Anti-gun extremists use lies to justify rifle ban in Deerfield, Illinios....

[Rustic]

Many perceived "gun rights" will eventually depend on three words found in the 2nd Amendment, "well regulated militia". A modernized interpretation of those words will change everything. A decision will be made that the old and current interpretation of "everyone" automatically belonging to the militia will be changed and who can belong to the militia and in what capacity will become "well regulated".

Taking it out of context again, the second amendment is all about the individuals right to own firearms and that firearm ownership is none of the federal governments business.
We have no criminal control in this country

 

[Rustic]

More people are killed by bathtubs than people using AR15s... fact

 

[Daryl Hunt]

They can't even pretend to be honest when they are trying to justify the unConstitutional Rifle ban in Deerfield, Illinois...

Brady Campaign Defends Deerfield, IL Gun Ban With Insane Arguments - The Truth About Guns

The defendants’ brief (click for .pdf) in opposition to our motion for injunctive relief argues the village’s ban on rifles is necessity “to protect the public health, safety and welfare.” Then they boldly cite criminal misuse of handguns as justification for their ban on scary-looking rifles.

Hard to believe, right? It’s true. They cite the South Carolina church killings and the attempted assassination of Gabby Giffords — both crimes committed with handguns — as reasons to ban rifles.

They also cited the Washington D.C. Naval Yard spree killing. There, a lunatic used a no-frills Mossberg 500 shotgun purchased at Dick’s Sporting Goods to kill most of his victims. He also used a handgun stolen from a murdered security guard.

Yes, the Village argues that they need to ban rifles because of criminals who used handguns and shotguns to kill people. That’s some sound logic, right? Not so much.

Wait. It gets worse. The defendants’ brief also names two domestic Islamic terror attacks as reasons to ban guns in Deerfield. Yes, they actually cited the Islamic terror attacks in San Bernardino, CA and at the Orlando Pulse nightclub as justification for taking our guns. So because the U.S. Government can’t protect us from Islamic terror attacks, the Village of Deerfield should disarm law-abiding Americans?

The brief also cites the Sutherland Springs, Texas church massacre. At the same time, it fails to note that a good guy’s AR-15 stopped the killings.

The audacity of these control freaks knows no limits and no shame.

This whole article is mostly BS. The ONLY thing they affected was rifles in the AR-15 Class. Not shotguns or handguns or normal hunting and sporting guns which are NOT the weapons of choice for mass shootings. Look for more and more Cities to do this as well. Until the gun craze of the AR is changed this is going to continue. And the harder you gun nutz fight it, the faster it will happen. Your whole way of fighting it is very militant and insulting. This makes the ones that want it think that they are doing the right thing. Well, cupcakes, you are bringing this onto yourselves.

Cupcakes are afraid of sporting rifles like ar15’s

You don't have a legal leg to stand on. If the State, City or County deems the Ar as not a normal weapon then they can go through normal legal channels like elections and such to deem them as such. The People in the State have that right. In order to do so, they have to classify what is a normal personal firearm and then all others can be banned or heavily regulated. They even have to allow you to receive a CCW permit but can make it next to impossible to get one (see NYC). And that is well within the Constitution of the United States. Not just the part you care to read while you leave out the parts that you don't agree with.

In the end, the 2nd amendment is to prevent the Federal from having so much power that it can overthrow a given state. But since all has changed starting around 1850, the 2nd amendment doesn't carry quite the force it once did. It needs to stand but you need to follow ALL of the constitution and not just one part of it. IF you don't like it, go buy your own island in the middle of the ocean and start your own country.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

They can't even pretend to be honest when they are trying to justify the unConstitutional Rifle ban in Deerfield, Illinois...

Brady Campaign Defends Deerfield, IL Gun Ban With Insane Arguments - The Truth About Guns

The defendants’ brief (click for .pdf) in opposition to our motion for injunctive relief argues the village’s ban on rifles is necessity “to protect the public health, safety and welfare.” Then they boldly cite criminal misuse of handguns as justification for their ban on scary-looking rifles.

Hard to believe, right? It’s true. They cite the South Carolina church killings and the attempted assassination of Gabby Giffords — both crimes committed with handguns — as reasons to ban rifles.

They also cited the Washington D.C. Naval Yard spree killing. There, a lunatic used a no-frills Mossberg 500 shotgun purchased at Dick’s Sporting Goods to kill most of his victims. He also used a handgun stolen from a murdered security guard.

Yes, the Village argues that they need to ban rifles because of criminals who used handguns and shotguns to kill people. That’s some sound logic, right? Not so much.

Wait. It gets worse. The defendants’ brief also names two domestic Islamic terror attacks as reasons to ban guns in Deerfield. Yes, they actually cited the Islamic terror attacks in San Bernardino, CA and at the Orlando Pulse nightclub as justification for taking our guns. So because the U.S. Government can’t protect us from Islamic terror attacks, the Village of Deerfield should disarm law-abiding Americans?

The brief also cites the Sutherland Springs, Texas church massacre. At the same time, it fails to note that a good guy’s AR-15 stopped the killings.

The audacity of these control freaks knows no limits and no shame.

This whole article is mostly BS. The ONLY thing they affected was rifles in the AR-15 Class. Not shotguns or handguns or normal hunting and sporting guns which are NOT the weapons of choice for mass shootings. Look for more and more Cities to do this as well. Until the gun craze of the AR is changed this is going to continue. And the harder you gun nutz fight it, the faster it will happen. Your whole way of fighting it is very militant and insulting. This makes the ones that want it think that they are doing the right thing. Well, cupcakes, you are bringing this onto yourselves.

Cupcakes are afraid of sporting rifles like ar15’s

You have it wrong. Snowballs are afraid of AR-15s. You Cupcakes bow to it as if it were a God. You can't seem to toss any of what I type here. You don't like that I point out that constitutionally, you are all wet and don't have a legal leg to stand on. You just keep muddying the waters hoping that others won't notice the misinformation you keep spewing. If you want to be a patriot, fine. Be one. A Patriot will lay his life down for ALL of the Constitution instead of just the parts that he agrees with.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

More people are killed by bathtubs than people using AR15s... fact

If I see a lot of people running down the street headed for school yards with bathtubs under their raincoats I just might consider regulating them as well. Now, that would be a sight.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Many perceived "gun rights" will eventually depend on three words found in the 2nd Amendment, "well regulated militia". A modernized interpretation of those words will change everything. A decision will be made that the old and current interpretation of "everyone" automatically belonging to the militia will be changed and who can belong to the militia and in what capacity will become "well regulated".

As of the 1917 National Guard Act, that part of the 2nd Amendment became worthless.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Many perceived "gun rights" will eventually depend on three words found in the 2nd Amendment, "well regulated militia". A modernized interpretation of those words will change everything. A decision will be made that the old and current interpretation of "everyone" automatically belonging to the militia will be changed and who can belong to the militia and in what capacity will become "well regulated".

So you want government to be able to decide who is worthy of 2nd amendment rights?

What a ******* slave you are.

The government is already doing that by preventing some citizens from legally owning or possessing firearms. They already have a right to "regulate". Convicted felons are regulated. So are people with histories of mental illness or specific histories of particular crimes even if the crimes are not felonies.

My post of speculating how gun regulation may change in the future does not offer an opinion as to my support or non-support of such a change.
If you do not want to see issues realistically or be educated that is your problem.

The only way the government can restrict a right is via due process. Unless a person is a convicted felon or mentally adjudicated as incompetent, they have the same 2nd amendment rights as any other citizen.

That you foresee government being able to pick and choose who can have those rights via manipulating the terms of the militia means you foresee tyranny.

And the militia argument is a non-starter anyway, because it's the STATES that maintain the right to keep a militia,while the PEOPLE keep the right to bear arms.

You are cherry picking. Due Process is also State Legislation and Statewide Voting. Either one works as Due Process. And that is covered by the 14th Amendment Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States. You can't just follow the parts of the US Constitution that you like and throw out the parts that you don't like. You follow all of it.

 

[Camp]

Many perceived "gun rights" will eventually depend on three words found in the 2nd Amendment, "well regulated militia". A modernized interpretation of those words will change everything. A decision will be made that the old and current interpretation of "everyone" automatically belonging to the militia will be changed and who can belong to the militia and in what capacity will become "well regulated".

As of the 1917 National Guard Act, that part of the 2nd Amendment became worthless.

A law like the 1917 act does not make a Constitutional Amendment worthless. The SCOTUS can at any time hear a challenge to a law thought to be infringing on the Constitution.

The 1917 act changed the status of the state militia's and changed them into quasi federalized troops or no longer legitimate militia's.
If we consider the National Guard to be the militia, why do people who are not in the National Guard have the rights of the 2nd Amendment to have guns? If they are not in the National Guard they are not being regulated.

There are valid and logical arguments about defining the original intent of what the founders considered a "militia".

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Many perceived "gun rights" will eventually depend on three words found in the 2nd Amendment, "well regulated militia". A modernized interpretation of those words will change everything. A decision will be made that the old and current interpretation of "everyone" automatically belonging to the militia will be changed and who can belong to the militia and in what capacity will become "well regulated".

As of the 1917 National Guard Act, that part of the 2nd Amendment became worthless.

A law like the 1917 act does not make a Constitutional Amendment worthless. The SCOTUS can at any time hear a challenge to a law thought to be infringing on the Constitution.

The 1917 act changed the status of the state militia's and changed them into quasi federalized troops or no longer legitimate militia's.
If we consider the National Guard to be the militia, why do people who are not in the National Guard have the rights of the 2nd Amendment to have guns? If they are not in the National Guard they are not being regulated.

There are valid and logical arguments about defining the original intent of what the founders considered a "militia".

The States still have the right to a states militia. But there are rules that apply to who can and cannot be called up for federal duty. Let's say there was going to be a dustup between the Feds and a given state. The Feds call up all the people that can be called up. These are the ones that can be called up without a draft.

1. National Guard Members
2. Seperated Members still within their 4 year obligation of Federal Reserve Status
3. Federal Reserves
4. Military Retired Members within their 10 year reserve status commitment.

All others are eligible to be members of the State Militia. But the State Militia does not get any financial support or training support from the Feds like the National Guard does. What has happened, most states no longer feel the need for a States Militia since they can get most of the same support from the National Guard on the Federals Dime for Emergencies. If there was a dustup, a true state Militia would last about an afternoon against a federal military since they would lack the training and equipment to resist very long. The 2nd amendment really went by the way when the weapons of war outgrew us all.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Many perceived "gun rights" will eventually depend on three words found in the 2nd Amendment, "well regulated militia". A modernized interpretation of those words will change everything. A decision will be made that the old and current interpretation of "everyone" automatically belonging to the militia will be changed and who can belong to the militia and in what capacity will become "well regulated".

As of the 1917 National Guard Act, that part of the 2nd Amendment became worthless.

A law like the 1917 act does not make a Constitutional Amendment worthless. The SCOTUS can at any time hear a challenge to a law thought to be infringing on the Constitution.

The 1917 act changed the status of the state militia's and changed them into quasi federalized troops or no longer legitimate militia's.
If we consider the National Guard to be the militia, why do people who are not in the National Guard have the rights of the 2nd Amendment to have guns? If they are not in the National Guard they are not being regulated.

There are valid and logical arguments about defining the original intent of what the founders considered a "militia".

Heller said this is nota right only for militia purposes, it is an individual right. The 14th guarantees that individual rights not be violated by states and local government.

Think of how a state or local government could regulate the right to vote and you pretty much have the same model for regulation of gun ownership and posesion, according to current Constitutional case law.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Many perceived "gun rights" will eventually depend on three words found in the 2nd Amendment, "well regulated militia". A modernized interpretation of those words will change everything. A decision will be made that the old and current interpretation of "everyone" automatically belonging to the militia will be changed and who can belong to the militia and in what capacity will become "well regulated".

As of the 1917 National Guard Act, that part of the 2nd Amendment became worthless.

A law like the 1917 act does not make a Constitutional Amendment worthless. The SCOTUS can at any time hear a challenge to a law thought to be infringing on the Constitution.

The 1917 act changed the status of the state militia's and changed them into quasi federalized troops or no longer legitimate militia's.
If we consider the National Guard to be the militia, why do people who are not in the National Guard have the rights of the 2nd Amendment to have guns? If they are not in the National Guard they are not being regulated.

There are valid and logical arguments about defining the original intent of what the founders considered a "militia".

Heller said this is nota right only for militia purposes, it is an individual right. The 14th guarantees that individual rights not be violated by states and local government.

Think of how a state or local government could regulate the right to vote and you pretty much have the same model for regulation of gun ownership and posesion, according to current Constitutional case law.

Heller is only applicable to the District of Columbia that has no States Rights. It's exempt from the 14th Amendment. This is why one set of laws can be done in DC and another set can be done in the states. DC tried to ban ALL Firearms. What came out of it was a ruling of what was a normal firearm for home defense. It clearly defines handguns as the normal but hints at other types as well. The confusion is that others have tried to use it for the States Rulings and, while it's not been totally disregarded, it's been found to be a poorly defined ruling. In the end, the States Can and DO specify what is a normal firearm and all others can be banned or heavily regulated.

States HAVE tried to regulate the vote. The Jim Crowe laws are a good example of that. And that stupidity stood for many decades before it was finally thrown out. Even today, they play games with voting sites. The party that is in power will move the sites around to insure that their party will win. And it doesn't matter which party is in power. Both of them do it all the time. I am in a solid Red area and they moved the voting sites out of the areas that had the most Democrats to the areas with the most Republicans. And it's completely legal. You would think that someone would take that to court but no one has.

 

[Camp]

Many perceived "gun rights" will eventually depend on three words found in the 2nd Amendment, "well regulated militia". A modernized interpretation of those words will change everything. A decision will be made that the old and current interpretation of "everyone" automatically belonging to the militia will be changed and who can belong to the militia and in what capacity will become "well regulated".

As of the 1917 National Guard Act, that part of the 2nd Amendment became worthless.

A law like the 1917 act does not make a Constitutional Amendment worthless. The SCOTUS can at any time hear a challenge to a law thought to be infringing on the Constitution.

The 1917 act changed the status of the state militia's and changed them into quasi federalized troops or no longer legitimate militia's.
If we consider the National Guard to be the militia, why do people who are not in the National Guard have the rights of the 2nd Amendment to have guns? If they are not in the National Guard they are not being regulated.

There are valid and logical arguments about defining the original intent of what the founders considered a "militia".

The States still have the right to a states militia. But there are rules that apply to who can and cannot be called up for federal duty. Let's say there was going to be a dustup between the Feds and a given state. The Feds call up all the people that can be called up. These are the ones that can be called up without a draft.

1. National Guard Members
2. Seperated Members still within their 4 year obligation of Federal Reserve Status
3. Federal Reserves
4. Military Retired Members within their 10 year reserve status commitment.

All others are eligible to be members of the State Militia. But the State Militia does not get any financial support or training support from the Feds like the National Guard does. What has happened, most states no longer feel the need for a States Militia since they can get most of the same support from the National Guard on the Federals Dime for Emergencies. If there was a dustup, a true state Militia would last about an afternoon against a federal military since they would lack the training and equipment to resist very long. The 2nd amendment really went by the way when the weapons of war outgrew us all.

There is nothing to stop a state from recognizing a formal militia even if the militia is nothing more than a list of citizens available for service upon being called into service by the Governor or Legislation. That would make the cost nothing more than maintaining a list of members. The legislature would be able to write and enforce the regulations, regulations being a part of the 2nd Amendment, the part that says "well regulated militia". Hence, it is feasible that a state that wanted strict gun control could "regulate" who was in the militia and how they could be armed. For example, members of the militia tasked with possessing certain types of weapons could be subjected to strict rules of training and experience and tightly regulated levels of character and reliability.

 

[Camp]

Many perceived "gun rights" will eventually depend on three words found in the 2nd Amendment, "well regulated militia". A modernized interpretation of those words will change everything. A decision will be made that the old and current interpretation of "everyone" automatically belonging to the militia will be changed and who can belong to the militia and in what capacity will become "well regulated".

As of the 1917 National Guard Act, that part of the 2nd Amendment became worthless.

A law like the 1917 act does not make a Constitutional Amendment worthless. The SCOTUS can at any time hear a challenge to a law thought to be infringing on the Constitution.

The 1917 act changed the status of the state militia's and changed them into quasi federalized troops or no longer legitimate militia's.
If we consider the National Guard to be the militia, why do people who are not in the National Guard have the rights of the 2nd Amendment to have guns? If they are not in the National Guard they are not being regulated.

There are valid and logical arguments about defining the original intent of what the founders considered a "militia".

Heller said this is nota right only for militia purposes, it is an individual right. The 14th guarantees that individual rights not be violated by states and local government.

Think of how a state or local government could regulate the right to vote and you pretty much have the same model for regulation of gun ownership and posesion, according to current Constitutional case law.

Heller is only applicable to the District of Columbia that has no States Rights. It's exempt from the 14th Amendment. This is why one set of laws can be done in DC and another set can be done in the states. DC tried to ban ALL Firearms. What came out of it was a ruling of what was a normal firearm for home defense. It clearly defines handguns as the normal but hints at other types as well. The confusion is that others have tried to use it for the States Rulings and, while it's not been totally disregarded, it's been found to be a poorly defined ruling. In the end, the States Can and DO specify what is a normal firearm and all others can be banned or heavily regulated.

States HAVE tried to regulate the vote. The Jim Crowe laws are a good example of that. And that stupidity stood for many decades before it was finally thrown out. Even today, they play games with voting sites. The party that is in power will move the sites around to insure that their party will win. And it doesn't matter which party is in power. Both of them do it all the time. I am in a solid Red area and they moved the voting sites out of the areas that had the most Democrats to the areas with the most Republicans. And it's completely legal. You would think that someone would take that to court but no one has.

The concept I am suggesting would admittedly require a major change in the interpretation of "well regulated militia" and thus, the Second Amendment interpretation. I am not trying to promote this idea for change. I am suggesting that this is how the gun control movement may choose to use as a strategy.

 

[Flash]

Many perceived "gun rights" will eventually depend on three words found in the 2nd Amendment, "well regulated militia". A modernized interpretation of those words will change everything. A decision will be made that the old and current interpretation of "everyone" automatically belonging to the militia will be changed and who can belong to the militia and in what capacity will become "well regulated".

That has already been settled in Heller. Not even open for debate anymore. The right to keep and bear arms has been determined by the Supreme Court to be an individual right. No membership to an organized militia is necessary to have the right to keep and bear arms.

Of course the Moon Bats are still in denial.

 

[Anathema]

The ONLY thing they affected was rifles in the AR-15 Class. Not shotguns or handguns or normal hunting and sporting guns which are NOT the weapons of choice for mass shootings. Look for more and more Cities to do this as well.....

Look for very few, if any, AR-15 owners to turn their firearms in to the Government. CT, NY, and MA have already proven (with little fanfare) that US Citizens are not interested in registering or turning in our guns r their associated accessories.

 

[Flash]

They can't even pretend to be honest when they are trying to justify the unConstitutional Rifle ban in Deerfield, Illinois...

Brady Campaign Defends Deerfield, IL Gun Ban With Insane Arguments - The Truth About Guns

The defendants’ brief (click for .pdf) in opposition to our motion for injunctive relief argues the village’s ban on rifles is necessity “to protect the public health, safety and welfare.” Then they boldly cite criminal misuse of handguns as justification for their ban on scary-looking rifles.

Hard to believe, right? It’s true. They cite the South Carolina church killings and the attempted assassination of Gabby Giffords — both crimes committed with handguns — as reasons to ban rifles.

They also cited the Washington D.C. Naval Yard spree killing. There, a lunatic used a no-frills Mossberg 500 shotgun purchased at Dick’s Sporting Goods to kill most of his victims. He also used a handgun stolen from a murdered security guard.

Yes, the Village argues that they need to ban rifles because of criminals who used handguns and shotguns to kill people. That’s some sound logic, right? Not so much.

Wait. It gets worse. The defendants’ brief also names two domestic Islamic terror attacks as reasons to ban guns in Deerfield. Yes, they actually cited the Islamic terror attacks in San Bernardino, CA and at the Orlando Pulse nightclub as justification for taking our guns. So because the U.S. Government can’t protect us from Islamic terror attacks, the Village of Deerfield should disarm law-abiding Americans?

The brief also cites the Sutherland Springs, Texas church massacre. At the same time, it fails to note that a good guy’s AR-15 stopped the killings.

The audacity of these control freaks knows no limits and no shame.

This whole article is mostly BS. The ONLY thing they affected was rifles in the AR-15 Class. Not shotguns or handguns or normal hunting and sporting guns which are NOT the weapons of choice for mass shootings. Look for more and more Cities to do this as well. Until the gun craze of the AR is changed this is going to continue. And the harder you gun nutz fight it, the faster it will happen. Your whole way of fighting it is very militant and insulting. This makes the ones that want it think that they are doing the right thing. Well, cupcakes, you are bringing this onto yourselves.

I have a honest question Moon Bat.

I have over two dozen AR-15s.

Why should the filthy ass government take away my ARs that I use for lawful purposes just because there is a slight chance somebody else may use one for illegal purposes? Isn't that oppression that the Bill of Rights protects us from?

 

[2aguy]

Many perceived "gun rights" will eventually depend on three words found in the 2nd Amendment, "well regulated militia". A modernized interpretation of those words will change everything. A decision will be made that the old and current interpretation of "everyone" automatically belonging to the militia will be changed and who can belong to the militia and in what capacity will become "well regulated".

As of the 1917 National Guard Act, that part of the 2nd Amendment became worthless.

A law like the 1917 act does not make a Constitutional Amendment worthless. The SCOTUS can at any time hear a challenge to a law thought to be infringing on the Constitution.

The 1917 act changed the status of the state militia's and changed them into quasi federalized troops or no longer legitimate militia's.
If we consider the National Guard to be the militia, why do people who are not in the National Guard have the rights of the 2nd Amendment to have guns? If they are not in the National Guard they are not being regulated.

There are valid and logical arguments about defining the original intent of what the founders considered a "militia".

Heller said this is nota right only for militia purposes, it is an individual right. The 14th guarantees that individual rights not be violated by states and local government.

Think of how a state or local government could regulate the right to vote and you pretty much have the same model for regulation of gun ownership and posesion, according to current Constitutional case law.

Heller is only applicable to the District of Columbia that has no States Rights. It's exempt from the 14th Amendment. This is why one set of laws can be done in DC and another set can be done in the states. DC tried to ban ALL Firearms. What came out of it was a ruling of what was a normal firearm for home defense. It clearly defines handguns as the normal but hints at other types as well. The confusion is that others have tried to use it for the States Rulings and, while it's not been totally disregarded, it's been found to be a poorly defined ruling. In the end, the States Can and DO specify what is a normal firearm and all others can be banned or heavily regulated.

States HAVE tried to regulate the vote. The Jim Crowe laws are a good example of that. And that stupidity stood for many decades before it was finally thrown out. Even today, they play games with voting sites. The party that is in power will move the sites around to insure that their party will win. And it doesn't matter which party is in power. Both of them do it all the time. I am in a solid Red area and they moved the voting sites out of the areas that had the most Democrats to the areas with the most Republicans. And it's completely legal. You would think that someone would take that to court but no one has.

Wrong....Heller is not only applicable to D.C........

Heller protects all bearable arms in common use for lawful purposes....and Caetano v Massachusetts and Friedman v Highland Park explains it for you again.....

 

[2aguy]

They can't even pretend to be honest when they are trying to justify the unConstitutional Rifle ban in Deerfield, Illinois...

Brady Campaign Defends Deerfield, IL Gun Ban With Insane Arguments - The Truth About Guns

The defendants’ brief (click for .pdf) in opposition to our motion for injunctive relief argues the village’s ban on rifles is necessity “to protect the public health, safety and welfare.” Then they boldly cite criminal misuse of handguns as justification for their ban on scary-looking rifles.

Hard to believe, right? It’s true. They cite the South Carolina church killings and the attempted assassination of Gabby Giffords — both crimes committed with handguns — as reasons to ban rifles.

They also cited the Washington D.C. Naval Yard spree killing. There, a lunatic used a no-frills Mossberg 500 shotgun purchased at Dick’s Sporting Goods to kill most of his victims. He also used a handgun stolen from a murdered security guard.

Yes, the Village argues that they need to ban rifles because of criminals who used handguns and shotguns to kill people. That’s some sound logic, right? Not so much.

Wait. It gets worse. The defendants’ brief also names two domestic Islamic terror attacks as reasons to ban guns in Deerfield. Yes, they actually cited the Islamic terror attacks in San Bernardino, CA and at the Orlando Pulse nightclub as justification for taking our guns. So because the U.S. Government can’t protect us from Islamic terror attacks, the Village of Deerfield should disarm law-abiding Americans?

The brief also cites the Sutherland Springs, Texas church massacre. At the same time, it fails to note that a good guy’s AR-15 stopped the killings.

The audacity of these control freaks knows no limits and no shame.

This whole article is mostly BS. The ONLY thing they affected was rifles in the AR-15 Class. Not shotguns or handguns or normal hunting and sporting guns which are NOT the weapons of choice for mass shootings. Look for more and more Cities to do this as well. Until the gun craze of the AR is changed this is going to continue. And the harder you gun nutz fight it, the faster it will happen. Your whole way of fighting it is very militant and insulting. This makes the ones that want it think that they are doing the right thing. Well, cupcakes, you are bringing this onto yourselves.

Cupcakes are afraid of sporting rifles like ar15’s

You don't have a legal leg to stand on. If the State, City or County deems the Ar as not a normal weapon then they can go through normal legal channels like elections and such to deem them as such. The People in the State have that right. In order to do so, they have to classify what is a normal personal firearm and then all others can be banned or heavily regulated. They even have to allow you to receive a CCW permit but can make it next to impossible to get one (see NYC). And that is well within the Constitution of the United States. Not just the part you care to read while you leave out the parts that you don't agree with.

In the end, the 2nd amendment is to prevent the Federal from having so much power that it can overthrow a given state. But since all has changed starting around 1850, the 2nd amendment doesn't carry quite the force it once did. It needs to stand but you need to follow ALL of the constitution and not just one part of it. IF you don't like it, go buy your own island in the middle of the ocean and start your own country.

Wrong....Heller stated all Bearable arms are protected....and Scalia ***** slapped the 7th circuit when they tried to use your crappy argument....

 

[Rustic]

Buy more guns and ammo... this country needs to be better armed.
That’s all folks

 

[Flash]

[


Heller is only applicable to the District of Columbia that has no States Rights. .

LOL! You are really confused Moon Bat.

To suggest that a resident of DC has the individual right to keep and bear arms but a citizen of Maryland must belong to a government regulated militia is like the epitome of stupidity, even for a Moon Bat.

Anyway the follow up case of McDonald fixed that misconception that any of you stupid Moon Bats might have had.