Weapons of war in civilian hands

[Pop23]

I want an RPG

you'd put your own eye out.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

The various State Militia's were under the command of and could be called to duty by the President.

Actually, state militias are never under the command of the President, unless specifically called up by the federal government.

It is only recently that the courts held that an individual has the right to own a gun for protection. That could be taken away by another court decision in the future. Which is why I'd liken to see a new amendment to clearly define those rights.

This is ignorant. Just because something is said for the first time does not mean it only became true at that time. The right to bear arms has always included any lawful purpose for bearing arms. The right to self defense has always been a lawful purpose for using arms. This predates our constitution as part of the English common law.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Assault weapons were banned for ten years. Did anyone take all your guns? What makes you say anyone lied?

Only because that stupid POS had no teeth, but gave us Newt Gingrich and the GOP majority in swift fashion.

But, I did get a really cheap AK variant.

 

[healthmyths]

Define that please. What makes something a "weapon of war"? What makes a gun a "military grade" weapon?

The term military grade firearm has no definitive definition,
so it's hard to answer your question. If by the term military grade firearm you mean one that resembles military firearms,
I would say there are large number of gun owners that own firearms the resemble military firearms.
https://www.quora.com/What’s-a-“military-grade-weapon”

 

[BlindBoo]

The various State Militia's were under the command of and could be called to duty by the President.

Actually, state militias are never under the command of the President, unless specifically called up by the federal government.

It is only recently that the courts held that an individual has the right to own a gun for protection. That could be taken away by another court decision in the future. Which is why I'd liken to see a new amendment to clearly define those rights.

This is ignorant. Just because something is said for the first time does not mean that only became true at that time. The right to bear arms has always included any lawful purpose for bearing arms. The right to self defense has always been a lawful purpose for bearing arms. This predates our constitution as part of the English common law.

United States vs. Cruikshank (1875)
The United States v. Cruikshank was the Second Amendment's first real test under the incorporation doctrine. For gun owners, Cruikshank marked the start of more than a century of unchecked regulation by the states.

The case arose during a disputed gubernatorial election between Reconstruction Republicans and Democrats in Louisiana. Both the Democratic and Republican candidates for governor claimed victory. President Ulysses S. Grant sent in federal troops to support the Republican government, but Democrats refused to acknowledge their loss.

The state's nearly all-black militia gathered at the Colfax County courthouse to prevent the Democratic candidates from assuming local offices. Members of the White League, an armed paramilitary group of white Democrats, attacked and killed more than a hundred militiamen, an event which became known as the Colfax County Massacre.

.........

The Court held in United States v. Cruikshank that the individual had no inherent Second Amendment rights. For more than a hundred years, this interpretation of the Second Amendment would go largely unchallenged. An individual's right to bear arms would be left up to the states, to allow or restrict as they deemed fit.

The Supreme Court's Impact on the Second Amendment

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

United States vs. Cruikshank (1875)
The United States v. Cruikshank was the Second Amendment's first real test under the incorporation doctrine. For gun owners, Cruikshank marked the start of more than a century of unchecked regulation by the states.

The case arose during a disputed gubernatorial election between Reconstruction Republicans and Democrats in Louisiana. Both the Democratic and Republican candidates for governor claimed victory. President Ulysses S. Grant sent in federal troops to support the Republican government, but Democrats refused to acknowledge their loss.

The state's nearly all-black militia gathered at the Colfax County courthouse to prevent the Democratic candidates from assuming local offices. Members of the White League, an armed paramilitary group of white Democrats, attacked and killed more than a hundred militiamen, an event which became known as the Colfax County Massacre.

.........

The Court held in United States v. Cruikshank that the individual had no inherent Second Amendment rights. For more than a hundred years, this interpretation of the Second Amendment would go largely unchallenged. An individual's right to bear arms would be left up to the states, to allow or restrict as they deemed fit.

The Supreme Court's Impact on the Second Amendment

That is completely wrong. Whomever wrote that synopses of Cruikshank either didn't read it or didn't understand it.

Cruikshank SPECIFICALLY held that the 2nd is a limitation on Congress. It held exactly what I and others have been saying:

"The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States."
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 551 (U.S.1875).

 

[Stormy Daniels]

The various State Militia's were under the command of and could be called to duty by the President.

Actually, state militias are never under the command of the President, unless specifically called up by the federal government.

It is only recently that the courts held that an individual has the right to own a gun for protection. That could be taken away by another court decision in the future. Which is why I'd liken to see a new amendment to clearly define those rights.

This is ignorant. Just because something is said for the first time does not mean that only became true at that time. The right to bear arms has always included any lawful purpose for bearing arms. The right to self defense has always been a lawful purpose for bearing arms. This predates our constitution as part of the English common law.

United States vs. Cruikshank (1875)
The United States v. Cruikshank was the Second Amendment's first real test under the incorporation doctrine. For gun owners, Cruikshank marked the start of more than a century of unchecked regulation by the states.

The case arose during a disputed gubernatorial election between Reconstruction Republicans and Democrats in Louisiana. Both the Democratic and Republican candidates for governor claimed victory. President Ulysses S. Grant sent in federal troops to support the Republican government, but Democrats refused to acknowledge their loss.

The state's nearly all-black militia gathered at the Colfax County courthouse to prevent the Democratic candidates from assuming local offices. Members of the White League, an armed paramilitary group of white Democrats, attacked and killed more than a hundred militiamen, an event which became known as the Colfax County Massacre.

.........

The Court held in United States v. Cruikshank that the individual had no inherent Second Amendment rights. For more than a hundred years, this interpretation of the Second Amendment would go largely unchallenged. An individual's right to bear arms would be left up to the states, to allow or restrict as they deemed fit.

The Supreme Court's Impact on the Second Amendment

You moron, that's not what the court said.

The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

The questions was whether individuals could be prosecuted for allegedly violating the due process and equal protection clauses. The court said no because the due process and equal protection clauses applied to the actions of states, not the actions of individuals, and that the second amendment restricts the federal government, not individuals. The court noted that the right to bear arms was not created by the constitution, and does not depend on the constitution to exist.

Now get out of here with your bullshit!

 

[BlindBoo]

United States vs. Cruikshank (1875)
The United States v. Cruikshank was the Second Amendment's first real test under the incorporation doctrine. For gun owners, Cruikshank marked the start of more than a century of unchecked regulation by the states.

The case arose during a disputed gubernatorial election between Reconstruction Republicans and Democrats in Louisiana. Both the Democratic and Republican candidates for governor claimed victory. President Ulysses S. Grant sent in federal troops to support the Republican government, but Democrats refused to acknowledge their loss.

The state's nearly all-black militia gathered at the Colfax County courthouse to prevent the Democratic candidates from assuming local offices. Members of the White League, an armed paramilitary group of white Democrats, attacked and killed more than a hundred militiamen, an event which became known as the Colfax County Massacre.

.........

The Court held in United States v. Cruikshank that the individual had no inherent Second Amendment rights. For more than a hundred years, this interpretation of the Second Amendment would go largely unchallenged. An individual's right to bear arms would be left up to the states, to allow or restrict as they deemed fit.

The Supreme Court's Impact on the Second Amendment

That is completely wrong. Whomever wrote that synopses of Cruikshank either didn't read it or didn't understand it.

Cruikshank SPECIFICALLY held that the 2nd is a limitation on Congress. It held exactly what I and others have been saying:

"The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States."
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 551 (U.S.1875).

So either you didn't read it or you didn't understand the final quote.

"An individual's right to bear arms would be left up to the states, to allow or restrict as they deemed fit."

That's how it was when I grew up. That's what was overturned by the liberal (lol) court by carving out a right that was never actually recognized in the 2nd.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

So either you didn't read it or you didn't understand the final quote.

"An individual's right to bear arms would be left up to the states, to allow or restrict as they deemed fit."

That's how it was when I grew up. That's what was overturned by the liberal (lol) court by carving out a right that was never actually recognized in the 2nd.

Moron, that's talking about the protection of the individual's right. Stop cherry picking, you dumb fuck.

 

[healthmyths]

Define that please. What makes something a "weapon of war"? What makes a gun a "military grade" weapon?

They will "define" it, don't you worry. And they will make it illegal for civilians to own. So if you can't quite figure it out, don't fret.

They, who? If these claims are going to be thrown around the public discussion, then anyone using them must define them. Otherwise using them at all is gibberish.

Kind of like "copyright"?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So either you didn't read it or you didn't understand the final quote.

"An individual's right to bear arms would be left up to the states, to allow or restrict as they deemed fit."

That's how it was when I grew up. That's what was overturned by the liberal (lol) court by carving out a right that was never actually recognized in the 2nd.

Have you read Cruikshank? I am guessing no.

"An individual's right to bear arms would be left up to the states, to allow or restrict as they deemed fit."

Which means that Cruikshank confirms what I have said--that any act of Congress in restricting the right to arms is unconstitutional, right?

That's how it was when I grew up. That's what was overturned by the liberal (lol) court by carving out a right that was never actually recognized in the 2nd.

Again, did you actually read Cruikshank? What you are saying is what we are arguing. The 2nd does not grant the right. It is nothing more than a limit on Congress. The right is, however, recognized by the 2nd, according to the Court in Cruikshank.

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government..."
Cruikshank, 92 U.S. at 553


So, the question remains. Why is the federal government passing laws restricting or regulating guns?

All federal gun laws are unconstitutional.

 

[BlindBoo]

The various State Militia's were under the command of and could be called to duty by the President.

Actually, state militias are never under the command of the President, unless specifically called up by the federal government.

It is only recently that the courts held that an individual has the right to own a gun for protection. That could be taken away by another court decision in the future. Which is why I'd liken to see a new amendment to clearly define those rights.

This is ignorant. Just because something is said for the first time does not mean that only became true at that time. The right to bear arms has always included any lawful purpose for bearing arms. The right to self defense has always been a lawful purpose for bearing arms. This predates our constitution as part of the English common law.

United States vs. Cruikshank (1875)
The United States v. Cruikshank was the Second Amendment's first real test under the incorporation doctrine. For gun owners, Cruikshank marked the start of more than a century of unchecked regulation by the states.

The case arose during a disputed gubernatorial election between Reconstruction Republicans and Democrats in Louisiana. Both the Democratic and Republican candidates for governor claimed victory. President Ulysses S. Grant sent in federal troops to support the Republican government, but Democrats refused to acknowledge their loss.

The state's nearly all-black militia gathered at the Colfax County courthouse to prevent the Democratic candidates from assuming local offices. Members of the White League, an armed paramilitary group of white Democrats, attacked and killed more than a hundred militiamen, an event which became known as the Colfax County Massacre.

.........

The Court held in United States v. Cruikshank that the individual had no inherent Second Amendment rights. For more than a hundred years, this interpretation of the Second Amendment would go largely unchallenged. An individual's right to bear arms would be left up to the states, to allow or restrict as they deemed fit.

The Supreme Court's Impact on the Second Amendment

You moron, that's not what the court said.

The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

The questions was whether individuals could be prosecuted for allegedly violating the due process and equal protection clauses. The court said no because the due process and equal protection clauses applied to the actions of states, not the actions of individuals, and that the second amendment restricts the federal government, not individuals. The court noted that the right to bear arms was not created by the constitution, and does not depend on the constitution to exist.

Now get out of here with your bullshit!

There were several questions in that case.

"The first amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from abridging 'the right of the people to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.' This, like the other amendments proposed and adopted at the same time, was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National government alone. "

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

There were several questions in that case.

"The first amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from abridging 'the right of the people to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.' This, like the other amendments proposed and adopted at the same time, was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National government alone. "

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

Yeah. So, every Federal gun law should be held unconstitutional, right?

 

[BlindBoo]

So either you didn't read it or you didn't understand the final quote.

"An individual's right to bear arms would be left up to the states, to allow or restrict as they deemed fit."

That's how it was when I grew up. That's what was overturned by the liberal (lol) court by carving out a right that was never actually recognized in the 2nd.

Have you read Cruikshank? I am guessing no.

"An individual's right to bear arms would be left up to the states, to allow or restrict as they deemed fit."

Which means that Cruikshank confirms what I have said--that any act of Congress in restricting the right to arms is unconstitutional, right?

That's how it was when I grew up. That's what was overturned by the liberal (lol) court by carving out a right that was never actually recognized in the 2nd.

Again, did you actually read Cruikshank? What you are saying is what we are arguing. The 2nd does not grant the right. It is nothing more than a limit on Congress. The right is, however, recognized by the 2nd, according to the Court in Cruikshank.

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government..."
Cruikshank, 92 U.S. at 553


So, the question remains. Why is the federal government passing laws restricting or regulating guns?

All federal gun laws are unconstitutional.

Mostly from reaction to assassinations or attempted assassinations. I think. Gang activity in the 30s too..

State laws gun laws were not unconstitutional.

Take it up with the ghost of Scalia.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

 

[BlindBoo]

There were several questions in that case.

"The first amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from abridging 'the right of the people to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.' This, like the other amendments proposed and adopted at the same time, was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National government alone. "

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

Yeah. So, every Federal gun law should be held unconstitutional, right?

We need a new amendment to clarify gun ownership rights of individuals. Not new federal laws that will be challenged for generation in the courts.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Mostly from reaction to assassinations or attempted assassinations. I think. Gang activity in the 30s too..

State laws gun laws were not unconstitutional.

Take it up with the ghost of Scalia.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

The District of Columbia is not a state, so Heller is a bit out of context.

Assassination attempts and gang activity is no excuse for the Federal Government doing exactly that which is EXPRESSLY prohibited in the Constitution.

Federal gun laws are prohibited by the Constitution. Therefore, all federal gun laws should be struck down immediately, no?

 

[BlindBoo]

Mostly from reaction to assassinations or attempted assassinations. I think. Gang activity in the 30s too..

State laws gun laws were not unconstitutional.

Take it up with the ghost of Scalia.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

The District of Columbia is not a state, so Heller is a bit out of context.

Assassination attempts and gang activity is no excuse for the Federal Government doing exactly that which is EXPRESSLY prohibited in the Constitution.

Federal gun laws are prohibited by the Constitution. Therefore, all federal gun laws should be struck down immediately, no?

Regardless, that is why Congress reacted with those laws. Many of which were struck down.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

We need a new amendment to clarify gun ownership rights of individuals. Not new federal laws that will be challenged for generation in the courts.

By "clarify" what do you mean?

If Congress would have never acted in an improper fashion by passing EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED gun legislation, there would be no need for all this nonsense. Nothing needs to be clarified.

What's happening is Californians and the like want the federal government to tell Texans and the like what guns they can an cannot possess. That's where the problems arise.

 

[there4eyeM]

As both sides are correct and incorrect on this subject, it becomes extremely tiresome for us all. Of course any type of bullet used in war can also be used for other firearms uses. Sanctimoniously sticking to technical definitions does nothing to advance the debate. Dramatically broad-brushing all firearms and their owners doesn't, either.
What the firearms extremists failed to deal with adequately was the genuine feelings of the majority of those horrified by disgusting crimes. It could only have been expected that if such things continued an outcry would occur. The 'gunners' would have done well to organize very open, relaxed classes and presentations about their beloved weapons. They should have held real militia assemblies, but in a cookout and tailgate atmosphere.
Instead, all we have seen is foul-mouthed rejection of absolutely anything that did not toe the line of firearms fetishists. How do they expect people to react to a group that fully acknowledges being armed to the teeth and expresses frequently the readiness, even the desire, to use them to effect their political will?

 

[BlindBoo]

We need a new amendment to clarify gun ownership rights of individuals. Not new federal laws that will be challenged for generation in the courts.

By "clarify" what do you mean?

If Congress would have never acted in an improper fashion by passing EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED gun legislation, there would be no need for all this nonsense. Nothing needs to be clarified.

What's happening is Californians and the like want the federal government to tell Texans and the like what guns they can an cannot possess. That's where the problems arise.

To clearly define what is and what is not a weapon of war. Also what is what is not a weapon individual citizens can purchase for protection and recreation.

Too much ambiguity in the language is a problem because of technological advances in weapons that make these shooting rampages so deadly.

The only thing Texas needs from California is some of those Humboldt County Buds.