The Second Amendment, and the legal guns, and illegal guns.

TKDB

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6087386270001/#sp=show-clips

"Officials: Oklahoma woman, 18, threatened to 'shoot 400 people for fun' at former high school

Sep. 18, 2019 - 0:45 - An Oklahoma woman’s threat to 'shoot 400 people for fun' at her former high school has been foiled. An anonymous tip to the police helped take the 18 year old would-be gunman down."

AlofRI

The Second Amendment gives U.S. the right to bear arms. I have no objection to that, in fact I applaud it. 

The Second is (was) intended to protect a fledgling country from being "taken over" by outsiders OR insiders that didn't care to follow our Constitution. It was calculated to protect us in the musket era when we had a single shot and it took over a minute to reload (on average). It does NOT say we can own ANY weapon we wish. It calls for a "well regulated militia", which, today, is The National Guard. Local soldiers trained to do their job to protect their territory and families from tyranny. It was NOT intended to allow the overthrow of the American Government if some group felt that necessary. The Congress, Senate and Executive Branch … in unison … was intended to prevent that need. 
Abuse of the second has killed more Americans from within than all of the wars we have fought outside our borders. We have a RIGHT to bear arms, but, we have a RIGHT to protect our families also! Their RIGHT to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" is the most important "fundamental" right, over and above the right of some juvenile minds to have "whatever toy they think they have a right to". I loved to shoot. I loved a beautiful or antique gun that was actually a work of art. I have NO objection to people having them and I KNOW there will be accidents OR illegal actions with them. However, we DO NOT NEED a weapon of war, intended to kill as many as possible in the shortest time …. and render most of them NOT killed damaged beyond further resistance. Safety regulations on the streets, in the workplace, in the homes have saved MANY thousands of lives. Safety regulations with guns have done the same. Those regulations need improvement, too many are dyeing. Your wife, husband, mother, child may be next! Let's grow up and face FACTS! WE, in small groups, cannot stop tyranny. WE, together, CAN reduce the cause of more deaths than WAR!

TKDB

@AlofRI

I'm of the impression, that the NRA, in a sense is like a Unionized Organization, that represents their members, but not the rest of the Public, as a whole?

If it represented the country, as a whole, it would tout the entire US Constitution, instead of, the Second Amendment, as it does, publicity wise via Twitter, and their own website?

So, just as, not every citizen owns a gun, the NRA, apparently represents their members, but not the non gun owning citizens of the United States?

TKDB

https://www-cnn-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.cnn.com/style/amp/bstroy-school-shooting-sweatshirts/index.html?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQEKAFwAQ==#aoh=15688436994902&referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.cnn.com/style/article/bstroy-school-shooting-sweatshirts/index.html

Fashion

"American fashion brand sparks outrage over school shooting-themed hoodies"

"Written by Emily Dixon, CNN

American fashion brand Bstroy has received fierce criticism on social media after displaying school shooting-themed hoodies at a show during New York Fashion Week.

The brand's spring/summer 2020 collection, designed by Brick Owens and Duey Catorze, featured distressed hoodies reading "Stoneman Douglas," "Sandy Hook," "Virginia Tech" and "Columbine," the sites of four of the deadliest school shootings in the US."

"Photos from the show posted on the brand's Instagram account, as well as Owens' account, quickly drew outrage, with some commenters identifying themselves as survivors or relatives of victims."

"On a photo of the Stoneman Douglas hoodie, one person commented, "My dead classmates dying should not be a (blank) fashion statement."

"Another commented on a photo of the Columbine design: "As a victim of Columbine, I am appalled. This is disgusting. You can draw awareness another way but don't you dare make money off of our tragedy."

"On Twitter, a spokesperson for the Vicky Soto Memorial Fund, established after teacher Victoria Soto was killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School, posted, "This is just absolutely horrific. A company is make light of our pain and other's pain for fashion. Selling sweatshirts with our name and bullet holes. Unbelievable." 

"Owens posted a handout from the show on Instagram, which reads, "Sometimes life can be painfully ironic. Like the irony of dying violently in a place you considered to be a safe, controlled environment, like school."

"We are reminded all the time of life's fragility, shortness, and unpredictability yet we are also reminded of its infinite potential."

CNN has contacted Bstroy for comment. 

To the NRA, and the pro gun extremists crowd, you've helped to create an unhealthy environment in the United States, through your individualized, pro gun rhetoric messaging. 

Vaulk

AlofRI said:

The Second Amendment gives U.S. the right to bear arms. I have no objection to that, in fact I applaud it. 

The Second is (was) intended to protect a fledgling country from being "taken over" by outsiders OR insiders that didn't care to follow our Constitution. It was calculated to protect us in the musket era when we had a single shot and it took over a minute to reload (on average). It does NOT say we can own ANY weapon we wish. It calls for a "well regulated militia", which, today, is The National Guard. Local soldiers trained to do their job to protect their territory and families from tyranny. It was NOT intended to allow the overthrow of the American Government if some group felt that necessary. The Congress, Senate and Executive Branch … in unison … was intended to prevent that need. 
Abuse of the second has killed more Americans from within than all of the wars we have fought outside our borders. We have a RIGHT to bear arms, but, we have a RIGHT to protect our families also! Their RIGHT to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" is the most important "fundamental" right, over and above the right of some juvenile minds to have "whatever toy they think they have a right to". I loved to shoot. I loved a beautiful or antique gun that was actually a work of art. I have NO objection to people having them and I KNOW there will be accidents OR illegal actions with them. However, we DO NOT NEED a weapon of war, intended to kill as many as possible in the shortest time …. and render most of them NOT killed damaged beyond further resistance. Safety regulations on the streets, in the workplace, in the homes have saved MANY thousands of lives. Safety regulations with guns have done the same. Those regulations need improvement, too many are dyeing. Your wife, husband, mother, child may be next! Let's grow up and face FACTS! WE, in small groups, cannot stop tyranny. WE, together, CAN reduce the cause of more deaths than WAR!

Firstly, the 2nd Amendment doesn't specify types of weapons.  It specifically says "Arms" and in the context of the constitution, "Arms" means "Weapons".  Just about anything can be used as a weapon and the founding Fathers knew this.  At the time it was written, available weapons that ANYONE could easily obtain included: 

1. The Brown Bess Musket, a .75 caliber rifle...that round is large enough to bring an Eighteen Wheeler to a dead stop if you shot it into the engine block.  For christ's sake it's a war crime to shoot .50 caliber at human beings in TODAY'S U.S. Military and back when the 2nd Amendment was written...citizens owned .75 caliber weapons.
2. The Howitzer - For anyone unfamiliar, this was one of the first artillery weapons of the time, capable of killing scores of people with a single shot over extreme ranges not possible with a standard firearm.  Not only were these available to private citizens at the time but the largest collections of Howitzers were in possession of the citizens...not the Military.
3. Hand Grenades - Not a well known fact and certainly not as prevalent as later on but yes, people owned hand grenades.
4. The 32mm Puckle Gun (Revolving Cannon)
5. The Kalthoff Repeater - The fastest firing weapon of the era at 50 rounds per minute.
6. The Girandoni air rifle - A 20 round, magazine fed rifle capable of firing 1 round every 3-4 seconds.

Secondly, the Militia is not and never was the National Guard.  Where does this stuff come from?!  I keep hearing this malapropism, "Militia means Army" and it's flat wrong.  It's not partially correct, based on truth or even close to the truth.  "A well regulated militia" CANNOT be the National Guard because the National Guard is under the direct control of the State Government.  How is "Government tyranny" supposed to be deterred by a Government controlled entity?  

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms…  "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Lastly, your point about the abuse of the 2nd Amendment being responsible for the death of American Citizens.

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

This was said over 240 years ago by one of our most prominent founding fathers and it's just as true today as it was back then.

And I still haven't EVER heard back from you on my challenges against your claims that groups of people cannot stand up to an Army.  I'm sorry but you're horribly misinformed about that.  Whoever told you that a standing Army can defeat a small guerilla force apparently never heard of Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan.

TKDB

@Vaulk

(U.S. citizens own 393 million guns in the U.S.
While the U.S. military has 4.5 million guns.)

"And I still haven't EVER heard back from you on my challenges against your claims that groups of people cannot stand up to an Army.  I'm sorry but you're horribly misinformed about that.  Whoever told you that a standing Army can defeat a small guerilla force apparently never heard of Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan."

Are there "guerilla force groups," of US citizens, in the country, that you're maybe aware of, that haven't made the Nationwide news yet? 

TKDB

@Vaulk

Tell the Public your thoughts?

A 38 special, 40 cal, 45 cal, 44 magnum, 357 magnum, 22 long rifle, 12 gauge, or 20 gauge shotgun.

Are the above guns, unsuitable for basic home, or property protection, based on your opinions? 

Educate the Public, on why an assault rifle style weapon, is maybe, more suitable for a home or property protection, based on your opinions? 

Because an AR-15 seems kind oh heavy handed, when a 9mm, or a 12 gauge shotgun, would to me, be good for home or property protection. 

Vaulk

TKDB said:

@Vaulk

(U.S. citizens own 393 million guns in the U.S.
While the U.S. military has 4.5 million guns.)

"And I still haven't EVER heard back from you on my challenges against your claims that groups of people cannot stand up to an Army.  I'm sorry but you're horribly misinformed about that.  Whoever told you that a standing Army can defeat a small guerilla force apparently never heard of Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan."

Are there "guerilla force groups," of US citizens, in the country, that you're maybe aware of, that haven't made the Nationwide news yet? 

Yes, there have been guerilla force groups of U.S. citizens in the country that actually made Nationwide news.

The Bundy Militia
The Militia formed at the Battle of Athens Tennessee
These were all guerilla force groups that used guerilla tactics in the United States of America.

Below is a list of the Militias (Guerilla force groups of U.S. Citizens in the United States) who train regularly in guerilla warfare.

3 Percenters[22]	nationwide
Arizona Border Recon[23]	Arizona, Sasabe
Hutaree[24]	Michigan, southern
Idaho Light Foot Militia[25]	Idaho, statewide
Michigan Militia[26]	Michigan, Redford
Militia of Montana[27]	Montana, Noxon
Missouri Citizens Militia[28]	Missouri, statewide
Missouri Militia[29]	Missouri, Kansas City
New York Light Foot Militia[30]	New York, statewide
Oath Keepers[31]	nationwide
Ohio Defense Force[32]	Ohio, statewide
Pennsylvania Military Reserve[33]	Pennsylvania
Texas Light Foot Militia[34]	Texas, statewide

TKDB

@Vaulk

Are you, maybe a member, of one of those groups that youve alluded to? 

Vaulk

TKDB said:

@Vaulk

Tell the Public your thoughts?

A 38 special, 40 cal, 45 cal, 44 magnum, 357 magnum, 22 long rifle, 12 gauge, or 20 gauge shotgun.

Are the above guns, unsuitable for basic home, or property protection, based on your opinions? 

Educate the Public, on why an assault rifle style weapon, is maybe, more suitable for a home or property protection, based on your opinions? 

Because an AR-15 seems kind oh heavy handed, when a 9mm, or a 12 gauge shotgun, would to me, be good for home or property protection. 

Any gun can be suitable for home or property protection.  

Again, I'm still not sure what you're referring to when you say "Assault style weapon".  If you're talking about the AR-15 then yes, it's a great weapon for home and property defense because:

1.  It has incredible accuracy, at impressive ranges...making it extremely versatile (Useful in many different types of situations).
2.  It has low recoil (Meaning it doesn't kick NEARLY as much as a shotgun which can easily knock you off your feet) 
3.  High magazine capacity (More rounds to shoot at intruders before having to reload).
4.  It's lightweight compared to almost every other rifle on the market. You can wield it, your wife can wield it and your kids can wield it. AR-15s are averaging 6.5lbs whereas almost all hunting rifles are over 7 lbs and shotguns are on average 8 lbs.
5.  Loading and unloading are incredibly simple compared to non-magazine fed rifles.  
6.  It's amazingly easy to clean and maintain yourself.

Lastly the reason an AR-15 is better than ALL the handguns you mentioned and the two shotgun types is because between Handguns, Shotguns and the so called "High powered assault style rifle" (AR-15) the Pistols and Shoguns over-penetrate the MOST.  That means when you're going to shoot a bad guy in your house and you're worried that the bullet might go through him and then penetrate a wall in your home and hit your kids or your wife on the other side of the wall...PISTOLS overpenetrate the MOST of ALL three types.  .38 Special, .40 Cal, .45 Cal, .44 Magnum, .357 Magnum ALL overpenetrate consistently and will VERY likely go through the bad guy, through the wall behind them and may end up hitting your own family members.

Next up after pistols is SHOTGUNS.  Shotguns over-penetrate only 2nd to pistols and, again, you run the serious risk of killing your own family members because of over-penetration.  

The AR-15 consistently passes the over-penetration testing and of all types of soft point ammo, the .223 ammunition is the ONLY round that didn't exit the house during testing.

So all of the reasons above are the reasons why the AR-15 is better in EVERY way than handguns or shotguns for home defense, but mostly because you don't have to worry about killing your neighbors if you miss the intruder and hit your interior wall.

All information from these numbers can be found below and come from FBI testing of .223 and 5.56mm (Typical AR-15 ammunitions).

http://preparedgunowners.com/2016/07/14/why-high-powered-5-56-nato-223-ar-15-ammo-is-safer-for-home-defense-fbi-overpenetration-testing/

TKDB

@Vaulk

Thank you for your AR-15 clinic.

"Lastly the reason an AR-15 is better than ALL the handguns you mentioned and the two shotgun types is because between Handguns, Shotguns and the so called "High powered assault style rifle" (AR-15) the Pistols and Shoguns over-penetrate the MOST.  That means when you're going to shoot a bad guy in your house and you're worried that the bullet might go through him and then penetrate a wall in your home and hit your kids or your wife on the other side of the wall...PISTOLS overpenetrate the MOST of ALL three types.  .38 Special, .40 Cal, .45 Cal, .44 Magnum, .357 Magnum ALL overpenetrate consistently and will VERY likely go through the bad guy, through the wall behind them and may end up hitting your own family members.

Next up after pistols is SHOTGUNS.  Shotguns over-penetrate only 2nd to pistols and, again, you run the serious risk of killing your own family members because of over-penetration.  

The AR-15 consistently passes the over-penetration testing and of all types of soft point ammo, the .223 ammunition is the ONLY round that didn't exit the house during testing.

So all of the reasons above are the reasons why the AR-15 is better in EVERY way than handguns or shotguns for home defense, but mostly because you don't have to worry about killing your neighbors if you miss the intruder and hit your interior wall."

So the takeaway is this, a gun engineered for combat, is apparently more suitable to some, than sensible home defense is, with a 38, 9mm, or a 40 cal, or a 45 cal, is? 

@Vaulk

https://www-wired-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.wired.com/2016/06/ar-15-can-human-body/amp?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQEKAFwAQ==#aoh=15688988227514&referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.wired.com/2016/06/ar-15-can-human-body/

"What an AR-15 Can Do to the Human Body"

When a patient is shot by an AR-15, it "looks like a grenade went off in there."

AR-15 rifles are displayed on the exhibit floor during the National Rifle Association (NRA) annual meeting in Louisville, Kentucky, on Friday, May 20, 2016.

LUKE SHARRETT/BLOOMBERG/GETTY IMAGES

"All guns can kill, but they do not kill equally.

Compare the damage an AR-15 and a 9mm handgun can do to the human body: “One looks like a grenade went off in there,” says Peter Rhee, a trauma surgeon at the University of Arizona. “The other looks like a bad knife cut.”

The AR-15 is America’s most popular rifle. It has also been the weapon of choice in mass shootings from Sandy Hook to Aurora to San Bernardino. In Orlando, the shooter used a Sig Sauer MCX, an AR-15 style rifle originally developed for special ops, to kill 49 people in the Pulse nightclub. The carnage sparked new calls to reinstate a ban on assault rifles like the AR-15, which were designed as weapons of war.

It’s possible to argue about everything when it comes to the politics of guns---including about the definition of “assault rifle” itself---but it’s harder to argue about physics. So let's consider the physics of an AR-15.

A bullet with more energy can do more damage. Its total kinetic energy is equal to one-half the mass of the bullet times its velocity squared. The bullet from a handgun is---as absurd as it may sound---slow compared to that from an AR-15. It can be stopped by the thick bone of the upper leg. It might pass through the body, only to become lodged in skin, which is surprisingly elastic.

The bullet from an AR-15 does an entirely different kind of violence to the human body. It’s relatively small, but it leaves the muzzle at three times the speed of a handgun bullet. It has so much energy that it can disintegrate three inches of leg bone. “It would just turn it to dust,” says Donald Jenkins, a trauma surgeon at University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. If it hits the liver, “the liver looks like a jello mold that’s been dropped on the floor.” And the exit wound can be a nasty, jagged hole the size of an orange."

"These high-velocity bullets can damage flesh inches away from their path, either because they fragment or because they cause something called cavitation. When you trail your fingers through water, the water ripples and curls. When a high-velocity bullet pierces the body, human tissues ripples as well---but much more violently. The bullet from an AR-15 might miss the femoral artery in the leg, but cavitation may burst the artery anyway, causing death by blood loss. A swath of stretched and torn tissue around the wound may die. That’s why, says Rhee, a handgun wound might require only one surgery but an AR-15 bullet wound might require three to ten."

"Then, multiply the damage from a single bullet by the ease of shooting an AR-15, which doesn’t kick. “The gun barely moves. You can sit there boom boom boom and reel off shots as fast as you can move your finger,” says Ernest Moore, a trauma surgeon at Denver Health and editor of the Journal of Trauma and Acute Surgery, which just published an issue dedicated to gun violence."

"Handguns kill plenty of people too, of course, and they’re responsible for the vast majority of America’s gun deaths. But a single bullet from a handgun is not likely to be as deadly as one from an AR-15."

The above article, is another educational  Clinic, within itself.

TKDB

@Vaulk


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Paddock

From Wikipedia:

"Paddock meticulously planned the attack.[62] On September 25, six days before the shooting, he checked into the hotel[63] with 10 shooting-range bags and a computer. On September 29, he moved into another suite, 32-134, connected to the first one; both rooms overlooked the festival grounds. He stayed in both in the days leading up to the shooting.[54] After Paddock killed himself, the police found 23 rifles and one handgun inside his rooms.[64][65] They included 14 .223-caliber AR-15-type rifles, eight .308-caliber AR-10-type rifles, one .308-caliber Ruger American bolt-action rifle, and one .38-caliber Smith & Wesson Model 342 revolver,[66] all very expensive, according to a law enforcement source.[67] His arsenal included a large quantity of ammunition in special high-capacity magazines, holding up to 75,[67] or up to 100 cartridges each.[68] Some of the rifles were resting on bipods,[67] and were equipped with high-tech telescopic sights.[69][70] All fourteen AR-15-type rifles were outfitted with bump fire stocks that allow semiautomatic rifles to fire rapidly, simulating fully-automatic gunfire.[66][71] Audio recordings of the attack indicated Paddock used these stocks to fire at the crowd in rapid succession.[72][73][74] "

An individual, could look at the above information, and wonder, if Mr. Paddock, was possibly a pro gun extremist, or a prepper?

AlofRI

@Vaulk ;

"There's going to be a special place in hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument." A good thing for us ALL to remember, hmmm??

Arguing about just what is considered an assault weapon, or whatever else is an equally dangerous weapon is a bit childish. We. You, I and everyone else in this country have a right to bear arms. We agree. However we ALL SHOULD have enough common sense to stay away from weapons we do not NEED. Weapons that are "killing machines" and are intended for just that. We might need a weapon that can kill for self preservation and the preservation of our family, but we do NOT need one that can wipe out our neighborhood. To protect your home, in almost all instances, you are likely to get off 2 to 4 shots before you, or your assailant are dead or injured. Are you going to sleep with an AR15 "locked and loaded" beside your bed?? Not likely. But you may, and probably do …. with your apparent fears … sleep with a loaded handgun within reach. I never have, and I'm still here after over 80 years in this "dangerous country". 

The amount of fear generated in this country today is largely due to the fact that so many Americans HAVE so many guns, and have generated SO MUCH FEAR of their fellow armed (and fearsome) Americans that need so much firepower to not be afraid.   That's kind of a circular firing squad of the mind! We need a safe America, as it always WAS, (before we so heavily armed ourselves to BE safe)!

W... eirdos
E... xpressing
A... ggressive
P... athologies
O... n
N... ormal
S... ociety 

TKDB

@Vaulk



http://vpc.org/publications/start-them-young-tactical-rifles-for-kids/

“Start Them Young” – “Tactical” Rifles for Kids

"From gun magazines, to websites, to social media, two things become clear. For some gun owners there is almost a race to the bottom to see how young a child can be to handle, and eventually possess, a gun. At the same time, there’s not infrequently an inverse trend to see how powerful a gun the child can handle."

"Photos of very young children with high-powered firearms can be found on websites and social media such as Facebook"

"Writing for Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) in 2014, JPFO writer contributor Nicki Kenyon explains:

When my son was 4 years old, we decided it was time to introduce him to gun safety. He couldn’t quite tie his shoes yet, but we knew we had guns in the house, and we knew we needed to instill good habits early, because it was literally a matter of life and death. His father was a police officer, and I was active in gun rights, and made it a point to be armed as much as possible. I still do. It’s a matter of life and death….

I can’t remember how old he was, exactly, when he shot his first firearm – I think he was probably 8 years old – but I know he was around 10 when he shot his first machine gun. I remember when he was about 6 years old, I sent him to my bedroom to get some paperwork that was on his father’s night stand. He called down to me and said, ‘Mommy! Daddy’s pistol is sitting on top of the paperwork. Do I have your permission to move it?’ That’s when I knew we taught him well…."

"My son was lucky. He was legally allowed to handle firearms in Virginia. We took him to the range. He shot a variety of firearms – rifles, pistols, machine guns and shot guns. He has had his own eye and hearing protection since he was in elementary school, and he received his first Mossberg Plinkster when he was approximately 9.17"

"And while Kenyon describes her child’s climb up the ladder of firepower with equal doses of pride and rationalization, four months later the risks of putting a full-auto machine gun into the hands of a child was illustrated to the nation with horrific clarity. On August 25, 2014, 39-year-old firearms instructor Charles Vacca, a father of four, was shot and killed at the Last Stop gun range when he was teaching a nine-year-old on vacation with her family in Las Vegas how to shoot an UZI submachine gun. The girl lost control of the weapon as the result of the full-auto weapon’s recoil. The gun climbed up out of her control and she unintentionally shot Vacca in the head. The girl then dropped the weapon and ran to her family, who huddled around her as she held her shoulder.18"

"In the comments section of an online article from the NRA’s American Hunter magazine titled “Choosing Your Child’s First Gun,” readers detailed the ages at which they felt their own sons and daughters were ready for their first gun: five, six, seven, and older. One of the points raised in the article was the fact that the recoil from many guns can hurt child shooters. As a Virginia Beach gunsmith told the author, “The first thing you want to avoid is to not overgun your kid…You try to give an 8-year-old kid a .308 or some blowaway magnum and it’s going to be too much. It will just make the child recoil shy and that’s the worst thing you can do to a kid.” The author added, “Not only will it hamper their ability to become accurate, but it may chase them away from the sport before they’ve even really had the chance to get into it, according to many experts. Every time they shoot, they’ll be thinking, ‘this gun is going to kick the heck out of me,’ and if that thought is on their mind, they’ll never be able to shoot accurately.”19

Photo from NRA’s 2014 Great American Outdoor Show (Sue Roman) "

 "One reader did take issue with the author’s reticence on recommending an AR-15 assault rifle as a first gun for an eight- or 10-year-old child, writing, “If you teach your child proper firearms basics an AR is the perfect way to go. I built my six year old son one and he loves it.”20

For those who don’t want to wait to put an assault rifle in their children’s hands, but do have concerns about recoil and the weight of the weapon, a growing industry-wide trend toward 22 caliber assault rifles, often utilizing plastic resulting in lighter weight, has taken hold and is expanding. An additional frequently cited benefit is the relatively low cost of .22 ammunition, particularly for those who wish to train with the weapon.21 As one author noted in Shooting Sports Retailer in discussing 22 caliber AR-style assault rifles: “these guns bring the coolness and fun of the tactical rifle to kids and less serious shooters….”22 Throughout the industry, 22 caliber versions of higher-caliber assault rifles are increasingly common and frequently cited in the context of marketing guns to children:

• The product description for a .22 Bushmaster AR-15 model at the Gander Mountain Sports website states: “Designed for the indoor range and the youth shooter, this Carbon15 .22 LR Rimfire lightweight is sure to add new dimensions to your Bushmaster shooting pleasure. Operational controls are functionally and ergonomically identical to AR-15 type rifles….”23

• “INTRODUCING THE NEW SIG522 Rifle” says a Sig Sauer ad for a new 22 caliber assault rifle that appeared in the Summer 2011 edition of Junior Shooters. [see later section Junior Shooters: “For Kids By Kids”] Under the headline “DOUBLE TAKE,” the text reads, “It looks like the legendary SIG556, but look again. It’s the SIG522 Rifle firing affordable .22LR. The new SIG522 has the look, feel, and action of the classic military-style SIG556 rifle…yet it costs much less, and fires affordable .22LR rounds. The full-size semi-auto SIG522 features a button rifled barrel with flash suppressor, light weight aluminum receiver with integral Picatinny rail, Swiss-style folding stock, and a 25-round magazine. To find out more about how to get the look, feel, action, and dependability of the SIG556, combined with .22LR caliber affordability, check out the new SIG522 at www.sigsauer.com – on the double!“ [Emphasis in original]24 "

Junior Shooters, Summer 2011

• An article in Junior Shooters exclaims, “One of the best dedicated AR-type .22 rifles to come out in the last couple of years is Smith & Wesson’s M&P15-22. The M&P15-22 is built with high-strength polymer upper and lower receivers. This creates a reduced-weight rifle that retains the looks and operating features of the standard M&P rifle. Let me tell you, this rifle rocks!”25

• A December 2013 review published on the website of Bill’s Gun Shop & Range promises that the “Beretta ARX 160 in .22 LR is the company’s fun version of their current military carbine that was designed in 2008. The military versions come chambered in 5.56x45mm NATO, 5.45x39mm Soviet, 6.8mm Remington SPC and 7.62x39mm Soviet. Along with the Italian Army it is also being fielded by Albania, Egypt, Kazakhstan, the Mexican Federal Police and Turkmenistan. The U.S. was in the process of evaluating it as a replacement for the M4 before the replacement process of [sic] cancelled.” At the end of the glowing review, the shop concludes, “December is the perfect month for Bill’s to offer this carbine as their Gun of the Month as plenty of kids (both young and old) will have a military replica .22 on their Christmas list. The Beretta ARX 160 is a great choice and the holiday gives you the perfect excuse to buy one and act like it is a gift for your son or daughter. Just be sure to bring them to the range and let them shoot it every once in a while.”26 Surrounded by candy canes, a bow, and ribbon, the assault weapon is the gun dealer’s “December Gun of the Month.”

December “Gun of the Month” from the website of Bill’s Gun Shop and Range

The appeal of the Beretta assault rifle to youth was made clear at the 2014 NRA-sponsored Great American Outdoor Show in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. At the Beretta display at the show, a constant stream of young children, some alone, others accompanied by their parents, were drawn to the models of the gun, as well as other Beretta assault weapons, as these photographs of the Beretta display at the show illustrate.

  

 
Photos from the Beretta display at the NRA’s 2014 Great American Outdoor Show. (Sue Roman)

So how could some of the above pictures, be viewed, or interpreted?

One) As an advertising tool, to showcase guns to the public?

Or, Two) As a quiet initiation tool? 

CYDdharta

Vaulk said:

TKDB said:

@Vaulk

(U.S. citizens own 393 million guns in the U.S.
While the U.S. military has 4.5 million guns.)

"And I still haven't EVER heard back from you on my challenges against your claims that groups of people cannot stand up to an Army.  I'm sorry but you're horribly misinformed about that.  Whoever told you that a standing Army can defeat a small guerilla force apparently never heard of Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan."

Are there "guerilla force groups," of US citizens, in the country, that you're maybe aware of, that haven't made the Nationwide news yet? 

Yes, there have been guerilla force groups of U.S. citizens in the country that actually made Nationwide news.

The Bundy Militia
The Militia formed at the Battle of Athens Tennessee
These were all guerilla force groups that used guerilla tactics in the United States of America.

Below is a list of the Militias (Guerilla force groups of U.S. Citizens in the United States) who train regularly in guerilla warfare.

3 Percenters[22]	nationwide
Arizona Border Recon[23]	Arizona, Sasabe
Hutaree[24]	Michigan, southern
Idaho Light Foot Militia[25]	Idaho, statewide
Michigan Militia[26]	Michigan, Redford
Militia of Montana[27]	Montana, Noxon
Missouri Citizens Militia[28]	Missouri, statewide
Missouri Militia[29]	Missouri, Kansas City
New York Light Foot Militia[30]	New York, statewide
Oath Keepers[31]	nationwide
Ohio Defense Force[32]	Ohio, statewide
Pennsylvania Military Reserve[33]	Pennsylvania
Texas Light Foot Militia[34]	Texas, statewide

More importantly, by current US law, almost every US citizen that is a candidate for military service already IS a member of the militia of the United States;

10 U.S. Code § 246. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

TKDB

@CYDdharta

"More importantly, by current US law, almost every US citizen that is a candidate for military service already IS a member of the militia of the United States;"

So basically you're mirroring what Vaulk already lamented over.

It's awfully telling when some US citizens are tight lipped about what they choose to lament over, verses what they choose not to lament over?

The NRA, utilizes the same tight lipped attitude.

And it's a hypocritical attitude, to utilize.

When citizens are killing citizens every day, with legal, and illegally owned guns. 

And the Second Amendment, is their apparent, one paragraph, "Bible," behind their pro gun extremist, ideologies?

TKDB

About the NRA:

"Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America's oldest civil rights and sportsmen's group. More than five million members strong, NRA continues to uphold the Second Amendment and advocates enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation's leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the armed services. Be sure to follow the NRA on Facebook at NRA on Facebook and Twitter @NRA. "

Does this mean that every GUN in the United States, is covered by this civil rights and sportsmens group?

I ask the question, because I've yet to see the NRA, or the pro gun extremists crowd, in general, have separate conversations over the illegal gun problem in the U.S.?

But, at the same time GUNS, in general, and those LEGAL gun owners garner plenty of lip service from both the NRA, and the pro gun extremists crowds themselves?

Can the NRA, explain that glaring discrepancy?

@Vaulk

@CYDdharta

Can either of you, explain that glaring discrepancy?

And along that line of thought, there are other Civil Rights groups, that individually recognize separate groups of citizens in the U.S., that fail to recognize the Public as whole, when it comes to their individual Civil Rights rhetoric talking points?

TKDB

From the NRA on Twitter:


"NRA

@NRA

“This is a non-starter with the

@NRA

and our 5M members because it burdens law-abiding gun owners while ignoring what actually matters: fixing the broken mental health system and the prosecution of violent criminals.” –Jason Ouimet,

@NRAILA

's exec director

Leaked background check plan sows chaos on Hill

politico.com "

A follow-up question, for the NRA representatives:

How do you personally know, or are aware, that all of your 5 million members, are law abiding citizens?

Do you, the NRA, have your own Background Check System, in place, for your 5 million law abiding gun owners? 

On who's words, are you, maybe basing your NRA statements on?

TKDB

From the NRA on Twitter:

"NRA

@NRA

Read

@NRA

CEO and EVP Wayne LaPierre’s statement on NRA lawsuit against San Francisco: (1/2)

10:08 PM · Sep 9, 2019·Twitter Web App "

Hey NRA, what about confronting the illegal gun issue, that is plaguing the U.S.?

Aren't those illegal guns discriminatory, towards the overall Public safety of every citizen in the US, or is your apparent focus towards the legal gun owners only?

Wouldn't that notion be discriminatory towards the rest of the citizens, who don't own a gun?

John_C_87

TKDB said:

@Vaulk



http://vpc.org/publications/start-them-young-tactical-rifles-for-kids/

“Start Them Young” – “Tactical” Rifles for Kids

"From gun magazines, to websites, to social media, two things become clear. For some gun owners there is almost a race to the bottom to see how young a child can be to handle, and eventually possess, a gun. At the same time, there’s not infrequently an inverse trend to see how powerful a gun the child can handle."

"Photos of very young children with high-powered firearms can be found on websites and social media such as Facebook"

"Writing for Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) in 2014, JPFO writer contributor Nicki Kenyon explains:

When my son was 4 years old, we decided it was time to introduce him to gun safety. He couldn’t quite tie his shoes yet, but we knew we had guns in the house, and we knew we needed to instill good habits early, because it was literally a matter of life and death. His father was a police officer, and I was active in gun rights, and made it a point to be armed as much as possible. I still do. It’s a matter of life and death….

I can’t remember how old he was, exactly, when he shot his first firearm – I think he was probably 8 years old – but I know he was around 10 when he shot his first machine gun. I remember when he was about 6 years old, I sent him to my bedroom to get some paperwork that was on his father’s night stand. He called down to me and said, ‘Mommy! Daddy’s pistol is sitting on top of the paperwork. Do I have your permission to move it?’ That’s when I knew we taught him well…."

"My son was lucky. He was legally allowed to handle firearms in Virginia. We took him to the range. He shot a variety of firearms – rifles, pistols, machine guns and shot guns. He has had his own eye and hearing protection since he was in elementary school, and he received his first Mossberg Plinkster when he was approximately 9.17"

"And while Kenyon describes her child’s climb up the ladder of firepower with equal doses of pride and rationalization, four months later the risks of putting a full-auto machine gun into the hands of a child was illustrated to the nation with horrific clarity. On August 25, 2014, 39-year-old firearms instructor Charles Vacca, a father of four, was shot and killed at the Last Stop gun range when he was teaching a nine-year-old on vacation with her family in Las Vegas how to shoot an UZI submachine gun. The girl lost control of the weapon as the result of the full-auto weapon’s recoil. The gun climbed up out of her control and she unintentionally shot Vacca in the head. The girl then dropped the weapon and ran to her family, who huddled around her as she held her shoulder.18"

"In the comments section of an online article from the NRA’s American Hunter magazine titled “Choosing Your Child’s First Gun,” readers detailed the ages at which they felt their own sons and daughters were ready for their first gun: five, six, seven, and older. One of the points raised in the article was the fact that the recoil from many guns can hurt child shooters. As a Virginia Beach gunsmith told the author, “The first thing you want to avoid is to not overgun your kid…You try to give an 8-year-old kid a .308 or some blowaway magnum and it’s going to be too much. It will just make the child recoil shy and that’s the worst thing you can do to a kid.” The author added, “Not only will it hamper their ability to become accurate, but it may chase them away from the sport before they’ve even really had the chance to get into it, according to many experts. Every time they shoot, they’ll be thinking, ‘this gun is going to kick the heck out of me,’ and if that thought is on their mind, they’ll never be able to shoot accurately.”19

Photo from NRA’s 2014 Great American Outdoor Show (Sue Roman) "

 "One reader did take issue with the author’s reticence on recommending an AR-15 assault rifle as a first gun for an eight- or 10-year-old child, writing, “If you teach your child proper firearms basics an AR is the perfect way to go. I built my six year old son one and he loves it.”20

For those who don’t want to wait to put an assault rifle in their children’s hands, but do have concerns about recoil and the weight of the weapon, a growing industry-wide trend toward 22 caliber assault rifles, often utilizing plastic resulting in lighter weight, has taken hold and is expanding. An additional frequently cited benefit is the relatively low cost of .22 ammunition, particularly for those who wish to train with the weapon.21 As one author noted in Shooting Sports Retailer in discussing 22 caliber AR-style assault rifles: “these guns bring the coolness and fun of the tactical rifle to kids and less serious shooters….”22 Throughout the industry, 22 caliber versions of higher-caliber assault rifles are increasingly common and frequently cited in the context of marketing guns to children:

• The product description for a .22 Bushmaster AR-15 model at the Gander Mountain Sports website states: “Designed for the indoor range and the youth shooter, this Carbon15 .22 LR Rimfire lightweight is sure to add new dimensions to your Bushmaster shooting pleasure. Operational controls are functionally and ergonomically identical to AR-15 type rifles….”23

• “INTRODUCING THE NEW SIG522 Rifle” says a Sig Sauer ad for a new 22 caliber assault rifle that appeared in the Summer 2011 edition of Junior Shooters. [see later section Junior Shooters: “For Kids By Kids”] Under the headline “DOUBLE TAKE,” the text reads, “It looks like the legendary SIG556, but look again. It’s the SIG522 Rifle firing affordable .22LR. The new SIG522 has the look, feel, and action of the classic military-style SIG556 rifle…yet it costs much less, and fires affordable .22LR rounds. The full-size semi-auto SIG522 features a button rifled barrel with flash suppressor, light weight aluminum receiver with integral Picatinny rail, Swiss-style folding stock, and a 25-round magazine. To find out more about how to get the look, feel, action, and dependability of the SIG556, combined with .22LR caliber affordability, check out the new SIG522 at www.sigsauer.com – on the double!“ [Emphasis in original]24 "

Junior Shooters, Summer 2011

• An article in Junior Shooters exclaims, “One of the best dedicated AR-type .22 rifles to come out in the last couple of years is Smith & Wesson’s M&P15-22. The M&P15-22 is built with high-strength polymer upper and lower receivers. This creates a reduced-weight rifle that retains the looks and operating features of the standard M&P rifle. Let me tell you, this rifle rocks!”25

• A December 2013 review published on the website of Bill’s Gun Shop & Range promises that the “Beretta ARX 160 in .22 LR is the company’s fun version of their current military carbine that was designed in 2008. The military versions come chambered in 5.56x45mm NATO, 5.45x39mm Soviet, 6.8mm Remington SPC and 7.62x39mm Soviet. Along with the Italian Army it is also being fielded by Albania, Egypt, Kazakhstan, the Mexican Federal Police and Turkmenistan. The U.S. was in the process of evaluating it as a replacement for the M4 before the replacement process of [sic] cancelled.” At the end of the glowing review, the shop concludes, “December is the perfect month for Bill’s to offer this carbine as their Gun of the Month as plenty of kids (both young and old) will have a military replica .22 on their Christmas list. The Beretta ARX 160 is a great choice and the holiday gives you the perfect excuse to buy one and act like it is a gift for your son or daughter. Just be sure to bring them to the range and let them shoot it every once in a while.”26 Surrounded by candy canes, a bow, and ribbon, the assault weapon is the gun dealer’s “December Gun of the Month.”

December “Gun of the Month” from the website of Bill’s Gun Shop and Range

The appeal of the Beretta assault rifle to youth was made clear at the 2014 NRA-sponsored Great American Outdoor Show in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. At the Beretta display at the show, a constant stream of young children, some alone, others accompanied by their parents, were drawn to the models of the gun, as well as other Beretta assault weapons, as these photographs of the Beretta display at the show illustrate.

  

 
Photos from the Beretta display at the NRA’s 2014 Great American Outdoor Show. (Sue Roman)

So how could some of the above pictures, be viewed, or interpreted?

One) As an advertising tool, to showcase guns to the public?

Or, Two) As a quiet initiation tool? 

Children can hold guns both left and right handed.

Vaulk

I'm loving the "Yea but" arguments coming back my way.  "Just keep throwing arguments until one sticks, pay no mind that the past 6 of your arguments have failed and been successfully negated".  

When you make an argument and someone comes along and defeats it, you cannot simply say "Yea but" and move on to the next argument in your arsenal.  You concede that your argument is invalid and THEN you may attempt a 2nd, 3rd, 4th attempt at presenting alternative arguments.  

Complete and total failure to concede your defeated arguments speaks VOLUMES about your motives for debating as well as what you're willing to do to win your argument.

CYDdharta

Yeah, but he's pro-puppy dog, pro-fuzzy bunny slippers, and pro-heartwarming cup of Tweek's coffee on a sunny summer's day.

TKDB

@John_C_87

And "Teenage Children" have used guns to kill other kids with.

From Wikipedia in regards to the Columbine High School mass shooters:

Eric David Harris (April 9, 1981 – April 20, 1999) and Dylan Bennet Klebold (/ˈkliːboʊld/; September 11, 1981 – April 20, 1999) were an American mass murder duo who killed 13 people[n 1] and wounded 24 others[n 2] on April 20, 1999 at Columbine High School in Columbine, Colorado. This became known as the Columbine High School massacre.[1] Harris and Klebold were seniors at the school at the time of the shooting. Both perpetrators committed suicide in the library, where they had killed 10 of their victims.[2] The pair have become what the Napa Valley Register have called "cultural icons" for some people.[3] Their shooting spree still remains today as one of the most infamous shootings in history. The shooting would also go on to cause a moral panic in society, leading schools to implement zero tolerance policies towards bullying and weapons on school grounds.[4][5] 

"Children can hold guns both left and right handed."

TKDB

@Vaulk

"Are you, maybe a member, of one of those groups that youve alluded to?"

@Vaulk, who are you pandering to, with the below rhetoric?

"I'm loving the "Yea but" arguments coming back my way.  "Just keep throwing arguments until one sticks, pay no mind that the past 6 of your arguments have failed and been successfully negated".  

When you make an argument and someone comes along and defeats it, you cannot simply say "Yea but" and move on to the next argument in your arsenal.  You concede that your argument is invalid and THEN you may attempt a 2nd, 3rd, 4th attempt at presenting alternative arguments.  

Complete and total failure to concede your defeated arguments speaks VOLUMES about your motives for debating as well as what you're willing to do to win your argument."

@Vaulk

Your rhetoric speaks volumes, to how you continue to peddle your pro gun extremists ideology.

@Vaulk, Are you member of the NRA? 

TKDB

@CYDdharta

What does the below, have to do with the theme of the forum?

"Yeah, but he's pro-puppy dog, pro-fuzzy bunny slippers, and pro-heartwarming cup of Tweek's coffee on a sunny summer's day."

"The Second Amendment, and the legal guns, and illegal guns."

Zero, is the answer. 

@CYDdharta, Are you an NRA member, as well? 

I'm pro family, and pro Public safety.

And I'm beginning to wonder, exactly how many of the legal, and illegal gun owners, in the U.S., are actually pro family, and pro Public safety oriented, when legal, and illegally owned guns, are used to kill citizens, across the country each day? 

TKDB

The AR-15 is in the news:

@Vaulk

@CYDdharta

https://www-foxnews-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.foxnews.com/us/colt-suspending-production-of-ar-15-for-civilians.amp?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCKAE=#aoh=15689470753883&csi=1&referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.foxnews.com/us/colt-suspending-production-of-ar-15-for-civilians

"SECOND AMENDMENT

Published September 19, 2019

Last Update 6 hrs ago

Colt suspending production of AR-15 for civilians"

By Louis Casiano | Fox News

"The venerable gun manufacturer Colt is suspending production of the popular and controversial AR-15 and other long rifles for civilian use, as lawmakers continue the fraught gun debate following a series of mass shootings.

The company's president and chief executive, Dennis Veilleux, said that the consumer market has "experienced significant excess manufacturing capacity," and that Colt believes there are enough rifles on the market for the foreseeable future.

Colt will instead focus on fulfilling military and law enforcement contracts.

ARIZONA GUN STORE'S 'BETO SPECIAL' SELLS OUT IN FOUR HOURS

"Currently, these high-volume contracts are absorbing all of Colt’s manufacturing capacity for rifles," Veilleux said in a statement. "We believe it is good sense to follow consumer demand and to adjust as market dynamics change." 

"In this Aug. 15, 2012, photo, three variations of the AR-15 rifle are displayed at the California Department of Justice in Sacramento, Calif. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli, File)

Veilleux reaffirmed the Connecticut-based company's commitment to the consumer market and the Second Amendment. He said Colt would still supply revolvers and pistols and is expanding its network of dealers.

"Colt has been a stout supporter of the Second Amendment for over 180 years, remains so, and will continue to provide its customers with the finest quality firearms in the world," he said.

The move comes as gun manufacturers and dealers have come under intense pressure following a series of lethal shooting sprees involving AR-15-style weapons. Democratic White House contender Beto O'Rourke, who's from El Paso, Texas, where one of those massacres occurred, said recently that would confiscate military-style weapons from gun owners if he captures the presidency.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"Yes," said O'Rourke, who doubled down on his position during a recent appearance on CNN's "Cuomo Prime Time, "When it comes to AR-15s and AK-47s, weapons designed for use on a military battlefield, the high-impact, high-velocity round that is fired from those weapons. When it comes to those weapons ... the answer is yes."

Walmart recently announced it would stop selling handguns in Alaska and short-barrel rifle and handgun ammunition nationwide. 's Sporting Goods pulled hunting rifles from 125 of its stores earlier this year."

I wonder what the NRA, and their members, might express in light of this ongoing development?

Because SO FAR, the NRA, is being tight lipped on the "Colt" manufacturing news. 

And their current Twitter feed, remains mum on the subject. 

John_C_87

TKDB said:

@John_C_87

And "Teenage Children" have used guns to kill other kids with.

From Wikipedia in regards to the Columbine High School mass shooters:

Eric David Harris (April 9, 1981 – April 20, 1999) and Dylan Bennet Klebold (/ˈkliːboʊld/; September 11, 1981 – April 20, 1999) were an American mass murder duo who killed 13 people[n 1] and wounded 24 others[n 2] on April 20, 1999 at Columbine High School in Columbine, Colorado. This became known as the Columbine High School massacre.[1] Harris and Klebold were seniors at the school at the time of the shooting. Both perpetrators committed suicide in the library, where they had killed 10 of their victims.[2] The pair have become what the Napa Valley Register have called "cultural icons" for some people.[3] Their shooting spree still remains today as one of the most infamous shootings in history. The shooting would also go on to cause a moral panic in society, leading schools to implement zero tolerance policies towards bullying and weapons on school grounds.[4][5] 

"Children can hold guns both left and right handed."

Yeah, I doubled checked and still none of that was in the pictures.

There had been plenty of report of gun's found prior in other schools to suggest a pending lethal force incident was going to make place. The 2nd Amendment was a warning label placed on the liberty of imposing the weight of lethal force on others. Had the warning been believed, honored, and proper measures taken. In the presentation of a upcoming danger such guild lines as those made from fires, earth quakes and other disasters would have insured that students and faculty would have been given access to basic shields.

TKDB

More gun violance:

https://mobile-reuters-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1W507C?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCKAE=#aoh=15689824988284&referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-washingtondc-crime-idUSKBN1W507C

"Police hunt for two armed with assault rifle in fatal shooting in Washington D.C.

 

"(Reuters) - Police hunted for two suspects believed to be armed with an assault rifle on Friday after one person was killed and five were wounded in a shooting on the streets of Washington, D.C., about two miles (three km) from the White House.

The victims had been standing in an apartment building courtyard in Washington's Columbia Heights neighborhood when the drive-by shooting took place on Thursday night, Metropolitan Police commander Stuart Emerman said.

One man was killed and two of the five wounded were in critical condition, he said."

"Two suspects were seen in a Nissan sedan and used an "AK style rifle", police said in statement. The incident was now over, it added.

"Detectives are interviewing witnesses and looking for camera footage," Emerman said.

ABC affiliate WJLA-TV showed ambulances carrying victims from the scene and said there had been a massive police response at the intersection of 14th Street and Columbia Road.

With mass shootings and gun violence a regular feature of American life, controversy over the use of assault rifles has entered the 2020 presidential race, with candidate and former U.S. Representative Beto O'Rourke declaring at a Democratic debate that he would confiscate such rifles."

Rescue vehicles are seen following a shooting in Washington, D.C., U.S. September 19, 2019, in this picture obtained from social media. Mandatory credit CHRIS G COLLISON/via

REUTERS"

"O'Rourke has made gun safety the centerpiece of his campaign since late August, when his hometown of El Paso, Texas, was the site of a racially motivated mass shooting that killed 22 people inside a Walmart store.

"But the gun debate has long been divisive in U.S. politics and many Republicans and the powerful gun lobby the National Rifle Association resist further restrictions on gun ownership."

"Republican Vice President Mike Pence has decried the gun-control stance and accused the Democrats as having a "radical agenda".

A (Radical Agenda,) is what gun violence crimes looks like.

The gun violence in the United States is a Republican, Democrat, and NRA problem.

And people are getting either killed or wounded, while these three groups of individuals fight over the Second Amendment, as it currently written.

Vaulk

TKDB said:

@Vaulk

Thank you for your AR-15 clinic.

So the takeaway is this, a gun engineered for combat, is apparently more suitable to some, than sensible home defense is, with a 38, 9mm, or a 40 cal, or a 45 cal, is? 

No, you're misinformed.  The AR-15 was not engineered for combat nor was it engineered for the Military at all.  It was originally manufactured and "Engineered" to be a hunting rifle.  The U.S. Military LATER adopted the "Hunting Rifle" and modified it to be used in combat because, originally, it's design wasn't suitable for combat.  I'm going to take a guess and say that, in its original configuration, it wasn't suitable for combat because it WASN'T DESIGNED FOR COMBAT.



All these claims that the AR-15 is this killing machine that was "Designed" for combat or to be used in War is complete fabrication.  It's fairytale, it's made up...it's...LIES.  It was a hunting rifle designed to be used for hunting and was advertised as such.  The Military took it and turned it into a "Fully-automatic Assault Rifle" later on and then eventually tapered it down to selective fire with options in semi-automatic and 3-round burst.  The civilian model (The original hunting model) STILL only has the semi-automatic option that was originally introduced in the 1960s.

The takeaway you SHOULD have received is that the AR-15 is one of the safest home defense firearms you can use within your home to repel home intruders because of the simple fact that you're less likely to accidentally kill innocent people in or outside of your home because the bullets don't overpenetrate walls.  Combine this priceless safety feature with the fact that it's incredibly light, has extremely low recoil, holds plenty of ammunition and can easily be used by anyone...you've got yourself all the reasons any sensible person would need to own one for home defense.

Handguns are used to kill more people than all rifles combined including the AR-15.  The fact that we're even debating this means that someone here has been drawn into the typical sucker's emotionally driven conclusions of what's plaguing us all.   

TKDB

@Vaulk

A gun is a gun, when you get down to the marrow of the gun violence crimes in the United States, isn't it?

Your individual pro gun extremists opinion, is misinformed.

Many AR-15's have been used to kill people, in cold blood.

Just like the plethora of illegal guns in general, that have been used to kill people in cold blood. 

"Handguns are used to kill more people than all rifles combined including the AR-15.  The fact that we're even debating this means that someone here has been drawn into the typical sucker's emotionally driven conclusions of what's plaguing us all."

I'm laughing at your above comment.

Did you read the below?

"The venerable gun manufacturer Colt is suspending production of the popular and controversial AR-15 and other long rifles for civilian use, as lawmakers continue the fraught gun debate following a series of mass shootings.


https://www-foxnews-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.foxnews.com/us/colt-suspending-production-of-ar-15-for-civilians.amp?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCKAE=#aoh=15689470753883&csi=1&referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.foxnews.com/us/colt-suspending-production-of-ar-15-for-civilians

"SECOND AMENDMENT

Published September 19, 2019

Last Update 6 hrs ago

Colt suspending production of AR-15 for civilians"

By Louis Casiano | Fox News

"The venerable gun manufacturer Colt is suspending production of the popular and controversial AR-15 and other long rifles for civilian use, as lawmakers continue the fraught gun debate following a series of mass shootings.

The company's president and chief executive, Dennis Veilleux, said that the consumer market has "experienced significant excess manufacturing capacity," and that Colt believes there are enough rifles on the market for the foreseeable future.

Colt will instead focus on fulfilling military and law enforcement contracts.

ARIZONA GUN STORE'S 'BETO SPECIAL' SELLS OUT IN FOUR HOURS

"Currently, these high-volume contracts are absorbing all of Colt’s manufacturing capacity for rifles," Veilleux said in a statement. "We believe it is good sense to follow consumer demand and to adjust as market dynamics change." 

"In this Aug. 15, 2012, photo, three variations of the AR-15 rifle are displayed at the California Department of Justice in Sacramento, Calif. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli, File)

Veilleux reaffirmed the Connecticut-based company's commitment to the consumer market and the Second Amendment. He said Colt would still supply revolvers and pistols and is expanding its network of dealers.

"Colt has been a stout supporter of the Second Amendment for over 180 years, remains so, and will continue to provide its customers with the finest quality firearms in the world," he said.

The move comes as gun manufacturers and dealers have come under intense pressure following a series of lethal shooting sprees involving AR-15-style weapons. Democratic White House contender Beto O'Rourke, who's from El Paso, Texas, where one of those massacres occurred, said recently that would confiscate military-style weapons from gun owners if he captures the presidency.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"Yes," said O'Rourke, who doubled down on his position during a recent appearance on CNN's "Cuomo Prime Time, "When it comes to AR-15s and AK-47s, weapons designed for use on a military battlefield, the high-impact, high-velocity round that is fired from those weapons. When it comes to those weapons ... the answer is yes."

Walmart recently announced it would stop selling handguns in Alaska and short-barrel rifle and handgun ammunition nationwide. 's Sporting Goods pulled hunting rifles from 125 of its stores earlier this year."

I wonder what the NRA, and their members, might express in light of this ongoing development?

Because SO FAR, the NRA, is being tight lipped on the "Colt" manufacturing news. 

And their current Twitter feed, remains mum on the subject.  

@Vaulk, My guess is you won't say a word.

TKDB

"The takeaway you SHOULD have received is that the AR-15 is one of the safest home defense firearms you can use within your home to repel home intruders because of the simple fact that you're less likely to accidentally kill innocent people in or outside of your home because the bullets don't overpenetrate walls.  Combine this priceless safety feature with the fact that it's incredibly light, has extremely low recoil, holds plenty of ammunition and can easily be used by anyone...you've got yourself all the reasons any sensible person would need to own one for home defense.

Handguns are used to kill more people than all rifles combined including the AR-15.  The fact that we're even debating this means that someone here has been drawn into the typical sucker's emotionally driven conclusions of what's plaguing us all."

The below is my (Takeaway)

@Vaulk

https://www-wired-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.wired.com/2016/06/ar-15-can-human-body/amp?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQEKAFwAQ==#aoh=15688988227514&referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.wired.com/2016/06/ar-15-can-human-body/

"What an AR-15 Can Do to the Human Body"

When a patient is shot by an AR-15, it "looks like a grenade went off in there."

AR-15 rifles are displayed on the exhibit floor during the National Rifle Association (NRA) annual meeting in Louisville, Kentucky, on Friday, May 20, 2016.

LUKE SHARRETT/BLOOMBERG/GETTY IMAGES

"All guns can kill, but they do not kill equally.

Compare the damage an AR-15 and a 9mm handgun can do to the human body: “One looks like a grenade went off in there,” says Peter Rhee, a trauma surgeon at the University of Arizona. “The other looks like a bad knife cut.”

The AR-15 is America’s most popular rifle. It has also been the weapon of choice in mass shootings from Sandy Hook to Aurora to San Bernardino. In Orlando, the shooter used a Sig Sauer MCX, an AR-15 style rifle originally developed for special ops, to kill 49 people in the Pulse nightclub. The carnage sparked new calls to reinstate a ban on assault rifles like the AR-15, which were designed as weapons of war.

It’s possible to argue about everything when it comes to the politics of guns---including about the definition of “assault rifle” itself---but it’s harder to argue about physics. So let's consider the physics of an AR-15.

A bullet with more energy can do more damage. Its total kinetic energy is equal to one-half the mass of the bullet times its velocity squared. The bullet from a handgun is---as absurd as it may sound---slow compared to that from an AR-15. It can be stopped by the thick bone of the upper leg. It might pass through the body, only to become lodged in skin, which is surprisingly elastic.

The bullet from an AR-15 does an entirely different kind of violence to the human body. It’s relatively small, but it leaves the muzzle at three times the speed of a handgun bullet. It has so much energy that it can disintegrate three inches of leg bone. “It would just turn it to dust,” says Donald Jenkins, a trauma surgeon at University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. If it hits the liver, “the liver looks like a jello mold that’s been dropped on the floor.” And the exit wound can be a nasty, jagged hole the size of an orange."

"These high-velocity bullets can damage flesh inches away from their path, either because they fragment or because they cause something called cavitation. When you trail your fingers through water, the water ripples and curls. When a high-velocity bullet pierces the body, human tissues ripples as well---but much more violently. The bullet from an AR-15 might miss the femoral artery in the leg, but cavitation may burst the artery anyway, causing death by blood loss. A swath of stretched and torn tissue around the wound may die. That’s why, says Rhee, a handgun wound might require only one surgery but an AR-15 bullet wound might require three to ten."

"Then, multiply the damage from a single bullet by the ease of shooting an AR-15, which doesn’t kick. “The gun barely moves. You can sit there boom boom boom and reel off shots as fast as you can move your finger,” says Ernest Moore, a trauma surgeon at Denver Health and editor of the Journal of Trauma and Acute Surgery, which just published an issue dedicated to gun violence."

"Handguns kill plenty of people too, of course, and they’re responsible for the vast majority of America’s gun deaths. But a single bullet from a handgun is not likely to be as deadly as one from an AR-15."

The above article, is another educational  Clinic, within itself. 

John_C_87

@TKDB ;

Okay so basically you are saying people have a simple right to take personal property away without bid of payment publicly because poor building practices of size over substance allows objects to penetrate a wall.

kill innocent people in or outside of your home because the bullets don't over penetrate walls.

It is still unclear how re-addressing the united state constitutional obligation by amendment of common defense to the general welfare made on lethal forces serves and process of constitutional preservation in your grievance. 

TKDB

@John_C_87

I have no idea, of what you're trying to peddle, via your below statement, therefore I have no comment for you.

"Okay so basically you are saying people have a simple right to take personal property away without bid of payment publicly because poor building practices of size over substance allows objects to penetrate a wall.

kill innocent people in or outside of your home because the bullets don't over penetrate walls.

It is still unclear how re-addressing the united state constitutional obligation by amendment of common defense to the general welfare made on lethal forces serves and process of constitutional preservation in your grievance."

My position is clear.

John_C_87

I have no idea, of what you're trying to peddle, via your below statement, therefore I have no comment for you.
You should know it is your statemen not mine. Just trying to put together a consistent basic principle form what you are describing.

TKDB

@John_C_87

You wrote the below:


"Okay so basically you are saying people have a simple right to take personal property away without bid of payment publicly because poor building practices of size over substance allows objects to penetrate a wall."

"It is still unclear how re-addressing the united state constitutional obligation by amendment of common defense to the general welfare made on lethal forces serves and process of constitutional preservation in your grievance."

(I have no idea, of what you're trying to peddle, via your below statement, therefore I have no comment for you.)


"You should know it is your statemen not mine. Just trying to put together a consistent basic principle form what you are describing."

It's not place, to have to decipher what you're expressing from your own brain, in regards to the theme of the forum.

The below is the theme:

Where in the Second Amendment does it state, that any gun is allowed to be sold on any citizen, who is a felon, criminal, or an offender?

Where in the Second Amendment, does it state, that a legal gun, can be used by any citizen, to kill innocent people with it?

Regardless if its a Mass shooting gun violence crime, or a typical, or common place gun violence crime?

Robberies, drive by shootings, raping a victim at gun point, murder/ suicide, and Police Officers being shot, while they are working in their vehicles?

Where in the Second Amendment state, that any gun owner, has the right to defend their home or property, with an AR-15, AK-47, or another type of an assault weapon?

Who let the legal, and illegal gun owners, make up their own rules, if the Second Amendment, as its currently written, provides ZERO allowances, or accommodations, for any of the above?

The NRA, is wrong.

And the Public safety of the country deserves better, than to be dictated to, by the pro gun extremists, the criminals, and offenders with their illegal guns, and the Far Right Pro Gun supporters.

Prove the Public, as a whole wrong?

I invite the NRA, to debate this issue? 


@John_C_87

You're rhetoric, is off topic. 

John_C_87

The basic principle of the 2nd amendment is lethal force. We share the weight of lethal force as it is brought to bear on all people by choice. Those who do not own a gun are far more likely to be exposed to lethal force by gun play and become dependent on someone who owns a gun to protect them for money, In your example tax money. We must pay tax money to hire someone with a gun to take the criminal and civil liabilities of lethal force.

An Innocent person in your case is presumed to be anyone who does not stand trial, so must be proven guilty in a court of law while they still live. This process separation can be done after a shoot is stopped with the lethal force when necessary, just as easy and often a lot safer as a shooter can take lives until stopped if they so care. The difference is all people at the shootings play a direct role in liability, as it is their refusal of weight to bear by 2nd Amendment that increases the time a shooting can inflict harm directly.

Your forum title is not actually connected to the 2nd Amendments basic principle in context of changes made on basic principle that allows those who are lacks in applications of lethal force to possess and keep a fire-arm as many people around them, are realistically much more capable to killing at will by hand, or with other things. The best answer I could give in respect to lethal force is the tools available to hinder an establishment of lethal force on a crowd. As this is the idea used with weapons such as fire and eclectic as a public hazard... 

TKDB

The Second Amendment gets used and abused by some of the legal gun owners, and the illegal gun owners.

"The Second Amendment, and the legal guns, and illegal guns."

The Second Amendment makes ZERO concessions, or allowances through its very own word's, in regards, to either of these Types of gun owners.

Yet the NRA, treats the Second Amendment, like a Marquee, for its own business purposes?

Those legal gun owners who killed people with their legally owned guns, have spilled blood on the Second Amendment, via their Mass shooting gun violence crimes.

And the illegal gun owners, who have been murdering people for years?

NOT one word is said about them, via any of the talking heads of the NRA, or the Far Right Pro Gun supporting crowd, or by the pro gun extremists in the United States?

ZERO.

Twitter, has apparently become, the unofficial sounding board for both, the pro gun extremists crowd, and the NRA, and I've been looking for any fair and equal sound bites from both of these Pro Gun parties, and ZERO gets said, when kids, teenagers, students, parents, teachers, senior citizens, and toddlers, have been killed or wounded via the gun violence crimes, that plague the U.S. everyday.

So what is the truth, the Second Amendment, and it's words, have turned some of the citizens, into cold handed legal, and illegal gun owners?

Or the truth is, people were cold handed, before the Second Amendment, was ever written, and one human being killing other human beings with a gun, is just a fact of life?

And the Second Amendment is, but another EXCUSE device, for the rest of the gun owners, who are Law abiding citizens, to lament over, if they've done nothing wrong, but some of their gun owning brethren have done the Public safety wrong, by going about, by committing their gun violence crimes, and don't have the gun ownership nerve, to call out those first time gun violence offenders, because the law abiding citizens, own guns as well?

That's hypocritical.

When Guns in general get shown, some "love," while at the same time, the gun violence victims get a vulgar show of Public silence, by the some of the pro gun extremists crowd supporters, who's rallying cry, is to Publicly lament, over the Second Amendment, giving those pro gun extremists, the right to bear arm's, while the victims of those gun violence crimes, had their own Rights, taken from them, by being killed in cold blood. 

John_C_87

Okay first the basic again. I will not cite all words with meanings now Constitution as they are pretty much straight forward.

1.       United State is a group formed as a union.

2.       Constitution a combination of one written or spoke basic principle with one legal precedent.

3.       An amendment on constitution is a change made on the one basic principle of one legal precedent held as a united state in American United State Constitution to establish a more perfect union by the state of the creations address.

The 2nd Amendment to American United State Constitution has a basic principle of lethal force. Whereas a gun is only one object in the united state assembled by American constitution as a law which can be enforced. Any abuse of the 2nd amendment is saying as a witness the law is not enforced. Which law exactly, the law abused which is the land, the 2nd Amendment of the American United States Constitution.

1.       How is the law most easily abused? It is abused by not following the 5th amendment of separation by judicial constitutional order.

2.       How is lethal force used to abuse the American constitution first? Lethal force without judicial constitutional separation.

3.       How is abused second. People have not taken on the burden that is to be shared by the second amendment.

4.       What is the wait detailed by the second amendment by basic principle? Lethal force of adequate and substantial weight to stop the unconstitutional application of lethal force.

5.       What is the worst thing the 2nd amendment points out? The person who does not carry a weight of lethal force equally to preserve the tranquility of others is as much to blame for illegal use of lethal force as the other accused criminal.

6.       Do all people need a gun to create adequate lethal force to denture, stop, or slow a large abuse of constitutional separation which results in a high number of victims who receive lethal amounts of abusive force? No, not all people need the aid of a firearm to create such a deterrent as to stop a wrong and harmful application of lethal force.

So, what is the problem? People who are afraid to assume the weight of lethal force must wait for other to aid them. In almost all cases this aid is paid for as a public service. This has implication of crimes of its own which run outside the original illegal use of lethal force in question.

As a united state an illegal gun is one not only fired to kill but is used to beat a person to death. The action in weight as united state is no heaver then to beat the life from someone with the but of a large knife, log, pipe, rifle, assault weapon or a large military shell from a form of artillery.

TKDB

@John_C_87I

You're the only individual that I'm aware of, who is your own student, and your own teacher, who can understand the rhetoric that you keep peddling.

I have no comment for you.  

John_C_87

TKDB

That's funny, I though you were not addressing my grievance because anyone can prove that the word gun is not listed in the 2nd  Amendment of American constitution and it gave you false hope of an easy victory. The use of lethal force as a weight brought to bear on all people, including those in and out of Armed service of county, king, queen, and tyrant that hoping to preserve basic principle and legal precedent. Negating facts however that it is much easier to prove, lethal force as united state is a good reason why the 2nd amendment may be so popular in holding onto what is a United State constitutional right to common defense with Military.

The burden of weight is on you TKDB. I am killing your cause with lethal force of words brought to bear on the weight of your very intelligence.
1st.  by constitutional requirements of bid of price of payment for personal property requested by legislation the tool used to dispense lethal force.
2nd.  By constitutional cost of providing adequate access to a private place where the individual private armorer can be held in a more perfect organized united state. 

TKDB

@John_C_87

You're still self peddling.

You're the only individual that I'm aware of, who is your own student, and your own teacher, who can understand the rhetoric that you keep peddling.

I have no comment for you.  

John_C_87

"The right of the people to keep and bear arm."  ( 2nd Amendment) States it is correct for people to share equally the weight of armament, that weight in united state created in easy to understand basic principle of all armament together. TKDB is Lethal force, the united state basic principle all people hold as the weight on our hearts, souls, and consciousness when keep armament is lethal force.

Instead of saying you are not smart enough to figure it out. Instead of telling other who read you writing a person must be instructed to understand basic principle because it is so complex as to baffles the common mind. Why not just ask a group of 10 people over 18 if they know  gun, knife, poison all share equally the ability to be lethal to people. The ten people I asked all said they understood the three objects could be lethal to people. It is We the people of the more perfect union who have instructed me as a student.

TKDB

@CYDdharta

@Vaulk

@Plaffelvohfen

Here's the dysfunction with the NRA, and it's apparent head lock, on the Second Amendment:

No where from the very specific language of the Second Amendment, does it state, that any citizen of the United States, has a right to bear illegal arms.

So when it comes to some of the pro gun extremists and, some of the NRA, that specific lack of language, in regards to the Second Amendment, is the founding foundation, behind the fallacy of the NRA, and it's fallacious view, of the Second Amendment, as it's currently written. 

And I challenge any of you, to provide a counter argument, or invite the NRA itself to provide, it's own counter argument to the above?

Vaulk

Sorry, still waiting for a counter-argument for any of the 10-15 arguments that I've brought against your previous arguments that negate them.  All of them were ignored.  It's almost as if we're all expected to keep responding to every new argument that you (Or someone else's website) has made and yet you have no responsibility to acknowledge all of your points that have been destroyed by facts and logic.

You can't keep playing the "Yea but" game and expect rational intelligent people to keep trying to defeat you.  If this were football then all of my touchdowns wouldn't count but all of yours would.

TKDB

@Vaulk

I'm not playing games.

But, apparently, you have a fixation?

The psychology of your fixation:

"Sorry, still waiting for a counter-argument for any of the 10-15 arguments that I've brought against your previous arguments that negate them.

All of them were ignored.  It's almost as if we're all expected to keep responding to every new argument that you (Or someone else's website) has made and yet you have no responsibility to acknowledge all of your points that have been destroyed by facts and logic.

You can't keep playing the "Yea but" game and expect rational intelligent people to keep trying to defeat you.  If this were football then all of my touchdowns wouldn't count but all of yours would."

I haven't expressed any "Yeah but," commentary over anything.

Because that would be lazy, and easy to do.


You argue, just like the NRA, does on Twitter.

Because, some of the pro gun extremists, continue to ignore, that innocent people are getting murdered every day in the United States, and the "Silent Response," to those murders, by both the legal, and illegal gun owners, is to "Publicly Ignore," those gun violence crimes, but then at the same time these same talking heads, want to Publicly lament, either over GUNS, in general, or over, the language of the Second Amendment, apparently because some of the Legal, and the Illegal GUNS, in the U.S., haven't killed a living soul, in the country, right?

So the ATF, and the Forensics teams, and the law enforcement agencies, across the country, are, and have been wasting the Public's time, by investigating those thousands of gun violence crimes, that have victimized thousands across the country for decades, now right, @Vaulk?

I'm not the pro gun extremists individual who, apparently, refuses to differentiate between legal guns, and the illegal guns, that have been both been used to wound, and murder innocent kids, teenagers, students, parents, teachers, and church parishioners?

Just because the Second Amendment, states that a citizen has a right to bear arms, (and that answer, isn't equal, or fair, representative, of the Public's safety anymore.)

And, guess what, the Second Amendment, again doesn't state, that any citizen, has a right to bear illegal arms, does it?

@Vaulk, You haven't a clue, as to how to respond, to that question, do you?

And I, can imagine, that the NRA, doesn't have a clue, as in how to respond, to that question, either?

@Vaulk

And who is this "we're," that you mentioned?

"It's almost as if (we're) all expected to keep responding to every new argument that you (Or someone else's website) has made and yet you have no responsibility to acknowledge all of your points that have been destroyed by facts and logic.

And according to who's facts, and logic?

Maybe yours?

Maybe CYDdharta?

Maybe Plaffelvohfen?

Who are you referring to, with your "we're," comment?


@Vaulk, Why is the above fallacious to you?

John_C_87

All of them were ignored.  It's almost as if we're all expected to keep responding to every new argument that you (Or someone else's website) has made and yet you have no responsibility to acknowledge all of your points that have been destroyed by facts and logic.

Maybe he doesn’t know, have ready, feel compelled, or have time evaluate a response to your gambling addictions that can be made as a united state. Creating this kind of position of argument is not always easy and require a level of study with often detailed understanding. Basically, TKDB you desire a portion of the power to use law to take personal property from people who own that property. It is called Theft. Can it be done other ways. Yes.

In Addressing a grievance with the American United State Constitution, you have openly taken part in placing people who are unarmed in harm’s way of lethal force. Neither of these actions are to be considered safe or for the people, family, or home in any way. Can it be done safer, yes.

There are many unions to be made of United State Constitution in these matter’s of lethal force. The right of the people to keep and hold the weight of lethal force will not be infringed. It is/was a warning, disclaimer, and constitutional law of the land. In basic principle the topic, or grievance made is lethal force as friendly fire. Military grade armament designed to kill must be kept as united state within armory. Not private hand. The purchase of these weapons to place in pubic armory would be, for constitutional purpose of debate $3,000.00 each. To which payments can be flexible and entail concessions that meet the requirement of American United State Constitution. There fore the starting talk politically is.

As a public claim to buy personal property (@Vaulk) does $3,000,00 each appear to be a fair offer? This TKDB is a requirement by law that is expected of you as an American.

"Vaulk" has a American United State Constitutional obligation to respond with what is felt to be a fair as serious counter offer. In the hopes of United Republic I hope he would participate in the example a give his honest answer. 

Vaulk

John_C_87

Vaulk I am not saying the assault rifle, or any gun is the problem. The question is direct if a buying of armament was going to take place is $3,000.00 per weapon reasonable? Do you have a different realistic number?

The conversation is to preserve United State Constitution. The basic principle of theft is still a crime possibly an armed crime when using law. Is there something else that can be done under direction of the 2nd Amendment on public storage of armament to share the burden of lethal force throughout a population.

ZeusAres42

Two things are certain here and that is there are indeed crazy people with Guns. But there are also crazy people without Guns. The OP is the latter; that is pretty much a given though lol.

KitRieke

Point #1  cars kill more people then guns.   By such large numbers it's hard to fathom.  No one wants to lower speed limits or restrict travel.

Point #2  The amendment was created to prevent the government from restricting your right.  Amendments can be changed.  You'll need a 2/3 majority.  Good luck.

Point #3  This subject is just a political football.  Until someone is willing to load a gun and shoot me in order to take my guns.  This is a waste of time and emotion.  Spend your energy wisely.