BluesLegend
Diamond Member
Democrats are scum, just imagine how those freaks would behave without the Constitution to restrain them.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
In response to San Bernardino mass murders, Democrats propose to restrict the law-abiding (???)
- Thread starter Little-Acorn
- Start date
TexM3
VIP Member
- Aug 27, 2011
- 463
- 61
- 80
The Republican establishment is not too far behind...Democrats are scum, just imagine how those freaks would behave without the Constitution to restrain them.
- Mar 7, 2014
- 45,727
- 9,521
- 2,030
The Republican establishment is not too far behind...Democrats are scum, just imagine how those freaks would behave without the Constitution to restrain them.
Both as bad as each other. The right are probably a little worse.
They tout their 2nd Amendment rights but want torture, wire tapping, entry into houses without warrants and all kinds of things. Basically rights are for "them" (whoever they are, their side, their team)
- Mar 7, 2014
- 45,727
- 9,521
- 2,030
Which says what?
He also invaded countries where people were armed. Shock horror.
Oh, yeah, and other countries with a lot of gun control aren't like Nazi Germany, in fact they're safer.
Yet again, Democrat lawmakers in the People's Republic of California are proposing to ban various guns and accessories. This time the excuse is the San Bernardino shootings. Such a ban would be obeyed, of course, only by the law-abiding.
The San Bernardino shooters were already breaking a number of laws, starting with the law against murder. It seems unlikely that a law telling them they can't have certain guns, would make them change their ways. The Democrat lawmakers did not explain how making a few more laws would change anything that such wanton murderers do.
This is the 4,372nd time Democrat lawmakers have tried to respond to such crimes by banning guns and/or accessories. There is no evidence on record that such bans have ever changed anything.... except to disarm people who obey the laws and make them easier targets for criminals who don't.
Isn't there a name for repeating the same act over and over and expecting a different result?
------------------------------------------
Lawmakers advance gun control measures in response to San Bernardino massacre
Lawmakers advance gun control measures in response to San Bernardino massacre
by Patrick McGreevy•Contact Reporter
April 19, 2016, 8:07 PM
Four months after the San Bernardino mass shooting, state lawmakers on Tuesday gave initial approval to five gun control bills, including measures that would outlaw assault rifles with detachable magazines, ban possession of clips holding more than 10 rounds and require homemade guns to be registered with the state.
The bills approved by the state Senate Public Safety Committee were introduced in response to the December shooting in San Bernardino that left 14 people dead and 22 others wounded at the hands of two terrorists.
One of the measures the panel sent toward the Senate floor would outlaw assault rifles with easily detachable bullet magazines like one of the weapons used in the mass shooting in San Bernardino.
The bill prohibits the sale of semiautomatic, centerfire rifles with a “bullet button,” a recessed button that, when pressed, allows removal of the magazine. Those who already own them must register them with the state as assault rifles.
Democratic state Sens. Isadore Hall of Compton and Steve Glazer of Orinda introduced the measure, SB 880, in response to the discovery of a gun with a bullet button that was in the possession of the San Bernardino terrorists.
“These weapons of war don’t belong in our communities,” Glazer told the Senate panel before it approved the measure he coauthored with Hall.
Hall said there is an urgent need to close a loophole in the law that bans assault weapons.
The Senate panel also approved a bill by Sen. Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley) that would ban the possession of ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds, closing a loophole in a law that already prohibits their manufacture and sale in California.
I'm sure some of the dead at San Bernardino would have given their right arm for a gun to defend themselves with when a co worker and friend to many mowed them all down.
The leaders in Cali are idiot and fools.
jon_berzerk
Platinum Member
- Mar 5, 2013
- 31,401
- 7,368
- 1,130
Democrats are scum, just imagine how those freaks would behave without the Constitution to restrain them.
exactly
BluesLegend
Diamond Member
The Republican establishment is not too far behind...Democrats are scum, just imagine how those freaks would behave without the Constitution to restrain them.
Both as bad as each other. The right are probably a little worse.
They tout their 2nd Amendment rights but want torture, wire tapping, entry into houses without warrants and all kinds of things. Basically rights are for "them" (whoever they are, their side, their team)
Damn I do not disagree with you that's pretty rare.
- Mar 3, 2013
- 82,155
- 43,588
- 2,605
Guns go kill people
They must be sneaky.
I've never seen one going down the street on it's way to kill someone.
You think that's crazy?
What's crazy is blaming the gun, and not the person using it.
Little-Acorn
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #50
You can tell when a liberal fanatic has lost the debate. They will:Both as bad as each other. The right are probably a little worse.
They tout their 2nd Amendment rights but want torture, wire tapping, entry into houses without warrants and all kinds of things. Basically rights are for "them" (whoever they are, their side, their team)
(a) shrill "REPUBLICANS DO IT TOO!!!", whether true or not, and
(b) sullenly change the subject and accuse their opponents of other things to divert the discussion, again whether true or not.
Sometimes the really far-left extremists will do both in the same post.
And the biggest losers will do it again and again, even after being caught doing it earlier in the same thread.
Little-Acorn
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #51
So, why do the Democrats so virulently oppose the only method that has actually worked to reduce mass shootings: Letting everybody carry who wants to? Most people still wouldn't bother, of course, but a few would. And the nutcase wanting to shoot up the next school or shopping mall or post office (or French concert hall or California office party or Belgian airport), would know there's a probably a few armed people in the crowd he's about to attack. And he won't know which ones they are, or what direction a bullet might come from. And a number of the recent mass shooters have carefully avoided places where there might be armed people on the premises, choosing so-called "gun free zones" where the liberals' laws are in full effect.I'm sure some of the dead at San Bernardino would have given their right arm for a gun to defend themselves with when a co worker and friend to many mowed them all down.
The leaders in Cali are idiot and fools.
The most effective way to reduce mass shootings, happens without a shot being fired. If all law-abiding adults can carry, most of them won't, but a few will... and the shooter looking for lurid headlines and gory body counts will know he probably wont' achieve either. So he doesn't do the mass shooting in the first place. A few really crazy ones will still try, but the number of them is already reduced.
Why do these leftist fanatics keep pushing their failed "solutions" after it has become obvious they don't work, and avoiding the solutions that do work?
- Apr 10, 2013
- 23,667
- 1,880
- 265
And what's so different from the right wanted to ban Muslims and all sorts of other restrictive devices that are desired?
One: it's constitutional to ban who ever we want from immigrating. Two: it will actually have an effect.
One: it's constitutional to ban who ever we want from immigrating. Two: it will actually have an effect.
That's in Canada? Aye.
No. It's right here in the United States.
No. It's right here in the United States.
You're Canadian....
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,107
- 47,259
- 2,180
And what's so different from the right wanted to ban Muslims and all sorts of other restrictive devices that are desired?
One: it's constitutional to ban who ever we want from immigrating. Two: it will actually have an effect.
One: it's constitutional to ban who ever we want from immigrating. Two: it will actually have an effect.
That's in Canada? Aye.
No. It's right here in the United States.
No. It's right here in the United States.
You're Canadian....
Wrong, asshole. My passport says I was born in Boston MA.
- Apr 10, 2013
- 23,667
- 1,880
- 265
Democrats propose to restrict the law-abiding
that is pretty much the way they think
take this for example
"The man who killed Trayvon Martin should have never had a gun in the first place."
-- Hillary Clinton in a campaign appearance this week
Hillary Clinton: George Zimmerman Shouldn't Have Had a Gun - The Truth About Guns
With Zimmerman's history, Clinton is correct.
Apart from the 2012 Martin shooting, Zimmerman has had other encounters with the law, including two incidents in 2005, five incidents in 2013 and other incidents in following years.[36]
In July 2005, when he was 21, Zimmerman was arrested after shoving an undercover alcohol control agent while a friend of Zimmerman's was being arrested for underage drinking. The officer alleged that Zimmerman had said, "I don't care who you are," followed by a profanity, and had refused to leave the area after the officer had shown his badge.[37] The charges were subsequently dropped when Zimmerman entered a pre-trial diversion program that included anger management classes.[4][38]
Also in 2005, Zimmerman's ex-fiancée filed a restraining order against him, alleging domestic violence. Zimmerman requested a reciprocal restraining order. Both orders were granted.[4][39] These incidents were raised by prosecutors at Zimmerman's initial bond hearing. The judge described them as "run of the mill."[40][41]
Zimmerman's wife, Shellie pleaded guilty on August 28, 2013, to a reduced misdemeanor perjury charge for lying under oath. She was sentenced to a year's probation and 100 hours of community service. She lied about their assets during a bail hearing following his arrest for shooting Martin. Days before the bond hearing she moved $74,000, broken into smaller transfers, from his credit union account to hers. $47,000 was transferred from George's account to his sister's in the days before the bond hearing. Amounts of over $10,000 would have been reported to the Internal Revenue Service. Four days after he was released on bond, she transferred more than $85,500 from her account into her husband's account. The jail recorded Zimmerman instructing her on a call to "pay off all the bills," including credit cards.[42] On September 9, 2013, in Lake Mary, police responded to a 911 call by Zimmerman's estranged wife, who reported that Zimmerman had threatened her and her father with a gun and had punched her father in the face. Zimmerman was briefly detained and questioned by police.[43] No gun was found at the scene. Police took a broken iPad from the scene for examination of a video recording of the incident to determine whether to press charges against either Zimmerman or his wife.[44] His wife declined to press charges, later expressing regret about her decision.[45] After determining that the iPad video could not be recovered, the Lake Mary police department announced they would not be pressing charges against Zimmerman, his wife, or her father.[46]
On November 18, 2013, Zimmerman's girlfriend called the police alleging that after she had asked Zimmerman to leave her home, he had pointed a shotgun at her and begun breaking her belongings.[47] The police reported that Zimmerman had barricaded himself inside the apartment before they had made their way inside and arrested him.[48] He was charged with aggravated assault with a weapon – a felony – as well as domestic violence battery and criminal mischief.[49][50] On December 6, Zimmerman's girlfriend asked that the charges against Zimmerman be dropped and that the restraining order barring him from seeing her be lifted, after which prosecutors said that they would no longer be pursuing a case against him.[51][52]
On January 9, 2015, Zimmerman was arrested by Lake Mary police and charged with aggravated assault with a weapon after allegedly throwing a wine bottle at his ex-girlfriend.[53] He was released on bond the following day.[54] The charges were later dropped after the complainant recanted her story.[55]
No...she is lying again. There was nothing in his record to keep him from owning and carrying a gun....
Why do you guys insist on defending the thug who attacked Zimmerman...had he not been a thug in training and doubled back to ambush Zimmerman he would be alive......
No...she is lying again. There was nothing in his record to keep him from owning and carrying a gun....
You didn't bother to read the quoted part of the post, did you. In your opinion, should a person that threatens someone with a gun AND has a propensity for violence be able to posses a gun?
Why do you guys insist on defending the thug who attacked Zimmerman...had he not been a thug in training and doubled back to ambush Zimmerman he would be alive......
When did I do that? I've stated here that the Martin killing was justified.
- Apr 10, 2013
- 23,667
- 1,880
- 265
And what's so different from the right wanted to ban Muslims and all sorts of other restrictive devices that are desired?
One: it's constitutional to ban who ever we want from immigrating. Two: it will actually have an effect.
One: it's constitutional to ban who ever we want from immigrating. Two: it will actually have an effect.
That's in Canada? Aye.
No. It's right here in the United States.
No. It's right here in the United States.
You're Canadian....
Wrong, asshole. My passport says I was born in Boston MA.
Wrong, asshole. My passport says I was born in Boston MA.
Your passport speaks? lol!
Are you a citizen of the United States? I have my doubts. You've in the past slipped with the queens English.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,038
- 52,321
- 2,290
Democrats propose to restrict the law-abiding
that is pretty much the way they think
take this for example
"The man who killed Trayvon Martin should have never had a gun in the first place."
-- Hillary Clinton in a campaign appearance this week
Hillary Clinton: George Zimmerman Shouldn't Have Had a Gun - The Truth About Guns
With Zimmerman's history, Clinton is correct.
Apart from the 2012 Martin shooting, Zimmerman has had other encounters with the law, including two incidents in 2005, five incidents in 2013 and other incidents in following years.[36]
In July 2005, when he was 21, Zimmerman was arrested after shoving an undercover alcohol control agent while a friend of Zimmerman's was being arrested for underage drinking. The officer alleged that Zimmerman had said, "I don't care who you are," followed by a profanity, and had refused to leave the area after the officer had shown his badge.[37] The charges were subsequently dropped when Zimmerman entered a pre-trial diversion program that included anger management classes.[4][38]
Also in 2005, Zimmerman's ex-fiancée filed a restraining order against him, alleging domestic violence. Zimmerman requested a reciprocal restraining order. Both orders were granted.[4][39] These incidents were raised by prosecutors at Zimmerman's initial bond hearing. The judge described them as "run of the mill."[40][41]
Zimmerman's wife, Shellie pleaded guilty on August 28, 2013, to a reduced misdemeanor perjury charge for lying under oath. She was sentenced to a year's probation and 100 hours of community service. She lied about their assets during a bail hearing following his arrest for shooting Martin. Days before the bond hearing she moved $74,000, broken into smaller transfers, from his credit union account to hers. $47,000 was transferred from George's account to his sister's in the days before the bond hearing. Amounts of over $10,000 would have been reported to the Internal Revenue Service. Four days after he was released on bond, she transferred more than $85,500 from her account into her husband's account. The jail recorded Zimmerman instructing her on a call to "pay off all the bills," including credit cards.[42] On September 9, 2013, in Lake Mary, police responded to a 911 call by Zimmerman's estranged wife, who reported that Zimmerman had threatened her and her father with a gun and had punched her father in the face. Zimmerman was briefly detained and questioned by police.[43] No gun was found at the scene. Police took a broken iPad from the scene for examination of a video recording of the incident to determine whether to press charges against either Zimmerman or his wife.[44] His wife declined to press charges, later expressing regret about her decision.[45] After determining that the iPad video could not be recovered, the Lake Mary police department announced they would not be pressing charges against Zimmerman, his wife, or her father.[46]
On November 18, 2013, Zimmerman's girlfriend called the police alleging that after she had asked Zimmerman to leave her home, he had pointed a shotgun at her and begun breaking her belongings.[47] The police reported that Zimmerman had barricaded himself inside the apartment before they had made their way inside and arrested him.[48] He was charged with aggravated assault with a weapon – a felony – as well as domestic violence battery and criminal mischief.[49][50] On December 6, Zimmerman's girlfriend asked that the charges against Zimmerman be dropped and that the restraining order barring him from seeing her be lifted, after which prosecutors said that they would no longer be pursuing a case against him.[51][52]
On January 9, 2015, Zimmerman was arrested by Lake Mary police and charged with aggravated assault with a weapon after allegedly throwing a wine bottle at his ex-girlfriend.[53] He was released on bond the following day.[54] The charges were later dropped after the complainant recanted her story.[55]
No...she is lying again. There was nothing in his record to keep him from owning and carrying a gun....
Why do you guys insist on defending the thug who attacked Zimmerman...had he not been a thug in training and doubled back to ambush Zimmerman he would be alive......
No...she is lying again. There was nothing in his record to keep him from owning and carrying a gun....
You didn't bother to read the quoted part of the post, did you. In your opinion, should a person that threatens someone with a gun AND has a propensity for violence be able to posses a gun?
Why do you guys insist on defending the thug who attacked Zimmerman...had he not been a thug in training and doubled back to ambush Zimmerman he would be alive......
When did I do that? I've stated here that the Martin killing was justified.
If he is actually found guilty in a court of law after due process has been followed sure...he should be barred...till then it is his word against the other person...you do believe in due process before taking Rights away...right?
- Apr 10, 2013
- 23,667
- 1,880
- 265
Democrats propose to restrict the law-abiding
that is pretty much the way they think
take this for example
"The man who killed Trayvon Martin should have never had a gun in the first place."
-- Hillary Clinton in a campaign appearance this week
Hillary Clinton: George Zimmerman Shouldn't Have Had a Gun - The Truth About Guns
With Zimmerman's history, Clinton is correct.
Apart from the 2012 Martin shooting, Zimmerman has had other encounters with the law, including two incidents in 2005, five incidents in 2013 and other incidents in following years.[36]
In July 2005, when he was 21, Zimmerman was arrested after shoving an undercover alcohol control agent while a friend of Zimmerman's was being arrested for underage drinking. The officer alleged that Zimmerman had said, "I don't care who you are," followed by a profanity, and had refused to leave the area after the officer had shown his badge.[37] The charges were subsequently dropped when Zimmerman entered a pre-trial diversion program that included anger management classes.[4][38]
Also in 2005, Zimmerman's ex-fiancée filed a restraining order against him, alleging domestic violence. Zimmerman requested a reciprocal restraining order. Both orders were granted.[4][39] These incidents were raised by prosecutors at Zimmerman's initial bond hearing. The judge described them as "run of the mill."[40][41]
Zimmerman's wife, Shellie pleaded guilty on August 28, 2013, to a reduced misdemeanor perjury charge for lying under oath. She was sentenced to a year's probation and 100 hours of community service. She lied about their assets during a bail hearing following his arrest for shooting Martin. Days before the bond hearing she moved $74,000, broken into smaller transfers, from his credit union account to hers. $47,000 was transferred from George's account to his sister's in the days before the bond hearing. Amounts of over $10,000 would have been reported to the Internal Revenue Service. Four days after he was released on bond, she transferred more than $85,500 from her account into her husband's account. The jail recorded Zimmerman instructing her on a call to "pay off all the bills," including credit cards.[42] On September 9, 2013, in Lake Mary, police responded to a 911 call by Zimmerman's estranged wife, who reported that Zimmerman had threatened her and her father with a gun and had punched her father in the face. Zimmerman was briefly detained and questioned by police.[43] No gun was found at the scene. Police took a broken iPad from the scene for examination of a video recording of the incident to determine whether to press charges against either Zimmerman or his wife.[44] His wife declined to press charges, later expressing regret about her decision.[45] After determining that the iPad video could not be recovered, the Lake Mary police department announced they would not be pressing charges against Zimmerman, his wife, or her father.[46]
On November 18, 2013, Zimmerman's girlfriend called the police alleging that after she had asked Zimmerman to leave her home, he had pointed a shotgun at her and begun breaking her belongings.[47] The police reported that Zimmerman had barricaded himself inside the apartment before they had made their way inside and arrested him.[48] He was charged with aggravated assault with a weapon – a felony – as well as domestic violence battery and criminal mischief.[49][50] On December 6, Zimmerman's girlfriend asked that the charges against Zimmerman be dropped and that the restraining order barring him from seeing her be lifted, after which prosecutors said that they would no longer be pursuing a case against him.[51][52]
On January 9, 2015, Zimmerman was arrested by Lake Mary police and charged with aggravated assault with a weapon after allegedly throwing a wine bottle at his ex-girlfriend.[53] He was released on bond the following day.[54] The charges were later dropped after the complainant recanted her story.[55]
No...she is lying again. There was nothing in his record to keep him from owning and carrying a gun....
Why do you guys insist on defending the thug who attacked Zimmerman...had he not been a thug in training and doubled back to ambush Zimmerman he would be alive......
No...she is lying again. There was nothing in his record to keep him from owning and carrying a gun....
You didn't bother to read the quoted part of the post, did you. In your opinion, should a person that threatens someone with a gun AND has a propensity for violence be able to posses a gun?
Why do you guys insist on defending the thug who attacked Zimmerman...had he not been a thug in training and doubled back to ambush Zimmerman he would be alive......
When did I do that? I've stated here that the Martin killing was justified.
If he is actually found guilty in a court of law after due process has been followed sure...he should be barred...till then it is his word against the other person...you do believe in due process before taking Rights away...right?
If he is actually found guilty in a court of law after due process has been followed sure...he should be barred...till then it is his word against the other person...you do believe in due process before taking Rights away...right?
Doesn't the government have an obligation to protect people from suspected bad guys, and if that means restricting possession of a gun temporarily, wouldn't that be a correct move?
jon_berzerk
Platinum Member
- Mar 5, 2013
- 31,401
- 7,368
- 1,130
Democrats propose to restrict the law-abiding
that is pretty much the way they think
take this for example
"The man who killed Trayvon Martin should have never had a gun in the first place."
-- Hillary Clinton in a campaign appearance this week
Hillary Clinton: George Zimmerman Shouldn't Have Had a Gun - The Truth About Guns
With Zimmerman's history, Clinton is correct.
Apart from the 2012 Martin shooting, Zimmerman has had other encounters with the law, including two incidents in 2005, five incidents in 2013 and other incidents in following years.[36]
In July 2005, when he was 21, Zimmerman was arrested after shoving an undercover alcohol control agent while a friend of Zimmerman's was being arrested for underage drinking. The officer alleged that Zimmerman had said, "I don't care who you are," followed by a profanity, and had refused to leave the area after the officer had shown his badge.[37] The charges were subsequently dropped when Zimmerman entered a pre-trial diversion program that included anger management classes.[4][38]
Also in 2005, Zimmerman's ex-fiancée filed a restraining order against him, alleging domestic violence. Zimmerman requested a reciprocal restraining order. Both orders were granted.[4][39] These incidents were raised by prosecutors at Zimmerman's initial bond hearing. The judge described them as "run of the mill."[40][41]
Zimmerman's wife, Shellie pleaded guilty on August 28, 2013, to a reduced misdemeanor perjury charge for lying under oath. She was sentenced to a year's probation and 100 hours of community service. She lied about their assets during a bail hearing following his arrest for shooting Martin. Days before the bond hearing she moved $74,000, broken into smaller transfers, from his credit union account to hers. $47,000 was transferred from George's account to his sister's in the days before the bond hearing. Amounts of over $10,000 would have been reported to the Internal Revenue Service. Four days after he was released on bond, she transferred more than $85,500 from her account into her husband's account. The jail recorded Zimmerman instructing her on a call to "pay off all the bills," including credit cards.[42] On September 9, 2013, in Lake Mary, police responded to a 911 call by Zimmerman's estranged wife, who reported that Zimmerman had threatened her and her father with a gun and had punched her father in the face. Zimmerman was briefly detained and questioned by police.[43] No gun was found at the scene. Police took a broken iPad from the scene for examination of a video recording of the incident to determine whether to press charges against either Zimmerman or his wife.[44] His wife declined to press charges, later expressing regret about her decision.[45] After determining that the iPad video could not be recovered, the Lake Mary police department announced they would not be pressing charges against Zimmerman, his wife, or her father.[46]
On November 18, 2013, Zimmerman's girlfriend called the police alleging that after she had asked Zimmerman to leave her home, he had pointed a shotgun at her and begun breaking her belongings.[47] The police reported that Zimmerman had barricaded himself inside the apartment before they had made their way inside and arrested him.[48] He was charged with aggravated assault with a weapon – a felony – as well as domestic violence battery and criminal mischief.[49][50] On December 6, Zimmerman's girlfriend asked that the charges against Zimmerman be dropped and that the restraining order barring him from seeing her be lifted, after which prosecutors said that they would no longer be pursuing a case against him.[51][52]
On January 9, 2015, Zimmerman was arrested by Lake Mary police and charged with aggravated assault with a weapon after allegedly throwing a wine bottle at his ex-girlfriend.[53] He was released on bond the following day.[54] The charges were later dropped after the complainant recanted her story.[55]
No...she is lying again. There was nothing in his record to keep him from owning and carrying a gun....
Why do you guys insist on defending the thug who attacked Zimmerman...had he not been a thug in training and doubled back to ambush Zimmerman he would be alive......
No...she is lying again. There was nothing in his record to keep him from owning and carrying a gun....
You didn't bother to read the quoted part of the post, did you. In your opinion, should a person that threatens someone with a gun AND has a propensity for violence be able to posses a gun?
Why do you guys insist on defending the thug who attacked Zimmerman...had he not been a thug in training and doubled back to ambush Zimmerman he would be alive......
When did I do that? I've stated here that the Martin killing was justified.
If he is actually found guilty in a court of law after due process has been followed sure...he should be barred...till then it is his word against the other person...you do believe in due process before taking Rights away...right?
If he is actually found guilty in a court of law after due process has been followed sure...he should be barred...till then it is his word against the other person...you do believe in due process before taking Rights away...right?
Doesn't the government have an obligation to protect people from suspected bad guys, and if that means restricting possession of a gun temporarily, wouldn't that be a correct move?
if they are out on bond as a condition of release after due process has been served
Contumacious
Radical Freedom
Yet again, Democrat lawmakers in the People's Republic of California are proposing to ban various guns and accessories. This time the excuse is the San Bernardino shootings. Such a ban would be obeyed, of course, only by the law-abiding.
The San Bernardino shooters were already breaking a number of laws, starting with the law against murder. It seems unlikely that a law telling them they can't have certain guns, would make them change their ways. The Democrat lawmakers did not explain how making a few more laws would change anything that such wanton murderers do.
This is the 4,372nd time Democrat lawmakers have tried to respond to such crimes by banning guns and/or accessories. There is no evidence on record that such bans have ever changed anything.... except to disarm people who obey the laws and make them easier targets for criminals who don't.
Isn't there a name for repeating the same act over and over and expecting a different result?
------------------------------------------
Lawmakers advance gun control measures in response to San Bernardino massacre
Lawmakers advance gun control measures in response to San Bernardino massacre
by Patrick McGreevy•Contact Reporter
April 19, 2016, 8:07 PM
Four months after the San Bernardino mass shooting, state lawmakers on Tuesday gave initial approval to five gun control bills, including measures that would outlaw assault rifles with detachable magazines, ban possession of clips holding more than 10 rounds and require homemade guns to be registered with the state.
The bills approved by the state Senate Public Safety Committee were introduced in response to the December shooting in San Bernardino that left 14 people dead and 22 others wounded at the hands of two terrorists.
One of the measures the panel sent toward the Senate floor would outlaw assault rifles with easily detachable bullet magazines like one of the weapons used in the mass shooting in San Bernardino.
The bill prohibits the sale of semiautomatic, centerfire rifles with a “bullet button,” a recessed button that, when pressed, allows removal of the magazine. Those who already own them must register them with the state as assault rifles.
Democratic state Sens. Isadore Hall of Compton and Steve Glazer of Orinda introduced the measure, SB 880, in response to the discovery of a gun with a bullet button that was in the possession of the San Bernardino terrorists.
“These weapons of war don’t belong in our communities,” Glazer told the Senate panel before it approved the measure he coauthored with Hall.
Hall said there is an urgent need to close a loophole in the law that bans assault weapons.
The Senate panel also approved a bill by Sen. Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley) that would ban the possession of ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds, closing a loophole in a law that already prohibits their manufacture and sale in California.
Stu[pid fucks, do these storm troopers belong in our communities? I bet his carbine will not be affected !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
jon_berzerk
Platinum Member
- Mar 5, 2013
- 31,401
- 7,368
- 1,130
after zimmerman was found not guilty the court handed him back his firearm
he left the court house with it
he left the court house with it
Similar threads
- Replies
- 101
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 34
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 31
- Views
- 992
- Replies
- 32
- Views
- 830
- Locked
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 234
Latest Discussions
- Poll
- Replies
- 21
- Views
- 48
- Replies
- 432
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 6
- Views
- 25
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8236
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 475
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-