The words "to bear arms" is a military term

[bigrebnc1775]

yota5 and bigrebnc are in a mutual jerk. Mental masturbation is fun but sterile. As are your reasons.

Miller, in no way or shape or manner, gives you the right to military grade heavy weapons.

Your opinion is neither compelling or relevant. Only the facts are. You haven't shown any yet, and you are the only person talking about heavy weapons.

 

[JakeStarkey]

bigreb fail.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

bigreb fail.

facts vs. your opinion? You lost.

 

[JakeStarkey]

you fail, bigreb. By your reasoning, you could say the Pledge of Allegiance is a Hitler Youth anthem. You simply post something, say that it supports you, then when you are asked specifically where it supports you, you post the same silly thing again and say 'there!'

 

[bigrebnc1775]

you fail, bigreb. snip !'

irrelevant and has nothing to do with the thread.
I want you to produce something to support your opinion?

 

[idb]

yota5 and bigrebnc are in a mutual jerk. Mental masturbation is fun but sterile. As are your reasons.

Miller, in no way or shape or manner, gives you the right to military grade heavy weapons.

Miller may or may not give the right to keep military style weapons - I don't know.
But the whole point of the OP was that the document that bigrednec linked to was confirmation of that.
It doesn't.

I will post this one more time for you from the OL IT CLEARLY GIVES THE INFORMATION AS TO WHAT IT'S ADDRESSING

[This study is original historical research and analysis prepared for the Fifth Circuit in US v. Emerson,]
RESETTING THE TERMS OF DEBATE ON THE

SECOND AMENDMENT:
NEW LIGHT ON THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE PHRASE "TO BEAR ARMS" BASED ON 300 HISTORICAL USES OF THE TERM IN A MILITARY CONTEXT IN EARLY AMERICA, 1618-1791
The Title of the thread is "The words "to bear arms" is a military term"

Emerson, Miller, and Lewis both agree with me.

I'll reply then from the same document "...the linked words (to bear arms - my note) were never used to describe hunting or other non-military use of weapons..."

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not only bigreb fails here, he is doing a near quote out of my material in another thread as if it were his. Check post 147.

Amazing.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Miller may or may not give the right to keep military style weapons - I don't know.
But the whole point of the OP was that the document that bigrednec linked to was confirmation of that.
It doesn't.

I will post this one more time for you from the OL IT CLEARLY GIVES THE INFORMATION AS TO WHAT IT'S ADDRESSING

[This study is original historical research and analysis prepared for the Fifth Circuit in US v. Emerson,]
RESETTING THE TERMS OF DEBATE ON THE

SECOND AMENDMENT:
NEW LIGHT ON THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE PHRASE "TO BEAR ARMS" BASED ON 300 HISTORICAL USES OF THE TERM IN A MILITARY CONTEXT IN EARLY AMERICA, 1618-1791
The Title of the thread is "The words "to bear arms" is a military term"

Emerson, Miller, and Lewis both agree with me.

I'll reply then from the same document "...the linked words (to bear arms - my note) were never used to describe hunting or other non-military use of weapons..."

What are you talking about? Jibberish? The original link
THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE PHRASE "TO BEAR ARMS" BASED ON 300 HISTORICAL USES OF THE TERM IN A MILITARY CONTEXT IN EARLY AMERICA, 1618-1791

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have fail here, and you are quoting me in another thread as if it was your words.

You are nuts.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Not only bigreb fails here, he is doing a near quote out of my material in another thread as if it were his.

Amazing.

Your full a shit the day I use you for help is the day I put a 45 acp in my head.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Folks can check the "Atlas Shrugged" thread with posts 125, 147, 151.

bigreb, you hung yourself my words, then you lied.

I will leave this for tonight. People check out the posts. You sap.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Folks can check the "Atlas Shrugged" thread with posts 125, 147, 151.

bigreb, you hung yourself my words, then you lied.

I will leave this for tonight. People check out the posts. You sap.

You are a lying little troll. If anone cares and they go and read the post you are talking about. You prove yourself to be a little lying troll everyday.

 

[idb]

I will post this one more time for you from the OL IT CLEARLY GIVES THE INFORMATION AS TO WHAT IT'S ADDRESSING

[This study is original historical research and analysis prepared for the Fifth Circuit in US v. Emerson,]
RESETTING THE TERMS OF DEBATE ON THE

SECOND AMENDMENT:
NEW LIGHT ON THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE PHRASE "TO BEAR ARMS" BASED ON 300 HISTORICAL USES OF THE TERM IN A MILITARY CONTEXT IN EARLY AMERICA, 1618-1791
The Title of the thread is "The words "to bear arms" is a military term"

Emerson, Miller, and Lewis both agree with me.

I'll reply then from the same document "...the linked words (to bear arms - my note) were never used to describe hunting or other non-military use of weapons..."

What are you talking about? Jibberish? The original link
THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE PHRASE "TO BEAR ARMS" BASED ON 300 HISTORICAL USES OF THE TERM IN A MILITARY CONTEXT IN EARLY AMERICA, 1618-1791

That's not the conclusion of the document though is it?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'll reply then from the same document "...the linked words (to bear arms - my note) were never used to describe hunting or other non-military use of weapons..."

What are you talking about? Jibberish? The original link
THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE PHRASE "TO BEAR ARMS" BASED ON 300 HISTORICAL USES OF THE TERM IN A MILITARY CONTEXT IN EARLY AMERICA, 1618-1791

That's not the conclusion of the document though is it?

You're confused and delusional.

 

[idb]

What are you talking about? Jibberish? The original link
THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE PHRASE "TO BEAR ARMS" BASED ON 300 HISTORICAL USES OF THE TERM IN A MILITARY CONTEXT IN EARLY AMERICA, 1618-1791

That's not the conclusion of the document though is it?

You're confused and delusional.

Oh well....

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That's not the conclusion of the document though is it?

You're confused and delusional.

Oh well....

UNITED STATES v. EMERSON
U.S. Court of Appeals for 5th Circuit, Oct. 16, 2001

SUMMARY OF 5th CIRCUIT's DECISION

"We find that the history of the Second Amendment
reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects
individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not
they are a member of a select militia or performing active military
service or training."

The court examined United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816
(1939). It held:

"We reject the collective rights and sophisticated
collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment. We
hold, consistent with Miller, that it protects the right of individuals,
including those not then actually a member of any militia or engaged in
active military service or training, to privately possess and bear their
own firearms, such as the pistol involved here, that are suitable as
personal, individual weapons and are not of the general kind or type
excluded by Miller."

The court noted:

"Although, as we have held, the Second Amendment does
protect individual rights, that does not mean that those rights may
never be made subject to any limited, narrowly tailored specific
exceptions or restrictions for particular cases that are reasonable and
not inconsistent with the right of Americans generally to individually
keep and bear their private arms as historically understood in this
country."

I think w have been throuh this before. historically understoodWould be under Miller and Lewis.

 

[JakeStarkey]

But it does not give you the right to have military grade heavy weapons.

 

[idb]

You're confused and delusional.

Oh well....

UNITED STATES v. EMERSON
U.S. Court of Appeals for 5th Circuit, Oct. 16, 2001

SUMMARY OF 5th CIRCUIT's DECISION

"We find that the history of the Second Amendment
reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects
individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not
they are a member of a select militia or performing active military
service or training."

The court examined United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816
(1939). It held:

"We reject the collective rights and sophisticated
collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment. We
hold, consistent with Miller, that it protects the right of individuals,
including those not then actually a member of any militia or engaged in
active military service or training, to privately possess and bear their
own firearms, such as the pistol involved here, that are suitable as
personal, individual weapons and are not of the general kind or type
excluded by Miller."

The court noted:

"Although, as we have held, the Second Amendment does
protect individual rights, that does not mean that those rights may
never be made subject to any limited, narrowly tailored specific
exceptions or restrictions for particular cases that are reasonable and
not inconsistent with the right of Americans generally to individually
keep and bear their private arms as historically understood in this
country."

I think w have been throuh this before. historically understoodWould be under Miller and Lewis.

We'll never agree because we're talking about different things.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Oh well....

UNITED STATES v. EMERSON
U.S. Court of Appeals for 5th Circuit, Oct. 16, 2001

SUMMARY OF 5th CIRCUIT's DECISION

"We find that the history of the Second Amendment
reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects
individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not
they are a member of a select militia or performing active military
service or training."

The court examined United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816
(1939). It held:

"We reject the collective rights and sophisticated
collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment. We
hold, consistent with Miller, that it protects the right of individuals,
including those not then actually a member of any militia or engaged in
active military service or training, to privately possess and bear their
own firearms, such as the pistol involved here, that are suitable as
personal, individual weapons and are not of the general kind or type
excluded by Miller."

The court noted:

"Although, as we have held, the Second Amendment does
protect individual rights, that does not mean that those rights may
never be made subject to any limited, narrowly tailored specific
exceptions or restrictions for particular cases that are reasonable and
not inconsistent with the right of Americans generally to individually
keep and bear their private arms as historically understood in this
country."

I think w have been throuh this before. historically understoodWould be under Miller and Lewis.

We'll never agree because we're talking about different things.

I'm Talking Facts and you are talking?

 

[idb]

UNITED STATES v. EMERSON
U.S. Court of Appeals for 5th Circuit, Oct. 16, 2001

SUMMARY OF 5th CIRCUIT's DECISION

"We find that the history of the Second Amendment
reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects
individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not
they are a member of a select militia or performing active military
service or training."

The court examined United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816
(1939). It held:

"We reject the collective rights and sophisticated
collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment. We
hold, consistent with Miller, that it protects the right of individuals,
including those not then actually a member of any militia or engaged in
active military service or training, to privately possess and bear their
own firearms, such as the pistol involved here, that are suitable as
personal, individual weapons and are not of the general kind or type
excluded by Miller."

The court noted:

"Although, as we have held, the Second Amendment does
protect individual rights, that does not mean that those rights may
never be made subject to any limited, narrowly tailored specific
exceptions or restrictions for particular cases that are reasonable and
not inconsistent with the right of Americans generally to individually
keep and bear their private arms as historically understood in this
country."

I think w have been throuh this before. historically understoodWould be under Miller and Lewis.

We'll never agree because we're talking about different things.

I'm Talking Facts and you are talking?

English