Anti-gun extremists use lies to justify rifle ban in Deerfield, Illinios....

[2aguy]

They can't even pretend to be honest when they are trying to justify the unConstitutional Rifle ban in Deerfield, Illinois...

Brady Campaign Defends Deerfield, IL Gun Ban With Insane Arguments - The Truth About Guns

The defendants’ brief (click for .pdf) in opposition to our motion for injunctive relief argues the village’s ban on rifles is necessity “to protect the public health, safety and welfare.” Then they boldly cite criminal misuse of handguns as justification for their ban on scary-looking rifles.

Hard to believe, right? It’s true. They cite the South Carolina church killings and the attempted assassination of Gabby Giffords — both crimes committed with handguns — as reasons to ban rifles.

They also cited the Washington D.C. Naval Yard spree killing. There, a lunatic used a no-frills Mossberg 500 shotgun purchased at Dick’s Sporting Goods to kill most of his victims. He also used a handgun stolen from a murdered security guard.

Yes, the Village argues that they need to ban rifles because of criminals who used handguns and shotguns to kill people. That’s some sound logic, right? Not so much.

Wait. It gets worse. The defendants’ brief also names two domestic Islamic terror attacks as reasons to ban guns in Deerfield. Yes, they actually cited the Islamic terror attacks in San Bernardino, CA and at the Orlando Pulse nightclub as justification for taking our guns. So because the U.S. Government can’t protect us from Islamic terror attacks, the Village of Deerfield should disarm law-abiding Americans?

The brief also cites the Sutherland Springs, Texas church massacre. At the same time, it fails to note that a good guy’s AR-15 stopped the killings.

The audacity of these control freaks knows no limits and no shame.

This whole article is mostly BS. The ONLY thing they affected was rifles in the AR-15 Class. Not shotguns or handguns or normal hunting and sporting guns which are NOT the weapons of choice for mass shootings. Look for more and more Cities to do this as well. Until the gun craze of the AR is changed this is going to continue. And the harder you gun nutz fight it, the faster it will happen. Your whole way of fighting it is very militant and insulting. This makes the ones that want it think that they are doing the right thing. Well, cupcakes, you are bringing this onto yourselves.

And, genius...the AR-15 rifle is specifically protected by the 2nd Amendment....and your argument that we either give up a little bit of our Right to keep guns each time you guys want a new gun banned, or you will take all of them....yeah, that isn't going to fly.....you told the same thing to Black Americans when they wanted to be able to vote and have access to all the Civil Rights they were entitled to......so no, we are drawing the line today.......

Wrong.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of AR bans, and the lower courts have upheld such bans as Constitutional.

Yes they did....it is called D.C v Heller where they ruled that all bearable arms in common use for lawful purposes are protected, as Scalia explained in the follow up dissent in Friedman v Highland Park....

But what would you know......?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

But we said in Heller that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” 554 U. S., at 582.

--------



The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

They can't even pretend to be honest when they are trying to justify the unConstitutional Rifle ban in Deerfield, Illinois...

Brady Campaign Defends Deerfield, IL Gun Ban With Insane Arguments - The Truth About Guns

The defendants’ brief (click for .pdf) in opposition to our motion for injunctive relief argues the village’s ban on rifles is necessity “to protect the public health, safety and welfare.” Then they boldly cite criminal misuse of handguns as justification for their ban on scary-looking rifles.

Hard to believe, right? It’s true. They cite the South Carolina church killings and the attempted assassination of Gabby Giffords — both crimes committed with handguns — as reasons to ban rifles.

They also cited the Washington D.C. Naval Yard spree killing. There, a lunatic used a no-frills Mossberg 500 shotgun purchased at Dick’s Sporting Goods to kill most of his victims. He also used a handgun stolen from a murdered security guard.

Yes, the Village argues that they need to ban rifles because of criminals who used handguns and shotguns to kill people. That’s some sound logic, right? Not so much.

Wait. It gets worse. The defendants’ brief also names two domestic Islamic terror attacks as reasons to ban guns in Deerfield. Yes, they actually cited the Islamic terror attacks in San Bernardino, CA and at the Orlando Pulse nightclub as justification for taking our guns. So because the U.S. Government can’t protect us from Islamic terror attacks, the Village of Deerfield should disarm law-abiding Americans?

The brief also cites the Sutherland Springs, Texas church massacre. At the same time, it fails to note that a good guy’s AR-15 stopped the killings.

The audacity of these control freaks knows no limits and no shame.

This whole article is mostly BS. The ONLY thing they affected was rifles in the AR-15 Class. Not shotguns or handguns or normal hunting and sporting guns which are NOT the weapons of choice for mass shootings. Look for more and more Cities to do this as well. Until the gun craze of the AR is changed this is going to continue. And the harder you gun nutz fight it, the faster it will happen. Your whole way of fighting it is very militant and insulting. This makes the ones that want it think that they are doing the right thing. Well, cupcakes, you are bringing this onto yourselves.

And, genius...the AR-15 rifle is specifically protected by the 2nd Amendment....and your argument that we either give up a little bit of our Right to keep guns each time you guys want a new gun banned, or you will take all of them....yeah, that isn't going to fly.....you told the same thing to Black Americans when they wanted to be able to vote and have access to all the Civil Rights they were entitled to......so no, we are drawing the line today.......

Wrong.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of AR bans, and the lower courts have upheld such bans as Constitutional.

Yes they did....it is called D.C v Heller where they ruled that all bearable arms in common use for lawful purposes are protected, as Scalia explained in the follow up dissent in Friedman v Highland Park....

But what would you know......?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

But we said in Heller that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” 554 U. S., at 582.

--------



The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

What part of "Dissent" are you having trouble with. A Ruling is not a Dissent. A Dissent is from the losing side and means absolutely nothing legally. The facts remain that it's perfectly legal and constitutional to separate the AR-15 out from the other rifles and say it's an Assault Rifle and can be banned or heavily regulated. No matter how many times you stamp your feet, place your hands over your ears and yell "Nah, Nah, Nay", throw yourself to the ground in a fit of rage (and probably miss) you won't change that fact. The only way to change that fact is to either change it at each and every state level or have them throw out the 14th amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

You have tried to lie, misinform, bully, shout down, out obnoxious and many other things to get your way. But until you do what I suggest then it just won't happen. Until then, more and more states will continue to move towards common sense gun regulations. We used to not need them because people were a lot more centered but today, we have fruitcakes like you and others running around that are borderline and over the top dangerous. So, SFBs, get used to it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

They can't even pretend to be honest when they are trying to justify the unConstitutional Rifle ban in Deerfield, Illinois...

Brady Campaign Defends Deerfield, IL Gun Ban With Insane Arguments - The Truth About Guns

The defendants’ brief (click for .pdf) in opposition to our motion for injunctive relief argues the village’s ban on rifles is necessity “to protect the public health, safety and welfare.” Then they boldly cite criminal misuse of handguns as justification for their ban on scary-looking rifles.

Hard to believe, right? It’s true. They cite the South Carolina church killings and the attempted assassination of Gabby Giffords — both crimes committed with handguns — as reasons to ban rifles.

They also cited the Washington D.C. Naval Yard spree killing. There, a lunatic used a no-frills Mossberg 500 shotgun purchased at Dick’s Sporting Goods to kill most of his victims. He also used a handgun stolen from a murdered security guard.

Yes, the Village argues that they need to ban rifles because of criminals who used handguns and shotguns to kill people. That’s some sound logic, right? Not so much.

Wait. It gets worse. The defendants’ brief also names two domestic Islamic terror attacks as reasons to ban guns in Deerfield. Yes, they actually cited the Islamic terror attacks in San Bernardino, CA and at the Orlando Pulse nightclub as justification for taking our guns. So because the U.S. Government can’t protect us from Islamic terror attacks, the Village of Deerfield should disarm law-abiding Americans?

The brief also cites the Sutherland Springs, Texas church massacre. At the same time, it fails to note that a good guy’s AR-15 stopped the killings.

The audacity of these control freaks knows no limits and no shame.

This whole article is mostly BS. The ONLY thing they affected was rifles in the AR-15 Class. Not shotguns or handguns or normal hunting and sporting guns which are NOT the weapons of choice for mass shootings. Look for more and more Cities to do this as well. Until the gun craze of the AR is changed this is going to continue. And the harder you gun nutz fight it, the faster it will happen. Your whole way of fighting it is very militant and insulting. This makes the ones that want it think that they are doing the right thing. Well, cupcakes, you are bringing this onto yourselves.

And you pretend to be honest? You might pretend, but you're not.

Present, deflect, insult.

I note that you go for the insult rather than the rebuttal. Tells me that I scored the kill on this one.

Insult? Where's the insult?

 

[Sahba]

Many perceived "gun rights" will eventually depend on three words found in the 2nd Amendment, "well regulated militia". A modernized interpretation of those words will change everything. A decision will be made that the old and current interpretation of "everyone" automatically belonging to the militia will be changed and who can belong to the militia and in what capacity will become "well regulated".

So you want government to be able to decide who is worthy of 2nd amendment rights?

What a fucking slave you are.

The government is already doing that by preventing some citizens from legally owning or possessing firearms. They already have a right to "regulate". Convicted felons are regulated. So are people with histories of mental illness or specific histories of particular crimes even if the crimes are not felonies.

My post of speculating how gun regulation may change in the future does not offer an opinion as to my support or non-support of such a change.
If you do not want to see issues realistically or be educated that is your problem.

The only way the government can restrict a right is via due process. Unless a person is a convicted felon or mentally adjudicated as incompetent, they have the same 2nd amendment rights as any other citizen.

That you foresee government being able to pick and choose who can have those rights via manipulating the terms of the militia means you foresee tyranny.

And the militia argument is a non-starter anyway, because it's the STATES that maintain the right to keep a militia,while the PEOPLE keep the right to bear arms.

What about being required to register your AR or criminalizing it within state lines? The whole pivotal point of the 2nd, in my mind & that of the framers, was a check against Gov. overreach / tyranny... How does this get explained away by your ilk...

No one advocates for "criminalizing" the possession of ARs; restrictions apply only to the sale of new rifles, and gun registration has been upheld as perfectly Constitutional.

Remember those long lines in CT that made the news... those were mandatory AR registration (or) become a criminal lines....
Registration of Firearms in Connecticut | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

 

[Daryl Hunt]

They can't even pretend to be honest when they are trying to justify the unConstitutional Rifle ban in Deerfield, Illinois...

Brady Campaign Defends Deerfield, IL Gun Ban With Insane Arguments - The Truth About Guns

The defendants’ brief (click for .pdf) in opposition to our motion for injunctive relief argues the village’s ban on rifles is necessity “to protect the public health, safety and welfare.” Then they boldly cite criminal misuse of handguns as justification for their ban on scary-looking rifles.

Hard to believe, right? It’s true. They cite the South Carolina church killings and the attempted assassination of Gabby Giffords — both crimes committed with handguns — as reasons to ban rifles.

They also cited the Washington D.C. Naval Yard spree killing. There, a lunatic used a no-frills Mossberg 500 shotgun purchased at Dick’s Sporting Goods to kill most of his victims. He also used a handgun stolen from a murdered security guard.

Yes, the Village argues that they need to ban rifles because of criminals who used handguns and shotguns to kill people. That’s some sound logic, right? Not so much.

Wait. It gets worse. The defendants’ brief also names two domestic Islamic terror attacks as reasons to ban guns in Deerfield. Yes, they actually cited the Islamic terror attacks in San Bernardino, CA and at the Orlando Pulse nightclub as justification for taking our guns. So because the U.S. Government can’t protect us from Islamic terror attacks, the Village of Deerfield should disarm law-abiding Americans?

The brief also cites the Sutherland Springs, Texas church massacre. At the same time, it fails to note that a good guy’s AR-15 stopped the killings.

The audacity of these control freaks knows no limits and no shame.

This whole article is mostly BS. The ONLY thing they affected was rifles in the AR-15 Class. Not shotguns or handguns or normal hunting and sporting guns which are NOT the weapons of choice for mass shootings. Look for more and more Cities to do this as well. Until the gun craze of the AR is changed this is going to continue. And the harder you gun nutz fight it, the faster it will happen. Your whole way of fighting it is very militant and insulting. This makes the ones that want it think that they are doing the right thing. Well, cupcakes, you are bringing this onto yourselves.

And you pretend to be honest? You might pretend, but you're not.

Present, deflect, insult.

I note that you go for the insult rather than the rebuttal. Tells me that I scored the kill on this one.

Insult? Where's the insult?

Your bunch has done this for so long you think it's acceptable behavior. Except when the other side does it to you. Yes, SFBs, it's an insult. Just like I just did in response.

 

[frigidweirdo]

They can't even pretend to be honest when they are trying to justify the unConstitutional Rifle ban in Deerfield, Illinois...

Brady Campaign Defends Deerfield, IL Gun Ban With Insane Arguments - The Truth About Guns

The defendants’ brief (click for .pdf) in opposition to our motion for injunctive relief argues the village’s ban on rifles is necessity “to protect the public health, safety and welfare.” Then they boldly cite criminal misuse of handguns as justification for their ban on scary-looking rifles.

Hard to believe, right? It’s true. They cite the South Carolina church killings and the attempted assassination of Gabby Giffords — both crimes committed with handguns — as reasons to ban rifles.

They also cited the Washington D.C. Naval Yard spree killing. There, a lunatic used a no-frills Mossberg 500 shotgun purchased at Dick’s Sporting Goods to kill most of his victims. He also used a handgun stolen from a murdered security guard.

Yes, the Village argues that they need to ban rifles because of criminals who used handguns and shotguns to kill people. That’s some sound logic, right? Not so much.

Wait. It gets worse. The defendants’ brief also names two domestic Islamic terror attacks as reasons to ban guns in Deerfield. Yes, they actually cited the Islamic terror attacks in San Bernardino, CA and at the Orlando Pulse nightclub as justification for taking our guns. So because the U.S. Government can’t protect us from Islamic terror attacks, the Village of Deerfield should disarm law-abiding Americans?

The brief also cites the Sutherland Springs, Texas church massacre. At the same time, it fails to note that a good guy’s AR-15 stopped the killings.

The audacity of these control freaks knows no limits and no shame.

This whole article is mostly BS. The ONLY thing they affected was rifles in the AR-15 Class. Not shotguns or handguns or normal hunting and sporting guns which are NOT the weapons of choice for mass shootings. Look for more and more Cities to do this as well. Until the gun craze of the AR is changed this is going to continue. And the harder you gun nutz fight it, the faster it will happen. Your whole way of fighting it is very militant and insulting. This makes the ones that want it think that they are doing the right thing. Well, cupcakes, you are bringing this onto yourselves.

And you pretend to be honest? You might pretend, but you're not.

Present, deflect, insult.

I note that you go for the insult rather than the rebuttal. Tells me that I scored the kill on this one.

Insult? Where's the insult?

Your bunch has done this for so long you think it's acceptable behavior. Except when the other side does it to you. Yes, SFBs, it's an insult. Just like I just did in response.

"My bunch"? What do you mean when you say "Your bunch" exactly? Who are you putting me in with? Humans? Cockroaches?

On both sides there are people who insult. I try and insult as little as possible though there are a few times when I'm tired and I do what I shouldn't do.

As for my bunch, I don't have a bunch, I'm not a banana.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

This whole article is mostly BS. The ONLY thing they affected was rifles in the AR-15 Class. Not shotguns or handguns or normal hunting and sporting guns which are NOT the weapons of choice for mass shootings. Look for more and more Cities to do this as well. Until the gun craze of the AR is changed this is going to continue. And the harder you gun nutz fight it, the faster it will happen. Your whole way of fighting it is very militant and insulting. This makes the ones that want it think that they are doing the right thing. Well, cupcakes, you are bringing this onto yourselves.

And you pretend to be honest? You might pretend, but you're not.

Present, deflect, insult.

I note that you go for the insult rather than the rebuttal. Tells me that I scored the kill on this one.

Insult? Where's the insult?

Your bunch has done this for so long you think it's acceptable behavior. Except when the other side does it to you. Yes, SFBs, it's an insult. Just like I just did in response.

"My bunch"? What do you mean when you say "Your bunch" exactly? Who are you putting me in with? Humans? Cockroaches?

On both sides there are people who insult. I try and insult as little as possible though there are a few times when I'm tired and I do what I shouldn't do.

As for my bunch, I don't have a bunch, I'm not a banana.

Yet you failed to see the insult. That means I can insult at "Will" or Fred or anyone else I want to and you won't see it. Works for me.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

So you want government to be able to decide who is worthy of 2nd amendment rights?

What a fucking slave you are.

The government is already doing that by preventing some citizens from legally owning or possessing firearms. They already have a right to "regulate". Convicted felons are regulated. So are people with histories of mental illness or specific histories of particular crimes even if the crimes are not felonies.

My post of speculating how gun regulation may change in the future does not offer an opinion as to my support or non-support of such a change.
If you do not want to see issues realistically or be educated that is your problem.

The only way the government can restrict a right is via due process. Unless a person is a convicted felon or mentally adjudicated as incompetent, they have the same 2nd amendment rights as any other citizen.

That you foresee government being able to pick and choose who can have those rights via manipulating the terms of the militia means you foresee tyranny.

And the militia argument is a non-starter anyway, because it's the STATES that maintain the right to keep a militia,while the PEOPLE keep the right to bear arms.

What about being required to register your AR or criminalizing it within state lines? The whole pivotal point of the 2nd, in my mind & that of the framers, was a check against Gov. overreach / tyranny... How does this get explained away by your ilk...

No one advocates for "criminalizing" the possession of ARs; restrictions apply only to the sale of new rifles, and gun registration has been upheld as perfectly Constitutional.

Remember those long lines in CT that made the news... those were mandatory AR registration (or) become a criminal lines....
Registration of Firearms in Connecticut | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

And they were legal since they were done by the state using Due Process of the Law.

 

[Sahba]

And you pretend to be honest? You might pretend, but you're not.

Present, deflect, insult.

I note that you go for the insult rather than the rebuttal. Tells me that I scored the kill on this one.

Insult? Where's the insult?

Your bunch has done this for so long you think it's acceptable behavior. Except when the other side does it to you. Yes, SFBs, it's an insult. Just like I just did in response.

"My bunch"? What do you mean when you say "Your bunch" exactly? Who are you putting me in with? Humans? Cockroaches?

On both sides there are people who insult. I try and insult as little as possible though there are a few times when I'm tired and I do what I shouldn't do.

As for my bunch, I don't have a bunch, I'm not a banana.

Yet you failed to see the insult. That means I can insult at "Will" or Fred or anyone else I want to and you won't see it. Works for me.

F'n convoluted already... a gazillion 'quotees'

The government is already doing that by preventing some citizens from legally owning or possessing firearms. They already have a right to "regulate". Convicted felons are regulated. So are people with histories of mental illness or specific histories of particular crimes even if the crimes are not felonies.

My post of speculating how gun regulation may change in the future does not offer an opinion as to my support or non-support of such a change.
If you do not want to see issues realistically or be educated that is your problem.

The only way the government can restrict a right is via due process. Unless a person is a convicted felon or mentally adjudicated as incompetent, they have the same 2nd amendment rights as any other citizen.

That you foresee government being able to pick and choose who can have those rights via manipulating the terms of the militia means you foresee tyranny.

And the militia argument is a non-starter anyway, because it's the STATES that maintain the right to keep a militia,while the PEOPLE keep the right to bear arms.

What about being required to register your AR or criminalizing it within state lines? The whole pivotal point of the 2nd, in my mind & that of the framers, was a check against Gov. overreach / tyranny... How does this get explained away by your ilk...

No one advocates for "criminalizing" the possession of ARs; restrictions apply only to the sale of new rifles, and gun registration has been upheld as perfectly Constitutional.

Remember those long lines in CT that made the news... those were mandatory AR registration (or) become a criminal lines....
Registration of Firearms in Connecticut | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

And they were legal since they were done by the state using Due Process of the Law.

So I understand...,however, was that a legislative overstep by the state of CT in contradiction to US Constitutionality...? For instance, my neighboring state of VT (like CO and others) have passed laws that the Fed. Gov. does not respect on Constitutional grounds... As of Jul. 1st. Marijuana is legal in VT... any Fed. driving through could through the 'book' at a VT citizen exercising their State right to 'pot' ... & you know what would happen... Yes, Federal charges! 'Sessions be luvin some down home, pot smoking rednecks'... lol

 

[cnm]

Wrong.....you don't know what you are talking about.....this is about the Deerfield gun ban that now will ban a bolt action .22 rifle...

Absolute bullshit. Show the text that does that, you hysterical ninny. It even makes a point that .22 tube mags are exempt. You are a raving loony..

edited

 

[frigidweirdo]

And you pretend to be honest? You might pretend, but you're not.

Present, deflect, insult.

I note that you go for the insult rather than the rebuttal. Tells me that I scored the kill on this one.

Insult? Where's the insult?

Your bunch has done this for so long you think it's acceptable behavior. Except when the other side does it to you. Yes, SFBs, it's an insult. Just like I just did in response.

"My bunch"? What do you mean when you say "Your bunch" exactly? Who are you putting me in with? Humans? Cockroaches?

On both sides there are people who insult. I try and insult as little as possible though there are a few times when I'm tired and I do what I shouldn't do.

As for my bunch, I don't have a bunch, I'm not a banana.

Yet you failed to see the insult. That means I can insult at "Will" or Fred or anyone else I want to and you won't see it. Works for me.

Please, tell me what the insult was.

Also tell me what "Your bunch" is.

I'm getting a little lost here. You keep saying stuff and then not actually telling what it is.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I note that you go for the insult rather than the rebuttal. Tells me that I scored the kill on this one.

Insult? Where's the insult?

Your bunch has done this for so long you think it's acceptable behavior. Except when the other side does it to you. Yes, SFBs, it's an insult. Just like I just did in response.

"My bunch"? What do you mean when you say "Your bunch" exactly? Who are you putting me in with? Humans? Cockroaches?

On both sides there are people who insult. I try and insult as little as possible though there are a few times when I'm tired and I do what I shouldn't do.

As for my bunch, I don't have a bunch, I'm not a banana.

Yet you failed to see the insult. That means I can insult at "Will" or Fred or anyone else I want to and you won't see it. Works for me.

Please, tell me what the insult was.

Also tell me what "Your bunch" is.

I'm getting a little lost here. You keep saying stuff and then not actually telling what it is.

No.

 

[Sahba]

Wrong.....you don't know what you are talking about.....this is about the Deerfield gun ban that now will ban a bolt action .22 rifle...

Absolute bullshit. Fixed magazine semi .22s are exempt. You hysterical ninnies don't even bother reading the ordinances before getting your knickers in a twist.

Wrong.....you don't know what you are talking about.....this is about the Deerfield gun ban that now will ban a bolt action .22 rifle...

Absolute bullshit. Show the text that does that, you hysterical ninny. It even makes a point that .22 tube mags are exempt. You are a raving loony..

edited

R U sure that there isn't a distinction between 'rimfire' & 'centerfire' in those tubular, fixed mags?... just wondering because that's how the legislation has been crafted in my 'neck of the woods'.. New England (VT).

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I note that you go for the insult rather than the rebuttal. Tells me that I scored the kill on this one.

Insult? Where's the insult?

Your bunch has done this for so long you think it's acceptable behavior. Except when the other side does it to you. Yes, SFBs, it's an insult. Just like I just did in response.

"My bunch"? What do you mean when you say "Your bunch" exactly? Who are you putting me in with? Humans? Cockroaches?

On both sides there are people who insult. I try and insult as little as possible though there are a few times when I'm tired and I do what I shouldn't do.

As for my bunch, I don't have a bunch, I'm not a banana.

Yet you failed to see the insult. That means I can insult at "Will" or Fred or anyone else I want to and you won't see it. Works for me.

F'n convoluted already... a gazillion 'quotees'

The only way the government can restrict a right is via due process. Unless a person is a convicted felon or mentally adjudicated as incompetent, they have the same 2nd amendment rights as any other citizen.

That you foresee government being able to pick and choose who can have those rights via manipulating the terms of the militia means you foresee tyranny.

And the militia argument is a non-starter anyway, because it's the STATES that maintain the right to keep a militia,while the PEOPLE keep the right to bear arms.

What about being required to register your AR or criminalizing it within state lines? The whole pivotal point of the 2nd, in my mind & that of the framers, was a check against Gov. overreach / tyranny... How does this get explained away by your ilk...

No one advocates for "criminalizing" the possession of ARs; restrictions apply only to the sale of new rifles, and gun registration has been upheld as perfectly Constitutional.

Remember those long lines in CT that made the news... those were mandatory AR registration (or) become a criminal lines....
Registration of Firearms in Connecticut | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

And they were legal since they were done by the state using Due Process of the Law.

So I understand...,however, was that a legislative overstep by the state of CT in contradiction to US Constitutionality...? For instance, my neighboring state of VT (like CO and others) have passed laws that the Fed. Gov. does not respect on Constitutional grounds... As of Jul. 1st. Marijuana is legal in VT... any Fed. driving through could through the 'book' at a VT citizen exercising their State right to 'pot' ... & you know what would happen... Yes, Federal charges! 'Sessions be luvin some down home, pot smoking rednecks'... lol

Narcotics are not Firearms. Apples and Oranges.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Wrong.....you don't know what you are talking about.....this is about the Deerfield gun ban that now will ban a bolt action .22 rifle...

Absolute bullshit. Fixed magazine semi .22s are exempt. You hysterical ninnies don't even bother reading the ordinances before getting your knickers in a twist.

Wrong.....you don't know what you are talking about.....this is about the Deerfield gun ban that now will ban a bolt action .22 rifle...

Absolute bullshit. Show the text that does that, you hysterical ninny. It even makes a point that .22 tube mags are exempt. You are a raving loony..

edited

R U sure that there isn't a distinction between 'rimfire' & 'centerfire' in those tubular, fixed mags?... just wondering because that's how the legislation has been crafted in my 'neck of the woods'.. New England (VT).

There are 30.30 center fire tube mag rifles. Sort of makes things a bit hazy, don't it. And don't forget the venerable 44.40, 44 mag and 45 long colt tube fed rifles.

 

[Sahba]

Insult? Where's the insult?

Your bunch has done this for so long you think it's acceptable behavior. Except when the other side does it to you. Yes, SFBs, it's an insult. Just like I just did in response.

"My bunch"? What do you mean when you say "Your bunch" exactly? Who are you putting me in with? Humans? Cockroaches?

On both sides there are people who insult. I try and insult as little as possible though there are a few times when I'm tired and I do what I shouldn't do.

As for my bunch, I don't have a bunch, I'm not a banana.

Yet you failed to see the insult. That means I can insult at "Will" or Fred or anyone else I want to and you won't see it. Works for me.

F'n convoluted already... a gazillion 'quotees'

What about being required to register your AR or criminalizing it within state lines? The whole pivotal point of the 2nd, in my mind & that of the framers, was a check against Gov. overreach / tyranny... How does this get explained away by your ilk...

No one advocates for "criminalizing" the possession of ARs; restrictions apply only to the sale of new rifles, and gun registration has been upheld as perfectly Constitutional.

Remember those long lines in CT that made the news... those were mandatory AR registration (or) become a criminal lines....
Registration of Firearms in Connecticut | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

And they were legal since they were done by the state using Due Process of the Law.

So I understand...,however, was that a legislative overstep by the state of CT in contradiction to US Constitutionality...? For instance, my neighboring state of VT (like CO and others) have passed laws that the Fed. Gov. does not respect on Constitutional grounds... As of Jul. 1st. Marijuana is legal in VT... any Fed. driving through could through the 'book' at a VT citizen exercising their State right to 'pot' ... & you know what would happen... Yes, Federal charges! 'Sessions be luvin some down home, pot smoking rednecks'... lol

Narcotics are not Firearms. Apples and Oranges.

U don't say... well, I'll be... NO Sheite man, the Feds don't give a 'diddly squat' what the 'state' defies them on.. Perhaps that's why they brainstormed a while back and concocted a 'bureau' of the problem areas within the 'recalcitrant' states... hmm.. 1.) ETOH, 2.) Tobacco... O yes, 3.) them 'nuisance' Firearms! ATF! O.. my.. U mean that the Fed discriminately makes NO bones about going after all x 3... as if in the same purview...? WTF... man, lol!

 

[Sahba]

Wrong.....you don't know what you are talking about.....this is about the Deerfield gun ban that now will ban a bolt action .22 rifle...

Absolute bullshit. Fixed magazine semi .22s are exempt. You hysterical ninnies don't even bother reading the ordinances before getting your knickers in a twist.

Wrong.....you don't know what you are talking about.....this is about the Deerfield gun ban that now will ban a bolt action .22 rifle...

Absolute bullshit. Show the text that does that, you hysterical ninny. It even makes a point that .22 tube mags are exempt. You are a raving loony..

edited

R U sure that there isn't a distinction between 'rimfire' & 'centerfire' in those tubular, fixed mags?... just wondering because that's how the legislation has been crafted in my 'neck of the woods'.. New England (VT).

There are 30.30 center fire tube mag rifles. Sort of makes things a bit hazy, don't it. And don't forget the venerable 44.40, 44 mag and 45 long colt tube fed rifles.

Actually I was sitting in the Senate chamber and one Senator was bitching about his antique gun 'the one that tamed the west' w/ I believe some magnum hand gun cal. that holds well in excess of 10 rounds in its tubular mag (yellow boy perhaps).. Forget his constituents... he was darn dedicated to make sure that he was 'grandfathered in' come the change in legislation... sad but hilarious, in person, to witness..

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Your bunch has done this for so long you think it's acceptable behavior. Except when the other side does it to you. Yes, SFBs, it's an insult. Just like I just did in response.

"My bunch"? What do you mean when you say "Your bunch" exactly? Who are you putting me in with? Humans? Cockroaches?

On both sides there are people who insult. I try and insult as little as possible though there are a few times when I'm tired and I do what I shouldn't do.

As for my bunch, I don't have a bunch, I'm not a banana.

Yet you failed to see the insult. That means I can insult at "Will" or Fred or anyone else I want to and you won't see it. Works for me.

F'n convoluted already... a gazillion 'quotees'

No one advocates for "criminalizing" the possession of ARs; restrictions apply only to the sale of new rifles, and gun registration has been upheld as perfectly Constitutional.

Remember those long lines in CT that made the news... those were mandatory AR registration (or) become a criminal lines....
Registration of Firearms in Connecticut | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

And they were legal since they were done by the state using Due Process of the Law.

So I understand...,however, was that a legislative overstep by the state of CT in contradiction to US Constitutionality...? For instance, my neighboring state of VT (like CO and others) have passed laws that the Fed. Gov. does not respect on Constitutional grounds... As of Jul. 1st. Marijuana is legal in VT... any Fed. driving through could through the 'book' at a VT citizen exercising their State right to 'pot' ... & you know what would happen... Yes, Federal charges! 'Sessions be luvin some down home, pot smoking rednecks'... lol

Narcotics are not Firearms. Apples and Oranges.

U don't say... well, I'll be... NO Sheite man, the Feds don't give a 'diddly squat' what the 'state' defies them on.. Perhaps that's why they brainstormed a while back and concocted a 'bureau' of the problem areas within the 'recalcitrant' states... hmm.. 1.) ETOH, 2.) Tobacco... O yes, 3.) them 'nuisance' Firearms! ATF! O.. my.. U mean that the Fed discriminately makes NO bones about going after all x 3... as if in the same purview...? WTF... man, lol!

The Feds have learned to pick their fights. They can't really win too many fights against the States. That is, unless, it's really, really bad. Let's say a state starts allowing citizens unfettered access to automatic weapons. The Feds fought that one in the 20s and 30s and lost a lot of manpower to it. Memories run very long. But over something like Grass, Washington might puff up it's chest a bit but that's about it. Same goes for illegal imagration. As flakey as the Feds are on this subject, it's a bit tough to get the Supreme court to back them up on it. So, they make a lot of noise, blow a lot of smoke but that's about it.

 

[Sahba]

"My bunch"? What do you mean when you say "Your bunch" exactly? Who are you putting me in with? Humans? Cockroaches?

On both sides there are people who insult. I try and insult as little as possible though there are a few times when I'm tired and I do what I shouldn't do.

As for my bunch, I don't have a bunch, I'm not a banana.

Yet you failed to see the insult. That means I can insult at "Will" or Fred or anyone else I want to and you won't see it. Works for me.

F'n convoluted already... a gazillion 'quotees'

Remember those long lines in CT that made the news... those were mandatory AR registration (or) become a criminal lines....
Registration of Firearms in Connecticut | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

And they were legal since they were done by the state using Due Process of the Law.

So I understand...,however, was that a legislative overstep by the state of CT in contradiction to US Constitutionality...? For instance, my neighboring state of VT (like CO and others) have passed laws that the Fed. Gov. does not respect on Constitutional grounds... As of Jul. 1st. Marijuana is legal in VT... any Fed. driving through could through the 'book' at a VT citizen exercising their State right to 'pot' ... & you know what would happen... Yes, Federal charges! 'Sessions be luvin some down home, pot smoking rednecks'... lol

Narcotics are not Firearms. Apples and Oranges.

U don't say... well, I'll be... NO Sheite man, the Feds don't give a 'diddly squat' what the 'state' defies them on.. Perhaps that's why they brainstormed a while back and concocted a 'bureau' of the problem areas within the 'recalcitrant' states... hmm.. 1.) ETOH, 2.) Tobacco... O yes, 3.) them 'nuisance' Firearms! ATF! O.. my.. U mean that the Fed discriminately makes NO bones about going after all x 3... as if in the same purview...? WTF... man, lol!

The Feds have learned to pick their fights. They can't really win too many fights against the States. That is, unless, it's really, really bad. Let's say a state starts allowing citizens unfettered access to automatic weapons. The Feds fought that one in the 20s and 30s and lost a lot of manpower to it. Memories run very long. But over something like Grass, Washington might puff up it's chest a bit but that's about it. Same goes for illegal imagration. As flakey as the Feds are on this subject, it's a bit tough to get the Supreme court to back them up on it. So, they make a lot of noise, blow a lot of smoke but that's about it.

Dude... we could talk 'anecdotally' all night, perhaps this.. likely not that... equivocation till the 'cows come home'... NO, 'by the book' is the only objective criteria we can realistically debate on. (as in Period.)

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Wrong.....you don't know what you are talking about.....this is about the Deerfield gun ban that now will ban a bolt action .22 rifle...

Absolute bullshit. Fixed magazine semi .22s are exempt. You hysterical ninnies don't even bother reading the ordinances before getting your knickers in a twist.

Wrong.....you don't know what you are talking about.....this is about the Deerfield gun ban that now will ban a bolt action .22 rifle...

Absolute bullshit. Show the text that does that, you hysterical ninny. It even makes a point that .22 tube mags are exempt. You are a raving loony..

edited

R U sure that there isn't a distinction between 'rimfire' & 'centerfire' in those tubular, fixed mags?... just wondering because that's how the legislation has been crafted in my 'neck of the woods'.. New England (VT).

There are 30.30 center fire tube mag rifles. Sort of makes things a bit hazy, don't it. And don't forget the venerable 44.40, 44 mag and 45 long colt tube fed rifles.

Actually I was sitting in the Senate chamber and one Senator was bitching about his antique gun 'the one that tamed the west' w/ I believe some magnum hand gun cal. that holds well in excess of 10 rounds in its tubular mag (yellow boy perhaps).. Forget his constituents... he was darn dedicated to make sure that he was 'grandfathered in' come the change in legislation... sad but hilarious, in person, to witness..

If it was an original 1866 Yellowboy, it was a Remington chambered 44 Cal Henry Rim Fire. If it was the "Rifle that won the West" it would be the 1873 chambered for the 44.40 center fire.