The Right To Bear Arms

[2aguy]

Weapons of war is not the standard.......they can't make something up and call it the law....considering, as David French points out the M1 Garand...and actual weapon used in war, is not banned by the Massachuestts law but the AR-15......a weapon never used in war...is......

the 4th is out of control....they are not judges they are activists dressing up in robes....

 

[Rustic]

Weapons of war is not the standard.......they can't make something up and call it the law....considering, as David French points out the M1 Garand...and actual weapon used in war, is not banned by the Massachuestts law but the AR-15......a weapon never used in war...is......

the 4th is out of control....they are not judges they are activists dressing up in robes....

I guess ignorance is bliss… Because anyone with any common sense that has actually looked at the facts knows the Ar15 is nothing more than a sporting rifle. It would never pass muster in the military… Fact

 

[9thIDdoc]

The Supreme Court trumps lower courts.
The whole idea that there is some mythical class of weapons that are "military style" is, and always has been, simply idiotic. Can anyone think of a weapon that hasn't been used by the military?

 

[2aguy]

The Supreme Court trumps lower courts.
The whole idea that there is some mythical class of weapons that are "military style" is, and always has been, simply idiotic. Can anyone think of a weapon that hasn't been used by the military?

The 4th made up a news standard without regard to the law...especially legal Precedent going back all the way to before our founding.....and they even ignored their own prior findings....

 

[turtledude]

Weapons of war is not the standard.......they can't make something up and call it the law....considering, as David French points out the M1 Garand...and actual weapon used in war, is not banned by the Massachuestts law but the AR-15......a weapon never used in war...is......

the 4th is out of control....they are not judges they are activists dressing up in robes....

they need to be impeached before they start a civil war. They are enemies of the constitution and dishonest pettifoggers

 

[Flash]

The Supreme Court trumps lower courts.
The whole idea that there is some mythical class of weapons that are "military style" is, and always has been, simply idiotic. Can anyone think of a weapon that hasn't been used by the military?

You have an excellent point and I am not disagreeing but actually the Supreme Court in the Miller case declared that a short barreled shotgun was not a military weapon so therefore not protected under the Second and therefore Miller was guilty as charge of violating the NFA laws.

They were wrong because the US Army used short barreled shotguns in WWI but it is still in the record. Courts do funny things sometimes.

 

[2aguy]

The Supreme Court trumps lower courts.
The whole idea that there is some mythical class of weapons that are "military style" is, and always has been, simply idiotic. Can anyone think of a weapon that hasn't been used by the military?

You have an excellent point and I am not disagreeing but actually the Supreme Court in the Miller case declared that a short barreled shotgun was not a military weapon so therefore not protected under the Second and therefore Miller was guilty as charge of violating the NFA laws.

They were wrong because the US Army used short barreled shotguns in WWI but it is still in the record. Courts do funny things sometimes.

If you look at Miller...it was made up law too...the defendants didin't even show up so the Government made their own case and the Court made up their own rule......

 

[turtledude]

The Supreme Court trumps lower courts.
The whole idea that there is some mythical class of weapons that are "military style" is, and always has been, simply idiotic. Can anyone think of a weapon that hasn't been used by the military?

You have an excellent point and I am not disagreeing but actually the Supreme Court in the Miller case declared that a short barreled shotgun was not a military weapon so therefore not protected under the Second and therefore Miller was guilty as charge of violating the NFA laws.

They were wrong because the US Army used short barreled shotguns in WWI but it is still in the record. Courts do funny things sometimes.

Miller was a conspiracy between the prosecutor an anti gun judge and the US Government to uphold what most people knew was an unconstitutional law so this case was created to allow the FDR lapdogs to sustain a law that was a blatant rape of the tenth and second amendment.

 

[turtledude]

If you look at Miller...it was made up law too...the defendants didin't even show up so the Government made their own case and the Court made up their own rule......

No part of the American jurisprudential fabric is more based on fraud, dishonesty and outright avoidance of the constitution than federal gun control. Its a fraud, its illegal, and its based on the attitude of power hungry shitheads that The federal government NEEDED the power to ban and restrict firearms and THUS such a power was found to exist when it is clear that the founders never intended such a power and no amendment allowing such a power was ever passed. Anyone who claims that federal gun control is a proper power of congress is essentially rejecting the constitution and should be seen as an enemy of our rights

 

[hadit]

‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules

Finally, a federal court uses some common sense. The 2nd Amendment is old, confusing, outdated, and obsolete. It's about time someone sent all those little Rambos a clear message.

So change it, don't ignore it.

 

[Lakhota]

‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules

Finally, a federal court uses some common sense. The 2nd Amendment is old, confusing, outdated, and obsolete. It's about time someone sent all those little Rambos a clear message.

So change it, don't ignore it.

It takes time to change the wording - but the courts have watered down its vague meaning several times.

 

[hadit]

‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules

Finally, a federal court uses some common sense. The 2nd Amendment is old, confusing, outdated, and obsolete. It's about time someone sent all those little Rambos a clear message.

So change it, don't ignore it.

It takes time to change the wording - but the courts have watered down its vague meaning several times.

The SC has strengthened it, but you still can't ignore it. Change it if you don't like it.

 

[danielpalos]

its also based on lies calling them weapons of war

that alone is proof how dishonest the gun banners are

do we really Only need two classes of Arms?

one for the organized militia

and

one for the unorganized militia?

Frivolous gun control laws kill people… Fact

Only two categories; is not frivolous.

Or,

should we create a new offense; disturbing the domestic Tranquility and security of a free State, while being unorganized militia?

Better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia, is always the answer.

 

[Rustic]

‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules

Finally, a federal court uses some common sense. The 2nd Amendment is old, confusing, outdated, and obsolete. It's about time someone sent all those little Rambos a clear message.

Washington Redskin,
Drunk fuckers like yourself have no comprehension of the difference between a sporting rifle in the military grade weapon.
Stay out of the firewater you fucking drunk Indian

 

[Rustic]

its also based on lies calling them weapons of war

that alone is proof how dishonest the gun banners are

do we really Only need two classes of Arms?

one for the organized militia

and

one for the unorganized militia?

Frivolous gun control laws kill people… Fact

Only two categories; is not frivolous.

Or,

should we create a new offense; disturbing the domestic Tranquility and security of a free State, while being unorganized militia?

Better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia, is always the answer.

You start messing with the most important part of the constitution which happens to be the second amendment… It only hurts the country and helps the federal government control people they disagree with… Fact

 

[danielpalos]

its also based on lies calling them weapons of war

that alone is proof how dishonest the gun banners are

do we really Only need two classes of Arms?

one for the organized militia

and

one for the unorganized militia?

Frivolous gun control laws kill people… Fact

Only two categories; is not frivolous.

Or,

should we create a new offense; disturbing the domestic Tranquility and security of a free State, while being unorganized militia?

Better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia, is always the answer.

You start messing with the most important part of the constitution which happens to be the second amendment… It only hurts the country and helps the federal government control people they disagree with… Fact

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law or economics.

We have a Second Amendment; why do we have Any security problems in our free States?

 

[Clementine]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

Meanwhile, the left supported Obama when he armed radical Muslims and allowed assault weapons to be sold to drug cartels.

Criminals have guns and always will, therefore, I will not surrender mine. If you want to be a victim, then don't buy a gun. Have a baseball bat handy when a gang of thugs kicks your door in.

 

[turtledude]

[
Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law or economics.

We have a Second Amendment; why do we have Any security problems in our free States?

no one takes a troll like you seriously

you are completely clueless about constitutional theory

 

[frigidweirdo]

‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules

Finally, a federal court uses some common sense. The 2nd Amendment is old, confusing, outdated, and obsolete. It's about time someone sent all those little Rambos a clear message.

So change it, don't ignore it.

It takes time to change the wording - but the courts have watered down its vague meaning several times.

How have they watered down the meaning?

The right to keep arms prevents the govt from stopping individuals owning arms before due process, and the right to bear arms prevents the govt from stopping individuals from being in the militia.

The latter they solved with the unorganized militia. All males between 18-45 or something like that are automatically in the militia. There are few instances of before due process taking away of arms, but not that much.

 

[frigidweirdo]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

Meanwhile, the left supported Obama when he armed radical Muslims and allowed assault weapons to be sold to drug cartels.

Criminals have guns and always will, therefore, I will not surrender mine. If you want to be a victim, then don't buy a gun. Have a baseball bat handy when a gang of thugs kicks your door in.

Then again you're more likely to be the victim in the US than in Europe.