiscate weapons?

This is why you're always going to be in a position where your freedom is the result of someone else's risk. You lack what it takes to take care of yourself.

You're basically a child.

Embrace it. Enjoy it. But shut the ---- up when the grown ups are talking.

#70 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-14 01:28 PM | Reply

t's too bad we let the assault weapons ban lapse. Forced confiscation of these weapons is probably a bridge too far politically at this point, but Beto isn't wrong:
Beto O'Rourke @BetoORourke
You can't own a grenade launcher or drive a tank down the street. These AR-15s and AK-47s are weapons of war"and we need to buy back every single one of them.
#10 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-13 11:05 AM

He is the dictionary definition of wrong. You can own a grenade launcher. You can drive a tank down the street. How could someone so inept be on the stage as a contender for Democrats to vote for in their primary? Are the people up there embarrassed by his presence like they should be? Was no one capable of correcting his false statements?

Most women are using abortion as birth control...#21 | Posted by boaz at 2019-09-13 01:17 PM
That is an untrue statement, and I'm sure that you realize it. Perhaps you want to restate it?

The 1st Amendment right to free speech does not protect someone falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. - #42 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2019-09-14 11:25 AM
The 1st absolutely protects your right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. What it doesn't do is protect you from the rules that outlaw that behavior and the penalty for breaking those laws. Just like the 2nd defends your right to possess arms, but does not protect you from the rules that outlaw you misusing those arms. The 1st prevents you have a lock installed on your mouth preventing you from speaking until someone was able to verify that you weren't shouting "fire". You absolutely have the ability to misuse that right, and pay the consequences for your actions.

#71 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-14 01:29 PM | Reply

Pffff. An escalation? The 1994 ban made possession a crime, meaning your weapons could be taken from you without compensation. You think paying people for them is somehow less constitutional?

#68 | POSTED BY JOE

IIRC only new imports or newly manufactured weapons that met the scary rifle requirements.

Unless I missed it, Beto didn't mention a grandfather clause.

#72 | Posted by jpw at 2019-09-14 01:31 PM | Reply

So I can assume you're not going to be the dude kicking down doors to confiscate weapons?

What if i was? Would that change your internet tough guy act?

Here's a clue, you freak: Law enforcement aren't the only people who have a say in our democracy. I don't know what kind of fantasy you're living in but you strike me as someone who shouldn't be anywhere near a weapon.

#73 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-14 01:32 PM | Reply

This is why you're always going to be in a position where your freedom is the result of someone else's risk. You lack what it takes to take care of yourself.

You're basically a child.

Embrace it. Enjoy it. But shut the ---- up when the grown ups are talking.

#70 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Everybody LOL at the internet toughguy.

#74 | Posted by jpw at 2019-09-14 01:32 PM | Reply

"Do you honestly not feel stupid posting that kind of stuff?"

---- no.

I know full well that any LE official sent to confiscate guns in the state of Idaho is likely going to wind up in a shallow grave in the desert. That sort of effort will require a dedicated cadre of individuals who are willing to die in order to confiscate guns. I don't think you're going to find them in LE. I know for a fact you're not going to find them in the military. So where?

I would want no part of that bad business.

#75 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-14 01:32 PM | Reply

Unless I missed it, Beto didn't mention a grandfather clause.

Fair enough, but i'm not sure what impact that has on a Constitutional analysis. If someone has a Constitutional right to own an AR-15, it doesn't matter when they bought it.

#76 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-14 01:33 PM | Reply

"The ones who'd rather be stupid and dead over a single firearm..."

You live in California, don't you.

When you get into Montana, Wyoming, Idaho...the gunowners are going to outnumber, by far, the number of officials sent to confiscate weapons.

This is what you don't understand.

#77 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-14 01:35 PM | Reply

I know full well that any LE official sent to confiscate guns in the state of Idaho is likely going to wind up in a shallow grave in the desert

Hahahahaha. Have you seen the type of equipment our police departments are outfitted with these days? Jim-bob and his boom boom stick don't stand a chance.

#78 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-14 01:36 PM | Reply

"What if i was? Would that change your internet tough guy act?"

If you were, I would at least respect you.

I don't think you get it, but there aren't a lot of military or LE folks who would favor a gun ban. As a demographic, we're more likely to own weapons. We're also more likely to use weapons. So to have some loser tell us that we're no longer allowed to possess these things is not something that most would be indifferent to.

But if you're willing to go kick down the door...at least I can commend you on your commitment...even if I disagree with you.

#79 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-14 01:43 PM | Reply

"Hahahahaha. Have you seen the type of equipment our police departments are outfitted with these days? Jim-bob and his boom boom stick don't stand a chance."

In Idaho, "Jim-bob is the cop.

You're going to need to go over there yourself and show them what's what.

You ready?

#80 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-14 01:45 PM | Reply

If you were, I would at least respect you.

Hahaha. Imagine being such a pompous ass that you think strangers on the internet care about your "respect." Get a grip.

#81 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-14 01:48 PM | Reply

Yeah. You're a ---.

#82 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-14 01:53 PM | Reply

Missouri via Texas via NY.

And I own firearms in case that was your next stop.

This is what you don't understand.
#77 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

I understand it just fine.

Having a state full of stupid isn't a good argument.

#83 | Posted by jpw at 2019-09-14 01:54 PM | Reply

"And I own firearms in case that was your next stop."

Are you going to hand them over to Joe when he comes knocking on your door?

#84 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-14 01:55 PM | Reply

Yeah. You're a ---.

#82 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Unless you're kicking in doors you're just a faux macho dime a dozen internet tough guys.

How much of your belly hangs over your belt, SWAT wannabe?

#85 | Posted by jpw at 2019-09-14 01:56 PM | Reply

I don't think anyone cares if you are...but no one that I know is going to hand them over peacefully. And like I said, I don't even know who would be tasked with collection, when the greatest "offenders" would be those naturally tasked with confiscating the weapons.

#86 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-14 01:58 PM | Reply

None are an AR or AK.

So it's unlikely that'll even be an issue.

But I'm not going to die over a gun. That's just stupidity from lazy Murican fat ----- who think they can stave off the wheezing long enough to take a few down with them.

#87 | Posted by jpw at 2019-09-14 01:58 PM | Reply

All I want is to be able to carry my Morning Star into town.

#88 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-09-14 01:59 PM | Reply

"How much of your belly hangs over your belt, SWAT wannabe?"

SWAT?

Ick.

I flew bombers for about 13 years. Now I do other boring, old people stuff. But I still do an hour of cardio in the morning, and lift at lunch or in the afternoon. I'm not quite Thor, but I'm doing OK for an old guy (44)...knock on wood.

But if I was ever order to go out and confiscate guns...nope. I would resign my commission immediately. In part, because I disagree...but more so because I don't want to die over something stupid.

#89 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-14 02:03 PM | Reply

When you get into Montana, Wyoming, Idaho...the gunowners are going to outnumber, by far, the number of officials sent to confiscate weapons.
This is what you don't understand.
#77 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2019-09-14 01:35 PM | REPLY |

If you resist by use of force against the US, the US has this thing called the army. I'd enjoy watching y'all queda trying to defeat the combined armed forces of the USA

#90 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-09-14 02:05 PM | Reply

No one can out gun the U.S. government.

#91 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-09-14 02:10 PM | Reply

"the US has this thing called the army. I'd enjoy watching y'all queda trying to defeat the combined armed forces of the USA

#90 | POSTED BY HATTER5183 AT 2019-09-14 02:05 PM"

The US also has this thing calle the Posse Comitatus Act which forbids the use of force against US citizens on US soil.

"The Posse Comitatus Act, which passed after the Civil War to keep federal troops from policing the South, limits federal troops' deployment on U.S. soil and forbids using them to enforce domestic laws."

#92 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-14 02:11 PM | Reply

It's adorable that you think the police or army would enforce gun confiscation.

#93 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-09-14 02:14 PM | Reply

#90

there are a ton of people with a ton of guns who have plans for just such a scenario. Some of the plans are pretty freaking stupid but some would probably require major military force to dig out.
Not sure how down the military will be with bombing US citizens who just want to be left alone and aren't doing anything wrong other than owning a constitutionally protected item. God willing we will never find out because that will be the end of America as we know it no matter who wins.

#47 | POSTED BY TAOWARRIOR

I know quite a few military dudes and dudettes and I question what would happen to military discipline if this were ever ordered. Honestly of all the "apocalypse scenarios" I can think of this is one of the scariest partly because of this very thread. I was not joking when I said it could be the end of America as we know it. Military and LE breakdown, pockets of resistance, bombing of civilians.

Seriously lets find a compromise.

#94 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2019-09-14 02:15 PM | Reply

"I flew bombers for about 13 years. Now I do other boring, old people stuff. But I still do an hour of cardio in the morning, and lift at lunch or in the afternoon. I'm not quite Thor, but I'm doing OK for an old guy (44)...knock on wood."

I came of age during Vietnam, my Dad was an officer aboard an aircraft Carrier off the coast of Vietnam from which bombers were launched daily. I had planned most of my life to enter the military but when I saw what they were doing in Vietnam I changed my mind. Me and my father got so angry with each other about this that he didn't speak to me for about ten years. That you were willing to bomb people but object to the removal of weapons of war from idiots speaks loudly about how confused you are about what you consider to be right and what is wrong. In my Dad's defense, when I had small children and was incapable of caring for them by myself I went to him and he helped me greatly til I got back on my feet, and my kids loved him and then one day he came to me and said, "you were right about Vietnam." That moment meant so much to me because I never doubted I was right but I was surprised that a 30 year career officer and pilot of the Navy would ever admit it. I have read about John McCain, and his horrible treatment in the N. Vietnamese prison but never do I read about the victims of the bombs he was dropping. I have never been able to erase the pictures of the bombing victims, I honestly don't know how any decent human being could do that to another human being.

#95 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-14 02:17 PM | Reply

"I flew bombers for about 13 years. Now I do other boring, old people stuff. But I still do an hour of cardio in the morning, and lift at lunch or in the afternoon. I'm not quite Thor, but I'm doing OK for an old guy (44)...knock on wood."

I came of age during Vietnam, my Dad was an officer aboard an aircraft Carrier off the coast of Vietnam from which bombers were launched daily. I had planned most of my life to enter the military but when I saw what they were doing in Vietnam I changed my mind. Me and my father got so angry with each other about this that he didn't speak to me for about ten years. That you were willing to bomb people but object to the removal of weapons of war from idiots speaks loudly about how confused you are about what you consider to be right and what is wrong. In my Dad's defense, when I had small children and was incapable of caring for them by myself I went to him and he helped me greatly til I got back on my feet, and my kids loved him and then one day he came to me and said, "you were right about Vietnam." That moment meant so much to me because I never doubted I was right but I was surprised that a 30 year career officer and pilot of the Navy would ever admit it. I have read about John McCain, and his horrible treatment in the N. Vietnamese prison but never do I read about the victims of the bombs he was dropping. I have never been able to erase the pictures of the bombing victims, I honestly don't know how any decent human being could do that to another human being.

#96 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-14 02:17 PM | Reply

"I flew bombers for about 13 years. Now I do other boring, old people stuff. But I still do an hour of cardio in the morning, and lift at lunch or in the afternoon. I'm not quite Thor, but I'm doing OK for an old guy (44)...knock on wood."

I came of age during Vietnam, my Dad was an officer aboard an aircraft Carrier off the coast of Vietnam from which bombers were launched daily. I had planned most of my life to enter the military but when I saw what they were doing in Vietnam I changed my mind. Me and my father got so angry with each other about this that he didn't speak to me for about ten years. That you were willing to bomb people but object to the removal of weapons of war from idiots speaks loudly about how confused you are about what you consider to be right and what is wrong. In my Dad's defense, when I had small children and was incapable of caring for them by myself I went to him and he helped me greatly til I got back on my feet, and my kids loved him and then one day he came to me and said, "you were right about Vietnam." That moment meant so much to me because I never doubted I was right but I was surprised that a 30 year career officer and pilot of the Navy would ever admit it. I have read about John McCain, and his horrible treatment in the N. Vietnamese prison but never do I read about the victims of the bombs he was dropping. I have never been able to erase the pictures of the bombing victims, I honestly don't know how any decent human being could do that to another human being.

#97 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-14 02:17 PM | Reply

I don't know why that posted multiple times, it was totally not intentional.

#98 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-14 02:18 PM | Reply

"That you were willing to bomb people but object to the removal of weapons of war from idiots speaks loudly about how confused you are..."

The confused one is the one who conflates bombers and guns.

#99 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-14 02:21 PM | Reply

"you resist by use of force against the US, the US has this thing called the army. I'd enjoy watching y'all queda trying to defeat the combined armed forces of the USA"

Actually dude...that's me.

And I'm one of the more reasonable ones.

But I'm sure the offer stands. If you want to go kick in doors to confiscate guns...someone is going to have to do it. Are you ready?

#100 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-14 02:24 PM | Reply

"The confused one is the one who conflates bombers and guns."

Yeah, dropping napalm on civillians is ok but taking guns away from idiots isn't. You will probably get an opportunity to discuss that with God, if the teachings of Christianity are true. I feel confident He will agree with me.

#101 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-14 02:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"But I'm sure the offer stands. If you want to go kick in doors to confiscate guns...someone is going to have to do it. Are you ready?"

But it's ok to go to other people's countrie and kick in doors to take away weapons. I got it. Amerikuh ---- Yeah!

#102 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-14 02:29 PM | Reply

All you folks on both sides talking about the army being used against citizens to take their guns (left: "the US will use the army to get the guns" right: "the army won't bomb or shoot their own people") need to read the Posse Comitatus Act. Among other things, it says the army cannot be used to enforce domestic law nor can it use force on US soil except to repel an invasion. In fact, the PCA is a thorn in Trump's side right now because he wants to deploy troops to the border, but the PCA prevents him.

So left: drop the silly suggestion of using the army to enforce gun laws. Right: don't worry, it ain't going to happen.

#103 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-14 02:30 PM | Reply

"That moment meant so much to me because I never doubted I was right but I was surprised that a 30 year career officer and pilot of the Navy would ever admit it."

Did you think your dad was an idiot?

Discussion of the alignment of forces in the Levant is still somewhat off limits. No one talks about it. But someday I think you will hear stories that will make the war against the communists in Vietnam seem noble compared to what happened in Syria and Iraq.

#104 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-14 02:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

90% of copy are opposed to gun confiscation. They say one in five will end in a firefight. At least 180 million Americans own firearms. How many cops are there? Not a smart career move.

Even if we brought all the troops home to to back them that's only about a million re-reinforcements. And Army guys don't spport it either.

The woke are laughable in their beliefs. They are a threat to our civil rights though.

#105 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2019-09-14 02:32 PM | Reply

Our foreign wars, unnecessay and unprovoked have caused our nation to lose the basic understanding of what is right and wrong. It is no wonder we have violence in our streets, we take violence to other nations and inflict harm to a degree that is unimaginable so our people see what our government is doing, for no real reason, and figure they can behave the same way.

#106 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-14 02:32 PM | Reply

"Yeah, dropping napalm on civillians is ok but taking guns away from idiots isn't."

A) we no longer have Napalm in the inventory. The closest is the USMC MK-77...but we could never get those.

B) Taking guns away from idiots might, MIGHT be justifiable. Taking guns away from everyone else...not so much.

#107 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-14 02:34 PM | Reply

"Yeah, dropping napalm on civillians is ok but taking guns away from idiots isn't. You will probably get an opportunity to discuss that with God, if the teachings of Christianity are true. I feel confident He will agree with me.
3)

#101 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2019-09-14 02:27 PM "

So much wrong in your post (as usual)

1) I never said that
2) Once again you are comparing apples and oranges. War vs Peace. Foreign soil vs American soil.
3) "God agrees with me": logical fallacy of appeal to a higher authority
4) Jesus said not to judge people, so if you are going to invoke God, do it 100% and don't be a hypocritical cafeteria Christian who picks the Biblical rules he wants and discards the rest.

#108 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-14 02:34 PM | Reply

What did your father fly Danni? Just curious.

#109 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-14 02:36 PM | Reply

"Did you think your dad was an idiot?"

No, I just thought he was caught up in believing that America was always right even when it wasn't. I'm very proud of him, he finally recognized the truth and admitted it. He was a brilliant man though. He only had a 9th grade education but managed to join the Navy and work up to be a Commander who was the leader of a squadron. The Vietnam era was probably even more divisive than the Trump era is, it divided families, I know, because it sure divided mine. I had brothers and sisters who considered me to be a traitor. Never got an apology from any of them but I did from my Dad. Today, me and my brothers and sisters still aren't close and some of them are Trump supporters, loud mouthed idiots, who were totally wrong back in 1969 but don't realize their stupidity followed them to 2015 and somehow think the same type of thinking will somehow make them right today.

#110 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-14 02:41 PM | Reply

It's adorable that you think the police or army would enforce gun confiscation.
#93 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

They did after Katrina.

#111 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-14 02:42 PM | Reply

All you folks on both sides talking about the army being used against citizens to take their guns (left: "the US will use the army to get the guns" right: "the army won't bomb or shoot their own people") need to read the Posse Comitatus Act.

Sounds like you need to read it yourself.

From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress
Thus, if Congress passed a law requiring the armed forces to enforce a gun buyback program it would not be a violation of the PCA since it contains an explicit exception for acts of Congress.

Better luck next time!

#112 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-14 02:45 PM | Reply

I flew bombers for about 13 years. Now I do other boring, old people stuff.

I would think this would be pretty boring.

Big slow and long distance flights.

#113 | Posted by jpw at 2019-09-14 02:46 PM | Reply

#110 the casus belli for the Vietnam War was a lie; the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. Plenty of people knew it was a lie at the time, but some people still don't want to admit it today. Some people won't admit war based on a lie is wrong. All of those people are right-wingers. Go figure.

#114 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-14 02:49 PM | Reply

But if I was ever order to go out and confiscate guns...nope. I would resign my commission immediately. In part, because I disagree...but more so because I don't want to die over something stupid.

#89 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Well that's a much more pragmatic position.

It's funny (in a sad way) to me that this really boils down to "nuh uh" with a bang. There's not really a whole lot of rational thought behind thinking you'd rather die than give up a handful of gun types. There's literally hundreds of types of guns one can own, but people would rather be dead than give up a few. It's beyond stupid.

Not to mention if it came to confiscation, officers who aren't thrilled about doing it would go down with the SS Stupid as well.

#115 | Posted by jpw at 2019-09-14 02:50 PM | Reply

to mention if it came to confiscation, officers who aren't thrilled about doing it would go down with the SS Stupid as well.

#115 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2019-09-14 02:50 PM | REPLY"

They can refuse an unlawful order

#116 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-14 02:53 PM | Reply

All of those people are right-wingers. Go figure.

#114 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2019-09-14 02"

Citation needed

#117 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-14 02:57 PM | Reply

"There's literally hundreds of types of guns one can own"

Yet sales of AWB weapons went through the roof when the AWB was allowed to sunset.

#118 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-14 02:57 PM | Reply

Our foreign wars, unnecessay and unprovoked have caused our nation to lose the basic understanding of what is right and wrong. It is no wonder we have violence in our streets, we take violence to other nations and inflict harm to a degree that is unimaginable so our people see what our government is doing, for no real reason, and figure they can behave the same way.
#106 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-14 02:32 PM

This is a prime example of someone speaking from the heart and not from the head.
The US has been on a war footing for longer than any other period in their history.
www.washingtonpost.com
The US is also experiencing an unprecedented period of peace and a continued long-term reduction in violence. www.culturalcognition.net
Your theory may have sounded great in your head, but it is exact opposite of reality.

#119 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-14 02:59 PM | Reply

"Big slow and long distance flights."

Not really.

Bombers are favored in the middle east for persistence and payload. A bomber can hang out overhead for hours and hours without refueling. And they can carry a lot of weapons.

"There's not really a whole lot of rational thought behind thinking you'd rather die than give up a handful of gun types. There's literally hundreds of types of guns one can own, but people would rather be dead than give up a few. It's beyond stupid."

They don't seem to think it's stupid.

I spend a LOT of time with our coalition partners. They all think our healthcare system is retarded, but they like our gun laws. Obviously, I work with a certain type of personality, and not everyone has the same views. But...FWTW.

#120 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-14 02:59 PM | Reply

"What did your father fly Danni? Just curious."

My parents met during WWII. Dad was in flight school here in Florida learning to fly sea planes to look for submarines off the coast. In those days an enlisted man could actually go to flight school and he did. Worked his way up to Warrant Officer but then was offered the chance to attend OCS but he had to go back down to Seaman to do so. He did it and graduated as an Ensign and then worked his way up. He flew virtually everything though the only jet he flew was a Buckeye trainer in Which he finally commanded a training squadron. He flew in the Berlin Airlift. He flew all over the world. He traveled to so many countries but our family never left the states. He was gone at least 9 months of most years. My brothers and sisters loved him but him and I never got along though during the last years of his life I was very close to him and he helped me when my kids were little. He died at 59, I was in the room with him. It was sudden and unexpected, he had never been seriously ill. My little daughter was combing his hair when he died. I'll say this though, the time he gave me before he died did enable me to establish a stable career and make me capable to support my family for the rest of my life, I'm not really sure if that would have happened without his help when he gave it to me.

#121 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-14 03:00 PM | Reply

"but more so because I don't want to die over something stupid."

Neither does anyone else; that's why we want guns banned.

#122 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-14 03:01 PM | Reply

"The US is also experiencing an unprecedented period of peace and a continued long-term reduction in violence."

Where's your Chicago and Baltimore talking points?

#123 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-14 03:03 PM | Reply

Your father sounds like an exceptional man. I'm sorry you lost him so young.

#124 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-09-14 03:03 PM | Reply

"Your theory may have sounded great in your head, but it is exact opposite of reality."

1,000,000 dead from our Iraq invasion. You're simply full of crap. And the beat goes on....Iran??? Hope not. I'll give Trump credit for not being that crazy....yet....Better than Bush...I'll give him that. In the end....better than McCain....bomb, bomb, bomb, let's bomb Iran and all that.

#125 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-14 03:06 PM | Reply

Yet sales of AWB weapons went through the roof when the AWB was allowed to sunset.

#118 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

It was the new toy.

Doesn't at all address my point that banning ARs and AKs is suddenly going to leave people with revolvers, lever guns and muskets.

#126 | Posted by jpw at 2019-09-14 03:12 PM | Reply

""but more so because I don't want to die over something stupid."
Neither does anyone else; that's why we want guns banned.

#122 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2019-09-14 03:01 PM "

Who is "we"? Constitution haters?

There are far more car related deaths and serious injuries than guns. So if your reason for not wanting guns is not wanting to die of something stupid, then you must necessarily want to ban cars.

Also, if you don't want to die of something stupid, don't do anything stupid like entering my home uninvited or threaten me. No one has anything to fear from me and my gun unless they come into my house uninvited or threaten me. Not even you, snoofy

#127 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-14 03:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Who is "we"? Constitution haters?"

Nobody wants to die over something stupid.
But if you want to, just to prove me wrong, that's fine.

#128 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-14 03:17 PM | Reply

Bombers are favored in the middle east for persistence and payload. A bomber can hang out overhead for hours and hours without refueling. And they can carry a lot of weapons.

You can still fly a lot of miles even if it's in giant circles lol

They don't seem to think it's stupid.

Of course. Doesn't mean it's not.

Tell me, is it worth getting ---- for a wallet or purse? Would you get knifed for you shoes or watch?

It's just ----. Stupid, consumerist ---- with a faux patriotic bent.

Government says hand in your AR for $1000? Turn it in, buy a mini-14 and use the left over funds to buy more ammo. Live to breathe another day to boot.

#129 | Posted by jpw at 2019-09-14 03:17 PM | Reply

Your father sounds like an exceptional man. I'm sorry you lost him so young.

#124 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

Indeed.

I fear that that much personal info will be used by trolls to push your buttons, though.

#130 | Posted by jpw at 2019-09-14 03:20 PM | Reply

Her buttons. Sorry.

#131 | Posted by jpw at 2019-09-14 03:20 PM | Reply

"Doesn't at all address my point that banning ARs and AKs is suddenly going to leave people with revolvers, lever guns and muskets."

Aong the thousands of weapons, once the AWB sunset took place, AWB weapons were suddenly very popular, meaning the other thousands weren't.

Still, banning AWB weapons again shouldn't impose any functional limitations on the needs of shooters, considering the thousands of other platforms available.

#132 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-14 03:21 PM | Reply

"1,000,000 dead from our Iraq invasion. You're simply full of crap.

#125 | POSTED BY DANNI "

Actually, you are the one full of crap. Once again you lie and pull numbers out of your ass to make a point, just as you did yesterday citing -------- Vietnam stats, including claiming the Paris Peace talks were sabotaged by Nixon so he could get re-elected. (paris peace talks happened after he was re-elected, and a war weary US would not elect anyone wanting to sabotage those talks)

And here you are again pulling numbers out of your ass. The total number dead in Iraq due to the war is 288,000, not almost 4x that as you claim.

It's no wonder it is hard to take you seriously because you keep proving you make stuff up to make a point. Be honest. You are more likely to be taken seriously and less like a shrieking shrill shill who keeps crying wolf.

www.iraqbodycount.org

#133 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-14 03:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"I fear that that much personal info will be used by trolls to push your buttons, though.

POSTED BY JPW AT 2019-09-14 03:20 PM "

By the left, maybe. The right is far less likely to engage in that sort of stuff -- at least on the DR and other blogs I frequent. And since Danni is a leftie, I don't think she has much to worry about.

#134 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-14 03:23 PM | Reply

Iraq War en.wikipedia.org

Estimated deaths:
Lancet survey** (March 2003 " July 2006): 654,965 (95% CI: 392,979"942,636)[46][47]
Iraq Family Health Survey*** (March 2003 " July 2006): 151,000 (95% CI: 104,000"223,000)[48]
PLOS Medicine Study**: (March 2003 " June 2011): 405,000 (95% CI: 48,000"751,000), in addition to 55,000 deaths missed due to emigration[49]

Documented deaths from violence:
Iraq Body Count (2003 " 14 December 2011): 103,160"113,728 civilian deaths recorded,[50] and 12,438 new deaths added from the Iraq War Logs[51]
Associated Press (March 2003 " April 2009): 110,600[52]

#135 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-14 03:25 PM | Reply

Well yes, there are benefits and features of AR platforms that are attractive.

But that's still an irrelevant point. Unless you're arguing people will die for an AR because they're pissed they can't put their laser sight, flashlight and red dot scope on a traditional rifle platform?

#136 | Posted by jpw at 2019-09-14 03:28 PM | Reply

"March 19 marks 15 years since the U.S.-UK invasion of Iraq in 2003, and the American people have no idea of the enormity of the calamity the invasion unleashed. The U.S. military has refused to keep a tally of Iraqi deaths. General Tommy Franks, the man in charge of the initial invasion, bluntly told reporters, "We don't do body counts." One survey found that most Americans thought Iraqi deaths were in the tens of thousands. But our calculations, using the best information available, show a catastrophic estimate of 2.4 million Iraqi deaths since the 2003 invasion."

www.salon.com

I don't care what you believe Goatmen, the point is NONE OF THOSE PEOPLE WOULD HAVE DIED had we not allowed Bush/Cheney to lie us into an unnecessary war. Believe what makes you feel good, I just don't care. I know we caused enough people to die over there that our country should be eternally ashamed and I know I am though I never supported it in the first place and actually did protest before the invasion and was called a traitor for doing so.

#137 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-14 03:28 PM | Reply

""Who is "we"? Constitution haters?"
Nobody wants to die over something stupid.
But if you want to, just to prove me wrong, that's fine.

#128 | POSTED BY SNOOFY "

I was obviously talking about your post which associated the "dying stupid" think with gun ownership. That is why you took my reply out of context (again) and left your original quote out.

Once again snoofygames (tm) takes quotes out of context to make a point.

Why can't you just be honest? Try it for a week. If you decide you don't like being honest and quoting full context isn't your thing, you can always to back.

Anyway, your dihonesty sucks.

Bye now, snoofygames (tm) Consider my suggestion of being honest for one week.

#138 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-14 03:29 PM | Reply

"Government says hand in your AR for $1000? Turn it in, buy a mini-14 and use the left over funds to buy more ammo. Live to breathe another day to boot."

You're a clever one. I can't say that I would disagree. Although I'm partial to .308.

#139 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-14 03:29 PM | Reply

"Unless you're arguing people will die for an AR because they're pissed they can't put their laser sight, flashlight and red dot scope on a traditional rifle platform?"

I'm hearing in this thread that some surely will, rather than hand them over to the police.

#140 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-14 03:32 PM | Reply

"I was obviously talking about your post which associated the "dying stupid" think with gun ownership."

Is there "dying smart?"
Gun ownership is associated with higher rates of gun death. Call it smart, stupid, whatever, it's still dead.

#141 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-14 03:32 PM | Reply

You're probably right JPW but today I was feeling sort of sentimental about my Dad and Mom. They've both been gone a long time now but I still miss them. They both were great representatives of "The Greatest Generation" and, in many ways they really earned that title. they grew up during the Great Depression and made lives that no one could have ever expected.

#142 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-14 03:33 PM | Reply

"I don't care what you believe Goatmen, the point is NONE OF THOSE PEOPLE WOULD HAVE DIED had we not allowed Bush/Cheney to lie us into an unnecessary war."

That and if we had a Congress who didn't allow it.

#143 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-14 03:33 PM | Reply

We had a crazy guy years ago where I work. He was warned to stop preaching his religion but he kept doing it. So they fired him. Next day they installed gates on every entrance because they feared he might be crazy enough to come back and shoot up the place. Fortunately, he never did anything but we still have the gates till this day. What I've been thinking is that if I owned a company again, would I ask if you owned a fireare on the employment application. If you did I'm wondering if that wouldn't disqualify you from employment at my company. I suspect other employers are considering this right now.

#144 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-14 03:39 PM | Reply

"That and if we had a Congress who didn't allow it."

They believed the lies they were told and now our nation has not punished those who lied so we can expect more of the same. Bush/Cheney should be in prison for the rest of their lives. I don't like Donald Trump but, as you notice, I don't consider him to be anywhere near as criminal as Bush/Cheney.

#145 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-14 03:43 PM | Reply

I myself and I think many in Congress thought their declaration was to add more pressure on saddam to abdicate.

We didn't think "see you tomorrow "

#146 | Posted by bruceaz at 2019-09-14 03:48 PM | Reply

" If you did I'm wondering if that wouldn't disqualify you from employment at my company. I suspect other employers are considering this right now.

POSTED BY DANNI AT 2019-09-14 03:39 PM "

I'm b=no legal scholar, but I would think it wouldn't be legal since owning a gun is a Constitutional right, just as freedom of religion. I do know that employers can keep employees from bringing guns into the workplace, but demanding they give up a Consitutional right in their own home seems extreme.

But why would you want to discriminate against someone who owns a gun and never used it illegally? Would you be cool with being discriminated against for owning a chihuahua? It can work both ways.

#147 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-14 03:49 PM | Reply

Once again you lie and pull numbers out of your ass to make a point,

Sort of like how you lied and pulled a statute out of your ass to prove a point, then just pretended not to notice or care when you were corrected?

#148 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-14 03:53 PM | Reply

"They believed the lies they were told..."

Well, that's certainly a lame excuse for shirking the responsibility of an action as sending American troops to war. A good congressman would do a little homework before voting on such a grave issue. A lazy one, not so much. And besides, if he made the wrong vote he can simply say, "I was lied to" while stilfing an indifferent yawn.

Sorry, I expect more from my congressman than taking one man's word when it comes to going to war. Apparently you are cool with the lazy ones who don't see the need to do a little research, ask a few questions before sending Americans off to die.

#149 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-14 03:54 PM | Reply

"Sort of like how you lied and pulled a statute out of your ass to prove a point, then just pretended not to notice or care when you were corrected?

#148 | POSTED BY JOE "

Yeah sure, Joe. Sort of like that.

Now run along, troll.

#150 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-14 03:56 PM | Reply

Correcting a lie makes one a troll? Incredible how your mind manages to twist into a pretzel to protect your ego.

#151 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-14 03:58 PM | Reply

"Well, that's certainly a lame excuse for shirking the responsibility of an action as sending American troops to war. A good congressman would do a little homework before voting on such a grave issue. A lazy one, not so much. And besides, if he made the wrong vote he can simply say, "I was lied to" while stilfing an indifferent yawn."

I yelled and screamed as loud as I could. In 2008 I supported Barrack Obama over Hillary Clinton for exactly that reason. But Americans still reelected many of those dopes. The evidence was available to anyone who cared. Today Valerie Plame is running for Congress and I support her 100%. Her husband tried to get the truth out and the Bush administration committed treason by outing her as a covert CIA operative but I don't hear any conservatives calling for any punishments for them. Cry me a river or start calling out the liars which I have not seen you doing. Come to think of it, I don't remember you protesting before the invasion. I was there on Young Circle in Hollywood, Florida and I was called a traitor by many cars passing. I knew George W. Bush was a piece of crap before he was elected. The AWOL story was entirely true even if Dan Rather got his documents rong. I see this woman today going to jail for cheating on her daughter's test scores to get her into some college, how does anyone thinkl Dubya got into any college. That frat boy didn't deserve to be admitted much less become President and only did so with the complicity of a corrupt SC. Every member of that court should be in prison with him.

#152 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-14 04:03 PM | Reply

There are tolls here but Joe is not one of them. Far from it.

#153 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-14 04:04 PM | Reply

There are tolls here but Joe is not one of them. Far from it.

POSTED BY DANNI AT 2019-09-14 04:04 PM | REPLY

How much is my toll??

#154 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-09-14 04:05 PM | Reply

"There are tolls here but Joe is not one of them. Far from it.

#153 | POSTED BY DANNI "

Just because he doesn't troll you does not mean he's not a troll. It just means he doesn't troll you.

#155 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-14 04:06 PM | Reply

Let me guess, goatshart is yapping around the edges of the conversation desperately trying to derail the thread that has actually been rather civil and conversational for a gun control discussion?

#156 | Posted by jpw at 2019-09-14 04:07 PM | Reply

"Correcting a lie makes one a troll? Incredible how your mind manages to twist into a pretzel to protect your ego.

#151 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2019-09-14 03:58 PM "

No trolling me (perhaps the word is "stalking", but that is more insiduous and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now) makes you a troll.

#157 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-14 04:07 PM | Reply

"But why would you want to discriminate against someone who owns a gun and never used it illegally? Would you be cool with being discriminated against for owning a chihuahua? It can work both ways."

I don't know if I would or if I wouldn't but I do know that some employers want to discriminate against GLBT folks, why would they want to do that? And, let's be honest, the same employer would probably hire someone who owns an AR-15, and that is something that I know, I would not tolerate if I knew about it.

#158 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-14 04:07 PM | Reply

Hahaha. Goatman comes here and vomits out easily correctable nonsense, then accuses anyone who does so of "stalking" him.

Convenient. Sorry about your ego.

#159 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-14 04:09 PM | Reply

"Let me guess, goatshart is yapping...

#156 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2019-09-14 04:07 PM "

LOL

Once again JPW proves that even though he plonks me (so he claims) he cannot get me out of his head.

#160 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-14 04:10 PM | Reply

"Sorry about your ego.

#159 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2019-09-14 04:09 PM |"

Don't be. I'm secure with it unlike folks who have to denigrate others to boost their own frail egos.

Now begone, stalker! Have your last word as you last word freaks demand, but after that, begone!

#161 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-14 04:11 PM | Reply

"I yelled and screamed as loud as I could."

That's great, but obviously I was talking about congressmen and you are not one.

#162 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-14 04:13 PM | Reply

"That's great, but obviously I was talking about congressmen and you are not one."

Never will be though I would love to be one. I think we all should consider what are the forces that push our politicians to go along with things like the Iraq invasion or the 2 trillion dollar tax cut for teh 1%. Money in politics is what makes our politicians such wimps. GEt the money out and we could clean up our government, if we don't we never will.

#163 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-14 04:19 PM | Reply

"Sorry, I expect more from my congressman than taking one man's word when it comes to going to war."

(Are you getting that??? Nevermind.)

War, you say.

War never got declared.

The problem was granting Bush the Authorization for Use of Military Force, which grants him the power to wage war in all but name.

How this doesn't violate the Constitution is anybody's guess; I don't think it's ever been tested in a court of law.

That's the problem. Congress passing the buck is the problem. Both parties kind of hemming and hawing about when and how the President is authorized to use military force, when the simple answer is "when Congress declares war" has been right in front of them for 230 years is the problem.

There are parts of the Constitution that I think are garbage, but if we are going to live by it, then we should do just that.

And we should go back to calling it the Department of War because pretending it's defense accelerates the victim narrative, which foams the runway for fascism. We enshrined our Good Guy status by winning the last war we declared that most anyone remembers, then we set out to be world's Defenders.

"And now that world has treated us so unfairly, and they're taking advantage of us, and they're so ungrateful for all the great things we've done for them!" (victim narrative.)

#164 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-14 04:23 PM | Reply

Hahaha. Goatman comes here and vomits out easily correctable nonsense, then accuses anyone who does so of "stalking" him.

He basically accuses anybody who responds to him with anything but glowing adoration as "stalking him".

Which is funny considering he's inserting himself into conversations on a public forum but doesn't seem to want people to respond to him.

Oh well. Chalk up another high jack attempt.

#165 | Posted by jpw at 2019-09-14 04:23 PM | Reply

I was thinking the same thing. One of those apocalypse survivor shows a guy owned one (armored scout vehicle) and drove his kid to school in it each day. She hated it if you are wondering.

#46 | POSTED BY TAOWARRIOR AT 2019-09-14 11:55 AM | FLAG:

I was taken to a McDonalds drive-thru in a Ferret Armored Scout Car. It was fun.

For those that don't get it. On armored vehicles and warbirds, the weapons are regulated as weapons, the aircraft under normal FAA rules, and tank you can just own and drive on private property. You can get them with activate guns in FFL transfers. You can get them with no gun and add them back on. You can get them with de-activated guns and then reactivate them with legal parts. That's how people get big artillery pieces, firing WW2 tanks, etc. These are all collectors items and museum pieces, not items that need more regulation.

#166 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-09-14 06:00 PM | Reply

They're going to have to come get my mosin, Remington 30.06 and AR-15, if they want them. Not saying I can stop them. Simply saying I'm not handing them over in a buy back.. fugum

#167 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2019-09-14 07:40 PM | Reply

I've had a security clearance since 1994 and I have the same credentials as the TSA. Not going quietly. And I've never had anything more than a simple trafic ticket on my record

#168 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2019-09-14 07:42 PM | Reply

Not happening...

#169 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2019-09-14 08:16 PM | Reply

Someone's gotta problem.

#170 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-09-14 08:20 PM | Reply

While the 2nd amendment to the US amendment is constantly argued about what it means, try reading your State Constitution.

My State Constitution is much more clear about my gun rights.

If you get rid of the US 2nd, you have to get rid of my State 2nd.

#171 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-09-14 08:23 PM | Reply

"If you get rid of the US 2nd, you have to get rid of my State 2nd.

#171 | POSTED BY PETROUS "

Unless Congress replaces it with an amendment that makes guns illegal. Then all states are screwed regardless of their Constitution.

But neither will happen. It takes 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of the states' legislatures to amend the Consitution. There is no way either of those will be met. It would be political suicide in any state for a congressman to vote for repeal of the 2nd amendment.

The states' legislatures alone will ensure it won't happen. There is no way 37 states would vote to ban guns.

#172 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-14 08:35 PM | Reply

It's adorable that you think the police or army would enforce gun confiscation.

#93 | POSTED BY VISITOR_ AT 2019-09-14 02:14 PM | REPLY

That's not what I said. I said they would do their constitutional duty of putting down insurrection. No mere law can override the constitution.

armed resistance against the US is insurrection

#173 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-09-14 08:38 PM | Reply

"That's not what I said. I said they would do their constitutional duty of putting down insurrection. No mere law can override the constitution.
armed resistance against the US is insurrection
#173 | POSTED BY HATTER5183 "

Learn the Posse Comitatus.

It prohibits the US military from enforcing domestic laws, and that includes any law allowing the confiscation of guns.

#174 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-14 08:45 PM | Reply

I just saw a funny, but sadly true meme on FB:

"I was going to sell my guns back to the government, but they failed the background check."

#175 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-14 09:11 PM | Reply

I haven't read this thread at all so if this idea is redundant I apologize. I think a simple solution for this problem is to REGULATE military designed, high velocity, high capacity weapons from being brandished IN PUBLIC. People can keep these weapons for personal security on their own properties, but if someone wants to carry one into the supercenter or on the sidewalk heading toward a school then they're identifying themselves as a criminal and immediate threat to the public.

Again, if people feel that threatened by what others might do to them that they need to publicly carry a Personal Weapon Designed for Warfare (PWBW) then maybe they should practice their freedom by staying home. I hope you see what this does folks. It criminalizes the very act of leaving home with a PWDW and bringing it openly into a public space.

People can keep their PWDWs if they want, but they must be concealed and unloaded in public. You can carry loaded weapons as the law allows, but not loaded PWDWs. That's a sensible regulation based on the public's safety outside of times of warfare. Now if all the thousands if not millions of Americans who own these weapons are content to keep them at home or at the range, good for them. Just don't bring it off your property loaded and functional. If you'd like to get your money back in a government sponsored program then you have that option too. And by creating a class of weapons based on their designed intent and capabilities instead of arguing about certain physical characteristics, the conversation changes instantly. Don't ban their sale, make owing one possibly quixotic. For all those people wanting to defend their homes and property from invaders or the military, go for it! Wholly legal! But leave the arsenal at home when you wander off your property and LEO will insure that no one else threatens you with their PWDWs either.

The 2nd Amendment starts with a call toward the importance of a "well regulated militia," so it's hard to argue that actually regulating where - outside of militia service - that a PWDW can be used seems well within the spirit and letter of the Constitution without taking away anyone's right of personal ownership. You can KEEP and BEAR your PWDW arms at home to your heart's content, but criminalizing PWDWs brandished outside of one's property (Can someone explain why anyone needs a PWDW to protect themselves in public?) logically makes sense while still protecting the individual's rights.

#176 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-09-14 10:01 PM | Reply

They're going to have to come get my mosin, Remington 30.06 and AR-15, if they want them. Not saying I can stop them. Simply saying I'm not handing them over in a buy back.. fugum

So you're willing to die for your boom boom stick? Do you have the name and address of anyone else as stupid as you? We need to check their house too.

#177 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-14 10:48 PM | Reply

Learn the Posse Comitatus.
It prohibits the US military from enforcing domestic laws, and that includes any law allowing the confiscation of guns.

#174 | POSTED BY GOATMAN AT 2019-09-14 08:45 PM

Learn to read post #112 and stop lying so much.

#178 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-14 10:50 PM | Reply

People can keep these weapons for personal security on their own properties, but if someone wants to carry one into the supercenter or on the sidewalk heading toward a school then they're identifying themselves as a criminal and immediate threat to the public.

Ok. But since most mass murders committed with AR-15s occur when someone grabs it from their car or bag or whatever and just starts spraying people, how would your proposal impact this in any way?

#179 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-14 10:52 PM | Reply

#179

I already told you. The initial criminal act begins when anyone takes an armed PWDW off their own property. The point being that the mere sighting of anyone carrying a PWDW would be case for anyone to dial 911 and report them. No law can stop someone willing to break it, but the difference here is that the law isn't currently broken until the first shot is fired at some innocent person, and people are allowed to openly carry PWDWs in public just for what I assume would be their own personal protection (since the only reason for bearing a loaded weapon is being prepared to use it, right?).

Carrying the gun unloaded would not violate the regulation, but the very act of loading the weapon outside of one's property (lacking an immediate threat to one's personal security, and outside of other public/private spaces where such PWDW brandishment is allowed - ie. gun/shooting ranges, ...et_al.) would be a crime itself.

IMO we've been trying to define the weapons instead of defining the PURPOSE of said weapons toward use in warfare where the language in the Constitution itself explicitly states weaponized militia men (obviously utilizing weapons designed for and effective in warfare usage) should be well regulated. The need for rapid-firing, high velocity, multi-dozen round-holding capable weapons firing ordinance to expressly damage/destroy human tissue I don't believe is protected under the 2nd Amendment or so would the personal right to ownership of tanks, mortars, RPG's and any other military use-designed arms that the SCOTUS has already illegalized.

It comes down to this: If people want weapons operating with specs originally designed for warfare, they can have them on their own property-extended, but public brandishment is forbidden unless specific circumstances warrant. And those taking loaded PWDWs into public spaces are arrestable for a crime on sight, hopefully before they can harm other people if that was their intent.

#180 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-09-14 11:44 PM | Reply

And maybe the biggest psychological/legal point is that any mass shooter was already a criminal suspect the second they took their PWDW and ammunition off their own property if/when the weapon is loaded. We can stop arguing about mens rea by drawing that line which is a line of the perpetrator taking knowing, positive, criminal action that precedes any shooting.

#181 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-09-14 11:50 PM | Reply

Personal Weapon Designed for Warfare (PWBW)

In this image, which rifle is a PWDW?

#182 | Posted by et_al at 2019-09-14 11:56 PM | Reply

So you're willing to die for your boom boom stick? Do you have the name and address of anyone else as stupid as you? We need to check their house too.

#177 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2019-09-14 10:48 PM | FLAG:

Is that what you read? Jesus you're a dumbass....

#183 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2019-09-15 12:17 AM | Reply

#182

Don't know. I'd leave that to those who would write the regulations. The regulation is not based on any specific technical measurement, it would be based on an as-yet-undefined standard that designates weapons that a) trace their original design to military lineage; b) fires ordinance that exceeds x fps (again for experts to define) and whose design was expressly intended for maximal human target destruction - tied to platforms that allow more than x number of shots in a defined amount of time without the need of reloading.

I think it's extremely reasonable to discern the difference between popular handguns and rifles with standard ammunition capacities and those built to shoot the maximum number of human beings in the shortest amount of time. With deference to weapons such as just defined - they seemingly HAD to be what the Founders would have deemed appropriate for their well-regulated militias to carry.

I'm tying the REGULATION to military-intent-designed weapons, not the right. The right to keep and bear "militia" weaponry isn't taken away, it's regulated in a common sense, public safety manner.

#184 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-09-15 12:22 AM | Reply

"So you're willing to die for your boom boom stick? Do you have the name and address of anyone else as stupid as you? We need to check their house too.

#177 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2019-09-14 10:48 PM | REPLY"

You know whose house too check.

i.pinimg.com

#185 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-15 12:22 AM | Reply

My State Constitution is much more clear about my gun rights.

If you get rid of the US 2nd, you have to get rid of my State 2nd.

#171 | Posted by Petrous

Read up on the supremacy clause.

That will give you your answer.

#186 | Posted by jpw at 2019-09-15 01:17 AM | Reply

#184

I understand that you are spit balling a new approach. But your premise is flawed. Virtually every firearm and its ammunition has a military heritage that was designed to kill or inflict serious bodily injury. All of them.

As I understand it your proposal would effectively create a strict liability crime (disfavored in law) for taking any firearm off one's premises. While that falls within the holding of Heller it fly's in the face of the common understanding of the use of firearms. Aside, this term we may learn more about what "bear arms" means in a case out of NYC, although the gun control crowd is doing everything they can to prevent a ruling and they may rightfully succeed.

BTW, the answer to my question is both. They each fire the same round from the same magazine at the same rate of fire with the same muzzle velocity with the same lethality. However, current assault weapons ban legislation specifically bans (by name) the top rifle while specifically excepting (by name) the bottom rifle. Why? What's the logic?

The best I can come up with is appearance, cosmetics that have zero to do with lethality. IOW, it fits the "perception" of a "PWDW" designed to kill or inflict serious bodily injury. What's your best guess?

#187 | Posted by et_al at 2019-09-15 01:21 AM | Reply

Amazing that people are not the problem...some airplanes attacked the twin towers too...

#188 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2019-09-15 01:21 AM | Reply

Amazing that people are not the problem...some airplanes attacked the twin towers too...

#188 | Posted by Greatamerican

Interesting that you brought that up ...

People have to be trained and licensed before they can legally fly airplanes.

Airplanes have to be registered before they can legally be flown.

#189 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-09-15 01:49 AM | Reply

#187

I see that you understand the broad concept but apparently aren't seeing the point. While the majority of firearms might be originally intended for military use, I would beg to differ with you in a modern context. Which is precisely why I defined things as I did. PWDWs might even be broken down in the simple categories of offensive versus defensive weapons. While I readily admit that ALL PWDWs can be used in defensive postures, there is a reason why 6 shot revolvers, 10-shot pistols, and a 2-shell shotguns are not the main/sole standard-issue combat-field weapons.

The guns designed for modern military use that can hold high capacities, have rapid firing capabilities, and project massive lethality as a matter of point (again, defined by experts and through consensus derived by open debate) would all fall into this regulated category. IOW, the new regulation would be based on the PWDWs ability to inflict degrees and measures of actual human harm (the basis of which is often defined by how their manufacturers market variants to militaries), not just their physical designs and cosmetics unrelated to their ordinance's performance.

Again, this is not a ban, it's a set of regulations tied to legitimate public safety concerns that should be supreme unless there is an actual need for citizens to protect their themselves or their state from either illegal foreign or domestic intrusion (which is precisely the role of a well regulated militia).

#190 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-09-15 01:59 AM | Reply

#189

I looked all through the constitution and couldn't find where flying an airplane is a right. Could you point it out to me so your comparison wouldn't sound so stupid?

#191 | Posted by willowby at 2019-09-15 02:01 AM | Reply

Here's where I am: Nothing in the 2nd Amendment says that people living in 2019 America need live in fear of other citizens bringing specific weapons designed to inflict mass casualty and lethality upon scores of people in short amounts of time (characteristics designed for use in warfare/militias, not specifically for personal protection needs and convenience) into the public square short of an immediate and compelling reason to do so.

And the reason why is the carnage that we're seeing where those projecting it haven't violated a law until another human's visage is in their crosshairs and they pull the trigger. People can carry all the non-PWDWs they want to wherever the law allows, but regulating PWDWs out of public spaces is not a ban is a fuller use of the complete 2nd Amendment unless now one want to argue the preamble actually doesn't mean anything at all at limiting the personal right to arms that I believe Heller said it does.

#192 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-09-15 02:17 AM | Reply

...limiting the personal right to (military-intent designed) arms that I believe Heller said it does.

#193 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-09-15 02:28 AM | Reply

#190

I see the point quite well. It equates to "regulating" extremely common firearms and ammunition. Such as, in modern context, shotguns, the Colt 1911 pistol, Glock pistols, .223 ammunition , .9mm ammunition and the list can go on and on.

Again, this is not a ban, it's a set of regulations tied to ...

An irrational premise.

Why dodge giving your best guess?

#194 | Posted by et_al at 2019-09-15 02:32 AM | Reply

Why dodge giving your best guess?

Because the question is moot to me. How things are defined today is the reason I advocate for a newer, broader, way of classification. I believe there are ways to quantify the differences between PWDWs and non-PWDWs that most people can agree with that doesn't ban any weapon. It merely criminalizes their off property public brandishment outside of a specified set of defined circumstances.

If you want to explain the rationale behind today's views, then do so.

You cannot claim to place the specific firearms into the regulated category because no such category now exists. That's what creating the regulation through legislative processes will do if that's what the nation decides to do.

I think that you forget that no one has an unfettered right to carry arms on another person's or company's private property without their permission or consent. That is not illegal. I am extending it to public spaces and rights of way and everyone else's property other than your own unless they give the PWDW-holder the expressed right to carry on their property.

Are you going to say that the 2nd Amendment supersedes personal property rights?

#195 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-09-15 03:09 AM | Reply

People, this is why gun control won't work.

1. If you back ground check every one, no one would pass. Everyone has some kind of issue.

2. What's to say we take the guns away and then we'd have machetes, knives, cars, airplanes, lawn mowers, etc, etc, to add to the ban list. It's just not feasible.

3. Let's say we enact gun control laws. It's up to the states. States have no money. Feds have no money. Who will enforce the laws? It's the same principal behind why the southern wall will never work. Too much money, not enough trained personnel. Any who, in 30 years, when the Baby Boomers and Gen X passed away, the Millennials will tear it down.

4. Even if we enforced gun control laws, that doesn't account for all the arsenals buried in the woods and swamps that the po-po know about. This is going to go by the way of the Prohibition of the early 20's. People still drank Moonshine, and smuggled alcohol from Canada. Who's to say instead of drugs, cartels start smuggling weapons into America?

5. Criminals still have their arsenals hidden that we don't know about.

6. Before we ever see Gun Control Laws, no one will ever vote to repeal Second Amendment; the right to keep and bear arms. Even if we did, there would be so much litigation that by the time the dust settles, our great grandchildren won't see it.

7. And lastly, who the hell is going to abide by the repeal of the Second Amendment? no one. Blacksmithing will become a thing; new weapons will be milled just like alcohol was -- in back woods all over the country.

Demonize Americans because they have guns and you created a new batch of criminals that need to be housed, fed, clothed, given free medicine, etc, etc, etc and hire personnel to guard them.

Who's going to pay for all that mess?

YOU.

Gun control is a political point with no solution.

#196 | Posted by Goose_Boils at 2019-09-15 05:33 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

The point being that the mere sighting of anyone carrying a PWDW would be case for anyone to dial 911 and report them

How many of these mass shooters have been spotted carrying their weapons by someone who just shrugged and thought, "nothinng i can do?" Sorry, i just don't think your idea is going to do anything.

#197 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-15 08:35 AM | Reply

Yet it has been successful in every country it's been enacted.

#198 | Posted by YAV at 2019-09-15 08:38 AM | Reply

198@196.

#199 | Posted by YAV at 2019-09-15 08:39 AM | Reply

An irrational premise.

But not an unconstitutional one. Need I remind you (now understanding your classification categorization query better after further thought) that The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act was never found to violate the 2nd Amendment, so how would regulating public non-warfare/non-immediate personal protection brandishment and usage of PWDWs be problematic?

#200 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-09-15 09:04 AM | Reply

"The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was never directly challenged under the Second Amendment. Since its 2004 expiration, there has been debate on how the ban would fare in light of cases decided in following years, especially District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)."

#201 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-09-15 09:25 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was never directly challenged under the Second Amendment

No, but many state-level bans have, and the odds aren't looking good for you.

The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals says you can ban assault weapons.
The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals says you can ban assault weapons.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals says you can ban assault weapons.

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals says you can ban assault weapons.

These are all post-Heller opinions. However, i acknowledge the SC is now stacked with Republican political operatives and that no number of well-reasoned appellate readings of the 2nd Amendment will prevent them from doing the NRA's bidding.

#202 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-15 09:41 AM | Reply

#201

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee.[1] It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated.
Thank you for supporting my points. Heller is fully on board with regulating gun use and ownership stipulations and that is what I'm advocating. Again, the individual's rights to lawfully do whatever they want with their own legally procured PWDWs on their own property or other private property that bestows those rights upon that individual would not be affected at all.

What would be affected is that once off one's personal property extended (unless there's a clear, immediate threat to bearer's safety) there would be defined restrictions (PWDWs must be unloaded to start) as agreed upon through the legislative process.

#203 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-09-15 09:42 AM | Reply

The minute that mandatory gun removal is enacted, millions will be mysteriously stolen.
No gun...no buy back.
Now what?

#51 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2019-09-14 12:23 PM

That's right, guys; just wrap all your firearms in oily rags and bury them in your back yard. Replace some sod, and after a few mowings they will be well-hidden.

#204 | Posted by john47 at 2019-09-15 10:40 AM | Reply

The left constantly tells us we cannot possibly fine 11 millions illegals to deport, but think they can find [about] 100 million gun owners -- good luck with that.

#205 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-09-15 11:18 AM | Reply

No, but many state-level bans have, and the odds aren't looking good for you.

#202 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2019-09-15 09:41 AM | REPLY

www.supremecourt.gov

McDonald vs Chicago has shot down burdensome regulations like handgun bans. Can't ban handguns, you can't ban assault weapons.

You'll get a slight limit on cosmetic features at best, and everything else is rolled in as pre-ban items and easily available on the market.

#206 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-09-15 11:19 AM | Reply

Apply whatever arbitrary of "assault weapon" you'd like. Assault Rifles are already a thing, and you can buy them. You can buy a bunch of them with an NFA trust, all modern manufacture.

#207 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-09-15 11:20 AM | Reply

#206 Handgun bans aren't comparable to assault weapons bans. The opinions i cited are all post-McDonald, and those courts of appeals aren't going to abrogate SC precedent they think is applicable. In other words, your case isn't.

#208 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-15 11:35 AM | Reply

Don't take my word for it though - if you actually read the links i cited, you'll see the rationale from seasoned appellate judges on why McDonald doesn't apply to assault weapons bans.

#209 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-15 11:37 AM | Reply

I'm sure you cherry picked the finest that told you what you wanted to hear.

Define assault weapon while you're at it. Last time it was cosmetic accessories.

#210 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-09-15 12:15 PM | Reply

I like Beto and he's got cojones the say that. What kind of neanderthal needs a AK? We can only hope this is a stepping stone to what really needs to been done, ripping up the 2nd amendment and banning all firearms.

#211 | Posted by CrisisStills at 2019-09-15 01:14 PM | Reply

#211 | POSTED BY CRISISSTILLS AT 2019-09-15 01:14 PM | FLAG: Simple, as all you have to accomplish is amending the Constitution....

FYI:
Congress may submit a proposed constitutional amendment to the states, if the proposed amendment language is approved by a two-thirds vote of both houses. Congress must call a convention for proposing amendments upon application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states (i.e., 34 of 50 states).
Amending the U.S. Constitution

www.ncsl.org research about-state-legislatures amending-the-u-s-consti...

#212 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-09-15 01:22 PM | Reply

Yav

Not true. Israel, no one has guns because the IDF is allowed to walk the street with their weapons at their side. Are you saying we should allow the Marines walk the streets of America with their weapons at their side? "Mommy, why is that man going into Chucky Cheese with that rifle?

Not going to happen.

England has a ban on weapons that bobbies aren't allowed to carry. A few years ago, a Royal Marine was hacked to death and no one was able to help him.

France, weapons bans, a few car bombs were exploded near Paris.

Look, I'm a democrat and using my reasonable thinking, I know this won't work.

#213 | Posted by Goose_Boils at 2019-09-15 01:47 PM | Reply

Yes, I am a democrat and Hispanic HOWEVER I am an American first. Just because some MAGA yahoo don't like the color of my skin, I'm not going to throw away my ability to use my brain logically.

As an American, I don't believe a gun ban is the answer. I also don't think banning abortion is the answer.

Hear me out.

What's the first thing people do when you tell them, "YOU CAN NOT DO THAT?"

Right. They do it. It as proven with the Prohibition. the 18th Amendment prohibited drinking and in an epic failure, the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment. Why? It cost the government too much money to enforce constitutional law within the states. It demonized Mom and Pop Kettle and created a new way for the Mafia to make money illegally. No amount of patriotism made Americans follow constitutional law if it doesn't appeal to them..

#214 | Posted by Goose_Boils at 2019-09-15 02:43 PM | Reply

I'm sure you cherry picked the finest that told you what you wanted to hear.

No, i literally posted the only federal courts of appeal to consider the question. I'll give you a D+ at avoiding the issue. Just go hide from facts and reality in your bubble and STFU.

#215 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-15 03:31 PM | Reply

Define assault weapon while you're at it.

I don't have to; the four state legislatures who banned assault weapons and have all been upheld on appeal have already defined it for me. If you were intellectually honest to read the cases you'd see their definition.

#216 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-15 03:33 PM | Reply

I don't care what the states have done and upheld if he hasn't gone past the SC.

They all have different definitions. Mostly it's cosmetic. Compliance rates with the "bans" show how hopeless your position is.

#217 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-09-15 03:55 PM | Reply

#217 Doesn't know what a federal circuit court of appeals is.

Not my problem.

#218 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-15 03:57 PM | Reply

Less than 4%, and that's just for NY's arbitrary definition, and that's only 4% of what's known.

Just more feel good nonsense to disproportionately crack down on uppity minorities.

#219 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-09-15 03:57 PM | Reply

You: Assault weapons bans are unconstitutional in light of Heller!

Me: The four highest federal courts to consider the matter have all ruled against you.

You: I don't care! Lalalalalalalalalaaa!

#220 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-15 04:07 PM | Reply

It hasn't been checked by the SC, so no I don't care about 4 unchallenged laws and their varying definitions. You can't even decide on one apparently lol.

You silly white people. Get scared, time to take away rights while lamenting the institutional racism that's about to cause the laws to be extremely unevenly applied, and blaming the system for it. You're why minority anti-gun control group membership is skyrocket.

#221 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-09-15 04:22 PM | Reply

These are all post-Heller opinions.

Each of which applied a watered down level of scrutiny. While nodding to a strict scrutiny analysis the application was not much more that a rational basis review. The net effect is that the Second Amendment is a second class right in five circuits (you left out the 9th).

#222 | Posted by et_al at 2019-09-15 04:29 PM | Reply

4 unchallenged laws

Wait what? They were all challenged and they were all upheld at multiple levels. Do you really think that the only way a law is challenged is by making it all the way to the Supreme Court?

#223 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-15 04:41 PM | Reply

Each of which applied a watered down level of scrutiny.

The Heller majority declined to establish a level of scrutiny for analyzing Second Amendment cases, so you can blame them for that.

#224 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-15 04:47 PM | Reply

#224

No blame necessary. DC effectively banning handguns so blatantly violated the Second there was no need to establish a level of scrutiny. Rational basis is so deferential as to be no scrutiny.

#225 | Posted by et_al at 2019-09-15 05:13 PM | Reply

Leftists: police kill blacks all the time for fun and sport.
also leftists: why do you want to own guns? If you're in trouble just call the police; they're the only ones who should be armed. We're coming for your guns.

#226 | Posted by berserkone at 2019-09-16 01:04 AM | Reply

To preempt any brainlet who would claim it's only about the scary AR-15s, this is how they chip away at your rights. Today an inch, tomorrow, a mile.

#227 | Posted by berserkone at 2019-09-16 01:08 AM | Reply

The whole idea of the 2nd is for the populace to be sufficiently armed to resist a tyrannical government. Even if you believe the US government isn't tyrannical, it will become so when "red flag" laws are passed and the same people who have succeeded at deplatforming their opposition accuse all of their opposition of being dangerous huwhite supremacists. Many of the people who are sympathetic to these ideas are government employees, or can influence them.

#228 | Posted by berserkone at 2019-09-16 01:13 AM | Reply

Also, the populace owning and being able to shoot scary military-style rifles is part of the idea of resisting against a tyrannical government, which would command a military.

#229 | Posted by berserkone at 2019-09-16 01:15 AM | Reply

The whole idea of the 2nd is for the populace to be sufficiently armed to resist a tyrannical government.

#228 | POSTED BY BERSERKONE AT 2019-09-16 01:13 AM | REPLY

That is utter BS.

There is no right to revolution against Tyranny. The same militia that the constitution allows to own guns may be called upon by the Congress to put down insurrection. To believe the anti-tyranny argument for the 2nd amendment you have to believe that the founding fathers meant completely opposite definitions of the word militia in the 2nd amendment and article 1 section 8 which explicitly gives congress the power "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"

Now how stupid would the constitution be if it both meant for the militia to fight and defend the goverment?

#230 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-09-16 07:55 AM | Reply

DC effectively banning handguns so blatantly violated the Second there was no need to establish a level of scrutiny

Yeah, when the SC takes up an issue of this magnitude it's best to leave things ambiguous for the lower courts.

You really are a hack.

#231 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-16 08:19 AM | Reply

Leftists: police kill blacks all the time for fun and sport.
also leftists: why do you want to own guns? If you're in trouble just call the police; they're the only ones who should be armed. We're coming for your guns.

The "Right:" We back the badge! We stand with our military! Stand for the anthem!

Also the "Right:" I want an AR-15 so i can shoot cops and troops.

#232 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-16 08:23 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I don't own a gun and I don't like guns.

Having said that, it's fun to watch all of the gun-grabbers try to make up justifications for turning otherwise law-abiding gun owners into criminals but have to deal with that pesky 2nd Amendment.

Your wet dream of throwing tens of millions of gun owners into jail is NEVER going to happen. You need to understand that.

#233 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-16 09:55 AM | Reply

Democrats need to push back against Beto.

Fair or not the Democratic Party has a reputation for wanting to ban and confiscate guns. Beto's comments, left unchallenged, will haunt them in 2020.

#234 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-16 09:56 AM | Reply

that pesky 2nd Amendment.

You mean the one nobody bothered to sue under with the 1994 assault weapons ban, and the one that has recently been unanimously held not to apply to assault weapons bans by five (5) courts of appeal?

#235 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-16 10:09 AM | Reply

Now how stupid would the constitution be if it both meant for the militia to fight and defend the goverment?
#230 | POSTED BY HATTER5183

Part of the checks and balances. Good government shouldn't be overthrown. Bad government might be.
Ever hear of Loyalists and Tories?

#236 | Posted by 6thPersona at 2019-09-16 10:23 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort