Hanaguma

You are making my point. Even in the UK, firearms are not banned. I asked where on earth they have been banned, and to what effect? Still waiting... and I agree that a 12 gauge can be good for home defence, if you have a short barrel and the right load. Slugs are fun but buckshot may be a better option. And hopefully you arent being robbed by more than 2 people...

,...which as worked where, exactly, on this earth?

Chance of being killed with an AR is the same as with a baseball bat. I am equally scared of both. Or equally not scared.

Shooting and hunting are as valid as baseball as hobbies. There is no evidence that restricting AR type weapons would save any lives at all. But it WOULD give politicians something to crow about. Perhaps THAT is the reason it is pushed so much.

Pathetic presentation. The first scene and others show fully automatic weapons firing. Which are virtually unobtainable and therefore irrelevant. Afterwards, he seems to make the case AGAINST long guns as mass shooting weapons, noting the time it takes to change magazines. Far easier for a bad guy to simply carry multiple handguns, dropping them as they are used.

The AR 15 is not a machine gun. It is just a rifle. A semi automatic rifle. Many people who weigh in on the firearms conversation seem ignorant of the basic traits of firearms. A gun is just a lump of metal. In any case, the speed is not the issue. The numbers are. Bats and rifles kill an equal number of people. So it makes just as much sense, for public safety, to ban one as the other.

Neither are baseball bats, and bats kill as many people as AR15s. So howzabout we get rid of baseball bats too?

So, mass shooters will stop if they cant get an AR 15? Where is your evidence of that? There are more than 8 million long guns in the AR family in circulation. 7,999, 800 are used peacefully and lawfully, and also for legitimate home defence.

...and as the article says, NEVER used by the military. A fifty year old design. Nothing unique or special about it. So old that the patent expired and it can be copied by any company. A weapon that has never been used in any military on earth and has never been used in a war cannot be called a weapon of war. It is akin to a Ford Mustang with a 4 cylinder engine. Looks like a sports car, but performs like a family sedan.

Spending 80% of your time trying to reduce 2% of a problem is stupid. Again, why is the 2% being targeted, not the 80%?

Shouting through a bullhorn in the legislature? Come on. Childish and stupid. How many times have YOU changed your mind on a political issue because someone shouted at you through a bullhorn? This was obviously a cheap political stunt and the media as usual lapped it up.

Nothing says 'I am here to debate the issues' like briging a bullhorn to the floor of tbe state legislature.

According to the US Government, HANDGUNS are used in the majority of mass shootings-77% to be exact. See my above link. Fear of long guns is de facto illogical as they are not the most common weapon used in any kind of shooting- mass or otherwise. So you have to ask why they are the target of gun abolitionists, and not the much more deadly handgun. 7,000 murders with handguns, 350 with long guns.

As soon as the phrase "weapons of war" is deployed, the so-called journalist loses all credibility. There is no military on earth that uses the AR-15. Again, the numbers don't bear out the assertion that AR-15s and other long guns are a particular problem. Handguns are used to kill far more people. Politicians and ignorant journalists are simply scapegoating the vast majority of legal and safe owners of long weapons.

Except, as has been proven, it is not. Handguns are the choice at from 60-75%, depending on the statistics you use. The crazy and unrealistic fear of long guns is simply mystifying to me.

Actually not, according to Statista. Handguns more than 60% of the time. https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/ The National Institute of Justice says 77% are committed with handguns... https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/public-mass-shootings-database-amasses-details-half-century-us-mass-shootings But even so mass shootings are a very tiny fraction of overall murders and shootings. Makes no sense to obsess over them when other factors are far more common.

Sure. And a "free press" would only include hand printed sheets of vellum, not the internet or tv or radio. The idea of the 2A was to give free citizens the right to roughly arm themselves in a way equivalent to the standing army.

Nah, the US is and will stay as it has usually been- a 40/40 split between the two parties, with about 20% in the middle/undecided camp. BTW, what is an "assault type long gun" and why is it necessary to ban them when they are used so relatively infrequently in crime?

Thank you for your kind words. Fetterman doesnt have "hearing aids" in the sense of devices that amplify sound. He is incapable of understanding what is said to him without it being written beforehand. If you saw his latest interview on CBS it was painfully obvious that he cannot hold a normal conversation. Another year on and hopefully abortion will be less of an issue. Things are still percolating through the states at the moment, as they should. The key is whether or not the media reports honestly or, as usual, puts their collective thumb on the scales.

It is a good argument because the guns that most ill informed anti-gun people want to ban (long guns) are not in fact a serious problem. Handguns are, especially handguns in the hands of young black men which are used to kill other black people. THAT is the biggest part of gun violence, yet it is one that nobody wants to tackle.

Actually, more people are killed with knives than with ALL long guns (rifles, shotguns, semi auto and single shot) combined. Ditto clubbing weapons- bats etc kill more people than long guns. Should they be banned as well? Cars kill tens of thousands too. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls

Fetterman IS a vegetable. Even compared to some of his semi-sentient colleagues in the senate like Chuck Grassley or Dianne Feinstein. He cannot hear without aid, cannot answer spontaneous questions, and really should be recovering from his stroke rather than in government. Agreed that the opponent will matter.Personally, I hope it isnt Trump. A younger, vigorous, and intellectually agile GOP choice would be a great contrast to the President if he runs again.

This. And if, by age 65, you are hard put to come up with 25 large in order to qualify for a retirement visa, then perhaps you have more to worry about than bouncing around Thailand. Other places have easier rules- Philippines for example, where you can stay longer without proving your financial health.

Wow, sounds just like 2016-19! Except the inflation part. And gas is $3.50 a gallon, not $2.50. So maybe Biden is doing almost as well as Trump did.

For the Democrats, perhaps a red state senator like John Tester? He could try to bridge the gap between the effete urban elites of the Democrats and possible left leaning Republicans. As for Biden and his age, remember that John McCain was only 72 when his presidential campaign was constantly hit with concerns about his age. Biden at 10 years older and clearly declining would be a disaster. He will have to run an actual campaign this time and physically/mentally he isn't up to it.