• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gilroy Garlic Festival Shooter's gun banned in CA, bought in Nevada

AtlantaAdonis

AtlantaAdonis

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
2,383
Reaction score
717
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Source: Gilroy Garlic Festival shooter’s rifle was legal in Nevada, banned in California - SFChronicle.com

17604590-guy-with-megaphone-and-white-board.jpg


Attention, Bubbas and Jim Bobs: Your lack of willingness to support common sense gun control is leading to deaths inside progressive states like California who don't want our states to be like the wild west where any lunatic can buy a gun. If every state had followed California's example maybe a few more people would be alive today. Thanks a lot.
 
Shooter broke the law to get the tools for the job, ergo we need laws to prevent the breaking of existing laws?
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
Source: Gilroy Garlic Festival shooter’s rifle was legal in Nevada, banned in California - SFChronicle.com

17604590-guy-with-megaphone-and-white-board.jpg


Attention, Bubbas and Jim Bobs: Your lack of willingness to support common sense gun control is leading to deaths inside progressive states like California who don't want our states to be like the wild west where any lunatic can buy a gun. If every state had followed California's example maybe a few more people would be alive today. Thanks a lot.
Click to expand...

Gun control doesn't work.
 
KevinKohler said:
Shooter broke the law to get the tools for the job, ergo we need laws to prevent the breaking of existing laws?
Click to expand...

Nah, that's never going to work. Just ban assault rifles nationwide.
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
Source: Gilroy Garlic Festival shooter’s rifle was legal in Nevada, banned in California - SFChronicle.com

17604590-guy-with-megaphone-and-white-board.jpg


Attention, Bubbas and Jim Bobs: Your lack of willingness to support common sense gun control is leading to deaths inside progressive states like California who don't want our states to be like the wild west where any lunatic can buy a gun. If every state had followed California's example maybe a few more people would be alive today. Thanks a lot.
Click to expand...

Yep, isn't having open borders a great policy? ;)
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
Attention, Bubbas and Jim Bobs: Your lack of willingness to support common sense gun control is leading to deaths inside progressive states like California who don't want our states to be like the wild west where any lunatic can buy a gun. If every state had followed California's example maybe a few more people would be alive today. Thanks a lot.
Click to expand...

You forgot Cletus...
 
HumblePi said:
Nah, that's never going to work. Just ban assault rifles nationwide.
Click to expand...

Ban assault rifles, but don't be stupid and try to ban semi automatic rifles
 
AProudLefty said:
There's nothing in the Second Amendment about specific types of guns.
Click to expand...

Actually, there is. The types of arms that the people have a right to keep and bear (without government infringement?) are those arms (guns?) commonly used by a militia. The SCOTUS has since gone on to clarify that (just a bit) by stating that those guns in common use for lawful purposes may not be banned or unreasonably restricted.

It is amazing that the militia clause of the 2A is so often ignored when it comes to the (obvious?) intent of the founders. In fact, some go to the illogical extreme of pretending that "military style" guns are not precisely what the 2A was about.
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
Source: Gilroy Garlic Festival shooter’s rifle was legal in Nevada, banned in California - SFChronicle.com

17604590-guy-with-megaphone-and-white-board.jpg


Attention, Bubbas and Jim Bobs: Your lack of willingness to support common sense gun control is leading to deaths inside progressive states like California who don't want our states to be like the wild west where any lunatic can buy a gun. If every state had followed California's example maybe a few more people would be alive today. Thanks a lot.
Click to expand...

Don't worry. No one will ever force you to come to the defense of anyone, not even yourself. It is entirely legal to believe you and everyone else has a duty to agree to be helplessly murdered rather than using a gun to prevent it because it is guns, not murderers, who are evil in your apparent opinion by your message.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Actually, there is. The types of arms that the people have a right to keep and bear (without government infringement?) are those arms (guns?) commonly used by a militia. The SCOTUS has since gone on to clarify that (just a bit) by stating that those guns in common use for lawful purposes may not be banned or unreasonably restricted.

It is amazing that the militia clause of the 2A is so often ignored when it comes to the (obvious?) intent of the founders. In fact, some go to the illogical extreme of pretending that "military style" guns are not precisely what the 2A was about.
Click to expand...

I bought my first AR15 this weekend. Why? The MOST there are out there, the more defensible they are in popularity. AR15s are the most affordable self defense rifle on the market, while suitable for sport shooting and most forms of hunting.
 
Chillfolks said:
Ban assault rifles, but don't be stupid and try to ban semi automatic rifles
Click to expand...

Do you think even ONE anti-gunner on this forum knows the difference?
 
~ Ever notice these shootings happen in "No Guns Allowed" areas ? I have not heard of armed citizens being killed by these psychos. Maybe there's a connection ... :idea:
 
AProudLefty said:
Gun control doesn't work.
Click to expand...

Well that depends on what you mean by work

TO prevent someone willing to die from return gunfire or in prison, from getting a gun-NO

to harass honest gun owners-yes, it works well and that is what it is intended to do. The guy used an SKS rifle that the media turds call an "assault rifle"

its not-it doesn't even have a detachable magazine.
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
Source: Gilroy Garlic Festival shooter’s rifle was legal in Nevada, banned in California - SFChronicle.com

17604590-guy-with-megaphone-and-white-board.jpg


Attention, Bubbas and Jim Bobs: Your lack of willingness to support common sense gun control is leading to deaths inside progressive states like California who don't want our states to be like the wild west where any lunatic can buy a gun. If every state had followed California's example maybe a few more people would be alive today. Thanks a lot.
Click to expand...

Your concept of "sensible gun controls" would cause a civil war as well as crapping all over the constitution. There is nothing sensible about anything you propose concerning guns.

Your idiotic comments about "bubbas" show that what you hate are right wing gun advocates, not armed criminals
 
HumblePi said:
Nah, that's never going to work. Just ban assault rifles nationwide.
Click to expand...

Real assault rifles have been banned: any made after May 19, 1986 cannot be owned by private citizens unless they have rare and hard to get Title II manufacturing permits or have a police request from and a Class III license. I doubt you have a clue what an assault rifle is-the weapon this nut case used is not an assault rifle, not matter how many times the bubble headed assholes in the press say other wise
 
Chillfolks said:
Ban assault rifles, but don't be stupid and try to ban semi automatic rifles
Click to expand...

why? not a single American has ever been murdered by a legally owned assault rifle in private hands. NOT ONE
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Actually, there is. The types of arms that the people have a right to keep and bear (without government infringement?) are those arms (guns?) commonly used by a militia. The SCOTUS has since gone on to clarify that (just a bit) by stating that those guns in common use for lawful purposes may not be banned or unreasonably restricted.

It is amazing that the militia clause of the 2A is so often ignored when it comes to the (obvious?) intent of the founders. In fact, some go to the illogical extreme of pretending that "military style" guns are not precisely what the 2A was about.
Click to expand...

:applaud:applaud
 
TurtleDude said:
Real assault rifles have been banned: any made after May 19, 1986 cannot be owned by private citizens unless they have rare and hard to get Title II manufacturing permits or have a police request from and a Class III license. I doubt you have a clue what an assault rifle is-the weapon this nut case used is not an assault rifle, not matter how many times the bubble headed assholes in the press say other wise
Click to expand...

It's sort of a bad habit you have and I've noticed it in response to other comments so I have to call it out because it's repetitive. You usually use the expression "I doubt you have a clue". I know it's meant to be an insult but it loses its kick once it's overused.

Assault rifles are not banned, only fully automatic are basically prohibited. automatic weapons -- sometimes known as fully automatic, or machine guns -- fire continuously when the trigger is held down.

Two federal laws have essentially banned them in the United States.

One law in 1935 all but banned automatic weapons like the Tommy gun. And another in 1986 prohibited fully automatic weapons, except for pre-existing weapons that were grandfathered in.

Semiautomatic weapons -- not banned

Semiautomatic weapons, like the rifle Mateen carried, reload automatically but fire only once each time the trigger is depressed.

They are not banned by federal law.

From 1994 to 2004, there was a federal law that banned the sale of certain types of new semiautomatic weapons, including some types of AR-15 rifles. A limit on high-capacity magazines also was set.

The law, which was adopted to last for 10 years, was not renewed by Congress when it expired.
 
Last edited:
HumblePi said:
It's sort of a bad habit you have and I've noticed it in response to other comments so I have to call it out because it's repetitive. You usually use the expression "I doubt you have a clue". I know it's meant to be an insult but it loses its kick once it's overused.
Click to expand...

well when you don't have a clue what an assault rifle is, it is an accurate comment. I realize leftwing activists who seek to use gun control as a weapon against pro gun voters, readily lie about the guns they want to ban-I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and figuring you are ignorant of what that term really means.
 
HumblePi said:
It's sort of a bad habit you have and I've noticed it in response to other comments so I have to call it out because it's repetitive. You usually use the expression "I doubt you have a clue". I know it's meant to be an insult but it loses its kick once it's overused.

Assault rifles are not banned, only fully automatic are basically prohibited. utomatic weapons -- sometimes known as fully automatic, or machine guns -- fire continuously when the trigger is held down.

Two federal laws have essentially banned them in the United States.

One law in 1935 all but banned automatic weapons like the Tommy gun. And another in 1986 prohibited fully automatic weapons, except for pre-existing weapons that were grandfathered in.

Semiautomatic weapons -- not banned

Semiautomatic weapons, like the rifle Mateen carried, reload automatically but fire only once each time the trigger is depressed.

They are not banned by federal law.

From 1994 to 2004, there was a federal law that banned the sale of certain types of new semiautomatic weapons, including some types of AR-15 rifles. A limit on high-capacity magazines also was set.

The law, which was adopted to last for 10 years, was not renewed by Congress when it expired.
Click to expand...

He had you pegged tho. You didnt even know that semi-auto 'assault-type' rifles shoot the same as semi-auto handguns. :roll:
 
TurtleDude said:
well when you don't have a clue what an assault rifle is, it is an accurate comment. I realize leftwing activists who seek to use gun control as a weapon against pro gun voters, readily lie about the guns they want to ban-I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and figuring you are ignorant of what that term really means.
Click to expand...

Here's a clue for you because I just proved you wrong, you don't know as much as you brag you do.

image.png
 
HumblePi said:
Here's a clue for you because I just proved you wrong, you don't know as much as you brag you do.

image.png
Click to expand...

You proved me wrong? Oh do tell. This should be fun. The ban in 1994 used the rather bogus term "assault weapons" and was based on cosmetics. The law was a waste of time and after Heller, unconstitutional on a national level.

BTW you added a bunch of stuff after I responded to your post. Poor form
 
Lursa said:
He had you pegged tho. You didnt even know that semi-auto 'assault-type' rifles shoot the same as semi-auto handguns. :roll:
Click to expand...

His idiocy is dishonest-he added a bunch of stuff to his post after I quoted it. and its typical BS
 
TurtleDude said:
You proved me wrong? Oh do tell. This should be fun. The ban in 1994 used the rather bogus term "assault weapons" and was based on cosmetics. The law was a waste of time and after Heller, unconstitutional on a national level.

BTW you added a bunch of stuff after I responded to your post. Poor form
Click to expand...

And they're still all semi-auto, which currently, is legal. Which he even had in his sourced post :doh
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom