Maryland bans assault rifles

Ralph said:
To me....the fig tree analogy was fulfilled when Rome Destroyed the City of Jerusalem and ended the nation of Biblical Israel. Just as prophesied in both the Old Book, (The Book of Dan.) and the New Testament (Matthew 24) As the Christ did say that some of the men there by His side would be standing alive when these things happened.

Jesus warned His disciples that Jerusalem would SOON fall (Matthew 23:36) "All these things will come upon THIS GENERATION." (Matthew 24:36) ".....THIS GENERATION will by no means pass away until till ALL THESE THINGS TAKE PLACE."

One can't say that Jesus was speaking of some distant generation when he made it clear, "ASSUREDLY.....THERE ARE SOME STANDING HERE.......who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming with His Kingdom." -- Mathew 16:28. Of course the Kingdom He was speaking of was HIS CHURCH ON EARTH.....that began the day He uttered ITS FINISHED. What was finished? All that He came to fulfill, including the Old Law with the ushering in of a new Covenant, the last covenant, THE LAST DAYS OF MANKIND....the New Testament Covenant of Christ Jesus.

Jesus clearly referenced the Book of Daniel in (LUKE 21:20) When He declared the end of Jerusalem and Israel would be near when you see Armies encircling that city. Israel was destroyed by Rome in the 1st century....and ceased to exist upon earth until a nation calling itself Israel was constructed by UN edict in the 20th century, that can in no way claim to be Biblical Israel...because its not governed by a King, nor does it have a Royal Priesthood.....but a government set up man....not God.

The True Israel exists as Christians.....a religion that took both Israel and Gentiles and formed one NATION....under Abraham, "There is neither Greek nor Jew......all have become one through Christ Jesus and Heirs to the promise of Abraham." -- Gal. 3:3-29

Ask any Jew living in modern Israel if they accept Jesus as he Messiah of prophecy as did the remainder of Israel in the 1st century? They are supposed to be ONE if they want to be heirs to the promise of Abraham......to encircle the earth with one nation, a spiritual nation...called Christianity.

There are many misunderstandings to the Chapter of Matthew 24. People tend to overlap the 2 different times lines Jesus was speaking about.....one was the destruction of the City of Jerusalem along with the nation of Israel.....and another timeline was one that He admittedly KNEW NOT WHEN IT Would come about...the END, judgment day....only the Father knows when the 2nd coming will take place....it will be like a thief in the night.....all the earth will be destroyed. Just like the Apostle of Christ declared in 2 Peter 3:10, THE VERY ELEMENTS OF OUR ENTIRE SOLAR SYSTEM WILL BE DESTROYED, ENGULFED IN FLAME. A guess...would be that our star will suddenly go supernova or cast some solar flares that will cross the earths orbit destroying our atmosphere. But it will come...suddenly without warning. THE END.
Click to expand...

disorder entered with the rebellion of Lucifer and it will be corrected. there shall be a new heaven and a new earth -17- . http://biblehub.com/kjv/isaiah/65.htm , -1- http://biblehub.com/kjv/revelation/21.htm. scripture bears witness to itself many times.
 
Abatis said:
It's a laughable ruling that hinges entirely on an egregiously disingenuous reading of Heller's, "and the like" . . .

Heller's statement that "if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, . . . " isn't comparing appearances, accessories or furniture, (collapsible stocks, flash hiders, pistol grips etc), it is comparing the full-auto M-16 to other full-auto guns that all fall under Title II of NFA-34. The thing that those guns share, making them both "bannable" and thus "like" each other, is an auto-sear -- the capability of selective or full-auto fire -- NOT collapsible stocks, barrel shrouds and flash hiders. NONE of those things are mentioned in NFA-34; NONE of those things are of any interest in determining a Title II "banned" arm from a legal semi-auto.

Leftist stupidity on parade . . .
Click to expand...

Gunner myopia as they masturbate over their firearm "expertise". Here chuckles, for your education: (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54

Which is why you had the AWB in 1994, and why Maryland was justified in it's ruling.

Laugh, clown, laugh.
 
Abatis said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
It does
The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
Click to expand...

What's being discussed/rebutted is the narrow definition of "bear arms" argued by DC. He isn't making a statement on the scope of the right, just the incorrectness of DC's argument that "bear" limits the right to just organized militia use.

This is the part of Heller that is totally unnecessary, the textual analysis. Scalia should have just cited long-standing SCOTUS precedent in response to DC, that the right to arms isn't granted by the 2nd Amendment thus it is not in any manner dependent upon any words in the Constitution for its existence -- which he does a couple paragraphs later in (c).

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
And a more simpler take

https://abovethelaw.com/2017/02/4th-...rave-probably/
Click to expand...

By simple I hope you mean utterly simple-minded. It was good for a laugh. He is amused by the "frothing" in the dissent; I'm willing to be patient for the great frothing of liberals the next time SCOTUS hears a gun case.
Click to expand...

What's laughable is your gunner myopia and exaggerated opinion of self. What you don't like and what you think should have been done is irrelevant, and trying to armchair the history of Scalia's folly is a joke. Here chuckles (again) for your education:

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54

This is why the AWB was able to come to play and why Maryland was justified in it's decision. flail on, McDuff!
 
Sailor said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Brilliant retort, sailor! Oh, how can I hope to stand against such an onslaught of logical brilliance? (note: this is sarcasm, in case you didn't know).
Click to expand...

I figured I would dumb it down enough to bring it down to your intellectual level. No need to thank me. I take pity on those less intellectually capable.
Click to expand...

Wow, the imbecile just doesn't get it, does he folks?
 
Abatis said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Your questions are yet another desperate attempt to avoid the OP and the following https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...36#post2256236

No matter how you dance, your personal interpretation, supposition and conjecture is no substitute for the valid, historical facts in ALL their context.
Click to expand...

I've replied to both the OP and your other post liked there . . . And made an attempt to support my personal interpretation with historical and legal facts. Are you going to rebut me or dance away in silence?
Click to expand...

You excerpt what you think supports your supposition and conjecture. Fortunately, that lame ploy is easily foiled, as I've done in other posts. Oh, and since there is life outside of these boards, my responses may not be on a time schedule to your liking.
 
the courts are utterly corrupt and unlawful. lawlessness in the damned courts is why the 2nd amendment has preserved the well regulated militia. the damned courts usurp . the damned courts are outlaws. stand by.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Gunner myopia as they masturbate over their firearm "expertise". Here chuckles, for your education: (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54

Which is why you had the AWB in 1994, and why Maryland was justified in it's ruling.

Laugh, clown, laugh.
Click to expand...

First thing, at least I know that the syllabus is not the holding, it constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. It has no precedential value.

Second, it would serve you to go and read the pages of the Heller majority opinion that are referenced in the syllabus (47-54). When you do that you would see that your conclusion drawn from your overeading of the syllabus, is unsupported and thus wrong. There you will find the Heller Court reaffirming Miller's "part of the ordinary military equipment" as being part of the protection criteria, conditioning it by saying "part of the ordinary military equipment" should be read in tandem with the arm "being in common use". I have always done just that in my writing; "in common use" can stand on it's own, "part of the ordinary military equipment" is linked to and qualified by "in common use".

Third, when you read the actual case and realize how wrong you are, please come back and apologize for being such an insolent and insufferable asshole.
 
Looks like some criminal did not get the "memo" about control law in the state of Maryland. :palm: Laws stop crime.....really? I just wonder how the left is going to tie the bombings in the state of Texas into gun control laws?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
You excerpt what you think supports your supposition and conjecture.
Click to expand...
like your idiot ass does with murdock? you're a total retard dumbfuck for thinking that murdock only creates a law for religious purposes only. TOTAL FUCKING RETARD
Click to expand...

WTF are you babbling about now? If you're going to be picking up the gauntlet for your equally asinine compadres, at least be coherent and specific...THEN back up your accusations with cold hard FACTS.

Oh, and I do agree with the 3 word self description you apply to yourself. Seems you're coming unglued because a State does something you don't like and you have no logical, rational rebuttal. My, life in these United States is tough of you!
 
Last edited:
iewitness said:
the courts are utterly corrupt and unlawful. lawlessness in the damned courts is why the 2nd amendment has preserved the well regulated militia. the damned courts usurp . the damned courts are outlaws. stand by.
Click to expand...

and yet YOU are quite comfortable living in a country of laws that are frequently challenged and altered by said courts. Maybe, just maybe if everyone did their civic duty and got involved in the voting process from the ground up, your statement wouldn't exist.
 
Sailor said:
You certainly do not, I agree. You can keep your faux intelligence for those that care.
Click to expand...

How childish of you....you can't even mount an original rebuttal. Since you've nothing to offer but stupidity to the discussion, I take my leave of you.
 
Abatis said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Gunner myopia as they masturbate over their firearm "expertise". Here chuckles, for your education: (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54

Which is why you had the AWB in 1994, and why Maryland was justified in it's ruling.

Laugh, clown, laugh.
Click to expand...

First thing, at least I know that the syllabus is not the holding, it constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. It has no precedential value.

Second, it would serve you to go and read the pages of the Heller majority opinion that are referenced in the syllabus (47-54). When you do that you would see that your conclusion drawn from your overeading of the syllabus, is unsupported and thus wrong. There you will find the Heller Court reaffirming Miller's "part of the ordinary military equipment" as being part of the protection criteria, conditioning it by saying "part of the ordinary military equipment" should be read in tandem with the arm "being in common use". I have always done just that in my writing; "in common use" can stand on it's own, "part of the ordinary military equipment" is linked to and qualified by "in common use".

Third, when you read the actual case and realize how wrong you are, please come back and apologize for being such an insolent and insufferable asshole.
Click to expand...


So everyone is to take YOUR personal interpretations as gospel, but NOT the reporting in the link which gives valid references and documented support. :rolleyes:
Again, YOU isolate what you like, slap on your own supposition and conjecture and ignore the rest of the material provided....then stupidly pat yourself on the back with a condescending attitude.

Sorry scruffy, but that dog of yours won't fly...because the bottom line is that YOU are NOT given the Constitutional right to weapons deemed military grade....just to weapons in general. A matter of fact, a matter of history that all your pseudo-intellectual clap trap cannot undo. Go log yourself with the dissenting votes and take comfort with that. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
So everyone is to take YOUR personal interpretations as gospel, but NOT the reporting in the link which gives valid references and documented support. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I offer my analysis of the case and my opinion with supporting quotes from the case(s). One can either agree or lay out a differing analysis and opinion. The case law is there, quote it and tell me what it means to you . . . That's how debate works.

What link specifically are you talking about, the one to the Heller decision or the link to the leftist blog's opinion of Kolbe v Hogan?

Taichiliberal said:
Again, YOU isolate what you like,
Click to expand...

You saying that is pretty funny since it seems the support for your entire position only exists in a quote from the syllabus. Can you provide any other support for your bald opinion that military-style guns fall outside the 2nd's protection?

Taichiliberal said:
slap on your own supposition and conjecture and ignore the rest of the material provided...
Click to expand...

What am I ignoring? Again, the syllabus is not any part of the opinion and whatever conclusion you draw from the syllabus is an unsupported overreading.

Taichiliberal said:
Sorry scruffy, but that dog of yours won't fly...because the bottom line is that YOU are NOT given the Constitutional right to weapons deemed military grade....just to weapons in general.
Click to expand...

But my position is that since I wasn't "given" the right --that in fact, since "We the People" never placed any aspect of our right to arms in the hands of government -- it is idiotic to think that the government can condition or qualify the right to just "weapons in general" and not "military grade".

As long as the LEGAL PROTECTION of the pre-existing, never surrendered, fully retained right to keep and bear arms is filtered through the "object" of the 2nd Amendment (the perpetuation of the general milita concept) then the types of arms protected are those that make up the ordinary military equipment and that would be useful in the common defense.

Taichiliberal said:
A matter of fact, a matter of history that all your pseudo-intellectual clap trap cannot undo. Go log yourself with the dissenting votes and take comfort with that. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
Click to expand...

The dissenting opinions? Why should any attention be given to the opinions that have no bearing?
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
How childish of you....you can't even mount an original rebuttal. Since you've nothing to offer but stupidity to the discussion, I take my leave of you.
Click to expand...

Translation: You are right. I have nothing but blustering whining with nothing to substantiate my diatribe. Therefore I will slither away.
 
Sailor said:
Translation: You are right. I have nothing but blustering whining with nothing to substantiate my diatribe. Therefore I will slither away.
Click to expand...

What I don't get is that they are the originator of the thread and one would assume that the OP was intended to foster debate. When someone does mount an opposition or state a different opinion, it is met with anger and derision.

I always thought of discussion groups as a place to have a discussion and debate opposing points.

As far as this OP goes, (and many of the left here), this board only serves as a platform to debase anyone who disagrees with them.
 
Abatis said:
What I don't get is that they are the originator of the thread and one would assume that the OP was intended to foster debate. When someone does mount an opposition or state a different opinion, it is met with anger and derision.

I always thought of discussion groups as a place to have a discussion and debate opposing points.

As far as this OP goes, (and many of the left here), this board only serves as a platform to debase anyone who disagrees with them.
Click to expand...

Sadly it did not use to be that way when I first joined this board. There still are some very intelligent liberals whom I enjoy discussing politics with openly on this board. Open minded, can still have a rational debate. There used to be many more. That seems to be fading unfortunately.
 
Taichiliberal said:
and yet YOU are quite comfortable living in a country of laws that are frequently challenged and altered by said courts. Maybe, just maybe if everyone did their civic duty and got involved in the voting process from the ground up, your statement wouldn't exist.
Click to expand...

no. this corruption is right on schedule. the damned are fruiting the fruit of the damned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top