In response to San Bernardino mass murders, Democrats propose to restrict the law-abiding (???)

Little-Acorn

Gold Member
Jun 20, 2006
10,025
2,410
Yet again, Democrat lawmakers in the People's Republic of California are proposing to ban various guns and accessories. This time the excuse is the San Bernardino shootings. Such a ban would be obeyed, of course, only by the law-abiding.

The San Bernardino shooters were already breaking a number of laws, starting with the law against murder. It seems unlikely that a law telling them they can't have certain guns, would make them change their ways. The Democrat lawmakers did not explain how making a few more laws would change anything that such wanton murderers do.

This is the 4,372nd time Democrat lawmakers have tried to respond to such crimes by banning guns and/or accessories. There is no evidence on record that such bans have ever changed anything.... except to disarm people who obey the laws and make them easier targets for criminals who don't.

Isn't there a name for repeating the same act over and over and expecting a different result?

------------------------------------------

Lawmakers advance gun control measures in response to San Bernardino massacre

Lawmakers advance gun control measures in response to San Bernardino massacre

by Patrick McGreevy•Contact Reporter
April 19, 2016, 8:07 PM

Four months after the San Bernardino mass shooting, state lawmakers on Tuesday gave initial approval to five gun control bills, including measures that would outlaw assault rifles with detachable magazines, ban possession of clips holding more than 10 rounds and require homemade guns to be registered with the state.

The bills approved by the state Senate Public Safety Committee were introduced in response to the December shooting in San Bernardino that left 14 people dead and 22 others wounded at the hands of two terrorists.

One of the measures the panel sent toward the Senate floor would outlaw assault rifles with easily detachable bullet magazines like one of the weapons used in the mass shooting in San Bernardino.

The bill prohibits the sale of semiautomatic, centerfire rifles with a “bullet button,” a recessed button that, when pressed, allows removal of the magazine. Those who already own them must register them with the state as assault rifles.

Democratic state Sens. Isadore Hall of Compton and Steve Glazer of Orinda introduced the measure, SB 880, in response to the discovery of a gun with a bullet button that was in the possession of the San Bernardino terrorists.

“These weapons of war don’t belong in our communities,” Glazer told the Senate panel before it approved the measure he coauthored with Hall.

Hall said there is an urgent need to close a loophole in the law that bans assault weapons.

The Senate panel also approved a bill by Sen. Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley) that would ban the possession of ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds, closing a loophole in a law that already prohibits their manufacture and sale in California.
 
And what's so different from the right wanted to ban Muslims and all sorts of other restrictive devices that are desired?
 
Hmm, it took the usual leftist apologists two minutes to try to change the subject to BUT REPUBLICANS DO IT TOO!!! Is this a record?
:lame2:
 
It's especially ironic that the Democrats chose today to release their latest attempts to take away law-abiding American citizens' guns, 241 years to the day after American colonists fired on British troops who were coming to take away their guns.

That event started a revolution. "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it."
 
And what's so different from the right wanted to ban Muslims and all sorts of other restrictive devices that are desired?

One: it's constitutional to ban who ever we want from immigrating. Two: it will actually have an effect.
 
FDR refused to let Jewish refugees to land, how would he feel about Moslem refugees?

Would he allow them to land?
 
Yet again, Democrat lawmakers in the People's Republic of California are proposing to ban various guns and accessories. This time the excuse is the San Bernardino shootings. Such a ban would be obeyed, of course, only by the law-abiding.

The San Bernardino shooters were already breaking a number of laws, starting with the law against murder. It seems unlikely that a law telling them they can't have certain guns, would make them change their ways. The Democrat lawmakers did not explain how making a few more laws would change anything that such wanton murderers do.

This is the 4,372nd time Democrat lawmakers have tried to respond to such crimes by banning guns and/or accessories. There is no evidence on record that such bans have ever changed anything.... except to disarm people who obey the laws and make them easier targets for criminals who don't.

Isn't there a name for repeating the same act over and over and expecting a different result?

------------------------------------------

Lawmakers advance gun control measures in response to San Bernardino massacre

Lawmakers advance gun control measures in response to San Bernardino massacre

by Patrick McGreevy•Contact Reporter
April 19, 2016, 8:07 PM

Four months after the San Bernardino mass shooting, state lawmakers on Tuesday gave initial approval to five gun control bills, including measures that would outlaw assault rifles with detachable magazines, ban possession of clips holding more than 10 rounds and require homemade guns to be registered with the state.

The bills approved by the state Senate Public Safety Committee were introduced in response to the December shooting in San Bernardino that left 14 people dead and 22 others wounded at the hands of two terrorists.

One of the measures the panel sent toward the Senate floor would outlaw assault rifles with easily detachable bullet magazines like one of the weapons used in the mass shooting in San Bernardino.

The bill prohibits the sale of semiautomatic, centerfire rifles with a “bullet button,” a recessed button that, when pressed, allows removal of the magazine. Those who already own them must register them with the state as assault rifles.

Democratic state Sens. Isadore Hall of Compton and Steve Glazer of Orinda introduced the measure, SB 880, in response to the discovery of a gun with a bullet button that was in the possession of the San Bernardino terrorists.

“These weapons of war don’t belong in our communities,” Glazer told the Senate panel before it approved the measure he coauthored with Hall.

Hall said there is an urgent need to close a loophole in the law that bans assault weapons.

The Senate panel also approved a bill by Sen. Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley) that would ban the possession of ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds, closing a loophole in a law that already prohibits their manufacture and sale in California.
This fails as both a straw man fallacy and hasty generalization fallacy.

Straw man: the proposed measures are consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

That criminals might not obey this or any other law is not ‘justification’ to not enact a Constitutional law; criminals continue to commit murder yet no one advocates murder no longer be prosecuted as a crime.

Consequently, the notion that the proposed measures are intended to ‘restrict’ the law-abiding is a lie.

Hasty generalization: the measures are being proposed in one state’s legislature, members of which are not ‘representative’ of all democrats, they do not speak for ‘all democrats,’ where claiming this is something democrats as a whole support or approve of is a lie.
 
You've seen guns going down the street?

Did they have feet? Wings? Little cars?
 
Yet again, Democrat lawmakers in the People's Republic of California are proposing to ban various guns and accessories. This time the excuse is the San Bernardino shootings. Such a ban would be obeyed, of course, only by the law-abiding.

The San Bernardino shooters were already breaking a number of laws, starting with the law against murder. It seems unlikely that a law telling them they can't have certain guns, would make them change their ways. The Democrat lawmakers did not explain how making a few more laws would change anything that such wanton murderers do.

This is the 4,372nd time Democrat lawmakers have tried to respond to such crimes by banning guns and/or accessories. There is no evidence on record that such bans have ever changed anything.... except to disarm people who obey the laws and make them easier targets for criminals who don't.

Isn't there a name for repeating the same act over and over and expecting a different result?

------------------------------------------

Lawmakers advance gun control measures in response to San Bernardino massacre

Lawmakers advance gun control measures in response to San Bernardino massacre

by Patrick McGreevy•Contact Reporter
April 19, 2016, 8:07 PM

Four months after the San Bernardino mass shooting, state lawmakers on Tuesday gave initial approval to five gun control bills, including measures that would outlaw assault rifles with detachable magazines, ban possession of clips holding more than 10 rounds and require homemade guns to be registered with the state.

The bills approved by the state Senate Public Safety Committee were introduced in response to the December shooting in San Bernardino that left 14 people dead and 22 others wounded at the hands of two terrorists.

One of the measures the panel sent toward the Senate floor would outlaw assault rifles with easily detachable bullet magazines like one of the weapons used in the mass shooting in San Bernardino.

The bill prohibits the sale of semiautomatic, centerfire rifles with a “bullet button,” a recessed button that, when pressed, allows removal of the magazine. Those who already own them must register them with the state as assault rifles.

Democratic state Sens. Isadore Hall of Compton and Steve Glazer of Orinda introduced the measure, SB 880, in response to the discovery of a gun with a bullet button that was in the possession of the San Bernardino terrorists.

“These weapons of war don’t belong in our communities,” Glazer told the Senate panel before it approved the measure he coauthored with Hall.

Hall said there is an urgent need to close a loophole in the law that bans assault weapons.

The Senate panel also approved a bill by Sen. Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley) that would ban the possession of ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds, closing a loophole in a law that already prohibits their manufacture and sale in California.
This fails as both a straw man fallacy and hasty generalization fallacy.

Straw man: the proposed measures are consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

That criminals might not obey this or any other law is not ‘justification’ to not enact a Constitutional law; criminals continue to commit murder yet no one advocates murder no longer be prosecuted as a crime.

Consequently, the notion that the proposed measures are intended to ‘restrict’ the law-abiding is a lie.

Hasty generalization: the measures are being proposed in one state’s legislature, members of which are not ‘representative’ of all democrats, they do not speak for ‘all democrats,’ where claiming this is something democrats as a whole support or approve of is a lie.

Laws like this are the equivalent of lowering my speed limit from 50 to 20 mph because some other asshole keeps driving at 90 MPH.
 
Yet again, Democrat lawmakers in the People's Republic of California are proposing to ban various guns and accessories. This time the excuse is the San Bernardino shootings. Such a ban would be obeyed, of course, only by the law-abiding.

The San Bernardino shooters were already breaking a number of laws, starting with the law against murder. It seems unlikely that a law telling them they can't have certain guns, would make them change their ways. The Democrat lawmakers did not explain how making a few more laws would change anything that such wanton murderers do.

This is the 4,372nd time Democrat lawmakers have tried to respond to such crimes by banning guns and/or accessories. There is no evidence on record that such bans have ever changed anything.... except to disarm people who obey the laws and make them easier targets for criminals who don't.

Isn't there a name for repeating the same act over and over and expecting a different result?

------------------------------------------

Lawmakers advance gun control measures in response to San Bernardino massacre

Lawmakers advance gun control measures in response to San Bernardino massacre

by Patrick McGreevy•Contact Reporter
April 19, 2016, 8:07 PM

Four months after the San Bernardino mass shooting, state lawmakers on Tuesday gave initial approval to five gun control bills, including measures that would outlaw assault rifles with detachable magazines, ban possession of clips holding more than 10 rounds and require homemade guns to be registered with the state.

The bills approved by the state Senate Public Safety Committee were introduced in response to the December shooting in San Bernardino that left 14 people dead and 22 others wounded at the hands of two terrorists.

One of the measures the panel sent toward the Senate floor would outlaw assault rifles with easily detachable bullet magazines like one of the weapons used in the mass shooting in San Bernardino.

The bill prohibits the sale of semiautomatic, centerfire rifles with a “bullet button,” a recessed button that, when pressed, allows removal of the magazine. Those who already own them must register them with the state as assault rifles.

Democratic state Sens. Isadore Hall of Compton and Steve Glazer of Orinda introduced the measure, SB 880, in response to the discovery of a gun with a bullet button that was in the possession of the San Bernardino terrorists.

“These weapons of war don’t belong in our communities,” Glazer told the Senate panel before it approved the measure he coauthored with Hall.

Hall said there is an urgent need to close a loophole in the law that bans assault weapons.

The Senate panel also approved a bill by Sen. Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley) that would ban the possession of ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds, closing a loophole in a law that already prohibits their manufacture and sale in California.
I'm still waiting on the pressure-cooker ban to come down.
 
And what's so different from the right wanted to ban Muslims and all sorts of other restrictive devices that are desired?
Banning Muslims makes more sense than banning all guns. The reason Muslims running rampant in Europe is such a problem is because they don't have any guns to defend themselves from all of the violence caused by Syrian refugees.
 
And what's so different from the right wanted to ban Muslims and all sorts of other restrictive devices that are desired?
Banning Muslims makes more sense than banning all guns. The reason Muslims running rampant in Europe is such a problem is because they don't have any guns to defend themselves from all of the violence caused by Syrian refugees.

Could that be because you're not a Muslim?

It's so easy to give up other people's rights, isn't it?
 
And what's so different from the right wanted to ban Muslims and all sorts of other restrictive devices that are desired?
Banning Muslims makes more sense than banning all guns. The reason Muslims running rampant in Europe is such a problem is because they don't have any guns to defend themselves from all of the violence caused by Syrian refugees.

Could that be because you're not a Muslim?

It's so easy to give up other people's rights, isn't it?
Do they have the right to rape and murder when they feel like it?
 
Because Democrat below-viral-life are too busy masturbating over dead fellow Americans to be thinking clearly; they're too full of sadistic sexual hormones whenever 3rd-world cultures kill 1st worlders. Which is why Obama-supporters are my most DETESTED living things in the 2 billion years life has existed on this planet.
 

Forum List

Back
Top