0
59

[–] hotairmakespopcorn 0 points 59 points (+59|-0) ago 

Weapons of war are literally why the Second Amendment exists. The judge literally advocates the Second Amendment doesn't exist.

0
27

[–] firex726 0 points 27 points (+27|-0) ago 

Yep, the founders made it very clear in followup writings that all weapons are included even shipboard cannons. Unless this judge is going to argue a cannon was not a weapon of war at the time.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
6

[–] GbannedbyLGBT 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Sports utility cannon.

Totally different.

0
0

[–] Monsantos_Schlong 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I can buy a cannon to mount on my balcony? Holy fucking shit!

1
11

[–] GIF-lLL-S0NG [S] 1 points 11 points (+12|-1) ago 

Judge(s). The decision came out 10-4. Lets gander how many of those are obama appointees?

0
1

[–] Thisismyvoatusername 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I'm curious, did the Court have an en banc rehearing because the State lost the panel decision and asked for it or did the court decide to rehear it on its own iniative? If the latter, I'm curious when the first decision was.

I'm guessing the liberal judges didn't like it and wanted to reverse it since a divided Supreme Court (given Justice Scalia's death) might either refuse to accept it on appeal or might deadlock and they wanted the dealock to uphold the State law instead of upholding the original decision striking it down.

0
1

[–] Jixijenga 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Probably far too many.

0
8

[–] 8162607 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

Yeah it has nothing to do with muskets it has everything to do with the average man having as good of weapons as the military does.

0
9

[–] Jixijenga 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

What everyone seems to forget is that the musket was, by and large, the assault weapon of it's day and it was used specifically because it was fast to reload (smoothbore is way, way easier to reload than a rifled bore) and really it had little use outside of military fighting.

Muskets weren't good for hunting, they weren't really good for home-defense, they were only really, really useful in volley fire and most military units opted to use them over rifles.

Don't even get me started on the blunderbuss.

0
1

[–] 51235521 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Ok, my rifle that shoots .223 or 5.56 is semi automatic (not selective fire capable), therefore not an "assault rifle". I own an "Armalite Rifle" not an "Assault Rifle"

0
0

[–] hotairmakespopcorn 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Yes, but it's about the weapons to which you are constitutionally guarenteed access which are unconstitionally denied.

I think it's great you're spelling out the difference, but based on the participation here, I suspect you're preaching to the choir. But never hurts to provide info for passerbys.

0
27

[–] HarveyKlinger 0 points 27 points (+27|-0) ago 

Ugh, liberal activist courts get the law wrong once again. Do these dumbfucks not realize that without the ability to own "weapons of war" the US would not exist? Fuck them.

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." -Thomas Jefferson

0
10

[–] GIF-lLL-S0NG [S] 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago  (edited ago)

It is very easy for the EU/China Communist to buy off a few judges, rig a couple of elections, to push their leftest agenda a little bit further towards their flavor of totalitarianism. What would the US do to stop this? Sanctions with biggest trading partners? Fire the judges? rescind many of the courts' decisions?

The end result is weak America, with growing division on basic issues like protesting the government and armaments combined along with economic struggle between the "rich" and the "poor" and along other identity political divides. By the time war comes they will be unable to fight. Once the volunteer army/navy is smashed there will still be plenty of enemies and the public will have no reason or capability to do much but accept colonization of Western US by China, and Eastern US by Europe. Middle America is already being resettled with middle easterners so will end up an satellite nation of the caliphate.

In China the government owns all the weapons, de facto. Any weapons are the property of the army.

0
1

[–] jbnunez 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Add buy a few media properties/ celebs.

2
1

[–] turtlesarepureevil 2 points 1 points (+3|-2) ago 

> thinking other governments want to wage a direct, physical war against the U.S.

14
-13

[–] [deleted] 0 points 19 points (+19|-0) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
2

[–] elitch2 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Pointy sticks, flat rocks, large branches, rulers, pencils, fucking guitars....

0
0

[–] CrudOMatic 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Trust me, the left would ban everything that could be used in self-defense in order to ram through their evil agenda of white genocide.

0
16

[–] GIF-lLL-S0NG [S] 0 points 16 points (+16|-0) ago  (edited ago)

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decision upheld Maryland’s ban on assault rifles, which was passed in 2013 in response to the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Connecticut. It cited a 2008 Supreme Court case, Heller v. District of Columbia, which said that weapons “most useful in military service” are not covered by the Constitution.

“We are convinced that the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are among those arms that are ‘like’ M-16 rifles — ‘weapons that are most useful in military service’ — which the Heller Court singled out as being beyond the Second Amendment’s reach,” Judge Robert King wrote for the 10-4 decision.

“The majority concludes that the semiautomatic rifles banned by Maryland law are most useful in military service, even though they are not in regular use by any military force, including the United States Army,” the decision said.

Fucking hate it when Alex Jones is right. Sandy Hook is being used to disarm the public.

0
0

[–] Thisismyvoatusername 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I am extremely curious in how a panel of Federal appellate judges is competent to decide whether guns not used by any military are actually most useful for military service. What a bunch of fucking idiots. They have the whole world to look at and see this is not the case, but gosh darn if they don't look scary, so let's ban them.

0
12

[–] Unreasonable 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago 

The thing is, the 2nd Amendment was put it to provide Cannons to merchant trade ships to prevent Pirates from attacking them.

Full bore cannons. Cannons do you hear? They put it in there so Civilians could put CANNONS ON THEIR BOATS!!

Da fuck does it give the distinction between Non-War Weapons and War Weapons?

1
8

[–] monkeytoe101 1 points 8 points (+9|-1) ago 

This may go higher yet to the SC this bullshit definition of "weapons of war" is far too vague.

0
8

[–] Runaway-White-Slave 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

Good thing I only own "competition grade sporting rifles".... And live nowhere near that cuckold hell-hole.

0
3

[–] Caesarkid1 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

"It's not an assault rifle. There isn't even a bayonet on it!"

0
6

[–] Capt_Rye 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Good thing semi automatic magazine-fed rifles like the AR 15 arent classified as asault rifles. (I assume the intention of their statement is to get said weapons banned as opposed to keeping the ban on fully automatic and burst fire weapons)

load more comments ▼ (16 remaining)