GATraveller said:

Since when did white nationalists start accepting latinas?

not all latinos, just hispanic latinos

Toxarch said:

HeavyG said:

Toxarch said:

HeavyG said:

Toxarch said:

HeavyG said:

Toxarch said:

HeavyG said:

Toxarch said:

DMW said:

Toxarch said:

DMW said:

Well regulated militia...

The Right of the People...

https://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8

Yep, absolutely concrete logic there. You've convinced me. There should be no regulation whatsoever on which people can have guns. Let's make sure we don't infringe on the rights of Johnny drug dealer or Joe whackjob to freely obtain the weapon of their choice at the local gun show...

...

Before you try to bring it up in a discussion, perhaps you should learn that there is no such thing as a "gun show loophole" and that it is a made-up liberal speaking term meant to scare those who listen to them...

Sure there is. Federal law only requires background checks when sales are conducted via a FFL holder. Not all sales at all gun shows are conducted between FFL holders. Sales between private individuals do not require background checks in most states.

Some gun shows do require all sales to involve background checks in spite of federal rules but I don't believe those are the majority of shows.

Take a video camera to a gun show. Buy a gun without a background check. Upload the video and you'll be rich from all the views and licensed use of the video.

And you should look at the laws for licensed carry in some of those green states. In California, you can not carry a gun within 100 yards of a government official. Anyone who works for the city is a government official. In Colorado, a licensed concealed carrier most pull out the gun and hold it in the open for all to see before entering ANY building. So wave your gun around before walking into your house with it. These are laws for legal gun carriers who have gone through extensive background and fingerprint checks.

I'm not really sure what your point is. The simple fact is that the gunshow loophole does exist. Not all gunshows require background checks between private sellers.

I haven't been to a local (Virginia) gunshow in many years so I thought I would look up what might actually be required these days.

One of the larger gun show operators (Showmasters Gun Shows) has this to say about private sales during one of their shows (hint - they don't require background checks):

What are the laws concerning the private sale of a handgun? 

• To privately sell a firearm, it is recommended that you safeguard information pertaining to the transaction such as the date the firearm was sold, the complete name and address of the buyer, and the make, model, and serial number of the firearm. The seller and buyer of a handgun must be a resident of the state in which the transfer occurs.  Should the firearm ever be located at a crime scene, trace of the firearm will determine the licensed dealer who last sold the firearm and will identify the last buyer of the firearm. To have your name removed from this process, you may consider placing your firearm on consignment with a licensed dealer. This will also ensure that the firearm is transferred only to a lawfully eligible individual.

***

In 2016 the Virginia legislature took the bold action of dealing with background checks in private sales at gun shows by establishing rules that allowed private sellers to VOLUNTARILY request background checks on the people they were selling to.

How well has that worked out?:

"A new state law that expanded criminal background checks — all voluntary — for the private sale of firearms at Virginia gun shows may not be yielding the results that supporters had envisioned when it was crafted last year as part of a bipartisan gun safety deal.

During the first full year of the measure ending June 30, only 54 voluntary background checks were requested by private sellers of firearms or their customers at 77 gun shows across the state. And of those, only one prospective gun buyer was denied the purchase of a gun, and he was never charged with an offense.

By comparison, 39,738 mandatory criminal background checks were performed by federally licensed firearms dealers on their customers at gun shows between July 1, 2016, and June 30, resulting in 325 denials, according to newly released data from the Virginia Firearms Transaction Center, which is operated by the Virginia State Police."

***

So, tell me again how your spouting that "perhaps you should learn that there is no such thing as a "gun show loophole" and that it is a made-up liberal speaking term meant to scare those who listen to them." is not just fake news.

So because it is not illegal, it surely must happen. It's not illegal for me to toss the keys to my dog and let him drive the tractor. Does that mean it happens? According to your logic, it must happen all the time. Your example even shows that there were no illegal firearm sales made by individuals at a gun show.

Again, I have no idea what you're on about.

Let's keep it simple:

1) You said there is no such thing as a gun show loophole as it is just some made up liberal bs.

2) You are wrong.

Simple enough?

That's funny, because you say one thing and then post stuff that proves me right.

I guess it comes down to what you think "gun show loophole" means then yes?

Gun show loophole = background check loophole. The background check loophole pertains to gun sales between parties where no background check is made prior to (or after) a sale and can occur at a gun show (gun show loophole) or between private parties in any other situation/location (background check loophole).

I've never said that sales made via the "gun show loophole" (sales made sans background check) were illegal. On the contrary, they are legal, hence use of the term "loophole", which is what many view to be a problem.

Per your definition, it has nothing to do with being gun show specific. Therefore there is no such thing as a "gun show loophole".

Now, are there legal private sales between individuals? Yes there are and I have said that. Want to know how to fix that without the need to pass a law? Make private gun sale background checks 100% free. We already know that people who break the law are not going to follow the law so more laws do nothing to them. If the background checks were free, then almost everyone doing private sales would do them. Who won't do them? Bad guys for one. Another might be sales/transfers between friends and family. I've known my hunting buddies for 20+ years. I'm pretty sure I know their criminal history. I also know my family and there's no need to background check them, I definitely know their history. Making it a law to do those checks because I am giving a hunting rifle to my adult son makes no sense. And having to pay to do it means money out of my pocket for something I shouldn't be required to do. So make it free and make it voluntary. The legal people will do it. The illegal people won't. Don't waste time with laws.

Ok, I get it now. The gun show loophole doesn't exist solely because you don't think it exists.

Got it.

All this talk and it's just semantics. 

--the forum idiot

Well if we're going to get started on Amendments, lets start with the greatest Amendment of them all...the 10th

YukonRon said:

Toxarch said:

YukonRon said:

]

Toxarch said:

For those saying, "More Regulation!", go back and look at Connecticut laws passed after the Sandy Hook shooting. Everyone wanted to find a way to prevent something like that from happening again. Short of violating The Constitution, Connecticut law makers were pretty much allowed to pass almost any law they wanted to make sure it could never happen again. They passed a lot of new laws. In the end, they all patted each other on the back and said good job.
If all those laws they passed had been put into place 10 years earlier, not a single one of those new laws would have been broken by the shooter. Not one of them applied to anything he did leading up to the shooting.
He stole the guns from his mother and shot her in the face, killing her. Those 3 things are already illegal.

Stop trying to compare the USA to Japan, England, and Australia. If you hate the Second Amendment and think those countries are better then MOVE there. You got your no gun utopia, good luck walking down the street with all the random knife attacks.

Stop blaming the gun and start blaming society. You are raising kids who are taught that they don't have to responsible for their actions. It doesn't matter what they do, good or bad, they all get the same participation trophy in the end. They aren't taught to look someone in the eye when talking to them, they can stare at their mobile phone/television and ignore whoever is talking to them if they want. They aren't going to get anything more than a time-out. Your child seems hyper so you feed them drugs. Your child seems sad so you feed them drugs. They are kids, they get hyper and sad, it's what they do. They are taught that if something isn't going their way, they point the finger and blame someone else. Who is your kids hero? A Kardashian? A Youtuber? A singer? Some other idiot famous for being famous? When something happens in front of them, what's their first reaction? Pull out their phone and hit record so it can go on Youtube? So who is to blame for all of that? Society? Maybe. The parents? Absolutely. Yes, this latest shooter lost his parents, but plenty around him, especially students, knew that he had problems and yet they all did nothing. Why were those other students telling their parents about this crazy kid?

What am I thinking, we have a generation of kids who have to be told not to eat Tide Pods. They are all normal and the parents are doing a great job.

Just think about this post for only one second.

Society is to blame, for the senseless murder of people, for the way we raise our children.

That is such a rich and brilliant retort to the suggestion we re examine the law that allows the slaughter of our fellow Americans, which recently has become proportionally larger with children who have been gunned down.

How about the older fellow who killed 51 in Las Vegas? He was not a Tide pod chewing teenager, or medicated for depression or being overactive.

Worry about knife stabbings? Are you actually serious? A person with a knife will not kill 51 people from a hotel room, 20 stories up, 1/4 mile away.

That has got to be the most ignorant platform I have ever read, concerning mass murder using assault rifles (AR15 or similar) in the USA.

Sorry friend, the second amendment was not written to allow gun sales to people to kill Americans, it was written for something else, entirely. It is time to re examine that ammendment as it pertains to the bill of rights, which guarantees every U.S. Citizen a life with liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

There are a lot of people out there, due to idiots with guns, and the idiots that support an idiot's right to have guns, that have had all three of those promises, ripped from them, forever.

Unfortunately, many people, the non paranoid types, do not think hunkering down in a home turned into a bunker, with a dozen assault type rifles is a way to live a life. They want better for themselves and their children.

Before you condemn what other countries are doing, investigate what they have done, and the results. 

So please, spare me the society bull **** of blaming parents, as if that is the only problem.
People are getting slaughtered everywhere, not just by Tide chewing kids.

SMDH.

That's funny coming from a hypocrite with a gun. You hate guns, you don't want others to have guns, yet you own a gun to protect your family. If you don't want others to have guns then you should not have a gun yourself. That must make you one of those idiots with a gun that you speak of. You have a gun to protect your family from bad guys with guns. Guess what, bad guys do not follow the law. You could pass all the laws you want and put up all the gun-free zone signs you want. Bad guys don't care. Why do mass shootings happen in a gun-free zone? Because all the legal people don't have guns making it a target-rich environment.

What do you hear when someone gets stabbed? Maybe a scream? How many people could be stabbed at a large venue concert before everyone was alerted? Hundreds?

And sorry friend, I never claimed the 2nd Amendment was written for Americans to kill Americans. You want to pass more laws. Only people who don't break the law follow laws. Killing people is already illegal. Guns have been in the country for 200 years, why is school shootings and other mass shootings sudden an issue only in the last 30 years? Don't give me some bull**** answer that it's the 2nd Amendment, evil "assault rifles", and "gun show loop holes". You tell me since clearly you think it is not society and the way parents are raising their kids. Because the problem is not the 2nd Amendment or the guns. Those have been around for a long time.

I've seen what other countries have done and the results. I want no part of it, that is why I am an American citizen.

Hypocrite with a gun. 

Yes, I own a gun. I live in the same real world as you. The world where idiots have the right to buy assault rifles to kill other Americans, for no other reason than having a bad hair day.
Just one thing, though, I do not own an assault rifle.

I do not need one.

Just one more thing, due to the current law, and the manner in which it has been interpreted over the last two hundred years, everyone is  practically forced to own a weapon.

I wonder why that is? Big money lobbies to in DC maybe? 

That being said, Mr. American, in the last 30 years, will you deny the use of assault rifles in mass shootings as well? Heck let's just start at the infamous University of Texas tower shooting, and just count the use of assault rifles from that point....

Of course you will.

People, such as yourself, and the other idiots that believe more guns makes America much more safe, while hunkered down in your bunker, criticizing others for raising their children incorrectly, which ultimately in your bizarre way of thinking leads to mass murder, just keep sending your prayers to those suffering after each of these incidents. I am sure they will start doing things much more different than before. After they bury their children. Many of the victims, were from homes no different than the shooter.

In your world, a person with a knife is more dangerous than a sniper with assault weapons? Maybe it is time for you to be taken off the hallucinogenic tide pods.

In the last 30 years, of which you identified, name one event, anywhere, on this planet, where a person with a knife killed 51 people in less than 20 minutes. Just one. I will wait.

Further, you have not looked or even read the results and the work foreign governments have done to reduce and eliminate senseless killings at the hands of idiots with an assault rifle.

They recognize there is an issue. You think the issue is godless parents. Getting everyone to church and sitting together for evening meals will solve that, I am sure.

Funny thing though, none of the countries that have that have generated policies to reduce mass murder, have never implemented those two strategies in their programs.

Of course, nobody in those countries feel the need to live in a bunker and periscope the rest of the world either.

You are an NRA tool. 

2nd Amendment needs restructuring. It is failing Americans. The body count is all the evidence needed to support change.

Maybe you need to change the first amendment in your tide pod world.

The hypocrite has returned! And look, he is sharing how misinformed he really is along with making assumptions about people he does not know.

Good to hear you don't own an assault rifle. I don't one one either. I do own a couple of AR-15 rifles. To obtain an assault rifle you have to go through extensive background checks and spend a lot of money on the gun. The starting price for an M16 is $30K plus a 14 month wait on your background check. I wouldn't call that something that is easy to buy or something the average person can get because they are in a bad mood like you say.

Speaking of big money lobbying in DC, How muck money does George Soros spend on anti-gun lobbying? Anywhere from $17-25 Million per year. And there's 4 others who donate more than that. How much has he given to anti-gun propaganda? Well, he started an $18 BILLION fund (that's billion with a 'B') to make sure it lasts forever.

I do not deny that assault rifles might have have been used in a mass shooting in the last 30 years, but no shootings that I can think of used an assault rifle. And apparently YOU can't name one either. The gun used in The University of Texas tower shooting was a Remington 700 bolt action hunting rifle. Here's a picture of the EXACT rifle used. Tell me, what makes this an assault rifle?



I didn't say anyone has killed 51 people with a knife, I said it is possible. It's also possible to rent a truck and just drive over people. That's a lot quicker than shooting them from a distance. Need an example of that? Nice, France. A person rented a truck and drove into a crowd of people killing 86 people and the injuring 458 others. How long did that take, 2 minutes to kill those people? Why aren't you scared of trucks and trying to ban them? Why haven't you bought an 18 ton truck for your family? Hypocrite.

I already said i have looked what other countries have done. First thing they do is make a list of all those things they want to get rid of by making it a mandatory registration. Then they use that list to eliminate all the unwanteds from their country. England did it with guns, Australia did it with guns, Germany did it with Jews, America did it with guns before.



I haven't been to a church service in 20 years. I also don't have a bunker nor am I prepper hunkered down in a safe location. I am also not a member of the NRA, nor have I ever been. But seeing liberal hypocrite nuts online makes me think that maybe I should join them. Thanks for trying to stereotype me just because I do not agree with your opinion nor your false beliefs.

Next thing you are going to do is call me a racist, right? That's the standard OP for triggered liberals who get "educated" in a civil discussion.

HeavyG said:

Toxarch said:

HeavyG said:

Toxarch said:

HeavyG said:

Toxarch said:

HeavyG said:

Toxarch said:

HeavyG said:

Toxarch said:

DMW said:

Toxarch said:

DMW said:

Well regulated militia...

The Right of the People...

https://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8

Yep, absolutely concrete logic there. You've convinced me. There should be no regulation whatsoever on which people can have guns. Let's make sure we don't infringe on the rights of Johnny drug dealer or Joe whackjob to freely obtain the weapon of their choice at the local gun show...

...

Before you try to bring it up in a discussion, perhaps you should learn that there is no such thing as a "gun show loophole" and that it is a made-up liberal speaking term meant to scare those who listen to them...

Sure there is. Federal law only requires background checks when sales are conducted via a FFL holder. Not all sales at all gun shows are conducted between FFL holders. Sales between private individuals do not require background checks in most states.

Some gun shows do require all sales to involve background checks in spite of federal rules but I don't believe those are the majority of shows.

Take a video camera to a gun show. Buy a gun without a background check. Upload the video and you'll be rich from all the views and licensed use of the video.

And you should look at the laws for licensed carry in some of those green states. In California, you can not carry a gun within 100 yards of a government official. Anyone who works for the city is a government official. In Colorado, a licensed concealed carrier most pull out the gun and hold it in the open for all to see before entering ANY building. So wave your gun around before walking into your house with it. These are laws for legal gun carriers who have gone through extensive background and fingerprint checks.

I'm not really sure what your point is. The simple fact is that the gunshow loophole does exist. Not all gunshows require background checks between private sellers.

I haven't been to a local (Virginia) gunshow in many years so I thought I would look up what might actually be required these days.

One of the larger gun show operators (Showmasters Gun Shows) has this to say about private sales during one of their shows (hint - they don't require background checks):

What are the laws concerning the private sale of a handgun? 

• To privately sell a firearm, it is recommended that you safeguard information pertaining to the transaction such as the date the firearm was sold, the complete name and address of the buyer, and the make, model, and serial number of the firearm. The seller and buyer of a handgun must be a resident of the state in which the transfer occurs.  Should the firearm ever be located at a crime scene, trace of the firearm will determine the licensed dealer who last sold the firearm and will identify the last buyer of the firearm. To have your name removed from this process, you may consider placing your firearm on consignment with a licensed dealer. This will also ensure that the firearm is transferred only to a lawfully eligible individual.

***

In 2016 the Virginia legislature took the bold action of dealing with background checks in private sales at gun shows by establishing rules that allowed private sellers to VOLUNTARILY request background checks on the people they were selling to.

How well has that worked out?:

"A new state law that expanded criminal background checks — all voluntary — for the private sale of firearms at Virginia gun shows may not be yielding the results that supporters had envisioned when it was crafted last year as part of a bipartisan gun safety deal.

During the first full year of the measure ending June 30, only 54 voluntary background checks were requested by private sellers of firearms or their customers at 77 gun shows across the state. And of those, only one prospective gun buyer was denied the purchase of a gun, and he was never charged with an offense.

By comparison, 39,738 mandatory criminal background checks were performed by federally licensed firearms dealers on their customers at gun shows between July 1, 2016, and June 30, resulting in 325 denials, according to newly released data from the Virginia Firearms Transaction Center, which is operated by the Virginia State Police."

***

So, tell me again how your spouting that "perhaps you should learn that there is no such thing as a "gun show loophole" and that it is a made-up liberal speaking term meant to scare those who listen to them." is not just fake news.

So because it is not illegal, it surely must happen. It's not illegal for me to toss the keys to my dog and let him drive the tractor. Does that mean it happens? According to your logic, it must happen all the time. Your example even shows that there were no illegal firearm sales made by individuals at a gun show.

Again, I have no idea what you're on about.

Let's keep it simple:

1) You said there is no such thing as a gun show loophole as it is just some made up liberal bs.

2) You are wrong.

Simple enough?

That's funny, because you say one thing and then post stuff that proves me right.

I guess it comes down to what you think "gun show loophole" means then yes?

Gun show loophole = background check loophole. The background check loophole pertains to gun sales between parties where no background check is made prior to (or after) a sale and can occur at a gun show (gun show loophole) or between private parties in any other situation/location (background check loophole).

I've never said that sales made via the "gun show loophole" (sales made sans background check) were illegal. On the contrary, they are legal, hence use of the term "loophole", which is what many view to be a problem.

Per your definition, it has nothing to do with being gun show specific. Therefore there is no such thing as a "gun show loophole".

Now, are there legal private sales between individuals? Yes there are and I have said that. Want to know how to fix that without the need to pass a law? Make private gun sale background checks 100% free. We already know that people who break the law are not going to follow the law so more laws do nothing to them. If the background checks were free, then almost everyone doing private sales would do them. Who won't do them? Bad guys for one. Another might be sales/transfers between friends and family. I've known my hunting buddies for 20+ years. I'm pretty sure I know their criminal history. I also know my family and there's no need to background check them, I definitely know their history. Making it a law to do those checks because I am giving a hunting rifle to my adult son makes no sense. And having to pay to do it means money out of my pocket for something I shouldn't be required to do. So make it free and make it voluntary. The legal people will do it. The illegal people won't. Don't waste time with laws.

Ok, I get it now. The gun show loophole doesn't exist solely because you don't think it exists.

Got it.

Nope, you still don't get it. You must have gone to the same school as the other guy with poor reading comprehension.

Toxarch said:

YukonRon said:

And lest we forget, knives are much more of a deadly threat than assault rifles, in today's world, and if you raise your children in a specific manner, they will not be mass murderers.

How much did gun lobbiests spend this last year, after a record year for mass murder in the USA using assault rifles? Double the previous year, right? 

Clearly there is no issue, the 2nd amendment is working...protecting America by allowing idiots to kill our innocent citizens, many of which, are children.

SMDH. This guy. 

Lest we not forget that the bolt action rifle, capable of holding 4 rounds, is an assault rifle.

Bloomberg gives $50 million per year to Everytown. Everytown outspends the NRA.

Not by the definition of the US Army.  I think you're talking about rifles with magazines.  I think what the media is talking about is non-automatic assault rifles, which are not assault rifles because they are not automatic.  Perhaps they should be called "assault style".

Characteristics

The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges."[16] In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[2][3][4]

• It must be capable of selective fire.
• It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle, such as the 7.92×33mm Kurz, the 7.62x39mm and the 5.56x45mm NATO.
• Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.[5]
• It must have an effective range of at least 300 metres (330 yards).

Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles, despite frequently being called such.

For example:

• Select-fire M2 Carbines are not assault rifles; their effective range is only 200 yards.[17]
• Select-fire rifles such as the FN FAL battle rifle are not assault rifles; they fire full-powered rifle cartridges.
• Semi-automatic-only rifles like the Colt AR-15 are not assault rifles; they do not have select-fire capabilities.
• Semi-automatic-only rifles with fixed magazines like the SKS are not assault rifles; they do not have detachable box magazines and are not capable of automatic fire.

 

nolaegghead said:

Toxarch said:

YukonRon said:

And lest we forget, knives are much more of a deadly threat than assault rifles, in today's world, and if you raise your children in a specific manner, they will not be mass murderers.

How much did gun lobbiests spend this last year, after a record year for mass murder in the USA using assault rifles? Double the previous year, right? 

Clearly there is no issue, the 2nd amendment is working...protecting America by allowing idiots to kill our innocent citizens, many of which, are children.

SMDH. This guy. 

Lest we not forget that the bolt action rifle, capable of holding 4 rounds, is an assault rifle.

Bloomberg gives $50 million per year to Everytown. Everytown outspends the NRA.

Not by the definition of the US Army.  I think you're talking about rifles with magazines.  I think what the media is talking about is non-automatic assault rifles, which are not assault rifles because they are not automatic.  Perhaps they should be called "assault style".

Characteristics

The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges."[16] In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[2][3][4]

• It must be capable of selective fire.
• It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle, such as the 7.92×33mm Kurz, the 7.62x39mm and the 5.56x45mm NATO.
• Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.[5]
• It must have an effective range of at least 300 metres (330 yards).

Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles, despite frequently being called such.

For example:

• Select-fire M2 Carbines are not assault rifles; their effective range is only 200 yards.[17]
• Select-fire rifles such as the FN FAL battle rifle are not assault rifles; they fire full-powered rifle cartridges.
• Semi-automatic-only rifles like the Colt AR-15 are not assault rifles; they do not have select-fire capabilities.
• Semi-automatic-only rifles with fixed magazines like the SKS are not assault rifles; they do not have detachable box magazines and are not capable of automatic fire.

 

Thank you. YukonWrong called the Remington 700 bolt action rifle an assault rifle earlier.

Toxarch said:

YukonRon said:

And lest we forget, knives are much more of a deadly threat than assault rifles, in today's world, and if you raise your children in a specific manner, they will not be mass murderers.

How much did gun lobbiests spend this last year, after a record year for mass murder in the USA using assault rifles? Double the previous year, right? 

Clearly there is no issue, the 2nd amendment is working...protecting America by allowing idiots to kill our innocent citizens, many of which, are children.

SMDH. This guy. 

Lest we not forget that the bolt action rifle, capable of holding 4 rounds, is an assault rifle.

Bloomberg gives $50 million per year to Everytown. Everytown outspends the NRA.

Everytown spent 41 million total in last reported year.  NRA spent 450 million.

References:

"NRA releases financial statement showing revenue, expenses for 2016". Retrieved January 2, 2018.


"2015 tax return" (PDF). Retrieved 2017-05-06.

Interesting observation: my kids school is not a "gun free" zone.  The two officers who patrol it are armed and at school sporting events I regularly see a few parents openly carrying.  There are "drug free" signs, but none for guns.

nolaegghead said:

Toxarch said:

YukonRon said:

And lest we forget, knives are much more of a deadly threat than assault rifles, in today's world, and if you raise your children in a specific manner, they will not be mass murderers.

How much did gun lobbiests spend this last year, after a record year for mass murder in the USA using assault rifles? Double the previous year, right? 

Clearly there is no issue, the 2nd amendment is working...protecting America by allowing idiots to kill our innocent citizens, many of which, are children.

SMDH. This guy. 

Lest we not forget that the bolt action rifle, capable of holding 4 rounds, is an assault rifle.

Bloomberg gives $50 million per year to Everytown. Everytown outspends the NRA.

Everytown spent 41 million total in last reported year.  NRA spent 450 million.

References:

"NRA releases financial statement showing revenue, expenses for 2016". Retrieved January 2, 2018.


"2015 tax return" (PDF). Retrieved 2017-05-06.

You and your stupid facts.  Geez.

I’m sure everyone is aware of the “knee jerk” reaction if there was even a hint of banning these things right. The US would probably sell out of AR-15 lowers in about a day and a half. The people wanting gun control would lose their minds because there would be several hundreds of thousands of these things in circulation do to the possible “hint” they would be removed off the shelves. 

Yall do do get that right?

all it would do us make them more expensive, but there would still be many of these in circulation.

and if you say it would be illegal to own one, sure but unless they come knock on everyone’s door looking for them (which would spawn a MUCH bigger problem for the state of the union) they would still be in circulation..

@billt01 - the Everytown group explicitly stated they are not interested in banning assault style weapons.  They are pragmatic.  Most people are killed by handguns.  I listed their issues above.

The number of kids that die in mass school shootings is a drop in the bucket compared to the totality of shootings.

It's obviously getting more attention in the past couple decades.

(warning: side effect might be playground gun battles when someone's gf is stolen)

billt01 said:

nolaegghead said:

@billt01 - the Everytown group explicitly stated they are not interested in banning assault style weapons.  They are pragmatic.  Most people are killed by handguns.  I listed their issues above.

The number of kids that die in mass school shootings is a drop in the bucket compared to the totality of shootings.

It's obviously getting more attention in the past couple decades.

That being said, imagine the “knee jerk” reaction of the public if a bill was introduced to ban (or even make it more difficut) to purchase any gun.

gun manufacturers would be in the Black for several years just on the possibility of that kind of restriction.

my point, it would probably be counterintuitive..

trying to limit or introduce difficulties would produce an opposite effect of what is trying to be accomplished.

NRA has 5 million members.  Less than a third of American Adults own a gun, and 3 percent of all Americans own half of all civilian guns in the US.

Most people, around 2/3 support sensible gun legislation. 

Doesn't seem like there would be much of an uproar, if it was sensible legislation, right?

Well, the NRA owns almost every republican in the house and senate. They are the NRA's b!tch. So, yes, I can imagine it.