AR-15s ‘Not Protected’ By 2nd Amendment & Can Be Banned, Court Rules In Landmark Decision

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Teikiatsu

They cited Heller which has as its ultimate authority the Constitution.

They cited the military-grade clause of Heller, then distorted it to fit their desire. The epitome of Judicial Activism

An AR-15 is not a military grade weapon. It's a hunting rifle made to look intimidating. It is semi-automatic.

Repeat: An AR-15 is not military grade.

No, the logic is not based on the weapons per se but on the decision authored by Scalia in Heller (again).

For military-grade weapons.

You're arguing mechanics; they're arguing legal precedent as well as the Constitution.

No I'm not. No, they aren't.

My "opinion" is that the SCOTUS interprets the Constitution and the 4th cited a SCOTUS ruling and the laws of a sovereign State.

Your opinion is flawed and biased.

Your opinion is that you know more than 10 4th Circuit judges (among the most conservative in the country, by the way) do about firearms.

In this case I apparently do, which is kind of sad.

That may be true, but, and I hesitate to say as usual, your argument misses the point.

The point? Guns are bad, m'kay? The judiciary is out of control? Judicial rulings are okay so long as you agree with them?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

It's not my way MBTM ... it's the way of the Constitution, our beloved Justice Scalia, and the laws of the sovereign state of Maryland.

(Although, I have always considered a musket in the right hands to be more than deadly enough for most legitimate purposes. Not to mention one equipped with a bayonet. Sheesh.)

Courts are fallible.
Or do you think the Dredd Scott decision was correct and the last word in the slavery question?
Laws are good, right?
Jim Crow laws are good?
No.
The final arbiter would be the people, whether they are right or wrong.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

We have become king George's England, an empirical aggressive military that dominates our federal spending and pushes other nations around for financial gain. If the FF were alive today they would move back to England, lol

a reply to: Metallicus

yes it stands for armalite the orginator of the design and isn't it technically considered a varmint gun when chambered for .223 remington/5.56 nato like rugers mini -14? when i lived up in wisconsin alot of the dairy farmers kept either a mini-14 or a lever action 30/30 in there truck as a just in case gun. like if you had a cow break its leg in the field or a coyote or bever were causing problems.

a reply to: Tardacus

Good post. I'm sure my ancestor James Turley had one at age 14

originally posted by: syrinx high priest
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

We have become king George's England, an empirical aggressive military that dominates our federal spending and pushes other nations around for financial gain. If the FF were alive today they would move back to England, lol

Either that or they might kick these judicial activists to the moon where they belong. Seriously though, the military industrial complex is probably not the country our FF envisioned when they signed the Declaration of Independence risking their very lives and fortunes. Many actually did lose their lives in fact. But who knew the Illuminati and Skull and Bones CFR and Rothschilds and the 13 bloodlines would have this much power?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Gryphon66

And from your point of view I would imagine it does sound treasonous.

Well, confused mostly, but my "point of view" is quoted directly from the Constitution and SCOTUS.

Still, saying you don't stand up for the Constitution ... pretty dicey there my friend.

well SCOTUS declared the preborn not protected by the Constitution..... yep some things are pretty dicey

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Um, aren't "Assault Weapons" full auto????

Assualt weapon is a political neologism coined in the 1990s because they couldn't ban machine guns again.

They created a scary name to take away the right to keep and bear arms from the people.

Even though there is more than just one amendment in play like the 4,-10, and the 14th amendments.

Even more ridiculous that ruling came after travel ban TRO's..

In fact a 1792 law requires men of 18 to 45 to own a musket, a weapon of war at the time.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

if weapons evolution is not compatible with the amendments of the Constitution


then modern voting devices where you vote on a touch-screen are also forbidden

a reply to: havok

The more these overreaches occurs, the closer we come to another "Fort Sumter" moment. If the courts won't uphold the laws as written, and support the rights of the people, then the people are no longer obligated to comply with their requests/demands! Of the people, By the people, and FOR the people! After years of military service, it's very aggravating watching bureaucrats and the power mad egotists doing their best to ruin what we were given!

a reply to: pyguy

I mandatory time of enlistment in the services at age 18 would do more to fix the country than anything else.

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: seasonal

We've had mass killings with handguns, shotguns, rifles, assault rifles, machetes, and even cars. The AR-15 is not the reason guns are dangerous. Guns are dangerous because guns are in the hands of dangerous people.

Here's one liberal snowflake who thinks banning the AR-15 is completely ridiculous.

"The most precious and efficient weapon of war is a child driven away or abandoned by his father so that the father's role can be filled by the apparatus of a tyrannical movement."
-Said every warlord ever...

Nothing in this country is as are forefathers intended. As George Carlin said "your rights are nothing more then temporary privileges that can be revoked at any moment just ask the Japanese Americans of 1942".

Meanwhile other countries like Mexico who banned pretty much all guns see a lot of violence issues with unregulated arms and drug gangs while the citizens can't defend themselves because guess what, they can't own guns legally. No surprise there.

a reply to: seasonal

What is the deal with this AR-15 its a gun, like all other guns. They shoot, they kill. Takes people to shoot them.

I could pull the trigger of a handgun just fast enough to make it semi-automatic. So what the hell changes anything, all guns can kill.

Honestly, this is just the first step to banning your guns America.

a reply to: BlackProject

although i understand your sentiment, i don't think you understand what semiautomatic means.
there are many definitions people have used, i like this one.

a semiautomatic is a pistol( not a revolver) or long gun that every time you pull ( use your own word for pull here, there are many and some get really pissy over it) the trigger, one round is fired, and the actions ejects the spent round and loads another round in the chamber, waiting for the next pull of the trigger repeating the process.

when the trigger is pulled a automatic fires continually, or in bursts until the trigger is released.
and yes i have seen people that can make a revolver sound like automatic.

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: BlackProject

although i understand your sentiment, i don't think you understand what semiautomatic means.
there are many definitions people have used, i like this one.

a semiautomatic is a pistol( not a revolver) or long gun that every time you pull ( use your own word for pull here, there are many and some get really pissy over it) the trigger, one round is fired, and the actions ejects the spent round and loads another round in the chamber, waiting for the next pull of the trigger repeating the process.

when the trigger is pulled a automatic fires continually, or in bursts until the trigger is released.
and yes i have seen people that can make a revolver sound like automatic.

I appreciate the genuine response pal.

You must see my point then that still, pulling a trigger and bullets firing continuously until it is let go. Is the same as firing a bullet once, twice or three times. Firing automatic, semi-automatic or single shot still kills people and this ban of any version of a gun is a ban on the gun.

I would deem that the news and media have made it seem somewhat an ok idea to most that banning something that can spray is a great idea, I could make the same mess with a single shot, world war 2 gun. This is coming from someone living in the UK, would you believe.

Hope you get my point.

originally posted by: wantsome
Nothing in this country is as are forefathers intended. As George Carlin said "your rights are nothing more then temporary privileges that can be revoked at any moment just ask the Japanese Americans of 1942".

Indeed it is. The point is that all Americans are given the 'Liberty' to do as they please. This does not mean freedom, this is like a parent saying its child can play outside but just this once. Only until they decide you are now no longer allowed to play. It is revoked.

Americans live under the watchful eye of the Statue of Liberty. Hence the name. Notice how it is also disconnected from the land.

a reply to: seasonal


We have stupid judges. The 2nd was all about military weapons.