Gonna get me some RPGs and killer drones!

Come on, Clarence, f***ing DIE already!! You too, Sammy!

Supreme court CAN ban guns inside their court! THAT is BULLSHIT!! For fuck sake IF the court wants to ALLOW these fucking KILLER GUNS, then they should be allowed in every court room in America. PERIOD!! Why are they so fucking protected?

the nra got away w funneling rubles onto our system for yeeears. who’s funding these groups now that the nra is bankrupt? pootie, still?

As the NRA fades, a more zealous US pro-gun group rises as a lobbying power

Pun definitely intended, and people were screaming to have the NRA disbanded
Or sued out of existence, I warned about Gun Owners of America.

I described them back then as the NRA's more radical, less compromising cousin. With the vacuum left by the NRA they have become far more active and perhaps even more dedicated to "shall not be infringed"

where they fled to TX to figuratively "bleed out" (another pun). But I think many of us knew that the vacuum would be filled. The industry is too lucrative.

GOA has appeared on most of the recent lawsuits. But even with the recent liberalization of gun regulations, the rise of class action suits and liability may continue to provide a counterweight to that.

In case anyone missed it guns are the leading cause of death for children in the US. And thanks to the courts for years ignoring that little tidbit in the 2nd Amendment about a "well regulated militia" our children are going to keep dying so that gun manufacturers can keep raking in money.

What a fucked up shit-hole country!!!!!!!

their answer is always the same: thoughts and prayers, which of course are as useless as the GOP

has already begun the process of rendering all states' AWBs un-Constitutional.

But having large magazines also protected? How the hell are those protected?

The Constitution says so!

Never mind that the second amendment was written for reasons that no longer apply and involve guns that no longer exist, you GOTTA BE READY!

. . . ready for the next US ground invasion - by the Canadians, Mexicans, aliens, armed penguins, zombies, locusts, whatever.

And if there is no war and your ammo is reaching it's 'use by' date, well, seek out some worthy targets!
(Your neighbours look a bit sus, and them dark skinned people who steal your jobs, eat the cats and dogs, etc . . . )

yup

They were not even conceived of at the time the constitution was ratified.

We’re too stupid to survive as a nation.

Every American needs to have the means to slaughter multiple people if they seem unpleasant.

If they were serious about historical precedent, only the guns available at the time the amendment was written should be allowed.
It’s ridiculous to say you are limiting it to its meaning when it was written but then say it covers all kinds of weapons that didn’t exist then.

Radio, TV, and the internet did not exist when the 1st was written. Should those be excluded from it? Or is it only certain techs that apply to the bill of rights?

to an AR-15, high-capacity magazine as a freedom to slaughter bear arms?

'Freedom of Press' is a known thing. 'Arms' is a known thing, small arms, guns. Rifles, pistols. And all that comes with it. If you don't like it, fight to refine or overturn the 2nd. The semantic arguments don't work now, and never did.

And I never understood what a 'high capacity magazine' meant, It's arbitrary of course, like saying 'the internet is too fast to spread speech now'. It's nuts.

You have a problem with 'bear arms'. They had really capable guns back then, lots don't know that. Even repeating fire. None of that matters though anymore than the internet not existing matters. It's about arms, press, all that. We know what these mean. It's basic law and English and we need a national standard on them all. No more AWB's any more than a state can exact slavery despite the amendments against it.

because we ARE the most dangerous

We have two gun related groups here:

https://democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1262

https://democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1172

Also:

This group may interest you:
Civil Liberties
https://democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1168

And if you get tired of being serious or get stressed we have a lounge.
https://democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1018

"freedom of the press" can take many forms and still be "the press"
A 6 round revolver & an AR 15 are both "arms"; a 60 round clip ( I LOVE to use "clip" because the gun nuts seem to always lose their shit over that simple word, even though my basic training range control sgt used it & mag interchangeably) is not a weapon unless you hit someone in the head with it.
The capacity doesnt affect the weapon's use. Neither does the lack of a bump stock.
But here we are, and here we'll stay, the MOST murderous 1st world country in the world by leaps & bounds.

A keyboard? An accessory?

It's not that complicated. If someone said you're limited to only a pen that has ink for 10 words, is that ok for the 1st?

Again, the difference of tools involved in the terms isn't what matters. It's the freedom that matters. The right to bear arms it a positive one to the people.

Not that the pro lifers on the Supreme Court care about that

of gun violence in the US vs lack of AC in Europe deaths for a long, long time.

Also, to make it germane to this issue, can you cite any evidence that AWB's have directly reduced any deaths, at all?

https://law.stanford.edu/2019/10/15/the-assault-weapon-ban-saved-lives/

The Assault Weapon Ban Saved Lives

Our recent New York Times article provided important new empirical evidence that the federal assault weapons ban (AWB) – in place from 1994-2004 – was an important tool in the effort to reduce the death toll from public mass shootings. Within 24 hours, Reason magazine published a piece by Jacob Sullum that tried to challenge our results. Ironically, the first portion of Sullum’s title perfectly describes his own article: “A Suspiciously Selective, Logically Shaky Analysis of Mass Shooting Data.” The heart of Sollum’s attempted criticism is that it was “suspiciously selective” to define gun massacres as involving at least six deaths and that the definition should involve four individuals killed. Essentially, Sollum offers the “let’s kick sand into the faces of our readers so they won’t see the truth” approach to policy analysis. Here, we offer our evidence to refute his feckless challenge.

Figures 1 and 2 tell the story graphically: the body count from gun massacres was visibly restrained during the AWB and rose sharply after 2004 when President Bush reneged on his campaign promise to renew it. Moreover, the number of deaths per gun massacre fell during the ban and has risen sharply over the next 15 years as the gun industry has flooded the market with increasingly more lethal weaponry.
Snip...more at the link.
❤️👋

It's impossible. Did bayonets matter? Did 30 instead of 10 round mags matter? You could still get those during the entire 'ban' anyway. It was a down slide, which we're in again now. The 'laws' don't matter on it. Old banner articles without any substance mean nothing.

The link is causing a security error on my side, and anyway.. They'd really have to consider the main point of "how can a lot of 10 round magazines be less deadly than a few 30 round magazines". Without that, it's useless.

They have to concentrate on specifics of how the AWB details caused lower deaths. It doesn't seem plausible to me that a 10 round limit has ever mattered in a murder, but can in a defense situation.

If we're going to have a cogent discussion about death reduction, it would be better if we could stay on topic.

Also, a "security" issue isn't really a valid reason for avoiding the facts in the research that I shared just because it doesn't fit a predetermined narrative.

Gtg.

Enjoy your day.

Not much else. I don't think you understand the topic well. If I said something else, I guess dig into the semantics about it?

I am really curious for anyone supporting AWB's. Can you even define what an 'assault weapon' is? It seems to just be some 'naughty thing' that people like to ban cause it's 'bad'.

More than twice as many people die of heat in Europe than of firearm deaths in the US of A...

'ban cars', ban drinking, ban planes because the big stories are indeed tragic like plane crashes, but they're hyper focused by the media and just not a huge thing in most peoples' lives. I remember when everyone was saying CCW licenses would mean wild west shootouts all the time. Then permitless that too. None of it happened.

We, as a nation, need to move beyond gun banning. Repeal the NFA, especially silencer restrictions. Even most of Europe isn't as strict on those. It's ancient old movie/gangster fears that don't apply anymore.

A lot of the ban hysteria was based on very racist views in the 90s of black gangs and fears from movies and music. Enough already.

Spend the effort into prevention and mental health and law enforcement for those that commit crimes. These are very rarely 'isolated incidences'.