At no point in Heller, McDonald, or Caetano did the Supreme Court imply anything remotely akin to "bans on firearms with designs similar to military weapons are presumptively lawful." It DID state that weapons commonly used by law-abiding citizens for lawful reasons are protected
-
-
-
Were muskets not weapons of war in 1789? Was the rifle not designed for war in the 19th century? Was the semi-automatic handgun not created as a military sidearm? This is an absurdly reasoned opinion that ignores history, case law, and the reality of which weapons are dangerous.
-
Further, millions of law abiding citizens own semi-automatic rifles precisely because they are great for self-defense. They aren't particularly powerful, and they're easier than handguns to use effectively for smaller or less experienced individuals.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
"No one wants to take away your guns", they said, as they started taking away your guns. Where did they learn that? " The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it. " - Josef Mengele
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Over 97% of firearm deaths are from handguns. It’s clear this will be overturned. “Military-style” is Orwellian doublespeak.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
“Military-style.” No military would be so irresponsible as to arm its soldiers with ARs.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Another example of a so called judge legislating from the bench. Our Constitution says nothing about types of weapons. Unfortunately our forefathers could not predict the types that would develop. Hopefully Trump can fill our courts with constitutional judges!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Which shows that repealing the Second Amendment is not necessary. All that is necessary are judges willing to ignore the Second Amendment.
-
umm US Supreme Court in 2008, District of Columbia v. Heller, held that weapons “most useful in military service” fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment
-
No it did not
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Military Style? So if we march, instead of walk, we would be in trouble because if the style, feel, it creates???
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
In a state that we all admire for fighting the British. Very sad. Thank God I live in Texas.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This should be appealed
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
As a Vet, if you are anti gun you couldn’t pass weapons qual. AR-15’s are not military grade. No one in the military carries an AR-15, they carry M-4’s. Appearance can be deceiving. Most standard hunting rifles are the exact same as AR-15 except appearance.
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.