Maryland bans assault rifles

[Taichiliberal]

What gunners just don't like to deal with:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...shootings.html

[Nordberg]

Firstly gun banning or stricter legislation is not necessarily going to significantly reduce or diminish non-firearm related crimes. The primary purpose is too limit and reduce firearm related offences.

Rates may be increasing but a clear correlation can be made....of the 343 homicides in 2017 in Baltimore alone 88% were firearm related. 97% of this 88% was with a handgun. Legislation pertaining to handguns is a lot more lenient. Thus trying to correlate banning assault weapons and handgun crime is not entirely accurate. Additionally you cannot simply limit it to Baltimore, Maryland consists of a number of other areas.

There are not nearly as many assault type weapons so of course there are less shootings with them. If your argument is there aer too many shootings with hand guns, and they should be banned, i agree. good point.

[Sailor]

Not every child in Russia (if any) are "brought up" using a RPG and such. Don't be so stupid as to use a photo with no documentation to justify pure supposition and conjecture. Stay focused on the OP.

Blow it out your ass.

[Leonthecat]

Blow it out your ass.

Is that a Voodoo technique?

[Taichiliberal]

Blow it out your ass.

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).

[Nordberg]

but assault vehicles are still legal. You want to drive 150 mph and kill entire families, MD says go for it.

So MD has a speed limit of 150? I did not know that. Think you would get a ticket and lose your license?

[hvilleherb]

but assault vehicles are still legal. You want to drive 150 mph and kill entire families, MD says go for it.

Exactly. Liberal won't ban cars that have killed people.

[domer76]

Exactly. Liberal won't ban cars that have killed people.

The always absurd and equally predictable car/gun piece of horseshit.

As sure as the sun will rise, you idiots will invoke that fecal material.

[Ralph]

Ahh, states rights vs. federal gov't rulings...interesting.


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...-rules-n724106

FYI: Real "Assault rifles have been banned for decades." Simply because a weapon looks like a combat weapon does not make it a combat weapon. Name one state in the us where fully auto military weapons are legal.....without being totally registered with the federal government in order to own a pre 1985 weapon? And just how many of these weapons have been responsible for mass murders? IDIOTS!

[Abatis]

Ahh, states rights vs. federal gov't rulings...interesting.


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...-rules-n724106

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 . . .

[domer76]

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 . . .

Guess what, moron. Maryland can still ban your “assault weapon”.

[Abatis]

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

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).

And a more simpler take

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

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.

[sear]

"Maryland can still ban your “assault weapon”." d7

Perhaps.

Not sure how though.

United States Constitution
ARTICLE 1. SECTION 9.
3 No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

If it was legal at the time of purchase, the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION says it can't suddenly declare it illegal.

But then, nobody ever said the United States Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

ARTICLE 6.
2 This Constitution ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land

Oh.

- oops -

ok
Never mind.

[domer76]

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).



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.

Historically, there is only one conclusion as to the meaning of the term “bear arms” at the time if the writing of the Constitution. When someone had to “bear arms”, they did so in the context of a military situation. They did not “bear arms” to go out and shoot dinner.

[iewitness]

is anyone keeping count of the confederate states which are acting unlawfully ? that is a lot of liability upon the leaders of this succession from the damned union.