AR-15s ‘Not Protected’ By 2nd Amendment & Can Be Banned, Court Rules In Landmark Decision

originally posted by: avgguy
Why ARs? Don't pistols kill the majority of people in America?

Heart disease is the number one killer in America.

Welcome to the California crazy gun laws I go through...Then, you'll be altering your AR so it doesn't look scary to avoid registration. But I bet that's just a band aid fix. Just wait, next they'll be telling you to do a background check before you purchase your ammo. Pretty fun stuff huh? Do not let the anti gun folks ruin it for you as they have for us.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: seasonal

It will be nice when we weed out all these liberal nutter judges over the next few years. Seriously? There is no such thing as an 'assault rifle'...

Actually, there is such a thing as an "assault rifle".

They have a specific definition that includes being "fully automatic".

The AR-15 is not an "assault rifle", even though idiots with no understanding keep trying to re-define an established category of firearms.

And just a quick note from a retired military individual. I would be much more worried by a person with either an a. knife or b. shotgun.

They are both more likely for a person to actually use because of Action Movies that show that the person on the receiving end get up and walk away. Additionally, a shotgun does quite a bit more damage on a body than my poor maligned AR. My .223 will more than likely just go through and through at close engagement (i.e. home defense or offense) ranges where both of the above mentioned items cause HUGE (well maybe depending on the loadout) wound tracts.

a reply to: seasonal

Sure. Why not? Not sure I'd buy an M60, but I'd surely buy a BAR, were I ever to run across an affordable one.

I am a responsible individual, fully cognizant of my responsibilities. There is no earthly reason to suppose I wouldn't handle my BAR, or M60 for that matter, in a safe and responsible manner.

See, that's the rub... Certain elements within the PTB do not want individuals, not without having to jump through ridiculous hoops, to have access to these sorts of firearms...apparently we're dangerous to their sense of well-being.

a reply to: havok

A jeep isn't a weapon, it's a vehicle. And a knife has other uses beyond "war". Now that said I find all the right wing nutter butter's with their panties in a bunch over this hilarious. There's no way this gets upheld by The Supremes. So stop being triggered buttercups and calm the hell down.

a reply to: Rookseven

About 10 years ago I read a story about a guy killing another guy with a full gallon paint can in front of an adult book store over drugs.

Anything that can cause harm can be weaponized, look at the media.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Phoenix

Er ... they used Heller as the basis of their decision.

May want to read the actual document ...

Really, then what part of Heller did 4th circuit ignore so it could makeup or invent new meaning, maybe this part,

"The Court has held 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,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008)"

And from another case,

“Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v.Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010).

So Heller is certainly misquoted and suffering bastardizing process from obviously agenda driven decision by 4th circuit.

I included McDonald for those that claim 10th over ides the 2nd amendment.

"All instruments that constitute bearable arms"

"Even those not in existence the time of the founding"

How much plainer can you get!

Yes I correctly assert the 4th has indeed flown in the face of a higher and superior court decision and hopefully suffers due consequences.

a reply to: Rookseven

Telling people to calm down while at the same time calling them

right wing nutter butter's with their panties in a bunch

and

triggered buttercups

Sorta, kinda defeats the purpose of asking them to calm down, does it not??

The only reason, over the past decades, that even more stringent gun control laws haven't been passed is because of "triggered buttercups" who get involved in the process of stopping these sorts of things. Who do you suppose helps pay for the lawyers that interest groups use to stand before the courts? That would be those "triggered buttercups".

No, the Supreme Court will not uphold this, that much of your post was spot on.

a reply to: Phoenix

"The Court has held 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,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008)"

And from another case,

“Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v.Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010).

you weren't suppose to point that out.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Looks like SCOTUS anticipated shenanigans like the 4th circuit just pulled and pre-empted unconstutional actions based on legal word parsing and contextural misquotes.

The 4th circuit demonstrated a severe form of dyslexic interpretation regarding Heller decision, I think agenda motivated.

Now just imagine how that condition applies when reading a plain English language document like the US Constitution.

No wonder the nation is so troubled.

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy
Glad I just bought my AR. If the government wants to take it, they can pry it from my, well you know the rest. If liberals want to start a war, this is a good way to do it.

I don't understand this mentality. If the government wants to come and "take" your guns then they'll just bring bigger ones.

It'll be like firing a peashooter at a cannon.

That mentality is caused by people not facing the realities of life.

There are two ways for a man to feel good about himself. One is to achieve worthwhile things in life, the other is to make yourself feel powerful with bullying, intimidation or weapons.

a reply to: Kryties

If the govt was to do that, there would be many many "ripples in the pond".

This sort of thing does not happen in a vacuum.

If overwhelming tactical force was brought to legal gun owners in confiscation, this country's economy would come to a screeching halt.

You know just for the record... all you people that insist on labeling others with simplistic, sophomoric stereotypes can shove them right up your buttstocks. There are lots of us out here that are not Trump pom-pom waivers and don't identify as 'conservatives' or 'the right' that own AR15's. I hold a range of values and opinions that you one-dimensional asshats would label 'liberal' but I'm also an ardent supporter of the second amendment and have owned an AR15 and more, and have when you were still pretending to be ninja turtles. This 'everyone goes into one of two buckets' crap is so inane and utterly simplistic. The frigging world doesn't work that way even if your pointy little heads can't fathom more than two possibilities at a time. Clueless doinks... the lot of you.

a reply to: CB328

Problem being for those who achieve worthwhile things in life is there are many more who'd take them given free reign to do so - that's reality.

Starts with government and works right down to lowest thug.

Reality is we don't have utopia and those who act as we do constitute a danger to civil society in delusional ignorance of depravity as realists would be disarmed and at mercy of evildoers.

Without deterrence of civilian armament chaos, not utopia, would reign.

Government would be free to usurp bill of rights, thugs confidently break into your homes and pillage or worse.

Reality sucks but is not an ego game as some try to ascertain.

Just be weary if highway patrol pulls up your driveway, because that is who would be sent to collect guns. The county Sheriffs sure ain't gonna do it. They actually know the people of the county and most are smart enough to not go around confiscating weapons.

And . . . what are they gonna come after next? My K-Bar?

originally posted by: JDeLattre89
Just be weary if highway patrol pulls up your driveway, because that is who would be sent to collect guns. The county Sheriffs sure ain't gonna do it. They actually know the people of the county and most are smart enough to not go around confiscating weapons.

And . . . what are they gonna come after next? My K-Bar?

They might get away with that in isolated cases but once word got out that would most likely be such a dangerous endeavor even State Patrol would refuse that duty.

It'll take tanks in the streets.

At that point there'll be bigger problems besides confiscation.

a reply to: JDeLattre89

The first confiscation may happen with highway patrol cars, the next would be drones and personnel carriers.