0
74

[–] BigMatteson 0 points 74 points (+74|-0) ago 

Wrong. Assault weapons are exactly what is protected by the 2nd.

2
38

[–] NoisyCricket 2 points 38 points (+40|-2) ago 

Literally correct. They exist to be used against these treasonous judges, should all else fail.

1
23

[–] elitch2 1 points 23 points (+24|-1) ago 

Curious. At what point would you consider the various levels of government to be "failed"?

Is it when judges let illegals who commit rape off with a warning?

Is it when judges decide that the Constitution of the United States is "quaint"?

Is it when your government is illegally appropriating over half your nation's wealth to pay the debt on the money it could very well print itself?

Is it when criminals like the clintons can wantonly and obviously kill US citizens?

Ruby Ridge, Waco, civil asset forfeiture, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria...

Just curious where you think that line in the sand is.

0
7

[–] BigMatteson 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

Every time(ok not every time, I'd go broke pretty quick) I hear of someone saying something anti-2nd, I buy ammo or magazines. Just got two 40rd mags in the mail today.

0
25

[–] BAAC 0 points 25 points (+25|-0) ago 

US v Miller, 1939. The Court argued that, based on the 2nd Amendment, Americans had the right to own anything currently in common use by the US military... So, either the US military switches to Ruger 10/22s, or buddy gets his AR.

Any other interpretation of the 2nd is politics disguised as jurisprudence.

0
4

[–] kasthegikes 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Cough cough, buddy gets his m4 and grenades

0
4

[–] Glock-N-Roll 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

I haven’t looked much into USvMiller’39 but that’s the general idea I’ve seen in reference. Would that also apply to artillery, claymores, launchers, tanks and helicopters? Because if so, I think a lot more of those in the hands of law-abiding citizens could really equalize the playing field. SWAT would definitely be a lot more cautious of doing no-knock raids on the wrong house.

0
3

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

I guess ar-15s can be banned unless we drop in auto seers.

0
2

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

The military doesn't even use the AR so the judge calling it a weapon of war is bullshit.

0
27

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

What's an 'assault' weapon?

0
21

[–] DrPenguin 0 points 21 points (+21|-0) ago 

Every weapon

1
2

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

Except every weapon used for defense.

1
2

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

Kind of the purpose of a weapon, to assualt

0
1

[–] Slayfire122 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

So like, police batons? I can easily use one to assault someone.

0
5

[–] FuckYouReddit- 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

If it goes "pew pew", it's "no no."

Or at least according to fucks like this judge.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

1
3

[–] NorthernMan 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

Anything semi-automatic and/or “scary” looking

0
6

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

That’s full semi-automatic

0
0

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

0
16

[–] OricaTonithos 0 points 16 points (+16|-0) ago 

The term "Assault Weapons" is some old bullshit that was made up by chicken-brained lunatics.

So, I don't see it applying to anything in particular.

2
4

[–] lexsird 2 points 4 points (+6|-2) ago 

It's a classification of a weapon capable of massive firepower. An AR-15 is not one of these. An M-16 is questionable even with it's fully automatic mode because it's a light round. If you put a grenade launcher under it, that's more like it.

A full auto AK-47 would be an example. It's got high magazine capacity and a large round which is more effective than .223 which is wtf an M16-AR15 shoots.

Source: I was an infantryman, someone who got paid to handle such weapons.

Ignorant shit for brain leftists misconstrued this to their own commie faggot means.

0
4

[–] OricaTonithos 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

The use of subjective reasoning is the True Enemy in this matter of defining whether arms fall within a bannable category.

When you reasoned that an AK-47 with full auto is a better example than a smaller caliber functioning the same way, you are taking a hip-shot at the topic... much the same way that luddite gun-grabbers glance at something with a carry handle and a dissipator forend grip would. To them, it looks mean, so it qualifies. To you, the difference is bullet weight, thus mass transferred into the target.

You also mentioned the M203, purposed for launching a "destructive device" which is already banned by the NFA of '68 being a contender for the term "assault weapon".

I say don't even play the gun-grabber's game. You and I both share a common background, but don't let your firearms handling familiarity fool you into thinking that you're expert at the funny-logic politics that the left (who want us ALL disarmed, in the end) employs to take baby steps further into the tyranny of citizen enfeeblement. If they take things too far, then you (nor they) will certainly NOT concern yourself with the legality of the tools necessary for preserving (or re-gaining) your freedoms.

0
2

[–] slwsnowman40 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

As a grunt, you should know spork can be an assault weapon.

0
0

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

Armalite Sporting Rifle Model 15. It's all in the name.

1
-1

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

The fuck are you smoking? "Assault weapon" is not, nor ever has been, a term used by any English-speaking armed forces. There's "assault rifle", which I'm sure I don't need to explain to you; there's "assault gun" which is a translation of Stutmgeschutz, a WW2 era German armored self-propelled artillery piece (the Chinese have a vehicle often described as an assault gun, but it's more of an AFV capable of indirect fire than the term-coining StuG;) there's "assault pack/kit," an infantry bag of varying features depending on the country of origin, but always lighter than the standard pack and frequently quick detachable; and there's "assault vest" which is a common nickname for the various mag and plate carrying equipment issued to English speaking countries' infantry. But no one outside of gun grabbing politicians and ignorant people helping them has ever referred to any device as an "assault weapon."

1
2

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

Acktshually......

Gun manufacturers and magazines started using the term to sell weapons. Then they quickly abandoned the term when politicians started saying they wanted to ban assault weapons.

What is an assault weapon? Basically a firearm that looks tactical and shit.

It is a stupid term, and manufacturers are stupid for coining the term. Let's call our next rifle the "Human Shredder 9000" and see how they like that. Oh no! They want to ban our human shredders! Better pretend we didn't call our firearms that. They're self-defense tools!

0
0

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

[Citation needed]

0
15

[–] draaaak 0 points 15 points (+15|-0) ago 

Don't judges have to swear an oath to defend the constitution? Shouldn't this be grounds for disbarment?

0
9

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

If we held traitors to that standard, we'd run out of rope fast. That's why it will happen in a hail of bullets when it at last snaps and breaks loose. It will be super bloody and fast as hell, don't fuck around or you'll miss it and be bummed for the rest of your life you didn't get to splatter one of them.

0
3

[–] con77 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

DEUS VULT!!!

0
2

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

Good thing rope can be reused.

0
0

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

Rope can be reused, this is one of the big advantages of rope.

0
1

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

Trump and Sessions should and can disbarr every traitor against the second, but they don't seem particularly pro gun.

0
8

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

A sniper uses a bolt action rifle for stability and accuracy and it is constructed exactly the same as a hunting rifle. That will be their next complaint.

Not to mention, M16s are not typically for sale, why is he talking about them? Did he mean to refer to an AR15 but got confused because he has no idea what he's talking about?

0
5

[–] Islamiscancer 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

you do realise you dont need more than a .22....

why would you even need a .22 when you have airsoft?

you dont need an airsoft when you have a stick..

why do you even need a stick?

0
2

[–] slwsnowman40 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

you do realise you dont need more than a .22....
why would you even need a .22 when you have airsoft?

London is here.

you dont need an airsoft when you have a stick..
why do you even need a stick?<

0
0

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

Youd be surprised the damage one can cause with a tactical stick and a single assault rock.

0
1

[–] One-Way_Bus [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I'm going with the latter. You can't just buy a brand new machine gun, submachine gun or automatic rifle. Those weapons have been banned for decades. You can actually buy one of those grandfathered weapons, but only collectors keep those because they're rare and expensive. The sale of those three types are very, heavily regulated too and the seller and buyer have to jump through FBI and ATF hoops to legal purchase one of those grandfathered weapons.

0
1

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

Regulated is an understatement, even if you manage to get a class 3 FFL. I about shit when I realized the cheapest Vietnam era M16 i could find was about $8000.

0
7

[–] DrPenguin 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

So if I assault you a rock, is that an assault weapon?

0
0

[–] slwsnowman40 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Yes.

1
6

[–] totes_magotes 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

0
1

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

The 2008 ruling was cited by the judge in this case. Unfortunately, in the winning 2008 opinion, Scalia says: "The term [arms] was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. " https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html and distinguishes "arms" from "weapons", which would be used in a military capacity. His following text seems to do little to justify that. He obviously takes the word completely out of context., only a moron would assume a militia is assembled for something other than a military operation. If you are going hunting, the term would be "hunting party".

0
1

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

How interesting, although I'm not entirely sure that there is a sufficient body of evidence to support the idea that "the people" do not constitute a militia or that there is a sufficient argument regarding the difference between arms and weapons and even if there was, I believe that the difference is non-existent considering that there were several weapons/arms/guns employed by the military that were also used by the civilian population. The Giradoni Air Rifle is a perfect example though this particular article refers primarily to the Austrian military.

Also, just for reference: http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm

I won't sit here and say that people like Scalia were wrong although I'd really enjoy doing so. He would have had far more exposure to the history of such things than your or I however I think the argument is still pedantic given all the restrictions and calls of repeal.

0
0

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

Doesnt matter if noone listens to the scotus ruling and the scotus doesnt listen to any 2a cases anymore

0
6

[–] XSS1337 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Thankfully his name has been noted and his family members too.

Let them hang themselves.... We the People have plenty of rope......

load more comments ▼ (24 remaining)