Fed Appeals Court upholds Maryland AR ban

Why should there be a ban on bazookas?

I've fired lots of guns but the only one I've ever owned is a shotgun that was my grandfathers and fathers. I still have it.

So I'm not a gun expert or nut by any means and I've never handled an AR-15.

That said, I remember reading in a magazine (print not ammunition) that one of the appeals of the AR-15 was that you could "accessorize" it almost endlessly. And once you got a permit for the "lower receiver" everything else was widely available.

One writer likened having one to fiddle with to having a car in the 1940s and 50s and how you could seemingly customize and modify them all on your own.

Isn't this a regulation being imposed? How is that inconsistent with the 2nd Amendment?

The point @matthunter was making is that there is a line drawn between what constitutes Constitutionally permissible firearms and Constitutionally impermissible firearms. Your distinction between firearms and ordnance is merely drawing a line further down the spectrum of reasonableness than others would place it. Firearms (along with ammo, equipment, tools, etc.) fall under the category of ordnance, so it's not a very logical distinction to be drawing. It's like saying eating apples is permissible but eating fruit isn't permissible.

What I want to know is , what does a nut job shooting up a school have to do with me? What did I do? Why does everyone else get punished for one person's crime? Why shouldn't I be allowed to have an AR-15? Politicians often ask why should you, when they need to ask, why not?

I'll answer your question when you answer mine.

It seems a lot of the gun control people (those jizzing over an AR-15 ban for example) don't really know jack-shit about guns. The AR-15 is indeed a classic design - kind of like a stratocaster or gibson in the guitar world, for example. The AR-15 model has very little recoil, but packs a serious punch, and is accurate out to about 300 meters - that's 3 football fields. And it's a simple weapon to learn - people who have never fired a weapon enter the US Army and within a very short time are sending bullets downrange with astounding accuracy. It's not a big loud "macho" weapon by any means. And yes it can be fitted with a scope and other accessories. My son (army veteran too) isn't a "gun nut" by any means but loves the hell out of the M-4 (modern version of the M-16/AR-15). It's got enough punch to take down deer (barely and at very close range) but of course will wreak havoc on coyotes and yes, humans in a wartime scenario. But to liberals it is a "big black scary machine gun" so that's as far as their brains will carry the discussion.

It's pretty simple, and I assumed it was obvious: because the risk of such a weapon outweighs any potential benefit it provides.

Now your turn.

Oh!.....Oh!.....Mister Kotter, let me weigh in! Thousands of people use an AR-15 platform weapon to shoot deer and coyotes in the south, yet do not use the Ar-15 platform to kill humans, so said weapon's risks do not outweigh the benefits. I explained that most of the weapon fatalities are not caused by the Ar-15 but by are caused by the typical weapons associated with gun violence, those weapons being handguns, shotguns, and hunting rifles. So please Kilometres O' Brien explain to me how the risk outweighs the benefit! Facts would be cool! BTW you strike me as the type of person who has never used guns, or associates with people who use them. If I'm wrong, correct me. I mean I only made a living using guns, but if you have more experience than me, school me baby!

Why does every drunk driver get punished because of those who have accidents or cause deaths and injuries.

Not defending drunk driving by no means. It is utterly irresponsible and criminal. And I don't even drink.

But I once did an analysis of what percentage of instances of drunk driving actually result in deaths, injuries or significant material damages.

The answer is roughly 3%.

Actually, the armed militia of the second was a force to protect the local population from a slave uprising and keep an armed local force of white people ready to capture and defend against the more numerous slave population.

I always thought the whole "armed militia" was largely because the founding fathers had fallen in love with the idea of citizen soldiers answering the call to arms and fleshing out the regular military manned by a small cadre of professional officers.

Plus it is cheaper than a full time professional army.

Gee Tererun. Do you really think everything the founding fathers did was all about slavery? A number of them staunchly opposed slavery you know. Several more didn't care either way.

IIRC, there have been a few times where the courts have ruled that "the government" is strictly limited to the Federal government, and that other bodies, such as state and local governments, are free to do as they please. I don't know if that applies in this case or not. Don't really care. A truly tyrannical government is going to have no trouble unleashing the full power of its military against folks it considers to be "too uppity." One need only look at the kinds of weapons the Syrian government has been willing to deploy against the population of that country to get an idea of how such a scenario would play out. I can't see how a bunch of civilians armed with semi-automatic weapons is going to be able to make a meaningful stand against a government that has nuclear weapons at its disposal. Though there was that time when the Communists tried to overthrow Gorbachev.....

You really think any government is going to use nuclear weapons against their own people and thus on their own territory?

In the U.S. today, law enforcement using lightly armored vehicles is still fairly controversial.

The US is still a democracy. And a truly tyrannical government would have no qualms about using nukes on its own territory. A tyrannical government is only interested in power, nothing more. Stalin had no trouble keeping large numbers of people in areas which were exposed to high levels of radiation due to poor safety controls at their secret research facilities. Do you think that he would have cared if their exposure levels were caused by nukes, if those weapons had put down an uprising?

That's not the question I was asking.

By extending your logic, why should we be restricted from owning bazookas? After all, no one in the US is ever killed by bazookas.

Stl nothing but pics for the boy. He has the mentality of trump.

@oldfella1962 pretty much said what I was going to say. I didn't commit as mass shooting, so I don't see why it should be banned for law abiding citizens.

As for owning a bazooka, you can't and as @Paladin pointed out, nobody is arguing that we should. That's not to say that I can't think of a legitimate reason to own one.

I assume when we're talking about a "bazooka" in this context that we are referring to the anti tank rocket launcher and not the brass musical instrument?

Because "well regulated" in 1789 didn't mean "well restricted" like it does now. "Regulated" meant "outfitted", "equipped", "organized".

Which of these makes the most sense to you?

"A well organized / outfitted / equipped militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

*** OR ***

"A well restricted militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Same logic as conservatards are using to keep trans people from using public restrooms, because of what someone might do.


I will also never understand the mentality of thinking that because the government would just plaster any resistance (like in Iraq, right? ) that we should just preemptively give up and make absolutely sure that we'd be unable to resist.

That is not what regulated today means.

Though, I'll meet you half way. I'm willing to abide by the ratonale that words in the 18th century don't mean the same thing today. So by that logic, "arms" meant muskets and pistols, not high caliber assault rifles. Therefore, the ban is permissible by your own line of reasoning.

I'm glad you see it my way.

It's amazing how much of the definition seems to boil down to the nebulous "gist of the thing" that literalists usually decry.

As far as I can tell the definition is a portable weapon able to be carried by one individual that launches ballistic projectiles that don't carry any sort of explosive payload?

I'm gonna sit this one out.

there is your problem. You do not think, you regurgitate whatever you hear which means garbage inton garbage out.

I know America history books like to speak of slavery sort of like smoking. It was bad, many people did it, and eventually we quit.

Slavery was much more important. The creation of many parts of the constitution had to do with slavery. We fought the bloodiest war in history because the south needed slaves. Yes, slavery tainted almost everything the founding fathers did. Especially when it came to white men keeping power. We all know having guns kept the white men in power even when outnumbered. If you did not have a force of white men with guns eventually those slaves would rise up and kill them due to numbers.

You make it sound like the slaves just slaved out of the goodness of their hearts. No, white people force them to with violence. That violence was backed up by guns.

So you are still an ignorant moron. Don't try to pass that shit off on me because you fell for the lies and whitewashing.

They won't have to. They also do not have to give you and your pussy little AR a shot. They have ordinance up to nukes. It comes in all sizes you brainless fuck. They could go down the line and find the one that will penetrate your bunker and end you from so far above the ground you would not see the bomber that dropped it. They could have drones of all sorts come to kill you. They could do like the buddies and just wait you out so they can arrest you. They could have the local authorities come at you with SWAT and blow you away. Your little gun is so worthless.

You are so outgunned your resistance is the same with or without a gun. This is why authorities are not pushing bans based on government overthrow. They do it based on civilian casualties which is where an assault rifle would make a difference

The point is that you are drawing a line based on your own opinion. I just happen to draw that line a little more restrictively. If you can't see the distinction between personal use firearms and military-like firearms, why not bazookas too?

where in the 2A does it actually specify firearms at all?
what if they meant swords, pikes, and pitchforks?

also, as the 2A predates organized police forces, does that mean arming cops (if not police forces themselves) are potential violations of the 3rd through 9th?