That's why the "party" that simply wants to take away a right, will try to do so at ANY cost and these "parties" don't even care to educate themselves to at least "sound" like they know what they're talking about (even tho' they don't). Enough with the stupid small talk, "they" just wanna defang the animal, period! Enough small talk, we will stand our ground.
Citizens.. all Free citizens... No militia, army, but the constitution is for the CITIZENS...shall not be infringed upon, , it's a RIGHT,, not a privilege..
@USFighter you have to read the second amendment with comprehension, without ignorance, without prejudice. Most US Citizens really like the bubble gum comic book movies where we let the creeps at Hollywood do the thinking for them. Well regulated refers to the police, ATF, CIA, FBI, NSA, ....(got alphabet). Those are the militias. Now US a Grammer lesson, a right is inherent where a privilege is authorized. Don't confuse rights with privileges. It is fundamental.
The 2nd amendment is a safeguard against tyranny. Tyranny can only exist in a society where there is a tremendous disparity of power in favor of the ruling class. You can have a powerful government, but the power vested in the people must be commensurate, in nothing less than an equal balance. Citizens are effectively disarmed under our current government & through our own ignorance & cowardice, we let that happen.
When I was in my Conceal and Carry class I was shocked to see that so many other students in my class didn't realize that most other states you don't half to go through all the loopholes just to purchase a firearm, it's only a one day federal background check, along with realizing voting for a certain political party is the cause of this.
And I would like to point out at the Inception of our second amendment. All weapons were military style weapons expected for you to carry in case of conflict. So the idea of military weapons in our homes is a dumb argument and still violates the Constitution, let alone are pre-existing unalienable rights to self-defense using the weapons of the time.
@@JJLu-l6x it’s actually a lot lower then that. And even getting lower as the days go on. Even California is overturning a lot of the gun laws we have. And the courts are cracking down harder on Gavin now. You should probably look up facts before spewing nonsense like a bot
Yes indeed! But we ALL know the "opposition" has closed ears to reason, which is why they are UNREASONABLE. Blinded by their intent! No point in trying to explain anything to them. Whether they are educated or not, their minds are made up. Only option now is to stand OUR ground forever!
2A is about what they're "trying to do" to the country right about now. They're developing tyrannical tendencies right about now and those tendencies are growing at a steady pace folks! The writing is on the wall! Stay vigilant folks! That's all I gotta say.
It was held up over a year because the anti 2A jurists on the 3 judge panel refused to write an opinion and kicked to the enbanc panel which sat on it. The 9th circuit broke their own rules and bypassed to enbanc because the knew the selected 3 judge panel would uphold the circuit Court ruling upholding the overturning of the ban. The ban of semi automatic rifles will be overturned at the Supreme Court now that all interlocatory questions and stays have been satisfied and they have a final ruling from a circuit Court. These firearms are of common use by Americans and under Heller and Bruen cannot be banned. They are not unusually dangerous any more than any other firearm in common use.
Actually, the 3 judge panel was 2 to 1 to find the AWB unconstitutional. The full panel prevented the publication of the pro 2A ruling. Then, they sat on it for over a year. They completely ignore the constitution, Bruen, Seller, Miller, and several other precedents.
The delay was caused by the one dissenting judge who refused to file the dissent for publication along with the majority opinion. It's in footnote 2 of the dissent in the Maryland ruling.
The reason why Im moving out of Maryland it's a lost cause. People complain about their rights being volatiled, but they keep voting for the politicians who are responsible for this, mind-boggling.
AAAAAANNNNDDD, THEY WOULD BE WRONG. ITS NOT LEGAL TO BAN A FIREARM. EVEN MACHINE GUNS ARE LEGAL TO OWN. TO ALL THE KARENS READING THIS, DO YOUR RESEARCH, ITS TRUE, THEY ARE LEGAL TO OWN IF YOU DO WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO TO OWN THEM.
@@wild399 if you have a license to manufacture machine guns you can. I had a friend who's brother was a gun smith and he had the tax stamps to manufacture machine guns and he sold them to police and other manufacturers and people who dealt in experimental weapons and others.
I feel so much safer now. I've decided to visit Baltimore, tonight. I'll walk around boarded up areas and ask anyone I see on the sidewalks, if they feel safer, as well.
This rifle ban needs to be lifted. Someone that's really good at marketing came up with the name "assault weapon" and it somehow stuck. Mark is right you really can make say any semi-auto weapon an assault weapon. Outside of looks, how does an AR-15 different than say a Ruger 10-22? Both fire as fast as one can pull the trigger and both take a magazine. Yes the AR has a heavier bullet, but they use the same caliber bullets. I bet you can dress up a 10-22 to make it look like an AR and if you asked the average person on that street what it might be, they'd say "It's an assault rifle" Same gun, but shown in it's original state, someone might say "It's a Daisy Red Ryder. You'll shoot your eye out kid!"
The 2nd amendment is a safeguard against tyranny; self defense & hunting are both important, but tangential when reviewed within the context of the Declaration of Independence, the constitution & the other items listed in the bill of rights.
True a lot of the other students in my Conceal and Carry class didn't even realize that most other states except 12 including Maryland, you don't half to go through all the loopholes just to purchase a handgun, one day federal & state background check that's it .
2nd Amendment: the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. 4th Circus: eh, except arms we don’t like, so those are exempt from the 2nd Amendment protections against infringement. Logic failure. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
The important thing to remember, and that we have to Educate people about is that the arms at the time the 2nd was written were all military weapons. The People are the militia, and to form an effective militia you must have military weapons aka weapons of war because the purpose of a militia is to wage war against bandits, gangs, invasions, and tyranny.
The challenge is walking that fine line between saying that the AR-15 isn't a "weapon of war, so what are you so afraid of?" AND saying that "the AR-15 IS close enough to a weapon of war that the founders meant to protect EXACTLY THIS RIFLE when they wrote the 2A."
It’s a rifle! It looks badass but just 1 shot for every trigger pull. It’s not a machine gun. It’s best for self defense. Why do law abiding citizens continue to lose freedoms? This will not help gun violence. This actually might make it worse for law abiding citizens in Maryland, because we know all criminals will obey this law 🤦🏽♂️
The right to bear arms was to protect against the tyranny of government which means people in power. You should have a military grade weapon that can drop a man against an out of hand government. It’s amazing how brave people are if you don’t shoot back. But when they can it makes you stop and think before you do anything. Taking your weapons is a government in control. You have nothing to challenge the monarchy. It keeps the radicals from either party from getting out of hand. USMC 82-86
Define assault weapon. The reason they use the terminology.Assault weapon is because they can make it whatever weapon they want it to be. Then comes confiscation. The term is too broad.
So another federal “district” court can’t understand simple English. It’s spelled out in both Heller and Bruen but somehow it’s a foreign language to these courts.
Hm. What happened to "shall not be infringed"? I don't have a gun but if a criminal can get one illegally shouldn't there be a way for law-abiding citizens be able to protect themselves? Gun laws don't stop criminals from obtaining them, just law-abiding citizens.
They have a nice, peaceful and homogeneous society and don't allow 3rd world into their country like we do. Literal apples to oranges. Look up who commits the most crime, including murder in America.
Shoutout to Mark for trying to educate people that know nothing about guns, just wished common people knew NOT ALL AR-15’s are not automatic. Only the government has that.
As a Virginian I would NEVER move or work in MD. Thats the state where you really need a firearm. ALOT of the kids in MD have automatic weapons already and I guarantee they will not get rid of them. They were already illegal now you cant have a semi auto AR while the criminals have automatic weapons.
The ignorance of the constitution, the gun terminology, and the Supreme Court Ruling on 2A grounds is unacceptable for people making public commentary such as news casters. Also, the willful misuse of the term ASSAULT WEAPON, is unacceptable from news caster who some people rely on for information....shameful!!
The problem with this assault rifle term is it has too broad of a definition. The term assault rifle can be applied to a broad range of weapons. I'm surprised such a high court wouldn't see the trick behind the term assault rifle. But then again it may have been done on purpose and the court knows exactly what they are doing and they are playing a long-term game.
The name isolates a particular type of gun which absolutely goes against the Constitution for SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. All weapons are dangerous and lethal. Take this to the Supreme Court.
According to 11th century Europe, the English longbow is the most effective assault weapon created. Are we going to ban bows now? Todays bows are far more deadly than the weapon of war it was based on.
Only a non-educated person would be against any type of gun. I personally don’t want to carry but if someone wants the right to buy a bazooka, it’s their right
A person needs to be ABLE to defend themselves against an enemy who has a weapon of a type that's not what you have. You need to be able to respond with like arms
I don’t even own one but who do they think they are telling anyone this homeowners aren’t out shooting people ! Good luck with this it’s unconstitutional to tell someone who has never committed a crime no you can’t have this WOW!
This decision is a classic example of cognitive dissonance justified with cherry picking and word salad. It does not take a legal scholar to understand what "shall not be infringed" and "well regulated militia" really mean. A truly educated person gathers facts first, analyzes the facts, and draws conclusions based upon the facts without needing cherry picking of data or lots of word salad to justify their opinion.
Our bill of rights provide a blanket of protection as a WHOLE.CLOTH. Exactly same as our Flag. It is not to be allowed to become tattered and fringed. Ditto our Bll of Rights. This is a very simplistic law. Thus man cld have shown this lady the law written and in print. Thst is the answer to every question she asked.
The constitution doesnt say only pistols or only bolt action rifles.. no its says the right to keep and bear (ARMS) shall not be Infringed. If these were real judges following the constitution and not their feelings they would have got it right!!
This is all a show. The Second Amendment is a given right to protect you from a tyrannical government. If we didn't have or are going to have a tyrannical government they wouldn't be trying to take this right away.
It's not about hunting it's about protecting us from those who govern us. It says shall not be infringed that doesn't end with un less the government it's designed to protect us from deems fit
Thank god dude, what is the purpose of people buying guns like this? Other than the fringe who use them who hunt hogs or whatever. Who needs a gun like to defend themselves? Literally nobody, it’s impractical and doesn’t make any sense why any random civilian can buy a gun like that. It literally makes no sense.
"Well regulated militia..." is so that all persons in the militia (Citizen Defense Force - not to be confused with the National Guard) can share ammunition with other members of the Citizen Defense Force
SAF is working on filling the appeal with SCOTUS now. There are still some slots left in the SCOTUS calendar for the next term so we should see this case heard around February or March.
All these bans on one little rifle… you need to really ask yourself when is the last time you’ve seen an “assault rifle”. I have never seen a STG44 in my life… jokes aside… we need to start a petition or something my state of Illinois is screwing is over bad too. We need to get trump back and maybe we have a chance of getting this all corrected 😢
