• shalafi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    11 months ago

    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.

    • Riccosuave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Uh, no, they didn’t.

      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.