Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The AR-15, the poster child of the left anti gun efforts is the most popular rifle, by far, in the U.S. That is common use. It used in very, very little crime.
I am one who feels strongly about our right to own a gun for the reasons typical law-abiding gun owners own guns, but I am against allowing citizens from owning guns like the ones Paddock used to kill almost 60 people and injure 500 in minutes. That's who I am...
Then you would outlaw almost all common hunting rifles?
There are numerous historical analyses of "arms" and "bearing arms". Help yourself.
I know what the historical definition of "arms" is, according to the founding fathers' own writings. My question is, what is your definition of "arms," since you seem to disagree with the term as defined by the 2nd Amendment.
I know what the historical definition of "arms" is, according to the founding fathers' own writings. My question is, what is your definition of "arms," since you seem to disagree with the term as defined by the 2nd Amendment.
I know what the historical definition of "arms" is, according to the founding fathers' own writings. My question is, what is your definition of "arms," since you seem to disagree with the term as defined by the 2nd Amendment.
No you don't. They were educated users of the language but not lexicographers. Some of the views may actually conflict. You wish to know the accepted meaning of the words in the proper time frame. The writings of the founders may provide some clarification but that would be secondary.
No you don't. They were educated users of the language but not lexicographers. Some of the views may actually conflict. You wish to know the accepted meaning of the words in the proper time frame. The writings of the founders may provide some clarification but that would be secondary.
Oh yes he does. Apparently the Supreme Court agrees with him.
You can try and mince words all you like. Kinda' like when Bill Clinton proclaimed: "It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is".
But regardless the Supreme Court has already ruled on the meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment along with the types of weapons it applies to. It may not be to your liking but it "is" what it is. It's not up to lvmensch to decide what's Constitutional or not. I'm sure they didn't consult lvmensch as a material witness with his expertise in lexicography before rendering a decision?
I'd be willing to bet that the writings of the founders were more than just secondary when they handed down their decision.
No you don't. They were educated users of the language but not lexicographers. Some of the views may actually conflict. You wish to know the accepted meaning of the words in the proper time frame. The writings of the founders may provide some clarification but that would be secondary.
Arms of the period typically meant weapons sufficient to meet the needs of an army. So muskets, pistols, rifles, armor, horses, lances, pikes, swords, axes, grenades, cannon, mortar etc. If we follow every other amendments progression that should now include pistols, rifles, grenades, mines, MANPADS, RPG's, ATGMs, plus armored vehicles, and artillery.
It's pretty clear that for example Lexington when the English came for their guns, they didn't specifically mean small arms, but the Cannon that Lexington had (and were buried to hide them). Further you need look no further than the Constitution itself, Congress shall issue letters of Marque and reprisal. To work effectively that meant privateer warships armed with cannon, mortar, rifles and muskets, sabers and cutlasses and men to fire and carry them. If the founders meant "some small section of available weapons" they'd be a little more specific than arms, and it would be a waste of ink and paper to charge congress with issuance of letters of marque.
And who the hell are you? Why don't you just take the time to read the entire decision before spouting off about something you know absolutely nothing about.
"Common use" is just that, weapons that are in "common use". Semi automatic firearms are perfectly legal to own in all 50 states even in those states that have restrictions on them. Most states do not impose any restrictions on them. So they are both legal and available. It's not up to me or you to decide which weapons people are allowed to possess. The Supreme Court already decided that. Too bad you don't like it. They've made decisions that I don't agree with either but there's not a God damn thing I can do about it.
With the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court and the likelihood of two more replacements on the court. The 2nd Amendment and the types of weapons that can legally be owned will not be changed anytime soon. The momentum is on the side of those who support the 2nd Amendment. Just recently the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that D.C.'s concealed weapons restrictions are arbitrary and therefore unconstitutional.
Lol. Did I say anything about "semi automatic firearms"?
The line is drawn arbitrarily, that's the point. "Common use" is just somebody's interpretation.
Oh, I'm also glad you acknowledge the role political agenda plays in the Court.
Arms of the period typically meant weapons sufficient to meet the needs of an army. So muskets, pistols, rifles, armor, horses, lances, pikes, swords, axes, grenades, cannon, mortar etc. If we follow every other amendments progression that should now include pistols, rifles, grenades, mines, MANPADS, RPG's, ATGMs, plus armored vehicles, and artillery.
It's pretty clear that for example Lexington when the English came for their guns, they didn't specifically mean small arms, but the Cannon that Lexington had (and were buried to hide them). Further you need look no further than the Constitution itself, Congress shall issue letters of Marque and reprisal. To work effectively that meant privateer warships armed with cannon, mortar, rifles and muskets, sabers and cutlasses and men to fire and carry them. If the founders meant "some small section of available weapons" they'd be a little more specific than arms, and it would be a waste of ink and paper to charge congress with issuance of letters of marque.
That is my understanding as well.. There are however some views that it would not include canon and such which were described as ordnance. So certainly all the smaller weapons that one could take home.
The USSC however basically found that it was an individual rather than a corporate right but that it is in fact subject to regulation. That is not far from the founders view though the regulation is open ended very much subject to the political winds in the court. I would think the gunnies are mostly safe with the existing court. But down the line? We will see.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
