Pro Gun Control does not equal Anti Gun

[NWRatCon]

He is truthful, you merely denying fact is fairly worthless in terms of any sort of rebuttal

A claim without source or any verification is ... fantasy.

 

[CLAX1911]

You guys understand that supporting gun control policies does not mean people are against all guns, right?

The rhetoric nowadays borders on stupid.

I don't think supporting gun control is anti-gun. I think it's anti rights.

 

[TurtleDude]

A claim without source or any verification is ... fantasy.

which is exactly what you have done. Those of us who are on this part of the forum constantly, know what the facts are-we don't constantly need to repeat the same thing over and over

 

[Wayne Jr]

How long did the DC gun ban last? over 30 years I believe

How long did the machine gun ban last?

Game. Set. Match.

 

[Wayne Jr]

which is exactly what you have done.

You never source your claims.

 

[Wayne Jr]

Conveniently, of course, leaving out half of the Amendment... just sayin'

Heller deleted the first half of the amendment. Now we just have a right to own military firearms, as civilians, and for civilian purposes.

 

[apdst]

Letting a ban stand for a significant length of time makes it become constitutional. You have to knock these things down.

Mmmmm, no, it doesn't.

 

[TurtleDude]

How long did the machine gun ban last?

Game. Set. Match.

It has lasted since 1986 which is less time than the DC gun ban did. And it was never even properly passed.

 

[TurtleDude]

Heller deleted the first half of the amendment. Now we just have a right to own military firearms, as civilians, and for civilian purposes.

That's really stupid, the first half of the amendment had no bearing on the second.

 

[TurtleDude]

You never source your claims.

You never pay attention to any factual evidence but continue to make the same silly assertions nonetheless.

 

[jaeger19]

There are nuts on both extremes. And I have heard the argument to eliminate all gun laws on here more than once

that's a blatant lie.

I defy you to find a post where someone states a 6 year old should be able to go in an buy a glock.

 

[vegas giants]

that's a blatant lie.

I defy you to find a post where someone states a 6 year old should be able to go in an buy a glock.

I have heard several times that all gun laws should be eliminated. I even asked regarding children and was told it should be up to the parents. Even for a six year old

 

[Media_Truth]

Except, as past courts have done with most of the bill of rights, the Supreme Court ruled in McDonald v Chicago that the second amendment applies to the states via the 14th amendment. So the precedent is gone.

Have you seen their decision on the New York SAFE law? They refused to consider the case. And that was the current Libertarian SCOTUS, who by the way intervened in the McDonald decision. The only precedent that McDonald set with the Libertarian court was that a law that deprives total banning of guns in an area may be overridden. Banning of assault weapons, bump stocks, and other weapons of choice, along with mandatory gun registration, are still all OK to legislate.

 

[pinqy]

Have you seen their decision on the New York SAFE law? They refused to consider the case. And that was the current Libertarian SCOTUS, who by the way intervened in the McDonald decision. The only precedent that McDonald set with the Libertarian court was that a law that deprives total banning of guns in an area may be overridden. Banning of assault weapons, bump stocks, and other weapons of choice, along with mandatory gun registration, are still all OK to legislate.

My point was that the second amendment now applies to the states, limiting the ability of the states to restrict firearms. That the SCOTUS declines to hear a case does not necessarily mean they agree with the lower court, but only that they did not like that particular case to set precedent.

 

[Waddy]

Again with the fantasy posts...

Seriously, you're not aware of the California assault weapon ban? Do you live under a rock? Google it. Boy, will you feel stupid.

 

[Waddy]

That, my friend, is not an answer, nor is it reasonable. It is called "trolling" - making an outrageous claim without support, and then challenging someone else to "disprove" an unsupported claim.

Once again, you've never heard of the California assault weapon ban? Really? You been locked up in a convent all these years? Google it. Then we'll talk.

 

[Waddy]

You forgot to mention that the confiscation have been of those who are not legally allowed to possess a firearm. Those who legally purchased and registered their guns but then committed a crime or proved mentally unstable and were barred from possession of firearms.

So no one legally possessing a firearm had it confiscated (barring administrative mistakes).

Really?

“We are fortunate in California to have the first and only system in the nation that tracks and identifies individuals who at one time made legal purchases of firearms but are now barred from possessing them,” Leno said in a statement.

California Gun Confiscation Bill Passes, Approves $24 Million To Expedite Illegal Gun Seizure | HuffPost

That means you once legally purchased an assault weapon in California, but then California made them illegal. Now you are in possession of an illegal weapon and subject to confiscation. They know you have such a weapon because they had previously required you to register it with the state.

 

[bluesmoke]

Really?


California Gun Confiscation Bill Passes, Approves $24 Million To Expedite Illegal Gun Seizure | HuffPost

That means you once legally purchased an assault weapon in California, but then California made them illegal. Now you are in possession of an illegal weapon and subject to confiscation. They know you have such a weapon because they had previously required you to register it with the state.

"That means you once legally purchased an assault weapon in California, but then California made them illegal. Now you are in possession of an illegal weapon and subject to confiscation. They know you have such a weapon because they had previously required you to register it with the state."

What you say only applies to individuals who currently are prohibited from owning or possessing firearms, not "you" or everybody. If you comprehended the article in the link you posted, you'd know that. Did you know that?

BTW, the firearms in question can be taken only by entry, which would require a warrant or the resident would have to agree to entry knowing the reason for such.

 

[NWRatCon]

"That means you once legally purchased an assault weapon in California, but then California made them illegal. Now you are in possession of an illegal weapon and subject to confiscation. They know you have such a weapon because they had previously required you to register it with the state."

What you say only applies to individuals who currently are prohibited from owning or possessing firearms, not "you" or everybody. If you comprehended the article in the link you posted, you'd know that. Did you know that?

BTW, the firearms in question can be taken only by entry, which would require a warrant or the resident would have to agree to entry knowing the reason for such.

I really think people should read the articles rather than just the headlines. It would prevent headaches.

 

[Waddy]

"That means you once legally purchased an assault weapon in California, but then California made them illegal. Now you are in possession of an illegal weapon and subject to confiscation. They know you have such a weapon because they had previously required you to register it with the state."

What you say only applies to individuals who currently are prohibited from owning or possessing firearms, not "you" or everybody. If you comprehended the article in the link you posted, you'd know that. Did you know that?

BTW, the firearms in question can be taken only by entry, which would require a warrant or the resident would have to agree to entry knowing the reason for such.

Wrong. Assault weapons were made illegal.. No one is allowed to own them in California, except Hollywood and law enforcement.

 

[pinqy]

Really?


California Gun Confiscation Bill Passes, Approves $24 Million To Expedite Illegal Gun Seizure | HuffPost

That means you once legally purchased an assault weapon in California, but then California made them illegal. Now you are in possession of an illegal weapon and subject to confiscation. They know you have such a weapon because they had previously required you to register it with the state.

No that’s not at all what it means and it says nothing of the sort. “...But are now barred from possessing them...” refers to the individual no longer allowed to own a gun, not the guns being illegal.

 

[vegas giants]

Wrong. Assault weapons were made illegal.. No one is allowed to own them in California, except Hollywood and law enforcement.

You can own a ar 15 legally in California

 

[pinqy]

You can own a ar 15 legally in California

Only if you bought and registered it before 1991, 2000, or 2001, depending on the classification.
If you inherit one or own one before moving to California, you have 90 days to get permission from California DOJ to own it.

You certainly can’t buy one.

 

[vegas giants]

Only if you bought and registered it before 1991, 2000, or 2001, depending on the classification.
If you inherit one or own one before moving to California, you have 90 days to get permission from California DOJ to own it.

You certainly can’t buy one.

Sure you can. It cant have a pistol grip and can only hold ten rounds but you can buy a brand new one today

 

[pinqy]

Sure you can. It cant have a pistol grip and can only hold ten rounds but you can buy a brand new one today

Then it’s not an assault weapon.