Thank you for a succinct comment, bigrebnc. Perhaps SCOTUS will agree with your interpretation. I don't think it will, but then again I thought Roberts was going to sink ACA.
Lewis and Miller is lewis and miller's interpretation not mine.
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.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Thank you for a succinct comment, bigrebnc. Perhaps SCOTUS will agree with your interpretation. I don't think it will, but then again I thought Roberts was going to sink ACA.
they told you that, did they?They didn't intend Americans to own every kind of gun imaginable, that is for sure.
Miller and lewis state that the only weapons protected by the second amendment are thoseNeither McDonald nor Heller were great second amendment victory's the ruling were to vague and left the door open to gun restrictions. Miller and Lewis are more specific dealing with gun types.,
Actually it looks like they just referred to the National Firearms Act, which was more specific with gun types.
that have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia
Also the mom of this kid was a gun supporter she even tought him how to shoot.
Miller and lewis state that the only weapons protected by the second amendment are thoseActually it looks like they just referred to the National Firearms Act, which was more specific with gun types.
that have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia
Did they define what reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia was? As I see it, any weapon that has a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia is any weapon the government has available to it.
Miller and lewis state that the only weapons protected by the second amendment are thoseActually it looks like they just referred to the National Firearms Act, which was more specific with gun types.
that have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia
Did they define what reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia was? As I see it, any weapon that has a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia is any weapon the government has available to it.
Miller and lewis state that the only weapons protected by the second amendment are those
that have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia
Did they define what reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia was? As I see it, any weapon that has a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia is any weapon the government has available to it.
Yeah? According the USSC that is total bullshit. Try to keep up.
Also the mom of this kid was a gun supporter she even tought him how to shoot.
You can't legislate laws against stupidity.
As passed by the Congress:It's interesting that the 2nd amendment clearly states why the FF's included the 2nd amendment and yet the poll did not include that as an option. Do I detect something of an agenda?
So, as clearly stated by the Founding Fathers for anyone who a) bothers to actually read the amendment and b) doesn't ignore what they don't like in it, it was created in order to guarantee the ability of the individual state to maintain a well-regulated militia. Which means, of course, that while the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed, it can be regulated.
Did they define what reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia was? As I see it, any weapon that has a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia is any weapon the government has available to it.
Yeah? According the USSC that is total bullshit. Try to keep up.
That is what the supreme court has ruled, it's not bullshit.
Miller and lewis state that the only weapons protected by the second amendment are those
that have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia
Did they define what reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia was? As I see it, any weapon that has a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia is any weapon the government has available to it.
Miller
"all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
In common use would means what the military has.
Lewis reaffirms what miller said.
Then why is Japan's murder rate by guns so low?What is creating the problem is that there are now more than 300 million of us crammed into smaller and smaller spaces. As the population rises and the stress of overcrowding increases, the number of these incidents will rise. Weapon bans won't change that, only make it minimally more inconvenient.
People don't pass amendments...Congress does. And, you are not going to get enough people to demand that Congress pass an amendment banning firearms...period. You can have all the pipe dreams you want but, it isn't going to happen.
I will agree with you entirely on this point, that increasing numbers of people crowded into one place is causing a problem. And, folks are going to have to start learning how to deal with it and start learning how to get along because it likely isn't going to get any better for quite some time.
I am aware of the process for an amendment. I was being general rather than specific. In theory, if the people want the amendment then their representatives will initiate it and the various states will ratify it. Personally, I don't want a change to the amendment and I don't see much chance for it. I don't believe people should be restricted from owning any weapon if they use it lawfully, so long as the weapon itself is not inherently dangerous. Such as a 500 pound bomb sitting in my neighbor's garage. However, just because I feel that way does not mean I am just going to pretend the 2nd amendment does not say what it says or that the SC has not interpreted it the way they have. The fact is the SC does not see it as an unlimited right and the states and feds do have the ability to regulate. Like it or not, that is the reality.
Define "inherently dangerous". How is a 500 pound bomb in your neighbor's garage any more "inherently dangerous" than a .22? I love how some folks use these linguistic gymnastics to add drama to words. Such as, "assault weapon". If I hit you in the head with my computer monitor, it's an "assault weapon". And, it's "inherently dangerous"...too. Life is "inherently dangerous". The day you were born, your life was put in peril.
Further, to regulate and "ban"? Two different things. If "assault weapons" are banned, they're not being "regulated". They're being "banned". If 30-round clips are banned? They're not being "regulated". They're being "banned".
Then why is Japan's murder rate by guns so low?What is creating the problem is that there are now more than 300 million of us crammed into smaller and smaller spaces. As the population rises and the stress of overcrowding increases, the number of these incidents will rise. Weapon bans won't change that, only make it minimally more inconvenient.
Then why is Japan's murder rate by guns so low?What is creating the problem is that there are now more than 300 million of us crammed into smaller and smaller spaces. As the population rises and the stress of overcrowding increases, the number of these incidents will rise. Weapon bans won't change that, only make it minimally more inconvenient.