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
Let em come and try to take mine. 🙂
No where in the second amendment does it say ” in the future of weapons” it states for the future of our nation is required to freely own sufficient “arms” for a free nation as a citizens defense from other countries as well as its own govt. the judiciary system is part of that govt. for them to achieve tyranny they must remove opposition. Remember that when your closed mind thinks any weapon should be restricted for any reason!
It uses the same round as the ,556 and ,223, and is now available in a wide variety of calibers. It has NOTHING to do with “hunting rights” it’s about putting fear into those we elected if they would try to abuse their authority. That is a ridiculous Obama parroted statement.
This is laughable. No one is coming for your AR-15. While the virtual said it has no authority to protect the ‘assault’ rifle, what they didn’t say it also has no authority to prohibit the possession thereof. Typically the semiautomatic rifle known as the AR 15 is not a military grade weapon and cannot be so classed as it does not meet military standards. Although it’s a mockup in appearance, it’s a showboat toy and would not hold up to the rigors that the M16 endures. But as far as the 2nd amendment goes, the military grade weapons are also protected by law as they are weapons regularly used by the military, so reads the Constitution.
Its doesn’t matter what they consider for our 2nd Admendment. Its ours, if they don’t like it thats tuff
F you
A skilled person can kill you more efficiently with a knife than a trained person with an AR 15 so get over it people
Its a back doors to suppressing your rights to protect yourself from a well armed Government …. Once removed from public possession they won’t have as much fear in the Blue Helmets that are coming into the country unlawfully to remove the rest of your rights to turn the World into a one Government World. We were born free from tyranny and our right to own weapons of equal fire power to our Government to keep the status quo ….. Outside tanks jets artillery which are all weapons of war not considered a firearm period …. A firearm by definition is what the AR-15 is …. It is not a fully automatic machine gun another article of war …. Firearms are for personal protection from harm and from having all your other rights removed forcefully …. From the Musket to the Semi-automatic AR-15 all are covered under definition of firearm and protected by the 2nd Amendment this is and should be considered a infringement on our rights to own firearms … Since this is a blunt attack on the Constitution what are the Sworn Keepers of Oath in Office doing to charge and jail those attacking the Constitution ???
I made my own decision on their decision…$#%&!@*them
well i ack you up, #realeasethebanonRPGs
Well they can go$#%&!@*them selves. At the rate we keep plunging into$#%&!@*(most cause of our own citizens) they won’t have time to find whose shooting the guns anyways.
Remember this? It fell off the boat when I was fishing.
And despite our rights they continue to take them away. One by one.
Bullshit if they aren’t!
Then its not legal to own now is it. Come and take our guns please!
Good. If you can’t kill something by calmly walking up to it and removing its throat with your bare hands, you really don’t amount to much, and definitely shouldn’t be living away from mommy.
yea well unconstitutional laws are not laws.
Umm a quality civilian ar15 will definitely surpass the quality standards of the military and the military no longer uses the m16 haven’t for a few years. They use its younger brother the m4
The ‘courts’ don’t get to decide our rights
By court? What court, where, when?
This is bullshit.
Cold dead hands
bull$#%&!@*it is just a rifle
This right here is exactly why the second amendment exists.
Fake news
NUTS
I’d like to see where it says any and all firearms are protected in the constitution.
Ar means ARMA-LITE not Assault rifle..
Too bad the courts opinions don’t fucking matter
Granted, by this reasoning, to ‘bear arms’ can mean absolutely everything or absolutely nothing. It treads dangerously into the ‘words mean whatever we want them to’ political territory.
Gregory Bryant you are truly ignorant. The second amendment was written to protect us from a tyrannical government. According to the way it was written we should have access to any and all weapons the military has. So read the second amendment. And try again
Not true. Judges are wrong!
Justin Coakley I believe that although there were single-shot muzzle-loaders when the Bill of Rights was written, the founding fathers knew that technology would always improve and hopefully we would have the knowledge of where to draw the line. Some people believe that the 2nd Amendment was written as a means to give citizens the power to overthrow a tyrannical government. If that is the case, however, should American citizens be given the right to own missile-launchers, tanks, Apache helicopters, and nuclear weapons? These are the armaments the United States government possesses, and if they were to come and take our guns, I highly doubt whether an assault rifle would make that much of a difference over a Remington model 870 or 700. I oppose private ownership of AR-15s, AK-47s, and similar high-capacity magazine assault rifles that are easily converted into fully-automatic for the same reason I oppose private ownership of bazookas, tanks, and nuclear weapons – they were intended to be used as weapons of war, and the risk to the safety of the public far outweighs the benefit they would have in the highly-unlikely event that the U.S. government will enslave us all and take away our guns, our freedoms, and our God-given right to be ‘Mericans.
Well you’re wrong, NY, CA, MA already have essentially banned AR-15
“Shall not infringe.” You just infringed.
WRONG!! MILITIA ACT says different. Read history judges
Easily converted huh? LOL, really drank the liberal lemonade didn’t you?
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html
It’s a well known fact by even Liberal media outlets that assault weapons contribute a mere sliver to the overall gun crime in America. Statistically speaking, assault weapons are a non-problem, it’s a pundits hollow talking point. The real problem is handgun killings in inner cities, it’s just easier for politicians to pick an easier scapegoat to blame, than to address the larger issue of urban crime.
Repelling an oppressive government with civilian arms is completely possible. The US lost Vietnam to a contingency of illiterate, untrained peasants with significantly less firepower. Same thing goes with drug-out Middle Eastern conflicts, where you have tribesman with cold-war technology putting up a fight.
Tbh, the fact that the mainstream left still holds these sentiments in light of Trump’s descent into authoritarianism surprises me. To me, it’s a reminder that the Democrats defense of left ideals extends as far as the dogma will allow. Social Democrats in the early 20th century would have been scrambling for the best rifle money could buy to protect themselves from the radical right. Contemporarily, there was a huge push in the LGBT community after Orlando to conceal carry, and I’d be surprised to see anyone on the left criticize their pragmatism. If allowances can be made for dangerous political climates, I’d say now is an apt time as well.
The 2nd wasn’t written for hunters
All I can say is 80℅ lower, Google it
Justin Coakley You make a good point – I believe that the number of rounds a gun can hold makes a more significant difference than anything. I can purchase a 73-round magazine for an AK-47 from Sportsman’s Guide. What does someone need with 73-rounds of 7.62mm 39mm ammunition? Just because you don’t want to stop and reload? I believe all civilian magazines should be limited to 10 rounds. All of my guns have this feature, and I don’t see a problem with regulations that support limiting magazine capacity to 10-rounds.
Roger Mathers Why don’t you ask Larry Phillips, Jr. and Emil Mătăsăreanu how difficult it was to convert their weapons into fully-automatic.
why because they are fully semi automatic ?
Bullsnot!!!
Odd…no matter how I try, I am not finding any exclusionary language in the second amendment that would lend credence to this infringement.
I can definitely understand that sentiment, but I feel that the proposed solutions would do next to nothing.
Using some household chemicals, pipe fittings, and some assorted hardware, I could easily build a bomb. In fact, I could probably do it in under $20. This begs the question, why aren’t high profile bombings more prolific in the news? The means are definitely there, and we live in a nation of disgruntled individuals.
The short answer is that access to means is inconsequential to intent. The sad fact is that where these regulations would need to count, they probably wouldn’t work. Regulation simply doesn’t effect those with criminal ties or lunatics who have no concerns about what gets them to a permanent end. We’ve seen these same patterns in drugs and mass survielance as well.
The real issue is addressing the circumstances that bring about violent crime and homicidal psychosis. I agree with you that education, responsibility, and psychological help you should be a societal mandate. That’s something that the 2nd amendment right really doesn’t care about.
Justin Coakley I believe that there are socioeconomic issues that play a major role in violent behavior. Developed, socialist countries typically have lower gun crimes than developing countries (and the United States). I also believe that access DOES play a role in behavior as well. Right-wingers claim, “you don’t blame the spoon for the weight-gain, so why blame the gun for the murder.” This may be somewhat accurate, but if you walk into a buffet and they have 20 different cheesecakes, wouldn’t it be harder to lose weight? This isn’t a metaphor – Americans have access to cheap, unhealthy food, and as a result, we are more overweight and sicker than our European counterparts (whom have similar DNA/genetic dispositions). We have access to cheap, easily-accessible guns, and have the highest gun-murder rate in the developed world. If having more guns made for a safer society, then America would be one of the safest countries in the world. We’re not. People in Europe have access to the same chemicals to make bombs that we do. Do they have a high bomb-death rate? No. Criminals don’t want to take the time to make a device that they can use only once.
The United States military has tanks, bazookas, F-14 Tomcats, Apache Helicopters with Tomahawk missiles, and nuclear weapons. Do Timmy Crouch and Glenn Ferguson honestly believe that they should have weapons-grade plutonium on their property? If so, I plan on contacting the U.S. government to clean up your property before you do something stupid and create a mushroom-cloud over whatever peaceful, polite rural-America town you guys live in.
Thomas Michael Anderson Now that Trump is in office, hopefully I can get back all of my guns that Obama took away.
Yes they are!!