BREAKING: Active shooter in Midland/Odessa TX

[Daryl Hunt]

Let's see. If I am part of the Well Regulated Militia, that means that I belong to a State Sponsored Militia like the SDF, Police Force and a few others. And the common weapon for them would be the AR-15, M-16 or the M-4. And you will find that the laws back that up along with the Federal Firearms laws pertaining to the sale and distribution of Automatic Weapons. You think because you are part of a bunch of yokels running around the woods wearing green pickel suits that they should get the same weapons? Nope. Only if the States and localities allows it and more and more states localities are removing the AR-15 from the allowable list. You are NOT part of the Organized Militia. In fact, the California Police have to turn in their ARs when they go off duty and go home. As does every other SDF unit.

So the answer to your question is, not all weapons used by the Organized Militia is authorized to be used in the Civilian world.

I know you won't accept that but it's the law.

nope the unorganized Militia.you and every able body man and woman are part of it.
10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

According to the 2nd ammendment, the weapons only applies to the well organized militia.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

Not the unorganized Militia. And those Unorganized Militia that it pertains to are part of the SDF which cannot be called up to be nationalized into the Federal Forces. It's a lot more complicated than you make it out to be. And that would be up to each individual state. The State can determine who has those rights or privileges and who does not. The only say you have in it is in your vote.

Hmm. If what you say is true, why didn't the government round up all the guns after the Constitution was passed? I mean, didn't they know what they meant?

Mark

They put the power of the weapons into the States hands. In the beginning, the Feds had no Military at all. Then when things started going haywire on the Frontier, the Feds were allowed a force of 75,000 which was smaller than any one state could muster.

The states gave the federal government control of the bill of rights.

Again, the Bill of Rights is a fee good document that was voted on to make a couple of leaders feel good. It's still just the first 10 amendments of the previously written and ratified Constitution of the United States. The Bill of rights, no matter how much importance you place on it, has exactly zero legal meaning in any court in the land. The States didn't give a thing back to the Feds with the Bill of Rights./

 

[Daryl Hunt]

All those innocent people going about their own business who died in Texas last month from mass shooters and all the people who were injured might disagree with you that their safety doesn't trump people's "rights" to a deadly weapon.

I get your compassion. And some of them might agree with you. Others may not. I'm guessing you are for outlawing all semi automatics or are you for banning all guns? Or something in between?

I wish they'd never been invented, but I'll settle for semiauto rifles that take large mags--AR and other military-type rifles.

Look the supreme court has ruled the weapons you don't like are protected by the second amendment.

Is that why they were banned for 10 years? It wasn't the Supreme Court that did away with the ban. The legislature wouldn't renew it. It died in its sunset clause.

The reason they were banned 10 years ago was that they weren't in common use of the time. Now they are.

They still aren't. Only a minority actually owns them. But a portion of the most violent murderers on teh planet in the United States do own them and use them so the Cops had to convert to them as well. The cops found that with their standard sidearms, shotguns and Model 70s, they were severely outgunned and had to uparm. Even today, there are many more conventional firearms than ARs in the average home. But when you find an AR, you often times find a Cache of ARs so the numbers look different unless you look at it that way.

Here is a good question. Why would I need 14 or more ARs like some do have? Why would I have even 5 Model 70 (or that type) of hunting rifles unless they were of a different caliber? Would I own 15 Model 700BDL 308s? But it appears there are enough AR owners out there with multiple ARs that that squew the percentages and you gunnutters try and misrepresent those figures. That used to work but more and more regular people are seeing through your BS because everyone elses lives depend on it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

nope the unorganized Militia.you and every able body man and woman are part of it.
10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

According to the 2nd ammendment, the weapons only applies to the well organized militia.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

Not the unorganized Militia. And those Unorganized Militia that it pertains to are part of the SDF which cannot be called up to be nationalized into the Federal Forces. It's a lot more complicated than you make it out to be. And that would be up to each individual state. The State can determine who has those rights or privileges and who does not. The only say you have in it is in your vote.

Hmm. If what you say is true, why didn't the government round up all the guns after the Constitution was passed? I mean, didn't they know what they meant?

Mark

They put the power of the weapons into the States hands. In the beginning, the Feds had no Military at all. Then when things started going haywire on the Frontier, the Feds were allowed a force of 75,000 which was smaller than any one state could muster.

The states gave the federal government control of the bill of rights.

Again, the Bill of Rights is a fee good document that was voted on to make a couple of leaders feel good. It's still just the first 10 amendments of the previously written and ratified Constitution of the United States. The Bill of rights, no matter how much importance you place on it, has exactly zero legal meaning in any court in the land. The States didn't give a thing back to the Feds with the Bill of Rights./

So due process doesn't have any legal meaning in a court of law?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I get your compassion. And some of them might agree with you. Others may not. I'm guessing you are for outlawing all semi automatics or are you for banning all guns? Or something in between?

I wish they'd never been invented, but I'll settle for semiauto rifles that take large mags--AR and other military-type rifles.

Look the supreme court has ruled the weapons you don't like are protected by the second amendment.

Is that why they were banned for 10 years? It wasn't the Supreme Court that did away with the ban. The legislature wouldn't renew it. It died in its sunset clause.

The reason they were banned 10 years ago was that they weren't in common use of the time. Now they are.

They still aren't. Only a minority actually owns them. But a portion of the most violent murderers on teh planet in the United States do own them and use them so the Cops had to convert to them as well. The cops found that with their standard sidearms, shotguns and Model 70s, they were severely outgunned and had to uparm. Even today, there are many more conventional firearms than ARs in the average home. But when you find an AR, you often times find a Cache of ARs so the numbers look different unless you look at it that way.

Here is a good question. Why would I need 14 or more ARs like some do have? Why would I have even 5 Model 70 (or that type) of hunting rifles unless they were of a different caliber? Would I own 15 Model 700BDL 308s? But it appears there are enough AR owners out there with multiple ARs that that squew the percentages and you gunnutters try and misrepresent those figures. That used to work but more and more regular people are seeing through your BS because everyone elses lives depend on it.

They are the most popular widely used rifle in America.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I wish they'd never been invented, but I'll settle for semiauto rifles that take large mags--AR and other military-type rifles.

Look the supreme court has ruled the weapons you don't like are protected by the second amendment.

Is that why they were banned for 10 years? It wasn't the Supreme Court that did away with the ban. The legislature wouldn't renew it. It died in its sunset clause.

The reason they were banned 10 years ago was that they weren't in common use of the time. Now they are.

The ban was from 1994 to 2004. At the time it took affect, it is estimated 1.4 million "assault" weapons were owned. It also banned magazines of over 10 rounds.

there are over 20 million in the hands of citizens the most owned firearm system in America 1.4 million wasn't in common use. over 20 million is in common use.

Wow, and the number keeps inflating. That's the most inflated number I have EVER seen. I started questioning it at 10 mil, I questioned it again at 12 mil. I again questioned it at 15 mil. Now, the number is up to 20 mil. What next? Will Pre Schoolers be issued ARs next? Yah, I know, let's not give the NRA and marketing ideas.

I don't remember where I saw it because it's not just worth the effort with you to look it up but the last time I saw the count in a Treasury list was for 2017 for the AR made by all manufactuerers including clones and upper receivers, that number was over 5 mil. I can give you up to 7 mil due to error but that's it. 7 mil. Meanwhile the Savage Model 60 was over 10 mil making the little Semi Auto 22 the leading Firearm of all time the winner hands down and still selling. The little Savage, all by itself, sells enough to keep Savages doors open. But the Remington's best seller from 2015 (The Bushmaster) has fallen off so bad that Remington is right at bankruptcy. Those that would have bought the AR have mostly all bought them. And the only ones still buying them are the gunnutters like you who are just adding to your arsenal. Walk into a Pawn Shop and see how many of them are on the racks. And they aren't moving. They are gathering dust and are going for some really rediculously low prices. If I wanted one, I could buy a basic model for under 300 bucks. If I bartered, I could get it for about 250 or less. And the Pawn Broker would be tickled to no longer be having to dust it on a daily basis.

Your world is made up. It's fantasy. And normal people were caught up in the fantasy but have woken up. Look for changes. The lives of the Children depend on those changes.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

According to the 2nd ammendment, the weapons only applies to the well organized militia.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

Not the unorganized Militia. And those Unorganized Militia that it pertains to are part of the SDF which cannot be called up to be nationalized into the Federal Forces. It's a lot more complicated than you make it out to be. And that would be up to each individual state. The State can determine who has those rights or privileges and who does not. The only say you have in it is in your vote.

Hmm. If what you say is true, why didn't the government round up all the guns after the Constitution was passed? I mean, didn't they know what they meant?

Mark

They put the power of the weapons into the States hands. In the beginning, the Feds had no Military at all. Then when things started going haywire on the Frontier, the Feds were allowed a force of 75,000 which was smaller than any one state could muster.

The states gave the federal government control of the bill of rights.

Again, the Bill of Rights is a fee good document that was voted on to make a couple of leaders feel good. It's still just the first 10 amendments of the previously written and ratified Constitution of the United States. The Bill of rights, no matter how much importance you place on it, has exactly zero legal meaning in any court in the land. The States didn't give a thing back to the Feds with the Bill of Rights./

So due process doesn't have any legal meaning in a court of law?

According to the Bill of Rights, no. According to the US Constitution of the United States, Yes. Not once has any court ever ruled that something was UnBill of Rightable.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I wish they'd never been invented, but I'll settle for semiauto rifles that take large mags--AR and other military-type rifles.

Look the supreme court has ruled the weapons you don't like are protected by the second amendment.

Is that why they were banned for 10 years? It wasn't the Supreme Court that did away with the ban. The legislature wouldn't renew it. It died in its sunset clause.

The reason they were banned 10 years ago was that they weren't in common use of the time. Now they are.

They still aren't. Only a minority actually owns them. But a portion of the most violent murderers on teh planet in the United States do own them and use them so the Cops had to convert to them as well. The cops found that with their standard sidearms, shotguns and Model 70s, they were severely outgunned and had to uparm. Even today, there are many more conventional firearms than ARs in the average home. But when you find an AR, you often times find a Cache of ARs so the numbers look different unless you look at it that way.

Here is a good question. Why would I need 14 or more ARs like some do have? Why would I have even 5 Model 70 (or that type) of hunting rifles unless they were of a different caliber? Would I own 15 Model 700BDL 308s? But it appears there are enough AR owners out there with multiple ARs that that squew the percentages and you gunnutters try and misrepresent those figures. That used to work but more and more regular people are seeing through your BS because everyone elses lives depend on it.

They are the most popular widely used rifle in America.

You must live somewhere in South America. I live in the United States of America and around here, the most widely used rifle in America is the Savage Model 60 Semi Auto .22 LR. And unlike your AR, it's usually only one copy in a given home. Meaning, it's in almost every home of the 42 to 45% of the homes with Firearms in it in the Unites States. Meanwhile, your AR is in caches with MOST homes not having a copy. Now, unless you have a new attachment where you can fire 15 or 20 of your ARs all at the same time then it's NOT the most widely used rifle in America.

If you have invented such a device, I imagine it's going to go by the way of the Bump Stock pretty quickly. And on that, you just won an award.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Look the supreme court has ruled the weapons you don't like are protected by the second amendment.

Is that why they were banned for 10 years? It wasn't the Supreme Court that did away with the ban. The legislature wouldn't renew it. It died in its sunset clause.

The reason they were banned 10 years ago was that they weren't in common use of the time. Now they are.

They still aren't. Only a minority actually owns them. But a portion of the most violent murderers on teh planet in the United States do own them and use them so the Cops had to convert to them as well. The cops found that with their standard sidearms, shotguns and Model 70s, they were severely outgunned and had to uparm. Even today, there are many more conventional firearms than ARs in the average home. But when you find an AR, you often times find a Cache of ARs so the numbers look different unless you look at it that way.

Here is a good question. Why would I need 14 or more ARs like some do have? Why would I have even 5 Model 70 (or that type) of hunting rifles unless they were of a different caliber? Would I own 15 Model 700BDL 308s? But it appears there are enough AR owners out there with multiple ARs that that squew the percentages and you gunnutters try and misrepresent those figures. That used to work but more and more regular people are seeing through your BS because everyone elses lives depend on it.

They are the most popular widely used rifle in America.

You must live somewhere in South America. I live in the United States of America and around here, the most widely used rifle in America is the Savage Model 60 Semi Auto .22 LR. And unlike your AR, it's usually only one copy in a given home. Meaning, it's in almost every home of the 42 to 45% of the homes with Firearms in it in the Unites States. Meanwhile, your AR is in caches with MOST homes not having a copy. Now, unless you have a new attachment where you can fire 15 or 20 of your ARs all at the same time then it's NOT the most widely used rifle in America.

If you have invented such a device, I imagine it's going to go by the way of the Bump Stock pretty quickly. And on that, you just won an award.

View attachment 277163

You don't live in America the AR15 is in common use

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Hmm. If what you say is true, why didn't the government round up all the guns after the Constitution was passed? I mean, didn't they know what they meant?

Mark

They put the power of the weapons into the States hands. In the beginning, the Feds had no Military at all. Then when things started going haywire on the Frontier, the Feds were allowed a force of 75,000 which was smaller than any one state could muster.

The states gave the federal government control of the bill of rights.

Again, the Bill of Rights is a fee good document that was voted on to make a couple of leaders feel good. It's still just the first 10 amendments of the previously written and ratified Constitution of the United States. The Bill of rights, no matter how much importance you place on it, has exactly zero legal meaning in any court in the land. The States didn't give a thing back to the Feds with the Bill of Rights./

So due process doesn't have any legal meaning in a court of law?

According to the Bill of Rights, no. According to the US Constitution of the United States, Yes. Not once has any court ever ruled that something was UnBill of Rightable.

Due process comes from the bill of rights.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
{{meta.pageTitle}}
Cases - Search and seizure
Abel v. United States[/paste:font]
Was Abel properly arrested pursuant to an administrative Immigration and Naturalization Service warrant despite an overlapping FBI investigation for espionage? Were the Fourth and Fifth Amendments violated when the United States searched and seized evidence from Abel while he was in custody pursuant to an INS warrant?

Adams v. Williams[/paste:font]
A case in which the Court held that the Fourth Amendment allows a police officer, acting only on a tip from an informant, to approach a person and remove a weapon concealed in the person’s waistband.
Aguilar v. Texas[/paste:font]

Air Pollution Variance Board of Colorado v. Western Alfalfa Corporation[/paste:font]

Alabama v. White[/paste:font]
Does an anonymous tip alone provide a reasonable suspicion sufficient to stop and search an individual’s car?

Alderman v. United States[/paste:font]
(1) Do the petitioners have standing to object to surveillance evidence without prior screening in camera?


(2) Must evidence be excluded from trial if the government unlawfully overheard the petitioners' conversations or conversations occurring on the petitioners' premises, even if they were not present, or did not participate in, the conversations?

Almeida-Sanchez v. United States[/paste:font]

Arizona v. Evans[/paste:font]
Does the exclusionary rule prohibit the introduction of the evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment on the basis of an erroneous police record?

Arizona v. Gant[/paste:font]
A case in which the Court held that police may search a suspect's vehicle after his arrest only if it is reasonable to believe that the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search or that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of the arrest.
Arizona v. Hicks[/paste:font]
Was the search of the stereo equipment (a search beyond the exigencies of the original entry) reasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments?

Arizona v. Johnson[/paste:font]
A case in which the Court held that police may lawfully search an individual during a routine traffic stop if they believe him to be armed and dangerous, even if they had no reason to believe he was involved in criminal activity when he was searched.
Arkansas v. Sanders[/paste:font]
Did the warrantless search of the suitcase by the police violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments which prohibit unreasonable searches?

Atwater v. City of Lago Vista[/paste:font]
Does the Fourth Amendment, either by incorporating common-law restrictions on misdemeanor arrests or otherwise, limit a police officer's authority to arrest without warrant for minor criminal offenses?

Bailey v. United States[/paste:font]
A case in which the Court found that once an individual left the premises after being searched under a legal search warrant, the individual's detainment must be justified by means other than the warrant.
Beck v. Ohio[/paste:font]

Benanti v. United States[/paste:font]

Berger v. New York[/paste:font]

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics[/paste:font]
(1) Does violation of an individual’s Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure give rise to a federal claim for damages?


(2) Does governmental privilege extend to federal agents who clearly violate constitutional rights and act outside their authority?

Black v. United States[/paste:font]

Bond v. United States[/paste:font]
Does a law enforcement officer's physical manipulation of a bus passenger's carry-on luggage violate the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches?

Breithaupt v. Abram[/paste:font]

Brendlin v. California[/paste:font]
When a vehicle is subject to a traffic stop, is a passenger in the vehicle "detained" for purposes of the Fourth Amendment?

Brigham City v. Stuart[/paste:font]
What objectively reasonable level of concern is necessary to trigger the emergency aid exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement?

Brower v. Inyo County[/paste:font]
A case in which the Court held that a police roadblock could constitute an illegal seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
Brown v. Texas[/paste:font]
When the police detain someone because that person refused to identify himself, does it constitute a seizure subject to the restrictions of the Fourth Amendment?

Brown v. United States[/paste:font]

Bumper v. North Carolina[/paste:font]
A case in which the Court held that a search is not lawful under the Fourth Amendment if consent is given only after the police falsely claim to have a warrant.
Byrd v. United States[/paste:font]
A case in which the Court held that a driver of a rental car who has permission to drive the car but is not listed as an authorized driver on the rental agreement has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the rental car.
Cady v. Dombrowski[/paste:font]

California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz[/paste:font]

California v. Acevedo[/paste:font]
A case in which the Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment permits police to conduct a warrantless search of a container within an automobile if they have probable cause to believe the container holds evidence.
California v. Carney[/paste:font]
Does the warrantless search of a motor home violate the Fourth Amendment?

California v. Ciraolo[/paste:font]
Did the warrantless, aerial observation of Ciraolo's back yard from an altitude of 1,000 feet constitute an illegal search and violate the Fourth Amendment?

California v. Greenwood[/paste:font]
A case in which the Court held that garbage placed on the sidewalk was not protected under the Fourth Amendment.
California v. Hodari D.[/paste:font]
(1) Has a person who is not under the physical control of a police officer been "seized" under the Fourth Amendment when the officer is chasing that person?


(2) Can a person who is pursued by a police officer avoid prosecution by discarding incriminating evidence and asserting that he did so out of fear of an unlawful search?

California v. Rooney[/paste:font]

Camara v. Municipal Court of the City and County of San Francisco[/paste:font]
Do §503 of the SFHC, which authorizes inspection of private dwellings without a warrant, and §507, which makes it a crime to refuse such an inspection, violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments?

Cardwell v. Lewis[/paste:font]

Carpenter v. United States[/paste:font]
A case in which the Court held that the warrantless seizure and search of cell phone records revealing the location and movements of a cell phone user over the course of 127 days violates the Fourth Amendment.
Chambers v. Maroney[/paste:font]

Chapman v. United States[/paste:font]

Chimel v. California[/paste:font]
A case in which the Court held that searches following an arrest are limited to the area within immediate control of the suspect.
City of Indianapolis v. Edmond[/paste:font]
Are highway checkpoint programs, whose primary purpose is the discovery and interdiction of illegal narcotics, consistent with the Fourth Amendment?

City of Los Angeles v. Patel[/paste:font]
A case in which the Court determined that a municipal ordinance that allows the police to inspect hotel records without a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches unless the business owner is given the opportunity for pre-compliance review.
City of Ontario v. Quon[/paste:font]
A case in which the Court held that the city of Ontario's search of an employee's text messages did not violate his First Amendment rights because the search was not excessive in scope and was motivated by a legitimate work-related purpose.
Clinton v. Virginia[/paste:font]

Collins v. Virginia[/paste:font]
A case in which the Court held that a police officer cannot, under the Fourth Amendment, enter private property in order to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle parked a few feet from the house.
Colonnade Catering Corporation v. United States[/paste:font]
A case in which the Court held that while warrantless administrative searches and seizures of liquor pursuant to federal statute did not violate the Fourth Amendment, such search and seizures were not authorized by the statute in question.
ARGUED
Jan 15, 1970
DECIDED
Feb 25, 1970
CITATION
397 US 72 (1970)

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

nope the unorganized Militia.you and every able body man and woman are part of it.
10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

According to the 2nd ammendment, the weapons only applies to the well organized militia.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

Not the unorganized Militia. And those Unorganized Militia that it pertains to are part of the SDF which cannot be called up to be nationalized into the Federal Forces. It's a lot more complicated than you make it out to be. And that would be up to each individual state. The State can determine who has those rights or privileges and who does not. The only say you have in it is in your vote.

Hmm. If what you say is true, why didn't the government round up all the guns after the Constitution was passed? I mean, didn't they know what they meant?

Mark

They put the power of the weapons into the States hands. In the beginning, the Feds had no Military at all. Then when things started going haywire on the Frontier, the Feds were allowed a force of 75,000 which was smaller than any one state could muster.

The states gave the federal government control of the bill of rights.

Again, the Bill of Rights is a fee good document that was voted on to make a couple of leaders feel good. It's still just the first 10 amendments of the previously written and ratified Constitution of the United States. The Bill of rights, no matter how much importance you place on it, has exactly zero legal meaning in any court in the land. The States didn't give a thing back to the Feds with the Bill of Rights./

You really never graduated from high school, did you? You must have forged your diploma.

No one could be that stupid and actually have a valid diploma.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

According to the 2nd ammendment, the weapons only applies to the well organized militia.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

Not the unorganized Militia. And those Unorganized Militia that it pertains to are part of the SDF which cannot be called up to be nationalized into the Federal Forces. It's a lot more complicated than you make it out to be. And that would be up to each individual state. The State can determine who has those rights or privileges and who does not. The only say you have in it is in your vote.

Hmm. If what you say is true, why didn't the government round up all the guns after the Constitution was passed? I mean, didn't they know what they meant?

Mark

They put the power of the weapons into the States hands. In the beginning, the Feds had no Military at all. Then when things started going haywire on the Frontier, the Feds were allowed a force of 75,000 which was smaller than any one state could muster.

The states gave the federal government control of the bill of rights.

Again, the Bill of Rights is a fee good document that was voted on to make a couple of leaders feel good. It's still just the first 10 amendments of the previously written and ratified Constitution of the United States. The Bill of rights, no matter how much importance you place on it, has exactly zero legal meaning in any court in the land. The States didn't give a thing back to the Feds with the Bill of Rights./

You really never graduated from high school, did you? You must have forged your diploma.

No one could be that stupid and actually have a valid diploma.

Does this guy have any functioning brain cells other than those that maintain life support?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Is that why they were banned for 10 years? It wasn't the Supreme Court that did away with the ban. The legislature wouldn't renew it. It died in its sunset clause.

The reason they were banned 10 years ago was that they weren't in common use of the time. Now they are.

They still aren't. Only a minority actually owns them. But a portion of the most violent murderers on teh planet in the United States do own them and use them so the Cops had to convert to them as well. The cops found that with their standard sidearms, shotguns and Model 70s, they were severely outgunned and had to uparm. Even today, there are many more conventional firearms than ARs in the average home. But when you find an AR, you often times find a Cache of ARs so the numbers look different unless you look at it that way.

Here is a good question. Why would I need 14 or more ARs like some do have? Why would I have even 5 Model 70 (or that type) of hunting rifles unless they were of a different caliber? Would I own 15 Model 700BDL 308s? But it appears there are enough AR owners out there with multiple ARs that that squew the percentages and you gunnutters try and misrepresent those figures. That used to work but more and more regular people are seeing through your BS because everyone elses lives depend on it.

They are the most popular widely used rifle in America.

You must live somewhere in South America. I live in the United States of America and around here, the most widely used rifle in America is the Savage Model 60 Semi Auto .22 LR. And unlike your AR, it's usually only one copy in a given home. Meaning, it's in almost every home of the 42 to 45% of the homes with Firearms in it in the Unites States. Meanwhile, your AR is in caches with MOST homes not having a copy. Now, unless you have a new attachment where you can fire 15 or 20 of your ARs all at the same time then it's NOT the most widely used rifle in America.

If you have invented such a device, I imagine it's going to go by the way of the Bump Stock pretty quickly. And on that, you just won an award.

View attachment 277163

You don't live in America the AR15 is in common use

I think it's time to clean the gene poll with this one. Have a nice life.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Hmm. If what you say is true, why didn't the government round up all the guns after the Constitution was passed? I mean, didn't they know what they meant?

Mark

They put the power of the weapons into the States hands. In the beginning, the Feds had no Military at all. Then when things started going haywire on the Frontier, the Feds were allowed a force of 75,000 which was smaller than any one state could muster.

The states gave the federal government control of the bill of rights.

Again, the Bill of Rights is a fee good document that was voted on to make a couple of leaders feel good. It's still just the first 10 amendments of the previously written and ratified Constitution of the United States. The Bill of rights, no matter how much importance you place on it, has exactly zero legal meaning in any court in the land. The States didn't give a thing back to the Feds with the Bill of Rights./

So due process doesn't have any legal meaning in a court of law?

According to the Bill of Rights, no. According to the US Constitution of the United States, Yes. Not once has any court ever ruled that something was UnBill of Rightable.

Did you just have a stroke? WTF does THAT mean?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Hmm. If what you say is true, why didn't the government round up all the guns after the Constitution was passed? I mean, didn't they know what they meant?

Mark

They put the power of the weapons into the States hands. In the beginning, the Feds had no Military at all. Then when things started going haywire on the Frontier, the Feds were allowed a force of 75,000 which was smaller than any one state could muster.

The states gave the federal government control of the bill of rights.

Again, the Bill of Rights is a fee good document that was voted on to make a couple of leaders feel good. It's still just the first 10 amendments of the previously written and ratified Constitution of the United States. The Bill of rights, no matter how much importance you place on it, has exactly zero legal meaning in any court in the land. The States didn't give a thing back to the Feds with the Bill of Rights./

You really never graduated from high school, did you? You must have forged your diploma.

No one could be that stupid and actually have a valid diploma.

Does this guy have any functioning brain cells other than those that maintain life support?

I honestly do not understand how someone can be that stupid, unless he is somewhere in a home and he gets access to a computer. He would not have enough sense to clean himself!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The reason they were banned 10 years ago was that they weren't in common use of the time. Now they are.

They still aren't. Only a minority actually owns them. But a portion of the most violent murderers on teh planet in the United States do own them and use them so the Cops had to convert to them as well. The cops found that with their standard sidearms, shotguns and Model 70s, they were severely outgunned and had to uparm. Even today, there are many more conventional firearms than ARs in the average home. But when you find an AR, you often times find a Cache of ARs so the numbers look different unless you look at it that way.

Here is a good question. Why would I need 14 or more ARs like some do have? Why would I have even 5 Model 70 (or that type) of hunting rifles unless they were of a different caliber? Would I own 15 Model 700BDL 308s? But it appears there are enough AR owners out there with multiple ARs that that squew the percentages and you gunnutters try and misrepresent those figures. That used to work but more and more regular people are seeing through your BS because everyone elses lives depend on it.

They are the most popular widely used rifle in America.

You must live somewhere in South America. I live in the United States of America and around here, the most widely used rifle in America is the Savage Model 60 Semi Auto .22 LR. And unlike your AR, it's usually only one copy in a given home. Meaning, it's in almost every home of the 42 to 45% of the homes with Firearms in it in the Unites States. Meanwhile, your AR is in caches with MOST homes not having a copy. Now, unless you have a new attachment where you can fire 15 or 20 of your ARs all at the same time then it's NOT the most widely used rifle in America.

If you have invented such a device, I imagine it's going to go by the way of the Bump Stock pretty quickly. And on that, you just won an award.

View attachment 277163

You don't live in America the AR15 is in common use

I think it's time to clean the gene poll with this one. Have a nice life.

Wait a minute! There is no need for you to harm yourself! We can probably find you some help.

Besides, I have heard that chlorine tastes bad!

 

[okfine]

So we're dyin' for our freedoms ....again.....~S~

If you aren't willing to fight for it you don't deserve it.

fight who? ourselves?

~S~

No, it's the boooogie man.

 

[okfine]

Only a moron would want to give up a right that allowed them the best outcome for their survival. Those people have mental issues and should be silenced and locked away for their own safety.

Survival from what?

Mass shootings are not due to mental illness. Studies have proven this.

Putting a gun in a home that was without one, increases the risk to those living in that house.

People wanting to own an AR-15 type rifle have mental issues.

From idiots like you

Why would I care what a fucking dumbass like you does? Ever wonder why you think so any people are out to get you that you put your family at risk every day?

You just said you will tirelessly work to ban AR15's you are attacking me and I will return the favor.

Wow, you are really fucked up.

He likes to threaten people here on this board. He is just a big scared dummy.

 

[RealDave]

They put the power of the weapons into the States hands. In the beginning, the Feds had no Military at all. Then when things started going haywire on the Frontier, the Feds were allowed a force of 75,000 which was smaller than any one state could muster.

The states gave the federal government control of the bill of rights.

Again, the Bill of Rights is a fee good document that was voted on to make a couple of leaders feel good. It's still just the first 10 amendments of the previously written and ratified Constitution of the United States. The Bill of rights, no matter how much importance you place on it, has exactly zero legal meaning in any court in the land. The States didn't give a thing back to the Feds with the Bill of Rights./

So due process doesn't have any legal meaning in a court of law?

According to the Bill of Rights, no. According to the US Constitution of the United States, Yes. Not once has any court ever ruled that something was UnBill of Rightable.

Due process comes from the bill of rights.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
{{meta.pageTitle}}
Cases - Search and seizure
Abel v. United States[/paste:font]
Was Abel properly arrested pursuant to an administrative Immigration and Naturalization Service warrant despite an overlapping FBI investigation for espionage? Were the Fourth and Fifth Amendments violated when the United States searched and seized evidence from Abel while he was in custody pursuant to an INS warrant?

Adams v. Williams[/paste:font]
A case in which the Court held that the Fourth Amendment allows a police officer, acting only on a tip from an informant, to approach a person and remove a weapon concealed in the person’s waistband.
Aguilar v. Texas[/paste:font]

Air Pollution Variance Board of Colorado v. Western Alfalfa Corporation[/paste:font]

Alabama v. White[/paste:font]
Does an anonymous tip alone provide a reasonable suspicion sufficient to stop and search an individual’s car?

Alderman v. United States[/paste:font]
(1) Do the petitioners have standing to object to surveillance evidence without prior screening in camera?


(2) Must evidence be excluded from trial if the government unlawfully overheard the petitioners' conversations or conversations occurring on the petitioners' premises, even if they were not present, or did not participate in, the conversations?

Almeida-Sanchez v. United States[/paste:font]

Arizona v. Evans[/paste:font]
Does the exclusionary rule prohibit the introduction of the evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment on the basis of an erroneous police record?

Arizona v. Gant[/paste:font]
A case in which the Court held that police may search a suspect's vehicle after his arrest only if it is reasonable to believe that the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search or that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of the arrest.
Arizona v. Hicks[/paste:font]
Was the search of the stereo equipment (a search beyond the exigencies of the original entry) reasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments?

Arizona v. Johnson[/paste:font]
A case in which the Court held that police may lawfully search an individual during a routine traffic stop if they believe him to be armed and dangerous, even if they had no reason to believe he was involved in criminal activity when he was searched.
Arkansas v. Sanders[/paste:font]
Did the warrantless search of the suitcase by the police violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments which prohibit unreasonable searches?

Atwater v. City of Lago Vista[/paste:font]
Does the Fourth Amendment, either by incorporating common-law restrictions on misdemeanor arrests or otherwise, limit a police officer's authority to arrest without warrant for minor criminal offenses?

Bailey v. United States[/paste:font]
A case in which the Court found that once an individual left the premises after being searched under a legal search warrant, the individual's detainment must be justified by means other than the warrant.
Beck v. Ohio[/paste:font]

Benanti v. United States[/paste:font]

Berger v. New York[/paste:font]

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics[/paste:font]
(1) Does violation of an individual’s Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure give rise to a federal claim for damages?


(2) Does governmental privilege extend to federal agents who clearly violate constitutional rights and act outside their authority?

Black v. United States[/paste:font]

Bond v. United States[/paste:font]
Does a law enforcement officer's physical manipulation of a bus passenger's carry-on luggage violate the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches?

Breithaupt v. Abram[/paste:font]

Brendlin v. California[/paste:font]
When a vehicle is subject to a traffic stop, is a passenger in the vehicle "detained" for purposes of the Fourth Amendment?

Brigham City v. Stuart[/paste:font]
What objectively reasonable level of concern is necessary to trigger the emergency aid exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement?

Brower v. Inyo County[/paste:font]
A case in which the Court held that a police roadblock could constitute an illegal seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
Brown v. Texas[/paste:font]
When the police detain someone because that person refused to identify himself, does it constitute a seizure subject to the restrictions of the Fourth Amendment?

Brown v. United States[/paste:font]

Bumper v. North Carolina[/paste:font]
A case in which the Court held that a search is not lawful under the Fourth Amendment if consent is given only after the police falsely claim to have a warrant.
Byrd v. United States[/paste:font]
A case in which the Court held that a driver of a rental car who has permission to drive the car but is not listed as an authorized driver on the rental agreement has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the rental car.
Cady v. Dombrowski[/paste:font]

California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz[/paste:font]

California v. Acevedo[/paste:font]
A case in which the Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment permits police to conduct a warrantless search of a container within an automobile if they have probable cause to believe the container holds evidence.
California v. Carney[/paste:font]
Does the warrantless search of a motor home violate the Fourth Amendment?

California v. Ciraolo[/paste:font]
Did the warrantless, aerial observation of Ciraolo's back yard from an altitude of 1,000 feet constitute an illegal search and violate the Fourth Amendment?

California v. Greenwood[/paste:font]
A case in which the Court held that garbage placed on the sidewalk was not protected under the Fourth Amendment.
California v. Hodari D.[/paste:font]
(1) Has a person who is not under the physical control of a police officer been "seized" under the Fourth Amendment when the officer is chasing that person?


(2) Can a person who is pursued by a police officer avoid prosecution by discarding incriminating evidence and asserting that he did so out of fear of an unlawful search?

California v. Rooney[/paste:font]

Camara v. Municipal Court of the City and County of San Francisco[/paste:font]
Do §503 of the SFHC, which authorizes inspection of private dwellings without a warrant, and §507, which makes it a crime to refuse such an inspection, violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments?

Cardwell v. Lewis[/paste:font]

Carpenter v. United States[/paste:font]
A case in which the Court held that the warrantless seizure and search of cell phone records revealing the location and movements of a cell phone user over the course of 127 days violates the Fourth Amendment.
Chambers v. Maroney[/paste:font]

Chapman v. United States[/paste:font]

Chimel v. California[/paste:font]
A case in which the Court held that searches following an arrest are limited to the area within immediate control of the suspect.
City of Indianapolis v. Edmond[/paste:font]
Are highway checkpoint programs, whose primary purpose is the discovery and interdiction of illegal narcotics, consistent with the Fourth Amendment?

City of Los Angeles v. Patel[/paste:font]
A case in which the Court determined that a municipal ordinance that allows the police to inspect hotel records without a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches unless the business owner is given the opportunity for pre-compliance review.
City of Ontario v. Quon[/paste:font]
A case in which the Court held that the city of Ontario's search of an employee's text messages did not violate his First Amendment rights because the search was not excessive in scope and was motivated by a legitimate work-related purpose.
Clinton v. Virginia[/paste:font]

Collins v. Virginia[/paste:font]
A case in which the Court held that a police officer cannot, under the Fourth Amendment, enter private property in order to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle parked a few feet from the house.
Colonnade Catering Corporation v. United States[/paste:font]
A case in which the Court held that while warrantless administrative searches and seizures of liquor pursuant to federal statute did not violate the Fourth Amendment, such search and seizures were not authorized by the statute in question.
ARGUED
Jan 15, 1970
DECIDED
Feb 25, 1970
CITATION
397 US 72 (1970)

So, you go from regulating assault type rifles to the Bill of Rights?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The states gave the federal government control of the bill of rights.

Again, the Bill of Rights is a fee good document that was voted on to make a couple of leaders feel good. It's still just the first 10 amendments of the previously written and ratified Constitution of the United States. The Bill of rights, no matter how much importance you place on it, has exactly zero legal meaning in any court in the land. The States didn't give a thing back to the Feds with the Bill of Rights./

So due process doesn't have any legal meaning in a court of law?

According to the Bill of Rights, no. According to the US Constitution of the United States, Yes. Not once has any court ever ruled that something was UnBill of Rightable.

Due process comes from the bill of rights.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
{{meta.pageTitle}}
Cases - Search and seizure
Abel v. United States[/paste:font]
Was Abel properly arrested pursuant to an administrative Immigration and Naturalization Service warrant despite an overlapping FBI investigation for espionage? Were the Fourth and Fifth Amendments violated when the United States searched and seized evidence from Abel while he was in custody pursuant to an INS warrant?

Adams v. Williams[/paste:font]
A case in which the Court held that the Fourth Amendment allows a police officer, acting only on a tip from an informant, to approach a person and remove a weapon concealed in the person’s waistband.
Aguilar v. Texas[/paste:font]

Air Pollution Variance Board of Colorado v. Western Alfalfa Corporation[/paste:font]

Alabama v. White[/paste:font]
Does an anonymous tip alone provide a reasonable suspicion sufficient to stop and search an individual’s car?

Alderman v. United States[/paste:font]
(1) Do the petitioners have standing to object to surveillance evidence without prior screening in camera?


(2) Must evidence be excluded from trial if the government unlawfully overheard the petitioners' conversations or conversations occurring on the petitioners' premises, even if they were not present, or did not participate in, the conversations?

Almeida-Sanchez v. United States[/paste:font]

Arizona v. Evans[/paste:font]
Does the exclusionary rule prohibit the introduction of the evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment on the basis of an erroneous police record?

Arizona v. Gant[/paste:font]
A case in which the Court held that police may search a suspect's vehicle after his arrest only if it is reasonable to believe that the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search or that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of the arrest.
Arizona v. Hicks[/paste:font]
Was the search of the stereo equipment (a search beyond the exigencies of the original entry) reasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments?

Arizona v. Johnson[/paste:font]
A case in which the Court held that police may lawfully search an individual during a routine traffic stop if they believe him to be armed and dangerous, even if they had no reason to believe he was involved in criminal activity when he was searched.
Arkansas v. Sanders[/paste:font]
Did the warrantless search of the suitcase by the police violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments which prohibit unreasonable searches?

Atwater v. City of Lago Vista[/paste:font]
Does the Fourth Amendment, either by incorporating common-law restrictions on misdemeanor arrests or otherwise, limit a police officer's authority to arrest without warrant for minor criminal offenses?

Bailey v. United States[/paste:font]
A case in which the Court found that once an individual left the premises after being searched under a legal search warrant, the individual's detainment must be justified by means other than the warrant.
Beck v. Ohio[/paste:font]

Benanti v. United States[/paste:font]

Berger v. New York[/paste:font]

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics[/paste:font]
(1) Does violation of an individual’s Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure give rise to a federal claim for damages?


(2) Does governmental privilege extend to federal agents who clearly violate constitutional rights and act outside their authority?

Black v. United States[/paste:font]

Bond v. United States[/paste:font]
Does a law enforcement officer's physical manipulation of a bus passenger's carry-on luggage violate the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches?

Breithaupt v. Abram[/paste:font]

Brendlin v. California[/paste:font]
When a vehicle is subject to a traffic stop, is a passenger in the vehicle "detained" for purposes of the Fourth Amendment?

Brigham City v. Stuart[/paste:font]
What objectively reasonable level of concern is necessary to trigger the emergency aid exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement?

Brower v. Inyo County[/paste:font]
A case in which the Court held that a police roadblock could constitute an illegal seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
Brown v. Texas[/paste:font]
When the police detain someone because that person refused to identify himself, does it constitute a seizure subject to the restrictions of the Fourth Amendment?

Brown v. United States[/paste:font]

Bumper v. North Carolina[/paste:font]
A case in which the Court held that a search is not lawful under the Fourth Amendment if consent is given only after the police falsely claim to have a warrant.
Byrd v. United States[/paste:font]
A case in which the Court held that a driver of a rental car who has permission to drive the car but is not listed as an authorized driver on the rental agreement has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the rental car.
Cady v. Dombrowski[/paste:font]

California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz[/paste:font]

California v. Acevedo[/paste:font]
A case in which the Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment permits police to conduct a warrantless search of a container within an automobile if they have probable cause to believe the container holds evidence.
California v. Carney[/paste:font]
Does the warrantless search of a motor home violate the Fourth Amendment?

California v. Ciraolo[/paste:font]
Did the warrantless, aerial observation of Ciraolo's back yard from an altitude of 1,000 feet constitute an illegal search and violate the Fourth Amendment?

California v. Greenwood[/paste:font]
A case in which the Court held that garbage placed on the sidewalk was not protected under the Fourth Amendment.
California v. Hodari D.[/paste:font]
(1) Has a person who is not under the physical control of a police officer been "seized" under the Fourth Amendment when the officer is chasing that person?


(2) Can a person who is pursued by a police officer avoid prosecution by discarding incriminating evidence and asserting that he did so out of fear of an unlawful search?

California v. Rooney[/paste:font]

Camara v. Municipal Court of the City and County of San Francisco[/paste:font]
Do §503 of the SFHC, which authorizes inspection of private dwellings without a warrant, and §507, which makes it a crime to refuse such an inspection, violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments?

Cardwell v. Lewis[/paste:font]

Carpenter v. United States[/paste:font]
A case in which the Court held that the warrantless seizure and search of cell phone records revealing the location and movements of a cell phone user over the course of 127 days violates the Fourth Amendment.
Chambers v. Maroney[/paste:font]

Chapman v. United States[/paste:font]

Chimel v. California[/paste:font]
A case in which the Court held that searches following an arrest are limited to the area within immediate control of the suspect.
City of Indianapolis v. Edmond[/paste:font]
Are highway checkpoint programs, whose primary purpose is the discovery and interdiction of illegal narcotics, consistent with the Fourth Amendment?

City of Los Angeles v. Patel[/paste:font]
A case in which the Court determined that a municipal ordinance that allows the police to inspect hotel records without a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches unless the business owner is given the opportunity for pre-compliance review.
City of Ontario v. Quon[/paste:font]
A case in which the Court held that the city of Ontario's search of an employee's text messages did not violate his First Amendment rights because the search was not excessive in scope and was motivated by a legitimate work-related purpose.
Clinton v. Virginia[/paste:font]

Collins v. Virginia[/paste:font]
A case in which the Court held that a police officer cannot, under the Fourth Amendment, enter private property in order to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle parked a few feet from the house.
Colonnade Catering Corporation v. United States[/paste:font]
A case in which the Court held that while warrantless administrative searches and seizures of liquor pursuant to federal statute did not violate the Fourth Amendment, such search and seizures were not authorized by the statute in question.
ARGUED
Jan 15, 1970
DECIDED
Feb 25, 1970
CITATION
397 US 72 (1970)

So, you go from regulating assault type rifles to the Bill of Rights?

Those weapons of war you leftist call them are protected by the second amendment confirmed by the Supreme Court.
Do you have a point to make?

 

[RealDave]

Is that why they were banned for 10 years? It wasn't the Supreme Court that did away with the ban. The legislature wouldn't renew it. It died in its sunset clause.

The reason they were banned 10 years ago was that they weren't in common use of the time. Now they are.

The ban was from 1994 to 2004. At the time it took affect, it is estimated 1.4 million "assault" weapons were owned. It also banned magazines of over 10 rounds.

there are over 20 million in the hands of citizens the most owned firearm system in America 1.4 million wasn't in common use. over 20 million is in common use.

millions pf people use opioids.

and? where in the bill of rights is there a civil right to take any drug you want?

Where does it say I can't? Isn't that your argument on AR-15s