Not one, but two armed citizens stopped the mass shooter in Oklahoma...

[Aba Incieni]

An armed society is a polite society......

We need to be armed to be polite? Shame on us. I Manage just fine without threats of violence...

Did you know this impolite guy shot a mother and daughter, out celebrating the young girl's birthday? They got along fine without threats of violence, too. Until they didn't.

Get your priorities in order.

That's good of him. So who's trying to take away his gun?

Did they use an assault rifle?

No....and none of the recent mass shooters did either.....a so called Assault rifle is a military weapon with a select fire switch....none of the recent shooters, including Vegas, Pulse, or Parkland had one of those....they used an AR-15 civilian rifle, not a military weapon.....

And I know you didn't answer the question....so please, put on your big boy pants and admit that you would have taken those guns away from those two men....

Well that's interesting. Because when most people you label "anti-gunners" talk about restricting certain types of guns, it's assault style weaponry - a very small category of weapons. So...I kind of wonder what effect that would have had on these fine upstanding gun owners when...that isn't even the weapon being used by them.

And you must think we were born yesterday. The mask was taken off at the CNN town hall, genius. And at the Rallies...where dimwits like you screamed to ban all semi automatic weapons....changing the call from assault weapons, to all semi auto weapons......like rifles, pistols and shotguns...you can't lie about your goals anymore.....your idiot allies told the truth for everyone to see.

You twits want the AR-15 semi automatic rifle because that gives you the ability to call for banning all other semi auto weapons, since they all operate the same way...one pull of the trigger, one bullet. And if you can ban the AR-15, you can ban all of them....disarming those two guys in the restaurant....

I suggest you don't blather on about what YOU think I think since you haven't a clue. In the meantime, this heroic man is not in danger of having his gun confiscated despite your massive hysteria and hand wringing.

The two good guys who had guns.

 

[Coyote]

Best thing we can hope for is we stop enabling weirdos that need guns. Law enforcement and most Americans want that...

And how do you do that?

Well first, you stop lying about what people want to do.

They stated this on CNN at the town hall....and they marched carrying signs that stated they want to ban all semi automatic weapons and repeal the 2nd Amendment.....and the left wing, SJW Justice stated we need to repeal the 2nd Amendment...

You used to be able to lie about your true intentions...but your allies gave up the game...

WHO is THEY?

ONE justice? That is it?

Are you normally this scared?

 

[2aguy]

An armed society is a polite society......

We need to be armed to be polite? Shame on us. I Manage just fine without threats of violence...

Did you know this impolite guy shot a mother and daughter, out celebrating the young girl's birthday? They got along fine without threats of violence, too. Until they didn't.

Get your priorities in order.

That's good of him. So who's trying to take away his gun?

No....and none of the recent mass shooters did either.....a so called Assault rifle is a military weapon with a select fire switch....none of the recent shooters, including Vegas, Pulse, or Parkland had one of those....they used an AR-15 civilian rifle, not a military weapon.....

And I know you didn't answer the question....so please, put on your big boy pants and admit that you would have taken those guns away from those two men....

Well that's interesting. Because when most people you label "anti-gunners" talk about restricting certain types of guns, it's assault style weaponry - a very small category of weapons. So...I kind of wonder what effect that would have had on these fine upstanding gun owners when...that isn't even the weapon being used by them.

And you must think we were born yesterday. The mask was taken off at the CNN town hall, genius. And at the Rallies...where dimwits like you screamed to ban all semi automatic weapons....changing the call from assault weapons, to all semi auto weapons......like rifles, pistols and shotguns...you can't lie about your goals anymore.....your idiot allies told the truth for everyone to see.

You twits want the AR-15 semi automatic rifle because that gives you the ability to call for banning all other semi auto weapons, since they all operate the same way...one pull of the trigger, one bullet. And if you can ban the AR-15, you can ban all of them....disarming those two guys in the restaurant....

I suggest you don't blather on about what YOU think I think since you haven't a clue. In the meantime, this heroic man is not in danger of having his gun confiscated despite your massive hysteria and hand wringing.

We are one Supreme Court justice away from that happening...

Total hysteria. It's a ridiculous idea when we've had liberal courts in the past who have NOT done just what you are blathering about. In the mean time you are pushing for looser and looser gun restrictions

the 4th, 8th, and 7th circuit courts of appeal have all ruled against the 2nd Amendment, completely ignoring the rulings in D.C. v Heller, Caetano v Massachusetts, Miller v. United states........you can't lie anymore..........

 

[Coyote]

We need to be armed to be polite? Shame on us. I Manage just fine without threats of violence...

Did you know this impolite guy shot a mother and daughter, out celebrating the young girl's birthday? They got along fine without threats of violence, too. Until they didn't.

Get your priorities in order.

That's good of him. So who's trying to take away his gun?

Well that's interesting. Because when most people you label "anti-gunners" talk about restricting certain types of guns, it's assault style weaponry - a very small category of weapons. So...I kind of wonder what effect that would have had on these fine upstanding gun owners when...that isn't even the weapon being used by them.

And you must think we were born yesterday. The mask was taken off at the CNN town hall, genius. And at the Rallies...where dimwits like you screamed to ban all semi automatic weapons....changing the call from assault weapons, to all semi auto weapons......like rifles, pistols and shotguns...you can't lie about your goals anymore.....your idiot allies told the truth for everyone to see.

You twits want the AR-15 semi automatic rifle because that gives you the ability to call for banning all other semi auto weapons, since they all operate the same way...one pull of the trigger, one bullet. And if you can ban the AR-15, you can ban all of them....disarming those two guys in the restaurant....

I suggest you don't blather on about what YOU think I think since you haven't a clue. In the meantime, this heroic man is not in danger of having his gun confiscated despite your massive hysteria and hand wringing.

We are one Supreme Court justice away from that happening...

Total hysteria. It's a ridiculous idea when we've had liberal courts in the past who have NOT done just what you are blathering about. In the mean time you are pushing for looser and looser gun restrictions

the 4th, 8th, and 7th circuit courts of appeal have all ruled against the 2nd Amendment, completely ignoring the rulings in D.C. v Heller, Caetano v Massachusetts, Miller v. United states........you can't lie anymore..........

In what manner?

 

[2aguy]

Best thing we can hope for is we stop enabling weirdos that need guns. Law enforcement and most Americans want that...

And how do you do that?

Well first, you stop lying about what people want to do.

They stated this on CNN at the town hall....and they marched carrying signs that stated they want to ban all semi automatic weapons and repeal the 2nd Amendment.....and the left wing, SJW Justice stated we need to repeal the 2nd Amendment...

You used to be able to lie about your true intentions...but your allies gave up the game...

WHO is THEY?

ONE justice? That is it?

Are you normally this scared?

No...he is just the one retired Justice who actually publicly stated what he wants...ginsburg, breyer, sotomayor, and kagan are all just itching to take out the 2nd Amendment......and then you have the lower courts that are filled with clinton and obama appointees....namely the 9th, 4th and 7th circuits.......who have already ignored Supreme Court Precedents...

 

[2aguy]

Did you know this impolite guy shot a mother and daughter, out celebrating the young girl's birthday? They got along fine without threats of violence, too. Until they didn't.

Get your priorities in order.

That's good of him. So who's trying to take away his gun?

And you must think we were born yesterday. The mask was taken off at the CNN town hall, genius. And at the Rallies...where dimwits like you screamed to ban all semi automatic weapons....changing the call from assault weapons, to all semi auto weapons......like rifles, pistols and shotguns...you can't lie about your goals anymore.....your idiot allies told the truth for everyone to see.

You twits want the AR-15 semi automatic rifle because that gives you the ability to call for banning all other semi auto weapons, since they all operate the same way...one pull of the trigger, one bullet. And if you can ban the AR-15, you can ban all of them....disarming those two guys in the restaurant....

I suggest you don't blather on about what YOU think I think since you haven't a clue. In the meantime, this heroic man is not in danger of having his gun confiscated despite your massive hysteria and hand wringing.

We are one Supreme Court justice away from that happening...

Total hysteria. It's a ridiculous idea when we've had liberal courts in the past who have NOT done just what you are blathering about. In the mean time you are pushing for looser and looser gun restrictions

the 4th, 8th, and 7th circuit courts of appeal have all ruled against the 2nd Amendment, completely ignoring the rulings in D.C. v Heller, Caetano v Massachusetts, Miller v. United states........you can't lie anymore..........

In what manner?

Assaut weapon bans....for one. They have ruled in the 4th and 7th that the AR-15 can be banned, in complete contradiction to the rulings from the Supreme Court that protect those weapons...

 

[2aguy]

Did you know this impolite guy shot a mother and daughter, out celebrating the young girl's birthday? They got along fine without threats of violence, too. Until they didn't.

Get your priorities in order.

That's good of him. So who's trying to take away his gun?

And you must think we were born yesterday. The mask was taken off at the CNN town hall, genius. And at the Rallies...where dimwits like you screamed to ban all semi automatic weapons....changing the call from assault weapons, to all semi auto weapons......like rifles, pistols and shotguns...you can't lie about your goals anymore.....your idiot allies told the truth for everyone to see.

You twits want the AR-15 semi automatic rifle because that gives you the ability to call for banning all other semi auto weapons, since they all operate the same way...one pull of the trigger, one bullet. And if you can ban the AR-15, you can ban all of them....disarming those two guys in the restaurant....

I suggest you don't blather on about what YOU think I think since you haven't a clue. In the meantime, this heroic man is not in danger of having his gun confiscated despite your massive hysteria and hand wringing.

We are one Supreme Court justice away from that happening...

Total hysteria. It's a ridiculous idea when we've had liberal courts in the past who have NOT done just what you are blathering about. In the mean time you are pushing for looser and looser gun restrictions

the 4th, 8th, and 7th circuit courts of appeal have all ruled against the 2nd Amendment, completely ignoring the rulings in D.C. v Heller, Caetano v Massachusetts, Miller v. United states........you can't lie anymore..........

In what manner?

This is the 4th circuit lying about and ignoring several Supreme Court rulings...

The Conspiracy To Dismember Heller

The consequences of the ruling cannot be overstated. In essence, the 4th Circuit has contrived a brand-new constitutional “test,” the practical effect of which is the removal of Second Amendment protection from any firearm that a judge happens not to like.

In Heller, the Supreme Court took three related positions:

First, that firearms “in common use” may not be banned;

second, that while “dangerous” arms may be regulated, only those that are “unusual” in addition are eligible for prohibition; and

third, that a government may not ban certain types of guns on the understanding that other types remain available.

In a follow-up case, Caetano v. Massachusetts, Justice Samuel Alito stated in his concurrence that “the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes.”


Disgracefully, the 4th Circuit ignored all these prescriptions—which it was duty-bound to follow—electing instead to devise its own rule: that if a weapon is “most useful in military service,” it enjoys no constitutional protection.

In so doing, the court thumbed its nose at its superiors and quietly rewrote the law for millions of Americans.

 

[Coyote]

That's good of him. So who's trying to take away his gun?
I suggest you don't blather on about what YOU think I think since you haven't a clue. In the meantime, this heroic man is not in danger of having his gun confiscated despite your massive hysteria and hand wringing.

We are one Supreme Court justice away from that happening...

Total hysteria. It's a ridiculous idea when we've had liberal courts in the past who have NOT done just what you are blathering about. In the mean time you are pushing for looser and looser gun restrictions

the 4th, 8th, and 7th circuit courts of appeal have all ruled against the 2nd Amendment, completely ignoring the rulings in D.C. v Heller, Caetano v Massachusetts, Miller v. United states........you can't lie anymore..........

In what manner?

Assaut weapon bans....for one. They have ruled in the 4th and 7th that the AR-15 can be banned, in complete contradiction to the rulings from the Supreme Court that protect those weapons...

That's not the same as banning all guns and the courts have always upheld that certain categories of weapons can be restricted without violating the 2nd Amendment. It is not an unlimited right, no matter how much you want it to be. If it is truly in "complete contradiction" to the Supreme Court - it won't stand. But it has thus far hasn't it?

 

[2aguy]

Did you know this impolite guy shot a mother and daughter, out celebrating the young girl's birthday? They got along fine without threats of violence, too. Until they didn't.

Get your priorities in order.

That's good of him. So who's trying to take away his gun?

And you must think we were born yesterday. The mask was taken off at the CNN town hall, genius. And at the Rallies...where dimwits like you screamed to ban all semi automatic weapons....changing the call from assault weapons, to all semi auto weapons......like rifles, pistols and shotguns...you can't lie about your goals anymore.....your idiot allies told the truth for everyone to see.

You twits want the AR-15 semi automatic rifle because that gives you the ability to call for banning all other semi auto weapons, since they all operate the same way...one pull of the trigger, one bullet. And if you can ban the AR-15, you can ban all of them....disarming those two guys in the restaurant....

I suggest you don't blather on about what YOU think I think since you haven't a clue. In the meantime, this heroic man is not in danger of having his gun confiscated despite your massive hysteria and hand wringing.

We are one Supreme Court justice away from that happening...

Total hysteria. It's a ridiculous idea when we've had liberal courts in the past who have NOT done just what you are blathering about. In the mean time you are pushing for looser and looser gun restrictions

the 4th, 8th, and 7th circuit courts of appeal have all ruled against the 2nd Amendment, completely ignoring the rulings in D.C. v Heller, Caetano v Massachusetts, Miller v. United states........you can't lie anymore..........

In what manner?

And the 7th circuit...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

II The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” We explained in Heller and McDonald that the Second Amendment “guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Heller, supra, at 592; see also McDonald, supra, at 767– 769. We excluded from protection only “those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 625. And we stressed that “[t]he very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government— the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” Id., at 634 (emphasis deleted). Instead of adhering to our reasoning in Heller, the Seventh Circuit limited Heller to its facts, and read Heller to forbid only total bans on handguns used for self-defense in the home. See 784 F. 3d, at 407, 412. All other questions about the Second Amendment, the Seventh Circuit concluded, should be defined by “the political process and scholarly debate.” Id., at 412. But Heller repudiates that approach. We explained in Heller that “since th[e] case represent[ed] this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarifthe entire field.” 554 U. S., at 635. We cautioned courts against leaving the rest of the field to the legislative process: “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.” Id., at 634–635. Based on its crabbed reading of Heller, the Seventh Circuit felt free to adopt a test for assessing firearm bans that eviscerates many of the protections recognized in Heller and McDonald. The court asked in the first instance whether the banned firearms “were common at the time of ratification” in 1791. 784 F. 3d, at 410. But we said in Heller 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.” 554 U. S., at 582.

The Seventh Circuit alternatively asked whether the banned firearms relate “to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” 784 F. 3d, at 410 (internal quotation marks omitted). The court concluded that state and local ordinances never run afoul of that objective, since “states, which are in charge of militias, should be allowed to decide when civilians can possess military-grade firearms.” Ibid. But that ignores Heller’s fundamental premise: The right to keep and bear arms is an independent, individual right. Its scope is defined not by what the militia needs, but by what private citizens commonly possess. 554 U. S., at 592, 627–629. Moreover, the Seventh Circuit endorsed the view of the militia that Heller rejected. We explained that “Congress retains plenary authority to organize the militia,” not States. Id., at 600 (emphasis added). Because the Second Amendment confers rights upon individual citizens—not state governments—it was doubly wrong for the Seventh Circuit to delegate to States and localities the power to decide which firearms people may possess.

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411. Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.


The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing. III

 

[2aguy]

We are one Supreme Court justice away from that happening...

Total hysteria. It's a ridiculous idea when we've had liberal courts in the past who have NOT done just what you are blathering about. In the mean time you are pushing for looser and looser gun restrictions

the 4th, 8th, and 7th circuit courts of appeal have all ruled against the 2nd Amendment, completely ignoring the rulings in D.C. v Heller, Caetano v Massachusetts, Miller v. United states........you can't lie anymore..........

In what manner?

Assaut weapon bans....for one. They have ruled in the 4th and 7th that the AR-15 can be banned, in complete contradiction to the rulings from the Supreme Court that protect those weapons...

That's not the same as banning all guns and the courts have always upheld that certain categories of weapons can be restricted without violating the 2nd Amendment. It is not an unlimited right, no matter how much you want it to be. If it is truly in "complete contradiction" to the Supreme Court - it won't stand. But it has thus far hasn't it?

Wrong......they ignored past Supreme Court rulings.....

It stands because there are 4 Justices, ginsburg, breyer, sotomayor, kagan ....who want to end the 2nd Amendment so the real Justices won't take the case to bitch slap these lower courts.....

All bearable arms are protected by the Heller decision......as stated by Scalia writing for the majority....

 

[Coyote]

That's good of him. So who's trying to take away his gun?
I suggest you don't blather on about what YOU think I think since you haven't a clue. In the meantime, this heroic man is not in danger of having his gun confiscated despite your massive hysteria and hand wringing.

We are one Supreme Court justice away from that happening...

Total hysteria. It's a ridiculous idea when we've had liberal courts in the past who have NOT done just what you are blathering about. In the mean time you are pushing for looser and looser gun restrictions

the 4th, 8th, and 7th circuit courts of appeal have all ruled against the 2nd Amendment, completely ignoring the rulings in D.C. v Heller, Caetano v Massachusetts, Miller v. United states........you can't lie anymore..........

In what manner?

This is the 4th circuit lying about and ignoring several Supreme Court rulings...

The Conspiracy To Dismember Heller

The consequences of the ruling cannot be overstated. In essence, the 4th Circuit has contrived a brand-new constitutional “test,” the practical effect of which is the removal of Second Amendment protection from any firearm that a judge happens not to like.

In Heller, the Supreme Court took three related positions:

First, that firearms “in common use” may not be banned;

second, that while “dangerous” arms may be regulated, only those that are “unusual” in addition are eligible for prohibition; and

third, that a government may not ban certain types of guns on the understanding that other types remain available.

In a follow-up case, Caetano v. Massachusetts, Justice Samuel Alito stated in his concurrence that “the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes.”


Disgracefully, the 4th Circuit ignored all these prescriptions—which it was duty-bound to follow—electing instead to devise its own rule: that if a weapon is “most useful in military service,” it enjoys no constitutional protection.

In so doing, the court thumbed its nose at its superiors and quietly rewrote the law for millions of Americans.

We'll see what happens in the courts then won't we?

Thus far gun nuts have been anti-every single reasonable law on guns - whether it's safe storage or back ground checks or allowing mentally ill people to have guns. It makes no sense.

 

[Coyote]

Total hysteria. It's a ridiculous idea when we've had liberal courts in the past who have NOT done just what you are blathering about. In the mean time you are pushing for looser and looser gun restrictions

the 4th, 8th, and 7th circuit courts of appeal have all ruled against the 2nd Amendment, completely ignoring the rulings in D.C. v Heller, Caetano v Massachusetts, Miller v. United states........you can't lie anymore..........

In what manner?

Assaut weapon bans....for one. They have ruled in the 4th and 7th that the AR-15 can be banned, in complete contradiction to the rulings from the Supreme Court that protect those weapons...

That's not the same as banning all guns and the courts have always upheld that certain categories of weapons can be restricted without violating the 2nd Amendment. It is not an unlimited right, no matter how much you want it to be. If it is truly in "complete contradiction" to the Supreme Court - it won't stand. But it has thus far hasn't it?

Wrong......they ignored past Supreme Court rulings.....

It stands because there are 4 Justices, ginsburg, breyer, sotomayor, kagan ....who want to end the 2nd Amendment so the real Justices won't take the case to bitch slap these lower courts.....

All bearable arms are protected by the Heller decision......as stated by Scalia writing for the majority....

Link that they wnat to end the 2nd Amendment?

 

[2aguy]

We are one Supreme Court justice away from that happening...

Total hysteria. It's a ridiculous idea when we've had liberal courts in the past who have NOT done just what you are blathering about. In the mean time you are pushing for looser and looser gun restrictions

the 4th, 8th, and 7th circuit courts of appeal have all ruled against the 2nd Amendment, completely ignoring the rulings in D.C. v Heller, Caetano v Massachusetts, Miller v. United states........you can't lie anymore..........

In what manner?

This is the 4th circuit lying about and ignoring several Supreme Court rulings...

The Conspiracy To Dismember Heller

The consequences of the ruling cannot be overstated. In essence, the 4th Circuit has contrived a brand-new constitutional “test,” the practical effect of which is the removal of Second Amendment protection from any firearm that a judge happens not to like.

In Heller, the Supreme Court took three related positions:

First, that firearms “in common use” may not be banned;

second, that while “dangerous” arms may be regulated, only those that are “unusual” in addition are eligible for prohibition; and

third, that a government may not ban certain types of guns on the understanding that other types remain available.

In a follow-up case, Caetano v. Massachusetts, Justice Samuel Alito stated in his concurrence that “the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes.”


Disgracefully, the 4th Circuit ignored all these prescriptions—which it was duty-bound to follow—electing instead to devise its own rule: that if a weapon is “most useful in military service,” it enjoys no constitutional protection.

In so doing, the court thumbed its nose at its superiors and quietly rewrote the law for millions of Americans.

We'll see what happens in the courts then won't we?

Thus far gun nuts have been anti-every single reasonable law on guns - whether it's safe storage or back ground checks or allowing mentally ill people to have guns. It makes no sense.

Everything you type is a lie....

Safe storage...turning people into felons if they fail to lock up their legal guns when they are in their own home...that is not reasonable or Constitutional...already ruled on in Heller.....

You fail to say what you really want, universal background checks....because you want universal gun registration and you can't get that without first pretending you want universal background checks...and they are not reasonable because they do nothing to stop criminals or mass shooters, and they give you gun registration.

As to the mentally ill? You mean people with insomnia......? Or all combat veterans who might have PTSD....both are categories you asshats tried to ban from owning and carrying guns....and if you have a problem, take it up with the ACLU.....and the other 23 national disability groups that saw your game and pushed against it...

Gun Control Laws Should Be Fair

But gun control laws, like any law, should be fair, effective and not based on prejudice or stereotype. This rule met none of those criteria.

In this era of “alternative facts,” we must urge politicians to create laws based on reliable evidence and solid data.

The thousands of Americans whose disability benefits are managed by someone else range from young people with depression and financial inexperience to older adults with Down syndrome needing help with a limited budget. But no data — none — show that these individuals have a propensity for violence in general or gun violence in particular.

To the contrary, studies show that people with mental disabilities are less likely to commit firearm crimes than to be the victimsof violence by others.

--------------------------
The ACLU and 23 national disability groups did not oppose this rule because we want more guns in our community. This is about more than guns.

Adding more innocent Americans to the National Instant Criminal Background database because of a mental disability is a disturbing trend — one that could be applied to voting, parenting or other rights dearer than gun ownership. We opposed it because it would do little to stem gun violence but do much to harm our civil rights.

 

[2aguy]

the 4th, 8th, and 7th circuit courts of appeal have all ruled against the 2nd Amendment, completely ignoring the rulings in D.C. v Heller, Caetano v Massachusetts, Miller v. United states........you can't lie anymore..........

In what manner?

Assaut weapon bans....for one. They have ruled in the 4th and 7th that the AR-15 can be banned, in complete contradiction to the rulings from the Supreme Court that protect those weapons...

That's not the same as banning all guns and the courts have always upheld that certain categories of weapons can be restricted without violating the 2nd Amendment. It is not an unlimited right, no matter how much you want it to be. If it is truly in "complete contradiction" to the Supreme Court - it won't stand. But it has thus far hasn't it?

Wrong......they ignored past Supreme Court rulings.....

It stands because there are 4 Justices, ginsburg, breyer, sotomayor, kagan ....who want to end the 2nd Amendment so the real Justices won't take the case to bitch slap these lower courts.....

All bearable arms are protected by the Heller decision......as stated by Scalia writing for the majority....

Link that they wnat to end the 2nd Amendment?

Here...ginsburg.....the left wing, anti American pretender....

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, No Fan of Donald Trump, Critiques Latest Term

The court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, establishing an individual right to own guns, may be another matter, she said.

“I thought Heller was “a very bad decision,” she said, adding that a chance to reconsider it could arise whenever the court considers a challenge to a gun control law.

 

[MaryL]

The shooter was done, and it was too late for anyone to stop the incident. Guns didn't stop anything Wow, now if say a well armed militia man would have stopped Klebold and Harris from shooting up Columbine, we would be talking here...

 

[Aba Incieni]

The shooter was done, and it was too late for anyone to stop the incident. Guns didn't stop anything Wow, now if say a well armed militia man would have stopped Klebold and Harris from shooting up Columbine, we would be talking here...

If these two guys had been there, we wouldn't know about Columbine.

 

[Coyote]

In what manner?

Assaut weapon bans....for one. They have ruled in the 4th and 7th that the AR-15 can be banned, in complete contradiction to the rulings from the Supreme Court that protect those weapons...

That's not the same as banning all guns and the courts have always upheld that certain categories of weapons can be restricted without violating the 2nd Amendment. It is not an unlimited right, no matter how much you want it to be. If it is truly in "complete contradiction" to the Supreme Court - it won't stand. But it has thus far hasn't it?

Wrong......they ignored past Supreme Court rulings.....

It stands because there are 4 Justices, ginsburg, breyer, sotomayor, kagan ....who want to end the 2nd Amendment so the real Justices won't take the case to bitch slap these lower courts.....

All bearable arms are protected by the Heller decision......as stated by Scalia writing for the majority....

Link that they wnat to end the 2nd Amendment?

Here...ginsburg.....the left wing, anti American pretender....

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, No Fan of Donald Trump, Critiques Latest Term

The court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, establishing an individual right to own guns, may be another matter, she said.

“I thought Heller was “a very bad decision,” she said, adding that a chance to reconsider it could arise whenever the court considers a challenge to a gun control law.

I read the article. Neither it nor her critique of the Heller decision are in any way indicative of your claim she wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment.

If you have nothing else then your claim is hyberbolic and ridiculous!

 

[2aguy]

The shooter was done, and it was too late for anyone to stop the incident. Guns didn't stop anything Wow, now if say a well armed militia man would have stopped Klebold and Harris from shooting up Columbine, we would be talking here...

You didn't read the updates.......they shot at the guy at the beginning of the attack, killing him...saving lives....

 

[2aguy]

Assaut weapon bans....for one. They have ruled in the 4th and 7th that the AR-15 can be banned, in complete contradiction to the rulings from the Supreme Court that protect those weapons...

That's not the same as banning all guns and the courts have always upheld that certain categories of weapons can be restricted without violating the 2nd Amendment. It is not an unlimited right, no matter how much you want it to be. If it is truly in "complete contradiction" to the Supreme Court - it won't stand. But it has thus far hasn't it?

Wrong......they ignored past Supreme Court rulings.....

It stands because there are 4 Justices, ginsburg, breyer, sotomayor, kagan ....who want to end the 2nd Amendment so the real Justices won't take the case to bitch slap these lower courts.....

All bearable arms are protected by the Heller decision......as stated by Scalia writing for the majority....

Link that they wnat to end the 2nd Amendment?

Here...ginsburg.....the left wing, anti American pretender....

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, No Fan of Donald Trump, Critiques Latest Term

The court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, establishing an individual right to own guns, may be another matter, she said.

“I thought Heller was “a very bad decision,” she said, adding that a chance to reconsider it could arise whenever the court considers a challenge to a gun control law.

I read the article. Neither it nor her critique of the Heller decision are in any way indicative of your claim she wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment.

If you have nothing else then your claim is hyberbolic and ridiculous!

Liar. You know exactly what she wants...you can't hide it anymore.....your high school buddies screamed it at the CNN Townhall and carried the signs at the rallies...

 

[2aguy]

And here we have more details......those people had to suffer being shot because the attacker picked another gun free zone...the two law abiding gun owners had to run out to their cars to get their guns...instead of simply drawing their guns and ending the shooting when it started.....

Democrat, gun free zones are getting people killed..

Active Shooter Taken Out By These TWO Armed Citizen Heroes - Blue Lives Matter

As the attack unfolded, Juan Carlos Nazario, 35, and Bryan Wittle, 39, rushed out of the restaurant to retrieve guns from their vehicles.

The men then opened fire on Tilghman, who was killed in the exchange.

Blue Lives Matter has confirmed that Louie's has a sign on their door prohibiting firearms.