Not to derail the thread too much, but I am an NRA member and a GOA member as well. I love the NRA for the magazine, but I like the advocacy of GOA a lot better.4 of us are lifetime members of the NRA.
Not to derail the thread too much, but I am an NRA member and a GOA member as well. I love the NRA for the magazine, but I like the advocacy of GOA a lot better.
I agree with this.Not to derail the thread too much, but I am an NRA member and a GOA member as well. I love the NRA for the magazine, but I like the advocacy of GOA a lot better.
Indeed. I am trying to find an article about the Heller case I read a while back. Basically it said the NRA was not on board with it at all, and it was the Institute for Justice and GOA that did most of the work. Naturally, the NRA took credit ... :roll:I like GOA much better. The NRA has gone off the reservation a little in the last decade or so.
Not sure about that -- I read quite a bit about the NRA and its support of Heller.Indeed. I am trying to find an article about the Heller case I read a while back. Basically it said the NRA was not on board with it at all, and it was the Institute for Justice and GOA that did most of the work. Naturally, the NRA took credit ... :roll:
Here we go. This is the article I read.Not sure about that -- I read quite a bit about the NRA and its support of Heller.
reason said:[...]
The Heller case quickly found a powerful opponent in the National Rifle Association. This surprises nearly every layman I discuss the case with, most of whom assume the NRA was behind the lawsuit in the first place. The Parker lawyers received backroom visits from allies of the NRA before their case was filed, discouraging them from going forward. The Supreme Court (which still had Sandra Day O’Conner back then) would not reliably deliver a victory, they argued, and an authoritative statement from the Supremes that the Second Amendment did not protect an individual right could prove devastating to the long-term cause.
[...]
Indeed. I am trying to find an article about the Heller case I read a while back. Basically it said the NRA was not on board with it at all, and it was the Institute for Justice and GOA that did most of the work. Naturally, the NRA took credit ... :roll:
The only reason Canadians have less guns than we do in America is because there are less Canadians.
You mean like inside prison or a mental facility?
Really. How about an RPG on a public lake? Or an ex-con bringing a couple grenades to a picnic in a public park.
So we're done with the intelligent part of the debate then. Just going into hyperbole and ridiculousness, k.
If he asnt been convivted of a violent crime, if the gun was pruchased legally and the playground (or park or whatever) does not have a sign, then it is legal.
.
What's ridiculous with someone that can legally own a gun taking a legally purchased gun to someplace that he can legally take a gun?A M60 machine gun at a playground is not ridiculous?
Who has argued otherwise?You see, there does have to be limits to the right to bear arms argument.
For isntance, the 2nd protects the right to "arms". Weapons that do not fall under the definition of "arms" are not protected by the 2nd, just as speech that does not qualify as "free speech" does not fall under protection of the 1st.
The idea of law-abiding people having legal guns somewhere that they are legally able to have a gun doesnt scare me - so, no.You really don't see anything wrong with a guy having an M60 machine gun on a playground?
By simple dictionary defintion, yes -- but not by legal defintion as described by the court in US v Miller, which superceeds any dictionary definition.By definition arms are weapons, weapons are arms.
See above. As stated before, whatever the upper limit, it covers all firearms.What weapons do not fall under the definition of arms?
By simple dictionary defintion, yes -- but not by legal defintion as described by the court in US v Miller, which superceeds any dictionary definition.
Miller states, in effect, that for a weapon toi qualfy for protection under the sceond -- that is, to fall under the defintion of 'arms" -- it must be 'part of the ordinary military equpiment' that is 'in common use at the time' and that has some 'reasonable relationship to the efficacy of the militia'.
As noted before, and as has been unaddressed by you, this covers any class of firearm you care to mention.
See above. As stated before, whatever the upper limit, it covers all firearms.
No, it does not.From your definition it covers all arms, pretty much everything the military uses.
No, it does not.
The real limit is 'the efficacy of the militia'. The militia, given its historical and legal role, has little use for many of the things the standing military uses. Tanks, aircraft, SPARTY, heavy artillery, battlefield missles, and any sort of strategic weapon would not be included.
Essentially, if you can find it in the TO&E of a Ranger company, the 2nd covers it.
But, as I said -- it CLEARLY covers all firearms, and as such, any discussion beyond that is meaningless.
M2HB and M249s are firearms, so they obviously fall under the defintion.Ok, are 50 cal machine guns satchel charges, claymores, grenades, RPGs, C4, SAWs, LAWs, stingers, bazookas included?
Yes or no?
M2HB and M249s are firearms, so they obviously fall under the defintion.
Grenades and rocket launchers -- yes.
Explosives -- insomuch as they are 'part of the ordinary equipment'.
How is any of that relevant to anything?
You didnt answer my question.So people should be allowed to carry these weapons wherever they want as long as there is no sign?
You didnt answer my question.
How is any of that relevant to anything?
So people should be allowed to carry these weapons wherever they want as long as there is no sign?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?