2A Does Not Protect Semi Automatics

Marine Cpl

Marine Cpl

.577 Tyrannosaur.
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
20,631
Location
Orange County
Stanton opined that a ban on M-16s can stand under scrutiny of District of Columbia v. Heller(2008), because such guns are “outside the scope of the Second Amendment.”

I told you Scalia’s Trojan Horse that said that dangerous and unusual weapons weren’t protected would be used against us.
 
BDinPutnam

BDinPutnam

.475 A&M Magnum
Messages
14,491
Reaction score
20,858
Location
Someplace else
Willjr75 said:
Stanton opined that a ban on M-16s can stand under scrutiny of District of Columbia v. Heller(2008), because such guns are “outside the scope of the Second Amendment.”

I told you Scalia’s Trojan Horse that said that dangerous and unusual weapons weren’t protected would be used against us.
Click to expand...

Sure but this judge is being disingenuous.

The AR15 is not an M16.
 
Apeman

Apeman

6.5 Creedmoor
Messages
1,830
Reaction score
3,933
Location
Saratoga
But Stanton rejected the summary judgement request, characterizing “semiautomatic rifles with non-fixed magazines” as “killing machines” which “are essentially indistinguishable from M-16s.”

If this is accurate then he opened the door to ban ALL semis including those without a pistol grip. Maybe the shooting will start in CA first if they ban and try to confiscate mini 14/30s or even ARs with Thorsden stocks.
 
Podmonkey

Podmonkey

.577 Tyrannosaur.
U.S. Military
Messages
21,601
Reaction score
30,187
Location
Cambria co. PA
This is so disgusting and infuriating. It most certainly does protect semi automatics. It protects belt fed, open bolt full auto machineguns too. The 2A was intended to codify the right of the people to possess the same arms as the standing army had. Specifically for the purpose of enabling rebellion against a government turned tyrannical. Well what point do you all think we are at? There is no other option than to take up arms and revolt against our corrupt and authoritarian government and to fight against all those that would support it. Full stop.
We will know no peace, no liberty until this is done.
 
Celt

Celt

.450/400 Nitro Ex
Messages
9,768
Reaction score
20,283
Location
Westchester
Podmonkey said:
This is so disgusting and infuriating. It most certainly does protect semi automatics. It protects belt fed, open bolt full auto machineguns too. The 2A was intended to codify the right of the people to possess the same arms as the standing army had. Specifically for the purpose of enabling rebellion against a government turned tyrannical. Well what point do you all think we are at? There is no other option than to take up arms and revolt against our corrupt and authoritarian government and to fight against all those that would support it. Full stop.
We will know no peace, no liberty until this is done.
Click to expand...
These tyrannical politicians infuriate me as much as you, but sadly its going to take more to get the great majority of patriots to take up arms. The build up to the 1st revolution had much harsher tyranny. Settlers were told they couldnt move west to try to better their lives because the king didnt want to lose taxes. They were forced to house and feed soldiers of the crown, etc.. sure their taxes were lower by % but they also got nothing for their taxes. If was a different type of world back then that was harsh. Today, if someone doesnt work the govt will feed, house, provide medical, and give them a damn mind control device (aka cell phone).

MOST people will tolerate ALOT of tyranny before risking their lives, and facing a corrupt judicial system. I wish this wasnt the case.
 
Last edited:
spat

spat

.700 Nitro Express
Messages
29,940
Reaction score
63,133
Location
Formerly Geneseo, NY. Now free in AZ
Celt said:
These tyrannical politicians infuriate me as much as you, but sadly its going to take more to get the great majority of patriots to take up arms. The build up to the 1st revolution had much harsher tyranny. Settlers were told they couldnt move west to try to better their lives because the king didnt want to lose taxes. They were forced to house and feed soldiers of the crown, etc.. sure their taxes were lower by % but they also got nothing for their taxes. If was a different type of world back then that was harsh. Today, if someone doesnt work the govt will feed, house, provide medical, and give them a damn mind control device (aka cell phone).

MOST people will tolerate ALOT of tyranny before risking their lives, and facing a corrupt judicial system. I wish this wasnt the case.
Click to expand...
The next round of fighting will look nothing like the last one.

Conventional wars in general may be on their way out, replaced with guerrilla insurgencies.

I expect if it happens, it won't start with a Lexington and Concord type battle (and remember, the American tactics at Lexington and Concord were nothing like the way wars had been fought previously either).

It will start with some legislator or judge who makes an egregious ruling just getting removed from office the hard way by someone who wasn't involved in the case at all and then disappears back into the population.

There will also be some suicide attacks. Imagine of Marvin Heemeyer had been a long range shooter instead of a mechanic. Instead of a killdozer he might have just planned out one night of the long knives and eliminated many of the officials who screwed him.

Who knows, history might recognize Waco, Ruby Ridge, and the killdozer as the "opening shots" of the next war. We may not know for another 30 years.
 
Last edited:
libertysnake

libertysnake

.338 Win Mag
Messages
8,845
Reaction score
16,390
Location
New York
There are no limitations on the second amendment. There is only the degree to which we're comfortable violating the second amendment as a country that is really going on.

The goal of 2A was to allow the militia (the people) to be armed on the same level as the average infantry soldier. The fact that regular citizens can't have the same functionality in their personal firearms as the military is garbage.

We should stop bullshitting ourselves as a country, and just call a damn constitutional convention to get clarity.
 
Edwardteach72

Edwardteach72

.475 A&M Magnum
U.S. Military
Messages
14,883
Reaction score
15,052
Location
New York
libertysnake said:
There are no limitations on the second amendment. There is only the degree to which we're comfortable violating the second amendment as a country that is really going on.

The goal of 2A was to allow the militia (the people) to be armed on the same level as the average infantry soldier. The fact that regular citizens can't have the same functionality in their personal firearms as the military is garbage.

We should stop bullshitting ourselves as a country, and just call a damn constitutional convention to get clarity.
Click to expand...


What clarity, fuck lot of "pro gun" or "pro 2a" people (hell we know they exist on here) will say that the 2A doesnt protect .... or that machine guns should be illegal...
 
libertysnake

libertysnake

.338 Win Mag
Messages
8,845
Reaction score
16,390
Location
New York
Edwardteach72 said:
What clarity, fuck lot of "pro gun" or "pro 2a" people (hell we know they exist on here) will say that the 2A doesnt protect .... or that machine guns should be illegal...
Click to expand...

Not on God's watch.

3abedb2dbe38e19377d9c39b1ef89376.png
 
spat

spat

.700 Nitro Express
Messages
29,940
Reaction score
63,133
Location
Formerly Geneseo, NY. Now free in AZ
Edwardteach72 said:
What clarity, fuck lot of "pro gun" or "pro 2a" people (hell we know they exist on here) will say that the 2A doesnt protect .... or that machine guns should be illegal...
Click to expand...
If your attitude to everyone less focused than you with regard to the 2A is "fuck them", and everyone more focused than you says "fuck him too", what kind of fight do you think you'll be able to muster ?

Quite frankly, anyone who says we need to roll back *any small bit* of existing gun control is an ally, even if you don't agree how much.

Even people who think what we have is OK, but oppose anything new should be considered friendlies.

We allied with the Russians in WW2, not because we agreed with them, but because they were willing to fight the common enemy. If we hadn't we all would have lost. We are in the same sort of existential conflict now.
 
libertysnake

libertysnake

.338 Win Mag
Messages
8,845
Reaction score
16,390
Location
New York
spat said:
If your attitude to everyone less focused than you with regard to the 2A is "fuck them", and everyone more focused than you says "fuck him too", what kind of fight do you think you'll be able to muster ?

Quite frankly, anyone who says we need to roll back *any small bit* of existing gun control is an ally, even if you don't agree how much.

Even people who think what we have is OK, but oppose anything new should be considered friendlies.

We allied with the Russians in WW2, not because we agreed with them, but because they were willing to fight the common enemy. If we hadn't we all would have lost. We are in the same sort of existential conflict now.
Click to expand...

Agreed we should take what we can get, but still we shouldn't forget the end goal -- rolling it back as far as can be done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top