Who needs an assault rifle?

[racewright]

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.

It is not about who needs assault rifles the real Question is why do so many want to take them away???--People with the intelegence you suppose to have can't possibly believe it is for the good of the people?? do you, or maybe it is because some innocent children were killed not by a gun but some waco that society felt should be walking around.

Please do not tell me you fell for this dribble Come on PLEASE
Number One Question all should be asking-- What is the real motivation at this time in history????

 

[Koios]

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

Worden is a nincumpoop who has no grasp of what really goes on in this country. To suggest Miller makes all applicable military "ARMS" (not firearms) okie doke, vis a vis 2A, is absurd. In fact, most if not all banned weapons are banned because THEY'RE EXCLUSIVE TO MILITARY AND NOT FOR CIVILIAN USE!!!!

 

[Koios]

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.

It is not about who needs assault rifles the real Question is why do so many want to take them away???--People with the intelegence you suppose to have can't possibly believe it is for the good of the people?? do you, or maybe it is because some innocent children were killed not by a gun but some waco that society felt should be walking around.

Please do not tell me you fell for this dribble Come on PLEASE
Number One Question all should be asking-- What is the real motivation at this time in history????

They do not. But another right (to be an idoit) blinds those to things like "grandfathering," which the assault weapons ban did and most likely will do. No one is coming to take it, unless you get all stupid and shit and lose your right to it or any hand gun. So don't beat your wife or girlfriend. Don't carry in a Texas bar. Don't bring one to school. That sorta thing.

Can you avoid any such foolishness?

 

[Inthemiddle]

Sandy Hook will happen again. You gun nuts are gauranteeing that.

No, you're the one who is guaranteeing that. Because instead of addressing the real problems that lead to such incidents, you're pursuing superficial details, expecting easy answers for complex problems.

 

[chikenwing]

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

Worden is a nincumpoop who has no grasp of what really goes on in this country. To suggest Miller makes all applicable military "ARMS" (not firearms) okie doke, vis a vis 2A, is absurd. In fact, most if not all banned weapons are banned because THEY'RE EXCLUSIVE TO MILITARY AND NOT FOR CIVILIAN USE!!!!

Ok Worden is a putz ,what about the court rulings? Why did they say what they did?

 

[Koios]

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

Worden is a nincumpoop who has no grasp of what really goes on in this country. To suggest Miller makes all applicable military "ARMS" (not firearms) okie doke, vis a vis 2A, is absurd. In fact, most if not all banned weapons are banned because THEY'RE EXCLUSIVE TO MILITARY AND NOT FOR CIVILIAN USE!!!!

Ok Worden is a putz ,what about the court rulings? Why did they say what they did?

The one Worden sights says sawed off shot guns ain't needed by militias. What it didn't say was all the stuff Worden read into it.

That help?

 

[hazlnut]

Dear Idiot,

How long does it take to kill 100 million people with drones?

I'll wait while you get your socks off.

#inyourdreams

Please... gun nutters don't even come to 4% of that.

 

[thanatos144]

Dear Idiot,

How long does it take to kill 100 million people with drones?

I'll wait while you get your socks off.

#inyourdreams

Please... gun nutters don't even come to 4% of that.

300,000,000 guns say differently.

 

[Koios]

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.

Neither are most military arms. Wake up and smell the reality.

 

[chikenwing]

Sandy Hook will happen again. You gun nuts are gauranteeing that.

No, you're the one who is guaranteeing that. Because instead of addressing the real problems that lead to such incidents, you're pursuing superficial details, expecting easy answers for complex problems.

It is astounding that ,what appear to be reasonably intelligent people,can miss that simple reality,ether willful ignorance,or as another poster has suggested , nefarious intentions?

 

[Inthemiddle]

Neither are most military arms. Wake up and smell the reality.

Incorrect. You lack a knowledge of the basic facts of the subject. "Military arms" as you put it, are the defining quality of protected arms. If you bothered to read the SCOTUS decision in Heller, you would know this.

 

[Koios]

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.

Sadly Sandy Hook/Columbine/Workplace, etc. tragedies will happen, again and again. Nutters are not to blame for them happening, but they do support the sale of weapons that might add to the extend of the killing and wounding these disturbed individuals do.

 

[Koios]

Neither are most military arms. Wake up and smell the reality.

Incorrect. You lack a knowledge of the basic facts of the subject. "Military arms" as you put it, are the defining quality of protected arms. If you bothered to read the SCOTUS decision in Heller, you would know this.

Like you, am no Con Law scholar. So I look at the way things are. And indeed, the tools of war are not to be purchased nor owned by the civilian population in the USA, in most cases.

If you bothered to look out your fucking window, you would know this.

 

[Bigfoot]

Shit, Jesse Jackson said we would be able to shoot those down with one!

 

[eflatminor]

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.

Nope, "shall not be infringed" has nothing to do with need.

 

[Koios]

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.

Nope, "shall not be infringed" has nothing to do with need.

It has other words too, like ... being necessary to ...

 

[eflatminor]

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

Read it again ... you'll see.

Nope, "shall not be infringed" has nothing to do with need.

It has other word too, like ... being necessary to ...

Right, the people being armed is necessary to maintain a free state. The right is inalienable. The need is only if you wish to remain free, which is up to the individual.

It doesn't matter what you think might be needed to remain free. It doesn't matter if you wish to be subjugated, the right of the people to be armed is one we're born with and it shall not be infringed. There is no need that has to be established because it's a right.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

Sadly Sandy Hook/Columbine/Workplace, etc. tragedies will happen, again and again. Nutters are not to blame for them happening, but they do support the sale of weapons that might add to the extend of the killing and wounding these disturbed individuals do.

Your neighbor with no self control will get fat if she eats too much ice cream, so what we should do, is make it harder for you to buy it, in case she breaks into your home and steals your Rocky Road. Am I right?

 

[Koios]

Nope, "shall not be infringed" has nothing to do with need.

It has other word too, like ... being necessary to ...

Right, the people being armed is necessary to maintain a free state. The right is inalienable. [...] The need is only if you wish to remain free, which is up to the individual.

It doesn't matter what you think might be needed to remain free. It doesn't matter if you wish to be subjugated, the right of the people to be armed is one we're born with and it shall not be infringed. There is no need that has to be established because it's a right.

... insofar as it serves the need of the state.

 

[g5000]

Who needs high definition television? Me

Who needs Cadillac Escalades? Rappers with larger entourages needing the extra seating capacity.

Who needs fine wine and filet minon? People who cannot grill tastier cuts and have them come out tender.

Who needs Nike shoes? Lance Armstrong, until recently.

Who needs video consoles and games? Children without access to books.

Who needs..................................

LIVE FREE OR DIE! (Folks fighting a death sentence might not agree.)

See bolds above ^^^^

I like how you equivocate the meaning of "need" when it suits you.

The point obviously sailed over your head.

When dipshits start deciding that evidence of a "need" is necessary to exercise our inalienable rights, then that is when they become tyrant wannabes.