Sarbanes: Your AR is a Weapon of War Not a Hunting Rifle

[Rack&Roll]

Only a fool would go into battle with an AR15..

Your plasma rifle in the 40 watt range wins every time?

 

[Jim12]

Wasn't the internet developed by DARPA, part of DoD, for military use?

No civilian needs access to the internet.

 

[Rack&Roll]

This Sarbanes crack is all about our side successfully weaponizing the word MOB recently.

That has stung bigly and the Libtards are counterpunching.

 

[smokey]

why not both? I'm pretty sure our country was intentionally founded on the belief that that people should possess weapons for their defense against many threats foreign and domestic. Wanna claim my ARs are weapons of war? I'm comfortable with that. It's still my right to keep and bear them. The weapon of war thing is kind've the point of the 2a.

It reminds me of people within our community that get their panties in a twist if you say "weapon" instead of "firearm". Why is "weapon" a negative term? I am a law abiding citizen interested in the defense of myself, my family, and my country against those that would cause harm. Weapons are just tools of force that can be used for benevolent, or evil purposes, but that possess no intrinsic moral value. In that way, a person's view of weapons is really just their view of a population that wields them. If you believe that a population is mostly good, weapons are a tool for those good people to stop evil. If you believe a population is mostly evil, then your view of weapons they wield is probably that they will be used for evil. I don't think it's possible to be anti-gun and have an optomistic view of our countrymen.

 

[Rack&Roll]

Actually “Weapons of War” is so 2018...

https://youtu.be/LikxFZZO2sk

 

[Jerry M]

He's an uninformed jerk!

 

[jcutonilli]

Your going to case law. I'm going to the founding documents. Lawful purposes fine. The reason the 2nd amendment was put there was to make sure citizens had the right to defend themselves,against a tyrannical government or someone that wanted to take from them life and liberty. You keep with that hunting angle. Maybe they'll let you keep your recurve.

What I still don't get is how we are wrong. And, why you find it so necessary to point this out. I think you are so missing the point.

I contend that you could outlaw hunting and still not violate the 2A.

Heller looked at text and history and simply confirmed the findings of the text and history. They used founding documents for their determination. Heller confirms that the codified right was exactly what you say; to own and use arms to protect themselves against a tyrannical government.They went back to the English bill of rights to demonstrate that it included self defense.

The right is not the right TO hunt, it is the right to own and use arms FOR hunting. This means that there is some connection between the right and hunting. Your claim is that there is absolutely no connection. Restrictions on hunting generally do not violate 2A because they don't tend to implicate the ability to own and use arms (the right protected by 2A).

I am not sure Sarbanes really understands what hunting is, because it is all about killing. The only real difference is the intended target. The mechanism is exactly the same between people and animals.

I point deficiencies like this out because of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

 

[jcutonilli]

I agree.

The Miller case upheld the ban on short barreled shotguns on the rational that they were NOT weapons of war.

That would seem to support an argument that the 2A protects ONLY weapons of war.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

The rationale was that there was not any evidence provided. What is unclear is if any evidence exists. Nobody argued for Miller. The case was remanded to a lower court to determine if any evidence existed, but the case resolved itself before any determination could be made.

 

[WeaponsCollector]

"The second amendment is not about hunting."

 

[welder516]

Next he will be telling me where and what I use my car for . He is a huge ass and as lost any common sense , not that he ever had it .

 

[Racer Doug14]

Heller looked at text and history and simply confirmed the findings of the text and history. They used founding documents for their determination. Heller confirms that the codified right was exactly what you say; to own and use arms to protect themselves against a tyrannical government.They went back to the English bill of rights to demonstrate that it included self defense.

The right is not the right TO hunt, it is the right to own and use arms FOR hunting. This means that there is some connection between the right and hunting. Your claim is that there is absolutely no connection. Restrictions on hunting generally do not violate 2A because they don't tend to implicate the ability to own and use arms (the right protected by 2A).

I am not sure Sarbanes really understands what hunting is, because it is all about killing. The only real difference is the intended target. The mechanism is exactly the same between people and animals.

I point deficiencies like this out because of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

Your wiki quote is one that has been used many time on this forum. Generally it's used around hunters who don't support the 2A(Fudds). Because they don't see a use for non hunting type firearms. I get where your going and get your argument/debate. Hunting was a big need for a long gun in private ownership. Pistols were less needed I would guess. Then the beginning of revolution began.

 

[Doctor_M]

Wasn't the internet developed by DARPA, part of DoD, for military use?

No civilian needs access to the internet.

Same for GPS.

 

[noddaz]

No

He's an uninformed jerk!

No, he knows where his money is coming from.

 

[Invicta]

He's an uninformed jerk!

Unfortunately, it's his voters who are uninformed. He may well know what he's calling for is nonsense, but it ultimately comes down to the "erMAgerd do it for muh children" types that don't educate themselves on the issues and think taking away the scary looking guns will be good for society.

 

[RepublicOfFranklin]

We can quibble over the definition of morons, but certain morons capable of fully automatic DNC votes, and high capacity for liberal nonsense can only be considered assault morons. Those morons are weapons of voting war and shouldn’t be allowed to vote, or reside in America.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Beach Jumper]

It's Time for Sarbanes (and the Mikes) to disappear from the Maryland political landscape. Fortunately for them, they are relatively safe in office here in the Democratic Peoples Republik of Maryland.

Conservatives just don't have the numbers to vote them out. They will continue to interpret the second amendment as they see fit, Those of us to care will continue to have to argue their
bad laws in court. It's sad.

 

[Bob A]

Conservatives just don't have the numbers to vote them out. They will continue to interpret the second amendment as they see fit, Those of us to care will continue to have to argue their
bad laws in court. It's sad.

We may not have the numbers to vote them out, but we do have the ability to make small inroads into their rigged game.

If Hogan gets re-elected he will have some input to counter the gerrymandering. If we can successfully change half a dozen seats we can sustain a veto, which will enable some change, as well as forcing the GA to come to some sort of accommodation with Republicans. If the heavens split open and the Finger Of Fate flicks Frosh into a much-desired retirement, we will be immeasurably better off.

The outlook is not great, but we can work toward making it less bad. Meanwhile there is some momentum for change, even in MD.

The courts also are starting to swing back from the leftist excesses. Trump has two more years to stuff the judiciary with judges who support the COTUS rather than the DNC. A couple more SCOTUS appointments will seal the deal. He'll need to replace the aging Thomas, which will be a wash, and then Ginsberg will fall off her perch, giving a decent chance of a conservative antidote to the poison of the National Socialist movement.

 

[Threeband]

... Trump has two six more years to stuff the judiciary with judges who support the COTUS rather than the DNC. ...

FIFY

 

[Jim12]

Make them defend their open borders policies -- especially when Independents are listening.

Democrats Advised Not to Speak About Unpopular Open Borders Policies: ‘It Is Very Difficult to Win on Immigration’

https://www.breitbart.com/immigrati...ders-policies-very-difficult-win-immigration/

 

[Rockzilla]

Wasn't the internet developed by DARPA, part of DoD, for military use?

No civilian needs access to the internet.

someone else commented also.
but correct as a backup during Cold war
and Universities also, high speed back-bone
there is supposd to be I2 or high speed mainly
for miltary, research, medical. Back bone providers
Verizon (acquired MCI) Century link,AT&T, Sprint.
I-net wasn't designed to handle all graphics related
pages (html) remember the days of Telnet, FTP if
you didn't know the IP address you were screwed.
Memories of CDNow.com only way in was Telnet..
"Netscape" anybody... or AOL floppy disks
made excellent targets "pull"

Anyway on to subject my AR's are not weapons of
war and do rather well on "varmints" same as the
Barrett


hmmm. U.S. Rep John Sarbanes (D- Baltimore County)<<--Now this says it all
worry about fix it "make sure your own house is in order before you talk about others"
in this case who you represent

-Rock