Second Amendment does NOT protect AR-15's

When the 2nd amendment was written there was no semiautonrifles to my knowledge and if there was it wasnt to the accuracy and effectiveness of what they are today. Basically back in them days you could pretty much own anything the military had. Currently we don't have that as an option. Good luck taking ar15 away from us US citizens.
 
Last edited:
So when is he going to "rule" that bolt action rifles and over/under shotguns are not covered under the 2A?

If this court can rule that AR-15s or any other type of firearms are not covered under the 2A they can and will do it eventually with all firearms right along with any and all of our Constitutional rights.








 


The media created the term "assault rifle" in the 80's to scare the uneducated public. The public has not changed, in fact it seems they are less educated than back then. The 2nd amendment was guaranteed to us, in order to keep the Gov't. in "check", and does not restrict private ownership of any type firearm, our elected representatives have done that to us. We've allowed the Gov't. to go "unchecked". Unfortunately the uneducated public has a strong presence through media, and Hollywood etc. We must remember that we are the Gov't. and we choose who represents us. We must make it known to them that we will not tolerate our rights and freedoms being trampled.
 
Like it or not but this will go to the Supreme Court. I pray Trumps pick will be on the Court before they rule on this. If it's a 4-4 tie then the lower court ruling stands.
 
Unless I am mistaken, the AR 15 is not a "weapon of war". It is a civilian semi auto firearm. That means the ban does not apply.
 
When the constitution was written the press was a hand operated type set machine so does that mean that the 1st amendment doesn't cover high speed off-set printers or electronic media? There was no such thing as a recording so does that mean that only live speech is covered by the first? There was no form of electronic broadcast of any kind so that would mean that the first doesn't protect anything that is mechanized or isn't live and in the presence of the one doing the speaking. We need to make sure that people realize limiting any articles of the bill of rights to the technology of the day will nullify all articles of the Bill of Rights.
 
Originally Posted By: DiRTY DOGCome to California if you want to see how much liberals HATE AR15s.

I would like to see the Redwood trees, but other than that, no thanks.
 
I lived in SoCal for a couple of years in the early 80's. I loved it. Visited with some friends that lived NorCal, thought it was great too. CA has changed too much for me, glad I move out of there.
 
Another BS ruling by a federal appeals court located in a communist enclave. No different than the BS ruling on Trumps immigration order by the commies in Washington state.
These rulings are total BS by a bunch of activist judges who should all be disbarred. Hopefully we can get our new Supreme court justice confirmed then take flush this crap.
 
If I have 14 guns and a federal judge declares 10 of them to not be protected under the 2nd, how many guns do I have?

That's right, 37. Because I lied about the 14 part.
 
Originally Posted By: Stu FarishIf I have 14 guns and a federal judge declares 10 of them to not be protected under the 2nd, how many guns do I have?

That's right, 37. Because I lied about the 14 part.


lol.gif
lol.gif
 
The term "assault weapon" is a term with US military origin from military discussion and documents on selective fire long guns for the military - both full AND semi auto fire in the same weapon with a selector switch. The liberals have successfully used it to scare people into submission. H3ll, they've SO successfully used it that now even WE HERE ON PM are using the term! Stop using the term and it goes away - it doesnt legally exist for most non-military citizens.

Originally Posted By: astro451When the constitution was written the press was a hand operated type set machine so does that mean that the 1st amendment doesn't cover high speed off-set printers or electronic media? There was no such thing as a recording so does that mean that only live speech is covered by the first? There was no form of electronic broadcast of any kind so that would mean that the first doesn't protect anything that is mechanized or isn't live and in the presence of the one doing the speaking. We need to make sure that people realize limiting any articles of the bill of rights to the technology of the day will nullify all articles of the Bill of Rights.

This has got to be the best statement I've seen on this debate in a LONG time! And by a new member! Welcome to PM! And thank you for the constructive commentary. I'll be passing this one on!
 
Back
Top