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

[PirateMk1]

We need to platoon in WoT. I play almost every day. Same user name both here at DP and in WoT.

Guess what I am just as lazy as you, I have the same name in WoT too. :lamo I don't play as often as I used to but I still play regularly when I can. I am on the western server most times. I will definitely look you up. I will be playing later today too.

 

[Carjosse]

I find it utterly absurd to call a country free when the state is actively punishing their citizens for having medical conditions.

Do you not realize how ****ing stupid that would be. Having mental issues should definitely disqualify anyone from owning any gun let alone a machine gun.

 

[Winchester]

The Hughes amendment also limited them to used machine guns. Bad actors don't give gunnies a bad name. Its people with agendas taking other peoples guns away that attempt to give the gunnies a bad name.

I want a Tiger 2 tank modified with a 16 liter Caterpillar diesel and the Rheinmetall L/55 120mm smoothbore and or Sherman m-51 with The Cummins motors and the 105mm gun in smoothbore. The Israelis used the Sherman's to good effect in the Six day war. I like hunting Tigers in my Sherman in world of tanks. I have all the Shermans.

I know, that's why I said they were now limited to the wealthy... government restricted the supply. For all practical purposes, owning one legally is now restricted to the wealthy class. We don't all have equal rights no matter what we are indoctrinated to believe.

 

[Carjosse]

I'm curious. Are civilian police authorized to use fully automatic weapons?

Not that I know of.

 

[Henrin]

Do you not realize how ****ing stupid that would be. Having mental issues should definitely disqualify anyone from owning any gun let alone a machine gun.

All mental issues or just some?

 

[Winchester]

I'm curious. Are civilian police authorized to use fully automatic weapons?

For personal use or department use?

 

[Henrin]

I know, that's why I said they were now limited to the wealthy... government restricted the supply. For all practical purposes, owning one legally is now restricted to the wealthy class. We don't all have equal rights no matter what we are indoctrinated to believe.

The wealthy restricting access to weapons for the common man? Well, I didn't see that coming.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

For personal use or department use?

Department.

 

[Carjosse]

All mental issues or just some?

If it interferes with decision making or makes the individual prone to violence, aggressiveness, or shows any signs of instability, then yes.

 

[Lutherf]

They serve no practical purpose other than to kill large amounts of people. Of course exceptions for ones like the gun above.

Actually, a machine gun is generally used in DEFENSIVE roles rather than offensive ones. Yeah, the Capone gang took out the Purples with Thompsons and Clyde Barrow liked his BAR but it takes a lot of ammunition to make an automatic weapon effective and ammunition is heavy so the whole setup tends to be a pain in the ass to move around.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Guess what I am just as lazy as you, I have the same name in WoT too. :lamo I don't play as often as I used to but I still play regularly when I can. I am on the western server most times. I will definitely look you up. I will be playing later today too.

I'm on right now. When I get aggravated with either DP or WoT I switch over to other one for a while.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Why wouldn't I argue that? What permits the government from telling me I can't carry it where I please?



So admit your above argument is baseless? Odd.



So you admit your argument is baseless and then start listing a bunch of baseless stuff? Again, that's just odd.

Unless you're ready to argue that the Second Amendment is absolute, then nothing I said was baseless, nor odd.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I will.

You should be able to strap up and go were you please armed. Unless you are convicted AND imprisoned being the only exception. I believe that packing is the reinforcement of your ultimate personal sovereignty and EVERYONE who is a citizen of these United States should carry in public at all times to enforce that right.

The right to keep and bear arms as stated in the 2nd is an unlimited right.

So, the right is absolute, then, any arm, any time, any where, by anyone who isn't currently in prison. Is that your position then?

 

[Henrin]

Unless you're ready to argue that the Second Amendment is absolute, then nothing I said was baseless, nor odd.

Your argument was basically the amendment says this, but no one agrees with that, so the discussion is really about this.

That argument is just ****ing goofy.

 

[PirateMk1]

So, the right is absolute, then, any arm, any time, any where, by anyone who isn't currently in prison. Is that your position then?

That's my position. Arms in this country should be prevalent and on everyone's person. They should be a fashion accessories with craftsmanship and care put in to the arms of their choice prominently displayed in the non verbal warning of "**** with me at your peril."

 

[PirateMk1]

So, the right is absolute, then, any arm, any time, any where, by anyone who isn't currently in prison. Is that your position then?

I also believe that the first amendment as far as government goes is also absolute.

 

[TurtleDude]

The gun control sweep post Orlando massacre is really beginning to take effect:

Machine Guns Are Not Protected By The Second Amendment, Appeals Court Rules



Scalia's words from the Heller decision are starting to take fruition: "the second Amendment IS NOT an unlimited right".

you left wing gun banners never focus on the really important fact-where did the federal government get a proper power to do all that banning?

 

[TurtleDude]

There's something wrong with people who think private citizens should be able to purchase machine guns. Gives the rest of gunnies a bad name.

you apparently think the second amendment somehow ceases to operate based on how fast a firearm can fire. And if the government can ban machine guns why not handguns? if cops have machine guns, why shouldn't other citizens

 

[TurtleDude]

They serve no practical purpose other than to kill large amounts of people. Of course exceptions for ones like the gun above.

so that is the same crap the Bannerrhoids say about semi auto rifles

pistols

pump shotguns

etc

why do police have them?

 

[TurtleDude]

I'm curious. Are civilian police authorized to use fully automatic weapons?

absolutely. which is why its idiotic for any government-federal or state-to claim no citizen has any reason to own such a weapon when the same government unit arms its CIVILIAN police with such firearms. Police are not military, police cannot shoot 'the enemy' any more than other civilians can.

If the police have a firearm or firearm type so should other civilians. DOn't like people owning machine guns (which in 80 years, there has never been a case of a private citizen using a legally owned machine gun to murder anyone ) then don't allow the police to have them. If they are so dangerous that people cannot even own them with all the idiotic red tape that was created by the criminal FDR regime, then they have no business being used by cops

 

[Dittohead not!]

That's my position. Arms in this country should be prevalent and on everyone's person. They should be a fashion accessories with craftsmanship and care put in to the arms of their choice prominently displayed in the non verbal warning of "**** with me at your peril."

Are you willing to accept the limitation of arms that can be "born", i.e., carried around, or does it apply to any arm?

 

[TurtleDude]

So, the right is absolute, then, any arm, any time, any where, by anyone who isn't currently in prison. Is that your position then?

You don't seem to understand what is at play. The federal government was never intended to have any power to dictate to private citizens what firearms they could own or how they used those firearms, State governments were the entities intended to regulate use of firearms. The second amendment didn't "create" any rights-it reiterated that the federal government never had any power in this area to start with. This all changed when the criminal FDR administration ignored the tenth amendment, and dishonestly claimed that the commerce clause meant Congress could do all sorts of things that the federal government was never intended to be able to do. That is why we have this idiotic line drawing where dishonest courts or those slave to dishonest precedent-pretend that the second amendment rights are subject to "reasonable regulations"

its idiotic but the reason why this crap stands is that many judges WANT the government to be able to regulate firearms-even those who generally support people owing guns-because they think they have the wisdom to properly draw lines when none are proper.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

They serve no practical purpose other than to kill large amounts of people. Of course exceptions for ones like the gun above.

They're also not really suitable for crime

 

[Dittohead not!]

You don't seem to understand what is at play. The federal government was never intended to have any power to dictate to private citizens what firearms they could own or how they used those firearms, State governments were the entities intended to regulate use of firearms. The second amendment didn't "create" any rights-it reiterated that the federal government never had any power in this area to start with. This all changed when the criminal FDR administration ignored the tenth amendment, and dishonestly claimed that the commerce clause meant Congress could do all sorts of things that the federal government was never intended to be able to do. That is why we have this idiotic line drawing where dishonest courts or those slave to dishonest precedent-pretend that the second amendment rights are subject to "reasonable regulations"

its idiotic but the reason why this crap stands is that many judges WANT the government to be able to regulate firearms-even those who generally support people owing guns-because they think they have the wisdom to properly draw lines when none are proper.

You're correct that the Second Amendment didn't give th federal government the power to regulate arms. The Second Amendment is quite clear on that point. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is crystal clear.

Then there's the fourteenth amendment, limiting state governments as well.

So, now we're left with anyone can carry any weapon any time, no one can regulate them in any way whatsoever. That's what Pirate MK1 says, if I'm understanding his posts correctly.

Yet, few of us are willing to have totally unregulated arms.

So, what do we need? Shall we amend the Constitution? Allow anyone to carry any arm anywhere at any time, no restrictions, as it says in the Second Amendment? Or do we allow the SCOTUS to continue to "interpret", i.e., rewrite, the Second Amendment?

 

[TurtleDude]

Are you willing to accept the limitation of arms that can be "born", i.e., carried around, or does it apply to any arm?

well yes and no. I think that applies to the second amendment but not the tenth