The 2nd amendment DOES NOT mean you have a right to own an AR-15

[Politruk]

He's an illegal alien and is barred from re-entry. If he shows up at a US port of entry he'll be refused at best, imprisoned for two years and then deported again at worst.

8 U.S. Code § 1326​

The courts have already ruled otherwise.

 

[Rightguide]

The 2nd amendment DOES NOT protect your right to own an AR-15.

These are extremely dangerous military-style weapons that ONLY THE MILITARY should have access to!

Yes it does. The Supreme Court has affirmed that the Second Amendment protects weapons in common use, and that such arms cannot be banned. The framers clearly envisioned a citizenry armed well enough to form militias capable of confronting professional forces like the British Army, using the most current small arms technology available at the time. In fact, many Revolutionary soldiers were expected to report for duty carrying their own personal firearms.

 

[Baztrachian]

The courts have already ruled otherwise.

Then the courts are not just wrong but they are in active insurrection against the law. A law which has not been overturned.

 

[Rightguide]

The courts have already ruled otherwise.

Learn how to read.

 

[Baztrachian]

Yes it does. The Supreme Court has affirmed that the Second Amendment protects weapons in common use, and that such arms cannot be banned. The framers clearly envisioned a citizenry armed well enough to form militias capable of confronting professional forces like the British Army, using the most current small arms technology available at the time. In fact, many Revolutionary soldiers were expected to report for duty carrying their own personal firearms.

Case in point is the rifles carried by most Colonial rebels far and away outclassed the smoothbore flintlocks carried by British forces. They were the military state-of-the-art for their time.

 

[Politruk]

Yes it does. The Supreme Court has affirmed that the Second Amendment protects weapons in common use

That does not include the AR-15.

 

[Politruk]

Then the courts are not just wrong but they are in active insurrection against the law.

That is logically impossible. Nobody else but the courts gets the final say on what the law means. That's how a rule-of-law system works, and if we lose that, we no longer have a republic.

 

[Rightguide]

That does not include the AR-15.

AR-15s are weapons that are in current use in the private sector of the US and cannot be banned. A simple search to instruct your ignorance:

• A 2023 Washington Post-Ipsos poll found that approximately 6% of American adults—about 16 million people—own an AR-15. The Reload
• The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) estimated that there were over 24.4 million AR-15-style rifles in civilian hands as of 2022. The Reload
• A 2021 National Firearms Survey conducted by Georgetown professor William English found that 30.2% of gun owners—approximately 24.6 million people—owned an AR-15 or similar rifle. Ammo.com+2The Reload+2Georgetown GISME+2

 

[Politruk]

AR-15s are weapons that are in current use in the private sector of the US and cannot be banned.

So a weapon can't be banned if 6% of the public already has one? No court will take that seriously.

 

[Rightguide]

That is logically impossible. Nobody else but the courts gets the final say on what the law means. That's how a rule-of-law system works, and if we lose that, we no longer have a republic.

^^^
This is you demonstrating your profound ignorance of current events and political reality:

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has openly acknowledged the strategic appointment of progressive judges to counteract former President Donald Trump's agenda. In 2024, Schumer stated that Democrats had placed 235 progressive judges on the bench, asserting that these appointments were instrumental in opposing the Trump administration's policies. He emphasized the success of this approach, noting, "We are in over 100 lawsuits against them [the Trump administration] and we are having a good deal of success." YouTube+1YouTube+1injusticeatwork.com


Furthermore, Schumer highlighted the importance of appointing liberal judges to balance the judiciary, particularly in response to Trump's previous appointments. He remarked that these judges would serve as a bulwark against the Make America Great Again (MAGA) agenda. The Guardian


These statements reflect Schumer's deliberate efforts to influence the federal judiciary's composition, aiming to ensure a counterbalance to policies and judicial appointments made during Trump's presidency.


https://www.google.com/s2/favicons?domain=https://www.theguardian.com&sz=32
https://www.google.com/s2/favicons?domain=https://www.injusticeatwork.com&sz=32
Sources

 

[Politruk]

^^^
This is you demonstrating your profound ignorance of current events and political reality:

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has openly acknowledged the strategic appointment of progressive judges to counteract former President Donald Trump's agenda. In 2024, Schumer stated that Democrats had placed 235 progressive judges on the bench, asserting that these appointments were instrumental in opposing the Trump administration's policies. He emphasized the success of this approach, noting, "We are in over 100 lawsuits against them [the Trump administration] and we are having a good deal of success." YouTube+1YouTube+1injusticeatwork.com


Furthermore, Schumer highlighted the importance of appointing liberal judges to balance the judiciary, particularly in response to Trump's previous appointments. He remarked that these judges would serve as a bulwark against the Make America Great Again (MAGA) agenda. The Guardian


These statements reflect Schumer's deliberate efforts to influence the federal judiciary's composition, aiming to ensure a counterbalance to policies and judicial appointments made during Trump's presidency.


https://www.google.com/s2/favicons?domain=https://www.theguardian.com&sz=32
https://www.google.com/s2/favicons?domain=https://www.injusticeatwork.com&sz=32
Sources

None of that contradicts what I said.

 

[Rightguide]

So a weapon can't be banned if 6% of the public has one? No court will take that seriously.

Here’s the essential quote from Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion:

"The Second Amendment protects the possession and use of weapons that are ‘in common use at the time’ for lawful purposes like self-defense."
— District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 627 (2008)

Any firearm owned by millions of Americans will be held to be lawfully held and not subject to being banned.

 

[Rightguide]

None of that contradicts what I said.

It proves that Schumer admitted to placing radical leftists in the court system to subvert the Trump Agenda and the will of the people.

 

[Politruk]

Here’s the essential quote from Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion:




Any firearm owned by millions of Americans will be held to be lawfully held and not subject to being banned.

Nobody needs an AR-15 for "self-defense."

 

[Politruk]

It proves that Schumer admitted to placing radical leftists in the court system to subvert the Trump Agenda and the will of the people.

No, it doesn't, because Schumer is no leftist himself. You're talking like the kind of flaming idiot who thinks Clinton and Obama are leftists. There are no radical leftists in Congress, not even Sanders or AOC.

And what he's talking about is far, far less dangerous to the Republic than appointing judges who have belonged to the Federalist Society.

And the Trump Agenda is not the will of the people -- you can tell by the polls.

 

[Rightguide]

Nobody needs an AR-15 for "self-defense."

It's not up to you or your uninformed opinion to decide what is needed for self-defense or shooting sports. Millions upon millions of Americans have already decided the issue in the marketplace, blessed by the Constitution and within the confines of federal law.

 

[Politruk]

It's not up to you or your uninformed opinion to decide what is needed for self-defense or shooting sports.

"Shooting sports"? A .22 pistol would do for target shooting, and it would be highly unsporting to use an AR-15 for hunting.

 

[Rightguide]

No, it doesn't, because Schumer is no leftist himself. You're talking like the kind of flaming idiot who thinks Clinton and Obama are leftists.

And what he's talking about is far, far less dangerous to the Republic than appointing judges who have belonged to the Federalist Society.

And the Trump Agenda is not the will of the people -- you can tell by the polls.

Schumer is a political hack who weaponizes the judiciary for partisan ends, whether you think he’s a 'pure' leftist or not doesn’t matter. You’re splitting hairs to avoid admitting that the courts are being packed with ideologues who treat the Constitution like an inconvenience.

Meanwhile, whining about the Federalist Society only proves you fear judges who actually read the Constitution instead of inventing 'rights' out of thin air. Federalist judges interpret the law; Schumer’s judges twist it. There's a difference, one preserves a republic, the other guts it.

And about 'the will of the people,' poll-driven governance is not the standard in a constitutional republic. If it were, mob rule would be the law of the land. Trump was elected by the system the Constitution designed, not by Twitter surveys or media polls. Cry harder."

 

[Baztrachian]

That is logically impossible. Nobody else but the courts gets the final say on what the law means. That's how a rule-of-law system works, and if we lose that, we no longer have a republic.

The courts do not get to defy the Constitution.

Some cunt in a black robe doesn't get to issue an order overturning a Constitutional Amendment, they don't get to issue orders defying the Constitution, and those same cunts don't get to claim Executive or Legislative powers.

 

[Baztrachian]

"Shooting sports"? A .22 pistol would do for target shooting, and it would be highly unsporting to use an AR-15 for hunting.

What a retard. An Ar-15 fires a glorified .22 round.

 

[Politruk]

The courts do not get to defy the Constitution.

Nobody else but the courts gets to say what the Constitution means.

 

[Politruk]

Schumer is a political hack who weaponizes the judiciary for partisan ends

You are an idiot if you think any Republican is any different or better in that regard.

 

[Baztrachian]

Nobody else but the courts gets to say what the Constitution means.

Then I guess we're due for another civil war to rectify that problem because last I checked our republic derives its power from the consent of the governed and not from some bunch of lawyers in black robes who have mistaken themselves for kings and gods.

 

[Politruk]

Then I guess we're due for another civil war to rectify that problem because last I checked our republic derives its power from the consent of the governed and not from some bunch of lawyers in black robes who have mistaken themselves for kings and gods.

The judiciary is playing no different a role now than it did in the days of John Marshall.

Judges make the law. That has been the common-law tradition for a thousand years, and the FFs never changed it.

 

[Rightguide]

"Shooting sports"? A .22 pistol would do for target shooting, and it would be highly unsporting to use an AR-15 for hunting.

The Second Amendment isn't about hunting. There are many different kinds of shooting sports and situations of self-defense. I know you think AR stands for "assault rifle" and a high-capacity magazine is a two-year subscription to Guns and Ammo magazine. All the more reason for you to educate yourself before commenting.