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

[MikeK]

Countries with strict gun laws have low crime and low gun crime and death. It is not the case that when guns are banned, only criminals have them: that's a lie.

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.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I agree, which is why we need to have a tighter control over who gets what kind of weapon.

Since that is not gonna happen, being a realist, I would rather have an armed teacher with my kids.

Mark

This is from the UK, but anyway.

Eight in 10 teachers have had mental-health problems and workload is to blame

"
Eight in 10 teachers have had mental-health problems and workload is to blame"

Teacher's Violent Meltdown Caught on Tape

"
Teacher's Violent Meltdown Caught on Tape"

It happens.

Probably no more than cops or soldiers.

Mark

I have no idea why you want to talk about disarming cops and soldiers.Why not just start a conversation about "straw men"?

Your argument is that "anyone" can snap. If a teacher can snap, so can a cop or a soldier, correct? And if its not correct, explain why it isn't?

Mark

Rant all you want about crazy cops and crazy soldiers. It has absolutely nothing to do with protecting our kids and grand kids.

 

[MikeK]

Incorrect.

An assault rifle is whatever a given lawmaking body determines it to be; a semi-automatic AR 15 can be designated an assault rifled as a matter of law, having nothing to do with ‘the left.’

What have you based that on?

Are you suggesting that some scholarly-looking chap seated on a high bench while wearing a black robe can say a .22 derringer is a shotgun -- and that's that?

 

[Vandalshandle]

I agree, which is why we need to have a tighter control over who gets what kind of weapon.

Since that is not gonna happen, being a realist, I would rather have an armed teacher with my kids.

Mark

I can understand that. rather than restrict weapons to anyone who can pass a background check (including private sales), you would rather trust a Latin teacher who you do not know to carry a gun in your child's school, not knowing if he is another Vegas type killer to be, or a 60 year old schoolmarm, just waiting for an accident to happen.

In these school shootings, we have seen heroic teachers throwing their bodies in front of bullets to protect these kids, so yes, I would want to give them the opportunity to sacrifice the shooters life instead of their own. The way you keep describing teachers, maybe we should close all the schools. You believe they are nuts, or mad.

Mark

One of those "heroic" teachers was just exposed as a coward who locked students in the hall to be shot down by a psyhco.

After hearing comments from teachers, they said he did the right thing according to his training.

Mark

Of, course. Oddly enough, this teacher had not been trained in SWAT tactics. How odd.

 

[MikeK]

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.

The 2A really only stops the US Federal Govt (and now the state govts) from preventing people from having guns.

The question is this: If they ban assault rifles, will individuals still be able to get guns? The answer is yes. Therefore the 2A has NOT been infringed.

9 kids die a day from texting and driving.
Let's ban your cell phone too.
Also, your car.
You can still use a landline and a bicycle so you haven't actually lost anything.

Well, as I've said many times, there are ways of reducing deaths on roads.

The UK has a murder rate 1/4 of the US murder rate. It also has a death rate on the roads a little under 1/4 of the US.

I'm all for reducing deaths on roads as well as from guns.

The US just doesn't seem to be able to do anything about this stuff. This is a major problem.

Also, as I've said many times, the biggest problem in the US is the way that people vote, because this is how you get your politicians, and they're mostly on the take and not bothered about actually running the country properly.

But that doesn't take away from the fact that something needs to be done about guns.

 

[Esmeralda]

Countries with strict gun laws have low crime and low gun crime and death. It is not the case that when guns are banned, only criminals have them: that's a lie.

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.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Countries with strict gun laws have low crime and low gun crime and death. It is not the case that when guns are banned, only criminals have them: that's a lie.

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.

In addition making possession of something a crime makes those in possession of that thing instantly an outlaw. Once officially a criminal why not revel in the status and live the "thug" life?
Most Americans would simply ignore any such law change and,if pressed, claim that any such weapons had been lost, stolen, traded, or sold.

 

[Esmeralda]

Countries with strict gun laws have low crime and low gun crime and death. It is not the case that when guns are banned, only criminals have them: that's a lie.

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.

In addition making possession of something a crime makes those in possession of that thing instantly an outlaw. Once officially a criminal why not revel in the status and live the "thug" life?
Most Americans would simply ignore any such law change and,if pressed, claim that any such weapons had been lost, stolen, traded, or sold.

Possibly most American GUN OWNERS would defy the law, hypocrites that they are. Decent people who support, honor and love their country would not live the life of a thug.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Decent people who support, honor and love their country would not live the life of a thug.

Decent people who support, honor and love their country would not live the life of a thug.

Decent people who support, honor and love their country would not pass such a law in obvious violation of the Constitution, do not deserve the protection of that country, and would be well advised to remember that a very large number of people are sworn to protect the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Thoughts and Prayers to those like the big bang, bang high capacity guns.

The gun isn't "high capacity." Moron

 

[Skull Pilot]

Countries with strict gun laws have low crime and low gun crime and death. It is not the case that when guns are banned, only criminals have them: that's a lie.

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

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Incorrect.

An assault rifle is whatever a given lawmaking body determines it to be; a semi-automatic AR 15 can be designated an assault rifled as a matter of law, having nothing to do with ‘the left.’

What have you based that on?

Are you suggesting that some scholarly-looking chap seated on a high bench while wearing a black robe can say a .22 derringer is a shotgun -- and that's that?

Not the courts but lawmaking bodies, state legislatures or the US Congress, they determine what an assault weapon is and legislate accordingly. You're confusing the two.

 

[Esmeralda]

Decent people who support, honor and love their country would not live the life of a thug.

Decent people who support, honor and love their country would not live the life of a thug.

Decent people who support, honor and love their country would not pass such a law in obvious violation of the Constitution, do not deserve the protection of that country, and would be well advised to remember that a very large number of people are sworn to protect the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.

It wouldn't be a violation of the Constitutionl It has already been determined by the US Supreme Court that the 2nd Amendment does not mean that absolutely no restrictions are allowed. What really shows no respect for our country is people who are so obsessed with arming themselves with dangerous weapons they don't need that they ignore the safety and security of the rest of the country and consider mass shootings just collateral damage to their personal desires. That shows no respect and honor for your own country and its people.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS NOT ABSOLUTE

The Second Amendment Is Not Absolute

.

 

[Esmeralda]

Countries with strict gun laws have low crime and low gun crime and death. It is not the case that when guns are banned, only criminals have them: that's a lie.

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.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Decent people who support, honor and love their country would not live the life of a thug.

Decent people who support, honor and love their country would not live the life of a thug.

Decent people who support, honor and love their country would not pass such a law in obvious violation of the Constitution, do not deserve the protection of that country, and would be well advised to remember that a very large number of people are sworn to protect the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.

It wouldn't be a violation of the Constitutionl Decent people who support, honor and love their country would not What really shows no respect for our country is people who are so obsessed with arming themselves with dangerous weapons they don't need that they ignore the safety and security of the rest of the country and consider mass shootings just collateral damage to their personal desires. That shows no respect and honor for your own country and its people.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS NOT ABSOLUTE

The Second Amendment Is Not Absolute

.

It has already been determined by the US Supreme Court that the 2nd Amendment does not mean that absolutely no restrictions are allowed.

Never said otherwise. It also doesn't mean that all restrictions are allowed. "...shall not be infringed" remains the law. Only regulations that do not infringe on the acknowledged basic individual Right are legal.

"What really shows no respect for our country is people who are so obsessed with arming themselves with dangerous weapons they don't need that they ignore the safety and security of the rest of the country "

What makes you think that gun owners are more responsible for the safety and security of the country than anyone else? What makes you think responsible gun owners should be held accountable for someone else's crime? Do you think we give up the Right to due process because we own a gun? That's as silly and dangerous as advocating the banning of all cars because somebody somewhere was guilty of drunk driving. And-while on the subject of banning -are you aware that many gun owners have collections worth many thousands of dollars and do you expect the country to reimburse that damage of millions of gun owners? Or do you insist the Federal government commit wide-scale armed grand larceny?

 

[9thIDdoc]

"...and consider mass shootings just collateral damage to their personal desires."

Yes I do, actually as is my Right as an American. Deal with it.

 

[Indeependent]

Ban martials arts & crafts!

 

[Esmeralda]

"...and consider mass shootings just collateral damage to their personal desires."

Yes I do, actually as is my Right as an American. Deal with it.

I think you are the one who has to deal with it; I don't have that kind of evil, sorrow and darkness on my mind....the deaths of all those people are something I wan't to stop, not something I just say ho hum about.

 

[MikeK]

Not the courts but lawmaking bodies, state legislatures or the US Congress, they determine what an assault weapon is and legislate accordingly. You're confusing the two.

Okay. I will concede I was a bit eager in clothing my analogy. But the essential object remains the same, that object being what in fact an "assault weapon" is and is not. And while a lawmaking body can get away with saying a horse is a cow that doesn't make it so -- except in the minds of those who don't know the difference between the two.

The word assault has valid presence and specific meaning in two entirely dissimilar contexts, a criminal context and a military context. The simple fact in this matter is the term assault weapon has no real place in the criminal context.

The word assault has specific meaning in the military context because it refers to a specific type of military operation, e.g. assault on an enemy position. The M-16 is an ideal "assault weapon" because of its small size, light weight, and selectable fully-automatic function.

The AR-15 is not suitable for assault in a military context because it is not capable of fully-automatic function. To say the AR-15 is an "assault weapon" in a criminal context is either outlandishly ignorant or brazenly deceptive.

The AR-15 is simply a semi-automatic rifle that physically resembles our standard military assault weapon.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Not the courts but lawmaking bodies, state legislatures or the US Congress, they determine what an assault weapon is and legislate accordingly. You're confusing the two.

Okay. I will concede I was a bit eager in clothing my analogy. But the essential object remains the same, that object being what in fact an "assault weapon" is and is not. And while a lawmaking body can get away with saying a horse is a cow that doesn't make it so -- except in the minds of those who don't know the difference between the two.

The word assault has valid presence and specific meaning in two entirely dissimilar contexts, a criminal context and a military context. The simple fact in this matter is the term assault weapon has no real place in the criminal context.

The word assault has specific meaning in the military context because it refers to a specific type of military operation, e.g. assault on an enemy position. The M-16 is an ideal "assault weapon" because of its small size, light weight, and selectable fully-automatic function.

The AR-15 is not suitable for assault in a military context because it is not capable of fully-automatic function. To say the AR-15 is an "assault weapon" in a criminal context is either outlandishly ignorant or brazenly deceptive.

The AR-15 is simply a semi-automatic rifle that physically resembles our standard military assault weapon.

"...and consider mass shootings just collateral damage to their personal desires."

Yes I do, actually as is my Right as an American. Deal with it.

I think you are the one who has to deal with it; I don't have that kind of evil, sorrow and darkness on my mind....the deaths of all those people are something I wan't to stop, not something I just say ho hum about.

I don't believe a word of that. If it were true you would be trying to deal with the actual issues rather than trying to trying to blame an inanimate object. Try dealing with facts and reality instead of trying to claim some imaginary moral high ground.