Speaking even more of assault rifles

What say you, ladies and gentlemen: Are we in a buying or selling opportunity?

If "assault rifles" are banned, they probably won't allow grandfather rights in those who already have them.

I have one I'd like to sell, and then would like to get one that's accurate. Seems like a risky time to buy though.

Jim

I don't sell guns but if I did right now or the next few months would be a great time. Fear = profit.

$500 to a $1000 seems "risky" to a lawyer?

Local John Deere dealer has some great deals on Smith & Wesson AR-15s. One of which may make it home with me later.

well they may be in your name ,but currently you can sell without a BG check to another party and or at gun shows and flea markets.
Soo that being said, when they come knocking ,i sold all what i had at flea market to pay my taxes

Deere gun counter? I'd like to see that. We need one here.

Bushmaster QRC Optics Ready were $350 at Cabelas two Black Fridays ago. They are $700 at Dunams now. Buy low, sell high.

so far the states that have banned them or required registration have an issue with mass non compliance. something like 85-90% not registering.

We see states like ILL go 85% pro 2A counties where county sheriffs refuse to charge people on a federal or state gun restriction.

90% of the counties voted red in 2016 the other 10% of counties hold 50% of the population.

this is part of why they want a full registration and tracking on everything.

however destruction has been an option

if it came to it I think a lot of lowers would be Destroyed rather than turned in

there are also many very creative solutions like affixing the magazine so that the gun must be dis-assembled before the magazine can be removed or making them bolt action rifles by removing the the gas tube and putting a plugged gas block in place.

C'mon down to Gallipolis one day off route7 can't miss it. They moved to the old KMart building. Boats, archery, fishing, clothing, etc

Won't get banned, trump won't lose. Gun grabbing Democrat party is a train wreck of unlikable losers.

God, I hope you are right!

keep up that mass non compliance in any way you can

you probably have one that is accurate with a few changes , a free floated upper and a drop in trigger and a accu-wedge and you should be shooting MOA .

a barrel , barrel nut and hand guard , if you wanted you could go with a match barrel and matching bolt it is just one cotter pin to swap bolts in the BCG.

if you lack the tools to change a barrel an action vice , barrel wrench and torque wrench you can just buy a new complete upper and have it shipped to your house , and sell your old upper for parts or hide it away for a rainy day. Uppers can be shipped around as they are NOT guns the lower is the gun.

the lower however has almost zero to do with accuracy.

2 pins and out comes your trigger group a drop in pre calibrated 3.5 pound trigger group all contained in an aluminum housing drops in reinsert the pins or upgrade to pins to anti rotate pins.

to change trigger groups , and bolts the only tool needed is a punch or spare firing pin.

Buying opportunity, selling when the Dems. take control. I bought mine for investments mostly, as most new in the box yet. If the Feds buy them for 5 grand apiece they can have them. At 5 Gs they would own alot of them.

Rather disappointed in accuracy of mine as well. It’s even a lefty. I don’t get too excited over them, I find them ugly, dull, and devoid of character. Now before you Rambo’s freak out, I realize I drew first blood, but in no way do I want to ban them. You’re entitled to poor taste in firearms.

Being that all the democrats running have a pulse, you'll be voting to ban them. In that case you don't deserve to own one so go ahead and sell it.

hey we let people drive dodge , everyone is allowed to like and dislike a product but banning guns based on visual details is like saying , you turn your car into a street racing machine when you add and 8 ball shifter knob to your Geo metro and thus must be banned before you endanger people street racing.

Why do people think this is always a national issue its a state problem

How ya figure?
If the feds ban them like Clinton did, it's everyones problem.

Gov wolf and Pittsburgh mayor Peduto would love to be the Democrats national hero's and find a way to outlaw them. They would love it.

It's a buying opportunity at present. Sound advice above re: accuracy.

I think we should just BAN the SOCIALISTS next election.

What I find stupid is the left referring to an AR-15 as one example of an assault rifle. Like Pelosi said, "These are the same guns our soldiers take to war!"

She should know better right? Now does she, or doesn't she? Is she uninformed idiot, or self serving liar?

I win. I choose "all of the above."

Pete

Absolutly a self serving liar! All of them are!

A soldier would go AWOL if they had to fight in a war with an AR15. The rifles they use now are far more sophisticated and deadly.

James need to get with the times.
They (democrats) are slowly but surely changing the name to "weapons of war". This encompasses more.

Well, Dip Stick Jimmy,,,why don't you ask "any democrat with a pulse" that you promised to vote for what their gun grabbing plans are,,then make your decision from there!!

I've noticed the same phenomenon. It's getting to where I can hardly watch CNN or MSNBC anymore.

I don't expect to keep military weapons, but do think the Second Amendment includes the right to keep arms equivalent to what our domestic LEOs carry.

LEOs are the experts on what to carry for self-defense. I'm going to emulate the experts. I want what they got.

Jim

Jim,
Do what you are financially comfortable with, but if you are comfortable with them being banned with or without grandfather rights, then you need to re-evaluate what the meaning of freedom is for you, and what you are willing to do or not do to remain free. Less guns means less freedom. No guns means no freedom.
What say you, gentleman?

On another thread you stated that you were fine with just a single shot rifle. No fight from you , against your liberal brothers on banning AR's


What gives ?

I agree with you, Carl.

I'm not comfortable with seeing black rifles get banned, but I've kind of felt like we were living on borrowed time since they were first banned in the 1990s. And since then we've seen the NRA alienate a lot of people.

But more on point, what sort of black rifles do you feel might make a good investment? I'd be prone to something with a 20-24" barrel, a fixed stock, and capable of shooting as well as the shooter.

I'm past the point of being able to convince my wife to let me buy another rifle for self-defense or hunting, so I have to rely on the investment angle. Collecting firearms is like investing in gold coins or bullion, a hedge on investing in stocks, bonds, and real estate.

Jim

What a crock.

I said I'd go to war to protect my single shots, because that meant you have no right to bear arms at all.

I said I wouldn't go to war over "assault rifles," even though I own one.

If you say you'd go to war over black rifles, it's okay, I won't make fun of you.

Jim

Illinois and Iowa have fully automatics at the county level anyway. I assume they are an AR 15 not sure the model. When taking a hunter safety course when was a your pup they did a tour of the Ft Madison police Department. One officer proudly showed us a Thompson with the 50 round drum magazine. I have no desire for one but they have them.

I'm going to be buying or building one soon also investing in lowers.

Let him redecorate the dining room then ask him if you can buy a new gun.

Does anyone with a pulse actually believe that if Democrats were able to ban semi-auto ("assault") rifles, that semi-auto handguns would not quickly be banned as well?

And frankly, any other type of action or cosmetic appearance that liberals and Democrats find "scary?"

Pete

A better investment would be cosmoline, zerust bags, and PVC pipe/caps.

Mike

When your gun is in cosmoline, a zerust bag, PVC pipe with caps and buried, you will be one of the 100 others without a gun.

local LEO list of weapons
every cop carrying a side arm in 9, 40 or 45 most carrying a glock 17, 19 or a 22, 23 the sherrif was carrying a 26

every patrol car I see has an M4 or AR-15 carbine most also have a 870 shotgun.

I know local departments that have MP5 sub guns in full auto.

near by cities have full auto suppressed 300 blackout SBR rifles

some have armored vehicles former military troop carriers and grenade launchers to launch tear gas canisters.

where do we stop local law enforcement?

the media and politicians certainly seem to want limit citizens from having most of the items listed above

if a state bans private ownership of it , then they should be required to strip their police force of it also seems only fair.

I am not asking for private ownership of a MOAB or tomahawk missiles.

but small arms consistent with what local law enforcement has seems entirely reasonable , after all if the police can make a reasonable justification for police defensive use than they have in-fact made the justification for the citizenry as well.

don't forget Cannons , Cannon were the first thing towns , cities ans states tried to regulate and they did so while the men who wrote the constitution were still alive and any ban on private citizen ownership of Cannon was decided unconstitutional.

if a cannon in private hands was and is still legal we definitely need to see more cannon around also since breach loading cannons were invented while private ownership of cannons was being contested and ruled unconstitutional we should also definitely be having breach loading cannon.

so yes MOAB ,Tomahawk missiles , and Nukes not for private ownership but , cannon ,breach loading cannon , and all small arms currently in use by police departments most definitely should be protected for private ownership. whether or not the media or politicians thing so currently.

while he was probably not planning to bury all of his guns , just those that would have to be turned in or destroyed.

it does bring up the point that " when it is time to bury your guns it is time to dig them up again!" this saying believed to be have been from April 18th and 19th ,1775 the town of Concord spent the night tilling fields and placing the towns armory in the row and plowing a furrow over it burying their guns , the 19th the American Revolution started.

Until I need it.

Mike

Not trying to pick on you Pete but why do folk always throw out nuclear weapons when the topic of private ownership of arms comes up?

Buying a nuke is about the cheapest part of owning one.

Mike

Well if the poop hits the fan I hope my trapping skills allow me to pick up plenty of 'assault rifles' to use for defense.

I think it is used as the most extreme example of a weapon , like I said I am not asking for a nuke. it only has 2 purposes , Offensive and the threat of assured Mutual destruction.

some Nation states are barred ownership of them lest they fall into the wrong hands.

but Cannon , I don't think people understand the range of a cannon and it was repeatedly confirmed as a weapon civilians can own.

early cannon were only good for about a mile and a half but the Rifled cannon could reach out to 5 miles by the start of the american civil war.

Did it ever occur to you why fireworks may be banned but firearms may not? Because firearms are designed to kill.

That sounds counter-intuitive until you throw in the Second Amendment. Only a people who didn't trust their own government would need a Second Amendment.

Why are harmless noise-makers banned, while dangerous life-taking machines are not banned? Do we trust our government any more today?

This leads down the road of suggesting that "assault rifles" should be Constitutionally protected precisely because they are efficient killing instruments. BINGO.

Jim

Dang, Jim! You made a clear, concise, and inarguable post beyond reproach, without any wiggle words. You feeling alright?

And they'll print some more worthless money to do it to.

Fireworks ain't banned here in free America.

Best avenue for you to get an accurate answer would be to e-mail the Democrats running that promise a manditory gun buy-back program and ask what they'll be paying.

Make sure you email the democrats "with a pulse", the ones without might not respond.

If anyone would learn a little about the English language and history they would understand the AR-15 is protected and so is fully automatic weapons. The government types and those who voted them in have been violating our rights since the Constitution was ratified.


The Second Amendment was put in place to provide for security of a free nation from enemies, foreign and domestic. Not for personal defense, hunting or to be "reasonable". It was ratified on December 15 1791 and on May 8 1792 the first militia act was signed into law. That act came to be because of two conflicts that were lingering because militia men were showing up untrained and poorly/not armed. The government couldn't afford providing weapons for each member.(Shay's and Whiskey Rebellion.) For over 100 years it was law that men of certain ages were REQUIRED to PRIVATELY own weapons suitable for MILITARY BATTLE. It didn't preclude anyone else from joining but mandated some age groups. The prefatory phrase in the 2nd states purpose and does not add to, subtract, of modify the operative phrase: "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed". It is also clear that "people" is not collective as it clearly states "State" and "Federal" in other places in the constitution when talking about collective rights.

This whole "reasonable"/ "sensible" argument is a way of eroding your rights. Remember, some people once thought it was reasonable that a black man was could be a slave.

You have the right to "bear" battle rifles and tell the clueless idiots who state otherwise to kiss yours! We should stop losing ground and start demanding our rights be restored.

weren't semis banned for ten years?

No, only semi autos with two or more features from a list. (For example a bayonet lug and a barrel shroud-you could have one or the other, but not both). Some guns were also banned by name.

How did we ever let that happen or get along when such a law was in effect?

How did we allow interment camps for citizens with Japanese heritage to become reality? Because people sucuumed to fear over principle and our Constitution. The Constitution was meant to protect us from ignorant people but it's failing because the judiciary is full of low level thinkers with personal bias.

Wow, way over the top IMHO.

maybe only in calling them low level thinkers is he over the top.

I would say they are very calculated thinkers whom intend to device the american populace through fear mongering and false solutions , for their own Bias.

Are than ANY limits, such as; background checks, waiting periods, mag capacity limits.....that are negotiable?

The reason I ask is, that with around ninety percent of Americans in favor of some greater restrictions being placed upon the possession and types of firearms we may have,(including most republicans) it is hard to believe that the fear is not with the politicians who most count on votes to retain their jobs. If there comes a point at which the "writing is on the wall" and laws will be passed, I think groups like the NRA had better play a part in the process or become irrelevant and give our politicians a feeling of free-reign.

If you think your personal bias is more important than the Constitution and the protection it affords to the survival of the nation and freedom of it's people you are a low level thinker..

Your mommy lied to you. The world doesn't revolve around you.

90%? Did you come up with that bit of ridiculousness from the same folks doing all the other polls that are designed to make you feel isolated? Although in your case I guess it makes you feel like you are not alone.

Because the law was extremely weak, and had a sunset date. AR15s and such were still made, they jus had only 1 feature on the list. Same way people in California and New York still own ARs....clever people find a way to still own their "assault weapons" while still following the letter of the law. It's the same principal that led to "bullet buttons" in California. California required a tool to remove the magazine on "assault weapons", so the bullet button was invented. Then the decided the gun needed to be dismantled to be reloaded, so now gun owners in California have all sorts of clever devices to reload their ARs. Point is, people find a way around these so called "assault weapons" bans.

That's the bubble he/she lives in....

If due process has taken your rights away it is ok to check before sale and transfers but that's it. With all the laws on the books only 2 percent of those charged are even prosecuted.of gun crimes.

Who are these laws targeting? Obviously not criminals..

The democrats will not go all out and try to ban everything at once since they know the outcry that will occur. It will be the domino effect, first background checks, larger capacity magazine for rifles, then larger capacity handgun magazines, then reverse Castle Doctrine laws, etc, until they get everything they want. This is exactly why I’m against background checks, however, I think as gryhki said the writing is on the wall since the Republicans and Trump appear to be caving in.

If these polls(in italics below) were taken today, I would be surprised if the percentages were not even higher.
I suspected that some would make their replies personal, but look things up for yourself.
Or, better yet, talk to people other than those who you know agree with your every political view. At least half the gun owners/hunters I know think ALL gun sales should require a background check. Many feel the same about high capacity mags.
Now, If you are looking for a quick rebuttal, "fake news" is an easy one.

Poll

Date

Question

Percent support/favor

Quinnipiac University

June 2017

Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?

94%

Washington University American Panel Survey

July 2016

Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers, no matter where the gun is purchased?

84%

CBS News

June 2016

Do you favor or oppose a federal law requiring background checks on all potential gun buyers?

89%

Morning Consult

June 2016

Do you support requiring all sellers to run background checks on anyone who buys a gun?

86%*

Public Policy Polling

Mar. 2016

Do you support or oppose requiring a criminal background check of every person who wants to buy a firearm?

84%

CBS News/New York Times

Jan.2016

Do you favor or oppose a federal law requiring background checks on all potential gun buyers?

88%

*This was a poll of registered voters, rather than simply adults[/i]

Here in Ks we passed a law making it a felony to enforce federal gun law. That was done just a few short years ago. Its called the 2nd amendment protection act if your in the mood to look something up. I don't think its much of a secret that polls are done to promote the views of whoever is doing the poll rather than find out what people think. If 90% of Americans wanted to have more gun control law we would have.

P.S. calling your "poll" a bit of ridiculousness is not personal so far as Im concerned.

How about the"he/she" reply from another?
And, at most, the rest of your reply is so obviously person that to describe it as thinly veiled is generous.

Maybe folks are just tired of your constant liberal trolling grackle and are hoping personal insults will make you go away?

If somebody had information and/or data that was relevant to a subject that I was discussing, I would want to see know. If I questioned the source of the info, I would be happy that he posted that too.
If someone wants to make their reply personal because I show info he wishes were not rue, why would I care what such a closed mind thinks of me?

I do think there are many who will not post anything that is in opposition to some of the loudest, and most insulting, posters. They know it will bring on the attacks from those who use such tactics to keep information that they don't like of the forum. And, as I suppose will happen with this one, somebody will post some bad enough to shut the thread down.

Maybe I didn't want to assume your pronouns...

Fair enough.

background checks , first you must understand that >90% of all of this tiny minority of mass shooters passed a background some outright because they had no criminal history and others passed the check because a government employee was complacent in doing their job reporting the crime to the database in a timely manner.

some examples are the Texas church shooter , the Charleston SC church shooter

we have background checks George H Bush and a the legislature made that concession , a check so that no dealer should be selling a gun to a known prohibited person.

the NRA was very much involved in that concession , and the legislation stated that prohibited persons attempting to buy a firearm would be prosecuted how ever none or almost none ever were and after a time prohibited persons realized how many "reporting errors" the courts were making and since there was no repercussions for trying they could test it any time.

so what we have is a colossally broken list that all the parties involved seem to be completely unwilling to update or fix they want another set of further infringements on the law abiding that will do nothing to prevent crime.

The president has the authority to order all federal courts to review all convictions today backwards to insure that no miss reporting happened.
Congress or the Federal court system also has the authority to order such a review.
likewise the Governors , Attorney generals and the state legislatures all have the authority to order a review.

yet no one reviews , they don't say , darn our data was wrong several times we should really be going back and checking data to make sure that the list isn't faulty from miss or lack of reporting.

States were given the Authority to regulate handguns as they wished in 1976 many as an example Iowa , Nebraska , Minnesota ,Michigan , New York ,California , Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey , North Carolina , Rhode Island , Hawaii, Maryland and Washington DC all require a license to purchase , a firearms ownership ID or license or have a registration that effectively does the same thing most of them also require this for a semi automatic rifle also.

yet nearly all homicide by gun is handgun and much of it in those very states.

Waiting periods don't work people don't stop off on the way to the store to kill some one and buy a gun then go murder them , It just isn't happening.

Magazine capacity , we spend 10 years proving it had nothing to do with crime , most of the guns used to murder hardly hold more than 10 any way. we now have strong evidence that suggest Victims are more likely to be handicapped by magazine capacity than assailants.


what we have is a government that said give us this and we will keep you safe and we gave them the tools they asked for and now after they Neglected the tools they have they have come back to ask for more tools that we can only expect they will also neglect to use.

what is negotiable is where every person who falsely fills out a 4473 or is a prohibited person filling out a 4473 is logged recorded and prosecuted even if first try is a 100 dollar fine and a you have officially been warned don't try this again or it is 5 years.
a full review of all convictions starting today and working backwards till 1989 for a start.

if your going to have a "comprehensive" background check you must start by having a comprehensive list or it will do no good start there , it requires no no legislation just what they government already promised it would do and Failed.

the reality is that the government Lies they may lie with the best intentions but they will not be there to protect you , they just can't , they won't tell you the truth ans say you need to take care of you.

then they hide behind a history of lies demanding they be given greater and greater authority in order to do what they can not do.

it i a perpetual self fulfilling prophecy , a government asks for power it is given , it is squandered , wasted , and misused then the answer is always that it needs more power , more authority , more , more , more

bill Clinton signed insta check into law

What he said.

you are correct , it was in congress but never came up for a vote in 1991 Chuck Schumer reintroduced it in February of 1993 and Bill signed it November 30th ,1993.

the insta check came as part of the Brady Handgun act.

I was remembering the 4473 for my first new rifle in spring 1993 but they didn't call it in at that time yet.

in 1989 George H Bush did sign an executive order prohibiting import of arms unless they had a "sporting purpose".

why was dragger's comment "way over the top"?

the same exact argument could be used against the First Amendment. (take a poll on college campii about "hate speech")

the Bill of Rights was designed to PREVENT the Tyranny of the Masses (or pure democracy)

Hey James....are you gonnah be betting again in Nov 2020 ...and try to win back your 50.00 loss..... Are you taking the cheese ?

Oh, I dunno, Nessmuck. Will you take the bet if I offer it?

Jim

The question which bothers me more than any other is "what has changed?" Many of us older members on here remember shooting on the high school rifle team, going rabbit hunting after school (sometimes with one of the teachers), going duck hunting before school in the morning and so forth. The question of a school shooting did not have a trace on anyone's mind.
At what point did that cross over to insanity? I suppose there is no definitive answer to said question, but something sure as H made things different.

Zim

Technology kept kids indoors instead of outdoors. Our entertainment was actual not virtual.
Add to that the disregard for life and the destruction of Hope. The fruits of the tree that we the people have planted are coming to bear. I expect it only gets worse.

Zim,

my (non-professional) opinion is that things began to change when you could no longer settle peer "issues" mano-a-mano in school. in other words: the imposition of liberalism.

think about it: the typical issue was a bully. how was it historically resolved? eventually, the kid who was being picked on, had enough and clobbered the bully. end of issue.

then, (with "zero tolerance" firmly in place) ...the kid who was being picked on was expelled, too. punished for standing up for yourself!

what does that do? it fosters resentment and the feeling of being a victim.

eventually, they "lose it" and you have Columbine. You have Sandy Hook. You have Parkland.

Yes Sir !

In my opinion what has changed is the advent of the twenty-four hour news cycle in the late eighties and early nineties and the left's nearly complete domination of it. They recognized it for the extremely powerful tool that it is and have used it to disseminate propagandized liberal ideology to the masses. It is working. Between that and their domination of our education system they are influencing entire generations.

The left also dominates the internet. Google, is the world's most popular search engine. They use algorithms to steer people in certain directions. I saw an expert testify in the senate recently that Google was responsible for swaying millions to vote for Clinton in the last election. Facebook, one of the largest social media sites on the planet, is also dominated by liberals and they use censorship to suppress conservative ideology.

The left has figured out to how ro effectively get their message out to the masses and legally suppress opposing views. They are winning the battle for the hearts and minds of America.

They will never go door to door ,But they will make you a felon for keeping one and eventually they will get as many as they want

The left keeps calling for background checks, most of the info that would stop someone from buying a gun is off limits ( mental problems, sealed files) due to Dr. patient confidentiality, and take Nicolas Cruz, the state of Georgia was at fault, the state was paying money to schools for kids not going straight to jail after graduation, even after 26 trips by the cops to his house, he was still able to pass the background check. Its a people problem, bad people using guns as tools. As far as the AR buyback, there were 10 million AR's in the country the day Obama was elected to his 2nd term, that number exceeds 20 million today of those 13 have been used for mass shootings, so I'm betting the percentage of Glocks used in mass shootings is much higher, either way. Why is it every time a mass shooting occurs, the left blames the people who didn't do it?
RR

The real problem in this country IS the left.

I graduated in 1977, every truck in the student parking lot had a rifle in the back glass, the first school shooting happened in 1999, in the early 80's, the mainstream media championed modern parenting, you did not spank kids, you reasoned with them, teachers could no longer discipline them. kids grew up not knowing what respect was. If you grow up never facing consequences for your actions, you always think you never did anything wrong.
RR

Too many fatherless homes these days. Mom can't keep up with the kids. Busy single moms look for the school system to raise their kids. The schools "raise" their kids alright... They are worse at that then they are at educating them.

LOL and IL has some of the toughest laws in the U.S. regarding firearms. OH YEAH criminals don't care about the laws!
And I do not know about your state but many states (including IL) report "clear and present danger" patients and severely mentally ill patients to the back ground check.

SOOOO Everytime the politicians say "expand the background check" or "toughen it up" I wonder what they'll want to add to it??? From an Illinois point of view.

Current laws won't stop mass shootings. No new laws will stop mass shootings.
Just as you cannot fix stupid, you cannot fix crazy.
Stupid politicians are trying to fix crazy by being stupid.
It is sad to say this, but these horrific incidents are a most unfortunate cost of Freedom.
Under our current form of government, without the 2nd amendment, we will no longer remain a free nation. And guess what. We will still have mass shootings. More of them likely, since there will be zero threat of reprisal from armed citizens.

Just because someone is willing to do something most people wouldn't consider because it is a horrendous act does not mean they're crazy. Lacking a conscience isn't crazy nor is not placing a value on your own life or others.

you make an excellent point what could they possibly do that doesn't step Way over the line that they haven't already done in ILL . the reason a WI resident can't get a ILL CCL is that WI doctors don't report to ILL. to even look at a gun in a gun store you have to have a FOID card , you haven't even purchaed a gun yet just to go look at purchasing one you must register yourself as a Firearms Owner and get approved.

never mind you could be an ILL resident who never goes to the doctor or only goes to the Doctor in WI , IA , IN , KY , MO

there was even an ILL mass shooter no one likes to talk about , he had no FOID card because he bought the rifle a 10 round SKS in 1991 and while there were several things that should have prevented him form owning a rifle or having a FOID card his convictions were also not recorded properly, of course he used a 10 round gun with a fixed magazine to deliver what the media called fully automatic fire hundreds of rounds ,but he was shooting at Republican US senators and representatives. who had a security detail the media likes to just forget that ever happen because it don't fit the narrative they want to hear

Thanks Pete. Almost forgot that guy at the baseball diamond (That is the shooter you referenced?). Everytime ILL or Fed politicians say add to the background check you gotta wonder "What now"??? Ours in ILL are tough now.

yes the guy who targeted republican baseball players practicing for the Rep v Dem baseball game in DC/Virginia

think about this , right now these people are convinced a rifle is the answer , they let the tv and movies guide their decisions. so you have 1 person behind a weapon that fires 1 projectile in 1 direction at a time.

when that becomes unavailable they are going to get creative Boston marathon creative where they don't even need to be present to "win".

now I wasn't there but I think if you ask an Iraq / Afghanistan vet would you rather face one enemy with a rifle who is making it very apparent they are the enemy or a bunch of hidden IEDs they would be able to tell you what they prefer.

Take that in a slightly different direction GCP, if semi-auto rifles are banned, that still leaves shotguns, which I would bet are as effective or more so even when loaded up with buckshot.

I really do think that some folks need to actively take a more proactive approve to defending themselves. The holistic approve of knowing radios and other tactics is more important than just away a firearm

or people who learn to aim.

the world record for most hits at 300 meters in 25 seconds was set buy a bolt action 19th century rifle with a fixed 5 round magazine to be fair this sport limits even those with semi auto rifles to fire with only 5 rounds in the magazine but they run bolt along semi and have nearly identical scores .

Now I have to question your sanity, with all due respect.
Name me one mass shooter who had a just cause for doing what they did. Without that, one can conclude with certainty that there is something wrong with that individuals brain.
One can throw a word like "crazy" around and argue about what the definition of "crazy" is, but the bottom line is that mass shooters without a plausible cause are mentally disturbed and should not be on the street, nor in their mom's basement. They should be dead, which seems to be the ultimate goal of most of them.

Here is a question and I am not happy with the answer. What right does the State of Illinois have as I am a Wisconsin Resident, to take away my right to defend myself,
when they have some of the most stringent firearm laws in the country and yet have 5 folks killed and 40 wounded every week. (that be on the low side) in one city alone
As my father, an old WWII vet would say, that is some pee poor shooting.
Well he did not actually say that but the profanity filter cut him off.
Back to my point, how can a State Line change my right to defend myself or others?
I thought the 2nd A was national.

Zim

I ask myself that same question every time I have to leave my weapon at home before crossing the Delaware river into New Jersey or the northern Pennsylvania border into New York.

Carrying a concealed weapon is perfectly legal (as constitutional rights should be) here in PA. But, as soon as I cross one of those borders, I instantly become a felon for exercising that right. In NJ it will get me a mandatory two years in jail. Three and a half years is the typical sentence for that act in New York.

I avoid the non free states. Legal to carry a loaded long gun in vehicle here.

Old girlfriend looked me up a few years ago and invited me to come visit her in New Jersey. When I said I won't go to NJ she said that she is in Chicago on business a few times a month maybe I could meet her there....

so technically they don't have the right to keep you from defending yourself. but it is a catch 22.

as you may recall shortly before WI got concealed carry there had been several cases of people who carried concealed illegally but had to defend themselves in a justified use of force.
a pizza deliver guy was one of these cases. under old WI law pre act 35 and 51 you had to keep a handgun unloaded and out of reach while in a vehicle , as a pizza delivery guy he was ambushed just feet outside his vehicle there fore he could not have exited the car gone to the truck retrieved and loaded his handgun and then holsters grabbed the pizza and walked to the door. therefor the law was ruled as unconstitutional as it applied to that driver in that incident.
we were however getting to the point there had been 5 or 6 such cases.
when the legislature adopted act 35 and 51 to keep from having the existing laws deemed unconstitutional as they apply to everyone and creating defacto concealed carry.
35 gave us concealed carry and 51 allowed open carry of a loaded handgun in a car.

but as you can see from MCDonald vs The City of Chicago you might have to fight all the way to the supreme court to keep from being prosecuted for using your right.

If they caught you carrying without having to use it in a justified case , then you didn't have the "need"

it is Pee poor shooting or what your father actually said

it is pee poor shooting for a reason , they have no training nor practice. just a tool they do not know how to use or handle. compounded by machismo attitude and low expectations.

pistols are inherently more accurate than 90% of pistol users once the shooter knows how to use the tool results get much better.

but because so many people have such a low expectation for a pistol , not very good is acceptable to most.

and yet people plane old civilians actually are very successful in using a pistol to defend themselves . often because the range is so close just beyond arms reach.

we ran a stage once with a target 6 feet out of the starting box , on the buzzer you drew and fired 2 rounds into this target from retention , not bringing the gun up but shooting as soon as the arm had rotated about 90 degrees from exiting the holster some might call it shooting from the hip , retention is a little higher than the hip more like shooting from the arm pit but similar concept , only one person shot low but still hit in the groin of the target. all of about 12 guys hit the target 6 feet way most perfect center mass and fast granted these are well practiced shooters but some of them had never tried this not aiming before.