Colorado judge strikes down AR-15 ban, and over 10 round magazine ban....good.

[Ray From Cleveland]

Vilify the gun? What are you getting at, do you think guns will develop an inferiority complex or something?

I was clear; you make the gun evil in the eyes of those who don't know better. If the gun yields longer sentences then the gun must be more evil than the knife.

The whole idea of a gun crime is flawed. Oh, sure, brandishing is a crime that is a gun crime - the gun is the crime. But murder with a gun is murder. The dead is no more dead than the knife crime or the anti-freeze crime. How silly would that be if the FBI published specs on anti-freeze crime? Murder is murder. It's the person who commits the murder, not the weapon. Rape is rape. The weapon used to force compliance makes no difference.

Additionally, the gun is not necessarily more dangerous in a close-quarter struggle than the knife. I don't ever want to be in the position of struggling for a knife or a gun but I can possibly deflect a gun. In fact, in many circumstances, you'd be surprised just how easy it is to take your handgun away from you. Grabbing your edged weapon by the blade is a whole different story.

Unless a gun is more evil than a knife then there's no justification for an extra penalty for the gun.

There we can disagree. I studied martial arts to black belt. I learned how to disarm somebody with a knife. I learned how to disarm somebody with a club, but there is no way do disarm somebody with a gun unless he doesn't see you and you sneak up behind him.

My teacher did teach me one move with a gun, but it was stupid. He put a fake gun against my belly (which never happens in real life) and you simultaneously back handed the gun away while moving your body to the left in a side stance. By his own admission, the move was stupid because nobody with a gun is going to get within reaching distance of their victim, plus you're likely to get shot anyway. Off the record he said your best defense against somebody with a gun is give them everything they want. However in CCW class, I learned that statistically, most shootings by CCW holders were within 6 feet of the criminal.

If somebody gets into a car accident, that person is responsible. They may get a ticket and have to get their insurance company to pay for the damage. If that person gets into an accident because they were drinking alcohol, they get arrested and taken to jail. In doing that the officer is not stigmatizing the alcohol, he's stigmatizing the person who used alcohol illegally and irresponsibly.

 

[freyasman]

Vilify the gun? What are you getting at, do you think guns will develop an inferiority complex or something?

I was clear; you make the gun evil in the eyes of those who don't know better. If the gun yields longer sentences then the gun must be more evil than the knife.

The whole idea of a gun crime is flawed. Oh, sure, brandishing is a crime that is a gun crime - the gun is the crime. But murder with a gun is murder. The dead is no more dead than the knife crime or the anti-freeze crime. How silly would that be if the FBI published specs on anti-freeze crime? Murder is murder. It's the person who commits the murder, not the weapon. Rape is rape. The weapon used to force compliance makes no difference.

Additionally, the gun is not necessarily more dangerous in a close-quarter struggle than the knife. I don't ever want to be in the position of struggling for a knife or a gun but I can possibly deflect a gun. In fact, in many circumstances, you'd be surprised just how easy it is to take your handgun away from you. Grabbing your edged weapon by the blade is a whole different story.

Unless a gun is more evil than a knife then there's no justification for an extra penalty for the gun.

There we can disagree. I studied martial arts to black belt. I learned how to disarm somebody with a knife. I learned how to disarm somebody with a club, but there is no way do disarm somebody with a gun unless he doesn't see you and you sneak up behind him.

My teacher did teach me one move with a gun, but it was stupid. He put a fake gun against my belly (which never happens in real life) and you simultaneously back handed the gun away while moving your body to the left in a side stance. By his own admission, the move was stupid because nobody with a gun is going to get within reaching distance of their victim, plus you're likely to get shot anyway. Off the record he said your best defense against somebody with a gun is give them everything they want. However in CCW class, I learned that statistically, most shootings by CCW holders were within 6 feet of the criminal.

If somebody gets into a car accident, that person is responsible. They may get a ticket and have to get their insurance company to pay for the damage. If that person gets into an accident because they were drinking alcohol, they get arrested and taken to jail. In doing that the officer is not stigmatizing the alcohol, he's stigmatizing the person who used alcohol illegally and irresponsibly.

You ever try to take a knife away from someone in the real?

 

[woodwork201]

If you didn't say it, you certainly implied it. Why else would you expect rapes to go down if criminals can't get guns. Where's the benefit of criminals not legally having guns if it doesn't lead to less crime?

The benefit of it is if they do commit a crime with a gun, it's added years to their sentence and we can put them away for much longer. Even for minor offenses like stealing. If a cop chases a guy down who stole something and he has a gun on him as well, he'll get much more time in prison than he would have gotten for whatever he stole even though he didn't use the gun for the theft.

Then what you're really advocating is a lesser sentence for using a knife in a rape instead of a gun in a rape. If the rapist is currently getting 12 years, and you think they need 22 years (adding the rape with the gun possession) then give the rapist 22 years - even if the rape was with a knife.

The thing you're proposing makes 89% less protected than the 11% that use a weapon. It makes 94% of raped women less protected than the 6% that were raped by a man with a gun. Let's protect them all. Let's punish all rapists.

I am totally lost on how you cannot see that. I truly believe it's emotion and compassion that makes some gun-rights advocates want to do something to help but if you consider it logically, using arguments you, yourself, have made, you must see the fallacy in your argument.

Help all women, not just 6%.

 

[Winston]

And that has been upheld in various courts.

It's unconstitutional. But who cares about the constitution, right? Individual rights don't serve the interests of the party and the party comes first, right?

That is just stupid. The law was overturned based on the state's preemption law. It didn't have a damn thing to do with the Constitution. I mean did you miss this part,

"The Court has determined that only Colorado state (or federal) law can prohibit the possession, sale, and transfer of assault weapons and large capacity magazines," Hartman wrote in the ruling.

I mean this is absolutely comical. Townhall makes a big rah rah, spouts off about constitutional rights and the second amendment and right there, from the Judge himself, let me quote it again,

only Colorado state (or federal) law can prohibit the possession, sale, and transfer of assault weapons and large capacity magazines,"

Obviously, this judge believes that state and federal governments can prohibit both assault weapons and large capacity magazines. Hell, I will go further, local governments could as well as long as there is not a preemption law in effect in that state.

I mean I swear, your righties are just totally ignorant. You have no critical reading skills, are as gullible as a toddler, and the really sad part, outlets like Townhall absolutely feast on that ignorance. I mean I will agree with one thing, this nation is going to hell in a handbasket, but it doesn't have a damn thing to do with Biden, or the left. It is because of the rampant flippin ignorance of you morons on the right.

 

[woodwork201]

Vilify the gun? What are you getting at, do you think guns will develop an inferiority complex or something?

I was clear; you make the gun evil in the eyes of those who don't know better. If the gun yields longer sentences then the gun must be more evil than the knife.

The whole idea of a gun crime is flawed. Oh, sure, brandishing is a crime that is a gun crime - the gun is the crime. But murder with a gun is murder. The dead is no more dead than the knife crime or the anti-freeze crime. How silly would that be if the FBI published specs on anti-freeze crime? Murder is murder. It's the person who commits the murder, not the weapon. Rape is rape. The weapon used to force compliance makes no difference.

Additionally, the gun is not necessarily more dangerous in a close-quarter struggle than the knife. I don't ever want to be in the position of struggling for a knife or a gun but I can possibly deflect a gun. In fact, in many circumstances, you'd be surprised just how easy it is to take your handgun away from you. Grabbing your edged weapon by the blade is a whole different story.

Unless a gun is more evil than a knife then there's no justification for an extra penalty for the gun.

There we can disagree. I studied martial arts to black belt. I learned how to disarm somebody with a knife. I learned how to disarm somebody with a club, but there is no way do disarm somebody with a gun unless he doesn't see you and you sneak up behind him.

My teacher did teach me one move with a gun, but it was stupid. He put a fake gun against my belly (which never happens in real life) and you simultaneously back handed the gun away while moving your body to the left in a side stance. By his own admission, the move was stupid because nobody with a gun is going to get within reaching distance of their victim, plus you're likely to get shot anyway. Off the record he said your best defense against somebody with a gun is give them everything they want. However in CCW class, I learned that statistically, most shootings by CCW holders were within 6 feet of the criminal.

If somebody gets into a car accident, that person is responsible. They may get a ticket and have to get their insurance company to pay for the damage. If that person gets into an accident because they were drinking alcohol, they get arrested and taken to jail. In doing that the officer is not stigmatizing the alcohol, he's stigmatizing the person who used alcohol illegally and irresponsibly.

I don't have a black belt but I've studied martial arts for several years and I had different experience and training. Taking a knife away is a far more dangerous, but not impossible, task in many situations. I won't say I can always take a gun away and I won't say the knife can never be taken away. But I'd much rather grab your gun than to grab your knife. It actually takes more surprise to get the knife than the gun.

In order to take a knife I have to get to pressure points to force the release or I have to grab the blade. To take the gun, I have simply to move it just a couple inches to point it away from me and then use the attacker's own weakness and movement to take the gun. To take the knife I have to risk getting sliced while trying to grab the knife or getting past the knife to grab a wrist or forearm to get to pressure points.

There are also techniques to use the attacker's own momentum, turning his knife against him even while he holds it. That only works in a limited set of attacks.

All that said, it sounds like you're in the same boat as me: neither of us have had to do it in real life against real attackers and I hope neither of us do.

Still, whether the gun or the knife is safer for the woman being raped to fight back against is not a legitimate argument for gun control. Do you want to give the maximum penalty to 6% of rapists or to 100% of rapists. The gun is a red herring; nothing more than a distraction. Get it out of the rape argument and start fighting for long sentences in terrible conditions for rapists and murderers.

 

[woodwork201]

My teacher did teach me one move with a gun, but it was stupid. He put a fake gun against my belly (which never happens in real life) and you simultaneously back handed the gun away while moving your body to the left in a side stance. By his own admission, the move was stupid because nobody with a gun is going to get within reaching distance of their victim, plus you're likely to get shot anyway.

Please explain to me how a rapist with a gun is going to commit a rape without getting within reaching distance of their victim... That's a man I need to meet.

 

[Winston]

Hey...Daryl hunt........you were saying about the colorado AR-15 ban?

Now, a Colorado judge has tossed the AR-15 ban in the trash bin, along with the provision prohibiting ownership of magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. That’s the backdoor gun ban right there. It’s not just about the rifle. It’s about curbing constitutional gun rights by these magazine laws.

A host of firearms that aren’t AR-15 rifles have magazines with more than 10 rounds. This law would effectively ban them too.


We all see what you’re doing here, liberal America (via Free Beacon):

A judge struck down Boulder, Colorado's ban on the possession of AR-15s and magazines holding more than 10 rounds on Monday.
Colorado state judge Andrew Hartman ruled the city's gun ban violated the state's preemption law, which prevents localities from imposing gun regulations above and beyond state law. Judge Hartman's ruling declares the ordinance invalid and immediately bars the city from enforcing the ban.
"The Court has determined that only Colorado state (or federal) law can prohibit the possession, sale, and transfer of assault weapons and large capacity magazines," Hartman wrote in the ruling.
The ruling is the latest in a string of victories for gun advocates who have used state preemption laws to overturn strict local gun regulations. A Washington court struck down a local ordinance on gun storage in February 2021, and a Pennsylvania court struck down Pittsburgh's attempt to regulate the use of AR-15s inside city limits in October 2019.
Jon Caldara, a longtime Boulder resident who openly flouted the AR-15 ban, said he was "thrilled" by the ruling. The former Denver Post columnist and Independence Institute president publicly announced he would not comply with the order to turn over his AR-15 or ammunition magazines when the ban was instituted in 2019. He filed a separate federal suit against the ordinance and said his family has received backlash from supporters ever since.
"I was probably the most publicly known criminal in Boulder," he told the Washington Free Beacon. "That made us social outcasts. And it was really bad. My daughter got bullied at school for our position."

Colorado Judge Takes a Katana to Boulder's AR-15 Ban

We touched on this back in 2018. Boulder, Colorado was pushing to ban owning AR-15 rifles. They’re c

townhall.com

I agree with the ruling since that was already established by the 9th Circuit Federal Court. But the State Law reads 15 as being the max. And that has been upheld in various courts.

It's still an infringement.

Well, that Vietnam Era M-2 still takes a special license and I doubt if I will see too many CJ-5s sporting the M-2 will be cruising the streets. Of course, it just might make the argument solution when you want to make sure that open parking spot. Unless both parties bring their Armed CJ-5.

No, it doesn't. If it's a transferable anyone who can legally own firearms can own the M2. They just have to pay a 200 tax.

And pass a background check. And prove that you have the storage and security for it. And purchase an EFA license. Anyone that is able to pass a simple Background Check to buy a 9mm pistol can probably pass that EFA background check. And running around the street with it mounted on your CJ-5 would definitely be in violation of not only federal but state laws.

There is no license dumbass. Transferable NFA weapons need no special license. I OWN machineguns. The tax pays for the background check. The time used to be a day. Then, when obummer came in the waits for transfers jumped to 6 months. No reason, just bureaucrats acting like petty assholes.

As far as running around the street with it, they are worth more than the stupid jeep. People who own those types of weapons aren't as stupid as you seem to be.

Your buyer will still have to have either a valid EFL or NFL license for automatic weapons and some forms of shotguns.

No, they don't. Only dealers need to have a Class III license. Don't discuss things you have no clue about with people, who do.

I have a very good knowledge of the Federal Licensing since I once had one. So stop lying to everyone. You get caught selling a fully auto weapon to anyone with a Federal License and they have a 3 squares and a cot waiting for you.

I knew he was full of shit.

 

[JoeB131]

So that's the only law you want passed?

Since when?

Here's my list of laws.

1) End the gun show loophole
2) End private sales loopholes
3) Hold gun manufacturers civilly responsible for gun violence.

That's all you need to do, really. Watch how fast the gun industry cleans up it's act after that.

 

[Winston]

I've got a lot of feedback, but no explanation of why anyone needs high-powered weaponry.

To kill more efficiently, dumbass.

Wow, you're a ******* idiot.

With a .223 caliber? You are delusional. AR-15's chambered in .223, or even .22 are for suckers and fools. The whole reason there is such an uproar to protect them is because they are the most profitable guns made.

 

[Muhammed]

I've got a lot of feedback, but no explanation of why anyone needs high-powered weaponry.

To kill more efficiently, dumbass.

Wow, you're a ******* idiot.

With a .223 caliber? You are delusional. AR-15's chambered in .223, or even .22 are for suckers and fools. The whole reason there is such an uproar to protect them is because they are the most profitable guns made.

And in your delusional mind, NERF guns are deadlier than AR-15s.

You're an idiot.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Please explain to me how a rapist with a gun is going to commit a rape without getting within reaching distance of their victim... That's a man I need to meet.

He's not going to do her with the gun in his hand. He's only going to get her compliance until he no longer needs a gun. He jumps in her car in a dark parking garage, has her drive over to a secluded area, and then he manhandles the situation from there. If she has a gun and notices him following her to her car, she can be prepared to draw in a fraction of a second if he gets too close.

 

[freyasman]

So that's the only law you want passed?

Since when?

Here's my list of laws.

1) End the gun show loophole
2) End private sales loopholes
3) Hold gun manufacturers civilly responsible for gun violence.

That's all you need to do, really. Watch how fast the gun industry cleans up it's act after that.

No.


**** off.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't have a black belt but I've studied martial arts for several years and I had different experience and training. Taking a knife away is a far more dangerous, but not impossible, task in many situations. I won't say I can always take a gun away and I won't say the knife can never be taken away. But I'd much rather grab your gun than to grab your knife. It actually takes more surprise to get the knife than the gun.

In order to take a knife I have to get to pressure points to force the release or I have to grab the blade. To take the gun, I have simply to move it just a couple inches to point it away from me and then use the attacker's own weakness and movement to take the gun. To take the knife I have to risk getting sliced while trying to grab the knife or getting past the knife to grab a wrist or forearm to get to pressure points.

There are also techniques to use the attacker's own momentum, turning his knife against him even while he holds it. That only works in a limited set of attacks.

All that said, it sounds like you're in the same boat as me: neither of us have had to do it in real life against real attackers and I hope neither of us do.

Still, whether the gun or the knife is safer for the woman being raped to fight back against is not a legitimate argument for gun control. Do you want to give the maximum penalty to 6% of rapists or to 100% of rapists. The gun is a red herring; nothing more than a distraction. Get it out of the rape argument and start fighting for long sentences in terrible conditions for rapists and murderers.

I don't know where you studied at, but it doesn't sound like a real swift place. Rule 1 when disarming an attacker: Never ever go after the weapon, you only go after the hand or arm the weapon is in. If you go after the weapon, you will lose that fight. I never learned one move that involved touching a weapon until it was under your control.

Trust me, you're not going to slap a gun away before a person shoots. As I stated, you will never get close enough to that person, and I don't care how fast you are, pulling that trigger is only a fraction of a second.

We can't lock up rapists forever. When they are done serving their sentence, there is always a chance they will rape again. If they do rape a person using a gun, they will get significantly more time in prison while committing the act, and that's why you don't restore that right back.

 

[AZrailwhale]

so then you're not serious about controlling crime.

Sure I am. First thing, realize what we are doing doesn't work.

Second thing, fix the underlying CAUSES of crime- racism, poverty, mental illness

Third things, get rid of the ******* guns because they make being a criminal a lot easier than it would be if they weren't available.

The underlying cause of crime is that the criminal wants something someone else has. Period.

 

[Winston]

I've got a lot of feedback, but no explanation of why anyone needs high-powered weaponry.

To kill more efficiently, dumbass.

Wow, you're a ******* idiot.

With a .223 caliber? You are delusional. AR-15's chambered in .223, or even .22 are for suckers and fools. The whole reason there is such an uproar to protect them is because they are the most profitable guns made.

And in your delusional mind, NERF guns are deadlier than AR-15s.

You're an idiot.

What is it about .223 that you don't understand? For self-defense they suck ass, a shotgun is much better. Even most pistols are better. Morons buy an AR-15 because they like to play pretend soldier, unless they just like can plinking, because that is what they are really good for. Sure, the bullet velocity is really high, but give me a shotgun in close quarters, in the dark, in a home invasion situation over an AR-15 every single day. Like I said, all you fans of the AR-15 are merely pawns being used by the gun manufacturers to support their cash cow. The margins on those guns are insane.

 

[freyasman]

so then you're not serious about controlling crime.

Sure I am. First thing, realize what we are doing doesn't work.

Second thing, fix the underlying CAUSES of crime- racism, poverty, mental illness

Third things, get rid of the ******* guns because they make being a criminal a lot easier than it would be if they weren't available.

The underlying cause of crime is that the criminal wants something someone else has. Period.

Those are "resource predators". There is such a thing as a "process predator" and they are different and usually much worse to deal with. There is also some overlap between the 2.

 

[westwall]

Hey...Daryl hunt........you were saying about the colorado AR-15 ban?

Now, a Colorado judge has tossed the AR-15 ban in the trash bin, along with the provision prohibiting ownership of magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. That’s the backdoor gun ban right there. It’s not just about the rifle. It’s about curbing constitutional gun rights by these magazine laws.

A host of firearms that aren’t AR-15 rifles have magazines with more than 10 rounds. This law would effectively ban them too.


We all see what you’re doing here, liberal America (via Free Beacon):

A judge struck down Boulder, Colorado's ban on the possession of AR-15s and magazines holding more than 10 rounds on Monday.
Colorado state judge Andrew Hartman ruled the city's gun ban violated the state's preemption law, which prevents localities from imposing gun regulations above and beyond state law. Judge Hartman's ruling declares the ordinance invalid and immediately bars the city from enforcing the ban.
"The Court has determined that only Colorado state (or federal) law can prohibit the possession, sale, and transfer of assault weapons and large capacity magazines," Hartman wrote in the ruling.
The ruling is the latest in a string of victories for gun advocates who have used state preemption laws to overturn strict local gun regulations. A Washington court struck down a local ordinance on gun storage in February 2021, and a Pennsylvania court struck down Pittsburgh's attempt to regulate the use of AR-15s inside city limits in October 2019.
Jon Caldara, a longtime Boulder resident who openly flouted the AR-15 ban, said he was "thrilled" by the ruling. The former Denver Post columnist and Independence Institute president publicly announced he would not comply with the order to turn over his AR-15 or ammunition magazines when the ban was instituted in 2019. He filed a separate federal suit against the ordinance and said his family has received backlash from supporters ever since.
"I was probably the most publicly known criminal in Boulder," he told the Washington Free Beacon. "That made us social outcasts. And it was really bad. My daughter got bullied at school for our position."

Colorado Judge Takes a Katana to Boulder's AR-15 Ban

We touched on this back in 2018. Boulder, Colorado was pushing to ban owning AR-15 rifles. They’re c

townhall.com

I agree with the ruling since that was already established by the 9th Circuit Federal Court. But the State Law reads 15 as being the max. And that has been upheld in various courts.

It's still an infringement.

Well, that Vietnam Era M-2 still takes a special license and I doubt if I will see too many CJ-5s sporting the M-2 will be cruising the streets. Of course, it just might make the argument solution when you want to make sure that open parking spot. Unless both parties bring their Armed CJ-5.

No, it doesn't. If it's a transferable anyone who can legally own firearms can own the M2. They just have to pay a 200 tax.

And pass a background check. And prove that you have the storage and security for it. And purchase an EFA license. Anyone that is able to pass a simple Background Check to buy a 9mm pistol can probably pass that EFA background check. And running around the street with it mounted on your CJ-5 would definitely be in violation of not only federal but state laws.

There is no license dumbass. Transferable NFA weapons need no special license. I OWN machineguns. The tax pays for the background check. The time used to be a day. Then, when obummer came in the waits for transfers jumped to 6 months. No reason, just bureaucrats acting like petty assholes.

As far as running around the street with it, they are worth more than the stupid jeep. People who own those types of weapons aren't as stupid as you seem to be.

Your buyer will still have to have either a valid EFL or NFL license for automatic weapons and some forms of shotguns.

No, they don't. Only dealers need to have a Class III license. Don't discuss things you have no clue about with people, who do.

I have a very good knowledge of the Federal Licensing since I once had one. So stop lying to everyone. You get caught selling a fully auto weapon to anyone with a Federal License and they have a 3 squares and a cot waiting for you.

I knew he was full of shit.

Yes, your sock puppet doesn't know shit. That's plain as day.

 

[westwall]

I've got a lot of feedback, but no explanation of why anyone needs high-powered weaponry.

To kill more efficiently, dumbass.

Wow, you're a ******* idiot.

With a .223 caliber? You are delusional. AR-15's chambered in .223, or even .22 are for suckers and fools. The whole reason there is such an uproar to protect them is because they are the most profitable guns made.

And in your delusional mind, NERF guns are deadlier than AR-15s.

You're an idiot.

What is it about .223 that you don't understand? For self-defense they suck ass, a shotgun is much better. Even most pistols are better. Morons buy an AR-15 because they like to play pretend soldier, unless they just like can plinking, because that is what they are really good for. Sure, the bullet velocity is really high, but give me a shotgun in close quarters, in the dark, in a home invasion situation over an AR-15 every single day. Like I said, all you fans of the AR-15 are merely pawns being used by the gun manufacturers to support their cash cow. The margins on those guns are insane.

You're an idiot. You don't know anymore than all of your other sock puppets do, fakey mcfakerson.



For self defense they are among the best. Very low overpenetration risk, so safe to use in your house. Extremely accurate, so even beginners can use them well. Ergonomics are among the best ever, so even mental midgets, like you, can learn how to use them.

Like I said, you are a moron who knows nothing.

 

[AZrailwhale]

The

You point to one place....maybe.......and each time they are fighting the teachers unions. Meanwhile, vouchers and choice give families that do care about their children but who are stuck in democrat party controlled schools the chance to educate their children without assholes like you telling them they have to stay in hell hole schools simply because you want to make sure the teachers unions can funnel money to democrat party politicians......

Vouchers put the money under the control of the parent, not the teachers union.....Choice, just like every other product, will improve education for all children....the teachers unions and the democrat party have a monopoly....and that is why public education sucks.

you just ignored all the points I made, didn't you.

Okay. Here's a simple thought exercise ... let's see if you can keep up. I'll make the numbers small so you can keep up.

You have a Public School system that has 100 Students, and spends $10,000 a student. You now give each family a voucher. But then you also have 30 Students who are currently enrolled in a Catholic School. They also claim vouchers. So now you are taking that $1,000,000 and dividing it 130 ways instead of 100 ways. Not to mention all the additional administration required to make sure that none of those vouchers are going to scam schools like the 41% of the schools in Milwaukee that popped up and had to be closed down because they couldn't even meet minimum requirements. So let's take about 10% off the top of the budget for administration.

So now instead of spending $10,000 a student, you are spending $6923 per student. Of course, the Catholic school isn't taking any more students than they were before...that would require a major investment in infrastructure. So who is going to create all these new classrooms? Where are you going to find teachers? You think someone is going to rush out to get what a Catholic school pays. (My mother and my niece both taught at Catholic Schools... the pay ain't great!)

The problem here is that with a "choice" model, means you are going to get cheaper, not necessarily better. that's probably fine when you are buying widgets, but educating your kid, not so much.

The parents of those private school kids are paying exactly the same taxes the parents of the public school kids are. The tax money should follow the student. Without restrictions, parents who care will send their kids to schools that educate their kids. So public schools that don’t perform will lose students to schools, both public and private, that will perform. The schools that perform will be rewarded and survive, those that don’t will sit empty except for the students whose parents don’t care about education. The students in the performing schools will get an education, those in the schools who don’t will fail

 

[K9Buck]

And that has been upheld in various courts.

It's unconstitutional. But who cares about the constitution, right? Individual rights don't serve the interests of the party and the party comes first, right?

That is just stupid. The law was overturned based on the state's preemption law. It didn't have a damn thing to do with the Constitution. I mean did you miss this part,

"The Court has determined that only Colorado state (or federal) law can prohibit the possession, sale, and transfer of assault weapons and large capacity magazines," Hartman wrote in the ruling.

I mean this is absolutely comical. Townhall makes a big rah rah, spouts off about constitutional rights and the second amendment and right there, from the Judge himself, let me quote it again,

only Colorado state (or federal) law can prohibit the possession, sale, and transfer of assault weapons and large capacity magazines,"

Obviously, this judge believes that state and federal governments can prohibit both assault weapons and large capacity magazines. Hell, I will go further, local governments could as well as long as there is not a preemption law in effect in that state.

I mean I swear, your righties are just totally ignorant. You have no critical reading skills, are as gullible as a toddler, and the really sad part, outlets like Townhall absolutely feast on that ignorance. I mean I will agree with one thing, this nation is going to hell in a handbasket, but it doesn't have a damn thing to do with Biden, or the left. It is because of the rampant flippin ignorance of you morons on the right.

Idiots like you are how guys like Stalin, Hitler, and Mao came to power. You're too ******* stupid to learn from history.