Multiple Victims Reported in Texas Mall Mass Shooting

originally posted by: Whiskermegistus

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Whiskermegistus

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: Whiskermegistus

CRIMINALS committing mass shootings are the business.

Your business is you don't like them so take them all away.

If AR 15s aren’t available to the public without a federal stamp , that would stop mass casualties in these shootings.

How many mass casualties were from AR-15's?

The top 10 out of the top 17 most deadly mass shootings since 2012 have been done with AR15s.
The Republicans shot themselves in the foot for years over the Roe v Wade ruling & soon will find that their massive unpopularity over said ruling will find them outside of Washington & losing the AR15 to history.
Enjoy your army toy now , because it’s days are numbered.
Regular gun owners in America are tired of the AR 15 & it’s tacticool crowd .
Only 16 million people in America own AR15s , but they own multiple & that is the delusion of it’s popularity.
Thats 1 in 20 people with at least an one AR15 & that is far far from popular when compared to bolt actions & shotgun owners of America .
Im a gun owner who is sick & tired of the radical AR15 crowd destroying our 2A for a useless civilian gun.

Yeah, uh-huh.

Need a citation Tex.

a reply to: Whiskermegistus

He has some Ar-10's too....and a 308...and a few handguns....

a reply to: Whiskermegistus

Uh huh, I'm sure you have.

Glad that gives you all the credentials YOU need to make your argument valid. Not actual numbers that support the argument, but your "most deadly" argument.

a reply to: DBCowboy

He has tried and failed, multiple times.

a reply to: Whiskermegistus

well you have your opinions but for the last few years the only "voice" that matters is the supreme court of the united states of america which banning specific types of fire arms would be a violation of the us constitution and they do not have a historical history of being done so and its going to have some interesting side effects both for the pro and anti gun crowd
fivethirtyeight.com...

Under the new ruling, state governments can no longer argue that a gun restriction should be upheld because it serves an important interest. Instead, judges will only consider whether “the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” In his opinion, Thomas noted that modern regulations don’t have to be a “dead ringer for historical precursors.” But as gun law experts have pointed out, figuring out whether modern gun regulations are similar enough to laws that were passed 200 years ago won’t be a simple matter. The ruling opens the door for every gun regulation that was upheld under the 2008 ruling to be challenged again — in a judiciary that is much more conservative than it was even a few years ago.

for example in texas (and only texas area so far) domesitic violence convictions no longer ban some one from owning fire arms as it has no historical context in the wider scope of us gun laws.

it also shows the brilliance of tomhas from a Pro gun stand point and how much much harder it will be to pass any new types of restrictions on the second amendment more so with the current court make up
slate.com...

But Thomas did not stop there. In striking down New York’s restriction, the justice also established a new standard for evaluating gun control measures. First, he asked whether a law interferes with rights protected in “the plain text” of the Second Amendment—specifically, the right to self-defense (which is not actually in the amendment’s text). If so, Thomas explained, that law is presumptively unconstitutional. The government may only save it from invalidation if it can prove that the regulation “is consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” In other words, courts may no longer rely on empirical evidence in upholding gun control laws. They cannot, for instance, cite the heightened lethality of a particular weapon. Such data is now irrelevant. Rather, they can only ask whether there is some “historical analogue” from 1791 (when the Second Amendment was ratified) or 1868 (when the 14th Amendment was ratified, applying the Second Amendment to the states). One might assume that this analysis would only shield weapons that were in common use in 1791 or 1868. But Thomas clarified that “any modern instruments that facilitate armed self-defense” are also protected under the Constitution, even if they did not exist until recently.

so there goes the standard "but they only had muskets argument that gets tossed out all the time as bluntly the ar-15 is the Musket/deer rifle of our day

then you throw in that MOST but not ALL of older gun laws were set up to deny various minorities from owning weapons(those laws wont be allowed to stand for other obvious constitutional reasons) and people trying to pass new gun laws are left with a very limited deck of cards to try to impose new gun laws. its also like the recent texas ruling leading to some new "surprises" that probably irk both sides of the gun debate like letting domestic violence perpetrators own fire arms again(in tex and lousiana area so far) MOST of modern gun control came about in the far far more recent time period and could have huge implications if certain laws are challenged under the Buran doctrine

some quick examples
1 most laws banning felons from owning guns date to around the 1960s(68 i belive) dont think this one is likely to be challenged by the nra for example but private indivuduals could and i dont think people on the pro or anti gun crowd want that outcome

2.most laws about banning guns in the workplace also are a more recent thing

3. heres a link(paywall) striking down Illinois attempt to do exactly what you want banning certian types of fire arms being blocked immediately as historically this has no context in us law

4. in theory but also not likely to be challenged at least yet is the tax stamp system for automatic,destructive devices,and explosives and short barreled rifles and shotguns(this one may be the likelyest to face a challenge) as in ye olden times no one really cared how long your barrel was

newrepublic.com... this link covers some more of the interesting aspects but go google old gun laws

this one gives examples of old timey gun laws gun-control.procon.org... like not arming catholics,native americans,or indentured servants and of course the laws baning blacks from owning guns in the south and asians in california that are likely not relevent to modern discussions but that make up the BULK of older gun laws . then take the conneticut law that MANDATED every male own a gun and bring them to town meetings and churches that could have some interesting implications going forward. also fun for some of the pro gun crowd some laws MANDATED immigrants own guns to even own land and move(it does not specify illegal or otherwise so that could be a fun one as well)

this one is probably the most interesting one "in historical context"

A 1792 federal law required that every man eligible for militia service own a gun and ammunition suitable for military service, report for frequent inspection of their guns, and register his gun ownership on public records. [101] Many Americans owned hunting rifles or pistols instead of proper military guns, and even though the penalty fines were high (over $9,000 in 2014 dollars), they were levied inconsistently and the public largely ignored the law. [105][106]

so pro gun side happy at mandatory ownership and fines if you dont BUT antigun side may very well want to pay attention to the mandatory registration aspect ,these provisions were at the federal level so the Buran decision has the capability to anger both sides if each side is smart enough to utilize it

but banning types? capacity? or name brands? not very likely to survive constitutional muster

a reply to: Whiskermegistus

You didn't ask as if you had multiple tools.

You asked what needed more than 10. That would take more than 10 ... way, way more.

An AR is basically a weapon for small to medium sized animals - rabbits to coyotes.

a reply to: Whiskermegistus



they did amend hipaa slightly to allow this but so far it has not had much of an impact on baring people from getting guns but it sure did make some people far more wary of getting medical treatment for anything
www.govinfosecurity.com...

But one privacy advocate is concerned the modification could have negative consequences. "The effect will be to discourage even more people from seeking mental health treatment," says Deborah Peel, M.D. , a practicing psychoanalyst and founder and chair of the advocacy group Patient Privacy Rights. "The language HHS uses cannot easily be understood by the public - they have no idea who 'HIPAA covered entities' are for example. "So many people are already wary of seeking treatment if their doctors or health professionals use electronic records, which they know are likely to be breached and will be widely disclosed," Peel says. "This rule will certainly discourage gun owners ... from seeking mental health treatment; all that they will hear is that mental health treatment can [land] them onto a list that goes to the government and might prevent them from buying firearms. The idea that a 'narrow subset' will be affected is simply too complex a message for the public to hear - all they will know is that people seeking mental health treatment will be reported to a federal database and limit their rights."

keep in mind this for those as adults forcibly admitted to a facility vs those that check them selves in and ALLOWS does not MANDATE reporting ,and in context of my other lengthy post will this survive a constitutional challenge under Buran? as historically the mentally ill were not banned from owning guns (even now they arent really)

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: DBCowboy

He has tried and failed, multiple times.

Well the mods who are right wing always come to your rescue. This site is filled with radical loons

originally posted by: Whiskermegistus

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: DBCowboy

He has tried and failed, multiple times.

Well the mods who are right wing always come to your rescue. This site is filled with radical loons

Lol.

What a weird way to say "i have not nor can I build an argument."

a reply to: Whiskermegistus

Yeah, blame the mods. Nobody has ever done that before....

Come back when you can build a decent argument and have sources to back it up. Besides the "I'm a hunter and I know more than you" argument.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Whiskermegistus

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: DBCowboy

He has tried and failed, multiple times.

Well the mods who are right wing always come to your rescue. This site is filled with radical loons

Lol.

What a weird way to say "i have not nor can I build an argument."

originally posted by: Whiskermegistus

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: DBCowboy

He has tried and failed, multiple times.

Well the mods who are right wing always come to your rescue. This site is filled with radical loons

Why the purple # is it that when the left can't support an argument, they blame the mods?

The mods are right, center and left.

This is free speech, kitten.

This is what actual free speech is like.

It's not an echo chamber, it's not a safe space.

It's different ideas that force people to think.

Is that what is bothering you?

Thinking?

a reply to: Moon68

Did someone say....Savage?

originally posted by: Whiskermegistus

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: DBCowboy

He has tried and failed, multiple times.

Well the mods who are right wing always come to your rescue. This site is filled with radical loons

What do you mean? Getting challenged to support your argument with linked evidence that has a working link is not the moderators' fault. That's just basic debate 101. It was one of the first things I learned on my first day taking debate class in school; you don't need any political leaning to learn that lesson.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Whiskermegistus

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: DBCowboy

He has tried and failed, multiple times.

Well the mods who are right wing always come to your rescue. This site is filled with radical loons

Why the purple # is it that when the left can't support an argument, they blame the mods?

The mods are right, center and left.

This is free speech, kitten.

This is what actual free speech is like.

It's not an echo chamber, it's not a safe space.

It's different ideas that force people to think.

Is that what is bothering you?

Thinking?

What ?
This site is well over a majority of right wing members. To argue there is free speech here is as goofy as believing ATS is not steered by right wingers.

The problem is the echo chamber this site has become.
You can have opinions but you don’t get to make up facts . AR15s are the gun involved in our Country’s most deadly mass shootings in the last 20 yrs . Those are the facts wether you like it or not .
For A Cellar Door 12 Is The Step
On Wheat Time 11 Is The Step

a reply to: Whiskermegistus

And yet, more people are killed by fists than AR15s per year.

To argue there is free speech here is as goofy as believing ATS is not steered by right wingers.

Which member is censoring you?

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Whiskermegistus

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: DBCowboy

He has tried and failed, multiple times.

Well the mods who are right wing always come to your rescue. This site is filled with radical loons

What do you mean? Getting challenged to support your argument with linked evidence that has a working link is not the moderators' fault. That's just basic debate 101. It was one of the first things I learned on my first day taking debate class in school; you don't need any political leaning to learn that lesson.

I have zero problem opening those links .

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Whiskermegistus

And yet, more people are killed by fists than AR15s per year.

To argue there is free speech here is as goofy as believing ATS is not steered by right wingers.

Which member is censoring you?

Yes fists are very deadly , but there are millions of pugilists events a year in America. What type of comparison were you trying to make , because your scientific method of comparative data is no where near comparable unless you are trying to prove my point of it being ridiculous
Which I just did for you .
That’s science

a reply to: Whiskermegistus

Science?

Lol
...k

AR15s are the gun involved in our Country’s most deadly mass shootings in the last 20 yrs

So, your goal by banning the AR 15 is to save lives, right? Otherwise why would you emphasize "most deadly?

So, I tell you that fists kill more people per year tham the AR15. And your ...um..scientific reaaoning is..."but pugulism exists!".
As does a myriad of shooting sports.......

So your point is moot. Also, its demosntrably not about saving lives for you, its about the weapon.


Why not handguns?
Why 10 rounds?



Look man, Ive been having this same argument for a long time. Youre going to have to up your game quite abit....or I can continue to make you look like a fool.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Whiskermegistus

Science?

Lol
...k

AR15s are the gun involved in our Country’s most deadly mass shootings in the last 20 yrs

So, your goal by banning the AR 15 is to save lives, right? Otherwise why would you emphasize "most deadly?

So, I tell you that fists kill more people per year tham the AR15. And your ...um..scientific reaaoning is..."but pugulism exists!".
As does a myriad of shooting sports.......

So your point is moot. Also, its demosntrably not about saving lives for you, its about the weapon.


Why not handguns?
Why 10 rounds?



Look man, Ive been having this same argument for a long time. Youre going to have to up your game quite abit....or I can continue to make you look like a fool.

Your delusions know no bounds .
Dunning Kruger is your mode of argument.