Obama Announces Gun Violence Task Force, Presses For Policy Changes After Shooting

[Karee 4,190]

:rofl: :rofl:

Cool. I thought you were falling asleep at the switch a few posts ago.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

I doubt it. There hasn't been any comments from the NRA for days, as though the shootings in Newtown were to be considered mundane and ordinary or worse, as though they did not happen.

Mundane and ordinary? So you mean the NRA didn't use this as a propaganda tool with a media blitz like some others are doing? Say it ain't so. Bad bad bad of the NRA to get facts first before opening their mouths like a sewer like some have without knowing jack ####### about it first.

http://theweek.com/article/index/237981/the-connecticut-school-massacre-read-the-nras-first-public-comments

[JohnR! 5,495]

Mundane and ordinary?

Yes, see definitions below, for your convenience.

They did not utter a word about the incident and most likely would have pretended nothing had happened were it not for public opinion and criticism for their silence.

mun·dane

adjective \ˌmən-ˈdān, ˈmən-ˌ\1 : of, relating to, or characteristic of the world 2 : characterized by the practical, transitory, and ordinary : commonplace <the mundane concerns of day-to-day life>

or·di·nary

: of a kind to be expected in the normal order of events : routine, usual <an ordinary day> 2 : having or constituting immediate or original jurisdiction; also : belonging to such jurisdiction 3 a : of common quality, rank, or ability <an ordinary teenager> b : deficient in quality : poor, inferior <ordinary wine> — or·di·nar·i·ly adverb — or·di·nar·i·ness noun

Edited December 20, 2012 by Gegel

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Yes. They did not utter a word about the incident and most likely would have pretended nothing had happened were it not for public opinion and criticism for their silence.

Did you get this information from your inside sources at the NRA?

[Karee 4,190]

Funny, I never see the gun control lobby issue press releases or make statements when a homeowner defends themselves with their gun. Wonder why that is?

[JohnR! 5,495]

Did you get this information from your inside sources at the NRA?

To be sure! Where else?

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Funny, I never see the gun control lobby issue press releases or make statements when a homeowner defends themselves with their gun. Wonder why that is?

Edited December 20, 2012 by Bad_Daddy

[Captain Oates 911]

You think their going to amend the US Constitution anytime soon? Ya right.

They didn't have to amend the constitution in 1994 when they banned AW's for 10 years

How did they do that ?

I bet that baffled the gunners

Edited December 20, 2012 by Captain Oates

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

They didn't have to amend the constitution in 1994 when they banned AW's for 10 years

How did they do that ?

I bet that baffled the gunners

And what has SCOTUS ruled since then?

Edited December 20, 2012 by Bad_Daddy

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

They didn't have to amend the constitution in 1994 when they banned AW's for 10 years

How did they do that ?

I bet that baffled the gunners

I'm not sure where it stands exactly, but there is an argument that the more recent SCOTUS ruling would have made the earlier ban unconstitutional. Heller left a lot to be interpreted still, if a new ban were passed (republicans will kill it) it would be at SCOTUS within a year or 2. I'm not sure they would strike it down or not but if I had money riding on it I would say they strike it.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Usui Takumi

[DaveE 178]

They didn't have to amend the constitution in 1994 when they banned AW's for 10 years

How did they do that ?

I bet that baffled the gunners

No, it actually made many of them shake their head in wonder. The Bushmaster rifle used in the CT tragedy was not an assault rifle under the old AWB, or the current AWB that is still in effect in CT. Additionally, as currently proposed, it will not be an assault weapon under the new ban championed by Feinstein.

Edited December 20, 2012 by DaveE

[Captain Oates 911]

And what has SCOTUS ruled since then?

That it was retrospectively unconstitutional ? I don't think so.

Machine guns can be messed with under the constitution and so can AW's

Have you seen the Illinois gun laws ? they are tough - and by city with no State pre-emption....

The 1994 to 2004 AW ban stood, there was no challenge from the NRA or anyone

The new ban will be the same and the NRA are in the foetal position already

Edited December 20, 2012 by Captain Oates

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

That it was retrospectively unconstitutional ? I don't think so.

Machine guns can be messed with under the constitution and so can AW's

Have you seen the Illinois gun laws ? they are tough - and by city with no State pre-emption....

The 1994 to 2004 AW ban stood, there was no challenge from the NRA or anyone

The new ban will be the same and the NRA are in the foetal position already

http://www.examiner.com/article/gun-control-s-strongest-advocates-lose-big-illinois

Gun Control’s strongest advocates lose big in Illinois

DECEMBER 15, 2012BY: MARK WACHTLER

Edited December 20, 2012 by Bad_Daddy

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

That it was retrospectively unconstitutional ? I don't think so.

Machine guns can be messed with under the constitution and so can AW's

Have you seen the Illinois gun laws ? they are tough - and by city with no State pre-emption....

The 1994 to 2004 AW ban stood, there was no challenge from the NRA or anyone

The new ban will be the same and the NRA are in the foetal position already

The Illinois AWB was struck down earlier this year actually. Gun Control advocates probably won't appeal it further because they don't want these laws getting to SCOTUS

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Edited December 20, 2012 by Bad_Daddy