If banning rifles is a winner for democrats, why do they want to hide it from voters?

[Daryl Hunt]

Federal judge upholds Massachusetts ban on AR-15, large capacity magazines
Oh, really. Last time I checked, not only were there many municipalities but also entire states like California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Washington, D.C that specifically ban or highly regulate the AR-15 specifically by name. The Ban has been upheld him Federal Court. Here is the ruling in the Boston Federal Court.

"The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to ‘bear arms,’" U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, wrote in a decision Thursday in Boston, dismissing a lawsuit over the state law.


Just stop making shit up.

And they are unConstitutional.... they ignored Heller, and now, if Kavanaugh gets confirmed it will be overturned... considering that that circuit ignored D.C. v Heller, Caetano v Massachusetts, Friedman v Highland Park, Miller v United States...... Those judges are ignoring Supreme Court decisions..

You are wrong.

This is Scalia, telling the Court why they should have taken that case and told the circuit they were wrong.....Scalia wrote the opinion in D.C. v Heller and here he explains to that judge how he is wrong....

If Kavanaugh get seated on the court....look for that illegal decision to be overturned.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625. The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

But they didn't rule on it, did they. Oh, they heard it but elected to kick it back to the lower court. Meaning, the ruling at the Supreme Court would be the same as the lower court so why take the time. A dissent is a losing argument not a winning argument. It means nothing.

Heller only says that the government can't ban traditional Handguns nor can they force them to be rendered inoperative in the homes. That's it. It didn't deal with anything else. It can be taken a step further if you wish and include other traditional firearms like hunting rifles and shotguns. But the AR has been proven in Federal Court that it's NOT considered a traditional Rifle. it's been specifically singled out by name as a non traditional firearm and can be banned and heavily regulated at the state and local levels.

And there aren't 5 million people out there with the AR-15. There has been about 5 million manufactured by various companies but most are owned by just a few people. You need to stop making up shit.

No... they didn't hear the case, they didn't take it..... that is the point. You don't know what you are talking about..... It takes 4 justices to vote to hear a case...4 justices did not vote to hear the case...because neither side could trust Kennedy...

That has now changed.

The federal courts are ignoring Heller, Caetano, Friedman, you don't know what you are talking about... the AR-15 is the exact same rifle as all other semi auto rifles you doofus....

'Assault Weapons,' Explained

After the law expired, sales of previously banned rifles exploded. Based on production and import data from 1990 through 2016, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade group, estimates that Americans own more than 16 million guns that politicians would deem "assault weapons," which the industry prefers to call "modern sporting rifles."
------
The faulty logic of such legislation actually works to the benefit of those who support "broader gun control." Once people realize that banning these firearms has no measurable effect on violence, they may be primed to accept more ambitious measures. At the same time, if the flimsy arguments in favor of "assault weapon" bans are enough for them to survive judicial review, the Second Amendment barriers to gun control will be eroded.

----

What Would It Look Like If The Media Told The Truth About AR-15s?

AR-15s are the most common kind of rifle sold in the United States.

Though the media will never admit it, variation of the AR-15 is by far the most common rifle sold in the United States. While exact figures are hard to pin down for a family of firearms that has been on the civilian market continuously since 1963 and which has been made by dozens of companies, estimates are 8-9 million AR-15 variants in the United States.

AR-15s sales are up sharply, yet their use in crime is dropping.
Despite sales of AR-15s growing astronomically in recent years, homicides committed with rifles of all kinds are exceedingly rare and continue to plummet. Just 367 murders of 8,874 murders committed in 2010 were committed with any kind of rifle, and murders committed with AR-15s was too rare to bother tracking individually. Rifle homicides dropped to 298 in 2012, and to just 248 in 2014.

Here is the ruling once again. Since you won't click on a friggin link, here is the text.

Federal judge upholds Massachusetts ban on AR-15, large capacity magazines

Federal judge upholds Massachusetts ban on AR-15, large capacity magazines
Doug Stanglin, USA TODAY Published 9:22 a.m. ET April 7, 2018 | Updated 10:47 a.m. ET April 7, 2018

A federal district court judge in Boston has upheld the state's ban on assault weapons – AR-15 semi-automatic rifles and large-capacity magazines – finding that the issue is not a constitutional matter but one for each state to determine on its own politically.

"The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to ‘bear arms,’" U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, wrote in a decision Thursday in Boston, dismissing a lawsuit over the state law.

Young was ruling for the state in upholding Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey's decision in 2016 to broaden the definition of “copies or duplicates" of AR-15s and other semi-automatic rifles that are banned under a 1998 state law covering assault weapons.

Healey's decision, which was challenged by a gun-rights group, came in the wake of the June 2016 shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, where 49 people were killed by a gunman armed with a semi-automatic rifle and semi-automatic pistol.

The issue has taken on a new sense of urgency following the Valentine's Day killing in Parkland, Fla., of 17 people by a gunman armed with an AR-15. Student survivors of the Florida shooting have mounted a campaign calling for a nationwide ban on the weapons.

In his ruling in Boston, Young quoted from the writings of the late Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia, a conservative and an "originalist," who believed the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with its original meaning at the time it was written.

Writing for the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008, in a ruling that struck down a handgun ban in Washington, D.C., Scalia had found that the Second Amendment "does not provide a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

"Weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like" aren’t protected by the Second Amendment and "may be banned," Young quoted Scalia as writing on behalf of the five-member majority.

The AR-15, a semi-automatic weapon and technically not an assault weapon, is similar to the M-16, an assault rifle first used on the battlefield in Vietnam.

Healey welcomed Young’s ruling. “Strong gun laws save lives, and we will not be intimidated by the gun lobby in our efforts to end the sale of assault weapons and protect our communities and schools,” she said in a statement.

The National Rifle Association said in a statement that it was "extremely disappointed" in the ruling and argued that Young distorted Scalia's position.

The NRA said Scalia had joined a dissent in 2015 that said the decision by millions of Americans to own AR-style rifles for lawful purposes "is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons."

Young had rejected arguments by the Massachusetts plaintiffs, including the Gun Owners’ Action League Inc., who had challenged the state ban in part by declaring the AR-15 to be extremely popular in the U.S.

"The AR-15’s present day popularity is not constitutionally material," Young wrote.

In his conclusion, Young declared that the fate of the AR-15 and similar weapons is not of "constitutional moment" but one that should be left for each individual state and its people to decide politically.

"Americans are not afraid of bumptious, raucous and robust debate about these matters. We call it democracy," Young wrote. "Justice Scalia would be proud."

If you wish to read the court ruling papers you can go to Plaintiffs vs. Healey and read it. The NRA played the Scalia card like you do and it didn't work for them either.

Now, stop making shit up.

Moron...... The lower court is ignoring the actual ruling in Heller, Caetano, Miller, and Friedman..... they are breaking the law by ignoring the Supreme Court.... you doofus....

I cut the crap you keep reposting. You know, where you post only the part of the ruling that you believe agrees with you and you leave out the real meat of the ruling that says the exact opposite. The fact remains that it's not the Federal Power to regulate firearms. It's the State. The only thing the Federal Courts have said that home defense with rational firearms cannot be infringed and that would be a handgun. All other firearms fall directly under the States Rights where they determine what is and what isn't a rational home defense, hunting and sport firearm. Again, this falls under the 2nd and the 14th amendment giving the States those rights. You want to follow the Constitution? Follow all of it, not just the 3 words that you interpret the way you want them to read. And stop making shit up.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The States and locals have specifically named the AR-15 and it's like variations. They are very specific. And the courts uphold that ruling. By being specific it exempts the normal traditional semi auto rifles like the mini-14 just to name one. Another mass killing by another AR type rifle and you can bet another couple of states will pass the AR ban laws. The AR type of Rifle IS listed as an Assault Rifle in some states now and is completely banned and it IS constitutional and has been ruled as such in federal courts. It's State by State and has nothing to do with the Federal Government. This is State's Rights. If you State passes it you have the option to comply with the law, move to another state or become a criminal. You sound more like the criminal type so no big loss when they bag you. Of course, you can become a closet AR owner. I know a number of AK owners around here that have full auto AKs and SKSs stashed away in their walk in Gun Safes that they never show, never take out and never fire. No sweat off my brow. But I wonder, what is the joy in owning them if you can't enjoy them? But they are good people and don't go off like you do so we leave them to their own quagmire. You, on the other hand, would piss off someone and they would turn you in. So I guess you would either have to comply or go to jail for a very long time. I vote for the Prison for you.

Hey moron I have already told you I don't own an AR 15.

The Alzheimer's must be getting worse huh?

And if you know people who have illegal fully automatic rifles why don't you drop a dime on them?

And States are not allowed to violate the rights pf the people that are guaranteed in the Constitution or didn't you know that?

Then you don't have any skin in the game, right?

Are you age bigoting once again? Bet you wouldn't want me to buy a cake either. BTW, the Cake Store went Bankrupt. Looks like there were a lot of straight people that found his action rather unsavory.

And all the Constitution affords is for you to own "Normal" firearms. Glad you keep bringing up Heller since the Court ruled what a "Normal" handgun is and where it can be legally held. And the State or District can still require you to have to have a permit to own it if it wishes according the Heller to have it in your home. The State can ban all weapons outside the home or license weapons or even ban a specific weapon. And this is within the confines of the Constitution of the United States under the 2nd and 14th Amendment. The only place the State cannot ban "Normal" weapons for home defense is in the home. And the Courts have ruled that the AR-15 is outside the definition of Normal Home Defense. And, yes, if the State decided to specifically ban the AR-15 and it's many copies, it has been upheld in Federal Court that it can do it, much to the chagrin and expense of the NRA. I have already posted that decision. You just ignore it. So stop making things up.

You just make stuff up and hope people won't actually read the Heller decision...where nothing you said is accurate....

Heller states that all bearable arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment you doofus...

It didn't say anything about all bearable arms. It only dealt with handguns in the homes. And the denying Heller the permit to have a fully functional handgun in his home. They ruled that he was to be issued that permit to have a fully functional handgun in his home for home defense. And that it did not have to be either disassemble nor have a safety trigger guard installed on it. I already posted the meat of the Heller case. You are just hoping others won't read it. Well, they have. You are the only one left that keeps chewing on this bone. Stop making shit up.

Listen shit stain...... you are a liar... on top of that, you don't understand what you are lying about....

 

[2aguy]

And they are unConstitutional.... they ignored Heller, and now, if Kavanaugh gets confirmed it will be overturned... considering that that circuit ignored D.C. v Heller, Caetano v Massachusetts, Friedman v Highland Park, Miller v United States...... Those judges are ignoring Supreme Court decisions..

You are wrong.

This is Scalia, telling the Court why they should have taken that case and told the circuit they were wrong.....Scalia wrote the opinion in D.C. v Heller and here he explains to that judge how he is wrong....

If Kavanaugh get seated on the court....look for that illegal decision to be overturned.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625. The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

But they didn't rule on it, did they. Oh, they heard it but elected to kick it back to the lower court. Meaning, the ruling at the Supreme Court would be the same as the lower court so why take the time. A dissent is a losing argument not a winning argument. It means nothing.

Heller only says that the government can't ban traditional Handguns nor can they force them to be rendered inoperative in the homes. That's it. It didn't deal with anything else. It can be taken a step further if you wish and include other traditional firearms like hunting rifles and shotguns. But the AR has been proven in Federal Court that it's NOT considered a traditional Rifle. it's been specifically singled out by name as a non traditional firearm and can be banned and heavily regulated at the state and local levels.

And there aren't 5 million people out there with the AR-15. There has been about 5 million manufactured by various companies but most are owned by just a few people. You need to stop making up shit.

No... they didn't hear the case, they didn't take it..... that is the point. You don't know what you are talking about..... It takes 4 justices to vote to hear a case...4 justices did not vote to hear the case...because neither side could trust Kennedy...

That has now changed.

The federal courts are ignoring Heller, Caetano, Friedman, you don't know what you are talking about... the AR-15 is the exact same rifle as all other semi auto rifles you doofus....

'Assault Weapons,' Explained

After the law expired, sales of previously banned rifles exploded. Based on production and import data from 1990 through 2016, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade group, estimates that Americans own more than 16 million guns that politicians would deem "assault weapons," which the industry prefers to call "modern sporting rifles."
------
The faulty logic of such legislation actually works to the benefit of those who support "broader gun control." Once people realize that banning these firearms has no measurable effect on violence, they may be primed to accept more ambitious measures. At the same time, if the flimsy arguments in favor of "assault weapon" bans are enough for them to survive judicial review, the Second Amendment barriers to gun control will be eroded.

----

What Would It Look Like If The Media Told The Truth About AR-15s?

AR-15s are the most common kind of rifle sold in the United States.

Though the media will never admit it, variation of the AR-15 is by far the most common rifle sold in the United States. While exact figures are hard to pin down for a family of firearms that has been on the civilian market continuously since 1963 and which has been made by dozens of companies, estimates are 8-9 million AR-15 variants in the United States.

AR-15s sales are up sharply, yet their use in crime is dropping.
Despite sales of AR-15s growing astronomically in recent years, homicides committed with rifles of all kinds are exceedingly rare and continue to plummet. Just 367 murders of 8,874 murders committed in 2010 were committed with any kind of rifle, and murders committed with AR-15s was too rare to bother tracking individually. Rifle homicides dropped to 298 in 2012, and to just 248 in 2014.

Here is the ruling once again. Since you won't click on a friggin link, here is the text.

Federal judge upholds Massachusetts ban on AR-15, large capacity magazines

Federal judge upholds Massachusetts ban on AR-15, large capacity magazines
Doug Stanglin, USA TODAY Published 9:22 a.m. ET April 7, 2018 | Updated 10:47 a.m. ET April 7, 2018

A federal district court judge in Boston has upheld the state's ban on assault weapons – AR-15 semi-automatic rifles and large-capacity magazines – finding that the issue is not a constitutional matter but one for each state to determine on its own politically.

"The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to ‘bear arms,’" U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, wrote in a decision Thursday in Boston, dismissing a lawsuit over the state law.

Young was ruling for the state in upholding Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey's decision in 2016 to broaden the definition of “copies or duplicates" of AR-15s and other semi-automatic rifles that are banned under a 1998 state law covering assault weapons.

Healey's decision, which was challenged by a gun-rights group, came in the wake of the June 2016 shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, where 49 people were killed by a gunman armed with a semi-automatic rifle and semi-automatic pistol.

The issue has taken on a new sense of urgency following the Valentine's Day killing in Parkland, Fla., of 17 people by a gunman armed with an AR-15. Student survivors of the Florida shooting have mounted a campaign calling for a nationwide ban on the weapons.

In his ruling in Boston, Young quoted from the writings of the late Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia, a conservative and an "originalist," who believed the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with its original meaning at the time it was written.

Writing for the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008, in a ruling that struck down a handgun ban in Washington, D.C., Scalia had found that the Second Amendment "does not provide a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

"Weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like" aren’t protected by the Second Amendment and "may be banned," Young quoted Scalia as writing on behalf of the five-member majority.

The AR-15, a semi-automatic weapon and technically not an assault weapon, is similar to the M-16, an assault rifle first used on the battlefield in Vietnam.

Healey welcomed Young’s ruling. “Strong gun laws save lives, and we will not be intimidated by the gun lobby in our efforts to end the sale of assault weapons and protect our communities and schools,” she said in a statement.

The National Rifle Association said in a statement that it was "extremely disappointed" in the ruling and argued that Young distorted Scalia's position.

The NRA said Scalia had joined a dissent in 2015 that said the decision by millions of Americans to own AR-style rifles for lawful purposes "is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons."

Young had rejected arguments by the Massachusetts plaintiffs, including the Gun Owners’ Action League Inc., who had challenged the state ban in part by declaring the AR-15 to be extremely popular in the U.S.

"The AR-15’s present day popularity is not constitutionally material," Young wrote.

In his conclusion, Young declared that the fate of the AR-15 and similar weapons is not of "constitutional moment" but one that should be left for each individual state and its people to decide politically.

"Americans are not afraid of bumptious, raucous and robust debate about these matters. We call it democracy," Young wrote. "Justice Scalia would be proud."

If you wish to read the court ruling papers you can go to Plaintiffs vs. Healey and read it. The NRA played the Scalia card like you do and it didn't work for them either.

Now, stop making shit up.

Moron...... The lower court is ignoring the actual ruling in Heller, Caetano, Miller, and Friedman..... they are breaking the law by ignoring the Supreme Court.... you doofus....

I cut the crap you keep reposting. You know, where you post only the part of the ruling that you believe agrees with you and you leave out the real meat of the ruling that says the exact opposite. The fact remains that it's not the Federal Power to regulate firearms. It's the State. The only thing the Federal Courts have said that home defense with rational firearms cannot be infringed and that would be a handgun. All other firearms fall directly under the States Rights where they determine what is and what isn't a rational home defense, hunting and sport firearm. Again, this falls under the 2nd and the 14th amendment giving the States those rights. You want to follow the Constitution? Follow all of it, not just the 3 words that you interpret the way you want them to read. And stop making shit up.

You don't know what you are talking about....... the states cannot violate the Constitutionally protected Rights of Americans.... and the 2nd Amendment was incorporated meaning the States are covered by it and can't go there own way, you twit....

 

[Daryl Hunt]

But they didn't rule on it, did they. Oh, they heard it but elected to kick it back to the lower court. Meaning, the ruling at the Supreme Court would be the same as the lower court so why take the time. A dissent is a losing argument not a winning argument. It means nothing.

Heller only says that the government can't ban traditional Handguns nor can they force them to be rendered inoperative in the homes. That's it. It didn't deal with anything else. It can be taken a step further if you wish and include other traditional firearms like hunting rifles and shotguns. But the AR has been proven in Federal Court that it's NOT considered a traditional Rifle. it's been specifically singled out by name as a non traditional firearm and can be banned and heavily regulated at the state and local levels.

And there aren't 5 million people out there with the AR-15. There has been about 5 million manufactured by various companies but most are owned by just a few people. You need to stop making up shit.

No... they didn't hear the case, they didn't take it..... that is the point. You don't know what you are talking about..... It takes 4 justices to vote to hear a case...4 justices did not vote to hear the case...because neither side could trust Kennedy...

That has now changed.

The federal courts are ignoring Heller, Caetano, Friedman, you don't know what you are talking about... the AR-15 is the exact same rifle as all other semi auto rifles you doofus....

'Assault Weapons,' Explained

After the law expired, sales of previously banned rifles exploded. Based on production and import data from 1990 through 2016, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade group, estimates that Americans own more than 16 million guns that politicians would deem "assault weapons," which the industry prefers to call "modern sporting rifles."
------
The faulty logic of such legislation actually works to the benefit of those who support "broader gun control." Once people realize that banning these firearms has no measurable effect on violence, they may be primed to accept more ambitious measures. At the same time, if the flimsy arguments in favor of "assault weapon" bans are enough for them to survive judicial review, the Second Amendment barriers to gun control will be eroded.

----

What Would It Look Like If The Media Told The Truth About AR-15s?

AR-15s are the most common kind of rifle sold in the United States.

Though the media will never admit it, variation of the AR-15 is by far the most common rifle sold in the United States. While exact figures are hard to pin down for a family of firearms that has been on the civilian market continuously since 1963 and which has been made by dozens of companies, estimates are 8-9 million AR-15 variants in the United States.

AR-15s sales are up sharply, yet their use in crime is dropping.
Despite sales of AR-15s growing astronomically in recent years, homicides committed with rifles of all kinds are exceedingly rare and continue to plummet. Just 367 murders of 8,874 murders committed in 2010 were committed with any kind of rifle, and murders committed with AR-15s was too rare to bother tracking individually. Rifle homicides dropped to 298 in 2012, and to just 248 in 2014.

Here is the ruling once again. Since you won't click on a friggin link, here is the text.

Federal judge upholds Massachusetts ban on AR-15, large capacity magazines

Federal judge upholds Massachusetts ban on AR-15, large capacity magazines
Doug Stanglin, USA TODAY Published 9:22 a.m. ET April 7, 2018 | Updated 10:47 a.m. ET April 7, 2018

A federal district court judge in Boston has upheld the state's ban on assault weapons – AR-15 semi-automatic rifles and large-capacity magazines – finding that the issue is not a constitutional matter but one for each state to determine on its own politically.

"The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to ‘bear arms,’" U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, wrote in a decision Thursday in Boston, dismissing a lawsuit over the state law.

Young was ruling for the state in upholding Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey's decision in 2016 to broaden the definition of “copies or duplicates" of AR-15s and other semi-automatic rifles that are banned under a 1998 state law covering assault weapons.

Healey's decision, which was challenged by a gun-rights group, came in the wake of the June 2016 shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, where 49 people were killed by a gunman armed with a semi-automatic rifle and semi-automatic pistol.

The issue has taken on a new sense of urgency following the Valentine's Day killing in Parkland, Fla., of 17 people by a gunman armed with an AR-15. Student survivors of the Florida shooting have mounted a campaign calling for a nationwide ban on the weapons.

In his ruling in Boston, Young quoted from the writings of the late Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia, a conservative and an "originalist," who believed the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with its original meaning at the time it was written.

Writing for the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008, in a ruling that struck down a handgun ban in Washington, D.C., Scalia had found that the Second Amendment "does not provide a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

"Weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like" aren’t protected by the Second Amendment and "may be banned," Young quoted Scalia as writing on behalf of the five-member majority.

The AR-15, a semi-automatic weapon and technically not an assault weapon, is similar to the M-16, an assault rifle first used on the battlefield in Vietnam.

Healey welcomed Young’s ruling. “Strong gun laws save lives, and we will not be intimidated by the gun lobby in our efforts to end the sale of assault weapons and protect our communities and schools,” she said in a statement.

The National Rifle Association said in a statement that it was "extremely disappointed" in the ruling and argued that Young distorted Scalia's position.

The NRA said Scalia had joined a dissent in 2015 that said the decision by millions of Americans to own AR-style rifles for lawful purposes "is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons."

Young had rejected arguments by the Massachusetts plaintiffs, including the Gun Owners’ Action League Inc., who had challenged the state ban in part by declaring the AR-15 to be extremely popular in the U.S.

"The AR-15’s present day popularity is not constitutionally material," Young wrote.

In his conclusion, Young declared that the fate of the AR-15 and similar weapons is not of "constitutional moment" but one that should be left for each individual state and its people to decide politically.

"Americans are not afraid of bumptious, raucous and robust debate about these matters. We call it democracy," Young wrote. "Justice Scalia would be proud."

If you wish to read the court ruling papers you can go to Plaintiffs vs. Healey and read it. The NRA played the Scalia card like you do and it didn't work for them either.

Now, stop making shit up.

Moron...... The lower court is ignoring the actual ruling in Heller, Caetano, Miller, and Friedman..... they are breaking the law by ignoring the Supreme Court.... you doofus....

I cut the crap you keep reposting. You know, where you post only the part of the ruling that you believe agrees with you and you leave out the real meat of the ruling that says the exact opposite. The fact remains that it's not the Federal Power to regulate firearms. It's the State. The only thing the Federal Courts have said that home defense with rational firearms cannot be infringed and that would be a handgun. All other firearms fall directly under the States Rights where they determine what is and what isn't a rational home defense, hunting and sport firearm. Again, this falls under the 2nd and the 14th amendment giving the States those rights. You want to follow the Constitution? Follow all of it, not just the 3 words that you interpret the way you want them to read. And stop making shit up.

You don't know what you are talking about....... the states cannot violate the Constitutionally protected Rights of Americans.... and the 2nd Amendment was incorporated meaning the States are covered by it and can't go there own way, you twit....

Not according to Young. And that is the latest Federal Court ruling. And not according to a bunch of other Federal Court rulings including the 9th court here. The NRA is no longer even trying to take these to the Supreme Court anymore. Even they don't have that deep of packets. The NRA has lost many sponsors and it's affected how far they can take things these days. Once again, according to the 14th amendment, the State does have that right to determine if a firearm is outside of a rational firearm. The only firearm that they can't infringe on is the firearm that is specific to defending your home and that is the handgun. Even if you have it in the home, the State can require you to register it like they do in DC. But if you don't have a criminal record, you are not under investigation for a violent nature, or the gun has not been obtained illegally, the state still has to issue you the permit according to Heller V D.C.

And if the Supreme Court Justices follow the Constitution in their rulings, they have no choice but to rule the same ways they always have. They have to consider the whole Constitution of the United States including the 2nd and the 14th amendments and not just 3 words out of the whole thing like you do.

 

[2aguy]

No... they didn't hear the case, they didn't take it..... that is the point. You don't know what you are talking about..... It takes 4 justices to vote to hear a case...4 justices did not vote to hear the case...because neither side could trust Kennedy...

That has now changed.

The federal courts are ignoring Heller, Caetano, Friedman, you don't know what you are talking about... the AR-15 is the exact same rifle as all other semi auto rifles you doofus....

'Assault Weapons,' Explained

After the law expired, sales of previously banned rifles exploded. Based on production and import data from 1990 through 2016, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade group, estimates that Americans own more than 16 million guns that politicians would deem "assault weapons," which the industry prefers to call "modern sporting rifles."
------
The faulty logic of such legislation actually works to the benefit of those who support "broader gun control." Once people realize that banning these firearms has no measurable effect on violence, they may be primed to accept more ambitious measures. At the same time, if the flimsy arguments in favor of "assault weapon" bans are enough for them to survive judicial review, the Second Amendment barriers to gun control will be eroded.

----

What Would It Look Like If The Media Told The Truth About AR-15s?

AR-15s are the most common kind of rifle sold in the United States.

Though the media will never admit it, variation of the AR-15 is by far the most common rifle sold in the United States. While exact figures are hard to pin down for a family of firearms that has been on the civilian market continuously since 1963 and which has been made by dozens of companies, estimates are 8-9 million AR-15 variants in the United States.

AR-15s sales are up sharply, yet their use in crime is dropping.
Despite sales of AR-15s growing astronomically in recent years, homicides committed with rifles of all kinds are exceedingly rare and continue to plummet. Just 367 murders of 8,874 murders committed in 2010 were committed with any kind of rifle, and murders committed with AR-15s was too rare to bother tracking individually. Rifle homicides dropped to 298 in 2012, and to just 248 in 2014.

Here is the ruling once again. Since you won't click on a friggin link, here is the text.

Federal judge upholds Massachusetts ban on AR-15, large capacity magazines

Federal judge upholds Massachusetts ban on AR-15, large capacity magazines
Doug Stanglin, USA TODAY Published 9:22 a.m. ET April 7, 2018 | Updated 10:47 a.m. ET April 7, 2018

A federal district court judge in Boston has upheld the state's ban on assault weapons – AR-15 semi-automatic rifles and large-capacity magazines – finding that the issue is not a constitutional matter but one for each state to determine on its own politically.

"The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to ‘bear arms,’" U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, wrote in a decision Thursday in Boston, dismissing a lawsuit over the state law.

Young was ruling for the state in upholding Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey's decision in 2016 to broaden the definition of “copies or duplicates" of AR-15s and other semi-automatic rifles that are banned under a 1998 state law covering assault weapons.

Healey's decision, which was challenged by a gun-rights group, came in the wake of the June 2016 shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, where 49 people were killed by a gunman armed with a semi-automatic rifle and semi-automatic pistol.

The issue has taken on a new sense of urgency following the Valentine's Day killing in Parkland, Fla., of 17 people by a gunman armed with an AR-15. Student survivors of the Florida shooting have mounted a campaign calling for a nationwide ban on the weapons.

In his ruling in Boston, Young quoted from the writings of the late Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia, a conservative and an "originalist," who believed the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with its original meaning at the time it was written.

Writing for the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008, in a ruling that struck down a handgun ban in Washington, D.C., Scalia had found that the Second Amendment "does not provide a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

"Weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like" aren’t protected by the Second Amendment and "may be banned," Young quoted Scalia as writing on behalf of the five-member majority.

The AR-15, a semi-automatic weapon and technically not an assault weapon, is similar to the M-16, an assault rifle first used on the battlefield in Vietnam.

Healey welcomed Young’s ruling. “Strong gun laws save lives, and we will not be intimidated by the gun lobby in our efforts to end the sale of assault weapons and protect our communities and schools,” she said in a statement.

The National Rifle Association said in a statement that it was "extremely disappointed" in the ruling and argued that Young distorted Scalia's position.

The NRA said Scalia had joined a dissent in 2015 that said the decision by millions of Americans to own AR-style rifles for lawful purposes "is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons."

Young had rejected arguments by the Massachusetts plaintiffs, including the Gun Owners’ Action League Inc., who had challenged the state ban in part by declaring the AR-15 to be extremely popular in the U.S.

"The AR-15’s present day popularity is not constitutionally material," Young wrote.

In his conclusion, Young declared that the fate of the AR-15 and similar weapons is not of "constitutional moment" but one that should be left for each individual state and its people to decide politically.

"Americans are not afraid of bumptious, raucous and robust debate about these matters. We call it democracy," Young wrote. "Justice Scalia would be proud."

If you wish to read the court ruling papers you can go to Plaintiffs vs. Healey and read it. The NRA played the Scalia card like you do and it didn't work for them either.

Now, stop making shit up.

Moron...... The lower court is ignoring the actual ruling in Heller, Caetano, Miller, and Friedman..... they are breaking the law by ignoring the Supreme Court.... you doofus....

I cut the crap you keep reposting. You know, where you post only the part of the ruling that you believe agrees with you and you leave out the real meat of the ruling that says the exact opposite. The fact remains that it's not the Federal Power to regulate firearms. It's the State. The only thing the Federal Courts have said that home defense with rational firearms cannot be infringed and that would be a handgun. All other firearms fall directly under the States Rights where they determine what is and what isn't a rational home defense, hunting and sport firearm. Again, this falls under the 2nd and the 14th amendment giving the States those rights. You want to follow the Constitution? Follow all of it, not just the 3 words that you interpret the way you want them to read. And stop making shit up.

You don't know what you are talking about....... the states cannot violate the Constitutionally protected Rights of Americans.... and the 2nd Amendment was incorporated meaning the States are covered by it and can't go there own way, you twit....

Not according to Young. And that is the latest Federal Court ruling. And not according to a bunch of other Federal Court rulings including the 9th court here. The NRA is no longer even trying to take these to the Supreme Court anymore. Even they don't have that deep of packets. The NRA has lost many sponsors and it's affected how far they can take things these days. Once again, according to the 14th amendment, the State does have that right to determine if a firearm is outside of a rational firearm. The only firearm that they can't infringe on is the firearm that is specific to defending your home and that is the handgun. Even if you have it in the home, the State can require you to register it like they do in DC. But if you don't have a criminal record, you are not under investigation for a violent nature, or the gun has not been obtained illegally, the state still has to issue you the permit according to Heller V D.C.

And if the Supreme Court Justices follow the Constitution in their rulings, they have no choice but to rule the same ways they always have. They have to consider the whole Constitution of the United States including the 2nd and the 14th amendments and not just 3 words out of the whole thing like you do.

You don't know what you are talking about.... he is in violation of the Supreme Court rulings.... You have no idea what you are talking about with the NRA... does talking out of your ass like you do cause chafing?

 

[Rustic]

This is the thing you anti gunners don't realize about the teenagers from Parkland..... teenagers eat tidepods, play Fortnight, and snort condoms.... Those of us who understand the history of mankind and human nature, want to protect the Bill of Rights... So, while teenagers forget, we remember....and we are going to remember in November what you want to do to our gun Rights....

This is why the gun control extremist groups are telling the gun control extremist democrats to not say they want to ban Assault rifles.......

Dem Candidate Tedra Cobb Tells Supporters She Wants ‘Assault Rifle’ Ban But ‘Cannot Say That’ in Public

Tedra Cobb, the Democratic candidate in New York's 21st Congressional District, told a group of teenage supporters that she supports a ban on certain firearms but won't say so publicly for fear of losing her election.

"When I was at this thing today, it was the first table I was at, a woman said, ‘How do you feel about assault rifles?' And I said they should be banned," Cobb can be heard saying in the video recorded by one of the attendees. "And I said, you know, people were getting up to go, to go get their lunch because it was a buffet, and I just said to her, I want you to know Cindy, I cannot say that."

When the woman pushed back on Cobb keeping quiet on how she feels about banning certain firearms, Cobb said coming out in favor of a gun ban would lead to her losing her bid against Republican incumbent Elise Stefanik.

"And she said, ‘Well, I want you to' and I said, ‘I won't win,'" Cobb said. "I said Moms Demand [Action] says, and Tricia Pleau said, ‘Do not say that you want an assault rifle ban because you will not win.'"

Tricia Pleau is a member of the New York chapter of the gun-control group Moms Demand Action.

Cobb's campaign website features a page on "Addressing Gun Violence" detailing her support for a number of gun-control measures but does not feature any language supporting a specific ban on any firearms.

Chris Martin, regional press secretary of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Cobb's comments are disqualifying.

"Tedra Cobb knows that she's wildly out of touch with the district, so she's desperately trying to hide her liberal agenda from voters," Martin said. "First, she was forced to admit that she raised taxes over 20 times, and now she's being exposed for lying to voters about her support for an assault weapons ban and taking guns away from law-abiding citizens."

The Cobb campaign did not respond to a request for comment from the Free Beacon but did issue a statement to The Post Star.

why did you say simply "rifles" in your title instead of "Assault Rifles", which is what she actually said?

Lol
You have no clue what an so called “assault rifle” even is...

 

[Rustic]

And your point is?

Raving loonies like the OP will misrepresent the Democratic Party's position at the drop of a pull through if given the slightest opportunity.

Commies want an unarmed populace.....and that is a fact.

You throw that term out pretty quick. Even without knowing the real meaning. This one time, I will try and educate you. I will use short sentences, small words and type slowly. Try and keep up.

Communism is by a book by Karl Marx. It's an idea where, outside of personal possession, no one owns anything. Everyone works. If you work, you get your fair share in order to live including housing, food, transportation. Everyone that works is a member of the government and has one vote. The Community owns everything. As a community, the Workers own everything, just not personally. While this may sound like Utopia, it never could work. Karl Marx never factored in the 7 Human Sins. It could only exist on a scale of only a couple of dozen people. Get larger than that and it would fail.

Lenin thought he could implement it on a large scale. He had to find a way to get it started. He came up with the idea that the only way that it would work is if the entire world were under the Communist Government. He came up with the Communist Manifesto. In order to make it work, he had to use Military Means to overthrow all other governments so that only one would be left and that would be his. The problem was, he never really set up a Communist Government. He set up a Oligarchy or a Monarchy similar to the one the Tsarists he replaced. But not exactly like the Romanoffs he replaced who were actually pretty good leaders. He was more like Ivan the Terrible. Lenin made the ultimate mistake many Generals make and believed they knew how to run a civilian country. As the Chilean Generals why the last time they had a Military Revolution that they promptly had a general election and the "General" elected not to run. But the Military oversaw the election to make it fair. Stalin took it many steps further. It failed because it was based on a series of lies and people feared their own Government. China is a good example these days. Or a bad one if you will. You can put the word "Communism" in the name of your Government but it's just a word with no meaning. In the end Communism is a Totalitarian Government that can never work. Putin is finding that out. But it's certainly not Socialism.

Let's go back to Karl Marx for Socialism. Remember where I talked about the Workers having one vote and the community owning everything? Socialism isn't quite as extreme as that. Under Socialism, the Community owns everything that affects the community as a whole. Things like Transportation, employment, production, education, economics and more. The Workers are from all levels of society and get the same benefits. No one is richer or better paid than anyone else is from the Janitor to the CEO. Everyone has the same benefits in housing, standard of living and even vacations. Oops, I think I just hit on the first problem and why it won't work on a large scale. Incentives. What incentive do you give someone to become a CEO when he can get the same things working as a Janitor or a Parking Lot attendant? While this might work on a very small scale, it fails in a large scale. Karl Marx had a nice well thought out thesis but that's all it was and still is. Socialism is NOT a Government. It's a Business Model and cannot be used as a Government.

Socialism is on the same scale as Capitalism which also cannot be used as a Government. Both are economic models. But if you do talk about Socialism, you also have to look at the other side of the coin, Capitalism which also can only exist as a Government in a very small scale. Capitalism is where the Businesses control everything. Capitalism is the best at only one thing, Growth, or to make money, lots of money. If you are a successful Capitalist, you can make just about as much as you are content with. Some are content with a decent living while others go for the "Gold". I hope you can see how this model can easily get out of hand without limits. "Company Store", Unsafe Working Conditions", "Corporate Welfare" and more.

Let's build the perfect or near perfect Government. We start out with a Federal Republic where you vote for representatives that represent you in a government that is far from where you live (Democracy is another failure when you get above a certain size so we borrow from it). We build in checks and balances and laws (some form of Constitution). We give more powers to the smaller forms of governments below the central government. We sprinkle in a bit of Capitalism to help it grow, we sprinkle in a bit of Socialism to control that growth to keep it healthy. Son of a Gun, I think I just created a Nation. Anyone care to tell me who else did this and when?

You need some socialism when Capitalism gets out of control to reign it in a bit. Otherwise, Capitalism will be what it usually is and become so aggressive that it will take over everything else even your forms or government. Socialism is there to check it in place by making some things owned by the Tax Payers where it affects each and every person when Capitalism has proven that it just can't do the job. Otherwise, you let Capitalism do what it does best and that it to make things grow. But it has to be a healthy growth. Just keep in mind that there can never be a real Capitalist or Socialist Government. Those are economic methods. So when you are tossing the word "Socialism" around like it's a form of Government you are just being ignorant.

...in other words socialism sucks

 

[Rustic]

This is the thing you anti gunners don't realize about the teenagers from Parkland..... teenagers eat tidepods, play Fortnight, and snort condoms.... Those of us who understand the history of mankind and human nature, want to protect the Bill of Rights... So, while teenagers forget, we remember....and we are going to remember in November what you want to do to our gun Rights....

This is why the gun control extremist groups are telling the gun control extremist democrats to not say they want to ban Assault rifles.......

Dem Candidate Tedra Cobb Tells Supporters She Wants ‘Assault Rifle’ Ban But ‘Cannot Say That’ in Public

Tedra Cobb, the Democratic candidate in New York's 21st Congressional District, told a group of teenage supporters that she supports a ban on certain firearms but won't say so publicly for fear of losing her election.

"When I was at this thing today, it was the first table I was at, a woman said, ‘How do you feel about assault rifles?' And I said they should be banned," Cobb can be heard saying in the video recorded by one of the attendees. "And I said, you know, people were getting up to go, to go get their lunch because it was a buffet, and I just said to her, I want you to know Cindy, I cannot say that."

When the woman pushed back on Cobb keeping quiet on how she feels about banning certain firearms, Cobb said coming out in favor of a gun ban would lead to her losing her bid against Republican incumbent Elise Stefanik.

"And she said, ‘Well, I want you to' and I said, ‘I won't win,'" Cobb said. "I said Moms Demand [Action] says, and Tricia Pleau said, ‘Do not say that you want an assault rifle ban because you will not win.'"

Tricia Pleau is a member of the New York chapter of the gun-control group Moms Demand Action.

Cobb's campaign website features a page on "Addressing Gun Violence" detailing her support for a number of gun-control measures but does not feature any language supporting a specific ban on any firearms.

Chris Martin, regional press secretary of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Cobb's comments are disqualifying.

"Tedra Cobb knows that she's wildly out of touch with the district, so she's desperately trying to hide her liberal agenda from voters," Martin said. "First, she was forced to admit that she raised taxes over 20 times, and now she's being exposed for lying to voters about her support for an assault weapons ban and taking guns away from law-abiding citizens."

The Cobb campaign did not respond to a request for comment from the Free Beacon but did issue a statement to The Post Star.

why did you say simply "rifles" in your title instead of "Assault Rifles", which is what she actually said?

Because there is no such thing as an Assault rifle...... as a democrat she means AR-15 rifle....which means nothing since the AR-15 rifle is not an assault rifle.

You back to this crap again. In combat, there is no real difference between an AR-15 and a M-16A-4. While one will have a 3 shot burst setting, it is rarely used since it just wastes ammo and the 2nd and 3rd shot goes off center. The AR-15 Model 601 was introduced to Maylasia in 1959 after the US Army turned it down as an Assault Rifle that could be used by a young, scared kid with little training. In a matter of a couple of hours of training, that kid could be pumping adrenaline, scared out of his wits with incoming fire and operate the rifle, reload, charge it and keep firing and never take his finger off the trigger or have to rotate the rifle for any reason. The USAF adopted it in 1964 in a test. USAF didn't want to spend the time training their people the M-14 or carry that heavy thing around with all that heavy ammo. Their initial purchase of 4000 AR-15 Model 601s proved to be a success. The Army finally bought them in 1967. The Army model was different. They cheapened up the rifle a bit. The USAF model was the AR-15 Model 601 while the Army model was the AR-15 Model 602. When the Army took possession of their new Rifle, it was stamped the M-16 since all military rifles used the M designation. In 1967. The AF stamped M-16 on their AR-15 Model 601s. The Model 601 saw service in the AF until about 1992. There were over 7000 of these purchase overall. The Army found out that they Full Auto Feature was worthless and just wasted armor. Hence the upgrades and introduction of the Model 603 that had the 3 shot burst in the place of the full auto. The AF followed suit with their model 604.

When the Civilian AR-15 was introduced, the only real difference was the receiver. It wouldn't accept the full auto or the 3 shot parts from the M-16 or the Model 601. They also cheapened it up a bit and made it so it could fire only the lower powered 223 and not the 556 Nato Round. Yes, there were some 556 non nato rounds that it could fire but they were expensive and performed about like the 223 so why buy them. The Civilian AR-15 has the same basic features that made the original AR-15 Model 601 the world beater is was and the M-16 the world beater is still is. It's designed so that in combat, an 18 year old kid, with little training, that is scared out of his mind, can easily operate it and kill an enemy and carry it for a long distance with little fatigue.

You can call a duck a goose if you want but if walks like a duck and quacks like it's a duck, it's a duck.

...and an ar15 is still just a sporting rifle

 

[Rustic]

This is the thing you anti gunners don't realize about the teenagers from Parkland..... teenagers eat tidepods, play Fortnight, and snort condoms.... Those of us who understand the history of mankind and human nature, want to protect the Bill of Rights... So, while teenagers forget, we remember....and we are going to remember in November what you want to do to our gun Rights....

This is why the gun control extremist groups are telling the gun control extremist democrats to not say they want to ban Assault rifles.......

Dem Candidate Tedra Cobb Tells Supporters She Wants ‘Assault Rifle’ Ban But ‘Cannot Say That’ in Public

Tedra Cobb, the Democratic candidate in New York's 21st Congressional District, told a group of teenage supporters that she supports a ban on certain firearms but won't say so publicly for fear of losing her election.

"When I was at this thing today, it was the first table I was at, a woman said, ‘How do you feel about assault rifles?' And I said they should be banned," Cobb can be heard saying in the video recorded by one of the attendees. "And I said, you know, people were getting up to go, to go get their lunch because it was a buffet, and I just said to her, I want you to know Cindy, I cannot say that."

When the woman pushed back on Cobb keeping quiet on how she feels about banning certain firearms, Cobb said coming out in favor of a gun ban would lead to her losing her bid against Republican incumbent Elise Stefanik.

"And she said, ‘Well, I want you to' and I said, ‘I won't win,'" Cobb said. "I said Moms Demand [Action] says, and Tricia Pleau said, ‘Do not say that you want an assault rifle ban because you will not win.'"

Tricia Pleau is a member of the New York chapter of the gun-control group Moms Demand Action.

Cobb's campaign website features a page on "Addressing Gun Violence" detailing her support for a number of gun-control measures but does not feature any language supporting a specific ban on any firearms.

Chris Martin, regional press secretary of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Cobb's comments are disqualifying.

"Tedra Cobb knows that she's wildly out of touch with the district, so she's desperately trying to hide her liberal agenda from voters," Martin said. "First, she was forced to admit that she raised taxes over 20 times, and now she's being exposed for lying to voters about her support for an assault weapons ban and taking guns away from law-abiding citizens."

The Cobb campaign did not respond to a request for comment from the Free Beacon but did issue a statement to The Post Star.

why did you say simply "rifles" in your title instead of "Assault Rifles", which is what she actually said?

There is no such thing as a civilian "assault rifle"

Tell that to the latest mass shootings that used the AR-15. A full blown M-16A-4 would have done the same job.

So would have most any semi-auto... Which the vast majority of Americans firearms are semi automatic.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

This is the thing you anti gunners don't realize about the teenagers from Parkland..... teenagers eat tidepods, play Fortnight, and snort condoms.... Those of us who understand the history of mankind and human nature, want to protect the Bill of Rights... So, while teenagers forget, we remember....and we are going to remember in November what you want to do to our gun Rights....

This is why the gun control extremist groups are telling the gun control extremist democrats to not say they want to ban Assault rifles.......

Dem Candidate Tedra Cobb Tells Supporters She Wants ‘Assault Rifle’ Ban But ‘Cannot Say That’ in Public

Tedra Cobb, the Democratic candidate in New York's 21st Congressional District, told a group of teenage supporters that she supports a ban on certain firearms but won't say so publicly for fear of losing her election.

"When I was at this thing today, it was the first table I was at, a woman said, ‘How do you feel about assault rifles?' And I said they should be banned," Cobb can be heard saying in the video recorded by one of the attendees. "And I said, you know, people were getting up to go, to go get their lunch because it was a buffet, and I just said to her, I want you to know Cindy, I cannot say that."

When the woman pushed back on Cobb keeping quiet on how she feels about banning certain firearms, Cobb said coming out in favor of a gun ban would lead to her losing her bid against Republican incumbent Elise Stefanik.

"And she said, ‘Well, I want you to' and I said, ‘I won't win,'" Cobb said. "I said Moms Demand [Action] says, and Tricia Pleau said, ‘Do not say that you want an assault rifle ban because you will not win.'"

Tricia Pleau is a member of the New York chapter of the gun-control group Moms Demand Action.

Cobb's campaign website features a page on "Addressing Gun Violence" detailing her support for a number of gun-control measures but does not feature any language supporting a specific ban on any firearms.

Chris Martin, regional press secretary of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Cobb's comments are disqualifying.

"Tedra Cobb knows that she's wildly out of touch with the district, so she's desperately trying to hide her liberal agenda from voters," Martin said. "First, she was forced to admit that she raised taxes over 20 times, and now she's being exposed for lying to voters about her support for an assault weapons ban and taking guns away from law-abiding citizens."

The Cobb campaign did not respond to a request for comment from the Free Beacon but did issue a statement to The Post Star.

why did you say simply "rifles" in your title instead of "Assault Rifles", which is what she actually said?

Because there is no such thing as an Assault rifle...... as a democrat she means AR-15 rifle....which means nothing since the AR-15 rifle is not an assault rifle.

You back to this crap again. In combat, there is no real difference between an AR-15 and a M-16A-4. While one will have a 3 shot burst setting, it is rarely used since it just wastes ammo and the 2nd and 3rd shot goes off center. The AR-15 Model 601 was introduced to Maylasia in 1959 after the US Army turned it down as an Assault Rifle that could be used by a young, scared kid with little training. In a matter of a couple of hours of training, that kid could be pumping adrenaline, scared out of his wits with incoming fire and operate the rifle, reload, charge it and keep firing and never take his finger off the trigger or have to rotate the rifle for any reason. The USAF adopted it in 1964 in a test. USAF didn't want to spend the time training their people the M-14 or carry that heavy thing around with all that heavy ammo. Their initial purchase of 4000 AR-15 Model 601s proved to be a success. The Army finally bought them in 1967. The Army model was different. They cheapened up the rifle a bit. The USAF model was the AR-15 Model 601 while the Army model was the AR-15 Model 602. When the Army took possession of their new Rifle, it was stamped the M-16 since all military rifles used the M designation. In 1967. The AF stamped M-16 on their AR-15 Model 601s. The Model 601 saw service in the AF until about 1992. There were over 7000 of these purchase overall. The Army found out that they Full Auto Feature was worthless and just wasted armor. Hence the upgrades and introduction of the Model 603 that had the 3 shot burst in the place of the full auto. The AF followed suit with their model 604.

When the Civilian AR-15 was introduced, the only real difference was the receiver. It wouldn't accept the full auto or the 3 shot parts from the M-16 or the Model 601. They also cheapened it up a bit and made it so it could fire only the lower powered 223 and not the 556 Nato Round. Yes, there were some 556 non nato rounds that it could fire but they were expensive and performed about like the 223 so why buy them. The Civilian AR-15 has the same basic features that made the original AR-15 Model 601 the world beater is was and the M-16 the world beater is still is. It's designed so that in combat, an 18 year old kid, with little training, that is scared out of his mind, can easily operate it and kill an enemy and carry it for a long distance with little fatigue.

You can call a duck a goose if you want but if walks like a duck and quacks like it's a duck, it's a duck.

...and an ar15 is still just a sporting rifle

And it's banned in at least 4 states and many local governments as well. More are coming after the next mass shooting. And don't bother screaming, "That's Unconstitutional". It's well within the Constitution as per the many Federal Court Rulings. You can call it whatever you like. You can call it a can of oil if you wish. It changes nothing.

 

[Rustic]

Because there is no such thing as an Assault rifle...... as a democrat she means AR-15 rifle....which means nothing since the AR-15 rifle is not an assault rifle.

You back to this crap again. In combat, there is no real difference between an AR-15 and a M-16A-4. While one will have a 3 shot burst setting, it is rarely used since it just wastes ammo and the 2nd and 3rd shot goes off center. The AR-15 Model 601 was introduced to Maylasia in 1959 after the US Army turned it down as an Assault Rifle that could be used by a young, scared kid with little training. In a matter of a couple of hours of training, that kid could be pumping adrenaline, scared out of his wits with incoming fire and operate the rifle, reload, charge it and keep firing and never take his finger off the trigger or have to rotate the rifle for any reason. The USAF adopted it in 1964 in a test. USAF didn't want to spend the time training their people the M-14 or carry that heavy thing around with all that heavy ammo. Their initial purchase of 4000 AR-15 Model 601s proved to be a success. The Army finally bought them in 1967. The Army model was different. They cheapened up the rifle a bit. The USAF model was the AR-15 Model 601 while the Army model was the AR-15 Model 602. When the Army took possession of their new Rifle, it was stamped the M-16 since all military rifles used the M designation. In 1967. The AF stamped M-16 on their AR-15 Model 601s. The Model 601 saw service in the AF until about 1992. There were over 7000 of these purchase overall. The Army found out that they Full Auto Feature was worthless and just wasted armor. Hence the upgrades and introduction of the Model 603 that had the 3 shot burst in the place of the full auto. The AF followed suit with their model 604.

When the Civilian AR-15 was introduced, the only real difference was the receiver. It wouldn't accept the full auto or the 3 shot parts from the M-16 or the Model 601. They also cheapened it up a bit and made it so it could fire only the lower powered 223 and not the 556 Nato Round. Yes, there were some 556 non nato rounds that it could fire but they were expensive and performed about like the 223 so why buy them. The Civilian AR-15 has the same basic features that made the original AR-15 Model 601 the world beater is was and the M-16 the world beater is still is. It's designed so that in combat, an 18 year old kid, with little training, that is scared out of his mind, can easily operate it and kill an enemy and carry it for a long distance with little fatigue.

You can call a duck a goose if you want but if walks like a duck and quacks like it's a duck, it's a duck.

Sorry..... the AR-15 is a specifically protected rifle, as are all semi automatic rifles.......you guys don't get to ban them.

Federal judge upholds Massachusetts ban on AR-15, large capacity magazines
Oh, really. Last time I checked, not only were there many municipalities but also entire states like California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Washington, D.C that specifically ban or highly regulate the AR-15 specifically by name. The Ban has been upheld him Federal Court. Here is the ruling in the Boston Federal Court.

"The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to ‘bear arms,’" U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, wrote in a decision Thursday in Boston, dismissing a lawsuit over the state law.


Just stop making shit up.

And they are unConstitutional.... they ignored Heller, and now, if Kavanaugh gets confirmed it will be overturned... considering that that circuit ignored D.C. v Heller, Caetano v Massachusetts, Friedman v Highland Park, Miller v United States...... Those judges are ignoring Supreme Court decisions..

You are wrong.

This is Scalia, telling the Court why they should have taken that case and told the circuit they were wrong.....Scalia wrote the opinion in D.C. v Heller and here he explains to that judge how he is wrong....

If Kavanaugh get seated on the court....look for that illegal decision to be overturned.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625. The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

But they didn't rule on it, did they. Oh, they heard it but elected to kick it back to the lower court. Meaning, the ruling at the Supreme Court would be the same as the lower court so why take the time. A dissent is a losing argument not a winning argument. It means nothing.

Heller only says that the government can't ban traditional Handguns nor can they force them to be rendered inoperative in the homes. That's it. It didn't deal with anything else. It can be taken a step further if you wish and include other traditional firearms like hunting rifles and shotguns. But the AR has been proven in Federal Court that it's NOT considered a traditional Rifle. it's been specifically singled out by name as a non traditional firearm and can be banned and heavily regulated at the state and local levels.

And there aren't 5 million people out there with the AR-15. There has been about 5 million manufactured by various companies but most are owned by just a few people. You need to stop making up shit.

Lol
The future supreme court will rule that and Ar15 is just a sporting rifle just like any other semi automatic. And there’s a lot more than 5 million Ar15’s out there where do you get your information from?

 

[Rustic]

This is the thing you anti gunners don't realize about the teenagers from Parkland..... teenagers eat tidepods, play Fortnight, and snort condoms.... Those of us who understand the history of mankind and human nature, want to protect the Bill of Rights... So, while teenagers forget, we remember....and we are going to remember in November what you want to do to our gun Rights....

This is why the gun control extremist groups are telling the gun control extremist democrats to not say they want to ban Assault rifles.......

Dem Candidate Tedra Cobb Tells Supporters She Wants ‘Assault Rifle’ Ban But ‘Cannot Say That’ in Public

Tedra Cobb, the Democratic candidate in New York's 21st Congressional District, told a group of teenage supporters that she supports a ban on certain firearms but won't say so publicly for fear of losing her election.

"When I was at this thing today, it was the first table I was at, a woman said, ‘How do you feel about assault rifles?' And I said they should be banned," Cobb can be heard saying in the video recorded by one of the attendees. "And I said, you know, people were getting up to go, to go get their lunch because it was a buffet, and I just said to her, I want you to know Cindy, I cannot say that."

When the woman pushed back on Cobb keeping quiet on how she feels about banning certain firearms, Cobb said coming out in favor of a gun ban would lead to her losing her bid against Republican incumbent Elise Stefanik.

"And she said, ‘Well, I want you to' and I said, ‘I won't win,'" Cobb said. "I said Moms Demand [Action] says, and Tricia Pleau said, ‘Do not say that you want an assault rifle ban because you will not win.'"

Tricia Pleau is a member of the New York chapter of the gun-control group Moms Demand Action.

Cobb's campaign website features a page on "Addressing Gun Violence" detailing her support for a number of gun-control measures but does not feature any language supporting a specific ban on any firearms.

Chris Martin, regional press secretary of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Cobb's comments are disqualifying.

"Tedra Cobb knows that she's wildly out of touch with the district, so she's desperately trying to hide her liberal agenda from voters," Martin said. "First, she was forced to admit that she raised taxes over 20 times, and now she's being exposed for lying to voters about her support for an assault weapons ban and taking guns away from law-abiding citizens."

The Cobb campaign did not respond to a request for comment from the Free Beacon but did issue a statement to The Post Star.

why did you say simply "rifles" in your title instead of "Assault Rifles", which is what she actually said?

Because there is no such thing as an Assault rifle...... as a democrat she means AR-15 rifle....which means nothing since the AR-15 rifle is not an assault rifle.

You back to this crap again. In combat, there is no real difference between an AR-15 and a M-16A-4. While one will have a 3 shot burst setting, it is rarely used since it just wastes ammo and the 2nd and 3rd shot goes off center. The AR-15 Model 601 was introduced to Maylasia in 1959 after the US Army turned it down as an Assault Rifle that could be used by a young, scared kid with little training. In a matter of a couple of hours of training, that kid could be pumping adrenaline, scared out of his wits with incoming fire and operate the rifle, reload, charge it and keep firing and never take his finger off the trigger or have to rotate the rifle for any reason. The USAF adopted it in 1964 in a test. USAF didn't want to spend the time training their people the M-14 or carry that heavy thing around with all that heavy ammo. Their initial purchase of 4000 AR-15 Model 601s proved to be a success. The Army finally bought them in 1967. The Army model was different. They cheapened up the rifle a bit. The USAF model was the AR-15 Model 601 while the Army model was the AR-15 Model 602. When the Army took possession of their new Rifle, it was stamped the M-16 since all military rifles used the M designation. In 1967. The AF stamped M-16 on their AR-15 Model 601s. The Model 601 saw service in the AF until about 1992. There were over 7000 of these purchase overall. The Army found out that they Full Auto Feature was worthless and just wasted armor. Hence the upgrades and introduction of the Model 603 that had the 3 shot burst in the place of the full auto. The AF followed suit with their model 604.

When the Civilian AR-15 was introduced, the only real difference was the receiver. It wouldn't accept the full auto or the 3 shot parts from the M-16 or the Model 601. They also cheapened it up a bit and made it so it could fire only the lower powered 223 and not the 556 Nato Round. Yes, there were some 556 non nato rounds that it could fire but they were expensive and performed about like the 223 so why buy them. The Civilian AR-15 has the same basic features that made the original AR-15 Model 601 the world beater is was and the M-16 the world beater is still is. It's designed so that in combat, an 18 year old kid, with little training, that is scared out of his mind, can easily operate it and kill an enemy and carry it for a long distance with little fatigue.

You can call a duck a goose if you want but if walks like a duck and quacks like it's a duck, it's a duck.

...and an ar15 is still just a sporting rifle

And it's banned in at least 4 states and many local governments as well. More are coming after the next mass shooting. And don't bother screaming, "That's Unconstitutional". It's well within the Constitution as per the many Federal Court Rulings. You can call it whatever you like. You can call it a can of oil if you wish. It changes nothing.

Na, only the bed wetter states will try to ban AR15s... And like usual criminals will ignore it. Because an ar 15 is just a semi automatic just like any other semi automatic sporting rifle

 

[Daryl Hunt]

This is the thing you anti gunners don't realize about the teenagers from Parkland..... teenagers eat tidepods, play Fortnight, and snort condoms.... Those of us who understand the history of mankind and human nature, want to protect the Bill of Rights... So, while teenagers forget, we remember....and we are going to remember in November what you want to do to our gun Rights....

This is why the gun control extremist groups are telling the gun control extremist democrats to not say they want to ban Assault rifles.......

Dem Candidate Tedra Cobb Tells Supporters She Wants ‘Assault Rifle’ Ban But ‘Cannot Say That’ in Public

Tedra Cobb, the Democratic candidate in New York's 21st Congressional District, told a group of teenage supporters that she supports a ban on certain firearms but won't say so publicly for fear of losing her election.

"When I was at this thing today, it was the first table I was at, a woman said, ‘How do you feel about assault rifles?' And I said they should be banned," Cobb can be heard saying in the video recorded by one of the attendees. "And I said, you know, people were getting up to go, to go get their lunch because it was a buffet, and I just said to her, I want you to know Cindy, I cannot say that."

When the woman pushed back on Cobb keeping quiet on how she feels about banning certain firearms, Cobb said coming out in favor of a gun ban would lead to her losing her bid against Republican incumbent Elise Stefanik.

"And she said, ‘Well, I want you to' and I said, ‘I won't win,'" Cobb said. "I said Moms Demand [Action] says, and Tricia Pleau said, ‘Do not say that you want an assault rifle ban because you will not win.'"

Tricia Pleau is a member of the New York chapter of the gun-control group Moms Demand Action.

Cobb's campaign website features a page on "Addressing Gun Violence" detailing her support for a number of gun-control measures but does not feature any language supporting a specific ban on any firearms.

Chris Martin, regional press secretary of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Cobb's comments are disqualifying.

"Tedra Cobb knows that she's wildly out of touch with the district, so she's desperately trying to hide her liberal agenda from voters," Martin said. "First, she was forced to admit that she raised taxes over 20 times, and now she's being exposed for lying to voters about her support for an assault weapons ban and taking guns away from law-abiding citizens."

The Cobb campaign did not respond to a request for comment from the Free Beacon but did issue a statement to The Post Star.

why did you say simply "rifles" in your title instead of "Assault Rifles", which is what she actually said?

There is no such thing as a civilian "assault rifle"

Tell that to the latest mass shootings that used the AR-15. A full blown M-16A-4 would have done the same job.

So would have most any semi-auto... Which the vast majority of Americans firearms are semi automatic.

Okay, tell you what, you are walking in carrying 5 30 shot mags for your Mini-14. You are under a lot of pressure, you adrenaline is up, your time is short, your hands are a bit shaky. You just fired the first Mag. Now you have to do a Mag change. Detail what you have to do to change out the mag and charge the weapon. I mean each and every step. Detail each and every movement no matter how small.

Now, do the same with the AR-15. And then the M-16A-4. Be precise.

I have handled all 3 of these weapons. I know the difference. Do you? You claim they are the same. Let's see if you can detail the loading and charging of all three in detail.

 

[2aguy]

This is the thing you anti gunners don't realize about the teenagers from Parkland..... teenagers eat tidepods, play Fortnight, and snort condoms.... Those of us who understand the history of mankind and human nature, want to protect the Bill of Rights... So, while teenagers forget, we remember....and we are going to remember in November what you want to do to our gun Rights....

This is why the gun control extremist groups are telling the gun control extremist democrats to not say they want to ban Assault rifles.......

Dem Candidate Tedra Cobb Tells Supporters She Wants ‘Assault Rifle’ Ban But ‘Cannot Say That’ in Public

Tedra Cobb, the Democratic candidate in New York's 21st Congressional District, told a group of teenage supporters that she supports a ban on certain firearms but won't say so publicly for fear of losing her election.

"When I was at this thing today, it was the first table I was at, a woman said, ‘How do you feel about assault rifles?' And I said they should be banned," Cobb can be heard saying in the video recorded by one of the attendees. "And I said, you know, people were getting up to go, to go get their lunch because it was a buffet, and I just said to her, I want you to know Cindy, I cannot say that."

When the woman pushed back on Cobb keeping quiet on how she feels about banning certain firearms, Cobb said coming out in favor of a gun ban would lead to her losing her bid against Republican incumbent Elise Stefanik.

"And she said, ‘Well, I want you to' and I said, ‘I won't win,'" Cobb said. "I said Moms Demand [Action] says, and Tricia Pleau said, ‘Do not say that you want an assault rifle ban because you will not win.'"

Tricia Pleau is a member of the New York chapter of the gun-control group Moms Demand Action.

Cobb's campaign website features a page on "Addressing Gun Violence" detailing her support for a number of gun-control measures but does not feature any language supporting a specific ban on any firearms.

Chris Martin, regional press secretary of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Cobb's comments are disqualifying.

"Tedra Cobb knows that she's wildly out of touch with the district, so she's desperately trying to hide her liberal agenda from voters," Martin said. "First, she was forced to admit that she raised taxes over 20 times, and now she's being exposed for lying to voters about her support for an assault weapons ban and taking guns away from law-abiding citizens."

The Cobb campaign did not respond to a request for comment from the Free Beacon but did issue a statement to The Post Star.

why did you say simply "rifles" in your title instead of "Assault Rifles", which is what she actually said?

Because there is no such thing as an Assault rifle...... as a democrat she means AR-15 rifle....which means nothing since the AR-15 rifle is not an assault rifle.

You back to this crap again. In combat, there is no real difference between an AR-15 and a M-16A-4. While one will have a 3 shot burst setting, it is rarely used since it just wastes ammo and the 2nd and 3rd shot goes off center. The AR-15 Model 601 was introduced to Maylasia in 1959 after the US Army turned it down as an Assault Rifle that could be used by a young, scared kid with little training. In a matter of a couple of hours of training, that kid could be pumping adrenaline, scared out of his wits with incoming fire and operate the rifle, reload, charge it and keep firing and never take his finger off the trigger or have to rotate the rifle for any reason. The USAF adopted it in 1964 in a test. USAF didn't want to spend the time training their people the M-14 or carry that heavy thing around with all that heavy ammo. Their initial purchase of 4000 AR-15 Model 601s proved to be a success. The Army finally bought them in 1967. The Army model was different. They cheapened up the rifle a bit. The USAF model was the AR-15 Model 601 while the Army model was the AR-15 Model 602. When the Army took possession of their new Rifle, it was stamped the M-16 since all military rifles used the M designation. In 1967. The AF stamped M-16 on their AR-15 Model 601s. The Model 601 saw service in the AF until about 1992. There were over 7000 of these purchase overall. The Army found out that they Full Auto Feature was worthless and just wasted armor. Hence the upgrades and introduction of the Model 603 that had the 3 shot burst in the place of the full auto. The AF followed suit with their model 604.

When the Civilian AR-15 was introduced, the only real difference was the receiver. It wouldn't accept the full auto or the 3 shot parts from the M-16 or the Model 601. They also cheapened it up a bit and made it so it could fire only the lower powered 223 and not the 556 Nato Round. Yes, there were some 556 non nato rounds that it could fire but they were expensive and performed about like the 223 so why buy them. The Civilian AR-15 has the same basic features that made the original AR-15 Model 601 the world beater is was and the M-16 the world beater is still is. It's designed so that in combat, an 18 year old kid, with little training, that is scared out of his mind, can easily operate it and kill an enemy and carry it for a long distance with little fatigue.

You can call a duck a goose if you want but if walks like a duck and quacks like it's a duck, it's a duck.

...and an ar15 is still just a sporting rifle

And it's banned in at least 4 states and many local governments as well. More are coming after the next mass shooting. And don't bother screaming, "That's Unconstitutional". It's well within the Constitution as per the many Federal Court Rulings. You can call it whatever you like. You can call it a can of oil if you wish. It changes nothing.

No... it isn't. The lower courts are in violation of Constutional law.....

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You back to this crap again. In combat, there is no real difference between an AR-15 and a M-16A-4. While one will have a 3 shot burst setting, it is rarely used since it just wastes ammo and the 2nd and 3rd shot goes off center. The AR-15 Model 601 was introduced to Maylasia in 1959 after the US Army turned it down as an Assault Rifle that could be used by a young, scared kid with little training. In a matter of a couple of hours of training, that kid could be pumping adrenaline, scared out of his wits with incoming fire and operate the rifle, reload, charge it and keep firing and never take his finger off the trigger or have to rotate the rifle for any reason. The USAF adopted it in 1964 in a test. USAF didn't want to spend the time training their people the M-14 or carry that heavy thing around with all that heavy ammo. Their initial purchase of 4000 AR-15 Model 601s proved to be a success. The Army finally bought them in 1967. The Army model was different. They cheapened up the rifle a bit. The USAF model was the AR-15 Model 601 while the Army model was the AR-15 Model 602. When the Army took possession of their new Rifle, it was stamped the M-16 since all military rifles used the M designation. In 1967. The AF stamped M-16 on their AR-15 Model 601s. The Model 601 saw service in the AF until about 1992. There were over 7000 of these purchase overall. The Army found out that they Full Auto Feature was worthless and just wasted armor. Hence the upgrades and introduction of the Model 603 that had the 3 shot burst in the place of the full auto. The AF followed suit with their model 604.

When the Civilian AR-15 was introduced, the only real difference was the receiver. It wouldn't accept the full auto or the 3 shot parts from the M-16 or the Model 601. They also cheapened it up a bit and made it so it could fire only the lower powered 223 and not the 556 Nato Round. Yes, there were some 556 non nato rounds that it could fire but they were expensive and performed about like the 223 so why buy them. The Civilian AR-15 has the same basic features that made the original AR-15 Model 601 the world beater is was and the M-16 the world beater is still is. It's designed so that in combat, an 18 year old kid, with little training, that is scared out of his mind, can easily operate it and kill an enemy and carry it for a long distance with little fatigue.

You can call a duck a goose if you want but if walks like a duck and quacks like it's a duck, it's a duck.

Sorry..... the AR-15 is a specifically protected rifle, as are all semi automatic rifles.......you guys don't get to ban them.

Federal judge upholds Massachusetts ban on AR-15, large capacity magazines
Oh, really. Last time I checked, not only were there many municipalities but also entire states like California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Washington, D.C that specifically ban or highly regulate the AR-15 specifically by name. The Ban has been upheld him Federal Court. Here is the ruling in the Boston Federal Court.

"The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to ‘bear arms,’" U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, wrote in a decision Thursday in Boston, dismissing a lawsuit over the state law.


Just stop making shit up.

And they are unConstitutional.... they ignored Heller, and now, if Kavanaugh gets confirmed it will be overturned... considering that that circuit ignored D.C. v Heller, Caetano v Massachusetts, Friedman v Highland Park, Miller v United States...... Those judges are ignoring Supreme Court decisions..

You are wrong.

This is Scalia, telling the Court why they should have taken that case and told the circuit they were wrong.....Scalia wrote the opinion in D.C. v Heller and here he explains to that judge how he is wrong....

If Kavanaugh get seated on the court....look for that illegal decision to be overturned.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625. The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

But they didn't rule on it, did they. Oh, they heard it but elected to kick it back to the lower court. Meaning, the ruling at the Supreme Court would be the same as the lower court so why take the time. A dissent is a losing argument not a winning argument. It means nothing.

Heller only says that the government can't ban traditional Handguns nor can they force them to be rendered inoperative in the homes. That's it. It didn't deal with anything else. It can be taken a step further if you wish and include other traditional firearms like hunting rifles and shotguns. But the AR has been proven in Federal Court that it's NOT considered a traditional Rifle. it's been specifically singled out by name as a non traditional firearm and can be banned and heavily regulated at the state and local levels.

And there aren't 5 million people out there with the AR-15. There has been about 5 million manufactured by various companies but most are owned by just a few people. You need to stop making up shit.

Lol
The future supreme court will rule that and Ar15 is just a sporting rifle just like any other semi automatic. And there’s a lot more than 5 million Ar15’s out there where do you get your information from?

From the FBI. And you are betting that the Future Supreme Court will try and change the Constitution of the United States. That's not their job. Their job is to rule what is and what isn't constitutional as per the Constitution. Not make new laws. This is why they don't usually overturn their own rulings. I hear the same argument for Roe V Wade.

 

[2aguy]

You back to this crap again. In combat, there is no real difference between an AR-15 and a M-16A-4. While one will have a 3 shot burst setting, it is rarely used since it just wastes ammo and the 2nd and 3rd shot goes off center. The AR-15 Model 601 was introduced to Maylasia in 1959 after the US Army turned it down as an Assault Rifle that could be used by a young, scared kid with little training. In a matter of a couple of hours of training, that kid could be pumping adrenaline, scared out of his wits with incoming fire and operate the rifle, reload, charge it and keep firing and never take his finger off the trigger or have to rotate the rifle for any reason. The USAF adopted it in 1964 in a test. USAF didn't want to spend the time training their people the M-14 or carry that heavy thing around with all that heavy ammo. Their initial purchase of 4000 AR-15 Model 601s proved to be a success. The Army finally bought them in 1967. The Army model was different. They cheapened up the rifle a bit. The USAF model was the AR-15 Model 601 while the Army model was the AR-15 Model 602. When the Army took possession of their new Rifle, it was stamped the M-16 since all military rifles used the M designation. In 1967. The AF stamped M-16 on their AR-15 Model 601s. The Model 601 saw service in the AF until about 1992. There were over 7000 of these purchase overall. The Army found out that they Full Auto Feature was worthless and just wasted armor. Hence the upgrades and introduction of the Model 603 that had the 3 shot burst in the place of the full auto. The AF followed suit with their model 604.

When the Civilian AR-15 was introduced, the only real difference was the receiver. It wouldn't accept the full auto or the 3 shot parts from the M-16 or the Model 601. They also cheapened it up a bit and made it so it could fire only the lower powered 223 and not the 556 Nato Round. Yes, there were some 556 non nato rounds that it could fire but they were expensive and performed about like the 223 so why buy them. The Civilian AR-15 has the same basic features that made the original AR-15 Model 601 the world beater is was and the M-16 the world beater is still is. It's designed so that in combat, an 18 year old kid, with little training, that is scared out of his mind, can easily operate it and kill an enemy and carry it for a long distance with little fatigue.

You can call a duck a goose if you want but if walks like a duck and quacks like it's a duck, it's a duck.

Sorry..... the AR-15 is a specifically protected rifle, as are all semi automatic rifles.......you guys don't get to ban them.

Federal judge upholds Massachusetts ban on AR-15, large capacity magazines
Oh, really. Last time I checked, not only were there many municipalities but also entire states like California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Washington, D.C that specifically ban or highly regulate the AR-15 specifically by name. The Ban has been upheld him Federal Court. Here is the ruling in the Boston Federal Court.

"The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to ‘bear arms,’" U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, wrote in a decision Thursday in Boston, dismissing a lawsuit over the state law.


Just stop making shit up.

And they are unConstitutional.... they ignored Heller, and now, if Kavanaugh gets confirmed it will be overturned... considering that that circuit ignored D.C. v Heller, Caetano v Massachusetts, Friedman v Highland Park, Miller v United States...... Those judges are ignoring Supreme Court decisions..

You are wrong.

This is Scalia, telling the Court why they should have taken that case and told the circuit they were wrong.....Scalia wrote the opinion in D.C. v Heller and here he explains to that judge how he is wrong....

If Kavanaugh get seated on the court....look for that illegal decision to be overturned.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625. The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

But they didn't rule on it, did they. Oh, they heard it but elected to kick it back to the lower court. Meaning, the ruling at the Supreme Court would be the same as the lower court so why take the time. A dissent is a losing argument not a winning argument. It means nothing.

Heller only says that the government can't ban traditional Handguns nor can they force them to be rendered inoperative in the homes. That's it. It didn't deal with anything else. It can be taken a step further if you wish and include other traditional firearms like hunting rifles and shotguns. But the AR has been proven in Federal Court that it's NOT considered a traditional Rifle. it's been specifically singled out by name as a non traditional firearm and can be banned and heavily regulated at the state and local levels.

And there aren't 5 million people out there with the AR-15. There has been about 5 million manufactured by various companies but most are owned by just a few people. You need to stop making up shit.

Lol
The future supreme court will rule that and Ar15 is just a sporting rifle just like any other semi automatic. And there’s a lot more than 5 million Ar15’s out there where do you get your information from?

Actually, they already did, in Staples v United States...

Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994).

The AR-15 is the civilian version of the military's M-16 rifle, and is, unless modified, a semiautomatic weapon. The M-16, in contrast, is a selective fire rifle that allows the operator, by rotating a selector switch, to choose semiautomatic or automatic fire.

 

[Rustic]

This is the thing you anti gunners don't realize about the teenagers from Parkland..... teenagers eat tidepods, play Fortnight, and snort condoms.... Those of us who understand the history of mankind and human nature, want to protect the Bill of Rights... So, while teenagers forget, we remember....and we are going to remember in November what you want to do to our gun Rights....

This is why the gun control extremist groups are telling the gun control extremist democrats to not say they want to ban Assault rifles.......

Dem Candidate Tedra Cobb Tells Supporters She Wants ‘Assault Rifle’ Ban But ‘Cannot Say That’ in Public

Tedra Cobb, the Democratic candidate in New York's 21st Congressional District, told a group of teenage supporters that she supports a ban on certain firearms but won't say so publicly for fear of losing her election.

"When I was at this thing today, it was the first table I was at, a woman said, ‘How do you feel about assault rifles?' And I said they should be banned," Cobb can be heard saying in the video recorded by one of the attendees. "And I said, you know, people were getting up to go, to go get their lunch because it was a buffet, and I just said to her, I want you to know Cindy, I cannot say that."

When the woman pushed back on Cobb keeping quiet on how she feels about banning certain firearms, Cobb said coming out in favor of a gun ban would lead to her losing her bid against Republican incumbent Elise Stefanik.

"And she said, ‘Well, I want you to' and I said, ‘I won't win,'" Cobb said. "I said Moms Demand [Action] says, and Tricia Pleau said, ‘Do not say that you want an assault rifle ban because you will not win.'"

Tricia Pleau is a member of the New York chapter of the gun-control group Moms Demand Action.

Cobb's campaign website features a page on "Addressing Gun Violence" detailing her support for a number of gun-control measures but does not feature any language supporting a specific ban on any firearms.

Chris Martin, regional press secretary of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Cobb's comments are disqualifying.

"Tedra Cobb knows that she's wildly out of touch with the district, so she's desperately trying to hide her liberal agenda from voters," Martin said. "First, she was forced to admit that she raised taxes over 20 times, and now she's being exposed for lying to voters about her support for an assault weapons ban and taking guns away from law-abiding citizens."

The Cobb campaign did not respond to a request for comment from the Free Beacon but did issue a statement to The Post Star.

why did you say simply "rifles" in your title instead of "Assault Rifles", which is what she actually said?

There is no such thing as a civilian "assault rifle"

Tell that to the latest mass shootings that used the AR-15. A full blown M-16A-4 would have done the same job.

So would have most any semi-auto... Which the vast majority of Americans firearms are semi automatic.

Okay, tell you what, you are walking in carrying 5 30 shot mags for your Mini-14. You are under a lot of pressure, you adrenaline is up, your time is short, your hands are a bit shaky. You just fired the first Mag. Now you have to do a Mag change. Detail what you have to do to change out the mag and charge the weapon. I mean each and every step. Detail each and every movement no matter how small.

Now, do the same with the AR-15. And then the M-16A-4. Be precise.

I have handled all 3 of these weapons. I know the difference. Do you? You claim they are the same. Let's see if you can detail the loading and charging of all three in detail.

Lol
Well, I sell all three.

Hell, the Ruger 10-22 would’ve done the same as most any other Semi-auto sporting rifle like they ar15 would’ve...

 

[Daryl Hunt]

why did you say simply "rifles" in your title instead of "Assault Rifles", which is what she actually said?

Because there is no such thing as an Assault rifle...... as a democrat she means AR-15 rifle....which means nothing since the AR-15 rifle is not an assault rifle.

You back to this crap again. In combat, there is no real difference between an AR-15 and a M-16A-4. While one will have a 3 shot burst setting, it is rarely used since it just wastes ammo and the 2nd and 3rd shot goes off center. The AR-15 Model 601 was introduced to Maylasia in 1959 after the US Army turned it down as an Assault Rifle that could be used by a young, scared kid with little training. In a matter of a couple of hours of training, that kid could be pumping adrenaline, scared out of his wits with incoming fire and operate the rifle, reload, charge it and keep firing and never take his finger off the trigger or have to rotate the rifle for any reason. The USAF adopted it in 1964 in a test. USAF didn't want to spend the time training their people the M-14 or carry that heavy thing around with all that heavy ammo. Their initial purchase of 4000 AR-15 Model 601s proved to be a success. The Army finally bought them in 1967. The Army model was different. They cheapened up the rifle a bit. The USAF model was the AR-15 Model 601 while the Army model was the AR-15 Model 602. When the Army took possession of their new Rifle, it was stamped the M-16 since all military rifles used the M designation. In 1967. The AF stamped M-16 on their AR-15 Model 601s. The Model 601 saw service in the AF until about 1992. There were over 7000 of these purchase overall. The Army found out that they Full Auto Feature was worthless and just wasted armor. Hence the upgrades and introduction of the Model 603 that had the 3 shot burst in the place of the full auto. The AF followed suit with their model 604.

When the Civilian AR-15 was introduced, the only real difference was the receiver. It wouldn't accept the full auto or the 3 shot parts from the M-16 or the Model 601. They also cheapened it up a bit and made it so it could fire only the lower powered 223 and not the 556 Nato Round. Yes, there were some 556 non nato rounds that it could fire but they were expensive and performed about like the 223 so why buy them. The Civilian AR-15 has the same basic features that made the original AR-15 Model 601 the world beater is was and the M-16 the world beater is still is. It's designed so that in combat, an 18 year old kid, with little training, that is scared out of his mind, can easily operate it and kill an enemy and carry it for a long distance with little fatigue.

You can call a duck a goose if you want but if walks like a duck and quacks like it's a duck, it's a duck.

...and an ar15 is still just a sporting rifle

And it's banned in at least 4 states and many local governments as well. More are coming after the next mass shooting. And don't bother screaming, "That's Unconstitutional". It's well within the Constitution as per the many Federal Court Rulings. You can call it whatever you like. You can call it a can of oil if you wish. It changes nothing.

No... it isn't. The lower courts are in violation of Constutional law.....

Are they in Violation of the 2nd and the 14th Amendment? Or are you using just 3 words lifted from the Constitution that you think agrees with you while you disregard the rest? It's only Unconstitutional if it disregards it all. Either you accept it all or you don't accept any of it. You think of yourself as a true patriot. Well, a Patriot follows ALL of the Constitution not just the 3 words.

 

[Rustic]

Sorry..... the AR-15 is a specifically protected rifle, as are all semi automatic rifles.......you guys don't get to ban them.

Federal judge upholds Massachusetts ban on AR-15, large capacity magazines
Oh, really. Last time I checked, not only were there many municipalities but also entire states like California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Washington, D.C that specifically ban or highly regulate the AR-15 specifically by name. The Ban has been upheld him Federal Court. Here is the ruling in the Boston Federal Court.

"The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to ‘bear arms,’" U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, wrote in a decision Thursday in Boston, dismissing a lawsuit over the state law.


Just stop making shit up.

And they are unConstitutional.... they ignored Heller, and now, if Kavanaugh gets confirmed it will be overturned... considering that that circuit ignored D.C. v Heller, Caetano v Massachusetts, Friedman v Highland Park, Miller v United States...... Those judges are ignoring Supreme Court decisions..

You are wrong.

This is Scalia, telling the Court why they should have taken that case and told the circuit they were wrong.....Scalia wrote the opinion in D.C. v Heller and here he explains to that judge how he is wrong....

If Kavanaugh get seated on the court....look for that illegal decision to be overturned.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625. The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

But they didn't rule on it, did they. Oh, they heard it but elected to kick it back to the lower court. Meaning, the ruling at the Supreme Court would be the same as the lower court so why take the time. A dissent is a losing argument not a winning argument. It means nothing.

Heller only says that the government can't ban traditional Handguns nor can they force them to be rendered inoperative in the homes. That's it. It didn't deal with anything else. It can be taken a step further if you wish and include other traditional firearms like hunting rifles and shotguns. But the AR has been proven in Federal Court that it's NOT considered a traditional Rifle. it's been specifically singled out by name as a non traditional firearm and can be banned and heavily regulated at the state and local levels.

And there aren't 5 million people out there with the AR-15. There has been about 5 million manufactured by various companies but most are owned by just a few people. You need to stop making up shit.

Lol
The future supreme court will rule that and Ar15 is just a sporting rifle just like any other semi automatic. And there’s a lot more than 5 million Ar15’s out there where do you get your information from?

From the FBI. And you are betting that the Future Supreme Court will try and change the Constitution of the United States. That's not their job. Their job is to rule what is and what isn't constitutional as per the Constitution. Not make new laws. This is why they don't usually overturn their own rulings. I hear the same argument for Roe V Wade.

They will rule on the fact that the ar15 is just a sem-auto sporting rifle... Just like most firearms sold in this country.
Most likely Trump will be able to nominate two/maybe three more supreme court justices... And he will nominate pro second amendment ones unlike Obama...

 

[2aguy]

Because there is no such thing as an Assault rifle...... as a democrat she means AR-15 rifle....which means nothing since the AR-15 rifle is not an assault rifle.

You back to this crap again. In combat, there is no real difference between an AR-15 and a M-16A-4. While one will have a 3 shot burst setting, it is rarely used since it just wastes ammo and the 2nd and 3rd shot goes off center. The AR-15 Model 601 was introduced to Maylasia in 1959 after the US Army turned it down as an Assault Rifle that could be used by a young, scared kid with little training. In a matter of a couple of hours of training, that kid could be pumping adrenaline, scared out of his wits with incoming fire and operate the rifle, reload, charge it and keep firing and never take his finger off the trigger or have to rotate the rifle for any reason. The USAF adopted it in 1964 in a test. USAF didn't want to spend the time training their people the M-14 or carry that heavy thing around with all that heavy ammo. Their initial purchase of 4000 AR-15 Model 601s proved to be a success. The Army finally bought them in 1967. The Army model was different. They cheapened up the rifle a bit. The USAF model was the AR-15 Model 601 while the Army model was the AR-15 Model 602. When the Army took possession of their new Rifle, it was stamped the M-16 since all military rifles used the M designation. In 1967. The AF stamped M-16 on their AR-15 Model 601s. The Model 601 saw service in the AF until about 1992. There were over 7000 of these purchase overall. The Army found out that they Full Auto Feature was worthless and just wasted armor. Hence the upgrades and introduction of the Model 603 that had the 3 shot burst in the place of the full auto. The AF followed suit with their model 604.

When the Civilian AR-15 was introduced, the only real difference was the receiver. It wouldn't accept the full auto or the 3 shot parts from the M-16 or the Model 601. They also cheapened it up a bit and made it so it could fire only the lower powered 223 and not the 556 Nato Round. Yes, there were some 556 non nato rounds that it could fire but they were expensive and performed about like the 223 so why buy them. The Civilian AR-15 has the same basic features that made the original AR-15 Model 601 the world beater is was and the M-16 the world beater is still is. It's designed so that in combat, an 18 year old kid, with little training, that is scared out of his mind, can easily operate it and kill an enemy and carry it for a long distance with little fatigue.

You can call a duck a goose if you want but if walks like a duck and quacks like it's a duck, it's a duck.

...and an ar15 is still just a sporting rifle

And it's banned in at least 4 states and many local governments as well. More are coming after the next mass shooting. And don't bother screaming, "That's Unconstitutional". It's well within the Constitution as per the many Federal Court Rulings. You can call it whatever you like. You can call it a can of oil if you wish. It changes nothing.

No... it isn't. The lower courts are in violation of Constutional law.....

Are they in Violation of the 2nd and the 14th Amendment? Or are you using just 3 words lifted from the Constitution that you think agrees with you while you disregard the rest? It's only Unconstitutional if it disregards it all. Either you accept it all or you don't accept any of it. You think of yourself as a true patriot. Well, a Patriot follows ALL of the Constitution not just the 3 words.

Yes. They are in violation of both the 2nd and 14th and also all of the Supreme Court rulings that stated they are wrong....