Here's a real weapon of war. Any weapon be it a spear, knife, or single shot pistol can be a weapon of war. So their comment makes no sense except to carry their point, albeit mindless.
Posted on 02/23/2017 9:27:26 PM PST by rogerantone1
Should “military-style rifles” be banned? On Tuesday, the federal Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia – in a virtual party line vote – upheld Maryland’s assault weapons ban. In the 10 to 4 En Banc decision, Democrats supported the ban while Republicans opposed it.
Writing for the majority, Judge Robert King, a Clinton appointee, argued that the Second Amendment does not protect people owning “weapons of war.” His opinion starts out by listing recent mass public shootings that have used AR-15-type rifles, guns that he also refers to as “military-style rifles,” in their attacks.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Ping
By that logic muskets should have been illegal during the 1790s as they were weapons of war.
Liberals and fascists never let facts get in the way of a good illegal ruling
LOL, The Swiss have been at peace for centuries, and it is mandatory they be allowed to keep their war weapons at home. (After they served and were discharged) Don’t mess with the Swiss, there is a gun behind every rock.
Lol. “Weapons of war”
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. There are weapons of non-war?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha moron. How can we possibly deal with these people peacefully? They are so deluded.
The right to keep and bear arms...shall not be infringed.
Of course, there’s more written on the backside of the bill of rights in invisible ink. Arms shall not mean knives or brass knuckles. Arms shall not mean weapons of war, it shall be a hunting exception, or solely for home defense if properly stored in a locked container with a trigger lock and ammunition kept in a separate locked container so long as the insurance company has issued the appropriate home owner liability coverage AND the weapon is on our approved list of quality firearms which we’ll immediately limit to 5 or 7 shots...
It goes on for quite a while there.
So why don’t they just save us all the trouble and write down all the exclusions that are on the backside of the bill of rights so we know what the 2nd actually does cover.
As for the ruling; eh, liberals called an audible on the play. Everything was lined up for the dramatic ruling that sexy black guns shall be called weapons of war, even if no military actually uses them. They don’t fall under the hunting and home defense inclusions of the 2nd Amendment Part XI.
Oh, yeah, that’s the other part. Certain government employees shall be the only ones armed in locations the government deems the arbitrary locations of their own safety. All others shall be disarmed or face instant arrest for violating these gun free zones.
Trust us, we wear black robes for a living, this is not an ‘infringement’ under the 2nd, it is prudent actions for safety. No, you’re not permitted to have similar prudent actions.
I wonder some days just how far the duality of our legal system extends - there’s the rulings for the people, and teh rulings for the government. Reminds me of the Democrat concept of separate but equal.
Weapons of war, oh my! With this ruling, muskets would be illegal TODAY. Just as would guns used in the Civil War, Spanish-American War and WWI. Even sporterized versions.
In other words, almost all rifles, except maybe BB guns.
The AR-15 is the most adaptable gun to hunt with ever produced. 1 firearm with various uppers and BCG’s and one can hunt small game - .22LR, coyote - .223 Remington, deer - .300 BLK, bear and moose - .450 Bushmaster
Should “military-style rifles” be banned?
Well should cars with racing stripes be banned from the highways?
The stripes do not make the car go any faster but it looks like it might be faster so maybe we should ban them!
The 2nd is meant PRECISELY to put weapons of war into the hands of the people. The amendment does not reasonably function interpreted any other way.
Yea, until they went multicultural... the citizen from without within overcomes without a shot....
A Semi-Automatic with an 8 round Clip, M-1 Garrard
A Semi-Automatic with an 4 round Clip, M-4 En-field
A Single Shot Bolt action, 5 round Clip, Springfield 03
LOL
Here's a real weapon of war. Any weapon be it a spear, knife, or single shot pistol can be a weapon of war. So their comment makes no sense except to carry their point, albeit mindless.
Whatever it takes - incorrect facts, “fake law,” or pretzel logic. That’s how courts work when given the opportunity to weigh in on a social issue.
Also, their logic should largely disarm all non-miltary forms of government; Tax collectors, FBI, Forest service, Treasury, Agriculture etc.
There are no dangerous weapons...only dangerous people.
The whole premise of the majority ruling is based on errors.
Let’s face it...ten judges who are anti-2nd Amendment are using lies and errors to inflict their fascism on us.
Liberator...
IIRC....
.45 caliber single shot.
WWII Reproduction.
Almost as bad, as pointed out in the dissent, using the majority's "reasoning", the M1-Garand would be illegal for citizens to own because it was an actual "weapon of war" fielded by several nations. Whereas the AR has never been deployed by any military on the planet.
Computers are a weapon of war. Welcome to the Gulag Mr. Gates.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.