It was an AR-15 Assault Rifle, Banned in 90's under Clinton

    And banned in California for a decade or more. California now also requires a background check for purchase of ammo. The American ritual after Dallas, the post massacre arsenal report. The right wing denial that any gun law whatsoever could have limited the recent massacre, in particular the 1994 Clinton Federal Assault Weapons Ban which Republicans let expire in 2004. Even today, right wing 'live in their own universe' websites, this one 'Controversial Times' (they thrive on controversy, abhor concensus/facts) are still trumpeting that the Dallas shooter did not use an AR-15, but instead used some antique WW2 rifle:

    The Gun Used by the Dallas Police Murderer is Revealed. It’s Not What Most People Thought.

    Sorry gun fanatics but, the Mayor of Dallas has said it was an AR-15, assault weapon, the same used in the Orlando massacre. Gun fetishism is so widespread in America that the NRA and their cultists would like to promote their fervent belief that assault weapons made for military combat and banned under President Clinton, using huge 15- 30-100 magazines banned under Clinton, should not be focused in on when 100 people get shot in Orlando, or when a single shooter mows down a dozen cops and sends a major American city into chaos. Becuz banning military assault weapons is a slippery slope to....taking their other guns, 'U.S, tyranny' etc etc.

    According to the NRA and the GOP a gun that can shoot a hundred rounds in less than a minute is not more dangerous than, say, a kitchen knife or say, George Washington's flintlock pistol. The inventor of the AR-15 said he did not intend it for civilian use. The NRA gun industry and the Republicans don't care, as long as it makes them money, gets them votes or increases divisions, fear and hate in the country that they can exploit over and over and over.

    The rest of us learn the names of the latest versions of deadly guns from the arsenal reports of the latest mass shooting, and the gun nuts follow that too, and then go out and buy (another?) one.

    Yesterday, John Lewis and the Black Caucus called for votes and action on pending gun control legislation.

    AR-15 with legal modification in action.




    Well done.

    Kitchen knives do not cause this kind of damage in so short a time.

    All I have in my mind are swear words that will not work here.



    To those who would disagree.....

    I wish to cheer you up?

    Thanks Richard. Obama nailed it today when he said too many guns has a lot to do with the tragedies this week, along with, of course, one Party still pledging allegiance to Jefferson Davis.

    I just wrote a blog about this idea.

    My President can speak like no others.

    I shall miss President Obama.

    I wrote years ago about the messages given by Davis and his henchmen.

    Oh well.....

    Well put!

    Sorry gun fanatics but, the Mayor of Dallas has said it was an AR-15, assault weapon, the same used in the Orlando massacre.

    Do you have a more reliable source, because everything else I read undermines the AR-15 "assault weapon" narrative, and says instead that the firearm used was indeed an SKS.  Furthermore, Mayor Rawlings, being a gun ban zealot, can be counted to be either utterly clueless about guns, or perfectly willing to lie in service to the forcible citizen disarmament agenda--or both.

    It's kind of an odd debate.  If it was an AR-15 it was a contemporary assault rifle, capable of unleashing a massive amount of ammunition from a distance. If it was an SKS, which I understand to be a Soviet era rifle in service before the Kalishnikov, then it was a rifle capable of unleashing a massive amount of ammunition from a distance.

    Weapons used in World War I and early World War II may seem dated now or like antiques but if in good working order are capable of killing a whole lot of people with ease.  The technology behind a Tesla is science fiction compared to the cogs and gears within a German World War II Panzer tank, but I wouldn't want to be in a Tesla facing off against a Panzer.

    My family had guns.  The most powerful of the lot, with the longest range and penetrating power, was a World War II era German Mauser.  Go figure.

    Whenever they are made, guns made for combat just about any time after the introduction of the Colt 45 are contemporary enough and should be suitably regulated.

    There  could be some interesting studies done, but there won't be, of why seemingly intelligent/educated people cling to this gun banning fetish that only displays their ignorance/feat of firearms and violence in Amerika. Since the end of the so called assault weapons' ban about 30% of the more than 5 Million AR15s currently owned have been purchased but the gun crime rate has continued to decline nationally so there is no causal connection between banning guns and lower gun crime rates.

    The shootings in Dallas shows clearly that the full-auto fantasy displayed here has nothing to do with an effective tactical assault where  rounds are aimed at targets individually not sprayed in their direction. The SKS apparently used in this attack wasn't designated as an assault weapon but it was military and more powerful than the AR15 which never actually became a military weapon in the US even in its full-auto version.

    When this gun banning hysteria and the political parasites who thrive on it fails to have an effect on the type of violence we are now seeing the next step will be confiscation of all these 'assault weapons'. Perhaps the people who are the  most vocal supporters of gun banning/confiscation and their political opportunists could be tasked with the job of confiscation, starting in Texas, I would love to watch this liberal agenda implode on the nightly news.

    Looks like your right wing arm everyone agenda exploded in Dallas, capped off by a bomb robot, not a liberal and not a gun, disposing of the guy clinging to his guns.

    There's a ridiculous argument that to discuss gun control legislation one must be an expert in guns. I'm a far left liberal democrat and I own 3 guns, 30-06, 22, and a 12 gauge. I don't need to be able to discuss in excruciating detail and correct terminology the differences between those and every other gun to hunt with these guns or to discuss gun control. Just as I don't need to be able to discuss the difference between carburetors and fuel injection to discuss car registration and insurance.

    I went to Walmart and bought a gun. It was an inconvenience to fill out paper work and wait for a background check. But surely no one wants violent felons to get a gun. Surely we don't want minors to buy guns. It seems like a no brainer to extent background checks to gun shows and internet sales.  As a gun owner it would be nothing but a minor inconvenience.  No one needs a gun immediately today. A short waiting period would, again, be nothing more than a minor inconvenience for me and other gun owners. So what is the big deal issue?

    I have a few guns and I've shot several other guns. I shot an M-16 full automatic in BCT when I joined the army. I can't discuss in detail all the different mechanics of every single gun in existence. But I know enough to know some guns aren't needed for any normal civilian use. My 30-06 loads 4 bullets. I don't need more to hunt. My 22 loads 13. Three times more than I need. I've used larger cartridges when firing a M-16. No one needs 30, 50, or 100 bullet cartridges. It shouldn't be controversial to say that. It seems like a no brainer.

    I just buy standard ammo for my guns. But I know there are several types of specialized ammo. There is ammo designed to shatter on impact. Ammo that has hardened shells to penetrate things like police body armor. Could be that "shatter on impact" or "hardened shells" is the wrong terminology. Some gun experts tell me that unless I can use all the right words I can't discuss the issue. Nonsense. There are types of ammo that aren't needed and don't belong in the hands of civilians. It again seems like a no brainer to me.

    When ever we try to discuss the issue the gun nuts always bring up the confiscation bogeyman. At most that's a fringe position on the far left. No mainstream democrat supports confiscation. As a liberal democrat and a gun owner I would fight against it, as would the vast majority of democrats. Confiscation is an obfuscation tactic to derail rational discussion of the issue of gun control.

    There's a ridiculous argument that to discuss gun control legislation one must be an expert in guns.

    Imagine if Republicans took the same stance about climate change?

    As usual another straw man diversion and anyone who supports an agenda to deny others a basic human right should at least have a basic understanding of the object they are targeting for banning.

    What is most pernicious about the gun banning nut agenda is that people who have or are willing to surrender their basic rights, which is their prerogative only for themselves, for a false sense of security,  believe that denying this right to many others is defendable. I used to believe that liberals could be trusted to only seek reasonable gun control laws but as we have seen their quest never ends. We already have hundreds of reasonable gun restrictions and some unreasonable ones but they don't produce the results that only a totalitarian regime can produce so they continue to move in that direction. I've also seen too many clear statements by people in this minority that point directly to support for denying this right if not completely nearly so.

    Most of our basic rights have been systematically undermined, especially since 9/11 and the right to bear arms is mostly symbolic in our police state but it is still worthwhile to resist the stateist/authoritarian future liberals seem to desire.

    the right to bear arms is mostly symbolic in our police state

    That's simply not true. Gun rights have greatly expanded over the last few decades. There are many who view that expansion as insanity. Even gun owners like myself. Gun owners have more rights now than they did in the so called wild wild west. What you're seeing is a small and very reasonable push back against that expansion. I probably shoot my guns and hunt more than most gun owners since I live so far out in wilderness area and can shoot out side my house at any day or hour I choose with out bothering my nearest neighbor 10 miles away. I've owned and used guns since I was a teen. Still I favor reasonable gun control legislation.

    eda: What constitutes "basic understanding?" When I was in BCT I was required to disassemble my M-16, correctly identify each part, and reassemble it in a certain amount of time. I couldn't do that now. Some anti gun control advocates claim that lack of proper vocabulary means I can't discuss gun control. That's nonsense. I can disassemble my guns and clean them but I don't know the names of the parts. I certainly know enough from use over 50 years to discuss guns and gun control. That's more than enough basic knowledge. The attempt to stifle debate by insisting on expert knowledge is the strawman.

    Say slowly, "this is my gun and this is my rifle..."

    I imagine you can order a parts breakdown list as needed.

    Me I've shot a gun about 3x in my life - always moreinterested in guitar for some reason. Bang bang, my baby shot me down...

    ...always moreinterested in guitar for some reason.

    Definitely sexier.

    My interest in a gun boils down to being poor and liking to eat meat. Hunting gets me organic free range meat that I could never afford. I spend more time playing my guitar than  hunting with my gun. If I could make as much money playing my guitar as Joe Perry does and I could afford high quality meat I'd stop hunting. But unfortunately no one will pay me anything to play guitar for them. 

    America has so many guns cops can legally kill you if they just think you have a gun.  See my post linked above  'cop lives matter most of all.

    The 2 civs killed by cops might possibly be alive if they didn't have guns. 

    We do not have a police state, but havoc and mayhem wreaked over and over by lethally armed psychopaths will put us in the fast lane to get there.


    Accepting that it is in the Constitution and has been interpreted as something akin to a natural right, what are you really arguing here? If the idea is that people have a right to own property and guns are simply property and thus you have as much a right to own a gun as you do a dog or a matchbox car, then tell me why I also can't own a nuclear weapon, anthrax or the moon.  If the argument is a simple right to self defense, tell me why I don't have a natural right to constantly wear a suicide vest so I can take down myself along with any attacker, should that be my choice.  

    Seriously, how is owning a gun one of my most basic rights?  Can I trade it for a more important right like being able to cum on demand?

    Interesting point on suicide vests. Would the ACLU defend it's use as a political statement? Or  would it be, even if disabled, like yelling fire in a theatre?

    Cum on demand. Wow. And this whole time I've been told it's all about the journey.

    A journey of a thousand miles begins with one wank.

    What's the sound of one hand thwapping?

    Obviously a Circle about getting somewhere, and only tangentially about distance.

    OK, I'll stop now.

    cum on demand ain't no thing. From my reading on the subject most men have no trouble cumming way too quickly and far too soon on demand. Not cumming on demand is the basic right most men need. I, of course, have already figgered it out. I'd be happy to give you a few pointers

    Dagblog's ick factor just went up dramatically. I apologize for my role in the escalation. or put more succinctly, "Down, Simba...."

    That's interesting. You call owning a gun a basic human right. You appear to advocate moving the right to self defense on a community level as described by the Second Amendment into the Bill of Rights, the document describing what each citizen is due by default unless they become a criminal. The state of law as defined by various Supreme Court rulings has given a very individualistic understanding of the amendment's intent to let people defend themselves at the expense of the original reference to "well regulated militias" but to treat the matter as a basic human right is a step that goes well beyond that.

    As a conservative anxious to preserve the precedent of law, I oppose your proposition for radical change.

    Good point. To the NRA we are a well regulated militia of 318 million.  They also believe that guns, not laws, not the rest of the Bill of Rights, not voting, not state or federal constitutions and government protect rights like a loaded gun. They call it ' the first freedom.' Of course, since governments can afford more and bigger guns that argument seems like nonsense given a few connected brain cells.

     The NRA really only cares about the gun industry and gun sales. That is really all they, and too many in this country  value - money in their pocket.

    I think the "first freedom" perspective comes from believing that one can participate in Hobbes' war of all against all (that he saw as the condition of Man in his Natural State) while also expecting to be protected by the State when the holster got sticky or when all that fighting interfered with shopping.

    NRA Era of legal assault weapons, from a comment at nyt:

    To stop a bad guy with a gun, you now need a hundred plus good guys with a BOMB. "

    Latest Comments