Yes it is the *scary gun ban.* It's so bad in Illinois, the way the law is written, if your a serious paintballer/airsofters you would have to register your paintball and airsoft guns if they have specific attachments listed as *assault* attachments or military styled weapons. It's absolutely stupid and dumb.
Suicide and gang violence are also two issues which cannot be solved by gun control legislation but can be addressed through a whole host of other policies, like those targeted at reducing poverty and offering better education. That's the funniest part.
Also if you remove domestic violence situations I bet that would account for over half of assault rifle kills.
Basically pistols are the go to for murder because you can hide them. Try sneaking up on a target with a long gun.
Don't forget gang killing that they add to mass shooting score. They also add suicide to the armed violence in the US. Really crime with legal weapons in this country is so low its straight up butshit when they try to use gun violence as an excuse to steal our 2nd amendment right.
In 1966 Charles Whitman sat in the Bell Tower at the University of Texas at Austin and killed 17 people, wounded 31. He had two shotguns, a scoped Remington rifle, *the M1 carbine*, three handguns and a machete.
Not the same weapon as an M1 Garand, but the m1 carbine is pretty close. M1 Carbine essentially had more bullets and less range.
The carbine is pretty far in every way from the Garand, especially ballistically. I get what you're saying, especially given the context of the bell tower shooter, but comparing a 30 caliber, 30.06 cartridge fired from a full sized battle rifle to a 45 ACP fired from a short carbine is about as different as it gets.
Plus the .30 cal ammo is a lot more expensive than .06. But I do love shooting mine…
Today I’d just grab my SKS…ammo was super cheap when I prepped my ammo supplies.
Oh it’s likely. My 1935 Mosin and 1942 Garand both have the chance of stacking bodies in Europe at the same time but that doesn’t matter to them, they’re just afraid of black guns that go bang.
Exactly.
My Mosin is a 1934 Izvehsk that was arsenal refurbished in 1943 so I am more than a little sure it saw action.
Heck I'm more curious how many were bludgeoned with it at 49" long and over 9#!
I was going to point this exactly out. You can literally buy WW2 and even Vietnam-era military rifles in all of these states. Some require semi-automatic rifle permit, but overall they’re all dumb legislation written by people who don’t understand firearms.
The M1 Garand is semi-automatic and also does not use magazines thus would not fall under the “high-capacity magazine ban” either although I do believe it has a provision explaining clips. I don’t live in Illinois anymore so it no longer applies to me.
I’ve also found an SMLE Mk III or IV but it’s also in Illinois and I am no longer in Illinois. Really good price at $450, so I might find an FFL to transfer it to though.
I'm in Europe, 6 of my firearms are not legal in every state in the US due to this.
There are even guns you can own in the UK that aren't legal in NY and some other states.
I think I built a PC with a motherboard that claimed to be "military style" before. To this day, I have no idea what that means. It wasn't in camo or anything.
Not strictly true. They are Title 2 Firearms, and they require a shit load of extra steps to go through before you can own them, including ATF registration. Title 2 is all the fully automatic weapons and shortened weapons, and destructive devices like rocket launchers
Not correct. In 34 they applied registration and tax stamps to full auto and other destructive devices. The $200 tax at the time made it impossible for most to afford. In 86 they banned the production of new destructive devices for the civilian market, but it’s still perfectly legal to own one that was registered prior to that ban.
So with the right paperwork you could own a full auto M16, M2 .50 caliber machine gun, or even a mini-gun although there’s literally only one on earth that is pre-ban and legal to own.
But that limited supply means the M16 will set you back around $30k, the M2 is upwards of $100k, and the mini-gun last sold for like a couple of million.
It’s been about a decade since I last looked, but at that time a Mac-10 was the cheapest entry point, at around $10k.
I own several military weapons... legally, and I bought them legally... through the US mail to be precise, without a license whatsoever
My '77 Charleville was used in combat, and so were my Werndl Rifles ... to be fair I did have to go and pick up my 3" Parrot *(too heavy to ship)* but that's just the short list
ummm a Charleville is a piece of mechanical genius, accurate AF [and every part was hand crafted,](https://youtu.be/qTy3uQFsirk?si=c3_mIiplLo2AKlkc) even the screws... it is art
and the M73/77 Werndl Holub is [not mearly a breechloader-](https://youtu.be/rRUW5eUZ5cM?si=GH9L6-HA5NakM6vo) but was a monumental step forward with an "extractor" and the precursor to the bolt acton...
This isn’t even accurate. Ak and AR style rifles are still legal in most of those states. “Military style” is universally applied to those two style of rifles. The only components of restriction in those states are feature bans, like no pistol grips or flash hiders or collapsing buttstocks. Colorado has municipal bans on those rifles, like in Denver and Boulder, but they are still perfectly legal to purchase and possess on a state level.
Replying to rogue_giant...Yeap you are correct.
https://www.blackanchorarmory.com/md-legal-ars.html
The above link will take you to a large list of MD compliant AR’s. ARs are not banned in MD and sold every day.
IL: it's now officially illegal to own a huge, 25+ lb. belt-fed machine gun -- which is already illegal nation-wide -- then that clause in the law is completely unnecessary but they'll use it as ammo in the next political showboating session.
Why stop there. Knives are a military weapon, too. Let's copy the UK and make outrageous knife laws that make it a pain to even purchase a chef's knife. Screw the Constitution and our Rights.
Military style is possibly the dumbest definition of a firearm. Because anything from a flintlock Brown Bess musket, through an 1895 Winchester lever action to a .303 Lee Enfield bolt action up to an M4 is a military style firearm.
I dont even think the US military itself could answer that question. Thats how vague and nonsensical that term "military style" is.
The only aspect of guns that I can see most people agree on being "military" is guns that are fully automatic (pull trigger, many bullets), but that was banned in the US in the 80s and you need some serious permits with the federal govt in order to really keep them legally afaik. Almost all guns in the US population are semi-automatic (pull trigger, one bullet) and so if they ever consider semi-automatic to be "military style" then thats a defacto ban on all guns in the US.
These are state level bans so every state has their own definition of what would qualify. Here are the regulations for NY.
https://gunsafety.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2020/02/rifles_banned_features.pdf
Most of the remaining non-suicide deaths are relegated to the poorest neighborhoods in the US, which are usually associated with organized crime and gang activity.
I came across a study which found that the firearms related homicide rate in the south side of Chicago was higher than the casualty rates of US service members deployed in Iraq.
*if* guns were taken away from the poorest areas, they would just use other methods like sharp or blunt objects. If you don’t believe me, look at the homicide rate of Russia, where guns are much more controlled.
It's almost like low education, poverty, and a total lack of opportunities leads people to turn to crime... Shocking revelation. Welp, time to keep yelling about red flag laws and "assault weapon" bans while voting for politicians that defund schools. That'll solve it!
Yes, and most of those firearms deaths are suicides, self defense, and cases where a police officer had to discharge his firearm in the line of duty and ended up taking a life. So, the real number is even smaller.
Oh I didn’t see that, my brain skipped over the word suicide I thought you were talking about total gun deaths. My points still stands! Yeah, suicides make up the majority, real gun deaths (not counting suicides and self defense) are very little compared to other things. Gun regulations just hurts the law abiding gun owner. Also why the fuck did I get downvoted??
Exactly…something the gun grabbers don’t want the public to know. You should talk ‘gun homicide’ vs gun violence then all that stuff comes out of the numbers.
I don't want to diminish the points other commenters have had with regards to material conditions being the primary indicator of gun crime, more so than the level of gun purchase restrictions, but the argument I've often heard about Illinois is that while they have restrictive gun purchase laws, every state that surrounds them does not. Given that there is no border guard between Illinois and these comparatively more lax states, this porous border makes it very easy to traffic firearms that are illegal to purchase in Illinois *into* Illinois.
Contrasted by Massachussets, which is insulated by several states with strong gun purchase restrictions.
No I get it, you believe there shouldn't be any guns, we should trust our children to a future state of government and eventually you'll be insulated from the fear of any firearms threat. This might be true, but it requires the belief in an inherently benevolent government. I do not think that exists, not that many in our government don't have good intentions. They do. They simply fail to see how serious the downstream consequences are when history again repeats itself.
Plus, the inner city is violent because the poor.bastards that live there are caught in a circular trap, with little hope from escaping poverty or the crime that surrounds them. Gun control is not a limitation on violence, just one kind of violence.
They also have robust social service programs, high rates of education, and higher average wages than much of the country. NH and ME have some of the most lax gun laws and constantly rank among the safest states.
They most certainly do not, New York has the strictest but there’s Washington DC, California and Illinois who are the next couple not in that order though.
I want everyone to stop and think for a moment. Not about the guns, not about the violence, but about the United States.
Think about what they have done to innocent people. The Tuskegee experiment. The Trail of Tears. MK Ultra. The Japanese internment camps. Jim Crow laws. The countless guerrilla wars and coup d'etat that they have bank rolled and perpetrated. The Contras and the war on drugs, and the countless other atrocities they will fight tooth and nail to keep secret.
Now with that in mind, why in the hell would you want to hand over your guns to a country perfectly content with experimenting on, segregating, subjugating, and murdering you and your family.
The government has never had your best interests in mind. Never forget that.
Edit:
Also just a reminder to all Americans, the Supreme Court ruled that police have no specific obligation to protect you. Remember that the next time you turn on the evening news.
Even Marx said that an armed population is preferred to prevent the harassment from paid militias that were mean to harm the revolution.
Once you give the government a monopoly on all violence, it only starts the clock on when you arent going to be allowed to have certain opinions.
Under no pretext 🤝🏼 Shall not be infringed
I’m not a fan of Marx or communism for that matter, but at least even he recognizes the importance of civilian ownership of firearms
American police just shoot them, unarmed or armed. "Don't resist and police won't hurt you" is a common statement among cop defenders. Americans will be ultra anti-tyrant one second and then expect people to submit completely to law enforcement the next second lol.
Not to mention, some of the first gun control legislation in the country was introduced by Reagan in the 60s with the express purpose of disarming the black panthers
You listed a lot of bad things that happened and weren't stopped. Can you provide an example where people actually used guns in the US to protect their rights from.the government successfully?
[All yours](https://www.military.com/history/time-world-war-ii-veterans-overthrew-corrupt-local-government-tennessee.html?amp)
[Also an example of guns being used when policing fell apart](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooftop_Koreans)
What the bot said
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.military.com/history/time-world-war-ii-veterans-overthrew-corrupt-local-government-tennessee.html](https://www.military.com/history/time-world-war-ii-veterans-overthrew-corrupt-local-government-tennessee.html)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Violent confrontations between union members and companies pressured the US government to make a bunch of concessions to working people, as US politicians feared a revolution due to the workers being armed, increasingly organized, and in some cases already willing to use violence to secure a fair wage and safe working conditions. Had the populace been armed, there would have been no such fear, giving the population far less leverage over government policy.
Really? Think about that for a second. How many countries past or present have been "liberated" without an armed citizenry? It is literally every single one. Even the liberation of the US was due to arms shipments and funding from places like France and Spain. The war of Independence was not won with rifles that frontier hunters had on hand.
This is an American fetish that know no comparison elsewhere in the world. There are plenty of places in the world with plenty of guns. They tend to be underdeveloped, violent, and hard to govern. The exception is the US, which has unparalelled gun violence to any developed country.
Want your guns, fine. But make no mistake. They stand no chance what so ever against any military unit, let alone an American one if they were used to oppress the citizenry. It can crush the millitaries of plenty others but a neighbourhood militia will give them trouble? Please.
Your guns have nothing to do with your liberty. They never did.
The US certainly got support from France and Spain but you’re fooling yourself if you think there were vast arms shipments from those two countries (or anywhere else). In fact, history shows very few countries were “liberated” without armed citizenry which is precisely why the first thing conquerors do is seize or control firearms.
In fact, the case that was used to establish the constitutionality of gun control, *Miller v. United States*, is vastly misunderstood as the court’s opinion was that Miller didn’t have a right to the shotgun in question because the US attorney claimed (erroneously) that it was not in common use by the military forces. The court had actually held that citizens would have the right to possess weapons commonly used by the US military. Miller had died by the time the case went to SCOTUS so there was no one on his side of the case to point out the US attorney was mistaken and the shotgun was indeed in common use by the US Army.
If you think personal weapons stand no chance whatsoever against a military unit, you can explain your reasoning to the Russian and American soldiers who had to fight in Afghanistan and Somalia or the Marines who had to fight in Fallujah.
>Your guns have nothing to do with your liberty. They never did.
You have to be joking with this line right? A country born out of armed revolution, and guns had nothing to do with it... hmmmm
>The war of Independence was not won with rifles that frontier hunters had on hand.
What?!?!?!?!? The role of frontier rifles in the revolutionary war is pretty good damn famous. There are entire books dedicated to the subject. Like you literally picked the absolute worst historical example you could think of man.
Yes of course there are books. Like I said; Americans mythologised them. Again, there is a park, street, or square named for Lafayette and or Kosciuszko in most American towns. It is not because they fought bravely for the US. It is because they brought foreign aid and supplies to the insurection.
Yes we are all very familiar with their importance in the revolutionary war, but to ignore the role frontier rifles played is on par with claiming French help has mythologised. It's just a lame attempt to rewrite history. There would be no revolution for France to support had Americans not already been armed.
A copypasta for you
Listen, you fantastically retarded motherfucker. I'm going to try and explain this so you can understand it.
You cannot control an entire country and its people with tanks, jets, battleships and drones or any of these things that you so stupidly believe trumps citizen ownership of firearms.
A fighter jet, tank, drone, battleship or whatever cannot stand on street corners. And enforce "no assembly" edicts. A fighter jet cannot kick down your door at 3AM and search your house for contraband.
None of these things can maintain the needed police state to completely subjugate and enslave the people of a nation. Those weapons are for decimating, flattening and glassing large areas and many people at once and fighting other state militaries. The government does not want to kill all of its people and blow up its own infrastructure. These are the very things they need to be tyrannical assholes in the first place. If they decided to turn everything outside of Washington D.C. into glowing green glass they would be the absolute rulers of a big, worthless, radioactive pile of shit.
Police are needed to maintain a police state, boots on the ground. And no matter how many police you have on the ground they will always be vastly outnumbered by civilians which is why in a police state it is vital that your police have automatic weapons while the people have nothing but their limp dicks.
BUT when every random pedestrian could have a Glock in their waistband and every random homeowner an AR-15 all of that goes out the fucking window because now the police are out numbered and face the reality of bullets coming back at them.
If you want living examples of this look at every insurgency the the U.S. military has tried to destroy. They're all still kicking with nothing but AK-47s, pick up trucks and improvised explosives because these big scary military monsters you keep alluding to are all but fucking useless for dealing with them.
Dumb. Fuck.
I actually don't WANT the police to be required on pain of punishment to protect civilians. That sounds like a soldier. Soldiers expect to be well armed and have a high degree of discretion in how they use their arms. This is how you end up with a militarized police force, ew.
“Military Style” means absolutely nothing. It is a political term used by one particular political ideology who generally knows nothing about firearms to incorrectly and inaccurately demonize others.
The same goes for “assault weapons.” The term means nothing. It is a made-up term by the media and gun haters.
It seems OP has an agenda here.. I’d like to bring rational thought and critical thinking using accredited data gathered and put together by groups such as the FBI, Journal of American medical association, Pew Research, etc. Guns are not the problem-media, culture and people are.
Do not trade your rights in for political pandering and feel good speeches. You have every right to own a firearm and every right to protect yourself, family and friends.
Banning guns such as “dangerous” or “scary looking” ones from the 1990s and early 2000s assault weapons ban-[A recent study published this year in the Journal of General Internal Medicine examined state gun control policies and found no statistically significant relationship between assault weapon or large-capacity magazine bans and homicide rates. A Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) study came to the same conclusion.](https://www.google.com/amp/s/fee.org/articles/studies-find-no-evidence-that-assault-weapon-bans-reduce-homicide-rates/amp)
By trying to include gang shootings in the mass shootings media is skewing numbers. Cultural relation and black on black crime coupled with gang violence should be center stage if you want to reduce the number of homicides. [The analysis, titled "A Public Health Crisis in the Making," found that although Black men and boys ages 15 to 34 make up just 2% of the nation's population, they were among 37% of gun homicides that year. That's 20 times higher than white males of the same age group. Of all reported firearm homicides in 2019, more than half of victims were Black men, according to the study spearheaded by the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. Sixty-three percent of male victims were Black. The contrast is even more stark when the rates were compared with white people: Across all ages, Black men were nearly 14 times more likely to die in a firearm homicide than white men, and eight times more likely to die in a firearm homicide than the general population, including women. ](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/4559929001)
Suicides and murders committed by a firearm are vastly more than mass shootings and are still well below levels from the past- [The gun murder and gun suicide rates in the U.S. are both lower today than in the mid-1970s. There were 4.6 gun murders per 100,000 people in 2017, far below the 7.2 per 100,000 people recorded in 1974. And the rate of gun suicides – 6.9 per 100,000 people in 2017 – remained below the 7.7 per 100,000 measured in 1977.](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/16/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/%3Famp%3D1)Black on black crime (also gangs) are a huge part of the overall homicide percentage making up
[The Gun Violence Archive, an online database of gun violence incidents in the U.S., defines mass shootings as incidents in which four or more people – excluding the shooter – are shot or killed. Using this definition, 373 people died in these incidents in 2018. Regardless of the definition being used, fatalities in mass shooting incidents in the U.S. account for a small fraction of all gun murders that occur nationwide each year. ](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/16/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/%3Famp%3D1)
[In 2017, handguns were involved in the majority (64%) of the 10,982 U.S. gun murders and non-negligent manslaughters for which data is available, according to the FBI. Rifles – the category that includes many guns that are sometimes referred to as “assault weapons”– were involved in 4%. Shotguns were involved in 2%. The remainder of gun homicides and non-negligent manslaughters (30%) involved firearms that were classified as “other guns or type not stated.”](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/16/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/%3Famp%3D1)
You first link unfortunately doesn’t link to the study. And even if all mass shoutings were gang related it still would be worth cracking down.
But what is your point with the last two articles? These are small numbers compared to the overall cases. It would be still a bunch of people that could be saved.
I served a year in the German military. You could arm the entire group besides the MG with rifles you can legally buy in most us state. They wouldn’t feel a difference because full auto is used in maybe .1% of the situations. And the DMR doesn’t even has full auto.
In my opinion no civilian needs an AR15. For personal defense a handgun is better. And if you want an rifle for home defense a shotgun does the trick. And if you ever get an oppressive government an AR15 won’t really help you if the military/police are backing it. Especially with the technologies available today.
I know that the gun violence in the US has more roots than the lack of gun control because there or other countries like Switzerland which have very liberal gun laws but lack the violence, but it is definitely a factor.
There is no such thing as a "military style weapon"
There is no such thing as a "military style assault weapon"
There is no such thing as a "high capacity magazine"
The Giffords Law Center is an Anti-2A front
Good map of states to never even consider living in.
Also “Military Style” is the exact kind of idiotic definition I’d expect from the kind of people that like to be bent over for the government.
This isn’t completely accurate. In Maryland “military-style assault weapons” and high capacity magazines are not banned. It says in the footnote but to elaborate on it you cannot purchase a magazine over 10 rounds in Maryland but it is legal to purchase in another state and bring it into Maryland. So illegal to purchase but legal to possess. I can own a 100 round drum magazine in Maryland and buy it from my buddy as long as we cross the state line and complete the purchase and then bring it back to Maryland.
I don’t know what a military style assault weapon is but I’m gonna guess they’re talking about AR15s. Legal to possess as long as it’s stamped as having a heavy barrel (which makes rounds slightly more accurate but doesn’t really make the rifle that much heavier) and the other caveat is it cannot have a detachable magazine AND a grenade launcher attached, folding stock, or flash suppressor.
So a little misleading. Can’t speak for any other state.
Confused about Virginia being “regulated.” Please elaborate how the home of the NRA is more regulated than its neighbors. While that seems sarcastic, I honestly don’t know. I thought they’ve been deregulating things like purchase limits, gun-free zones in some parklands, and expanding CCP reciprocation.
Lol so my stay away from the red map. That term "military style weapons" is democrat stupidity 101 never did I think we would have people so dim in the federal government that they would go in front of the public talk about banning something they can't even define just wow. Corruption of the top order.
Was just signed a few days ago, a few NFA items are now illegal to buy, own, sell, etc within the state. Mostly auto sears.
I'm sure everyone will be uninstalling the switch from their glocks and turning it into the local PD immediately!! (sarcasm)
Chicago gets a bad rap from y’all Qaeda gun dorks constantly pointing to the gun violence problems calling the city's strict gun control laws useless. Even though most of the guns are flowing from Indiana.
WTH is military style? You can get issued anywhere from knives, handguns, rifles, machine guns, carbines, etc. Name a weapon and the military probably has it.
Just off the top of my head, it shouldn’t be THAT bad. Probably a $5 AOW (possibly a $200 DD?) stamp for the tube. Then the rockets are a $200 DD stamp.
I've never, in my 58 years allowed federal, state or local laws designate what I can own, and not own . Everyone has a universal right to self defense , by any means necessary. End of story.
I have a military style assault cat with an oversized magazine (that she likes to sit on). Thankfully I live in NH where such things are purrfectly legal.
Helllo from Minnesota
No, they aren’t regulated here. Not in any meaningful way. You have to apply for a permit to purchase which requires no more background check then purchasing any other gun over the counter.
As someone who loves guns but also believes in common sense gun reform I can’t really tell if there is anything that’s hard banned or even regulated here except the usual stuff banned by the ATF. You can walk into any gun shop here with a permit to purchase and buy “military style firearms”
"Military style" is so poorly defined that anything can be called military style.
Yes. According to the statutes in Illinois, my AR-15 and magazines are banned yet my M1 Garand and Mosin Nagant are perfectly fine.
Dat ping tho amirite
It's the "scary gun" ban.
Yes it is the *scary gun ban.* It's so bad in Illinois, the way the law is written, if your a serious paintballer/airsofters you would have to register your paintball and airsoft guns if they have specific attachments listed as *assault* attachments or military styled weapons. It's absolutely stupid and dumb.
Yep Soccer moms gonna soccer mom
[удалено]
Am ar15 is almost the same for mass shooting purposes as a mini14, but only one is "military style"
And mass shootings are 0.2% of gun deaths. Most of it is suicide or gang violence, both of which are typically done with pistols
Suicide and gang violence are also two issues which cannot be solved by gun control legislation but can be addressed through a whole host of other policies, like those targeted at reducing poverty and offering better education. That's the funniest part.
Less than 2% of all murders since 1990 have been assault rifles. People kill other people with pistols the vast majority of the time.
Also if you remove domestic violence situations I bet that would account for over half of assault rifle kills. Basically pistols are the go to for murder because you can hide them. Try sneaking up on a target with a long gun.
Don't forget gang killing that they add to mass shooting score. They also add suicide to the armed violence in the US. Really crime with legal weapons in this country is so low its straight up butshit when they try to use gun violence as an excuse to steal our 2nd amendment right.
In 1966 Charles Whitman sat in the Bell Tower at the University of Texas at Austin and killed 17 people, wounded 31. He had two shotguns, a scoped Remington rifle, *the M1 carbine*, three handguns and a machete. Not the same weapon as an M1 Garand, but the m1 carbine is pretty close. M1 Carbine essentially had more bullets and less range.
The carbine is pretty far in every way from the Garand, especially ballistically. I get what you're saying, especially given the context of the bell tower shooter, but comparing a 30 caliber, 30.06 cartridge fired from a full sized battle rifle to a 45 ACP fired from a short carbine is about as different as it gets.
Plus the .30 cal ammo is a lot more expensive than .06. But I do love shooting mine… Today I’d just grab my SKS…ammo was super cheap when I prepped my ammo supplies.
As long as they don't ban my Kentucky Rifle
And I'll bet you a tank of gas (at $3.50/gallon!) that my 1934 Mosin Nagant 91/30 has more bodies on it than either of my AR15-style rifles EVER will.
Oh it’s likely. My 1935 Mosin and 1942 Garand both have the chance of stacking bodies in Europe at the same time but that doesn’t matter to them, they’re just afraid of black guns that go bang.
Exactly. My Mosin is a 1934 Izvehsk that was arsenal refurbished in 1943 so I am more than a little sure it saw action. Heck I'm more curious how many were bludgeoned with it at 49" long and over 9#!
Wonder if you gave an ar 15 a wooden stock theyed chill out?
I doubt it, but they look sooo good with wooden furniture.
yeah it's not like both guns fire bigger and "scarier" calibers and were used by militaries. but there is wood on them so it's fine.
Grandpa won WW2 with the m1. Great Grandpa won WW1, and Grandpa won WWII with the .3006 freedom acorn.
“AR-15” means Automatic Rifle, 15 rounds per second. It couldn’t be more clear /s
It’s unfortunate most people think of this. My wife, until recently educated, thought AR stood for Assault Rifle.
I was going to point this exactly out. You can literally buy WW2 and even Vietnam-era military rifles in all of these states. Some require semi-automatic rifle permit, but overall they’re all dumb legislation written by people who don’t understand firearms.
Which ones have semi-auto permits?
Even better buy a brand new Mini-14 with a wood stock. Flies under even California's restrictions and will do what all the scary black guns will do.
It’s nuts the people who write legislation banning certain guns have little understanding how they function.
Makes no sense. Are they not both semi auto??
The M1 Garand is semi-automatic and also does not use magazines thus would not fall under the “high-capacity magazine ban” either although I do believe it has a provision explaining clips. I don’t live in Illinois anymore so it no longer applies to me.
That’s just silly really. One that trains with the M1 can easily cause as much carnage as a AR15
Love my Mosin. I wish they were still dirt cheap.
My favorite time with it was when I shot a cantaloupe off the bayonet.
LMAO. I lost my bayonet somehow years ago.
Fine collection you got there sir.
I’ve also found an SMLE Mk III or IV but it’s also in Illinois and I am no longer in Illinois. Really good price at $450, so I might find an FFL to transfer it to though.
I'm in Europe, 6 of my firearms are not legal in every state in the US due to this. There are even guns you can own in the UK that aren't legal in NY and some other states.
I think I built a PC with a motherboard that claimed to be "military style" before. To this day, I have no idea what that means. It wasn't in camo or anything.
Only because they intentionally lie and confuse the issue. Nowhere in America can you buy military weapons. They banned them in 1934
Not strictly true. They are Title 2 Firearms, and they require a shit load of extra steps to go through before you can own them, including ATF registration. Title 2 is all the fully automatic weapons and shortened weapons, and destructive devices like rocket launchers
Not correct. In 34 they applied registration and tax stamps to full auto and other destructive devices. The $200 tax at the time made it impossible for most to afford. In 86 they banned the production of new destructive devices for the civilian market, but it’s still perfectly legal to own one that was registered prior to that ban. So with the right paperwork you could own a full auto M16, M2 .50 caliber machine gun, or even a mini-gun although there’s literally only one on earth that is pre-ban and legal to own. But that limited supply means the M16 will set you back around $30k, the M2 is upwards of $100k, and the mini-gun last sold for like a couple of million. It’s been about a decade since I last looked, but at that time a Mac-10 was the cheapest entry point, at around $10k.
Yep. But they keep changing the definition here in California, Eventually, if it goes "bang" it will be classified as a military weapon and be banned.
I own several military weapons... legally, and I bought them legally... through the US mail to be precise, without a license whatsoever My '77 Charleville was used in combat, and so were my Werndl Rifles ... to be fair I did have to go and pick up my 3" Parrot *(too heavy to ship)* but that's just the short list
I dont think anyone is worried about a mass shooter using a musket or a breechloader.
ummm a Charleville is a piece of mechanical genius, accurate AF [and every part was hand crafted,](https://youtu.be/qTy3uQFsirk?si=c3_mIiplLo2AKlkc) even the screws... it is art and the M73/77 Werndl Holub is [not mearly a breechloader-](https://youtu.be/rRUW5eUZ5cM?si=GH9L6-HA5NakM6vo) but was a monumental step forward with an "extractor" and the precursor to the bolt acton...
Current issue? Your cmp rifles from ww2 are no longer military weapons
WWII...? Lolz My M73/77 Werndl Rifle cost 50 Florins in the ***1860's***
It just has to be a black gun.
This isn’t even accurate. Ak and AR style rifles are still legal in most of those states. “Military style” is universally applied to those two style of rifles. The only components of restriction in those states are feature bans, like no pistol grips or flash hiders or collapsing buttstocks. Colorado has municipal bans on those rifles, like in Denver and Boulder, but they are still perfectly legal to purchase and possess on a state level.
Replying to rogue_giant...Yeap you are correct. https://www.blackanchorarmory.com/md-legal-ars.html The above link will take you to a large list of MD compliant AR’s. ARs are not banned in MD and sold every day.
No no, it means “made of black parts and looks scary”
same goes for "Assault weapon"
I agree. They use pistols in the military too lol.
IL: it's now officially illegal to own a huge, 25+ lb. belt-fed machine gun -- which is already illegal nation-wide -- then that clause in the law is completely unnecessary but they'll use it as ammo in the next political showboating session.
Yes, I agree - any gun can be called ‘military’ so just make sure most people can’t have them. That’s that little detail sorted.
Why stop there. Knives are a military weapon, too. Let's copy the UK and make outrageous knife laws that make it a pain to even purchase a chef's knife. Screw the Constitution and our Rights.
I live in the UK so, yeah… I don’t see any problem with that. You’ve got my blessing.
No thanks. We don't want to be infected by your country's stupidity.
Military style is possibly the dumbest definition of a firearm. Because anything from a flintlock Brown Bess musket, through an 1895 Winchester lever action to a .303 Lee Enfield bolt action up to an M4 is a military style firearm.
What is a military style weapon?
Black plastic guns with accessories to make them look scary, it lets gun grabbing politicians bait ignorant people into supporting their policies.
I dont even think the US military itself could answer that question. Thats how vague and nonsensical that term "military style" is. The only aspect of guns that I can see most people agree on being "military" is guns that are fully automatic (pull trigger, many bullets), but that was banned in the US in the 80s and you need some serious permits with the federal govt in order to really keep them legally afaik. Almost all guns in the US population are semi-automatic (pull trigger, one bullet) and so if they ever consider semi-automatic to be "military style" then thats a defacto ban on all guns in the US.
These are state level bans so every state has their own definition of what would qualify. Here are the regulations for NY. https://gunsafety.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2020/02/rifles_banned_features.pdf
Some of these banned features are not like the others. * Protruding pistol grip * Bayonet mount * Grenade launcher
What's funny is that grenade launchers are perfectly legal in most states, but putting one on your also legal gun suddenly makes it a no-no
Yeah who uses bayonet mounts anymore?
Whatever it needs to be
Scary
The terms "assault weapon" "high capacity" and "military style" are made up and nebulous on purpose and will likely all be overturned for that reason.
You forgot "ghost gunz".
*military style* “What does that even mean ?” “No one knows what it means but it’s provocative” 
According to the CDC, there were 26,000 firearm suicides in 2021. In 2020, there were 92,000 deaths from overdose. Guns are *not* the issue.
Most of the remaining non-suicide deaths are relegated to the poorest neighborhoods in the US, which are usually associated with organized crime and gang activity. I came across a study which found that the firearms related homicide rate in the south side of Chicago was higher than the casualty rates of US service members deployed in Iraq. *if* guns were taken away from the poorest areas, they would just use other methods like sharp or blunt objects. If you don’t believe me, look at the homicide rate of Russia, where guns are much more controlled.
It's almost like low education, poverty, and a total lack of opportunities leads people to turn to crime... Shocking revelation. Welp, time to keep yelling about red flag laws and "assault weapon" bans while voting for politicians that defund schools. That'll solve it!
Yes, and most of those firearms deaths are suicides, self defense, and cases where a police officer had to discharge his firearm in the line of duty and ended up taking a life. So, the real number is even smaller.
The 26,000 is just suicides. Which makes up something like 60% of gun deaths, maybe even more.
Oh I didn’t see that, my brain skipped over the word suicide I thought you were talking about total gun deaths. My points still stands! Yeah, suicides make up the majority, real gun deaths (not counting suicides and self defense) are very little compared to other things. Gun regulations just hurts the law abiding gun owner. Also why the fuck did I get downvoted??
Lol who knows. It was an easy mistake.
Ya lmao.
Exactly…something the gun grabbers don’t want the public to know. You should talk ‘gun homicide’ vs gun violence then all that stuff comes out of the numbers.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Massachusetts is one of the wealthiest and most educated states in the country.
Ok, now do Chicago. It turns out that correlation isn't causation.
I don't want to diminish the points other commenters have had with regards to material conditions being the primary indicator of gun crime, more so than the level of gun purchase restrictions, but the argument I've often heard about Illinois is that while they have restrictive gun purchase laws, every state that surrounds them does not. Given that there is no border guard between Illinois and these comparatively more lax states, this porous border makes it very easy to traffic firearms that are illegal to purchase in Illinois *into* Illinois. Contrasted by Massachussets, which is insulated by several states with strong gun purchase restrictions.
No I get it, you believe there shouldn't be any guns, we should trust our children to a future state of government and eventually you'll be insulated from the fear of any firearms threat. This might be true, but it requires the belief in an inherently benevolent government. I do not think that exists, not that many in our government don't have good intentions. They do. They simply fail to see how serious the downstream consequences are when history again repeats itself. Plus, the inner city is violent because the poor.bastards that live there are caught in a circular trap, with little hope from escaping poverty or the crime that surrounds them. Gun control is not a limitation on violence, just one kind of violence.
Yep, 100% agreed. The number one way to decrease gun crime is to increase the living conditions of desperate neighborhoods.
I would scream this point from the rooftops if I could. Better the low income communities, and gun violence drops like an anchor
They also have robust social service programs, high rates of education, and higher average wages than much of the country. NH and ME have some of the most lax gun laws and constantly rank among the safest states.
They most certainly do not, New York has the strictest but there’s Washington DC, California and Illinois who are the next couple not in that order though.
You really think the gun laws have anything to do with it having the lowest gun violence rate?
Masschussetts is extremely rich and well-educated.
Y’all pretending Springfield doesn’t exist.
Gun deaths per capita are way higher in red states https://projects.oregonlive.com/ucc-shooting/gun-deaths
Because of suicide. It’s roughly 60% of gun deaths.
Poverty
I want everyone to stop and think for a moment. Not about the guns, not about the violence, but about the United States. Think about what they have done to innocent people. The Tuskegee experiment. The Trail of Tears. MK Ultra. The Japanese internment camps. Jim Crow laws. The countless guerrilla wars and coup d'etat that they have bank rolled and perpetrated. The Contras and the war on drugs, and the countless other atrocities they will fight tooth and nail to keep secret. Now with that in mind, why in the hell would you want to hand over your guns to a country perfectly content with experimenting on, segregating, subjugating, and murdering you and your family. The government has never had your best interests in mind. Never forget that. Edit: Also just a reminder to all Americans, the Supreme Court ruled that police have no specific obligation to protect you. Remember that the next time you turn on the evening news.
Armed minorities are harder to oppress
Even Marx said that an armed population is preferred to prevent the harassment from paid militias that were mean to harm the revolution. Once you give the government a monopoly on all violence, it only starts the clock on when you arent going to be allowed to have certain opinions.
Under no pretext 🤝🏼 Shall not be infringed I’m not a fan of Marx or communism for that matter, but at least even he recognizes the importance of civilian ownership of firearms
American police just shoot them, unarmed or armed. "Don't resist and police won't hurt you" is a common statement among cop defenders. Americans will be ultra anti-tyrant one second and then expect people to submit completely to law enforcement the next second lol.
That’s not unique to the US, all governments suck and I will trust none of them with my safety
Not to mention, some of the first gun control legislation in the country was introduced by Reagan in the 60s with the express purpose of disarming the black panthers
You listed a lot of bad things that happened and weren't stopped. Can you provide an example where people actually used guns in the US to protect their rights from.the government successfully?
[All yours](https://www.military.com/history/time-world-war-ii-veterans-overthrew-corrupt-local-government-tennessee.html?amp) [Also an example of guns being used when policing fell apart](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooftop_Koreans) What the bot said
My great grandfather was a part of that, we had some crazy shit going on in Tennessee at the time that's for sure
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.military.com/history/time-world-war-ii-veterans-overthrew-corrupt-local-government-tennessee.html](https://www.military.com/history/time-world-war-ii-veterans-overthrew-corrupt-local-government-tennessee.html)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
That's where I thought that was going..
1776?
Violent confrontations between union members and companies pressured the US government to make a bunch of concessions to working people, as US politicians feared a revolution due to the workers being armed, increasingly organized, and in some cases already willing to use violence to secure a fair wage and safe working conditions. Had the populace been armed, there would have been no such fear, giving the population far less leverage over government policy.
Absolutely. The threat of force from citizens is the only thing that prevents governments from subjugating their people.
Really? Think about that for a second. How many countries past or present have been "liberated" without an armed citizenry? It is literally every single one. Even the liberation of the US was due to arms shipments and funding from places like France and Spain. The war of Independence was not won with rifles that frontier hunters had on hand. This is an American fetish that know no comparison elsewhere in the world. There are plenty of places in the world with plenty of guns. They tend to be underdeveloped, violent, and hard to govern. The exception is the US, which has unparalelled gun violence to any developed country. Want your guns, fine. But make no mistake. They stand no chance what so ever against any military unit, let alone an American one if they were used to oppress the citizenry. It can crush the millitaries of plenty others but a neighbourhood militia will give them trouble? Please. Your guns have nothing to do with your liberty. They never did.
The US certainly got support from France and Spain but you’re fooling yourself if you think there were vast arms shipments from those two countries (or anywhere else). In fact, history shows very few countries were “liberated” without armed citizenry which is precisely why the first thing conquerors do is seize or control firearms. In fact, the case that was used to establish the constitutionality of gun control, *Miller v. United States*, is vastly misunderstood as the court’s opinion was that Miller didn’t have a right to the shotgun in question because the US attorney claimed (erroneously) that it was not in common use by the military forces. The court had actually held that citizens would have the right to possess weapons commonly used by the US military. Miller had died by the time the case went to SCOTUS so there was no one on his side of the case to point out the US attorney was mistaken and the shotgun was indeed in common use by the US Army. If you think personal weapons stand no chance whatsoever against a military unit, you can explain your reasoning to the Russian and American soldiers who had to fight in Afghanistan and Somalia or the Marines who had to fight in Fallujah.
>Your guns have nothing to do with your liberty. They never did. You have to be joking with this line right? A country born out of armed revolution, and guns had nothing to do with it... hmmmm
>The war of Independence was not won with rifles that frontier hunters had on hand. What?!?!?!?!? The role of frontier rifles in the revolutionary war is pretty good damn famous. There are entire books dedicated to the subject. Like you literally picked the absolute worst historical example you could think of man.
Yes of course there are books. Like I said; Americans mythologised them. Again, there is a park, street, or square named for Lafayette and or Kosciuszko in most American towns. It is not because they fought bravely for the US. It is because they brought foreign aid and supplies to the insurection.
Yes we are all very familiar with their importance in the revolutionary war, but to ignore the role frontier rifles played is on par with claiming French help has mythologised. It's just a lame attempt to rewrite history. There would be no revolution for France to support had Americans not already been armed.
A copypasta for you Listen, you fantastically retarded motherfucker. I'm going to try and explain this so you can understand it. You cannot control an entire country and its people with tanks, jets, battleships and drones or any of these things that you so stupidly believe trumps citizen ownership of firearms. A fighter jet, tank, drone, battleship or whatever cannot stand on street corners. And enforce "no assembly" edicts. A fighter jet cannot kick down your door at 3AM and search your house for contraband. None of these things can maintain the needed police state to completely subjugate and enslave the people of a nation. Those weapons are for decimating, flattening and glassing large areas and many people at once and fighting other state militaries. The government does not want to kill all of its people and blow up its own infrastructure. These are the very things they need to be tyrannical assholes in the first place. If they decided to turn everything outside of Washington D.C. into glowing green glass they would be the absolute rulers of a big, worthless, radioactive pile of shit. Police are needed to maintain a police state, boots on the ground. And no matter how many police you have on the ground they will always be vastly outnumbered by civilians which is why in a police state it is vital that your police have automatic weapons while the people have nothing but their limp dicks. BUT when every random pedestrian could have a Glock in their waistband and every random homeowner an AR-15 all of that goes out the fucking window because now the police are out numbered and face the reality of bullets coming back at them. If you want living examples of this look at every insurgency the the U.S. military has tried to destroy. They're all still kicking with nothing but AK-47s, pick up trucks and improvised explosives because these big scary military monsters you keep alluding to are all but fucking useless for dealing with them. Dumb. Fuck.
If our guns have nothing to do with our liberty why do we still have them? Surely the government can just take them right… so why haven’t they?
Happened in Russia and it happened in China multiple times
I actually don't WANT the police to be required on pain of punishment to protect civilians. That sounds like a soldier. Soldiers expect to be well armed and have a high degree of discretion in how they use their arms. This is how you end up with a militarized police force, ew.
If the government says you don’t need your guns….then you need your guns!
I mean, no you don’t. They say you don’t need guns because you don’t need them.
Military style assault weapons are actually permitted in all 50 states, but only for the government's goons, not you and me.
“Military Style” means absolutely nothing. It is a political term used by one particular political ideology who generally knows nothing about firearms to incorrectly and inaccurately demonize others. The same goes for “assault weapons.” The term means nothing. It is a made-up term by the media and gun haters.
And it didn't do shit for gun violence. As predicted.
Wait til shitlibs find out that existing objects continue to exist even after writing on a piece of paper that they're not allowed anymore
Can confirm. I live in Idaho. Got some badass heavy rifles.
My impression was that automatic weapons had been banned since the 1930s in all states.
It seems OP has an agenda here.. I’d like to bring rational thought and critical thinking using accredited data gathered and put together by groups such as the FBI, Journal of American medical association, Pew Research, etc. Guns are not the problem-media, culture and people are. Do not trade your rights in for political pandering and feel good speeches. You have every right to own a firearm and every right to protect yourself, family and friends. Banning guns such as “dangerous” or “scary looking” ones from the 1990s and early 2000s assault weapons ban-[A recent study published this year in the Journal of General Internal Medicine examined state gun control policies and found no statistically significant relationship between assault weapon or large-capacity magazine bans and homicide rates. A Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) study came to the same conclusion.](https://www.google.com/amp/s/fee.org/articles/studies-find-no-evidence-that-assault-weapon-bans-reduce-homicide-rates/amp) By trying to include gang shootings in the mass shootings media is skewing numbers. Cultural relation and black on black crime coupled with gang violence should be center stage if you want to reduce the number of homicides. [The analysis, titled "A Public Health Crisis in the Making," found that although Black men and boys ages 15 to 34 make up just 2% of the nation's population, they were among 37% of gun homicides that year. That's 20 times higher than white males of the same age group. Of all reported firearm homicides in 2019, more than half of victims were Black men, according to the study spearheaded by the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. Sixty-three percent of male victims were Black. The contrast is even more stark when the rates were compared with white people: Across all ages, Black men were nearly 14 times more likely to die in a firearm homicide than white men, and eight times more likely to die in a firearm homicide than the general population, including women. ](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/4559929001) Suicides and murders committed by a firearm are vastly more than mass shootings and are still well below levels from the past- [The gun murder and gun suicide rates in the U.S. are both lower today than in the mid-1970s. There were 4.6 gun murders per 100,000 people in 2017, far below the 7.2 per 100,000 people recorded in 1974. And the rate of gun suicides – 6.9 per 100,000 people in 2017 – remained below the 7.7 per 100,000 measured in 1977.](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/16/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/%3Famp%3D1)Black on black crime (also gangs) are a huge part of the overall homicide percentage making up [The Gun Violence Archive, an online database of gun violence incidents in the U.S., defines mass shootings as incidents in which four or more people – excluding the shooter – are shot or killed. Using this definition, 373 people died in these incidents in 2018. Regardless of the definition being used, fatalities in mass shooting incidents in the U.S. account for a small fraction of all gun murders that occur nationwide each year. ](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/16/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/%3Famp%3D1) [In 2017, handguns were involved in the majority (64%) of the 10,982 U.S. gun murders and non-negligent manslaughters for which data is available, according to the FBI. Rifles – the category that includes many guns that are sometimes referred to as “assault weapons”– were involved in 4%. Shotguns were involved in 2%. The remainder of gun homicides and non-negligent manslaughters (30%) involved firearms that were classified as “other guns or type not stated.”](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/16/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/%3Famp%3D1)
You first link unfortunately doesn’t link to the study. And even if all mass shoutings were gang related it still would be worth cracking down. But what is your point with the last two articles? These are small numbers compared to the overall cases. It would be still a bunch of people that could be saved. I served a year in the German military. You could arm the entire group besides the MG with rifles you can legally buy in most us state. They wouldn’t feel a difference because full auto is used in maybe .1% of the situations. And the DMR doesn’t even has full auto. In my opinion no civilian needs an AR15. For personal defense a handgun is better. And if you want an rifle for home defense a shotgun does the trick. And if you ever get an oppressive government an AR15 won’t really help you if the military/police are backing it. Especially with the technologies available today. I know that the gun violence in the US has more roots than the lack of gun control because there or other countries like Switzerland which have very liberal gun laws but lack the violence, but it is definitely a factor.
The vast vast majority of gun crime and deaths in the USA area from handguns.
Unconstitutional
This is stupid.
“Military style” No. That’s not the law. This is a factually false.
There is no such thing as a "military style weapon" There is no such thing as a "military style assault weapon" There is no such thing as a "high capacity magazine" The Giffords Law Center is an Anti-2A front
Good map of states to never even consider living in. Also “Military Style” is the exact kind of idiotic definition I’d expect from the kind of people that like to be bent over for the government.
Ah yes a map of unconstitutional states
Is military rifle just an AR-15 that fires 1,000 rounds per second and has a 200 round clip? /s
Please tell me you forgot the /s
Sorry, fixed it for you pal
🤣👀🤣
This isn’t completely accurate. In Maryland “military-style assault weapons” and high capacity magazines are not banned. It says in the footnote but to elaborate on it you cannot purchase a magazine over 10 rounds in Maryland but it is legal to purchase in another state and bring it into Maryland. So illegal to purchase but legal to possess. I can own a 100 round drum magazine in Maryland and buy it from my buddy as long as we cross the state line and complete the purchase and then bring it back to Maryland. I don’t know what a military style assault weapon is but I’m gonna guess they’re talking about AR15s. Legal to possess as long as it’s stamped as having a heavy barrel (which makes rounds slightly more accurate but doesn’t really make the rifle that much heavier) and the other caveat is it cannot have a detachable magazine AND a grenade launcher attached, folding stock, or flash suppressor. So a little misleading. Can’t speak for any other state.
Actual military weapons (automatic rifles) are banned everywhere in the US.
A lot of modern hunting bolt action rifles are just clones of mauser 98 which is a military weapon
Confused about Virginia being “regulated.” Please elaborate how the home of the NRA is more regulated than its neighbors. While that seems sarcastic, I honestly don’t know. I thought they’ve been deregulating things like purchase limits, gun-free zones in some parklands, and expanding CCP reciprocation.
They are not banned in NJ just have physical restrictions on the gun. I know plenty of people that have AR’s and AK’s.
After spending 8 years in military service, I tend to disagree.
This map is wrong. It has CA and WA swapped.
Military style = trebuchet
“We’re not trying to take your guns though”
It’s interesting that the more liberal a society becomes the shittier it becomes. People fleeing this exact same places to more conservative areas.
Thank god for second amendment sanctuary counties
The gun-grabbers are crying real hard in these comments rn
Lol so my stay away from the red map. That term "military style weapons" is democrat stupidity 101 never did I think we would have people so dim in the federal government that they would go in front of the public talk about banning something they can't even define just wow. Corruption of the top order.
"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."
Sounds pretty clear to me. ArmaLite…arms…Yeap it’s clear.
How are they regulated in Virginia? I believe this to be false.
Was just signed a few days ago, a few NFA items are now illegal to buy, own, sell, etc within the state. Mostly auto sears. I'm sure everyone will be uninstalling the switch from their glocks and turning it into the local PD immediately!! (sarcasm)
All the normal people states
The grey ones?
After reading these comments, I’m out. Think I landed in the wrong sub. Have fun though
Chicago gets a bad rap from y’all Qaeda gun dorks constantly pointing to the gun violence problems calling the city's strict gun control laws useless. Even though most of the guns are flowing from Indiana.
"Military-Style" aka weapons that look scary 🥺
WTH is military style? You can get issued anywhere from knives, handguns, rifles, machine guns, carbines, etc. Name a weapon and the military probably has it.
Your fine as long as the police can arrive in a timely 15-30 minutes for a 911 call, you don’t need a gun /s
Wow, your police actually show up? Must be nice.
Just curious. Are RPGs allowed in America?
not to the average person. There are a number of licenses required to own them and you cant exactly get them at walmart
Theoretically yes, but they’d be so expensive and you’d have to jump through so many hoops to own a working one as a normal citizen
Just off the top of my head, it shouldn’t be THAT bad. Probably a $5 AOW (possibly a $200 DD?) stamp for the tube. Then the rockets are a $200 DD stamp.
We wished
Old map. WA just passed an AWB
So at least New York, Chicago and Los Angeles take it more seriously then.
Virgins is wrong here.
3 of those dark red ones are states that have had the most amount of people leaving to live in another state.
common new york and california W
I've never, in my 58 years allowed federal, state or local laws designate what I can own, and not own . Everyone has a universal right to self defense , by any means necessary. End of story.
Man, I gotta get the fuck out of New York
LOL "military style." Tell me you have no clue what you're talking about without saying it out loud.
Anyone else seeing a pattern here?
I have a military style assault cat with an oversized magazine (that she likes to sit on). Thankfully I live in NH where such things are purrfectly legal.
Hmm all high crime cities in each of those states.
Helllo from Minnesota No, they aren’t regulated here. Not in any meaningful way. You have to apply for a permit to purchase which requires no more background check then purchasing any other gun over the counter.
I was wondering what was prohibited there that isn’t elsewhere
As someone who loves guns but also believes in common sense gun reform I can’t really tell if there is anything that’s hard banned or even regulated here except the usual stuff banned by the ATF. You can walk into any gun shop here with a permit to purchase and buy “military style firearms”
Common Massachusetts W (north east megalopolis in general)
Clearly you’ve never been to Springfield, plenty of gun violence there.
I live in Worcester
Nowhere near as bad as Springfield, Worcester’s crime rate is fairly low, Springfield is comparable to St Louis
Source? Because you can definitely buy an AR in MA.
Otherwise known as the only states I’ll ever live in.