• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

This is why we need more Scalias on the Supreme Court

I really, REALLY hate living here in MD because of this bull****.

At least I got my lower and mags before the unconstitutional bans. Funny thing, I didn't even want an AR-15 until they tried to tell me I couldn't have one. I just like to plink w/ 22s really.
 
justabubba said:
since you were unable to challenge my position that this ruling does not deprive anyone of their right to bear arms, it must be found Constitutional

2A does not say you have a right to any kind of arms you might want
Click to expand...
Wouldnt you agree the 2nd Amendment guarantees citizens the right to keep and bear arms they would be expected to carry as members of the militia, should they be called into service?
 
RetiredUSN said:
Infringement.

Would you support a law where I could only shoot .38's from my .357?
Click to expand...

no infringement whatsoever
you still possess the right to bear arms
 
Lutherf said:
"You still have the right to free speech but you are prohibited from using words which cause fear in others". That's the type of argument you're making.
Click to expand...

exactly
you maintain the right to free speech despite not being able to shout FIRE in a theatre where there is no such threat
being unable to carry a pink magazine does not impair your right to bear arms
 
RetiredUSN said:
BS....

I would only be allow to bear arms with certain characteristics that satisfy "Bubba",

Limiting is infringement.
Click to expand...

nope
infringement would deny you a right to bear arms
this ruling/thread topic in no way does that
 
justabubba said:
nope
infringement would deny you a right to bear arms
this ruling/thread topic in no way does that
Click to expand...

So as long as we can own a single shot .22 rifle, our right to keep and bear arms isn't infringed?
 
justabubba said:
exactly
you maintain the right to free speech despite not being able to shout FIRE in a theatre where there is no such threat
being unable to carry a pink magazine does not impair your right to bear arms
Click to expand...

That's a false equivalence. What you describe here is misusing speech and there are already penalties in place for misusing firearms. What you said earlier equated to prohibiting speech based only on someone else's perception, reasonable or not, that it was dangerous.
 
Rucker61 said:
So as long as we can own a single shot .22 rifle, our right to keep and bear arms isn't infringed?
Click to expand...


And then that would be considered to be too dangerous. Ultimately they'd try to ban stones and sharpened sticks.
 
Rucker61 said:
So as long as we can own a single shot .22 rifle, our right to keep and bear arms isn't infringed?
Click to expand...

More like a muzzle loaded black powder musket, in the eyes of people like justabubba.
 
Rucker61 said:
So as long as we can own a single shot .22 rifle, our right to keep and bear arms isn't infringed?
Click to expand...

who said that?
please copy and paste that post so that we can all read it
 
What does one use an AR-15 and the large magazines for anyway? Just curious.
 
holbritter said:
What does one use an AR-15 and the large magazines for anyway? Just curious.
Click to expand...

It's to feel you are an even bigger brave boy from your doublewide. Probably run for the hills when the first drone comEs looking
 
TurtleDude said:
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2...-circuit-upholds-maryland-rifle-magazine-ban/

mainly Clinton appointees though one "Republican" was anti rights and one Democrat was in the dissent

idiotic ruling that was based on Heller's DICTA and ignored the two part test of the decision
Click to expand...

The decision seems to be based on the notion that semiautomatic rifles are "like" M-16's. How?

You're right that Justice Scalia's comments were dicta. The issue in Heller was not whether the Second Amendment right extended to M-16's, and Scalia was speaking hypothetically. He was discussing how someone might object that the Second Amendment right was completely detached from the amendment's prefatory clause "if weapons that are most useful in military service--M-16 rifles and the like--" might be banned.
 
This exactly what I have been saying about assault weapons all along.

'Military-Style' Firearms Aren't Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules | The Huffington Post


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.

“Put simply,” King wrote, “we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war that the Heller decision explicitly excluded from such coverage.”

The court separately rejected claims that Maryland’s assault weapons ban violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
Click to expand...


What Scalia said in the Heller decision is right on the mark: the second amendment is not an unlimited right!

Now the 4th District has to say it all over again.


This DOES however leave interesting questions: first; the SC turned down an appeal to a like ruling in Connecticut, so will they do likewise if this case is appealed? Secondly, with a 5-4 conservative majority, like there was with Scalia, will the court uphold what was said in Heller? which asks; if a judge or appellate body can be considered leftist political activist judges, cannot the very same thing be said about a conservative majority in the SC?
 
YorkshirePete said:
Who cares? Country is full of gun pantywaists who were never in a real war, jusr prefer to spew
Click to expand...

And that means what to the country? What you're suggesting however is that YOU still live in a real war and that is problematic.
 
holbritter said:
What does one use an AR-15 and the large magazines for anyway? Just curious.
Click to expand...

They're useful for:


1. Long distance shooting. CMP Service Rifle shooting
2. Competition 3 Gun competititions.
3. Practice For 1 and 2.
4. Plinking/recreational shooting unscored target shooting.
5. Varmint hunting - small caliber high velocity calibers
6. Big game hunting, in the proper caliber and legal magazine. Typically .243 and bigger, 5 round magazines.
7. Self-defense.


Sure, there are other guns that can do any of these better, but an AR is the only gun that can do them all. You can go from a self-defense gun chambered in .300 Blackout with low penetration rounds to an upper with a 16" or 18" barrel for competition to a 24" long range shooting barrelled upper in about 10 seconds per change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom