The Right To Bear Arms

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Miller ruled based on the need for certain firearms by the militia.

It may have been wrongly decided..but the fact that it tied the militia to the 2A as did SCOTUS decisions prior to it can not be ignored

If you had read Miller, you would see that the Court made no such tie. All the Miller court did was state that they could not take judicial notice that a sawed off shotgun was the type of weapon that had any reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.

That would, by deduction, mean that the 2nd applied to ANY PERSON, (Miller was not in any militia and this was WELL after the Dick Act) as long as the weapon was the type that had a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.

Current soldiers carry state-of-the-art select-fire and automatic rifles. Yet, we have the Hughes Amendment.

So, explain that one to me.

I get anything a soldier would carry?

I agree.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

According to the Constitution in Article 1 Section 8 it is VERY organized...having rolls,officers,training, discipline

And it's the people IN the militia...which is why the militia clause was put there

It still says "the right of the People" so, you are not correct.

 

[Lesh]

All the Miller court did was state that they could not take judicial notice that a sawed off shotgun was the type of weapon that had any reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.

You just proved my point. That ruling and all previous SCOTUS rulings regarding guns...were based on the use of weapons in relation to a "well regulated Militia".

Heller BROKE that precedent..because Scalia knew it was a losing argument in several ways. His was a POLITICAL ruling...not a Judicial one

 

[Lesh]

It still says "the right of the People" so, you are not correct.

There's still that sticky "militia clause" so yea I am

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You just proved my point. That ruling and all previous SCOTUS ruling regarding guns...were based on the use of weapons used in relation to a "well regulated Militia"

No, you proved MY point. The ruling had nothing to do with Miller as a person. He was not a member of the "organized militia" stated in the Dick Act (which was 32 years old at the time of Miller). It focused ONLY on the TYPE of weapon.

Thus...GIVE ME MY FUCKING MACHINE GUN, BITCH!!!

.

 

[basquebromance]

liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of massive growth

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

There's still that sticky "militia clause" so yea I am

That would not change the operative clause, no matter how hard you masturbate.

The operative is still there. You can't change it. The founders did not want a standing army. I am not going to quote them all here AGAIN for your benefit.

The right of the PEOPLE. You cannot argue your way around that.

You want to change it?

Amend the fucking Constitution!!!

.

 

[Lesh]

No, you proved MY point. The ruling had nothing to do with Miller as a person. He was not a member of the "organized militia" stated in the Dick Act (which was 32 years old at the time of Miller). It focused ONLY on the TYPE of weapon.

Thus...GIVE ME MY FUCKING MACHINE GUN, BITCH!!!

Dude..the ruling was based on guns related to MILITIAS


And sadly...with enough money and proper back ground checks...you can have that machine gun (provided it was made prior to 1986)...God Help Us All

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Dude..the ruling was based on guns related to MILITIAS

Yes. What guns would be related to a militia?

The kind necessary to repel a foreign army armed with full-auto select fire, and machine guns?

...


I'll wait for your response.

 

[Lesh]

The operative is still there. You can't change it. The founders did not want a standing army. I am not going to quote them all here AGAIN for your benefit.

The MILITIA CLAUSE is still there and neither you nor Scalia can make it go away.

And NO...the Founders did NOT want a standing Army (which was why they used the militia to put DOWN the kind of insurrection you gun fetishists claim a militia is there for. Guess what...we HAVE a standing Army now and DON'T have a "Well Regulated Militia"

 

[Lesh]

Dude..the ruling was based on guns related to MILITIAS

Yes. What guns would be related to a militia?

The kind necessary to repel a foreign army armed with full-auto select fire, and machine guns?

...


I'll wait for your response.

Dude...I personally think Miller was wrongly decided...as was Cruikshank. That doesn't change the FACT that precedent stands that gun rights as they pertain to the Constitution are based on use by the Well Regulated Militia

Or DID...until "originalist" Scalia and Heller

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The MILITIA CLAUSe is still there and neither you nor Scalia can make it go away.

Which says WHAT????

And HOW does that change "the right of the people" in the 2A.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Dude...I personally think Miller was wrongly decided...as was Cruikshank. That doesn't change the FACT that precedent stands that gun rights as they pertain to the Constitution are based on use by the Well Regulated Militia

The right of the people....

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

we HAVE a standing Army now and DON'T have a "Well Regulated Militia"

So, you're not arguing that the Dick Act makes the militia the national guard?

 

[Lesh]

"A Well Regulated Militia..."

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"A Well Regulated Militia..."

a well-regulated militia...what????

 

[Lesh]

we HAVE a standing Army now and DON'T have a "Well Regulated Militia"

So, you're not arguing that the Dick Act makes the militia the national guard?

I'm not "arguing" that it did...it's a fact

 

[sealybobo]

I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed. It's just a matter of time...

If Ironman can fly around in that war machine why can’t someone else drive around in a loaded tank? Why does Ironman get to?

One time a bunch of droids had him surrounded so he started spinning with a laser and cut them all in half.

Do republicans think they should have Ironman suits if our military started wearing them?

Yes.
If the government starts building Ironman suits, it would essential for all responsible adults to also have them.
It is basic to a democratic republic, where the government is only supposed to exist at the pleasure of the people.
That means government is never supposed to ever be able to have more power than the people, or be able to intimidate or force them.
And in fact, the 14th amendment requires that if government has something, that then all people must have the same equal access and treatment under the law.

Government must always be OF the people and never OVER the people.
That is basic to any democratic republic, and is why the founders wanted NO standing military, and instead only gave the federal government the ability to call up a militia of citizen soldiers.
It was wrong to change that basic safety.

While semi-automatic rifles are widely available, fully automatic weapons are not. You can still buy an automatic weapon, but their sale and ownership is highly regulated and exceptionally expensive.

Automatic weapons sales have been restricted in the United States since the 1934 National Firearms Act was passed. Regulations put in place in 1986 made it much more difficult for civilian buyers to get an automatic weapon.

You can still purchase an automatic weapon, because existing guns manufactured before May 19, 1986, were grandfathered in. That amounts to somewhere around 300,000 registered automatic weapons, which can cost thousands of dollars apiecebecause of their limited availability.

Generally speaking, manufacturers haven’t been allowed to build new automatic rifles to sell to the public since then.

To buy a fully automatic rifle, a prospective owner must pay the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms $200 and pass a federal background check that shows no record of domestic violence or felony convictions. The process can take months.

Some states like California, Iowa and Kansas, ban private ownership of automatic weapons under any circumstances. But many states, including Nevada, allow it as long as the owner has complied with federal regulations.

"Most people can buy machine guns in lots of states," Michigan-based lawyer and firearms expert Steven Howard has told PolitiFact. "But, and this is one of those classic big ‘buts,’ they have to get through a background check by FBI that is as thorough as if you are getting clearance to become a federal agent."

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I'm not "arguing" that it did...it's a fact

So, "well-regulated" as stated in the 2A means "organized" as stated in the Dick Act (100 years later)?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

While semi-automatic rifles are widely available, fully automatic weapons are not. You can still buy an automatic weapon, but their sale and ownership is highly regulated and exceptionally expensive.

Automatic weapons sales have been restricted in the United States since the 1934 National Firearms Act was passed. Regulations put in place in 1986 made it much more difficult for civilian buyers to get an automatic weapon.

You can still purchase an automatic weapon, because existing guns manufactured before May 19, 1986, were grandfathered in. That amounts to somewhere around 300,000 registered automatic weapons, which can cost thousands of dollars apiecebecause of their limited availability.

Generally speaking, manufacturers haven’t been allowed to build new automatic rifles to sell to the public since then.

To buy a fully automatic rifle, a prospective owner must pay the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms $200 and pass a federal background check that shows no record of domestic violence or felony convictions. The process can take months.

Some states like California, Iowa and Kansas, ban private ownership of automatic weapons under any circumstances. But many states, including Nevada, allow it as long as the owner has complied with federal regulations.

"Most people can buy machine guns in lots of states," Michigan-based lawyer and firearms expert Steven Howard has told PolitiFact. "But, and this is one of those classic big ‘buts,’ they have to get through a background check by FBI that is as thorough as if you are getting clearance to become a federal agent."

If you want your thorough background checks on all gun owners, repeal the Hughes Amendment. People will line up to get their background check if they have unrestricted access to all firearms.