|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jun 22, 2021 20:54:31 GMT
For now.. three judges... CNN U.S.9th Circuit Court of Appeals has blocked a federal judge's controversial ruling that overturned California's longtime ban on assault weapons, in which he likened the AR-15 to a Swiss Army knife. In an order Monday, a three-judge panel on the federal appeals court issued a stay of US District Judge Roger Benitez's order earlier this month that overturned California's three-decade old assault weapons ban. www.cnn.com/2021/06/21/politics/california-assault-style-weapons-ban-overturn-blocked/index.html
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Jun 22, 2021 23:01:34 GMT
Yeah, exactly like a Swiss army knife. 🙄
|
|
peabay
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,616
Jun 25, 2014 19:50:41 GMT
|
Post by peabay on Jun 22, 2021 23:03:10 GMT
Amazing how quickly Swiss Army knives can slaughter people.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jun 23, 2021 1:06:08 GMT
The Swiss Army knife may be his downfall!
|
|
|
Post by bc2ca on Jun 23, 2021 1:43:47 GMT
Very happy to see this ruling.
|
|
iowgirl
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,134
Jun 25, 2014 22:52:46 GMT
|
Post by iowgirl on Jun 23, 2021 3:00:01 GMT
But an AR15 is not technically an assault rifle.
I have one. I love it. But it is not an assault rifle, by definition.
|
|
valincal
Drama Llama
Southern Alberta
Posts: 5,636
Jun 27, 2014 2:21:22 GMT
|
Post by valincal on Jun 23, 2021 3:16:34 GMT
But an AR15 is not technically an assault rifle. I have one. I love it. But it is not an assault rifle, by definition. As a non-American I’m interested in hearing about weapon love. Can you tell me more about it? I
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Jun 23, 2021 4:11:00 GMT
But an AR15 is not technically an assault rifle. I have one. I love it. But it is not an assault rifle, by definition. Technically… according to gun advocates. That distinction needs to be made clear because the 10-year 1994 Assault Weapons Ban defined assault weapons as certain semi-automatic firearms and high-capacity ammunition magazines. The AR-15 and its various updated versions are used by mass shooters because it’s efficient at massacring a large number of people in a short amount of time. It can also be modified to become fully automatic and customized to up its deadly capabilities. You are not a mass murderer, but the problem is there ARE mass murderers who embark on mass shootings and their weapon of choice is the AR-15 and its variations. Parkland, Sandy Hook, Sutherland, Pulse, Las Vegas, Boulder, Aurora, San Bernardino, Tree of Life, etc. If that isn’t “assault” then I don’t know what is. That’s why CA decided they don’t want these weapons proliferating in the state.
|
|
iowgirl
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,134
Jun 25, 2014 22:52:46 GMT
|
Post by iowgirl on Jun 23, 2021 13:30:32 GMT
If that isn’t “assault” then I don’t know what is. IMO - any gun can be an 'assault weapon" ... I wish there was a better way to stop people who shouldn't have any kind of weapon. The person I knew who took his life and the life of two innocent people used a 12 gauge shot gun. He should have never had that gun, but his family allowed him to have it. He was an adult (age 22) , who already had one 5150, and he might have had two. I believe the time period to own or posses a firearm after a 5150 is 5 years. His family was in major denial about his issues, and allowed him to have firearms, because he 'loved to hunt' and in their eyes, there was nothing wrong. To this day, I do not understand why his family was not held accountable. This should be a part of what people want for gun control. One of the victims parents tried to sue them, but nothing came of it. I feel like the family that allowed him to have that gun (and I know for a fact he was allowed to have all his guns back from his family) should have been financially liable. They are devastated by the loss, but they were in no way held accountable. This still bothers me. They have the kind of money that allows them to hire the type of lawyer that will either string out the case forever or just not lose.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jun 23, 2021 13:57:11 GMT
Sorry to like your post. I just agree with your. iowgirl
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Jun 23, 2021 15:40:27 GMT
If that isn’t “assault” then I don’t know what is. IMO - any gun can be an 'assault weapon" ... I wish there was a better way to stop people who shouldn't have any kind of weapon. The person I knew who took his life and the life of two innocent people used a 12 gauge shot gun. He should have never had that gun, but his family allowed him to have it. He was an adult (age 22) , who already had one 5150, and he might have had two. I believe the time period to own or posses a firearm after a 5150 is 5 years. His family was in major denial about his issues, and allowed him to have firearms, because he 'loved to hunt' and in their eyes, there was nothing wrong. To this day, I do not understand why his family was not held accountable. This should be a part of what people want for gun control. One of the victims parents tried to sue them, but nothing came of it. I feel like the family that allowed him to have that gun (and I know for a fact he was allowed to have all his guns back from his family) should have been financially liable. They are devastated by the loss, but they were in no way held accountable. This still bothers me. They have the kind of money that allows them to hire the type of lawyer that will either string out the case forever or just not lose. It doesn’t change the fact that the AR-15 is popular with mass shooters for the reasons already mentioned. And “better way”? There are many “better ways” and Dem legislators have tried over and over and over again over many, many years to enact stricter gun policies to no avail. I don’t think I need to explain anymore who stands in the way, ensuring these policies never become laws. That’s why states like CA have had to take the reins to at least minimize the likelihood of mass shootings and minimize the death toll. To go beyond the hypocrisy of “thoughts and prayers” and the chimera of “US superiority” every time a group of innocents is gunned down. To combat the counterfactual of unlimited gun ownership gun advocates had created out of the Heller decision when clearly, even Scalia had pointed out that there is another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms —“prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons,” a fact conveniently ignored by gun lobbies. So manufacturing and selling enough of these dangerous and unusual weapons turn them into an exception for regulating because of “common use.” Setting aside the malarkey of equating an AR-15 with Swiss army knives in this specific case, “common use,” was the core of Judge Benitez’s ruling that was overturned by the 9th Circuit; his logic being that the AR-15’s “common use” imbues it with protection against legislative restraints. The tragedy of rulings like his is that they don’t take into account the number of lives lost. But I have no doubt that individuals like him would be conveying their “thoughts and prayers” each time there’s a mass shooting. I can no longer muster the energy to argue why weapons like the AR-15 should be banned and why I agree with CA’s stance. As far as I’m concerned, the evidence backing up CA's decision is plentiful and compelling. My personal opinion is that as inviolable as gun advocates regard their 2A rights, I regard as even more inviolable the right of people to be free from the scourge of gun violence. And states that seriously undertake gun restrictions for the safety and preservation of lives are fulfilling their moral imperative to do so.
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Jun 23, 2021 16:00:12 GMT
If that isn’t “assault” then I don’t know what is. IMO - any gun can be an 'assault weapon" ... I wish there was a better way to stop people who shouldn't have any kind of weapon. The person I knew who took his life and the life of two innocent people used a 12 gauge shot gun. He should have never had that gun, but his family allowed him to have it. He was an adult (age 22) , who already had one 5150, and he might have had two. I believe the time period to own or posses a firearm after a 5150 is 5 years. His family was in major denial about his issues, and allowed him to have firearms, because he 'loved to hunt' and in their eyes, there was nothing wrong. To this day, I do not understand why his family was not held accountable. This should be a part of what people want for gun control. One of the victims parents tried to sue them, but nothing came of it. I feel like the family that allowed him to have that gun (and I know for a fact he was allowed to have all his guns back from his family) should have been financially liable. They are devastated by the loss, but they were in no way held accountable. This still bothers me. They have the kind of money that allows them to hire the type of lawyer that will either string out the case forever or just not lose. Question about the bolded comment: How many guns can hold 30 bullets? How many guns have a device that if attached changes it from a semi-automatic to an automatic rifle? How many of the guns are basically the prototype for a rifle used in the military? Not every gun that is manufactured should be allowed on our streets. The AR-15 is one of them. From NPR. link“AR" comes from the name of the gun's original manufacturer, ArmaLite, Inc. The letters stand for ArmaLite Rifle — and not for "assault rifle" or "automatic rifle." ArmaLite first developed the AR-15 in the late 1950s as a military rifle, but had limited success in selling it. In 1959 the company sold the design to Colt. In 1963, the U.S. military selected Colt to manufacture the automatic rifle that soon became standard issue for U.S. troops in the Vietnam War. It was known as the M-16. Armed with that success, Colt ramped up production of a semiautomatic version of the M-16 that it sold to law enforcement and the public, marketed as the AR-15.Similar to military weapons. AR-15-style semiautomatic weapons are civilian versions of military weapons. So what's the difference? Gun control advocates say the difference is minimal, arguing the AR-15, like its military version, is designed to kill people quickly and in large numbers - hence the term assault-style rifle. They say it has no valid recreational use, and civilians should not be allowed to own them. The gun industry, gun owners and their supporters say AR-15s are used for hunting, target practice and shooting competitions and should remain legal. Because AR-15-style weapons are semiautomatic, the shooter must pull the trigger to fire each shot from a magazine that often holds 30 rounds.In contrast, a shooter with a fully automatic assault rifle can pull and hold the trigger and the weapon will keep firing until the ammunition supply is exhausted. Fully automatic weapons have been tightly restricted in the U.S. since the 1934 National Firearms Act, which was directed against machine guns at the time. However, a bump stock — a legal device in many places — can be added to a semiautomatic weapon to approximate an automatic rifle.The Las Vegas shooter had a bump stock, which brought the device to national attention, and has led to calls to ban it in the current gun debate.”
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jun 23, 2021 18:12:05 GMT
Anyway you look at it, they are made to kill large numbers of PEOPLE at once!
|
|