DispositionMatrix
NES Member
Well put.
The practical implication of this is for those in MD affected by the Kolbe et al v. O’Malley et al decision.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
BREAKING: Federal Judge Rules AR-15′s Are “Dangerous and Unusual,” Not Protected by 2
- Thread starter mikeyp
- Start date
The practical implication of this is for those in MD affected by the Kolbe et al v. O’Malley et al decision.
StevieP
NES Member
cbrxx
NES Member
Unusual? How many AR's and AKs are floating around out there? http://gunssavelives.net/blog/court...s-and-unusual-not-protected-by-2nd-amendment/
- - - Updated - - -
Brought to you by this handsome judge
It's Pat! Is that a man or woman?
Hey now, this is MA. The beds at the reeducation camps will be comfy, this state loves to pamper criminals, and the busses will likely be comfy too.
And hard labor for criminals? lol. No way, we'll be chained to desks writing computer code, gold farming online games and generally just being office stiffs.
The thing that get's me is that she wrote 47 pages of rebuttal based on her "opinion" and with only the slightest touch on any facts whatsoever. I need to read all 47 pages to see what other gems she left in there..
Last edited:
Unusual? How many AR's and AKs are floating around out there? http://gunssavelives.net/blog/court...s-and-unusual-not-protected-by-2nd-amendment/
- - - Updated - - -
Brought to you by this handsome judge
Leif Garrett got appointed as a judge?
ISOTOX
NES Member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2008
- Messages
- 8,261
- Likes
- 5,332
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
Nuclear weapons are dangerous and unusual. AR-15s are the most common model rifle in the country. What's so unusual about them?
Does anyone know where the 8+ million owned comes from? Does it supposedly reflect the total number of ARs owned or does it only include sales of ARs sold as complete rifles but ignore the sales of stripped lowers built into complete rifles? I'd suggest that the sales numbers for 80% lowers might be helpful but it would probably just scare the crap out of the anti and give them a new area to focus on.
According to the ATFs statistics (https://www.atf.gov/content/About/statistics), 3.17M rifles were produced in the US in 2012. I would bet 70% or more were "evil" rifles.
The 8+ million number does not pass the smell test. I also do not buy the 3% of gun stock and 1% of ownership. Anecdotal evidence shows almost all gun owners I know own at least one "evil" rifle.
The better statistic would be what is in common use today? Look at all rifles bought in the last decade and see what that shows.
The 8+ million number does not pass the smell test. I also do not buy the 3% of gun stock and 1% of ownership. Anecdotal evidence shows almost all gun owners I know own at least one "evil" rifle.
The better statistic would be what is in common use today? Look at all rifles bought in the last decade and see what that shows.
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2012
- Messages
- 608
- Likes
- 62
He's got a face for radio.
Unusual? How many AR's and AKs are floating around out there? http://gunssavelives.net/blog/court...s-and-unusual-not-protected-by-2nd-amendment/
- - - Updated - - -
Brought to you by this handsome judge
EC1
NES Member
I might buy the 3% number, but can she think of any other gun format/caliber that has the same number in circulation with only about 40 years on the market? Surely by that reasoning all of the really large caliber game guns are rarity and should also be restricted? I call
![[bs2]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/047.gif "BS2 [bs2]")
This judges ruling is unusual and dangerous to the COTUS and the 2A specifically which she is sworn to uphold.
It is obvious what the 2A is about and any judge that makes such a ruling as this should be removed from the bench immediatly.
It is obvious what the 2A is about and any judge that makes such a ruling as this should be removed from the bench immediatly.
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2005
- Messages
- 9,008
- Likes
- 5,487
Let me see, according to the web site "http://howmanyofme.com/search/" there are 5,231,071 people with the first name John in the United States. That's like 1.4% of the population. So by her reasoning, that is a very very extremely unusual name.
Does anyone spot the flaw in the logic? This is unbelievable.
Does anyone spot the flaw in the logic? This is unbelievable.
Quiet
Banned
If there were 30 million rifles produced in the last 10 years and about 6 million of them were ARs, that's not very uncommon.
Perrrrrfect.
Horrible
NES Member
There are only 500,000 electric cars in the world. Considering that there are over 255 million cars in the US alone, that would say that electric cars are exceptionally rare and should be banned. Since more people die in cars each year, they are more dangerous than guns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car_use_by_country
Looking through those ATF stats, I noticed that they list Sun Devil as having produced 34 rifles. This seems to suggest that these stats only include fully assembled AR15s, because, certainly, Sun Devil sold a lot more AR lowers than 34.
Never let logic get in the way of an outcome driven decision. By this reasoning, the M1 Garande with its 6mm production figure makes it "unusual." I would like to know what are not "unusual?" Seems like that part of Heller that states: "The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense..." was missed. Heller looked to the choice of defense by the People.
Last edited:
Ok, I went through those ATF stats for rifles produced in 2012. It was a PITA because it's a PDF, but this was my method.
- include the full number for any company that I know makes only makes "modern sporting" type rifles.
- If it was a company like SIG or S&W that makes a handful of bolt actions, but the vast majority is MSRs, I took the whole number.
- If it's a company like Ruger or Remington, I didn't take the number at all because I had no way to break down MSRs vs. bolt actions or other types of rifles.
So, obviously my method has some holes in terms of absolute accuracy, but I'd argue I undercount by a very significant margin by excluding the companies I did.
So what number did I get to? ~950k
That means that at least 1/3 of rifles produced in 2012 were modern sporting rifles. In other words, the ruling is bul****t.
EDIT: It also seems some manufacturers may be missing from that list. I didn't see Robinson (XCR) or a number of AR lower brands.
- include the full number for any company that I know makes only makes "modern sporting" type rifles.
- If it was a company like SIG or S&W that makes a handful of bolt actions, but the vast majority is MSRs, I took the whole number.
- If it's a company like Ruger or Remington, I didn't take the number at all because I had no way to break down MSRs vs. bolt actions or other types of rifles.
So, obviously my method has some holes in terms of absolute accuracy, but I'd argue I undercount by a very significant margin by excluding the companies I did.
So what number did I get to? ~950k
That means that at least 1/3 of rifles produced in 2012 were modern sporting rifles. In other words, the ruling is bul****t.
EDIT: It also seems some manufacturers may be missing from that list. I didn't see Robinson (XCR) or a number of AR lower brands.
Last edited:
Yes of course the ruling is BS. These judges rule however they want and feel and not within the bounds of the Constitution as they are supposed to.
Just like the politicians they are not held accountable and either do not suffer any consequences for their actions or only minor consequences.
Just like the politicians they are not held accountable and either do not suffer any consequences for their actions or only minor consequences.
The phrase that comes to mind is "vacated for want of reasoned decision making."
No surprise here. She used the bogus 'two step analysis' which includes a 'means-ends scrutiny' (not strict scrutiny, like used with pretty much every other protected right beside the 2A). It is commonly used and there has been plenty of discussion on it's total misapplication and how applying this bogus test will allow one to conclude any law they wish to be lawful.
For example, here is a quote from this ruling.
Step one passed! No analysis needed. Gee, that was easy. I mean, we really need not go any further, but to at least make it sort of like I'm following some sort of legitimate process...
On to step two.
But it only gets better.
See, as long as I say there is no evidence, there is no evidence. Voodoo magic like. She is that good. None whatsoever.
But lets just get down to it. I'll quote, then explain what she really means if you read between the lines (or really, not even!).
After carefully ignoring all evidence and facts to the contrary, I can pretend that something that is obviously common isn't, and provide no further reasoning to how I came to said conclusion.
I will mis-characterize an obvious truth so it looks bad though when using even the smallest amount of thought will make you realize this points to the exact opposite of my position. Guns when used to kill people in fact kill more people than guns that aren't used to kill people. Yes, I seriously said that like it was a valid point. No joke.
Catch 22 bitch! You want to use it for a valid, lawful purpose? Sucker! By making it illegal it will be impossible for anyone to ever use it for a lawful purpose!
More Catch 22 coming at you, but I won't just stop there. Full blown hypocrisy coming at you know! I am so smitten I can come right out and say that these weapons may be even MORE EFFECTIVE, but instead of saying 'defensive' I'll say 'offensive', though really that is the exact same thing. Maybe you will overlook that minor (chuckle) detail.
See, there you have it.
1. Ignore all evidence to the contrary, then claim it doesn't exist.
2. Mis-characterize obvious facts so they seem bad despite that not being even close to the truth.
3. Create a paradoxical situation making it impossible to avoid due to blatant contradictory reasonings.
4. Be as hypocritical as possible.
For example, here is a quote from this ruling.
Step one passed! No analysis needed. Gee, that was easy. I mean, we really need not go any further, but to at least make it sort of like I'm following some sort of legitimate process...
On to step two.
But it only gets better.
See, as long as I say there is no evidence, there is no evidence. Voodoo magic like. She is that good. None whatsoever.
But lets just get down to it. I'll quote, then explain what she really means if you read between the lines (or really, not even!).
After carefully ignoring all evidence and facts to the contrary, I can pretend that something that is obviously common isn't, and provide no further reasoning to how I came to said conclusion.
I will mis-characterize an obvious truth so it looks bad though when using even the smallest amount of thought will make you realize this points to the exact opposite of my position. Guns when used to kill people in fact kill more people than guns that aren't used to kill people. Yes, I seriously said that like it was a valid point. No joke.
Catch 22 bitch! You want to use it for a valid, lawful purpose? Sucker! By making it illegal it will be impossible for anyone to ever use it for a lawful purpose!
More Catch 22 coming at you, but I won't just stop there. Full blown hypocrisy coming at you know! I am so smitten I can come right out and say that these weapons may be even MORE EFFECTIVE, but instead of saying 'defensive' I'll say 'offensive', though really that is the exact same thing. Maybe you will overlook that minor (chuckle) detail.
See, there you have it.
1. Ignore all evidence to the contrary, then claim it doesn't exist.
2. Mis-characterize obvious facts so they seem bad despite that not being even close to the truth.
3. Create a paradoxical situation making it impossible to avoid due to blatant contradictory reasonings.
4. Be as hypocritical as possible.
KBCraig
NES Member
Sam Elliot is the most macho SOB in Hollywood, but even he is not that masculine.
No
Pro RKBA are a very small minority in deep blue states like Maryland and Mass.....might as well piss into the wind of a noreaster
If all of you Pro RKBA people were to decide to stop being involutary donors to the progressive dem machine and beat feet to a battleground or red state it would have the following impact.
1. It would deprive Mass/Maryland and other states of tax revenues of productive people and before long the progressive machine would collapse under the weight of its own filth
2. It would deprive Mass/Maryland and other states of REPRESENTATION in Congress based on population thus reducing their ability to wage war on our rights at the fed level.
3. It would result in turning battleground states red
4. It would result in INCREASING representation at the federal level of Pro RKBA states based on population
Getting people to stop being involutary donors to the progressive machine by leaving states like Mass will solve our problems in just a couple years.
Similar threads
