Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
If they ban butter, individuals will still be able to buy margarine. Therefore, your right to eat has not been infringed. Or, has it?
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.
Exactly.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.
Whether some like it or not, whether some agree with it or not – it remains a fact of Constitutional law that jurisdictions may prohibit the possession of certain types of firearms provided other types of firearms remain legal to own, handguns in particular.
Of course that doesn’t mean a law banning AR 15s is warranted or will have the desired effect; that a law might be bad doesn’t mean it’s un-Constitutional.
Untrue. The Supreme Court ruled that some regulation (not infringement; not a ban) may be legal in some backwards jurisdictions. It being illegal for felons to own guns is regulation. Banning guns to the general public is infringement and is still unConstitutional.
Banning all guns or banning some guns is unconstitutional?
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.
"But that doesn't take away from the fact that something needs to be done about guns."
That's not a fact because it's a long way from proven that tightening gun control would improve the murder rate. What is obvious is that US areas with the tightest gun control have the most murders. Disarming law-abiding potential victims is idiotic unless you are pro-crime and pro-tyranny. I think there are some great people in the UK and I wish them well but I much prefer the way we do things here. I am not eager to be anybody's subject and I prefer the higher level of freedom we have here. We used to be British but most of us got over it. If you prefer the UK why don't you just go there?
Exactly.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.
Whether some like it or not, whether some agree with it or not – it remains a fact of Constitutional law that jurisdictions may prohibit the possession of certain types of firearms provided other types of firearms remain legal to own, handguns in particular.
Of course that doesn’t mean a law banning AR 15s is warranted or will have the desired effect; that a law might be bad doesn’t mean it’s un-Constitutional.
Untrue. The Supreme Court ruled that some regulation (not infringement; not a ban) may be legal in some backwards jurisdictions. It being illegal for felons to own guns is regulation. Banning guns to the general public is infringement and is still unConstitutional.
Banning all guns or banning some guns is unconstitutional?
All.
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.
If they ban butter, individuals will still be able to buy margarine. Therefore, your right to eat has not been infringed. Or, has it?
The problem with your example is that butter and margarine are two different things.
It would be like saying banning Smith's Butter but not Jones' butter, does that take away from your right to buy butter?
No, it doesn't.
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.
If they ban butter, individuals will still be able to buy margarine. Therefore, your right to eat has not been infringed. Or, has it?
The problem with your example is that butter and margarine are two different things.
It would be like saying banning Smith's Butter but not Jones' butter, does that take away from your right to buy butter?
No, it doesn't.
Assault rifles and what the left keeps trying to ban are also two different things. Calling something an assault rifle doesn't make it one.and some of the proposed legal definitions would actually ban all guns or all semi-automatic weapons (including pistols and shotguns) or just just what somebody wants to call an assault rifle at any given moment making outlaws with the stroke of a pen. They are far down that road in California until the Supreme Court gets around to them but folks are more sane in most of the free states.
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.
"But that doesn't take away from the fact that something needs to be done about guns."
That's not a fact because it's a long way from proven that tightening gun control would improve the murder rate. What is obvious is that US areas with the tightest gun control have the most murders. Disarming law-abiding potential victims is idiotic unless you are pro-crime and pro-tyranny. I think there are some great people in the UK and I wish them well but I much prefer the way we do things here. I am not eager to be anybody's subject and I prefer the higher level of freedom we have here. We used to be British but most of us got over it. If you prefer the UK why don't you just go there?
Yeah, a long way... I mean, it's not like other First World nations have stricter gun control and much lower murder rates, is it?
Yeah, disarming law abiding citizens is silly, like most of these school shootings which are committed by people who were law abiding citizens up until the point where they used their guns to kill people.
It's pretty simple, we could go through all the murder statistics and see the reality. You still wouldn't listen. The NRA would still come up with shit arguments that people who want to believe will believe in.
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.
"But that doesn't take away from the fact that something needs to be done about guns."
That's not a fact because it's a long way from proven that tightening gun control would improve the murder rate. What is obvious is that US areas with the tightest gun control have the most murders. Disarming law-abiding potential victims is idiotic unless you are pro-crime and pro-tyranny. I think there are some great people in the UK and I wish them well but I much prefer the way we do things here. I am not eager to be anybody's subject and I prefer the higher level of freedom we have here. We used to be British but most of us got over it. If you prefer the UK why don't you just go there?
Yeah, a long way... I mean, it's not like other First World nations have stricter gun control and much lower murder rates, is it?
Yeah, disarming law abiding citizens is silly, like most of these school shootings which are committed by people who were law abiding citizens up until the point where they used their guns to kill people.
It's pretty simple, we could go through all the murder statistics and see the reality. You still wouldn't listen. The NRA would still come up with shit arguments that people who want to believe will believe in.
That's about the only thing you're right about. I've seen the statistics you'd trot out. They would be well padded with with justifiable defensive shootings, righteous officer related shootings, suicides, and accidents. Lefties just can't seem to understand those are not the same thing.as murder. What they would NOT include would be any note of violent crimes prevented by the presence of a gun.
True.I guess that is alright then. If it were fully automatic, he might have shot 1,000, instead of 100 people.
And if a teacher who had a lightweight .38 revolver on his person and was positioned close enough to the shooter to put a bullet in his brain then the shooter's score could have been one or two -- or zero.
So much for "if."
And, speaking of armed teachers, I predicted just a week ago on this board that it was just a matter of time before they discovered that teachers can be just as crazy as the people they are supposed to guard the kids against:
Georgia teacher arrested after firing gunshot in school classroom
You know, I have always been kind of strange in that I would prefer my children and grandchildren not to be taught by strangers with guns in their pants. That's just me.
Exactly.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.
Whether some like it or not, whether some agree with it or not – it remains a fact of Constitutional law that jurisdictions may prohibit the possession of certain types of firearms provided other types of firearms remain legal to own, handguns in particular.
Of course that doesn’t mean a law banning AR 15s is warranted or will have the desired effect; that a law might be bad doesn’t mean it’s un-Constitutional.
Untrue. The Supreme Court ruled that some regulation (not infringement; not a ban) may be legal in some backwards jurisdictions. It being illegal for felons to own guns is regulation. Banning guns to the general public is infringement and is still unConstitutional.
Banning all guns or banning some guns is unconstitutional?
All.
But it's not.
You just don't understand the Second Amendment.
The 2A concerns what the US federal govt can and cannot do. It's changed to be relevant for state govts too now.
The 2A says that the federal govt cannot prevent individuals from owning weapons. Now, if it bans certain types of guns, an individual can still own weapons.
Therefore you're wrong.
I disagree. It is not the job of the militia to enforce any civil law inside the borders of the United States Of America. Their job, like the active military, is to protect this country from all enemies both foreign and domestic. The job of any civil law enforcement agency is to serve and protect the people who live within this country not to wage war on them. Therefore the civil law enforcement agencies should have no more equipment available to them than any civilian can purchase, by law, on the open market..
*****SMILE*****
"The job of any civil law enforcement agency is to serve and protect the people who live within this country"
That is their job, and that includes protecting us against all the RWNJ
neanderthals running around the country killing masses of innocent people and children.
So what happened with that law enforcement that was supposed to serve & protect those kids?
And now you call Cruz & Lanza Neanderthals? I thought they were victims as well.
Or the San Bernadino couple RW gun nuts?
It's all very simple: take the fucking semi-automatic and automatic military style assault weapons out of the hands of private citizens. Then the police can protect us. Such weapons have NO PURPOSE for private citizens; they are only used to murder masses of innocents. How you people can defend those weapons is beyond belief. How you can sleep at night is unfathomable
.
If you could take all of the guns away from all law abiding citizens, the police could still not protect you. They never seem to be around when unarmed citizens need protection. Of course, they will look for the thug who slit your throat for the few dollars in your purse.
The bad guys, and the fruitcakes will still be out there, and their hunting grounds would be greatly expanded. No need for them to wonder whether that woman with her hand in her purse is holding her car keys or a pistol.
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.
Exactly.
Whether some like it or not, whether some agree with it or not – it remains a fact of Constitutional law that jurisdictions may prohibit the possession of certain types of firearms provided other types of firearms remain legal to own, handguns in particular.
Of course that doesn’t mean a law banning AR 15s is warranted or will have the desired effect; that a law might be bad doesn’t mean it’s un-Constitutional.
Untrue. The Supreme Court ruled that some regulation (not infringement; not a ban) may be legal in some backwards jurisdictions. It being illegal for felons to own guns is regulation. Banning guns to the general public is infringement and is still unConstitutional.
Banning all guns or banning some guns is unconstitutional?
All.
But it's not.
You just don't understand the Second Amendment.
The 2A concerns what the US federal govt can and cannot do. It's changed to be relevant for state govts too now.
The 2A says that the federal govt cannot prevent individuals from owning weapons. Now, if it bans certain types of guns, an individual can still own weapons.
Therefore you're wrong.
Nope. The Supreme Court ruled that some regulations do not infringe on the individual right. Bans obviously do.
The second amendment has not changed.
True.I guess that is alright then. If it were fully automatic, he might have shot 1,000, instead of 100 people.
And if a teacher who had a lightweight .38 revolver on his person and was positioned close enough to the shooter to put a bullet in his brain then the shooter's score could have been one or two -- or zero.
So much for "if."
And, speaking of armed teachers, I predicted just a week ago on this board that it was just a matter of time before they discovered that teachers can be just as crazy as the people they are supposed to guard the kids against:
Georgia teacher arrested after firing gunshot in school classroom
So can cops or soldiers. You want to disarm them as well?
Mark
You know, I have always been kind of strange in that I would prefer my children and grandchildren not to be taught by strangers with guns in their pants. That's just me.
I would rather not let my kids be shot. But thats just me.
Mark
Untrue. The Supreme Court ruled that some regulation (not infringement; not a ban) may be legal in some backwards jurisdictions. It being illegal for felons to own guns is regulation. Banning guns to the general public is infringement and is still unConstitutional.
Banning all guns or banning some guns is unconstitutional?
All.
But it's not.
You just don't understand the Second Amendment.
The 2A concerns what the US federal govt can and cannot do. It's changed to be relevant for state govts too now.
The 2A says that the federal govt cannot prevent individuals from owning weapons. Now, if it bans certain types of guns, an individual can still own weapons.
Therefore you're wrong.
Nope. The Supreme Court ruled that some regulations do not infringe on the individual right. Bans obviously do.
The second amendment has not changed.
You're still wrong.
How can "some regulations" no infringe the right when you basically said any ban of guns was unconstitutional?
Which is it?
Individuals are protected to have EVERY GUN by the 2A, or they're not?
Well seeing how the 2A says "arms" and not "guns" it would require that an individual can get ALL ARMS, like nukes, like tanks, like F-15s, like artillery, etc.
So which is it?
Incorrect.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.
If they ban butter, individuals will still be able to buy margarine. Therefore, your right to eat has not been infringed. Or, has it?
The problem with your example is that butter and margarine are two different things.
It would be like saying banning Smith's Butter but not Jones' butter, does that take away from your right to buy butter?
No, it doesn't.
Assault rifles and what the left keeps trying to ban are also two different things. Calling something an assault rifle doesn't make it one.and some of the proposed legal definitions would actually ban all guns or all semi-automatic weapons (including pistols and shotguns) or just just what somebody wants to call an assault rifle at any given moment making outlaws with the stroke of a pen. They are far down that road in California until the Supreme Court gets around to them but folks are more sane in most of the free states.
