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

Upon last check, the united states was not the united kingdom, nor the nation of Australia, and cannot be made to be either one of them. Therefore no meaningful, viable comparison can be made between such, so the attempt at doing such is ultimately useless, and indicates that no actual response to the above questions is possessed on the part of yourself.

 

Criminal activity and protecting the free state from invasion are two very different things. Not regulated? Murder is a against the law, and most of those committing murder are not legally allowed to own weapons. Regulated to heck and back. Enforced rather poorly.

 

most gun banners are too cowardly or too calculating to admit they want a complete gun ban. They know that the incremental approach is the best way to completely ban guns. Is "LIFE CHANGES" some sort of attempt to argue that the constitution needs to change to accommodate gun grabber desires?

 

JakeStarkey said: 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.

Turtledude: most gun banners are too cowardly or too calculating to admit they want a complete gun ban. They know that the incremental approach is the best way to completely ban guns. Is "LIFE CHANGES" some sort of attempt to argue that the constitution needs to change to accommodate gun grabber desires?

JakeStarkey: That may be your opinion, but you have absolutely no factual, objective evidence to support the "too cowardly or too calculating" argument to prove it. The "LIFE CHANGES" comment is up to SCOTUS.

 

Get a Clue, nobody cares what you think,
Mr. Bloke that owns "Weapons" that also says What the Neighbors think does not matter.
A certain Narcissism seems to permeate your constant nattering and frantic whinging over guns.
I don't see my firearms as weapons, they are to me tools, why ?
First, do no harm, I learned that in medicine.
But sometimes, it is necessary to amputate an arm or leg to save a person's life.

 

What you or I or Lee S thinks matter not in the rulings by the federal judiciary.

The narcissism is displayed by those who think their chattering and pinging over guns means much.

Firearms are weapons, are tools, are devices, yes, the which can be regulated by government: the assault ban of 1994 demonstrates that law.

If the courts decide to amputate AWs from the citizens' armament, guess what?

 

The 1994 AWB didn't actually ban anything other than cosmetics, and took place prior to the Heller, McDonald and Caetano SCOTUS decisions. If all "assault weapons" disappeared by magic overnight, there would be no measurable impact to the homicide rate or crime in general.

 

Those who support a fear driven & emotionally charged "assault weapons" Ban don't care about reducing the homicide rate.

Their agenda is to ban all firearms starting with so called assault weapons so that WHEN it does no good, they can look to banning more firearms.

Briefly put, they WANT an AWB to fail so they can continue to eviscerate the 2nd Amendment.

 

I openly laugh at the people here (and elsewhere) who tell us the 1994 AWB served to decrease the number of mass shootings 1994-2004 and how its expiration in 2004 is responsible for the increase of mass shootings since.



They refuse to even try to explain how they can be right.

 

that's because most of them lie about what motivates their support for AWBs. ITS NOT CRIME CONTROL

its harassment of people who don't support their left wing agendas

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/th...merica/ar-AAwPfaZ?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=HPCOMMDHP15

When you must ask for permission for a "Right", it is no longer a right but a privilege.

Show me wherein the constitution the government can ban ANY gun, a tank, even an atomic bomb. There is a simple wording, "Shall not infringe". End of story. They cannot ban anything a soldier has as standard issue, and currently REAL assault weapons (the full auto kind) cannot be restricted or banned by government as we are "citizen soldiers".

Now if you want to admit that you do not believe in the constitution as written, then the courts can rule anything they want. You have no rights. The bill of rights was written to protect your rights. You commit suicide by allowing it to happen.

Chairman Mao said it all "All political power comes out of the barrel of a gun". Then he proceeded to murder 40 MILLION Chinese citizens. Can't happen here hahahaha. Once the guns are gone, your constitution is gone.

 

Well said, to the point and absolutely correct.

 

People have forgotten what Rights are and have given them up.
You have a Right as a law abiding Citizen of the U.S.A. to walk unimpeded from N.Y.C. to Los Angeles, if you are not breaking any laws, robbing others etc... You cannot be told, you just can't do it as would be possible if it were a privilege and not a Right.
Same thing with a horse, you are good to go.
Horse and buggy.

Car ? suddenly it is a privilege ?
We have a driver's license, insurance, vehicle registration, Howsoever, the fundamental Right to travel and be secure from unreasonable search and siezure in ones vehicle still exists as a fundamental Right and not a privilege.
If driving were indeed a privilege, it could be taken away without due process and you could be searched at random without warrant or probable cause.
Even D.U.I. stops require procedure.

 

I just cannot understand why people cannot do the math. What have there been 4-6 mass shooters in the last year, and the anti gun idiots run to destroy our constitution that protects 320 MILLION, the rest of America? 6 nut jobs and they want to strip the rights of 320 million!!! Just think how actually stupid that is.

Lets see, 6 divided by 320,000,000. What percentage that 0.00000002. 8 places past 1%. Your odds of lightning killing someone is higher 0.00000015%

And lets face it, the mass shooters are made to be hero's by the media with their 24-7 full time media coverage for months and continual bring it up forever. These losers figure they can kill a bunch of people and they will be remembered and star on the news, if they live or not doesn't matter. In fact, they feel like Jesse James and will remembered for 200 years.. The first thing to do is chop the news media to reporting the news ONCE, then move on and shut the hell up about it. Stop worshiping the idiots who kill!!! Like they did in the 1880s with the gun slingers.

 

1880s Gun Slingers and Crazy Cowboys shooting up towns inspired Dodge City Bans against carry and that made no sense Then, and left good people defenseless, the Original "Gun Free Zone.
It sucked then, it sucks now.

It makes no sense Now, anymore that it did in 1880 now in 2018.

 

It boils down to liberalism itself. It's really a religion with a political agenda. It's also a pathway to societal suicide. That's why some have described it as a mental illness.

 

Well Said !

Look at the Left Wing constant nattering over Suicide that has existed long long before Firearms, Hemlock etc.... The Roman bath, a tub of hot water and slit the radial artery.

Suicide is possible and successful without Guns as well is having been implied as a Right, reference Kevorkian assisted suicides.

Why are Firearms related Suicides any different ??