What firearms are protected by the 2nd Amendment

[Intense]

So if the drunk down the street had a few FGM-148 Javelins laying around it wouldn't bother you? Or would you be that drunk?

The court said firearms, as in rifle, shotgun and pistol. Were you born stupid or did you practice for years to get so ignorant? By the way? They let stand the restrictions on fully automatic weapons at the same time.

Who on the left is proposing a ban on handguns, rifles or shotguns?

Why do you gun nuts get so unstable when discussing guns and gun regulations?

Who are you kidding. You are in denial.

 

[Intense]

National Incident Magement System, Brian, quick of you

i'm sure you're up on the rest of the story.....

Yes Yes, I try to keep up to date on these things...
The problem is that I don't see "invasion" on their list of potential disasters...

How can you say that considering events in Arizona and Texas.

 

[sparky]

National Incident Magement System, Brian, quick of you

i'm sure you're up on the rest of the story.....

Yes Yes, I try to keep up to date on these things...
The problem is that I don't see "invasion" on their list of potential disasters...

heh, well, did you really expect to?

 

[sparky]

I always find it interesting in these poll threads to actually go back and look at the poll results (yes, I am aware polls can be biased and malformed, especially on USMB

With 44 votes cast, 50% interpret the 2nd to encompass "All of the above" in the OP, and the other 50% have an agenda.

well i don't see swords, knives, or blunt instruments like barstools , you wouldn't believe the damage a barstool can do to a man.....

 

[Intense]

good point Brian

i'd like an icbm in the yard too then, and all you nasty muslim extreemists better start bowing to the west!

I'm not saying that every citizen should personally own mass casualty weapons like an ICMB, a tank, a jet, etc...but I garauntee you if the shit ever hit the fan and we were invaded, the military would be dropping weapons to us. We would all become an instant militia.

I don't think so. The worse things get, the more Police State mentality. I think it will be more finders keepers, and Trophy. You acquire through conquest.

 

[sparky]

Lofty concept there Intense

keep it simple, just join the winning team ....

 

[BrianH]

National Incident Magement System, Brian, quick of you

i'm sure you're up on the rest of the story.....

Yes Yes, I try to keep up to date on these things...
The problem is that I don't see "invasion" on their list of potential disasters...

How can you say that considering events in Arizona and Texas.

Which is exactly why I like my guns. I live in Texas!

 

[BrianH]

National Incident Magement System, Brian, quick of you

i'm sure you're up on the rest of the story.....

Yes Yes, I try to keep up to date on these things...
The problem is that I don't see "invasion" on their list of potential disasters...

heh, well, did you really expect to?

Well, history show us that NO country is immune to invasion and collapse.

 

[Intense]

Yes Yes, I try to keep up to date on these things...
The problem is that I don't see "invasion" on their list of potential disasters...

How can you say that considering events in Arizona and Texas.

Which is exactly why I like my guns. I live in Texas!

It looks more like if you defend your Life, with extreme prejudice, the Obama Administration will end up extraditing you to Mexico. Just sayin.

 

[sparky]

Yes Yes, I try to keep up to date on these things...
The problem is that I don't see "invasion" on their list of potential disasters...

heh, well, did you really expect to?

Well, history show us that NO country is immune to invasion and collapse.

true, and our Federal gov , which is funded to address everything up to and including killer tomatoes from Mars, knows this too!

 

[Mad Scientist]

The second amendment is the reason we can protect our first amendment rights. But when does your personal arms collection become weapons of mass destruction?

According to the 2nd Amendment I should be able to have (if I could afford it) a B-52 Bomber loaded with nuclear weapons right?

Somewhere between handguns and nuclear weapons there lies the dividing line. For me it's automatic weapons. No one outside the military should have them.

Semi-Auto: OK.
Auto: Weapon of Mass Destruction, not OK.

 

[sparky]

but what about the good guys in white hats?

 

[BrianH]

heh, well, did you really expect to?

Well, history show us that NO country is immune to invasion and collapse.

true, and our Federal gov , which is funded to address everything up to and including killer tomatoes from Mars, knows this too!

However, our federal government has our military stationed all over the globe rather than right here...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

good point Brian

i'd like an icbm in the yard too then, and all you nasty muslim extreemists better start bowing to the west!

Your previous post and this one have been answered more then once. The second Amendment covers FIREARMS. And more specifically PERSONAL firearms. Tanks, jets , cannon and missiles are NOT firearms.

And while fully automatic weapons are firearms they are exempted because they are CREW served or squad weapons.

Were you born stupid? Or have you practiced at being an Idiot your whole life?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Okay, but when has the US military been able to defeat a guerrilla force since then?

Nam, Korea, Afghanistan... we can defeat any standing army in the world, but a few jackasses with hand grenades tied to strings and holes in the ground and we don't know that the fuck to do

Not familiar with the Malaysia example, but I doubt Joseph had access to remotely-detonated IEDs and ricin


Then again, they have been preparing for it

I don't think the problem has been the "ability" of the U.S. to defeat a guerilla resistance. I think the problem is that our more recent conflicts have been more politically fought rather than militarily. The last war we actually WON(by definition) against a guerilla force was in the Pacific islands during WWII. The jungle warfare was hardly conventional.

We won MILITARILY in Vietnam too. Politically we quit. The Tet offensive totally destroyed the insurgency in the South. The only Viet Cong after that were North Vietnamese soldiers sent to pretend to be insurgents. More importantly the North knew it lost and was flabbergasted when we just quit. Our goal was to prevent South Vietnam from falling to an Insurgency. We succeeded South Vietnam fell because 25 North Vietnamese Divisions INVADED the South and we did nothing about it.

 

[RadiomanATL]

So Loughner should still be allowed to have an ar-15?

I knew you were retarded when you revealed you're cool with slavery

Hey look, it's the pure white race. LMAO

swing and a miss

see what happens when you try to talk shit without taking the time to get a clue?

If you spend some time on these boards, maybe you'll come across one of the many threads where my ethnicity has been mentioned

Betelgeusian?

 

[sparky]

Were you born stupid? Or have you practiced at being an Idiot your whole life?

niether Sarge, i've just learned to speak thier lingo real well

no comment on the '39 SCOTUS case then?

plenty to choose from really

have at it, i'm sure you can find one to support your stance

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Were you born stupid? Or have you practiced at being an Idiot your whole life?

niether Sarge, i've just learned to speak thier lingo real well

no comment on the '39 SCOTUS case then?

plenty to choose from really

have at it, i'm sure you can find one to support your stance

Any good Lawyer can easily use the JUSTIFICATION for why the conviction stood as proof the Court ruled that military purpose weapons are what is protected by the second. And your counter claim makes the EXACT same point.

 

[sparky]

Were you born stupid? Or have you practiced at being an Idiot your whole life?

niether Sarge, i've just learned to speak thier lingo real well

no comment on the '39 SCOTUS case then?

plenty to choose from really

have at it, i'm sure you can find one to support your stance

Any good Lawyer can easily use the JUSTIFICATION for why the conviction stood as proof the Court ruled that military purpose weapons are what is protected by the second. And your counter claim makes the EXACT same point.

err, methinks you confuse my pardory of the issue, with the actual issue there Sarge

but here, read it again in bigger type if you will> (you'll find cases since then addressed the point you're aming {pun police......... oh, pun police....}at btw)


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 any 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.[160]

Gun rights advocates cite Miller because they claim that the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protected the right to keep arms that are part of "ordinary military equipment."[161] Gun control advocates cite Miller because they claim that the Court did not consider the question of whether the sawed-off shotgun in the case would be an applicable weapon for personal defense, instead looking solely at the weapon's suitability for the "common defense."[162] Law professor Andrew McClurg states, "The only certainty about Miller is that it failed to give either side a clear-cut victory. Most modern scholars recognize this fact."[163]

 

[BrianH]

Okay, but when has the US military been able to defeat a guerrilla force since then?

Nam, Korea, Afghanistan... we can defeat any standing army in the world, but a few jackasses with hand grenades tied to strings and holes in the ground and we don't know that the fuck to do

Not familiar with the Malaysia example, but I doubt Joseph had access to remotely-detonated IEDs and ricin


Then again, they have been preparing for it

I don't think the problem has been the "ability" of the U.S. to defeat a guerilla resistance. I think the problem is that our more recent conflicts have been more politically fought rather than militarily. The last war we actually WON(by definition) against a guerilla force was in the Pacific islands during WWII. The jungle warfare was hardly conventional.

We won MILITARILY in Vietnam too. Politically we quit. The Tet offensive totally destroyed the insurgency in the South. The only Viet Cong after that were North Vietnamese soldiers sent to pretend to be insurgents. More importantly the North knew it lost and was flabbergasted when we just quit. Our goal was to prevent South Vietnam from falling to an Insurgency. We succeeded South Vietnam fell because 25 North Vietnamese Divisions INVADED the South and we did nothing about it.

I agree with you, I should have been more specific. I think the political "choices" regarding Vietnam restricted our forces and kept them from being as effective as they could have been.