OT: Gungrabbers' Latest Stunt

"Just say 'no'."

Know what I mean?

Reply to
krw
Loading thread data ...

Reading minds again eh ? You reading is not very clear. Nothing makes me feel anything. I do however, like to f*ck with liberals. That's about as close as it gets.

Reply to
jurb6006

HAHAHAHA. Next we need a TV ad - "this is your brain...this is your brain on Slowman".

Reply to
jurb6006

Plonked or not :

formatting link

"Gov. Bruce Rauner seems to be leaning against the one new, proposed gun la w that Illinois lawmakers sent him.

The rest are bottled up in the Senate as lawmakers try and find a future fo r gun control in the state. The Illinois House and Senate stamped their app roval on a half dozen or so gun control plans at the beginning of the month . But they fully approved just one, a new plan to create state licenses for smaller gun dealers in Illinois.

Last week, Gov. Rauner said he's not sure about that plan.

"The federal government already regulates these gun dealers," the governor said Friday. "We?ve gotta be careful about putting too many redunda nt regulations that won?t really change or improve anything, but it may actually hurt small businesses in the state of Illinois."..."

"And if they do get to a final vote, there are still questions about consti tutionality, particularly with a plan to set a 21-year-age limit for buying an assault-style rifle. "

Nice to know someone thinks about that. I still await the impending judgeme nt against Dick's Sporting Goods on that one. If a baker can't refuse to ba ke a cake...

""You could be a 20-year-old veteran from Kandahar who has bought one of th ese rifles. And the state of Illinois is going to tell you you have to surr ender that," Todd Vandermyde, a lobbyist for a group of federally licensed firearms dealers in the state told lawmakers. "The state of Illinois is goi ng to require that you surrender your property. I think you have some Fifth Amendment issues with that." "

"In addition to the 21-year-old age restriction to buy a rifle, the Senate subcommittee listened to arguments for but did not vote on a plan to ban gu n magazines that hold more than 10 bullets, a plan to ban body armor, the p roposed ban on bump stocks, and a new requirement that people wait three da ys to pick up a rifle that they've already purchased. "

Ban body armor ? That clearly demonstrates that they simply want the absolu te power of life and death over Citizens and leave us no recourse or defens e. Why else ? Why would PUBLIC SERVANTS ban a strictly defensive tool ? Som ething that could keep criminals from killing you at will ? Because it woul d also keep them from killing you at will.

It might just happen that all this shit is deemed unconstitutional and/or d ies in committee. That way they can look like they are doing something but they don't further violate our rights.

The article also mentions those who bring guns in from other areas. So assu ming that's true, hoe come those areas don't have so many shootings ?

The answer is obvious. The PEOPLE are different. Guns are the same here and there, but in some hands they are used to kill without justification, and in other hands not.

At least the indications are that all is not lost. Yet. But they are like d ogs and will never quit, so we must never quit. Convincing them won't work because of their ignorance and conditioning that think borders on brainwash ing. Therefore we must use the courts and law - the highest of which is the Constitution to keep them from their ill thought out goals.

Reply to
jurb6006

Bigotry is Slow-Man's middle name, what ever it takes to uphold the staus quo..

Jamie

Reply to
M Philbrook

Jamie doesn't just get things wrong - he gets them completely backwards and sideways. It's remarkable in it's way - he's literate enough to pick up names and almost reproduce them, but the information content clearly escapes him.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

law that Illinois lawmakers sent him.

for gun control in the state. The Illinois House and Senate stamped their a pproval on a half dozen or so gun control plans at the beginning of the mon th. But they fully approved just one, a new plan to create state licenses f or smaller gun dealers in Illinois.

r said Friday. "We?ve gotta be careful about putting too many redun dant regulations that won?t really change or improve anything, but it may actually hurt small businesses in the state of Illinois."..."

titutionality, particularly with a plan to set a 21-year-age limit for buyi ng an assault-style rifle. "

ment against Dick's Sporting Goods on that one. If a baker can't refuse to bake a cake...

It is amazing how little you actually understand. The issue of discriminat ion is totally unrelated to gun control. Nothing in common at all, zip, ze ro, na-da!

these rifles. And the state of Illinois is going to tell you you have to su rrender that," Todd Vandermyde, a lobbyist for a group of federally license d firearms dealers in the state told lawmakers. "The state of Illinois is g oing to require that you surrender your property. I think you have some Fif th Amendment issues with that." "

I don't know how much of this is true as I haven't seen the bill, but from what you wrote above, it says assault rifles won't be sold, nothing about " seizing" any guns. Besides, there's nothing in any amendment that says the government can't take your property. Just that you must be compensated.

e subcommittee listened to arguments for but did not vote on a plan to ban gun magazines that hold more than 10 bullets, a plan to ban body armor, the proposed ban on bump stocks, and a new requirement that people wait three days to pick up a rifle that they've already purchased. "

lute power of life and death over Citizens and leave us no recourse or defe nse. Why else ? Why would PUBLIC SERVANTS ban a strictly defensive tool ? S omething that could keep criminals from killing you at will ? Because it wo uld also keep them from killing you at will.

What are you thinking you need to defend yourself against using body armor? ?? If your neighborhood is that bad, you should move!!!

You know as well as the rest of us the only times body armor has been used to protect civilian bodies is when someone wants to rob a bank or kill cops !

dies in committee. That way they can look like they are doing something bu t they don't further violate our rights.

suming that's true, hoe come those areas don't have so many shootings ?

nd there, but in some hands they are used to kill without justification, an d in other hands not.

No one can argue with that logic. So what is your point?

dogs and will never quit, so we must never quit. Convincing them won't wor k because of their ignorance and conditioning that think borders on brainwa shing. Therefore we must use the courts and law - the highest of which is t he Constitution to keep them from their ill thought out goals.

I'm glad gun control has your full attention. Otherwise who knows what cra zy stuff you would be into!

Rick C.

Reply to
gnuarm.deletethisbit

ation is totally unrelated to gun control. Nothing in common at all, zip, zero, na-da! "

First of all, they would sell the firearm to someone who is 21, but not 20. Since the only difference is the month in which one was born, if it isn't discrimination it is close enough for government work.

Second, if you persist in your assertions that you are smarter and anyone w ho disagrees with you is inferior in some way you and Slowman will be in an echo chamber.

Also, the relevance of an issue is not dependent upon its usefulness in pro moting your position. Persist and if you're not a troll now. you will be. I f you want to support your point then cite some court rulings to the effect that age discrimination is not discrimination. Your word does not do it no matter how smart you think you are.

Reply to
jurb6006

Wrong. At issue with the baker is that their business is open to the public. They can't refuse anyone their, legal, services. They weren't refusing to serve gays, only the message (speech) they were "asked" to put on the cake. It's a licensing thing. It wasn't a discrimination issue at all.

I'm sorta with you on this one. Body armor for civilians isn't defensive.

I see Jurb's got yours.

Reply to
krw

20 year-olds are not a protected class (as amazing as that concept is, in itself).
Reply to
krw

They were refusing to serve gays. The decoration of the cake was not discussed.

--
     ?
Reply to
Jasen Betts

Don't disturb krw with facts.

--
Reinhardt
Reply to
Reinhardt Behm

Only in your little mind.

Reply to
krw

Very wise. You can't win with gays or blacks or disabled or any other "sensitive" group. If something goes wrong, they'll brand you a "hater" and the police will be called, the courts will prosecute and you'll go to jail and probably your business will be wiped out on top in the ensuing madness. The trick is to avoid *all* and *any* dealing with these snowflake-types without appearing to be xyz-phobic in the first place. It's a legal minefield and one definitely worth avoiding. I keep a list of plausible excuses in my head at all times for when these potentially ruinous contingencies arise.

--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via  
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other  
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Cursitor Doom

So you suppose they walked in there and said "Can you bake us a cake saying 'HAPPY BIRTHDAY GEORGE' and by the way we are Gay" ?

Reply to
jurb6006

Of course, Cursitor Doom can't buy anything at his local stores - he's recognised as a member of the most "sensitive" groups around (right-wing nutter) and there's always an excuse in place to avoid the kind of interaction that could get them sued.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.