Assault Weapons Not Protected by Second Amendment, Federal Appeals Court Rules

You know, once someone makes a purely fatuous statement, as nobody needs, they are with a hairs breadth of permanent ignore.

 

What the neighbors 'say' means nothing. And you do not believe that SCOTUS will do any such thing. Ask a real question. Yes, your "purely fatuous statement" makes you almost unworthy of discussion with others, imo.

 

"My neighbors do not need certain types of weapons. The SCOTUS will make that determination for us, yes."

What kinds of weapons don't your neighbors need? What gives the government the power to determine what we "need"?

SCOTUS has already made that determination: "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, Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010) ." Caetano v Massachusetts in a 9-0 decision.

 

The Constittuion (Art III) "gives the government the power to determine what what we 'need'".

SCOTUS has reserved under Heller the right to make further determination and emendations about the 2dA.

Why do that power bother you, Rucker61? You have an opinion but that means nothing in the context of Scotus and Heller.

 

So your two posts have effectively cancelled themselves out rendering you impotent and further discourse superfluous.

 

Yet, "The Right to keep and bear Arms shall NOT be infringed."
Stop confusing regulations on Government with Citizens Rights.

 

No, Article III doesn't give the government power to tell us what our "needs" are.

SCOTUS already has, in Miller, Heller, McDonald and Caetano: "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, Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010) ." Caetano v Massachusetts in a 9-0 decision. Miller: the Second Amendment protects all firearms "having a reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well-regulated militia".

That's unequivocal.

That "power" bothers me because it's not one granted by the Constitution, nor was it the intent for the government to have that power by the Founders. That bothersome feeling isn't limited to the 2nd Amendment - I don't trust people like Pence to leave well enough alone, either.

 

Only in your head, Dr. Who. What the neighbors say and what they think they need mean nothing. SCOTUS will determine that for them and you. Get it? You are fun to get in line.

 

You stop confusing the powers of SCOTUS with what you think are "Citizens Rights." SCOTUS determines such, not you.

 

Yes, Rucker, Article III gives SCOTUS the power to determine 2dA and its meaning. Go read Miller and Heller again.

 

No, your vacuous política version of American Juris prudence and vague polarized Constitutionality, it was preordained in the Amendments and sacrosanct and immutable from heretical tampering.

And yes, as one of the People, I do get to point out True Constitutionality.

 

You can certainly point out your opinion, DoctorWho. Thank you. And your big words ( ) mean nothing in terms of SCOTUS power to make these determinations.

 

Yeah, yeah. Y'all like to make that assertion. Again. And again. And again.

BUT, what you refuse to acknowledge is that once SCOTUS begins issuing rulings that brazenly violate the spirit and intent of the Founders and the Constitution then SCOTUS loses credibility and ceased to be trustworthy as the ultimate arbiter of our rights.

At that point, it becomes the people's duty to take matters into their own hands.

 

that's a mindless response. people like you are why we need the second amendment interpreted the way it was supposed to-a COMPLETE AND TOTAL BAN on federal involvement in this area

 

Again the Elmer Fudds at the absolute lowest point of C.C.W. felt that way about their shotguns, and the Anti Assault weapon sentiment strong with them,
One teensy distinction, they really did know the difference between a machine gun and a semiautomatic rifle.

 

JakeStarkey said: Immaterial. It is intended to do what the legislature or SCOTUS says it intends to do.
I am a bloke who owns weapons. I have for a long, long time. My neighbors do not need certain types of weapons. The SCOTUS will make that determination for us, yes.

Your response was the mindless one. Life changes. People like you are why we need leges and SCOTUS to make the final determination. How many people want a total gun ban, kiddoo? Hardly anyone. And there is no indication that SCOTUS would ever do such a thing. You claim to be a lawyer. Act like one, please.

 

Thank Goodness Turtledude IS an
Attourney and a Damn good one,
Or we would indeed be up the creek without the proverbial paddle.

 

Attorneys, like accountants, are dime a dozen, DoctorWho. Turtled has an opinion, a good one, but one that is easily matched by non-libertarian attorneys.

 

Nope,
I have had those types of Attourneys, he was also a Federal Prosecutor and head & shoulders above the rest.

Epic Fail.

 

And that is your testimony for what it is worth. The fact is that the good attorney argues failed libertarian defense of the 2dA. SCOTUS, of course, will ignore it.

 

You hope.

Fail

 

Because you and Turtle think differently?

 

In the 54 years since the AR-15 was first sold to civilians, how many kids have been killed in a mass shooting at a K-12 with a shooter using one? To help you with the math, we have 130,000 K-12 schools, 180 days of school each year and 50 million K-12 school kids.

In that same time period, how many kids K-12 have been killed riding in one of these, or similar?

 

Thank you for that fallacy of false equivalency.