The 2nd amendment does not say "Except for felons" or "Except as provided by law". Why not?

[Wry Catcher]

You cannot seem to post honestly.

1. If some gun control is unconstitutional, than some gun control is constitutional, something you've denied repeatedly until now
2. The 2nd A., according to Scalia's written decision, is his opinion - four other justices disagreed.
3. Gun control as I have written has never been about confiscation, I have argued for:

• Licensing of all gun owners as a right of the States (10th A.)
• Registration of guns with an insurance company (firewall from the State / Federal Gov't)
• Sales of guns and purchasers only to legally licensed persons
• Special licenses for interstate transportation/sales/sporting activities (hunting)

You are such a stupid fuck


What do you gain in exchange for giving up your right to defend your life?


.

FU - I've read you posts, you are another who should never ever call anyone stupid.

quit stonewalling and answer the fucking question



You are such a stupid fuck


What do you gain in exchange for giving up your right to defend your life?

I'm not a coward nor paranoid, so defending my life is about exercise and eating well. I don't feel the need to carry a gun to the grocery store, why do you?

OK then, was it so hard to admit that you are an ignorant fuck?

Continue eating well and exercising.

I do not interfere with your approach to longevity - why the fuck do you interfere with mine?


.

I don't. I didn't write the law, in my career I enforced the laws. You don't like the law where you live, get your ass of the coach and seek elected office, make speeches and stop whining.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Slippery slope arguments are not logical, nor instructive.

NYC's rules are not proof that those in power do not want normal citizens to have guns!

The theory behind background checks is to be as sure as possible that the perspective gun owner is "normal", not crazed and therefore allowing him or her to own or possess a gun presents a clear danger to others.

Then what else could be the reason for a 3-6 month wait, a long, drawn out application process, and over $1000 in fees?????

A background check can be done in minutes, as is done in the rest of the country.

Please don't be this dense.

For several years I did background checks on LE candidates, it takes a hell of a lot more time than you might think. Live scan was a great asset, but not every agency has a database nor are reporting out records uniform among different states, agencies, the civil and criminal court systems and the mental health systems.

I'm not trying to be a Law enforcement officer, I want to own a handgun and keep it in my apartment. Again, why does it take 3-6 months and $1000 for that?

Ask someone who knows and cares.

I think, try it sometime, that the obsessed gun owners so emotionally attached to guns, maybe

• Cowardly
• Paranoid
• Both Cowardly and Paranoid
• Suffer from the Zimmerman Syndrome (a Walter Mitty dream that they and their gun will kill someone and be deemed a hero)
• Profit from the sale of guns

BTW, I support sane, sober and honest law abiding citizens right to own a gun for self protection and the protection of their home and property.

Liars, and M14 is not the only one, want everyone to believe gun control = gun confiscation.

You didn't answer the question. Again, why does it take so long and cost so much? My supposition is that it is to discourage gun ownership, which you then dismissed, but have yet to provide any plausible backup for said dismissal.

Run away little girl, run away.

Gee, your final comment is mindful of a punk, safely confined in a cage (of course you are a punk, safely hiding behind your keyboard)

 

[martybegan]

Then what else could be the reason for a 3-6 month wait, a long, drawn out application process, and over $1000 in fees?????

A background check can be done in minutes, as is done in the rest of the country.

Please don't be this dense.

For several years I did background checks on LE candidates, it takes a hell of a lot more time than you might think. Live scan was a great asset, but not every agency has a database nor are reporting out records uniform among different states, agencies, the civil and criminal court systems and the mental health systems.

I'm not trying to be a Law enforcement officer, I want to own a handgun and keep it in my apartment. Again, why does it take 3-6 months and $1000 for that?

Ask someone who knows and cares.

I think, try it sometime, that the obsessed gun owners so emotionally attached to guns, maybe

• Cowardly
• Paranoid
• Both Cowardly and Paranoid
• Suffer from the Zimmerman Syndrome (a Walter Mitty dream that they and their gun will kill someone and be deemed a hero)
• Profit from the sale of guns

BTW, I support sane, sober and honest law abiding citizens right to own a gun for self protection and the protection of their home and property.

Liars, and M14 is not the only one, want everyone to believe gun control = gun confiscation.

You didn't answer the question. Again, why does it take so long and cost so much? My supposition is that it is to discourage gun ownership, which you then dismissed, but have yet to provide any plausible backup for said dismissal.

Run away little girl, run away.

Gee, your final comment is mindful of a punk, safely confined in a cage (of course you are a punk, safely hiding behind your keyboard)

Oh, going the internet tough guy route? Comical. This coming from a guy claiming he is 6'2 and 230.

I asked you to back up your claim, you can't and now you get all huffy.

Nut up, or shut up.

 

[Contumacious]

You are such a stupid fuck


What do you gain in exchange for giving up your right to defend your life?


.

FU - I've read you posts, you are another who should never ever call anyone stupid.

quit stonewalling and answer the fucking question



You are such a stupid fuck


What do you gain in exchange for giving up your right to defend your life?

I'm not a coward nor paranoid, so defending my life is about exercise and eating well. I don't feel the need to carry a gun to the grocery store, why do you?

OK then, was it so hard to admit that you are an ignorant fuck?

Continue eating well and exercising.

I do not interfere with your approach to longevity - why the fuck do you interfere with mine?


.

I don't. I didn't write the law, in my career I enforced the laws. You don't like the law where you live, get your ass of the coach and seek elected office, make speeches and stop whining.

I have heard the " I was following Orders" bullshit excuse a million times. If you are an American then you know that the Supremacy clause states that the CONSTITUTION (1787) is the Supreme Law of the Land.

Consequently, statutes and case "law" that transgress upon our rights are VOID.

If it is true that you are in LAW enforcement then the SUPREMACY CLAUSE applies to you. Stop using stupid pretexts to harass our people.


.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You cannot seem to post honestly.

1. If some gun control is unconstitutional, than some gun control is constitutional, something you've denied repeatedly until now
2. The 2nd A., according to Scalia's written decision, is his opinion - four other justices disagreed.
3. Gun control as I have written has never been about confiscation, I have argued for:

Repeating the same lie over and over and over again will never imbue it with any vestige of truth.

Yes, the ultimate goal of gun-control advocates is, and has always been, to disarm honest citizens. They rarely admit this, but it's true, and it's obvious. They are on the side of criminals and tyrants, and against that of honest citizens. This has been true since the Ku Klux Klan got the first gun control laws passed to disarm blacks. It was true when criminal-gangster-turned-politician Timothy Sullivan got New York to pass the Sullivan Act—the progenitor of all modern gun control laws—specially crafted to give his own gang and its allies an advantage against rival gangs and prospective victims. And it remains true, to this day, and will remain true forever.

Gun control. advocates are willfully on the side of criminals, and against that of honest citizens. They know very well,and they intend, that only honest citizens will be constrained from being armed by the laws which they propose, which will have no impact at all on criminals' access to weapons.

Please spare us the insult of repeating these lies, as if to imply that we are stupid enough to believe them.

• Licensing of all gun owners as a right of the States (10th A.)

The Tenth Amendment does not say that every power not delegated to the federal government belongs to the states. It says that these powers belong to the states, or to the people. If a power belongs to the people, then it does not belong to the states, nor to the federal government.

To whom does the right to keep and bear arms belong? Does the second amendment say anything about any right of the state?

• Registration of guns with an insurance company (firewall from the State / Federal Gov't)
• Sales of guns and purchasers only to legally licensed persons
• Special licenses for interstate transportation/sales/sporting activities (hunting)

By definition, you do not need a license or a permit to exercise a right. Everything that you propose here is blatantly unconstitutional.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Enforce current gun laws, more gun laws will not save one life. Dumbass

The vast majority of extant gun laws don't save lives either, and serve no legitimate purpose.

The only gun law that we need, the only one that we need to enforce, is the Second Amendment.

If there is any other law that would serve a useful purpose, it would be a law that holds corrupt public servants criminally responsible for any act that violates the Constitutional rights of the people, including that right affirmed by the Second Amendment.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The first major so-called "gun control" law in this country was the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA). It imposed, among other things, huge taxes on every sale or transfer of certain types of guns and accessories.

Cops took a short-barreled shotgun from a man named Jack Miller with no current evidence he had committed any crime (though he was a known bootlegger during Prohibition), citing this law as their authority. Miller sued with a pro-bono lawyer, and a Federal judge took about 20 minutes to find the NFA unconstitutional.

The Feds took the unusual step of appealing directly to the Supreme Court, in 1939. The pro bono lawyer couldn't find his client (Miller was found later, dead in a stream bed with four bullets in his chest), and didn't want to go to the huge amount of work required to prepare a Supreme Court case he probably wouldn't be paid for. So while the government brought in the usual battery of high-powered lawyers to prosecute the case, nobody showed up for the defense. One side of the courtroom was completely empty.

The government took advantage of this windfall, and read several flat lies into the record (the 2nd amendment only applies to military-style weapons, only applies to members of a militia or other military unit, etc.). The Justices, having no one to disprove them, rubber-stamped them into an "opinion" and declared Miller guilty in absentia. This "opinion" is full of twisted and apologetic language such as "In the absence of any evidence showing.....", "We cannot say that...", and "It is not within judicial notice that..." as the Justices tried to point out that they had heard only one side of the case.

There are a number of interesting things about this ruling.

For one thing, it was recognized at the time, that the federal government had no jurisdiction over most intra-state matters. The NFA notwithstanding, Jack Miller didn't run afoul of it by merely possessing a short-barreled shotgun, but rather by carrying it across state lines, which then brought it under the already stretched, application of the interstate commerce clause. Had he stayed within one state with it, under the prevailing legal principles in effect at the time, the federal government would not have been able to touch him.

As you pointed out, nobody appeared before the Supreme Court to argue Miller's side. Nevertheless, as one-sided as the proceedings were, it's remarkable how much the resulting ruling came out on the side of the Second Amendment. What they found, basically, is that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess any weapon that has a military application, that one might use in connection with participation in a militia. I think that if there was any competent representation of Miller's side, the court might have been swayed from this, into supporting a broader right to possess any reasonable arm, regardless of military application.

In any event, any competent representation of Miller's side would have pointed out to the court that a short-barreled shot gun was, at the time, a standard-issue weapon in our own Army, and with this fact established, by the principles that the court otherwise found, it would have had to rule the other way, that Miller did indeed have a right to possess such a weapon.

Much of the debate today is over so-called “assault weapons”, which are poorly-defined, but can best be characterized, I think, by their superficial resemblance to military weapons. By the principles established in the Miller ruling, a ban on “assault weapons” might stand, on the basis that they are not true military-grade weapons, and therefore have no true military application. However, by this principle, it would have to be held that what we do have a right to possess are true military-grade weapons, comparable to those that we issue to our own soldiers. This would mean, not the fraudulently-defined “assault weapons”, but true assault rifles, capable of both semiautomatic and fully-automatic operation, such as the M-16 or M-4. Full-automatic weapons are covered by the NFA, along with short-barreled shotguns, and are extremely difficult for normal civilians to obtain and possess in a manner that is currently considered “legal”. A law passed in 1986 flat-out bans civilian possession of any fully-automatic weapon manufactured after 1986. Under the Miller ruling, if applied to modern times, all these bans and restrictions on fully-automatic weapons would have to be struck down.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I don't know how you gun nuts expect to get all gun regulation repealed unless you think we're going to abandon democratic government.

 

[Wry Catcher]

More liberal stupidity.

Hey you stupid liberals, how is it that ANY attempt to regulate voting you IMMEDIATELY scream that the right is trying to disenfranchise voters, BUT now you want to claim that laws like NYC has that make it almost impossible to legally own a gun are in fact not so onerous as to in effect be a gun ban?

You can't have it both fucking ways.

And again, I believe that our founding fathers meant for a state to be able to institute a complete in state ban of all weapons, if that is what they wanted to do.

Apple and Aardvarks. Votes don't kill people, guns do.

It's apples and apples you fucking idiot , a right is a right is a right.


Oh, and of course you can use a vote to kill people you fucking moron. Remember when Clinton joined with many others in voting to go kill people in Iraq?

You dumb fucks are amazing.

You may believe you're fair and balanced, my take from this ^^^ comment and others is you are hysterical and unbalanced. That empirical observation said, Clinton voted for the Iraq Resolution, Bush&Co invaded and occupied Iraq, causing the deaths of 4,500+ American service personnel and hundreds (?) of thousands of other human being.

Is a dumb fuck as dumb as someone who invades a country with the Army they have, not the army they may have wanted? Or as dumb as someone who believes a vote is equivalent to sending men and women into harms way? Or as dumb as Cheney and Rumsfeld who sent our troops into an harms way without the proper armor, forgetting that satchel bombs in Saigon 25 years before killed and maimed our troops and civilians?

 

[Wry Catcher]

FU - I've read you posts, you are another who should never ever call anyone stupid.

quit stonewalling and answer the fucking question



You are such a stupid fuck


What do you gain in exchange for giving up your right to defend your life?

I'm not a coward nor paranoid, so defending my life is about exercise and eating well. I don't feel the need to carry a gun to the grocery store, why do you?

OK then, was it so hard to admit that you are an ignorant fuck?

Continue eating well and exercising.

I do not interfere with your approach to longevity - why the fuck do you interfere with mine?


.

I don't. I didn't write the law, in my career I enforced the laws. You don't like the law where you live, get your ass of the coach and seek elected office, make speeches and stop whining.

I have heard the " I was following Orders" bullshit excuse a million times. If you are an American then you know that the Supremacy clause states that the CONSTITUTION (1787) is the Supreme Law of the Land.

Consequently, statutes and case "law" that transgress upon our rights are VOID.

If it is true that you are in LAW enforcement then the SUPREMACY CLAUSE applies to you. Stop using stupid pretexts to harass our people.


.

Well then, are you another who believes Marbury v. Madison usurped COTUS?

BTW, I retired over ten years ago.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Gee, your final comment is mindful of a punk, safely confined in a cage (of course you are a punk, safely hiding behind your keyboard)

Still happy to prove yourself a foolish child, eh?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I don't. I didn't write the law, in my career I enforced the laws. You don't like the law where you live, get your ass of the coach and seek elected office, make speeches and stop whining.

I have heard the " I was following Orders" bullshit excuse a million times. If you are an American then you know that the Supremacy clause states that the CONSTITUTION (1787) is the Supreme Law of the Land.

Consequently, statutes and case "law" that transgress upon our rights are VOID.

If it is true that you are in LAW enforcement then the SUPREMACY CLAUSE applies to you. Stop using stupid pretexts to harass our people.

See also: Nuremberg Principle IV

It's amusing, in a sad, sick way, when wrong-wingers speak of the rule of law, and of upholding the law, in defense of policies and actions which blatantly violate the Constitution, which is this nation's highest law.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I don't know how you gun nuts expect to get all gun regulation repealed unless you think we're going to abandon democratic government.

This isn't a democracy. It's a representative republic, with a Constitutional foundation. The Constitution establishes the highest ground rules, and the elected representatives are supposed to act in accordance with the will of the people, within the constraints set by the Constitution.

If the courts would consistently fulfill their duty to uphold the Constitution as the highest law, and to hold all lesser laws against it, then all gun control laws would be struck down as unconstitutional.

If the will of the people is that we should have laws which restrict our right to keep and bear arms, then this should be pursued by attempting to ratify a new amendment to the Constitution which supersedes the Second Amendment, and which gives government the power to impose such restrictions. Unless and until such an amendment is successfully ratified, the Second Amendment stands as part of the highest law, and all gun control laws are in blatant violation of it. Any public servant who has any part in enacting, enforcing, or upholding any gun control law, is acting illegally, and should be regarded as no better than a common criminal.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Slippery slope arguments are not logical, nor instructive.

Wrong (as usual).

The first major so-called "gun control" law in this country was the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA). It imposed, among other things, huge taxes on every sale or transfer of certain types of guns and accessories.

Cops took a short-barreled shotgun from a man named Jack Miller with no current evidence he had committed any crime (though he was a known bootlegger during Prohibition), citing this law as their authority. Miller sued with a pro-bono lawyer, and a Federal judge took about 20 minutes to find the NFA unconstitutional.

The Feds took the unusual step of appealing directly to the Supreme Court, in 1939. The pro bono lawyer couldn't find his client (Miller was found later, dead in a stream bed with four bullets in his chest), and didn't want to go to the huge amount of work required to prepare a Supreme Court case he probably wouldn't be paid for. So while the government brought in the usual battery of high-powered lawyers to prosecute the case, nobody showed up for the defense. One side of the courtroom was completely empty.

The government took advantage of this windfall, and read several flat lies into the record (the 2nd amendment only applies to military-style weapons, only applies to members of a militia or other military unit, etc.). The Justices, having no one to disprove them, rubber-stamped them into an "opinion" and declared Miller guilty in absentia. This "opinion" is full of twisted and apologetic language such as "In the absence of any evidence showing.....", "We cannot say that...", and "It is not within judicial notice that..." as the Justices tried to point out that they had heard only one side of the case.

Since then, the Govt has put more and more "gun control" laws into place, defending them every time by citing the 1939 miscarriage of justice US v. Miller. It's one of the most obvious examples of a "slippery slope" where, once the gun-rights-haters got a toehold in the realm of unconstitutional gun legislation, proceeded to put in more and more.

Little wrycatch frantically denies that this is happening, though he is unable to back up his assertions (again as usual).

You lying scumbag piece of shit. You relate the part of the story to fit your purposes, but omit those parts that put the lie to your horseshit!

1. You made no mention of Frank Layton who was Miller's co-defendant at trial.
2. You made no mention that both Miller and Layton had the same attorney at trial.
3. You made no mention that the NFA (1934) required paperwork and a stamp to take a sawed-off shotgun across State lines (Commerce Clause).
4. You made no mention that their attorney, Paul Gutensohn, informed SCOTUS his clients Miller & Layton had failed to provide money for travel to DC.
5. You failed to mention the failure Miller & Layton and/or their lawyer to appear before SCOTUS as required on March 30, 1939 at oral arguments.
6. You failed to mention that State and Federal Courts have no responsibility to wait for defendants, complainants or appellants and juggle the Court docket.
7. You failed to mention that Miller used another sawed-off shotgun in a robbery on April 3, 1939 four days after oral arguments before SCOTUS.
8. You failed to mention that Miller was last seen alive on April 3, 1939, in Oklahoma four days after oral arguments before the High Court.

Those facts above were gleaned from - http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_060964.pdf

Bottom line is, SCOTUS did exactly what they were required to do in United States v. Miller, but your distortion of the facts is an indicator of your vile intent and despicable character.

Decision - United States v. Miller

 

[Wry Catcher]

You cannot seem to post honestly.

1. If some gun control is unconstitutional, than some gun control is constitutional, something you've denied repeatedly until now
2. The 2nd A., according to Scalia's written decision, is his opinion - four other justices disagreed.
3. Gun control as I have written has never been about confiscation, I have argued for:

Repeating the same lie over and over and over again will never imbue it with any vestige of truth.

Yes, the ultimate goal of gun-control advocates is, and has always been, to disarm honest citizens. They rarely admit this, but it's true, and it's obvious. They are on the side of criminals and tyrants, and against that of honest citizens. This has been true since the Ku Klux Klan got the first gun control laws passed to disarm blacks. It was true when criminal-gangster-turned-politician Timothy Sullivan got New York to pass the Sullivan Act—the progenitor of all modern gun control laws—specially crafted to give his own gang and its allies an advantage against rival gangs and prospective victims. And it remains true, to this day, and will remain true forever.

Gun control. advocates are willfully on the side of criminals, and against that of honest citizens. They know very well,and they intend, that only honest citizens will be constrained from being armed by the laws which they propose, which will have no impact at all on criminals' access to weapons.

Please spare us the insult of repeating these lies, as if to imply that we are stupid enough to believe them.

• Licensing of all gun owners as a right of the States (10th A.)

The Tenth Amendment does not say that every power not delegated to the federal government belongs to the states. It says that these powers belong to the states, or to the people. If a power belongs to the people, then it does not belong to the states, nor to the federal government.

To whom does the right to keep and bear arms belong? Does the second amendment say anything about any right of the state?

• Registration of guns with an insurance company (firewall from the State / Federal Gov't)
• Sales of guns and purchasers only to legally licensed persons
• Special licenses for interstate transportation/sales/sporting activities (hunting)

By definition, you do not need a license or a permit to exercise a right. Everything that you propose here is blatantly unconstitutional.

You seem to live in a fantasy world, one with other conspiracy theorists. A couple of data points from history is insufficient to prove your initial premise:

"the ultimate goal of gun-control advocates is, and has always been, to disarm honest citizens" is an opinion

Of course beginning your post by calling me a liar is one more example of an allegation sans evidence. There is nothing devious or intended to mislead in the three points numbered above, or anything I've ever posted, and no effort on your part to rebut them.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No regulation is constitutional?

1. Then no background checks,
2. children could legally buy guns
3. no mandated gun free zones
4.

I don't know how you gun nuts expect to get all gun regulation repealed unless you think we're going to abandon democratic government.

This isn't a democracy. It's a representative republic, with a Constitutional foundation. The Constitution establishes the highest ground rules, and the elected representatives are supposed to act in accordance with the will of the people, within the constraints set by the Constitution.

If the courts would consistently fulfill their duty to uphold the Constitution as the highest law, and to hold all lesser laws against it, then all gun control laws would be struck down as unconstitutional.

If the will of the people is that we should have laws which restrict our right to keep and bear arms, then this should be pursued by attempting to ratify a new amendment to the Constitution which supersedes the Second Amendment, and which gives government the power to impose such restrictions. Unless and until such an amendment is successfully ratified, the Second Amendment stands as part of the highest law, and all gun control laws are in blatant violation of it. Any public servant who has any part in enacting, enforcing, or upholding any gun control law, is acting illegally, and should be regarded as no better than a common criminal.

You're an idiot. An idiot in a teeny tiny minority of idiots who want NO gun laws.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Slippery slope arguments are not logical, nor instructive.

Wrong (as usual).

The first major so-called "gun control" law in this country was the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA). It imposed, among other things, huge taxes on every sale or transfer of certain types of guns and accessories.

Cops took a short-barreled shotgun from a man named Jack Miller with no current evidence he had committed any crime (though he was a known bootlegger during Prohibition), citing this law as their authority. Miller sued with a pro-bono lawyer, and a Federal judge took about 20 minutes to find the NFA unconstitutional.

The Feds took the unusual step of appealing directly to the Supreme Court, in 1939. The pro bono lawyer couldn't find his client (Miller was found later, dead in a stream bed with four bullets in his chest), and didn't want to go to the huge amount of work required to prepare a Supreme Court case he probably wouldn't be paid for. So while the government brought in the usual battery of high-powered lawyers to prosecute the case, nobody showed up for the defense. One side of the courtroom was completely empty.

The government took advantage of this windfall, and read several flat lies into the record (the 2nd amendment only applies to military-style weapons, only applies to members of a militia or other military unit, etc.). The Justices, having no one to disprove them, rubber-stamped them into an "opinion" and declared Miller guilty in absentia. This "opinion" is full of twisted and apologetic language such as "In the absence of any evidence showing.....", "We cannot say that...", and "It is not within judicial notice that..." as the Justices tried to point out that they had heard only one side of the case.

Since then, the Govt has put more and more "gun control" laws into place, defending them every time by citing the 1939 miscarriage of justice US v. Miller. It's one of the most obvious examples of a "slippery slope" where, once the gun-rights-haters got a toehold in the realm of unconstitutional gun legislation, proceeded to put in more and more.

Little wrycatch frantically denies that this is happening, though he is unable to back up his assertions (again as usual).

You lying scumbag piece of shit. You relate the part of the story to fit your purposes, but omit those parts that put the lie to your horseshit!

1. You made no mention of Frank Layton who was Miller's co-defendant at trial.
2. You made no mention that both Miller and Layton had the same attorney at trial.
3. You made no mention that the NFA (1934) required paperwork and a stamp to take a sawed-off shotgun across State lines (Commerce Clause).
4. You made no mention that their attorney, Paul Gutensohn, informed SCOTUS his clients Miller & Layton had failed to provide money for travel to DC.
5. You failed to mention the failure Miller & Layton and/or their lawyer to appear before SCOTUS as required on March 30, 1939 at oral arguments.
6. You failed to mention that State and Federal Courts have no responsibility to wait for defendants, complainants or appellants and juggle the Court docket.
7. You failed to mention that Miller used another sawed-off shotgun in a robbery on April 3, 1939 four days after oral arguments before SCOTUS.
8. You failed to mention that Miller was last seen alive on April 3, 1939, in Oklahoma four days after oral arguments before the High Court.

Those facts above were gleaned from - http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_060964.pdf

Bottom line is, SCOTUS did exactly what they were required to do in United States v. Miller, but your distortion of the facts is an indicator of your vile intent and despicable character.

Decision - United States v. Miller

TRANSLATION: I can't refute anything you said, but I hate it anyway. So I'll scream and curse, call you names, bring up irrelevancies, and try to fool someone somewhere into thinking there's something wrong with what you said even though I can't name anything.

 

[bendog]

Slippery slope arguments are not logical, nor instructive.

Wrong (as usual).

The first major so-called "gun control" law in this country was the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA). It imposed, among other things, huge taxes on every sale or transfer of certain types of guns and accessories.

Cops took a short-barreled shotgun from a man named Jack Miller with no current evidence he had committed any crime (though he was a known bootlegger during Prohibition), citing this law as their authority. Miller sued with a pro-bono lawyer, and a Federal judge took about 20 minutes to find the NFA unconstitutional.

The Feds took the unusual step of appealing directly to the Supreme Court, in 1939. The pro bono lawyer couldn't find his client (Miller was found later, dead in a stream bed with four bullets in his chest), and didn't want to go to the huge amount of work required to prepare a Supreme Court case he probably wouldn't be paid for. So while the government brought in the usual battery of high-powered lawyers to prosecute the case, nobody showed up for the defense. One side of the courtroom was completely empty.

The government took advantage of this windfall, and read several flat lies into the record (the 2nd amendment only applies to military-style weapons, only applies to members of a militia or other military unit, etc.). The Justices, having no one to disprove them, rubber-stamped them into an "opinion" and declared Miller guilty in absentia. This "opinion" is full of twisted and apologetic language such as "In the absence of any evidence showing.....", "We cannot say that...", and "It is not within judicial notice that..." as the Justices tried to point out that they had heard only one side of the case.

Since then, the Govt has put more and more "gun control" laws into place, defending them every time by citing the 1939 miscarriage of justice US v. Miller. It's one of the most obvious examples of a "slippery slope" where, once the gun-rights-haters got a toehold in the realm of unconstitutional gun legislation, proceeded to put in more and more.

Little wrycatch frantically denies that this is happening, though he is unable to back up his assertions (again as usual).

You lying scumbag piece of shit. You relate the part of the story to fit your purposes, but omit those parts that put the lie to your horseshit!

1. You made no mention of Frank Layton who was Miller's co-defendant at trial.
2. You made no mention that both Miller and Layton had the same attorney at trial.
3. You made no mention that the NFA (1934) required paperwork and a stamp to take a sawed-off shotgun across State lines (Commerce Clause).
4. You made no mention that their attorney, Paul Gutensohn, informed SCOTUS his clients Miller & Layton had failed to provide money for travel to DC.
5. You failed to mention the failure Miller & Layton and/or their lawyer to appear before SCOTUS as required on March 30, 1939 at oral arguments.
6. You failed to mention that State and Federal Courts have no responsibility to wait for defendants, complainants or appellants and juggle the Court docket.
7. You failed to mention that Miller used another sawed-off shotgun in a robbery on April 3, 1939 four days after oral arguments before SCOTUS.
8. You failed to mention that Miller was last seen alive on April 3, 1939, in Oklahoma four days after oral arguments before the High Court.

Those facts above were gleaned from - http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_060964.pdf

Bottom line is, SCOTUS did exactly what they were required to do in United States v. Miller, but your distortion of the facts is an indicator of your vile intent and despicable character.

Decision - United States v. Miller

TRANSLATION: I can't refute anything you said, but I hate it anyway. So I'll scream and curse, call you names, bring up irrelevancies, and try to fool someone somewhere into thinking there's something wrong with what you said even though I can't name anything.

No I think you got bitch slapped there. Miller's pretty useless in that the scotus had to uphold the law for political reasons, and it created the rather absurd dichotomy of guns used for military and non-military purposes just before the advent of WWII, and the "tommy gun" was of course widely used.

Heller's pretty much the gold standard, and McDonald held it applied to States. So there we are. What's left is deciding what passes for reasonable regulation, and I suspect we will find that is more a political decision with individual states, so long as they comply with the Heller holding of people can have guns in their home and they need not be secured.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Slippery slope arguments are not logical, nor instructive.

Wrong (as usual).

The first major so-called "gun control" law in this country was the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA). It imposed, among other things, huge taxes on every sale or transfer of certain types of guns and accessories.

Cops took a short-barreled shotgun from a man named Jack Miller with no current evidence he had committed any crime (though he was a known bootlegger during Prohibition), citing this law as their authority. Miller sued with a pro-bono lawyer, and a Federal judge took about 20 minutes to find the NFA unconstitutional.

The Feds took the unusual step of appealing directly to the Supreme Court, in 1939. The pro bono lawyer couldn't find his client (Miller was found later, dead in a stream bed with four bullets in his chest), and didn't want to go to the huge amount of work required to prepare a Supreme Court case he probably wouldn't be paid for. So while the government brought in the usual battery of high-powered lawyers to prosecute the case, nobody showed up for the defense. One side of the courtroom was completely empty.

The government took advantage of this windfall, and read several flat lies into the record (the 2nd amendment only applies to military-style weapons, only applies to members of a militia or other military unit, etc.). The Justices, having no one to disprove them, rubber-stamped them into an "opinion" and declared Miller guilty in absentia. This "opinion" is full of twisted and apologetic language such as "In the absence of any evidence showing.....", "We cannot say that...", and "It is not within judicial notice that..." as the Justices tried to point out that they had heard only one side of the case.

Since then, the Govt has put more and more "gun control" laws into place, defending them every time by citing the 1939 miscarriage of justice US v. Miller. It's one of the most obvious examples of a "slippery slope" where, once the gun-rights-haters got a toehold in the realm of unconstitutional gun legislation, proceeded to put in more and more.

Little wrycatch frantically denies that this is happening, though he is unable to back up his assertions (again as usual).

You lying scumbag piece of shit. You relate the part of the story to fit your purposes, but omit those parts that put the lie to your horseshit!

1. You made no mention of Frank Layton who was Miller's co-defendant at trial.
2. You made no mention that both Miller and Layton had the same attorney at trial.
3. You made no mention that the NFA (1934) required paperwork and a stamp to take a sawed-off shotgun across State lines (Commerce Clause).
4. You made no mention that their attorney, Paul Gutensohn, informed SCOTUS his clients Miller & Layton had failed to provide money for travel to DC.
5. You failed to mention the failure Miller & Layton and/or their lawyer to appear before SCOTUS as required on March 30, 1939 at oral arguments.
6. You failed to mention that State and Federal Courts have no responsibility to wait for defendants, complainants or appellants and juggle the Court docket.
7. You failed to mention that Miller used another sawed-off shotgun in a robbery on April 3, 1939 four days after oral arguments before SCOTUS.
8. You failed to mention that Miller was last seen alive on April 3, 1939, in Oklahoma four days after oral arguments before the High Court.

Those facts above were gleaned from - http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_060964.pdf

Bottom line is, SCOTUS did exactly what they were required to do in United States v. Miller, but your distortion of the facts is an indicator of your vile intent and despicable character.

Decision - United States v. Miller

TRANSLATION: I can't refute anything you said, but I hate it anyway. So I'll scream and curse, call you names, bring up irrelevancies, and try to fool someone somewhere into thinking there's something wrong with what you said even though I can't name anything.

Your entire post #951 is replete with lies and distortions. I pointed out just eight of the more glaring. I'll now highlight just one of the eight listed and expand on it somewhat so you can deal with it alone rather than using your projection of your own character as you've done above. First your contrivance of the truth followed by that of a reliable documented source:

Cops took a short-barreled shotgun from a man named Jack Miller with no current evidence he had committed any crime (though he was a known bootlegger during Prohibition), citing this law as their authority. Miller sued with a pro-bono lawyer, and a Federal judge took about 20 minutes to find the NFA unconstitutional.

On April 18, 1938, the Arkansas and Oklahoma state police stopped Jack Miller and Frank Layton, two washed-up Oklahoma bank robbers. Miller and Layton had an unregistered sawed-off shotgun, so the police arrested them for violating the National Firearms Act (“NFA”). Surprisingly, the district court dismissed the charges, holding the NFA violates the Second Amendment. ~~ http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_060964.pdf ~~

1. Was Miller ARRESTED and charged with a felony? YES
2. Was Miller's companion, Frank Layton, also ARRESTED and charged with the very same felony? YES
3. Did Miller & Layton both cross the Arkansas Oklahoma border with the same sawed-off shotgun? YES ~~ UNITED STATES v. MILLER et al. ~~
4. How can a person(s) sue as a result of being charged with a felony? THEY CAN'T BEFORE THE INITIAL TRIAL
5. Are you a fucking idiot, liar and dishonest scumbag? YES

That's just the first paragraph of your distortions regarding US v. Miller. You want more, Putz?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

No regulation is constitutional?

1. Then no background checks,
2. children could legally buy guns
3. no mandated gun free zones

Children are subject to their parents' authority and responsibility, and not free as adults are. A few generations ago, it wasn't uncommon for children to own guns, and be allowed to use them while under adult supervision. I think I was six or seven when my dad first taught me to shoot a rifle. Obviously, at that age, my father wouldn't have let me just take the rifle and go off unsupervised. This falls entirely under the responsibility that parents have over their own children, and not under any legitimate authority of government.

Richard Henry Lee wrote, in 1788, “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…”.

Background checks are blatantly unconstitutional. Government has no authority to require a citizen prove that he meets any government-established criteria as a condition of being allowed to exercise a right. That's the definition of a right, that you are allowed to do it without first seeking any approval or permission from government.

Gun-free zones, as the concept is often applied, are also blatantly unconstitutional.