US Appeals court upholds Marylands unconstitutional ban on scary guns

[danielpalos]

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

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

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

all right wingers know how to do, is abandon their positions when faced with a valid argument.

 

[TNHarley]

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

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

Isn't the decision self explanatory?

IDK try explaining it yourself

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

 

[TNHarley]

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.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

 

[TNHarley]

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.

 

[OKTexas]

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

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

Poor pathetic snowflake, are false equivalences all you have? The States insisted on the 2nd because their memory of Britain trying to disarm the colonies was still fresh. And yes, the colonist had guns that were equivalent and in some cases better than the British.

 

[OKTexas]

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

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

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

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

When was the last time they were asked to?

 

[ZZ PUPPS]

Settled 2nd Amendment case law.

Second Amendment | Law Library of Congress

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

 

[TNHarley]

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?

I already answered that. You see, before I can begin to explain, we need to establish what the intent of the second was. That's kind of the most important aspect of this discussion

 

[owebo]

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?

What's a weapon of War? Just link me to the reference in the constitution....thanks....

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

 

[TNHarley]

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.

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.

 

[owebo]

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.

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......

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

I already answered that. You see, before I can begin to explain, we need to establish what the intent of the second was. That's kind of the most important aspect of this discussion

In your opinion; the most important aspect of this issue is the murder of 20 children in Conn.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

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.

 

[EverCurious]

I bet somewhere out there is discussion about cannons in the hands of private citizens... As I recall folks had them in their courtyards.

 

[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 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?

I already answered that. You see, before I can begin to explain, we need to establish what the intent of the second was. That's kind of the most important aspect of this discussion

In your opinion; the most important aspect of this issue is the murder of 20 children in Conn.

That's ridiculous. And it makes you sound stupid.
Not to mention Conn happened with an illegal gun. No gun laws would have stopped it. None.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

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