<<MOD WARNING>>Should high school students walk out and shut system down until meaningful gun reform

LOL the SC had have no problem with the limits placed on fully auto weapons such as the Thompson machine gun or the BAR since the 1930s so somehow placing limits on firearms as deadly or more deadly then the Thompson is unlikely for the SC to rule again those limits.

Having the next generation being killed in government schools seem far more of an attack on our constitutional rights then some limits on weapons able to do mass murder.

 

You may as well put that fantasy on the shelf. never going to happen, so there's no point in getting yourself all worked up over it.

 

Outlawing rapid-fire weapons with large-capacity magazines to limit casualties isn't logical???

 

I would not count on the NRA being able to keep blocking limits on mass killing tools when one school after another is being turn into killing grounds.

 

What is the last death score for this so call soup up 22?

Off hand it is 17 humans with most of them being young people that would had enjoy on average 70 more years of life but for that so call soup up 22.

 

It happened in Maryland and SCOTUS ruled it Constitutional.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...amendment-federal-appeals-court-rules-n724106

 

Your problem is not the NRA, Bill, your problem is 2A and Heller, and a Supreme Court and Congress that aren't going to supplant either.

Elections have consequences. or so I've been told.

 

Yea, its a tool that fires a projectile.

That's its use.

Furthermore since when is practicality a prerequisite for exercising your rights?

Is it "practical" that someone can buy a $27 non-fat half-fat vanilla sugar-free iced triple soy triple sweet decaf latte that is the size of a child's head?

Is it "practical" that someone can buy a $600,000 Ferrari?

Is it "practical" that someone can buy a house large enough to have extra rooms in which to dedicate their shoe collection to?

Is it "practical" to have a shoe collection?

You don't get to define whats practical for other people.

And you certainly don't get to pass their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS through a "practicality" filter.

Let me give you a different example:

Its not "practical" to have as many polling places as we do.

It would be far more "practical" in the terms of security, integrity, and cohesion to centralize them.

But guess what?

If we did that then certain people would have a harder time voting, it would be an undue burden aka a violation of their rights.

So don't approach this in terms of whats "practical".

 

SCOTUS declined to hear the challenge. that's not a ruling on Constitutionality.

 

So you think that high power firearm supporters care and love their weapons more then the parents who are facing burying their children instead of the other way around?

 

QED. Thanks. Note, not a single word about trying to save the 44,000 Americans each year who commit suicide, half with a firearm. Usually a pistol.

 

Thanks for proving what someone posted previously: What the Left wants to do is declare whomever they like as "mentally defective" so they can deny them their rights of self-defense. First Obama with every vet who reported being traumatized in combat and now you with "unstable collectors".

It's for reasons like this that most Americans distrust the Democrats, especially the far Left and the anti-gun crowd.

 

Home invaders have been known to travel in groups. While boars usually run alone, feral sows and piglets travel in large groups while they tear up fields, fences and stream beds. It doesn't surprise me that you either do not know this or will not admit you do.

 

What was that about chances of being struck by lightning??? Links???

 

SCOTUS' original decision that assault rifles were not protected by the 2nd Amendment was REAFFIRMED by the Court of Appeals. . . . Stop making things up.

 

See post#215.

 

US circuit courts are not the be-all-end-all of constitutional jurisprudence.

 

What are you referring to?

Is it the Federal Assault Weapons Ban?

Because that was never challenged on grounds of the 2nd Amendment.

The only cases regarding "assault weapon" bans, SCOTUS, and the 2nd Amendment have been State level bans with the most recent being Columbia v. Heller in which the 2nd was upheld and the ban in question ruled unconstitutional.

So you need to clarify your comment.

Were you just mistaken? ...or are you referring to something on the State level? ...or is it you that is making things up?

 

No. When kids stop attending school they become republicans. We don't need to do them any more favors. They already breed like rabbits.

 

Maryland's ban on 45 kinds of assault weapons and its 10-round limit on gun magazines were upheld Tuesday by a federal appeals court in a decision that met with a strongly worded dissent.

In a 10-4 ruling, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, said the guns banned under Maryland's law aren't protected by the Second Amendment.

"Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war," Judge Robert King wrote for the court, adding that the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller explicitly excluded such coverage.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...amendment-federal-appeals-court-rules-n724106

 

SCOTUS' original decision that assault rifles were not protected by the 2nd Amendment was REAFFIRMED by the Court of Appeals

 

So are you back peddling then?

Because you were invoking the SCOTUS and federal bans but all I see is a leftist judge giving more opinion than fact.

My guess is you have no insight into the process nor the history.

Would it shock you to know that most of Maryland's ban was overturned because of how far it tried to go?

What you're referring to was a 2017 attempt to get the rest of it overturned.

The bulk was rejected back in early 2016 specifically because they did not meet the exceptions necessary to deprive citizens of their right to purchase.

I guess you're just not informed as to what was banned, what was overturned, and why.

Furthermore Columbia v. Heller didn't exclude the 2nd Amendment domain it used a precedent specific to the 2nd as foundation for one of the questions posed.

 

Call your favorite Democrat. Tell them to write up the bill. See how 2018 works out for ya.e

 

I was specifically referring to certain classes of assault rifles that are banned by law. . . . What did YOU think we were discussing???

 

And on average a buick is involved in the death of far more kids, for that matter so are swimming pools.