US Appeals court upholds Marylands unconstitutional ban on scary guns

[Dr Grump]

Natural rights are recognized and secured by State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

Define natural rights.

 

[danielpalos]

Natural rights are recognized and secured by State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

Define natural rights.

Here it is, concise and succinct:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

 

[Dr Grump]

Here it is, concise and succinct:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

And who decides what is covered in those rights.....

 

[TNHarley]

Here it is, concise and succinct:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

And who decides what is covered in those rights.....

Lol seriously? This is why people make fun of you.
Do you understand what liberty is?

 

[hazlnut]

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

You win some, you lose some...

Get over it and move on.

 

[hazlnut]

Here it is, concise and succinct:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

And who decides what is covered in those rights.....

Lol seriously? This is why people make fun of you.
Do you understand what liberty is?

Liberty is one state deciding we're not going to be a bunch of backwards white trash like Indiana.

The freedom to choose which guns are way the **** outside the scope of the second Amendment.

I thought all you "conservatives" supported states rights?? WTF?

 

[TNHarley]

^^^not even worth it

 

[Dr Grump]

Here it is, concise and succinct:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

And who decides what is covered in those rights.....

Lol seriously? This is why people make fun of you.
Do you understand what liberty is?

Yep. More than you know..

 

[OKTexas]

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

The whole point of the second amendment was to allow citizens to have weapons of war. You don't maintain a free State with pop guns.

 

[rich stacy]

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

The right to protect property by means of deadly force is the exception, not the rule. Most prize irreplaceable human life over easily replaced property, although there are exceptions.

So the inalienable rights are as the constitution states, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Add privacy, and the pursuit of justice, although justice is not guaranteed.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

One person? No.

200 million people is a sizable army. Might want to rethink that.

 

[rich stacy]

The whole point of the second amendment was to allow citizens to have weapons of war. You don't maintain a free State with pop guns.

The view of the founding fathers was that you don't maintain a slave state with pop guns.

 

[owebo]

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

You win some, you lose some...

Get over it and move on.

We will....to the soon to be conservative SCOTUS.....

 

[rich stacy]

200 million people is a sizable army. Might want to rethink that.

Is that what happened in Syria, or Iraq, or or Hungary, or China, when it was the government vs the people. Having an AR-15 does very little against an M1A2, A10 or M2.

 

[owebo]

200 million people is a sizable army. Might want to rethink that.

Is that what happened in Syria, or Iraq, or or Hungary, or China, when it was the government vs the people. Having an AR-15 does very little against an M1A2, A10 or M2.

Oir liberals would stand no chance......

 

[danielpalos]

Here it is, concise and succinct:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

And who decides what is covered in those rights.....

it should only come up, if you have to defend your rights in Court.

 

[danielpalos]

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

The whole point of the second amendment was to allow citizens to have weapons of war. You don't maintain a free State with pop guns.

not when gun lovers refuse to be necessary to the security of a free State by mustering.

 

[brummelben]

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

Isn't the decision self explanatory?

 

[danielpalos]

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

The right to protect property by means of deadly force is the exception, not the rule. Most prize irreplaceable human life over easily replaced property, although there are exceptions.

So the inalienable rights are as the constitution states, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Add privacy, and the pursuit of justice, although justice is not guaranteed.

I prefer this enumeration, better: Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

One person? No.

200 million people is a sizable army. Might want to rethink that.

good luck getting them to muster with you.