America's Gun Violence
Options
Comments
-
0
-
A certain poster is going ballistic and blaming Hillary.Bentleyspop said:09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
I’d be curious to see how this actually gets enforced. How do they know who has one and who does not?Bentleyspop said:0 -
Registrations?PJPOWER said:
I’d be curious to see how this actually gets enforced. How do they know who has one and who does not?Bentleyspop said:
Because, as we all know, that is how President Obama will be able to send in his U.N. troops to find you and take away your guns
0 -
That’s just the thing, there are no mandated registrations...and hearing about this town trying to do this only validates the concerns of people that do not support a registry.Bentleyspop said:
Registrations?PJPOWER said:
I’d be curious to see how this actually gets enforced. How do they know who has one and who does not?Bentleyspop said:
Because, as we all know, that is how President Obama will be able to send in his U.N. troops to find you and take away your gunsPost edited by PJPOWER on0 -
By that logic, no matter what anyone does to improve gun control validates the concerns of people that do not support a registry or any other gun control, lol. Yeah, people know that... I think their intention is to ignore those concerns because they run counter to their cause. The only real goal is to get the most people on one side or another so that the politicians who support their cause win elections.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
Something seriously wrong with ‘murica. Check the photo from Missouri. How’s that guy gonna get the jump on the bad guy when his shootin’ Hand is holding the umbrella? Just another “responsible” gun owner, I reckon?
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/gun-ownership-rates-by-state/
Im not sure I agree with the methodology of the survey as it seems to be a small sample size given the number of guns in circulation.
yee haw!09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
Hey, you convinced me, I will not vote for a candidate that supports a registry...or any other form of gun control. Big surprise, I know, lolPJ_Soul said: By that logic, no matter what anyone does to improve gun control validates the concerns of people that do not support a registry or any other gun control, lol. Yeah, people know that... I think their intention is to ignore those concerns because they run counter to their cause. The only real goal is to get the most people on one side or another so that the politicians who support their cause win elections. 0 -
It’s okay, Team Trump Treason is going to trade Texas to Mexico for building the wall. They have all the labor anyway.PJPOWER said:
Hey, you convinced me, I will not vote for a candidate that supports a registry...or any other form of gun control. Big surprise, I know, lolPJ_Soul said: By that logic, no matter what anyone does to improve gun control validates the concerns of people that do not support a registry or any other gun control, lol. Yeah, people know that... I think their intention is to ignore those concerns because they run counter to their cause. The only real goal is to get the most people on one side or another so that the politicians who support their cause win elections. Post edited by Halifax2TheMax on09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
WTF does that have to do with this thread? Take your Trump obsession back to the Trump thread...Halifax2TheMax said:
It’s okay, Team Trump Treason is going to trade Texas to Mexico for building the wall. They have all the labor anyway.PJPOWER said:
Hey, you convinced me, I will not vote for a candidate that supports a registry...or any other form of gun control. Big surprise, I know, lolPJ_Soul said: By that logic, no matter what anyone does to improve gun control validates the concerns of people that do not support a registry or any other gun control, lol. Yeah, people know that... I think their intention is to ignore those concerns because they run counter to their cause. The only real goal is to get the most people on one side or another so that the politicians who support their cause win elections. 0 -
Congrats on CNN for another 100% misleading and completely untrue title.Bentleyspop said:
I didn't believe that to be true, so I read the article. If it was true there'd be costly lawsuits before it was ever enforced. And guess what, it isn't true at all.
Assault weapons are not banned.
They are 100% legal to own in that city/village. It just states that they must be "broken down in a non-functioning state," or "unloaded and enclosed in a case" among a few of the options if you do decide to own one.0 -
If you don’t think Trump has something to do with the current situation regarding guns and gun laws, then I’m not really sure what to tell you.PJPOWER said:
WTF does that have to do with this thread? Take your Trump obsession back to the Trump thread...Halifax2TheMax said:
It’s okay, Team Trump Treason is going to trade Texas to Mexico for building the wall. They have all the labor anyway.PJPOWER said:
Hey, you convinced me, I will not vote for a candidate that supports a registry...or any other form of gun control. Big surprise, I know, lolPJ_Soul said: By that logic, no matter what anyone does to improve gun control validates the concerns of people that do not support a registry or any other gun control, lol. Yeah, people know that... I think their intention is to ignore those concerns because they run counter to their cause. The only real goal is to get the most people on one side or another so that the politicians who support their cause win elections. my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
Lol, then maybe we should just merge the two threads? He didn’t mention anything about Trump’s effect on gun laws in the comment, but I digress.oftenreading said:
If you don’t think Trump has something to do with the current situation regarding guns and gun laws, then I’m not really sure what to tell you.PJPOWER said:
WTF does that have to do with this thread? Take your Trump obsession back to the Trump thread...Halifax2TheMax said:
It’s okay, Team Trump Treason is going to trade Texas to Mexico for building the wall. They have all the labor anyway.PJPOWER said:
Hey, you convinced me, I will not vote for a candidate that supports a registry...or any other form of gun control. Big surprise, I know, lolPJ_Soul said: By that logic, no matter what anyone does to improve gun control validates the concerns of people that do not support a registry or any other gun control, lol. Yeah, people know that... I think their intention is to ignore those concerns because they run counter to their cause. The only real goal is to get the most people on one side or another so that the politicians who support their cause win elections. 0 -
That your vote in Texas has no bearing on a gun control measure vote in Illinois just like Mexico paying for the wall has no bearing on border security. I wouldn’t have a problem trading Texas for a wall.PJPOWER said:
WTF does that have to do with this thread? Take your Trump obsession back to the Trump thread...Halifax2TheMax said:
It’s okay, Team Trump Treason is going to trade Texas to Mexico for building the wall. They have all the labor anyway.PJPOWER said:
Hey, you convinced me, I will not vote for a candidate that supports a registry...or any other form of gun control. Big surprise, I know, lolPJ_Soul said: By that logic, no matter what anyone does to improve gun control validates the concerns of people that do not support a registry or any other gun control, lol. Yeah, people know that... I think their intention is to ignore those concerns because they run counter to their cause. The only real goal is to get the most people on one side or another so that the politicians who support their cause win elections. 09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
Source?mace1229 said:
Congrats on CNN for another 100% misleading and completely untrue title.Bentleyspop said:
I didn't believe that to be true, so I read the article. If it was true there'd be costly lawsuits before it was ever enforced. And guess what, it isn't true at all.
Assault weapons are not banned.
They are 100% legal to own in that city/village. It just states that they must be "broken down in a non-functioning state," or "unloaded and enclosed in a case" among a few of the options if you do decide to own one.
usa today reports differently.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/04/05/illinois-town-bans-assault-weapons-fine-those-who-keep-them/488987002/
As for withstanding legal challenges, it’s modeled in a previous law that withstood legal challenges. Link to your source of what you claim is they just have to be broken down and stored?
09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
I’m cool with that because I do not want an Illinois vote having any bearing on gun control measures in TX. I would trade Illinois for a pop tart, lol. Can we build a wall around Chiraq instead?Halifax2TheMax said:
That your vote in Texas has no bearing on a gun control measure vote in Illinois just like Mexico paying for the wall has no bearing on border security. I wouldn’t have a problem trading Texas for a wall.PJPOWER said:
WTF does that have to do with this thread? Take your Trump obsession back to the Trump thread...Halifax2TheMax said:
It’s okay, Team Trump Treason is going to trade Texas to Mexico for building the wall. They have all the labor anyway.PJPOWER said:
Hey, you convinced me, I will not vote for a candidate that supports a registry...or any other form of gun control. Big surprise, I know, lolPJ_Soul said: By that logic, no matter what anyone does to improve gun control validates the concerns of people that do not support a registry or any other gun control, lol. Yeah, people know that... I think their intention is to ignore those concerns because they run counter to their cause. The only real goal is to get the most people on one side or another so that the politicians who support their cause win elections. Post edited by PJPOWER on0 -
Link was in the original post I responded to. I just clicked on what was originally posted to get that misleading article. That CNN link originally posted is what states that they must be "broken down in a non-functioning state," or "unloaded and enclosed in a case" and not banned, even though the title for that same article says "An Illinois Town Just Banned Assault Rifles."Halifax2TheMax said:
Source?mace1229 said:
Congrats on CNN for another 100% misleading and completely untrue title.Bentleyspop said:
I didn't believe that to be true, so I read the article. If it was true there'd be costly lawsuits before it was ever enforced. And guess what, it isn't true at all.
Assault weapons are not banned.
They are 100% legal to own in that city/village. It just states that they must be "broken down in a non-functioning state," or "unloaded and enclosed in a case" among a few of the options if you do decide to own one.
usa today reports differently.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/04/05/illinois-town-bans-assault-weapons-fine-those-who-keep-them/488987002/
As for withstanding legal challenges, it’s modeled in a previous law that withstood legal challenges. Link to your source of what you claim is they just have to be broken down and stored?
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/05/us/deerfield-illinois-assault-weapon-ban-trnd/index.html?sr=twCNN040518deerfield-illinois-assault-weapon-ban-trnd0159PMVODtop
Also states as long as the assault weapon is "not immediately accessible to any person." Which would include in a gun safe. California requires all guns to be in a gun safe when children are in the home. This law seems to be a total dud compared to the heading.Post edited by mace1229 on0 -
Page 86 of the Town of Deerfield’s town council minutes speak to it being unlawful to possess, keep, store or manufacture assault weapons within the town of Deerfield and that this section does not apply for the transportation of assault weapons. Possession of a fully functioning assault weapon will have you in violation of the ordinance. Transporting through, out or in the town limits in a non-functional state as defined will not. The headline is not misleading in the least.mace1229 said:
Link was in the original post I responded to. I just clicked on what was originally posted to get that misleading article. That CNN link originally posted is what states that they must be "broken down in a non-functioning state," or "unloaded and enclosed in a case" and not banned, even though the title for that same article says "An Illinois Town Just Banned Assault Rifles."Halifax2TheMax said:
Source?mace1229 said:
Congrats on CNN for another 100% misleading and completely untrue title.Bentleyspop said:
I didn't believe that to be true, so I read the article. If it was true there'd be costly lawsuits before it was ever enforced. And guess what, it isn't true at all.
Assault weapons are not banned.
They are 100% legal to own in that city/village. It just states that they must be "broken down in a non-functioning state," or "unloaded and enclosed in a case" among a few of the options if you do decide to own one.
usa today reports differently.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/04/05/illinois-town-bans-assault-weapons-fine-those-who-keep-them/488987002/
As for withstanding legal challenges, it’s modeled in a previous law that withstood legal challenges. Link to your source of what you claim is they just have to be broken down and stored?
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/05/us/deerfield-illinois-assault-weapon-ban-trnd/index.html?sr=twCNN040518deerfield-illinois-assault-weapon-ban-trnd0159PMVODtop
Also states as long as the assault weapon is "not immediately accessible to any person." Which would include in a gun safe. California requires all guns to be in a gun safe when children are in the home. This law seems to be a total dud compared to the heading.
09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
After this ban the town of deerfield should be the safest town in america. I guess we will wait and see.Halifax2TheMax said:
Page 86 of the Town of Deerfield’s town council minutes speak to it being unlawful to possess, keep, store or manufacture assault weapons within the town of Deerfield and that this section does not apply for the transportation of assault weapons. Possession of a fully functioning assault weapon will have you in violation of the ordinance. Transporting through, out or in the town limits in a non-functional state as defined will not. The headline is not misleading in the least.mace1229 said:
Link was in the original post I responded to. I just clicked on what was originally posted to get that misleading article. That CNN link originally posted is what states that they must be "broken down in a non-functioning state," or "unloaded and enclosed in a case" and not banned, even though the title for that same article says "An Illinois Town Just Banned Assault Rifles."Halifax2TheMax said:
Source?mace1229 said:
Congrats on CNN for another 100% misleading and completely untrue title.Bentleyspop said:
I didn't believe that to be true, so I read the article. If it was true there'd be costly lawsuits before it was ever enforced. And guess what, it isn't true at all.
Assault weapons are not banned.
They are 100% legal to own in that city/village. It just states that they must be "broken down in a non-functioning state," or "unloaded and enclosed in a case" among a few of the options if you do decide to own one.
usa today reports differently.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/04/05/illinois-town-bans-assault-weapons-fine-those-who-keep-them/488987002/
As for withstanding legal challenges, it’s modeled in a previous law that withstood legal challenges. Link to your source of what you claim is they just have to be broken down and stored?
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/05/us/deerfield-illinois-assault-weapon-ban-trnd/index.html?sr=twCNN040518deerfield-illinois-assault-weapon-ban-trnd0159PMVODtop
Also states as long as the assault weapon is "not immediately accessible to any person." Which would include in a gun safe. California requires all guns to be in a gun safe when children are in the home. This law seems to be a total dud compared to the heading.
I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
and with all the guns in Chicago that should be the safest city in America. alas it's not. damn those irresponsible gun owners.mcgruff10 said:
After this ban the town of deerfield should be the safest town in america. I guess we will wait and see.Halifax2TheMax said:
Page 86 of the Town of Deerfield’s town council minutes speak to it being unlawful to possess, keep, store or manufacture assault weapons within the town of Deerfield and that this section does not apply for the transportation of assault weapons. Possession of a fully functioning assault weapon will have you in violation of the ordinance. Transporting through, out or in the town limits in a non-functional state as defined will not. The headline is not misleading in the least.mace1229 said:
Link was in the original post I responded to. I just clicked on what was originally posted to get that misleading article. That CNN link originally posted is what states that they must be "broken down in a non-functioning state," or "unloaded and enclosed in a case" and not banned, even though the title for that same article says "An Illinois Town Just Banned Assault Rifles."Halifax2TheMax said:
Source?mace1229 said:
Congrats on CNN for another 100% misleading and completely untrue title.Bentleyspop said:
I didn't believe that to be true, so I read the article. If it was true there'd be costly lawsuits before it was ever enforced. And guess what, it isn't true at all.
Assault weapons are not banned.
They are 100% legal to own in that city/village. It just states that they must be "broken down in a non-functioning state," or "unloaded and enclosed in a case" among a few of the options if you do decide to own one.
usa today reports differently.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/04/05/illinois-town-bans-assault-weapons-fine-those-who-keep-them/488987002/
As for withstanding legal challenges, it’s modeled in a previous law that withstood legal challenges. Link to your source of what you claim is they just have to be broken down and stored?
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/05/us/deerfield-illinois-assault-weapon-ban-trnd/index.html?sr=twCNN040518deerfield-illinois-assault-weapon-ban-trnd0159PMVODtop
Also states as long as the assault weapon is "not immediately accessible to any person." Which would include in a gun safe. California requires all guns to be in a gun safe when children are in the home. This law seems to be a total dud compared to the heading.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 272 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.6K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help