Just enforce what is on the books. Commit a crime with a gun add a minimum of 15 years on to the original sentence, with no parole for those 15 years. No prosecutor discretion on the gun add on charge.

Gun crime will drop dramatically.

Anonymous wrote:And sorry, snowflakes - but a ban on extended capacity magazines and military-patterned rifles *IS NOT* an infringement.

Take your dumb, misplaced "shall not be infringed" commentary and stick it.

Nah, we good. Oh and you never get to use or quote the US Constitution ever again. Thanks for attending, now go.

Anonymous wrote:Sweeping gun legislation approved by Maine lawmakers after deadliest shooting in state history
https://apnews.com/article/maine-legislature-mass-shooting-gun-control-938ed48aa36cfa3ab364a72556e1abd3?utm_campaign=TrueAnthem&utm_medium=AP&utm_source=Twitter

Hodgson said he knew this would happen. And did nothing. So they get off scott free???

Anonymous wrote:Banning all Ar-15s, assault rifles, and extended clips.

Plus every bullet shout cost $200.

What's a clip?

Sweeping gun legislation approved by Maine lawmakers after deadliest shooting in state history
https://apnews.com/article/maine-legislature-mass-shooting-gun-control-938ed48aa36cfa3ab364a72556e1abd3?utm_campaign=TrueAnthem&utm_medium=AP&utm_source=Twitter

Anonymous wrote:Anyone seen this yet? Pretty powerful.

Yes, very powerful, but doesn’t quite align with the percentages - “Black children and teens are more likely to be killed in firearm-related incidents than children of other races. Seventeen in 100,000 Black children died by gun in 2021, compared to approximately 3 in 100,000 White children or 1 in 100,000 Asian children, according to CDC data.”


https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/10/02/us/gun-homicides-and-suicides-in-us-children-and-teens-are-at-a-record-high/index.html

Maybe America should be focusing on the real problem.

Anonymous wrote:Anyone seen this yet? Pretty powerful.

Great ad.

Anyone seen this yet? Pretty powerful.

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.

Nope.

Dope.

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.

Nope.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And sorry, snowflakes - but a ban on extended capacity magazines and military-patterned rifles *IS NOT* an infringement.

Take your dumb, misplaced "shall not be infringed" commentary and stick it.

OK, we'll put you down in the "wants police state" category.

Not if it's the uvalde police. No thanks.

Anonymous wrote:And sorry, snowflakes - but a ban on extended capacity magazines and military-patterned rifles *IS NOT* an infringement.

Take your dumb, misplaced "shall not be infringed" commentary and stick it.

OK, we'll put you down in the "wants police state" category.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Not sure where you got that info, but it's incorrect. For example the militia was NOT the ordinary rabble, very much was organized, with specific rules, and answerable to the commander in chief. Perhaps you've never heard of the Militia Act, which the Founding Fathers passed into law within 6 months of ratifiying the 2nd Amendment?

Try REAL, documented history, rather than made-up fictitious NRA history.

Yes, but under US code there are 2 classes of militias, organized and unorganized. So no matter how you want to interpret the predatory clause of the 2nd amendment grants all US citizens the right to keep and bear Arms.


246. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14, §311; Pub. L. 85–861, §1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, §524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656; renumbered §246, Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title XII, §1241(a)(2), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2497.)
Historical and Revision Notes
1956 Act
Revised section Source (U.S. Code) Source (Statutes at Large)
311(a)
311(b)
32:1 (less last 19 words).
32:1 (last 19 words).
June 3, 1916, ch. 134, §57, 39 Stat. 197; June 28, 1947, ch. 162, §7 (as applicable to §57 of the Act of June 3, 1916, ch. 134), 61 Stat. 192.
In subsection (a), the words "who have made a declaration of intention" are substituted for the words "who have or shall have declared their intention". The words "at least 17 years of age and * * * under 45 years of age" are substituted for the words "who shall be more than seventeen years of age and * * * not more than forty-five years of age". The words "except as provided in section 313 of title 32" are substituted for the words "except as hereinafter provided", to make explicit the exception as to maximum age.
In subsection (b), the words "The organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia" are substituted for the words "the National Guard, the Naval Militia", since the National Guard and the Naval Militia constitute the organized militia.
1958 Act
Revised section Source (U.S. Code) Source (Statutes at Large)
311(a) 32 App.:1. July 30, 1956, ch. 789, §1, 70 Stat. 729.
The words "appointed as . . . under section 4 of this title" are omitted as surplusage.

And sorry, snowflakes - but a ban on extended capacity magazines and military-patterned rifles *IS NOT* an infringement.

Take your dumb, misplaced "shall not be infringed" commentary and stick it.

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?

Not sure where you got that info, but it's incorrect. For example the militia was NOT the ordinary rabble, very much was organized, with specific rules, and answerable to the commander in chief. Perhaps you've never heard of the Militia Act, which the Founding Fathers passed into law within 6 months of ratifiying the 2nd Amendment?

Try REAL, documented history, rather than made-up fictitious NRA history.