Quote of the Day: Weapons of War Edition

Judge Robert King (courtesy span.org)

“Let’s be real. The assault weapons banned by Maryland’s [law] are exceptionally lethal weapons of war.” –  Circuit Judge Robert King, dissenting opinion quoted in People Have A ‘Fundamental Right’ To Own Assault Weapons, Court Rules [via huffingtonpost.com]

comments

  1. The 2A makes no distinction.

    1. avatar Joe Nieters says:

      Not directly, but the Second Amendment implies, via its own reference to a militia, that the arms being referenced be appropriate for use by a militia.

      1. avatar Norman says:

        The First Amendment
        Congress {{{SHALL MAKE NO LAW}}} respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or {{{THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE}}} peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

        The Second Amendment
        A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, {{{THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE}}} to keep and bear arms, {{{SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED}}}.

        The Fourth Amendment
        {{{THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE}}} to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, {{{SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED}}}, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

        You are absolutely wrong! THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE is mentioned in the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendments…are you saying those refer to the “militia” also. NO! THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE means THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE!

        1. avatar Art out West says:

          Don’t freak out Norm. He wasn’t talking about the “who” but rather the “type of arms”. The right belongs to the people, and the type of arms obviously includes military grade weapons. By the way, this means the NFA is unlawful. We are to be allowed FA weapons.

        2. avatar Mark N. says:

          What Art says. The arms the People may keep and bear include those appropriate for militia service, as established by the first clause. Because the militia is the whole of the People, and the People were expected to provide their own arms for service in the militia. And the “security of a free state” includes not only security from local enemies (Indians, and maybe Canadians) and criminals, but from the Federal Government and/or any foreign invader (England). Many of the troops n both the War of 1812 and the Civil War were local militias. And many of those militias were supplied arms and uniforms through private fund raising.

        3. avatar Tommycat says:

          Basically, it looks like we need to actually EMBRACE the first part.

          The very arms the Second Amendment is protecting, are those arms that would be useful in a militia. Soooo the Second Amendment protects the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms that would be useful to a citizen militia… In other words even the guns currently prohibited.

      2. avatar Kyle says:

        The Second does not protect weapons only useful to a militia, although militia use would mean the same arms as the military uses. Rather, the Second protects arms period. Remember, the militia clause is declarative, not conditional.

        1. avatar Tommycat says:

          It states the purpose. It is not restrictive. Basically, if it’s a weapon that would be useful it is specifically what the amendment was for.

        2. avatar MeRp says:

          Given that a militia could be called upon to perform symmetric, asymmetric, or overwhelming-force style warfare, what arms do not have any potential to be useful to a militia anyhow? I mean, it seems to me, even a flintlock is better than a ka-bar if you’re trying to take out some occupying force that has attempted to remove all modern firearms.

      3. avatar DJZ says:

        Somehow I get what some say here about the right to bear arms in regards to a malitia. But, where does it stop? Grenades, grenade launchers, tanks, anti ballistic defense systems? What was reasonable when the second amendment was written?

    2. avatar Joe R. says:

      No, but by citing “arms” it implies ‘whatever it Fing takes to hunt, rout, displace, and kill (if necessary) you a-hole neighbors needing jobs that gang up on you, call themselves “your government” but then attemt to act like your king(s) or tyrant leaders, and try to take away your rights or attempt to unilaterally amend our agreement for how we are going to all get along. That’s what our founding fathers were dealing with when they wrote the mfr, and they knew there might be new POS’s in the future that they couldn’t cure back then. It is significant too, that that they used the term “arms” as it infinitely expands to whatever is considered arms, and Fyeah it (currently) means assault rifles, and may someday come to mean ‘meteor throwers’ and ‘sun magnets’.
      AMERICA only ‘works’ as an agreement if we promise each other Armageddon in the alternative.

      So, do.

      1. avatar Anonymoose says:

        Needs more lightsabers.

    3. avatar Fred says:

      That’s true. The historical purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure The People can stand up to a military force. That would imply arms near or equal to military arms would be required. Considering that the “weapons of war” argument has no foundation. They should be in the hands of citizens because that’s the purpose of the Second Amendment.

      They’ve been winning this fight so far, limiting us to “military inspired” arms, which is also a farce since the M16 was a military adaptation of a rifle designed around a underpowered hunting round. Pretty much everything they say is the opposite of reality meant to scare people, and then they say the progun side relies on fear and lies. They’re only allowed to make such misrepresentations because they own the media outlet.

      1. avatar Stuki Moi says:

        “They’re only allowed to make such misrepresentations because they own the media outlet.”

        Owned. What they still own, is the channels indoctrinating America’s youth.

        Ergo, homeschool. And rally behind every attempt to bankrupt every public school/indoctrination system everywhere. No bailouts of pensions, no added taxes, no taxpayer guarantee of bonds. Even though the affected teachers are mostly decent people rarely at direct fault, who were instead just caught in the crossfire. If that sounds harsh, remember, as the saying goes, and this time it’s for real: It’s for the children. And for America. The future. And Freedom.

  2. avatar Nick says:

    Of course HuffPo would quote the anti in this instead of praising the majority decision that any law restricting a constitutional right deserves to be judged under strict scrutiny.

    1. avatar Brian says:

      Wonder if they’ll praise the SC lawmaker that proposed journalists be registered with the government and go through a background check if a court says it’s okay

      1. avatar Jim Bullock says:

        “Let’s be real, the brainwashing tools banned (simply licensed n registered, actually) by S C are pretty irresistable weapons of brainwashing…”

        Kind of reads different when adjusted for speech. Also, interesting logic: “It is powerful, so the govt must mandate who can have it or not.” It’s almost like citizens are only arms of the state, occasionally allowed little sand boxes of autonamy, if it’s irrelevant enough. Good to know where you’re coming from, Tovarich.

        1. avatar Jim Bullock says:

          *communication* tools. Editing hard.

  3. avatar John L. says:

    The most powerful weapon in his courtroom is his gavel. And it’s far more potent than anything on the civilian market.

    1. avatar Stuki Moi says:

      And he wants it to stay that way. As do the rest of those, who fancy themselves justified in deciding who gets to wield gavels, and who does not.

  4. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

    Opinions are like @$$holes, everyone has one. This judge needs to look in the mirror with some “strict scrutiny” and see his hate for the constitution for what it is.

    1. avatar ThomasR says:

      More specifically, the judge hates the American people.

      He hates the fact that the American people have any capability to withstand his dictatorial edicicts, that these “teeth of liberty” represent.

      The judge hates the fact that he cannot have absolute control over every aspect of our lives, because these arms give us the abitily to say no to his tyranny.

      This judge is a despicable and contemptible human being that has betrayed his duty to us, the American people and the constitution.

    2. avatar PATRON49 IFT says:

      Another over-educated fool. This guy is too dense and un informed to rule on this case.

      1. avatar ropingdown says:

        Don’t make me laugh. There’s nothing “over-educated” about Judge King. He was raised in WVA, went to college in WVA, went to law school in WVA….and it’s impossible to follow such a path and yet become over-educated. And yes, he practiced law in WVA, and was eventually nominated to serve on the federal bench by Clinton at the urging of WVA’s two senators.

  5. avatar James says:

    Ask any active or former military whether they’d rather use the weapons issued to them while in the service, or the same looking AR15 that civilians can buy. The results may surprise the judge. Hopefully it wouldn’t hurt the judge’s feelings since feeling dictate his rulings as evidenced by his dissent.

    1. avatar Partigiano says:

      I’d rather use the side-charging AR I built than the M4 I have at my NG armory, or any of the M4s I carried in 8 years as an active duty infantryman.

      1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

        I had an AR because I know how to use it… I have an AK because I would rather use it.

        1. avatar Rad Man says:

          Just remember assault weapons will kill you way more deader than a lever gun. The judge said as much.

  6. avatar gs650g says:

    So the police carry war weapons in their cars. Got it.

    1. avatar Brentonadams says:

      Who are they at war with I wonder?

  7. avatar dh34 says:

    A M16 is a lethal weapon of war. By contrast, a thermobaric munition is an exceptionally lethal weapon of war.

    An AR15 is a semi-automatic sporting rifle, your honor.

    1. avatar Nick B says:

      I don’t agree with calling the AR-15 a “sporting rifle”. That makes it sound like some kind of hobbyist’s toy, rather than a tool for survival and defense. The 2nd Amendment was written to protect our right to own weapons of war, not sporting goods.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        The ARs that I own are toys, which could be pressed into service for survival or self defense if necessary. But I bought them as toys, including the suppressed SBR.

        1. avatar Bob says:

          ^This. It’s like calling my baseball bat a “Weapon of war”.

        2. avatar Adub says:

          Your suppressed SBR is a perfect weapon of war. They’ll never hear it coming.

      2. avatar dh34 says:

        You can call it whatever you want. That wasn’t the point. However, a M16 is a weapon of war. Designed for and purchased by the military for the purpose of armed conflict. An AR15, while a very similar weapon, is available to the general civilian population for whatever purpose they see fit. Civilian populations don’t as a rule conduct combat operations, when they do however, they generally use whatever weapons they have at their disposal.

        The musket belonging to the average American in the 1700s was a tool for protection, hunting, sport whatever. It too was similar to the muskets bought and paid for by the crown for its armies, which were intended to be weapons of war, the major difference being the bayonet. And similar to an AR can be pressed into service in an informal or formal militia.

  8. avatar ready,fire,aim says:

    so i have a safe full of war weapons…got it

    1. avatar Art out West says:

      My M44 Mosin is a weapon of war. My AK is just a modern sporting rifle. Which one does the judge wish to take away?

  9. avatar DaveL says:

    The people have a fundamental right to keep and bear weapons in common use for lawful purposes. What the court is saying is that right doesn’t magically go away because you arbitrarily decide to call them “assault weapons”

  10. avatar John B says:

    This is why we can’t have nice things in Maryland. Imagine, if you will, a state ruled by a legislature held hostage by 3 liberal and heavily populated jurisdictions. When an electorate’s pocket is lined by federal largesse, they tend to support a large and overreaching government. It’s a beautiful state but for those of us living in the regions away from the DC beltway and Baltimore City, it’s like watching the Party elite in Moscow from the frozen wastes of a Siberian gulag.

    1. avatar Nick says:

      Move over into the WV eastern panhandle. It extends a good ways into MD so you’d still be quite close while having the benefit of living in a very free state.

      CCW’s are easily obtained
      CLEOs are required to sign NFA paperwork
      No restrictions on guns of any kind
      No NICS check with CCW (post ’14)

    2. avatar Jeff says:

      Living near Hagerstown I agree completely.

  11. avatar FortWorthColtGuy says:

    Once again…

    The 2nd Amendment protects weapons in common use and suitable for use in the militia. (See Heller and Miller). It is not about hunting. The whole purpose of the 2A is to ensure civilians have capable weapons to defend themselves against foreign evaders or the government itself. If the government can decide what small arms are allowed on the civilian market based on arbitrary definitions it is circumventing the spirit of the amendment.

    Heller also states that the 2A does not protect guns that are dangerous AND unusual. Not just dangerous OR unusual. The antis can claim the AR-15 is dangerous but they can’t argue they are unusual. This majority opinion gets it right.

    By the way, when did a rifle with a pistol grip become a talisman of unimaginable destructive power but its none pistol grip counterpart be OK and less dangerous? For example, the AR-15 is banned, but the Ruger Mini 14 is not.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      That’s not as bad as Clinton’s AWB, under which a bayonet lug caused a rifle to make the jump to incredibly dangerous, we have to ban it. I don’t recall anyone, ever, robbing a bodega with a mounted bayonet. And you can only mount the bayonet on a 20″ or 14.5″ barrel, but what was banned was all lengths, which were mostly 16″, the lug made no difference, but had to be ground off in order to sell the gun. I mean, that defines the word “stupid”.

    2. avatar Mk10108 says:

      “The 2nd Amendment protects weapons in common use and suitable for use in the militia.”

      The exception being the CA DOJ roster of “approved handguns”. Under the guise of safety, 1000 guns available last year are NOT ALLOWED CA. It is estimated in six years the only approved hand guns will be revolvers. This list is not subject to law, review, or voted upon. It is government ignoring your 2A rights, mocking lawful self defense and then daring you to do something about it.

  12. avatar Mike says:

    Let’s pretend for a minute that what he says is true (which it’s not), who cares? As a judge, isn’t it his job to uphold the law? The Bill of Rights specifically forbids the government from making laws that infringe on the the right of the people to keep and bear arms. I don’t understand how these supposedly intelligent people sleep at night knowing they are willfully upholding unconstitutional laws.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      And that their doing so is a major reason why people need to own exceptionally lethal weapons of war.

    2. avatar neiowa says:

      A oath only means nothing to a dishonor man unless there I a penalty to violating it.

    3. avatar Jim Bullock says:

      Well, today’s paper has an article.on how Chief Justice Roberts is limiting the “role” of the courts … which is a bad thing (plus a little “conservative” bashing on the side.) say the only people they interviewed. (Gotta be an A P sourced piece. The local folks dont write that well, even when they’re just taking stenography from Albany.)

      The game with thes folks is in-crowd identification, and “legislation” by any means available, to get what they’ve already decided must be done. Judges are just crooked zebras in this model. Gaming the rules for “the right” team is their job.

  13. avatar Mecha75 says:

    “Exceptional lethal weapons of war!” Says a judge with no brain. That is the point of the right to keep and bear arms as understood by the founding fathers. For the citizenry to be as equally equipped as any army. So that no army (or police force) could be used to enforce tyrannical laws because the people so armed could and should revolt against such laws.

  14. avatar The Phantom says:

    What use is a weapon if not exceptionally lethal and who would take to battle with anything less? You are a great deal of trouble to we who believe in freedom Judge King.

    1. avatar Accur81 says:

      “Less lethal” weapons are great if lethal force isn’t authorized. In particular, pepper spray is great against dog attacks. I figure that you are referring to large – scale combat. Even so, smoke is useful to signal friendlies to shift fire or to conceal movement. Less lethal weapons can also be used in a lethal manner, although they obviously aren’t very good for that purpose.

      Not trying to be contrarian here, I’ve just been in a variety of altercations with a variety of weapons.

      1. avatar MeRp says:

        Even in a large scale battle, assuming we’re speaking of a purely hypothetical domestic battle, there would be significant reluctance by some to kill every single not-really-explicitely hostile who may give away a position or phone something in to the opposition, when a non-lethal alternative may be available. In some of those cases something like pepper spray or cs/tear gas could be useful to disperse those who aren’t directly interested in actively participating in the fight.

  15. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    They are not weapons of war but rather tools of whatever purpose they are put to. Anything involving “assault rifles” is overall ridiculous as they are used in so few incidents yearly overall.

  16. avatar Milsurp Collector says:

    Anyone else notice how progs change vocabulary to fit the agenda when the truth eventually finds its way out and ruins their narrative? It used to be “ban assault rifles,” until they realized you couldn’t just buy an M16A2 like any other gun and then the registry closed in ’86 so they saw that as a victory. Now it’s ” Oh noes, assault weapons” because they’re scary and look like the ones they (essentially) banned earlier. The same exact thing happened with “global warming,” and when the scientists (read: federal grant sellouts) could no longer cook the numbers and catastrophize enough, the problem suddenly expanded to “climate change” of any kind. “Racism” has transformed from the dehumanization of an entire group to “you hurt my precious feelings.” The list goes on.

    I guess my point, on this beautiful Saturday morning, is that the only reason the antis’ arguments have a leg to stand on is because they have an army of idiots following their every word. This is a culture war more than anything else.

  17. avatar pod says:

    The judge forgets that a lot of “weapons of war” have their roots in civilian applications. Or in some cases are civilian guns dressed up in military attire with a giggle switch. AWBs based on cosmetic features are useless.

    1. avatar Andrew Lias says:

      The effect works both ways, it’s just the simple laws of economy. I’m sure many many other things brought to us courtesy of conflict have trickled down in the same way; Hell one of the most common examples of the notion of interchangeable parts is Eli Whitney and muskets for a military contract. Why not use one of the most modern, efficient, ergonomic and cost effective tools to do a job when possible?

  18. What the hell is exceptionally lethal and how is it different than just regularly lethal? Dead is dead.

    1. avatar Stu in AZ says:

      Think of it this way: rifles (not just semi autos) are exceptionally lethal. Your fists and your feet are even more exceptionally lethal (statistically speaking). Also that hammer you keep in your shed.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      I think perhaps the phrase can be attributed to General McChrystal, who (post retirement) publicly stated that he felt civilians should not be allowed to have ARs because they were exceptionally lethal, a characteristic he said he had seen in the horrible battle wounds of the dead and wounded in Afghanistan. That may be one of the cites in the dissent. The “exceptionally dangerous” must have something to do with capacity (10, 20 or 30 rounds) and high rate of fire, since we all know that the round in and of itself is substantially less powerful that many hunting rounds commonly employed in the US, such as the .30-06 ( military round at its inception), .300 Win Mag, etc. etc. But you never know. Hillary would ban Garands and M1 Carbines also.

  19. avatar Tim says:

    That’s it? This ruling was a major victory and this is TTAG’s only mention of it?

    1. avatar Nick says:

      It’s not. Go back a look a little harder.

  20. avatar Almost Esq. says:

    Not only should his Bar membership be revoked but figuratively speaking so should his US Citizenship. Judicial decisions that take away a fundamental constitutional right are nothing short of treasonous.

  21. avatar James69 says:

    and on that note, I’m off to the gunshow to buy as many as I can afford, BECAUSE I CAN!

  22. avatar Another Robert says:

    I guess there’s another rule of liberal discourse; when a liberal says, “let’s be real”, you can be pretty well assured that whatever follows is not.

  23. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    That photo is the crazy uncle Myron some of us had or have.
    The one that puts on aunt Ethyls bra over his cardigan after he’s had a few at a party.
    Everyone wonders how he keeps a job and then they are reminded that he was appointed.
    For life.

  24. avatar Bob321 says:

    If this Progressive judge thinks an AR15 legally sold on the civilian market is a weapon of war that should be outlawed, I wonder if in his Progressivist utopia my Jeep Wrangler will be outlawed because the military used Jeeps to fight a war.

    1. avatar James69 says:

      I have an Assault Jeep too. _O|||||||O_ I’ve been looking for a .30 mount to put on the roll bar “for fun”…….

  25. avatar Bob says:

    “Let’s be real. Bloomberg’s hand is so far up my ass, that anything that come out of my mouth, might as well have come direct from his. I am a bought and paid for puppet.” – Circuit Judge Robert King,

  26. avatar DerryM says:

    Intimidation by exaggeration is a standard practice of the Left, so no surprise the dissenting Judge would make a Statement like this. We need to make sure we don’t too readily underplay the fact that all firearms are lethal weapons of war potentially (except maybe those .9mm’s). I say this because just as we reject his remark with contempt, the unconvinced people dismiss our statements of rejection with the same contempt and skepticism based on what little they know and what they see happening. Once again, we allow the focus to be placed on the object, not the person who uses it, and that makes all the difference. The criminal, mentally unbalanced, or terrorist use these objects to exert lethal power over others, including killing and maiming. We civilan POTG understand their awesome capacity and intend no harm to other people, except in self-defense. We use these lethal objects for hunting, sport, competition and entertainment. We hope we never have to use them in anger against another Human, but try to prepare ourselves, as best we can should that eventuality be forced upon us by unwanted circumstances. We respect and honor our compatriots in the Military who train and prepare to seek out our Country’s declared enemies and engage them in mortal combat. We are thankful for those true warriors among us who willingly take up that vital profession and the lethal risks that come with it.

    So, your “Honor” your remark, intended to frighten the weak by focusing upon an object that is only made lethal by the intent of the user, disparages, defames and insults the hundred million plus of your compatriots who only want to exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear Arms peaceably and are perfectly capable of doing so without creating any harm to any other Human, except to defend themselves from criminal predators or Government-Authorized tyrants like yourself. Kindly go f-bomb yourself.

  27. avatar Erik says:

    I went to the Huffington Post article and noticed the comment about law suits against this type of legislation being backed by the NRA. It just clicked how big of a target the NRA is to them and how they are trying to smear their name until they get the public opinion to think of them as NAMBLA. We really need to show our support for the NRA to normalize people’s perception. I have several Life Member stickers around that I keep forgetting to put on my car. That’s shameful on my part. Every car, laptop, and anywhere else I can give them advertising I’m going to do it. We all need to before the issue slips through our fingers.

    I’m also going to buy a hunting license even though I don’t hunt. Just so they see the numbers and count me as a Fudd. It’s like Bugs Bunny in a dress, I’m still the wraskaly wabbit.

  28. avatar Louis Marschalko says:

    Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243

    “Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: “The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.” The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, . . . . “

  29. avatar Dan l says:

    How do you do 7 years of higher education, fall as backwards into being a high level judge, and not have the reading comprehension for one freaking sentence in the constitution? It literally blows my mind, like not with a regular hunting rifle, but a more extreme kind like with a weapon of war……

    Versus a weapon of peace, which is what one of those t-shirt cannons?

    1. avatar Raoul Duke says:

      He isn’t stupid he knows what he is doing. This judge hates guns and is doing the bidding of his masters.

  30. avatar Dan l says:

    Also shouldn’t a well regulated militia have access to exceptionally lethal weapons of war (or peace) so we win, not lose our next war?

  31. avatar Noah says:

    If you can point out one occasion where a government issued a civilian-spec AR-15 to its soldiers out of choice rather than necessity, I might believe you.

    Doesn’t change a thing, though. The Minutemen used “weapons of war” too.

  32. avatar LJM says:

    The 2nd amendment didn’t limit colonial Americans from owning the “exceptionally lethal” Kentucky long rifle when it was written, and only allow smooth bore muskets.

    Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.

  33. avatar Stoopid1 says:

    Keep a list of these tyrants. When SHTF, take them out.

  34. avatar Paul says:

    I need a weapons of war collection. Now taking donations for an M1 Carbine, an M1 garand, a 1903, a 1917 and a Thompson (M1 Carbine and Thompson will be replicas).

  35. avatar Daily Beatings says:

    Well that’s the point, there’s suppose to be a relationship between the weapon and the militia:

    United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

    “The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.”

  36. avatar Advocate says:

    Those “exceptionally lethal weapons of war” must not be working well, because they only kill half as many people as blunt objects every year.

    1. avatar Raoul Duke says:

      Or hands and feet. Based on their logic we all should be tied up until we register them with a background check included!!

  37. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    You can’t unf*ck tyranny with a pea shooter… So yeah, lethality is name of the game.

  38. avatar Ralph says:

    King is a Clinton appointee. The Clinton stench lingers for many years after they have left the building.

    1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      Kind of like Hepatitis…

    2. avatar Raoul Duke says:

      And it very well could come back.

  39. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Let’s be real-any fool can be a judge. SEE: Sotomayor,Kagan and Ginsburg…

  40. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    Just another anti with no knowledge of guns. To bad this ones a judge. Must be a Klinton appointee. Edit: didn’t see Ralphs remarks.
    A 223/556 is a pretty under powered round in most folks books.
    Its basic reason for existing was/is for a soldier to be able to carry more rounds into battle.
    Anyone who wants to compare the power of a 223/556 to a 308 is well nuttz.

  41. avatar HolmiumST says:

    If he’s not pissed, we are not winning.

  42. avatar McCann says:

    “Dissenting.”

    Suck it leftists.

  43. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    Judges’ job is determining how a particular instance fits with existing law, not making law. Thus, arguing by calling the banned items “exceptionally lethal weapons of war” makes sense if there’s law saying that. “The law says no weapons of war. These are weapons of war. Therefore, no soup for you!”

    The problem here is too many judges thing thek ought to be making law, but can’t get themselves elected, while too many citizens think their preferences should be law, but can’t get people who agree with them elected. So, they have a lovely little conspiracy to pursue legislation by other means.

    This guy wants what he wants.

  44. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    Good! That’s the whole point, your Honor. You know, except for his voting the wrong way, his argument to that point could well support the majority ruling.

    Am I the only one who’s totally cool with weapons of war being on our streets? My problem really starts with agents of the State or foreign invaders committing illegal violence on our streets. The weapons are incidental.

  45. avatar Kimberwarrior45 says:

    The Judge was right! Now if he will just realize that the First Amendment deals only with manually operated printing presses, quill pen written documents, and only word yelled from a box in the town square. Then he would have to adjust and only make his decisions on what is in the written law . Just in case this comment is satirical.

  46. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    “Let’s be real. The assault weapons banned by Maryland’s [law] are exceptionally lethal weapons of war.”
    Which is why they are protected by the 2A.
    Nazis love sporting purpose.

  47. avatar Kyle says:

    “War” isn’t just something that happens between countries. If someone is attacking you in a way that threatens your life or with serious bodily injury, then that’s a declaration of war on your person. Arms are what you use to make war back. The military, which is the apparatus of the State, uses arms as well, along with a variety of other much more powerful and dangerous weapons. Every citizen has the right to engage in a private war to defend themself.

    Possession of the basic weapons of war, so as to enable the fighting of a private war (self-defense) and resistance to a tyranny, is a basic right of all human beings.

    Plus the fact that all the commonly-owned guns available are grounded in military design or are military.

  48. avatar CRF says:

    “Exceptionally lethal.”

    I guarantee you a bolt gun or lever action or musket will kill you just as dead. Maybe even deaderer. In fact a hammer, knife, or pair of fists would as well. Or a car. (Although I’ve heard those smart cars only wound people minorly.).

  49. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    The people had the same weapons the government had in 1776. Today the people must have the same weapons the government has.
    As far as I know there is no 2A group that supports the right reof the people having rocket launchers, flame throwers, armed aircraft (armed Cessna or a less expensive drone), tanks of any size, or artillery of any size.
    Those are the things you would need to resist government tyranny.
    There will come a time when some part of america will need some of these arms to resist tyranny.
    The Bundy Ranch, the deacons for defense and justice, and the Athens tennessee revolt. All of them used the same weapons the government has to fight the tyrants.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email