The second Amendment.

[Wry Catcher]

[

 

[sfcalifornia]

We don't allow ordinary citizens to arm themselves with nuclear or biological weapons. The fact is, the line needs to be drawn somewhere.

Seems to me, the Amendment needs amending.

The line has been drawn at fully automatic weapons, a citizen can own one but it takes a very expensive license. You can't take away rights just because they're inconvenient or cost a few lives, just ask the abortionist. Hell they base their claim on the nonexistent right to privacy.

in what court decision was that "line" drawn?

because that sure isn't what heller said.

as for the rightwingnut nonsense about abortion, you're a loon and it's a deflection from the actual issue.

I was wondering the same thing.

 

[Wry Catcher]

What we know it means based on Supreme Court rulings.....

It is a right reserved to the States to form militias

It is an individual right to own firearms.

Further we know that the TYPE of firearm protected by the second is MILITARY style weapons. There is no such thing as an assault rifle, but since everyone likes to use that term, IT is protected by the second.

You don't have to read the second or believe me. The Court has said so.

The purpose of the second is to provide the States with the ability to form militias from able bodied citizens. That Militia is to act as an army. A semi automatic rifle or pistol is the core of the armaments required. Gee, I thought black powder and the ball were core elements of armaments required in the 18th century. As established by the Supreme Court and our Founding fathers.

No ban on "assault" weapons will stand. No Ban on 30 round magazines will stand and no ban on ammunition will stand.

So you hope; sane Americans (the non paranoid) disagree.

If Congress passes a ban it will go to Court and unless our Supreme Court Justices fail to follow the law and the Constitution it will be overturned.

Further banning their further sale does nothing about the ones already out there. If we are to take our President at his word he wants to confiscate those weapons as well. Can anyone guess where THAT will lead?

The Fourteenth Amendment

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States"

Yet the callous conservatives want to overturn this Amendment. So, my question to you is, are all amendments equal or are some amendments more equal than others?

And why the hyperbole, why claim the President wants to "confiscate" firearms? Sen Feinstein is offering a bill on some regulations on firearms/magazines not overall bans on all "arms" - why not post a thread based on reality and offer an argument to justify why any citizen needs an assault weapon or 30 round magazines?

You're well versed in the language used in the Second Amendment, have you read Section 8 of Article I, clause 15 and 16?

No one is arguing all guns be outlawed and confiscated from all citizens. The Courts have recognized laws restricting types of firearms, and that individual persons can be prohibited from owning, possessing or having in their custody and control any firearm as Constitutional. Sensible people see these laws as a necessary but not a sufficient deterrent to horrific crimes.

That you don't and rally against laws protecting my kids and theirs is reprehensible, dishonest and your justification is a sign of paranoia.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56




Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





The right wing scotus said we can ban certain arms

What part of "in common use" don't you understand?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We don't allow ordinary citizens to arm themselves with nuclear or biological weapons. The fact is, the line needs to be drawn somewhere.

Seems to me, the Amendment needs amending.

That is the only legal recourse. But the Gun grabbers know that will never get approved. And the second does draw the line at semi automatic rifles and pistols. Fully automatic are ban-able and are only legal in 37 States with a federal license.

But why ''draw the line?" According to your linear thinking, there is no "constitutional" basis for banning any weaponry at all. So anyone should be allowed to buy and use landmines, RPG's, bazookas, howitzers, cruise missiles, etc. Explain.

I don't need to respond to lies made up in your imagination.

 

[sfcalifornia]

That is the only legal recourse. But the Gun grabbers know that will never get approved. And the second does draw the line at semi automatic rifles and pistols. Fully automatic are ban-able and are only legal in 37 States with a federal license.

But why ''draw the line?" According to your linear thinking, there is no "constitutional" basis for banning any weaponry at all. So anyone should be allowed to buy and use landmines, RPG's, bazookas, howitzers, cruise missiles, etc. Explain.

I don't need to respond to lies made up in your imagination.

For the sake of educating all of us Sarge, exactly how does the 2nd draw the line between an ordinary citizen owning a nuclear missile and a semi-automatic? I'm wondering myself. If it was a court ruling, on what did they base their ruling?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

But why ''draw the line?" According to your linear thinking, there is no "constitutional" basis for banning any weaponry at all. So anyone should be allowed to buy and use landmines, RPG's, bazookas, howitzers, cruise missiles, etc. Explain.

I don't need to respond to lies made up in your imagination.

For the sake of educating all of us Sarge, exactly how does the 2nd draw the line between an ordinary citizen owning a nuclear missile and a semi-automatic? I'm wondering myself. If it was a court ruling, on what did they base their ruling?

Once again I don't need to respond to morons with ignorant questions. But specifically to nukes? Strategic weapon restricted to the Government.

No one has challenged the law that requires fully automatic weapons to be licensed by the Federal Government nor has any one successfully challenged any of the 13 State laws that ban them.

The Second conveys a right to the State to maintain a militia and the right of the citizen to maintain personal weapons. Sorry bazookas, RPG's machine guns and armed armored vehicles are not covered by case law so are legally restricted by the Government. States however can have those items. And in fact do. To include armed Aircraft.

I suppose someone could challenge it in court, but my guess is that no court at any level would support such a claim.

Now care to actually discuss the second or are we going to get more lies, misinformation and stupidity out of you?

 

[PratchettFan]

What we know it means based on Supreme Court rulings.....

It is a right reserved to the States to form militias

It is an individual right to own firearms.

Further we know that the TYPE of firearm protected by the second is MILITARY style weapons. There is no such thing as an assault rifle, but since everyone likes to use that term, IT is protected by the second.

You don't have to read the second or believe me. The Court has said so.

The purpose of the second is to provide the States with the ability to form militias from able bodied citizens. That Militia is to act as an army. A semi automatic rifle or pistol is the core of the armaments required. As established by the Supreme Court and our Founding fathers.

No ban on "assault" weapons will stand. No Ban on 30 round magazines will stand and no ban on ammunition will stand.

If Congress passes a ban it will go to Court and unless our Supreme Court Justices fail to follow the law and the Constitution it will be overturned.

Further banning their further sale does nothing about the ones already out there. If we are to take our President at his word he wants to confiscate those weapons as well. Can anyone guess where THAT will lead?

The right to keep and bear arms is well established. As is the right of the state to regulate that. Whichever way the SC finds is the law, unless the Congress decides to initiate another amendment. Saying the SC fails to follow the law is absurd, since the SC is the final arbiter of what the law is.

 

[sfcalifornia]

I don't need to respond to lies made up in your imagination.

For the sake of educating all of us Sarge, exactly how does the 2nd draw the line between an ordinary citizen owning a nuclear missile and a semi-automatic? I'm wondering myself. If it was a court ruling, on what did they base their ruling?

Once again I don't need to respond to morons with ignorant questions. But specifically to nukes? Strategic weapon restricted to the Government.

No one has challenged the law that requires fully automatic weapons to be licensed by the Federal Government nor has any one successfully challenged any of the 13 State laws that ban them.

The Second conveys a right to the State to maintain a militia and the right of the citizen to maintain personal weapons. Sorry bazookas, RPG's machine guns and armed armored vehicles are not covered by case law so are legally restricted by the Government. States however can have those items. And in fact do. To include armed Aircraft.

I suppose someone could challenge it in court, but my guess is that no court at any level would support such a claim.

Now care to actually discuss the second or are we going to get more lies, misinformation and stupidity out of you?

Nobody's being rude to you here but if you'd like, I can be rude back and thank you for the info you dumbfuck ignorant asshole. Happy?

So dumbfuck, there's not a whole hell of a lot of difference between semi-automatics and fully automatics. How is it they are able to ban fully automatics and not semi-automatics?