well short stalk the weapons that were banned were at the time not in common use
Hate to break it to ya, but the previous ban was already deemed constitutional. But do continue the yammer about "well regulated militias".
THEY ARE NOW.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Assault Weapons Ban would be unconstitutional. "A State Militia must be maintained and well regulated"
- Thread starter 52ndStreet
- Start date
THEY ARE NOW.
There is precedence in the courts going as far back as U.S. vs Miller 1939 and U.S. vs Lewis 1980 affirming what Miller ruled uponThe undeniable reality is that regulation of firearms is constitutional. As Antonin Scalia observed follow D.C. v. Heller, "yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed. What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time.”Hate to break it to ya, but the previous ban was already deemed constitutional. But do continue the yammer about "well regulated militias".
I.e., the public has a right to safety, and opinion matters in democratic self-governance.
The Court never sanctioned the unbridled permissiveness upon which some extremists insist.
The controversy is a political one, not a constitutional one, and the scandal-plagued political lobbyist, the NRA, is now largely impotent, as it was in the 2020 election. The bankrupt special-interest pressure group's capacity to crush the will of the People has been greatly diminished.
Squinty "Fancy Pants" LaP is fighting to survive.
View attachment 478487
“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a rich crony with a yacht!”
Opinion of the Court
In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
DrLove
Diamond Member
well short stalk the weapons that were banned were at the time not in common useThe United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.
Hate to break it to ya, but the previous ban was already deemed constitutional. But do continue the yammer about "well regulated militias".
THEY ARE NOW.
Do you approve of Ghost Guns with no registration numbers for criminals that can be assembled in 30 minutes or less?
Mac-7
Diamond Member
- Oct 9, 2019
- 62,452
- 45,412
- 3,565
Remember the old ads themed “I am the NRA” featuring ordinary citizens?The undeniable reality is that regulation of firearms is constitutional. As Antonin Scalia observed follow D.C. v. Heller, "yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed. What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time.”Hate to break it to ya, but the previous ban was already deemed constitutional. But do continue the yammer about "well regulated militias".
I.e., the public has a right to safety, and opinion matters in democratic self-governance.
The Court never sanctioned the unbridled permissiveness upon which some extremists insist.
The controversy is a political one, not a constitutional one, and the scandal-plagued political lobbyist, the NRA, is now largely impotent, as it was in the 2020 election. The bankrupt special-interest pressure group's capacity to crush the will of the People has been greatly diminished.
Squinty "Fancy Pants" LaP is fighting to survive.
View attachment 478487
“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a rich crony with a yacht!”
we the people are the real power of the NRA
and still are now as it always has been
Last edited:
Why are all the right's gun arguments like bad movie plots? Just say you like having guns and shooting guns and that they make you feel safe. Kind of lacks the punch of your wild predictions of government tyranny, invasions of zombie-like urbanites invading suburbia and civil wars. I'm not in favor of most kinds of bans because they would not work but I'll be damned if I'm on the same side of this issue with people who live in fantasy land. Is just being real not a good enough argument in the face of our astounding gun violence death toll?
Best argument for sensible gun control I've ever read. Bar none.
well short stalk the weapons that were banned were at the time not in common useThe United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.
Hate to break it to ya, but the previous ban was already deemed constitutional. But do continue the yammer about "well regulated militias".
THEY ARE NOW.
Well that's the dumbest reason ever for leaving them on the streets. There's a lot of mass killers using them to murder hundreds of innocent people, too. Which argument is more compelling? Saving lives, or letting people have their fun?
Mac-7
Diamond Member
- Oct 9, 2019
- 62,452
- 45,412
- 3,565
The problem is that 5 demigods on the supreme court can change that in the blink of a eyeThere is precedence in the courts going as far back as U.S. vs Miller 1939 and U.S. vs Lewis 1980 affirming what Miller ruled uponThe undeniable reality is that regulation of firearms is constitutional. As Antonin Scalia observed follow D.C. v. Heller, "yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed. What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time.”Hate to break it to ya, but the previous ban was already deemed constitutional. But do continue the yammer about "well regulated militias".
I.e., the public has a right to safety, and opinion matters in democratic self-governance.
The Court never sanctioned the unbridled permissiveness upon which some extremists insist.
The controversy is a political one, not a constitutional one, and the scandal-plagued political lobbyist, the NRA, is now largely impotent, as it was in the 2020 election. The bankrupt special-interest pressure group's capacity to crush the will of the People has been greatly diminished.
Squinty "Fancy Pants" LaP is fighting to survive.
View attachment 478487
“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a rich crony with a yacht!”
Opinion of the Court
In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
the court has 4 knee jerk libs and 3 linguini spined republican appointed judges
An AWB would not stand before the court. More blanket bans on common use we
Further, I cannot fathom how anyone would think that the court makeup has moved closer to supporting gun control since Heller. If anything it has moved further from it and bringing a federal AWB before this court, imho, would have little chance of standing.
That gun regulation can exist under the constitution is not a statement that a new AWB would stand under the constitution. I do not think one would namely because it is meant to target a weapon that is in common use, the most common long gun afaik, and is a blanket ban on them. That is a violation of the second as it has been interpreted by the court today.The undeniable reality is that regulation of firearms is constitutional. As Antonin Scalia observed follow D.C. v. Heller, "yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed. What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time.”Hate to break it to ya, but the previous ban was already deemed constitutional. But do continue the yammer about "well regulated militias".
I.e., the public has a right to safety, and opinion matters in democratic self-governance.
The Court never sanctioned the unbridled permissiveness upon which some extremists insist.
The controversy is a political one, not a constitutional one, and the scandal-plagued political lobbyist, the NRA, is now largely impotent, as it was in the 2020 election. The bankrupt special-interest pressure group's capacity to crush the will of the People has been greatly diminished.
Squinty "Fancy Pants" LaP is fighting to survive.
View attachment 478487
“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a rich crony with a yacht!”
Further, I cannot fathom how anyone would think that the court makeup has moved closer to supporting gun control since Heller. If anything it has moved further from it and bringing a federal AWB before this court, imho, would have little chance of standing.
no such thing as a ghost gun unless Casper has onewell short stalk the weapons that were banned were at the time not in common useThe United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.
Hate to break it to ya, but the previous ban was already deemed constitutional. But do continue the yammer about "well regulated militias".
THEY ARE NOW.
Do you approve of Ghost Guns with no registration numbers for criminals that can be assembled in 30 minutes or less?
It takes a lot longer to build a rifle than ding bat jo said.
you've been sorely misinformed
for it to be a so-called ghost gun you would need to get an 80% lower it takes a few hours to drill the correct holes you would need an 80% lower jig and the correct bits, you would need a router or heavy duty drill press
80 Percent Lower | 80-Lower.com | 80% Lowers on SALE Today!
Save on a wide variety of 80 percent lower receivers. Shop AR-15, AR-10, AR9 80% lowers, polymer80 lower receivers, 80% pistol frames and more.
www.80-lower.com
AR15 80 Lower | 5.56/.223 80% Lower Receivers | 80-Lower.com
Want to build a black rifle? The AR15 80 Lower is where you start. Compatible with 5.56/.223, 6.5 Grendel, and 300 Blackout. Forged, polymer, or billet.
www.80-lower.com
Parts & Tools | Parts Kits | Gunsmithing | Triggers | 80-Lower.com
Grab all parts and tools needed to finish your custom AR rifle or pistol. Mil-spec lower parts kits, uppers, barrels, gas and accessories available.
www.80-lower.com
AR Rifle Kits | 5.56/.223, 300 BLK, 6.5 Grendel, .308 Kits
Quality AR-type Rifle Kits in stock. Includes LPK and upper. Available in 5.56/.223, 6.5 Grendel/Creedmoor, .308, and more! Mil-spec fitment.
www.80-lower.com
and all that will happen lot of dead politicians and justicesThe problem is that 5 demigods on the supreme court can change that in the blink of a eyeThere is precedence in the courts going as far back as U.S. vs Miller 1939 and U.S. vs Lewis 1980 affirming what Miller ruled uponThe undeniable reality is that regulation of firearms is constitutional. As Antonin Scalia observed follow D.C. v. Heller, "yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed. What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time.”Hate to break it to ya, but the previous ban was already deemed constitutional. But do continue the yammer about "well regulated militias".
I.e., the public has a right to safety, and opinion matters in democratic self-governance.
The Court never sanctioned the unbridled permissiveness upon which some extremists insist.
The controversy is a political one, not a constitutional one, and the scandal-plagued political lobbyist, the NRA, is now largely impotent, as it was in the 2020 election. The bankrupt special-interest pressure group's capacity to crush the will of the People has been greatly diminished.
Squinty "Fancy Pants" LaP is fighting to survive.
View attachment 478487
“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a rich crony with a yacht!”
Opinion of the Court
In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
the court has 4 knee jerk libs and 3 linguini spined republican appointed judges
illegal laws are illegal laws it's stupid to allow leftists to run the streets but there you are.well short stalk the weapons that were banned were at the time not in common useThe United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.
Hate to break it to ya, but the previous ban was already deemed constitutional. But do continue the yammer about "well regulated militias".
THEY ARE NOW.
Well that's the dumbest reason ever for leaving them on the streets. There's a lot of mass killers using them to murder hundreds of innocent people, too. Which argument is more compelling? Saving lives, or letting people have their fun?
Mac-7
Diamond Member
- Oct 9, 2019
- 62,452
- 45,412
- 3,565
I would not say things like that if I were youall that will happen lot of dead politicians and justices
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 111,977
- 52,250
- 2,290
Wrong.That comma in the 2nd Amendment must short circuit the lefts brain or something because you people always leave out everything after it.The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.
The National Guard has many assault rifles and many other cool weapons. They are the State Militias, who were always ultimately under the command of the CiC. Not the private gun clubs.
"A well regulated Militia," means trained in the art of war.
The "left" follows what the Supreme Court says about the Second Amendment, unlike far too many on the right.
No...they don't. The leftists on the 9th, 4th, 2nd circuit courts ignore the rulings in Heller, Miller, Caetano and just make up their own decisions when it comes to rifle and magazine bans as well as carry permits.....as the 9th ruling on magazines and concealed carry show.....
enough is enough tyranny must be stopped laws infringing on the rights of citizens is tyrannyI would not say things like that if I were youall that will happen lot of dead politicians and justices
DrLove
Diamond Member
and all that will happen lot of dead politicians and justices
So what are you saying exactly Biggie - You gonna act out dude?
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 111,977
- 52,250
- 2,290
The undeniable reality is that regulation of firearms is constitutional. As Antonin Scalia observed follow D.C. v. Heller, "yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed. What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time.”Hate to break it to ya, but the previous ban was already deemed constitutional. But do continue the yammer about "well regulated militias".
I.e., the public has a right to safety, and opinion matters in democratic self-governance.
The Court never sanctioned the unbridled permissiveness upon which some extremists insist.
The controversy is a political one, not a constitutional one, and the scandal-plagued political lobbyist, the NRA, is now largely impotent, as it was in the 2020 election. The bankrupt special-interest pressure group's capacity to crush the will of the People has been greatly diminished.
Squinty "Fancy Pants" LaP is fighting to survive.
View attachment 478487
“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a rich crony with a yacht!”
"yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed. What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time.”
Wrong...that isn't what he actually said...here is what he said...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
-----
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
A more detailed quote from Friedman...
Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411.
Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.
That analysis misreads Heller.
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.
And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409.
Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412.
Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.”
Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.
II
DrLove
Diamond Member
no such thing as a ghost gun unless Casper has one
It takes a lot longer to build a rifle than ding bat jo said.
you've been sorely misinformed
for it to be a so-called ghost gun you would need to get an 80% lower it takes a few hours to drill the correct holes you would need an 80% lower jig and the correct bits, you would need a router or heavy duty drill press
and a little FYI not everybody can do this and it work
Check, you are against registration numbers for criminals.
I Made an Untraceable AR-15 'Ghost Gun' in My Office—and It Was Easy
I have no technical understanding of firearms and little mastery of power tools. Still, I made a fully functional AR-15.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 111,977
- 52,250
- 2,290
well short stalk the weapons that were banned were at the time not in common useThe United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.
Hate to break it to ya, but the previous ban was already deemed constitutional. But do continue the yammer about "well regulated militias".
THEY ARE NOW.
Do you approve of Ghost Guns with no registration numbers for criminals that can be assembled in 30 minutes or less?
Do you understand that the Mexican Drug cartels have built gun factories on our border where they are now turning out all the guns they want...and sending them to their members over the border...do you understand that? Do you think they put numbers on their guns?
Yes....I do.
When you catch a criminal with a gun, you arrest them. Whether they have a serial number is irrelevant. A felon caught with a gun can already be arrested......someone using a gun for a crime can already be arrested, numbers on a gun mean nothing, and do nothing.......you morons just want another excuse to ban guns.
We have all the laws we need to arrest gun criminals...that isn't our problem.
Our problem is that the democrat party releases the gun criminals we catch, over and over again.......and having numbers on guns doesn't stop that problem.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 111,977
- 52,250
- 2,290
no such thing as a ghost gun unless Casper has one
It takes a lot longer to build a rifle than ding bat jo said.
you've been sorely misinformed
for it to be a so-called ghost gun you would need to get an 80% lower it takes a few hours to drill the correct holes you would need an 80% lower jig and the correct bits, you would need a router or heavy duty drill press
and a little FYI not everybody can do this and it work
Check, you are against registration numbers for criminals.
I Made an Untraceable AR-15 'Ghost Gun' in My Office—and It Was Easy
I have no technical understanding of firearms and little mastery of power tools. Still, I made a fully functional AR-15.www.wired.com
Moron.....do you understand that under the Haynes v United States Supreme court decision, criminals do not have to register their illegal guns? That they cannot be convicted for not registering their illegal guns?
Do you understand that?
Numbers on guns have nothing to do with solving crimes.......you solve crime by finding relationships among criminals and walking up the food chain.......
Again....a felon caught with any gun can already be arrested.
Anyone using a gun for a rape, robbery or murder can already be arrested.
You don't need numbers on guns to do any of that.
danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #160
I gainsay your contention. Want to argue about and see who resorts to the most fallacies first?Better than You and I resort to the fewest fallacies.Apparently you don't read so well.What are you talking about? There is no right to form private militias of Individuals of the People. The People are the Militia. You are either well regulated or unroganized.
Apparently not, other than in your mind.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 105
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 51
- Views
- 419
- Replies
- 23
- Views
- 438
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 64
- Views
- 407
- Replies
- 8
- Views
- 37
- Replies
- 168
- Views
- 1K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8084
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-