Posted on Apr 6, 2018
Assault weapons ban doesn't violate 2nd Amendment, judge says
4.35K
43
14
6
6
0
Recent ruling out of MA. I am not a fan, and, fortunately, I don't live there.
I don't believe the judge is correct in some of his statements, either.
He states that AR-15s (and similar arms) are military weapons, which I don't believe to be true.
He also says that the AR-15 is based on guns that were "first designed for military purpose," which I don't believe to be correct. I may be wrong, but I believe the military M16 (and later M4) were based on the civilian AR-15, not the other way around.
He also stated that, as proof of their designation as military weapons, the AR-15 is common and well-known in the military." That seems a silly distinction to make considering that it is equally common and well-known to civilians.
Moreover, even if it is a "military weapon," I fail to understand how the 2A wouldn't cover military weapons when the intent of the Amendment was to ensure all citizens could function in a military capacity if necessary. Especially considering court precedent (Miller v. United States) that states that weapons that have reasonable militia use are protected by the 2A, of which "military weapons" should absolutely fall under.
What are your thoughts on this ruling RP?
I don't believe the judge is correct in some of his statements, either.
He states that AR-15s (and similar arms) are military weapons, which I don't believe to be true.
He also says that the AR-15 is based on guns that were "first designed for military purpose," which I don't believe to be correct. I may be wrong, but I believe the military M16 (and later M4) were based on the civilian AR-15, not the other way around.
He also stated that, as proof of their designation as military weapons, the AR-15 is common and well-known in the military." That seems a silly distinction to make considering that it is equally common and well-known to civilians.
Moreover, even if it is a "military weapon," I fail to understand how the 2A wouldn't cover military weapons when the intent of the Amendment was to ensure all citizens could function in a military capacity if necessary. Especially considering court precedent (Miller v. United States) that states that weapons that have reasonable militia use are protected by the 2A, of which "military weapons" should absolutely fall under.
What are your thoughts on this ruling RP?
Assault weapons ban doesn't violate 2nd Amendment, judge says
Posted from cbsnews.com
Gun Control
2nd Amendment
Rights
Bill of Rights
Constitution
Edited 6 y ago
Posted 6 y ago
Responses: 7
6
6
0
I now make a point of asking gun control advocates that support the semi-automatic rifle ban (I prefer accurate language in my political discussions), "For a firearm designed for the civilian population, what is an acceptable maximum number people it can kill in a minute?"
Let me know if anyone of them ever gives you an answer, let alone an answer that that has some level of informed and intelligent thought behind it.
Videos of their face as they ponder would be greatly appreciated.
Let me know if anyone of them ever gives you an answer, let alone an answer that that has some level of informed and intelligent thought behind it.
Videos of their face as they ponder would be greatly appreciated.
(6)
(0)
5
5
0
PFC Jim Wheeler
A value shift that stopped prioritizing freedom and instead prioritizes state-provided security.
(6)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google