How about a national ban on criminals like these two (yes, and the third one as well)?
Posted on 04/29/2018 10:01:00 AM PDT by Simon Green
Molon Labe
People like Sol Wachtler can ESAD.
The best thing would be the elimination of all the a-hole commies.
How about a national ban on criminals like these two (yes, and the third one as well)?
The more dangerous quote. It extends to semi-automatics - all of them.
I don't know Heller that well. Did he cherry pick section and put them together or is what he wrote a true reflection on what Heller says?
“Every day, more and more of the gun grabbers expose their true agenda.”
They’re nothing but extra-Constitutional, extra-legal,
tyrannical scu&bags he&&-bent on turning the U.S. into a big re-education camp headed by ex-liberal-turned-communist prison guards.
IMHO
These people are nuts.
What are they going to ban, assault “Style” weapons?
I’d like to ban Islamist’s that pretend to be in a religion of peace.
When Scalia wrote "and the like" he was referring to weapons, not specifically the M16. Think of the weapons an infantry platoon may have. The Squad Automatic Weapon. M240 machine gun. Mortars. M4 Carbines. Grenades. Rockets.
At some point, the Democrats will regain Congress and the WH. An "assault" weapon ban will shortly follow.
Yeah but are they willing to actually bleed for what they want?
Think about that.
What happens should these fascists do so should be “interesting”.
Someone should inform this numb-nut that we “had” a nation-wide “assault weapons ban”, and it did NOTHING to reduce any measurable parameter of gun violence.
Fortunately, those who passed the original ban were wise enough to include a “sunset clause”. It seems to me that almost all legislation should be forced to undergo a “trial run” with a sunset clause included.
Assault weapon? What assault weapon. Mine were lost at sea.
Simon Green “It also suggested that “weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned.”
That is a complete distortion of the actual words: “It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty.”
The only suggestion that this statement allows banning semi-automatic weapons is in the eye of the beholding gun banner.
Of course not, and they won't. They'll send the militarized police to do it.
Except, that if you look at history and the second amendment, since a well regulated militia is necessary, the right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
The presumption then, is that the weapons are going to be used for military purposes.
Therefore, it would not be banning military grade weapons from the populace.
On the contrary, the Founding Fathers seem to have rather expected that the general populace would be well armed with the latest i n weaponry.
It sounds menacing, and it means anything they want it to.
If they ever get another assault weapon ban, look for them to continually re-define the meaning (magazine capacity, capability to accept high capacity magazines, appearance, and finally, anything semi-automatic (rifle, pistol, anything semi). Then they would pursue lever action. Ammunition is on their list (just look at Cali re ammo).
Any weapon that isn’t “dangerous” isn’t a weapon.
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.