Anonymous wrote:
How?
In today's Cargill/bump stock opinion, the following statement from
Sotomayor/Kagan/Jackson will have major implications for any attempted AR-15 ban cases. Their dissent reads: "Within a matter of minutes, using several hundred rounds of
ammunition, the [Las Vegas] shooter killed 58 people and wounded over 500. He did so by affixing bump stocks to COMMONLY AVAILABLE, SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES."
This statement in a precedent S.Ct case on firearms is a devastating legal admission by the left leaning members of our highest court that AR-15s are “commonly available.”
If you have read the Heller decision, the standard for a gun which CANNOT BE BANNED, is “in common use.”
Until you re-write the BOR, any attempt to ban the AR-15 is unconstitutional.
How about trying to put more criminals behind bars instead?
Anonymous wrote:Guns aren't the problem. There are many places in the US where people have lots of guns with low crime rates.
The problem are criminals commit crimes at obscene rates. Lock up the criminals and watch crime drop. It's so simple everyone smarter than Fox Butterfield can understand.
Anonymous wrote:Guns aren't the problem. There are many places in the US where people have lots of guns with low crime rates.
The problem are criminals commit crimes at obscene rates. Lock up the criminals and watch crime drop. It's so simple everyone smarter than Fox Butterfield can understand.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
How?
In today's Cargill/bump stock opinion, the following statement from
Sotomayor/Kagan/Jackson will have major implications for any attempted AR-15 ban cases. Their dissent reads: "Within a matter of minutes, using several hundred rounds of
ammunition, the [Las Vegas] shooter killed 58 people and wounded over 500. He did so by affixing bump stocks to COMMONLY AVAILABLE, SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES."
This statement in a precedent S.Ct case on firearms is a devastating legal admission by the left leaning members of our highest court that AR-15s are “commonly available.”
If you have read the Heller decision, the standard for a gun which CANNOT BE BANNED, is “in common use.”
Until you re-write the BOR, any attempt to ban the AR-15 is unconstitutional.
How about trying to put more criminals behind bars instead?
The Las Vegas shooter had no criminal record before he killed 58 people. Trying to put more criminals behind bars is a great idea, but how do you handle somebody who, at the time he purchased all those firearms, was a law-abiding citizen?
Um, you respect their freedom?
How would you,
“handle somebody who: publishes all those books? Goes to all those churches? Has all those abortions?“
This is the dystopia we live in. It isn't a human right to own a gun. It's been enabled by tortured interpretation of the second amendment. There's nothing to be done about it until more reasonable politicians and justices are put forth by future generations. Until then, we must live and die to this madness.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
How?
In today's Cargill/bump stock opinion, the following statement from
Sotomayor/Kagan/Jackson will have major implications for any attempted AR-15 ban cases. Their dissent reads: "Within a matter of minutes, using several hundred rounds of
ammunition, the [Las Vegas] shooter killed 58 people and wounded over 500. He did so by affixing bump stocks to COMMONLY AVAILABLE, SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES."
This statement in a precedent S.Ct case on firearms is a devastating legal admission by the left leaning members of our highest court that AR-15s are “commonly available.”
If you have read the Heller decision, the standard for a gun which CANNOT BE BANNED, is “in common use.”
Until you re-write the BOR, any attempt to ban the AR-15 is unconstitutional.
How about trying to put more criminals behind bars instead?
The Las Vegas shooter had no criminal record before he killed 58 people. Trying to put more criminals behind bars is a great idea, but how do you handle somebody who, at the time he purchased all those firearms, was a law-abiding citizen?
Um, you respect their freedom?
How would you,
“handle somebody who: publishes all those books? Goes to all those churches? Has all those abortions?“
This is the dystopia we live in. It isn't a human right to own a gun. It's been enabled by tortured interpretation of the second amendment. There's nothing to be done about it until more reasonable politicians and justices are put forth by future generations. Until then, we must live and die to this madness.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
How?
In today's Cargill/bump stock opinion, the following statement from
Sotomayor/Kagan/Jackson will have major implications for any attempted AR-15 ban cases. Their dissent reads: "Within a matter of minutes, using several hundred rounds of
ammunition, the [Las Vegas] shooter killed 58 people and wounded over 500. He did so by affixing bump stocks to COMMONLY AVAILABLE, SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES."
This statement in a precedent S.Ct case on firearms is a devastating legal admission by the left leaning members of our highest court that AR-15s are “commonly available.”
If you have read the Heller decision, the standard for a gun which CANNOT BE BANNED, is “in common use.”
Until you re-write the BOR, any attempt to ban the AR-15 is unconstitutional.
How about trying to put more criminals behind bars instead?
The Las Vegas shooter had no criminal record before he killed 58 people. Trying to put more criminals behind bars is a great idea, but how do you handle somebody who, at the time he purchased all those firearms, was a law-abiding citizen?
Um, you respect their freedom?
How would you,
“handle somebody who: publishes all those books? Goes to all those churches? Has all those abortions?“
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
How?
In today's Cargill/bump stock opinion, the following statement from
Sotomayor/Kagan/Jackson will have major implications for any attempted AR-15 ban cases. Their dissent reads: "Within a matter of minutes, using several hundred rounds of
ammunition, the [Las Vegas] shooter killed 58 people and wounded over 500. He did so by affixing bump stocks to COMMONLY AVAILABLE, SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES."
This statement in a precedent S.Ct case on firearms is a devastating legal admission by the left leaning members of our highest court that AR-15s are “commonly available.”
If you have read the Heller decision, the standard for a gun which CANNOT BE BANNED, is “in common use.”
Until you re-write the BOR, any attempt to ban the AR-15 is unconstitutional.
How about trying to put more criminals behind bars instead?
The Las Vegas shooter had no criminal record before he killed 58 people. Trying to put more criminals behind bars is a great idea, but how do you handle somebody who, at the time he purchased all those firearms, was a law-abiding citizen?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
+2. There should be another ban. I have yet to see any demonstration of real harm that befell anyone as a result of the AWB.
Being deprived of your human rights is a pretty serious harm.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
How?
In today's Cargill/bump stock opinion, the following statement from
Sotomayor/Kagan/Jackson will have major implications for any attempted AR-15 ban cases. Their dissent reads: "Within a matter of minutes, using several hundred rounds of
ammunition, the [Las Vegas] shooter killed 58 people and wounded over 500. He did so by affixing bump stocks to COMMONLY AVAILABLE, SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES."
This statement in a precedent S.Ct case on firearms is a devastating legal admission by the left leaning members of our highest court that AR-15s are “commonly available.”
If you have read the Heller decision, the standard for a gun which CANNOT BE BANNED, is “in common use.”
Until you re-write the BOR, any attempt to ban the AR-15 is unconstitutional.
How about trying to put more criminals behind bars instead?
The Las Vegas shooter had no criminal record before he killed 58 people. Trying to put more criminals behind bars is a great idea, but how do you handle somebody who, at the time he purchased all those firearms, was a law-abiding citizen?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
+2. There should be another ban. I have yet to see any demonstration of real harm that befell anyone as a result of the AWB.
Being deprived of your human rights is a pretty serious harm.
Anonymous wrote:
How?
In today's Cargill/bump stock opinion, the following statement from
Sotomayor/Kagan/Jackson will have major implications for any attempted AR-15 ban cases. Their dissent reads: "Within a matter of minutes, using several hundred rounds of
ammunition, the [Las Vegas] shooter killed 58 people and wounded over 500. He did so by affixing bump stocks to COMMONLY AVAILABLE, SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES."
This statement in a precedent S.Ct case on firearms is a devastating legal admission by the left leaning members of our highest court that AR-15s are “commonly available.”
If you have read the Heller decision, the standard for a gun which CANNOT BE BANNED, is “in common use.”
Until you re-write the BOR, any attempt to ban the AR-15 is unconstitutional.
How about trying to put more criminals behind bars instead?
Anonymous wrote:
+2. There should be another ban. I have yet to see any demonstration of real harm that befell anyone as a result of the AWB.