Maryland in trouble still

[rwsmith]

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.

 

[franzas]

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.

 

[poordevil]

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.

 

[franzas]

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.

 

[pittpa]

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?

 

[shell627]

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.

 

[franzas]

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.'

 

[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.

 

[franzas]

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.

 

[Watchdog]

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.

 

[cmort666]

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.

 

[Lee in Quartzsite]

Here is one from a long time ago.

 

[bobm001]

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?

 

[bushmaster1313]

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.

 

[jag312]

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.