Who needs an assault rifle?

[Old Rocks]

So Lavos was part of a well regulated militia.

Sandy Hook will happen again. You gun nuts are gauranteeing that. And then there will be heavy handed regulations even on the type of guns I own. And you fruitloops will be to blame.

 

[Koios]

Who needs "assault weapons"?

According to the Miller supreme court all able bodied citizens!

U.S. v. Miller (1939)

Note, Miller only required evidence that the weapon contribute to the efficiency of a well-regulated militia. The Court never said the defendants had to belong to a well-regulated militia. In other words the Miller case interpreted the Second Amendment to mean one has the right to own militia type weapons.

Nope. Miller just contended that sawed off shotguns are not needed by Militias. No mention of assualt rifles is in the ruling.

 

[Old Rocks]

Assasins. Crazy people who want to take a bunch of folks with them on their way out. Military. Stupid people who duck hunt and don't shoot any ducks. Guys with small peckers needing to feel more manly than they are, which is just short of Ru Paul manliness.

Maybe others ..

People who want to protect themselves from multiple intruders.

How many is typical? Or does every member of the crips and/or bloods come barging into homes where folks are watching TV with the kids after a tough day at the office.

These fruitloops come up with the whackiest scenerios to defend the idiocy of having these war weapons in public hands.

But to answer that silly question. I presonally had the experiance of having to face down a real gang, differant times, differant kind of gang, with a gun. A single shot shotgun. Nobody wanted to be the one to die, and they ceased to be interested in doing me harm and left.

 

[M14 Shooter]

False premise, that one must show a "need" before exercising a right.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Assasins. Crazy people who want to take a bunch of folks with them on their way out. Military. Stupid people who duck hunt and don't shoot any ducks. Guys with small peckers needing to feel more manly than they are, which is just short of Ru Paul manliness.

Maybe others ..

You forgot free people.......

Nope. That's who can have them, and not who needs or wants one.

For example, I do not want nor need one. Chicks are telling me all the time, "Wow; you're big for a white guy." So clearly, I need no assault rifle, nor would I waste time playing around in the woods with middle aged, fat-gut virgins in camo, with the intelligence of fucking fruit flies, when the bitches are wanting my spare time for doing other things.

Ya feel me?

I'm quite confident that you will never catch up. Your arrogance only exceeds your ignorance.

 

[PaulS1950]

Sandy Hook had absoluting nothing to do with the legal ownership of guns.
Sandy Hook was perpetrated by a man for whom it was illegal to have or use guns of any kind. He shot and killed his mother who was the legal owner and then continued his crime at the school.
We want to protect our children from the re-occurence of such a travisty but are being stopped by liberals who think that having trained armed guards will put the children in more danger. If that is true then why do we do it for the president, the sports stadiums and the banks - even some grocery stores have armed security - but you say you don't want to expose your children to that. To WHAT? Safety? Protection? What is it that you don't want to expose your children to? An armed guard would promote nothing but a security that we already provide to other things in our lives of less importance.
The president's kids go to a school where they employ 12 armed guards and he already has the secret service protecting his kids. Why can't we have the same protection for our kids?

 

[eflatminor]

Who needs an assault rifle?

Doesn't matter. It's a Bill of Rights, not a bill of needs.

 

[Koios]

You forgot free people.......

Nope. That's who can have them, and not who needs or wants one.

For example, I do not want nor need one. Chicks are telling me all the time, "Wow; you're big for a white guy." So clearly, I need no assault rifle, nor would I waste time playing around in the woods with middle aged, fat-gut virgins in camo, with the intelligence of fucking fruit flies, when the bitches are wanting my spare time for doing other things.

Ya feel me?

I'm quite confident that you will never catch up. Your arrogance only exceeds your ignorance.

Lame, LBT. If you want to play at this level, you need to be more clever / creative.

But no worries. We'll put that one behind us and move on.

Give it another shot ...

 

[PaulS1950]

Who needs "assault weapons"?

According to the Miller supreme court all able bodied citizens!

U.S. v. Miller (1939)

Note, Miller only required evidence that the weapon contribute to the efficiency of a well-regulated militia. The Court never said the defendants had to belong to a well-regulated militia. In other words the Miller case interpreted the Second Amendment to mean one has the right to own militia type weapons.

Nope. Miller just contended that sawed off shotguns are not needed by Militias. No mention of assualt rifles is in the ruling.

Actually Miller was returned to the lower courts to make a determination as to whether the sawed off shotgun had any military value. They had no idea that sawed off shotguns had been used in the trenches of WW I.
The court's ruling was that weapons of the nature that served to contribute to the successful operation of a militia were protected by the second amendment.

 

[Koios]

Who needs an assault rifle?

Doesn't matter. It's a Bill of Rights, not a bill of needs.

Hmmm? Seems there is some need in the 2A. I'm sure of it.

Read it again ... you'll see.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nope. Miller just contended that sawed off shotguns are not needed by Militias. No mention of assualt rifles is in the ruling.

Actually Miller was returned to the lower courts to make a determination as to whether the sawed off shotgun had any military value. They had no idea that sawed off shotguns had been used in the trenches of WW I.

It was not within judicial notice. Correct.

The court's ruling was that weapons of the nature that served to contribute to the successful operation of a militia were protected by the second amendment.

Impossible to soundly interpret otherwise.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Nope. That's who can have them, and not who needs or wants one.

For example, I do not want nor need one. Chicks are telling me all the time, "Wow; you're big for a white guy." So clearly, I need no assault rifle, nor would I waste time playing around in the woods with middle aged, fat-gut virgins in camo, with the intelligence of fucking fruit flies, when the bitches are wanting my spare time for doing other things.

Ya feel me?

I'm quite confident that you will never catch up. Your arrogance only exceeds your ignorance.

Lame, LBT. If you want to play at this level, you need to be more clever / creative.

But no worries. We'll put that one behind us and move on.

Give it another shot ...

Brilliantly inept rebuttal. Come on K, I know you got more than that. Perhaps you need time to reflect on your shortcomings.

 

[Merchant_of_Meh]

There are very few things we need in this life to survive. Food, water, shelter and something to protect us from harm. For some that meant hand-maid clubs, for others it meant swords, bow & arrows or guns....it's all relative.

I personally don't need a gun, but if I got one it would be for protection and nothing more. I see no reason to use something that was intended to kill as merely an instrument for entertainment. That's just me though.

 

[Koios]

Who needs "assault weapons"?

According to the Miller supreme court all able bodied citizens!

U.S. v. Miller (1939)

Note, Miller only required evidence that the weapon contribute to the efficiency of a well-regulated militia. The Court never said the defendants had to belong to a well-regulated militia. In other words the Miller case interpreted the Second Amendment to mean one has the right to own militia type weapons.

Nope. Miller just contended that sawed off shotguns are not needed by Militias. No mention of assualt rifles is in the ruling.

Actually Miller was returned to the lower courts to make a determination as to whether the sawed off shotgun had any military value. They had no idea that sawed off shotguns had been used in the trenches of WW I.
The court's ruling was that weapons of the nature that served to contribute to the successful operation of a militia were protected by the second amendment.

Hmmm? The opinion of the majority seemed to suggest quite clearly that sawed-offs were not needed for militias.

What lower court was it handed off to, and why?

Next, that's not how it works. They merely ruled on one type of weapon, and did not make the broader contention that you're reading into it. So if perhaps (emphasis, perhaps) a larger statement might have been made, or could be interpretted, subsequent rulings would hash that out, and then unambiguously make the additional claim, which is how it works.

 

[PaulS1950]

Carl F. Worden

January 15, 2013

There are two Supreme Court rulings that directly relate to the current anti-Assault Weapon issue everyone needs to be reminded of.

The first is United States v. Miller 1939. Miller possessed a sawed-off shotgun banned under the National Firearms Act. He argued that he had a right to bear the weapon under the Second Amendment, but the Supreme Court ruled against him. Why? At the time, sawed-off shotguns were not being used in a military application, and the Supremes ruled that since it didn't, it was not protected. Even though Miller lost that argument, the Miller case set the precedent that protected firearms have a military, and thus a legitimate and protected Militia use. The military now uses shotguns regularly, but not very short, sawed-off shotguns, but an AR-15/AK-47 type weapon is currently in use by the military, therefore it is a protected weapon for the Unorganized Militia, which includes just about every American citizen now that both age and sex discrimination are illegal. (The original Militia included men of age 17-45) Therefore any firearm that is applicable to military use is clearly protected under Article II, and that includes all those nasty-looking semi-automatic black rifles, including full 30 round magazines.

The second important case is that of John Bad Elk v. United States from 1900. In that case, an attempt was made to arrest Mr. Bad Elk without probable cause, and Mr. Bad Elk killed a policeman who was attempting the false arrest. Bad Elk had been found guilty and sentenced to death. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Bad Elk had the right to use any force, including lethal force, to prevent his false arrest, even if the policeman was only trying to arrest him and not kill him. Basically, the Supremes of the day ruled that as a citizen, you have the right to defend against your civil rights being violated using ANY force necessary to prevent the violation, even if the offending party isn't trying to kill you.

Both of these cases are standing law to this day.

The Miller decision clearly includes AR-15/AK-47 type weapons as having a military application. The Bad Elk decision means that if the government tries to confiscate your AR-15/AK-47, or arrest you for having one, you can kill the offenders on the spot, even if they are not trying to kill you.

I didn't make these decisions; the United States Supreme Court did.

Carl F. Worden

 

[OODA_Loop]

Good God! The amount of idiocy being spouted by the 51 second is totally insane. Next, nuclear hand grenades for all, correct?

There is no right to bear nuclear hand grenades

 

[Koios]

I'm quite confident that you will never catch up. Your arrogance only exceeds your ignorance.

Lame, LBT. If you want to play at this level, you need to be more clever / creative.

But no worries. We'll put that one behind us and move on.

Give it another shot ...

Brilliantly inept rebuttal. Come on K, I know you got more than that. Perhaps you need time to reflect on your shortcomings.

The "no; you're dumb" approach is kinda childish, don't you think?

 

[Koios]

Good God! The amount of idiocy being spouted by the 51 second is totally insane. Next, nuclear hand grenades for all, correct?

There is no right to bear nuclear hand grenades

Nor Walther PPKs. But they and battlefield nuclear weapons are "arms."

 

[Inthemiddle]

Who needs an assault rifle?

Assasins. Crazy people who want to take a bunch of folks with them on their way out. Military. Stupid people who duck hunt and don't shoot any ducks. Guys with small peckers needing to feel more manly than they are, which is just short of Ru Paul manliness.

Maybe others ..

Maybe you should take the time and effort to actually educate yourself on firearms before you propose to describe who does or does not need a certain type of weapon.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Good God! The amount of idiocy being spouted by the 51 second is totally insane. Next, nuclear hand grenades for all, correct?

There is no right to bear nuclear hand grenades

Nor Walther PPKs. But they and battlefield nuclear weapons are "arms."

Grenades are not arms in the context of 2A protections.