verb_to_trust wrote:If we don't have any laws the bad guys won't come out to break them!
Well that's not the idea at all.
Verb doesn't believe in arguing in good faith.
I see this a lot, and it normally breaks down to, "my opponent does not accept my priors". Care to elaborate or no?
Verb has a tendency to take the worst possible interpretation of your point and argue with that, or just ignore the point all together and argue with a straw man instead.
‘Unbelievable:’ Children, 12 and 14, use AK-47, other guns in shooting rampage on Volusia deputies
“At 8:28, one of my sergeants who was the first to arrive, Sgt. Donnie Maxwell, takes fire multiple times, never returns fire. At 8:31, one of our units reports they’re being fired at by the 12- and the 14-year-old. At 8:33, another call comes out from another group of deputies surrounding the home saying that shots were fired. At 8:40, the 14-year-old emerges from the property and threatens to kill Sgt. Maxwell. At 8:54, the juvenile male, armed with an AK-47, opens fire on deputies,”
*headline a bit misleading as no cops were killed
"The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
You're telling me a Bush era judge that didn't get culled by Trump sided with the gun lobby? Surprised I am not.
He even got in free advertising, "Like the Swiss Army knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment. Good for both home and battle,” the judge said in his ruling’s introduction.
*vomit*
PS
Now I'm picturing a bunch of soldiers running around weilding Swiss Army knives.
Green Habit wrote:I knew that SS would be all over reporting that district court ruling on here.
During the 1994 assault weapon era, was Miller brought up during challenges? I suspect that well funded 2A groups were less aggressive in litigating back then. For most of its history, the NRA has been more teriffied of an adverse precedent than almost anything else.
Are ellis et al under the impression that CAs Assault Weapon Ban prevents people from owning AR pattern weapons? All it really does is limit what muzzle device you can use (not a huge deal) and requires you to use weird grips and fixed stocks. You comply with that and you have a dumber looking, but still very capable rifle.
If this is upheld, Californians won't be mocked for the less ergonomic plastic bits on their guns. Thats is. Thats the implication here.
There isn't even constructive posession. Own whatever plastic bits and muzzle devices that you want, just don't install certain combinations at the same time.
simple schoolboy wrote:Are ellis et al under the impression that CAs Assault Weapon Ban prevents people from owning AR pattern weapons? All it really does is limit what muzzle device you can use (not a huge deal) and requires you to use weird grips and fixed stocks. You comply with that and you have a dumber looking, but still very capable rifle.
If this is upheld, Californians won't be mocked for the less ergonomic plastic bits on their guns. Thats is. Thats the implication here.
There isn't even constructive posession. Own whatever plastic bits and muzzle devices that you want, just don't install certain combinations at the same time.
My post is solely about how silly the judges statement was and how his track record on guns made this an obvious decision from him.
