Supreme Court Weighs Second Amendment Showdown After Mass Shootings

[Drummond]

As I was saying - this example was pretty close to ‘best case’ under the ‘everyone is safer when everyone has guns’ theory. (Therefore it is a good outcome)

As for Gun massacres -
Americans population approx 325million.
European population approx 740 million.

Twice the population in Europe and nowhere near as many gun massacres, why is that? Whenever we are all disarmed and such weak, vulnerable, easy targets for these gun wielding mass murderers?

How many 'knife massacres' (including the occasional machete !) do we have in the UK ? Our draconian anti-gun laws do a very great deal to restrict ownership, sure, but then murdering maniacs just find another way of killing. Sadiq Khan (that vitriolic critic of Trump and Leftie mayor), has let knife crime get out of control in London. He shows no sign of remedying that. So, the murders continue.

Think back to the 2011 England riots. Tell me ... if storekeepers had been allowed to own guns, and defend their properties from looting ... or if gun controls were relaxed far more generally ... do you SERIOUSLY reckon that those riots, and all that looting, would've happened, much less persisted for several days ? Knowing that if you go on a looting spree, there's a high probability that it'd end with being at the wrong end of a gun barrel ... not too likely to fail to deter, is it .. ?

[Noir]

How many 'knife massacres' (including the occasional machete !) do we have in the UK ? Our draconian anti-gun laws do a very great deal to restrict ownership, sure, but then murdering maniacs just find another way of killing. Sadiq Khan (that vitriolic critic of Trump and Leftie mayor), has let knife crime get out of control in London. He shows no sign of remedying that. So, the murders continue.

Think back to the 2011 England riots. Tell me ... if storekeepers had been allowed to own guns, and defend their properties from looting ... or if gun controls were relaxed far more generally ... do you SERIOUSLY reckon that those riots, and all that looting, would've happened, much less persisted for several days ? Knowing that if you go on a looting spree, there's a high probability that it'd end with being at the wrong end of a gun barrel ... not too likely to fail to deter, is it .. ?

Would you rather be in a shopping mall when suddenly an intended mass murderer pulls out a knife or a gun?

Would you of preferred all the rioters had access to guns aswell?

[CSM]

Would you rather be in a shopping mall when suddenly an intended mass murderer pulls out a knife or a gun?

Would you of preferred all the rioters had access to guns aswell?

Nice try but you are presenting only half the equation. I would prefer that the millions of law abiding citizens were armed, trained and capable of effectively neutralizing any armed threat at any time. Do really believe that a mass murder would walk into WalMart and start shooting knowing that most of the folks in there were armed? There is a reason these whackos choose targets that they know are well populated by defenseless people. As for rioters being armed, I am quite certain they would think twice before rioting if they know the majority of those NOT rioting were armed as well.

I get what you are advocating and it's the same old philosophy that boils down to "I and others like me are weak or unwilling to defend ourselves. Let us make laws that curb and restrain those who oppose us. Let us rely on those few who are willing to defend us enforce the law but restrain them as well, lest they turn us. Let us do this in the name of progress and prosperity."

By the way, this is what happens on all levels. Many nations rely on the US to defend them but then declare the US is too warlike and its people too violent.

[Noir]

Nice try but you are presenting only half the equation. I would prefer that the millions of law abiding citizens were armed, trained and capable of effectively neutralizing any armed threat at any time.

Well that’s a nice fantasy equation, my equation that you call “half” is the actual real day situation.

Do really believe that a mass murder would walk into WalMart and start shooting knowing that most of the folks in there were armed?

Yes.

As for rioters being armed, I am quite certain they would think twice before rioting if they know the majority of those NOT rioting were armed as well.

I doubt it, mobs are mobs, guns or not, and mob mentality will win out over any individual assessment.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Well that’s a nice fantasy equation, my equation that you call “half” is the actual real day situation.

Yes.

I doubt it, mobs are mobs, guns or not, and mob mentality will win out over any individual assessment.

.........

[CSM]

Well that’s a nice fantasy equation, my equation that you call “half” is the actual real day situation.



Yes.



I doubt it, mobs are mobs, guns or not, and mob mentality will win out over any individual assessment.

Your reality is not mine. I do understand why you think like you do, however. Those who enjoy the protection provided by others seldom consider what happens when those others are not present to protect them. I suppose there is some consolation for you that the perpetrator will (eventually) be punished for wounding or killing you.

[Kathianne]

Your reality is not mine. I do understand why you think like you do, however. Those who enjoy the protection provided by others seldom consider what happens when those others are not present to protect them. I suppose there is some consolation for you that the perpetrator will (eventually) be punished for wounding or killing you.

I think it's related to the same rationalization that allows one to 'feel good' by 'helping the helpless' as is said about the poor Palestinians with asinine discrimination that is happening. Too late the response is, "We didn't know. Never again!"

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Would you rather be in a shopping mall when suddenly an intended mass murderer pulls out a knife or a gun?

Would you of preferred all the rioters had access to guns aswell?

I would prefer that I be allowed as a law abiding citizen to also protect myself, my family and other innocent people when my life or theirs was threatened by any crazed armed gunman!!!! I can not do that as things now stand , as government and Dems have made it very perilous for a man to defend oneself or others even when directly threatened with death or other serious harm. (yet in Chicago, their favorite voting block goes armed and murders daily, weekly, monthly at a staggering rate-with the Dems doing their best to hide that glaring fact/reality)
To defend myself and others, I must be allowed my Constitutional right to bear arm --without having to endure additional attacks, searches and violations of myself by law enforcement or any other agencies that want to keep me as a damn slave in desperate need of their damn overbearing stewardship, and arrogantly proclaimed bullshit so-called help..

We that have such ability are denied that Constitutional right because the dem party--in its socialist/liberal ideology fears us and wants a nation completely unarmed --where the central government is --ALL POWERFUL-- and functions as did a feudal kingdom or a dictatorship.
Yes, Noir, you get to ignore my posts because long ago I so refuted your stupidity(leftist/socialist type ideology) so damn truly , utterly and convincingly -- that running away was your only course to take.
Cold, hard truth-- something that the lying dems, libs and other vermin hate with monumental passion, fear and loathing..
A solid gold fact.--Tyr

[jimnyc]

I don't need to tell the lame liberals why I want or need my gun.

I don't need to answer their lame and loaded questions.

The law and the COTUS should simple be followed, end of loaded questions.

If a liberal would like to remain un-armed, I have no argument for them.

Criminals will not, not ever, simply give up their guns, and give up crime. Take away gun crimes by criminals, and guns are a much much much much smaller issue.

Law abiding citizens such as myself, will not give up their guns and ability to defend themselves. Ever.

---

Lindsey Graham Politely Explains to Idiot Reporters Why He needs an AR-15

A favorite question that the anti-gun crowd likes to ask is "Why does anyone need an AR-15?" Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has a very practical answer to that, which he offered to reporters on Friday.

The New York Post:

Sen. Lindsey Graham knocked down the idea of banning semi-automatic weapons nearly identical to those used by soldiers on the off chance a hurricane slams into his South Carolina town.
“Here’s a scenario that I think is real: There’s a hurricane, a natural disaster, no power, no cops, no anything,” the Republican lawmaker told reporters aboard Air Force One.

A reporter asked if he meant looters.

“Yeah, people, they’re not going to come to the AR-15 home,” Graham responded. “Well, I think if you show up on the porch with an AR-15, they’ll probably go down the street.”

That's a very sound point. No matter where you live, you can come up with a legitimate argument for owning an AR-15 for self-defense. Of course, no one ever wants to be in a situation where they have to, but the peace of mind is a gift.

Although he can occasionally be a firebrand, Graham is still a United States senator and was flying with the president on Air Force One when asked about this. He remained very decorous and didn't offer the answer that a regular, law-abiding gun owner might.

I sleep with a loaded Beretta on my nightstand and was once asked why.

"Because I (expletive deleted) want to."

That's really the only answer anyone needs in response to being asked why he or she is doing something perfectly legal that isn't harming anyone else.

My dad (may he rest in peace) had a more polite, but still intentionally obnoxious, response when someone once asked him why he slept with a gun next to his bed:

"Where do you keep yours?"

Have I ever had to use a gun for self-defense? Thankfully, no. And I hope I never have to.

Rest - https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politic...eeds-an-ar-15/

[High_Plains_Drifter]

i just heard Trump on Fox say that he and others are looking very closely at new background check and red flag laws.

Well, I'll tell ya what... he fucks around with red flag laws and makes back ground checks mandatory for EVERY gun sale, even private citizens, and I guarantee you, you can mark my words here, his next rally after he signs some shit like that and he'll have HALF the people there he normally does, and when he sees that, he'll know he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of being reelected. He fucked up. He's railed about protecting the second amendment at EVERY rally he's ever had, and it states "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." He's playing with fire, seriously. He signs some expansive new bull shit back ground checks that includes private sales, and we get red flag laws, he won't get my vote again.

[Kathianne]

i just heard Trump on Fox say that he and others are looking very closely at new background check and red flag laws.

Well, I'll tell ya what... he fucks around with red flag laws and makes back ground checks mandatory for EVERY gun sale, even private citizens, and I guarantee you, you can mark my words here, his next rally after he signs some shit like that and he'll have HALF the people there he normally does, and when he sees that, he'll know he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of being reelected. He fucked up. He's railed about protecting the second amendment at EVERY rally he's ever had, and it states "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." He's playing with fire, seriously. He signs some expansive new bull shit back ground checks that includes private sales, and we get red flag laws, he won't get my vote again.

No disrespect, but who are you going to vote for then? Going to let a Democrat win?

[High_Plains_Drifter]

No disrespect, but who are you going to vote for then? Going to let a Democrat win?

It won't be just me "letting a democrat win," he'll lose major support. If a democrat wins, it'll be TRUMP'S fault, not mine.

And when you have no one to vote for, you just don't vote.

Maybe I'd write MYSELF in.

[jimnyc]

i just heard Trump on Fox say that he and others are looking very closely at new background check and red flag laws.

Well, I'll tell ya what... he fucks around with red flag laws and makes back ground checks mandatory for EVERY gun sale, even private citizens, and I guarantee you, you can mark my words here, his next rally after he signs some shit like that and he'll have HALF the people there he normally does, and when he sees that, he'll know he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of being reelected. He fucked up. He's railed about protecting the second amendment at EVERY rally he's ever had, and it states "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." He's playing with fire, seriously. He signs some expansive new bull shit back ground checks that includes private sales, and we get red flag laws, he won't get my vote again.

I don't have much of an issue with certain types of background checks - kind of like it is now though, with a limited check via the FBI and what not, and a 3 day wait if needing further investigation, or 3 day weight in general at many places. Ways already to be disqualified:

Convicted crime of more than 2 year sentence
You have renounced your USA citizenship
In the country illegally
Convicted of domestic violence
Are a fugitive
Have a warrant
Are an addict
Dishonorably discharged from military
Diagnosed mentally ill or found not guilty by reason of insanity or unfit for trial

You get a background check if purchasing from someone with an FFL.

Private sales of any sorts must meet restrictions for possessing firearms under Federal law. And you think it's all private, so you can just lie, right?

And even via the NICS. Accidentally check off wrong box in criminal history? You're facing 18-36 in the slammer. Issues with your mental health, and you lie about it and get caught? That'll get your sentence increased!

An example of laws already in place for law abiding citizens and associated penalties. MANY states already have the NICS bg checks as mandatory, but the libs don't tell you that, do they? You know, places like Illinois. There, the buyer must have a valid firearm owner's identification card. State police MUST do a background check. And then the seller "May not knowingly transfer firearms to anyone who is ineligible to possess a firearm or who lacks a valid FOID card. All transfers of firearms must be recorded and maintained for 10 years." ----- that sure has worked out as a 10 out of 10, absolutely perfect in places like Chicago!!! Those criminals came up on so many police checks, and littered allllll over those kept records!! Alaska, Alabama Lousiana, Missouri.... and others..... must ensure the buyer fits within all laws and regulations, and must keep records.

This will cover a few examples:

Internet Gun Sales and Background Checks, Explained

Advocates of gun violence prevention have praised Facebook over the past week for its decision to ban private gun sales from the social network. Facebook’s new policy, enforced by reports from users, was announced at the end of a month that began with President Obama’s week of speeches and executive actions aimed at reducing gun violence. One of the most parsed moments in Obama’s speech unveiling his executive actions on guns on January 4th was a sentence that drew little interest from pundits and mainstream reporters.

“A violent felon can buy [a gun] over the Internet with no background check, no questions asked,” he said from the East Room, echoing a familiar refrain of advocates. Almost immediately, conservative critics pounced.

A writer at The Federalist said Obama’s remark was “so plainly not true.” The National Review writer Charles C.W. Cooke called the president’s statement “what is classically called a lie.”

...

You have a few options. If you Google “online gun store,” you’ll find a slew of websites with names like Grabagun.com, Impactguns.com, and Budsgunshop.com that act like digital versions of physical gun stores. Websites like Gunbroker.com, in contrast, host auctions, much like eBay. Then there are sites that don’t conduct gun sales, but rather allow individuals to arrange sales. The most well known is Armslist.com — essentially a Craigslist for guns — but discussion boards like Glocktalk.com also often have sections dedicated to classified ads.

...

You go through a background check.

Customers who purchase weapons from the website of a Federally Licensed Firearms dealer (FFL), like Kentucky-based Buds, can’t just enter their credit card and address and have a gun shipped to their doorstep. Instead, the seller will mail the gun to a local FFL, which will then perform a background check on the buyer before handing over the gun. In most cases, the local FFL will charge a transfer fee, usually $25–$50, for facilitating the transaction.

These rules apply to sellers with brick and mortar locations, like Bud’s, and those that conduct all their sales online, like Grabagun, which is based out of a Texas industrial park and has no storefront.

Rest - https://www.thetrace.org/2016/01/int...ground-checks/

Another read:

Top Gun Stats Liberals Don’t Want You to Know

In the wake of the Orlando terror attack–carried out by a gunman who ignored the Pulse Orlando’s gun-free designation–liberals are eagerly working to limit the Second Amendment rights of citizens throughout the country.
In so doing, they are pushing numerous gun controls that are not only theoretically troublesome but which have already been proven practical failures. Moreover, proponents of more gun control are glossing over facts and evidence that undermine claims about the AR-15 and other firearms, as well as facts and evidence regarding the manner in which guns are primarily used.

Here are the top stats liberals don’t want you to know:

1 - Background Checks Do Not Stop High Profile Attackers–Although gun grabbers relentlessly push background checks as the solution to stopping high profile attacks on innocent Americans, the facts are that background checks do not hinder high profile attackers in the least. Alleged Orlando attacker Omar Mateen passed a background check for his guns, as did UCLA gunman Mainak Sarkar and almost every high profile attacker in the past 10 years.

Breitbart New previously published a list of attackers and alleged attackers who passed background checks for their guns, and that list stands as evidence that background checks are no hindrance to evil persons dedicated to murder. The list includes: “Sayed Farook and Tashfeen Malik (San Bernardino), Noah Harpman (Colorado Springs), Chris Harper Mercer (Umpqua Community College), Vester Lee Flangan (Virgina), John Russell Houser (Lafayette), Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez (Chattanooga), Dylann Roof (Charleston), Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi (Garland), Jared and Amanda Miller (Las Vegas), Elliot Rodger (Santa Barabara), Ivan Lopez (Fort Hood 2014), Darion Marcus Aguilar (Maryland mall), Karl Halverson Pierson (Arapahoe High School), Paul Ciancia (LAX), Andrew John Engeldinger (Minneapolis), Aaron Alexis (DC Navy Yard), Tennis Melvin Maynard (West Virginia), Wade Michael Page (Sikh Temple), James Holmes (Aurora theater), Jared Loughner (Tucson), Nidal Hasan (Fort Hood 2009), Jiverly Wong (Binghamton), Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech), Naveed Haq (Seattle), and Mark Barton (Atlanta).”

2. More People Killed With Clubs, Hammers Than Rifles–Amid the push for an “assault weapons” ban following the Sandy Hook attack, Breitbart News consulted FBI numbers for the years 2005-2011 and found that the number of murders by hammers and clubs constantly topped the number of murders by rifle. For example, In 2005 the number of murders committed with a rifle was 445, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 605. In 2006, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 438, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 618. In 2011, there was 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs.

And it should be noted the rifles in view here include all kinds of rifles–bolt-actions, semiautomatic hunting rifles, semiautomatic target rifles, etc.–so the percentage of deaths in which a rifles like an AR-15 were used would be even smaller than the overall number quoted for the years above.

3.AR-15s Are Not “Automatic” Rifles–Although politicians like Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, celebrities like Seth MacFarlene, and too many media pundits to number have referred to the AR-15 as an “automatic” weapon during last few months, the fact remains that AR-15s are semiautomatic firearms. They shoot one round–and only one round–each time the trigger is pulled. This means an AR-15 shoots no faster than a Smith & Wesson M&P 9mm handgun, or a Glock or Sig Sauer .40 caliber handgun, or an H&K or Ruger .45 caliber handgun. Claims to the contrary are either based on ignorance or are part of a focused attempt to demonize the AR-15.

4. Guns Are Legally Used For Self-Defense Purposes Approximately 760,000 A Year–Staggering isn’t it? Especially when you consider the way the mainstream media covers gun crime after gun crime, giving the impression that guns are just bad things which bad people use to hurt good people. Yet Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck has demonstrated that guns are used for defensive purposes approximately 760,000 a year in the United States.

5.Gun-Free Zones Are Killing Fields–The Orlando terror attack to place in gun-free zone. Result? Approximately 50 dead. The attack in the Umpqua Community College gun-free zone (October 2015) left 9 dead, the attack on the gun-free Chattanooga military offices (July 2015) left five dead, the attack in Fort Hood’s gun-free zone (April 2014) left 3 dead, the earlier attack in Fort Hood’s gun-free zone (November 2009) killed 13, the attack in the gun-free DC Navy Yard (September 2013) killed 12, the attack on gun-free Sandy Hook Elementary (December 2012) killed 26, the attack in the gun-free Aurora movie theater (July 2012) killed 12, and the attack on the gun-free Virginia Tech campus (April 2007) killed 32. Think about it–Eight gun-free zones, 207 firearm-related deaths.

6. More Children Under 10 Killed By Fire, Drowning Than Accidental Gun Deaths—Breitbart News previously reported Centers for Disease Control and Prevention numbers for 2010. The figures were compiled by John Lott, they showed the number of children under the age of 10 unintentionally killed in fire-related deaths was over seven times higher than the number of children killed in unintentional gun-related deaths, and the number of children killed in unintentional drowning deaths was sixteen times higher than the number of children killed in unintentional gun-related deaths. The raw numbers were as follows: Number of children killed in unintentional fire-related deaths was 262, the number of unintentional drowning 609, the number of accidental gun-related deaths was 36.

Rest - https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...ont-want-know/

If and when the time comes I will need to read exact specifics on any proposal or changes, but if he somehow demands or forces more than that, and it's unreasonable in any way, he will not have my support on that issue. Not voting for him and allowing one of the socialists to take office instead? Not sure I can do that. But I would be extremely vocal about the issue. But the fact is, a liberal would likely try the same crap if not worse. I think I would still support him overall to to get another 4, but then push as hard as possible to keep that from happening. OR, if it happens prior, no way in hell I support too much change if at all, and then he will have a problem come election time. I'll still prefer him over any of the nitwits on the left, without a thought, but also no doubt a ton more simply stay away over such an important issue.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

@jimnyc... I can go to local gun shows all around WI here and buy and sell guns LEGALLY. Sales and purchases between private citizens is legal here. $20 a day buys you a table at one of these gun shows and bring whatever you want to sell, and as a private citizen, you're not required to do any check on someone purchasing anything. It's often referred to on the news as the "GUN SHOW LOOP HOLE." Well it's really got nothing to do with gun shows, it's simply private citizens being legally able to purchase and sell guns without a background check.

And I can tell you this, that is a VERY important issue to MANY, because if background checks are expanded to EVERY gun sale, even PRIVATE, then the government knows about EVERY firearm, and that's really what they NEED to be one step closer to being able to CONFISCATE THEM ALL.

I guarantee, if Trump and the republicans go there and eliminate private sales without a background check, HE, WILL, LOSE, in 2020... GUARANTEED... and the repubs would probably lose the senate too.

One other thing, you can have a warrant out on you and still own a firearm in WI. Warrants can issued for failure to appear for a speeding ticket, but it's still a misdemeanor. Only felony convictions prohibit someone from owning a gun.
But myself, I don't think that's even fair. I think felons should still be able to own a gun. I think anyone convicted of a non violent offense should not lose their 2nd amendment rights. I think being convicted of ANY sort of violence is where you have to look. If you've been convicted of felony assault in the first degree, you attacked someone and beat them senseless, and it wasn't self defense, that's when you lose your 2nd amendment rights.