US Appeals court upholds Marylands unconstitutional ban on scary guns

[owebo]

We should be able to have whatever the military has.

Please list the upside and any unintended consequences of your opinion.

What do you think the purpose of the 2nd was?
Please consider the words of the people that actually wrote it.

I've considered the words written in the 2nd A. often; the words written by men in the 18th Century who could not and were not informed by the weapons of today. Somethings are universal, the 2nd A. was an appropriate right in the 18th and early 19th Century. By the time of the civil war the control of weapons became necessary, and was employed by civil authorities with little or no objections.

Today we have weapons not imagined by the founders, weapons which can end all life on our planet, and hand held weapons with can kill masses of people by a single person in 60 seconds. Those are facts, facts which an enlightened, civil and rational people respect, and N. Korea and the NRA ignore.

Muskets were not imagined at the time muskets were made available; clubs and swords before them....so, your facts are not facts but instead, propaganda....

Amend the 2A if you so desire to oppress me......

The more you post, the dumber you seem to be.

Indeed...

You will never oppress me....so don't be afraid.....

 

[TNHarley]

We should be able to have whatever the military has.

Please list the upside and any unintended consequences of your opinion.

What do you think the purpose of the 2nd was?
Please consider the words of the people that actually wrote it.

I've considered the words written in the 2nd A. often; the words written by men in the 18th Century who could not and were not informed by the weapons of today. Somethings are universal, the 2nd A. was an appropriate right in the 18th and early 19th Century. By the time of the civil war the control of weapons became necessary, and was employed by civil authorities with little or no objections.

Today we have weapons not imagined by the founders, weapons which can end all life on our planet, and hand held weapons with can kill masses of people by a single person in 60 seconds. Those are facts, facts which an enlightened, civil and rational people respect, and N. Korea and the NRA ignore.

But considering their ACTUAL intent, it only be logical that it would apply to our military advancements as well? You cant just assume their thinking would be different.
Also, using your "logic", one would assume you don't have freedom of speech in emails, texts, phone calls etc. And any religion post-constitution wouldn't have first amendment protection.
That is the standard that argument sets.

In your mind, not in the thinking of a rational person.

Ok. Ignore the ACTUAL intent. And god forbid you stay consistent.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

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

by then it will be too late

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

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

Asymmetric Warfare.

 

[there4eyeM]

How about fighter planes?
Maybe a military submarine?
Mines around one's house?
Etc., ad nauseum...
Realistic discussion should be possible without the testosterone filled vitriol.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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

by then it will be too late

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

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

Asymmetric Warfare.

How well does that work in real life? I suppose we could ask David Koresh, Timothy McVeigh or Donald DeFreeze ... oh yeah, too late.

 

[owebo]

How about fighter planes?
Maybe a military submarine?
Mines around one's house?
Etc., ad nauseum...
Realistic discussion should be possible without the testosterone filled vitriol.

What about them?

 

[there4eyeM]

Any original comments?

 

[owebo]

Any original comments?

I see the question is well above your education level.....thanks....

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

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

by then it will be too late

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

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

Asymmetric Warfare.

Jake Starky since you can't come up with a response here are a couple examples of Asymmetric Warfare Russian-Afghan war. Vietnam-US and there are a shit ton of examples going back to the beginning of human history. How fucking funny is that ?

 

[2aguy]

Here it is, concise and succinct:

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

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

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

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

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

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

No dipshit...that is the entire reason we have the 2nd Amendment...so even stupid people like you can see it in plain sight......

 

[2aguy]

Here it is, concise and succinct:

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

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

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

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

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

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

No...we support Freedom...sometimes states get in the way of that...when the democrats owned slaves, and then tried to keep blacks from voting...then the fed had to step in......now, when the fed is attacking freedom now the states have to act....it is a separation of powers and checks and balances....

 

[2aguy]

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

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

That is why you shoot the driver, the pilot, the government official....and it is a lot easier to do that when we have 357-400 million guns...

Your way....is how Mexico does it...the government and the drug cartels have the guns...and they team up to murder innocent, Unarmed, citizens....

 

[2aguy]

Yep....Naziland....

Now onto the new conservative SCOTUS......

A simple yes or no:

Do you, the reader, believe a military style fragmentation grenade should be sold in gun stores, as well as all other title II weapons, across America?

No.....rifles, pistols, swords, knives and possibly spears......those are in common use while fragmentation grenades are not.

 

[Rustic]

Yep....Naziland....

Now onto the new conservative SCOTUS......

A simple yes or no:

Do you, the reader, believe a military style fragmentation grenade should be sold in gun stores, as well as all other title II weapons, across America?

No.....rifles, pistols, swords, knives and possibly spears......those are in common use while fragmentation grenades are not.

I do think a Claymore mine would be great for boundary control…

 

[2aguy]

Yep....Naziland....

Now onto the new conservative SCOTUS......

A simple yes or no:

Do you, the reader, believe a military style fragmentation grenade should be sold in gun stores, as well as all other title II weapons, across America?

We should be able to have whatever the military has.

Please list the upside and any unintended consequences of your opinion.

What do you think the purpose of the 2nd was?
Please consider the words of the people that actually wrote it.

I figured you would not or could not fathom my question. Yes or No. Should every US Citizen be able to purchase a weapon of war (title II)? If so with some limits, or no limits? If so, where would you draw the line?

Weapons of war are specifically defended in the 2nd Amendment.....Heller, Miller and Caetano show the Supreme Court decisions that support that ....


Heller states



Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

And from Caetano.....

Caetano v. Massachusetts - Wikipedia

Opinion of the Court[edit]

In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.[7] Citing District of Columbia v. Heller[8] and McDonald v. City of Chicago,[9] the Court began its opinion by stating that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[6] The Court then identified three reasons why the Massachusetts court's opinion contradicted prior rulings by the United States Supreme Court.[1] First, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted Heller's conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding”.[10] Second, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns were "dangerous per se at common law and unusual" because they were "a thoroughly modern invention", but the Supreme Court held that this was also inconstant with Heller.[11]

Notice what it states Heller protects....weapons of war



Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

 

[2aguy]

Yep....Naziland....

Now onto the new conservative SCOTUS......

A simple yes or no:

Do you, the reader, believe a military style fragmentation grenade should be sold in gun stores, as well as all other title II weapons, across America?

We should be able to have whatever the military has.

Please list the upside and any unintended consequences of your opinion.

What do you think the purpose of the 2nd was?
Please consider the words of the people that actually wrote it.

I've considered the words written in the 2nd A. often; the words written by men in the 18th Century who could not and were not informed by the weapons of today. Somethings are universal, the 2nd A. was an appropriate right in the 18th and early 19th Century. By the time of the civil war the control of weapons became necessary, and was employed by civil authorities with little or no objections.

Today we have weapons not imagined by the founders, weapons which can end all life on our planet, and hand held weapons with can kill masses of people by a single person in 60 seconds. Those are facts, facts which an enlightened, civil and rational people respect, and N. Korea and the NRA ignore.

Sorry...the 2nd Amendment is not trapped in time........otherwise you couldn't use your computer if the government said so....

From Heller on this specific issue....

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997),

and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001),

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
---

 

[2aguy]

A simple yes or no:

Do you, the reader, believe a military style fragmentation grenade should be sold in gun stores, as well as all other title II weapons, across America?

We should be able to have whatever the military has.

Please list the upside and any unintended consequences of your opinion.

What do you think the purpose of the 2nd was?
Please consider the words of the people that actually wrote it.

I've considered the words written in the 2nd A. often; the words written by men in the 18th Century who could not and were not informed by the weapons of today. Somethings are universal, the 2nd A. was an appropriate right in the 18th and early 19th Century. By the time of the civil war the control of weapons became necessary, and was employed by civil authorities with little or no objections.

Today we have weapons not imagined by the founders, weapons which can end all life on our planet, and hand held weapons with can kill masses of people by a single person in 60 seconds. Those are facts, facts which an enlightened, civil and rational people respect, and N. Korea and the NRA ignore.

But considering their ACTUAL intent, it only be logical that it would apply to our military advancements as well? You cant just assume their thinking would be different.
Also, using your "logic", one would assume you don't have freedom of speech in emails, texts, phone calls etc. And any religion post-constitution wouldn't have first amendment protection.
That is the standard that argument sets.

It does and it did....

From Heller.......

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
---

 

[2aguy]

How about fighter planes?
Maybe a military submarine?
Mines around one's house?
Etc., ad nauseum...
Realistic discussion should be possible without the testosterone filled vitriol.

The words in the 2nd State...."Bear" which means to carry...and even left wing justice Ginsburg understood this.....

From the Heller decision.....

In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I

 

[Darkwind]

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

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

Please stop embarrassing yourself. We are NOT Hungary, China, or Syria.

 

[Darkwind]

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

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

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

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

There is no militia requirement.