Happy said in another thread
"You want your shotguns,go ahead, hunting rifles yeah. Assault rifles fuck no.Hand guns, ok fine....I have an AP9 by the way, 10 round clip. Had it before they became illegal.
Now let me ask you, what's the benefits of having an AR assault rifle, with a 30 round clip...at your local walmart.
And tell me, was that moron ok with bringing up guns at a factory visit?? The puke was grandstanding and Biden knew it and slap him down," First off let's get a few things straight. Clip??? A clip is a metal device designed to hold 8 rounds of 30.06 ammunition for the M1 Garand Rifle of WWII fame. No such thing as a "30-round clip" exists. Box Magazines (that hold however many rounds) are a completely different device. I know what you meant but don't call magazines, clips. you sound like an idiot. As for you owning an AP-9? So what? You're guaranteed that right by the 2nd amendment to the Constitution. On a personal opinion point? Why would you own a piece of Crap like an AP-9? Also, owning only, a 10-round magazine before the ban, then pointing that out here? Is that an attempt at virtue signaling? I think so and your dumb for doing it. NEXT, The, term Assault rifle is misused badly by the antigun media. The term came about as a translation from the German word sturmgewehr, which was used to describe the German STG 44. Sturmgewehr, (As defined by Definitions.net) "was the first successful "assault rifle", with features including an intermediate cartridge, controllable automatic fire, a more compact design than a battle rifle with a higher rate of fire, and being designed primarily for hitting targets within a few hundred meters." This definition describes a selective-fire Machine gun. BTW Machine guns are completely legal to own and can be bought under the Nationa Firearms Act of 1934 with a background check, a set of fingerprints, a photograph, a $200 tax stamp, and Approval by the ATF. Guess how many crimes have been committed with legal Machine guns since 1934? Take a guess. The answer is 2. Yep that's right 2. Soooo the boogeyman of the Assault rifle is complete BUNK! What I'm guessing you have your panties in a bunch over are semiautomatic rifles that look like their selective-fire counterparts used by the military. Now it sounds like you want to ban these to prevent mass shootings. Is that what I am getting here? Now your supposition is that taking said Semiautomatic weapons away will make a shooter less effective? OK Let's take your hunting rifle and pistol situation. For context, I am going to say I went through STA Platoon Indoc in early 1993 at Camp Horno on Camp Pendle ton. I can shoot straight. I was an average 240 shooters for yearly qualification on the KD range. Someone with my Skill Set possessing, say a scoped Remington 700 rifle and a Beretta 92F pistol, set in the Las Vegas mass shooting (instead of the Nut job who did it) could kill hundreds of people instead of the numbers he did kill, PROMISE. Your idiotic presumption that it's the gun that does the killing, it's not, it's the person, PROMISE. Also, this notion that spraying and praying kills hundreds is also flawed. How do these mass shooters kill as many people as they do? It's simple they are firing at very close range. That being said Mass shootings are horrible things. The people who perpetrate them are criminals and usually mentally deranged. They have the shock value of Shark attacks. In this vein of stopping these mass death occurrences, I don't see you calling for a ban on cars after some nut job drives through a parade of people killing large numbers of them. I definitely don't see you calling to stop the flow of Fentanyl into the US across the VERY PORUS (Fick you ICKY!) Mexican Border. What was your statement the other day? "YAWN"? Your question about Walmart? what I am kinda sorta of reading is about someone open-carrying? I think? you made a mess out of the point so I am left guessing. For the record, I don't condone Open carry of any Rifles in an Urban Setting. No need for it. Somewhere in all this, you say there's no good use for them, go fuck yourself that's like me saying your car should be electronically limited to the posted speed limit (which is coming) and there is no need for any car that can exceed the posted speed limit. If that were suddenly imposed on you, you would scream like a scalded cat. OR... What about me saying you shouldn't have the right to drink and drive. By that I mean NOT CONSUME ANY ALCOHOL WHATSOEVER and then operate any motor vehicle for a period of say 8 hours. Tell me Happy how many times have you had a drink or a beer then climbed in your car and driven home? Cars, Fentanyl, and alcohol kill way more people than guns ever even thought about. As for the autoworker asking Biden about his position on gun control? He was 5000% within his rights to ask that. He's a US citizen who is protected by the 1st and 2nd Amendments. Joe Joe Potato fucked that up badly! He showcased the fact that he's an angry old asshole and undeserving to be President of these United States. The long and the short of this is you want to impose your will upon others who are thankfully protected by the Constitution. Again, GO FUCK YOURSELF, (what was it Icky used as a pejorative recently?) "You slimy (I'm adding that part) little reptile" P.S. The 2nd amendment? Guarantees the 1st and it's your side that wants to limit both. Soooo in closing, I will not be giving up my firearms that have never threatened anyone ever.
There’s a reason why I call him Happy Gulag Guard. And the AP-9 that he thought he had was just a super soaker that some kid spray painted and Happy didn’t know the difference. The funniest thing about gun grabbers is that they always start with the line “why do you need…” These pussies always make me laugh. I’m always like, “why do you need to be talking? Shut the fuck up.” I mean if he wants to disregard my 2nd Amendment rights why can’t I disregard his 1st Amendment rights? He needs to shut his fucking mouth.
The best part about this is that gun grabbers keep pressing with their unconstitutional bullshit when the Supreme Court just keeps telling them no. And yet they keep doing it. Then you have this batshit Governor in New Mexico who tries to pull this bullshit and everyone in the state from the courts to the sheriff to the attorney general just tells her to go pound sand. And then for her efforts there’s now an impeachment inquiry to remove her from office. Gun grabbers are such stupid fucks.
Ahhhh Let me explain, in STA your taught to carry your rifle muzzle down along side your leg with the scope basically in your armpit to conceal what it is, no need for enemy observation to figure out what you are. When the M110 came along that was a bit easier because at a distance it resembles an A2. In my day an M40 stuck out like a sore thumb.
My thought is that with cameras everywhere “THEY” don’t need to be attaching my face with my guns in any cross referenced data bases. I am a big believer in 🤫 😉 how shall we say? Building my own firearms.
I do agree that it shouldn’t be limited by a law, I just wouldn’t do it is all.
A MAGAt was arrested for shooting someone during a protest over a conquistador statue in New Mexico. He was photographed before the shooting wearing a MAGA hat:
http://usa2.topnews.media/2023/09/28/suspect-in-maga-hat-arrested-after-protester-shot-during-demo-against-statue-of-conquistador-in-new-mexico/
But as a typical dumb shit Trump fan, he tried to "disguise" that he was a Trumptard by taking his MAGA hat off when he was shooting. ROFLMAO at the stupidity of Trump supporters:
A MAGAt was arrested for shooting someone during a protest over a conquistador statue in New Mexico. He was photographed before the shooting wearing a MAGA hat:
http://usa2.topnews.media/2023/09/28/suspect-in-maga-hat-arrested-after-protester-shot-during-demo-against-statue-of-conquistador-in-new-mexico/
But as a typical dumb shit Trump fan, he tried to "disguise" that he was a Trumptard by taking his MAGA hat off when he was shooting. ROFLMAO at the stupidity of Trump supporters:
…based upon their likelihood of using that gun in a crime then MAGA people would be one of the last demographics you’d look at.
It's pretty clear to anyone with a functioning brain that BPS was not seriously suggesting all MAGAs be banned from owning a gun.
They should just be banned from voting.
Interesting that Big P didn’t link any video.
You can go fuck yourselves…and I’m not reading some long dumb ass commentary from a nut job like lost..or might as well be Willy
Ban books, kill children… it’s the cost of doing business
You can go fuck yourselves…and I’m not reading some long dumb ass commentary from a nut job like lost..or might as well be Willy
Ban books, kill children… it’s the cost of doing business
This would be the part I would pull out the white flag waving gif but I ain’t gonna stoop to icky levels 😏
Saw my name on the header and I could only imagine how I lit a fire in your old ass. You’re so obvious and predictable I could only imagine what you’d say.The usual blah blah blah that I’ve .heard a million times from gun nuts like yourself.
Not sorry I didn’t read your rant but you’re giving yourself way too much credit, you’re just not important
Saw my name on the header and I could only imagine how I lit a fire in your old ass. You’re so obvious and predictable I could only imagine what you’d say. The usual blah blah blah that I’ve .heard a million times from gun nuts like yourself.
Not sorry I didn’t read your rant but you’re giving yourself way too much credit, you’re just not important
PS what’s a gun nut as defined by happy?
Everybody has opinions, but the SCOTUS rulings are the law of the land. In Heller, McDonald and Bruen, the Supreme Court laid it all out. They said it's up to the people to decide what sort of weapons they want, not the State to decide what sort of weapons are permissible. The SCOTUS said the "balancing tests" were decided by the adoption of the 2nd amendment. So an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine is an "arm" covered by the text of the 2nd amendment and therefore, according to the SCOTUS, presumptively allowed unless the Government could show there was a history and tradition of prohibiting such weapons. In fact, the evidence is the opposite. Militia laws REQUIRED 18+ year olds not only to provide their own weapons, but to have a sufficient supply of ammo.
.
In Caetano vs Massachusetts the SCOTUS found that a stun gun was an arm protected by the 2nd, and further, that even though there were only about 200,000 such weapons, that they were sufficiently popular to be considered in "common use" and therefore not "dangerous AND unusual." The "AND" is essential. Any hope of restricting a firearm (which are dangerous by definition) must be "unusual."
.
AR-15's with 30 round magazines are one of the most popular weapons ever. There are millions owned by US citizens. There is no way they could be considered "unusual" so the SCOTUS considers them "in common use" and with no history or tradition of restricting any aspect.
.
That's the law of the land, any opinions to the contrary about the efficacy of such weapons not withstanding.
Where did you ever get that idea? Ten or eleven states have bans on ARs and LCMs. In some of these states, you go to jail if they catch you with one and no exception applies.
And you have completely misunderstood the Bruen decision. If AR/LCM are commonly used for self- defense, then Bruen might overrule these statutes. But “common possession” is not the same as “common use.”
"Bruen, perhaps recognizing the shortcomings of a purely statistical inquiry into possession, avoided that pitfall by framing the relevant inquiry as being whether the weapons are “‘in common use' today for self-defense.”..."
You would have to be an idiot to use an AR 15/47 for self- defense. Why? If you fire 30 shots at the bad guy breaking down your front door, the bullets will go through him and kill your neighbors across the street. Or go through your wall and kill your wife. Most self -defense use is simply showing you are armed- that makes the bad guy go away in most cases.
The self- defense case for LCMs is even weaker- no less an authority than the NRA has said most lawful firearm self -defense shooters use only two or three bullets and virtually never use more than 10.
What are AR/LCMs commonly used for ? Well, how about mass shootings? In about 50% of the mass shootings over the last 10 years, the weapon of choice was an AR.
And while I don’t think you even get to the presumption to shift the burden to the state to show a historical analogue, plenty of those exist. There were state bans before the federal AR ban and plenty more state bans when the fed ban expired.
Until SCOTUS tells us differently, states are free to enact AR and LCM bans. We just need a few more Sandy Hooks and Uvaldes for this to happen. And they will.
“‘in common use' today for self-defense.”..."
.
The "for self-defense" has been tacked on by anti-gunners but is not part of Heller or Bruen. Rather the language is "in common use for all legal purposes" including but not limited to hunting, target shooting, and self-defense.
.
You didn’t notice the quotation marks around that sentence?
The quotation marks around “common use for self- defense” mean the sentence came from a published source- it’s not my opinion. The published source was the most recent federal district court opinion applying Bruen to uphold the Connecticut assault rifle ban. In other words this is what the judge said – not your “anti-gunners.”
As to
The "for self-defense" has been tacked on by anti-gunners but is not part of Heller or Bruen. Rather the language is "in common use for all legal purposes" including but not limited to hunting, target shooting, and self-defense.
.
It is usually a good idea to actually read a SCOTUS opinion before you post about it.
Had you done so, you would have read:
“Whatever the likelihood that handguns were considered "dangerous and unusual" during the colonial period, they are indisputably in "common use" for self-defense today. They are, in fact, "the quintessential self-defense weapon." Id. , at 629, 128 S.Ct. 2783. Thus, even if these colonial laws prohibited the carrying of handguns because they were considered "dangerous and unusual weapons" in the 1690s, they provide no justification for laws restricting the public carry of weapons that are unquestionably in common use today.
…
New York's proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms."
N.Y.S. Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S.Ct. 2111, 213 L.Ed.2d 387 (2022).
It’s only the holding of the case, Dude LOL.
You are picking and choosing INFERIOR courts. Why did you not mention Duncan v Bonta out of California just decided a week or so ago by judge Benitez .
"The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” This guarantee is fully binding on the States and limits their ability to devise solutions to social problems. And the guarantee protects “the possession of weapons that are ‘in common use,’” or arms that are “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes."
Where did you ever get that idea? Ten or eleven states have bans on ARs and LCMs. In some of these states, you go to jail if they catch you with one and no exception applies.
These are the states I am aware of that have these bans.
California,
Connecticut,
Delaware,
New York,
New Jersey,
Hawaii,
Massachusetts,
Maryland,
Washington.
District of Columbia
So 9 states and DC. If I were icky I’d be calling you a liar right now but I’m not!
"Bruen, perhaps recognizing the shortcomings of a purely statistical inquiry into possession, avoided that pitfall by framing the relevant inquiry as being whether the weapons are “‘in common use' today for self-defense.”..."
You would have to be an idiot to use an AR 15/47 for self- defense. Why? If you fire 30 shots at the bad guy breaking down your front door, the bullets will go through him and kill your neighbors across the street. Or go through your wall and kill your wife. Most self -defense use is simply showing you are armed- that makes the bad guy go away in most cases.
“If you fire 30 shots at the bad guy”
You make the massively incorrect assumption that just Because a weapon can accept a 30 round or more magazine you are going to use 30 rounds in a defensive situation. The statement is beyond ludicrous.
Next you make blanket statements about over penetration. There are specialized rounds designed not to penetrate walls called frangible bullets. Beyond that please go find a case where someone used an assault style cartridge in a home defense setting and they fired a round that over penatrated and hit an innocent bystander or family member.
What are AR/LCMs commonly used for ? Well, how about mass shootings? In about 50% of the mass shootings over the last 10 years, the weapon of choice was an AR.
And while I don’t think you even get to the presumption to shift the burden to the state to show a historical analogue, plenty of those exist. There were state bans before the federal AR ban and plenty more state bans when the fed ban expired.
Until SCOTUS tells us differently, states are free to enact AR and LCM bans. We just need a few more Sandy Hooks and Uvaldes for this to happen. And they will.
You sound as if you can’t wait for more mass shootings to happen so that you can applaud as totalitarianism rears it’s ugly head in the form of taking away a certain class of firearm.
-- Modified on 9/30/2023 11:39:13 PM
-- Modified on 9/30/2023 11:50:41 PM
Korean store owners did exactly that during the LA riots. People do it for burglars all the time. The .223 round is tiny, Mari. A .223 round is not likely to travel very far once it’s hit a target, be it a person, a wall or anything else. A common hunting rifle round like a .308 or a .30-06 would be far more likely to penetrate a wall and hurt an individual on the other side. It sounds to me that you’re under the false impression that AR-15’s are fully automatic. They aren’t. They fire not a bit faster than a common pistol like a Glock 19 or a Beretta 92. You pull the trigger, one bullet comes out. You release the trigger, the trigger cycles. You pull it again. Another bullet comes out. Every semi-auto firearm functions this way. It cannot fire any faster than you can wiggle your index finger back and forth. 
The heavy slug from a .45 ACP round is FAR more likely to go right through a body, then a wall and kill someone in the next room. That's why many prefer to use hollow-nose rounds in .45 cal. pistols. While they do more damage in the body of the primary target, they are far less likely to hurt anyone else because they stay in the body of the primary target.
Again quoting from the most recent case where this was litigated.
As to shooting through walls:
“Plaintiff's single survey on the reason for which the survey respondents reportedly bought their assault weapons does not demonstrate that assault weapons and LCMs possess characteristics that make them well-suited for self-defense. To the contrary, Donahue explains that because “[b]ullets fired by assault weapons or a modern weapon with an LCM will easily penetrate walls,” their use threatens family members or occupants of occupied dwellings, as illustrated by one instance in which a concealed carry permit holder accidentally fired his gun in a gun safety class, and the bullet passed through a wall to kill the gun store owner in the next room.”
Another good reason to stay out of gun stores. LOL>
Note also that assault rifles can shoot right thru police body armor and a significant number of police killed in the line of duty died from ARs. I will defer to you on the specific ammo you cite.
As to using ARs for for self defense, the peer reviewed data does not support your anecdotal view:
“Donahue also reports that “the vast majority of the time that an individual in the United States is confronted by violent crime, they do not use a gun for self-defense,” and that between 2007-2011, 99.2 percent of victims of violent crimes did not defend with a gun. (Id. ¶ 150.)[26]
Defendants, supported by Amici Brady and March for our Lives, contend that “the overwhelming body of case law and empirical data demonstrate that LCMs are not needed for ‘armed self-defense,'” nor are assault weapons commonly used in self-defense. (Brady Amicus at 2.)[27] Defendant's expert Lucy Allen's[28] research on incidents documented by The Heritage Foundation's database, which is meant to “highlight” stories of successful self defense, shows only 51 of the 2714 incidents, or 2%, involving any kind of rifle, with no further breakdown indicating whether those rifles were “assault weapons.”...
How about in mass shootings? Nope.
"Assault weapons are also rarely used defensively in mass shootings; of the 406 active shooter incidents since 2000 documented by the FBI, only one involved an armed civilian intervention with an assault weapon."
Geez-can’t you just be happy with a handgun?
…that wouldn’t also apply to any other rifle round. The .223 just happens to be the weakest common rifle cartridge.
All firearm safety training teaches to know what lies beyond your target. You don’t blind shoot at walls hoping for the best. No matter what caliber you’re firing, it is always the responsibility of the shooter to know what lies beyond your target.
All body armor has a particular rating. Most body armor is designed to stop slower handgun rounds. Rifle cartridges are much faster. Being able to pierce police body armor isn’t a reason to ban AR-15s. A standard bolt action hunting rifle would be able to pierce police body armor too.
AR-15s are also rarely used to commit crimes, including mass shootings. The vast majority of all gun crimes are committed with handguns.
This will be discounted by the gun grabbing left but…
Commie judges on the 9th circuit conspired to alter normal practice in order to grab a California appeals case from the normal three judge panel to an eleven judge en banc panel in the recent arms ban (30 round magazine ban) case. Judge Benitez had ruled the ban was unconstitutional. California made and emergency appeal. Up until this case, the normal course of business was for the emergency appeal to go to a three judge panel. It looks like the three judges that were going to get the case had previously ruled in agreement that the ban was unconstitutional. So the eleven judge en banc panel disregarded all previous practice and grabbed the case. We have to wait to see how they rule, but right at the moment it looks like they broke with tradition in order to side with California in it's unconstitutional behavior. There are 30 some judges in the 9th circuit, so it's unclear at this point how the eleven judge panel was selected in this instance. Smells fishy though. Just more liberal lawfare, completely disregarding tradition an thumbing their nose at the Supreme Court.
That was a bit unusual, but isn’t the reason obvious? The Ninth Circuit is going to reverse the judge because he made the same mistake you did –he enjoined enforcement of the ban on LCMs, even though they are not “commonly used for self defense” as Bruen commands. The Ninth Circuit already has stayed his ruling to keep large capacity magazines from flooding into the state.
LCMs simply are not commonly used for self defense- period. Even the confused guy who thinks ARs and LCMs fall within the Second Amendment effectively admits that this almost never happens (““You make the massively incorrect assumption that just Because a weapon can accept a 30 round or more magazine you are going to use 30 rounds in a defensive situation”) without realizing that he is making the case as to why LCMs are NOT so protected.
But thanks for pointing that case out to me. The judge did raise an interesting question I had not thought about – what if AR owners subjectively believe they need ARs and large capacity magazines for self -defense? I have no doubt there are some cowboys out there who genuinely believe this, and some drug dealers/ gang members who legitimately need this level of protection. The judge said this subjective belief plus sales is enough. The attorney general rightly says this argument is deeply flawed.
Let’s hope the Ninth Circuit does not fall for it. Take Willy’s Korean storeowner example. Suppose a Korean storeowner opened fire with a 30 plus magazine when the homeless people and kids broke down the door. Hundreds of BLM protesters are marching just yards away. What a bloodbath that would have been. Stand your ground defense? Not even close but we will save that for another day.
The blistering dissent by two 9th circuit judges is the first clue.
Oh wait yeah THATS WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED!!! And in one case (the Kenosha riots) Kyle Rittenhouse used an AR 15 to defend himself and last I checked, he only shot his attackers!!! Who btw were trying to KILL HIM!!! He didn’t use his 30 round magazine to hose down the crowd and kill 30 “innocent” people.
for more mass shootings to occur, I applaud totalitarianism, and I’m okay with break-ins during BLM protests. Thank you for your valuable contribution to the discussion about the Second Amendment.
In the last couple days there have been two court losses for Garland/Biden regarding guns. Both cases seem to be out of The Northern District of Texas.
.
The ghost gun ban aka VanderStok v Garland involved "frames and receivers" which Biden tried to claim were guns and thus could be regulated by the ATF. The court has granted an injunction prohibiting the enforcement of this administrative law for the named parties and the ATF has promised the court not to enforce it for non-named parties.
.
The pistol brace case, Mock v Garland, also issued and injunction against enforcing this administrative law. Pistol braces were quite common for years because they improved aiming accuracy. Biden/ATF decided to outlaw them overnight. Court wonders where they got that power. Here's a quote from the ruling...
.
"The Second Amendment prohibits government from infringing upon an individual’s right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.... This protects an individual’s “possession and use of weapons that are ‘in common use at the [present] time....” A weapon is in “common use” rather than “dangerous and unusual” if it is “commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes today.”
.
Note that the court again reaffirms the Supreme Court in ruling that a weapon is in "common use" for any "lawful purpose." They don't restrict certain types of guns to, say, target practice, hunting, trap shooting, or self-defense. Lawful purposes.
.
Also Hunter Biden pleads not guilty to gun charges. It is expected he will make a constitutional claim. Based on Bruen et al, there are several recent decisions where non-violent activities are not sufficient to exclude a citizen from possessing a weapon -- a presumptive right of all citizens. I expect Hunter Biden will eventually win that case seeing the recent trajectory of court decisions after Bruen.
Babies shooting at babies...god bless them kids.
Keeping the sprite alive, and fighting the good fight.
Transaction declined
Unfortunately it looks like your attempt to purchase VIP membership has failed due to your card being declined. Good news is that we have several other payment options that you could try.
We thank you for your purchase!
Membership should be activated shortly. You'll receive notification!