They will cry like little bitches when they apply the same logic to the first.

Have fun hollering from a stump douchebags.

 

They will cry like little bitches when they apply the same logic to the first.

Have fun hollering from a stump douchebags.

Straight on.

 

Kalifornicate strikes again--what do we expect from states that send the likes of Pelosi to congress.

 

Where is the San Andrea fault when you really need it?

 

2a may not specifically address semi-auto's, but it also doesn't exclude them the way I look at it.

 

Just hope and pray this makes it to SCOTUS BEFORE the next judge keels over and Barry gets to tilt the scales.

 

Yeah and the first doesn't apply to the Internet, telephones or TV and the 4th doesn't apply to smartphones and email accounts. How are these people judges.

 

^ your starting to see the light,,,your 100% right Mux

 

I don't know what light I wasn't seeing. I've always been a full supporter of the Bill of Rights without asinine restrictions.

 

They will cry like little bitches when they apply the same logic to the first.

Have fun hollering from a stump douchebags.

The 1a is archaic. It doesn't apply to the internet or TV.

 

Ideals have no expiration date, nor does technology influence them.

 

Terrifying. As noted, we are one liberal SCOTUS appointment from this happening on a national level.

No doubt the CA legislature will be proposing new laws in light of this decision.

 

1 straw at a time until the camel breaks

 

Yeah and the first doesn't apply to the Internet, telephones or TV and the 4th doesn't apply to smartphones and email accounts. How are these people judges.

Holy...! Are you turning a new leaf? I'm shocked to see such a statement next to your name. Agreed 100%.

 

I'm not sure why you guys think I'm so repressive with civil rights. If anything I err on the side of more civil rights than less.

 

I've never understood, and in fact, I don't want to understand, is how people can live in such a fantasy land to actually believe that legislation like this will have any positive outcome.

Never, not once, in the history of crime has someone said "well, I would have done more but I couldn't get a semi-automatic because the law said so."

 

I'm not sure why you guys think I'm so repressive with civil rights. If anything I err on the side of more civil rights than less.

Except if they're blind. ;joint

 

You can look at post #6. I posted that looking for conversation on the topic.

 

It's about power and control, don't forget that!

 

It's about power and control, don't forget that!

I find it ironic that this is usually how rape is categorized...

 

I guess they will have to outsource the porn industry now that it's not a 1A issue anymore. ;bd

 

Agree with a lot already said, but am also confused. In Heller keeping common use handguns was ruled as covered under the 2A (which would obviously in this day and age include semi-autos). For a lower court to then say semi-autos are not covered seems to conflict with that.

ETA: I'll have to read and try to understand the ruling, but I suspect a fair amount of legal/mental gymnastics for them to arrive at their decision.

 

They will cry like little bitches when they apply the same logic to the first.

Why would they do that? Liberalism is full of contradictions; one more isn't going to bother them.

 

concerned with the unusual and dangerous nature of these weapons. An assault weapon'has such a high rate of fire and capacity for firepower that its function as a legitimatesports or recreational firearm is substantially outweighed by the danger that it can be usedto kill and injure human beings.' ([Pen. Code,] § 12275.5, subd. (a).) . . . These are notthe types of weapons that are typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes such as sport hunting or self-defense; rather, these are weapons of war."

I GUESS I'M AN ATYPICAL LAW BIDING CITIZEN.

 

concerned with the unusual and dangerous nature of these weapons. An assault weapon'has such a high rate of fire and capacity for firepower that its function as a legitimatesports or recreational firearm is substantially outweighed by the danger that it can be usedto kill and injure human beings.' ([Pen. Code,] § 12275.5, subd. (a).) . . . These are notthe types of weapons that are typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes such as sport hunting or self-defense; rather, these are weapons of war."

I GUESS I'M AN ATYPICAL LAW BIDING CITIZEN.

Curious how many AR15s and AK types are owned in the US now privately. I suspect it isn't a small number which seems to invalidate the bold section in my opinion. It seems to suggest they're not possessed by law-abiding citizens. Given the incidents with them while headline catching are small in percentage numbers/statistics suggest otherwise. Or I guess they could be taking the anti-gunner stance that all ______ owners are criminals just biding their time...