Do You Support The "Gun Show Loophole?"

[nodoginnafight]

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

I agree

 

[Uncensored2008]

you mad bro?

Yes.

You leftist want a civil war.

Try to enact this, and you get your wish.

I told you what I advocate

so clean out your diaper

And I told you to move to North Korea, where they already have what you want.

 

[Dubya]

Background checks for all gun sales, requiring gun dealers to maintain an inventory, and maitaining a database of gun sales don't have any Constitutional ramifications. Period.

So let it be written
So let it be done

Fuck off, thug.

What you scumbags have proposed so far;



Possession of hollow point bullets and similar assault bullets a felony.
Must register and report ammo purchases. Only purchase max 500 rounds.
10 round magazine limit
ALL magazines must be fixed to the gun (can not be removed without the use of a tool)
100% prohibition of all magazines greater than 10 rounds. All previous grandfathered magazines become illegal. Felony if you keep one.
Changing definition of shotgun revolving cylinder — Basically only single shot shotguns will remain legal.
Bullet Buttons will become illegal — All AR and AK style rifles that are currently equipped with them will be designated Assault Weapons. Felony to possess.
All gun owners now must be licensed like drivers.
All gun owners must carry gun liability insurance

List of Proposed California Gun Control Measures -- 500 Round Max, No Grandfathering, No Detachable Mags, Mandatory License | The Truth About Guns

I do say fuck you.

you mad bro?

I told you what I advocate

so clean out your diaper

Get him to change Ted Nugent while he's at it!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.

United States v. Miller - 307 U.S. 174 (1939) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

And so, if there WAS evidence that that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" --- or any other firearm --- at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, they WOULD say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument, as it WOULD be within judicial notice that these weapons are any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

Doesn't get much more clear than that.

The atomic bomb made the day of militia obsolete. Militia was only mentioned in the 2nd to encourage the states to have them. It didn't involve a requirement.

You're a fucking idiot without a god damn clue.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

And so, if there WAS evidence that that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" --- or any other firearm --- at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, they WOULD say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument, as it WOULD be within judicial notice that these weapons are any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

Doesn't get much more clear than that.

The atomic bomb made the day of militia obsolete. Militia was only mentioned in the 2nd to encourage the states to have them. It didn't involve a requirement.

You're a fucking idiot without a god damn clue.

A pre-pubescent lunatic. I cannot fathom why anyone responds to him.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

I agree

Unless Miller has been over turned Miller still stands as precedence

 

[Dubya]

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.

United States v. Miller - 307 U.S. 174 (1939) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

Either that or you have to join the National Guard to get a gun ......

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

The 2nd Amendment involves the populace or general public and isn't an individual right in that sense.

 

[nodoginnafight]

you mad bro?

Yes.

You leftist want a civil war.

Try to enact this, and you get your wish.

I told you what I advocate

so clean out your diaper

And I told you to move to North Korea, where they already have what you want.

stop foaming at the mouth long enough to show me something I advocated that is out of whack with the U.S. Constitition.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Either that or you have to join the National Guard to get a gun ......

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

The 2nd Amendment involves the populace or general public and isn't an individual right in that sense.

Miller vs. US calls you a lying sack of shit you fucking coward.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The 2nd Amendment involves the populace or general public and isn't an individual right in that sense.

Try again, sparky.

{For many years, scholars and anti-gun proponents have argued that the Second Amendment provides a right to own guns only in connection with service in a militia, and that this right should not extend to private individuals. That argument was roundly rejected by the Supreme Court. In an opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that the right to own a gun is not connected with service in a militia; rather, it is a personal right to own a firearm for "traditionally lawful purposes" such as self-defense within the home.

The bottom line: You have a constitutional right to possess a firearm regardless of whether you are serving in a militia.}

Gun Ownership Rights Under Heller | Nolo.com

 

[nodoginnafight]

you mad bro?

Yes.

You leftist want a civil war.

Try to enact this, and you get your wish.

I told you what I advocate

so clean out your diaper

And I told you to move to North Korea, where they already have what you want.

stop foaming at the mouth long enough to show me something I advocated that is out of whack with the U.S. Constitition.

waiting ......

 

[Dubya]

you mad bro?

Yes.

You leftist want a civil war.

Try to enact this, and you get your wish.

I told you what I advocate

so clean out your diaper

And I told you to move to North Korea, where they already have what you want.

Be specific! What do we have to do to get a civil war out of you Ned Beattyite, Ted Nugent types? Let us know and we'll get our politicians right on it!

 

[Deepbluediver]

Either that or you have to join the National Guard to get a gun ......

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

The 2nd Amendment involves the populace or general public and isn't an individual right in that sense.

Since the population is made up of individuals, I'm not really sure what the difference is.

My understanding is that since a militia is a force of private citizens, as opposed to a standing army, it was expected that people would own their own weapons, and would bring them along when the militia was called upon.
The country, the population, and even weapons have all changed significantly in the 200+ years since the constitution was written. Perhaps rather than arguing over how the original signers would have interpretted a modern situation, it would be better to focus on what is most beneficial for our country today.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

I agree

Unless Miller has been over turned Miller still stands as precedence

Heller, in addition to confirming that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, expanded the ruling in Miller to include weapons in common use for traditionally legal purposes.

For any honest person, this ends the debate as to what sort of firearms are protected by the 2nd.

 

[Dubya]

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

The 2nd Amendment involves the populace or general public and isn't an individual right in that sense.

Since the population is made up of individuals, I'm not really sure what the difference is.

My understanding is that since a militia is a force of private citizens, as opposed to a standing army, it was expected that people would own their own weapons, and would bring them along when the militia was called upon.
The country, the population, and even weapons have all changed significantly in the 200+ years since the constitution was written. Perhaps rather than arguing over how the original signers would have interpretted a modern situation, it would be better to focus on what is most beneficial for our country today.

There is a very big difference, because it's perfectly legal to take guns away from individuals, but not the general public.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Yes.

You leftist want a civil war.

Try to enact this, and you get your wish.



And I told you to move to North Korea, where they already have what you want.

stop foaming at the mouth long enough to show me something I advocated that is out of whack with the U.S. Constitition.

waiting ......

STILL waiting

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yes.

You leftist want a civil war.

Try to enact this, and you get your wish.



And I told you to move to North Korea, where they already have what you want.

stop foaming at the mouth long enough to show me something I advocated that is out of whack with the U.S. Constitition.

waiting ......

You gotta be kidding me.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ort-the-gun-show-loophole-87.html#post6826899

 

[Deepbluediver]

There is a very big difference, because it's perfectly legal to take guns away from individuals, but not the general public.

How do you take guns away from individuals but not "the general public"? Are you proposing we have some sort of shared-gun pool where you can go borrow one when you want it?

If private individuals can't own guns, then how do you arm a militia?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Be specific! What do we have to do to get a civil war out of you Ned Beattyite, Ted Nugent types? Let us know and we'll get our politicians right on it!

Just continue being the Pol Pot types you already are.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There is a very big difference, because it's perfectly legal to take guns away from individuals, but not the general public.

How do you take guns away from individuals but not "the general public"? Are you proposing we have some sort of shared-gun pool where you can go borrow one when you want it?

Pay him no attention - he deliberately posts things that make no sense.