Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules?

btw way this was the top of technology on the British side a 1777 Ferguson rifle for runner to the lever action Spencer butt stock feed and you can see the trigger guard cocked for speed and confiscated rifles where used on the patriots side also

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...econd-amendment_us_58aceeebe4b0d0a6e f4634f8
not another purple bow tie liberal trade mark guy

https://ballotpedia.org/Robert_King
put in by assault weapon semi auto clinton i see
http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/nGetInfo?jid=2790&cid=999&ctype=na&instate=na

 

btw way cannons where legal to poss under the 2nd amendment creation 1791
https://www.quora.com/What-were-the...91-the-year-that-the-2nd-amendment-was-passed

so technically a 81mm mortar would be legal now

 

follow up m-16 full auto select logical put,
are not like a ar-15 semi auto

http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...5s-are-not-constitutionally-protected-w468223

 

They use Glocks and 1911s in the military. I guess that's where they will go next?

 

All guns were at some time a weapon of war.

This judge is a stupid (*)(*)(*)!!!!

- - - Updated - - -

Appointed by Bill Clinton. Figures.

 

Its about time, we have professional law enforcement and military forces to protect us including the National Guard and Reserves, there is no need for civilians to be so heavily armed. And it leaves lots of practical weapons on the table pistols, shotguns, rifles (noting many modern hunting rifles are with scopes capable of sniping humans and killing them). And if the country was ever invaded I'm sure the government would hand out all the modern weapons and give shortcut courses to use them to civilian volunteers.

 

You like you some police state?

You do realize that the 2nd Amendment is about fighting back against a tyrannical government?

 

Roger that. Even then, the citizens would be under gunned considering the toys at the disposal of the Government.

 

Q: Are ‘assault weapons’ “In common use for the traditionally legal purposes for a firearm”?
A: Yes
Q: Are ‘assault weapons’ both “dangerous” AND “unusual”?
A: No
Q: Given the above and the ruling in Heller, what sound argument is there that the 2nd does not protect the ownership, possession and use of an ‘assault weapon’?
A: Uh…. Uh….. Sandyhook! Aurora! Weapon of war! Military grade! Bayonet lug! Scary!

This will eventually hit the SCotUS.
Fortunately, #Hillaryisnotanyone’sPresident and it will be heard by 5 or 6 conservative justices.

 

Wait...so it's not about self defense or defending one's home?

It's about some fantasy war against the government?

Kinda thought so

 

It's -never- been just about self defense and/or defending one's home.
You've read Heller, so you know that.
You also know the ruling from the 4th is nonsense.

 

And for when the government cannot protect you.

- - - Updated - - -

.....Both

 

And when they have banned 'assault' rifles next will be handguns, then hunting rifles and if they continue down the slippery slope you will end up having to go through a psych exam and full background check before you can buy a knife, with a maximum blade size of course.
The best time to stop an avalanche, is just before the snowball that starts it begins moving.

 

There''s no need for civilians to do a lot of things they have the right to do.
The 2nd protects the right to own and use a firearm "in common use" for "traditionally lawful purposes" - 'assault weapons' meet both criteria.
Handguns are >20x more likely to be used to murder someone than an 'assault weapons'; banning handguns -explicitly- violates the constitution.

Arguing it is constitutionally acceptable to ban a class of firearms because other classes are available is no different than it is constitutionally acceptable to ban Roman Catholicism because people can still be Lutheran.

 

Increasingly self-defense experts are recommending AR-15 style rifles for home defense. Using the right ammunition, they penetrate much less than other choices (like handguns or shotguns). They are handy, easy to shoot for small/weak people and have a high magazine capacity. When I'm too feeble to use a handgun, I'm buying an AR for home defense for those reasons.

- - - Updated - - -

Among other things, but it's also about defense of self, family, community, state and country.

 

Simply put, this ruling infringes on the people's right to bear Arms.

 

So? That's why you have shotguns, single bolt action rifles and musketry. See, using that, you can fight back against a tyrannical government.

 

What the courts did here is incredibly dangerous. They ignored previous SCOTUS precedent set in Heller and made up new law out of thin air. They have vastly overstepped their bounds and should be dissolved as a court.

 

As a firearm owning Liberal, I am often amazed at the lengths that Conservatives will go to to justify their obsession with guns.

 

Thank you for adding nothing of value to the discussion.

 

The military is the one who always commits the genocide, derp a herp.

 

A fantasy war that's happened once already.

Nice try, but do better next time.

 

When the 2nd amendment was ratified, the military had the same weapons as did the civilians.

 

What do you expect when the grabbers can't (*)(*)(*)(*) up California because of incorporation of the 2nd amendment against the states? They're going to push for Federal action.

Best to let them have their gun free utopia in blue states so the red states don't have to deal with this BS.

 

My understanding is the second amendment is d signed to protect the populace from the gov't. Following that, they can ban whatever they want, so long as there is an equivalent ban for all law enforcement, national guard and military, _absolutely no exceptions. If that is not agreed to, I will unequivocally reject the ban.