Well look at that fags.
AR15 rifles are not protected by the second amendment by wikipedia claims.
>>28410326
Dying to know which fucking ruling that was.
>>28410326
There was no ruling, the Court declined to hear the case
they don't mean the same thing.
>>28410370
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/08/us/supreme-court-will-not-hear-challenge-to-assault-weapons-ban-of-highland-park-ill.html?_r=1
Someone edit that fucking shit to make it stop lying.
>>28410326
>mfw moon man was right about wikiped
>>28410326
>wikipedia
>literally has a feminist initiative to spin things in a more feminist way
>objective
sage in every field
>>28410326
Someone fix the goddamn page
>>28410444
Source? I believe it, once Mozilla fell I have no faith in the tech industry
>>28410326
>wikipedia claims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15#United_States
Looks like a /k/ommando fixed it
Well look at that fags
you can only own guns if youre in a state militia highschool textbooks now claim
>>28411008
Wikipedia is literally a database for pop culture and leftist spins on history
>>28410438
Moonman is right about everything.
>>28411557
Textbooks are literally written to fit a Texas-centric agenda, as Texas is far and away the highest spender on textbooks and classroom learning materials. Any teacher or professor will tell you as much, there's nobody pretending they are unbiased.
>>28411609
>Texans
>Reading
Texas is the anti-California. It's like they actively try to be a national embarrassment.
>>28411614
Is funny how right you are about that.
Texas intentionally makes laws and policies to troll California
If Texas did something about the illegals, they would be the final boss of California
>>28411562
Yep, only morons will believe in the political shit inside Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is pretty much a leftist hellhole when it comes to that shit.
The biggest problem is that you have power users on Wikipedia that can basically change whatever they want as long as they provide a "source" and you cannot go against their decisions unless you can find a source that they agree with.
Right now they are trying to change the gun ownership statistic of Switzerland to just 25 guns per 100 people (it used to be around 45.7 guns per 100 people), by just quoting an article from a Tabloid that posts naked women on the front page just to sell more newspapers.
That's how bad wikipedia is.
>>28411626
their gamergate article is testament to how biased wikipedia is.
>>28411634
>muh echochamber
>>28411538
>-245
what does that even mean. I thought wikipedia didnt have "upvotes" or any shit like that.
>>28411626
conservapedia pls go
>>28411661
it's how many bytes were removed
>>28411661
Amount of data that was added/redacted
>>28411661
Means he took out -xxx charicters.
>>28411673
>>28411676
oh thank god
>>28411626
/pol/ had some screenshots of a nu male feminist, who was a mod on reddit and a power user on wiki, who made posts about how his views were the only ones allowed because he knew he was right
>>28411671
Fuck off.
Wikipedia is a shithole when it comes to any political article.
You CANNOT be neutral and unbiased when you write those articles. It's fucking impossible.
>>28411705
[citation needed]
>>28411538
>-245
How do people decide that a fact isn't worthy over a blatant lie on what's supposed to be a fucking encylopedia
>>28411732
Because it goes against their political view.
Wikipedia is shit for anything other than science articles.
Everything that has to do with politics and history is completely biased towards the left.
>>28411732
...wut?
>considered the same as any other rifle
>not protected
So all rifles aren't protected? Or the AR15 is protected? Fucking liberal shills lmao
>>28410417
>http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/08/us/supreme-court-will-not-hear-challenge-to-assault-weapons-ban-of-highland-park-ill.html?_r=1
>“The justices don’t reveal their reasons for denying review, but one thing is clear,” said Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. “The justices certainly aren’t eager to take up a Second Amendment case these days.”
“One has to wonder,” he said, “if the Supreme Court is having second thoughts about the Second Amendment.”
Fucking christ, the logic here. It's quite obvious that the Supreme Court denied the hearing because it's un-fucking-constitutional. It's talking about banning access to something, something which the Second Amendment SPECIFICALLY prevents, and they say "well looks like they don't wnat to handle 2A cases looks like we're winning and gun control laws are being approved tacitly by SCA!"
Mouth breathing cretins.
>>28410444
Stay away from everything specifically related to politics, I.E. communism, hitler, nazism, guns, drugs and other such things, and all of a sudden entries on things like science, history and, god forbid, even RELIGION, are actual bastions of knowledge, unbiased and presenting only direct facts cited via sources. RELIGION articles are more unbiased than articles on the Second Amendment and GamerGate. Remember that.
>>28411732
That's actually how much information was removed in terms of file size, not an up/downvote system.
>>28411814
Read it again:
>a Second Amendment challenge to a Chicago suburb’s ordinance that banned semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.
The guns are banned in that suburb, and the court case was to get them unbanned.
So yes, that comment made perfect sense:
>“One has to wonder,” he said, “if the Supreme Court is having second thoughts about the Second Amendment.”
>>28411836
O fuck, I didn't read it.
Well, if they're having second thoughts, there's nothing they can do about it. IIRC, and I'm australian so I don't know your political system very well, all levels of govt. have to sit down together and work out why it needs to be removed/repealed and come to a unanimous conclusion?
Surely a president can't EO an amendment our of existence, nor the SCA?
>>28411880
It's nearly impossible to just remove an amendment.
>>28411887
Well you can repeal an amendment, or make another amendment specifically addressing another amendment, correct?
Also, could the SCA actually bring about case law that would justify bans on certain weapons? I know the 2A is pretty widely interpreted, but SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is pretty clear, isn't it?
>>28411880
>your political system
I'm Australian too.
The problem I see, is that this ordinance doesn't directly conflict with the Second Amendment, it doesn't actually prevent you from owning guns in any way, so of course it can't be challenged in this way. It just prevents you from owning guns THERE. It doesn't prevent you from having a log cabin somewhere else where your guns are kept, it just makes it much more impractical to own guns, and there's nothing legally wrong with that.
>>28411901
Wouldn't this therefore set a legal precedent? If one town can dictate an ordinance banning certain types of weapons within said town, couldn't more towns across the US therefore use this ordinance as legal precedent to introduce their own?
If so I see a lot of /k/ommando's going and making some secure cabins in the wilderness..
>>28411914
No, because legal precedent is made in a court case. This is probably just something that was passed by the local government, which also means it could be overturned pretty easily. Local governments wouldn't have the same powers across America either, I'm guessing each state would have different requirements, jurisdiction, etc. for local governments.
>>28410326
The second amendment doesn't work like that.
>>28411825
>buzzwords
damn anon, got any more to add?
>>28410326
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15#United_States
>At the federal level, AR-15s are legal and considered the same as any other rifle.
hehe, noice
>>28411634
just read it
I have a headache now
Thanks for that
>>28412108
He forgot "autist."
>>28410444
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Feminism
>>28411894
The process is thankfully extremly difficult to amend or add an amendment. The tl;dr is:
2/3rds of Senate/House propose an amendment OR 2/3rds of state legislatures propose it. Then it has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states.
We run a far greater risk of the 2nd amendment being neutered and castrated (whether by the Scotus going "oh yeah it only applies to pea-shooter pistols and fudd rifles" or by the SCOTUS going "oh yeah it only applies to the national guard militias") than it being repealed outright. You will effectively need something like 50-100 years to get the demographics and cultural transformations necessary to achieve the 2/3rds and 3/4ths of legislatures.
>>28416659
Adding to this, I think that's why anyone who might otherwise be on the fence for republican candidates who are too christfaggy or whatever should swallow their pride and vote for them. I went third party in the last two elections but I'll stick with republican for here on out because making sure the SCOTUS replacements are staffed with conservatives is highly imperative when you look at how all the damn rulings are by a hair's edge nowadays.
>>28410326
Why can't we just kill them all and take all their stuff? It's not like they have guns or anything. They're a bunch of weak weenies who want a nanny.
>>28411929
The legal precedent was already there when some states banned NFA items.
>>28419323
Isn't there legal precedence for EVERYTHING?
Throughout this countries history, and pretty much EVERY countries history, EVERYTHING HAS BEEN ILLEGAL at some point, and EVERYTHING HAS BEEN LEGAL at some point.
Right?
There's precedence for EVERYTHING.
All arguments about legal precedence are invalid.
Precedence is just a way to swell up whatever bullshit you're trying to say.
>>28419394
>Precedence is just a way to swell up whatever bullshit you're trying to say.
Welcome to law.
>>28419394
>doesn't know the law is just word games to justify government force
I have never been in trouble for drinking and driving. I don't do it. Ergo there is no such bias in making the following point.
The supreme court ruled that while DUI checkpoints may sometimes violate Fourth amendment rights, the societal benefits are such, and the net intrusion on your rights are minimal enough to justify the practice for societal benefit. Therefore, they argue, that it is okay and "within the boundary of" the fourth amendment to violate the fourth amendment. They sighted specifically the "slaughter" on the roads attributing thousands of deaths to drunken driving.
The point is that this same argument, can be applied to firearms. Yet, most of society, including those posting on /k/, particularly the LEO's, will defend the practice to no end. You fucks only cared about the 2nd amendment.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
>>28422509
One of the dissenting judges in the DUI checkpoint case gave the following statement:
Indeed, the opinion reads as if the minimal nature of the seizure ends rather than begins the inquiry into reasonableness. Once the Court establishes that the seizure is ''slight,'' it asserts without explanation that the balance ''weighs in favor to the state program.'' The Court ignores the fact that in this class of minimally intrusive searches, we have generally required the Government to prove that it had reasonable suspicion for a minimally intrusive seizure to be considered reasonable. Some level of individualized suspicion is a core component of the protection the Fourth Amendment provides against arbitrary government action. . . . By holding that no level of suspicion is necessary before the police may stop a car for the purpose of preventing drunken driving, the Court potentially subjects the general public to arbitrary or harassing conduct by the police. I would have hoped that before taking such a step, the Court would carefully explain how such a plan fits within our constitutional framework. . . .
I do not dispute the immense social cost caused by drunken drivers, nor do I slight the Government's efforts to prevent such tragic losses. Indeed, I would hazard a guess that today's opinion will be received favorably by a majority of our society, who would willingly suffer the minimal intrusion of a sobriety checkpoint stop in order to prevent drunken driving. But consensus that a particular law enforcement technique serves a laudable purpose has never been the touchstone of constitutional analysis. . . .
By Justice Stevens
>http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/15/us/excerpts-from-supreme-court-s-decision-upholding-sobriety-checkpoints.html?pagewanted=all
>>28422540
(3/3)
So to spell this out further for you, if they say that banning high capacity magazines is "minimally intrusive" to gun ownership or banning "semi-auto" is minimally intrusive to gun ownership and therefore strikes an acceptable balance between upholding the 2nd amendment and benefiting society, the precedent has already been set for such an argument by the supreme court and half or more than half of you willing accepted it.
Furthermore, since the President appoints the justices, electing a President, even a pro-gun conservative, who is not specifically pro-constitution, such as for example, Rand Paul or Ben Carson, then you get what you get.
>>28422509
The only people left to speak are the only ones that matter. When the speakers are armed, those coming for the speakers back down easier, thus making that quote invalid. Thanks for trying though
>>28422617
Arguing that it's a poor analogy is one thing.
Arguing that it's an invalid point is foolish.
>>28411901
Except that was exactly the type of ordinance struck down by Heller. The supreme court having already decided that a city ordinance prohibiting pistols was unconstitutional, this should have been taken up. As it stands, the lower court ruling has decided that the ban is constitutional and the citizens of oak park are screwed.
Also, in the U.S. a licensed dealer cannot legally sell you a firearm which is banned in your city/county/state of residence. Since they have your drivers license when they do the background check, this ordinance effectively prevents the average gun owner from owning an AR15 all together.
>>28411929
Many states specifically prohibit cities from enacting gun control through what is known as preemption clauses.
>>28419394
Except no. And, don't you have school in the morning?
>>28422670
Preemption didn't stop numerous states from legalizing medial or recreational marijuana.
>>28417615
because that would makes us socialists like them.
