The gun debate is always a hot button topic especially when it comes to hunters, outdoor enthusiasts, and people living off the grid.
It seems that this topic just got a little bit hotter due to a landmark decision by The U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals who have decided that the AR-15 is not protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Consitution.
Let's take a look at what they said and how they came to this major decision.
Next Page »
Pages: 1 2
Maryland, Washington DC, ie liberal country. I glad this is only 1 state and not nationwide. I feel sorry for them, and I will NEVER live in a rainbow state. Let’s face it they aren’t blue anymore.
Not surprising buy them now if you can. Building one yourself is a lot cheaper and teaches you the break down of the weapon. Lots of instructional videos on utube.
I prefer the AR 10 anyway.
Yes they are, the supreme court will tell you in a little while
But AK rifles are 🙂
The second amendment never specified type of guns it says right to bear ARMS maybe these courts need to read a fucking g dictionary
it was also created when all that existed was muskets, that is the weakest argument on the subject.Saying that only hurts your side.
this is all fine and good, the argument is based on the appearance of the weapon (scary). there are some facts left out in this argument. the stats on what weapons are prevalent in most crimes and so forth. as stated many times before in the public arena, if you don’t like weapons, don’t buy one. i don’t like starbucs, so i don’t go there. but i don’t tell others they can’t enjoy their coffee if that is what they like.
Never happen in Texas.
SCOTUS will eventually overturn.
Norm Scott
A simple press of the mag eject could render a “assault” weapon inoperable. My hunting rifles are much more powerful and devastating than these semi autos
Just aloud muskets right?
Who taught you how to spell bro? LOL ,,, you being from Ohio … I fully understand ….
look out now the prices will go threw the roof again
“We have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war that the Heller decision explicitly excluded from such coverage,”… I’m sorry, but the military DOES NOT engage in combat with AR-15s and that is an arguable point.
And off to the SCOTUS we go…
now you’re just making$#%&!@*up…. as bad as the leftists
Oh, but it is protected. And that’s why they exist.
HMMMM! Not aware of any caliber, make or model being listed so go$#%&!@*yourself courts system.
Palmetto Arms or Ground Zero has about the best kit. PA sometimes did not have all you needed and usually sold out. Both reliable
I don’t really care about this topic, the way I see it if the military can have them then we can have them, if they don’t want us to have them they shouldn’t make them. However, after reading all the comments here I’ve come to the realization of why nobody takes you gun people serious. Every comment I read implies someone sitting there with their d**k in their hand getting hot and bothered over guns, you all sound like loons. Do some research, learn some things, come up with better reasoning skills, and stop saying the same s**t over and over, that’s the problem, nobody is going to take your seriously when you just say the same three things over and over. Explain your position the why and the how, otherwise you just come off as a bunch of rednecks obsessed with guns. Not saying you are, but that is how you all sound in your comments. I like hunting, I have no issue with guns, and I’m a Liberal, imagine that. You see there is a big difference between country born Liberals and city Liberals, and I really hate being mixed in with city liberals, because you are right they are sissies. Even so, I dare any one of you to come up with a 100% unquestionable reason for needing and AR-15, other than ” that old paper says we can!”.
A damned stupid decision.
Criminals have them, terrorists have them and neither if these groups own them legally.
The only ones the government will get are from the law abiding citizens that don’t use them to hurt people with.
Perhaps our ridiculously stupid system should focus on criminals or…go after McDonalds for making people fat, take away cars for killing people when drunk or drug users are driving.
Where does it stop?
Rules only limit the law abiding citizen not the criminal.
How hard is that to understand.
The law abiding citizen can protect themselves with these firearms against equally armed criminals and terrorists.
Stupid logic, what is really their agenda??
My palmetto wasn’t designed for war fare. When I designed it and put it together I only had one thing in mind when I bought it. Killing animals not people that would be wrong. So if I designed it myself and had the one idea when putting it together it is protected by the second amendment
AR 15 is a weapon of war? How many wars has it been in? M-16/M4 is used in the militay and has been used in war but the AR-15???
come try and take it!
Yes they are and$#%&!@*them! I’m getting sick of not living free in this world.
The fight is on
BS by that court the 2nd Amendment was meant to allow citizens the ability to protect themselves from their own government
LOL! You know, at some point Americans are going to have to realize the government is no longer representing any of us and have not been for many, many years. It is up to US to DECIDE what is legal. Bullshit, unconstitutional laws should not be obeyed. Just because a law is, does not mean that law should be! Learn it. Comprehend it and then LIVE IT. I am an American, not a partisan. Liberty is my birthright. Liberty is OUR birthright. It is time to start understanding that.
Obviously they were not educated in vocabulary and the definition of infringement.
And from the 9th circus coirt
2nd Amendment: Original Meaning and Purpose
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
When the Constitution was signed on September 17, 1789, federalists claimed the new government would only have limited powers expressly delegated to it. This wasn’t enough for anti-federalists like George Mason, who wanted explicit guarantees to certain rights in order to prevent any potential encroachment by the federal government.
One of them was the right to keep and bear arms. Mason wrote:
“A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free State”
The Founding Fathers, having just broken away from Great Britain, understood the new federal government they were ratifying might one day become just as tyrannical. If it had the authority to control citizen access to firearms, then it could disarm them, just as the British attempted to do. This would make any attempts to restore liberties futile.
The Second Amendment was specifically included in the Bill of Rights to prevent this.
Two centuries later, we are in an ideological struggle with gun control advocates attempting to alter the meaning of the Second Amendment in order to allow for federal restrictions on our right to bear arms. Not surprisingly, they completely ignore what the ratifiers of the Constitution and the Second Amendment had to say, because all pertinent historical documents contradict them.
For example, when the Founders wrote of a “well regulated” militia, they meant militias needed to be well regulated through training and drilling in order to be effective in battle. This could only happen if citizens had unrestricted access to firearms.
James Madison, the father of the Constitution, said in 1789 that “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”
An example of a well regulated militia under Madison’s definition were the Minutemen at Concord and Lexington, who had drilled on fields in preparation for war.
As to the meaning of the word “militia,” it has nothing to do with the National Guard. There is already a clause in the Constitution that specifically authorizes arming them.
So what is a militia as defined by the Founders? Mason said they were “the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
In fact, there was a universal acceptance among both federalists and anti-federalists as to the importance of the right to bear arms.
Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 28 that “if the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense,” a right which he declared to be “paramount.”
And then there is clause “shall not be infringed.” There is no exception to this contained anywhere in the amendment.
Zacharia Johnson, a delegate to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, summed up the meaning of the Second Amendment when he declared that “The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”
Full possession. Not some. Not most. Full possession of their weapons. The feds were to keep their hands off entirely.
The Founders made it very clear what the Second Amendment means. But if we do not fight against any and all attempts by the feds to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms, then it loses all relevant meaning.
King Xerses of Persia also told the Greeks that if they didn’t surrender their arms, the Persian arrows would blot out the sun, to which King Leonidas replied: “Then we will fight in the shade!”
The Constitution law forbids judges or lawmakers from infringing or passing legislation “editing” any amendment outside a constitutional convention. That amendment process is laid out in Article V of the Constitution, which says that either supermajorities in both houses of Congress or a national convention can propose them and a larger supermajority of states must sign on in order to secure ratification.
Oh, I forgot, you failed your oath of office by expanding the empire, illegal wars, protecting corporate, military and banker interests.
I love random lying posts
Mmmm, yes they are
We need some email address and some phone number please !!! We need to stand together
This is B.S.!!
Smashed it.
Well that’s gonna increase sales again. Good for corporate America.
Maybe Gander Mountain won’t have to go through with Bankruptcy now that there’s a new anti-weapons scare.
Corporate America loves all this. Makes them big money keeping YOU the consumer scared.
If it goes pew pew it is so piss off! Also the second amendment says the right to equal arms… they have automatics and we have semi …. but yet your wanting us give this up…. hahahah come take it!
I think we should have the same weapons the us military has, they’re the one that will be shooting at us.
No control over my weaponry. The war is on.
The second amendment ensures our right to keep and bear arms.
With no restrictions to type, caliber or capacity.
Every judge that opposes the 2A should be hung for treason.. The Romans use to outlaw people from owning swords.. Look how that turned out for them…
Thanks Trump!
Good them don’t need to be on the streets
I’m starting to think all this bullshit is just government sponsored marketing for the gun manufactures. I’m predicting another major wave of AR sales is on it’s way.
Any weapon the government owns the ppl are alowed to own.this guarantees the government cant have an advantige and malitia can form to protect our self from corruption
This cannot be true
Morons
f**k them