|
|
02-22-2017, 04:22 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Virginia
Posts: 8,865
Likes: 10,603
Liked 15,209 Times in 5,253 Posts
|
|
Maryland in trouble still
I see where the appeals court, 4th district, has upheld Marylands ban on "assault weapons" and more than 10 round magazines.
Ruling was 10-4. Bad news.
I imagine this will get to the the Supreme Court. All the more reason for constitutional judges.
|
02-22-2017, 04:39 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 587
Likes: 378
Liked 333 Times in 179 Posts
|
|
The real issue is "assault weapons." It is a made-up term, designed to scare people by liberal gun grabbers.
Just wait for our new SC judge.
__________________
an actual conservative
|
The Following 6 Users Like Post:
|
|
02-22-2017, 04:55 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Outside Philadelphia Pa
Posts: 16,601
Likes: 7,342
Liked 17,200 Times in 7,303 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by franzas
The real issue is "assault weapons." It is a made-up term, designed to scare people by liberal gun grabbers.
Just wait for our new SC judge.
|
It's no so much a made up term (assault rifles) as it is used wrong.
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
|
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
|
|
02-22-2017, 05:00 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Lousiana
Posts: 180
Likes: 107
Liked 238 Times in 74 Posts
|
|
If it isnt fully automatic...then its not an "assault rifle"....
And if you are a civilian with a fully automatic weapon...you either are rich as hell(cost around $14,000 for a worn out automatic rifle) and procured it properly with all the paperwork...or ....you have it illegally.
Last edited by TANKLEGACY; 02-22-2017 at 05:01 PM.
|
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
|
|
02-22-2017, 05:35 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 587
Likes: 378
Liked 333 Times in 179 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arik
It's no so much a made up term (assault rifles) as it is used wrong.
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
|
2 points:
1. If I beat you over the head with a hammer, I would be charged with assault with a deadly weapon. Is a hammer now an assault weapon?
2. 'Assault weapon' is redundant. Anything you assault someone with is a weapon, whether it is a firearm or the aforementioned hammer. In MY opinion, the term 'weapon' implies assault. If it's not being used for malicious purposes (i.e. assault), then it is a tool. My shotgun is a hunting tool, my J frames are self-defense tools, my wrenches are mechanic's tools, etc. The minute I decide to start shooting people outside the law or beating people with wrenches, feel free to refer to my firearms and other tools as weapons or assault weapons. Until then, I prefer to call them tools. They are inanimate objects incapable of assaulting anyone without human interaction. 'Assault weapon' is a pointless term, unjustly applied to firearms in order to instill fear into the weak-minded.
__________________
an actual conservative
Last edited by franzas; 02-22-2017 at 05:40 PM.
|
The Following 7 Users Like Post:
|
|
02-22-2017, 05:54 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: E. TN
Posts: 255
Likes: 34
Liked 247 Times in 129 Posts
|
|
So now all they have to do is "classify" something as an assault weapon and it's no longer protected.
Your Ruger 10/22 is about to become a weapon of war.
|
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
|
|
02-22-2017, 06:06 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 587
Likes: 378
Liked 333 Times in 179 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by i1afli
So now all they have to do is "classify" something as an assault weapon and it's no longer protected.
Your Ruger 10/22 is about to become a weapon of war.
|
It's not about guns, it's about control.
__________________
an actual conservative
|
The Following 5 Users Like Post:
|
|
02-22-2017, 06:08 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Ohio
Posts: 268
Likes: 369
Liked 326 Times in 140 Posts
|
|
Why would a bunch of revolutionaries that just won a war against a military super power think that the citizenry should have long guns somewhere close to the military's?
|
The Following 4 Users Like Post:
|
|
02-22-2017, 06:45 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Apex, NC
Posts: 2,588
Likes: 3,030
Liked 12,483 Times in 1,919 Posts
|
|
What is scary is that the Fourth Circuit is traditionally one of the more conservative appeals courts.
|
02-22-2017, 06:57 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: NC
Posts: 4,767
Likes: 3,570
Liked 12,747 Times in 3,387 Posts
|
|
The term "assault weapon" just represents more drift in terminology.
An "assault rifle" was a fully automatic carbine or rifle firing a intermediate cartridge.
The media applied that term to the AR-15 semi-automatic rifles and carbines and to a whole host of other "military style" semi-automatic rifles and carbines.
At some point the press made them sound more evil by calling them "assault weapons".
The court in this has further sowed confusion referring the semi-automatic rifles and carbines banned in MD as "weapons of war".
"Weapon of war"? I have a P.08 Luger, a Walther P-38, an 1895 Nagant, a Victory Model, a No 4 Mk II Lee Enfield, a P-17 Enfield, a 1903A1, a 1903A3, a 1911A1, and an L66A1 that are all legitimate "weapons of war" that are also legal to own in MD. Go figure.
I also have a couple of 12 plus pound heavy barrel varmint AR-15s, an 11 pound AR-15 service match rifle and a dedicated .22LR AR-15 none of which anyone would ever consider taking to war, but that are not legal in MD, because they violate some arbitrary definition of "assault weapon", and now apparently "weapon of war".
Last edited by BB57; 02-22-2017 at 07:00 PM.
|
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
|
|
02-22-2017, 07:04 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Southern Arizona
Posts: 666
Likes: 99
Liked 1,137 Times in 393 Posts
|
|
An "assault weapon" is a fully-automatic machine gun. If you don't own one, then this bogus court ruling doesn't apply to you.
Pay no attention to silly judges behind the bench. Think free, be free.
---------------
|
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
|
|
02-22-2017, 07:31 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: middle Tn
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 3,948
Liked 3,269 Times in 913 Posts
|
|
The main difference between.Assault weapon and defense weapon is how they are used.
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
02-22-2017, 07:38 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,116
Likes: 2
Liked 463 Times in 265 Posts
|
|
We need to Vote them out the door again .
|
02-22-2017, 07:48 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Indiana
Posts: 7,896
Likes: 31,497
Liked 22,512 Times in 4,626 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by TANKLEGACY
If it isnt fully automatic...then its not an "assault rifle"....
And if you are a civilian with a fully automatic weapon...you either are rich as hell(cost around $14,000 for a worn out automatic rifle) and procured it properly with all the paperwork...or ....you have it illegally.
|
Or the BATF approved slide-fire or bump-fire stock...
Those Evil black rifles !!
Chuck
__________________
They hold no Quarter
|
02-22-2017, 07:58 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Montana
Posts: 5,164
Likes: 3,443
Liked 6,261 Times in 2,063 Posts
|
|
An Assault Weapon is anything that is pointed at ME or my loved ones!!
Randy
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
02-22-2017, 09:40 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 587
Likes: 378
Liked 333 Times in 179 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BB57
The term "assault weapon" just represents more drift in terminology.
An "assault rifle" was a fully automatic carbine or rifle firing a intermediate cartridge.
The media applied that term to the AR-15 semi-automatic rifles and carbines and to a whole host of other "military style" semi-automatic rifles and carbines.
At some point the press made them sound more evil by calling them "assault weapons".
The court in this has further sowed confusion referring the semi-automatic rifles and carbines banned in MD as "weapons of war".
"Weapon of war"? I have a P.08 Luger, a Walther P-38, an 1895 Nagant, a Victory Model, a No 4 Mk II Lee Enfield, a P-17 Enfield, a 1903A1, a 1903A3, a 1911A1, and an L66A1 that are all legitimate "weapons of war" that are also legal to own in MD. Go figure.
I also have a couple of 12 plus pound heavy barrel varmint AR-15s, an 11 pound AR-15 service match rifle and a dedicated .22LR AR-15 none of which anyone would ever consider taking to war, but that are not legal in MD, because they violate some arbitrary definition of "assault weapon", and now apparently "weapon of war".
|
spot-on.
"Assault rifle" was strictly a class of firearms used by militaries. Not a legal definition. You're right about the press (and at the time, the clinton admin) creating this new class of firearms based on cosmetics, that are somehow more "deadly." And now this "weapon of war" is just a further arbitrary way to attempt to delegitimize common semiautomatic rifles.
Sad more than anything.
__________________
an actual conservative
|
02-22-2017, 10:12 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Lousiana
Posts: 180
Likes: 107
Liked 238 Times in 74 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by shell627
The main difference between.Assault weapon and defense weapon is how they are used.
|
Actually the main difference is.. if the rifle has fully automatic capabilities
|
02-22-2017, 10:24 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 2,784
Likes: 4,304
Liked 3,277 Times in 1,264 Posts
|
|
"Assault Weapon" is a term invented by people that don't have anything else to do except to mess with honest folks. Besides, they are hard to hide in your britches.
__________________
Just a shooter
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
02-22-2017, 10:57 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: (outside) Charleston, SC
Posts: 31,047
Likes: 41,755
Liked 29,310 Times in 13,856 Posts
|
|
Opposite of...
Quote:
Originally Posted by franzas
2 points:
1. If I beat you over the head with a hammer, I would be charged with assault with a deadly weapon. Is a hammer now an assault weapon?
2. 'Assault weapon' is redundant. Anything you assault someone with is a weapon, whether it is a firearm or the aforementioned hammer. In MY opinion, the term 'weapon' implies assault. If it's not being used for malicious purposes (i.e. assault), then it is a tool. My shotgun is a hunting tool, my J frames are self-defense tools, my wrenches are mechanic's tools, etc. The minute I decide to start shooting people outside the law or beating people with wrenches, feel free to refer to my firearms and other tools as weapons or assault weapons. Until then, I prefer to call them tools. They are inanimate objects incapable of assaulting anyone without human interaction. 'Assault weapon' is a pointless term, unjustly applied to firearms in order to instill fear into the weak-minded.
|
It is opposite to a defensive weapon, which is what we and police carry. When the 'assault weapon' was created it was designed to aid in an attack by crack troops on an enemy as opposed to the 'service rifle' and by definition, had full auto capability. They were so effective, it was decided to arm nearly ALL the troops with one as a standard weapon. The types of war also evolved to where the assault rifle became much more useful than a long 'service rifle',
__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"
|
02-22-2017, 11:06 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: (outside) Charleston, SC
Posts: 31,047
Likes: 41,755
Liked 29,310 Times in 13,856 Posts
|
|
Blurring the lines...
The stuff about how many guns can possibly be identified as 'assault' rifles.
Like they say people are against immigration because they are against illegal immmigration.
__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
02-22-2017, 11:12 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 587
Likes: 378
Liked 333 Times in 179 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwsmith
It is opposite to a defensive weapon, which is what we and police carry. When the 'assault weapon' was created it was designed to aid in an attack by crack troops on an enemy as opposed to the 'service rifle' and by definition, had full auto capability. They were so effective, it was decided to arm nearly ALL the troops with one as a standard weapon. The types of war also evolved to where the assault rifle became much more useful than a long 'service rifle',
|
RW,
I agree with you for the most part, except for one word- weapon.
To me, the word 'weapon' implies malicious intent. If I were using it in defense, I am not the aggressor. I am defending against his maliciousness. I would use whatever tools are available to me in order to counter; a rock up to and including a firearm. Like I said previously, a firearm is an inanimate object; incapable of being a weapon or assaulting someone without human interaction. Humans weaponize objects, not the other way around. Yes, this can mean a rock or a hammer; not necessarily a firearm.
By calling all firearms weapons was the first step in demonizing them to the legislature, courts and private citizens alike; gun control's first blow. Any object is not a weapon unless you use it as such. Remember that.
I'm sorry if I keep hijacking this thread. It is something I feel very strongly about. Correcting this [firearm] language is just as important as correcting the rest of the PC junk the left has forcefed us over the last 8 years.
__________________
an actual conservative
Last edited by franzas; 02-22-2017 at 11:14 PM.
|
02-22-2017, 11:24 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yuma
Posts: 801
Likes: 176
Liked 436 Times in 261 Posts
|
|
Those are the guns that are absolutely intended and considered protected by the second amendment and useful by we, citizens as a balance of power.
__________________
A Snider squibbed n the Jungle
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
02-22-2017, 11:49 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 587
Likes: 378
Liked 333 Times in 179 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwsmith
The stuff about how many guns can possibly be identified as 'assault' rifles.
Like they say people are against immigration because they are against illegal immmigration.
|
This is exactly what BB57 was referring to, in regards to "weapons of war." Calling AR-15s weapons of war is incorrect, just as saying illegals have no right to be here somehow makes you racist or anti-immigration.
Case and point- the same people calling AR-15s weapons of war are the same people supporting illegal immigration.
About the only thing that can fix them is a lobotomy at 2750 ft/s.
__________________
an actual conservative
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
02-23-2017, 12:06 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SW PA 'Burbs
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 1,236
Liked 2,036 Times in 815 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by franzas
RW,
I agree with you for the most part, except for one word- weapon.
To me, the word 'weapon' implies malicious intent. If I were using it in defense, I am not the aggressor. I am defending against his maliciousness. I would use whatever tools are available to me in order to counter; a rock up to and including a firearm. Like I said previously, a firearm is an inanimate object; incapable of being a weapon or assaulting someone without human interaction. Humans weaponize objects, not the other way around. Yes, this can mean a rock or a hammer; not necessarily a firearm.
By calling all firearms weapons was the first step in demonizing them to the legislature, courts and private citizens alike; gun control's first blow. Any object is not a weapon unless you use it as such. Remember that.
I'm sorry if I keep hijacking this thread. It is something I feel very strongly about. Correcting this [firearm] language is just as important as correcting the rest of the PC junk the left has forcefed us over the last 8 years.
|
Are you suggesting that nothing is a weapon until it is used with malicious intent, and righteous intent to harm is not withing the definition of malice?
|
02-23-2017, 12:11 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: middle Tn
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 3,948
Liked 3,269 Times in 913 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by TANKLEGACY
Actually the main difference is.. if the rifle has fully automatic capabilities
|
Actually if I beat you with a brick it is a assault weapon.
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
02-23-2017, 12:18 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 587
Likes: 378
Liked 333 Times in 179 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by pittpa
Are you suggesting that nothing is a weapon until it is used with malicious intent, and righteous intent to harm is not withing the definition of malice?
|
I would say yes. That rock on the ground, a crow bar or my Glock are just inanimate objects. They become weapons when I decide to use them to cause harm. "Malicious intent" is my own wording. Yes, willfully using an object (not firearms, specifically) to cause harm is malice.
my point was that firearms, like all things, are incapable of causing any harm without human manipulation. Place blame on the human, not the object used.
We need to remove firearms' association to 'weapons.'
__________________
an actual conservative
|
02-23-2017, 12:29 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Georgia
Posts: 588
Likes: 736
Liked 425 Times in 235 Posts
|
|
We can clench our tiny fists and stomp our little feet and placate ourselves with meaningless feel-good arguments about semantics and technical definitions till the cows come home, but at the end of the day, this decision was real, and will be enforced by guys with real assault weapons.
We appear to have been granted a few years' reprieve with this last election, but these kind of "progressive" rulings will eventually be coming at us like tsunami, at the national/international level.
|
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
|
|
02-23-2017, 12:53 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 587
Likes: 378
Liked 333 Times in 179 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark IV
We can clench our tiny fists and stomp our little feet and placate ourselves with meaningless feel-good arguments about semantics and technical definitions till the cows come home, but at the end of the day, this decision was real, and will be enforced by guys with real assault weapons.
We appear to have been granted a few years' reprieve with this last election, but these kind of "progressive" rulings will eventually be coming at us like tsunami, at the national/international level.
|
Hopefully with this last election we can roll back some of the liberal talking points.
Second, I'm sure a well armed populous is not afraid of the government, nor would the current president deploy them against us.
Third, the last president tried to bring international gun control here. It didn't work. In addition, the Supreme Court ruled (in Medellín v. Texas) that the US is a sovereign nation and that international rulings or treaties are unenforceable without Congress' consent.
__________________
an actual conservative
Last edited by franzas; 02-23-2017 at 01:00 AM.
|
02-23-2017, 09:34 AM
|
Banned
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 12,511
Likes: 21,054
Liked 32,463 Times in 7,773 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by franzas
Just wait for our new SC judge.
|
There is no "new SC judge". If you're referring to Neil Gorsuch, he's still just a nominee to the Supreme Court. His confirmation hearings don't even begin until March. He doesn't have the job yet.
And even when/if he's confirmed, if you believe he's going to wave some sort of judicial magic wand and make all the restrictive 2A laws vanish, you're probably going to be disappointed.
|
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
|
|
02-23-2017, 09:44 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Rocky River, OH, USA
Posts: 9,448
Likes: 1,271
Liked 9,184 Times in 3,621 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by franzas
The real issue is "assault weapons." It is a made-up term, designed to scare people by liberal gun grabbers.
|
It has no fixed meaning. It's whatever particular firearm or class of firearms (no matter how vaguely defined) which any particular anti-gun cultist wants to ban at any particular moment.
|
02-23-2017, 11:01 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Kingman, Arizona
Posts: 2,240
Likes: 760
Liked 2,926 Times in 953 Posts
|
|
Here is one from a long time ago.
|
03-20-2017, 04:53 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 2
Likes: 5
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
The term "assault weapon" is nothing more than "bad grammar". The word "assault" is either a verb or an adverb. NOT an "adjective".
Those of us in the "People's Republic of New York" are forbidden to own a
"shoulder fired, magazine fed, gas operated, SEMI automatic rifle with a pistol grip and flash suppressor". "They" claim this was done to make us more "SAFE". From who?
|
03-20-2017, 07:03 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: PRNJ
Posts: 6,765
Likes: 477
Liked 16,849 Times in 3,327 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessie
I imagine this will get to the the Supreme Court. All the more reason for constitutional judges.
|
No reason to think this will get to the Supreme Court
When Scalia was still alive the Court declined to take the appeal of the Assault Weapon ban out of Highland Park Michigan.
Even with a Gorsuch confirmation there is no reason to think the Maryland case would be heard.
__________________
Buy American
Vote Responsibly
|
03-20-2017, 11:52 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Minden, Nevada
Posts: 3,626
Likes: 2,014
Liked 5,296 Times in 1,736 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by TANKLEGACY
And if you are a civilian with a fully automatic weapon...you either are rich as hell(cost around $14,000 for a worn out automatic rifle) and procured it properly with all the paperwork...
|
I not rich, and I didn't pay that much for my WW2 British Lanchester Mk. 1*, but I still can't believe that I paid what I consider a fortune for my gun. $14,000 is still on the low end for registered, transferable machineguns.
My Lanchester is definitely a weapon of war. I can attach a bayonet to my Lanchester, and when I run out of ammunition, I can start stabbing the enemy. The anti-gun loonies in my family have disowned me.
|
|
Posting Rules
|
|
|
|
|