The words "to bear arms" is a military term

[idb]

The citizens have a right too military grade weapons the superme court has ruled it so.

That was the premise in your OP, but your supporting link contradicted you.

Never happen the superme Court ruled for a firearm to be protected under the second amendment it had to be of use for the militia. Try again New Zealander.

That's fine, but that's a different discussion.
That wasn't the conclusion of the paper that you based your original post on, that's all I'm saying...America-er.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That was the premise in your OP, but your supporting link contradicted you.

Never happen the superme Court ruled for a firearm to be protected under the second amendment it had to be of use for the militia. Try again New Zealander.

That's fine, but that's a different discussion.
That wasn't the conclusion of the paper that you based your original post on, that's all I'm saying...America-er.

Wrong again junior it's always meant that. It supported the OP try again.

 

[idb]

Never happen the superme Court ruled for a firearm to be protected under the second amendment it had to be of use for the militia. Try again New Zealander.

That's fine, but that's a different discussion.
That wasn't the conclusion of the paper that you based your original post on, that's all I'm saying...America-er.

Wrong again junior it's always meant that. It supported the OP try again.

Did not

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That's fine, but that's a different discussion.
That wasn't the conclusion of the paper that you based your original post on, that's all I'm saying...America-er.

Wrong again junior it's always meant that. It supported the OP try again.

Did not

I said that the term to bear arms is a military term and is talking about military grade weapons. The Supreme Court in Miller vs U.S. Lewis vs. U.S. also agree's with me.

 

[ABikerSailor]

So......you're equating muskets and M-16's?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So......you're equating muskets and M-16's?

No the courts ruled it that way.

Another militia ruling

Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 95 (1980). Lewis recognized -- in summarizing the holding of Miller, supra, as "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'" (emphasis added) -- that Miller had focused upon the type of firearm. Further, Lewis was concerned only with whether the provision of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 which prohibits the possession of firearms by convicted felons (codified in 18 U.S.C. 922(g) in 1986) violated the Second Amendment. Thus, since convicted felons historically were and are subject to the loss of numerous fundamental rights of citizenship -- including the right to vote, hold office, and serve on juries -- it was not erroneous for the Court to have concluded that laws prohibiting the possession of firearms by a convicted felon "are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties."
LEWIS V. UNITED STATES, 445 U. S. 55 :: Volume 445 :: 1980 :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 95 (1980). Lewis recognized -- in summarizing the holding of Miller, supra, as "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'" (emphasis added)

 

[ABikerSailor]

Explain to me why anyone outside of the military or the police would need to have more than 10 rounds available for shooting before reloading?

That's right.........you can't.

 

[peach174]

To protect you property, business, home and family.
How about riots and insurrection?
That's why.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Explain to me why anyone outside of the military or the police would need to have more than 10 rounds available for shooting before reloading?

That's right.........you can't.

Why does the regular military and police need them?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Wrong again junior it's always meant that. It supported the OP try again.

Did not

I said that the term to bear arms is a military term and is talking about military grade weapons. The Supreme Court in Miller vs U.S. Lewis vs. U.S. also agree's with me.

Does not.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Just ignore Little Racist Bigot in NC. He's spent too much time slopping in the sewers.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 95 (1980). Lewis recognized -- in summarizing the holding of Miller, supra, as "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'" (emphasis added)

U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). This is the only case in which the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to apply the Second Amendment to a federal firearms statute. The Court, however, carefully avoided making an unconditional decision regarding the statute's constitutionality; it instead devised a test by which to measure the constitutionality of statutes relating to firearms and remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing (the trial court had held that Section 11 of the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional). The Court remanded to the case because it had concluded that:
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.


U.S. v. Cody, 460 F.2d 34 (8th Cir. 1972). This case involved the making of a false statement by a convicted felon in connection with the purchase of a firearm. After citing Miller for the propositions that "the Second Amendment is not an absolute bar to congressional regulation of the use or possession of firearms" and that the "Second Amendment's guarantee extends only to use or possession which 'has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia,'" the court held that there was "no evidence that the prohibition of 922(a)(6) obstructs the maintenance of a well-regulated militia." Thus, the court acknowledged that the Second Amendment would be a bar to some congressional regulation of the use or possession of firearms and recognized that Miller required the introduction of evidence which showed a militia use for the firearm involved.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Just ignore Little Racist Bigot in NC. He's spent too much time slopping in the sewers.

I hate to keep busting your chops but I doubt you were in the service. No one who has been in the military would call a magazine a clip.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Miller supersedes any and all other rulings. If folks could have military weapons platforms, the mainstream press and right talk radio would be blasting it off the airways. bigrebnc, once again you blew up your OP with evidences that proves you wrong.

You are the only one who does that regularly on this Board.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Just ignore Little Racist Bigot in NC. He's spent too much time slopping in the sewers.

I hate to keep busting your chops but I doubt you were in the service. No one who has been in the military would call a magazine a clip.

My DD Form 2N(Blue) retiree ID card and my pension would disagree with you.

Like I said, why do you need more than 10 rounds before reloading, unless you're killing people or a really crappy shot?

Little Racist Bigot in NC, you are clearly stupid. Your plumber's crack must have reached up into your brain ya fat fucktard.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Just ignore Little Racist Bigot in NC. He's spent too much time slopping in the sewers.

I hate to keep busting your chops but I doubt you were in the service. No one who has been in the military would call a magazine a clip.

My DD Form 2N(Blue) retiree ID card and my pension would disagree with you.

Like I said, why do you need more than 10 rounds before reloading, unless you're killing people or a really crappy shot?

Little Racist Bigot in NC, you are clearly stupid. Your plumber's crack must have reached up into your brain ya fat fucktard.

It's just words on the internet to me. Blah blah blah. You gave yourself away when you argued that a clip was the same thing as a magazine.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Miller supersedes any and all other rulings. If folks could have military weapons platforms, the mainstream press and right talk radio would be blasting it off the airways. bigrebnc, once again you blew up your OP with evidences that proves you wrong.

You are the only one who does that regularly on this Board.

U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). This is the only case in which the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to apply the Second Amendment to a federal firearms statute. The Court, however, carefully avoided making an unconditional decision regarding the statute's constitutionality; it instead devised a test by which to measure the constitutionality of statutes relating to firearms and remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing (the trial court had held that Section 11 of the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional). The Court remanded to the case because it had concluded that:
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.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Does your opinion of me matter Little Racist Bigot in NC?

I think not. But, if you want, you can call Amarillo MEPS and ask who was in charge there from 1999 until 2002.

They'll tell you it was me.

Either way.......your opinion of me means squat. My world will continue to spin, with or without your approval.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Does your opinion of me matter Little Racist Bigot in NC?

I think not. But, if you want, you can call Amarillo MEPS and ask who was in charge there from 1999 until 2002.

They'll tell you it was me.

Either way.......your opinion of me means squat. My world will continue to spin, with or without your approval.

It's not my opinion sea bitch it's a fact. Any military person that has done the things you say you have done would know the difference between a clip and a magazine. Either you are lying about what you did or you never were in the navy.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Back to the topic. I have proven that only military grade weapons are protected by the second amendment. The next attempt to ban any "assault weapons" I'm suing. I am going to look into how I can have the National Firearms Act OVER TURNED.