Biden proposes banning vast majority of all guns.

[Winston]

Your choice dumbass. But once semi automatic firearms are gone then your bolt action sniper rifle weapon of war will be next.

Slippery slope fallacy.

 

[Winston]

The right of the people.
Not the militia
Not the people in the militia
The people.
As the right to keep and bear arms is held by the people, and there is no right to serve in the militia, the right to keep and bear arms must include the use of a firearm outside service of same.
This includes the right to use a firearm in self-defense, the most very basic purpose for a firearm.

No "right to serve in a milita". Wow, just wow. What a damn panty waste. Serving in a militia is not a right, it is a responsibility you stupid prick. Take your little pea shooter and shove it up your ass.

 

[Concerned American]

STFU with your racist bullshit. Almost all mass shootings are carried out by white cracker dumbshits with real mental problems. And while California is the number one state, that hell hole called Texas, red as can be, is number two. So again, STFU.

Like this one? 6 killed, at least 6 injured in Virginia Walmart after employee opens fire on co-workers

 

[Winston]

No you are not a Libertarian. If you think you are then you are confused and don't know what the word means.

There is no Libertarian in the world that would support restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.

Libertarians are stupid, and easy marks for con artists. That has been proven over and over again.

 

[Concerned American]

Not fathers, I guarantee you that. Nine times out of ten, it is the mother or her damn boyfriend.

Linkie?

 

[M14 Shooter]

That right there complete negates the recent decision concerning New Yorks issuing of concealed weapons permits.

Ah.
You aren't aware that v Bruen does not question the permit, but the subjective "good cause" nature of obtaining one.
Why do you believe people should need to show a state some subjective "good cause" to exercise a right?

And that is the thing. The SCOTUS is now completely dysfunctional.

You only think this because you do not like the decisions they handed down.

 

[M14 Shooter]

STFU with your racist bullshit. Almost all mass shootings are carried out by white cracker dumbshits with real mental problems.

Wow. The irony.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Serving in a militia is not a right,...

I said that.
And thus, the "right to keep and bear arms" cannot be tied to service in the militia because there is no right to serve in the militia.
Glad you agree with the points made.

it is a responsibility you stupid prick. Take your little pea shooter and shove it up your ass.

You mad, 'boo?

 

[Winston]

I have about 50 firearms. 29 of them are AR-15s and one of them is a M-16.

I call BULLSHIT

 

[Winston]

Linkie?

Mothers are more likely to abuse children than fathers. Fact? | Child Protection Resource

 

[Winston]

I said that.
And thus, the "right to keep and bear arms" cannot be tied to service in the militia because there is no right to serve in the militia.
Glad you agree.

You mad, 'boo?

You are a self-absorbed pussy that, in the first sign of trouble, will be trembling under you bed clutching you assault rifle like a three year old hangs on to a teddy bear.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You are a self-absorbed pussy that, in the first sign of trouble, will be trembling under you bed clutching you assault rifle like a three year old hangs on to a teddy bear.

All I see here is your inability to meaningfully argue against the points I made.
This make you mad, 'boo?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Look, I have a hunting rifle, a good one. wtf do I need anything else for? I mean ok, maybe a handgun for home protection, but other than that, we don't need that other shit. At least real men don't.

Is your rifle a semi-auto?

 

[Winston]

All I see here is your inability to meaningfully argue against the points I made.
This make you mad, 'boo?

Meaningfully argue? Are you kidding me? No right to serve in the militia? I mean have you never taken an American history class? There was no "right" to serve in a militia during the Revolutionary War, it was a FLIPPIN ASS REQUIREMENT. Of course, there were a lot of panty waist cowards like yourself that refused, who let other, braver, more honorable men, fight for them.

You guys are comical, and cowards, to put it bluntly. Some big thug kick down your door and storm into you house you will shit all over yourself and run hide under the bed. That assault rifle, it ain't going to do shit. And revolution, who the hell are you kidding. If a big ass thug scares the shit out of you what do you think a tank bearing down on you is going to do? All hat and no cattle. Which begs the question, why do sorry shits like you even need to own an assault rifle?

 

[Jaxson]

Is your rifle a semi-auto?

Bolt action.

 

[Jaxson]

I said that.
And thus, the "right to keep and bear arms" cannot be tied to service in the militia because there is no right to serve in the militia.
Glad you agree with the points made.

You mad, 'boo?

Does the right to bear arms mean any kind of arms?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Meaningfully argue? Are you kidding me? No right to serve in the militia?

That's what I said. Twice. And you agreed. Twice.
Thus, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" isn't tied to the militia.
As the right to keep and bear arms is held by the people, and there is no right to serve in the militia, the right to keep and bear arms must include the use of a firearm outside service of same.
This includes the right to use a firearm in self-defense, the most very basic purpose for a firearm.

Thus your statement:
The second amendment was never about self-defense, until Heller. It was always about a militia...
Proven false.

This make you mad, 'boo?

 

[Winston]

All I see here is your inability to meaningfully argue against the points I made.
This make you mad, 'boo?

Your statement, "That there is no right to serve in a militia", is the antithesis of cowardice. I never claimed it was a "right", it is a responsibility. And if you can't see that, then you are nothing more than a coward. North Carolina sends out a call to activate the militia my 60 year old ass is there. And yeah, I will supply my own gun, a FAL, and ammo too. Because make no mistake about it, there has never been a militia like the North Carolina militia. I will not sully that reputation.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I love the smell of napalm in the morning. I don't think you have read Scalia's opinion at all. "Reasonable expectation for an efficient and effective militia", quoting Scalia

Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939.

Scalia bases his entire premise on the following phrase,

. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”

He even admits the shortcomings of that argument,

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

Total horseshit. The founders were some smart ass people. Do you believe they created the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, to always be interpreted in the lens of 1789 America? That is what Scalia is wanting to claim here and it is horseshit. "Modern developments have limited the degree"--in other words, we don't give a happy shit.

But now to the good stuff,

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

That right there complete negates the recent decision concerning New Yorks issuing of concealed weapons permits. A decision written by Thomas, who quite honestly, is bought and bossed, led around like a pig with a ring in his nose, by a fatass ugly shit white wife. He is way out of his element, in the deep end of the pool and his sorry ass can't even swim.

And that is the thing. The SCOTUS is now completely dysfunctional. When they review a case, it is not a matter of examining the issue, looking at precedent, constructing a legal diagnosis. It is about knowing what you want the ruling to be and constructing a path to get there. And yes, Scalia was an expert. But his opinions are so conflicted with one another that it is more than obvious that was what he was doing. But the current right wing contingent on the SCOTUS, they have to qualms about pushing the envelope even past where Scalia would go. Today we have a majority completely constructed by the Federalist Society. The entire court should be impeached, every damn one of them. We have a 50/50 senate. Work it out, find real jurists, not activists. We are at a critical moment in American History. A real tipping point if you will, and the SCOTUS stands at the center, an obstacle in the way of progress that will either be eliminated, or will destroy our Republic.

You're talking above your comprehension retention level. Clueless

 

[Winston]

That's what I said. Twice. And you agreed. Twice.
Thus, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" isn't tied to the militia.
As the right to keep and bear arms is held by the people, and there is no right to serve in the militia, the right to keep and bear arms must include the use of a firearm outside service of same.
This includes the right to use a firearm in self-defense, the most very basic purpose for a firearm.

Thus your statement:
The second amendment was never about self-defense, until Heller. It was always about a militia...
Proven false.

This make you mad, 'boo?

Show me where it was proven false or go sit in the corner with your dunce hat.