Federal Court Rules "Assault" Weapons Not Protected By 2nd Amendment:

[Skull Pilot]

It's not a lie. It is a logical fact.

If the U.S. government issued a ban on all civilian-owned firearms the law-abiding citizens would comply but the criminal element would not, thus leaving the law-abiding citizens at the mercy of armed criminals via the force of law.

While it's true that a percentage of ordinarily law-abiding citizens would ignore such a federal gun ban the actual number of those renegades would depend on the level of punishment associated with refusal to comply. The threat of a substantial prison sentence and a heavy fine would soften the resolve of the most committed "...my cold, dead fingers" adversary.

The only possible alternative to the compliant outcome of a gun ban, such as that which disarmed the civilian population of Australia, would be a full-scale armed rebellion. And the present-day American population is far to diverse, with far too few committed Second Amendment advocates, to bring off such an active resistance.

Sad, but it's true.

It's not true. Look at stats for countries with strict gun laws. They do not have high crime.

Yes they do in fact the UK as twice as many rapes as does the US

Twice as many assaults as the US

and 3 times more overall crimes per 1000 people

United Kingdom vs United States: Crime Facts and Stats

BS total bulshit. You guys are funny.
By your own site:
The US has 138 percent more murders by firearms than the UK.
The US has 82% more overall crime than the UK.

Eveything on the list is far more in the US than in the UK.

Then prove it.

Come up with the stats and refute the source I used

and overall crime is a count of the total number of crimes

Look at the crime per 1000 people figure because that is the crime RATE

you are 3 times more likely to be the victim of a crime in the UK
twice as likely to be raped and twice as likely to be assualted

Now why don't you go and learn what per capita means and get back to me

Countries Compared by Crime > Total crimes per 1000. International Statistics at NationMaster.com

LOL You site shows that there is more crime in the US. You apparently can't read, The US is a very violent, crimed filled nation.

All of those European countries listed as having more crime than the US: that is not a realistic perspective. Those must be very petty crimes. I've been to and lived in many of those countries: they are much safer than the US, which I have also lived in. I lived in Austria for 4 years and it is extremely more safe than the US. I lived in Vienna, a very large city, for 4 years and a woman can walk around Vienna at night alone and not be assaulted in any way. As far as violent crime is considered, the US is by far the leader in modern Western countries.

You do not understand what per capita means do you?

Look it up as I have neither the time nor inclination to educate you on the subject

 

[Slashsnake]

The courts have been interpreting our second amendment rights incorrectly for years. What part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand?

What part of Article VI of the Constitution do you not understand.

Seeing as you made zero points with your "argument," I will conclude that you must be a retard and that most of this board feels bad for you.

Your little VI argument says the courts must follow what the Constitution says. So again, which part of "shall not be infringed," do the courts not understand?

 

[MikeK]

If they're attempting to ban the AR-15 then it should prove interesting to see how many police, sheriff, state trooper, FBI, DEA, ATF, and other law enforcement agencies turn their "assault weapons" over to the local national guard.

Unless I'm mistaken I believe the FBI, DEA, ATF, and some state and local law-enforcement agencies are armed with M-16s, which are assault weapons.

 

[OldLady]

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has decided that "assault" weapons are not sanctioned by the Second Amendment -- and I wonder what sort of convoluted reasoning was fumbled with to reach that absurd conclusion.

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

The very basis of this reasoning either ignores or brazenly denies the fundamental purpose of the Second Amendment by asserting the Amendment does not apply to "weapons of war." Then what the hell does it apply to? These decrepit, incompetent sonsabitches have clearly invented spurious justification for brazenly pissing on the Constitution via such nonsensical pseudo-legal babble.

The Supreme Court must be called on by the NRA to review this brazenly biased, flagrantly ignorant, utterly disgraceful abuse of judicial power and reverse it.

GOOD!

 

[Damaged Eagle]

If they're attempting to ban the AR-15 then it should prove interesting to see how many police, sheriff, state trooper, FBI, DEA, ATF, and other law enforcement agencies turn their "assault weapons" over to the local national guard.

Unless I'm mistaken I believe the FBI, DEA, ATF, and some state and local law-enforcement agencies are armed with M-16s, which are assault weapons.

It appears that people who aren't military in the United States are allowed to possess firearms.This sounds like an infringement on my right to bear arms. Either those agencies should turn those firearms over to the military any citizen who wants one, barring felons, should be allowed to purchase said equipment in the United States.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has decided that "assault" weapons are not sanctioned by the Second Amendment -- and I wonder what sort of convoluted reasoning was fumbled with to reach that absurd conclusion.

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

The very basis of this reasoning either ignores or brazenly denies the fundamental purpose of the Second Amendment by asserting the Amendment does not apply to "weapons of war." Then what the hell does it apply to? These decrepit, incompetent sonsabitches have clearly invented spurious justification for brazenly pissing on the Constitution via such nonsensical pseudo-legal babble.

The Supreme Court must be called on by the NRA to review this brazenly biased, flagrantly ignorant, utterly disgraceful abuse of judicial power and reverse it.

GOOD!

Then you'll happily agree that all civil law enforcement agencies comply with the civil laws they are there to enforce by turning in all equipment they are not allowed to have by law.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Yousaidwhat]

RWNJs need to explain, logically, why it is necessary for a private citizen to have semi-automatic or automatic military style assault weapons. They can't of course: seems the only time such weapons are used is to massacre dozens of innocent people and children.

And you need to explain why it is necessary to allow you to speak without being spoken to.

Oh wait. My apology. 1st amendement rights.

Now. I apparently don't need to justify my second amendment right.

You're welcome.