Tell me why you need assault rifle

[Guest Guest]

It is illegal now, Zero. Have you not been paying attention?

 

Isn't it time for your diaper change, little boy?

[Guest Guest]

Really..

 

 

[Guest Guest]

 

 

 

And still not true. I don't think I have ever seen someone so proud of being an ignorant moron. Do your parents cry themselves to sleep every night or did they just take off one night, never to be seen again, due to their embarrassment?

[Guest Guest]

Go to bed Mr. Zero. Haven't you failed enough for one day?

[Guest Guest]

 

 

The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.

In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the "slave patrols," and they were regulated by the states.

 

In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.

As Dr. Carl T. Bogus wrote for the University of California Law Review in 1998, "The Georgia statutes required patrols, under the direction of commissioned militia officers, to examine every plantation each month and authorized them to search 'all Negro Houses for offensive Weapons and Ammunition' and to apprehend and give twenty lashes to any slave found outside plantation grounds."

[Guest Guest]

The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.

In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the "slave patrols," and they were regulated by the states.

 

In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.

As Dr. Carl T. Bogus wrote for the University of California Law Review in 1998, "The Georgia statutes required patrols, under the direction of commissioned militia officers, to examine every plantation each month and authorized them to search 'all Negro Houses for offensive Weapons and Ammunition' and to apprehend and give twenty lashes to any slave found outside plantation grounds."

And thank you once again for giving me someone else’s interpretation of this. Like their OPINION means anything to me.

[Guest Guest]

And yet someone else's opinion means something to you even though the slavery interpretation is based on facts. Good job Mr. Zero. Continue you quest into obscurity.

[Guest Otis]

You cannot give one good reason why a responsible average citizen shouldent have one.

 

1. They were made for one purpose only: to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time with the least amount of effort and the least amount of aiming necessary.....similar to the reason hand grenades and nuclear bombs are illegal to possess. They were designed as human killing machines and are very effective. Very.

 

 

 

It is very clear that nobody here can give an intelligent and reasoned argument for why a law abiding, responsible citizen should have further restrictions on their firearm ownership.

 

Have all the guns you want. Just don't buy any more Bushmasters and AR15's in NYS. We good? Of course not.

 

 

 

There is no justification for it. It does not affect violent crime. It does not address criminals or people with mental health issues.

 

The new law is not intended to affect rates of violent crime, or criminals or people with mental health problems. It is intended to decrease the frequency of mass killings in which the murderer is able to to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time with the least amount of effort and the least amount of aiming necessary.

 

 

The left can't separate their emotions from the horrible incident in sandy hook. They don't seem to have much of a grasp of history, including the last few decades.

 

I'm sure all those parents, sisters, brothers and cousins can't make that separation either, and wont' be able to for the rest of their lives. As well as the family members of victims in Columbine, Virginia and Aurora, Co.

The past few decades have seen a marked increase in the numbers of mass killings with guns like Bushmasters. That history, you mean?

 

 

Banning anything based on its appearance is the dumbest thing going.

 

The ban is based on function. Sorry you can't see that. Guns that fire semi-automatically. Clips that hold lots of bullets. Flash suppresors. These items function in a way that make it easier for mass killers to kill MORE people in a short amount of time, without having to really aim........

[Guest Guest]

Go to bed Mr. Zero. Haven't you failed enough for one day?

 

Said the little boy who types the same thing over and over and over......

[Guest Guest]

And yet someone else's opinion means something to you even though the slavery interpretation is based on facts. Good job Mr. Zero. Continue you quest into obscurity.

 

The ignorance you possess is amazing in its size.

 

There were many suggestions from the states for the original amendments. 12 made it through the legislation and 10 were ratified. One being the 2nd amendment, to protect the citizens from tyranny from their own government. Maybe one of the ones that failed had something to do with slavery but not the 2nd. It is not an opinion, it is fact. Your ignorance and mental illness not withstanding.

[Guest Guest]

It isn't about assault rifles.

 

That is the pretext used to pass this NY law.

 

Cuomo has banned many shotguns just because he doesn't like the grips.

 

He has made private sales almost unworkable.

 

The supposed AR ban was used as a rouse to pass a long list of other prohibitions that HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ASSAULT RIFLES.

 

READ THE TEXT OF THE LAW.

[Guest Guest]

You cannot give one good reason why a responsible average citizen shouldent have one.

 

1. They were made for one purpose only: to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time with the least amount of effort and the least amount of aiming necessary.....similar to the reason hand grenades and nuclear bombs are illegal to possess. They were designed as human killing machines and are very effective. Very.

 

They are not military weapons. The 2nd Amendment is there to provide a defense from a tyrannical government so military weapons are exactly what was intended. We have reasonably already accepted certain restrictions including that on full automatic fire.

 

It is very clear that nobody here can give an intelligent and reasoned argument for why a law abiding, responsible citizen should have further restrictions on their firearm ownership.

 

Have all the guns you want. Just don't buy any more Bushmasters and AR15's in NYS. We good? Of course not.

 

 

Why? Because their appearance scares you? Their cosmetic differences do not make them any more lethal. Only in your tiny mind.

 

There is no justification for it. It does not affect violent crime. It does not address criminals or people with mental health issues.

 

The new law is not intended to affect rates of violent crime, or criminals or people with mental health problems. It is intended to decrease the frequency of mass killings in which the murderer is able to to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time with the least amount of effort and the least amount of aiming necessary.

 

So you admit that it wont affect violent crime rates. LOL So it will do nothing but lets infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens. Good idea, Adolf. It will not affect the frequency of mass shootings. The frequency of those has remained consistent for decades, even during the previous, ineffective ban. You can't even form an intelligent arguement, but at least you admit it.

 

The left can't separate their emotions from the horrible incident in sandy hook. They don't seem to have much of a grasp of history, including the last few decades.

 

I'm sure all those parents, sisters, brothers and cousins can't make that separation either, and wont' be able to for the rest of their lives. As well as the family members of victims in Columbine, Virginia and Aurora, Co.

The past few decades have seen a marked increase in the numbers of mass killings with guns like Bushmasters. That history, you mean?

 

There had not been any increase in the numbers of mass killings. That is a liberal fantasy. Like with many historical topics, the liberals remember things the way they want. As far as victims: the people alive today because of privately owned firearms matter too. Even though the libs like to pretend they don't exist.

 

Banning anything based on its appearance is the dumbest thing going.

 

The ban is based on function. Sorry you can't see that. Guns that fire semi-automatically. Clips that hold lots of bullets. Flash suppresors. These items function in a way that make it easier for mass killers to kill MORE people in a short amount of time, without having to really aim........

 

Your ignorance of firearms is pretty consistent with most liberals. Of epic proportions. It is not based on function. Alleged "assault weapons" are identical to weapons used for hunting and target practice. Flash suppressors make killing easier? LOL That s a great example of your ignorance. That bayonet lug must be responsible for a rediculous amount of carnage!!! HAHAHAHA What an idiot. Now people don't have to aim???? You have never even held a firearm. That is very clear.

[Guest Guest]

The ignorance you possess is amazing in its size.

 

There were many suggestions from the states for the original amendments. 12 made it through the legislation and 10 were ratified. One being the 2nd amendment, to protect the citizens from tyranny from their own government. Maybe one of the ones that failed had something to do with slavery but not the 2nd. It is not an opinion, it is fact. Your ignorance and mental illness not withstanding.

 

Wrong.

 

 

The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.

In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the "slave patrols," and they were regulated by the states.

In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.

[Guest Guest]

Wrong.

 

 

The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.

In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the "slave patrols," and they were regulated by the states.

In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.

 

WRONG. Go back to school, Dunce.

[Guest Guest]

WRONG. Go back to school, Dunce.

 

You believe everything you were taught in school? :lol:

[Guest Guest]

Wrong.

 

 

The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.

In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the "slave patrols," and they were regulated by the states.

In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.

 

The courts have already ruled, more than once, that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right and has nothing to do with a state's militia. Individual right, like all the rest of the original 10. Not knowing something is forgivable and correctable. Intentional ignorance of facts is a much more serious problem.

[Guest Guest]

The courts have already ruled, more than once, that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right and has nothing to do with a state's militia. Individual right, like all the rest of the original 10. Not knowing something is forgivable and correctable. Intentional ignorance of facts is a much more serious problem.

 

What the courts ruled and the original intent of the 2nd Amendment are two different things.

[Guest Guest]

What the courts ruled and the original intent of the 2nd Amendment are two different things.

 

Sure thing, dummy. We will go with your version instead of those of the courts, historical documents, etc. LOL

[Guest guest]

You cannot give one good reason why a responsible average citizen shouldent have one.

 

1. They were made for one purpose only: to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time with the least amount of effort and the least amount of aiming necessary.....similar to the reason hand grenades and nuclear bombs are illegal to possess. They were designed as human killing machines and are very effective. Very.

 

 

 

It is very clear that nobody here can give an intelligent and reasoned argument for why a law abiding, responsible citizen should have further restrictions on their firearm ownership.

 

Have all the guns you want. Just don't buy any more Bushmasters and AR15's in NYS. We good? Of course not.

 

 

 

There is no justification for it. It does not affect violent crime. It does not address criminals or people with mental health issues.

 

The new law is not intended to affect rates of violent crime, or criminals or people with mental health problems. It is intended to decrease the frequency of mass killings in which the murderer is able to to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time with the least amount of effort and the least amount of aiming necessary.

 

 

The left can't separate their emotions from the horrible incident in sandy hook. They don't seem to have much of a grasp of history, including the last few decades.

 

I'm sure all those parents, sisters, brothers and cousins can't make that separation either, and wont' be able to for the rest of their lives. As well as the family members of victims in Columbine, Virginia and Aurora, Co.

The past few decades have seen a marked increase in the numbers of mass killings with guns like Bushmasters. That history, you mean?

 

 

Banning anything based on its appearance is the dumbest thing going.

 

The ban is based on function. Sorry you can't see that. Guns that fire semi-automatically. Clips that hold lots of bullets. Flash suppresors. These items function in a way that make it easier for mass killers to kill MORE people in a short amount of time, without having to really aim........

You have still not given one reason why a responible citizen should not own one.

[Guest Guest]

 

You have still not given one reason why a responible citizen should not own one.

 

Because we haven't figured out an effective way to keep them from changing hands from responsible citizens to irresponsible citizens. 20 brutally murdered children is a pretty good reason something needs to be done.

[Guest Guest]

Because we haven't figured out an effective way to keep them from changing hands from responsible citizens to irresponsible citizens. 20 brutally murdered children is a pretty good reason something needs to be done.

 

So address the criminal not the law abiding citizen. How is that so difficult a concept for you wackjobs to understand?

[Guest Guest]

Sure thing, dummy. We will go with your version instead of those of the courts, historical documents, etc. LOL

 

Anti-Federalists Patrick Henry and George Mason used the fear of slave rebellions as a way of drumming up opposition to the Constitution and Madison eventually deployed the promise of the Second Amendment to placate Virginians and win their support for ratification.

[Guest Guest]

So address the criminal not the law abiding citizen. How is that so difficult a concept for you wackjobs to understand?

 

It is being addressed by limiting the type of firearm purchase and universal background checks closing the 'gun show loophole'.

[Guest its not that difficult]

So address the criminal not the law abiding citizen. How is that so difficult a concept for you wackjobs to understand?

YES- the criminal are the problem so that is what needs to be addressed Einstein. You cannot dispute the facts. If Lanza's mother did not possess a assualt rifle, not as many innocent 6 year old kids would have died.

[Guest Guest]

YES- the criminal are the problem so that is what needs to be addressed Einstein. You cannot dispute the facts. If Lanza's mother did not possess a assualt rifle, not as many innocent 6 year old kids would have died.

 

And you don't see the problem with further limiting law abiding citizens rights as a method to address a criminals behavior? That is why we say liberalism is a mental disorder.

 

In the weeks since this horrible incident there has not been a single reasonable, rational, or moral explanation for taking that action. It has been shown to be totally inneffective and against the principles of the Constitution. Banning something because of how it looks is irrational. Changing a magazine limit from 10 to 7 is irrational. If they had been shown to be effective I would support them. But they aren't. The ban is an emotional, knee jerk reaction that makes some people feel better but, ultimately, does nothing to lower the violent crime. I support a background check on every single gun sale. I do not support a registry. That is another tactic that will have 0 effect on violent crime and will only consist of legally owned weapons of law abiding citizens. I support a database on mentally ill people who are considered dangerous (if this is ever created, the liberals who support the gun ban will fight it tooth and nail). That would have a direct influence on violent incidents. Almost every gun owner I know would support those measures. You ask for a reasonable discussion but you never offer reasonable approaches. When someone says they do not support everything the left wants, they are subject to a tirade of vitriol and abuse. Yes, I can give as good as I get (better in my opinion), but it does not even approach an effective solution.