Actually I support the proposal to make the ammunition so expensive that no one can afford it on the scale used during these assaults... And by the way if you really, really, really must have one you also carry liability insurance and a license that proves you were trained in safe use the way we do for drivers.

...is a right enumerated in the constitution, good luck trying to restrict the right by restricting ammunition. It would rightly be seen as akin to restricting freedom of the press via restrictions on printer's ink.

that entitled individuals to be armed to the teeth and threaten anyone they chose to be afraid of.

But since, AFAIK, no one has- what you offer is merely a strawman argument, and a lazy
one at that.

...that you disagree with President Obama, who is on record stating that the right to arms is an individual one.

Like we do the 7th. No one seems to care about that one. It has been stretched so thin it means nothing. Even the NRA disregards it and pushed for a law to ban suing gun manufactures.

do you support SLAPP suits? That is what the theory is based on. Tell you what, if some drunk hits you, sue the manufacturer if his car or Jack Daniels, see how far that goes. Also, there is no ban on legitimate lawsuits.

Are damaged by a drug maker in Michigan or if a jury in Texas or Ohio think your doctor did more damage than $250,000 to name only a few.

guns and cars are.

Last edited Mon Jun 20, 2016, 12:29 PM - Edit history (1)

Just like that Wisconsin gun dealer could not have been sued from what I have learned here.

-> the legal liability a manufacturer or trader incurs for producing or selling a faulty product.

I have it on good authority (DU scuttlebutt) that guns were designed to kill and maim so the only folks who should be eligible to sue would those who shot and missed... right?

I know how to make it, i can make LOTS of money by making it, and teaching people how to make it, want me to teach you?

I've built, and made, and gone on from more than you can imagine. Take your childish toys and play where they'll do no harm to anyone.

We've had enough of them and the dangerous ridiculous rituals and games played with them.

and hyperbole, but that takes the cake...


BTW, your attempt to limit a Constitutional right is in no wise new, and the Supremes
shut down a similar attempt with printers' ink:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_Star_Tribune_Co._v._Commissioner

...communities, now have to ramp up my retirement planning,
and I'm pretty sure v.m. does as well.

Try that on someone who'll believe it

Where did you read that one?? I am just informing you that I, along with possibly MILLIONS of Americans, happen to have a certain set of skills that will come into very high demand if YOUR wishes come true.

I am highly willing to share this info with anyone who asks, as I say, would you want ME to teach you how to make some good money if they ban ammo? Go ahead, create a very lucrative black market for us. I am sorry if "YOU" view me having the ability to make my own ammunition practically from scratch as a "threat", I really cannot help you with that problem.

I have no problems whatsoever helping good folks practice their constitutional rights.

BTW, I am not a spring chicken myself.

...a "threat"?

Good grief.

When having knowledge is threatening...

I guess they prefer to not have knowledge..

...I humbly request that you read several of the threads here which cover in detail all of those ideas range from oppressive and tyrannical to entirely ineffective and counter productive.

Here's a short synopsis:
- driving is not on par with a corollary to the right to life, the most basic human right. (self-defense)
- insurance to cover what?
- expensive ammo was proposed by Chris Rock... on stage... even he recognized it was a joke.

Last edited Mon Jun 20, 2016, 12:18 PM - Edit history (1)

...a $999 tax on a $1 9mm round. I think there would be some dealers "losing" some on a regular basis. If shoplifting became a problem, those would have to be locked away.

Once the ammo became too scarce to reliably steal, a criminal would have to resort to...
...
...
...using a credit card to buy a box,
then return to his car and load the gun while pondering the tough choice...

...'Do I return to store with the now loaded 9mm to rob them of their remaining ammo or do I hit the bank across the street?'


OTOH, since the guy just wants to use the gun to rob, rape and/or threaten others, maybe he's just desperate enough to do his deeds with the gun unloaded. After all, many pro-control folks preach cooperation with armed assailants because 'it's better to be robbed or raped than injured or killed'.

"AR-15 has been standard issue for American service members for decades..." I don't care if the post said it, it's still wrong and an AR-15 is not an M-16. You say that I can change a few parts and make them work the same. In the legal sense at least one of the parts required is what the law defines as AN M_16. So you're saying that an AR-15 can be converted to being an M-16 if I just buy and add the essence of AN M-16 to it. I could take out certain AR parts and add certain M-16 parts. That's kind of like me saying that I can list parts for you to remove from an AR and also list other items to add which turn an AR into tuna salad.
Who do you write for? Is it Bill Maher? Are you unemployed now that George Carlin has passed?


"assault rifle"... Oh yes, I forgot, words don't mean anything, assault weapon, assault rifle, a salt n' pepper... which way is the wind blowing now???


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loophole Look it up. Evading the intent of a statute through a private sale/transfer is plainly a load of crap. If said statute intended to cover private sales, it would have provided a means by which the private seller could run a BGC. Alternatively, the law could have forbidden private sales and transfers and mandated all such transactions take place via an FFL. It did not.


Thanks for your conjecture on what the Stoner meant. I think most of us are able to infer the same. However, my point in addressing the inaccuracy which was related to the POOR JOURNALISM which hit me over the head rather than someone's innocent mistake. The article's author and the editing staff evidently never heard of obscure events such the Whitman shooting at the University of Texas/Austin or the St Valentine's Day Massacre.


I leave it to you to 'impress the board' but I won't be holding my breath.

The original AR-15 was a select-fire rifle in .223 caliber, based on the AR-10 design (7.62x51). It was sold to the military, by Colt, as the M-16. The models that were available on the civilian market were semi-auto only versions, beginning in 1963. It was originally marketed as a sporting rifle, NOT a poor man's battle rifle. As a matter of fact, there is a blurb at the following link about what they did to prevent converting the original semi-auto version to full-auto.
http://www.gunsmagazine.com/1964issues/G1264.pdf

The modern AR-15 is quite different from the original M-16, due in large part to extensive modifications to prevent easily converting them to full-auto. Yes, it can be done, but it is neither easy, nor is it legal for the average Joe, unless they have the correct paperwork in place. And since the number of crimes committed with full-auto !R-15's is on the order of infinitesimal, it's a safe bet to assume that there's no stampede of gun nuts making their AR-15's in to "weapons of war."

There is one definition of an assault rifle. Just because American politicians have co-opted the phrase and twisted its meaning into something else, doesn't make it correct.
http://www.tulprpc.org/attachments/File/Army_Gives_Definition_Of_Assault_Rifle.pdf

And the phrase "assault weapon" is mainly an invention of the gun control groups.
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Assault-Weapons.htm

The Gun Control Act of 1968 specifically addressed private sales, exempting them from any background check requirement. This is NOT a loophole.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968

Anyone who tries to identify it as such either doesn't understand what a loophole is,
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loophole
or is deliberately distorting facts in an attempt to make them fit their narrative.

Anything else you wish to use your pretzel logic on?

NOTE: Modern AR-15 semi-auto rifles are NOT in use in any military that I have ever heard of. However, I can't state that as an indisputable fact. If you know of one, please provide some documentation.

Edited to add a link to a story about the Associated Press Stylebook definition of Assault Rifle (fully automatic), and Assault weapon (semi-automatic only):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/01/17/is-it-fair-to-call-them-assault-weapons/

Edited again to soften the tone and remove what could be construed as a personal attack.

response than I could've mustered.

I had to go back in and edit out some semi-inflammatory language.

Jimmy and I have gone around and around in the past. I find the best way to respond to J the 1 is to include links from unbiased websites that reinforce your arguments, and/or undermine his foundation. He's pretty good at debating, up to a point - but sooner or later he's forced to resort to leaps of faith to reach the conclusions he favors. At that point, you just rhetorically dynamite the virtual ledge he's metaphorically standing on...