District Court Upholds California AWB

[Dan Stubbs]

I hope and pray that every white liberal's family will be raped and murdered in front of them. Shot by the weapons they worked so hard to ban. Raped, robbed and murdered by those who they worked so hard to gain admission (legally or illegally) into our nation.
This is my wish for every white liberal.
Cheers fuckers.

That was your wish before the ruling. The Ruling did nothing to change that.

What the court has done is to try and tell you something that many of us that have spent time on the battle field already know, the AR-15 is the same as a M-16 used in combat and just as deadly for exactly the same reasons. I won't bother to go into why since it's already been said and you disregard it because of "You can't tell me what to do" is more important than other peoples children's lives.

So a soldier going into battle, given the choice between an M-16/M-4 and an AR-15 will 50/50 split between the two?

You are just throwing BS into the ball game. Some Armies use the AR-15 while others used the M-16. The Troops aren't given a choice. Some Armies are still using old British bolt action 303 Enfields because they have no other choice.

As for the battlefield, both the AR and the M-16 will be used semi auto so there won't be any difference. Hell, they will both even use the same ammo and magazines and accessories. Being an old combat vet, I won't care one way or another since I will be using even the M-4 in semi auto setting. The 3 shot burst is pretty worthless and wastes about 66% of your ammo. I would rather have ALL my ammo at my disposal. And in semi auto settings, I get that from both the AR and the M-16. Your argument is flawed.

I feel the same here I love the old 30 06 and the 308

One shot one kill.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I don't see the relevance since AR15s are the very weapon that has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time both mentioned by Miller and Heller.

Especially if they are weapons or war.

That's what anti-gunners call them weapons of war which Miller said those are the only firearms protected by the second amendment.

There we no real antigunners back then. There was a whole bunch of antimobster people that got tired of being slaughtered by the overspray when the Mobs would try and kill each other. Don't let a little history and facts get in your way. Now move on to the next stupid subject.

Not talking about back then dumbass but yes since you mentioned it there were antigunners called democrats that tried to keep blacks from being armed. And anything you said after that was irrelevant.

Then you gunnuters hammer away hoping to drown out any people that "Might" disagree with you even the slightest amount. Reminds of the updated version

antigun nuts want what they can't have

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I don't see the relevance since AR15s are the very weapon that has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time both mentioned by Miller and Heller.

Especially if they are weapons or war.

That's what anti-gunners call them weapons of war which Miller said those are the only firearms protected by the second amendment.

There we no real antigunners back then. There was a whole bunch of antimobster people that got tired of being slaughtered by the overspray when the Mobs would try and kill each other. Don't let a little history and facts get in your way. Now move on to the next stupid subject.

Not talking about back then dumbass but yes since you mentioned it there were antigunners called democrats that tried to keep blacks from being armed. And anything you said after that was irrelevant.

Conversing with you reminds me of an old intro to a TV show from the 50s. You wish to control reality to suit yourself

You're the one not playing with a full deck.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I'll let the gunnuters have the last say. They will go on and on and frankly, I need to check on the stew I am making for tomarrow.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'll let the gunnuters have the last say. They will go on and on and frankly, I need to check on the stew I am making for tomarrow.

Would you like to know why you lost this debate?

 

[danielpalos]

Unorganized Militia are a bunch of gunnutters dress in green pickle suits running around the woods. In the event of a "Revolution" exactly which of these "Unorganized Militias" will be in charge. There is going to be more lead thrown at each other than at the Organized Militia, the Military, or the Law Enforcement. Give a new meaning to the word "Unorganized".

The unorganized militia is every able body man and woman and is supported by law.
10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

You are confusing your pickle suited Vigilantees with the SDFs of a given state. The State has the Right to call up it's citizens to the SDF when it feels the need to and those people (except for some exceptions) are not answerable to the Federal Government. You want to not be a gunnnutter running willy nilly around the woods in a pickle suit, sign up for the SDF if on exists in your state.

No, the state does not have the right to control a federally protected right. The 14th amendment set that rule already.

We are quibbling this sovereign States' right under our Constitutional form of government.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

There are no states rights when it comes to a federally protected right.

lol. There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

How about the Air Gun. Or the Brown Bess. Or the Bowie Knife. These three you would find in the homes of many. In fact, there was a law that you had to have X amount of powder and X number of projectiles in your home at any given time. Could this be gun regulation in reverse?

I don't see the relevance since AR15s are the very weapon that has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time both mentioned by Miller and Heller.

Especially if they are weapons or war.

That's what anti-gunners call them weapons of war which Miller said those are the only firearms protected by the second amendment.

Which was expanded upon Heller to include all weapons in common use for traditionally legal purposes.
The anti-gun loons have to lie to themselves.

I agree this issue needs to be put to rest and for good.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well until we have no security problems in our free States.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

That is the Common law for the Common defense which any Common judge can adjudicate.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The unorganized militia is every able body man and woman and is supported by law.
10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

You are confusing your pickle suited Vigilantees with the SDFs of a given state. The State has the Right to call up it's citizens to the SDF when it feels the need to and those people (except for some exceptions) are not answerable to the Federal Government. You want to not be a gunnnutter running willy nilly around the woods in a pickle suit, sign up for the SDF if on exists in your state.

No, the state does not have the right to control a federally protected right. The 14th amendment set that rule already.

We are quibbling this sovereign States' right under our Constitutional form of government.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

There are no states rights when it comes to a federally protected right.

lol. There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment.

The bill of rights has been federally protected since they were written in 1792

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I don't see the relevance since AR15s are the very weapon that has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time both mentioned by Miller and Heller.

Especially if they are weapons or war.

That's what anti-gunners call them weapons of war which Miller said those are the only firearms protected by the second amendment.

Which was expanded upon Heller to include all weapons in common use for traditionally legal purposes.
The anti-gun loons have to lie to themselves.

I agree this issue needs to be put to rest and for good.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well until we have no security problems in our free States.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

That is the Common law for the Common defense which any Common judge can adjudicate.

ok we have a second amendment but why do we continue to visit this basic right?

 

[danielpalos]

You are confusing your pickle suited Vigilantees with the SDFs of a given state. The State has the Right to call up it's citizens to the SDF when it feels the need to and those people (except for some exceptions) are not answerable to the Federal Government. You want to not be a gunnnutter running willy nilly around the woods in a pickle suit, sign up for the SDF if on exists in your state.

No, the state does not have the right to control a federally protected right. The 14th amendment set that rule already.

We are quibbling this sovereign States' right under our Constitutional form of government.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

There are no states rights when it comes to a federally protected right.

lol. There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment.

The bill of rights has been federally protected since they were written in 1792

Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States. It says so in the, Intent and Purpose for the second clause, clause.

 

[danielpalos]

Especially if they are weapons or war.

That's what anti-gunners call them weapons of war which Miller said those are the only firearms protected by the second amendment.

Which was expanded upon Heller to include all weapons in common use for traditionally legal purposes.
The anti-gun loons have to lie to themselves.

I agree this issue needs to be put to rest and for good.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well until we have no security problems in our free States.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

That is the Common law for the Common defense which any Common judge can adjudicate.

ok we have a second amendment but why do we continue to visit this basic right?

Because you keep missing the whole and entire point fo our Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution.

It is about States' sovereign right to their own security.

 

[Flash]

Just like politicians and government thugs no judge has the legal authority to infringe upon the right the keep and bear arms. If they do, like this court did, then they are acting illegally.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No, the state does not have the right to control a federally protected right. The 14th amendment set that rule already.

We are quibbling this sovereign States' right under our Constitutional form of government.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

There are no states rights when it comes to a federally protected right.

lol. There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment.

The bill of rights has been federally protected since they were written in 1792

Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States. It says so in the, Intent and Purpose for the second clause, clause.

It's also a federally protected right just as the 14th is which states a state cannot deprive citizens of that state of their rights.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That's what anti-gunners call them weapons of war which Miller said those are the only firearms protected by the second amendment.

Which was expanded upon Heller to include all weapons in common use for traditionally legal purposes.
The anti-gun loons have to lie to themselves.

I agree this issue needs to be put to rest and for good.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well until we have no security problems in our free States.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

That is the Common law for the Common defense which any Common judge can adjudicate.

ok we have a second amendment but why do we continue to visit this basic right?

Because you keep missing the whole and entire point fo our Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution.

It is about States' sovereign right to their own security.

I'm not overlooking anything the second amendment is federally protected like all our rights spelled out in the bill of rights. Just as the 14th amendments states.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I'll let the gunnuters have the last say. They will go on and on and frankly, I need to check on the stew I am making for tomarrow.

Would you like to know why you lost this debate?

I didn't lose the debate. I proved that you gunnutters just gang up and overload the airways with your nonsense. Actually, if you checked, another mass shooting just happened in Texas. Makes your argument pretty empty. Guess that 17 month old that was shot would understand your reasoning.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You are confusing your pickle suited Vigilantees with the SDFs of a given state. The State has the Right to call up it's citizens to the SDF when it feels the need to and those people (except for some exceptions) are not answerable to the Federal Government. You want to not be a gunnnutter running willy nilly around the woods in a pickle suit, sign up for the SDF if on exists in your state.

No, the state does not have the right to control a federally protected right. The 14th amendment set that rule already.

We are quibbling this sovereign States' right under our Constitutional form of government.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

There are no states rights when it comes to a federally protected right.

lol. There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment.

The bill of rights has been federally protected since they were written in 1792

The Bill of Rights was a feel good document that was nothing more than a reprint of the first 10 amendments of the US Constitution of the United States. The Bill of Rights has ZERO legal weight.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'll let the gunnuters have the last say. They will go on and on and frankly, I need to check on the stew I am making for tomarrow.

Would you like to know why you lost this debate?

I didn't lose the debate. I proved that you gunnutters just gang up and overload the airways with your nonsense. Actually, if you checked, another mass shooting just happened in Texas. Makes your argument pretty empty. Guess that 17 month old that was shot would understand your reasoning.

You've done nothing but made noise just like you have done in this last post
I'll drink a beer for the kid if that makes you feel better.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No, the state does not have the right to control a federally protected right. The 14th amendment set that rule already.

We are quibbling this sovereign States' right under our Constitutional form of government.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

There are no states rights when it comes to a federally protected right.

lol. There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment.

The bill of rights has been federally protected since they were written in 1792

The Bill of Rights was a feel good document that was nothing more than a reprint of the first 10 amendments of the US Constitution of the United States. The Bill of Rights has ZERO legal weight.

the bill of rights told the government what it must do. It's been watered down by idiots like you.
You do realize the bill of rights is law of the land?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I'll let the gunnuters have the last say. They will go on and on and frankly, I need to check on the stew I am making for tomarrow.

Would you like to know why you lost this debate?

I didn't lose the debate. I proved that you gunnutters just gang up and overload the airways with your nonsense. Actually, if you checked, another mass shooting just happened in Texas. Makes your argument pretty empty. Guess that 17 month old that was shot would understand your reasoning.

You've done nothing but made noise just like you have done in this last post
I'll drink a beer for the kid if that makes you feel better.

I support the increasing the regulations on the ARs and the various AR clones. Simple as that. What made this possible is the fact that in Texas, you can openly display a totally serviceable AR in public and it's legal. It was just a matter of time when someone was going to take advantage of this and go on a shooting spree.

Save your beer and support a cop that was shot

Expenses for Officer Zack Owens

 

[Daryl Hunt]

We are quibbling this sovereign States' right under our Constitutional form of government.

There are no states rights when it comes to a federally protected right.

lol. There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment.

The bill of rights has been federally protected since they were written in 1792

The Bill of Rights was a feel good document that was nothing more than a reprint of the first 10 amendments of the US Constitution of the United States. The Bill of Rights has ZERO legal weight.

the bill of rights told the government what it must do. It's been watered down by idiots like you.
You do realize the bill of rights is law of the land?

I go by the Constitution. It has the legal binding. Unlike you, I don't pick and choose what parts that I will support and disregard all the rest. The Bill of Rights was a political document for feel gooding a couple or three people and that's all.