GUN CONTROL now ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[GrassrootsConservative]

But we already knew that:


http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-01-06/chicago-ban-on-gun-sales-in-city-unconstitutional-judge-rules

A Chicago law prohibiting the sale of guns within the third-most populous U.S. city was struck down as unconstitutional by a federal judge.
“Chicago’s ordinance goes too far in outright banning legal buyers and legal dealers from engaging in lawful acquisitions and lawful sales of firearms,” U.S. District Judge Edmond E. Chang wrote in a decision today.
The judge said he was delaying the effect of his ruling to allow the city time to seek a stay during an appeal or, if it elects to forgo an appeal, to consider and enact sales restrictions “short of a complete ban.”

The ordinance, adopted in 2010 after the U.S. Supreme Court (1000L:US (http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/snapshot/snapshot.asp?ticker=1000L:US)) in a 5-4 decision invalidated a ban on gun possession within the city, allowed only the transfer of firearms through inheritance, prohibiting even gifts among family members.
There were 415 murders and 1,864 shooting incidents last year, according to Chicago police, in the city of 2.7 million where President Barack Obama’s political career began.

:biglaugh: I don't believe I need to say much here. We told you so. Suckers.

[jillian]

Heller made total bans unconstitutional.

you really should read a case or two

edit:

from your link:

The judge said he was delaying the effect of his ruling to allow the city time to seek a stay during an appeal or, if it elects to forgo an appeal, to consider and enact sales restrictions “short of a complete ban.”

which is exactly what Heller said.

try again.

[GrassrootsConservative]

There's one. Now the other ignored posters should get their trolling out of the way so the posters with something on topic to discuss can go ahead and do that.

[jillian]

There's one. Now the other ignored posters should get their trolling out of the way so the posters with something on topic to discuss can go ahead and do that.

and yet you keep answering me.

try reading and learning.sorry if pointing out that, once again, that you either don't understand or intentionally misstate the contents of the article upsets you.

[zelmo1234]

The tide is slowly turning on this issue, the people are starting to see the statistics and can see that when the populations takes advantage of gun laws especially Conceal carry you get a safer and more polite population.

Taking away the criminal advantage always works.

[GrassrootsConservative]

The tide is slowly turning on this issue, the people are starting to see the statistics and can see that when the populations takes advantage of gun laws especially Conceal carry you get a safer and more polite population.

Taking away the criminal advantage always works.

Right, but we have the Constitution in place and certain judges still want to defend that. We just might get out alive.

[jillian]

The tide is slowly turning on this issue, the people are starting to see the statistics and can see that when the populations takes advantage of gun laws especially Conceal carry you get a safer and more polite population.

Taking away the criminal advantage always works.

there is no "tide". why are you intentionally ignoring what the court said? it said exactly the same thing as the heller court did… that a total ban is unconstitutional but it would entertain regulations that are less than a total ban.

[zelmo1234]

there is no "tide". why are you intentionally ignoring what the court said? it said exactly the same thing as the heller court did… that a total ban is unconstitutional but it would entertain regulations that are less than a total ban.

It is taking a terrible law off the books and that means the tide is turning.

Also in a broader note, the public is not really concerned about gun control it is way down on the list. and public opinion is turning and people are seeing the gun control does not make you safer but just the opposite is true

[jillian]

It is taking a terrible law off the books and that means the tide is turning.

Also in a broader note, the public is not really concerned about gun control it is way down on the list. and public opinion is turning and people are seeing the gun control does not make you safer but just the opposite is true

it is the exact same ruling as heller and the legislature should have known that.

actually the public is concerned about background checks, which is really what you seem to call "gun control". me? i don't want some loser who beat his wife or abused a child or is crazy to have a gun.

imagine that.

where you are correct is that NRA extremists DO vote on that one issue…. people who want background checks don't have guns as their obsession.

[KC]

The second amendment ought to be seen as a limit on the federal government, not states or localities.

[Peter1469]

But we already knew that:



:biglaugh: I don't believe I need to say much here. We told you so. Suckers.

It doesn't say gun control is unconstitutional, it says that a total ban is.

[jillian]

It doesn't say gun control is unconstitutional, it says that a total ban is.

thank you….

which is exactly the holding of Heller.

[Chris]

it is the exact same ruling as heller and the legislature should have known that.

....


You ought to make your case, citing each ruling to show your claim, rather than merely, and, frankly, desperately repeating your opinion.

[Chris]

It doesn't say gun control is unconstitutional, it says that a total ban is.

More specifically, "“Chicago’s ordinance goes too far in outright banning legal buyers and legal dealers from engaging in lawful acquisitions and lawful sales of firearms,” U.S. District Judge Edmond E. Chang wrote in a decision today." IOW, you can't ban legal sales.

[GrassrootsConservative]

It doesn't say gun control is unconstitutional, it says that a total ban is.

So the measure Chicago had in place was not gun control?

[GrassrootsConservative]

You ought to make your case, citing each ruling to show your claim, rather than merely,
and, frankly, desperately repeating your opinion.


That's what she always does. That's why she's on ignore.

[Peter1469]

So the measure Chicago had in place was not gun control?

It was the most extreme version- a total ban.

[GrassrootsConservative]

It was the most extreme version- a total ban.

Alright, good. So gun control at it's most extreme has a set precedent for being unconstitutional.

[jillian]

You ought to make your case, citing each ruling to show your claim, rather than merely, and, frankly, desperately repeating your opinion.

try reading, chris. it isn't an "opinion". the holding of heller was that a total ban is unconstitutional but that did not mean regulation was unconstitutional.

the holding in the case incorrectly described by the o/p (who clearly is backtracking since he doesn't) understand the simple english of what he read.

there isn't anything to debate.

his lack of understanding (and yours) doesn't require i pretend there is something unclear about the law.

[Chris]

It was the most extreme version- a total ban.



Right, but this ruling doesn't swing to the opposite extreme of no gun control, right? Just pealing back unreasonable control.

[Contrails]

The second amendment ought to be seen as a limit on the federal government, not states or localities.

Only if you disregard the 14th amendment.

[jillian]

Right, but this ruling doesn't swing to the opposite extreme of no gun control, right? Just pealing back unreasonable control.

no. again… same holding as Heller.

*shakes head*

[Contrails]

So the measure Chicago had in place was not gun control?

It's not the only form of gun control, is it?

[Chris]

try reading, chris. it isn't an "opinion". the holding of heller was that a total ban is unconstitutional but that did not mean regulation was unconstitutional.

the holding in the case incorrectly described by the o/p (who clearly is backtracking since he doesn't) understand the simple english of what he read.

there isn't anything to debate.

his lack of understanding (and yours) doesn't require i pretend there is something unclear about the law.



All you need to do is back up your repeated opinion. If you can't you can't, no biggie. But repetition doesn't communicate.

[Chris]

no. again… same holding as Heller.

*shakes head*


Too broad a generality, jillian, you're not communicating by repeating what I said.

[Peter1469]

Alright, good. So gun control at it's most extreme has a set precedent for being unconstitutional.

Yes.

Heller did that for DC.

This Chicago case does it for the states. (So there should be something in the decision about the 2nd Amendment being pushed to the states via the 14th Amendment. )

[jillian]

Yes.

Heller did that for DC.

This Chicago case does it for the states. (So there should be something in the decision about the 2nd Amendment being pushed to the states via the 14th Amendment. )

there shouldn't have been any doubt as to what the holding would be. the court below totally ignored heller.

hence the current decision.

[GrassrootsConservative]

It's not the only form of gun control, is it?

I didn't say it was, did I?

[Peter1469]

there shouldn't have been any doubt as to what the holding would be. the court below totally ignored heller.

hence the current decision.

Lots of intellectuals said that the 2nd Amendment wasn't one of the Bill of Rights that was applicable to the states via the 14th.

[countryboy]

All you need to do is back up your repeated opinion. If you can't you can't, no biggie. But repetition doesn't communicate.
Talking points memos rarely go into detail. How would she know how to elaborate if there is no detail in the talking points memo? I think you are asking for a bit too much.

[Chloe]

Even if guns can't be limited or outlawed or something like that it doesn't mean that we as a society shouldn't make better efforts to lessen to perceived importance and necessity of weapons like guns. When guns and gun ownership is glorified or made into something that is a necessity for life, in my opinion, it helps to create and maintain a culture defined by violence and the defense against violence. If some of the pro-gun people put as much effort into wanting to bring communities together as they do trying to spread gun ownership and gun sales then maybe guns wouldn't be as necessary for defense. Anyway, that's just my opinion.

[Mr Happy]

Heller made total bans unconstitutional.

you really should read a case or two

edit:

from your link:


which is exactly what Heller said.

try again.

Dunno how this post is off topic, but there you go...

[Chris]

Dunno how this post is off topic, but there you go...

WHo said it was off topic? It's the same highly generalized opinion repeated half a dozen times with no new information saying nothing. At least peter adds new information, what Heller did for DC this did for the states. Which information says the two decisions were quite difference in reach.

[Chris]

Even if guns can't be limited or outlawed or something like that it doesn't mean that we as a society shouldn't make better efforts to lessen to perceived importance and necessity of weapons like guns. When guns and gun ownership is glorified or made into something that is a necessity for life, in my opinion, it helps to create and maintain a culture defined by violence and the defense against violence. If some of the pro-gun people put as much effort into wanting to bring communities together as they do trying to spread gun ownership and gun sales then maybe guns wouldn't be as necessary for defense. Anyway, that's just my opinion.



Actually it just says legal sale and use of guns can be.

But why focus on guns when the problem is our violent culture?

[Chloe]

Actually it just says legal sale and use of guns can be.

But why focus on guns when the problem is our violent culture?

a lot of people think that the answer to solving violence is by arming themselves everywhere they go

[roadmaster]

But we already knew that:



:biglaugh: I don't believe I need to say much here. We told you so. Suckers.

Correct we have the 2nd amendment and need to fight to keep it.

[countryboy]

a lot of people think that the answer to solving violence is by arming themselves everywhere they go
I don't know of anyone who thinks that. What is wrong with self defense? Are you saying if we simply allow ourselves to fall prey to violent criminals, there will be less violence?

[Chloe]

I don't know of anyone who thinks that. What is wrong with self defense? Are you saying if we simply allow ourselves to fall prey to violent criminals, there will be less violence?

well no

[GrassrootsConservative]

Correct we have the 2nd amendment and need to fight to keep it.

Thanks, rm.

[Chris]

a lot of people think that the answer to solving violence is by arming themselves everywhere they go

Sure, in self defense. It keeps you from harm.

[Guerilla]

a lot of people think that the answer to solving violence is by arming themselves everywhere they go

But wouldn't you feel much safer if you did?

[Codename Section]

Even if guns can't be limited or outlawed or something like that it doesn't mean that we as a society shouldn't make better efforts to lessen to perceived importance and necessity of weapons like guns. When guns and gun ownership is glorified or made into something that is a necessity for life, in my opinion, it helps to create and maintain a culture defined by violence and the defense against violence. If some of the pro-gun people put as much effort into wanting to bring communities together as they do trying to spread gun ownership and gun sales then maybe guns wouldn't be as necessary for defense. Anyway, that's just my opinion.

I disagree. You have stuff to make poison under the sink, everyone carries a deadly knife at the dining table, you're on the road with asian drivers, death is all around you. It's waiting for you at the end. A gun is only "a gun" in your head. It's just metal.

The killer is the person and they will kill you if they feel like it with or without a gun. All a gun does is equalize a situation if one occurs.

Instead of focusing on metal with no computerized parts or artificial intelligence capacity, why don't you focus on mental health issues, spreading positive vibes, and doing something about people?

[The Xl]

Guns aren't the only way to defend yourself, but it's the best way for a violent attacker. Sadly, in some situations like Zimmerman and Martin, it gets used because one dude was a pathetic, out of shape fatass pseudo cop who couldn't defend himself. A lot of conflicts would end better if people knew how to fight, hand to hand.

[Professor Peabody]

Guns aren't the only way to defend yourself, but it's the best way for a violent attacker. Sadly, in some situations like Zimmerman and Martin, it gets used because one dude was a pathetic, out of shape fatass pseudo cop who couldn't defend himself. A lot of conflicts would end better if people knew how to fight, hand to hand.

Older folks aren't always capable, does that mean they should just accept being victims? Would you feel the same way if it were your Mom or Dad, how about grandparents?

[Peter1469]

Even if guns can't be limited or outlawed or something like that it doesn't mean that we as a society shouldn't make better efforts to lessen to perceived importance and necessity of weapons like guns. When guns and gun ownership is glorified or made into something that is a necessity for life, in my opinion, it helps to create and maintain a culture defined by violence and the defense against violence. If some of the pro-gun people put as much effort into wanting to bring communities together as they do trying to spread gun ownership and gun sales then maybe guns wouldn't be as necessary for defense. Anyway, that's just my opinion.

Without guns as weapons, you end up with the majority of people left with no effective means of self defense against those who take the time to become proficient in violence.

Guns = the great equalizer.

[iustitia]

All gun laws are an attempt to subjugate.

[zelmo1234]

Guns aren't the only way to defend yourself, but it's the best way for a violent attacker. Sadly, in some situations like Zimmerman and Martin, it gets used because one dude was a pathetic, out of shape fatass pseudo cop who couldn't defend himself. A lot of conflicts would end better if people knew how to fight, hand to hand.

While I agree that in the Zimmerman case he could have used other tactics? It was not his job to be able to defend himself in other ways. If young Mr. Martin would not have chosen the path of assault he would not have found it necessary for a defense.

Once you are under assault I would recommend the most force that is available to you, as you have no idea if your opponent is armed as well

[MrJimmyDale]

you're on the road with asian drivers Thanks for making my morning..........:)

[nathanbforrest45]

I am not a legal scholar but it seems to me that if its unconstitutional to ban legal sales between legal traders then the only regulation would be to first define what is an illegal trader or illegal sale and then regulation those trades. Anything else outside of that parameter would not be subject to any regulation. I can understand a law that you can't sell guns to a 3rd grader or to a felon with a history of violent crimes using firearms but I can't for the life of me understand how you can claim a ruling that states regulations prohibiting sales on a legal basis are unconstitutional is somehow promoting gun control.

[nathanbforrest45]

Only if you disregard the 14th amendment.


So the idea that the Constitution was designed to be a limit on federal powers is no longer in effect?

[nathanbforrest45]

Even if guns can't be limited or outlawed or something like that it doesn't mean that we as a society shouldn't make better efforts to lessen to perceived importance and necessity of weapons like guns. When guns and gun ownership is glorified or made into something that is a necessity for life, in my opinion, it helps to create and maintain a culture defined by violence and the defense against violence. If some of the pro-gun people put as much effort into wanting to bring communities together as they do trying to spread gun ownership and gun sales then maybe guns wouldn't be as necessary for defense. Anyway, that's just my opinion.


Start with yourself. Don't like guns? Don't own one. Don't be a hypocrite like Rosie O'Donnell and scream you are in favor of gun control but hire a gun toting body guard. Of course the liberals will cry out that O'Donnell, because of her "star status" needs more protection than the rest of the peons of the world.

[nathanbforrest45]

a lot of people think that the answer to solving violence is by arming themselves everywhere they go

Not a bad idea in my opinion.

[Chloe]

Start with yourself. Don't like guns? Don't own one. Don't be a hypocrite like Rosie O'Donnell and scream you are in favor of gun control but hire a gun toting body guard. Of course the liberals will cry out that O'Donnell, because of her "star status" needs more protection than the rest of the peons of the world.

I don't own one, and I don't really compare myself to rosie o'donnell, I don't really care or know that much about her, nor do I want to emulate her. It would be hypocritical to be against guns while also personally surrounding yourself with them.

[Chloe]

Not a bad idea in my opinion.

I'd rather live in a society where it's not necessary to arm yourself whenever you step outside your house. Who wants to live in that kind of world?

[nic34]

a lot of people think that the answer to solving violence is by arming themselves everywhere they go

like pouring gasoline on a burning house....

[Chris]

like pouring gasoline on a burning house....

And the progressive answer is to just let the house burn down while they demand fires be outlawed.

[Captain Obvious]

It doesn't say gun control is unconstitutional, it says that a total ban is.

Thank you, Peter.

While accuracy is important, many would rather dwell in fiction than understand reality.

[Mr. Freeze]

And the progressive answer is to just let the house burn down while they demand fires be outlawed.

Wow. Right on.

[nathanbforrest45]

I'd rather live in a society where it's not necessary to arm yourself whenever you step outside your house. Who wants to live in that kind of world?


It has been the way of the world since Cain slew Able. It always was and always will be.

Unlike liberals I tend to live in the real world and not one that has been idealized by those who would control the rest of us.

[Chloe]

It has been the way of the world since Cain slew Able. It always was and always will be.

Unlike liberals I tend to live in the real world and not one that has been idealized by those who would control the rest of us.

ok

[bladimz]

If every gun owner were to take a competency / safety test, i wonder how many would pass?

[zelmo1234]

If every gun owner were to take a competency / safety test, i wonder how many would pass?

I am guessing a lot more than you think, but what if everyone, not just the owners were to take a course and learn to fire and take care of a weapon and check to make sure it is safe????? How many accidents could we eliminate?

[GrassrootsConservative]

If every gun owner were to take a competency / safety test, i wonder how many would pass?


Not most of the big crime areas, like Chicago and Detroit and New York... :grin:

[bladimz]

I am guessing a lot more than you think, but what if everyone, not just the owners were to take a course and learn to fire and take care of a weapon and check to make sure it is safe????? How many accidents could we eliminate?Now that is exactly what i'd like to see happen. I'd love to see everyone trained in the safe use and care of a firearm. I would absolutely stand behind that. I believe that all gun purchasers should have to include evidence of gun competency and safety. It's that "well-regulated militia" thing.

btw, even if there were only 10% fail rate, that's still unacceptable in my book. That's one out of every 10 owners who doesn't know their way around their legally purchased weapon. Not good. Not good at all.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Now that is exactly what i'd like to see happen. I'd love to see everyone trained in the safe use and care of a firearm. I would absolutely stand behind that. I believe that all gun purchasers should have to include evidence of gun competency and safety. It's that "well-regulated militia" thing.

btw, even if there were only 10% fail rate, that's still unacceptable in my book. That's one out of every 10 owners who doesn't know their way around their legally purchased weapon. Not good. Not good at all.

But it's much smaller than 10%. Compare how many people in this nation legally have guns with how many deaths due to legally-owned guns.

[Chris]

Now that is exactly what i'd like to see happen. I'd love to see everyone trained in the safe use and care of a firearm. I would absolutely stand behind that. I believe that all gun purchasers should have to include evidence of gun competency and safety. It's that "well-regulated militia" thing.

btw, even if there were only 10% fail rate, that's still unacceptable in my book. That's one out of every 10 owners who doesn't know their way around their legally purchased weapon. Not good. Not good at all.



OK, and how would you implement and what would you require be taught?

[iustitia]

I wonder how many voters could pass a citizenship test.

[zelmo1234]

Now that is exactly what i'd like to see happen. I'd love to see everyone trained in the safe use and care of a firearm. I would absolutely stand behind that. I believe that all gun purchasers should have to include evidence of gun competency and safety. It's that "well-regulated militia" thing.

btw, even if there were only 10% fail rate, that's still unacceptable in my book. That's one out of every 10 owners who doesn't know their way around their legally purchased weapon. Not good. Not good at all.

I agree with you 100%

I have no idea why were are not teaching this is schools and I would have no problem with those that want to take additional training getting a purchase card and for those that don't having to pass a competence exam!

We have offered the School board the opportunity to have a one week class for all of there students for free, but of course they don't want that? The biggest fear according to our Super is that the kids might think it fun and get involved with the shooting sports???? go figure

[zelmo1234]

OK, and how would you implement and what would you require be taught?

NRA already has the safety program in place get instructors to teach it to all students in 6th for safety only and 10th for safety and operations.

[Chris]

Training is a good idea.

Don't as how it's going to solve the problem with violence here in the US.

[zelmo1234]

Training is a good idea.

Don't as how it's going to solve the problem with violence here in the US.

It is not but it could ride a lot of accidental deaths. which would be a good thing! It could also make people more comfortable with Guns thus allowing more liberal concealed carry laws, and that would reduce violent crime

An Armed society is a polite society

[Chloe]

It is not but it could ride a lot of accidental deaths. which would be a good thing! It could also make people more comfortable with Guns thus allowing more liberal concealed carry laws, and that would reduce violent crime

An Armed society is a polite society

No, a polite society is a polite society. It doesn't and shouldn't take a weapon to create or maintain that.

[iustitia]

It shouldn't. But it does.

[Peter1469]

No, a polite society is a polite society. It doesn't and shouldn't take a weapon to create or maintain that.

To many people want to take from others and don't care who they hurt.

[zelmo1234]

No, a polite society is a polite society. It doesn't and shouldn't take a weapon to create or maintain that.

I agree but it is not working real well without them either? as a matter of fact, it is a lot more dangerous when they are not allowed?

[GrassrootsConservative]

Agreed on the "Polite Society" theory. I wish I still had my Polite Society hat.
Chloe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Polite_Society


The Polite Society is an American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) organization that holds shooting events designed to test defensive skills with a handgun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handgun). This organization was formed primarily by Tom Givens of Memphis, Tennessee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memphis,_Tennessee) and Jim Higgenbotham of Kentucky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky), both of whom have military and law enforcement experience, and both actively train civilian, military, and police departments in various places around the United States.The society name and idea come from a quote by Robert A. Heinlein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Heinlein) who wrote: "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life".[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Polite_Society#cite_note-1)
After exploring various formats for about a year, the Polite Society was formed as a not-for-profit corporation and officially opened its doors for membership on February 21, 2003.

[iustitia]

Well it's not ok to hand out Bibles in school anymore, so the next best thing is a shotgun.

[roadmaster]

Well it's not ok to hand out Bibles in school anymore, so the next best thing is a shotgun. Values are never old fashion.

[iustitia]

Values are never old fashion.

A bible in one hand a gun in the other.

[countryboy]

A bible in one hand a gun in the other.
Blasphemy!!! Put the Bible down, and assume a two handed grip.

[bladimz]

But it's much smaller than 10%. Compare how many people in this nation legally have guns with how many deaths due to legally-owned guns.Number of deaths have absolutely nothing to do with it. Untrained gunowners might never even use a gun around other people. The fact that they haven't killed anyone doesn't mean they aren't poorly or even totally untrained in gun use and safety. Same for injuries. There's not even a category for near-misses, for the love of God. Imagine what that must be...

[zelmo1234]

Blasphemy!!! Put the Bible down, and assume a two handed grip.

That was funny as hell!

[bladimz]

I wonder how many voters could pass a citizenship test.Not that many i bet. Why?

[bladimz]

I agree with you 100%

I have no idea why were are not teaching this is schools and I would have no problem with those that want to take additional training getting a purchase card and for those that don't having to pass a competence exam!

We have offered the School board the opportunity to have a one week class for all of there students for free, but of course they don't want that? The biggest fear according to our Super is that the kids might think it fun and get involved with the shooting sports???? go figureI agree with you on the need for training. Unfortunately, school isn't exactly the right venue. Maybe an after-school program made available to students in a neutral setting.

[Cthulhu]

it is the exact same ruling as heller and the legislature should have known that.

actually the public is concerned about background checks, which is really what you seem to call "gun control". me? i don't want some loser who beat his wife or abused a child or is crazy to have a gun.

imagine that.

where you are correct is that NRA extremists DO vote on that one issue…. people who want background checks don't have guns as their obsession.

I don't want the same type of people writing my laws. Perhaps we should have background checks for public officials eh?

[jillian]

I don't want the same type of people writing my laws. Perhaps we should have background checks for public officials eh?

thanks for the insightful post.


that probably puts you with the extremists who are the only ones who don't want background checks.

[Cthulhu]

thanks for the insightful post.

You're welcome.



that probably puts you with the extremists who are the only ones who don't want background checks.

A peasant's retort. Begone, and go wash something while you're at it...

[jillian]

You're welcome.



A peasant's retort. Begone, and go wash something while you're at it...

pointing out reality, dear.

and if you actually understood the discussion, you'd know that the o/p who hasn't a clue what the court held said they somehow found "gun control" unconstitutional. that was false.

carry on, dear. and keep on praying to live in the wild west.

[Chris]

thanks for the insightful post.


that probably puts you with the extremists who are the only ones who don't want background checks.


pointing out reality, dear.

and if you actually understood the discussion, you'd know that the o/p who hasn't a clue what the court held said they somehow found "gun control" unconstitutional. that was false.

carry on, dear. and keep on praying to live in the wild west.

Reality? You mean your imaginary world. You can't argue with what he said so you misrepresent him as an imaginary straw man extremist. Then you get upset he calls you on your bs. What a hoot!

[Cthulhu]

pointing out reality, dear.

and if you actually understood the discussion, you'd know that the o/p who hasn't a clue what the court held said they somehow found "gun control" unconstitutional. that was false.

You'll note how I didn't dispute it. Egads. re-calibrate your crystal ball jillian.

Banning the sales isn't banning guns per se and thus not unconstitutional, but is an ass clownish method of backdooring the whole process. Retarded law struck down. +1 for the good guys.



carry on, dear. and keep on praying to live in the wild west.

Well, I do live in Idaho already, and could probably work on a ranch if I wanted to.

Anything else or do you have other things to clean?

[Ivan88]

OK, so we bullycrats can't outlaw personal defense equipment. But we can outlaw using them!
We can tax them! We can register them! We can ........... Don't forget we can use guns on the people any time we can dream up a plausible excuse. That's why we bought a couple billion rounds of ammo...........to use on the peasants.
5272[/ATTA[ATTACH]527352745275
....This is what cops think of the American People, and why they need a billion rounds of dum dum ammo.

[Ivan88]

No, a polite society is a polite society. It doesn't and shouldn't take a weapon to create or maintain that.
Since when is the USA a "polite society"?
We drop atom bombs and napalm on unarmed people and destroy whole cities.
We tell mountains of lies to justify our starving, poisoning, torturing, terrorizing and killing millions of people.
Is that the actions of a polite society?

[Polecat]

I can't help but see a dangerous parallel between current gun propaganda and the shit they shoveled at kids about drugs when I was in school. Could there be a correlation between elevated drug popularity and rampant gun violence? Ancient Alien theorists say YES!