AR-15's ruled unconstitutional
- Thread starter bigfutz
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Avtomat-Acolyte
Well-Known Fanatic
Laws (and court decisions) only affect those that let them.
Avtomat-Acolyte
Well-Known Fanatic
As an aside, if anyone that owns an AR-15 is suddenly made a felon simply for possession of an AR-15, what is there to prevent this person from escalating their felonious possession?
If the penalty is the same for a semi-automatic AR-15, why not convert it to full auto?
The trouble with painting someone into a corner is that eventually they have no choice but to step on the paint.
So instead of painting half a room and having one jackass walk through your paint and having to deal with him, you decide to paint the entire room and 100 people walk through the paint because there is no other path.
Anti-2nd Amendment laws (any law that concerns guns, knives, et al) have the incremental effect of outlawing all weapons. Eventually the truism of "outlaw(ing)guns means only outlaws will have guns" will ring true.
If you make someone a criminal through no fault of their own then how can you expect them to not act like a criminal?
If you create a "dangerous felon" by outlawing an inanimate object that has been legal to own since before his, or your, lifetime, then can you really be surprised if he kills someone that comes to imprison him, tax him or otherwise harm him or his family through enforcement of treasonous laws that a minority use to enslave a majority.
If the penalty is the same for a semi-automatic AR-15, why not convert it to full auto?
The trouble with painting someone into a corner is that eventually they have no choice but to step on the paint.
So instead of painting half a room and having one jackass walk through your paint and having to deal with him, you decide to paint the entire room and 100 people walk through the paint because there is no other path.
Anti-2nd Amendment laws (any law that concerns guns, knives, et al) have the incremental effect of outlawing all weapons. Eventually the truism of "outlaw(ing)guns means only outlaws will have guns" will ring true.
If you make someone a criminal through no fault of their own then how can you expect them to not act like a criminal?
If you create a "dangerous felon" by outlawing an inanimate object that has been legal to own since before his, or your, lifetime, then can you really be surprised if he kills someone that comes to imprison him, tax him or otherwise harm him or his family through enforcement of treasonous laws that a minority use to enslave a majority.
Dave29461
Well-Known Fanatic
They call it a legal opinion. I call it legislating from the bench. They don't have the legal power to make laws. If our people in congress allow it then we need new congressmen. Vote early and often, dammit.
Avtomat-Acolyte
Well-Known Fanatic
Dave29461 said:
Court decisions have the power of law in this country.
Voting never fixes anything.
rotarymike
Well-Known Fanatic
A judge can uphold a law, or declare it unconstitutional. To do so there are various tests that are well established and precedential.
Interpreting a law like this is grounds for appeal. In this case, the goal I would think would be to get to the Supreme Court. If the SC says an assault weapons ban is legal and constitutional, then it would be unassailable.
However, given the makeup of the SC, even if some of the elder judges are replaced with liberal appointees, I just don't see that happening.
I admit that I do not like the bench adjudicating on subjects it has no knowledge of, without the proper input of experts outside the parties' own.
Interpreting a law like this is grounds for appeal. In this case, the goal I would think would be to get to the Supreme Court. If the SC says an assault weapons ban is legal and constitutional, then it would be unassailable.
However, given the makeup of the SC, even if some of the elder judges are replaced with liberal appointees, I just don't see that happening.
I admit that I do not like the bench adjudicating on subjects it has no knowledge of, without the proper input of experts outside the parties' own.
Dave29461
Well-Known Fanatic
The legal route to change involves putting candidates who hold your beliefs above your ideological opponent. Then in turn appoints SC that rules the way we want. If it was easy one side or the other would have successed for the last time, by now. I'm one of those silly people who believes in trying to do things within my moral/legal limits. It is a pain in the butt attitude but I've learned to live with it. I've also learned to ignore somethings when the moral burden outweighs the legality . AA, you do it your way and I'll do it mine. I hope and think our end results are close to the same. Mike, there are times when I would be happy to move to a very secluded place and pull the drawbridge up behind me as the world goes to hell in a handcart.
bigfutz
Well-Known Fanatic
I thought that was what America was supposed to be... If you don't like England, go start your own country. So our forefathers did, and it was good. And now judges like these (and many others) are spoiling it, and we are letting them. There are no secluded places left. Gotta resist.
rotarymike
Well-Known Fanatic
well... sorta. The folks that came over on the Mayflower et al were more or less voluntold to come here. They were puritans, and so uptight that England kicked them out.
Two sides to every coin, and all that.
Two sides to every coin, and all that.
bigfutz
Well-Known Fanatic
But I hope you see my point. I'm guilty of living behind my own little "drawbridge" so to speak. I guess we need more hashtags :lol:
FunkyMonkey
Well-Known Fanatic
rotarymike said:
Actually, this is historically incorrect, although commonly believed. Religious freedom from England forced the puritans to Holland. When they feared their children were living in too permissive a society, they again fled to America. Ironic, and typical of people who think that freedom of religion does not imply freedom from religion. Anyway, I digress . . .
One of the many repeated lies repeated ad nauseum in public school.
rotarymike
Well-Known Fanatic
Learned something today - pretty good day then, right?
You know, I am a product of public schools, albeit not a South Carolina one
I just referenced two sources - an old American history textbook I keep on the shelf just because, and a scholarly paper database (part of Lexis-Nexis).
The American history book mentions Holland not at all. Scholarly papers on the pilgrims totally do, although they mention the political underpinnings more than the religious ones.
That book is from the early 80s, and definitely pre-political correctness. Still, kind of a huge omission for a book about the beginnings of our country.
You know, I am a product of public schools, albeit not a South Carolina one
I just referenced two sources - an old American history textbook I keep on the shelf just because, and a scholarly paper database (part of Lexis-Nexis).
The American history book mentions Holland not at all. Scholarly papers on the pilgrims totally do, although they mention the political underpinnings more than the religious ones.
That book is from the early 80s, and definitely pre-political correctness. Still, kind of a huge omission for a book about the beginnings of our country.
rotarymike
Well-Known Fanatic
FunkyMonkey said:
I hope you're generalizing there, and not painting me with that brush. I definitely have reasons to believe that of == from.
Dave29461
Well-Known Fanatic
My history books of the 60's had considerably more info about our founding fathers. Pilgrims to Holland being a good example.
This whole thing reminds me of the scholarly work that said the gun was a minor part of the settling of America. Revised history is better known as lying.
I have to agree with you,Mike about 'of and from' .
This whole thing reminds me of the scholarly work that said the gun was a minor part of the settling of America. Revised history is better known as lying.
I have to agree with you,Mike about 'of and from' .
rotarymike
Well-Known Fanatic
My personal favorite, is whoever said that "black powder guns don't kill people" as reasoning behind minimal regulation of BP weapons. I beg to differ, I've been to Gettysburg.
Folks see hollywood movies of a guy getting shot and falling down dead. They don't know (and don't want to know) how horrible gun battles were in the black powder days (something like 90% died from secondary issues like sepsis) or even now - people think that Saving Private Ryan was overdone gore.
Folks see hollywood movies of a guy getting shot and falling down dead. They don't know (and don't want to know) how horrible gun battles were in the black powder days (something like 90% died from secondary issues like sepsis) or even now - people think that Saving Private Ryan was overdone gore.
Confed Sailor
Well-Known Fanatic
SHHHSHSS!!!!! JEEEZUS!!!! Dont let them catch on to that, I got a good thing going with BP...
FunkyMonkey
Well-Known Fanatic
rotarymike said:
Nope, absolutely nothing personal. Just a side rant. But sometimes overlooked in our circles.
Take care.
