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

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: BlueJacket

I enjoy firearms.

What I find unnerving is the fact that the supreme court was supposed to crush the ACA (Obama care). Guess what happened, the Judge Roberts Pooped the bed.

Of course we still have Ginsburg a hold over from the greatest man to ever breath, Reagan's admin. I would hope we never have to depend on the supreme court again.

if this decision is appealed to the existing Supreme Court it would be upheld with a 4-4 tie. the leftist idiots will let this stand. that's why we need to get Gorsuth in as quick as possible.
never underestimate a leftist judge's willingness to throw the Constitution out the window and rule according to the leftist playbook.

a reply to: ElGoobero

Maybe

if this decision is appealed to the existing Supreme Court it would be upheld with a 4-4 tie. the leftist idiots will let this stand. that's why we need to get Gorsuth in as quick as possible.

a reply to: seasonal

Gonna channel my inner Charleton Heston.

a reply to: seasonal

I would love to know what the amazingly infinite wisdom was that the court tapped into to somehow read that.....

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

.... is somehow excluded from weapons of war, of any degree. For fks sake, it doesn't even state a gun. Arms could be spears or bows and arrows or crossbows.

What a f**king joke.

a reply to: FHomerK

Arms is a very large term and has an awful lot of different weapons and products.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: FHomerK

Arms is a very large term and has an awful lot of different weapons and products.

Yes, I agree. As that was the crux of my point.

a reply to: FHomerK

If the 2nd amendment says right to bear arms, and will not be infringed, what is your point again?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Gryphon66

Sorry, this is an infringement by leftists who legislate from the bench.

Justice Scalia was a leftist who legislated from the bench?

You're going to have to offer more than catch-phrases to prove that.

Well apparently "heller" wasnt read in full and if it would had been the 4th circuit would had realized this isnt going to stand and will be struck down. Another poster posted what heller says in the thread. Wrongful interpretations do not good law make.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: FHomerK

If the 2nd amendment says right to bear arms, and will not be infringed, what is your point again?

Lower your shields, friend, I'm on your side.

a reply to: Kryties

I'd really like to understand why people seem to think it would somehow be easy to confiscate personal firearms, if by some freakish fluke of horrific happenstance that should somehow come to pass? People would resist, or many thousands would.

Easy? Far from it, should a population rise in resistance to it...

No, not easy, not easy at all.

a reply to: CB328

What are those realities?

How does my owning handguns and a rifle or two, and a shotgun make me intimidating, or bullying?

What do you consider worthwhile things...? Give me something to contrast my own sorry gun filled, bullying, intimidation filled life with.

Yup, it's when they initialize martial law that you really need to worry.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ANNED

I'm sorry ... you think that the Supreme Court, even one stacked by Mr. Trump, is going to reverse Justice Scalia?

Are you even aware of the basis of this decision?

Read the dissent in Friedman vs Highland Park, a case that the Supreme Court refused a couple of years ago. In this, Clarence Thomas, joined by Scalia, make it abundantly clear that they do NOT support and assault weapons ban and that such is NOT in keeping with the Heller decision. You can find the money quote on the fifth page:

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 fire- arms 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.

If you support the 2nd literally, you also are supporting getting rid of a full time standing army and replacing it with a defensive militia.

The founding fathers wanted what the Swiss have today, we blew it decades ago.

originally posted by: JDeLattre89
Yup, it's when they initialize martial law that you really need to worry.

you mean bannon

a reply to: syrinx high priest

If you support the 2nd literally, you also are supporting getting rid of a full time standing army and replacing it with a defensive militia. The founding fathers wanted what the Swiss have today, we blew it decades ago.

i think you are misinformed,

The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years....
Article I, Section 8, Clause 12

The "raise and support Armies" clause was the Framers' solution to the dilemma. The Constitutional Convention accepted the need for a standing army but sought to maintain control by the appropriations power of Congress, which the Founders viewed as the branch of government closest to the people.

Army Clause

militia were the states defense forces that in time of war were called to support the U.S. Army and came under their control. states militias were often a pitiful rag tag bunch that often the militia men would show up with out a weapon or carrying pea shooters. that's why the militia act was passed to make a uniform militia that was fairly consistent from state to state.

a reply to: seasonal

They will never take them you can bet on that

If it hasn't already been said here, the constitution doesn't talk about the right to keep and bear arms had nothing to do with hunting. It was for protection and more specifically, against a tyrannical governement. When the government had muskets, we had muskets. They didn't mean for them to have 50 caliber, fully automatic weapons and us to still be loading muskets.

originally posted by: Hr2burn
If it hasn't already been said here, the constitution doesn't talk about the right to keep and bear armsTHAT HAVE nothing to do with hunting. It was for protection and more specifically, against a tyrannical government. When the government had muskets, we had muskets. They didn't mean for them to have 50 caliber, fully automatic weapons and us to still be loading muskets.

I fixed the typo for you. (no offense)

Anway the 4th circuit is too stupid to realize this.

a reply to: yuppa

AR-15 is a popular gun for trappers.