CDZ Another shot heard round the world.

[Auld Phart]

Really?

What prevented the thousands of people that used handguns to murder people from using so called 'assault weapons' that are available over the counter?

If they qualify to buy a handgun, they qualify to buy a scary looking AR-15.

I don't know. Stupidity? Either that or they lived in a state where assault rifles are banned.

all 7 states?

 

[TheOldSchool]

Does she have any idea how FEW of those banned weapons are used in gun violence?

Thanks in large part to gun control measures

Those "gun control" measures worked out pretty good in places like San Bernadino, and Miami, didn't they? The problem with "gun control" laws, is that criminals, by definition, don't care!!! All they do is keep those guns out of the hands of the rest of us, so we cannot effectively defend ourselves against them.

Well we live in a gun crazy country that has over 400 million guns floating around and almost all of them unaccounted for. Increasing that number only makes it easier for criminals to get guns.

By your logic, we should get rid of murder laws, since murderers are going to ignore them and kill anyways.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Really?

What prevented the thousands of people that used handguns to murder people from using so called 'assault weapons' that are available over the counter?

If they qualify to buy a handgun, they qualify to buy a scary looking AR-15.

I don't know. Stupidity? Either that or they lived in a state where assault rifles are banned.

all 7 states?

76 million people in those 7 states

 

[oldsoul]

Does she have any idea how FEW of those banned weapons are used in gun violence?

Thanks in large part to gun control measures

Those "gun control" measures worked out pretty good in places like San Bernadino, and Miami, didn't they? The problem with "gun control" laws, is that criminals, by definition, don't care!!! All they do is keep those guns out of the hands of the rest of us, so we cannot effectively defend ourselves against them.

Well we live in a gun crazy country that has over 400 million guns floating around and almost all of them unaccounted for. Increasing that number only makes it easier for criminals to get guns.

By your logic, we should get rid of murder laws, since murderers are going to ignore them and kill anyways.

Are you insane? How can you possibly make that leap? Evel Knievel couldn't even do that!

 

[TheOldSchool]

Does she have any idea how FEW of those banned weapons are used in gun violence?

Thanks in large part to gun control measures

Those "gun control" measures worked out pretty good in places like San Bernadino, and Miami, didn't they? The problem with "gun control" laws, is that criminals, by definition, don't care!!! All they do is keep those guns out of the hands of the rest of us, so we cannot effectively defend ourselves against them.

Well we live in a gun crazy country that has over 400 million guns floating around and almost all of them unaccounted for. Increasing that number only makes it easier for criminals to get guns.

By your logic, we should get rid of murder laws, since murderers are going to ignore them and kill anyways.

Are you insane? How can you possibly make that leap? Evel Knievel couldn't even do that!

You said bad guys will just ignore laws if they want to.

 

[rightwinger]

We will save more lives by banning guns than banning Muslims

 

[Auld Phart]

Really?

What prevented the thousands of people that used handguns to murder people from using so called 'assault weapons' that are available over the counter?

If they qualify to buy a handgun, they qualify to buy a scary looking AR-15.

I don't know. Stupidity? Either that or they lived in a state where assault rifles are banned.

all 7 states?

76 million people in those 7 states

Guess in those states, they murdered each other with handguns.

2014 stats

Handguns
5562

• Rifles
  248

• Shotguns
  262

hmmm
More killed by shotgun than rifles...

 

[TheOldSchool]

Really?

What prevented the thousands of people that used handguns to murder people from using so called 'assault weapons' that are available over the counter?

If they qualify to buy a handgun, they qualify to buy a scary looking AR-15.

I don't know. Stupidity? Either that or they lived in a state where assault rifles are banned.

all 7 states?

76 million people in those 7 states

Guess in those states, they murdered each other with handguns.

2014 stats

Handguns
5562

• Rifles
  248

• Shotguns
  262

hmmm
More killed by shotgun than rifles...

I wonder how many more would have died if the killers had chosen assault rifles as their weapons.

 

[Auld Phart]

Really?

What prevented the thousands of people that used handguns to murder people from using so called 'assault weapons' that are available over the counter?

If they qualify to buy a handgun, they qualify to buy a scary looking AR-15.

I don't know. Stupidity? Either that or they lived in a state where assault rifles are banned.

all 7 states?

76 million people in those 7 states

Guess in those states, they murdered each other with handguns.

2014 stats

Handguns
5562

• Rifles
  248

• Shotguns
  262

hmmm
More killed by shotgun than rifles...

I wonder how many more would have died if the killers had chosen assault rifles as their weapons.

3?

maybe 4?

 

[TheOldSchool]

I don't know. Stupidity? Either that or they lived in a state where assault rifles are banned.

all 7 states?

76 million people in those 7 states

Guess in those states, they murdered each other with handguns.

2014 stats

Handguns
5562

• Rifles
  248

• Shotguns
  262

hmmm
More killed by shotgun than rifles...

I wonder how many more would have died if the killers had chosen assault rifles as their weapons.

3?

maybe 4?

Luckily we'll never know

 

[Chuz Life]

We will save more lives by banning guns than banning Muslims

Care to explain the why Chicago (a city with the strongest gun restrictions in the country) has one of the highest MURDER rates in the country?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[rightwinger]

We will save more lives by banning guns than banning Muslims

Care to explain the why Chicago (a city with the strongest gun restrictions in the country) has one of the highest MURDER rates in the country?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Oh....oh...me....me

I can explain

They have one of the highest murder rates because they have guns readily accessible in nearby red state Indiana. Can you explain why Red State Louisiana with lax gun laws has such a high murder rate?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Assault weapons not protected by Second Amendment, federal appeals court rules

I'm posting from my phone so I am sorry for not quoting the text.

Let's discuss.

This is the kind of decision that can lead to very bad things.

The Democrat politicians of Marylard are the second dumbest to the Democrat Politicians of the US of A.

I have posted 2 pictures below, which is an assault rifle and which one isn't? I bet you libs will get it wrong, everytime...

View attachment 113702 View attachment 113703

Both of these weapons are Ruger 10/22 semi automatic weapons. They are not assault weapons.

A M-16 is an Assault weapon, an AR-15 is a hunting rifle. Shame some people on this site never graduated from a real school, instead of the propaganda public school.

I think it is time to stop pussy footing around.

The 2nd Amendment was not written to secure the people's right to keep and bear HUNTING rifles. It was not written to secure the people's right to have guns for sport or for collecting.

The 2nd Amendment was written to secure our right AND OUR ABILITY to have the weapons necessary to DEFEND ourselves and our freedoms MILITARILY - even against our own government - should it ever again be necessary for us to do so.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." - Declaration of Independence

Can you imagine the founding fathers and the framers of the Constitution and their reactions to any King or even their own Government - trying to dictate to them what weapons they could and could not have to DEFEND themselves and their liberties against such tyranny?

Those bayonets on the ends of the Kentucky long rifles carried by the minutemen (CIVILIANS) during the revolutionary war were not for DEER HUNTING. The Cannons they used against the king and his men were not for defense against Squirrels.

We all agree (I hope) that there can be limits and regulations - reasonable regulations that the people might "consent" to. However, a RIGHT does not simply get lost or go away when someone CONSENTS to regulation.

The courts are not recognizing the RIGHTS of the people in this case.

The "people" have a 2nd Amendment Constitutional RIGHT to keep and bear weapons of WAR - to defend ourselves against EVEN our own government.

It is time to stop pretending that we don't.

I think it is time to stop pussy footing around.

Can you say that in the CDZ???

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

We will save more lives by banning guns than banning Muslims

Care to explain the why Chicago (a city with the strongest gun restrictions in the country) has one of the highest MURDER rates in the country?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Since the people of color in Chicago were lucky enough to make it past the Liberal Abortions that Margaret Sanger was a proponent of, instead of enlightening those unlucky folks, it is easier for them to kill each other, and the liberals can use their deaths to push their agenda, not fix the problem.

How to spot a sociopath - 10 red flags that could save you from being swept under the influence of a charismatic nut job

#3) Sociopaths are incapable of feeling shame, guilt or remorse. Their brains simply lack the circuitry to process such emotions. This allows them to betray people, threaten people or harm people without giving it a second thought. They pursue any action that serves their own self interest even if it seriously harms others.

When you understand this mentality of Liberalism, you understand "At this point what difference does it make?". Liberal compassion kills people....

 

[Winston]

Assault weapons not protected by Second Amendment, federal appeals court rules

I'm posting from my phone so I am sorry for not quoting the text.

Let's discuss.

This is the kind of decision that can lead to very bad things.

The Democrat politicians of Marylard are the second dumbest to the Democrat Politicians of the US of A.

I have posted 2 pictures below, which is an assault rifle and which one isn't? I bet you libs will get it wrong, everytime...

View attachment 113702 View attachment 113703

Both of these weapons are Ruger 10/22 semi automatic weapons. They are not assault weapons.

A M-16 is an Assault weapon, an AR-15 is a hunting rifle. Shame some people on this site never graduated from a real school, instead of the propaganda public school.

I think it is time to stop pussy footing around.

The 2nd Amendment was not written to secure the people's right to keep and bear HUNTING rifles. It was not written to secure the people's right to have guns for sport or for collecting.

The 2nd Amendment was written to secure our right AND OUR ABILITY to have the weapons necessary to DEFEND ourselves and our freedoms MILITARILY - even against our own government - should it ever again be necessary for us to do so.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." - Declaration of Independence

Can you imagine the founding fathers and the framers of the Constitution and their reactions to any King or even their own Government - trying to dictate to them what weapons they could and could not have to DEFEND themselves and their liberties against such tyranny?

Those bayonets on the ends of the Kentucky long rifles carried by the minutemen (CIVILIANS) during the revolutionary war were not for DEER HUNTING. The Cannons they used against the king and his men were not for defense against Squirrels.

We all agree (I hope) that there can be limits and regulations - reasonable regulations that the people might "consent" to. However, a RIGHT does not simply get lost or go away when someone CONSENTS to regulation.

The courts are not recognizing the RIGHTS of the people in this case.

The "people" have a 2nd Amendment Constitutional RIGHT to keep and bear weapons of WAR - to defend ourselves against EVEN our own government.

It is time to stop pretending that we don't.

Bayonets were NOT affixed to Kentucky Long Rifles and Cannons were not privately owned.

 

[Auld Phart]

Assault weapons not protected by Second Amendment, federal appeals court rules

I'm posting from my phone so I am sorry for not quoting the text.

Let's discuss.

This is the kind of decision that can lead to very bad things.

The Democrat politicians of Marylard are the second dumbest to the Democrat Politicians of the US of A.

I have posted 2 pictures below, which is an assault rifle and which one isn't? I bet you libs will get it wrong, everytime...

View attachment 113702 View attachment 113703

Both of these weapons are Ruger 10/22 semi automatic weapons. They are not assault weapons.

A M-16 is an Assault weapon, an AR-15 is a hunting rifle. Shame some people on this site never graduated from a real school, instead of the propaganda public school.

I think it is time to stop pussy footing around.

The 2nd Amendment was not written to secure the people's right to keep and bear HUNTING rifles. It was not written to secure the people's right to have guns for sport or for collecting.

The 2nd Amendment was written to secure our right AND OUR ABILITY to have the weapons necessary to DEFEND ourselves and our freedoms MILITARILY - even against our own government - should it ever again be necessary for us to do so.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." - Declaration of Independence

Can you imagine the founding fathers and the framers of the Constitution and their reactions to any King or even their own Government - trying to dictate to them what weapons they could and could not have to DEFEND themselves and their liberties against such tyranny?

Those bayonets on the ends of the Kentucky long rifles carried by the minutemen (CIVILIANS) during the revolutionary war were not for DEER HUNTING. The Cannons they used against the king and his men were not for defense against Squirrels.

We all agree (I hope) that there can be limits and regulations - reasonable regulations that the people might "consent" to. However, a RIGHT does not simply get lost or go away when someone CONSENTS to regulation.

The courts are not recognizing the RIGHTS of the people in this case.

The "people" have a 2nd Amendment Constitutional RIGHT to keep and bear weapons of WAR - to defend ourselves against EVEN our own government.

It is time to stop pretending that we don't.

Bayonets were NOT affixed to Kentucky Long Rifles and Cannons were not privately owned.

Cannons were not privately owned.

Might want to research that a bit more.

Look up John Stark of NH

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Assault weapons not protected by Second Amendment, federal appeals court rules

I'm posting from my phone so I am sorry for not quoting the text.

Let's discuss.

This is the kind of decision that can lead to very bad things.

The Democrat politicians of Marylard are the second dumbest to the Democrat Politicians of the US of A.

I have posted 2 pictures below, which is an assault rifle and which one isn't? I bet you libs will get it wrong, everytime...

View attachment 113702 View attachment 113703

Both of these weapons are Ruger 10/22 semi automatic weapons. They are not assault weapons.

A M-16 is an Assault weapon, an AR-15 is a hunting rifle. Shame some people on this site never graduated from a real school, instead of the propaganda public school.

I think it is time to stop pussy footing around.

The 2nd Amendment was not written to secure the people's right to keep and bear HUNTING rifles. It was not written to secure the people's right to have guns for sport or for collecting.

The 2nd Amendment was written to secure our right AND OUR ABILITY to have the weapons necessary to DEFEND ourselves and our freedoms MILITARILY - even against our own government - should it ever again be necessary for us to do so.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." - Declaration of Independence

Can you imagine the founding fathers and the framers of the Constitution and their reactions to any King or even their own Government - trying to dictate to them what weapons they could and could not have to DEFEND themselves and their liberties against such tyranny?

Those bayonets on the ends of the Kentucky long rifles carried by the minutemen (CIVILIANS) during the revolutionary war were not for DEER HUNTING. The Cannons they used against the king and his men were not for defense against Squirrels.

We all agree (I hope) that there can be limits and regulations - reasonable regulations that the people might "consent" to. However, a RIGHT does not simply get lost or go away when someone CONSENTS to regulation.

The courts are not recognizing the RIGHTS of the people in this case.

The "people" have a 2nd Amendment Constitutional RIGHT to keep and bear weapons of WAR - to defend ourselves against EVEN our own government.

It is time to stop pretending that we don't.

Bayonets were NOT affixed to Kentucky Long Rifles and Cannons were not privately owned.

I hate to say it, but there were Bayonets for Kentucky Longs, how else would they stop the charge of the British who had Bayonets for their own weapons?

 

[Winston]

Assault weapons not protected by Second Amendment, federal appeals court rules

I'm posting from my phone so I am sorry for not quoting the text.

Let's discuss.

This is the kind of decision that can lead to very bad things.

The Democrat politicians of Marylard are the second dumbest to the Democrat Politicians of the US of A.

I have posted 2 pictures below, which is an assault rifle and which one isn't? I bet you libs will get it wrong, everytime...

View attachment 113702 View attachment 113703

Both of these weapons are Ruger 10/22 semi automatic weapons. They are not assault weapons.

A M-16 is an Assault weapon, an AR-15 is a hunting rifle. Shame some people on this site never graduated from a real school, instead of the propaganda public school.

I think it is time to stop pussy footing around.

The 2nd Amendment was not written to secure the people's right to keep and bear HUNTING rifles. It was not written to secure the people's right to have guns for sport or for collecting.

The 2nd Amendment was written to secure our right AND OUR ABILITY to have the weapons necessary to DEFEND ourselves and our freedoms MILITARILY - even against our own government - should it ever again be necessary for us to do so.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." - Declaration of Independence

Can you imagine the founding fathers and the framers of the Constitution and their reactions to any King or even their own Government - trying to dictate to them what weapons they could and could not have to DEFEND themselves and their liberties against such tyranny?

Those bayonets on the ends of the Kentucky long rifles carried by the minutemen (CIVILIANS) during the revolutionary war were not for DEER HUNTING. The Cannons they used against the king and his men were not for defense against Squirrels.

We all agree (I hope) that there can be limits and regulations - reasonable regulations that the people might "consent" to. However, a RIGHT does not simply get lost or go away when someone CONSENTS to regulation.

The courts are not recognizing the RIGHTS of the people in this case.

The "people" have a 2nd Amendment Constitutional RIGHT to keep and bear weapons of WAR - to defend ourselves against EVEN our own government.

It is time to stop pretending that we don't.

Bayonets were NOT affixed to Kentucky Long Rifles and Cannons were not privately owned.

I hate to say it, but there were Bayonets for Kentucky Longs, how else would they stop the charge of the British who had Bayonets for their own weapons?

View attachment 113951

Hah Hah, look at that thing. Reenactors, got to love them. The Kentucky long rifle was usually a custom made weapon, there was no way to make a standardized bayonet, and no need to. Nor would one make a custom bayonet to go with the rifle, it would mess up the sight line and the width of the barrel itself would be problematic. Nor was the Kentucky long rifle a military issued weapon.

Besides, a bayonet would not mix with the strategy behind the long rifle. The rifleman climbed in trees and picked off officers. He operated BEHIND the musket line. He was running away long before the British started charging.

 

[Winston]

Assault weapons not protected by Second Amendment, federal appeals court rules

I'm posting from my phone so I am sorry for not quoting the text.

Let's discuss.

This is the kind of decision that can lead to very bad things.

The Democrat politicians of Marylard are the second dumbest to the Democrat Politicians of the US of A.

I have posted 2 pictures below, which is an assault rifle and which one isn't? I bet you libs will get it wrong, everytime...

View attachment 113702 View attachment 113703

Both of these weapons are Ruger 10/22 semi automatic weapons. They are not assault weapons.

A M-16 is an Assault weapon, an AR-15 is a hunting rifle. Shame some people on this site never graduated from a real school, instead of the propaganda public school.

I think it is time to stop pussy footing around.

The 2nd Amendment was not written to secure the people's right to keep and bear HUNTING rifles. It was not written to secure the people's right to have guns for sport or for collecting.

The 2nd Amendment was written to secure our right AND OUR ABILITY to have the weapons necessary to DEFEND ourselves and our freedoms MILITARILY - even against our own government - should it ever again be necessary for us to do so.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." - Declaration of Independence

Can you imagine the founding fathers and the framers of the Constitution and their reactions to any King or even their own Government - trying to dictate to them what weapons they could and could not have to DEFEND themselves and their liberties against such tyranny?

Those bayonets on the ends of the Kentucky long rifles carried by the minutemen (CIVILIANS) during the revolutionary war were not for DEER HUNTING. The Cannons they used against the king and his men were not for defense against Squirrels.

We all agree (I hope) that there can be limits and regulations - reasonable regulations that the people might "consent" to. However, a RIGHT does not simply get lost or go away when someone CONSENTS to regulation.

The courts are not recognizing the RIGHTS of the people in this case.

The "people" have a 2nd Amendment Constitutional RIGHT to keep and bear weapons of WAR - to defend ourselves against EVEN our own government.

It is time to stop pretending that we don't.

Bayonets were NOT affixed to Kentucky Long Rifles and Cannons were not privately owned.

Cannons were not privately owned.

Might want to research that a bit more.

Look up John Stark of NH

Stealing a cannon from the British does not make them privately owned. Hell Peter Francisco carried one off the battlefield on his back. That still doesn't make them privately owned.

 

[Auld Phart]

The Democrat politicians of Marylard are the second dumbest to the Democrat Politicians of the US of A.

I have posted 2 pictures below, which is an assault rifle and which one isn't? I bet you libs will get it wrong, everytime...

View attachment 113702 View attachment 113703

Both of these weapons are Ruger 10/22 semi automatic weapons. They are not assault weapons.

A M-16 is an Assault weapon, an AR-15 is a hunting rifle. Shame some people on this site never graduated from a real school, instead of the propaganda public school.

I think it is time to stop pussy footing around.

The 2nd Amendment was not written to secure the people's right to keep and bear HUNTING rifles. It was not written to secure the people's right to have guns for sport or for collecting.

The 2nd Amendment was written to secure our right AND OUR ABILITY to have the weapons necessary to DEFEND ourselves and our freedoms MILITARILY - even against our own government - should it ever again be necessary for us to do so.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." - Declaration of Independence

Can you imagine the founding fathers and the framers of the Constitution and their reactions to any King or even their own Government - trying to dictate to them what weapons they could and could not have to DEFEND themselves and their liberties against such tyranny?

Those bayonets on the ends of the Kentucky long rifles carried by the minutemen (CIVILIANS) during the revolutionary war were not for DEER HUNTING. The Cannons they used against the king and his men were not for defense against Squirrels.

We all agree (I hope) that there can be limits and regulations - reasonable regulations that the people might "consent" to. However, a RIGHT does not simply get lost or go away when someone CONSENTS to regulation.

The courts are not recognizing the RIGHTS of the people in this case.

The "people" have a 2nd Amendment Constitutional RIGHT to keep and bear weapons of WAR - to defend ourselves against EVEN our own government.

It is time to stop pretending that we don't.

Bayonets were NOT affixed to Kentucky Long Rifles and Cannons were not privately owned.

Cannons were not privately owned.

Might want to research that a bit more.

Look up John Stark of NH

Stealing a cannon from the British does not make them privately owned. Hell Peter Francisco carried one off the battlefield on his back. That still doesn't make them privately owned.

If he stole it from the British, who does it belong to?