Quote:
Originally Posted by exitspeed
|
I am not sure how you are equate all 5 of those cases to liberals. Reading through, here my quick notes (P.S all the information can be found within the first few sentences of each on of your postings.......)
1) No name town in IL (I had to dig to find it being Deerfield, IL lol). In this case, it wasn't a "liberal" taking away "your" guns, it was an entire town that introduced the bill which moved through council. Vote was passed unanimous 6-0 by board of trustees. So no, not a liberal taking away your guns......
Isn't this how the voting process is suppose to occur?? As far as I am concerned, this follows the letter of the law and is exactly how bills and debates are supposed to occur. Also, town in IL, no affect on you......
2) NOT passed as of yet. It is literally a reading of the introduced bill. And again, this went through a 5 hour long hearing, with arguments from BOTH sides. Again, BOTH SIDES. not just liberals foaming at the mount. And again, this is following the process to the T of the law and how it should be done. I will quote a text that appears within the first two lines of the story. Also, Boulder is pretty evenly split down the middle; 33% liberals, 33% Dem, 33% Rep due to the rising Millennial population, the old guard but also the Military/Air base. So again, not liberals trying to take away YOUR guns in a state you do NOT live in.......
Quote:
The Boulder City Council on Thursday night unanimously passed on first reading an ordinance that bans the sale and possession of certain firearms defined as assault weapons.
The council adjourned following a more than five-hour-long meeting where nearly 150 people signed up to speak for and against the proposed ordinance, which would also prohibit high-capacity magazines and bump stocks, a device that allows a semi-automatic weapon to be fired more like a fully automatic rifle. By the end of the evening, about 111 people actually spoke, according to Councilmember Sam Weaver.
|
3) Again, nothing is passed. Duke (a Indianapolis councilman) "introduced a resolution". Its not law yet and no member of an Indiana City councilman is allowed to pass a bill. Only to introduce it.......He is however a Democrat, but not necessarily a liberal. There IS a difference. In a little reading, he also supports labor unions. So yeah, he could very well be a liberal....
4) Again, all the information is within the first paragraph. A federal judge UPHELD, not INSTITUTED the current ban. Ban was in place before liberals were a thing........
Quote:
|
A federal district court judge in Boston has upheld the state's ban on assault weapons – AR-15 semi-automatic rifles and large-capacity magazines – finding that the issue is not a constitutional matter but one for each state to determine on its own politically.
|
So in each of your case, if you just read past the first few sentences, none of these would have supported your point of view......
So no, in all 4 or your postings does it state a liberal is trying to take away your guns.
Also, I would like to point out the hypocrisy of your post. Theoretically speaking mind you, but the same underlying concept prevails. If you have a bill/idea/etc to introduce extended magazine 9mm piston, wouldn't it be fair to also go through the same process to argue your case?? How is it different that someone else is arguing against your stance?? Do you see the hypocrisy in your post??
In 3 of the 4 cases above, people are moving to introduce a bill they see is a solution to school violence and not a direct shot at taking away your guns. If you legally own and "operate" your weapons, what does it matter to you anywho?? You are a law abiding gun owner correct??
IJS.