Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789101112 LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 180

Thread: Maryland bans assault rifles

  1. #121 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    2,243
    Thanks
    72
    Thanked 457 Times in 397 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 124 Times in 114 Posts

    Default

    I would say that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. he gave us the example of man's fail and man has come full circle and repeated the fail. it is judgement time again. anyone denying that ;I have nothing to say. it is good. The Spirit says come -17- . http://biblehub.com/kjv/revelation/22.htm
    Even so, Come, Lord Jesus
    I do not participate in delusion count me out

  2. The Following User Groans At iewitness For This Awful Post:

    Nordberg (03-19-2018)

  3. #122 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    2,243
    Thanks
    72
    Thanked 457 Times in 397 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 124 Times in 114 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ralph View Post
    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.
    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.
    Even so, Come, Lord Jesus
    I do not participate in delusion count me out

  4. #123 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    20,801
    Thanks
    5,108
    Thanked 5,629 Times in 4,083 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,357 Times in 1,282 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Abatis View Post
    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 . . .
    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.
    During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.

    George Orwell

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Taichiliberal For This Post:

    domer76 (03-20-2018)

  6. #124 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    20,801
    Thanks
    5,108
    Thanked 5,629 Times in 4,083 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,357 Times in 1,282 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Abatis View Post
    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
    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/
    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.
    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!
    During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.

    George Orwell

  7. #125 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    20,801
    Thanks
    5,108
    Thanked 5,629 Times in 4,083 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,357 Times in 1,282 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sailor View Post
    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).
    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.
    Wow, the imbecile just doesn't get it, does he folks?
    During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.

    George Orwell

  8. #126 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    20,801
    Thanks
    5,108
    Thanked 5,629 Times in 4,083 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,357 Times in 1,282 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Abatis View Post

    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.
    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?
    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.
    During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.

    George Orwell

  9. #127 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,479
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
    You excerpt what you think supports your supposition and conjecture.
    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
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

  10. #128 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    2,243
    Thanks
    72
    Thanked 457 Times in 397 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 124 Times in 114 Posts

    Default

    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.
    Even so, Come, Lord Jesus
    I do not participate in delusion count me out

  11. #129 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Upper Bucks County, PA
    Posts
    761
    Thanks
    115
    Thanked 279 Times in 190 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 21 Times in 20 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
    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.
    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.
    GUN CONTROL LAWS ARE OSHA REGULATIONS FOR VIOLENT CRIMINALS

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Abatis For This Post:

    Truth Detector (03-25-2018)

  13. #130 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    7,318
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,883 Times in 2,239 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 124 Times in 120 Posts

    Default

    Looks like some criminal did not get the "memo" about control law in the state of Maryland. 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?

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Ralph For This Post:

    Truth Detector (03-25-2018)

  15. #131 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    40,213
    Thanks
    14,475
    Thanked 23,679 Times in 16,485 Posts
    Groans
    23
    Groaned 585 Times in 561 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
    Wow, the imbecile just doesn't get it, does he folks?
    You certainly do not, I agree. You can keep your faux intelligence for those that care.

  16. #132 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    20,801
    Thanks
    5,108
    Thanked 5,629 Times in 4,083 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,357 Times in 1,282 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post

    Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
    You excerpt what you think supports your supposition and conjecture.
    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
    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 by Taichiliberal; 03-20-2018 at 10:42 PM.
    During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.

    George Orwell

  17. #133 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    20,801
    Thanks
    5,108
    Thanked 5,629 Times in 4,083 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,357 Times in 1,282 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iewitness View Post
    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.
    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.
    During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.

    George Orwell

  18. #134 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    20,801
    Thanks
    5,108
    Thanked 5,629 Times in 4,083 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,357 Times in 1,282 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sailor View Post
    You certainly do not, I agree. You can keep your faux intelligence for those that care.
    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.
    During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.

    George Orwell

  19. #135 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    20,801
    Thanks
    5,108
    Thanked 5,629 Times in 4,083 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,357 Times in 1,282 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Abatis View Post

    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.
    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.

    So everyone is to take YOUR personal interpretations as gospel, but NOT the reporting in the link which gives valid references and documented support.
    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 by Taichiliberal; 03-20-2018 at 10:49 PM.
    During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.

    George Orwell

Similar Threads

  1. Banning assault rifles would be constitutional
    By Cancel 2018.2 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 75
    Last Post: 03-04-2018, 01:40 PM
  2. Why were assault rifles prohibited?
    By Jarod in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 77
    Last Post: 12-19-2015, 09:09 PM
  3. Production Of “Assault” Rifles Explodes Under Obama…
    By RockX in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 05-07-2013, 03:21 PM
  4. Thank God or Rush that we get assault rifles
    By Topspin in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 03-24-2009, 08:55 AM
  5. I HOPE YOU ENJOY YOUR ASSAULT RIFLES
    By FUCK THE POLICE in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 12-06-2007, 12:18 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •