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

[Sahba]

Frigidweirdo... perhaps you should take up the 'candle making forum' as it's not as confrontational... lol

 

[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.

The ban on semi automatic rifles, and AR-15s in particular is unConstitutional.....

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


Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411. Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

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.

Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing. III

It's the old toe in the door ploy once again by the rabid Left. Go after the rifles right now while momentum is on their side then once they are banned, regular hand guns will be an easier target, all the while brain dead imbeciles like Daryl and Daryl tell us its "our" fault, we bring it on ourselves and to just relax, we don't want to ban all guns . . . .

. . . . just the "dangerous" ones we decide you don't need and we don't like.

But no... they aren't going after our guns... They assured us that the 2nd. is 'Sacrosanct'... lol
Yes, They Want to Take Your Guns Away

But Marge, I never even owned a Black Helo. Not even one. Shoot, I only saw one or two in my entire time of over 20 years in the US Military and that was Overseas. Where can I get one so I can come get all your guns?

 

[frigidweirdo]

What's the point of saying something if you can't back it up?

No one's going to believe you.

No one believes you now. Fake news. Come back when you've got something REAL.

Just say NO.

When you've got nothing, just say no. Pretend that you had something, pretend that you just want to say no because.... because it's easier to write post after post of "just say no" than it is to actually explain yourself on a forum that's about explaining your thoughts.

Your family must be proud.

Expound, 'frigidweirdo' expound... or are ground rules the extent of your domain... 'gaslighting' must be eventful at this late hour... ha... ha-ha-ha. lol

Well, the OP made the case that "anti-gun extremists" (that's be everyone who doesn't support what he wants) lie to justify something, as if lying is something bad.

But the OP is a massive liar or distorter of the truth.

The last conversation I had with him went something like him presenting his case on whatever it was, me coming in and saying "you know you're telling lies, I've told you loads of times that you're lying" and then the OP coming back and making MORE CLAIMS. I asked him to prove it, and then he insults and insults because he know it's the only way he's going to come out of it saving face.

Then he comes back and does the same thing, spreads the same lies, same mistruths again and again and again.

Then this guy, whoever he may be, said I had insulted the OP. I asked what insult I made, this guy can't come up with the insult he claimed I made.

This is what this is all about. Bullshit. The OP makes thread after thread of bullshit. He hopes people will believe his bullshit. He believes that if he can get the message across, that many people won't make it past the first paragraph, therefore somehow he's won.

WE can always use your bunches method of misquoting, bullying and generally being obnoxious hoping the other person or persons will just go away. Sorry, only works if we allow it.

Ah, bring up the same argument again, and let me guess, refuse to provide any evidence for anything.

You still didn't define "your bunch".

Also, you can't do grammar for shit.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Just say NO.

When you've got nothing, just say no. Pretend that you had something, pretend that you just want to say no because.... because it's easier to write post after post of "just say no" than it is to actually explain yourself on a forum that's about explaining your thoughts.

Your family must be proud.

Expound, 'frigidweirdo' expound... or are ground rules the extent of your domain... 'gaslighting' must be eventful at this late hour... ha... ha-ha-ha. lol

Well, the OP made the case that "anti-gun extremists" (that's be everyone who doesn't support what he wants) lie to justify something, as if lying is something bad.

But the OP is a massive liar or distorter of the truth.

The last conversation I had with him went something like him presenting his case on whatever it was, me coming in and saying "you know you're telling lies, I've told you loads of times that you're lying" and then the OP coming back and making MORE CLAIMS. I asked him to prove it, and then he insults and insults because he know it's the only way he's going to come out of it saving face.

Then he comes back and does the same thing, spreads the same lies, same mistruths again and again and again.

Then this guy, whoever he may be, said I had insulted the OP. I asked what insult I made, this guy can't come up with the insult he claimed I made.

This is what this is all about. Bullshit. The OP makes thread after thread of bullshit. He hopes people will believe his bullshit. He believes that if he can get the message across, that many people won't make it past the first paragraph, therefore somehow he's won.

WE can always use your bunches method of misquoting, bullying and generally being obnoxious hoping the other person or persons will just go away. Sorry, only works if we allow it.

Ah, bring up the same argument again, and let me guess, refuse to provide any evidence for anything.

You still didn't define "your bunch".

Also, you can't do grammar for shit.

Looked it up. Found it under Bullying and generally being obnoxious and it had a picture of you.

 

[Sahba]

Just say NO.

When you've got nothing, just say no. Pretend that you had something, pretend that you just want to say no because.... because it's easier to write post after post of "just say no" than it is to actually explain yourself on a forum that's about explaining your thoughts.

Your family must be proud.

Expound, 'frigidweirdo' expound... or are ground rules the extent of your domain... 'gaslighting' must be eventful at this late hour... ha... ha-ha-ha. lol

Well, the OP made the case that "anti-gun extremists" (that's be everyone who doesn't support what he wants) lie to justify something, as if lying is something bad.

But the OP is a massive liar or distorter of the truth.

The last conversation I had with him went something like him presenting his case on whatever it was, me coming in and saying "you know you're telling lies, I've told you loads of times that you're lying" and then the OP coming back and making MORE CLAIMS. I asked him to prove it, and then he insults and insults because he know it's the only way he's going to come out of it saving face.

Then he comes back and does the same thing, spreads the same lies, same mistruths again and again and again.

Then this guy, whoever he may be, said I had insulted the OP. I asked what insult I made, this guy can't come up with the insult he claimed I made.

This is what this is all about. Bullshit. The OP makes thread after thread of bullshit. He hopes people will believe his bullshit. He believes that if he can get the message across, that many people won't make it past the first paragraph, therefore somehow he's won.

WE can always use your bunches method of misquoting, bullying and generally being obnoxious hoping the other person or persons will just go away. Sorry, only works if we allow it.

Ah, bring up the same argument again, and let me guess, refuse to provide any evidence for anything.

You still didn't define "your bunch".

Also, you can't do grammar for shit.

U wouldn't be deflecting... Nor avoiding... Seems like you were casting dispersions on the OP's post... yet you aren't opining... WTF man... lol

 

[frigidweirdo]

When you've got nothing, just say no. Pretend that you had something, pretend that you just want to say no because.... because it's easier to write post after post of "just say no" than it is to actually explain yourself on a forum that's about explaining your thoughts.

Your family must be proud.

Expound, 'frigidweirdo' expound... or are ground rules the extent of your domain... 'gaslighting' must be eventful at this late hour... ha... ha-ha-ha. lol

Well, the OP made the case that "anti-gun extremists" (that's be everyone who doesn't support what he wants) lie to justify something, as if lying is something bad.

But the OP is a massive liar or distorter of the truth.

The last conversation I had with him went something like him presenting his case on whatever it was, me coming in and saying "you know you're telling lies, I've told you loads of times that you're lying" and then the OP coming back and making MORE CLAIMS. I asked him to prove it, and then he insults and insults because he know it's the only way he's going to come out of it saving face.

Then he comes back and does the same thing, spreads the same lies, same mistruths again and again and again.

Then this guy, whoever he may be, said I had insulted the OP. I asked what insult I made, this guy can't come up with the insult he claimed I made.

This is what this is all about. Bullshit. The OP makes thread after thread of bullshit. He hopes people will believe his bullshit. He believes that if he can get the message across, that many people won't make it past the first paragraph, therefore somehow he's won.

WE can always use your bunches method of misquoting, bullying and generally being obnoxious hoping the other person or persons will just go away. Sorry, only works if we allow it.

Ah, bring up the same argument again, and let me guess, refuse to provide any evidence for anything.

You still didn't define "your bunch".

Also, you can't do grammar for shit.

Looked it up. Found it under Bullying and generally being obnoxious and it had a picture of you.

I had a picture of the ignore list, and you were on it.

Bye.

 

[frigidweirdo]

When you've got nothing, just say no. Pretend that you had something, pretend that you just want to say no because.... because it's easier to write post after post of "just say no" than it is to actually explain yourself on a forum that's about explaining your thoughts.

Your family must be proud.

Expound, 'frigidweirdo' expound... or are ground rules the extent of your domain... 'gaslighting' must be eventful at this late hour... ha... ha-ha-ha. lol

Well, the OP made the case that "anti-gun extremists" (that's be everyone who doesn't support what he wants) lie to justify something, as if lying is something bad.

But the OP is a massive liar or distorter of the truth.

The last conversation I had with him went something like him presenting his case on whatever it was, me coming in and saying "you know you're telling lies, I've told you loads of times that you're lying" and then the OP coming back and making MORE CLAIMS. I asked him to prove it, and then he insults and insults because he know it's the only way he's going to come out of it saving face.

Then he comes back and does the same thing, spreads the same lies, same mistruths again and again and again.

Then this guy, whoever he may be, said I had insulted the OP. I asked what insult I made, this guy can't come up with the insult he claimed I made.

This is what this is all about. Bullshit. The OP makes thread after thread of bullshit. He hopes people will believe his bullshit. He believes that if he can get the message across, that many people won't make it past the first paragraph, therefore somehow he's won.

WE can always use your bunches method of misquoting, bullying and generally being obnoxious hoping the other person or persons will just go away. Sorry, only works if we allow it.

Ah, bring up the same argument again, and let me guess, refuse to provide any evidence for anything.

You still didn't define "your bunch".

Also, you can't do grammar for shit.

U wouldn't be deflecting... Nor avoiding... Seems like you were casting dispersions on the OP's post... yet you aren't opining... WTF man... lol

Yes, WTF?

Like I said, been there done that. Fuck that shit.

If you hit your head on the door and it doesn't open. Then you do it ten more times and it still doesn't open, is it intelligent to think hitting your head another ten times will open the door?

 

[Sahba]

So getting back to Deerfield, IL and the unconstitutional gun ban... Justify it vis a vis the dubious small town legislation... let's hear your best argument... & thanks to our OP for the veracity of his post...!

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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 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.

Thanks.. I would love to get my bf one before it becomes illegal in VT.

If you are talking about outlawing the 1866 model in VT, I don't think you have to worry too much. For one, they still make it. Cabella carries it. It's a reproduction so it's going to be up to modern standards and still accept the rim fired 44 henry ammo. But it's got a price tag on it of over 1000 bucks. They also have the repro of the 1873 44.40 at about 1500 bucks. Don't fall for the 45 long colt as genuine. The 45 Long Colt was not offered in a Bolt Action tube fed Rifle until 1973. It seem colt was might picky about their 45 colt cartridge.

Daryl, correct me if I'm wrong here but last time I checked they were < than x 10 rounds... and that is just a 'neutered' puppy of a rifle... IMHO!
Any sellers of 'original'... I am open to an FFL transfer purchase... & am ok with the 3K that it's worth..

The 44 henry version held 15 rounds. And since it's not a fully auto the FFL doesn't apply. You can do a normal firearms background check to purchase it in most cases. You are in NH, if I am not mistaken. No problems at all as long as it's not a fully auto and the Model 1866 is a lever action.

 

[Sahba]

Expound, 'frigidweirdo' expound... or are ground rules the extent of your domain... 'gaslighting' must be eventful at this late hour... ha... ha-ha-ha. lol

Well, the OP made the case that "anti-gun extremists" (that's be everyone who doesn't support what he wants) lie to justify something, as if lying is something bad.

But the OP is a massive liar or distorter of the truth.

The last conversation I had with him went something like him presenting his case on whatever it was, me coming in and saying "you know you're telling lies, I've told you loads of times that you're lying" and then the OP coming back and making MORE CLAIMS. I asked him to prove it, and then he insults and insults because he know it's the only way he's going to come out of it saving face.

Then he comes back and does the same thing, spreads the same lies, same mistruths again and again and again.

Then this guy, whoever he may be, said I had insulted the OP. I asked what insult I made, this guy can't come up with the insult he claimed I made.

This is what this is all about. Bullshit. The OP makes thread after thread of bullshit. He hopes people will believe his bullshit. He believes that if he can get the message across, that many people won't make it past the first paragraph, therefore somehow he's won.

WE can always use your bunches method of misquoting, bullying and generally being obnoxious hoping the other person or persons will just go away. Sorry, only works if we allow it.

Ah, bring up the same argument again, and let me guess, refuse to provide any evidence for anything.

You still didn't define "your bunch".

Also, you can't do grammar for shit.

Looked it up. Found it under Bullying and generally being obnoxious and it had a picture of you.

I had a picture of the ignore list, and you were on it.

Bye.

'Skeered' by a chick at midnight... lol all the best wishes, blankety blank... to you. I'm very disappointed in your defeatist attitude!

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Expound, 'frigidweirdo' expound... or are ground rules the extent of your domain... 'gaslighting' must be eventful at this late hour... ha... ha-ha-ha. lol

Well, the OP made the case that "anti-gun extremists" (that's be everyone who doesn't support what he wants) lie to justify something, as if lying is something bad.

But the OP is a massive liar or distorter of the truth.

The last conversation I had with him went something like him presenting his case on whatever it was, me coming in and saying "you know you're telling lies, I've told you loads of times that you're lying" and then the OP coming back and making MORE CLAIMS. I asked him to prove it, and then he insults and insults because he know it's the only way he's going to come out of it saving face.

Then he comes back and does the same thing, spreads the same lies, same mistruths again and again and again.

Then this guy, whoever he may be, said I had insulted the OP. I asked what insult I made, this guy can't come up with the insult he claimed I made.

This is what this is all about. Bullshit. The OP makes thread after thread of bullshit. He hopes people will believe his bullshit. He believes that if he can get the message across, that many people won't make it past the first paragraph, therefore somehow he's won.

WE can always use your bunches method of misquoting, bullying and generally being obnoxious hoping the other person or persons will just go away. Sorry, only works if we allow it.

Ah, bring up the same argument again, and let me guess, refuse to provide any evidence for anything.

You still didn't define "your bunch".

Also, you can't do grammar for shit.

Looked it up. Found it under Bullying and generally being obnoxious and it had a picture of you.

I had a picture of the ignore list, and you were on it.

Bye.

Mission accomplished. Now, where please issue me my black Helo door prize.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Well, the OP made the case that "anti-gun extremists" (that's be everyone who doesn't support what he wants) lie to justify something, as if lying is something bad.

But the OP is a massive liar or distorter of the truth.

The last conversation I had with him went something like him presenting his case on whatever it was, me coming in and saying "you know you're telling lies, I've told you loads of times that you're lying" and then the OP coming back and making MORE CLAIMS. I asked him to prove it, and then he insults and insults because he know it's the only way he's going to come out of it saving face.

Then he comes back and does the same thing, spreads the same lies, same mistruths again and again and again.

Then this guy, whoever he may be, said I had insulted the OP. I asked what insult I made, this guy can't come up with the insult he claimed I made.

This is what this is all about. Bullshit. The OP makes thread after thread of bullshit. He hopes people will believe his bullshit. He believes that if he can get the message across, that many people won't make it past the first paragraph, therefore somehow he's won.

WE can always use your bunches method of misquoting, bullying and generally being obnoxious hoping the other person or persons will just go away. Sorry, only works if we allow it.

Ah, bring up the same argument again, and let me guess, refuse to provide any evidence for anything.

You still didn't define "your bunch".

Also, you can't do grammar for shit.

Looked it up. Found it under Bullying and generally being obnoxious and it had a picture of you.

I had a picture of the ignore list, and you were on it.

Bye.

'Skeered' by a chick at midnight... lol all the best wishes, blankety blank... to you. I'm very disappointed in your defeatist attitude!

In my experience, there is nothing scarier than a Skeered Chick with a loaded Gun with that Mad on at a Man. The 2nd and beyond shots may miss but the first shot is dead center. Usually in the crotch. Don't make Mamma mad.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Well, the OP made the case that "anti-gun extremists" (that's be everyone who doesn't support what he wants) lie to justify something, as if lying is something bad.

But the OP is a massive liar or distorter of the truth.

The last conversation I had with him went something like him presenting his case on whatever it was, me coming in and saying "you know you're telling lies, I've told you loads of times that you're lying" and then the OP coming back and making MORE CLAIMS. I asked him to prove it, and then he insults and insults because he know it's the only way he's going to come out of it saving face.

Then he comes back and does the same thing, spreads the same lies, same mistruths again and again and again.

Then this guy, whoever he may be, said I had insulted the OP. I asked what insult I made, this guy can't come up with the insult he claimed I made.

This is what this is all about. Bullshit. The OP makes thread after thread of bullshit. He hopes people will believe his bullshit. He believes that if he can get the message across, that many people won't make it past the first paragraph, therefore somehow he's won.

WE can always use your bunches method of misquoting, bullying and generally being obnoxious hoping the other person or persons will just go away. Sorry, only works if we allow it.

Ah, bring up the same argument again, and let me guess, refuse to provide any evidence for anything.

You still didn't define "your bunch".

Also, you can't do grammar for shit.

Looked it up. Found it under Bullying and generally being obnoxious and it had a picture of you.

I had a picture of the ignore list, and you were on it.

Bye.

'Skeered' by a chick at midnight... lol all the best wishes, blankety blank... to you. I'm very disappointed in your defeatist attitude!

The problem these characters have is, they misidentify people like us as Liberals. Bad move on their part. Sounds to me like you are a Moderate like I am and Moderates are supposed have NO opinion and stand quietly in the wings. Add to the fact, we are both probably better educated and probably know more about firearms than they do. I don't love firearms. They are tools,nothing more. But they can be damned scary tools or they can be damned fun tools as well. But you had better know your tools and the history of your tools. I love the history of War. I don't love war but I love the history. I actually hate war. But I am particularly fond of the WWII Heroes who I believe are the greatest generation of all time. And their tools. Then they want to misinform everyone about those tools and want me to stand on the sidelines and not say a word? Not going to happen. I hope you are deep into the history as well. It's fascinating.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, the OP made the case that "anti-gun extremists" (that's be everyone who doesn't support what he wants) lie to justify something, as if lying is something bad.

But the OP is a massive liar or distorter of the truth.

The last conversation I had with him went something like him presenting his case on whatever it was, me coming in and saying "you know you're telling lies, I've told you loads of times that you're lying" and then the OP coming back and making MORE CLAIMS. I asked him to prove it, and then he insults and insults because he know it's the only way he's going to come out of it saving face.

Then he comes back and does the same thing, spreads the same lies, same mistruths again and again and again.

Then this guy, whoever he may be, said I had insulted the OP. I asked what insult I made, this guy can't come up with the insult he claimed I made.

This is what this is all about. Bullshit. The OP makes thread after thread of bullshit. He hopes people will believe his bullshit. He believes that if he can get the message across, that many people won't make it past the first paragraph, therefore somehow he's won.

WE can always use your bunches method of misquoting, bullying and generally being obnoxious hoping the other person or persons will just go away. Sorry, only works if we allow it.

Ah, bring up the same argument again, and let me guess, refuse to provide any evidence for anything.

You still didn't define "your bunch".

Also, you can't do grammar for shit.

Looked it up. Found it under Bullying and generally being obnoxious and it had a picture of you.

I had a picture of the ignore list, and you were on it.

Bye.

'Skeered' by a chick at midnight... lol all the best wishes, blankety blank... to you. I'm very disappointed in your defeatist attitude!

He's a waste of time.

I don't come on here to convince people.

I come on here to use my brain. I won't be using my brain with that guy, nor 2A guy who's been on my ignore list for a long time.

Maybe if I were a psychologist I might find it a bit more interesting. I'm not.

I don't care why these people spout crap all the time.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

WE can always use your bunches method of misquoting, bullying and generally being obnoxious hoping the other person or persons will just go away. Sorry, only works if we allow it.

Ah, bring up the same argument again, and let me guess, refuse to provide any evidence for anything.

You still didn't define "your bunch".

Also, you can't do grammar for shit.

Looked it up. Found it under Bullying and generally being obnoxious and it had a picture of you.

I had a picture of the ignore list, and you were on it.

Bye.

'Skeered' by a chick at midnight... lol all the best wishes, blankety blank... to you. I'm very disappointed in your defeatist attitude!

He's a waste of time.

I don't come on here to convince people.

I come on here to use my brain. I won't be using my brain with that guy, nor 2A guy who's been on my ignore list for a long time.

Maybe if I were a psychologist I might find it a bit more interesting. I'm not.

I don't care why these people spout crap all the time.

You really ARE dense, aren't you.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

So getting back to Deerfield, IL and the unconstitutional gun ban... Justify it vis a vis the dubious small town legislation... let's hear your best argument... & thanks to our OP for the veracity of his post...!

It won't stand. In order to make it stand, using the 1934 Firearms Act as Precedence, they will have to grandfather the ARs in and use a reasonable time period. Something like 10 years. I honestly don't see how it can work for just one city or town though. No matter how good it sounds, it's just not doable. Chances are, even a lower court will bounce it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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...

As long as your bunch keeps with the insults and refuses to enter into meaningful discussion don't expect anyone to take you seriously. You just keep digging the hole deeper. When you are already in a hole, stop digging.

Excuse me here... I have the Constitution on my side NOT you! Again, explain to me how my legally purchased and owned AR can be criminalized if I do not register it with the state... Btw, what insults... regardless, insults aren't germane to this conversation any way... treat them like redundant adj. or adv.'s don't get but hurt by them... the issues are what win arguments and upon which policy is crafted.. hopefully. lol

If one buys an AR in a jurisdiction where they’re prohibited, then it was neither legally purchased nor owned.

And the Constitution is not ‘on your side’ – the courts have consistently held that restricting the possession of ARs is perfectly Constitutional, the Supreme Court having never overturned such measures.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There are about 40 Republican Seats up for grabs this year. Due to the way that California does things, they have already lost 4 of those seats since no Republicans will be running in the runnoffs there. There are a few Dems that are very, very popular that could bounce Republicans. In Colorado, if our current Governor decides to run (he term limits) say good by to the Republican Tipton. But I have a feeling they are saving him for the Senate in 2020 to go against Gardner who the Guv would win easily. It's like that in many places across the nation. It's not the shoein that you paint. The second the Republican Voters get complacent then the Dems will win. Dems already picked up 6 of the 24 needed. That means they need 19 more to gain control. It's doable if Republicans aren't real careful and vigil.

+
Don't be delusional. The party in [power usually loses some seats during the midterms. Just look at what happen to that asshole Obama in 2010. Devestating, wasn't it? The same with Slick Willy in 1994. However, there will not be a big shift this year. No Blue wave that you Moon Bats are hoping for. Maybe a few seats lost but not enough to change the majority for the Republicans.

Meanwhile the filthy Democrats have too many Senate seats to defend, That is why the Republicans will pick up some of them, especially in the states that went for Trump in 2016.

On top of that Trump is still President.

It must suck to be a Moon Bat nowadays.

Newsflash: SFBs, I don't want the REps to lose the Senate. I do see them losing the House though and in 2020 there is a good possibility that they could lose the Presidency. You NEVER want all three in the hands of one party. The biggest messes are from when one party or the other controls all three. The next worst mess is when one party controls both the House and the Senate and the President is of the other Party. It's better to have one party hold the House while the other Party hold the Senate. The way to get two mules to pull together who constantly fight each other is to harness them together so they have no choice but to work it out.

But I don't expect your little pea brain to understand that.

You know, I agree with you.....after Trump appoints 3 more Justices to the Supreme Court and fills all the vacancies in the lower courts...... Then, after Trump, I might be able to do a little rebellion and vote Libertarian or another party....Right now it is too important to get Trump to fill those Judicial vacancies and replace ginsburg and kennedy at a minimum, hopefully breyer and maybe replace Thomas if he decides to retire...

There you go being a SFBs again. It won't matter if he does replace 3 more Justices. The Justices can only rule on the Constitution only. If it's not in the Constitution then they can't rule on it. The only way to get a different ruling is for Congress to change the Constitution. Are you aware of how many times the Supreme Court has tried to shame Congress into doing their damned jobs? It happens all the time. You are blaming the wrong branch while voting for the same pieces of Garbage in Congress.

Wrong.....you don't understand...you have the 4th, 7th, and 9th circuits making up gun laws and ignoring Heller, Caetano, Miller, McDonald......and because we have 4 left wing, anti gun justices and crazy Kennedy....the Court has not smacked them down for their rulings in Massachusetts, Deerfield, Highland park and California as well as New York....... they have already ruled on guns..... those courts of appeals are ignoring their rulings and the U.S. Supremes simply have to take a case to smack them back.......

We need 2 more Justices to be safe, since kennedy is a moron and you can't trust Roberts...

This is truly ignorant nonsense.

The Heller Court made no determination with regard to the constitutionality of assault weapon bans; the case concerned solely the banning of handguns in the District of Columbia.

The Heller Court did not establish a standard of judicial review with regard to firearm regulatory measures.

And McDonald incorporated the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions, saying nothing about what level of judicial review was to be used when examining firearm regulatory measures or the Constitutionality of assault weapon bans.

As long as states and local jurisdictions don’t attempt to ban the possession of handguns, as long as residents of a given state or jurisdiction have access to firearms, states and jurisdictions are at liberty to place restrictions on particular classes of firearms.

 

[Flash]

+
Don't be delusional. The party in [power usually loses some seats during the midterms. Just look at what happen to that asshole Obama in 2010. Devestating, wasn't it? The same with Slick Willy in 1994. However, there will not be a big shift this year. No Blue wave that you Moon Bats are hoping for. Maybe a few seats lost but not enough to change the majority for the Republicans.

Meanwhile the filthy Democrats have too many Senate seats to defend, That is why the Republicans will pick up some of them, especially in the states that went for Trump in 2016.

On top of that Trump is still President.

It must suck to be a Moon Bat nowadays.

Newsflash: SFBs, I don't want the REps to lose the Senate. I do see them losing the House though and in 2020 there is a good possibility that they could lose the Presidency. You NEVER want all three in the hands of one party. The biggest messes are from when one party or the other controls all three. The next worst mess is when one party controls both the House and the Senate and the President is of the other Party. It's better to have one party hold the House while the other Party hold the Senate. The way to get two mules to pull together who constantly fight each other is to harness them together so they have no choice but to work it out.

But I don't expect your little pea brain to understand that.

You know, I agree with you.....after Trump appoints 3 more Justices to the Supreme Court and fills all the vacancies in the lower courts...... Then, after Trump, I might be able to do a little rebellion and vote Libertarian or another party....Right now it is too important to get Trump to fill those Judicial vacancies and replace ginsburg and kennedy at a minimum, hopefully breyer and maybe replace Thomas if he decides to retire...

There you go being a SFBs again. It won't matter if he does replace 3 more Justices. The Justices can only rule on the Constitution only. If it's not in the Constitution then they can't rule on it. The only way to get a different ruling is for Congress to change the Constitution. Are you aware of how many times the Supreme Court has tried to shame Congress into doing their damned jobs? It happens all the time. You are blaming the wrong branch while voting for the same pieces of Garbage in Congress.

Wrong.....you don't understand...you have the 4th, 7th, and 9th circuits making up gun laws and ignoring Heller, Caetano, Miller, McDonald......and because we have 4 left wing, anti gun justices and crazy Kennedy....the Court has not smacked them down for their rulings in Massachusetts, Deerfield, Highland park and California as well as New York....... they have already ruled on guns..... those courts of appeals are ignoring their rulings and the U.S. Supremes simply have to take a case to smack them back.......

We need 2 more Justices to be safe, since kennedy is a moron and you can't trust Roberts...

This is truly ignorant nonsense.

The Heller Court made no determination with regard to the constitutionality of assault weapon bans; the case concerned solely the banning of handguns in the District of Columbia.

The Heller Court did not establish a standard of judicial review with regard to firearm regulatory measures.

And McDonald incorporated the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions, saying nothing about what level of judicial review was to be used when examining firearm regulatory measures or the Constitutionality of assault weapon bans.

As long as states and local jurisdictions don’t attempt to ban the possession of handguns, as long as residents of a given state or jurisdiction have access to firearms, states and jurisdictions are at liberty to place restrictions on particular classes of firearms.

...and the idiot Libtards will continue to deny that the Constitution of the US says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Hopefully a couple of the shithead Liberals on the Supreme Court will be replaced by Trump and we can settle all this anti right to keep and bear arms nonsense and get back to Liberty in this country.

 

[2aguy]

+
Don't be delusional. The party in [power usually loses some seats during the midterms. Just look at what happen to that asshole Obama in 2010. Devestating, wasn't it? The same with Slick Willy in 1994. However, there will not be a big shift this year. No Blue wave that you Moon Bats are hoping for. Maybe a few seats lost but not enough to change the majority for the Republicans.

Meanwhile the filthy Democrats have too many Senate seats to defend, That is why the Republicans will pick up some of them, especially in the states that went for Trump in 2016.

On top of that Trump is still President.

It must suck to be a Moon Bat nowadays.

Newsflash: SFBs, I don't want the REps to lose the Senate. I do see them losing the House though and in 2020 there is a good possibility that they could lose the Presidency. You NEVER want all three in the hands of one party. The biggest messes are from when one party or the other controls all three. The next worst mess is when one party controls both the House and the Senate and the President is of the other Party. It's better to have one party hold the House while the other Party hold the Senate. The way to get two mules to pull together who constantly fight each other is to harness them together so they have no choice but to work it out.

But I don't expect your little pea brain to understand that.

You know, I agree with you.....after Trump appoints 3 more Justices to the Supreme Court and fills all the vacancies in the lower courts...... Then, after Trump, I might be able to do a little rebellion and vote Libertarian or another party....Right now it is too important to get Trump to fill those Judicial vacancies and replace ginsburg and kennedy at a minimum, hopefully breyer and maybe replace Thomas if he decides to retire...

There you go being a SFBs again. It won't matter if he does replace 3 more Justices. The Justices can only rule on the Constitution only. If it's not in the Constitution then they can't rule on it. The only way to get a different ruling is for Congress to change the Constitution. Are you aware of how many times the Supreme Court has tried to shame Congress into doing their damned jobs? It happens all the time. You are blaming the wrong branch while voting for the same pieces of Garbage in Congress.

Wrong.....you don't understand...you have the 4th, 7th, and 9th circuits making up gun laws and ignoring Heller, Caetano, Miller, McDonald......and because we have 4 left wing, anti gun justices and crazy Kennedy....the Court has not smacked them down for their rulings in Massachusetts, Deerfield, Highland park and California as well as New York....... they have already ruled on guns..... those courts of appeals are ignoring their rulings and the U.S. Supremes simply have to take a case to smack them back.......

We need 2 more Justices to be safe, since kennedy is a moron and you can't trust Roberts...

This is truly ignorant nonsense.

The Heller Court made no determination with regard to the constitutionality of assault weapon bans; the case concerned solely the banning of handguns in the District of Columbia.

The Heller Court did not establish a standard of judicial review with regard to firearm regulatory measures.

And McDonald incorporated the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions, saying nothing about what level of judicial review was to be used when examining firearm regulatory measures or the Constitutionality of assault weapon bans.

As long as states and local jurisdictions don’t attempt to ban the possession of handguns, as long as residents of a given state or jurisdiction have access to firearms, states and jurisdictions are at liberty to place restrictions on particular classes of firearms.

You don't know what you are talking about......

Heller.......

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), 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.


And because gun banners like you have a hard time reading english.....Scalia explains it again in Friedman v Highland Park....

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.