Federal Court Rules "Assault" Weapons Not Protected By 2nd Amendment:

[Slashsnake]

The courts have been interpreting our second amendment rights incorrectly for years. What part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand?

 

[Vandalshandle]

The courts have been interpreting our second amendment rights incorrectly for years. What part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand?

I don't know. Let's ask the inmates at San Quentin....

 

[9thIDdoc]

There is no such thing as "assault weapons". So who cares?

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

 

[Darkwind]

RWNJs need to explain, logically, why it is necessary for a private citizen to have semi-automatic or automatic military style assault weapons. They can't of course: seems the only time such weapons are used is to massacre dozens of innocent people and children.

So that means you support having all civil law enforcement agencies turn in their firearms for the exact same reason also?

*****SMILE*****

No I don't. They are the "well regulated militia" the 2nd Amendment refers to. Unregulated gun nuts with Tarzen complexes are not. Gun nuts are the enemy of safety and security for the rest of the country. That's been proven over and over again---this country has hundreds of mass shootings every year perpetrated by gun nuts. It's the law enforcement officers that protect the public from such nut jobs. If it were up to me, I'd send them all to Siberia.

Proven over and over again? It hasn't ever been proven because it simply is not true.

The real danger to the security and freedom of this nation are people like you.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The courts have been interpreting our second amendment rights incorrectly for years. What part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand?

What part of Article VI of the Constitution do you not understand.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

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.

 

[Esmeralda]

RWNJs need to explain, logically, why it is necessary for a private citizen to have semi-automatic or automatic military style assault weapons. They can't of course: seems the only time such weapons are used is to massacre dozens of innocent people and children.

So that means you support having all civil law enforcement agencies turn in their firearms for the exact same reason also?

*****SMILE*****

No I don't. They are the "well regulated militia" the 2nd Amendment refers to. Unregulated gun nuts with Tarzen complexes are not. Gun nuts are the enemy of safety and security for the rest of the country. That's been proven over and over again---this country has hundreds of mass shootings every year perpetrated by gun nuts. It's the law enforcement officers that protect the public from such nut jobs. If it were up to me, I'd send them all to Siberia.

Proven over and over again? It hasn't ever been proven because it simply is not true.

The real danger to the security and freedom of this nation are people like you.

That's hilarious; that's really hilarious. The real danger to this country is a few million people who are so mentally ill they think that military style assault weapons should be available to average, private citizens who have absolutely no need for them. People who are so delusional and crazy they pretend to believe they need to arm themselves against their own country. What a bunch of sick, delusional, foolish, idiotic losers gun nuts are.

 

[Darkwind]

RWNJs need to explain, logically, why it is necessary for a private citizen to have semi-automatic or automatic military style assault weapons. They can't of course: seems the only time such weapons are used is to massacre dozens of innocent people and children.

So that means you support having all civil law enforcement agencies turn in their firearms for the exact same reason also?

*****SMILE*****

No I don't. They are the "well regulated militia" the 2nd Amendment refers to. Unregulated gun nuts with Tarzen complexes are not. Gun nuts are the enemy of safety and security for the rest of the country. That's been proven over and over again---this country has hundreds of mass shootings every year perpetrated by gun nuts. It's the law enforcement officers that protect the public from such nut jobs. If it were up to me, I'd send them all to Siberia.

Proven over and over again? It hasn't ever been proven because it simply is not true.

The real danger to the security and freedom of this nation are people like you.

That's hilarious; that's really hilarious. The real danger to this country is a few million people who are so mentally ill they think that military style assault weapons should be available to average, private citizens who have absolutely no need for them. People who are so delusional and crazy they pretend to believe they need to arm themselves against their own country. What a bunch of sick, delusional, foolish, idiotic losers gun nuts are.

A few million? Try hundreds of millions who think that there is no such thing as military-style assault weapons, period. It is a made up term designed to frighten the ignorant in low IQ mental midgets of the left.

If you knew, understood, or even cared about history; you'd know that only an unarmed citizenry is enslaved by its own government. In addition, you are one of the truly ignorant who think that if the government decided to subjugate the people, that the United States military would be a willing partner.

You are one delusional person.

 

[9thIDdoc]

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.

 

[9thIDdoc]

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.

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.

 

[EGR one]

RWNJs need to explain, logically, why it is necessary for a private citizen to have semi-automatic or automatic military style assault weapons. They can't of course: seems the only time such weapons are used is to massacre dozens of innocent people and children.

In a free society, with a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, the question is not why do we need it. The question is does the government have a legitimate and compelling public need to limit our second amendment rights, by banning certain types of semi-automatic rifles. And, can that compelling public need be met by other means than limiting our freedom.

Millions of semi-automatic rifles are in the hands of citizens, and only a few have been used to kill innocent people and children. Banning future sales of these rifles would be a futile, feel good act that would obviously not solve the problem, since millions of them will still exist in private hands. Multi-millions of other semi-automatic rifles and pistols could be used to kill innocent people and children. Consequently, government has no compelling public reason for banning the sale of ugly guns.

The compelling public need for safety in our schools can only be met by a combination of increased security at our schools, by hardening our schools against criminal intrusion, and by allowing trained and screened school personnel to carry concealed weapons on school grounds.

 

[EGR one]

RWNJs need to explain, logically, why it is necessary for a private citizen to have semi-automatic or automatic military style assault weapons. They can't of course: seems the only time such weapons are used is to massacre dozens of innocent people and children.

So that means you support having all civil law enforcement agencies turn in their firearms for the exact same reason also?

*****SMILE*****

No I don't. They are the "well regulated militia" the 2nd Amendment refers to. Unregulated gun nuts with Tarzen complexes are not. Gun nuts are the enemy of safety and security for the rest of the country. That's been proven over and over again---this country has hundreds of mass shootings every year perpetrated by gun nuts. It's the law enforcement officers that protect the public from such nut jobs. If it were up to me, I'd send them all to Siberia.

If it were up to you, you would need a gun, probably an "assault rifle" to send anyone anywhere.

The only safety and security you have currently, sans a firearm, is dumb luck. You may cross paths with a rapist, a mugger, or a serial killer tomorrow, or the next day. Where are those cops when you really need them? What happens to your safety and security when some druggie kicks down your door in the middle of the night?

 

[EGR one]

No I don't. They are the "well regulated militia" the 2nd Amendment refers to. Unregulated gun nuts with Tarzen complexes are not. Gun nuts are the enemy of safety and security for the rest of the country. That's been proven over and over again---this country has hundreds of mass shootings every year perpetrated by gun nuts. It's the law enforcement officers that protect the public from such nut jobs. If it were up to me, I'd send them all to Siberia.

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.

 

[EGR one]

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

.

"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.

You mean like the four civil law enforcement officers who stood outside and allowed the seventeen high school children to be butchered recently down in Florida?.......... Does this mean that you're admitting that the shooter Cruz was a LWNJ and it's OK for them to slaughter people now?

*****SMILE*****

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

Is there an echo in here or are you scripted or just like to repeat yourself. Either way I couldn't care less, but I do care about my rights as a US citizen being infringed upon by a bunch of whiny little bitches like yourself. New laws & new bans are doing just that. I have just as much right to own whatever gun available as you have the right to march on Washington. So suck it up buttercup and realize many of the kids shooting up the schools need more help than what they've been given and it has nothing to do with guns

A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
56 million defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control:
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.
With guns, we are "citizens". Without them, we are "subjects".
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
If you value your freedom, please spread this antigun-control message to all of your friends.
SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!
SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.
SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
IT'S A NO BRAINER!
DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.
Spread the word everywhere you can that you are a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment!
It's time to speak loud before they try to silence and disarm us.
You're not imagining it, history shows that governments always manipulate tragedies to attempt to disarm the people.

And you love the fact that 17 people, mostly kids, were massacred by your right to own any weapon you want. Pathetic.

No one

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.

Obviously you haven’t bothered to read the actual ruling, if you had you wouldn’t be exhibiting your ignorance on the subject.

From the ruling:

‘Heller…presents us with a dispositive and relatively easy inquiry: Are the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines “like” “M-16 rifles,” i.e., “weapons that are most useful in military service,” and thus outside the ambit of the Second Amendment?

The answer to that dispositive and relatively easy inquiry is plainly in the affirmative.’

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

The Heller Court, in reaffirming Miller, acknowledged the settled, accepted principle that weapons considered ‘dangerous and unusual’ are not entitled to Constitutional protections, where the 4th Circuit determined that indeed AR platform rifles were ‘dangerous and unusual’ when it upheld Maryland’s FSA.

Consequently, your issue isn’t with the 4th Circuit, which appropriately followed the law, but with the late Justice Scalia.

And the Supreme Court recently rejected hearing the case, seemingly satisfied with the lower courts’ rulings.

Therefore, the M-16 is a "most useful" military arm and must be covered by the second amendment. Just another example of dumbass liberal logic gone awry.

 

[EGR one]

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?

 

[Esmeralda]

RWNJs need to explain, logically, why it is necessary for a private citizen to have semi-automatic or automatic military style assault weapons. They can't of course: seems the only time such weapons are used is to massacre dozens of innocent people and children.

In a free society, with a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, the question is not why do we need it. The question is does the government have a legitimate and compelling public need to limit our second amendment rights, by banning certain types of semi-automatic rifles. And, can that compelling public need be met by other means than limiting our freedom.

Millions of semi-automatic rifles are in the hands of citizens, and only a few have been used to kill innocent people and children. Banning future sales of these rifles would be a futile, feel good act that would obviously not solve the problem, since millions of them will still exist in private hands. Multi-millions of other semi-automatic rifles and pistols could be used to kill innocent people and children. Consequently, government has no compelling public reason for banning the sale of ugly guns.

The compelling public need for safety in our schools can only be met by a combination of increased security at our schools, by hardening our schools against criminal intrusion, and by allowing trained and screened school personnel to carry concealed weapons on school grounds.

This is just complete emotion, nothing but emotion.

The LOGICAL question is what do you need it for? That's the only question. And the logical answer is that you don't need it.

 

[Esmeralda]

No I don't. They are the "well regulated militia" the 2nd Amendment refers to. Unregulated gun nuts with Tarzen complexes are not. Gun nuts are the enemy of safety and security for the rest of the country. That's been proven over and over again---this country has hundreds of mass shootings every year perpetrated by gun nuts. It's the law enforcement officers that protect the public from such nut jobs. If it were up to me, I'd send them all to Siberia.

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.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

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?