Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
He asked you what the court limited.
You gave examples.
For your examples to be -actual- examples, the court must have -actually- limited them.
If you can't cite the rulings, then your examples do not meet the challenge he put to you.
Thus, the question:
In which ruling(s) did the court uphold the prohibitions on these firearms?
He said court.Fuckit I can play. Did he say Court or just They?
Upholding the law and the Constitution like the court did in Heller isn't activism. People have a clear right to have guns for the private defense of their homes.
You are really a dumbshit, aren't you Moon Bat?A newly manufactured fully automatic assault rifle.
Machine Guns, Trigger Activators & 50 Caliber Weapons
Machine guns, trigger activators, and bump stocks can cause destruction. The government does not regulate all military-grade firearms.giffords.org
He said court.
In response, you said they.
They = court
In which ruling(s) did the court uphold the prohibitions on the firearms you cited?
You are really a dumbshit, aren't you Moon Bat?
The Miller case didn't overturn the NFA but it did affirmed that the Second Amendment applies to firearms in general use by the military. Miller was found guilty of violating the NFA because the Court (erroneously) determined that his sawed off shotgun was not in general use by the military. Had they done their homework they would have discovered that the military did indeed use sawed off shotguns in WWI.
So we have the Court saying that the Second Amendment protects firearms in general use by the military and then we having them affirming that it is an individual right so what else you got Moon Bat?
Just nitpicking, but Mr. Miller was never found guilty.The Miller case didn't overturn the NFA but it did affirmed that the Second Amendment applies to firearms in general use by the military. Miller was found guilty of violating the NFA because the Court (erroneously) determined that his sawed off shotgun was not in general use by the military. Had they done their homework they would have discovered that the military did indeed use sawed off shotguns in WWI.
Striking down an unconstitutional law is upholding the law.I believe they struck down a law.
Striking down an unconstitutional law is upholding the law.
The Constitution is the highest law in the land. Striking down unconstitutional laws is upholding the Constitution.Not really,
If they pass a new law, that too can be struck down if it is unconstitutional.It just gives the Legislature a chance to take another stab at it. Like it took 40 year to declare the original Marijuana Tax Act was unconstitutional. But by then the Fed's power had grown so much they just quickly passed another law outlawing it on the federal and even international level.
The courts actively enforced the Constitution back then.Something they never did when the country prohibited alcohol with a Constitutional Amendment.
The Supreme Court did not strike down the NFA in the Miller case. However, by making the assertion that the Second protected firearms in general use by the military it could be argued that the NFA was indirectly struct down. Too bad nobody ever followed up on that.Just nitpicking, but Mr. Miller was never found guilty.
The trial court struck down the NFA and released Mr. Miller, but the police kept his gun anyway, leaving him defenseless. Mr. Miller had had his sawed-off shotgun for protection because someone was trying to kill him.
Alas, without his gun to protect him, he was soon found shot to death, which makes Mr. Miller the very first victim of gun control in the US.
When the case got to the Supreme Court it should have been up to Mr. Miller's defense to argue that his shotgun was covered by the Second Amendment. But by that time Mr. Miller was already dead and there was no longer any defense to present that side of the case.
No. I said that AT A FUCKING MINIMUM, individuals have a right to ANYTHING a soldier would carry RIGHT NOW and in the future.The second Amended doesn't specify what weapons the people are allowed or not allowed to have is the argument I heard. So you draw a line at Nuclear Weapons?
That is not mandatory for me to retain my right. That is merely the stated purpose for why my right shall not be infringed."A State Militia must be maintained and well regulated"
Right. A state militia. Maintained and well regulated.
Just like it says.
Not the Wild West.
Hi Rambo!That is not mandatory for me to retain my right. That is merely the stated purpose for why my right shall not be infringed.
I get machine guns.
You shit your pants.
Take your childish attempts to shame and shove them up your smelly ass.Hi Rambo!
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"A State Militia must be maintained and well regulated"
Right. A state militia. Maintained and well regulated.
Just like it says.
Not the Wild West.
"A State Militia must be maintained and well regulated"
Right. A state militia. Maintained and well regulated.
Just like it says.
Not the Wild West.
Actually that is exactly what it says.This is the area that interests me. The 2nd Amendment seems pretty clear: 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.
Okay. So, a couple of points:
First, it doesn't say "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, AND the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
That is incorrect. It mandates that the militia be well armed and well trained, and it forbids infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.It's saying the people can join an actual militia to protect their security.
That is incorrect. What "well regulated" means is that the militia in question is well armed and well trained.Second, it's pretty clear when it says "well regulated". That means that the governing authority can regulate militias as it sees fit, just as it can regulate an army as it sees fit. So those who join the militia must submit to regulations.
What does "like Yosemite Sam" mean?Nowhere does it infer that individuals can be running around like Yosemite Sam.
People have the right to have guns for the private defense of their home. They are not required to join any group in order to exercise this right.Seems pretty clear: If you want to protect yourselves, join a militia, which will be regulated.
The Freedom Haters do not speak for the people. They only think that they do."The People" demand that the gun-dependent sissies not pleasure themselves in indulgences that result in the slaughter of innocent children women, and men.
Widespread gun ownership is not the cause of mass murders. Murder victims would be just as dead if they were killed with different weapons.I'm pleased to see that being confronted with the consequences of permissive firearm laws makes you want to look the other way.
Not if those measures violate anyone's civil liberties.The People have the right to take reasonable preventative measures.