Obama's plan for gun control...

[bigrebnc1775]

BB guns aren't covered under the second amendment?

They are not considered arms suitable for militia use according to U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
The case also made clear that the militia consisted of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." In setting forth this definition of the militia, the Court implicitly rejected the view that the Second Amendment guarantees a right only to those individuals who are members of the militia. Had the Court viewed the Second Amendment as guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms only to "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," it would certainly have discussed whether, on remand, there should also be evidence that the defendants met the qualifications for inclusion in the militia, much as it did with regard to the militia use of a short-barrelled shotgun.
U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) - Google Scholar

Even so.......you could put someones eye out

How old are you?

 

[rightwinger]

They are not considered arms suitable for militia use according to U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
The case also made clear that the militia consisted of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." In setting forth this definition of the militia, the Court implicitly rejected the view that the Second Amendment guarantees a right only to those individuals who are members of the militia. Had the Court viewed the Second Amendment as guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms only to "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," it would certainly have discussed whether, on remand, there should also be evidence that the defendants met the qualifications for inclusion in the militia, much as it did with regard to the militia use of a short-barrelled shotgun.
U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) - Google Scholar

Even so.......you could put someones eye out

How old are you?

Go ahead........dismiss the power of the BB gun

Make my day

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Even so.......you could put someones eye out

How old are you?

Go ahead........dismiss the power of the BB gun

Make my day

The double barrel shotgun is not protected by the second amendment because it is not an acceptable firearm for military use.
Two things
1. A BB gun is not a firearm
2. A BB gun is not AN ACCEPTABLE WEAPON FOR MILITARY USE.

 

[Full-Auto]

Even so.......you could put someones eye out

How old are you?

Go ahead........dismiss the power of the BB gun

Make my day

I dont.....

The grandchildrens red ryders are secured with the other firearms.

But responsibility with firearms amongst the left is dismal

 

[The T]

How old are you?

Go ahead........dismiss the power of the BB gun

Make my day

The double barrel shotgun is not protected by the second amendment because it is not an acceptable firearm for military use.
Two things
1. A BB gun is not a firearm
2. A BB gun is not AN ACCEPTABLE WEAPON FOR MILITARY USE.

The 2nd says "keep and bear arms..." it does not discern nor describe arms. That being said? The people have the god-given right to protect thier lives, liberty and property.

That's all.

 

[The T]

How old are you?

Go ahead........dismiss the power of the BB gun

Make my day

I dont.....

The grandchildrens red ryders are secured with the other firearms.

But responsibility with firearms amongst the left is dismal

Key point.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Go ahead........dismiss the power of the BB gun

Make my day

The double barrel shotgun is not protected by the second amendment because it is not an acceptable firearm for military use.
Two things
1. A BB gun is not a firearm
2. A BB gun is not AN ACCEPTABLE WEAPON FOR MILITARY USE.

The 2nd says "keep and bear arms..." it does not discern nor describe arms. That being said? The people have the god-given right to protect thier lives, liberty and property.

That's all.

True but since liberal can't comprehend the meaning of the second amendment as it was written you must use court rulings so they will shut the fuck up.

 

[The T]

The double barrel shotgun is not protected by the second amendment because it is not an acceptable firearm for military use.
Two things
1. A BB gun is not a firearm
2. A BB gun is not AN ACCEPTABLE WEAPON FOR MILITARY USE.

The 2nd says "keep and bear arms..." it does not discern nor describe arms. That being said? The people have the god-given right to protect thier lives, liberty and property.

That's all.

True but since liberal can't comprehend the meaning of the second amendment as it was written you must use court rulings so they will shut the fuck up.

Nevermind the SCOTUS has reaffirmed the Second.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The 2nd says "keep and bear arms..." it does not discern nor describe arms. That being said? The people have the god-given right to protect thier lives, liberty and property.

That's all.

True but since liberal can't comprehend the meaning of the second amendment as it was written you must use court rulings so they will shut the fuck up.

Nevermind the SCOTUS has reaffirmed the Second.

OH McDonald and Heller were not second amendment victory's the rulings were to vague and unclear. The word usage still places limits on the second amendment.

 

[rightwinger]

How old are you?

Go ahead........dismiss the power of the BB gun

Make my day

The double barrel shotgun is not protected by the second amendment because it is not an acceptable firearm for military use.
Two things
1. A BB gun is not a firearm
2. A BB gun is not AN ACCEPTABLE WEAPON FOR MILITARY USE.

The BB could still get under your skin and cause a nasty infection

I use mine to hunt Grizzly Bears in the back yard

 

[Full-Auto]

How old are you?

Go ahead........dismiss the power of the BB gun

Make my day

The double barrel shotgun is not protected by the second amendment because it is not an acceptable firearm for military use.
Two things
1. A BB gun is not a firearm
2. A BB gun is not AN ACCEPTABLE WEAPON FOR MILITARY USE.

Your complete idiocy is showing

 

[The T]

True but since liberal can't comprehend the meaning of the second amendment as it was written you must use court rulings so they will shut the fuck up.

Nevermind the SCOTUS has reaffirmed the Second.

OH McDonald and Heller were not second amendment victory's the rulings were to vague and unclear. The word usage still places limits on the second amendment.

They have no business really ruling on it to begin with. The only recourse is by Amendment to the Constitution...period.

 

[Sarah G]

Obama is likely to sign some kind of International Agreement regarding control of firearms by the public. He'll need to do this to justify whatever initial control is necessary to implement the disarming of the public so that when his personal police force is created, he can announce the beginning of the Obama dynasty. Far fetched, you say?

Global gun control law pushed by Clinton - National Law Enforcement | Examiner.com

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is pushing for the United States to become a party to a global gun control law proposed by the United Nations. And President Barack Obama appears to be sympathetic to such an international power-grab and he's already displayed a propensity for bypassing the legislative process.
In fact, many believe the recent "Operation Fast and Furious" scandal had more to do with gaining support for gun control and gun ownership bans than it had to do with crimefighting and drug cartels.
"The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms," according to Sharon.

"The Obama administration is attempting to use tactics and methods of gun control that will inflict major damage to our 2nd Amendment before US citizens even understand what has happened," she added.

Critics believe Obama will appear before the public and tell them that he does not intend to pursue any legislation in the United States that will lead to new gun control laws, while cloaked in secrecy, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, is committing the US to international treaties and foreign gun control laws.

Continue reading on Examiner.com Global gun control law pushed by Clinton - National Law Enforcement | Examiner.com Global gun control law pushed by Clinton - National Law Enforcement | Examiner.com

Good. Did he do it yet?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Go ahead........dismiss the power of the BB gun

Make my day

The double barrel shotgun is not protected by the second amendment because it is not an acceptable firearm for military use.
Two things
1. A BB gun is not a firearm
2. A BB gun is not AN ACCEPTABLE WEAPON FOR MILITARY USE.

Your complete idiocy is showing

I suggest you look up the definition of a firearm and look up the miller vs U.S. supreme court ruling 1939

firearm (ˈfaɪərˌɑːm)

— n
a weapon, esp a portable gun or pistol, from which a projectile can be discharged by an explosion caused by igniting gunpowder, etc

U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
The case also made clear that the militia consisted of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." In setting forth this definition of the militia, the Court implicitly rejected the view that the Second Amendment guarantees a right only to those individuals who are members of the militia. Had the Court viewed the Second Amendment as guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms only to "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," it would certainly have discussed whether, on remand, there should also be evidence that the defendants met the qualifications for inclusion in the militia, much as it did with regard to the militia use of a short-barrelled shotgun.

 

[M14 Shooter]

a background check is meant to keep the guns out of the hands of those who have had their rights taken away, not to keep guns away from law abiding citizens.

Intent is irrelevant.
Background checks are form of pripor restraint, which is always an infringement.
The right shall not be infringed, unless you can show compelling interest and least restrctive means.


Non sequitur, and does nothing to reduce the soundness of my positions.


Yes. Prior restraint, just like I said, above.


Says the intllectual pre-pubescent that doesnt know what "prior restraint' is or undertsands how/why it violates the Constitution.


Sigh.
The state has a compelling interest in making sure that everyone who wants to cast a ballot is who they claim to be, and the ID check is the least restrictive means to that end - to NOT verify the identity of the prospective voter violates the sanctity of the voting process, undermines the basic principles of democracy, and reduces, if not destroys, the voting rights of everyone involved.

Hint: the above is an example of what you must do to to argue a 'compelling interest' regarding licensing/registration/background checks.

now answer my questions.

I'm sorry -- I don't see where you've countered my arguments or conceded that you cannot do so. Please try again.

sigh..... the right shows once again they are retarded.

Says the guy who cannot carry his half of the conversation because he doesn't have the means.

you still cant explain why it violates the 2nd amendment. the 2nd amendment doesnt list prior restraint as a requirement. try again igor.

You have not been paying attention, as I have done exactly that.
Conversely, you have not even tried to show a compelling state interest and least restrictive means.
This is, of course, because you have no idea whatsoever what those things are and how they apply to fundamental rights protected by the Constitution.

the state has a compelling interest to check ID because an ID because it is the least restrictive mean to that end??????

No... the state has a compelling interest to verify that someone who shows up to cast a balliot is who he claims to be. Pay better attention.

why not ask for fingerprint ID or a DNA sample?

Because these are not the least restrictive means to that end.
Duh.

there is nothing in the constitution that states voters must provide ID in order to vote. your argument is invalid as the constitution does not require it.

Thank you for yet again prroving you do not have the means to carry on this conversation.
When you have some sort of education regarding the legal concepts brought up here, come on back -- otherwse you're only wasting everone's time and self-sodomizing your credibility as a sentient being.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Bush sucked (although I'd totally pound a few shots of whiskey with him)...also we haven't had a lawful war since Dec. 8, 1941.

Which begs the question? IS there in the Constitution that describes the language the Congress and/or the POTUS must use to "Declare war"...or does it merely state that the Congress must approve such actions?

The way I understood it was congress declares the war, and then the president assumes control over military to swiftly accomplish the mission set forth by the generals and joint chiefs. Defense Dept then manages it and keeps the President up to speed. After the war, everything goes back to normal. I don't believe it to be constitutional for the President to assume "Command and Chief" status while not in a declared state of war. My evidence is mostly founding documents, federalist papers, etc. Too lazy to post specifics atm though but there is writing on it.

Who is the CinC when there is no decalred war, and where is your answer found in the Constitution?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The question is this: If Healthcare/contraception/housing/food, etc. is a "right" and should be provided for by the government...then by that logic shouldn't the government hand out firearms too for free since keeping and bearing arms is also a right? Head scratcher.

Using the same line of thought that the left applies to the 'right' to health care, there should, unquestioably, be a federal entitlement program to provide firearms to those that cannot afford them.

That there is not, and that the left will passiionately argue agianst any such thing, tells you all you need to know about the true motives of the left.

 

[M14 Shooter]

They are not considered arms suitable for militia use according to U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
The case also made clear that the militia consisted of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." In setting forth this definition of the militia, the Court implicitly rejected the view that the Second Amendment guarantees a right only to those individuals who are members of the militia. Had the Court viewed the Second Amendment as guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms only to "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," it would certainly have discussed whether, on remand, there should also be evidence that the defendants met the qualifications for inclusion in the militia, much as it did with regard to the militia use of a short-barrelled shotgun.
U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) - Google Scholar

Even so.......you could put someones eye out

How old are you?

Given the quaility of his posts - somwhere between 6 and 9.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The question is this: If Healthcare/contraception/housing/food, etc. is a "right" and should be provided for by the government...then by that logic shouldn't the government hand out firearms too for free since keeping and bearing arms is also a right? Head scratcher.

Using the same line of thought that the left applies to the 'right' to health care, there should, unquestioably, be a federal entitlement program to provide firearms to those that cannot afford them.

That there is not, and that the left will passiionately argue agianst any such thing, tells you all you need to know about the true motives of the left.

That's called compromise. I would accept that as something good. Give me government healthcare and a government firearm.

 

[The T]

The way I understood it was congress declares the war, and then the president assumes control over military to swiftly accomplish the mission set forth by the generals and joint chiefs. Defense Dept then manages it and keeps the President up to speed. After the war, everything goes back to normal. I don't believe it to be constitutional for the President to assume "Command and Chief" status while not in a declared state of war. My evidence is mostly founding documents, federalist papers, etc. Too lazy to post specifics atm though but there is writing on it.

Where in the Constitution does it specificallt state the launguage to be used to declare war?

Now I agree with you on the conventional wisdom regarding the carrying out of a war...get in, kick ass, get it done...WIN, end story.

its in the enumerated powers of the congress, article 1 section 8

congress SHALL have the power to...

"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"

I am pretty sure a declaration of war is meant through a voting process of some kind just like any other piece of legislation.

Precisely. But does it stipulate the language to be used i.e., such action MUST contain 'Decalration of war'...and isn't a 'Declaration of war' merely authorizing the use of the military for an objective?