4 replies to this topic

[UncleVinnys]

‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules

 

http://‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules

 

Writing for a nine-judge majority, U.S. Circuit Judge Robert King said that weapons such as M-16s and the kind that “are most useful in military service” aren’t protected by the Second Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller decision. That ruling limited the right to ownership of handguns for self-defense within the home.

 

 

[Chris]

I've read the Heller decision and it does not say that.  Have you read it...?  If you did you would have noted over and over "In common use of the time".  This was actually taken and used in Heller from the Miller decision in the 1930's I believe.  That means that people have the right to defense of themselves, of life, liberty, property, by using the weapon that is in common use of the time.  Back in 1783 it was the generally the smooth bore musket.  Today it is the AR-15 or a handgun.  You see Vinny, the 2nd amendment was written to mean that the people could fight back against the Army, either a domestic Army or a foreign Army (in this case the British Army), using the same weapons that the army had as to not be at a disadvantage in arms.  It's very simple actually.  And the Heller decision did not limit the right to keep handguns in the home in DC it actually granted that right as I recall.  Heller was a re-affirmation of the individuals right to keep and bear arms.  And a 9th circuit judge........what a joke.  It's known as the 9th Circus Court in the legal community, the most overturned circuit court in the country.  Chris

[2 Aces]

Speaking of weapons, how many weapons is this woman carrying in this short video below? Just watch. I think I'm in love! 

 

http://www.ksfo.com/...king-hot-chick/

[The Average Joe]

Oh look, a 4th circuit decision heading for overturn at the Supreme COurt

[ghost35me]

Let's be fair.... A court didn't rule this.  This was a biased, politically motivated opinion with no factual or reasonable basis.   The courts have become a joke and a laughing stock for the global legal community.

 

What part of 'shall not be infringed' is so hard to understand?  Is English, reading comprehension and logic even taught in schools here? There is an unfortunate presence of progressives in government and the legal system -- that they are there is not really the problem. It's that they often act on their bias, not upon what's right.  argumentum ad populum.

 

Conflict of interest much?   Weapons are what the people have as a last resort against the tyranny of government.  For the government to prohibit weapons in common use by the government is a conflict of interest.  

 

Prohibition of weapons isn't going to bring peace or reduce violence.  It only further enables tyranny.