Mass. Judge rules AR-15 ban not unconstitutional

[BPTactical]

Bullshit ruling that flies in direct conflict of the entire pretense of the Second.

Good read: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.was...ssault-rifles/

[CS1983]

Does this mean Remington 700's are not covered under the 2nd Amendment, too? What about Beretta 9mm? What about 1911's?

[Big E3]

I have a BB gun that looks like an M1 Carbine. Do you suppose this judge believes that I shouldn't have a "military" gun like that as well?

[CS1983]

I have a BB gun that looks like an M1 Carbine. Do you suppose this judge believes that I shouldn't have a "military" gun like that as well?

Potentially used for USAF indoor yearly qual: BANNED.

[BPTactical]

This judge is clearly incompetent.
Nearly every firearm ever manufactured has seen "Military use" .

[skoodge]

This judge is clearly incompetent.
Nearly every firearm ever manufactured has seen "Military use" .

Isn't that the end game?

[def90]

Bad ruling based on Scalias thoughts. Scalia specifically said M16 which refers to an automatic weapon which would already fall under current NFA rules. There is a big difference between an M16 and an AR15. This should be able to be challenged.

[CS1983]

Liberal#1: The 2nd amendment was meant for the militia (aka, the military) to be allowed to have guns
Liberal #2: All weapons suitable to the military can be banned

I'm starting to feel like we're up against a schizo possessed person who is tripping balls on LSD. There is no sense or reason with them. They just flit and flitter from one bit of sophistry to the other, holding nothing consistently but the subjugation of the formerly free.

[MarkCO]

Military grade is RELEVANT to the 2nd amendment. In fact, it is the primary purpose FOR the 2nd Amendment.

The purpose of the Second Amendment was not to make sure you could go hunting, nor to protect your family or property. Those are secondary purposes. The Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to ensure the citizens would always have the right to match the weaponry of a federal army. It is to ensure that the citizens can resist a tyrannical government with force if needed. The founders understood that an unarmed populace are subjects, not participants.

"We" need to stop letting the leftists set the rules and the verbiage. Who gives a rip if they say "clip" or "assault weapon"? I don't. If you do, they they have beaten you with rhetoric and moved you OFF the fundamental argument. Time to see the forest and not worry about the needles on a tree.

[CS1983]

Correct. But I cannot find a script to which they stick. They're all over the place. It's like guerrilla rhetoric.