Supreme Court Won’t Hear Challenge to Assault Weapons Ban

There is no sound argument for the necessity,. or the constitutionality, for a ban on 'assault weapons'.
Disagree? I'm all ears.

 

And why do "deer hunters" need an assault weapon? Are they afraid of the deer?
Wouldn't a regular rifle do the job?

How about a crossbow?

My husband was a hunter, LONG ago, when he grew up in Montana, and his family (as many poor families in Montana) NEEDED to kill at least one deer for each member of the family to eat meat through Winter. NONE of them EVER needed an assault weapon. . .and NONE of them ever missed shooting a deer.

REAL hunters don't need an assault weapon any more than they need a porshe!

- - - Updated - - -

There is no sound constitutional argument for ANY Of today's modern firearm. . .in fact, the second amendment should be challenged again in the next 8 years. . .when some more of the "NRA bought SCOTUS" is out and has been replaced.

 

I'm sorry... I don't see your sound argument for the necessity and constitutionality of banning assault weapons.
Please try again.

 

And there is no sound argument for anyone to defend allowing people on watch list, on no flight list, people who are suspected or potential terrorists, people with mental illness, and people with a history of violence to own an assault weapon!

And your kind dares to call President Obama "weak on terrorism!"
YOU are continuing to allow anyone to own the favorite weapon of terrorists and mass shooters!

 

I accept your concession of the point, that you are unable to provide a sound argument for the necessity and constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.
Thank you.

 

I do not need to present a "sound argument" against something that is foolish and dangerous to begin with!

Allowing potential terrorists, mentally ill people, and people with a history of violence to purchase an assault weapon is the FARTHEST from a "sound decision" than anyone can make!

 

5 days ago you said you would repeal the 2nd Amendment if you could, which would make all guns illegal to own. In my opinion, that precludes you from making an objective determination on which guns people should be able to own. You don't believe they should be able to own any.

 

Actually fewer people are killed with long guns of any kind than by hands and feet each year. Next target will be "assault feet".

 

As you argue from nothing other than emotion, ignorance and dishonesty, you will find it impossible to convince reasoned, thinking people of your point of view; that being the case, the ban you so desperately seek will never materialize.

And so, I happily accept your concession of the point.

 

so you want to ban all guns and confiscate existing ones?

 

Amazing how hardcore progressives always rejoice when we lose more freedom because they think it'll make them safer. It won't. I would have thought by now they'd have figured out that "gun free zones" aren't safer for anyone except someone looking for a resistance free place to kill a bunch of helpless folks. I mean, that's pretty obvious isn't it?

 

Yeah. Progressives are like herd animals. Conservatives are like eagles. Eagles are individuals. Each of them has value.

Progressives don't believe in the well being of any individual, only that the herd or the hive survives. You are worthless to them except for your value in supporting the herd. They will abandon you in a heartbeat, they will let you be attacked or eaten by the lions or murdered by Muslim terrorists, unable to defend your individual life, because you don't count.

Of course, they think that THEY will be the ones in the herd to survive when they push others out to be eaten. I would think that after so many of them get murdered in their favorite places like schools, theaters, community centers - "gun free" zones - they might re-think their position. It seems they are as naive and driven by fantasy as ever, however.

 

What suppressor? Do you even know WTF you are talking about?

 

Really? I live in Arkansas, very rural part of Arkansas, have owned guns and hunted all my life along with most of my family members and I have never seen anybody around here use assault style weapons for deer hunting. I use a 300 mag, 270 and a 30.06 but have used a AK47 for target shooting at dead trees and targets. I have never once thought about taking it deer hunting. I have heard about some poachers and spot lighters doing such things though.

 

Fine. Keep the piston, but kiss that clip goodbye.

All the Supremes did was to agree with prior laws that (I'll assume) that banned certain types of rifles. It expired but, since no right is absolute, and you are most definitely NOT guaranteed your right to own weapons of war, then the court did nothing out of the ordinary.

 

that's not a suppressor.

 

Some states are simply more advanced that others and do more to look after the people (ALL the people) who live there. Granted, I live in one of the retarded states, but it hasn't stopped me from working to change it.

Your rights are not unlimited; they can be restricted for various reasons. Protecting the public from mass shootings with assault rifles would be a reasonable limit as it was a few years ago. And gay rights should never have been an issue since the only rationale for banning gay marriage was to allow one part of the population to force their religious beliefs on another segment.

 

Its not? Then what is it?

 

You are right...it is a flash suppressor. That gun pictured is a Ruger mini-14 tactical rifle with a flash suppressor.
http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14TacticalRifle/features.html

 

It hides the weapon flash.

A suppressor deadens the sound from a shot.

 

There are also flash suppressors. I am not sure if Liquid Reigns intended sound suppressor or flash but either way both of you guys are right. It is a suppressor and even on Rugers website when talking about the gun posted in the pics it calls it a flash suppressor. Regardless...there is no way that one of the guns should be banned and the other ones not. Actually...none of them should be banned. Glad I live in Arkansas.

 

It is called a "flash suppressor". What you are referring to is a silencer of sorts to deaden the sound.

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks, just love it when people put their mouths in their comments and then look ignorant for doing so. Simple research would have shown him that his intelligence isn't as far along as others.

 

Well, unless the Republicans mess with it again, and the feds can enact some decent laws, in a few decades nearly all of those assault weapons will be off the street. Then you can say, "it WILL work".

It doesn't. That's why we need national laws to get those things off the street.

There is still some question as to whether or not those two assault rifles were legally purchased (it's being investigated). Brown did veto one small change in the assault weapons ban, but he did NOT veto the entire law.

If they're rarely used, as you assert, then there is no need to have millions of them in the civilian population, is there?

Deer hunting with a 30 shot magazine? Really? Are you that bad of a shot or do you plan to make chopped meat in the field? The only reason to use an assault rifle to hunt varmints is to enhance your sharpshooting skills for that particular weapon, designed to kill a lot of people in a short time. So, do tell - why do you need that gun and that practice? Hmmmm?

 

A suppressor is this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressor

A flash suppressor is this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_suppressor

Two very different things.

And you insult me for good measure?

Apparently I'm smart enough to know that the first one suppresses both flash and sound, while the 2nd only hides the flash.

 

So, people are just going to hand them over?. Oh, well, the whimpering weenies are right. I will just hand over my personal property to the weenies. I am sure when my home is invaded by thugs they will feel just awful....for the thugs who had to murder me and my wife and kids because they were starving from the food shortage caused by "climate change".

BTW. Are you aware of why the 2nd Amendment exists?

Do you know there are tens upon tens of millions of standard capacity 30 round magazines in existence? Are you aware there are tens of millions of semi-auto military look alike weapons in existence (not even counting those who have untraceable 80% lowers, parts kits and uppers stockpiled)? Ammo will last for many decades. I have some manufactured 50 years ago that still shoots fine. And there are billions and billions of rounds in private hands and more and more people are stockpiling every day, if you read news reports. So you think they will all just disappear? Do you propose government going door to door to search the houses of the teacher, the truck driver, the doctor, the engineer, the business owner, the single mom, the dentist, the retired military veteran, and all the other law abiding citizens who own them? Do you suppose that it will be impossible for new ones to be imported, sold to gang members or Islamic Terrorists even if you succeed in disarming Americans? Do you not think they can be easily manufactured in small machine shops like they do in Pakistan where a fully automatic AK-47 can be bought for $40.

How strongly are you willing to advocate sending the Gunstapo into people's homes to seize their property so you feel "safe"? Do you think there might be any...uh....pushback?