Supreme Court Has To Go - Refuses to hear challenge on "assault weapon" ban

Scalia has failed me yet again

Did the challenger not have "standing?"



That's the usual excuse.

Where in the 2nd Ammendment does it say assault weapons are protected ?

When that was written the muzzle loader was the height of gun technology.

The Founding Fathers never invisioned AR-15s that could fire 100 rounds per second would one day be sold in supermarkets (Walmart).

What a tard!

This is you! --->

So you are saying assault weapons are not "arms" or are you saying you can't read?

This logic is like saying that because the founding fathers couldn't have foreseen the Internet or television, that you do not have the right to free speech through those mediums.

This logic is like saying that because the founding fathers couldn't have foreseen motor vehicles, that you don't have any fourth amendment protection.

This logic is like saying that because the founding fathers couldn't have seen.... You get the picture?

Your public education is absolutely astounding.

The internet wasn't invented either so does your freedom of speech not count on here?

Also the constitution doesn't say Anywhere that marriage shall not be infringed upon. You know the state isn't supposed to mix state and religion. It definitely says somewhere though that my right to bear arms shall not be infringed by you traitor commies.

Immediate solution would be to move or get some bugout property, learn to commute, there are alternatives.

That area will be a waste land before to long anyways.

Go fuck yourself libtard.

Are you a Syrian refugee or what?

It's more like a supreme dictatorship cabinet.

Something needs to happen to some of the members to remove them

THIS!

100 rounds per second? I don't even think a mini gun can do that.

It in the Bill of Rights genius. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Don't you see rights being infringed upon, I sure as hell do.

It doesn't say, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, unless the arms fire 100 rounds a second."

.

U Can NOT Fix STUPID.

.

Obama owns them, They will do as his majesty orders.

They are not the supreme court of the united states republic

Your statement is baseless conjecture.

Assault rifle is a made up term for an agenda pushing left wing intent on the fall of America. The founding fathers would have had the leading rifle technology available. In their time it was a musket, today it would most likely be an AR platform type of rifle.

I see it more as severe cognitive dissonance, but stupid works as well. Cheers!

The founding Fathers would have welcomed the AR-15 and other such weapons,
as they were Militia Men!!!!!
Hence, the Second Amendment was born!

Might want to pick up a history book and inform yourself!

These are the very weapons we need in today's world, which is why gun sales are off the charts! Shit yes, the evil in our great land is terrified!

As usual, the American People vote with their pocketbooks!

They are buying guns and ammo, all expensive items, in a huge way!

Go home and think about this......

Even Yoda knew how to defend himself!

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit ruled 2-1 in April that the city's ban was reasonable. "Unlike the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns, Highland Park’s ordinance leaves residents with many self defense options," the court majority said.

"If a ban on semi automatic guns and large capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting and makes the public feel safer as a result, that’s a substantial benefit," Judge Frank Easterbrook, who was appointed to the appeals court by President Ronald Reagan, wrote.

Why can people not understand that the only ones who will not have large capacity magazines and semi-automatic weapons will be the VICTIMS. Criminals do not follow laws. Why anyone would feel safer knowing that is beyond me.

Judge Daniel Manion dissented from that ruling. "While most persons do not require extraordinary means to defend their homes, the fact remains that some do," he said. "Ultimately, it is up to the lawful gun owner and not the government to decide these matters."

This guy knows what the hell he is talking about.

Last Edited by ItsAllOneBigLie on 12/07/2015 02:29 PM

The PERCEIVED risk?! So even by admission, it has no factual basis for being this way. Just if the public feels it will.

No one said it made sense.

Town in Ga has a law that every house must be armed.

[link to abcnews.go.com]