Supreme Court Lets Stand State, Local Bans on Assault Weapons

By | December 7, 2015

  • December 7, 2015 at 2:27 pm
    UW Supreme says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 1

    Ummm, IJ? Yeah, the Dec 2 “shooting” was actually a terrorist attack by radical Islamic terrorists with ties to ISIS. It is completely irresponsible for you or anyone else in the media to try and lump a terrorist attack in with an article or argument about mass shootings. Keep it separate and identify it for what it is: a terrorist attack by radical Islamic barbarians.

    • December 9, 2015 at 12:36 pm
      Ron says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 1

      UW Supreme,

      It was both a terrorist attack by barbarians and a mass shooting.

      How exactly is it irresponsible to mention that a terrorist attack was implemented using semi-automatic weapons in a mass shooting? If a Christian killed several people using a semi-automatic weapon, would that not be a terrorist attack?

      Go ahead, keep trying to be divisive and discriminatory.

  • December 7, 2015 at 4:12 pm
    Realist says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 1

    Hey, birdbrains, laws mean nothing to Islamic Terrorists or any Terrorist or any criminal.
    Time to wake up America.

    • December 15, 2015 at 5:01 pm
      UW says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Terrorism is basically irrelevant to this discussion. There are far more deaths by gun by non-terrorists in this country than by terrorists. Guns are a major problem. We need to strip the liability protection from gun manufacturers–the only one in existence in the US–and then move on to other sensible gun regulations.

  • December 8, 2015 at 4:06 pm
    Dave says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 1

    Please recognize that the weapons targeted for banning are NOT assault weapons, they are assault-style weapons. They are no different than the .22 cal rifle I had as a kid except for HOW THEY LOOK. They’re designed to look cool and attractive to gun enthusiasts.

    I now have a .22 cal rifle that looks a lot like a Red Rider BB Gun and will accept a magazine. Guess what, its as dangerous as any other semi-automatic weapon but it sure isn’t an Assault Rifle.

    Folks who know guns laugh at the ignorance of the gun-grabbers.

    • December 9, 2015 at 12:55 am
      UW says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 1

      The guns they used can fire about 800 rounds a minute, depending on how they were modified. Unless you are very young there simply were not guns like that available widespread when you were a kid, and they certainly weren’t as prevalent as they are now.

      People who live in reality laugh at the ammosexuals, their constant cowardice, and their detachable penises.

  • December 8, 2015 at 5:51 pm
    JB says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 1

    Whoever disliked the above needs to be investigated.

  • December 9, 2015 at 12:56 am
    UW says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 1

    The only part of the Constitution most modern Republicans support is the right to bear arms, but they ignore the well-regulated militia part of that amendment.

    • December 10, 2015 at 1:30 pm
      Captain Planet says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 1

      I wonder how many people would have been killed in the office terror attack or the Planned Parenthood terror attack if they were shooting muskets. You know, the weaponry they had back when the amendment was put into effect? Maybe, one?

      • December 15, 2015 at 5:03 pm
        UW says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        Good point. In my opinion there was never any intention for individuals in the US to have a right to a gun. That was never a “right” until a few years ago when the far right-wing judges on the Supreme Court created it. The Constitution stated the right to bear arms in order to have a “well-regulated militia” which is basically like today’s National Guard based on their discussions and writings from the time. If I were the next president removing this “right” would be one of the litmus tests for my nominees.

  • December 9, 2015 at 1:43 pm
    Wayne2 says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    Just as you ignore “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The meaning and the scope of the amendment has long been decided by the Supreme Court. Don’t really care if anyone is a republican or a democrat. Dave is correct also. Any semi-automatic firearm can be fired as quickly as you can pull a trigger. A little .22 semi-auto rifle can look like an old time rifle or a assault styled weapon. They both function the same. Going after a rifle by the way it looks says you don’t know much about them. All that said without trying to insult anyone.

  • December 9, 2015 at 1:47 pm
    Kay says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 1

    Until the Secretary of the Treasury certifies the San Bernardino attack as a certified act of terrorism, I don’t think it’s wrong for our industry to refer to it as a mass shooting and/or suspected act of terrorism. Under TRIA, it’s not terrorism yet.

    • December 10, 2015 at 1:51 pm
      Realist says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 1

      Don’t need any Gov’t bureaucrat to tell me what to think, I know a terrorist attack when I see one. Try thinking for yourself, Kay, and put down the koolaide, it’s dangerous.

      • December 10, 2015 at 1:58 pm
        Rosenblatt says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 1

        You may be right Realist, but from the Insurance industry perspective, there’s a big difference if the US certifies the event as a terrorist attack or not.

        Think of it similar to hurricane deductibles – the hurricane deductible can only be applied if the storm is technically designated as a hurricane (there are other caveats, but I won’t get into that now).

        We all know what a hurricane looks and acts like, but that doesn’t matter when determining applicability of coverage. Just ask those carriers who tried to apply the hurricane deductible on SuperStorm Sandy.

        • December 15, 2015 at 5:07 pm
          UW says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 1

          You are right. These people were not in ISIS; they supported their goals largely because of the abuse of Muslims, and the decade of wars in largely Muslim countries. We should unfortunately expect more of these kinds of attacks in the future just based on the hatred of the West after a decade of bombing the Middle East. Osama bin Laden didn’t give a shit about our “freedoms” he hated that the US had troops in Saudi Arabia, which is the holiest of the Muslim areas.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*