- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Judge rules Maryland's ban on assault rifles is legal
Posted on 8/12/14 at 4:31 pm
Posted on 8/12/14 at 4:31 pm
13
Posted on 8/12/14 at 4:36 pm to conservativewifeymom
But you can bet that the same Judge would rule against the citizenry of Maryland if they decided to define Marriage as being between a man and woman.
The Judiciary has become Ideologically polarized, right on up to the SC. Just like the Electorate.
Will be interesting.
The Judiciary has become Ideologically polarized, right on up to the SC. Just like the Electorate.
Will be interesting.
Posted on 8/12/14 at 4:42 pm to conservativewifeymom
quote:
He added that the only types of arms protected by the second amendment are "weapons that are typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes," alleging that assault weapons and those with large-capacity weapons do not fall into that categorization and therefore are not protected by the constitution.
Really? So much fail.
This post was edited on 8/12/14 at 4:45 pm
Posted on 8/12/14 at 4:45 pm to USMCTiger03
I know, the guy is really going out on a limb with his interpretation.
Posted on 8/12/14 at 4:48 pm to conservativewifeymom
Good, one state down 49 to go.
Posted on 8/12/14 at 4:51 pm to asurob1
quote:
Good, one state down 49 to go.
So stupid. The constitution envisioned a citizenry with the capacity to overthrow a tyrannical government. Not exactly law abiding activity.
Posted on 8/12/14 at 4:53 pm to USMCTiger03
quote:
"weapons that are typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes," alleging that assault weapons and those with large-capacity weapons do not fall into that categorization and therefore are not protected by the constitution.
I like to shoot shite with my AR-15. What's not lawful and straight up MERICUN about that?
Posted on 8/12/14 at 4:56 pm to HempHead
Libs think AR's are scary looking so they must be bad. The whole high capacity clip argument is a joke.
Posted on 8/12/14 at 4:56 pm to asurob1
quote:
Good, one state down 49 to go
Problem is...every time a Federal judge rules this way you can only say 49 to go. Considering this ruling, like all the others will be overturned.
Posted on 8/12/14 at 4:57 pm to conservativewifeymom
quote:
I know, the guy is really going out on a limb with his interpretation.
Maybe, but as a judge he did point out that to consider them otherwise had not been supported:
"The plaintiffs argued that assault weapons could be used to defend oneself, but the state pointed out that they could not name a single incident in which a Marylander had ever used an assault weapon to defend oneself in a dangerous situation, and neither could the Maryland State Police.
'Therefore, I find the law constitutional,' the court wrote in a statement."
Posted on 8/12/14 at 4:57 pm to BBONDS25
Again I always ask WTF is an assault rifle?
Posted on 8/12/14 at 4:59 pm to conservativewifeymom
His reasoning and logic was very poor. 
Congrats to the 2nd amendment haters finding a friendly judge to rule in their favor. It's similar to that backwoods retard judge in Tennessee ruling against gay marriage breaking the string of consecutive court victories for gay rights.
This isn't going to stand due to 2nd amendment rights advocates superior arguments and logic.
Congrats to the 2nd amendment haters finding a friendly judge to rule in their favor. It's similar to that backwoods retard judge in Tennessee ruling against gay marriage breaking the string of consecutive court victories for gay rights.
This isn't going to stand due to 2nd amendment rights advocates superior arguments and logic.
Posted on 8/12/14 at 5:00 pm to yumahog
quote:
Again I always ask WTF is an assault rifle?
Something that looks scary
Posted on 8/12/14 at 5:00 pm to conservativewifeymom
Governments have their rules, and I have mine.
Posted on 8/12/14 at 5:00 pm to Lsut81
A rifle used to assault things.
Which would be every rifle.
That piddly-arse .22? That's for assaults!
Which would be every rifle.
That piddly-arse .22? That's for assaults!
Posted on 8/12/14 at 5:01 pm to conservativewifeymom
quote:
The plaintiffs argued that assault weapons could be used to defend oneself, but the state pointed out that they could not name a single incident in which a Marylander had ever used an assault weapon to defend oneself in a dangerous situation, and neither could the Maryland State Police.
The cops don't use high capacity magazines or assault weapons?
Posted on 8/12/14 at 5:01 pm to asurob1
quote:
Good, one state down 49 to go.
quote:
asurob1
both of these guns function in the same way and fire the same cartridge
all of the guns pictured here are semi automatic and will accept a magazine of any capacity. the "hunting" rifles shown here are typically displayed with smaller magazines that fit flush with the rifle stock.
semi automatic =/= fully automatic. none of the guns here are select fire and will not under any circumstances fire more than one round per trigger pull.
also, modifying a semi automatic to fire full automatic is not an easy thing to do and is not legal
apparently i have to note this again:
aside from the shotguns ALL of these guns will accept box magazines of ANY SIZE.
LINK
LINK
Posted on 8/12/14 at 5:02 pm to Sid in Lakeshore
quote:
So stupid. The constitution envisioned a citizenry with the capacity to overthrow a tyrannical government. Not exactly law abiding activity.
Ah yes, that old thing, the whole we must be armed to the teeth in case the evil Obamabots come for us.
Posted on 8/12/14 at 5:02 pm to wickowick
A baseball bat, a knife, a car can assault people, why not ban those?
Posted on 8/12/14 at 5:03 pm to wfeliciana
And this assumes that such a weapon will NEVER be needed for self-defense simply because it hasn't been needed THUS FAR?!?! A bit like saying 'why develop a vaccine against disease XYZ because it hasn't been needed thus far, we've been treating it with antibiotics' and totally overlooking the possibility of mutations, etc. Very limited, backward looking logic!
Page 1 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News