If Camrl to gets elected she has stated she will, by executive order institute a mandatory buyback of assualt rifles.  

Why do you lefties support this?

Serious question

When looking to purchase a gun you should always find a gun of the proper caliber, size and weight that when you fire the gun you maintain total and complete control of that gun, trigger pull after trigger pull……..AKA gun control

 

2024 = Trump270+

And stop being a dolt Lost. An XO does not supersede the constitution so it aint happening and of course you provide no link.

you cannot figure out it is another way of saying
kuntmala
kamaliar
scamala

First you ask about gun control in the subject. But them you ramble about the possible mandatory buyback of assault rifles. Two different things.

 
First, gun control is not about taking guns away from people. It's about doing our best to make sure they are not in the hands of the wrong people and there are protective measures. No one on either side wants school shootings, little kids finding guns and accidently shooting someone, and other uneccessary shootings of innocent people. I have no issue with someone who is using a gun properly for hunting or having it to protect themselves.

 
As for the buyback on assault rifles, that's because you don't need an assault rifle to hunt or protect yourself. There are other gun types for this need. An assault rifle is perfect for a mass shooting though. Get a clue.

There is no physical distinction between a rifle and an "assault rifle". It's a propaganda term.  
.
Semi-automatic IS useful in self-defense. The ability to fire more than once quickly is vital since there is a strong likelihood of not even hitting your attacker on the first shot, so timely additional shots are vital.
.
Large magazines are also vital since you may have more than one attacker and you may have difficulty hitting them and they may not stop after being hit with the first shot.
.
Rifles are vital in self defense because they are easier to aim, which of course is both a defense benefit and hitting the target is better for the safety of others nearby than missed shots.
.
Having just listed ALL the significant properties of "assault rifles" you can see there is no meaningful difference between a rifle and an "assault rifle" and the above features are vitally important in a defense role.

In your subject line you say “2 questions” and you label both “first”  failed grade school arithmetic I see.
Also neither in the form of a question ….grade school dropout I see.

 
If you think an AR style gun/rifle sold in gun stores throughout the US is and assault rifle/weapon you are wrong.
By most definitions an assault rifle/weapon is one that has a selector switch that the shooter can select either semi-automatic or full automatic ( some a third position for three round burst).

 
Now go look up the difference between semi-automatic and full automatic.

 
Full automatic weapons of any type are illegal to sell or to be used by civilians.

 
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault%20rifle

 
according to the Encyclopædia Britannica, an assault rifle is a selective-fire weapon that can fire both semi-automatic and fully automatic rounds. Selective fire means the shooter can choose between the two modes.  
In semi-automatic mode, the gun fires once for each trigger pull. In fully automatic mode, the gun continues to fire until the trigger is released. Some assault rifles also have a three-shot-burst mode.  
The U.S. Army defines an assault rifle as a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate-power cartridge. Assault rifles are shoulder-fired, rapid-fire, magazine-fed weapons that were first mass-produced during World War II. The German StG 44 was the first assault rifle to see widespread use.  
However, the term "assault weapon" is sometimes used to describe a wide range of firearms used by civilians. Some say that the term "assault weapon" is used to mischaracterize semi-automatic firearms, such as the AR-15, which only fire one round per trigger pull. Others say that assault weapons are high-powered semi-automatic firearms that can fire rounds with up to four times the muzzle velocity of a handgun. These rounds can cause more damage to the human body, and semi-automatic weapons can load and fire faster than manually operated firearms. When combined with high-capacity magazines, they allow the shooter to fire more rounds quickly without reloading.  

 
As for hunting with an AR style riffle.
http://www.michiganoutofdoors.com/do-you-need-an-ar-15-to-hunt-deer/

 
http://www.northamericanwhitetail.com/editorial/ar-style-rifles-deer-hunting/370094#replay

 
http://www.nssf.org/msr/

 
http://www.huntstand.com/fieldnotes/choosing-an-ar-15-for-deer-hunting/

Show me all the times someone legitimately used and needed a semi automatic for self defense.  In most cases they were used at close range. Unless they mentally changed in learning how to shot straight, they didn’t need them. Your argument is the typical one used, but it’s baseless. Guess how many were used in mass shootings. More than 25% of the time. Because you know what, they are great for taking out multiple people in a short time.

NOT every rifle is a semi-automatic. The word "rifle" refers to a long gun with a rifled bore. That's IT. And a basic rifle is BOLT ACTION and can't be used even in semi-automatic form.
Fester knows NOTHING about weapons and is a complete IDIOT.

I support some restrictions but not a ban.  Owners should have had Military training in one of the service branches on how to properly use a high-powered weapon like this, or else condition the sale of the assault rifles on completion of a training and safety course at a government-licensed gun range.  

IMO, all gun ownership should involve training and passing a test. You wouldn’t give a driver’s license to someone who can’t pass a written and driving test. Why give a gun to someone who cannot do the same? Now some states already do this, but many do not. I don’t quite understand why everyone outside of the gun companies who want to sell more guns wouldn’t want this as a prerequisite to getting a gun license.

You need to alter the Constitution.  You don't need "training" to exercise your 1rst amendment right to free speech.  As the SCOTUS similarly concluded, the right to bear arms is not a secondary right and therefore there is no "test" needed to exercise it.   Whether you think this specific line of inquiry is wrong, be advised that it was explicitly raised in the SCOUTS decision.  It's is now the law of the land.  If you are a member of "the people" you have a right to bear arms.  The court ruled that denial of such a right must be based on history and tradition of such restrictions and the time period for such history is circa the time of the adoption of the bill of rights.  Not the 20th century.  

Define "legitimately."  If it is just a test of your opinion, then it's a fool's errand.  If it is based on lack of convictions for murder, then Kyle Rittenhouse usage is a "legitimate" example of use of an AR-15 to defend himself, as he was found "not guilty" and is therefore and forever presumed innocent as a matter of law.

You seem to not comprehend my point. Not being found guilty simply means the person using it likely was doing so in self defense. On average, there are 5 of these per year. And, TBH, if this was the only way they were used we would not be having this debate as I wouldn't mind it as much. What I am saying is did they really need it vs. another gun type. Kyle Rittenhouse is the perfect example. He used it from up close. Unless he is untrained and/or incompent, he did not need an AR-15. This is my point. If the rationale is one's right to protect themselves, the question to answer is not if they used it to protect themselves or not. The question is did they need it or were other gun types that are not perfect for mass shootings good enough for their protection needs. My arguement stands that there are enough other gun types that anyone with proper training and a decent level of compentency can use them to meet their needs.

You literally spent the first 3 paragraphs adding zero substance to this conversation. At least Fester tried to stick to making a point. You just come in here and whine and moan like a pathetic drunk. How many beers you popping back every night? 10? 12? 15? I mean seriously, this is mostly a bitchy rant about a bunch of nonsense that makes no counterpoint. You're just complaining about what I said.  

 
But okay then there is the last paragraph where you try. That could have been how you started, but no you prefered to moan and groan. First off, he is not the majority, he just says he is. BS. Then he rambles about taking the guns away. NO WAY IS TAKING THEM AWAY IDIOT. He starts by talking about hunting and sporting rifles. Those are not AR-15 semi automatic weapons. I have no issues with those guns other than wanting to make sure the person owning them is properally trained and doesn't have a history of mental health issues and/or criminal use of weapons. If they are law abiding and they are mentally sound, they sould be allowed these type of weapons. Then he rambles about an AR-15 not being a military weapon. That is not the point. The point is why it is needed for personal use. I addressed this already.  

 
Now put your beers down and try for a second to understand the point I am making. I am not saying you have to agree. You are entitled to your opinion. But if you're going to whine about my choice of words and say stupid things like getting rid of all cars, don't bother. That's just bitching and adds nothing to the conversation. But if you want to make some valid counterpoints, go for it. I'm open to reasonable debate.

Lester really hit the nail on the head in the post above.

The “need” argument discussed further upthread gets negated because it doesn’t pass constitutional scrutiny.

Another problem with the government imposing training requirements is that it becomes a sort of poll tax that ends up making only the wealthy and elite to have access to firearms. Some states have used increasing ownership costs on gun owners by trying to impose exorbitant taxes on ammunition. This also prices out the poor and lower middle class, while at the same time creating the conditions for a black market for ammunition.

More bitching about me and no point to make about the actual argument. Why is this? Because you have none. GTFO.

So basically you don't care if a pyschotic imbecile has guns because it is his constitutional right? Maybe you should read the contitution, or at least the 2nd Amendment if you are going to site it. Here's a little something:

 
"Supreme Court affirmed for the first time that the right belongs to individuals, for self-defense in the home, while also including, as dicta, that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those forbidding 'the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill' or restrictions on 'the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons'."

 
You notice that felons and mentally ill don't get this right? How do you think we are supposed to figure out who these people are? You also noticed that it does not include dangerous and unusual weapons? Well, what are these types of weapons? This part is somewhat subjective and left for debate. You can debate and pass laws to attemtp to calrify this piece. So, an AR-15 can or cannot be included. This is open for debate.

 
But okay, you are also focused on the training part. Well guess what, nothing in the words "right to bear arms" says you cannot require proper training to get a gun license. In fact, as I previously stated, some states already do require it. Not needing training is just your opinion. It is not written law. You have chose to believe it is implied and therefore it is your constitutional right. Your only right is the right to bear arms. States have the authority to create a process to protect everyone, which is the gun control debate. Some, like you, believe that any control is taking away your constitutional right. Some, like me, do not believe this is the case. I believe that if a process is created that allows anyone who meets said criteria to get a gun, than that right is still being upheld. I do not believe having protections is wrong because of the right to bear arms.

The 9th Circuit just blocked the California law that allowed only one gun purchase every 30 days. There are never ending appeals on this stuff but as of today Californians can buy as many guns as they want.
.
The court nullified the law ruling that the state was unlikely to win on appeal since the law is likely unconstitutional.

Okay, you broke it down, and I will break it down. And, you debated and kept it respectful, so I wll too. I appreciate respectful debate.

 
Just to be clear, I was not suggesting self defense as defined by law. I was suggesting that it's the likely situation. Also, key word is likely. I am aware it's not the only reason. But it's much harder to be proven innocent if you shot someone unprovoked and do not claim you felt any threat whatsoever. Using the reasonable man doctrine for example, one would likely not say it's reasonable to just shoot someone because you think they look funny. They would say it's reasonable because you felt they were a threat. This might not by law standards be defined as self defense, but it's pretty much self defense in praticality.

 
Not sure you understand the average of 5 per year. That is in fact the average number of self defense situations, as defined by people either not charged or found innocent in the court of law, who killed someone using an AR-15 to defend themselves. To be even more clear, this is in the US. We are not even close to having data from the rest of the world. Where are you getting 750,000 to 1.5 million, or is it that you misunderstood what I was saying?

 
I disagree that someone who knows how to use guns needs an AR-15 to shoot accurately. That is suggestion that all other legal guns are inferior and only the AR-15 would do the job. BS.

 
What makes it good for mass shooting? Maybe the fact that it can release 400 rounds per minute. Maybe the fact that it can reach speeds of up to six football fields. Holly shit you kidding me with this question? You can fuck up a lot of people with these killing machines.

They're scary because they are the preferred choice of weapons for mass shooters. I can see why you think they are good for a number of things. Likely, these mass shooters do as well. Again, to be clear, I'm not saying all rifles. Just semi automatic. Not sure why you specifically need a semi automatic. I don't see the need to be able to quickly shoot multiple bullets.

 
So, clearly, you and I were talking about something different with the numer of AR-15's used for self defense. If no bullet was fired, you can very easily argue many other guns on the market would have the same impact. If the argument is about something they do better, well that only would matter when they are actually used. Not held and pointed. Actually trigger pulled and shot. And, in those cases, I'm saying I highly doubt other guns, or other rifles, could not have done just as good of a job.

 
I will clarify. 400 rounds per minute would require a bump stock modification. Without one, you're looking more at 60 rounds per minute. Why on earth is that many bullets, even 60, needed for one minute?

 
Sorry, on the football fields. I honestly meant distance. Speed was a typo. And yes almost all bullets go fast. But some go faster, and the AR-15 is one of the faster bullets out there. Again, I question the need for what it can do and feel would be better off without them.

Willy - Gun License Don't Exist

Me - Click on the link below if you want to apply for one

Willy - But they don't exist and you know nothing about guns

Me - Did you click the link?

Willy - No because I know it's not true and I ignore proof

Okay Willy, settle down, because you got something right. A gun license is for those selling them. You are right, for people who own guns a permit is what they need. But you really had to get your panties in a bunch because I called it a license? The details you get caught up in have nothing to do with the actual debate. Calm down and focus.

The fact is this conversation is shifted so far off topic and that is because you get caught up in the details that have nothing to do with the debate. I have not once pretended to be an expert on guns or gun ownership. I have my opinions on who should own them, and the law does support not allowing them in the hands of the mentally ill or those with past criminal records, albeit not just any criminal records. This was covered already.

 
We clearly disagree on the need for AR-15s. That's fine. We don't have to agree. We clearly disagree on the idea that people should be trained if they are going to be allowed to use guns. And, TBH, I don't care if they are trained by their dad or buddy. It's about passing a test similar to what is required for someone to be allowed to drive a car. And again, us disagreeing is fine. I do not need to be a gun owner or an expert to have an opinion on these things.

 
But this current debate over a license vs. a permit vs. conceal carry license, it's not really part of my debate or point. You've disapeared in the woods on this one.

and you, sir, are way, way off on many points.

             My knowledge -I personally know nothing about guns. My bias- hate the Second Amendment.

 But let’s go with what has been litigated rather than my bias, or the NRA or Brady talking points.

“They're scary because they are the preferred choice of weapons for mass shooters.”  
 
              Willy - Not really. That’s media hype. Vast majority of all shootings, even mass shootings are handguns. FBI data confirms this.  

               Dead wrong. Not media hype- facts. Take out domestic shooting and this is not even debatable. Zeel is almost quoting the law. Said  the Fourth Circuit last week in upholding Maryland’s  ban on statutory assault weapons:

“AR-15s are disproportionately used in mass shootings: one recent examination found that although AR-platform rifles constituted about 5% of the firearms in the United States, they were used in 25% of mass shootings. Rupp, 2024 WL 1142061, at *11. Moreover, in a grim testament to the gun's deadliness, mass shootings are over 60% more deadly when an AR-15 or similar assault rifle is used. See id. ("[O]ver the past ten years, there have been 12.9 fatalities per shooting when an assault rifle is used in a mass shooting, as opposed to 7.8 fatalities per shooting where an assault rifle is not used."). Four of every five "mass shootings that resulted in more than 24 deaths involved the use of assault rifles," id., as did every single mass shooting involving more than 40 deaths, see The Violence Project, Mass Shooter Database (database updated Jan. 2024). In short, the AR-15 and other assault rifles are the preferred weapons for those bent on wreaking death and destruction upon innocent civilians. "Their utility for mass killing has made the AR-15 and similar assault rifles the most popular arms for terrorist attacks in the United States..."  

            Willy-  What particular aspect of an “assault rifle” makes it perfect for a mass shooting?

Extraordinary lethality,  over- penetration, large capacity magazines, combat functional features – the opinion goes on and on about this.

 
               Willy - “There is no such thing as a gun license.”

Better not try that in New York when you are felony arrested for not having a gun license:

“It is a crime in New York to possess "any firearm" without a license, whether inside or outside the home, punishable by up to four years in prison or a $5,000 fine for a felony offense, and one year in prison or a $1,000 fine for a misdemeanor. See N. Y. Penal Law Ann. §§ 265.01–b (West 2017), 261.01(1) (West Cum. Supp. 2022), 70.00(2)(e) and (3)(b), 80.00(1)(a) (West 2021), 70.15(1), 80.05(1). Meanwhile, possessing a loaded firearm outside one's home or place of business without a license is a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison. §§ 265.03(3) (West 2017), 70.00(2)(c) and (3)(b), 80.00(1)(a).

A license applicant who wants to possess a firearm at home (or in his place of business) must convince a "licensing officer"—usually a judge or law enforcement officer—that, among other things, he is of good moral character, has no history of crime or mental illness, and that "no good cause exists for the denial of the license." §§ 400.00(1)(a)–(n) (West Cum. Supp. 2022). If he wants to carry a firearm outside his home or place of business for self-defense, the applicant must obtain an unrestricted license to "have and carry" a concealed "pistol or revolver." § 400.00(2)(f ). “

             Are assault weapons commonly bought for self defense? Yes, by idiots like Alex Jones and many NRA members. Are they actually used for self defense - rarely according to the statistics in this case.  

 
             SCOTUS denied cert on the Illinois assault weapon ban last month. But there are two votes to include assault weapons within the Second Amendment c they are commonly bought for self -defense.  Let’s hope Kamala wins and we don’t have to see Trump replace Sonia with Aileen Cannon. But, until that happens, assault weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment.

1) You CAN own a shotgun or bolt-action rifle without a permit.
2) Since 2022 you must have a permit to purchase an AR and you must be at least 21.
3) ANY pistol must be licensed. It is true, as you stated, that character references are required. And the permit is ONLY for a specific pistol or pistols. Mine, for example, lists the name and serial number of the pistol I own.

that would not be covered by the quote  
I provided which is from the 2022 SCOTUS opinion in Bruen which struck the public carry license requirement that the applicant demonstrate a special need for self defense. But the quote is provided to convince Willy that his notion that  
“There is no such thing as a gun license” is certainly wrong as far as New York is concerned.

I certainly have not looked at the laws myself.

But that is how Justice Thomas described the NY license regime as of that date.

Because you also quoted a line that is incorrect. "It is a crime in New York to possess "any firearm" without a license" That is just flat-out wrong. It has NEVER been a crime to own a shotgun or a bolt-action rifle. Not before 2022 and not after.

Go look it up and report back to the class.

Willy, help me understand how the LA Korean shop owners could use an AR-15 for self defense

 
I’ll set the stage for you. A bunch of kids break into the Nike shop in Koreatown Plaza  to steal some Air Jordans followed by several homeless looking for food. The Korean shopowners open fire with 50 round large cap magazines to protect their property. They  gun down the kids and the homeless with a  few quick bursts.  Except the 50 rounds don’t stop there. They go right  through the kids, right through the store walls, and right through the car doors killing anyone unlucky enough to be caught in traffic on the adjoining street and travel 350 yards killing anyone else in their path.  

I’m driving down I 10 on my way to NOBU IN Maibu but even I have to dodge bullets.

 
 Now we have a self defense mass shooting.

OF course AW are illegal in California subject to  the status of the latest Second Amendment lawsuits but seriously aren’t these weapons utterly useless in a crowded urban setting for self defense of property?

 
the heightened firepower of AR-15s "pose[s] a serious risk of 'over-penetration'-that is, [bullets] passing through their intended target and impacting a point beyond it." Capen, 2023 WL 8851005, at *15. For example, AR-15 rounds "can pass through most construction materials, even at ranges of 350 yards," thereby threatening the lives of "bystanders, family members, or other innocent persons well outside the intended target area." Id.; see also Kolbe, 849 F.3d at 127 ("[R]ounds from assault weapons have the ability to easily penetrate most materials used in standard home construction, car doors, and similar materials."). Overpenetration poses a grave risk in the home-"where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute," Heller, 554 U.S. at 628-because firing an AR-15 in close quarters will often put the safety of cohabitants and neighbors in jeopardy, see Worman v. Healey, 922 F.3d 26, 37 (1st Cir. 2019).

Bianchi v. Brown, 21-1255 (4th Cir. Aug 06, 2024)

When he does that, he is referring to firearms as defined in the statute, not the ordinary meaning of “firearm.” Since you seem interested,  I looked it up and we see it depends on the length of the shotgun or rifle

 

3. "Firearm" means (a) any pistol or revolver; or (b) a shotgun having one or more barrels less than eighteen inches in length; or (c) a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length; or (d) any weapon made from a shotgun or rifle whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise if such weapon as altered, modified, or otherwise has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches; or (e) an assault weapon; or (f) any other weapon that is not otherwise defined in this section containing any component that provides housing or a structure designed to hold or integrate any fire control component that is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a pro...

NY PEN Law 265.00 Definitions (Laws of New York (2024 Edition)). I assume this was on the books when he wrote the opinion in 2022. Unlikely that a S CT justice would make an error like that.

is meant to ban "sawed-off" or concealable long guns. Thus leaving the basic shotgun and bolt-action rifle purchasable without a license. Most shotguns have a 26-28" barrel. Most hunting rifles have a 22-24" barrel.

There's actually a practical distinction that's worth discussing: standard bullets vs. hollow point. The latter are considered inhumane because they cause huge internal damage. However, a hollow point bullet is far less likely to pass through one victim's body, go through a wall and hit someone in the next room. I don't use hollow points but there's actually an argument for them.

And then he lied. Again.
He's a dickless wonder. And everyone knows it.
PS: thanks for another link I won't open. Neither will anyone else.

Not to mention he has no clue where I actually am and can't even correctly read a time code. Thus he is WRONG again on all counts. He never seems to tire of make a fool of himself. It's the one thing he's actually good at. That and repeating everything I say.
So repeat after me....

Ain’t that right… Cletus😂😂

I honestly have no idea what "he" is talking about. Would someone please translate? I don't speak gibberish.

When all you have left is bitching and moaning insults, you have clearly run dry.

Which is why I rarely post here anymore. All they have are grievances, hate, and insults.  Trying to educate, or even attempt a reasonable debate, is a complete waste of time.

I'm one of the least angry persons there is. I'm not angry at you. I am laughing at your simple mindness.

We all know zeel4cock is never angry but is very calm, serene, and in bliss  
when he has a …. (well you know) in his mouth or elsewhere.  

 
But really should swallow before he posts.

You lefties believe that if AR15s went away the US would be a safer place?

SPOAT now takes a second title: MEPE.
Most Embarrassing Poster EVER.

END OF MESSAGE

END OF MESSAGE