The ultimate 2nd amendment poll!

[JakeStarkey]

Sorry, SickDick. Miller, Lewis, and Heller will not provide any legal base for total ban of gun and no basis for giving civilians in the normal civilian pursuit of life access to mortars, etc., the tools of the trade of the military.

Both far wings are sick in their heads if they believe the result will be anything other than in the center.

No civilivan has a right to mortars, and no one can ban all guns.

Miller ruling says you can't ban the weapons obama is wanting banned.
Sinp.....
Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.

U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) - Google Scholar

You are one stupid turd ball, if that's what you got out of Miller.

 

[JoeB131]

[

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Government passes a law saying only members of the Militia have guns. Membership in the militia is restricted to non-crazy people. (Well, you're out.)


The people support it. A few scary assholes have fights with the ATF and wind up in body bags. That just encourages people that we need more laws. (Keep in mind, after Waco and Ruby Ridge, we got more laws, not less.)

Everyone just kind of goes along with it.

Sorry, man. It's only a "right" if everyone goes along with it. People aren't going along with it anymore.

The government cannot pass a law restricting citizens from a Constitutionally protected right without doing the amendment process I dare you to try it.

Actually, I could think of dozens of things they could do.

1) Let the gun manufacturers know that companies that aggressively market will not be considered for government contracts. Since the government buys more guns, they'll quickly comply.

2) Put taxes on ammunition making it exceedingly expensive to buy.

3) Allow the Consumer Product Safety Commission to regulate gun manufacture like any other manufactured device in this country.

4) Restore the Assault Weapons Ban.

5) Outlaw magazines with more than 10 rounds capacity.

6) require strict licensing of gun ownership.

7) Disallow gun sales at gun shows.

 

[JoeB131]

Sorry man, mob rules does not get to dictate what is written in the Constitution... If that is what you desire, then I'd say you missed the entire point of the Constitution.

Again, talk to the Japanese Americans in 1942 about that.

While you are at it, look up "Korematsu vs. US"

 

[Ernie S.]

Government passes a law saying only members of the Militia have guns. Membership in the militia is restricted to non-crazy people. (Well, you're out.)


The people support it. A few scary assholes have fights with the ATF and wind up in body bags. That just encourages people that we need more laws. (Keep in mind, after Waco and Ruby Ridge, we got more laws, not less.)

Everyone just kind of goes along with it.

Sorry, man. It's only a "right" if everyone goes along with it. People aren't going along with it anymore.

The government cannot pass a law restricting citizens from a Constitutionally protected right without doing the amendment process I dare you to try it.

Actually, I could think of dozens of things they could do.

1) Let the gun manufacturers know that companies that aggressively market will not be considered for government contracts. Since the government buys more guns, they'll quickly comply.

2) Put taxes on ammunition making it exceedingly expensive to buy.

3) Allow the Consumer Product Safety Commission to regulate gun manufacture like any other manufactured device in this country.

4) Restore the Assault Weapons Ban.

5) Outlaw magazines with more than 10 rounds capacity.

6) require strict licensing of gun ownership.

7) Disallow gun sales at gun shows.

INFRINGE

in·fringed in·fring·ing
Definition of INFRINGE
transitive verb
1
: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Government passes a law saying only members of the Militia have guns. Membership in the militia is restricted to non-crazy people. (Well, you're out.)


The people support it. A few scary assholes have fights with the ATF and wind up in body bags. That just encourages people that we need more laws. (Keep in mind, after Waco and Ruby Ridge, we got more laws, not less.)

Everyone just kind of goes along with it.

Sorry, man. It's only a "right" if everyone goes along with it. People aren't going along with it anymore.

The government cannot pass a law restricting citizens from a Constitutionally protected right without doing the amendment process I dare you to try it.

Actually, I could think of dozens of things they could do.

1) Let the gun manufacturers know that companies that aggressively market will not be considered for government contracts. Since the government buys more guns, they'll quickly comply.

2) Put taxes on ammunition making it exceedingly expensive to buy.

The Federal government can not tax intrastate commerce

3) Allow the Consumer Product Safety Commission to regulate gun manufacture like any other manufactured device in this country.

Firearms are already over regulated.

4) Restore the Assault Weapons Ban.

an assault weapons ban per Miller v.s. U.S. is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

5) Outlaw magazines with more than 10 rounds capacity.

Per Miller vs. U.S is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

6) require strict licensing of gun ownership.

Can't license a right.

7) Disallow gun sales at gun shows.

Can't do that because you are placing restriction and limitations on one business while allowing other business's to do the same thing.

Let the gun manufacturers know that companies that aggressively market will not be considered for government contracts. Since the government buys more guns, they'll quickly comply.

This is the most stupid comment of all. Where is the government to get it's resupply of ammo and weapons?

 

[JakeStarkey]

bigrebnc doesn't get that (1) the gun and ammo companies will cater to the largest customer, the US Government, before the individual citizen, and (2) Lewis, Miller, and Heller do not allow him, as an individual citizen, buy military weapons suited for military duties.

biggie is simply unqualified to discuss matters constitutional.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

bigrebnc doesn't get that (1) the gun and ammo companies will cater to the largest customer, the US Government, before the individual citizen, and (2) Lewis, Miller, and Heller do not allow him, as an individual citizen, buy military weapons suited for military duties.

biggie is simply unqualified to discuss matters constitutional.

I've posted Miller vs U.S. numerous times. It does say exactly what I have said. I cannot help that you are too stupid too comprehend. That is not my fault.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are illiterate when it comes to legal interpretation, bigrebnc.

You are not entitled to military weapons in your capacity as a private citizen.

 

[Contumacious]

You are illiterate when it comes to legal interpretation, bigrebnc.

You are not entitled to military weapons in your capacity as a private citizen.

You are correct, bearing arms is a RIGHT not an entitlement.

.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You are illiterate when it comes to legal interpretation, bigrebnc.

You are not entitled to military weapons in your capacity as a private citizen.

MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.
*179" The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia — civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily 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."

U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) - Google Scholar

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have the right to your opinions, as wrong as they are.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You are illiterate when it comes to legal interpretation, bigrebnc.

You are not entitled to military weapons in your capacity as a private citizen.

You are correct, bearing arms is a RIGHT not an entitlement.

.

I don't think jake was saying we have a right to be armed.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Jake himself doesn't know what he's saying....

 

[JoeB131]

This is the most stupid comment of all. Where is the government to get it's resupply of ammo and weapons?

It's one of the few times Capitailsm would be a good thing. There will always be that company with the low retail market share that will says, "Sure, Uncle Sam, anything you say for that lucrative exclusive contract..."

Fact is, the government could do all the things I said. You think any court is going to find for the NRA at this point, you are nutz...

Shit, Kay Baily Hutichson is coming out for gun control at this point. Lindsey Gramhn is.

I'm impressed how fast the NRA is being thrown under the bus by the GOP.

 

[zeke]

You are illiterate when it comes to legal interpretation, bigrebnc.

You are not entitled to military weapons in your capacity as a private citizen.

MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.
*179" The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia — civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily 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."

U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) - Google Scholar

This is the part that cracks me up the most. Biggie reppei says he must be armed JUST LIKE the military so that when the militia call up occurs, he can grab his weapons and go to war........with someone. Right biggie?

But the problem will be that biggie and all the other militia members will get their asses kicked for the very same reason that other armies get their asses kicked by the US Army.

The US Army and other Armies have fully auto matic assault weapons.

You gun nuts like Biggie, all you guys have are those piddly little pretend assault weapons.
But they are not assault weapons, they are sport rifles.

SO you bad ass militia members are going to war with someone that has true assault weapons while you have puny sport rifles.

Guess whos gonna get an ass whipping. To bad those "sport rifles" you all luv so much aren't the real thing. Isn't it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You are illiterate when it comes to legal interpretation, bigrebnc.

You are not entitled to military weapons in your capacity as a private citizen.

MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.
*179" The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia — civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily 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."

U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) - Google Scholar

This is the part that cracks me up the most. Biggie reppei says he must be armed JUST LIKE the military so that when the militia call up occurs, he can grab his weapons and go to war........with someone. Right biggie?

But the problem will be that biggie and all the other militia members will get their asses kicked for the very same reason that other armies get their asses kicked by the US Army.

The US Army and other Armies have fully auto matic assault weapons.

You gun nuts like Biggie, all you guys have are those piddly little pretend assault weapons.
But they are not assault weapons, they are sport rifles.

SO you bad ass militia members are going to war with someone that has true assault weapons while you have puny sport rifles.

Guess whos gonna get an ass whipping. To bad those "sport rifles" you all luv so much aren't the real thing. Isn't it.

This is what cracks me up, tell me who will man all those automatic weapons when the time comes? If the government does not have the man power those weapons are useless.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This is the most stupid comment of all. Where is the government to get it's resupply of ammo and weapons?

It's one of the few times Capitailsm would be a good thing. There will always be that company with the low retail market share that will says, "Sure, Uncle Sam, anything you say for that lucrative exclusive contract..."

Fact is, the government could do all the things I said. You think any court is going to find for the NRA at this point, you are nutz...

Shit, Kay Baily Hutichson is coming out for gun control at this point. Lindsey Gramhn is.

I'm impressed how fast the NRA is being thrown under the bus by the GOP.

Lindsay Graham? the one who thinks Americans have no rights? I would be shocked to find out he actually did support the second amendment.

 

[JoeB131]

Lindsay Graham? the one who thinks Americans have no rights? I would be shocked to find out he actually did support the second amendment.

I'm sure you are going to be horribly shocked when these GOP types gleefully throw the NRA under the bus.

It's a lot easier to beat up on the NRA than than the abortion fanatics or the anti-gay fanatics in the GOP. So they get a two-fer. They stand up to a radical voice and they look like they are doing something for the moderate voters.

Of course, Wayne LaPeirre frothing at the mouth on national TV didn't help much.

Looks like we got to put him down like Old Yeller!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Lindsay Graham? the one who thinks Americans have no rights? I would be shocked to find out he actually did support the second amendment.

I'm sure you are going to be horribly shocked when these GOP types gleefully throw the NRA under the bus.

It's a lot easier to beat up on the NRA than than the abortion fanatics or the anti-gay fanatics in the GOP. So they get a two-fer. They stand up to a radical voice and they look like they are doing something for the moderate voters.

Of course, Wayne LaPeirre frothing at the mouth on national TV didn't help much.

Looks like we got to put him down like Old Yeller!

What a shocker a liberal calling for an assassination of a person.

 

[JoeB131]

I was thinking more like a mercy killing.... like it was for old Yeller.

Except no one is going to cry at the end of "Old Liar" when Wayne gets put down