Why do Democrats/liberals/leftists keep pushing for gun laws they know will be struck?

[Billo_Really]

Good thing the General public doesn't commonly own "Assault rifles" isn't it?
Although my interpretation is that the Constitution allows it.

You interpretation is somewhat pro government.

I'm anti-mass shooting! For what possible reason is there for a civilian to own an assault weapon that is used by the military?

 

[1srelluc]

I'm anti-mass shooting! For what possible reason is there for a civilian to own an assault weapon that is used by the military?

How do you feel about martial US muskets or M1 Garands?

 

[M14 Shooter]

How do you feel about martial US muskets or M1 Garands?

Don't feed the troll.
Trust me.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

I opted for the Burris 3X instead of a red dot.....The stock sort of lends itself to a scope and I had it laying around.

I'm not one to show an tell. Sry.
Just because I don't worship guns doesn't mean I don't own them.

My ONLY gripe is the cruelty to animals.
Otherwise we all should have .50 cal full automatics and even missile launchers (if we wanted them)

 

[The Duke]

Democrats / liberals / leftists want to place as many unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by the law abiding as they can -- the recent Prop 114 in Oregon, the (as always) failed attempt at a new federal ban on 'assault weapons', the various "Bruen response bills" created by CA NY and NJ are just a a few of the numerous examples of same.

The people enacting these laws -know- they will, in toto, be struck under the jurisprudence handed down in v Bruen.

All they have going for them is they can pass these laws faster than the courts can strike them - but they will be struck.
So... why do they bother?
Anger? hatred? Spite? Incompetence?
Psychopathy?

Doesn't willfully enacting laws you know violate the constitution violate your oath to uphold the constitution?

Yes it does.

 

[1srelluc]

I'm not one to show an tell. Sry.
Just because I don't worship guns doesn't mean I don't own them.

My ONLY gripe is the cruelty to animals.
Otherwise we all should have .50 cal full automatics and even missile launchers (if we wanted them)

Piss off dick....Go play in the freeway.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes it does.

Truth.

 

[Hollie]

I'm anti-mass shooting! For what possible reason is there for a civilian to own an assault weapon that is used by the military?

What is an "assault weapon"?

 

[Billo_Really]

How do you feel about martial US muskets or M1 Garands?

I'm not a gun guy. I don't know what Gerands are?

 

[M14 Shooter]

What is an "assault weapon"?

Don't feed the troll.
Trust me.

 

[1srelluc]

I'm not a gun guy. I don't know what Gerands are?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Did you notice he chose to mis-spell "Garand"?
Don't feed the troll.

 

[Billo_Really]

What is an "assault weapon"?

Shut up, whore! I only talk to you when Jews are in the room!

 

[Billo_Really]

Okay, you may have this rifle! I give you permission.

 

[1srelluc]

Did you notice he chose to mis-spell "Garand"?
Don't feed the troll.

Well now he knows and he has not morphed into a total dick like that other guy did.....So far.

Besides, one never knows when the mil-surp bug might bite the unaware and turn them.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

I'm anti-mass shooting! For what possible reason is there for a civilian to own an assault weapon that is used by the military?

Well I'm glad you asked.
AR15's are not commonly capable of full auto operation so your premise that its a weapon used by the military is not correct.

The US Constitution does not limit THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS by civilians to any particular types of weapons.
Finally, I have never, even once, ever heard of a good guy using any gun in any mass shooting. Only bad guys aka criminals.

So, to turn your question around....for what possible reason would you want to say GOOD GUYS should be limited as to what weapons they can own?
So why try to limit the good guys if they dint do nuffin???
Seems you should support tougher laws against CRIMINALS. But unfortunately the Left has a long history of collusion with and protection of violent criminals. NY and CA dont even want to hold murderers in jail. If you were sincere about public safety you would focus your efforts there

(And a law that to get any hunting license you must bag at least one other hunter each season)

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Global wildlife population down by 70% over the last 30 years.
Widely misinterpreted report still shows catastrophic animal decline

WHO CARES!!!!
kill!!! KILL!!!! KILL !!!!!
Because shooting Bambi and her baby fawns from 100 yards away makes you a "man" and is so DAMN MUCH FUN !!!!

Bambi was a male...lol

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Well I'm glad you asked.
AR15's are not commonly capable of full auto operation so your premise that its a weapon used by the military is not correct.

The US Constitution does not limit THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS by civilians to any particular types of weapons.
Finally, I have never, even once, ever heard of a good guy using any gun in any mass shooting. Only bad guys aka criminals.

So, to turn your question around....for what possible reason would you want to say GOOD GUYS should be limited as to what weapons they can own?
So why try to limit the good guys if they dint do nuffin???
Seems you should support tougher laws against CRIMINALS. But unfortunately the Left has a long history of collusion with and protection of violent criminals. NY and CA dont even want to hold murderers in jail. If you were sincere about public safety you would focus your efforts there

(And a law that to get any hunting license you must bag at least one other hunter each season)

99% of mass attacks are stopped by a police officer, or a civilian with a gun.

 

[Ms. Turquoise]

Democrats / liberals / leftists want to place as many unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by the law abiding as they can -- the recent Prop 114 in Oregon, the (as always) failed attempt at a new federal ban on 'assault weapons', the various "Bruen response bills" created by CA NY and NJ are just a a few of the numerous examples of same.

The people enacting these laws -know- they will, in toto, be struck under the jurisprudence handed down in v Bruen.

All they have going for them is they can pass these laws faster than the courts can strike them - but they will be struck.
So... why do they bother?
Anger? hatred? Spite? Incompetence?
Psychopathy?

Doesn't willfully enacting laws you know violate the constitution violate your oath to uphold the constitution?

Are you as serious about upholding the other amendments in the Constitution as you are about the 2nd Amendment? If you are, please support the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. It is based on the 15th Amendment.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Are you as serious about upholding the other amendments...

All you ad do say was "I can't meaningfully address the issue you presented, and I know it".