>The US Supreme Court rejected a challenge brought by gun rights advocates on Monday, letting stand laws in New York and Connecticut that restrict access to assault rifles like the one used in last week's mass shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando.
>The justices declined to hear an appeal of an October ruling by the New York-based 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld laws prohibiting semiautomatic weapons and large capacity magazines in the two northeastern states. The decision not to hear the case does not set a Supreme Court precedent, but gives tacit approval for states and local governments to enact broad gun-control laws.
>The laws in New York and Connecticut, among the strictest in the nation, were enacted after a gunman with a semiautomatic rifle killed 20 young children and six educators in 2012 at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.
>The challengers had asserted that the laws violated the Constitution's protection of the right to bear arms. In total, seven states and the District of Columbia ban semi-automatic rifles. A national law barring assault weapons expired in 2004, and congressional Republicans and some Democrats, backed by the influential National Rifle Association gun rights lobby, beat back efforts to restore it.
>The Supreme Court issued important rulings in gun cases in 2008 and 2010 but has not taken up a major firearms case since. The expired federal assault gun ban had barred the manufacture and sale of semi-automatic guns with military-style features as well as magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
>The New York and Connecticut laws were challenged by pro-gun groups including the Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen and the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association as well as individual gun owners. The appeals court consolidated the two cases and upheld the law.
https://archive.is/aYmPy
>assault rifles
>need for trump presidency rises
>>54244
Careful there.
I'm a Trump supporter as of now, because I don't want to see Hillary in office for a ton of reasons. But there were provably better candidates on Second Amendment rights in the primaries, who had voted in favor of an individual right to possess firearms. Trump has been a little less consistent in his private opinions, and has no public voting record.
I'm relying on him to hold his ground on Second Amendment rights. He has got to realize the groundswell of support he is getting is from people who feel he should. If he misses this in favor of trying to be a moderate (read: progressive who uses idiot excuses to undermine gun rights, voting for such things as "expanded background checks" or "assault weapons bans" or the kind of stuff that is the hallmark of liberal nonsensical doublespeak), he will leave behind the badge of being the face of the new Republican leadership, and just be another politician with useless promises.
Trump is running on a platform of "common sense middle America-style values" that have made him wildly popular. His predecessors (Mitt Romney, John McCain, et al.) could never really rouse the full push of American exceptionalism because they were too busy backpedaling into liberal apologist tap dancing while simultaneously trying to support corporate entitlement and globalism.
Mental picture: when your dad takes a selfie of himself thugging and grilling with gift certificates for free tee times at the country club and AARP discount coupons. He is no longer relevant to either side.
Trump has a lot of potential, unless he makes himself irrelevant by trying to embrace the cancer of perpetually offended liberal political correctness, or bend to the will of "I've got mine" Republicans and ignoring middle class patriots.
Dance with who brung ya.
>>54177
It shows people who talk about or want to ban guns are completely uninformed and are just doing it to get elected off of the bodies of the dead.
>>52616
>Assault rifle
>>54392
Whether the word "assault" is present or not is besides the point. Y'all don't need guns.
>>54403
Why do I not need guns?
I have a right to own guns.
I shouldn't have to have a need for them.
I can tell you my personal reasons for having them,
Personal defence, personal liberty, sport, hunting, and hobby.
Now you can fuck right off.
>>54403
>Spreading misinformation is ok
>>54403
Lots of things in life we don't need, having income over $100,000 is something no one needs.
>>54457
Oh boy here we go.
>>54403
Y'all didn't need English courses, apparently.
>>54447
This guy gets it.
The first ten amendments to the US Constitution weren't called the "Bill of Needs."
Why do we "need" free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, to assemble or redress grievances, to not have soldiers quartered in our homes, the right to be secure against unreasonable searches or seizures...
Or even getting away from things that aren't Constitutionally protected... why does anyone "need" a house that is more than the most basic? Why do we "need" gourmet food instead of rice and beans?
What about things that are just acknowledged to have potential for harm - why do we need sharp kitchen knives? (We could use food processors that couldn't be used as weapons.) Why do we need alcohol or tobacco, when theu cause so many social and medical problems? Why do we "need" cars that go faster than the maximum speed limits? Why do we need sports, which injure and kill adults and children alike (115 high school fatalities from football alone from 1982-2010)?
Answer: we don't NEED these things. And most of them we have a right to only because of the 9th and 10th Amendments, which basically say, "hey government...unless we've expressly granted you permission to control us, keep your fucking hands off." Some, as in the Bill of Rights, we've expressly said "hey, government, just so you don't try to pull any shit, don't even try it with these."
But since SOME of you don't get that, and keep talking about whether we "need" guns, here's food for thought: you don't NEED to be expression (publishing) your opinion on the internet or anywhere else. Since you believe people should only exercise actions that they specifically "need," please be consistent. Choose to shut up and not contribute to the dialogue.
Unless, of course, you think that you "need" to contribute your speech because you have a God-given right to do so, and will use that right to keep me or anyone else from oppressing you. Welcome to the best argument for the 2nd Amendment.
>>54403
And therein lies the problem.
Libs use purposely misleading terms to paint the picture of evil guns, but consistently claim they aren't trying to disarm the people, just make "common sense" legislation that restricts certain guns. When pressed on the lies, they turn the tables and say what they mean, which is that they don't want citizens to own guns, period - but they dare not make that their main platform until they can get people to believe that guns in general are evil.
The AWB banned purely cosmetic features and created the myth that Americans were in danger from "military-style assault weapons" that in fact aren't much different from grandpa's deer hunting rifle or the .22 many boy scouts earn a merit badge with...and account for less than 1% of gun crime. They watched too much Miami Vice.
Libs' plan: No machine guns (already massively restricted.) Okay, then, no submachine guns (individually carried automatic weapons - same.) Okay, then, no guns that LOOK like one of those guns that shoots automatically. (Why does that matter? Those guns are used in less than 1% of gun crime.) Okay, no semiautomatic weapons (Which includes just about any gun that shoots one bullet per trigger pull and reloads the next one, the vast majority of all guns.) Okay, no guns that can "pierce law enforcement body armor" (Which means nearly any and all rifles, again, uncommon in violent crime, right up there with baseball bats and hammers.) Okay, now, no handguns, since those are the ones used in most crime and are easily concealed. (So...not really much left, except shotguns and muskets maybe.) Oh, and no shotguns, because those are really destructive. Muskets may be okay, if you have a permit and it's locked away or disabled from firing.
That's the plan, because they say we don't "need" guns.
Welcome to disarmament.
>>54248
The thing is... I would have preferred a lot of other candidates too.
But who do we have? A lying, literally evil, scheming cunt, versus someone half the world thinks is a fucking loon, and for all we know is just as trustworthy. At least the loon promises to protect our rights
Our political landscape makes me want to die.
I think anyone who owns a gun has a duty to teach at least one other person about responsible gun ownership. A big part of that is just destroying media myths.
If the media wants regulation, why not regulate the First Amendment, as it corresponds to freedom of the press, too? How about, in order to enter any debate on gun control, you have to be able to correctly answer the following:
-What is a machine gun?
-What is the difference between a machine gun and an assault rifle?
-What is the difference between an assault rifle and an "assault weapon?"
-What is a "high powered" rifle, and what isn't?
-How is semiautomatic different from automatic?
-What types of guns are NOT semiautomatic?
-What is a standard capacity magazine vs. a "high capacity" magazine?
-How often are semiautomatic rifles used in homicides?
-What is a "mass shooting," and which one of the following accounts for nearly all of them: Terrorism? Mentally ill shooting spree? Hate crime? Domestic violence? Drug-related street crime?
-What is the difference between a "gun death" and a "homicide?"
-What is the approximate rate that guns are used in self defense in comparison to homicide? (open book at this point, look up the 2013 CDC study.)
-What do "Gun Free Zones" accomplish?
There are probably hundreds of good questions, but those are a few starters that anyone willing to be honest about the gun control debate should know. I welcome anyone to make a serious list of questions from an anti-Second Amendment viewpoint.
>>54485
You are right, of course. However, before you go too far down the path of depression, you can at least remember that The Cunt has been part of the problem that has put us where we are and even what she's promising is to ramp up the political correctness to sheer socialist levels, while The Loon says he'll at least do the opposite.
For what it's worth, I don't give a rat's ass what the rest of the world thinks; the rest of the world loves Obama because he's bent over for them for two terms and Hillary's promising to make it three.
