Fed Appeals Court upholds Maryland AR ban

Sorry, I should have used the term assault weapon, which is commonly used in reference to this type of semi-automatic, high caliber rifle.

You mean like Saddam did to those who rose up against him after the first Gulf War? Yeah, a dictatorship means exactly that.

Or maybe you should realize that going all Leroy Jenkins isn't a winning strategy when it comes to things like opposing the modern industrial state.

Do you actually think an AR-15 is a high caliber rifle? Really? Shit, my Enfield is even more "high caliber" than that!

No, I mean the insurgency after the "Mission Accomplished."

You would think that.

No, the phrase assault weapon is not "commonly used" for a civilian semi-auto rifle by anyone who knows shit about guns (other than what the media tells you). BTW an AR-15 isn't even "high caliber" it's a .223 round barely legal for medium sized game like deer.

Typical brain-washed misinformed liberal. As most people know the reason the M-16/M-4 is so easy to teach to new recruits is because it is low power/low recoil and even the smallest framed female can shoot it all day in total comfort.

So, what you're talking about are the kind of fucknuggets who decided to hole themselves up in a wildlife preserve in Oregon, whereas I'm talking about people fighting a tyrannical government. There's a big fuck difference between the two.

And your plan to deal with a tyrannical government is?

http://brainshavings.com/the-right-to-keep-and-bear-what/

This analysis makes a compelling case to me that the authors of the US bill of rights intended it to apply to basically any weapon available to the military. Can someone who understands the matter more explain where it gets things wrong?

So you think that any discussion of moving the regulation line is not valid because you can have the discussion.

That is a really long way to say you lost because you cannot argue against regulations.

I'm talking about the fucknuggets that gave our military such a hard time that it became politically untenable to continue with our mission there. And while you seem to think everyone in the government and military would become insta-Nazis, the aspect you seem to be ignoring is that this would be between fellow Americans.

Asymmetric warfare.

I think he falters in glossing over the textual distinction between arms and cannon, much like someone else did a few pages ago with ordnance. Arms as a concept ("to take up arms") is not the same as arms the plural noun ("arms, cannon, ..."). Similarly (but not quite the same), someone made the mistake a couple pages ago of drawing an incorrect equivalence between ordnance that includes small arms, and ordnance that doesn't. Basic set theory, folks... firearms is a proper subset of ordnance, but when talking about ordnance, ordnance - (minus) firearms is what's usually being talked about, and is always so when a distinction is drawn between them. For any computer people, it's like how P is technically a subset of NP, but whenever you're talking about whether a problem is in P or NP, you're actually talking about whether it's in P or NP - P (ignoring for the moment the open question of whether P=NP; firearms clearly ≠ ordnance).

But I digress. I don't think there's enough context to say for certain whether "to bear arms" uses the concept or the plural noun. I don't know how idiomatic "to bear arms" was back in the day. If it was, then it's probably the concept, and inclusive of all weapons. If not, then it was probably just small arms (but which would certainly include machine guns).

But it wouldn't surprise me if, much like when you get a bunch of anti-gunners in a room who're sure that everyone else is they talk about how they really want to ban all private gun ownership but can't actually say so publicly because it just rallies the moderates to the pro-gunners*, when you get a punch of textualist pro-gunners in a room who're sure that everyone else is they talk about how the 2nd amendment protects owning machine guns (and bazookas and tanks if they're REALLY sure, maybe even nukes) but can't actually say so publicly because it just rallies the moderates to the anti-gunners.

*before you say that this is a caricature, I've witnessed this personally, in a few non-overlapping groups. (Turns out by alternately agreeing and shutting up at the appropriate times, libertarians can get into these sorts of rooms. I just don't have a cohesive enough conservative friend group to verify the other side of it beyond a couple people and machine guns.)

I wonder if there's ever been a 2nd amendment challenge to the Atomic Energy Act while there's been a textualist-leaning Supreme Court (or one period). The whole question might be moot if no one actually wants their own private nuke.

I'm all for machine guns, personally.

Also re: the OP, this ought to get slapped down by SCOTUS. Definitely would have been if Scalia was still on the court.

There definitely does seem to be a bit of that both ways. I'm inclined to lean towards it originally meaning basically any weapons due to the statements on how the militia was intended to defend the nation.

Yeah, things like that happen in a democracy.

Are you going to claim that the US military has never fired on unarmed Americans before? Because it's happened.

So, you're going to hang yourself like those guys did in Gitmo. Brillant.

Even without Scalia on the court, it'll most likely get slapped down.

Actual by-god belt-fed machine guns? We all might as well be for them, because (as far as I know) a total of ZERO have been involved in any homicide, car jacking, armed robbery or rape committed so far this year in the USA. Just sayin'

This is very much a "states rights" issue. While the 2nd is a constitutional right states and local governments can interpret that right in different ways.

Don't think it would work.

Government would argue that it has the right to regulate explosives and that a nuclear weapon is a weapon of mass destruction.

I can't see any court even the most friendly 2nd Amendment court you could find ever supporting the right of the public to own a nuclear weapon.

Plus it would be ridiculously expensive to own one.

Forget the $200 tax stamp.

You've got to pay all the costs from the regulatory side of things. Storage, maintenance, environmental, security.

And don't forget the child locks. You don't want your kid showing off your nuke to his friend in your house.

Not if it gets there before Gorsuch is confirmed. Then it'll be 4-4 or denied cert. and it'll stand (without setting precedent).

113 posts into this and not one motherfucker has even mentioned "bump fire" yet. You are all dead to me, myself included.

A republic, you mean? It didn't make much of a difference, because the problem with the insurgency was that they were essentially impossible to differentiate from the populous.

Which is all the more reason to keep Americans unarmed, right?

So you're just going to ignore what I've told you to maintain the narrative in your head that explains why it is preferable for Americans to be kept from privately owning firearms.

Because he's a liar. Any thing that could possibly in any imaginary situation be seen as infringing upon his ability to keep his penis, I mean his gun, then OMG THEY'RE TRYING TO TAKE MY PENIS. I mean my gun.

"Assault weapon" is an arbitrary legal expression which has no set definition. It means "whatever gun the politicians want to ban." In practice, anywhere there's been an "assault weapon" ban, the term becomes expansive and includes ever more types and configurations of guns.

And the guns affected by these bans are usually of intermediate caliber, using a cartridge somewhere between that of a pistol and that of a full-sized rifle. The AR-15's 5.56mm/.223 Remington round is a varmint/small, thin-skinned game round when used in a hunting rifle. The AK's 7.62x39mm round is ballistically a near-twin of the old .30-30 deer cartridge. Battle rifles of WWI and WWII shot much larger cartridges: .30-'06 (M1903 Springfield and M1 Garand), .303 (British Enfield), 7.92x57mm (German Mauser), 7.62x54mm (Russian Mosin Nagant), etc. Rounds for hunting go much, much larger than this.

See, the law needs definitions. Your arbitrary "well, we don't mean you can own THAT" schtick ain't gonna fly in court.

The term "Assault Weapon" began with the media and it stuck with the Democrats. Aren't all weapons assault weapons?

I don't expect it to. The argument I expect to fly in court is this: as the 2nd protects individual ownership of firearms (Heller [federal], McDonald [state]) and militia arms are protected (Miller), bans against "assault weapons" are unconstitutional since the arms they prohibit are suitable for militia use.