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.
If you're going to make the claim, then you provide the links. And, even without links if it were true, you should be able to on your own explain how, in light of the Tenth, rights can be abridged.Rights may be abridged for various reasons. Look up the SC reference to that in light of the Tenth.
M14 Shooter oft argues that the 2nd Amendment only applies to arms in common use and also not to extra dangerous weapons. Many other so-called, self-proclaimed-yet-fake, supporters of the 2nd Amendment on here have made the same arguments. So, according to many here, since a drone is not in common use as a weapon it can be banned.Where does it say that in the 2nd?
Assault weapons are protectedNon sequitur
There are arms whose possession are not within the scope of Second Amendment protections.
Back in the 80s the anti gun nuts wanted to ban handguns.Where does it say that in the 2nd?
Interesting point. If a neighbor flies a weaponized drone onto my property or even on his property but where it could attack me then I am justified in shooting him dead with my rifle.
The Scotsman agrees that not all weapons are protected by the 2nd.M14 Shooter oft argues that the 2nd Amendment only applies to arms in common use and also not to extra dangerous weapons.
The line was drawn in 1939 US v Miller any weapon that would serve efficiently and maintain an effective militia and supplied by the citizen is protected by the second amendment. And FYI the weapon not protected according to the Miller court was a sawed off shotgun. Side note Jack Miller originally won his case but on appeal an no defendant to show up during the appeals process the ruling was against Jack Miller but Jack Miller was never heard from againThe Scotsman agrees that not all weapons are protected by the 2nd.
Thus, he agree there is a line somewhere that separates protected weapons from non-protected weapons.
So, Scotsman:
Where is that line, and how do you know?
You clearly have not noticed -- the Scotsman does not rexognize the USSC as the authority on the issue.The line was drawn in 1939 US v Miller any weapon that would serve efficiently and maintain an effective militia and supplied by the citizen is protected by the second amendment.
I understand that but you asked where the line was drawn. That was the line. I also added why we were at that point. What you missed while I edited my postYou clearly have not noticed -- the Scotsman does not rexognize the USSC as the authority on the issue.
The Constitution, see, is the authority.
Jaxson, I hate to give you bad news but your 2nd amendment rights have been stomped on for centuries.You want to infringe my 2nd rights, you must be either a Democrat or a commie, which is it?
What weapon is on your drone?I just went out and bought one!
Yaaaay ME!
Understood, and agree.I understand that but you asked where the line was drawn. That was the line.
Understood, and agree.
I was asking the Scotsman.
He continually refuses to answer.
Scotsman? Sounds like elizabethian third person conversation. Don't tell me he's doing that?
Not centuries just within 1934. But we're taking our rights back. Firearms is what they are called a gun is for fucking.Jaxson, I hate to give you bad news but your 2nd amendment rights have been stomped on for centuries.
It is the right to "bear arms" not guns. They are not talking body parts. They intended it to have the right to bear weapons of war.
Fight for all weapons of war if you want to fight for the 2nd amendment.
He's the True Scotsman.
I understand itHe's the True Scotsman.
If you don't agree with him, you're not a Scotsman.
I'm sure he understand the reference.No true Scotsman - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I actually am of Scottish heritage.
You want to infringe my 2nd rights, you must be either a Democrat or a commie, which is it?
lol...and if you get to indulge that fantasy aloud your right to free speech has been fulfilled, no need for journalism.For example, one has the right to possess a handgun, which is within the scope of the Second Amendment; an armed drone, not.
If you're going to make the claim, then you provide the links. And, even without links if it were true, you should be able to on your own explain how, in light of the Tenth, rights can be abridged.
supreme.justia.com
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
So the 13 amendment can be abridged for various reasons? How about the 19th amendment? How about the 15th amendment? You don't get a fair trial you don't get a right to representation.Rights may be abridged for various reasons. Look up the SC reference to that in light of the Tenth.
