The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-12-2018, 04:09 PM   #126
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
Mo' holla fo' yo' dolla!
 
L.A. BRONCOS FAN's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: In a bunker in an undisclosed location
Posts: 85,843
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBroncosJM View Post
Iím not sure why you donít understand this - if LE contacted the shooter and found him in possession of a high capacity magazine they could have taken action because there is no way a ten year old purchased a high capacity magazine.
If there is no ban in effect, then what difference does it make when the mags were purchased? Thanks to the lawsuit, it's not illegal to possess them.

Quote:
Said another way - since this lawsuit you are pimping has blocked making these magazines illegal, I can go buy one today correct? I cannot. If I had a high capacity magazine purchased before 2000 then I can keep it..because you know the 5th amendment.
The ban hasn't been implemented, due to the lawsuit, so there's nothing to stop you (or the next mass shooter) from buying the mags.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2018, 05:18 PM   #127
DenverBroncosJM
Post here Vine
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: California
Posts: 2,211
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN View Post
If there is no ban in effect, then what difference does it make when the mags were purchased? Thanks to the lawsuit, it's not illegal to possess them.



The ban hasn't been implemented, due to the lawsuit, so there's nothing to stop you (or the next mass shooter) from buying the mags.
The ban is in effect. You cannot buy a magazine in California over 10 rounds (I think .22 you still can) They are banned! If you happen to have one you legally purchased before the ban was enacted 18 years ago you can keep it for now pending the outcome of the court case.

The only thing being argued in court was that California overreached or tried to and told people your legally purchased magazines from 2000 or earlier are no longer grandfathered and you must dispose of them without compensation. That is what is being challenged in court. Magazines over 10 rounds have been banned for sale in California since 2000. You can argue with me all you want but itís not going to change the facts.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fed...ut-fight-looms

4th paragraph -

California law has prohibited buying or selling the magazines since 2000, but until now allowed those who had them to keep them.

**** even the link you posted says the same thing - https://thehill.com/homenews/news/41...kV54cJf2PmSMJU

Last edited by DenverBroncosJM; 11-12-2018 at 06:07 PM..
DenverBroncosJM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2018, 11:09 AM   #128
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
Mo' holla fo' yo' dolla!
 
L.A. BRONCOS FAN's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: In a bunker in an undisclosed location
Posts: 85,843
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBroncosJM View Post
The ban is in effect. You cannot buy a magazine in California over 10 rounds (I think .22 you still can) They are banned! If you happen to have one you legally purchased before the ban was enacted 18 years ago you can keep it for now pending the outcome of the court case.

The only thing being argued in court was that California overreached or tried to and told people your legally purchased magazines from 2000 or earlier are no longer grandfathered and you must dispose of them without compensation. That is what is being challenged in court. Magazines over 10 rounds have been banned for sale in California since 2000. You can argue with me all you want but itís not going to change the facts.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fed...ut-fight-looms

4th paragraph -

California law has prohibited buying or selling the magazines since 2000, but until now allowed those who had them to keep them.

**** even the link you posted says the same thing - https://thehill.com/homenews/news/41...kV54cJf2PmSMJU
You're ultimately going the long way to make my point for me.

The lawsuit leaves open a loophole by which the bad guys can still legally arm themselves (and/or others) with high capacity mags.

Take away the lawsuit, and you at least have some extra leverage in taking the mags off the street.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2018, 11:22 AM   #129
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
Meh. Anyone can.

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 32,989

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaneFalco View Post
so he was pro gun control like you?

And wanted to use his shooting to take peoples rights away.... like you....

not surprised at all. I am sure one day you will be on the news doing the exact same thing.
Yep, trots out the same "thoughts and prayers" heckling in the lead-up as most of the lefties here.

Left-wing violence.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2018, 11:25 AM   #130
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
Mo' holla fo' yo' dolla!
 
L.A. BRONCOS FAN's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: In a bunker in an undisclosed location
Posts: 85,843
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Yep, trots out the same "thoughts and prayers" heckling in the lead-up as most of the lefties here.

Right-wing parody.
FYP.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2018, 08:20 PM   #131
DenverBroncosJM
Post here Vine
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: California
Posts: 2,211
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN View Post
You're ultimately going the long way to make my point for me.

The lawsuit leaves open a loophole by which the bad guys can still legally arm themselves (and/or others) with high capacity mags.

Take away the lawsuit, and you at least have some extra leverage in taking the mags off the street.
You mean if the bad guy purchased the magazine 18 years ago and decided to wait to go crazy? Gtfo with you bull**** back tracking. Sometimes itís okay to admit you donít know wtf you are talking about.
DenverBroncosJM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2018, 08:25 PM   #132
DenverBroncosJM
Post here Vine
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: California
Posts: 2,211
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN View Post
Your comprehension game is just as soft as the last red hat who commented.

The point is that the referendum which would have made possession of the mags illegal - irrespective of year of purchase - was blocked by hoplophile idiots via a lawsuit.

In other words, LE would have otherwise been able to act when contacting loons like the shooter.
Exhibit A. His possession of the magazine was illegal
DenverBroncosJM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2018, 08:26 PM   #133
DenverBroncosJM
Post here Vine
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: California
Posts: 2,211
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN View Post
You don't read so well, do you?

The magazine the shooter used was outlawed in 2016.

However, the ban was blocked by a lawsuit brought by gundamentalist nitwits.
Exhibit B

Outlawed in 2000
DenverBroncosJM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2018, 08:27 PM   #134
DenverBroncosJM
Post here Vine
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: California
Posts: 2,211
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN View Post
If there is no ban in effect, then what difference does it make when the mags were purchased? Thanks to the lawsuit, it's not illegal to possess them.



The ban hasn't been implemented, due to the lawsuit, so there's nothing to stop you (or the next mass shooter) from buying the mags.
Exhibit C

You can change your tune now but your ignorance of the law has been documented. You wanted to make this about the evil republican gun owners so badly you failed to even read or comprehend the story/link you posted. If the 5th amendment can be easily overlooked, I guess the 14th isnít far behind right?

Last edited by DenverBroncosJM; 11-13-2018 at 11:10 PM..
DenverBroncosJM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2018, 12:13 AM   #135
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
Mo' holla fo' yo' dolla!
 
L.A. BRONCOS FAN's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: In a bunker in an undisclosed location
Posts: 85,843
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBroncosJM View Post
Exhibit C

You can change your tune now but your ignorance of the law has been documented. You wanted to make this about the evil republican gun owners so badly you failed to even read or comprehend the story/link you posted. If the 5th amendment can be easily overlooked, I guess the 14th isnít far behind right?
No change of story - just a refusal to allow your BS spin to stand.

Once again, bottom line: The lawsuit by gundamentalists leaves open a loophole which takes away some added leverage LE would otherwise have to take high capacity mags off the street.

You're fine with this because you're laboring under the illusion that the Second Amendment guarantees you some sort of unlimited right to own any weapon you desire.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2018, 07:09 AM   #136
Chicago_Bronco
Seasoned Veteran
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 297

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN View Post
No change of story - just a refusal to allow your BS spin to stand.

Once again, bottom line: The lawsuit by gundamentalists leaves open a loophole which takes away some added leverage LE would otherwise have to take high capacity mags off the street.

You're fine with this because you're laboring under the illusion that the Second Amendment guarantees you some sort of unlimited right to own any weapon you desire.
Or... poorly written law was challenged for violating people's constitutional rights. And I'm fine with that because the law could have been written and certainly passed in California without doing so. And if one law that violates people's constitutional rights is allowed to stand, another one won't be far behind.
Chicago_Bronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:03 AM.


Denver Broncos