An armed militia is not the proper response against all criminals. The founding fathers would understand the need to be ready at a moments notice...minutemen...and to be able to fight a threat to the homestead.
Certainly you do not believe that you or I do not have the right to bear arms against and armed criminal threat?
In Heller the majority rejected the view that the term "to bear arms" implies only the military use of arms:
Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.
District of Columbia v. Heller - 07-290 (2008) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
So you have wasted all this effort to convince us of what the federal government MAY do, but in the end you don't really want it to do anything at all? If you are not for some sort of change, why bother even discussing the issue?
I don't favor more gun control, first because of the 2nd amendment, and its importance, and secondly, because I don't believe it would have any effect on lessening violence in this culture. What we have is a cultural problem, not a gun problem.
It is first important to establish what MAY happen before one can consider what SHOULD happen. It is an important part of the process.
When the Justice called the intellectual anchor of the conservative side of the Supreme Court says the 2nd Amendment is not unlimited that means something. To use your own description of 'restriction equals infringement' then as far as the Supreme Court is concerned the Right to Keep and Bear Arms can be infringed.
As mentioned many times before nowhere in the Constitution does it state the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to the mentally ill or felons. The 'show me where in the Constitution' crowd can't be happy.
Oh the idea of just how the 2nd Amendment is applied is very much part and parcel of the Heller Decision. The Right of self defense in the home was upheld, but not the right of unlimited carry.
I tried to find a point to your post and I cannot. we are talking about hysterical democrats trying to ban weapons that are
1) in common use
2) not any more dangerous than other weapons
in other words, semi automatic rifles meet the Heller test for protection
Where were you during the 1994 - 2004 when they were banned without legal challenge?
where were you when Heller and McDonald were passed meaning the moronic court of appeals precedent has gone down the toilet. I specifically noted the Heller test. I guess in your mind that an opinion that was issued several years after the moronic gun ban sunsetted should have been retroactively applied
hint-read a bit more and your posts won't look so foolish
I would be happy to help you find you an attorney if you need one to challenge the new assault weapons ban.
its funny-you just get schooled on posting something that demonstrated you were unable to comprehend that Heller's new standards came AFTER the idiotic AWB died and you come back with this idiocy.
every post you make on this topic continues to demonstrate that your goal is to harass honest gun owners
btw I find it amusing you bragged about fighting against the cops in your glory days and now you think only cops can be trusted to use 30 or 20 or 15 (or ten or five) round magazines
Ha! I don't know what is funnier, your posts that misinterpret or your claim of victory afterwards without evidence.
And do try to stay on topic.
you whined about the AWB when I said under HELLER a new ban based on the first one would probably fail
you didn't figure out that Heller's test was not created until after that stupid law sunset
If you think Heller is the basis for your case against the future AWB, you should have nothing to worry about then, right Mr. TurtleDude?
I never trusted Kagan's claims and who knows who will be on the court by then. I know one thing-GOP appointees are not slaves to the party that appointed them but Obama and Clinton's appointees are pretty much in the box for dem policies
Sounds like early excuse making to me. :coffeepap
It depends on the restrictions and the level of potential.
That is really silly but that is consistent with your other posts on the subject
passive aggressive attacks without really taking a stand
restrictions that impact a fundamental constitutional right have to meet a test far higher than "we think it might do some good"
what is true is that the AWB was not demonstrated to do any good over the ten year period it was in place
I agree, hence my original statement. Unless there was concrete evidence that lives would be saved and that the restrictions were reasonable I would support it. If they wanted to ban guns or try and remove a law abiding citizen's legal Constitutional right to own a gun then they better amend the Constitution first.
It's a straightforward statement. You're making excuses in advance. Can you address that.
stop fibbing, I am saying I don't know what the court will be like : it was a 5-4 decision 5 years ago. If Scalia and Kennedy were to retire or die and we get two more Sotomayors who have proven lock step allegiance to Obama who knows what will happen
I never trusted Kagan's claims and who knows who will be on the court by then. I know one thing-GOP appointees are not slaves to the party that appointed them but Obama and Clinton's appointees are pretty much in the box for dem policies
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?