Bernie Sanders uses New Zealand shooting to call for assault weapon ban

[Brain357]

Bernie Sanders Uses New Zealand Shooting to Call for ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban - Big League Politics

The socialist is indicating that he would be an enemy of the Bill of Rights if he obtains the presidency.




Never let a good crisis go to waste isn't that right Demotwats

take the speech
take the guns
take the colors we wear

fk you leftist pos hitler mother fkrs you pricks are pathetic.

How would banning assault rifles infringe upon your right to bear arms? Could you still bear a shotgun, a revolver, a bolt action rifle? These are arms too.

Are you permitted to bear any kind of weapon? Grenade launchers, mortars, nuclear warheads?

Here....Supreme Court Justice Scalia explains this to you.....

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

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.

Your right to bear any damn weapon you choose does not exist.

You may bear bolt action rifles, single action pistols, pump action shot guns.

But not fully automatic rifles without special permits and left licenses..
why? Public safety.

Hence why machine guns are heavily regulated.

unconstitutionally

The supreme court disagrees with you.

 

[Defiant1]

How would banning assault rifles infringe upon your right to bear arms? Could you still bear a shotgun, a revolver, a bolt action rifle? These are arms too.

Are you permitted to bear any kind of weapon? Grenade launchers, mortars, nuclear warheads?

Here....Supreme Court Justice Scalia explains this to you.....

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

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.

Your right to bear any damn weapon you choose does not exist.

You may bear bolt action rifles, single action pistols, pump action shot guns.

But not fully automatic rifles without special permits and left licenses..
why? Public safety.

Hence why machine guns are heavily regulated.

unconstitutionally

The supreme court disagrees with you.

Screw the supreme court.
After the war we will make it right.

 

[2aguy]

Bernie Sanders Uses New Zealand Shooting to Call for ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban - Big League Politics

The socialist is indicating that he would be an enemy of the Bill of Rights if he obtains the presidency.




Never let a good crisis go to waste isn't that right Demotwats

take the speech
take the guns
take the colors we wear

fk you leftist pos hitler mother fkrs you pricks are pathetic.

How would banning assault rifles infringe upon your right to bear arms? Could you still bear a shotgun, a revolver, a bolt action rifle? These are arms too.

Are you permitted to bear any kind of weapon? Grenade launchers, mortars, nuclear warheads?

Here....Supreme Court Justice Scalia explains this to you.....

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

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.

Your right to bear any damn weapon you choose does not exist.

You may bear bolt action rifles, single action pistols, pump action shot guns.

But not fully automatic rifles without special permits and left licenses..
why? Public safety.

Here...again.....you need to read this again, slowly, sounding out the words.....

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

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.

But when they decide to kill, 50+ people are killed really quickly. Like machine guns and bombs, these weapons of mass killing should be heavily regulated for obvious reasons.

Rental Trucks are deadlier than guns.....58 killed in Vegas with a rifle, firing into a crowd of over 22,000 people tightly packed at a concert....muslim terrorist killed 86 driving a rental van in 5 minutes....

 

[Nosmo King]

How would banning assault rifles infringe upon your right to bear arms? Could you still bear a shotgun, a revolver, a bolt action rifle? These are arms too.

Are you permitted to bear any kind of weapon? Grenade launchers, mortars, nuclear warheads?

Here....Supreme Court Justice Scalia explains this to you.....

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

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.

Your right to bear any damn weapon you choose does not exist.

You may bear bolt action rifles, single action pistols, pump action shot guns.

But not fully automatic rifles without special permits and left licenses..
why? Public safety.

Here...again.....you need to read this again, slowly, sounding out the words.....

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

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.

But when they decide to kill, 50+ people are killed really quickly. Like machine guns and bombs, these weapons of mass killing should be heavily regulated for obvious reasons.

Rental Trucks are deadlier than guns.....58 killed in Vegas with a rifle, firing into a crowd of over 22,000 people tightly packed at a concert....muslim terrorist killed 86 driving a rental van in 5 minutes....

Sell specious logic someplace else

 

[Nosmo King]

Here....Supreme Court Justice Scalia explains this to you.....

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

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.

Your right to bear any damn weapon you choose does not exist.

You may bear bolt action rifles, single action pistols, pump action shot guns.

But not fully automatic rifles without special permits and left licenses..
why? Public safety.

Hence why machine guns are heavily regulated.

unconstitutionally

The supreme court disagrees with you.

Screw the supreme court.
After the war we will make it right.

What war?

 

[elongobardi]

The amount of these large scale shootings throughout the world is minor. The knee jerk reaction is to ban assault rifles but that doesn’t stop the problem. Look at these shootings and how many of these people bought the guns legally. They get them on the streets. How well just ask Fed Ex how several thousand guns were stolen from there facility or ask the ATF how a few thousand were stolen from there warehouse that were supposed to be destroyed. Both thefts were done to secure facilities. These guns are in locked areas. No one complains about that. How come the news isn’t hammering them. Fed Ex wasn’t hammered like they should have been and the ATF didn’t even know the guns were gone until they were notified that one of the guns set for destruction was recovered. So crazy old Bernie can go take his ban and stick it where the sun don’t shine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk