California judge

64% Normal
25 Comments

California federal judge overturns decades long assault weapons ban in California. Looks like its gonna go to the supreme court eventually. 10+ round magazines also legal now if they dont appeal in 30 days.
If they do appeal and it goes to the supreme court that could make AR15s legal all over the country..

Poor snowflakes are really gonna be scared to come outside now. First covid19 now AR15s are gonna be legal. How will they survive?

Voting Results
64% Normal
Based on 14 votes (9 yes)
Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[ Report Post ]
Comments ( 25 )
  • MonteMetcalfe
    2 years ago

    Finally a judge who knows the facts.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    4
    4
      -
    • 1WeirdGuy
      2 years ago

      Its gonna get reversed in the 9th circuit. But thats almost a bad idea for them to appeal to the 9th because they know its gonna most likely get picked up by the supreme court once the 9th circuit reverses it. Then if the supreme court rules it unconstitutional then "assault rifles" will be legal in every state.

      The supreme court just picked up the concealed carry case from new york. Its possible concealed carry without a permit and assault rifles will be legal in every state by the end of the year. Im not getting my hopes up but with a majority right wing supreme court it would amaze me if they didnt rule in favor of 2a

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      2
      2
  • [Old Memory]
    2 years ago

    The riots that started in 2020 all the way up to now while police refused to help the targets of those riots has been the greatest pro-gun argument ever.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    4
    4
      -
    • 1WeirdGuy
      2 years ago

      DEFINITELY man. guns and ammo were out of stock all over the country from that

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      2
      2
  • LloydAsher
    2 years ago

    Ironic how the same people who hate police also dont like the ability to defend yourself using the same grade weapons.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    3
    3
      -
    • [Old Memory]
      2 years ago

      Generally, I'm quite in favor of letting people arm themselves against police if necessary. It only becomes a problem when brainless, middle-class bootlicking conspiratards who think they're this generation's Thomas Jefferson watering the tree of liberty with the blood of black-clad nerds spray painting sidewalks get their jizz-stained hands on them.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      1
      1
        -
      • 1WeirdGuy
        2 years ago

        The problem with that is you are assuming those people dont already have them

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        1
        1
  • raisinbran
    2 years ago

    Can't wait to add one to my arsenal.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    2
    2
  • have_a_good_day
    2 years ago

    Oh hell yeah. That judge is welcome to visit his fellow niggas in da hood anytime. Finally we can defend ourselves against grocery store cashiers trying to shoot us when we try to shoot them.
    Bring da grape soda coz we gonna be living like king niggas now.
    Fahreal. That's what's up

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    2
    2
  • BleedingPain
    2 years ago

    People get so wrapped up in trying to protect themselves from the “crazies” with guns instead of trying to help them be less crazy. Sure there is an issue of gun laws and rights and a all that nonsense, but we as a nation should be focusing more on mental health issues.

    I don't have the answers to any of this, but I think we need to try solving the deeper issues rather than the surface level ones.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    1
    1
  • bigbudchonger
    2 years ago

    Based.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • Meatballsandwich
    2 years ago

    Not often that Commiefornia does something right.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • Boojum
    2 years ago

    I gotta laugh at the gun-nuts who are triggered by magazine limits.

    The main US infantry weapon of WWII and Korea was the M1 Garand. Somehow American soldiers managed to beat the freaking Nazis and never-surrender Japanese with a rifle that had a clip capacity of eight rounds. When those rifles went on the surplus market, thousands of American hunters managed to bag deer and other game using the same limited number of rounds.

    But I guess part of the reason those guys were members of the Greatest Generation is that they could actually hit what they were aiming at in eight shots or fewer.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • MonteMetcalfe
      2 years ago

      Isn't that like saying "They won the American Revolution with black powder muskets so why do you need anything more"?

      And the Japanese surrendered after we dropped a couple A-bombs.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      3
      3
        -
      • LloydAsher
        2 years ago

        Yes it is the same thing. It's annoying because people do realize that "military grade" doesnt mean the best. It means it's the most effective weapon at its price.

        Same reason why people were using muskets during the civil war despite revolvers being a thing. Muskets were cheaper than rifles.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        2
        2
          -
        • MonteMetcalfe
          2 years ago

          Exactly, "Military grade" is a bullshit marketing term.
          The correct term is MILSPEC short for military specifications. Refering to standardized measurements, & materials used in production to fulfill an order or request. It usually goes to the cheapest bidder for the production contract.
          Military Grade is a phrase often used by anti-gun people to induce fear hoping people will think it's the most lethal.
          The fact is, there are commercial grade firearms & other products that are far superior to "Military Grade".

          Also, further Googling I discovered that the standard issue rifle for a Japanese soldier in WW2 was an Arisaka. A bolt-action rifle vs. the US semi-auto Garand.

          Until sometime around 1900 (A real approximation) or lat 1800's US civilians had better firepower available to them than were standard issue to soldiers. The reason was simply our military did not have the budget to afford the best weapons for our fighting forces. Think of the Henry & Spencer repeating rifles as examples. They were far superior to the muzzle loaders issued to the majority of soldiers.

          The 1907 Winchester, a semi-automatic rifle with high capacity magazine, was available to the American public at a time when the military was using a bolt action Enfield rifle as standard issue.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          2
          2
            -
          • 1WeirdGuy
            2 years ago

            I try not to even get into that debate with anti gun people whether it is or isnt military grade because by doing so you're almost implying having military grade weapons is sort of a bad thing. I can tell you my AR is alot better than what the standard soldier gets in infantry. The special forces probably have better equipment but id take my AR over a standard soldiers M4 with only a carry handle and no optic. There's ways to make your AR virtually automatic too legally. So citizens still do kind of have better stuff than just standard infantry even if they arent fully auto.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            1
            1
              -
            • LloydAsher
              2 years ago

              The military should have access to better tech than the civilian sector. That being said is our military actually at risk for turning on their countrymen? I honestly dont think so. Some might. Most wont, fuck our officers if they tell us to shoot at our own civilians. That's the defining feature of the US military, autonomy.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              0
              0
        • 1WeirdGuy
          2 years ago

          Even if it is military grade it should be legal. Often times judges who are worth a damn make their rulings based on the constitution and the context behind the amendments. It was clear the 2nd amendment wasnt for hunting it was for the American people to be able to defend themselves against tyranny and many founding fathers went on record many times stating that it is the obligation for US citizens to keep the government in check "even if it means by force". People argue that the founding fathers could not have predicted guns would be as deadly as they are now but interestingly enough the most lethal weapons in those days canons were legal and Thomas Jefferson the man who wrote the declaration of independence advocated for citizens to own them.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          2
          2
    • darefu
      2 years ago

      Ever look at the death totals from WWII. The small number of rounds in clips was part of the reason for bayonets. You were going to get up close and uncomfortable with the enemy.
      Talk about PTSD...

      War today has less face to face and hopefully less death due to changing clips or running out of ammo.

      Now the hunting thing I agree take pride in your skill and accuracy. Go out for bear with two rounds one for the bear the other is for you in case you miss.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      2
      2
    • 1WeirdGuy
      2 years ago

      Man you folks are hilarious with that. Ill go to a range with my AR and boomer fellas will look at me disgusted. If the range isnt ran by boomers and they actually allow quick bursts there and you do a quick 5 shot burst at a target you look over at the boomers and theyre shaking their head

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
        -
      • MonteMetcalfe
        2 years ago

        Don't know where you live but I know plenty of boomers who are against banning high capacity magazines.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
          -
        • 1WeirdGuy
          2 years ago

          Yeah they're against banning them of course but there's still a boomer attitude that they're for pansies that cant shoot

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0