The Supreme Court on Monday turned away an appeal by a group of gun rights advocates seeking to overturn Maryland’s ban on assault-style rifles and high-capacity magazines under the Second Amendment.
The decision, a major win for gun safety advocates, leaves in place a ruling by the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals which ruled that the state may constitutionally prohibit sale and possession of the weapons.
The state legislation, enacted in 2013 after the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting, specifically targets the AR-15 – the most popular rifle in America with 20-30 million in circulation. They are legal in 41 of the 50 states.
I dont want firearms to be removed, beyond restricting access. Including logical fallacies is how I single out people with weak ideologies. Weak beliefs always lean on logical fallacies when challenged.
Move the goalposts again if you wish. Individual harm caused by thermite is relatively limited, even in a war like setting. Lighting a forest on fire doesn’t require thermite. Unless you’re a fuckin idiot or in middle school
The current administration is too inept to effectively remove firearms. Fascism has always existed in the US, but its more obvious today than in 1940. We don’t win by clinging to guns and pretending they will provide retribution.
I won’t elaborate on the very basic knowledge I have of explosives because you seem to think knowing about thermite makes you threatening lol.
Moving the goalposts?
You’re on a post about an AR-15 ban but I’ve somehow moved the goalposts? I’m not wasting my time on this anymore.
I haven’t actually been threatening anyone. I’m explaining how very easy it is to kill people and the various things that are unregulated that can be used to do so. Why do you feel threatened?
Almost like you’re a fascist that’s afraid to get shot.
Wut?
Dude, read the article - this isn’t regulation, it’s a ban.
Holy shit I’ve been arguing with someone that claims to be able to build bombs but can’t manage to determine the content of an article that’s been paraphrased for them. If you’re basing whether or not guns should be regulated using yourself as a baseline, then god damnit – you got me, I have to agree with you.
Banning some guns is part of regulation, unless you don’t understand how regulation works.
My ‘wut’ is about you fundamentally misunderstanding how regulation works. I’m not allowed to drive a semi because I don’t have a class A license. Just like I shouldn’t own an AR-15 to control the local deer population.
Oh, I didn’t realize there was a license you could apply for that would give you the right to use assault weapons!
Please, produce it for me so I can get started. I will wait.
Edit: 😂😂 I don’t understand how bans work when you’ve conjured up a nonexistent license. Incredible. Wait wait wait, don’t tell me - it’s up to the govt you’ve deemed too inept to handle the licensing?
Keep talking past the point all you want, i guess. Doesn’t make anything you say more correct.
And you’re virtually indistinguishable from a fascist, so who cares what your point is?
Edit: also no, I did address your point. You seem to believe competent regulatory procedures will be developed by an incompetent govt, and fully support their seizure of firearms. Ding ding ding, fascism.
Fascism does sometimes include siezing of guns. But it’s not a required component. The talking point about guns saving us from Fascism is a sales pitch from the 50s and 60s. Guns don’t save anyone from Fascism. It does drive sales up though.