Citizens suing California over 30 round magazine ban...it's about time.

[OnePercenter]

states rights, boyo, until you say it is not states rights

courts will throw it out and you know it

Yes...and democrats claimed states rights when they kept blacks from voting....states Rights do not Trump the Bill of Rights asswipe......

When did 'democrats claimed states rights when they kept blacks from voting?'

 

[OnePercenter]

Because wack-jobs desire to own one. Got it!

I have one. My best friend has several. We've never been committed or diagnosed with any mental deficiencies, nor have we have killed anyone.

Why do you feel you have the need to own one or more?

 

[deannalw]

Claifornia first banned the buying of new 30 round magazines....then, since book burners/gun grabbers won't stop till they get all guns....then, commie governor jerry brown outlawed the previous grandfathered 30 round magazines...now, 5 California citizens....all law abiding...are suing the morons in the California government for violating their 2nd Amendment Right to bear arms...

NRA hits back in court over California magazine ban

As a gun owner, I can't think of one reason I would need a thirty round magazine.

That's not the point... is it?

 

[OnePercenter]

As a gun owner, I can't think of one reason I would need a thirty round magazine.

As an American, I can't think of one reason why you'd forget it's called the Bill of Rights and not the Bill of Needs.

Slippery slope fallacy, Taz. You don't need and you don't have an every day right to a bazooka.

We aren't talking about weapons that can blow up a dump truck.

Thank you for that.

Though I can think of several sanitation trucks I would like to blow up at 4AM in the morning when they are collecting the bins.

There isn't a time curfew where you live?

 

[OnePercenter]

Claifornia first banned the buying of new 30 round magazines....then, since book burners/gun grabbers won't stop till they get all guns....then, commie governor jerry brown outlawed the previous grandfathered 30 round magazines...now, 5 California citizens....all law abiding...are suing the morons in the California government for violating their 2nd Amendment Right to bear arms...

NRA hits back in court over California magazine ban

As a gun owner, I can't think of one reason I would need a thirty round magazine.

That's not the point... is it?

That IS the point. Why would one NEED to have a 30 round magazine that is designed and manufactured to kill multiple people without reloading?

 

[grainbely]

Claifornia first banned the buying of new 30 round magazines....then, since book burners/gun grabbers won't stop till they get all guns....then, commie governor jerry brown outlawed the previous grandfathered 30 round magazines...now, 5 California citizens....all law abiding...are suing the morons in the California government for violating their 2nd Amendment Right to bear arms...

NRA hits back in court over California magazine ban

As a gun owner, I can't think of one reason I would need a thirty round magazine.

BEcause they desire to own one....that is all they need. There is absolutely no reason to ban them unless you are irrational and hate guns.

Guns aren't toys, kiddo.

 

[deannalw]

Claifornia first banned the buying of new 30 round magazines....then, since book burners/gun grabbers won't stop till they get all guns....then, commie governor jerry brown outlawed the previous grandfathered 30 round magazines...now, 5 California citizens....all law abiding...are suing the morons in the California government for violating their 2nd Amendment Right to bear arms...

NRA hits back in court over California magazine ban

As a gun owner, I can't think of one reason I would need a thirty round magazine.

Me either but its better to have it than need it and not have it.

What the hell would one need a thirty round magazine for? Whom are they going to war with? If you cannot handle the situation with a five or six shot gun, perhaps you should not have that gun.

Gosh you sure do seem like you know her stuff! I mean... what a brilliant argument!!!
Whatcha need that for?
You rock

 

[OnePercenter]

As a gun owner, I can't think of one reason I would need a thirty round magazine.

BEcause they desire to own one....that is all they need. There is absolutely no reason to ban them unless you are irrational and hate guns.

Why don't you write the real reason; To increase profits for gun manufacturers for which the NRA is a marketing concern.

that answer there just told me you dont own guns....

Then why does more than half of the income for the NRA come directly or indirectly from gun manufacturers?

It doesn't asswipe. You have been shown this before....

Prove it.

 

[Zander]

LWNJ's that are afraid of guns should not buy them.

 

[grainbely]

states rights, boyo, until you say it is not states rights

courts will throw it out and you know it

The Second Amendment explicitly specifies to whom the right belongs, and it is not the states.

Is it only law abiding citizens? 2a says so, I guess he stands for infringing on the rights of non law abiding citizens.

 

[deannalw]

Claifornia first banned the buying of new 30 round magazines....then, since book burners/gun grabbers won't stop till they get all guns....then, commie governor jerry brown outlawed the previous grandfathered 30 round magazines...now, 5 California citizens....all law abiding...are suing the morons in the California government for violating their 2nd Amendment Right to bear arms...

NRA hits back in court over California magazine ban

As a gun owner, I can't think of one reason I would need a thirty round magazine.

That's not the point... is it?

That IS the point. Why would one NEED to have a 30 round magazine that is designed and manufactured to kill multiple people without reloading?

Hubby takes part in competition shooting. He neeeeds them

 

[deannalw]

J

states rights, boyo, until you say it is not states rights

courts will throw it out and you know it

The Second Amendment explicitly specifies to whom the right belongs, and it is not the states.

Is it only law abiding citizens? 2a says so, I guess he stands for infringing on the rights of non law abiding citizens.

Stupid and dishonest arguement

 

[grainbely]

J

states rights, boyo, until you say it is not states rights

courts will throw it out and you know it

The Second Amendment explicitly specifies to whom the right belongs, and it is not the states.

Is it only law abiding citizens? 2a says so, I guess he stands for infringing on the rights of non law abiding citizens.

Stupid and dishonest arguement

Why? Why does a criminal that has served their time deserve fewer rights than anyone else, maybe even law breakers that haven't been caught?

How comfortable would you feel extending the rights to a gang of thugs open carrying and walking towards you in the street?

 

[jasonnfree]

J

states rights, boyo, until you say it is not states rights

courts will throw it out and you know it

The Second Amendment explicitly specifies to whom the right belongs, and it is not the states.

Is it only law abiding citizens? 2a says so, I guess he stands for infringing on the rights of non law abiding citizens.

Stupid and dishonest arguement

Why? Why does a criminal that has served their time deserve fewer rights than anyone else, maybe even law breakers that haven't been caught?

How comfortable would you feel extending the rights to a gang of thugs open carrying and walking towards you in the street?

The gang of thugs don't wait around for permission to carry guns, open or otherwise.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Claifornia first banned the buying of new 30 round magazines....then, since book burners/gun grabbers won't stop till they get all guns....then, commie governor jerry brown outlawed the previous grandfathered 30 round magazines...now, 5 California citizens....all law abiding...are suing the morons in the California government for violating their 2nd Amendment Right to bear arms...

NRA hits back in court over California magazine ban

As a gun owner, I can't think of one reason I would need a thirty round magazine.

BEcause they desire to own one....that is all they need. There is absolutely no reason to ban them unless you are irrational and hate guns.

Why don't you write the real reason; To increase profits for gun manufacturers for which the NRA is a marketing concern.

that answer there just told me you dont own guns....

Then why does more than half of the income for the NRA come directly or indirectly from gun manufacturers?

did you have help moving those goal posts?....lets go back to what you said about the reason one buys a gun or ammo....."To increase profits for gun manufacturers for which the NRA is a marketing concern".....i have never heard or read a gun owner saying thats why they bought their guns,but i have seen anti gunners say this,like you just did.....now as for what you just said....why the hell do you think gun manufacturers would donate to the NRA?.....

 

[OnePercenter]

Claifornia first banned the buying of new 30 round magazines....then, since book burners/gun grabbers won't stop till they get all guns....then, commie governor jerry brown outlawed the previous grandfathered 30 round magazines...now, 5 California citizens....all law abiding...are suing the morons in the California government for violating their 2nd Amendment Right to bear arms...

NRA hits back in court over California magazine ban

As a gun owner, I can't think of one reason I would need a thirty round magazine.

That's not the point... is it?

That IS the point. Why would one NEED to have a 30 round magazine that is designed and manufactured to kill multiple people without reloading?

Hubby takes part in competition shooting. He neeeeds them

Too lazy to reload?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Because wack-jobs desire to own one. Got it!

I have one. My best friend has several. We've never been committed or diagnosed with any mental deficiencies, nor have we have killed anyone.

Why do you feel you have the need to own one or more?

I don't have to justify it. That's why it's called a right. I have it because I can. Deal with it

 

[OnePercenter]

As a gun owner, I can't think of one reason I would need a thirty round magazine.

BEcause they desire to own one....that is all they need. There is absolutely no reason to ban them unless you are irrational and hate guns.

Why don't you write the real reason; To increase profits for gun manufacturers for which the NRA is a marketing concern.

that answer there just told me you dont own guns....

Then why does more than half of the income for the NRA come directly or indirectly from gun manufacturers?

did you have help moving those goal posts?....lets go back to what you said about the reason one buys a gun or ammo....."To increase profits for gun manufacturers for which the NRA is a marketing concern".....i have never heard or read a gun owner saying thats why they bought their guns,but i have seen anti gunners say this,like you just did.....now as for what you just said....why the hell do you think gun manufacturers would donate to the NRA?.....

Take Sandy Hook. A bad guy kills and the NRA uses hysteria marketing to convince the weak minded that the government is going to take away their guns. Gun sales skyrocket. Who wins?

How many gun manufacturers pay for NRA membership when you buy their weapon?

Pepe Le Pew and his cohorts become millionaires from a non-profit. Pretty sweet!

 

[OnePercenter]

Because wack-jobs desire to own one. Got it!

I have one. My best friend has several. We've never been committed or diagnosed with any mental deficiencies, nor have we have killed anyone.

Why do you feel you have the need to own one or more?

I don't have to justify it. That's why it's called a right. I have it because I can. Deal with it

The justification is the same as the need for big trucks and fast cars. I asked you why you NEED it.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I don't have to justify it. That's why it's called a right. I have it because I can. Deal with it

The justification is the same as the need for big trucks and fast cars. I asked you why you NEED it.

The point that you refuse to acknowledge is that nobody is under any obligation to justify his “need” to exercise a right. That's an important defining characteristic of a right, that one is allowed to exercise it without having to show any need or justification for doing so,and without having to seek permission from anyone, least of all from government.

The burden is entirely on those such as you, who would deny the exercise of a right, to prove that such a denial is necessary and justifiable.