How can a 'Federal' Judge be so ignorant?

[GoldStandard]

Maryland assault weapons ban upheld in federal court

“Upon review of all the parties’ evidence, the court seriously doubts that the banned assault long guns are commonly possessed for lawful purposes, particularly self-defense in the home, which is at the core of the Second Amendment right,” U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Blake wrote.

The core of the Second Amendment is protection against a tyrannical government.

She concluded as well that “the Act substantially serves the government’s interest in protecting public safety.”

Of-course it does.

“As for their claims that assault weapons are well-suited for self-defense, the plaintiffs proffer no evidence beyond their desire to possess assault weapons for self-defense in the home that they are in fact commonly used, or possessed, for that purpose,” she wrote.

Utter Second Amendment Ignorance.

Vincent DeMarco, president of the board of Marylanders to Prevent Gun Violence, praised Blake’s decisive ruling.

“ States should have the authority to protect citizens from these weapons of mass destruction,” he said.

lol

 

[Denny Crane]

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2013/02/12/good-question-how-many-people-are-killed-by-assault-rifles/

But how many people are killed by assault weapons in the U.S. as compared to other weapons?

According to the Minnesota report to the FBI in 2011, the last year there is Uniform Crime Report Data, three people were murdered with a rifle of any type. The report does not break rifle murders into “assault” rifles.

Four died in fist fights, 12 by knife and 51 by handguns in Minnesota in 2011.

Of the 12,664 murders in 2011 reported to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, 6,220 were committed with handguns — about 49 percent of the total report.

By comparison, killers used a rifle on 323 people, 2.5 percent of all murders. Assault rifle murders aren’t split out, but it’s safe to assume it’s less than the 323.

Most put the number of assault weapon murders as between 1 and 2 percent of all murders.

In 2011, knives were used in 1,694 murders. Fists and feet were used in 728 murders, and blunt objects –like clubs, bats and hammers – were used in 496 murders.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

the government sure does hate guns

 

[PtldPlatypus]

“Upon review of all the parties’ evidence, the court seriously doubts that the banned assault long guns are commonly possessed for lawful purposes, particularly self-defense in the home, which is at the core of the Second Amendment right,” U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Blake wrote.

The core of the Second Amendment is protection against a tyrannical government.

Yeah, I'm not sure where the judge sees anything in the text of the second amendment regarding self-defense in the home. Maybe I need to re-read it...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Hmm...nope, not seeing homes mentioned at all.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

yes, all militias must be completely run by homeless people

 

[PtldPlatypus]

yes, all militias must be completely run by homeless people

Exactly. And by not mentioning any race, they clearly meant that only white people can have guns.

 

[magnifier661]

Because the judge is a piece of shit. That's all we need to know.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

you know what race i absolutely cant stand? the 200 meter butterfly. sooooo boring.

 

[magnifier661]

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2013/02/12/good-question-how-many-people-are-killed-by-assault-rifles/

But how many people are killed by assault weapons in the U.S. as compared to other weapons?

According to the Minnesota report to the FBI in 2011, the last year there is Uniform Crime Report Data, three people were murdered with a rifle of any type. The report does not break rifle murders into “assault” rifles.

Four died in fist fights, 12 by knife and 51 by handguns in Minnesota in 2011.

Of the 12,664 murders in 2011 reported to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, 6,220 were committed with handguns — about 49 percent of the total report.

By comparison, killers used a rifle on 323 people, 2.5 percent of all murders. Assault rifle murders aren’t split out, but it’s safe to assume it’s less than the 323.

Most put the number of assault weapon murders as between 1 and 2 percent of all murders.

In 2011, knives were used in 1,694 murders. Fists and feet were used in 728 murders, and blunt objects –like clubs, bats and hammers – were used in 496 murders.

Out of those statistics, I'm curious of how many of those gun or rifle deaths came by illegal guns?

I would bet Sly's left nut that more gun related deaths come with illegal handguns.

And let's go a little further... A criminal won't care to do illegal acts with illegal weapons. So taking guns away from "law abiding citizens" just take away a right to defend themselves...

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

We don't need guns. The police will protect us. #feurgeson

 

[crandc]

Before calling another person stupid it might help to read the amendment you love so much.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A well regulated militia has discipline, command structure, training, officers. Arms are issued to members. It is not a bunch of white guys carrying assault rifles into Starbucks or standing on freeway overpasses with semiautomatic weapons because they don't like the current president.

Necessary to the defense of a free state, means a militia to defend the State, i.e., the United States. Nothing about defense against the tyranny of having a black president, or a party you did not vote for winning an election, or Obamacare, or whatever tyranny you are crying about (with, I would suggest, absolutely no repercussions or repression, unlike in a true tyranny). Yet, the NRA opposes even measures requiring gun owners to show they know how to use them.

The amendment moved the right to raise an armed force from the state to the federal government. Initially the founders wanted, not a regular standing army, but a popular militia. They envisaged every able bodied man (they were chauvinists) learning to use arms to defend the republic. Not to parade around in a macho display and definitely not to kill schoolchildren.

Just as the first amendment has exceptions (you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater, slander or libel, or utter certain threats), nothing in the second amendment means individuals can amass their own personal arsenals without limit.

And since the state has nuclear weapons, if you really think you need unlimited arms to fight the tyranny of Obamacare or whatever has you in a bunch, should individual citizens also have nuclear arsenals?

 

[Mediocre Man]

Before calling another person stupid it might help to read the amendment you love so much.


A well regulated militia has discipline, command structure, training, officers. Arms are issued to members. It is not a bunch of white guys carrying assault rifles into Starbucks or standing on freeway overpasses with semiautomatic weapons because they don't like the current president.

Necessary to the defense of a free state, means a militia to defend the State, i.e., the United States. Nothing about defense against the tyranny of having a black president, or a party you did not vote for winning an election, or Obamacare, or whatever tyranny you are crying about (with, I would suggest, absolutely no repercussions or repression, unlike in a true tyranny). Yet, the NRA opposes even measures requiring gun owners to show they know how to use them.

The amendment moved the right to raise an armed force from the state to the federal government. Initially the founders wanted, not a regular standing army, but a popular militia. They envisaged every able bodied man (they were chauvinists) learning to use arms to defend the republic. Not to parade around in a macho display and definitely not to kill schoolchildren.

Just as the first amendment has exceptions (you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater, slander or libel, or utter certain threats), nothing in the second amendment means individuals can amass their own personal arsenals without limit.

And since the state has nuclear weapons, if you really think you need unlimited arms to fight the tyranny of Obamacare or whatever has you in a bunch, should individual citizens also have nuclear arsenals?

You call people who don't agree with your agenda, stupid, ignorant, hateful, etc, all the time.

The answer to the OP is that it is probably a liberal Federal Judge

 

[BlazerCaravan]

We don't need guns. The police will protect us. #feurgeson

Yes because the good guys with guns sure saved the people from the police... Where was the militia? We're they happy to see black folk getting gassed?

 

[crandc]

You call people who don't agree with your agenda, stupid, ignorant, hateful, etc, all the time.

The answer to the OP is that it is probably a liberal Federal Judge

I don't call people who disagree with my "agenda" (my gay agenda? Or some other one) those names, although I've been called all of them.

But if you can attack the poster, you don't have to think about the post.

 

[Denny Crane]

Before calling another person stupid it might help to read the amendment you love so much.


A well regulated militia has discipline, command structure, training, officers. Arms are issued to members. It is not a bunch of white guys carrying assault rifles into Starbucks or standing on freeway overpasses with semiautomatic weapons because they don't like the current president.

Necessary to the defense of a free state, means a militia to defend the State, i.e., the United States. Nothing about defense against the tyranny of having a black president, or a party you did not vote for winning an election, or Obamacare, or whatever tyranny you are crying about (with, I would suggest, absolutely no repercussions or repression, unlike in a true tyranny). Yet, the NRA opposes even measures requiring gun owners to show they know how to use them.

The amendment moved the right to raise an armed force from the state to the federal government. Initially the founders wanted, not a regular standing army, but a popular militia. They envisaged every able bodied man (they were chauvinists) learning to use arms to defend the republic. Not to parade around in a macho display and definitely not to kill schoolchildren.

Just as the first amendment has exceptions (you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater, slander or libel, or utter certain threats), nothing in the second amendment means individuals can amass their own personal arsenals without limit.

And since the state has nuclear weapons, if you really think you need unlimited arms to fight the tyranny of Obamacare or whatever has you in a bunch, should individual citizens also have nuclear arsenals?

I find this reasoning to be really awful.

Well trained means those who have guns might go out and practice. Nothing more.

It truly doesn't matter what the first part of the sentence is, it says "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." Shall not be infringed, even if crandc thinks they should be infringed.

Get it?

 

[MARIS61]

The core of the Second Amendment is protection against a tyrannical government.

Not just the core.

The entirety of the Second Amendment is protection against a tyrannical government.

 

[Minstrel]

Well trained means those who have guns might go out and practice. Nothing more.

It says well regulated, not well trained. There's no bright line litmus test for whether something is "well regulated," so there's always been room for interpretation.

 

[Denny Crane]

It says well regulated, not well trained. There's no bright line litmus test for whether something is "well regulated," so there's always been room for interpretation.

Well trained is a requirement to have a quality militia. When you call on the people to provide a military force, it's a good idea they know how to shoot. Training them after they're needed is costly in more ways than one.

 

[MARIS61]

Before calling another person stupid it might help to read the amendment you love so much.


A well regulated militia has discipline, command structure, training, officers. Arms are issued to members. It is not a bunch of white guys carrying assault rifles into Starbucks or standing on freeway overpasses with semiautomatic weapons because they don't like the current president.

Necessary to the defense of a free state, means a militia to defend the State, i.e., the United States. Nothing about defense against the tyranny of having a black president, or a party you did not vote for winning an election, or Obamacare, or whatever tyranny you are crying about (with, I would suggest, absolutely no repercussions or repression, unlike in a true tyranny). Yet, the NRA opposes even measures requiring gun owners to show they know how to use them.

The amendment moved the right to raise an armed force from the state to the federal government. Initially the founders wanted, not a regular standing army, but a popular militia. They envisaged every able bodied man (they were chauvinists) learning to use arms to defend the republic. Not to parade around in a macho display and definitely not to kill schoolchildren.

Just as the first amendment has exceptions (you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater, slander or libel, or utter certain threats), nothing in the second amendment means individuals can amass their own personal arsenals without limit.

And since the state has nuclear weapons, if you really think you need unlimited arms to fight the tyranny of Obamacare or whatever has you in a bunch, should individual citizens also have nuclear arsenals?

You're so far removed from the 2nd Amendment's purpose and meaning that there's no point to debating your post other than to wonder how any American can live 50+ years in this country, presumably attend school for 12 or more years, and be so utterly and embarrassingly clueless about the single most important 27 words ever written in the formation of our government.

It's no great leap to figure you misunderstand the entire Bill of Rights also, since they all follow the same theme and purpose: to prevent tyranny and the abuse of power.

The original text which was ratified by The House makes it perfectly clear what the meaning of a well regulated militia is, and if you'd ever read even a smidgeon of Madison's intentions in writing or the debates which led to it's final version, you'd delete your post and leave the board in shame.

Here it is, as if you care:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

 

[barfo]

I find this reasoning to be really awful.

It truly doesn't matter what the first part of the sentence is, it says "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed."

Gotta love your 'it must be interpreted literally, except for the part I don't care about' argument. I guess the part about a well-regulated militia is like the Old Testament?

barfo

 

[Minstrel]

Well trained is a requirement to have a quality militia. When you call on the people to provide a military force, it's a good idea they know how to shoot. Training them after they're needed is costly in more ways than one.

I mean, that's great and all that you have standards of quality for your militia. I'd also like any militia of mine to be well trained, as well. That just seems somewhat irrelevant to the second amendment right.

Or rather, you're explaining your interpretation of what "well regulated" means, perhaps. That's a valid opinion, but maybe other people consider "well regulated" to mean no ex-cons or every member screened for mental illness or lots of other things that might be beneficial.

 

[MarAzul]

I mean, that's great and all that you have standards of quality for your militia. I'd also like any militia of mine to be well trained, as well. That just seems somewhat irrelevant to the second amendment right.

Or rather, you're explaining your interpretation of what "well regulated" means, perhaps. That's a valid opinion, but maybe other people consider "well regulated" to mean no ex-cons or every member screened for mental illness or lots of other things that might be beneficial.

Well regulated, well trained. what ever. Well armed might even be the best choice of words.

I order to have a militia, the people that will comprise the militia need to be armed, preferably well armed. Well regulated can be next, but rather pointless if not well armed.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I belong to a militia of ninjas. No one can tell how well trained or armed we are because... we're ninjas.

 

[jlprk]

"Well-regulated" might mean, a militia tightly kept under civilian control to prevent a military coup. The more well-regulated, the more infiltrated gun owners would be with informers...to keep them well-regulated.

Or it might mean, many regulations on gun owners.

So it might have nothing to do with the quality of a fighting force.

 

[Denny Crane]

Gotta love your 'it must be interpreted literally, except for the part I don't care about' argument. I guess the part about a well-regulated militia is like the Old Testament?

barfo

The first part should be interpreted literally, too. We should have a well regulated militia when it's needed.

 

[Denny Crane]

Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No 29:

"if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights"