US Appeals court upholds Marylands unconstitutional ban on scary guns

[owebo]

by then it will be too late

the 2nd amendment was put into place so that citizens could check the power of the federal government; this ruling flies in the face of that intent

If you think you're going to stand up to the power of the federal government with an assault rifle (I'm guessing they mean AR-15 types? semi's actually?), I pity you.

Boy do you miss the point. It isn't one guy, it's millions, some of whom may very well be employed by federal, state and local governments. Stated differently, we have avoided real tyranny here because citizens, soldiers and cops alike have their own firearms at home, which we're all prepared to use.

Seriously? You don't think the Constitution and our democracy have anything to do with it? We're all getting along because we're afraid the opposition party might shoot us?
I don't think so. Maybe where you live--and if so, I'm glad I don't live there.

You mean the Constitution that guarantees our right to the means to defend ourselves against tyranny?

That one?

Thanks for making my point.

You know what I meant, o clever one.
Tyranny has NOT been avoided because of guns in every closet. It has been avoided because of checks and balances and the people's right to a representative government.

Yes...checks like the 2A.....

 

[there4eyeM]

Often cited figures, probably wrong:
During the Revolutionary War, only THREE percent of the people actually fought against Great Britain. Only TEN percent of the citizens actively supported that three percent. Approximately TWENTY percent considered themselves to be on the side of the Revolution, but they did not actively participate.

Realistic estimate is around 10%, which seems to hold for most revolutions.

Interesting view:
Myths of the American Revolution | History | Smithsonian :
The term “spirit of ‘76” refers to the colonists’ patriotic zeal and has always seemed synonymous with the idea that every able-bodied male colonist resolutely served, and suffered, throughout the eight-year war.

To be sure, the initial rally to arms was impressive. When the British Army marched out of Boston on April 19, 1775, messengers on horseback, including Boston silversmith Paul Revere, fanned out across New England to raise the alarm. Summoned by the feverish pealing of church bells, militiamen from countless hamlets hurried toward Concord, Massachusetts, where the British regulars planned to destroy a rebel arsenal. Thousands of militiamen arrived in time to fight; 89 men from 23 towns in Massachusetts were killed or wounded on that first day of war, April 19, 1775. By the next morning, Massachusetts had 12 regiments in the field. Connecticut soon mobilized a force of 6,000, one-quarter of its military-age men. Within a week, 16,000 men from the four New England colonies formed a siege army outside British-occupied Boston. In June, the Continental Congress took over the New England army, creating a national force, the Continental Army. Thereafter, men throughout America took up arms. It seemed to the British regulars that every able-bodied American male had become a soldier.

But as the colonists discovered how difficult and dangerous military service could be, enthusiasm waned. Many men preferred to remain home, in the safety of what Gen. George Washington described as their “Chimney Corner.” Early in the war, Washington wrote that he despaired of “compleating the army by Voluntary Inlistments.” Mindful that volunteers had rushed to enlist when hostilities began, Washington predicted that “after the first emotions are over,” those who were willing to serve from a belief in the “goodness of the cause” would amount to little more than “a drop in the Ocean.” He was correct. As 1776 progressed, many colonies were compelled to entice soldiers with offers of cash bounties, clothing, blankets and extended furloughs or enlistments shorter than the one-year term of service established by Congress.

 

[eflatminor]

by then it will be too late

the 2nd amendment was put into place so that citizens could check the power of the federal government; this ruling flies in the face of that intent

If you think you're going to stand up to the power of the federal government with an assault rifle (I'm guessing they mean AR-15 types? semi's actually?), I pity you.

Boy do you miss the point. It isn't one guy, it's millions, some of whom may very well be employed by federal, state and local governments. Stated differently, we have avoided real tyranny here because citizens, soldiers and cops alike have their own firearms at home, which we're all prepared to use.

Seriously? You don't think the Constitution and our democracy have anything to do with it? We're all getting along because we're afraid the opposition party might shoot us?
I don't think so. Maybe where you live--and if so, I'm glad I don't live there.

You mean the Constitution that guarantees our right to the means to defend ourselves against tyranny?

That one?

Thanks for making my point.

You know what I meant, o clever one.
Tyranny has NOT been avoided because of guns in every closet. It has been avoided because of checks and balances and the people's right to a representative government.

I would argue it's because of both, plus of myriad of other factors. But then, given the statist's tendency to usurp silly things like rules, I suspect it has been a heavily armed populace that is most responsible for avoiding tyranny, from outside our borders and within.

 

[owebo]

Often cited figures, probably wrong:
During the Revolutionary War, only THREE percent of the people actually fought against Great Britain. Only TEN percent of the citizens actively supported that three percent. Approximately TWENTY percent considered themselves to be on the side of the Revolution, but they did not actively participate.

Realistic estimate is around 10%, which seems to hold for most revolutions.

Interesting view:
Myths of the American Revolution | History | Smithsonian :
The term “spirit of ‘76” refers to the colonists’ patriotic zeal and has always seemed synonymous with the idea that every able-bodied male colonist resolutely served, and suffered, throughout the eight-year war.

To be sure, the initial rally to arms was impressive. When the British Army marched out of Boston on April 19, 1775, messengers on horseback, including Boston silversmith Paul Revere, fanned out across New England to raise the alarm. Summoned by the feverish pealing of church bells, militiamen from countless hamlets hurried toward Concord, Massachusetts, where the British regulars planned to destroy a rebel arsenal. Thousands of militiamen arrived in time to fight; 89 men from 23 towns in Massachusetts were killed or wounded on that first day of war, April 19, 1775. By the next morning, Massachusetts had 12 regiments in the field. Connecticut soon mobilized a force of 6,000, one-quarter of its military-age men. Within a week, 16,000 men from the four New England colonies formed a siege army outside British-occupied Boston. In June, the Continental Congress took over the New England army, creating a national force, the Continental Army. Thereafter, men throughout America took up arms. It seemed to the British regulars that every able-bodied American male had become a soldier.

But as the colonists discovered how difficult and dangerous military service could be, enthusiasm waned. Many men preferred to remain home, in the safety of what Gen. George Washington described as their “Chimney Corner.” Early in the war, Washington wrote that he despaired of “compleating the army by Voluntary Inlistments.” Mindful that volunteers had rushed to enlist when hostilities began, Washington predicted that “after the first emotions are over,” those who were willing to serve from a belief in the “goodness of the cause” would amount to little more than “a drop in the Ocean.” He was correct. As 1776 progressed, many colonies were compelled to entice soldiers with offers of cash bounties, clothing, blankets and extended furloughs or enlistments shorter than the one-year term of service established by Congress.

Did you think you said something?

 

[2aguy]

U.S. appeals court upholds Maryland's ban on assault rifles
A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld Maryland's ban on assault rifles, ruling gun owners are not protected under the U.S. Constitution to possess "weapons of war," court documents showed.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decided 10-4 that the Firearm Safety Act of 2013, a law in response to the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, by a gunman with an assault rifle, does not violate the right to bear arms within the Second Amendment.
"Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war," Judge Robert King wrote

---------
Extend it? WTF is that supposed to mean?
I assume, for the sake of consistency and honor, those same people also don't think the first applies to the internet and phones? You know, because they cant "extend it?"
Or maybe any religion developed after 1787, doesn't get the same rights as one developed pre-Constitution?
IDK maybe that's not what it means

They are not really judges...they are left wing activists in robes, who pretend to rule according to the law...

 

[2aguy]

When courts get to ignore the obvious, it is a threat to all of us. Progressives don't see that, because they would rather use the judicial "Easy Button" than the harder amendment process.

Very true. The silver lining to this oppression is that once at the SCOTUS, it has the potential to bring down the national firearms act and all its fascist derivatives....

yes, hopefully they might start actually hearing this shit. There are 7 or 8 states that have similar infringements of liberty in place. Hopefully they all cease to exist.

Sooner or later they will get down to striking down the Sullivan Act in NYC, the one that makes me wait 6 months and pay $1000 or so in fees just to get a revolver to keep in my apartment.

I hope so! They only do that shit to curb purchase. ******* fascists.

Yeah, the ******* fascists. Might have something to do with NYC's lower gun murder rate these days, too.

That has nothing to do with rifles with magazines now does it? Since they aren't used for much crime at all....or standard size magazines for that matter. So why did they allow a ban on items that are not a problem...?

 

[2aguy]

There are restrictions on all rights, including the 2nd and the 1st. When we've got officially declared war on the streets of Maryland, I'd be willing to rethink this ruling.

by then it will be too late

the 2nd amendment was put into place so that citizens could check the power of the federal government; this ruling flies in the face of that intent

If you think you're going to stand up to the power of the federal government with an assault rifle (I'm guessing they mean AR-15 types? semi's actually?), I pity you.

Tell that to the barbarians in Iraq and Afghanistan who forced obama out of the country with just rifles and improvised explosives....

 

[2aguy]

U.S. appeals court upholds Maryland's ban on assault rifles
A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld Maryland's ban on assault rifles, ruling gun owners are not protected under the U.S. Constitution to possess "weapons of war," court documents showed.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decided 10-4 that the Firearm Safety Act of 2013, a law in response to the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, by a gunman with an assault rifle, does not violate the right to bear arms within the Second Amendment.
"Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war," Judge Robert King wrote

---------
Extend it? WTF is that supposed to mean?
I assume, for the sake of consistency and honor, those same people also don't think the first applies to the internet and phones? You know, because they cant "extend it?"
Or maybe any religion developed after 1787, doesn't get the same rights as one developed pre-Constitution?
IDK maybe that's not what it means

Some people dont realize so called "assault weapons" are nothing more than sporting rifles...

They know...they don't care....

 

[2aguy]

Unreasonable attachment to excessive firepower will lead to reaction and control. Reasoned compromise will achieve reasonable results.

Please...name a reasonable compromise...considering there are over 8 million of just AR-15s in private hands, not including all the other rifles with magazines.......so how is this a compromise, since these rifles kill fewer people every year than knives do...

AR-15s and other magazine fed rifles have killed fewer people than knives....knives murder over 1,500 people every single year....rifles.....157...in 34 years....there is no problem with people owning these rifles....and on top of that, they are protected by the 2nd Amendment...

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2016: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

Total deaths from "Assault" rifles since 1982......157.....over 34 years.....

And I will show you how many were murdered with knives, clubs and bare hands....

From the FBI homicide table 8, weapons used to commit murder...

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

2014....

Knives..... 1,567 in 2014 vs 157 for Assault rifles in 34 years including Sunday's....

Hands and feet....660 in 2014 vs. 157 for assault rifles in 34 years......

clubs.... 435 in 2014 vs. 157 for assault rifles for the last 34 years....

 

[2aguy]

by then it will be too late

the 2nd amendment was put into place so that citizens could check the power of the federal government; this ruling flies in the face of that intent

If you think you're going to stand up to the power of the federal government with an assault rifle (I'm guessing they mean AR-15 types? semi's actually?), I pity you.

We are talking hundred million people verses MAYBE one million. You really think most of the military is going to drop bombs on civilians?

I don't really follow you, and no, I DON'T think it will happen (in our lifetimes, anyway) but if it were to happen, your hunting rifle is not going to save you.

There are probably a third of the country that would fight the govt it went completely insane. There are 4 million (roughly) in the service. Most of them aren't going to fire on us. Some people take their oaths seriously.
100M hunting rifles absolutely WOULD make a difference.

Not against a tank, a drone or a missile, no, it won't.

That's why you shoot the tanker, the pilot and the technician ...........

 

[2aguy]

by then it will be too late

the 2nd amendment was put into place so that citizens could check the power of the federal government; this ruling flies in the face of that intent

If you think you're going to stand up to the power of the federal government with an assault rifle (I'm guessing they mean AR-15 types? semi's actually?), I pity you.

Boy do you miss the point. It isn't one guy, it's millions, some of whom may very well be employed by federal, state and local governments. Stated differently, we have avoided real tyranny here because citizens, soldiers and cops alike have their own firearms at home, which we're all prepared to use.

Seriously? You don't think the Constitution and our democracy have anything to do with it? We're all getting along because we're afraid the opposition party might shoot us?
I don't think so. Maybe where you live--and if so, I'm glad I don't live there.

You mean the Constitution that guarantees our right to the means to defend ourselves against tyranny?

That one?

Thanks for making my point.

You know what I meant, o clever one.
Tyranny has NOT been avoided because of guns in every closet. It has been avoided because of checks and balances and the people's right to a representative government.

Yes...it has......ask the people in Mexico who are murdered in the 10s of thousands every year by their government working with the drug cartels......they are unarmed...and helpless.....they have an a representative government too...but they are unarmed......

 

[2aguy]

Often cited figures, probably wrong:
During the Revolutionary War, only THREE percent of the people actually fought against Great Britain. Only TEN percent of the citizens actively supported that three percent. Approximately TWENTY percent considered themselves to be on the side of the Revolution, but they did not actively participate.

Realistic estimate is around 10%, which seems to hold for most revolutions.

Interesting view:
Myths of the American Revolution | History | Smithsonian :
The term “spirit of ‘76” refers to the colonists’ patriotic zeal and has always seemed synonymous with the idea that every able-bodied male colonist resolutely served, and suffered, throughout the eight-year war.

To be sure, the initial rally to arms was impressive. When the British Army marched out of Boston on April 19, 1775, messengers on horseback, including Boston silversmith Paul Revere, fanned out across New England to raise the alarm. Summoned by the feverish pealing of church bells, militiamen from countless hamlets hurried toward Concord, Massachusetts, where the British regulars planned to destroy a rebel arsenal. Thousands of militiamen arrived in time to fight; 89 men from 23 towns in Massachusetts were killed or wounded on that first day of war, April 19, 1775. By the next morning, Massachusetts had 12 regiments in the field. Connecticut soon mobilized a force of 6,000, one-quarter of its military-age men. Within a week, 16,000 men from the four New England colonies formed a siege army outside British-occupied Boston. In June, the Continental Congress took over the New England army, creating a national force, the Continental Army. Thereafter, men throughout America took up arms. It seemed to the British regulars that every able-bodied American male had become a soldier.

But as the colonists discovered how difficult and dangerous military service could be, enthusiasm waned. Many men preferred to remain home, in the safety of what Gen. George Washington described as their “Chimney Corner.” Early in the war, Washington wrote that he despaired of “compleating the army by Voluntary Inlistments.” Mindful that volunteers had rushed to enlist when hostilities began, Washington predicted that “after the first emotions are over,” those who were willing to serve from a belief in the “goodness of the cause” would amount to little more than “a drop in the Ocean.” He was correct. As 1776 progressed, many colonies were compelled to entice soldiers with offers of cash bounties, clothing, blankets and extended furloughs or enlistments shorter than the one-year term of service established by Congress.

And who won that war again genius?

 

[Marion Morrison]

by then it will be too late

the 2nd amendment was put into place so that citizens could check the power of the federal government; this ruling flies in the face of that intent

If you think you're going to stand up to the power of the federal government with an assault rifle (I'm guessing they mean AR-15 types? semi's actually?), I pity you.

We are talking hundred million people verses MAYBE one million. You really think most of the military is going to drop bombs on civilians?

I don't really follow you, and no, I DON'T think it will happen (in our lifetimes, anyway) but if it were to happen, your hunting rifle is not going to save you.

There are probably a third of the country that would fight the govt it went completely insane. There are 4 million (roughly) in the service. Most of them aren't going to fire on us. Some people take their oaths seriously.
100M hunting rifles absolutely WOULD make a difference.

Not against a tank, a drone or a missile, no, it won't.

by then it will be too late

the 2nd amendment was put into place so that citizens could check the power of the federal government; this ruling flies in the face of that intent

If you think you're going to stand up to the power of the federal government with an assault rifle (I'm guessing they mean AR-15 types? semi's actually?), I pity you.

Boy do you miss the point. It isn't one guy, it's millions, some of whom may very well be employed by federal, state and local governments. Stated differently, we have avoided real tyranny here because citizens, soldiers and cops alike have their own firearms at home, which we're all prepared to use.

Seriously? You don't think the Constitution and our democracy have anything to do with it? We're all getting along because we're afraid the opposition party might shoot us?
I don't think so. Maybe where you live--and if so, I'm glad I don't live there.

You mean the Constitution that guarantees our right to the means to defend ourselves against tyranny?

That one?

Thanks for making my point.

You know what I meant, o clever one.
Tyranny has NOT been avoided because of guns in every closet. It has been avoided because of checks and balances and the people's right to a representative government.

Dream on, sister, that's not what's kept Mexico, Japan, and Russians from thinking about putting troops on American soil.

It's lots of Bubbas that can pop their melon @ 200 yards.

 

[TNHarley]

If we discounted gangs and suicide, would people still ***** about the murder rate?
"people hanging themselves is better than blowing their brains out! And i would rather see a gang member stab or beat to death his opposition than shoot him!"

 

[Frankeneinstein]

"Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war," Judge Robert King wrote

hmmm, don't know this judge or his politics, but that is the language of an activist judge.

 

[TNHarley]

"Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war," Judge Robert King wrote

hmmm, don't know this judge or his politics, but that is the language of an activist judge.

JINO (judge in name only)

 

[NYcarbineer]

U.S. appeals court upholds Maryland's ban on assault rifles
A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld Maryland's ban on assault rifles, ruling gun owners are not protected under the U.S. Constitution to possess "weapons of war," court documents showed.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decided 10-4 that the Firearm Safety Act of 2013, a law in response to the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, by a gunman with an assault rifle, does not violate the right to bear arms within the Second Amendment.
"Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war," Judge Robert King wrote

---------
Extend it? WTF is that supposed to mean?
I assume, for the sake of consistency and honor, those same people also don't think the first applies to the internet and phones? You know, because they cant "extend it?"
Or maybe any religion developed after 1787, doesn't get the same rights as one developed pre-Constitution?
IDK maybe that's not what it means

lol, the Mormon polygamists don't get the same rights for their religion.

 

[TNHarley]

U.S. appeals court upholds Maryland's ban on assault rifles
A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld Maryland's ban on assault rifles, ruling gun owners are not protected under the U.S. Constitution to possess "weapons of war," court documents showed.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decided 10-4 that the Firearm Safety Act of 2013, a law in response to the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, by a gunman with an assault rifle, does not violate the right to bear arms within the Second Amendment.
"Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war," Judge Robert King wrote

---------
Extend it? WTF is that supposed to mean?
I assume, for the sake of consistency and honor, those same people also don't think the first applies to the internet and phones? You know, because they cant "extend it?"
Or maybe any religion developed after 1787, doesn't get the same rights as one developed pre-Constitution?
IDK maybe that's not what it means

lol, the Mormon polygamists don't get the same rights for their religion.

yeah, and muslims cant stone women for getting raped. You completely missed my point.

 

[NYcarbineer]

U.S. appeals court upholds Maryland's ban on assault rifles
A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld Maryland's ban on assault rifles, ruling gun owners are not protected under the U.S. Constitution to possess "weapons of war," court documents showed.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decided 10-4 that the Firearm Safety Act of 2013, a law in response to the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, by a gunman with an assault rifle, does not violate the right to bear arms within the Second Amendment.
"Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war," Judge Robert King wrote

---------
Extend it? WTF is that supposed to mean?
I assume, for the sake of consistency and honor, those same people also don't think the first applies to the internet and phones? You know, because they cant "extend it?"
Or maybe any religion developed after 1787, doesn't get the same rights as one developed pre-Constitution?
IDK maybe that's not what it means

lol, the Mormon polygamists don't get the same rights for their religion.

yeah, and muslims cant stone women for getting raped. You completely missed my point.

You're arguing that the 2nd Amendment strictly interpreted prohibits any restrictions on automatic weapons, grenade launchers, rocket launchers, bazookas, etc.

 

[TNHarley]

U.S. appeals court upholds Maryland's ban on assault rifles
A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld Maryland's ban on assault rifles, ruling gun owners are not protected under the U.S. Constitution to possess "weapons of war," court documents showed.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decided 10-4 that the Firearm Safety Act of 2013, a law in response to the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, by a gunman with an assault rifle, does not violate the right to bear arms within the Second Amendment.
"Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war," Judge Robert King wrote

---------
Extend it? WTF is that supposed to mean?
I assume, for the sake of consistency and honor, those same people also don't think the first applies to the internet and phones? You know, because they cant "extend it?"
Or maybe any religion developed after 1787, doesn't get the same rights as one developed pre-Constitution?
IDK maybe that's not what it means

lol, the Mormon polygamists don't get the same rights for their religion.

yeah, and muslims cant stone women for getting raped. You completely missed my point.

You're arguing that the 2nd Amendment strictly interpreted prohibits any restrictions on automatic weapons, grenade launchers, rocket launchers, bazookas, etc.

Indeed. With the first, liberty is the big thing. "your liberty ends at my nose" and all that. Having guns doesn't infringe on anyones liberty.
Granted, I don't understand why polygamists cant marry more than oen person.. Probably for tax reasons or something? Ugh, govt shouldn't be in marriage anyways..
In the second, the big thing is "shall not be infringed"