Of the 27 Deadliest Mass Shooters, 26 of Them Had One Thing in Common

[McLoofus 35,182]

20 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

My point this that we have had numerous failures trying to manage humanity. Those that try to manage others soon find out that they have done nothing but make things worse. 

Yup. Laws against murder and rape have definitely accelerated the decline of our great nation. 

[homersapien 11,362]

23 hours ago, triangletiger said:

Don't tell that to the transgender folks.

They probably know it better than we do.

[DKW 86 7,419]

3 hours ago, McLoofus said:

Yup. Laws against murder and rape have definitely accelerated the decline of our great nation. 

There isnt an adult with two brain cells alive that dumb...

I apologize if pointing out that Prohibition and the War on Drugs have both abysmal failures. I am historically accurate, even if you dont seem to like it. 

And murder and rape? When you sober up maybe you can explain how murder and rape apply here?

[japantiger 4,051]

We have 330m guns and billions; maybe even trillions, of rounds of ammunition in the law abiding gun community.  Do the math.  If we were a problem; you would know it.  Leave us the hell alone.  

Go deal with the problems 60 years of liberal policies have created.  Start with loss of faith, broken-fatherless-families and the resulting multi generational poverty and hopelessness they have created.  Don't expect any support from people with a brain to restrict 2A rights.  You won't get it and I won't apologize for it.

[McLoofus 35,182]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

There isnt an adult with two brain cells alive that dumb...

I apologize if pointing out that Prohibition and the War on Drugs have both abysmal failures. I am historically accurate, even if you dont seem to like it. 

And murder and rape? When you sober up maybe you can explain how murder and rape apply here?

Read your own words again, clown. 

[Tiger Sue 325]

8 hours ago, homersapien said:

I provide you a straight answer relating to a subject you apparently didn't know much about, and the best you can do is a smartass crack?

And you decry the lack of decorum on this forum.

I didn't call any names but what's that old saying........the guilty dogs bark first.

[DKW 86 7,419]

After murder rate passes NYC, London Mayor Sadiq Khan calls for sharper knife control

London Mayor Sadiq Khan announced a crackdown on knives Sunday in response to the rising levels of violence in London, which recently surpassed New York City's homicide rate for the first time. 

"No excuses: there is never a reason to carry a knife," Khan tweeted. "Anyone who does will be caught, and they will feel the full force of the law." 

There have been more than 50 homicides in London so far in 2018, and much of the violence is tied to gangs. 

Guns are strictly regulated in the United Kingdom and the rising homicide rate in London is directly attributable to a rise in knife-related crimes, with stabbings claiming at least 31 lives to date in 2018. By contrast, New York — which has a population roughly the same size as London — has seen a steady decline in violent crime. 

There were 15 murders committed in London in February and another 22 in March, while New York saw 14 murders in February and 21 in March, according to murder rate statistics provided to USA TODAY by London's Metropolitan Police and the New York Police Department.

In Britain, it is currently illegal to carry a knife longer than three inches in public "without good reason" and illegally carrying a knife can be punished with up to four years in prison and an "unlimited fine."

Self-defense is not listed among the examples of "good reasons to carry a knife." The courts determine if someone's reason to carry a knife is valid. Condoned examples of knife-carrying include if it is necessary for a person's work or if it is being brought to a gallery for exhibition. 

Mayor of London

 

✔@MayorofLondon

 

 

No excuses: there is never a reason to carry a knife. Anyone who does will be caught, and they will feel the full force of the law. http://www.london.gov.uk/tackling-violent-crime …

Tackling serious violent crime

City Hall and the Met Police are taking action to tackle the scourge of violent crime in London.

london.gov.uk

 

2,470

4:02 AM - Apr 8, 2018

Twitter Ads info and privacy

 

14.7K people are talking about this

 

 

 

Khan's tweet included a link to his plan to tackle the city's rising crime rates, including the creation of a 120-member violent crime task force and "targeted patrols" with expanded stop and search authority for "areas worst-affected by knife crime." 

In February, the mayor launched a $63 million program to help keep young Londoners from "getting caught up in crime" and the Mayor's office has launched a "London Needs You Alive: Don't Carry a Knife" awareness campaign targeted at the city's teens. 

[DKW 86 7,419]

On 8/7/2019 at 11:30 PM, DKW 86 said:

Well, yall have convinced me...

Lets outlaw guns and solve America's problems...
Then we can outlaw alcohol and solve Americs's Alcoholism Problems...
Then we can outlaw drugs and solve America's Drug Addiction Problems...
Then we can outlaw KNIVES and solve London's Murder Problems...

It's all so simple now, why havent we tried this before...

Yes, its always best to mindlessly blame inanimate objects for the problems of man..
Whatever we do, we must never ever get to the real problem.
We must mindlessly treat the symptoms and never the Real Problems...

[DKW 86 7,419]

10 hours ago, McLoofus said:

Read your own words again, clown. 

I did, apparently you cant comprehend...

[homersapien 11,362]

12 hours ago, Tiger Sue said:

I didn't call any names but what's that old saying........the guilty dogs bark first.

Last time I try to help you out with a straight answer.  Next time you'll get a snarky remark ridiculing your question.  Apparently that's what you want.

[japantiger 4,051]

This 100%.  

They Will Still Hate You Even If You Disarm

It was quite a surprise to find out that we Trump voters were personally responsible for the savage murder sprees of a creep who dug single-payer and a satanist fan of Big Chief Warren. The El Paso scumbag decided he wanted to murder Hispanics because migration would somehow destroy the environment, which falls right in line with classical progressive eugenics balderdash. The Democrat from Dayton was full-on #Resistance. But apparently we conservatives were to blame for their actions because we refuse to give up our rights.

Now, those links I just outlined between these idiots’ political beliefs and liberals should not act to place the moral blame for their vile deeds upon liberals, but they must because that’s apparently the new rule. It’s a stupid rule and I think we should go back to the old rule - the person responsible for the crime he commits is the criminal - but since the new rule is in effect then the liberals can enjoy it like a suppository.

Remember, everything the mainstream media tells you at the behest of the liberal elite is a lie and a scam designed to increase their power and wealth by diminishing your power and wealth. Global warming? It’s such a crisis that they need to fly their private jets to fabulous resorts to discuss how you must trade in your Ford Expedition for a Schwinn and how millions of people like you who support their families in the petroleum industry better learn to code. And now the crisis of two left-friendly mutants out of 335 million people means you need to be disarmed. Oh, and you’re also racists so you should be disenfranchised too.

Weird how the liberal solution to every problem is always to make you less free.

One of their tactics is exhaustion - to exhaust the weak among us and get them to say, “Gosh, if we just give in we can put this unpleasantness behind us.” But you can’t put anything behind you with these people, because there is nothing to put behind you. It’s all a lie. You are not a racist. Your guns won’t hurt anyone but criminals and aspiring tyrants. And the leftists know it. They know they are spewing skeevy slanders, and if you give in on this one - handing over your AR-15 and hanging your head over prejudices you don’t possess - the libs and their newsprint lackeys will just club you with another set of grievances that you can only atone for through further submission.

It will never end. They will always hate you. Always. Nothing you can do will change that. Nothing. So get used to it and invite them to pound sand.

It would be nice to have libs and their media goons not sliming us all the time with manifest falsehoods. It would also be nice to have a pet unicorn named Chet always ready to make a run to the liquor store to pick up a sixer of Dos Equis and some Doritos. Neither one is going to happen, and you can’t change that by giving in. No matter how much you abase yourself it will never be enough for them to not hate you. 

Take Mitt Romney, please (back to whatever state he’s from this week). He shamelessly smooches lib rear expecting a pat on the head but the second he deviates from his Never Trump sissydom he gets eviscerated. Bret Stephens of the loathsome NYT is the classic kept conservative, but no matter how much he sucks up, if he offers any hint of #Resistance resistance - no matter how qualified and neutered - they torch him like a witch. 

They are always going to hate you, so get any idea out of your head that if you just surrender then this endless tsunami of lies will finally be over. It won’t, because it has nothing to do with what you actually think or have actually done. Nothing. It’s a means of oppression, a tactic to stop you from exercising your right to be a citizen instead of a serf.

Recommended

With Latest Trump Dossier-DOJ News, How Many Heads Are Going To Roll With Pending Report On Obama FISA Abuses?

Matt Vespa

The libs’ goal in disarming you is not to stop crime. If it were, the blue cities where they rule would not be the urban war zones the media tries to ignore (we are blessed to have an alternative media that outflank the lying mainstream press). Ask a liberal - the problem is police arresting too many criminals. The problem, to them, is mass incarceration, as if the massively incarcerated are all innocent honor students swept up in some sort of malicious dragnet.

We think criminals ought to be in jail. The Democrats’ goal is to make us into criminals - once we’re criminalized the whole over-incarceration crisis will vanish and they’ll get all Old School Kamala 1.0 vis a vislocking people up.

Defenseless, silenced and paying for everyone else’s stuff, all while being abused and disrespected - that’s what the left wants for you.

Everything the left says or does is designed to make them more powerful by making you less free. You can never give enough of your money or freedom away to make them stop hating you, so don’t try. Get woke to their scam - luckily we have a president who is - and don’t play along. They’ll always hate you, so stop caring about their lies.

Readers keep telling me that my action-packed yet highly amusing thrillers about the United States’ split into red and blue countries, People's Republic, Indian Country and Wildfire seem to be coming true. These novels have been called “Appalling” by the hapless geebos who sank the Weekly Standard, so you should check them out

https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2019/08/08/they-will-still-hate-you-even-if-you-disarm-n2551257?910

 

 

[alexava 6,973]

On 8/7/2019 at 11:10 AM, The Freak said:

Keep in mind that you have no legitimate reason to own 20 guns.

Every single one of them have a legitimate use. I have been gifted most of them bought or even won some and never found myself in financial turmoil to the point i need to sell any. None of them would be my choice if i blew a fuse and decided to shoot up a school or wal mart. Ducks, mostly ducks are in peril.

[tgr4lfe 220]

So I guess the left only want to take/restrict guns for Americans, or maybe just white American???

Dems reject push to alert ICE when illegal immigrant fails firearm background check

Democrats this week approved legislation to require background checks for essentially all sales and transfers of firearms -- but rejected GOP-led efforts to amend the legislation to alert law enforcement authorities when gun buyers, including illegal immigrants, fail those background checks.

The House Judiciary Committee voted in favor of the bill 23-15, in a strict party-line vote, sending it to the House floor. If approved by the full House, the bill would be the most significant gun-control legislation approved by either chamber of Congress in at least a decade -- although it stands little chance of passage in the Senate, where Republicans command a slim majority.

Republicans in the House charged that H.R. 8, known as "The Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019," should have included Florida Rep. Greg Steube's proposed amendment to require that law enforcement be notified "when an individual attempting to purchase a firearm fails a federal background check." (H.R. 8 was numbered in honor of former Arizona Rep. Gabby Giffords, who was shot in Arizona on Jan. 8, 2011 by a mentally ill gunman.)

“Clearly, the Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee don’t care about preventing gun violence, they simply are playing politics with Americans’ Second Amendment rights,” Steube, a Republican, said after the vote. “The fact that Democrats do not want law enforcement notified if an individual attempting to purchase a firearm fails a background check is truly troubling.”

WATCH: FATHER OF PARKLAND SHOOTING VICTIM BLAMES 'OBAMA-ERA' POLICIES, REFLECTS ON 1-YEAR ANNIVERSARY

He continued: “In rejecting this amendment, the Democrats have shown their true colors. It is clear they are not interested in preventing gun violence or stopping the illegal purchase of firearms, but rather they are only interested in limiting the rights of law-abiding citizens to advance their own political agenda."

Wednesday's vote came a day before the one-year anniversary of the high school shootingin Parkland, Florida, that killed 17 people. However, Steube dismissed arguments that the massacre necessitated the new legislation.

“As written now, H.R. 8 would not have prevented any of the mass shootings in Florida in recent years,” Steube's office said in a press release. “The shooter in Parkland passed a background check before purchasing a firearm, the shooter at Pulse Nightclub passed a background check before purchasing a firearm, and the shooter just weeks ago that murdered five women in District 17 passed a background check before purchasing the handgun he used in the commission of that heinous crime."

Florida GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz echoed Steube's concerns.

"Democrats in the Judiciary Committee just voted against notifying ICE when an illegal alien fails a background check to buy a gun," Gaetz wrote on Twitter. "They hate ICE so much that they'd keep ICE in the dark when illegals try to get guns!"

The vote on the bill came after a contentious, daylong hearing in which Republicans offered a series of other amendments in addition to Steube's proposal, all of which were blocked by Democrats. Among the rejected amendments were some seeking to address background check fees, which Republicans said could be unduly burdensome for family members trying to transfer guns to relatives.

Republicans said they were ready to offer additional amendments when Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., shut off debate around 8 p.m., 10 hours after the hearing began.

CONNECTICUT DEM INTRODUCES 50 PERCENT TAX ON AMMO

Nadler called the background checks bill long overdue to address a "national crisis of gun violence" that claimed nearly 40,000 lives in 2017.

"Our country is awash in guns, and we have the shameful death toll to show for it," he said.

Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, the panel's senior Republican, called Nadler's action "disturbing" and said it did not bode well for the two-year congressional session

"If this is the way the chairman wants to begin this session of Congress, I really wonder where we go from here" and whether the two parties can work together, Collins said.

But Democrats said Republicans were delaying a vote on the bill because they oppose universal background checks for gun purchases.

"This isn't a debate, it's a show," said Rep. Val Demings, D-Fla. She called universal background checks for all gun sales common sense and said, "Let's move forward."

At one point, Steube displayed a large cup that read, "The Second Amendment is my gun permit."

Democrats have pledged additional gun legislation, including restrictions on high-capacity magazines and a measure to allow temporary removal of guns from people deemed an imminent risk to themselves or others.

Meanwhile, fellow freshman Rep. Madeleine Dean, D-Pa., said lawmakers "know background checks work, that they save lives, and yet we need to close loopholes" that allow some private purchases and transfers to be made without background checks.

nstead of working with Democrats, "Republicans are adding more loopholes, which is shameful," Dean said.

BACKGROUND CHECK REQUIREMENTS ACTUALLY DO VERY LITTLE, STUDY SHOWS

However, earlier this month, gun violence experts from the Center for Gun Policy and Research and the Violence Prevention Research Program conducted a study in Washington state, Colorado and Delaware to analyze whether state laws requiring more background checks actually resulted in more checks.

The results, published in medical journal Injury Prevention, suggest the laws had little impact.

Delaware was the only state that saw apparent results, with an increase ranging from 22 to 34 percent based on the type of firearm. But according to the study, "no overall changes were observed in Washington and Colorado."

The study said data "external to the study" suggested Washington saw a “modest, but consistent” increase in background checks for private-party sales, and Colorado saw a similar increase in checks for non-gun show sales.

Iowa middle schools offer gun safety training for students

Clarksville and North Butler County Middle Schools will start mandatory program in February

The push comes as reports emerged that an initial background check five years ago failed to flag an out-of-state felony conviction that would have prevented a man from buying the gun he used to kill five co-workers and wound six other people, including five responding police officers, at a suburban Chicago manufacturing plant this week, authorities say.

Gary Martin, who was killed in a shootout with officers Friday, ending his deadly rampage at the Henry Pratt Co. in Aurora, was issued a firearm owner's identification card in January 2014 after a background check failed to show a 1995 aggravated assault conviction in Mississippi, Aurora police Chief Kristen Ziman said Saturday.

He bought the Smith & Wesson handgun he used in Friday's attack two months later, on March 11, 2014, she said. Five days after that, he applied for a concealed carry permit, which included a more rigorous background check that used digital fingerprinting and that did flag his Mississippi felony conviction, which led the Illinois State Police to revoke his permit.

Separately, Republicans pushed to allow exceptions for victims of domestic violence and transfers among family members, but were dismissed by Democrats.

Rep. Lucy McBath, D-Ga., a freshman whose son was killed by gun violence, said she has been working on gun legislation since his death more than six years ago.

"As a survivor of gun violence myself, I refuse to let my colleagues stand here and devalue the importance that this bill has," she said.

CLICK TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

And Rep. Ted Deutch, D-Fla., said that while the bill "can't bring back" any of those killed in Parkland or other shootings, it will help reduce gun violence.

"If this legislation prevents one person wishing to do harm to others with a gun from doing that, it will be something we can be proud of," he said.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, alexava said:

Every single one of them have a legitimate use. I have been gifted most of them bought or even won some and never found myself in financial turmoil to the point i need to sell any. None of them would be my choice if i blew a fuse and decided to shoot up a school or wal mart. Ducks, mostly ducks are in peril.

 

[alexava 6,973]

1 hour ago, Brad_ATX said:

 

I’ve actually had some shots that close before 

Lol

 

[japantiger 4,051]

6 hours ago, alexava said:

Every single one of them have a legitimate use. I have been gifted most of them bought or even won some and never found myself in financial turmoil to the point i need to sell any. None of them would be my choice if i blew a fuse and decided to shoot up a school or wal mart. Ducks, mostly ducks are in peril.

Funny thing about freedom and the constitution.  You don't have to ask an ass-clown on a web forum whether you have his permission to exercise your rights.  Free men don't ask for permission.  I remember thinking I didn't need a 6.5 Creedmoor  ... and then I shot one ... viola!!!  Turns out I did really needed one; in spite of my .22's (2), 25.06,.270, 30.06's (2), 300 Win Mag, 338 Federal, 9mm PCC, AR 15's (3) , .375 H&H ... and then the pistols of course ...

I don't get where all the liberal intelligentsia (and by that, I mean not intelligent at all) thinks you need another reason other than "shall not be infringed".  Oh wait, I do...they don't believe in the Constitution.  

[alexava 6,973]

7 hours ago, japantiger said:

Funny thing about freedom and the constitution.  You don't have to ask an ass-clown on a web forum whether you have his permission to exercise your rights.  Free men don't ask for permission.  I remember thinking I didn't need a 6.5 Creedmoor  ... and then I shot one ... viola!!!  Turns out I did really needed one; in spite of my .22's (2), 25.06,.270, 30.06's (2), 300 Win Mag, 338 Federal, 9mm PCC, AR 15's (3) , .375 H&H ... and then the pistols of course ...

I don't get where all the liberal intelligentsia (and by that, I mean not intelligent at all) thinks you need another reason other than "shall not be infringed".  Oh wait, I do...they don't believe in the Constitution.  

Watch this https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/video-shows-moments-before-las-vegas-shooting-1757548

[homersapien 11,362]

9 hours ago, japantiger said:

Funny thing about freedom and the constitution.  You don't have to ask an ass-clown on a web forum whether you have his permission to exercise your rights.  Free men don't ask for permission.  I remember thinking I didn't need a 6.5 Creedmoor  ... and then I shot one ... viola!!!  Turns out I did really needed one; in spite of my .22's (2), 25.06,.270, 30.06's (2), 300 Win Mag, 338 Federal, 9mm PCC, AR 15's (3) , .375 H&H ... and then the pistols of course ...

I don't get where all the liberal intelligentsia (and by that, I mean not intelligent at all) thinks you need another reason other than "shall not be infringed".  Oh wait, I do...they don't believe in the Constitution.  

Well, there is that  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"....  the part that people like you don't seem to want to acknowledge.

As far as "infringement" we already have regulations in place that restrict ownership of certain classes of weapons such as automatics and explosives.

So there's room in the language of the amendment as well as legal precedent for regulating weapons such as semi-automatic assault rifles. 

All we need is the political will to stand up to the gun lobby. And I suspect that political will already exists.  The problem lies more with the money in politics.

 

 

[japantiger 4,051]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Well, there is that  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"....  the part that people like you don't seem to want to acknowledge.

As far as "infringement" we already have regulations in place that restrict ownership of certain classes of weapons such as automatics and explosives.

So there's room in the language of the amendment as well as legal precedent for regulating weapons such as semi-automatic assault rifles. 

All we need is the political will to stand up to the gun lobby. And I suspect that political will already exists.  The problem lies more with the money in politics.

 

 

It would seem the Supreme Court disagrees with you on this point....the 2nd secures the right 1) of the people to a well regulated militia  and 2) secures the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  

[homersapien 11,362]

4 hours ago, japantiger said:

It would seem the Supreme Court disagrees with you on this point....the 2nd secures the right 1) of the people to a well regulated militia  and 2) secures the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  

The exact phrasing is:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I'm not sure they ever ruled on it, but SCOTUS certainly hasn't overturned regulations on machine guns or grenades (for example). 

So there's apparently room in the language of the 2nd amendment to regulate or ban the sale of certain classes of weapons - including assault rifles - as well as the legal precedent for doing so.

The 2nd amendment is archaic. The marketing of military weapons has no practical relevance other than making money by stroking people's fantasies of power.  Resisting a tyrannical government is part of that equation.  It's not a realistic proposition.

And fwiw, I currently own a model 870 in 12 ga, a scoped BAR in .270 and a S&W model 36 chief's special. In the past, I've owned various other rifles and shotguns in various calibers as a model 1911A pistol.  I've even got a bandoleer of buckshot ready in the unlikely case I need to shoot it out with a bunch of illegal immigrants invading my property.   

I've been around guns all my life.  I get both the sporting and the psychological aspects of gun ownership.  I just don't harbor the fantasy I might need a combat rifle to secure my freedom by fighting our government, local or national. 

Ultimately, it's the rule of law that protects our freedom. The current proliferation of these weapons represent a greater threat to all of us than our government as recent events demonstrate. 

 

 

[The Freak 2,526]

On 8/9/2019 at 4:25 PM, alexava said:

Every single one of them have a legitimate use. I have been gifted most of them bought or even won some and never found myself in financial turmoil to the point i need to sell any. None of them would be my choice if i blew a fuse and decided to shoot up a school or wal mart. Ducks, mostly ducks are in peril.

You dont need to shoot ducks.  Even if you did, you still have 19 other guns without a legitimate need.

[alexava 6,973]

4 minutes ago, The Freak said:

You dont need to shoot ducks.  Even if you did, you still have 19 other guns without a legitimate need.

You apparently have never duck hunted! I can only shoot one gun at a time. Most only hold 3 shots. Some would hold five but we have laws limiting our capacity to three to give the migratory birds a better chance of survival. So we have to limit the available space in the magazine to be within the law. But we sell guns designed to kill people with no limitations?  Most of mine will never be fired again. Just safely hidden away in my home. 

Let me clear one thing up. I’m not mad at anyone who has these damn machine guns. Assault rifles are cool as hell. Several friends have them.. my son wants one. If he earns the money in 3 1/2 years he can buy one. I would even like to have one. If they were free and ammo was free. Hell, lll take how many you giving away. There is nothing I could legitimately use this for that’s worth nine people dying and a total of 28-30 shot in 30 seconds. I can’t tell a family member that their child’s life is less important that my craving to blast off hundreds of rounds needlessly to satisfy any urge. I could explain my duck hunting habit to the victims of that kid who took his Dad’s 870 to school and killed a few students . Although I wouldn’t have to because virtually no one is calling for restrictions on any of my guns. They’re only the choice of people who CANNOT get there hands on a higher capacity assault weapon that is made to mow people down. 

[DKW 86 7,419]

On 8/7/2019 at 8:31 AM, homersapien said:

It's funny how some try to find excuses for middle class white guy terrorism but have unconditional condemnation for Muslim terrorism.  You didn't see anyone speculating about the childhoods or mental conditions of the 9-11 terrorists - whether or not they've been on antidepressants, lacked a father figure, etc.

Terrorism is terrorism. 

Failing to recognize that has been the problem with our approach to domestic terrorism from the beginning.

And from out of nowhere comes the Whataboutism Army...Not one mention of "Muslims" in this thread that I have seen so far and now we are masturbating all over Islamophobia. WTF? Are you such a Talking Points Fool that you cannot allow any conversation that doesnt fit whatever Talking Points you just had poured into your vaccuous mind this AM?

If you want to talk Terrorism go start another thread. We are talking about real live gun laws and gun control in America. You come in from Left Field talking about Muslims and Terrorists? WTF? You want to confuse some 4chan-8chan-Altright lone gunmen with organized Terrorist Groups like Al Qaeda and the Taliban? Bro, those are completely different problems with likely completely different solutions. 

Why are we not talking about Muslim Terrorists grown in another country? Because we have no reasonable control over that country's culture, religion, etc. 
I got an idea. Why dont we fix what's wrong with us before we start legislating the answers in other sovereign nations? Bush43 started that process and it has us in unwinnable wars for 18 years now and has cost us Trillions of Dollars and 100Ks of lives here and there. Lets solve one problem at a time.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

I have multiple weapons. A rifle and a gun:

 

[japantiger 4,051]

On 8/10/2019 at 12:15 PM, homersapien said:

The exact phrasing is:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I'm not sure they ever ruled on it, but SCOTUS certainly hasn't overturned regulations on machine guns or grenades (for example). 

So there's apparently room in the language of the 2nd amendment to regulate or ban the sale of certain classes of weapons - including assault rifles - as well as the legal precedent for doing so.

The 2nd amendment is archaic. The marketing of military weapons has no practical relevance other than making money by stroking people's fantasies of power.  Resisting a tyrannical government is part of that equation.  It's not a realistic proposition.

And fwiw, I currently own a model 870 in 12 ga, a scoped BAR in .270 and a S&W model 36 chief's special. In the past, I've owned various other rifles and shotguns in various calibers as a model 1911A pistol.  I've even got a bandoleer of buckshot ready in the unlikely case I need to shoot it out with a bunch of illegal immigrants invading my property.   

I've been around guns all my life.  I get both the sporting and the psychological aspects of gun ownership.  I just don't harbor the fantasy I might need a combat rifle to secure my freedom by fighting our government, local or national. 

Ultimately, it's the rule of law that protects our freedom. The current proliferation of these weapons represent a greater threat to all of us than our government as recent events demonstrate. 

 

 

It has been ruled on.  The words I used are from the Courts own language.  As you also, rightly, point out, the court also has stated the right is "not unlimited" leaving room for sensible long standing regulation (specifically items like prohibiting felons, mentally ill, etc.).  As to the 2nd being "archaic", if so, there is a process for that.  It's called another amendment.  Just get 38 states to agree with you.