Common Sense Gun Laws

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some good news: The Supreme Court today declined to intervene and block the Illinois ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines. No noted dissents. (Note: This would have required five votes.)

No surprise waiting for this case and similar ones in other democratic run states to work their way up through the circuit courts. Then they can issue a clear decision on all of them.

Hopefully will include the line - what part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you people get.

Gun owners are not at all being infringed. They are still being allowed fully functional handguns with normal capacity magazines, along with fully functional ordinary hunting rifles with normal capacity magazines that don't look like military weapons.

Sure. Sure. Let's roll back the internet to dial-up speed and start riding around on horses while we're at it.

We had a ban for 20 years and it was fine. Relax.

It most definitely was not fine. Tens of thousands of people were sentenced to lengthy prison terms in that time because they possessed things that were perfectly legal before the law turned them into criminals.

This is an absolute lie. That is not at all how the law worked. The AWB allowed people to keep the guns they already had in their possession prior to the ban date. NOBODY was arrested for possessing a gun that had been legal for them to own before it went into effect. And this is easily verifiable by looking at what the law says:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/103/hr3355/text

SEC. 110102(a)(2) "shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection."

Shall not apply.

Either you are making shit up or you are a gullible idiot under the influence of brazen liars and propagandists. GTFO with your "boo hoo tens of thousands of law abiding gun owners were thrown in jail for nothing" BS, because it never happened. It's a lie. Busted. Kaput. Stop posting lies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some good news: The Supreme Court today declined to intervene and block the Illinois ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines. No noted dissents. (Note: This would have required five votes.)

No surprise waiting for this case and similar ones in other democratic run states to work their way up through the circuit courts. Then they can issue a clear decision on all of them.

Hopefully will include the line - what part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you people get.

Gun owners are not at all being infringed. They are still being allowed fully functional handguns with normal capacity magazines, along with fully functional ordinary hunting rifles with normal capacity magazines that don't look like military weapons.

Sure. Sure. Let's roll back the internet to dial-up speed and start riding around on horses while we're at it.

We had a ban for 20 years and it was fine. Relax.

It most definitely was not fine. Tens of thousands of people were sentenced to lengthy prison terms in that time because they possessed things that were perfectly legal before the law turned them into criminals.

This is an absolute lie. That is not at all how the law worked. The AWB allowed people to keep the guns they already had in their possession prior to the ban date. NOBODY was arrested for possessing a gun that had been legal for them to own before it went into effect. And this is easily verifiable by looking at what the law says:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/103/hr3355/text

SEC. 110102(a)(2) "shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection."

Shall not apply.

Either you are making shit up or you are a gullible idiot under the influence of brazen liars and propagandists. GTFO with your "boo hoo tens of thousands of law abiding gun owners were thrown in jail for nothing" BS, because it never happened. It's a lie. Busted. Kaput. Stop posting lies.

Seems like a pretty pointless law if it let people keep guns that were banned. What was that supposed to accomplish then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some good news: The Supreme Court today declined to intervene and block the Illinois ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines. No noted dissents. (Note: This would have required five votes.)

No surprise waiting for this case and similar ones in other democratic run states to work their way up through the circuit courts. Then they can issue a clear decision on all of them.

Hopefully will include the line - what part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you people get.

Gun owners are not at all being infringed. They are still being allowed fully functional handguns with normal capacity magazines, along with fully functional ordinary hunting rifles with normal capacity magazines that don't look like military weapons.

Sure. Sure. Let's roll back the internet to dial-up speed and start riding around on horses while we're at it.

We had a ban for 20 years and it was fine. Relax.

It most definitely was not fine. Tens of thousands of people were sentenced to lengthy prison terms in that time because they possessed things that were perfectly legal before the law turned them into criminals.

This is an absolute lie. That is not at all how the law worked. The AWB allowed people to keep the guns they already had in their possession prior to the ban date. NOBODY was arrested for possessing a gun that had been legal for them to own before it went into effect. And this is easily verifiable by looking at what the law says:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/103/hr3355/text

SEC. 110102(a)(2) "shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection."

Shall not apply.

Either you are making shit up or you are a gullible idiot under the influence of brazen liars and propagandists. GTFO with your "boo hoo tens of thousands of law abiding gun owners were thrown in jail for nothing" BS, because it never happened. It's a lie. Busted. Kaput. Stop posting lies.

Seems like a pretty pointless law if it let people keep guns that were banned. What was that supposed to accomplish then?

ok fine. when they enact the ban again you wont mind then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some good news: The Supreme Court today declined to intervene and block the Illinois ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines. No noted dissents. (Note: This would have required five votes.)

No surprise waiting for this case and similar ones in other democratic run states to work their way up through the circuit courts. Then they can issue a clear decision on all of them.

Hopefully will include the line - what part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you people get.

Gun owners are not at all being infringed. They are still being allowed fully functional handguns with normal capacity magazines, along with fully functional ordinary hunting rifles with normal capacity magazines that don't look like military weapons.

Sure. Sure. Let's roll back the internet to dial-up speed and start riding around on horses while we're at it.

Well, you right wingers all DO constantly keep talking about how we need to go back to the Founding Fathers ideas where it comes to regulation so why should guns be any different in your ideology?

The Founding Fathers didn't think you were being infringed on when all you had was muzzle loading flintlock muskets. If it was good enough for them, it's good enough for you.

Now go sit down and shut up.

Great. Get the police and criminals to agree and I'm in.

Oh, and I'm a liberal Democrat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some good news: The Supreme Court today declined to intervene and block the Illinois ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines. No noted dissents. (Note: This would have required five votes.)

No surprise waiting for this case and similar ones in other democratic run states to work their way up through the circuit courts. Then they can issue a clear decision on all of them.

Hopefully will include the line - what part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you people get.

Gun owners are not at all being infringed. They are still being allowed fully functional handguns with normal capacity magazines, along with fully functional ordinary hunting rifles with normal capacity magazines that don't look like military weapons.

Sure. Sure. Let's roll back the internet to dial-up speed and start riding around on horses while we're at it.

We had a ban for 20 years and it was fine. Relax.

I'm sure it was fine for you and your fellow progressives who would never own a gun. The rest of us were annoyed by it. The ting is the people enacting these bans have no clue what they're doing. The ban didn't make us alone but safer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some good news: The Supreme Court today declined to intervene and block the Illinois ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines. No noted dissents. (Note: This would have required five votes.)

No surprise waiting for this case and similar ones in other democratic run states to work their way up through the circuit courts. Then they can issue a clear decision on all of them.

Hopefully will include the line - what part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you people get.

Gun owners are not at all being infringed. They are still being allowed fully functional handguns with normal capacity magazines, along with fully functional ordinary hunting rifles with normal capacity magazines that don't look like military weapons.

Sure. Sure. Let's roll back the internet to dial-up speed and start riding around on horses while we're at it.

That a stupid analogy. We don't have to allow cutting edge weapons technology be available for purchase. Lets give everyone a sophisticated little nuke then. That would be so great.

We get it; you want us to live in a police state. No thanks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some good news: The Supreme Court today declined to intervene and block the Illinois ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines. No noted dissents. (Note: This would have required five votes.)

No surprise waiting for this case and similar ones in other democratic run states to work their way up through the circuit courts. Then they can issue a clear decision on all of them.

Hopefully will include the line - what part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you people get.

Gun owners are not at all being infringed. They are still being allowed fully functional handguns with normal capacity magazines, along with fully functional ordinary hunting rifles with normal capacity magazines that don't look like military weapons.

Sure. Sure. Let's roll back the internet to dial-up speed and start riding around on horses while we're at it.

We had a ban for 20 years and it was fine. Relax.

It most definitely was not fine. Tens of thousands of people were sentenced to lengthy prison terms in that time because they possessed things that were perfectly legal before the law turned them into criminals.

This is an absolute lie. That is not at all how the law worked. The AWB allowed people to keep the guns they already had in their possession prior to the ban date. NOBODY was arrested for possessing a gun that had been legal for them to own before it went into effect. And this is easily verifiable by looking at what the law says:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/103/hr3355/text

SEC. 110102(a)(2) "shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection."

Shall not apply.

Either you are making shit up or you are a gullible idiot under the influence of brazen liars and propagandists. GTFO with your "boo hoo tens of thousands of law abiding gun owners were thrown in jail for nothing" BS, because it never happened. It's a lie. Busted. Kaput. Stop posting lies.

Seems like a pretty pointless law if it let people keep guns that were banned. What was that supposed to accomplish then?

Well, it banned certain “features.”

Features like a bayonet lug. Without the lug, there’s no way to mount a bayonet on a gun. That makes it safer.

And it banned the shoulder thing, that goes up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some good news: The Supreme Court today declined to intervene and block the Illinois ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines. No noted dissents. (Note: This would have required five votes.)

No surprise waiting for this case and similar ones in other democratic run states to work their way up through the circuit courts. Then they can issue a clear decision on all of them.

Hopefully will include the line - what part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you people get.

How have you never read the Heller decision in all this time. Go read it, please.

Scalia is no longer on the court. No need to continue to temper the decision to get his vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some good news: The Supreme Court today declined to intervene and block the Illinois ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines. No noted dissents. (Note: This would have required five votes.)

No surprise waiting for this case and similar ones in other democratic run states to work their way up through the circuit courts. Then they can issue a clear decision on all of them.

Hopefully will include the line - what part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you people get.

Gun owners are not at all being infringed. They are still being allowed fully functional handguns with normal capacity magazines, along with fully functional ordinary hunting rifles with normal capacity magazines that don't look like military weapons.

Sure. Sure. Let's roll back the internet to dial-up speed and start riding around on horses while we're at it.

That a stupid analogy. We don't have to allow cutting edge weapons technology be available for purchase. Let’s give everyone a sophisticated little nuke then. That would be so great.

Yet the heavy firepower of the day, the cannon came not from the fledging nation but from private citizens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some good news: The Supreme Court today declined to intervene and block the Illinois ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines. No noted dissents. (Note: This would have required five votes.)

No surprise waiting for this case and similar ones in other democratic run states to work their way up through the circuit courts. Then they can issue a clear decision on all of them.

Hopefully will include the line - what part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you people get.

Gun owners are not at all being infringed. They are still being allowed fully functional handguns with normal capacity magazines, along with fully functional ordinary hunting rifles with normal capacity magazines that don't look like military weapons.

Sure. Sure. Let's roll back the internet to dial-up speed and start riding around on horses while we're at it.

That a stupid analogy. We don't have to allow cutting edge weapons technology be available for purchase. Lets give everyone a sophisticated little nuke then. That would be so great.

We get it; you want us to live in a police state. No thanks!

Well at least a state where police will actually go up against the weaponry out there instead of cowering outside. That would be good. Or we want out police money back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some good news: The Supreme Court today declined to intervene and block the Illinois ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines. No noted dissents. (Note: This would have required five votes.)

No surprise waiting for this case and similar ones in other democratic run states to work their way up through the circuit courts. Then they can issue a clear decision on all of them.

Hopefully will include the line - what part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you people get.

Gun owners are not at all being infringed. They are still being allowed fully functional handguns with normal capacity magazines, along with fully functional ordinary hunting rifles with normal capacity magazines that don't look like military weapons.

Sure. Sure. Let's roll back the internet to dial-up speed and start riding around on horses while we're at it.

We had a ban for 20 years and it was fine. Relax.

I'm sure it was fine for you and your fellow progressives who would never own a gun. The rest of us were annoyed by it. The ting is the people enacting these bans have no clue what they're doing. The ban didn't make us alone but safer.

Oh my god you poor thing, you had to be annoyed? Holy hell, how did you function?! Just you and the rest of the guns you have in lieu of an inner life, but you had to get along with a few specific guns? And for what, a few hundred kids ended up getting to grow up and now we’re out here living our lives instead of dead. But you had to be annoyed.

I bet you vote exclusively for gun nut Republicans, because you love you some forced birth politics too. Never mind “annoyed,” you’re actually ruining women’s lives. Which I sense is a goal for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some good news: The Supreme Court today declined to intervene and block the Illinois ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines. No noted dissents. (Note: This would have required five votes.)

No surprise waiting for this case and similar ones in other democratic run states to work their way up through the circuit courts. Then they can issue a clear decision on all of them.

Hopefully will include the line - what part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you people get.

Gun owners are not at all being infringed. They are still being allowed fully functional handguns with normal capacity magazines, along with fully functional ordinary hunting rifles with normal capacity magazines that don't look like military weapons.

Sure. Sure. Let's roll back the internet to dial-up speed and start riding around on horses while we're at it.

We had a ban for 20 years and it was fine. Relax.

I'm sure it was fine for you and your fellow progressives who would never own a gun. The rest of us were annoyed by it. The ting is the people enacting these bans have no clue what they're doing. The ban didn't make us alone but safer.

Oh my god you poor thing, you had to be annoyed? Holy hell, how did you function?! Just you and the rest of the guns you have in lieu of an inner life, but you had to get along with a few specific guns? And for what, a few hundred kids ended up getting to grow up and now we’re out here living our lives instead of dead. But you had to be annoyed.

I bet you vote exclusively for gun nut Republicans, because you love you some forced birth politics too. Never mind “annoyed,” you’re actually ruining women’s lives. Which I sense is a goal for you.

+1. Holy snowflake. Annoyance is perfectly survivable. Get some mature coping mechanisms in place gun nuts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some good news: The Supreme Court today declined to intervene and block the Illinois ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines. No noted dissents. (Note: This would have required five votes.)

No surprise waiting for this case and similar ones in other democratic run states to work their way up through the circuit courts. Then they can issue a clear decision on all of them.

Hopefully will include the line - what part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you people get.

How have you never read the Heller decision in all this time. Go read it, please.

Scalia is no longer on the court. No need to continue to temper the decision to get his vote.

What? It doesn’t matter that he’s not there anymore, he’s the one that wrote the decision that rewrote the 2nd and makes all of this possible. You clearly need to read it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some good news: The Supreme Court today declined to intervene and block the Illinois ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines. No noted dissents. (Note: This would have required five votes.)

No surprise waiting for this case and similar ones in other democratic run states to work their way up through the circuit courts. Then they can issue a clear decision on all of them.

Hopefully will include the line - what part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you people get.

Gun owners are not at all being infringed. They are still being allowed fully functional handguns with normal capacity magazines, along with fully functional ordinary hunting rifles with normal capacity magazines that don't look like military weapons.

Sure. Sure. Let's roll back the internet to dial-up speed and start riding around on horses while we're at it.

That a stupid analogy. We don't have to allow cutting edge weapons technology be available for purchase. Let’s give everyone a sophisticated little nuke then. That would be so great.

Yet the heavy firepower of the day, the cannon came not from the fledging nation but from private citizens.

Does this mean something in gun nut circles?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some good news: The Supreme Court today declined to intervene and block the Illinois ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines. No noted dissents. (Note: This would have required five votes.)

No surprise waiting for this case and similar ones in other democratic run states to work their way up through the circuit courts. Then they can issue a clear decision on all of them.

Hopefully will include the line - what part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you people get.

Gun owners are not at all being infringed. They are still being allowed fully functional handguns with normal capacity magazines, along with fully functional ordinary hunting rifles with normal capacity magazines that don't look like military weapons.

Sure. Sure. Let's roll back the internet to dial-up speed and start riding around on horses while we're at it.

We had a ban for 20 years and it was fine. Relax.

I'm sure it was fine for you and your fellow progressives who would never own a gun. The rest of us were annoyed by it. The ting is the people enacting these bans have no clue what they're doing. The ban didn't make us alone but safer.

Oh my god you poor thing, you had to be annoyed? Holy hell, how did you function?! Just you and the rest of the guns you have in lieu of an inner life, but you had to get along with a few specific guns? And for what, a few hundred kids ended up getting to grow up and now we’re out here living our lives instead of dead. But you had to be annoyed.

I bet you vote exclusively for gun nut Republicans, because you love you some forced birth politics too. Never mind “annoyed,” you’re actually ruining women’s lives. Which I sense is a goal for you.

+1. Holy snowflake. Annoyance is perfectly survivable. Get some mature coping mechanisms in place gun nuts.

Shall not be infringed.