Let me show you why you’re wrong. Both of these laws have stood up to repeated constitutional challenges. They both defacto banned specific types and classes of weapons from being manufactured and sold to the general public. I’m really tired of people using this same stupid fucking argument.
You felt the need to go buy a gun as a form of protest. Congratulations on being a part of an even larger problem in this country, which is a lack of critical thinking skills. If you actually gave a shit about changing the world you wouldn’t be reinforcing gun culture as a way to “own the libs” and then bragging about it on Lemmy.
Did you even read what I wrote, or just spaz out and react? Believe it or not, we’re much on the same side.
Both of these laws have stood up to repeated constitutional challenges.
Uh, no, they didn’t. I was talking about the '94 ban, which was eventually dropped, leading to the rise of AR-15 purchases. How did that work out for ya?
I admit ignorance as to the '86 law! But given my ignorance, why am I ignorant? Seems a thing guntubers, and such other content as I consume (mostly non-partisan), would be railing about? If it’s such a “gotcha” law, why do I see no one talking about it? Be happy for an ELI5. Always happy to learn.
go buy a gun as a form of protest
as a way to “own the libs”
Again, didn’t actually read what I wrote? I AM a liberal. I bought an AR to get grandfathered. Liberals literally sold this liberal an AR. How did that work out for ya?
You are approaching me as a right-wing gun nut. And not in good faith. We’re not solving anything talking like this.
Yes, they absolutely did. You should educate yourself. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was not overturned. It expired due to an automatic sunset provision in 2004. It repeatedly withstood legal challenges in front of multiple different appellate courts, on varied grounds, and was unilaterally ruled to be constitutional.
So, like I said before, your argument is bullshit. You are obviously repeating regurgitated talking points you have heard without being even moderately aware of the history of this issue. We can argue about the structural differences in the legal landscape that exist today that may change the functional legality of the FAWB, but that has everything to do with the intentional manipulation of the court system rather than any substantive legal differences that would make the law unconstitutional today.
Let me show you why you’re wrong. Both of these laws have stood up to repeated constitutional challenges. They both defacto banned specific types and classes of weapons from being manufactured and sold to the general public. I’m really tired of people using this same stupid fucking argument.
You felt the need to go buy a gun as a form of protest. Congratulations on being a part of an even larger problem in this country, which is a lack of critical thinking skills. If you actually gave a shit about changing the world you wouldn’t be reinforcing gun culture as a way to “own the libs” and then bragging about it on Lemmy.
Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994)
Firearm Owners Protection Act (1986)
Did you even read what I wrote, or just spaz out and react? Believe it or not, we’re much on the same side.
Uh, no, they didn’t. I was talking about the '94 ban, which was eventually dropped, leading to the rise of AR-15 purchases. How did that work out for ya?
I admit ignorance as to the '86 law! But given my ignorance, why am I ignorant? Seems a thing guntubers, and such other content as I consume (mostly non-partisan), would be railing about? If it’s such a “gotcha” law, why do I see no one talking about it? Be happy for an ELI5. Always happy to learn.
Again, didn’t actually read what I wrote? I AM a liberal. I bought an AR to get grandfathered. Liberals literally sold this liberal an AR. How did that work out for ya?
You are approaching me as a right-wing gun nut. And not in good faith. We’re not solving anything talking like this.
Yes, they absolutely did. You should educate yourself. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was not overturned. It expired due to an automatic sunset provision in 2004. It repeatedly withstood legal challenges in front of multiple different appellate courts, on varied grounds, and was unilaterally ruled to be constitutional.
So, like I said before, your argument is bullshit. You are obviously repeating regurgitated talking points you have heard without being even moderately aware of the history of this issue. We can argue about the structural differences in the legal landscape that exist today that may change the functional legality of the FAWB, but that has everything to do with the intentional manipulation of the court system rather than any substantive legal differences that would make the law unconstitutional today.