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

[BretJ]

I shall refer you to the OP.

Did the op contradict anything I said?

 

[matchlight]

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.

If you can show me a case where the Supreme Court has ever said the individual right to keep and bear arms does not include hand-held automatic weapons, I would like to read it. What this appeals court has ruled is the law within that jurisdiction, for now.

 

[American]

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.

If the federal govt can use the Commerce Clause to regulate arms, then I should be able to use Article IV, Section 4 - "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican Form of Government,..." to banned every communist and socialist on college campuses and in govt because they threaten the existence of Republican governments by their very teachings.

 

[Hypothetical]

The SCOTUS, just like they did with state SSM and abortion laws. An individual's constitutional rights should not vary based on what state they happen to reside in, work in, visit or travel through.

which is why SCOTUS nominations are the most important thing about this election season.

 

[cabse5]

But private citizens can purchase machine guns. Unfortunately the 1986 law in effect limited them to the wealthy class. If I could justify the cost to buy one I would, I don't see where that gives gunnies a bad name. A gun is a gun, those that use them for nefarious purposes are what give gunnies a bad name.

Tell me how to fix pockets of gun violence other than with a gun ban.

Gunnies who say the problem lies with 'nefarious' users of guns should, also if they say so, stop saying Muslims should turn in other radicalized Muslims. Can enlightened gun users prevent 'nefarious' gun users from using their guns nefariously? NO. Can 'enlightened' Muslims prevent radicalized Muslims from causing mayhem? NO.

 

[TurtleDude]

Tell me how to fix pockets of gun violence other than with a gun ban.

Gunnies who say the problem lies with 'nefarious' users of guns should, also if they say so, stop saying Muslims should turn in other radicalized Muslims. Can enlightened gun users prevent 'nefarious' gun users from using their guns nefariously? NO. Can 'enlightened' Muslims prevent radicalized Muslims from causing mayhem? NO.

uh because gun bans in places like chicago and DC were abject failures.

so your solution is to punish 100 million to stop a few bad apples?

what a stupid idea

 

[cabse5]

uh because gun bans in places like chicago and DC were abject failures.

so your solution is to punish 100 million to stop a few bad apples?

what a stupid idea

There has never been a gun ban in Chicago or DC. Not like the gun bans at American airports and federal buildings. Stop with the namby pamby gun bans that try to ***** foot around the gun lobby. Do the job.

 

[blaxshep]

There has never been a gun ban in Chicago or DC. Not like the gun bans at American airports and federal buildings.

What? :lamo

 

[TurtleDude]

There has never been a gun ban in Chicago or DC. Not like the gun bans at American airports and federal buildings. Stop with the namby pamby gun bans that try to ***** foot around the gun lobby. Do the job.

are you kidding me? what stupidity

 

[TurtleDude]

What? :lamo

The Bannerrhoid left is going nuts. a law that banned anyone from obtaining a handgun in either cities is not a ban. How Orwellian. the BM buys into if you are going to lie, lie big, lie often and the weak minded might believe it

 

[cabse5]

I'm suggesting a ban is done in Chicago and DC like the comprehensive bans in airports and federal buildings and not the 'bans' that try to prevent gun violence with indoctrination and trying to placate the gun lobby, for example. Doing a job half-assed as most gun bans are done, is not a reason to stop banning. It is a reason to get tougher on gun bans. IN CERTAIN POCKETS OF HEAVY GUN VIOLENCE.

 

[blaxshep]

I'm suggesting a ban is done in Chicago and DC like the comprehensive bans in airports and federal buildings and not the 'bans' that try to prevent gun violence with indoctrination and trying to placate the gun lobby, for example. Doing a job half-assed as most gun bans are done, is not a reason to stop banning. It is a reason to get tougher on gun bans. IN CERTAIN POCKETS OF HEAVY GUN VIOLENCE.

Are you suggesting zero tolerance no guns allowed at all? Confiscation?

 

[blaxshep]

I'm suggesting a ban is done in Chicago and DC like the comprehensive bans in airports and federal buildings and not the 'bans' that try to prevent gun violence with indoctrination and trying to placate the gun lobby, for example. Doing a job half-assed as most gun bans are done, is not a reason to stop banning. It is a reason to get tougher on gun bans. IN CERTAIN POCKETS OF HEAVY GUN VIOLENCE.

Since the VAST majority of gun violence in these "Pockets" are committed by gangs why don't we ban all gang members from owning guns? Wouldn't that make me a racist since gangs are almost exclusively minorities?

 

[cabse5]

Are you suggesting zero tolerance no guns allowed at all? Confiscation?

Yes. In certain high gun violence areas.

 

[blaxshep]

Yes. In certain high gun violence areas.

:doh So screw 2nd Amendment rights and freedoms huh? Should we violated everyone's 4th as well and search every home and squash their 1st as well when they start resisting it?

 

[cabse5]

:doh So screw 2nd Amendment rights and freedoms huh? Should we violated everyone's 4th as well and search every home and squash their 1st as well when they start resisting it?

Screw the current interpretation of the second amendment that everyone has a personal right to a gun. I prefer to go with the original interpretation of the second amendment as it was passed in 1789 that guns were rights of militias not individuals.

 

[Zyphlin]

A good reason not to elect an anti-gunner to the POTUS this go round.

Except the two likely parties to win both have what some would consider "gun banners", or "banneroids" if you prefer, as the nominee. So go ahead and get that notion out of your head

 

[Winchester]

Except the two likely parties to win both have what some would consider "gun banners", or "banneroids" if you prefer, as the nominee. So go ahead and get that notion out of your head

I know. I am not happy.

 

[blaxshep]

Screw the current interpretation of the second amendment that everyone has a personal right to a gun. I prefer to go with the original interpretation of the second amendment as it was passed in 1789 that guns were rights of militias not individuals.

It NEVER said that.

... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Not

... the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

[cabse5]

It NEVER said that.

... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Not

... the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Here is the second amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
That wording seems to confuse you. I suggest reading the history of the passing of the second amendment in 1789. I suggest you read the book "The First Congress", by Fergus M. Bordewich.

You place all emphasis on the back end of the amendment.

 

[Casper]

Screw the current interpretation of the second amendment that everyone has a personal right to a gun. I prefer to go with the original interpretation of the second amendment as it was passed in 1789 that guns were rights of militias not individuals.

Except that the 2nd A is Not open to interpretation, the words are clear and to the point. You do know that banning guns will not stop the gangbangers from getting guns and those, criminals and law abiding citizens, that have them would never turn them in, don't you?

 

[cabse5]

Except that the 2nd A is Not open to interpretation, the words are clear and to the point. You do know that banning guns will not stop the gangbangers from getting guns and those, criminals and law abiding citizens, that have them would never turn them in, don't you?

You're confused. Read the history of the passage of the second amendment. Maybe you're not an originalist interpreter of The Constitution?

 

[TheGoverness]

You do know that banning guns will not stop the gangbangers from getting guns and those, criminals and law abiding citizens, that have them would never turn them in, don't you?

Of course. If anything banning guns will make it easier for gangbangers to get weapons.

 

[Casper]

Here is the second amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
That wording seems to confuse you. I suggest reading the history of the passing of the second amendment in 1789. I suggest you read the book "The First Congress", by Fergus M. Bordewich.

You place all emphasis on the back end of the amendment.

Does not say Who regulates the militia, so everyone can form militias, for the possible defense of the Nation, and since they might be expected to fight as an organized group then they will need the same weapons as the police and regular army has. Thanks, I kinda like your idea.

 

[blaxshep]

Here is the second amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
That wording seems to confuse you. I suggest reading the history of the passing of the second amendment in 1789. I suggest you read the book "The First Congress", by Fergus M. Bordewich.

You place all emphasis on the back end of the amendment.

Yes let me teach you English 101:

The first part is the Dependent clause; it is a group of words with a subject and a verb. It does not express a complete thought so it is not a sentence and can't stand alone. This is the part where the reason for the right is justified.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

The Second part is the Independent clause; It can stand by itself as a simple sentence. This is the part where the right is defined.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."