Own guns, learn how to use them, fight the anti-gun nimrods.

[M14 Shooter]

You tell them Rambo.
Tell them how many times you've protected yourself.
We have to stop that tyrannical POTUS, those pillaging hordes of Chinese raping and eating children.
You can't dramatize these assumptions. Hell no.

I love how you go out of your way to demonstrate your inability to meaningfully address a point..

 

[woodwork201]

Yes, I do and they are registered with my county sheriff too.

You don't own a gun, do you?

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Your head is obviously in the sand of you think total ban and confiscation isn't the ultimate goal.

Your head is obviously up the NRA's ass if you STILL think, after 30 years of Lucy and Charlie Brown, Lucy won't pull the football away.........................THIS TIME.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Biden's ignorance here is appalling.
- Nothing in the 1994 AWB outlawed "these weapons" or their standard capacity magazines.

Something is better than nothing.
I guarantee you, it wasn't democrats or Biden that put these worthless items in the bill, to sabotage it as worthless.

The Act included a "grandfather clause" to allow for possession and transfer of weapons and ammunition that "were otherwise lawfully possessed on the date of enactment."

The Act exempted some 650 firearm types or models (including their copies and duplicates) which would be considered manufactured in October 1993. The list included the Ruger Mini-14 Auto Loading Rifle without side folding stock, Ruger Mini Thirty Rifle, Iver Johnson M-1 Carbine, Marlin Model 9 Camp Carbine, Marlin Model 45 Carbine, and others.

The Act "also did not apply to any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than ten rounds of ammunition or semiautomatic shotguns that cannot hold more than five rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.
Tubular magazine fed rimfire guns were exempted regardless of tubular magazine capacity.

- It didn't get 'overruled ' - it sunset when the law expired in 2004.
- The fact he doesn't see any reason for someone to buy one is meaningless

No, it isn't, more people would go to firing ranges and take shooting lessons.
It's what is needed, people can't seem to hit the broad side of a barn door.
Hence: "I need 30 or 40 rounds with me at all times".

- Thee 2nd protects the right to own and use all "bearable arms", so a ban on said arms does indeed violate the 2nd.

ALL "Bearable arms" in 1789.

Thank you for exposing ol' Joe for the buffoon he is.

Thank you for exposing another "constitutional" 2nd amendment, gun nutter, who can't shoot and evidently, refuses to learn.

Murdered, in California, with a stolen Glock and 40rd magazine.
Clearly, just one more law would have prevented this crime.

Clearly, the dumbass can't shoot, he needed 40 rounds?
If the 40 round magazine wasn't available, he wouldn't have been able to steal it.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

You don't own a gun, do you?

NO, I don't, either does my wife, no weapons in the house either.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Your head is obviously up the NRA's ass if you STILL think, after 30 years of Lucy and Charlie Brown, Lucy won't pull the football away.........................THIS TIME.

I'm a member of GOA, actually.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Something is better than nothing.
I guarantee you, it wasn't democrats or Biden that put these worthless items in the bill, to sabotage it as worthless.

So... there's really nothing here for Biden to take credit for.
Why do you let him?

The Act included a "grandfather clause" to allow for possession and transfer of weapons and ammunition that "were otherwise lawfully possessed on the date of enactment."

Well, of course.
You expect a bill that required the confiscation of all those guns and magazines to pass Congress in 1994?
To be enforced, when no one knows how many guns and magazines there are, much less who has them?
Why?

But hey - good of you to recognize the 1994 AWB accomplished exactly zero

No, it isn't, more people would go to firing ranges and take shooting lessons.
It's what is needed, people can't seem to hit the broad side of a barn door.
Hence: "I need 30 or 40 rounds with me at all times".

^^^^
Has nothing to do with what I said.

ALL "Bearable arms" in 1789.

You know your statement is false.
Why do you bother making statement you know are false?

Clearly, the dumbass can't shoot, he needed 40 rounds?

Look at you - it's as if you know you cannot address the point.
Tell us:
This shooting happened in CA
What gun law, not already in place, would have prevented this shooting?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Protect your rights. Arm yourself. Keep your place secure.

...and die in battle with a machine gun in your hand so you can go to Valhalla.

 

[Woodznutz]

AND only in certain circumstances do I carry my pistol to go anywhere to support my 2nd amendment rights.

I only carry (concealed) when I go to Walmart or the post office.

 

[Woodznutz]

You tell them Rambo.
Tell them how many times you've protected yourself.

We have to stop that tyrannical POTUS, those pillaging hordes of Chinese raping and eating children.
You can't dramatize these assumptions. Hell no.

More guns, less crime.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

So... there's really nothing here for Biden to take credit for.
Why do you let him?

Well, of course.
You expect a bill that required the confiscation of all those guns and magazines to pass Congress in 1994?
To be enforced, when no one knows how many guns and magazines there are, much less who has them?
Why?

They would know, as they come across them.
Gun nuts think the sheriff is going to come banging on everyone's door, searching their homes without cause?

But hey - good of you to recognize the 1994 AWB accomplished exactly zero

Thanks to republican sabotaging.

^^^^
Has nothing to do with what I said.

Yes, it does, Biden was right.

" The fact he doesn't see any reason for someone to buy one is meaningless".
Preparing for war or..........................you can't shoot.

You know your statement is false.
Why do you bother making statement you know are false?

No, it isn't.
When were the constitution and the bill of rights contained in it, ratified?
Why is it the people that wrote the constitution seem to have such foresight on the 2nd amendment but nothing else?

They weren't mind readers on slavery.

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

Look at you - it's as if you know you cannot address the point.
Tell us:
This shooting happened in CA
What gun law, not already in place, would have prevented this shooting?

What law in place prevents traffic accident deaths?
NONE.
But they help, that's the point.

 

[M14 Shooter]

They would know, as they come across them.

Ah. Post-fact enforcement
And so, a ban on 'assault weapons' cannot do anything to reduce the number of shootings with 'assault wepaons' and 'high capacity magazines'. only confiscate them afterwards.
Which the police do anyway.
Thank you for demonstrating the unnecessary and ineffective nature of the AWB.

Thanks to republican sabotaging.

Your is a statement of ignorance or dishonesty:
The Democrats wrote and passed the 1994 AWB - they did not need a single Republican vote to do it.

Yes, it does,

Demonstrate this to be the case.
Draw the necessary relationship between my post and your response, and show how it logically follows.

No, it isn't.

The only way your statement is not a lie is if you are ignorant of the fact the 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.
So, did you lie, or are you ignorant of the facts?

What law in place prevents traffic accident deaths?
NONE.

And thus, you agree:
"One more law" would have been useless to stop this crime.
That doesn't stop you from demnading them though, does it?

 

[Colin norris]

More guns, less crime.

That is exactly why America is the nation of Rambos it is.
Tell the parents of that kid that got shot in a school in buffalo you want more guns.
You're brain dead.

 

[woodwork201]

I only carry (concealed) when I go to Walmart or the post office.

Carrying at the post office, even on post office property like the parking lot, will get you 10 years. I park across the street from the post office and leave my gun in the car.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Ah. Post-fact enforcement
And so, a ban on 'assault weapons' cannot do anything to reduce the number of shootings with 'assault wepaons' and 'high capacity magazines'. only confiscate them afterwards.

No, it would stop the sale/manufacture of them too, further reducing the numbers.
What do you expect them to do?
Like the NRA and RWNJ's claim, no knock warrant at 2AM, guns drawn, to confiscate a single 40 or 50 round magazine?

Which the police do anyway.
Thank you for demonstrating the unnecessary and ineffective nature of the AWB.

Your is a statement of ignorance or dishonesty:
The Democrats wrote and passed the 1994 AWB - they did not need a single Republican vote to do it.

You're FOS.
Most reviews of the 1994 version of the assault weapons ban point to loopholes in the text of the bill that, some argue, made it less effective than some would have wanted.

The bill specifically changed the federal criminal code "to prohibit the manufacture, transfer, or possession of a semiautomatic assault weapon," however, it specified which semiautomatic assault weapons were included.

It passed the House in August 1994, with a vote of 235-195, and the reconciled version passed the Senate four days later.
The bill that ultimately became law was passed in the Senate with a vote of 95-4 in November 1993.
It was signed into law by Clinton as part of a larger crime bill on Sept. 13, 1994.

There were only 4 republican senators in 1994?
Just because a democrat introduced the bill, doesn't mean republicans can't add amendments and that's what they did, sabotaging the bill.

Demonstrate this to be the case.
Draw the necessary relationship between my post and your response, and show how it logically follows.

Less magazine capacity, the fewer people would take bullets for granted, thus better shooting.

The only way your statement is not a lie is if you are ignorant of the fact the 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.
So, did you lie, or are you ignorant of the facts?

The 2nd amendment as written doesn't give "prima facie" to all weapons, it took a court to rule on that.

In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings 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" and that its protection is not limited to "only those weapons useful in warfare".

And thus, you agree:
"One more law" would have been useless to stop this crime.

NOTHING is guaranteed, it may have or not.
Lower speed limits don't eliminate car crashes and deaths but it helps.
The law lowering the milliliter of alcohol content in a person's blood doesn't eliminate DWI's but it helps.

That doesn't stop you from demnading them though, does it?

 

[2aguy]

That is exactly why America is the nation of Rambos it is.
Tell the parents of that kid that got shot in a school in buffalo you want more guns.
You're brain dead.

No...tell that kid in Buffalo that the party they likely voted for, the democrat party, keeps releasing the very monsters who shoot innocent people....that is the problem...

 

[2aguy]

No, it would stop the sale/manufacture of them too, further reducing the numbers.
What do you expect them to do?
Like the NRA and RWNJ's claim, no knock warrant at 2AM, guns drawn, to confiscate a single 40 or 50 round magazine?

You're FOS.
Most reviews of the 1994 version of the assault weapons ban point to loopholes in the text of the bill that, some argue, made it less effective than some would have wanted.

The bill specifically changed the federal criminal code "to prohibit the manufacture, transfer, or possession of a semiautomatic assault weapon," however, it specified which semiautomatic assault weapons were included.

It passed the House in August 1994, with a vote of 235-195, and the reconciled version passed the Senate four days later.
The bill that ultimately became law was passed in the Senate with a vote of 95-4 in November 1993.
It was signed into law by Clinton as part of a larger crime bill on Sept. 13, 1994.

There were only 4 republican senators in 1994?
Just because a democrat introduced the bill, doesn't mean republicans can't add amendments and that's what they did, sabotaging the bill.


Less magazine capacity, the fewer people would take bullets for granted, thus better shooting.

The 2nd amendment as written doesn't give "prima facie" to all weapons, it took a court to rule on that.

In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings 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" and that its protection is not limited to "only those weapons useful in warfare".


NOTHING is guaranteed, it may have or not.
Lower speed limits don't eliminate car crashes and deaths but it helps.
The law lowering the milliliter of alcohol content in a person's blood doesn't eliminate DWI's but it helps.

Moron.......rifles of any time are the least used of any gun in a crime....the democrats thought that since most people don't own a rifle, they could get away with banning them.........their bill wasn't intended to stop crime, it was created to allow them to confiscate the guns when they found them....and punish the owners for the sin of owning a gun...

You doofus.

 

[2aguy]

No, it would stop the sale/manufacture of them too, further reducing the numbers.
What do you expect them to do?
Like the NRA and RWNJ's claim, no knock warrant at 2AM, guns drawn, to confiscate a single 40 or 50 round magazine?

You're FOS.
Most reviews of the 1994 version of the assault weapons ban point to loopholes in the text of the bill that, some argue, made it less effective than some would have wanted.

The bill specifically changed the federal criminal code "to prohibit the manufacture, transfer, or possession of a semiautomatic assault weapon," however, it specified which semiautomatic assault weapons were included.

It passed the House in August 1994, with a vote of 235-195, and the reconciled version passed the Senate four days later.
The bill that ultimately became law was passed in the Senate with a vote of 95-4 in November 1993.
It was signed into law by Clinton as part of a larger crime bill on Sept. 13, 1994.

There were only 4 republican senators in 1994?
Just because a democrat introduced the bill, doesn't mean republicans can't add amendments and that's what they did, sabotaging the bill.


Less magazine capacity, the fewer people would take bullets for granted, thus better shooting.

The 2nd amendment as written doesn't give "prima facie" to all weapons, it took a court to rule on that.

In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings 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" and that its protection is not limited to "only those weapons useful in warfare".


NOTHING is guaranteed, it may have or not.
Lower speed limits don't eliminate car crashes and deaths but it helps.
The law lowering the milliliter of alcohol content in a person's blood doesn't eliminate DWI's but it helps.

Moron........Heller did that, not Caetano...Caetano, simply pointed out to the fascists on the Massachusetts court that Heller didn't allow them to ban stun guns...you idiot....and they pointed out...

Ihttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Opinion of the Court[edit]



In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

------





As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment.



First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).



Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly. Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581. Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.



If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis

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.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Moron.......rifles of any time are the least used of any gun in a crime....the democrats thought that since most people don't own a rifle, they could get away with banning them.........their bill wasn't intended to stop crime, it was created to allow them to confiscate the guns when they found them....and punish the owners for the sin of owning a gun...

You doofus.

Sure Q NUT.
Speed limit laws are enforced just to give out tickets.
What a moron, perfect Trumptard.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Moron........Heller did that, not Caetano...Caetano, simply pointed out to the fascists on the Massachusetts court that Heller didn't allow them to ban stun guns...you idiot....and they pointed out...




Opinion of the Court[edit]



In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

------





As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment.



First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).



Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly. Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581. Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.



If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis

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.

You fucking retard.

Why do you think I included this?
'In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie"

It still took a court to extend that privilege, NOT the constitution.