Judge Upholds Massachusetts Ban on AR-15s, Other Military-Style Weapons Ruling says some rifles aren

FFS. Judge rules that "assault weapons" are for military use and therefore not protected by the second amendment.

**** the fact that the military doesn't use the weapons being banned, including the AR-15. **** the fact that we are granted this right to defend ourselves from the military should the **** hit the fan. This has to be overturned. It defies the amendment and the very ruling parameters.

https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/ju...r-15s-other-military-style-weapons-1523056971

 

At the time the 2A was written all weapons were military grade.

 

Another activist judge making crap up.

1) There is not such thing as an "Assault Weapon". That term was created in the late 80's by anti-gun wackos so they could label any gun they do not like.

2) When the 2nd Amendment was ratified, the military had the same exact weapons as did the civilians.

 

LMAO! How are they going to enforce this? They can't even keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Stupid leftists.

 

Say goodbye to them all.............

 

They do not have to enforce it. Simply whack on a hefty fine if caught with one

Some will take the risk. Some will hide the weapons and some will hand them in/ sell them on

 

Uh, no. But, for the sake of arguing, let's say that this is what was intended. Fast forward to 2018.

I'll let your critical thinking skills take it from here...

 

Incorrect. The term was coined by gun manufacturers to sell more guns.

https://reason.com/blog/2013/01/17/the-new-york-times-which-uncritically-re

"The popularly held idea that the term ‘assault weapon' originated with antigun activists, media or politicians is wrong," [Phillip] Peterson [author of the Gun Digest Buyer's Guide to Tactical Rifles] wrote. "The term was first adopted by the manufacturers, wholesalers, importers and dealers in the American firearms industry to stimulate sales of certain firearms that did not have an appearance that was familiar to many firearm owners. The manufacturers and gun writers of the day needed a catchy name to identify this new type of gun."

 

Educate yourself and look up the word Sturmgewehr, a term created by Hitler, not the American firearms industry. FYI the term Assault Rifle was the English translation of Sturmgewehr -- although Storm RIfle would have been a more accurate translation.

This term assault weapon is apparently some sort of misnomer invented by liberals once they grasped the fact that the term Assault Rifle did not apply to the weapons they want to ban.

 

This judge is incompetent and that is a dangerous thing.

The weapon wasn't designed for the military because its target market was civilian shooters, so there goes that argument.

Furthermore many weapons have been specifically designed for the military and that exact designs is also simultaneously sold to the public, so there goes that argument again.

30 rounds is not "high capacity" as there are 100+ round products readily available on the open market, so there goes that argument.

And this is absolutely a second amendment issue as lawmakers are trying to infringe upon rights just as they did when they imposed literacy tests on voting, so there goes that argument.

This judge needs to be reviewed and removed and this case needs to go to the US Supreme Court.

 

Now you are just splitting hairs, and you know it. And, guess what? I'm not buying it.

You can spin it until your head snaps off. The fact remains that it was your side that birthed this monstrosity of a description, and now you seek to deny parentage. Classy. Real classy.

EDIT: And you get no points for introducing Godwin's Law, no matter how sanctimonious you felt in doing so.

 

If the people who filed the suit are smart they'll wait a bit and see if Trump will get the chance to appoint a new SC justice.

 

The Sturmgewehr was introduced by the German Army in 1944

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_44

 

You don't have to agree with the law, but legally it should be within the state's prerogative.
The Bill of Rights originally only applied to the federal government.

I'm kind of partial to the idea that if a particular city or locality wants to pass regulations, and they have the permission from their state government, they should be allowed to have those regulations.
(even though I am very much opposed to the punishment being too great)

Allowing local self-determination is, on the whole, more conducive to freedom, because at least then people can vote with their feet and be under the laws they want, and, hopefully, not feel the need to try to push their regulations on everyone else.

 

LMAO! How are you gonna get caught with one? No one walks around the streets with one & no one's gonna hand them in. I wouldn't.

 

The ruling is the best argument against a national gun registry, anyone with half a brain will now catch on the duplicitous liberal game plan of making gun owners register their guns as step 1 and using these sort of rulings to confiscate them as step 2.

 

Uh yes. The founders were clear.
Lets test yours. Presumably your argument is centered around military technology from bombers to nukes and our inability to defend against them. A tyranical government does not seek to destroy, but suppress and rule its people. That requires a ground game against superior numbers.

Ffs the most powerful nations on Earth have failed to suppress Afghans over DECADES. A people essentially living in stone age times with the exception of their armaments.

 

Cold dead hands.

 

More accurate to say there were no military grade firearms that could be held and operated by one person.

 

Cannons. The war was fought largely with private merchant cannons. Know what is involved in procuring and operating a simple cannon today?

 

What part of “held and operated by one person” did you not understand?

 

i remember the program from the history channel on the gun. i doubt they will accept the facts.

 

So you do not understand my post? You don't get the point because the weapon does not meet your arbitrary standard?

 

the term was not invented by liberals and the explanation of the german wwii weapon explains the origin of the term.

 

Oh I don't know. Boycotts, Lawfare, civil and criminal liability? Can you imagine where we would be right now if Hillary would have appointed Scalia's replacement?

MUFFY: I say, Buffy, but have you noticed -- the leftwing seems to have rather weaponized the social justice warrior mob and is cowing corporations into punishing conservatives.

BUFFY: Why no, Muffy, I had not noticed. Oh, Biff, do you think this is the sort of thing we ought to be organizing ourselves against?

BIFF: A bit Below-Our-Class, Buffy. Let them tire themselves out attacking the Filthy Commoners first. By the time they get to us, they might be tuckered out!

MUFFY: I say, Biff, that sounds like capital advice!

BUFFY: Well-played, Biff. Quite very well played!

ace.mu.nu gamergate