Common Sense Gun Laws

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Cope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Cope.

Lol. With a conservative majority SC, you and your gun-grabbing friends will be the ones coping. But even if you, are successful, gun enthusiasts will cope by using 3D printers to make whatever we like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The Heller decision does not prohibit states or cities from regulating guns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Cope.

"Well-regulated militia"

YOU cope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

“the Second Amendment right is not unlimited” and “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Cope.

"Well-regulated militia"

YOU cope.

At the time the 2nd amendment was written the term well-regulated referred to something that was well functioning not regulated by the government. Also the militia was not an organized group like the national guard but the common man.

Of course no point in looking at things in the proper historical context is there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

“the Second Amendment right is not unlimited” and “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever.”

That may change now that Justice Thomas has found his voice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Cope.

Lol. With a conservative majority SC, you and your gun-grabbing friends will be the ones coping. But even if you, are successful, gun enthusiasts will cope by using 3D printers to make whatever we like.

Patience. Those conservatives will eventually die off or retire and be replaced and then presto chango, the constitution is interpreted differently. Ask every American woman how I know this.

[Anonymous]

And here is a little tip...settled law means unsettled law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Cope.

"Well-regulated militia"

YOU cope.

Which militia are you in?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Cope.

"Well-regulated militia"

YOU cope.

At the time the 2nd amendment was written the term well-regulated referred to something that was well functioning not regulated by the government. Also the militia was not an organized group like the national guard but the common man.

Of course no point in looking at things in the proper historical context is there?

They hate historical context. In fact context in general seems to make gun nuts super mad.

Who upthread was trying to claim with a straight face that the semi-automatic weapons available at the time of the founding of the country were the same as now. I mean these are not well people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Cope.

"Well-regulated militia"

YOU cope.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Cope.

"Well-regulated militia"

YOU cope.

+1

+100. We chewed up and spit out the uvalde police department and we will come for your city and town next you dumb libs. Cope with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The Heller decision does not prohibit states or cities from regulating guns.

Many state constitutions do prohibit the state as they have amendments similar to the 2nd amendment but often more clearly worded.

State attempts like those in Illinois and New York will eventually be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The Heller decision does not prohibit states or cities from regulating guns.

Many state constitutions do prohibit the state as they have amendments similar to the 2nd amendment but often more clearly worded.

State attempts like those in Illinois and New York will eventually be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Then the justices change and it turns out the case was poorly decided and that the constitution actually means something else. It happens.