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.
OK, so according to you [Winston], the government can outlaw Islam then because they still have the choice of another religion.
According to you, government can shut down the NY Times because you still have other news sources you can listen to.
Thing is it's not up to you why I want to own guns. And the Constitution says it's not up to the government
I'm a member of a religion that did not exist, and could probably not have been anticipated, at the time that the First Amendment was written.
Winston has tried to argue that modern arms are not covered by the Second Amendment, because the authors of that Amendment didn't know about them.
I wonder if he would try to argue, or agree with any attempt to argue, that my right to believe in and practice the Mormon religion is not protected by the First Amendment, for the same reason.
OK, so according to you [Winston], the government can outlaw Islam then because they still have the choice of another religion.
According to you, government can shut down the NY Times because you still have other news sources you can listen to.
Thing is it's not up to you why I want to own guns. And the Constitution says it's not up to the government
I'm a member of a religion that did not exist, and could probably not have been anticipated, at the time that the First Amendment was written.
Winston has tried to argue that modern arms are not covered by the Second Amendment, because the authors of that Amendment didn't know about them.
I wonder if he would try to argue, or agree with any attempt to argue, that my right to believe in and practice the Mormon religion is not protected by the First Amendment, for the same reason.
you gave your opinion...I cited the description of a well regulated militia in the ConstitutionWell Regulated militia are the organized militia.The Second does not call for an organized Militia. The second calls for a Well Regulated Militia.
I explained what Well Regulated meant in context of the era. Your decision to ignore these truths shows that like most frothing at the mouth types you detest any information that does not agree 100% with your views.
Well Regulated militia are the organized militia.The Second does not call for an organized Militia. The second calls for a Well Regulated Militia.
I explained what Well Regulated meant in context of the era. Your decision to ignore these truths shows that like most frothing at the mouth types you detest any information that does not agree 100% with your views.
I did not respond to you because I have no problem with your explanation of a "well-regulated militia", in fact, it was spot on. So tell me, where did this "well-regulated militia" keep their arms? Under the bed?
There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. Our Constitution is clear. And, only Congress can prescribe wellness of regulation for the organized militia it is not a common law right.Well Regulated militia are the organized militia.The Second does not call for an organized Militia. The second calls for a Well Regulated Militia.
I explained what Well Regulated meant in context of the era. Your decision to ignore these truths shows that like most frothing at the mouth types you detest any information that does not agree 100% with your views.
Report: Biden’s proposed gun control plan could hit gun owners with $34 billion in taxes
Get ready to pay upwww.theblaze.com
I reckon it is far easier than flat out banning them.
This can be appealed in court....it would be like taxing books and magazines or newspapers to the point you invalidate the 1st Amendment...
Not really, since it is already done. Even Scalia admitted jurisdictions have the authority to tax guns. And that includes the federal government. It is actually a great idea, just make those "modern sporting rifles", that still cracks me up, like automatic weapons. Eliminating selling new by preventing their production, and then taxing the ones that are in private hands. Not really seeing a case here. You can still own your pistols, shotguns, and real rifles.
Cool. So you'd be behind that taxing free speech and the press as well as going to church are all perfectly valid as well?
What about protection from illegal search and seizure only being available to people who pay their tax for it?
Winston? Where'd you go? Since you're OK with taxing Constitutionally protected rights, so ...
Cool. So you'd be behind that taxing free speech and the press as well as going to church are all perfectly valid as well?
What about protection from illegal search and seizure only being available to people who pay their tax for it?
I don't know what is so hard to understand. You do not, I repeat, DO NOT, have a constitutional guaranteed right to own a modern sporting rifle. Now, when the second amendment was a collective right based on the arming of a militia, you could make the argument that you did have a constitutional right to modern sporting rifles. A really good argument. But that ship sailed away with the judicial activism, and creationism, of Heller. Now the second amendment is an individual right based on self-protection. Do you need a modern sporting rifle for self-protection. Why no, no you don't. Not only can we tax modern sporting rifles, we can ban their production for private use, we can even ban owning them. Because that ban would not significantly "infringe" upon someone's ability to have another type of gun for self-defense.
So fifty, maybe sixty years from now, you won't be able to own much more than a taser and some pepper spray. Hunting will die off, like it almost has. I mean there is more small game roaming around in the woods than there was when the colonists got here. Squirrels, Raccoons, Rabbits--hell, if it weren't for the cats the rabbits would have already taken us over. I mean how many people do you know that run a pack of beagles for rabbit hunting? Not near as many that have that beagle to primp and prune for the Westminister Dog Show. Poor fellas.
I guess what I am saying is that you gun nuts overplayed your hand. When the second amendment was a collective right, well when the Stormtroopers got them some laser fueled disrupters, well you could get one too. Now, tough shit. Some of us in this country warned you guys. We killed our NRA memberships and joined other outfits, like the Sportsman's Alliance. The NRA became nothing more than a Ponzi scam lobbying for the gun manufacturers. They don't give two shits if you lose your collective right to participate in a militia, they pursue the mighty dollar. When modern sporting rifles are outlawed they will just sell you tasers.
Yes....we do....what part of the Heller decision do you not understand? What does Scalia, who wrote the opinion in Heller mean when he says that AR-15s are protected weapons....?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
Tell me, what makes sawed off shotguns subject to regulation and bans and not modern sporting rifles? What you fail to realize is that if they can rationalize banning sawed off shotguns they can rationalize banning modern sporting rifles. And the fact that they can ban sawed off shotguns is a clear indicator that you and your friends are not constitutionally granted the right to own any damn weapon you want.
"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
You really can't read that? And don't bring up the regulated militia since that is an explanation of protecting the right, it is not a limit on the right. That you can't read is a terrible arguement.
Because A, B.
Even someone government educated like you should get that.
And seriously, is Winston actually your name? Obviously it's not a 1984 reference since you're clearly on the side of Big Brother
OK, so according to you [Winston], the government can outlaw Islam then because they still have the choice of another religion.
According to you, government can shut down the NY Times because you still have other news sources you can listen to.
Thing is it's not up to you why I want to own guns. And the Constitution says it's not up to the government
I'm a member of a religion that did not exist, and could probably not have been anticipated, at the time that the First Amendment was written.
Winston has tried to argue that modern arms are not covered by the Second Amendment, because the authors of that Amendment didn't know about them.
I wonder if he would try to argue, or agree with any attempt to argue, that my right to believe in and practice the Mormon religion is not protected by the First Amendment, for the same reason.
Yes, and by that same argument, we would not have freedom of speech on TV or on the Internet or from blimps. They said nothing about the medium. They said "free speech." Just like they said the right to guns shall not be infringed. It does not say the right to guns of current technology shall not be infringed.
The founding fathers anticipated that times change and the Constitution had to be a living document. So they gave us a way to update it. 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4. They never said 5/9. Only broadly held views should be in the Constitution. That Winston can't get his limits on guns he wants is because we don't have broad agreement on that, which is exactly why they should not be in the Constitution
OK, so according to you [Winston], the government can outlaw Islam then because they still have the choice of another religion.
According to you, government can shut down the NY Times because you still have other news sources you can listen to.
Thing is it's not up to you why I want to own guns. And the Constitution says it's not up to the government
I'm a member of a religion that did not exist, and could probably not have been anticipated, at the time that the First Amendment was written.
Winston has tried to argue that modern arms are not covered by the Second Amendment, because the authors of that Amendment didn't know about them.
I wonder if he would try to argue, or agree with any attempt to argue, that my right to believe in and practice the Mormon religion is not protected by the First Amendment, for the same reason.
Yes, and by that same argument, we would not have freedom of speech on TV or on the Internet or from blimps. They said nothing about the medium. They said "free speech." Just like they said the right to guns shall not be infringed. It does not say the right to guns of current technology shall not be infringed.
The founding fathers anticipated that times change and the Constitution had to be a living document. So they gave us a way to update it. 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4. They never said 5/9. Only broadly held views should be in the Constitution. That Winston can't get his limits on guns he wants is because we don't have broad agreement on that, which is exactly why they should not be in the Constitution
I agree with almost every point except.Report: Biden’s proposed gun control plan could hit gun owners with $34 billion in taxes
Get ready to pay up
I reckon it is far easier than flat out banning them.
This can be appealed in court....it would be like taxing books and magazines or newspapers to the point you invalidate the 1st Amendment...
Not really, since it is already done. Even Scalia admitted jurisdictions have the authority to tax guns. And that includes the federal government. It is actually a great idea, just make those "modern sporting rifles", that still cracks me up, like automatic weapons. Eliminating selling new by preventing their production, and then taxing the ones that are in private hands. Not really seeing a case here. You can still own your pistols, shotguns, and real rifles.
Cool. So you'd be behind that taxing free speech and the press as well as going to church are all perfectly valid as well?
What about protection from illegal search and seizure only being available to people who pay their tax for it?
Winston? Where'd you go? Since you're OK with taxing Constitutionally protected rights, so ...
Cool. So you'd be behind that taxing free speech and the press as well as going to church are all perfectly valid as well?
What about protection from illegal search and seizure only being available to people who pay their tax for it?
I don't know what is so hard to understand. You do not, I repeat, DO NOT, have a constitutional guaranteed right to own a modern sporting rifle. Now, when the second amendment was a collective right based on the arming of a militia, you could make the argument that you did have a constitutional right to modern sporting rifles. A really good argument. But that ship sailed away with the judicial activism, and creationism, of Heller. Now the second amendment is an individual right based on self-protection. Do you need a modern sporting rifle for self-protection. Why no, no you don't. Not only can we tax modern sporting rifles, we can ban their production for private use, we can even ban owning them. Because that ban would not significantly "infringe" upon someone's ability to have another type of gun for self-defense.
So fifty, maybe sixty years from now, you won't be able to own much more than a taser and some pepper spray. Hunting will die off, like it almost has. I mean there is more small game roaming around in the woods than there was when the colonists got here. Squirrels, Raccoons, Rabbits--hell, if it weren't for the cats the rabbits would have already taken us over. I mean how many people do you know that run a pack of beagles for rabbit hunting? Not near as many that have that beagle to primp and prune for the Westminister Dog Show. Poor fellas.
I guess what I am saying is that you gun nuts overplayed your hand. When the second amendment was a collective right, well when the Stormtroopers got them some laser fueled disrupters, well you could get one too. Now, tough shit. Some of us in this country warned you guys. We killed our NRA memberships and joined other outfits, like the Sportsman's Alliance. The NRA became nothing more than a Ponzi scam lobbying for the gun manufacturers. They don't give two shits if you lose your collective right to participate in a militia, they pursue the mighty dollar. When modern sporting rifles are outlawed they will just sell you tasers.
Yes....we do....what part of the Heller decision do you not understand? What does Scalia, who wrote the opinion in Heller mean when he says that AR-15s are protected weapons....?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
Tell me, what makes sawed off shotguns subject to regulation and bans and not modern sporting rifles? What you fail to realize is that if they can rationalize banning sawed off shotguns they can rationalize banning modern sporting rifles. And the fact that they can ban sawed off shotguns is a clear indicator that you and your friends are not constitutionally granted the right to own any damn weapon you want.
"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
You really can't read that? And don't bring up the regulated militia since that is an explanation of protecting the right, it is not a limit on the right. That you can't read is a terrible arguement.
Because A, B.
Even someone government educated like you should get that.
And seriously, is Winston actually your name? Obviously it's not a 1984 reference since you're clearly on the side of Big Brother
I really like dipshits that want to condemn a public education. Yes, I have a public education, from the Ivy university of public universities. But I also graduated summa cum laude from a private university. Not really seeing much of a point. The "well-regulated militia" part was not an "explanation" until Scalia did his bit of judicial activism. For almost two hundred years it was a qualifier.
And yes, damn Skippy Winston is a Orwell reference. I will give you credit for that. But I have been Winston on numerous message boards for more than twenty years. Winston worked for the Ministry of Truth. That is where I am coming from, I have a videographic memory, I speak truth. The second amendment was never an individual right, the battles of Lexington and Concord were initiated because the British were marching to the ARMORY. Individuals did not have guns in their homes, too damn dangerous, the Indians might come and take them. In fact, it was BANNED in many towns for just that reason.
And here is the point that you just can't seem to understand, or that you are even willing to understand. When the second amendment became an individual right, a la Scalia, it ceased to fulfill it's primary function that the founders envisioned. And it laid open the path to the banishment of all types of weapons, the assault weapon first and foremost. The very decision you celebrate will end up being the very decision that eliminates the right you so naively believe you possess. It take a publicly school educated individual to point that out to you. And when it eventually happens, if you are still blessed enough to be among the living, remember Winston.
Report: Biden’s proposed gun control plan could hit gun owners with $34 billion in taxes
Get ready to pay up
I reckon it is far easier than flat out banning them.
This can be appealed in court....it would be like taxing books and magazines or newspapers to the point you invalidate the 1st Amendment...
Not really, since it is already done. Even Scalia admitted jurisdictions have the authority to tax guns. And that includes the federal government. It is actually a great idea, just make those "modern sporting rifles", that still cracks me up, like automatic weapons. Eliminating selling new by preventing their production, and then taxing the ones that are in private hands. Not really seeing a case here. You can still own your pistols, shotguns, and real rifles.
Report: Biden’s proposed gun control plan could hit gun owners with $34 billion in taxes
Get ready to pay up
I reckon it is far easier than flat out banning them.
This can be appealed in court....it would be like taxing books and magazines or newspapers to the point you invalidate the 1st Amendment...
Not really, since it is already done. Even Scalia admitted jurisdictions have the authority to tax guns. And that includes the federal government. It is actually a great idea, just make those "modern sporting rifles", that still cracks me up, like automatic weapons. Eliminating selling new by preventing their production, and then taxing the ones that are in private hands. Not really seeing a case here. You can still own your pistols, shotguns, and real rifles.
Cool. So you'd be behind that taxing free speech and the press as well as going to church are all perfectly valid as well?
What about protection from illegal search and seizure only being available to people who pay their tax for it?
Winston? Where'd you go? Since you're OK with taxing Constitutionally protected rights, so ...
Cool. So you'd be behind that taxing free speech and the press as well as going to church are all perfectly valid as well?
What about protection from illegal search and seizure only being available to people who pay their tax for it?
I don't know what is so hard to understand. You do not, I repeat, DO NOT, have a constitutional guaranteed right to own a modern sporting rifle. Now, when the second amendment was a collective right based on the arming of a militia, you could make the argument that you did have a constitutional right to modern sporting rifles. A really good argument. But that ship sailed away with the judicial activism, and creationism, of Heller. Now the second amendment is an individual right based on self-protection. Do you need a modern sporting rifle for self-protection. Why no, no you don't. Not only can we tax modern sporting rifles, we can ban their production for private use, we can even ban owning them. Because that ban would not significantly "infringe" upon someone's ability to have another type of gun for self-defense.
So fifty, maybe sixty years from now, you won't be able to own much more than a taser and some pepper spray. Hunting will die off, like it almost has. I mean there is more small game roaming around in the woods than there was when the colonists got here. Squirrels, Raccoons, Rabbits--hell, if it weren't for the cats the rabbits would have already taken us over. I mean how many people do you know that run a pack of beagles for rabbit hunting? Not near as many that have that beagle to primp and prune for the Westminister Dog Show. Poor fellas.
I guess what I am saying is that you gun nuts overplayed your hand. When the second amendment was a collective right, well when the Stormtroopers got them some laser fueled disrupters, well you could get one too. Now, tough shit. Some of us in this country warned you guys. We killed our NRA memberships and joined other outfits, like the Sportsman's Alliance. The NRA became nothing more than a Ponzi scam lobbying for the gun manufacturers. They don't give two shits if you lose your collective right to participate in a militia, they pursue the mighty dollar. When modern sporting rifles are outlawed they will just sell you tasers.
Yes....we do....what part of the Heller decision do you not understand? What does Scalia, who wrote the opinion in Heller mean when he says that AR-15s are protected weapons....?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
Tell me, what makes sawed off shotguns subject to regulation and bans and not modern sporting rifles? What you fail to realize is that if they can rationalize banning sawed off shotguns they can rationalize banning modern sporting rifles. And the fact that they can ban sawed off shotguns is a clear indicator that you and your friends are not constitutionally granted the right to own any damn weapon you want.
Report: Biden’s proposed gun control plan could hit gun owners with $34 billion in taxes
Get ready to pay up
I reckon it is far easier than flat out banning them.
This can be appealed in court....it would be like taxing books and magazines or newspapers to the point you invalidate the 1st Amendment...
Not really, since it is already done. Even Scalia admitted jurisdictions have the authority to tax guns. And that includes the federal government. It is actually a great idea, just make those "modern sporting rifles", that still cracks me up, like automatic weapons. Eliminating selling new by preventing their production, and then taxing the ones that are in private hands. Not really seeing a case here. You can still own your pistols, shotguns, and real rifles.
Cool. So you'd be behind that taxing free speech and the press as well as going to church are all perfectly valid as well?
What about protection from illegal search and seizure only being available to people who pay their tax for it?
Winston? Where'd you go? Since you're OK with taxing Constitutionally protected rights, so ...
Cool. So you'd be behind that taxing free speech and the press as well as going to church are all perfectly valid as well?
What about protection from illegal search and seizure only being available to people who pay their tax for it?
I don't know what is so hard to understand. You do not, I repeat, DO NOT, have a constitutional guaranteed right to own a modern sporting rifle. Now, when the second amendment was a collective right based on the arming of a militia, you could make the argument that you did have a constitutional right to modern sporting rifles. A really good argument. But that ship sailed away with the judicial activism, and creationism, of Heller. Now the second amendment is an individual right based on self-protection. Do you need a modern sporting rifle for self-protection. Why no, no you don't. Not only can we tax modern sporting rifles, we can ban their production for private use, we can even ban owning them. Because that ban would not significantly "infringe" upon someone's ability to have another type of gun for self-defense.
So fifty, maybe sixty years from now, you won't be able to own much more than a taser and some pepper spray. Hunting will die off, like it almost has. I mean there is more small game roaming around in the woods than there was when the colonists got here. Squirrels, Raccoons, Rabbits--hell, if it weren't for the cats the rabbits would have already taken us over. I mean how many people do you know that run a pack of beagles for rabbit hunting? Not near as many that have that beagle to primp and prune for the Westminister Dog Show. Poor fellas.
I guess what I am saying is that you gun nuts overplayed your hand. When the second amendment was a collective right, well when the Stormtroopers got them some laser fueled disrupters, well you could get one too. Now, tough shit. Some of us in this country warned you guys. We killed our NRA memberships and joined other outfits, like the Sportsman's Alliance. The NRA became nothing more than a Ponzi scam lobbying for the gun manufacturers. They don't give two shits if you lose your collective right to participate in a militia, they pursue the mighty dollar. When modern sporting rifles are outlawed they will just sell you tasers.
Yes....we do....what part of the Heller decision do you not understand? What does Scalia, who wrote the opinion in Heller mean when he says that AR-15s are protected weapons....?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
Tell me, what makes sawed off shotguns subject to regulation and bans and not modern sporting rifles? What you fail to realize is that if they can rationalize banning sawed off shotguns they can rationalize banning modern sporting rifles. And the fact that they can ban sawed off shotguns is a clear indicator that you and your friends are not constitutionally granted the right to own any damn weapon you want.
Report: Biden’s proposed gun control plan could hit gun owners with $34 billion in taxes
Get ready to pay up
I reckon it is far easier than flat out banning them.
This can be appealed in court....it would be like taxing books and magazines or newspapers to the point you invalidate the 1st Amendment...
Not really, since it is already done. Even Scalia admitted jurisdictions have the authority to tax guns. And that includes the federal government. It is actually a great idea, just make those "modern sporting rifles", that still cracks me up, like automatic weapons. Eliminating selling new by preventing their production, and then taxing the ones that are in private hands. Not really seeing a case here. You can still own your pistols, shotguns, and real rifles.
Cool. So you'd be behind that taxing free speech and the press as well as going to church are all perfectly valid as well?
What about protection from illegal search and seizure only being available to people who pay their tax for it?
Winston? Where'd you go? Since you're OK with taxing Constitutionally protected rights, so ...
Cool. So you'd be behind that taxing free speech and the press as well as going to church are all perfectly valid as well?
What about protection from illegal search and seizure only being available to people who pay their tax for it?
I don't know what is so hard to understand. You do not, I repeat, DO NOT, have a constitutional guaranteed right to own a modern sporting rifle. Now, when the second amendment was a collective right based on the arming of a militia, you could make the argument that you did have a constitutional right to modern sporting rifles. A really good argument. But that ship sailed away with the judicial activism, and creationism, of Heller. Now the second amendment is an individual right based on self-protection. Do you need a modern sporting rifle for self-protection. Why no, no you don't. Not only can we tax modern sporting rifles, we can ban their production for private use, we can even ban owning them. Because that ban would not significantly "infringe" upon someone's ability to have another type of gun for self-defense.
So fifty, maybe sixty years from now, you won't be able to own much more than a taser and some pepper spray. Hunting will die off, like it almost has. I mean there is more small game roaming around in the woods than there was when the colonists got here. Squirrels, Raccoons, Rabbits--hell, if it weren't for the cats the rabbits would have already taken us over. I mean how many people do you know that run a pack of beagles for rabbit hunting? Not near as many that have that beagle to primp and prune for the Westminister Dog Show. Poor fellas.
I guess what I am saying is that you gun nuts overplayed your hand. When the second amendment was a collective right, well when the Stormtroopers got them some laser fueled disrupters, well you could get one too. Now, tough shit. Some of us in this country warned you guys. We killed our NRA memberships and joined other outfits, like the Sportsman's Alliance. The NRA became nothing more than a Ponzi scam lobbying for the gun manufacturers. They don't give two shits if you lose your collective right to participate in a militia, they pursue the mighty dollar. When modern sporting rifles are outlawed they will just sell you tasers.
Yes....we do....what part of the Heller decision do you not understand? What does Scalia, who wrote the opinion in Heller mean when he says that AR-15s are protected weapons....?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
Tell me, what makes sawed off shotguns subject to regulation and bans and not modern sporting rifles? What you fail to realize is that if they can rationalize banning sawed off shotguns they can rationalize banning modern sporting rifles. And the fact that they can ban sawed off shotguns is a clear indicator that you and your friends are not constitutionally granted the right to own any damn weapon you want.
Little boys with big guns and tiny pee-pees, conjuring sugar-plum fantasies of civil war, with their panties in a bunch, over nothing at all. Absolutely nothing.
You folks have been saying that same thing for thirty years.Report: Biden’s proposed gun control plan could hit gun owners with $34 billion in taxes
Get ready to pay up
I reckon it is far easier than flat out banning them.
This can be appealed in court....it would be like taxing books and magazines or newspapers to the point you invalidate the 1st Amendment...
Not really, since it is already done. Even Scalia admitted jurisdictions have the authority to tax guns. And that includes the federal government. It is actually a great idea, just make those "modern sporting rifles", that still cracks me up, like automatic weapons. Eliminating selling new by preventing their production, and then taxing the ones that are in private hands. Not really seeing a case here. You can still own your pistols, shotguns, and real rifles.
You may be able to keep your pistols, bolt action rifles and shotguns for now but in the future semi-auto pistols will no longer be sold to civilians and a few years later all handguns will be illegal or so highly taxed that only the rich can own them. Eventually you will be able to own just one single shot rifle and one single shot shotgun or a double barreled coach gun.
If you think our government is corrupt today just wait until civilians are effectively disarmed.
Miller regulated sawed off shotguns and machine guns. That sets precedent for regulating any type of gun.Report: Biden’s proposed gun control plan could hit gun owners with $34 billion in taxes
Get ready to pay up
I reckon it is far easier than flat out banning them.
This can be appealed in court....it would be like taxing books and magazines or newspapers to the point you invalidate the 1st Amendment...
Not really, since it is already done. Even Scalia admitted jurisdictions have the authority to tax guns. And that includes the federal government. It is actually a great idea, just make those "modern sporting rifles", that still cracks me up, like automatic weapons. Eliminating selling new by preventing their production, and then taxing the ones that are in private hands. Not really seeing a case here. You can still own your pistols, shotguns, and real rifles.
Cool. So you'd be behind that taxing free speech and the press as well as going to church are all perfectly valid as well?
What about protection from illegal search and seizure only being available to people who pay their tax for it?
Winston? Where'd you go? Since you're OK with taxing Constitutionally protected rights, so ...
Cool. So you'd be behind that taxing free speech and the press as well as going to church are all perfectly valid as well?
What about protection from illegal search and seizure only being available to people who pay their tax for it?
I don't know what is so hard to understand. You do not, I repeat, DO NOT, have a constitutional guaranteed right to own a modern sporting rifle. Now, when the second amendment was a collective right based on the arming of a militia, you could make the argument that you did have a constitutional right to modern sporting rifles. A really good argument. But that ship sailed away with the judicial activism, and creationism, of Heller. Now the second amendment is an individual right based on self-protection. Do you need a modern sporting rifle for self-protection. Why no, no you don't. Not only can we tax modern sporting rifles, we can ban their production for private use, we can even ban owning them. Because that ban would not significantly "infringe" upon someone's ability to have another type of gun for self-defense.
So fifty, maybe sixty years from now, you won't be able to own much more than a taser and some pepper spray. Hunting will die off, like it almost has. I mean there is more small game roaming around in the woods than there was when the colonists got here. Squirrels, Raccoons, Rabbits--hell, if it weren't for the cats the rabbits would have already taken us over. I mean how many people do you know that run a pack of beagles for rabbit hunting? Not near as many that have that beagle to primp and prune for the Westminister Dog Show. Poor fellas.
I guess what I am saying is that you gun nuts overplayed your hand. When the second amendment was a collective right, well when the Stormtroopers got them some laser fueled disrupters, well you could get one too. Now, tough shit. Some of us in this country warned you guys. We killed our NRA memberships and joined other outfits, like the Sportsman's Alliance. The NRA became nothing more than a Ponzi scam lobbying for the gun manufacturers. They don't give two shits if you lose your collective right to participate in a militia, they pursue the mighty dollar. When modern sporting rifles are outlawed they will just sell you tasers.
Yes....we do....what part of the Heller decision do you not understand? What does Scalia, who wrote the opinion in Heller mean when he says that AR-15s are protected weapons....?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
Tell me, what makes sawed off shotguns subject to regulation and bans and not modern sporting rifles? What you fail to realize is that if they can rationalize banning sawed off shotguns they can rationalize banning modern sporting rifles. And the fact that they can ban sawed off shotguns is a clear indicator that you and your friends are not constitutionally granted the right to own any damn weapon you want.
Notice what the Supreme Court stated in Miller.....
If any guns are protected by the 2nd Amendment....it is the AR-15 rifle.....as well as fully automatic military rifles.....
United States v. Miller.........the government argued......
The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
What the Court ruled.......guns that are used by a military are protected by the 2nd Amendment.....
The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
United States v. Miller - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Notice what the Supreme Court stated in Miller.....
If any guns are protected by the 2nd Amendment....it is the AR-15 rifle.....as well as fully automatic military rifles.....
United States v. Miller.........
The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
Little boys with big guns and tiny pee-pees, conjuring sugar-plum fantasies of civil war, with their panties in a bunch, over nothing at all. Absolutely nothing.
Miller regulated sawed off shotguns and machine guns. That sets precedent for regulating any type of gun.Report: Biden’s proposed gun control plan could hit gun owners with $34 billion in taxes
Get ready to pay up
I reckon it is far easier than flat out banning them.
This can be appealed in court....it would be like taxing books and magazines or newspapers to the point you invalidate the 1st Amendment...
Not really, since it is already done. Even Scalia admitted jurisdictions have the authority to tax guns. And that includes the federal government. It is actually a great idea, just make those "modern sporting rifles", that still cracks me up, like automatic weapons. Eliminating selling new by preventing their production, and then taxing the ones that are in private hands. Not really seeing a case here. You can still own your pistols, shotguns, and real rifles.
Cool. So you'd be behind that taxing free speech and the press as well as going to church are all perfectly valid as well?
What about protection from illegal search and seizure only being available to people who pay their tax for it?
Winston? Where'd you go? Since you're OK with taxing Constitutionally protected rights, so ...
Cool. So you'd be behind that taxing free speech and the press as well as going to church are all perfectly valid as well?
What about protection from illegal search and seizure only being available to people who pay their tax for it?
I don't know what is so hard to understand. You do not, I repeat, DO NOT, have a constitutional guaranteed right to own a modern sporting rifle. Now, when the second amendment was a collective right based on the arming of a militia, you could make the argument that you did have a constitutional right to modern sporting rifles. A really good argument. But that ship sailed away with the judicial activism, and creationism, of Heller. Now the second amendment is an individual right based on self-protection. Do you need a modern sporting rifle for self-protection. Why no, no you don't. Not only can we tax modern sporting rifles, we can ban their production for private use, we can even ban owning them. Because that ban would not significantly "infringe" upon someone's ability to have another type of gun for self-defense.
So fifty, maybe sixty years from now, you won't be able to own much more than a taser and some pepper spray. Hunting will die off, like it almost has. I mean there is more small game roaming around in the woods than there was when the colonists got here. Squirrels, Raccoons, Rabbits--hell, if it weren't for the cats the rabbits would have already taken us over. I mean how many people do you know that run a pack of beagles for rabbit hunting? Not near as many that have that beagle to primp and prune for the Westminister Dog Show. Poor fellas.
I guess what I am saying is that you gun nuts overplayed your hand. When the second amendment was a collective right, well when the Stormtroopers got them some laser fueled disrupters, well you could get one too. Now, tough shit. Some of us in this country warned you guys. We killed our NRA memberships and joined other outfits, like the Sportsman's Alliance. The NRA became nothing more than a Ponzi scam lobbying for the gun manufacturers. They don't give two shits if you lose your collective right to participate in a militia, they pursue the mighty dollar. When modern sporting rifles are outlawed they will just sell you tasers.
Yes....we do....what part of the Heller decision do you not understand? What does Scalia, who wrote the opinion in Heller mean when he says that AR-15s are protected weapons....?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
Tell me, what makes sawed off shotguns subject to regulation and bans and not modern sporting rifles? What you fail to realize is that if they can rationalize banning sawed off shotguns they can rationalize banning modern sporting rifles. And the fact that they can ban sawed off shotguns is a clear indicator that you and your friends are not constitutionally granted the right to own any damn weapon you want.
Notice what the Supreme Court stated in Miller.....
If any guns are protected by the 2nd Amendment....it is the AR-15 rifle.....as well as fully automatic military rifles.....
United States v. Miller.........the government argued......
The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
What the Court ruled.......guns that are used by a military are protected by the 2nd Amendment.....
The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
United States v. Miller - Wikipedia
