Gun Control Laws And Opposition
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
I see the ignorant lefties like crabballs throw out that bogus claim all the time.
LightRoasted
If I may ...
For your consideration ...
The 22 year old man himself was the weapon of war, carrying a tool of the trade. In addition, to other tools, a weapon of war could carry, is a knife, or a bayonet.
Bare-ya-cuda
Well-Known Member
Sad to say but I believe this is what they would have rather had happen.
You know this really points out a similarity for the right and the left. they just don't know enough to shut up and leave an argument well enough alone. They always have to say something that makes them look stupid.
Rep. Jim Jordan’s warning: Dems coming after ‘2nd Amendment liberties in an unconstitutional way’
“Now, what do I mean? Well, the same week we got that new bodycam footage revealing Uvalde cops to be total incompetent cowards… in the same week a good guy with a gun saved untold lives in Indiana, House Judiciary Democrats are actually beginning a markup on a new assault weapons ban. An attempt to further erode our Second Amendment rights. Now, here now is a ranking member of the Judiciary, Congressman Jim Jordan,” Ingraham said opening up the segment of “The Ingraham Angle.”
“Congressman, Republicans… I feel like sometimes they’re kind of afraid of the gun issue sometimes because they feel like there’ll be another mass shooting and they’re gonna be on the spot. But this is pernicious what they’re doing given everything we’re seeing in the public right now,” she remarked.
Jordan has been on top of the Second Amendment attack by Democrats for a long time and he issued a stark warning to Americans.
“No kidding. And by the way Laura, great monologue. You think about it. Less money in your wallet, less gas in your car, and now less freedom and they’re coming directly after your Second Amendment liberties in an unconstitutional way,” Jordan pointed out.
Robert B. Reich lists all the states that don’t ban ‘assault weapons’ as proof of why we need a federal ban
As Twitchy reported earlier this week, the AP Stylebook actually got something right for a change. The AP advised reporters to avoid the term “assault weapon,” which is a politicized term that conveys “little meaning about the actual function of the weapon.” If you mean semi-automatic rifle, say semi-automatic rifle.
We don’t know how quickly reporters will start adhering to this guidance — Democratic politicians certainly won’t — and Robert B. Reich thinks that the puny number of states that ban “assault weapons” is proof of why we need a federal ban … all of those other states aren’t going to do it themselves.
The list actually says more than Reich intended:
Dem Rep. Jerrold Nadler’s total ignorance on guns doesn’t stop him from admitting he wants to forcibly take yours away [video]
Grammatically-impaired gun control activist and proud Harvard student David Hogg was escorted out of a House Judiciary Committee hearing on gun violence today. Was his outburst an insurrection? Well, since the word “insurrection” has lost some of its original meaning in the last year and a half, sure. Why not?
Truth be told, David Hogg is obnoxious and insufferable, but he’s ultimately pretty harmless. At least right now. He can’t really do any damage to our gun rights with his silly protests and Twitter threads. What has the potential to do real, actual, lasting harm is idiotic and/or authoritarian Democrats who want to set fire to the Second Amendment. We’re talking about people like Democratic Rep. Jerrold Nadler, who knows that he hates guns and knows very little else:
Now that’s interesting. “Ancient guns” were “far less lethal” than the guns we have now, like the scary and extra-super-lethal AR-15.
s we’ve seen, shootings in major cities have exploded since their Democrat mayors and district attorneys (DAs) decided to let criminals out of jail and keep them out with no-bail laws. Democrats could stop the carnage, which mostly affects black communities, but every shooting is another stat that leads them to their ultimate nirvana: taking away your guns.
Here’s how it works:
So the problem must be Indiana, right? Former President Barack Obama thought so. He spoke about it back in 2015.
It’s safe to assume “hop across the border” refers to Indiana, as it’s only a few miles from Chicago. If Indiana is to blame for Chicago’s violence, then Indianapolis should look like Berlin in 1945, right?
Here’s how it works:
- Democrats let criminals out of jail and keep them on the streets, knowing they will commit more crimes, many with guns
- Slaughter ensues
- Democrats use the gun death statistics to call for more and more gun laws
So the problem must be Indiana, right? Former President Barack Obama thought so. He spoke about it back in 2015.
It’s safe to assume “hop across the border” refers to Indiana, as it’s only a few miles from Chicago. If Indiana is to blame for Chicago’s violence, then Indianapolis should look like Berlin in 1945, right?
LightRoasted
If I may ...
For your consideration ...
"Dems coming after ‘2nd Amendment liberties in an unconstitutional way"? Liberties? Liberty means being able to exercise one's freedom, and rights, in a way they want while being responsible of their actions, while not being harassed by government. Rights are innate and protected, such as are enshrined in the Constitution. Jordan must be an idiot, or willingly using the wrong words to muddy the issue.
"Dems coming after ‘2nd Amendment liberties in an unconstitutional way"? Liberties? Liberty means being able to exercise one's freedom, and rights, in a way they want while being responsible of their actions, while not being harassed by government. Rights are innate and protected, such as are enshrined in the Constitution. Jordan must be an idiot, or willingly using the wrong words to muddy the issue.
Gun Owners Who Are Disqualified Under State Law Can Now Be Charged With 'Trafficking in Firearms'
It gets worse. Patricia Richman, national sentencing resource counsel at Federal Public & Community Defenders, notes that the "trafficking in firearms" provision applies to anyone who obtains a gun when he "knows or has reasonable cause to believe that such receipt would constitute a felony." It therefore covers prohibited persons as defined by state as well as federal law—a significant expansion, since state criteria for gun ownership are often stricter than federal criteria. That provision, Richman notes in an email, "pull in all state felony prohibitions on firearm possession."
Maryland, for example, prohibits handgun possession by people convicted of violent misdemeanors, such as simple assault, that are not disqualifying under federal law. Violating that rule is a felony that carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison. That means someone with a disqualifying misdemeanor record who obtains a handgun in Maryland could also be guilty of "trafficking in firearms" under the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, even if he was not a prohibited person under federal law. So in addition to Maryland's five-year mandatory minimum, he could face up to 15 years in federal prison.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that such serial prosecutions do not amount to double jeopardy under the Fifth Amendment, even when they involve state and federal crimes with the same elements. In the 2019 case Gamble v. United States, the Court rejected an appeal by a man with a felony record who had been convicted of illegal gun possession twice, once under state law and once under federal law.
The "trafficking in firearms" provision includes a knowledge requirement that could be helpful for some defendants. Last year, for example, the Maryland Court of Appeals considered the case of Mashour Howling, who was arrested in 2019 because he had a pistol and had been convicted of simple assault in Pennsylvania 17 years before. Howling argued that he should not have been convicted of illegal handgun possession because he did not realize he was a prohibited person. That argument, he noted, was consistent with the reasoning of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2019 decision in Rehaif v. United States, which held that prohibited persons can be convicted of illegal gun possession under federal law only if they recognized that they were not allowed to have firearms.
Last edited:
But here’s the crucial part of the Bruen ruling that has escaped notice. Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas emphasizes that the proper test of constitutionality—which the Supreme Court established in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)—“requires courts to assess whether modern firearms regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding.”
Simply put, first you need to see what the text of the Second Amendment does (and does not) mention, and then you must look at what firearm regulations were in place at the time of the American Founding. Justice Thomas gives an example: “[W]hen a challenged regulation addresses a general societal problem that has persisted since the 18th century, the lack of a distinctly similar historical regulation addressing that problem is relevant evidence that the challenged regulation is inconsistent with the Second Amendment.”
Gun-control proponents might say that mass killings don’t date back to the 18th century, but those activists are wrong.
The Founders knew all about mass killings which were part of the American experience dating back to the Jamestown colony. On March 22, 1622, Native tribes of the Powhatan Confederacy killed 347 English settlers—men, women, and children. Indian raids represented a serious threat for more than two centuries after the Jamestown Massacre. Two mass killings occurred in 1755 alone. In July, Shawnee Indians attacked Draper’s Meadow, a Virginia settlement. They killed at least five people, including an infant. Then, in October, the Lenape raided a settlement along Penn’s Creek in Pennsylvania, killing fourteen.
townhall.com
Simply put, first you need to see what the text of the Second Amendment does (and does not) mention, and then you must look at what firearm regulations were in place at the time of the American Founding. Justice Thomas gives an example: “[W]hen a challenged regulation addresses a general societal problem that has persisted since the 18th century, the lack of a distinctly similar historical regulation addressing that problem is relevant evidence that the challenged regulation is inconsistent with the Second Amendment.”
Gun-control proponents might say that mass killings don’t date back to the 18th century, but those activists are wrong.
The Founders knew all about mass killings which were part of the American experience dating back to the Jamestown colony. On March 22, 1622, Native tribes of the Powhatan Confederacy killed 347 English settlers—men, women, and children. Indian raids represented a serious threat for more than two centuries after the Jamestown Massacre. Two mass killings occurred in 1755 alone. In July, Shawnee Indians attacked Draper’s Meadow, a Virginia settlement. They killed at least five people, including an infant. Then, in October, the Lenape raided a settlement along Penn’s Creek in Pennsylvania, killing fourteen.