2nd Amendment Thread

[C-Mag]

Apparently these fuckers don't understand the meaning of, 'Shall NOT be infringed'. I like this little tactic, " all be addressed within every reasonable interpretation of the Second Amendment". So, if you do not agree with them your are not reasonable.

https://giffords.org/wp-content/uploads ... 2017-2.pdf

Not really clear what you are saying the standard is or should be for deciding whether federal legislation is compliant or violative of the Second Amendment. What we have to go by is what the Supreme Court said in D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (see link on thread p.1), relevant excerpts from which are as follows (citations in text omitted):

Sorry I didn't respond to this earlier.

The Heller case did one very important thing for US gun rights, it established the individual right of citizens in a SCOTUS ruling. Hardline, 2A purests find the decision weak, see the NRA as government lapdogs and see the Gun Rights as a Natural Right.

I state this because too often the NRA is considered to extreme on Gun Rights in the US. They aren't extreme, extreme folks see Gun Rights as it was for American in 1790. You can own whatever your want, Rifle, Mortar, Canon, Battleship. Bill Buppert at ZeroGov is one of these http://zerogov.com/?p=5600 I like his writings.

Americans have lost alot, a helluva lot in civil rights when it comes to the 2A. Over the last 230 years we have whittled the 2A down to allowing very little. The David Hoggs of past decades have pushed and pushed, chipped away at the Right of Man to defend himself. We need to recognize what we've lost, rather than speaking in terms of crazy Americans with radical firearms freedoms.

[de officiis]

New Jersey Governor Signs 'Name And Shame' Order On Gun Data

New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy has signed an executive order making data on gun violence more accessible to the public.

The so-called "Name and Shame" order will cite the origin of a gun involved in a crime. According to the state, approximately 80 percent of guns involved in crime come from outside of New Jersey.

Now, New Jersey authorities will identify the origins of those guns involved in crimes. Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy, who was elected to replace Republican Chris Christie, touts the order as being in the public interest, saying in a statement, "Any death due to gun violence, is one death too many."

According to the order, department and state police would periodically publish data on guns involved in crime and where they came from. These data are already collected and open to the public via the FBI, but according to Murphy, this order would streamline the process. The first published data are expected next month.

Currently, New Jersey is ranked as having the third-toughest gun laws in the nation, behind California and Connecticut, and is poising itself to pass more gun legislation. The governor is also urging the Democratic-controlled legislature to pass half a dozen gun-tightening measures for him to sign. Of the measures, one would require people applying for a gun permit to demonstrate a "justifiable need."

New Jersey would be the third state to pass a comprehensive gun package after the Parkland, Fla., high school shooting that left 17 people dead, following the footsteps of Florida and Vermont.

[de officiis]

Federal judge upholds Massachusetts assault weapons ban

A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit on Friday challenging Massachusetts's ban on assault weapons.

U.S. District Judge William Young said in his ruling that the firearms and large magazines banned by the state in 1998 are “not within the scope of the personal right to ‘bear Arms’ under the Second Amendment.”

The features of a military-style rifle are "designed and intended to be particularly suitable for combat rather than sporting applications," Young wrote.

Massachusetts was within its rights since the ban passed directly through elected representatives, Young decided.

“Other states are equally free to leave them unregulated and available to their law-abiding citizens,” Young wrote. “These policy matters are simply not of constitutional moment. Americans are not afraid of bumptious, raucous, and robust debate about these matters. We call it democracy.”

The lawsuit was filed last year by the Gun Owners Action League of Massachusetts, who claimed the law infringed on their Second Amendment rights.

Attorney General Maura Healey (D), a defendant in the suit, said the ban “vindicates the right of the people of Massachusetts to protect themselves from these weapons of war.”

“Strong gun laws save lives, and we will not be intimidated by the gun lobby in our efforts to end the sale of assault weapons and protect our communities and schools,” Healey said in a Facebook statement. “Families across the nation should take heart in this victory.”

In a statement, the National Rifle Association (NRA) blasted the decision.

“Like all law-abiding Massachusetts gun owners, the NRA was extremely disappointed that the court upheld Massachusetts’s ban on many of the most popular firearms in America,” the group said.

State laws on firearms have been under increased scrutiny since the Parkland, Fla., school shooting in February . . . .

After the shooting, Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) signed new restrictions raising the age limit for gun purchases from 18 to 21 and imposing a three-day waiting period for the sale of most long guns. The NRA promptly filed a lawsuit against the Florida law.

Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker (R) said in the aftermath of the Feb. 14 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School that he would support a federal ban on assault-style weapons.

[Fife]

Attorney General Maura Healey (D), a defendant in the suit, said the ban “vindicates the right of the people of Massachusetts to protect themselves from these weapons of war.”

For you grammar/diagramming fans: What is the ultimate object of that quoted sentence?

[C-Mag]

Attorney General Maura Healey (D), a defendant in the suit, said the ban “vindicates the right of the people of Massachusetts to protect themselves from these weapons of war.”

For you grammar/diagramming fans: What is the ultimate object of that quoted sentence?

Is this an actual grammar question ? I haven't diagrammed a sentence since 9th grade.

'vindicates the right of the people'

[SuburbanFarmer]

Uncle Sam doesn’t like 3D printed guns. Child sex!

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09- ... ody-wilson

[Montegriffo]

Geez guys, WTF

https://nypost.com/2018/09/20/shirtless ... ash-fight/

[Martin Hash]

Geez guys, WTF

https://nypost.com/2018/09/20/shirtless ... ash-fight/

I know the rule: "don't threaten the guy with the gun," but I don't expect foreigners do.

Here's how it works:
"Fuck you, that mattress is worth my life, I'm coming for you."
"Take a step closer and I'll kill you."
"Fuck you."
Bang!

[Montegriffo]

Don't know why you can't just settle for a good old punch up like everyone else...

[SuburbanFarmer]

Geez guys, WTF

https://nypost.com/2018/09/20/shirtless ... ash-fight/

“Out on 25,000 bail”.

Whaaaaaat the fuck?

How did those two idiots come up with 25k? Drug dealers?

And since when do you get a bail for murder??