Wednesday, February 22, 2017

Federal appeals court says weapons “like M-16 rifles” not protected by Second Amendment

Image result for wiki ar15
Now this is disturbing news.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decision upheld Maryland’s ban on assault rifles, which was passed in 2013 in response to the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Connecticut. It cited a 2008 Supreme Court case, Heller v. District of Columbia, which said that weapons “most useful in military service” are not covered by the Constitution.
Federal appeals court says assault rifles are ‘weapons of war’ not protected by Second Amendment
This shows a concerning level of ignorance regarding the basic principle of the Second Amendment were clearly the “security of a free State” involves warfare against tyrants or foreign invaders, meaning yes, using precisely weapons of war. If anything it’s sporting firearms that have a limited or nil combat application therefore aren’t strictly “necessary to the security of a free State”.
This serves as a reminder that gun rights should never be taken for granted and that there’s people always operating to take them away from us. The minute you relax, the minute they take a bite. Relax too much and one day you have nothing left.
Take care folks,
FerFAL
Fernando “FerFAL” Aguirre is the author of “The Modern Survival Manual: Surviving the Economic Collapse” and “Bugging Out and Relocating: When Staying is not an Option”.

4 comments:

tim k smith said...

There was a time when muskets were "weapons of war". Where would we be if our revolutionary soldiers were only allowed to use a bow and arrow!! get Real..."shall not be infringed" is real and well founded and was placed there for our defense against enemies both foreign and domestic!!

Justin C said...

I'd rather have a mini-14, mini 30 or springfield M1A

Justin C said...

I'd rather have a Ruger mini 14 or mini 30, or Springfield M1A

charles webber said...

There are no " Absolute" rights.