Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A federal judge in the Southern District of California ruled late on Friday that California’s controversial “assault weapons” ban is unconstitutional.
“This case is not about extraordinary weapons lying at the outer limits of Second Amendment protection,” Judge Roger T. Benitez wrote. “The banned ‘assault weapons’ are not bazookas, howitzers, or machineguns. Those arms are dangerous and solely useful for military purposes. Instead, the firearms deemed ‘assault weapons’ are fairly ordinary, popular, modern rifles. This is an average case about average guns used in average ways for average purposes.”
“One is to be forgiven if one is persuaded by news media and others that the nation is awash with murderous AR-15 assault rifles. The facts, however, do not support this hyperbole, and facts matter,” Benitez continued.
Most people who are hot for an "assault weapons ban" know next to nothing about guns. You could put a .22 rifle made to look like an M-16 on a table with an M-1 Garand and ask them, "Which of these weapons is should be banned? Which one is truly dangerous?" They'll pick the .22 over the Garand 10/10 times.
Most people who are hot for an "assault weapons ban" know next to nothing about guns. You could put a .22 rifle made to look like an M-16 on a table with an M-1 Garand and ask them, "Which of these weapons is should be banned? Which one is truly dangerous?" They'll pick the .22 over the Garand 10/10 times.
Most people who are hot for an "assault weapons ban" know next to nothing about guns. You could put a .22 rifle made to look like an M-16 on a table with an M-1 Garand and ask them, "Which of these weapons is should be banned? Which one is truly dangerous?" They'll pick the .22 over the Garand 10/10 times.
Even more funny, most liberals won't be able to understand your post, not being familiar with anything you just said. THey don't know what a Garand is. They don't know what a .22 is. You might as well be talking Mandarin to them.
Just you watch. One of them will Google both items so they can come back here and say "oh yeah buddy? I know what a Garand is." Yeah, after you looked it up.
Most people who are hot for an "assault weapons ban" know next to nothing about guns. You could put a .22 rifle made to look like an M-16 on a table with an M-1 Garand and ask them, "Which of these weapons is should be banned? Which one is truly dangerous?" They'll pick the .22 over the Garand 10/10 times.
Dad has an awesome .22 rifle that he bought from Walmart for $100. It only holds 5-10 rounds maybe, but it will fire as fast as I can pull the trigger, or at the same rate that I can fire my AR-15.
Even more funny, most liberals won't be able to understand your post, not being familiar with anything you just said. THey don't know what a Garand is. They don't know what a .22 is. You might as well be talking Mandarin to them.
Just you watch. One of them will Google both items so they can come back here and say "oh yeah buddy? I know what a Garand is." Yeah, after you looked it up.
Ah yes, the M1 Garand. The only time a liberal correctly uses the term "clips".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
