- 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
re: No Federal Appeals Court Has Held Assault-type Weapons are 2A Protected.
Posted on 2/22/18 at 3:34 pm to SCLibertarian
Posted on 2/22/18 at 3:34 pm to SCLibertarian
Of course. But once you enlighten him to the strict scrutiny standard, the thread ends and we don't get to watch the fascinating combination of arrogance and complete ignorance. Thanks for ruining the fun.
0
Posted on 2/22/18 at 3:34 pm to texridder
quote:
quote:
The Heller Court specified that “weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned” without infringement upon the Second Amendment right.
This is a completely bullshite interpretation of the ruling. No surprise you and the morons that can't honestly debate this topic would try this though.
Complete paragraph for proper context:
quote:
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
This post was edited on 2/22/18 at 3:35 pm
Posted on 2/22/18 at 3:36 pm to Clames
It's already been pointed out to him. He can't quite get his mind around what it means.
Posted on 2/22/18 at 3:36 pm to Centinel
quote:
I wanted texridder to answer that. But he never did, which is not surprising.
You see the Maryland Statute actually listed the weapons that were banned, so your question was irrelevant.
Look for another gotcha, if that's all you have to do with your life.
Posted on 2/22/18 at 3:37 pm to texridder
DUH, to that entire OP.
Posted on 2/22/18 at 3:38 pm to texridder
quote:
Maryland
Neat.
Posted on 2/22/18 at 3:40 pm to texridder
Reading Constitution now - looking for clause that says Fed Appeals Court has final say on Constitutional rulings
Have to get back to you on that I guess..
ETA correction of my phone's spell checker
Have to get back to you on that I guess..
ETA correction of my phone's spell checker
This post was edited on 2/22/18 at 3:52 pm
Posted on 2/22/18 at 3:41 pm to Clames
quote:
This is a completely bull shite interpretation of the ruling. No surprise you and the morons that can't honestly debate this topic would try this though.
I already said that the Heller reference I gave came from the 4th Circuit's opinion.
If you're bored, write the 4th Circuit letter and call it to their attention. I sure they will be impressed.
Posted on 2/22/18 at 3:43 pm to texridder
quote:
You see the Maryland Statute actually listed the weapons that were banned, so your question was irrelevant.
What does Maryland have to do with what you quoted?
quote:
The Heller Court specified that “weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned” without infringement upon the Second Amendment right.
I mean I'm sorry you're getting your shite pushed in by the lawyers, but at least try to stick to your own narrative.
Posted on 2/22/18 at 3:43 pm to texridder
What page of the 4th Circuit ruling?
Posted on 2/22/18 at 3:45 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
It's already been pointed out to him. He can't quite get his mind around what it means.
That interpretation of Heller came from the 4th Circuit's opinion. I ready said that.
Try to keep up.
Posted on 2/22/18 at 3:50 pm to texridder
So you prefer the 4th circuits interpretation over the Supreme Court's once it was pointed out to you? That makes sense.
Seems like an appropriate response would have been "oh dang. I didn't know that. Sorry for the awful thread guys".
Seems like an appropriate response would have been "oh dang. I didn't know that. Sorry for the awful thread guys".
Posted on 2/22/18 at 3:51 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
What page of the 4th Circuit ruling?
You have the whole opinion linked. Feel free to take your time looking though all 116 pages for some gotchas if that will make you happy.
Posted on 2/22/18 at 3:52 pm to BBONDS25
(no message)
This post was edited on 5/27/23 at 2:57 pm
Posted on 2/22/18 at 3:52 pm to texridder
quote:
You have the whole opinion linked. Feel free to take your time looking though all 116 pages for some gotchas if that will make you happy.
So you didn't read the opinion? Did you get it from Wikipedia too?
Posted on 2/22/18 at 3:53 pm to DelU249
quote:
I'm beginning to suspect that he's not a lawyer.
Has he claimed to be a lawyer? I am quite confident he is not a lawyer. I've never seen him make that claim. Hilarious, if true.
Posted on 2/22/18 at 3:55 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
So you prefer the 4th circuits interpretation over the Supreme Court's once it was pointed out to you? That makes sense.
Seems like an appropriate response would have been "oh dang. I didn't know that. Sorry for the awful thread guys".
Hey, BOZO, I was discussing the 4th Circuit's opinion on the Maryland law.
Try again.
Posted on 2/22/18 at 3:57 pm to BBONDS25
(no message)
This post was edited on 5/27/23 at 2:56 pm
Posted on 2/22/18 at 3:58 pm to DelU249
quote:
I'm beginning to suspect that he's not a lawyer.
I'm beginning to suspect he eats tide pods.
Posted on 2/22/18 at 3:59 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
You have the whole opinion linked. Feel free to take your time looking though all 116 pages for some gotchas if that will make you happy.
So you didn't read the opinion? Did you get it from Wikipedia too?
What are you talking about?
Oh, I see, because I won't give you a page number for everything you pick at, I didn't read the case.
Try again.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News