After Orlando Shooting, Supreme Court Due to Consider Assault Rifle Ban Case

[Oh Shoot]

Just now, shotgunshooter said:

OS, there are very few things I would fight and die for. Even fewer that I would kill for. I'd just like to hear Glenn's thoughts on the matter. As long as we have Republicans controlling the House and/or Senate and a Democrat in the White House I don't think confiscation could happen. Even if guns were made illegal logistically it would be impossible. Who knows what will happen with this election and future Supreme Court decision. I'd like for Hillary to stay out of office but I have a feeling she is going to take the White House and appoint a justice who is extremely anti-2A.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

(please turn Tapatalk sig off, just for me, ok? )

Not talking about philosophy and/or justifications for revolt, but rather about the practical part of "armed rebellion".  Meaning, just who is a armed group going to go attack?

- OS

[bud]

 

.

Edited July 18, 2016 by bud

[shotgunshooter]

(please turn Tapatalk sig off, just for me, ok? [emoji4] )

Not talking about philosophy and/or justifications for revolt, but rather about the practical part of "armed rebellion".  Meaning, just who is a armed group going to go attack?

- OS

Can't do that just for you OS. That would mean you win. I remember that thread over this very issue. I would love to know myself who "we" are supposed to fight. I would assume a tyrannical government but who determines if one is a tyrant? Isn't one man's freedom fighter another man's terrorist?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[Dennis1209]

15 hours ago, CZ9MM said:

Well. The AR stands for Armalite.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly... Ever heard the government or media refer to it any other way except "assault rifle"?

[Glenn]

Since the Gov seems unwilling to do anything usefull to protect law abiding citizens, I think the citizens will begin to take that job themselves. Do you think Americans will tolerate conditions that are spreading over Europe where defenseless citizens are accosted on the streets by gangs of immigrants? Since Muslim terrorists are a protected class the Gov will not take kindly to that and will actively defend them, which will lead to confrontations. 

Once Hillary gets her open borders the flood of immigrants will quickly overrun the system. When everything you make is taken to support illegals and anything you have left is taken by criminals with the support of the Government, you might change your mind about what you are willing to do.

 

God I hope not.

[shotgunshooter]

Since the Gov seems unwilling to do anything usefull to protect law abiding citizens, I think the citizens will begin to take that job themselves. Do you think Americans will tolerate conditions that are spreading over Europe where defenseless citizens are accosted on the streets by gangs of immigrants? Since Muslim terrorists are a protected class the Gov will not take kindly to that and will actively defend them, which will lead to confrontations. 

Once Hillary gets her open borders the flood of immigrants will quickly overrun the system. When everything you make is taken to support illegals and anything you have left is taken by criminals with the support of the Government, you might change your mind about what you are willing to do.

 

God I hope not.

Honestly I don't know what I can see Americans tolerating. In the last 8 years I've seen things I would never imagine in my wildest dreams happen. Don't get me wrong I'm more than likely on your side but I don't believe that there could be a mass uprising or revolution against the government. We the people can't destroy APCs, tanks, helicopters, or drones. That's my thought pattern as to why we won't see push back.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[DaveTN]

They refused to hear it.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/20/482786044/high-court-lets-connecticut-new-york-assault-weapons-ban-stand

 

[monkeylizard]

On ‎6‎/‎17‎/‎2016 at 3:36 PM, Glenn said:

It makes me ill to say this but I think we will see a armed rebellion within 10 years. People are mad as hell and will eventually reach the point of no more. We're not going to take it anymore.

I've been hearing that my whole adult life and I suspect it was going on long before then. Hasn't happened yet.

Edited June 20, 2016 by monkeylizard

[E4 No More]

51 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

They refused to hear it.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/20/482786044/high-court-lets-connecticut-new-york-assault-weapons-ban-stand

 

This is my shocked face: 

[btq96r]

1 hour ago, DaveTN said:

They refused to hear it.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/20/482786044/high-court-lets-connecticut-new-york-assault-weapons-ban-stand

 

If I had to guess, the primary reason is because the court isn't at nine members, and that's not just for gun cases, since the court is taking cases at a slower pace overall recently.  Secondary reasons could be waiting for the public debate to die down, as John Roberts doesn't want the court to take up an issue being debated in Congress.  The case in the 4th Circuit about Maryland's ban could also be making him wait to see if there is a split in circuit opinions that would make taking the cases more of an interpretive, or two circuit rulings one way that don't justify taking a case absent certiorari .