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

[ecofarm]

The Right is not being infringed. Nothing is being infringed. certain weapons are going to be pulled form the public market that's all, and it is constitutionally legal.

It's constitutionally legal as long as those weapons are not militia (infantry) arms.

 

[jet57]

It's constitutionally legal as long as those weapons are not militia (infantry) arms.

Oh, nonsense. It's constitutionally legal - full stop.

 

[TurtleDude]

Well, I'm afraid you all are going to get stuck with Hillary. As I said, you should have thought about this a long time ago and now here it is.

don't jizz yourself too much hoping for your gun hating lying bitch to get elected. she's going to have to restrain her anti gun idiocy if she wins lest her party takes the same bath it did in 1994

 

[ecofarm]

Oh, nonsense. It's constitutionally legal - full stop.

Have you read the 2nd? It says something about militia in there...

 

[TurtleDude]

Oh, nonsense. It's constitutionally legal - full stop.

what have you posted that shows you have any understanding of constitutional law? federal gun control law is hardly constitutional and I think we all know that. The difference is-those who like it pretend its not a violation of the second amendment

 

[TurtleDude]

Have you read the 2nd? It says something about militia in there...

I doubt he understands what the Miller decision means and it means that weapons that are connected to militia use are protected by the second amendment

 

[ecofarm]

I doubt he understands what the Miller decision means and it means that weapons that are connected to militia use are protected by the second amendment

I'd say arms not weapons, meaning not ordnance or explosives (mortars and such), but that's nitpicking and perhaps debatable.

 

[TurtleDude]

I'd say arms not weapons, meaning not ordnance or explosives (mortars and such), but that's nitpicking and perhaps debatable.

I agree-small arms-not ordnance, not artillery. anything civilian cops use in terms of firearms other civilians ought to be able to buy as easily as a 22 rifle in a free state like Texas.

 

[ecofarm]

I agree-small arms-not ordnance, not artillery. anything civilian cops use in terms of firearms other civilians ought to be able to buy as easily as a 22 rifle in a free state like Texas.

I think your limitation of civilian cop use is a concession. I'd limit it to firearms of the militia (infantry), which is not the same as civilian cops.

 

[TurtleDude]

I think your limitation of civilian cop use is a concession. I'd limit it to firearms of the militia (infantry), which is not the same as civilian cops.

its not-its a start. there is no rational argument to ban civilians from even OWNING police self defense weapons. Once we get that idiocy wiped away then we can discuss what sort of military weapons are individually subject to the second amendment. That being said, I do not believe ANY firearm should be banned and by firearm I mean a hand held weapon firing an intern projectile under an inch in caliber. Heavy crew served machine-guns are technically firearms but there is a valid argument they are more artillery than arm

 

[LaMidRighter]

Which is why many new military rifle have a 3 round limit. And effective combat units teach soldiers that aimed fire is more desirable and effective and not to use that full auto function. If so short bursts are far better than spray and pray of Hollywood.

Yep, full auto has it's place. It's effective when combat is in areas of hard to identify targets or if the enemy has a strong line, in either case it forces either a retreat, cover to be sought, or a break in the line due to the random nature of full auto, in those instances efficiency is the last of your concerns but rather saving your butt and that of your men.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I recommend one of Howe and Howe's Ripsaw series tanks with the CROW system mounting a GE XM214 microgun firing NATO 5.56x45 ammunition. The gun is electrically driven with a selectable rate of fire from 400 to 10,000 rounds a minute. The Ripsaw comes with all the goodies, never throws a track and can go anywhere including your favorite lake should you like to go boating and loose a few items of a questionable nature as it floats and motors about on waters surface quite well. It runs a Duramax 6.6l diesel rated at 600 to 800 hundred horsepower depending on how you configure it. I can assure you tailgaters will not be a problem.

and if the highway patrol stops me, I can just say I'm exercising my Second Amendment rights, and they'll high five me and say "good for you!"

 

[Dittohead not!]

The Right is not being infringed. Nothing is being infringed. certain weapons are going to be pulled form the public market that's all, and it is constitutionally legal.

So, if I happen to still have one in the closet, I can take it out and do a little target practice in the woods.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Have you read the 2nd? It says something about militia in there...

It also says, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

[Dittohead not!]

I'd say arms not weapons, meaning not ordnance or explosives (mortars and such), but that's nitpicking and perhaps debatable.

It is totally debatable. It says arms, not small arms, non military arms, non explosive arms. Limiting the term "arms" is already infringing on the Second Amendment.

If, that is, it is an absolute right.

 

[Bob N]

did you bother to read the thread before jumping in with that bit of silliness? Democrap justices are generally picked based on their hostility to gun rights-among other things

Appointed by Reagan.

Justice Scalia’s Gun-Control Argument

 

[TurtleDude]

Appointed by Reagan.

Justice Scalia’s Gun-Control Argument

what does that have to do with my point? more Bob N diversions in an attempt to derail a thread that says stuff he doesn't like. Scalia voted for gun rights twice. What Democrap justice voted for gun rights in either of the two cases?

 

[ecofarm]

It is totally debatable. It says arms, not small arms, non military arms, non explosive arms. Limiting the term "arms" is already infringing on the Second Amendment.

Arms generally refers to firearms. We have other names for other stuff.

If, that is, it is an absolute right.

Absolute what? This is some kind of stupid strawman, correct? The 2nd is fundamentally about the right to self defense. The right to self defense does not include, for example, the right to resist arrest. Regarding the physical manifestation of the right to self defense, the right to bear arms, the constitution is specific regarding what arms are protected - those of the militia (infantry). Other weapons are deemed not weapons of self defense but weapons of national defense and are thereby property of the state, as the state is responsible for national defense (but not self defense).

 

[PirateMk1]

and if the highway patrol stops me, I can just say I'm exercising my Second Amendment rights, and they'll high five me and say "good for you!"

Yep. You will have a high speed tank with a high speed gun. Duhh. They will want to take pictures with you, and more importantly the tank. As will everyone else including, but not in any particular order, their dogs, cats, gold fish, parakeets, and other assorted characters and peoples. I bet they will even close off a section of highway for you on occasion, for "testing purposes" if your real nice. I bet if you let them shoot the gun every once in awhile they might even let you speed a bit.

Tip, to score major brownie points take your new cop buddies through the local fast food drive through window in the tank.

 

[Bob N]

what does that have to do with my point? more Bob N diversions in an attempt to derail a thread that says stuff he doesn't like. Scalia voted for gun rights twice. What Democrap justice voted for gun rights in either of the two cases?

...and nothing about Scalia and that prefatory clause that the NRA leaves off the wall? Remeber. That gentleman was appointed by Reagan.

Now if the right gets to choose another one and that justice doesn't agree with the NRA would that make him/her a leftist?

 

[TurtleDude]

...and nothing about Scalia and that prefatory clause that the NRA leaves off the wall? Remeber. That gentleman was appointed by Reagan.

Now if the right gets to choose another one and that justice doesn't agree with the NRA would that make him/her a leftist?

remind me what opinions were issued by Scalia saying that the Hughes Amendment was constitutional

Scalia (I have the benefit of actually knowing Scalia clerks and discussing their former boss's views on jurisprudence with them) was what his well known Law clerk-Professor Steven Calabresi of NWestern Law school, a FAINT HEARTED Originalist meaning Scalia did not want to overturn even unconstitutional precedent that people had become used to. The commerce clause expansion was a major example of this

 

[jet57]

So, if I happen to still have one in the closet, I can take it out and do a little target practice in the woods.

Yeah, why not? New or used ones, just won't be on the market anymore.

NOBODY is going to come in you house and take your guns. Stop letting the NRA and the radical right do your thinking for you.

 

[TurtleDude]

Yeah, why not? New or used ones, just won't be on the market anymore.

NOBODY is going to come in you house and take your guns. Stop letting the NRA and the radical right do your thinking for you.

what will you do if that does happen? complain-rise up and resist-or more likely, rat out your neighbors and tell the gun confiscation squads who you think has guns. in NY the government is trying to confiscate weapons owned by the estates of dead people.

 

[TurtleDude]

So, if I happen to still have one in the closet, I can take it out and do a little target practice in the woods.

What the bannerrhoids want to do is this

1) ban the sale of certain firearms

2) use that as a precedent to ban the sale of additional firearms-if you can ban "assault weapons" that are used in less than 1.5% of all gunshot murders, you can certainly argue to ban handguns which are used in most gunshot murders

3) require those who own such banned weapons to register them-normally accompanied by a hefty fee and require paperwork to accompany those firearms when you use them on say a range or hunting field

4) and once registered, pass a law banning their possession

 

[jet57]

Appointed by Reagan.

Justice Scalia’s Gun-Control Argument

And in Scalia's own words;

“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”