People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own Assault Weapons, Court Rules

originally posted by: NewzNose


It's about time the 2nd amendment was protected.

With all the "terrorists" either now on our shores or soon to...

They're called politicians, Democrats to be exact.

a reply to: macman

That must be very frustrating for you, I guess you should all rise up and use your weapons against the government to force them to change the laws. They are obviously being tyrannical.

a reply to: PhoenixOD

Last resorts...........last resorts.


It's disgusting that US Citizens have allowed the Govt to restrict rights like it has. That's the issue.

a reply to: macman

So at what point would you attack the government with your guns?

a reply to: PhoenixOD

When ALL and Every option has failed.

a reply to: PhoenixOD

Allow me to ask you a similar question...

When would you feel the govt. has overstepped itself...and what, if anything, would you do? Without resorting to those nasty ol' guns, I mean.

a reply to: macman

All rights or just right's about guns?

a reply to: PhoenixOD
What kind of dumbass question is that?

All rights.

a reply to: macman

What kind of dumbass question is that? All rights.

So if your government ever brings out laws that restricts any of your rights you think people should uses their guns to kill the people running the government so they get what they want?

a reply to: acackohfcc

zee germans did and is one of the origins of the phrase from the sturmgewehr 44

en.wikipedia.org...

Sturmgewehr 44, "assault rifle 44") is a German selective-fire rifle developed during World War II that was the first of its kind to see major deployment and is considered to be the first modern assault rifle. It is also known under the designations MP 43 and MP 44 (Maschinenpistole 43, Maschinenpistole 44 respectively). The StG 44 was the first successful weapon of its class, and the concept had a major impact on modern infantry small arms development. By all accounts, the StG 44 fulfilled its role admirably, particularly on the Eastern Front, offering a greatly increased volume of fire compared to standard infantry rifles and greater range than submachine guns. In the end, it came too late to have a significant effect on the outcome of the war.[

so yeah assault rifle has a technical definition all though often it is incorrectly applied to semi automatic weapons
en.wikipedia.org...

atic selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.[1][2][3][4][5] Assault rifles were first used during World War II. Though Western nations were slow to accept the assault rifle concept after World War II, by the end of the 20th century they had become the standard weapon in most of the world's armies, replacing battle rifles and sub-machine guns. Examples include the StG 44, AK-47 and the M16 rifle.

en.wikipedia.org... but yeah as far as legislation no set definition

a reply to: PhoenixOD

Honestly....Are you just making this crap up?

Right now, go and re-read my posts. Your answer is there.

a reply to: macman

I'm not sure i could accurately interpret your posts. A simple yes or no will do unless you just don't want to say it.

a reply to: SLAYER69

Democrats, as willfully neglegent as they can be, are not terrorists.

Yet.

Even Democrats do not want to ban all guns from everyone but cops and military.

For the Democrats there will always be a need for the elite to have armed bodyguards?????? to protect them or have there own guns.

These elite will always be excluded from any gun ban.

Case in point is California Democrat Senator Barbara Boxer that has a CCW in Calif when most people in Calif can not get one.
New York Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer also has a CCW in NY where very few people can get a CCW.

originally posted by: SLAYER69
They're called politicians, Democrats to be exact.

Republican politicians would just as soon have them off the street as well. They just know they have a zero chance of re-election if they make a wrong move at the wrong time.

Any politician who wants to secure my vote would move for a law that:
1. Universally declares any infringement an act of treason.
2. The accused will have a speedy trial.
3. The trial judges shall consist of the SCOTUS.
4. Any trial delay shall be grounds for impeachment of the SCOTUS.
5. A guilty verdict will result in:
a. Immediate revocation of citizenship.
b. Immediate banishment.
c. Forfeiture of everything.

a reply to: AmericanRealist

To celebrate I'm buying three tomorrow. 2 AR's and a 9X18 Makarov.

a reply to: AmericanRealist

A win for Gun Rights and a blow to the anti-gun President Obama. A slap in the face that this is America punk! Back Off and, well I think that is enough for now! We will see him cry on TV soon that he can't take the guns away because that damn constitution kept getting in the way. Well Mr, President, THAT is the law of the land, not you and not any rabid anti-gunners idea of what the law is. Don't like it, move to Paris!

YoooWhooo!

a reply to: Snarl

Agreed, in that what we need in this country is a law against gun laws! That would solve the problem.