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.
SCOTUS let the rulings (all four of them and one in the works) STAND. That means it WILL NOT "hit the Supreme Court".
With the recent upheaval in politics and the rash of new gun laws and restrictions proposed and locally enacted, and the current make up of the court, you will absolutely see a case make it to the Supreme Court before the 2020 presidential election.
As to the bolded, not so sure about some posters...........
I understand your concerns, but do you concede that many DO want to take firearms? Are you o.k. with ARs and AKs with 10 round magazines? In the state of Florida you can't buy a gun "on a whim" and take it home unless you have a CWP, which means the authorities have already crawled all over you and you have passed. And most of all...... do you concede that the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with whether or not someone NEEDS a particular firearm. I really am not trying to be argumentative here, but would like answers.
Yes. I know that some fringe types want the 2nd overturned. I just do not think there are as many who want that as there are people who only want to tighten up existing gun laws and maybe add a few more safeguards.
I'm not really okay with ARs and AKs for the general public at all. I am not scared of them. Hell, I've shot one more than once, but they are civilian versions of military weapons and nobody needs one to accomplish any of the tasks that people need to accomplish with a gun unless it's killing people.
I know, I know, people want to own whatever they want, but you cannot go out and buy your own nuclear weapon, either, so I think we'd all adjust. Nobody is taking down the government with their AR or AK, so it's a bit silly to imagine that they need them to protect against tyranny. It's not 1880 anymore.
I think the 2nd amendment gives us the right to bear arms. It says NOTHING about which arms we can bear. I do not think "infringed" refers to "if you don't allow the purchase of X type of weapon, you are infringing."
I think "infringed" means you cannot stop a law abiding citizen of sound mind from owning whatever guns are allowed to be sold.
That is actually what I think.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Yes. I know that some fringe types want the 2nd overturned. I just do not think there are as many who want that as there are people who only want to tighten up existing gun laws and maybe add a few more safeguards.
I'm not really okay with ARs and AKs for the general public at all. I am not scared of them. Hell, I've shot one more than once, but they are civilian versions of military weapons and nobody needs one to accomplish any of the tasks that people need to accomplish with a gun unless it's killing people.
I know, I know, people want to own whatever they want, but you cannot go out and buy your own nuclear weapon, either, so I think we'd all adjust. Nobody is taking down the government with their AR or AK, so it's a bit silly to imagine that they need them to protect against tyranny. It's not 1880 anymore.
I think the 2nd amendment gives us the right to bear arms. It says NOTHING about which arms we can bear. I do not think "infringed" refers to "if you don't allow the purchase of X type of weapon, you are infringing."
I think "infringed" means you cannot stop a law abiding citizen of sound mind from owning whatever guns are allowed to be sold.
That is actually what I think.
It sounds to me like you disagree with what the 2nd was put in place for. Then you need to repeal and or replace it with something else. The 2nd was put in place to make sure the individual citizens would have sufficient arms and ammunition to be called up as an active militia and form fighting units to achieve a military objective. The individuals WERE the military at the time so arguing that weapons in common use by the populace are not protected makes no sense. The common soldier and the average person were one and the same, so the common rifle of the day (in our case the AR platform) is in fact the VERY firearm that would be protected.
Yes. I know that some fringe types want the 2nd overturned. I just do not think there are as many who want that as there are people who only want to tighten up existing gun laws and maybe add a few more safeguards.
I'm not really okay with ARs and AKs for the general public at all. I am not scared of them. Hell, I've shot one more than once, but they are civilian versions of military weapons and nobody needs one to accomplish any of the tasks that people need to accomplish with a gun unless it's killing people.
I know, I know, people want to own whatever they want, but you cannot go out and buy your own nuclear weapon, either, so I think we'd all adjust. Nobody is taking down the government with their AR or AK, so it's a bit silly to imagine that they need them to protect against tyranny. It's not 1880 anymore.
I think the 2nd amendment gives us the right to bear arms. It says NOTHING about which arms we can bear. I do not think "infringed" refers to "if you don't allow the purchase of X type of weapon, you are infringing."
I think "infringed" means you cannot stop a law abiding citizen of sound mind from owning whatever guns are allowed to be sold.
That is actually what I think.
The problem is, all gun laws are unconstitutional. They create a master, telling subjects the restrictions. It becomes a privilege of the Master, to allow you the subject, to be able to protect yourself, your family and your property. The Master owns you and your actions.
If it is a right there are no restrictions... Period.
ALL GUN LAWS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
You may choose to submit to your Masters. Some never will.
With the recent upheaval in politics and the rash of new gun laws and restrictions proposed and locally enacted, and the current make up of the court, you will absolutely see a case make it to the Supreme Court before the 2020 presidential election.
And how exactly will that happen? SCOTUS has not heard a gun case for years and the most recent cases had the same justices on the bench that we have today
"The U.S. Supreme Court rejected two appeals challenging California gun regulations, steering clear of the debate over firearm restrictions following last week’s mass shooting at a Florida high school. The justices left intact California’s 10-day waiting period for gun purchases, turning away arguments that the policy violates the rights of people whose background checks take less time. The court also rejected a National Rifle Association appeal and let California keep using fees paid on firearm transfers to help fund efforts to track down people who acquire guns illegally. Both appeals were filed well before the Feb. 14 shooting, which left 17 dead and more than a dozen wounded at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to expand or reinforce constitutional gun rights in recent years. In November, the court left intact Maryland’s prohibition on semiautomatic assault weapons and Florida’s ban on openly carrying handguns in public. "
It sounds to me like you disagree with what the 2nd was put in place for. Then you need to repeal and or replace it with something else. The 2nd was put in place to make sure the individual citizens would have sufficient arms and ammunition to be called up as an active militia and form fighting units to achieve a military objective. The individuals WERE the military at the time so arguing that weapons in common use by the populace are not protected makes no sense. The common soldier and the average person were one and the same, so the common rifle of the day (in our case the AR platform) is in fact the VERY firearm that would be protected.
In Maryland's assault weapon ban, the 4th Circuit Court upheld the ban using Scalia's language in the Heller decision:
"The majority focused instead on Justice Scalia’s concession that governments may prohibit “weapons that are most useful in military service—M–16 rifles and the like.” The semi-automatic weapons banned under Maryland’s law were adapted from M-16s and other automatic rifles developed for military use, according to the 4th Circuit. That fact, the court said, put them within the category of weapons the Heller opinion excepted from Second Amendment protection" https://www.reuters.com/article/us-o...-idUSKBN1612PU
SCOTUS refused to grant Certiorari which means that they accepted the argument of the appellate court.
The problem is, all gun laws are unconstitutional. They create a master, telling subjects the restrictions. It becomes a privilege of the Master, to allow you the subject, to be able to protect yourself, your family and your property. The Master owns you and your actions.
If it is a right there are no restrictions... Period.
ALL GUN LAWS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
You may choose to submit to your Masters. Some never will.
My AR's and AK's enforce the word... NO.
Then following your logic all laws are unconstitutional because they all involve some form of restriction, right?
lol How do you figure? You're saying laws that protect our rights are unConstitutional?
Did you bother reading the post that I was responding to?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
The problem is, all gun laws are unconstitutional. They create a master, telling subjects the restrictions. It becomes a privilege of the Master, to allow you the subject, to be able to protect yourself, your family and your property. The Master owns you and your actions.
If it is a right there are no restrictions... Period.
ALL GUN LAWS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
You may choose to submit to your Masters. Some never will.
My AR's and AK's enforce the word... NO.
No one, not even Scalia said that guns could not be regulated, go read Heller again if you need to. BentBows argument is that a law is unconstitutional "'when' it creates a master telling subjects restrictions" All regulations function that way, hence in order for BentBow to be consistent he must then believe that all laws and regulations are unconstitutional.
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.
