Democrats pass idiotic assault weapon ban bill

T. A. Gardner said:
Technically, under eminent domain, they could if the proper law was in place.
Click to expand...
No. Technically, the constitution is in the way.
T. A. Gardner said:
But confiscating even just "assault rifles" and their associated parts would run close to a trillion dollars to accomplish and obviously even the radical Left recognizes that as insanely stupid to try.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant, even if true. The right of self defense is inherent. The Constitution does not give any government any authority to ban or limit any weapon.
T. A. Gardner said:
That's why they're trying work arounds that are illegal.
Click to expand...
ANY attempt to ban or limit weapons through ANY kind of law is unconstitutional and illegal.
T. A. Gardner said:
They can't do it legally and survive politically, so they resort to criminal actions to accomplish their goal.
Click to expand...
A war was once fought over this very issue. Will it happen again?
 
Into the Night Soil
200w.webp
You can't create matter out of nothing.
Click to expand...

So where did it come from ?
 
Always comical in these gun exchanges when the gun huggers finally realize they have nothing to offer you get the “come and try taking mine” bullshit

As I said before, they envision themselves as Clint Eastwood cause they own guns, but in reality, Barney Fife is more appropriate

 
Into the Night said:
No. Technically, the constitution is in the way.

Irrelevant, even if true. The right of self defense is inherent. The Constitution does not give any government any authority to ban or limit any weapon.

ANY attempt to ban or limit weapons through ANY kind of law is unconstitutional and illegal.

A war was once fought over this very issue. Will it happen again?
Click to expand...

Oh, oh, the “owning guns is a God given right” has arrived, might as well talking to the floor now
 
Into the Night said:
YOURS, dumbass. It is DEMOCRATS that created the KKK, and continue to fund and support it.
Click to expand...

Amazing how many times history has to be taught to the wingers, yeah, Democrats, CONSERVATIVE Democrats, the predecessors of today’s GOP, or did you really think the Radical Republicans were called Radical cause they were Conservatives
 
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...

I don't think it constitutes "taking" since they are not taking private property for public use.

I didn't understand the difference between the "grandfathered" weapons and how the law applies to them differently from others.
 
Flash said:
I don't think it constitutes "taking" since they are not taking private property for public use.

I didn't understand the difference between the "grandfathered" weapons and how the law applies to them differently from others.
Click to expand...

It is a taking if the government makes something you own worthless when it was previously valuable. Grandfathered weapons are ones in existence before the law was passed. This law is illegal because it makes sale and transfer of existing weapons illegal.

Imagine this: You are a gun dealer. You have $40,000 worth of AR-15-style weapons in your shop when this law is passed. You don't want or need these rifles for personal use in any way, shape, or form. You wanted to sell them to customers. Now that this law passed, you can't. That's illegal. You are out $40,000 in merchandise you can't sell because the government suddenly says so. You can own them because they are "grandfathered" in because you owned and possessed them prior to this law being passed. But you can no longer sell or transfer ownership of them because of the law.
The government in effect just took $40,000 worth of your merchandise. It's a fig leaf of a lie to say Well you still own the guns... They are now worthless to you. You lost $40,000. That's the way the courts will see it, and the law will be struck down.
 
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...

What is so idiotic about defending the well being of society against a clump of idiotic, deranged and chemically imbalanced idiots who are incapable of controlling their emotions but instead engage in domestic terrorist atrocities? To have a shitty attitude against that such as you possess as a resident troll, demonstrates your own lack of having a competent and civilized way of thinking.
 
archives said:
Amazing how many times history has to be taught to the wingers, yeah, Democrats, CONSERVATIVE Democrats, the predecessors of today’s GOP, or did you really think the Radical Republicans were called Radical cause they were Conservatives
Click to expand...

No Democrats were predecessors of the Republican party, nor did the Republican create the KKK, nor fund or support it. DEMOCRATS created the KKK, AND continue to fund and support it.

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