Maryland bans assault rifles

Sirthinksalot said:
Say it ain't so domer! Despite your trollish tendencies, I never thought you were one of those pussies who puts people on ignore, then announces it... You're like ThatOwlWoman, except you can't blame it on menopause.
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
Click to expand...

You're not on ignore, twatwattle. I find your cretinous posts too amusing to add you to that list. OOLISS earned it based on his MO, which is to misinterpret, twist, distort, then ultimately lie. That, in addition to being a stalker.

Still hearing that 'whooshing' sound, dimwit? It's not the wind.
 
domer76 said:
Sure as shit, Einstein. Do you want me to quote Scalia again, halfwit? Because, what he said in the majority opinion and what Maryland is doing are completely consistent.

Doesn't it just suck for you guys that you are getting infringed? Does it hurt? Perhaps a little Anal-Lube will take that pain away.
Click to expand...

Did the founding fathers need lube? Why the fuck do you even live in this country, when there a dozens of other places that are already less free?
 
Threedee said:
Did the founding fathers need lube? Why the fuck do you even live in this country, when there a dozens of other places that are already less free?
Click to expand...

There are two others vying for stupid post of the month. I'll add you to the mix, nitwit.
 
Threedee said:
Domer is just a troll. They're not known for being overly shy when it comes to hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

I see the cunt, OOLISS, refers to thread bans. I don’t do that. What I DO employ is the ignore list, which makes my screen much cleaner. OOLISS is one because of his consistent illiteracy, distortion and stalking.
 
Taichiliberal said:
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

And a more simpler take

https://abovethelaw.com/2017/02/4th...ances-a-tarantella-on-scalias-grave-probably/
Click to expand...

Yes we get it the legislation defines "weapons of war" as "guns that look scary but aren't fielded by any military on the planet," and the 4th circus ignored Heller to allow this blatantly unconstitutional legislation to stand. See you in the SCOTUS dipshit.

[/quote]
 
Maryland bans assault rifles
Click to expand...
QUESTION:

Is there a fundamental error in the notion that there should be no weapons ban or restriction? If I want an extensive H-bomb * arsenal, should government have the authority to restrict or deny me it?

If no, then allowing some guns while denying others would seem to exceed legitimate government authority.

But as soon as we agree as a People that government has the authority to prevent private ownership of daisy-cutters, canons, and other such matériel
then it becomes a simple quibble about where we draw the line. For once we accept that government authority we are already on the slippery slope.

* not A-bomb, H-bomb, that's the kind that makes the loud noise
 
sear said:
QUESTION:

Is there a fundamental error in the notion that there should be no weapons ban or restriction? If I want an extensive H-bomb * arsenal, should government have the authority to restrict or deny me it?

If no, then allowing some guns while denying others would seem to exceed legitimate government authority.

But as soon as we agree as a People that government has the authority to prevent private ownership of daisy-cutters, canons, and other such matériel
then it becomes a simple quibble about where we draw the line. For once we accept that government authority we are already on the slippery slope.

* not A-bomb, H-bomb, that's the kind that makes the loud noise
Click to expand...

Article 6.
 
sear said:
QUESTION:

Is there a fundamental error in the notion that there should be no weapons ban or restriction? If I want an extensive H-bomb * arsenal, should government have the authority to restrict or deny me it?
Click to expand...

This is what we call an appeal to extreme logical fallacy, the Maryland legislation is not regulation it is effectively prohibition.
 
Sirthinksalot said:
Why do you think they banned assault rifles, instead of attempting to do something about hand guns?
Click to expand...

There is probably a number of reasons (reasons I don't entirely understand)

1) Political Agenda
2 Deemed 'unconstitutional' in relation to the Second Amendment
3) Public Outcry
 
P #56

The United States Constitution's Art.6 Sect.2 enumerates the United States Constitution as the supreme law of the land. That includes our Bill of Rights.

And the 2nd Article in our Bill of Rights says "shall not be infringed." Yet preventing citizens from having H-bombs doomsday bio-weapons is an authority our government exercises.
"This is what we call an appeal to extreme logical fallacy" PK #57
Click to expand...
a) "Appeal"?
You quoted two sentences. Each of the two are punctuated with question marks.
How can a question be an appeal?

b) "Logical fallacy"?
Superb! Please quote the logical fallacy.

Thanks.
 
sear said:
P #56

The United States Constitution's Art.6 Sect.2 enumerates the United States Constitution as the supreme law of the land. That includes our Bill of Rights.

And the 2nd Article in our Bill of Rights says "shall not be infringed." Yet preventing citizens from having H-bombs doomsday bio-weapons is an authority our government exercises.
Click to expand...
You're an idiot.

...This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;
Click to expand...

ALL TREATIES MADE, which would include the various non-proliferation and nuclear limitation treaties.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top