Maryland bans assault rifles

Abatis said:
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?



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?



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.



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.



The dissenting opinions? Why should any attention be given to the opinions that have no bearing?
Click to expand...

that last sentence is the window to your absurdity. YOU are dissenting against the Maryland decision, genius. So by your own standard, YOU should be ignored.
Once more for the cheap seats: you just don't get to ignore the part about "a well regulated militia" in the 2nd Amendment....you should read up on the requirements for such back then, and how that has morphed over the decades as to why there are "military issued" weapons and weapons for the civilian population.

the chronology of the posts shows you to be a liar as to what I've posted and what you ignore....your worthless denial none withstanding. I strongly urge you to put on your socks & shoes and toddle over to the nearest high school and let the English dept. that has a forensic society explain to you what constitutes a proper argumentation and debate, and how to win a point. Since all you've got is more of the SOS, I'll leave you to that.
 
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...

If that is so, then why are YOU desperately trying to disparage the OP? If you're not doing that, then WTF are you going on about? Do you even know? Sailor is an intellectually dishonest idiot, which is why he's on OP. YOU seem hell bent on trying to mesh/substitute your opinion with fact....a confusion you seem to insipidly stubborn to acknowledge.

Whatever, seems you've got nothing else to offer but repetition. I'll leave you to it.
 
Taichiliberal said:
that last sentence is the window to your absurdity. YOU are dissenting against the Maryland decision, genius. So by your own standard, YOU should be ignored.
Click to expand...

I'm using the Supreme Court and the standing law to negate the Maryland decision (a lower court). SCOTUS isn't a dissent to a Circuit court, it's a higher authority and the NFA-34 is very clear as to what part makes a full-auto M-16 or AK-47 or M-2 or G3 or FN FAL need a tax stamp (which is what "bans" them). I note you make no attempt to defend on any level the 4th Circuit's "and the like" application from my attack. Is it that you don't undertand it or are you just not interested in learning the law?

Taichiliberal said:
Once more for the cheap seats: you just don't get to ignore the part about "a well regulated militia" in the 2nd Amendment....
Click to expand...

Of course I do. The SCOTUS tells me so. SCOTUS has been boringly consistent for going on 150 years that since the right to arms is not granted by the 2ndA, the right does not in any manner depend on the Constitution for its existence. As SCOTUS says, the 2ndA has but one purpose, to restrict the powers of the federal goverenment (and now state governments after McDonald).

Taichiliberal said:
you should read up on the requirements for such back then, and how that has morphed over the decades as to why there are "military issued" weapons and weapons for the civilian population.
Click to expand...

And the militia regulations were only impressed upon those citizens actually enrolled and notified. Private citizens were never held to any milita standard or had any militia conditioning placed on them.

Taichiliberal said:
the chronology of the posts shows you to be a liar as to what I've posted and what you ignore....your worthless denial none withstanding.
Click to expand...

Prove it.

Taichiliberal said:
I strongly urge you to put on your socks & shoes and toddle over to the nearest high school and let the English dept. that has a forensic society explain to you what constitutes a proper argumentation and debate, and how to win a point. Since all you've got is more of the SOS, I'll leave you to that.
Click to expand...

Well, the pro-gun rights argument isn't complicated or multi-tiered. Sorry you really don't have any on-point rebuttal for my SOS but that's why guys like you typically resign the debate cursing and calling me names.
 
Taichiliberal said:
If that is so, then why are YOU desperately trying to disparage the OP?
Click to expand...

The OP is lame. You really don't set-out any point to debate, you just make a half-assed (and I'm gonna assume totally wrong) statement about "states rights vs. federal gov't rulings...interesting." There is no conflict, especially after McDonald. The Maryland law is unconstitutional on multiple levels.

Taichiliberal said:
If you're not doing that, then WTF are you going on about? Do you even know?
Click to expand...

I believe the 4th Circuit's decision in Kolbe is absolute BS and am willing and able to lay-out why.

Taichiliberal said:
YOU seem hell bent on trying to mesh/substitute your opinion with fact....a confusion you seem to insipidly stubborn to acknowledge.
Click to expand...

Isn't presenting opinion with one's supporting points what we are here for? If you just want to write a post and not have your goofy opinion challenged then perhaps you should start a blog and turn comments off . . .

Taichiliberal said:
Whatever, seems you've got nothing else to offer but repetition. I'll leave you to it.
Click to expand...

Where is your challenge of my analysis of cases and the law? Repetition is what you do, name-call and denigrate without saying anything of substance to either rebut your opponent or advance your position.
 
BrainDeadliberal said:
Gunner myopia as they masturbate over their firearm "expertise".

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

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

And yet, Marylands AWB prevented nothing. Yet you Fascist gun grabbing morons continue to trot out the same dumb solutions over an over again which is the definition of dumb.
 
Last edited:
iewitness said:
the book done said that the beast will receive power to overcome the saints. the damned will have a short period of fake victory. soon. it is good.
Click to expand...

Keep preaching the Lord's words. The libs won't know what you're saying, but Republicans will understand and will rejoice in the good words you preach.
 
hvilleherb said:
Keep preaching the Lord's words. The libs won't know what you're saying, but Republicans will understand and will rejoice in the good words you preach.
Click to expand...

I testify what I see and hear. right or wrong, unto The Lord I commit myself. I am not republican, democrat or any such thing.
 
Sailor said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah all pushed out by rude and crude name calling rightys. Do you actually read the posts? Yours are among the worst.
 
Nordberg said:
Yeah all pushed out by rude and crude name calling rightys. Do you actually read the posts? Yours are among the worst.
Click to expand...

You whine Nordberg. A lot. Like a bitch. Generally because you never read whatever partisan crap you post and then when you get your ass handed to you with it, you whine. Here is a hint, get a little intellect like some of liberals on this board, actually read what you post before you do it and see you Dr. about your obvious low testosterone levels.
 
iewitness said:
I said that "this corruption is right on schedule. the damned are fruiting the fruit of the damned." you can read. this is entertaining: why would anyone in their right mind ban a machine as awesome as a battle rifle ?... watch this rifle all but catch on fire... https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/century-c308-1000-round-torture-test-shot-show-2016/
Click to expand...

Yes I can read....I can also recognize BS when I read it. So rather than have the intellectual courage to give a straight answer, you just blow more smoke. Clearly, you can't muster a logical, fact based retort as to why the Maryland decision is wrong. But if blowing smoke and having it blown away is entertaining to you, then by all means carry on, McDuff!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top