Liberal Forum

R.Suave » 24 Dec 2023, 1:54 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Dec 2023, 1:54 pm

 The assault weapons prohibited by the Massachusetts ban are “not suitable for ordinary self-defense purposes, and pose substantial dangers far beyond those inherent in the design of ordinary firearms,” 
 

   They're eminently suitable for self defense purposes.
 Just ask the guy that got his bicep vaporized by K.Rittenhouse's AR 15. And that was just every day 55gr. ball ammo. Imagine what the jacketed soft points I load in mine would do.
 
 
 

it appears @R. Suave   has bolted from his thread.
 

R.Suave » 24 Dec 2023, 1:54 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Dec 2023, 1:54 pm

CNN — A federal judge ruled a Massachusetts ban on assault weapons is consistent with a recent landmark Supreme Court decision that established firearms regulations must be consistent with the nation’s “historical tradition.”

 “The relevant history affirms the principle that in 1791, as now, there was a tradition of regulating ‘dangerous and unusual’ weapons – specifically, those that are not reasonably necessary for self-defense,” U.S. District Chief Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV wrote in an order Thursday.

 The assault weapons prohibited by the Massachusetts ban are “not suitable for ordinary self-defense purposes, and pose substantial dangers far beyond those inherent in the design of ordinary firearms,” the judge wrote.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/22/politics ... index.html

Ammosexuals be

Nooooooooooo....why do courts continue to affirm R. Suave? Why, Lahwd, why?

 

The assault weapons prohibited by the Massachusetts ban are “not suitable for ordinary self-defense purposes, and pose substantial dangers far beyond those inherent in the design of ordinary firearms,” the judge wrote

So what did they tell you was the reason it was not suitable for self defense purposes and what makes it pose more of a substantial danger than any semi automatic rifle that fires an intermediate charged cartridge, meaning it is not particularly powerful?

Huey » 25 Dec 2023, 10:22 am » wrote: ↑

25 Dec 2023, 10:22 am

So what did they tell you was the reason it was not suitable for self defense purposes and what makes it pose more of a substantial danger than any semi automatic rifle that fires an intermediate charged cartridge, meaning it is not particularly powerful?

Read the case that obliged the insurance companies to pay 75 million after Sandy Hook.


 

R.Suave » 25 Dec 2023, 10:38 am » wrote: ↑

25 Dec 2023, 10:38 am

Read the case that obliged the insurance companies to pay 75 million after Sandy Hook.

That was about advertising.  

So you got nuttin’…..

Huey » 25 Dec 2023, 10:39 am » wrote: ↑

25 Dec 2023, 10:39 am

That was about advertising.  

So you got nuttin’…..

No...there was more to it, which you would know....had you read it when provided.





 

R.Suave » 25 Dec 2023, 10:41 am » wrote: ↑

25 Dec 2023, 10:41 am

No...there was more to it, which you would know....had you read it when provided.

When you started this thread you once again delved into a topic you are ignorant about.

 

Huey » 25 Dec 2023, 10:43 am » wrote: ↑

25 Dec 2023, 10:43 am

When you started this thread you once again delved into a topic you are ignorant about.

That yap might carry more weight if you weren't ALWAYS wrong.

R.Suave » 25 Dec 2023, 10:47 am » wrote: ↑

25 Dec 2023, 10:47 am

That yap might carry more weight if you weren't ALWAYS wrong.

I haven't been wrong on this thread yet?  When you gonna go to that gun shop and get educated on ban compliant ARs and what an AR can actually do?

Huey » 25 Dec 2023, 10:50 am » wrote: ↑

25 Dec 2023, 10:50 am

I haven't been wrong on this thread yet?  When you gonna go to that gun shop and get educated on ban compliant ARs and what an AR can actually do?

Askholio, please...

The assault weapons prohibited by the Massachusetts ban are “not suitable for ordinary self-defense purposes, and pose substantial dangers far beyond those inherent in the design of ordinary firearms,” the judge wrote

@R. Suave  

You have also contradicted yourself.  For years you have claimed that the semi automatic AR style of weapons were designed for the battle field (they weren't).  So, if that is the case it makes them the ultimate weapon for ordinary self defense purposes.

SO which is it?

R.Suave » 25 Dec 2023, 10:51 am » wrote: ↑

25 Dec 2023, 10:51 am

Askholio, please...

Ok, remain ignorant.  It is so much fun this way.

Huey » 25 Dec 2023, 10:54 am » wrote: ↑

25 Dec 2023, 10:54 am

@R. Suave  

You have also contradicted yourself.  For years you have claimed that the semi automatic AR style of weapons were designed for the battle field (they weren't).  So, if that is the case it makes them the ultimate weapon for ordinary self defense purposes.

SO which is it?

Those are all your words...

We've talked about this..

 

Huey » 25 Dec 2023, 10:54 am » wrote: ↑

25 Dec 2023, 10:54 am

Ok, remain ignorant.  It is so much fun this way.

Tiny,

I've taught you everything you know that is true...
 

R.Suave » 25 Dec 2023, 10:55 am » wrote: ↑

25 Dec 2023, 10:55 am

Those are all your words...

We've talked about this..

I took the judges ruling straight from you OP.  So know you disagree with the judge.   You should really read you OPs before hitting submit.

R.Suave » 25 Dec 2023, 10:56 am » wrote: ↑

25 Dec 2023, 10:56 am

Tiny,

I've taught you everything you know that is true...

Really, unless you are publicly admitting your are black vegetable I believe this is the first time you and I have discussed it.   Plus, I never learned a thing from him except how ignorant he is on this topic.

Huey » 25 Dec 2023, 11:08 am » wrote: ↑

25 Dec 2023, 11:08 am

Really, unless you are publicly admitting your are black vegetable I believe this is the first time you and I have discussed it.   Plus, I never learned a thing from him except how ignorant he is on this topic.

You learned what your citations are telling you.

Huey » 25 Dec 2023, 11:06 am » wrote: ↑

25 Dec 2023, 11:06 am

I took the judges ruling straight from you OP.  So know you disagree with the judge.   You should really read you OPs before hitting submit.

No reframes, Sheilagh.

R.Suave » 25 Dec 2023, 11:17 am » wrote: ↑

25 Dec 2023, 11:17 am

You learned what your citations are telling you.

No, just reaffirmed everything I already knew.  So you admit to being Blackvegetable.  

R.Suave » 25 Dec 2023, 11:18 am » wrote: ↑

25 Dec 2023, 11:18 am

No reframes, Sheilagh.

There is no reframe if you posted it in your OP.  You either agree with the judge or you don't.  Goes straight to the hear of your argument.