Machine Guns Are Not Protected By The Second Amendment, Appeals Court Rules [W:315]

[blaxshep]

Re: Machine Guns Are Not Protected By The Second Amendment, Appeals Court Rules [W:31

This guy should be banned from owning a gun. Why would anyone need to fire that fast.

He obviously has an Assult finger.

 

[Harshaw]

Re: Machine Guns Are Not Protected By The Second Amendment, Appeals Court Rules [W:31

The people who most fervently screech "militia!!!! It's about MILITIAS!!!!" yet still want to been weapons such as the AR-15 have no idea what a militia is.

It's not about escorting mama duck and her chicks across a busy street.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Re: Machine Guns Are Not Protected By The Second Amendment, Appeals Court Rules [W:31

The people who most fervently screech "militia!!!! It's about MILITIAS!!!!" yet still want to been weapons such as the AR-15 have no idea what a militia is.

It's not about escorting mama duck and her chicks across a busy street.

The Second Amendment does not say that the right of militias to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It clearly says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

and yet, the government has infringed, and keeps on infringing.

 

[Crimefree]

Re: Machine Guns Are Not Protected By The Second Amendment, Appeals Court Rules [W:31

I have previously stated that I am for the people and government working together to rewrite the second amendment in a way that best suits our country and the new era of weapons.
And I believe any law that regulates the right to bear arms is an infringement on a US citizen of any age. That's the way I interpret the second amendment as it is now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly what is unclear about the present wording and what would you like to see? I think that i more to the point. I'm truly puzzled by the term new era weapons. What is new and "frightening" that the cartridge repeating rifle, machine guns. Gatling gun and a host of inventions were not at the time?

The way I figure it you can write it any way you like the agenda drive usurpers are going to interpret it to mean what they want. Better we we protect what we have rather than make the mistake of giving empty vessels a say

 

[Harshaw]

Re: Machine Guns Are Not Protected By The Second Amendment, Appeals Court Rules [W:31

The Second Amendment does not say that the right of militias to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It clearly says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

and yet, the government has infringed, and keeps on infringing.

I'm well aware.

 

[CivicED]

Re: Machine Guns Are Not Protected By The Second Amendment, Appeals Court Rules [W:31

Exactly what is unclear about the present wording and what would you like to see? I think that i more to the point. I'm truly puzzled by the term new era weapons. What is new and "frightening" that the cartridge repeating rifle, machine guns. Gatling gun and a host of inventions were not at the time?

The way I figure it you can write it any way you like the agenda drive usurpers are going to interpret it to mean what they want. Better we we protect what we have rather than make the mistake of giving empty vessels a say

Yes I agree. The heller case was when Scalia decided to say that the Second Amendment is for home security. And I would just like to make a second amendment that is up-to-date with the new technology of weapons. And that specifies more clearly it's intent. And whether or not the word infringe has no limits.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Machine Guns Are Not Protected By The Second Amendment, Appeals Court Rules [W:31

Yes I agree. The heller case was when Scalia decided to say that the Second Amendment is for home security. And I would just like to make a second amendment that is up-to-date with the new technology of weapons. And that specifies more clearly it's intent. And whether or not the word infringe has no limits.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

cops are civilians. They are issued firearms for self defense against criminals in a civilian environment, any firearm a civilian law enforcement agency has access to, other civilians ought to be able to freely own and buy. That is your state of the art bright line test

 

[CivicED]

Re: Machine Guns Are Not Protected By The Second Amendment, Appeals Court Rules [W:31

cops are civilians. They are issued firearms for self defense against criminals in a civilian environment, any firearm a civilian law enforcement agency has access to, other civilians ought to be able to freely own and buy. That is your state of the art bright line test

I would be interested to know what to you separates a police officer from a military member besides organizational?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PirateMk1]

Re: Machine Guns Are Not Protected By The Second Amendment, Appeals Court Rules [W:31

I would be interested to know what to you separates a police officer from a military member besides organizational?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A police officer may leave service at any time. That is the difference.

 

[Crimefree]

Re: Machine Guns Are Not Protected By The Second Amendment, Appeals Court Rules [W:31

I would be interested to know what to you separates a police officer from a military member besides organizational?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Police are trained to investigate crime and uphold laws and in fact are civilians. A military member is contracted to government to defend the country and is trained to repulse or kill. Military members are totally untrained to function as police.

 

[Crimefree]

Re: Machine Guns Are Not Protected By The Second Amendment, Appeals Court Rules [W:31

Yes I agree. The heller case was when Scalia decided to say that the Second Amendment is for home security. And I would just like to make a second amendment that is up-to-date with the new technology of weapons. And that specifies more clearly it's intent. And whether or not the word infringe has no limits.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The 2A makes it possible to make laws if and only if they do not infringe the right. Infringe itself has limits that is does not apply to anything that does not infringe.

The reality here is that is is not possible to prove a negative so gun control advocates take advantage of that. It is is not possible to say no law can be made that does not infringe. As we know it at present it is not possible but that does not mean it is impossible. Hence the 2A may be limited..... Not CAN be limited, MAY be. How is never ever stated for good reason, it is unknown at present.

Welcome to the world of gun control that will exploit anything and everything. Other than removing the preamble part of the 2A I don't think it can be improved.

Remember the more words to play with simply opens it up to other interpretations. Look at the word "state" and note it is not "State" and we know that is deliberate because it was the only change in correcting the transcription. Yet it is still claimed by some to mean State.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Machine Guns Are Not Protected By The Second Amendment, Appeals Court Rules [W:31

I would be interested to know what to you separates a police officer from a military member besides organizational?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

oh all sorts of things such as the constitution, the Federal code, the UCMJ, international treaties etc.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Re: Machine Guns Are Not Protected By The Second Amendment, Appeals Court Rules [W:31

I would be interested to know what to you separates a police officer from a military member besides organizational?

"There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people." - Adama