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

[9thIDdoc]

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

I agree, which is why we need to have a tighter control over who gets what kind of weapon.

"We" who? Who is going to be relied on to make accurate determinations of which presently sane people are going to go crazy?

 

[9thIDdoc]

 

[9thIDdoc]

An assault rifle is whatever a given lawmaking body determines it to be; a semi-automatic AR 15 can be designated an assault rifled as a matter of law, having nothing to do with ‘the left.’

Also has nothing to do with the correct definition.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Not exactly.

Bans on handguns are un-Constitutional.

A comprehensive ban of all firearms is un-Constitutional.

Banning AR 15s is not.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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?

Arms as used means weapons an individual can carry and use. Artillery is known as ordinance and is crew served.
The Supreme Court gave examples in Heller of regulations that do not infringe feel free to look them up. If I remember correctly two would be reasonable "gun free" zones and firearm sales to felons. You might also remember that both Chicago and NYC have had their hands spanks for banning handguns.

No, you're wrong.

arms | Definition of arms in US English by Oxford Dictionaries

"Weapons and ammunition; armaments.

‘arms exports’
‘they were subjugated by force of arms’"

Arms means all types of weaponry.

"Arms exports" don't just mean guns.

Arms industry - Wikipedia

"
Arms industry"

"The arms industry, also known as the defense industry or the arms trade, is a global industry responsible for the manufacturing and sales of weapons and military technology."

I could go on all day proving you wrong.

 

[80zephyr]

I guess that is alright then. If it were fully automatic, he might have shot 1,000, instead of 100 people.

True.

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

Not worthy of a serious response.

Translation: I don't have an answer for you.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

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

I agree, which is why we need to have a tighter control over who gets what kind of weapon.

Since that is not gonna happen, being a realist, I would rather have an armed teacher with my kids.

Mark

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

I agree, which is why we need to have a tighter control over who gets what kind of weapon.

Since that is not gonna happen, being a realist, I would rather have an armed teacher with my kids.

Mark

This is from the UK, but anyway.

Eight in 10 teachers have had mental-health problems and workload is to blame

"
Eight in 10 teachers have had mental-health problems and workload is to blame"

Teacher's Violent Meltdown Caught on Tape

"
Teacher's Violent Meltdown Caught on Tape"

It happens.

 

[toobfreak]

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.

This will ultimately be challenged and won. Maryland is FUCKED and they would be the first people to take your guns. You don't want to live there. Just another freeking liberal circuit judge playing law interpreter rather than enforcer; you cannot discriminate on a rifle just by its looks, and if it is by function, then they are banning practical all rifles. Time will come in a few more years when there is going to be a final major breakthrough in these ridiculous, confiscatory gun restrictions, and when you get a carry permit, it will finally apply ACROSS STATE LINES. It is RIDICULOUS how far the government will go trying to repress a Constitutionally mandated freedom. And the joke is: Maryland doesn't have a thimble of evidence to even show that any of their restrictions have cut crime at all.

 

[Vandalshandle]

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

I agree, which is why we need to have a tighter control over who gets what kind of weapon.

"We" who? Who is going to be relied on to make accurate determinations of which presently sane people are going to go crazy?

The same people who made it illegal for a convicted felon to own, or have possession of a firearm.

 

[Vandalshandle]

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

I agree, which is why we need to have a tighter control over who gets what kind of weapon.

Since that is not gonna happen, being a realist, I would rather have an armed teacher with my kids.

Mark

I can understand that. rather than restrict weapons to anyone who can pass a background check (including private sales), you would rather trust a Latin teacher who you do not know to carry a gun in your child's school, not knowing if he is another Vegas type killer to be, or a 60 year old schoolmarm, just waiting for an accident to happen.

 

[80zephyr]

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

I agree, which is why we need to have a tighter control over who gets what kind of weapon.

Since that is not gonna happen, being a realist, I would rather have an armed teacher with my kids.

Mark

This is from the UK, but anyway.

Eight in 10 teachers have had mental-health problems and workload is to blame

"
Eight in 10 teachers have had mental-health problems and workload is to blame"

Teacher's Violent Meltdown Caught on Tape

"
Teacher's Violent Meltdown Caught on Tape"

It happens.

Probably no more than cops or soldiers.

Mark

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

I agree, which is why we need to have a tighter control over who gets what kind of weapon.

Since that is not gonna happen, being a realist, I would rather have an armed teacher with my kids.

Mark

This is from the UK, but anyway.

Eight in 10 teachers have had mental-health problems and workload is to blame

"
Eight in 10 teachers have had mental-health problems and workload is to blame"

Teacher's Violent Meltdown Caught on Tape

"
Teacher's Violent Meltdown Caught on Tape"

It happens.

Probably no more than cops or soldiers.

Mark

Maybe. Being a teacher is, however, very stressful. Being a cop is also stressful and look what happens. Cops end up shooting people they shouldn't have shot.

Right, you want THAT in the classroom?

 

[Vandalshandle]

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

I agree, which is why we need to have a tighter control over who gets what kind of weapon.

Since that is not gonna happen, being a realist, I would rather have an armed teacher with my kids.

Mark

This is from the UK, but anyway.

Eight in 10 teachers have had mental-health problems and workload is to blame

"
Eight in 10 teachers have had mental-health problems and workload is to blame"

Teacher's Violent Meltdown Caught on Tape

"
Teacher's Violent Meltdown Caught on Tape"

It happens.

Probably no more than cops or soldiers.

Mark

I have no idea why you want to talk about disarming cops and soldiers.Why not just start a conversation about "straw men"?

 

[80zephyr]

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

I agree, which is why we need to have a tighter control over who gets what kind of weapon.

Since that is not gonna happen, being a realist, I would rather have an armed teacher with my kids.

Mark

I can understand that. rather than restrict weapons to anyone who can pass a background check (including private sales), you would rather trust a Latin teacher who you do not know to carry a gun in your child's school, not knowing if he is another Vegas type killer to be, or a 60 year old schoolmarm, just waiting for an accident to happen.

In these school shootings, we have seen heroic teachers throwing their bodies in front of bullets to protect these kids, so yes, I would want to give them the opportunity to sacrifice the shooters life instead of their own. The way you keep describing teachers, maybe we should close all the schools. You believe they are nuts, or mad.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

I would rather not let my kids be shot. But thats just me.

Mark

I agree, which is why we need to have a tighter control over who gets what kind of weapon.

Since that is not gonna happen, being a realist, I would rather have an armed teacher with my kids.

Mark

This is from the UK, but anyway.

Eight in 10 teachers have had mental-health problems and workload is to blame

"
Eight in 10 teachers have had mental-health problems and workload is to blame"

Teacher's Violent Meltdown Caught on Tape

"
Teacher's Violent Meltdown Caught on Tape"

It happens.

Probably no more than cops or soldiers.

Mark

Maybe. Being a teacher is, however, very stressful. Being a cop is also stressful and look what happens. Cops end up shooting people they shouldn't have shot.

Right, you want THAT in the classroom?

Cops do make mistakes. But a classroom is a totally different animal than being on the street.

Mark

 

[Vandalshandle]

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

I agree, which is why we need to have a tighter control over who gets what kind of weapon.

Since that is not gonna happen, being a realist, I would rather have an armed teacher with my kids.

Mark

I can understand that. rather than restrict weapons to anyone who can pass a background check (including private sales), you would rather trust a Latin teacher who you do not know to carry a gun in your child's school, not knowing if he is another Vegas type killer to be, or a 60 year old schoolmarm, just waiting for an accident to happen.

In these school shootings, we have seen heroic teachers throwing their bodies in front of bullets to protect these kids, so yes, I would want to give them the opportunity to sacrifice the shooters life instead of their own. The way you keep describing teachers, maybe we should close all the schools. You believe they are nuts, or mad.

Mark

One of those "heroic" teachers was just exposed as a coward who locked students in the hall to be shot down by a psyhco.

 

[80zephyr]

I would rather not let my kids be shot. But thats just me.

Mark

I agree, which is why we need to have a tighter control over who gets what kind of weapon.

Since that is not gonna happen, being a realist, I would rather have an armed teacher with my kids.

Mark

This is from the UK, but anyway.

Eight in 10 teachers have had mental-health problems and workload is to blame

"
Eight in 10 teachers have had mental-health problems and workload is to blame"

Teacher's Violent Meltdown Caught on Tape

"
Teacher's Violent Meltdown Caught on Tape"

It happens.

Probably no more than cops or soldiers.

Mark

I have no idea why you want to talk about disarming cops and soldiers.Why not just start a conversation about "straw men"?

Your argument is that "anyone" can snap. If a teacher can snap, so can a cop or a soldier, correct? And if its not correct, explain why it isn't?

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

I would rather not let my kids be shot. But thats just me.

Mark

I agree, which is why we need to have a tighter control over who gets what kind of weapon.

Since that is not gonna happen, being a realist, I would rather have an armed teacher with my kids.

Mark

I can understand that. rather than restrict weapons to anyone who can pass a background check (including private sales), you would rather trust a Latin teacher who you do not know to carry a gun in your child's school, not knowing if he is another Vegas type killer to be, or a 60 year old schoolmarm, just waiting for an accident to happen.

In these school shootings, we have seen heroic teachers throwing their bodies in front of bullets to protect these kids, so yes, I would want to give them the opportunity to sacrifice the shooters life instead of their own. The way you keep describing teachers, maybe we should close all the schools. You believe they are nuts, or mad.

Mark

One of those "heroic" teachers was just exposed as a coward who locked students in the hall to be shot down by a psyhco.

After hearing comments from teachers, they said he did the right thing according to his training.

Mark

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

I own one and it hasn't killed anyone.....................................yet!