Yup
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
October 20th, 2015 at 6:26 pm
Citizens uphold their ban on refusing to comply with the edict of the court, with most people refusing to register their weapons. You turn, statists.
October 20th, 2015 at 6:33 pm
From the article:
“It also held that because the banned features of the semiautomatic firearms at issue enhance their accuracy, comfort, and utility, they also “make the weapons more deadly.” ”
I guess I can read that as optics, lasers, night sights (even regular sights?), bi-pods, shooting sticks, recoil reducers, barrel weights, slings, and more are all on the “can be banned” table now?
October 21st, 2015 at 8:40 am
You laugh, Skullz, but just you wait. Slap a bipod *AND* a scope on a bolt action hunting rifle? That’s a “sniper rifle” and needs to be banned.
October 21st, 2015 at 12:12 pm
I. Am. Not. Laughing.
October 21st, 2015 at 1:52 pm
How about those rifled barrels? Don’ they “enhance their accuracy, comfort, and utility,” don’t they also “make the weapons more deadly?” And iron or steel barrels, themselves, even if unrifled? And stocks, and triggers (as opposed to flints, say?) and self-contained cartridges?
Goodness, it is almost like the entire history of these weapons of death describes a systematic effort to make them more accurate, comfortable to use, of higher utility, and hence, more deadly. Under those criteria, even a pointed stick isn’t allowable for citizen ownership, and a blunt stick is highly questionable.
October 23rd, 2015 at 1:49 pm
Here’s a good discussion from David Kopel:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/23/the-2nd-circuits-second-class-second-amendment-intermediate-scrutiny/
In Heller, handguns couldn’t be banned because they’re “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes” as opposed to being “dangerous and unusual.”
“By the 2nd Circuit’s reasoning, inferior guns that are less accurate, less comfortable to use and less useful supposedly enjoy greater constitutional protection. That is a Bizarro Second Amendment.”