Democrats pass idiotic assault weapon ban bill

T. A. Gardner

T. A. Gardner

Thread Killer
I can hear the sighs and imagine the eye rolling that title brought to many here, but it is accurate and not for the reason(s) those that would cheer it think.

The bill

called “Assault Weapons Ban of 2022,” would make it illegal for a person to import, manufacture, sell, or transfer “a semiautomatic assault weapon,” according to the bill’s summary.
Click to expand...
https://news.yahoo.com/house-passes-assault-weapons-ban-012554705.html

It also bans magazines over 10 rounds in capacity.

Anyway, what makes this bill idiotic is the inclusion that someone now owning one or more of the weapons this bill bans is being prohibited from selling or transferring it. That amounts to a "taking." What that means is the government has effectively deprived that person of the value of that weapon. They can't sell it or give it to another family member for example. In effect, the government would have to pay each owner--and there are an estimated 12 million weapons included in this ban at an average value of about $1500 or say somewhere around $200 + billion in value of these weapons in the US.

A gun dealer with some of these weapons in stock would be prohibited from selling or transferring them to anyone. That is clearly a taking. Under eminent domain laws, the federal government would be obligated to pay the dealer in full for that loss. Private owners too.

So, the Democrats aren't just banning these weapons they are trying to confiscate them without having to compensate the owners. That won't fly, and only a complete retard in politics would try something so bald faced. Or, it is the Democrats trying absurd and obviously stupid political theater thinking that people will be angered by its not passing and take it out on Republicans.

Those that support such a move should be angered at the Democrats for political pandering rather than doing something effective, while those opposed to such a bill should be equally angered at Democrats for proposing such an idiotic and retarded blunder like this bill.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
I can hear the sighs and imagine the eye rolling that title brought to many here, but it is accurate and not for the reason(s) those that would cheer it think.

The bill


https://news.yahoo.com/house-passes-assault-weapons-ban-012554705.html

It also bans magazines over 10 rounds in capacity.

Anyway, what makes this bill idiotic is the inclusion that someone now owning one or more of the weapons this bill bans is being prohibited from selling or transferring it. That amounts to a "taking." What that means is the government has effectively deprived that person of the value of that weapon. They can't sell it or give it to another family member for example. In effect, the government would have to pay each owner--and there are an estimated 12 million weapons included in this ban at an average value of about $1500 or say somewhere around $200 + billion in value of these weapons in the US.

A gun dealer with some of these weapons in stock would be prohibited from selling or transferring them to anyone. That is clearly a taking. Under eminent domain laws, the federal government would be obligated to pay the dealer in full for that loss. Private owners too.

So, the Democrats aren't just banning these weapons they are trying to confiscate them without having to compensate the owners. That won't fly, and only a complete retard in politics would try something so bald faced. Or, it is the Democrats trying absurd and obviously stupid political theater thinking that people will be angered by its not passing and take it out on Republicans.

Those that support such a move should be angered at the Democrats for political pandering rather than doing something effective, while those opposed to such a bill should be equally angered at Democrats for proposing such an idiotic and retarded blunder like this bill.
Click to expand...

This bill is to protect idiot like you, are likely to shoot themselves.
 
too bad that most of us won't comply..............

dutch will probably lose his in a boating accident though......he's too much of a pussy to fight back.
 
So idiotic it was enacted before and too great success. Ah, the days when the Columbine school shooting was unheard of. Now school shootings are dime a dozen.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Anyway, what makes this bill idiotic is the inclusion that someone now owning one or more of the weapons this bill bans is being prohibited from selling or transferring it. That amounts to a "taking."
Click to expand...

That amounts to interstate commerce, which does not have to be paid for. Sorry.
 
Walt said:
That amounts to interstate commerce, which does not have to be paid for. Sorry.
Click to expand...

If I possess something of value, and the government suddenly makes a law making it illegal to sell, trade, or transfer that item to anyone else, they have taken the value of it. That falls under eminent domain and the government has to compensate me in full for that loss because they, and they alone caused it.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
If I possess something of value, and the government suddenly makes a law making it illegal to sell, trade, or transfer that item to anyone else, they have taken the value of it. That falls under eminent domain and the government has to compensate me in full for that loss because they, and they alone caused it.
Click to expand...

No, eminent domain is when the property is transferred to the government for public use. Saying it cannot be sold is the opposite of transferring it. It has never been considered to fall under "just compensation." If you want to be a drug dealer, and being a drug dealer is illegal, you do not get "just compensation" for that.

This is not a new legal concept. It has been around since before the Constitution.
 
Walt said:
No, eminent domain is when the property is transferred to the government for public use. Saying it cannot be sold is the opposite of transferring it. It has never been considered to fall under "just compensation." If you want to be a drug dealer, and being a drug dealer is illegal, you do not get "just compensation" for that.

This is not a new legal concept. It has been around since before the Constitution.
Click to expand...

You are totally wrong.

Definition of eminent domain
: a right of a government to take private property for public use by virtue of the superior dominion of the sovereign power over all lands within its jurisdiction
Click to expand...

The constitution specifically forbids the government from taking property without compensation. To deny someone the use of their property in any way, shape, or form is a variant of eminent domain. What this bill in effect says is, We aren't taking your assault rifle, the high-capacity magazines, and ammunition for it, only denying you any and all use of it, ability to sell or transfer it, or do anything else with it beyond keeping it at your home and never using it for any purpose.
 
Unconstitutional though of course that does not matter, that particular promise is over.....Old America is dead, it was murder.
 
Walt said:
Is the private property being taken from them? Or is the right to commerce being taken from them? Rights to commerce are not guaranteed.
Click to expand...

In effect, yes. If tomorrow the government passed a law that all ICE vehicles were banned from use on all roads would your inability to now use that vehicle for any practical purpose not be a taking? Would the owner of a gas station not be harmed by this law severely? This law is in essence a fig leaf for gun confiscation where those that passed it try to get around having to compensate the owners of those guns for their loss.

For example, let's say a gun dealer has 20 now banned rifles in his store. He certainly didn't intend them for personal use. He intended to sell them and make a profit from that. But now that he can't do that, he just lost the full investment he made in purchasing those rifles for future sales. The government took that value of those rifles from him and must compensate him for the loss under the constitution.

This is no different than if the government came along and told you, a property owner, that they were going to put some public good like an electric transmission line across your property and that you would lose the use of that portion of your property. The property is still yours, but you lost the use of that part of it. The government must compensate you for that loss.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
If tomorrow the government passed a law that all ICE vehicles were banned from use on all roads would your inability to now use that vehicle for any practical purpose not be a taking?
Click to expand...

The government already bans cars from roads. If you fail your inspection, they ban your car.

But more importantly, you are demanding government benefits here. The road is the government's property, paid for by the taxpayers. Why do the taxpayers owe you use of the road with no restrictions?

T. A. Gardner said:
Would the owner of a gas station not be harmed by this law severely?
Click to expand...

So any law that hurts any business, the government has to compensate that business in full? If abortions are banned in Texas, then abortion clinics must be paid the amount they would have gotten for abortions until the end of time?

What about if a medicine is found to be dangerous, and sale of it is banned? Does the government have to pay the drug company for the drug forever? Do we owe the makers of thalidomide for the last 50 or so years of it being banned?

Sometimes the government will help out businesses, but there is no Constitutional requirement to do so.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
If I possess something of value, and the government suddenly makes a law making it illegal to sell, trade, or transfer that item to anyone else, they have taken the value of it. That falls under eminent domain and the government has to compensate me in full for that loss because they, and they alone caused it.
Click to expand...

They know perfectly well that it will fail in the Senate, it's just grandstanding.
 
T.A. Gardner;
Democrats pass idiotic assault weapon ban bill
Click to expand...

Are there any assault weapons for sale to civilians which are NOT idiotic ?

You're so keen on the proliferation of deadly weapons and radioactive pollution that you're like one of Satan's little imps, you misguided moron.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
I can hear the sighs and imagine the eye rolling that title brought to many here, but it is accurate and not for the reason(s) those that would cheer it think.

The bill


https://news.yahoo.com/house-passes-assault-weapons-ban-012554705.html

It also bans magazines over 10 rounds in capacity.

Anyway, what makes this bill idiotic is the inclusion that someone now owning one or more of the weapons this bill bans is being prohibited from selling or transferring it. That amounts to a "taking." What that means is the government has effectively deprived that person of the value of that weapon. They can't sell it or give it to another family member for example. In effect, the government would have to pay each owner--and there are an estimated 12 million weapons included in this ban at an average value of about $1500 or say somewhere around $200 + billion in value of these weapons in the US.

A gun dealer with some of these weapons in stock would be prohibited from selling or transferring them to anyone. That is clearly a taking. Under eminent domain laws, the federal government would be obligated to pay the dealer in full for that loss. Private owners too.

So, the Democrats aren't just banning these weapons they are trying to confiscate them without having to compensate the owners. That won't fly, and only a complete retard in politics would try something so bald faced. Or, it is the Democrats trying absurd and obviously stupid political theater thinking that people will be angered by its not passing and take it out on Republicans.

Those that support such a move should be angered at the Democrats for political pandering rather than doing something effective, while those opposed to such a bill should be equally angered at Democrats for proposing such an idiotic and retarded blunder like this bill.
Click to expand...

You as a POS troll advocating seditious and un-American repukes and their NRA pimps passing a domestic terrorist bill of their own at obstructing gun control measures that has global implications back and forth just because you hate America and anything else of a civilized nature on Earth. One point you trolls should understand is that for one among other reasons the U.S cannot be invaded that it is packed with weapons double the size or more of its population among civilians and not to speak of what the U.S. military forces have at their disposal against both the internal and external enemies of the world.

Obviously foreign enemies were not interested in invading America but depended on a lawlessly hacked in piece of shit sewer creature tRump and his un-American team of deplorable of a shit show who are continually being hauled in to stand accountable at being set up to be fools among the tRump gutter mob of insurrection to destroy democracy from within at doing the bidding of foreign enemies and the devil. Based on events of the recent election that unlike 2016 was safe, secure and electoral college hacked proof and despite the war tRump, repukes and other swine engaged in that further effort to destroy another election in the devil's favor, torpedoed on their ass.

I trust the forces of a civilized nature against the internal and external enemy of the USofA and its allies, etc. against deplorable scum of the Earth and uncivilized savages that are incapable of either co-existing and supporting a civilized global society will continue to prevail.
 
Last edited:
The baby formula situation is a great window in on what life under the rule of the Revolution is like, they could not/would not maintain supplies, they dont give a fuck about us.

Buckle Up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top