Biden to tax away your guns

[Winston]

Report: Biden’s proposed gun control plan could hit gun owners with $34 billion in taxes

Get ready to pay up

www.theblaze.com

I reckon it is far easier than flat out banning them.

This can be appealed in court....it would be like taxing books and magazines or newspapers to the point you invalidate the 1st Amendment...

Not really, since it is already done. Even Scalia admitted jurisdictions have the authority to tax guns. And that includes the federal government. It is actually a great idea, just make those "modern sporting rifles", that still cracks me up, like automatic weapons. Eliminating selling new by preventing their production, and then taxing the ones that are in private hands. Not really seeing a case here. You can still own your pistols, shotguns, and real rifles.

Cool. So you'd be behind that taxing free speech and the press as well as going to church are all perfectly valid as well?

What about protection from illegal search and seizure only being available to people who pay their tax for it?

Winston? Where'd you go? Since you're OK with taxing Constitutionally protected rights, so ...

Cool. So you'd be behind that taxing free speech and the press as well as going to church are all perfectly valid as well?​

What about protection from illegal search and seizure only being available to people who pay their tax for it?​

I don't know what is so hard to understand. You do not, I repeat, DO NOT, have a constitutional guaranteed right to own a modern sporting rifle. Now, when the second amendment was a collective right based on the arming of a militia, you could make the argument that you did have a constitutional right to modern sporting rifles. A really good argument. But that ship sailed away with the judicial activism, and creationism, of Heller. Now the second amendment is an individual right based on self-protection. Do you need a modern sporting rifle for self-protection. Why no, no you don't. Not only can we tax modern sporting rifles, we can ban their production for private use, we can even ban owning them. Because that ban would not significantly "infringe" upon someone's ability to have another type of gun for self-defense.

So fifty, maybe sixty years from now, you won't be able to own much more than a taser and some pepper spray. Hunting will die off, like it almost has. I mean there is more small game roaming around in the woods than there was when the colonists got here. Squirrels, Raccoons, Rabbits--hell, if it weren't for the cats the rabbits would have already taken us over. I mean how many people do you know that run a pack of beagles for rabbit hunting? Not near as many that have that beagle to primp and prune for the Westminister Dog Show. Poor fellas.

I guess what I am saying is that you gun nuts overplayed your hand. When the second amendment was a collective right, well when the Stormtroopers got them some laser fueled disrupters, well you could get one too. Now, tough shit. Some of us in this country warned you guys. We killed our NRA memberships and joined other outfits, like the Sportsman's Alliance. The NRA became nothing more than a Ponzi scam lobbying for the gun manufacturers. They don't give two shits if you lose your collective right to participate in a militia, they pursue the mighty dollar. When modern sporting rifles are outlawed they will just sell you tasers.

Yes....we do....what part of the Heller decision do you not understand? What does Scalia, who wrote the opinion in Heller mean when he says that AR-15s are protected weapons....?

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
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.

Tell me, what makes sawed off shotguns subject to regulation and bans and not modern sporting rifles? What you fail to realize is that if they can rationalize banning sawed off shotguns they can rationalize banning modern sporting rifles. And the fact that they can ban sawed off shotguns is a clear indicator that you and your friends are not constitutionally granted the right to own any damn weapon you want.

Notice what the Supreme Court stated in Miller.....

If any guns are protected by the 2nd Amendment....it is the AR-15 rifle.....as well as fully automatic military rifles.....

United States v. Miller.........the government argued......

The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.


What the Court ruled.......guns that are used by a military are protected by the 2nd Amendment.....

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That ruling is moot at this point. I have explained this already. That ruling was when the second amendment was a collective right, "any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". Heller changed that, it is now an individual right based in self-defense. For instance, in Heller the problem was the requirement of trigger locks, that would in no way inhibit a militia force. So Scalia and his pals had to do some judicial creationism, history revisionism, and judicial activism, and they twisted the second amendment into a right based on self-defense.

And no where did Scalia say that assault weapons were "protected". Matter of fact, he did say that the ruling did not preclude local jurisdictions from legislating restrictions on arms as long as it did not impede that whole self-defense thing.

 

[2aguy]

Report: Biden’s proposed gun control plan could hit gun owners with $34 billion in taxes

Get ready to pay up

www.theblaze.com

I reckon it is far easier than flat out banning them.

This can be appealed in court....it would be like taxing books and magazines or newspapers to the point you invalidate the 1st Amendment...

Not really, since it is already done. Even Scalia admitted jurisdictions have the authority to tax guns. And that includes the federal government. It is actually a great idea, just make those "modern sporting rifles", that still cracks me up, like automatic weapons. Eliminating selling new by preventing their production, and then taxing the ones that are in private hands. Not really seeing a case here. You can still own your pistols, shotguns, and real rifles.

Cool. So you'd be behind that taxing free speech and the press as well as going to church are all perfectly valid as well?

What about protection from illegal search and seizure only being available to people who pay their tax for it?

Winston? Where'd you go? Since you're OK with taxing Constitutionally protected rights, so ...

Cool. So you'd be behind that taxing free speech and the press as well as going to church are all perfectly valid as well?​

What about protection from illegal search and seizure only being available to people who pay their tax for it?​

I don't know what is so hard to understand. You do not, I repeat, DO NOT, have a constitutional guaranteed right to own a modern sporting rifle. Now, when the second amendment was a collective right based on the arming of a militia, you could make the argument that you did have a constitutional right to modern sporting rifles. A really good argument. But that ship sailed away with the judicial activism, and creationism, of Heller. Now the second amendment is an individual right based on self-protection. Do you need a modern sporting rifle for self-protection. Why no, no you don't. Not only can we tax modern sporting rifles, we can ban their production for private use, we can even ban owning them. Because that ban would not significantly "infringe" upon someone's ability to have another type of gun for self-defense.

So fifty, maybe sixty years from now, you won't be able to own much more than a taser and some pepper spray. Hunting will die off, like it almost has. I mean there is more small game roaming around in the woods than there was when the colonists got here. Squirrels, Raccoons, Rabbits--hell, if it weren't for the cats the rabbits would have already taken us over. I mean how many people do you know that run a pack of beagles for rabbit hunting? Not near as many that have that beagle to primp and prune for the Westminister Dog Show. Poor fellas.

I guess what I am saying is that you gun nuts overplayed your hand. When the second amendment was a collective right, well when the Stormtroopers got them some laser fueled disrupters, well you could get one too. Now, tough shit. Some of us in this country warned you guys. We killed our NRA memberships and joined other outfits, like the Sportsman's Alliance. The NRA became nothing more than a Ponzi scam lobbying for the gun manufacturers. They don't give two shits if you lose your collective right to participate in a militia, they pursue the mighty dollar. When modern sporting rifles are outlawed they will just sell you tasers.

Yes....we do....what part of the Heller decision do you not understand? What does Scalia, who wrote the opinion in Heller mean when he says that AR-15s are protected weapons....?

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
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.

Tell me, what makes sawed off shotguns subject to regulation and bans and not modern sporting rifles? What you fail to realize is that if they can rationalize banning sawed off shotguns they can rationalize banning modern sporting rifles. And the fact that they can ban sawed off shotguns is a clear indicator that you and your friends are not constitutionally granted the right to own any damn weapon you want.

Notice what the Supreme Court stated in Miller.....

If any guns are protected by the 2nd Amendment....it is the AR-15 rifle.....as well as fully automatic military rifles.....

United States v. Miller.........the government argued......

The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.


What the Court ruled.......guns that are used by a military are protected by the 2nd Amendment.....

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That ruling is moot at this point. I have explained this already. That ruling was when the second amendment was a collective right, "any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". Heller changed that, it is now an individual right based in self-defense. For instance, in Heller the problem was the requirement of trigger locks, that would in no way inhibit a militia force. So Scalia and his pals had to do some judicial creationism, history revisionism, and judicial activism, and they twisted the second amendment into a right based on self-defense.

And no where did Scalia say that assault weapons were "protected". Matter of fact, he did say that the ruling did not preclude local jurisdictions from legislating restrictions on arms as long as it did not impede that whole self-defense thing.

Yeah...nothing you just posted is true or accurate......Scalia went into great detail in legal precedent and British and American history....you are just wrong.

I just posted that AR-15s and rifles like it are mentioned by name by Scalia........they are protected by the 2nd Amendment.

He states that limiting gun selection by civilians based on "they have other options," doesn't hold Constitutional muster....

 

[Lesh]

For instance, in Heller the problem was the requirement of trigger locks, that would in no way inhibit a militia force. So Scalia and his pals had to do some judicial creationism, history revisionism, and judicial activism, and they twisted the second amendment into a right based on self-defense.

Scalia tried to decouple the Militia Clause of the 2A by claiming it was meaningless rhetorical throat clearing.

Of course that very spare document did that sort of thing nowhere else but hey....if you're gonna legislate from the bench ya gotta say something

 

[2aguy]

For instance, in Heller the problem was the requirement of trigger locks, that would in no way inhibit a militia force. So Scalia and his pals had to do some judicial creationism, history revisionism, and judicial activism, and they twisted the second amendment into a right based on self-defense.

Scalia tried to decouple the Militia Clause of the 2A by claiming it was meaningless rhetorical throat clearing.

Of course that very spare document did that sort of thing nowhere else but hey....if you're gonna legislate from the bench ya gotta say something

You don't know what you are talking about. Why do you morons think you can just make things up and you won't be challenged?

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54. 2.
-----------------

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose.
------

1. Operative Clause. a. “Right of the People.”

The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

 

[Winston]

Report: Biden’s proposed gun control plan could hit gun owners with $34 billion in taxes

Get ready to pay up

www.theblaze.com

I reckon it is far easier than flat out banning them.

This can be appealed in court....it would be like taxing books and magazines or newspapers to the point you invalidate the 1st Amendment...

Not really, since it is already done. Even Scalia admitted jurisdictions have the authority to tax guns. And that includes the federal government. It is actually a great idea, just make those "modern sporting rifles", that still cracks me up, like automatic weapons. Eliminating selling new by preventing their production, and then taxing the ones that are in private hands. Not really seeing a case here. You can still own your pistols, shotguns, and real rifles.

Cool. So you'd be behind that taxing free speech and the press as well as going to church are all perfectly valid as well?

What about protection from illegal search and seizure only being available to people who pay their tax for it?

Winston? Where'd you go? Since you're OK with taxing Constitutionally protected rights, so ...

Cool. So you'd be behind that taxing free speech and the press as well as going to church are all perfectly valid as well?​

What about protection from illegal search and seizure only being available to people who pay their tax for it?​

I don't know what is so hard to understand. You do not, I repeat, DO NOT, have a constitutional guaranteed right to own a modern sporting rifle. Now, when the second amendment was a collective right based on the arming of a militia, you could make the argument that you did have a constitutional right to modern sporting rifles. A really good argument. But that ship sailed away with the judicial activism, and creationism, of Heller. Now the second amendment is an individual right based on self-protection. Do you need a modern sporting rifle for self-protection. Why no, no you don't. Not only can we tax modern sporting rifles, we can ban their production for private use, we can even ban owning them. Because that ban would not significantly "infringe" upon someone's ability to have another type of gun for self-defense.

So fifty, maybe sixty years from now, you won't be able to own much more than a taser and some pepper spray. Hunting will die off, like it almost has. I mean there is more small game roaming around in the woods than there was when the colonists got here. Squirrels, Raccoons, Rabbits--hell, if it weren't for the cats the rabbits would have already taken us over. I mean how many people do you know that run a pack of beagles for rabbit hunting? Not near as many that have that beagle to primp and prune for the Westminister Dog Show. Poor fellas.

I guess what I am saying is that you gun nuts overplayed your hand. When the second amendment was a collective right, well when the Stormtroopers got them some laser fueled disrupters, well you could get one too. Now, tough shit. Some of us in this country warned you guys. We killed our NRA memberships and joined other outfits, like the Sportsman's Alliance. The NRA became nothing more than a Ponzi scam lobbying for the gun manufacturers. They don't give two shits if you lose your collective right to participate in a militia, they pursue the mighty dollar. When modern sporting rifles are outlawed they will just sell you tasers.

Yes....we do....what part of the Heller decision do you not understand? What does Scalia, who wrote the opinion in Heller mean when he says that AR-15s are protected weapons....?

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
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.

Tell me, what makes sawed off shotguns subject to regulation and bans and not modern sporting rifles? What you fail to realize is that if they can rationalize banning sawed off shotguns they can rationalize banning modern sporting rifles. And the fact that they can ban sawed off shotguns is a clear indicator that you and your friends are not constitutionally granted the right to own any damn weapon you want.

"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You really can't read that? And don't bring up the regulated militia since that is an explanation of protecting the right, it is not a limit on the right. That you can't read is a terrible arguement.

Because A, B.

Even someone government educated like you should get that.

And seriously, is Winston actually your name? Obviously it's not a 1984 reference since you're clearly on the side of Big Brother

I really like dipshits that want to condemn a public education. Yes, I have a public education, from the Ivy university of public universities. But I also graduated summa cum laude from a private university. Not really seeing much of a point. The "well-regulated militia" part was not an "explanation" until Scalia did his bit of judicial activism. For almost two hundred years it was a qualifier.

And yes, damn Skippy Winston is a Orwell reference. I will give you credit for that. But I have been Winston on numerous message boards for more than twenty years. Winston worked for the Ministry of Truth. That is where I am coming from, I have a videographic memory, I speak truth. The second amendment was never an individual right, the battles of Lexington and Concord were initiated because the British were marching to the ARMORY. Individuals did not have guns in their homes, too damn dangerous, the Indians might come and take them. In fact, it was BANNED in many towns for just that reason.

And here is the point that you just can't seem to understand, or that you are even willing to understand. When the second amendment became an individual right, a la Scalia, it ceased to fulfill it's primary function that the founders envisioned. And it laid open the path to the banishment of all types of weapons, the assault weapon first and foremost. The very decision you celebrate will end up being the very decision that eliminates the right you so naively believe you possess. It take a publicly school educated individual to point that out to you. And when it eventually happens, if you are still blessed enough to be among the living, remember Winston.

I don't know what "condemning" public education means. It just sucks. Obviously you know that given the pathetic excuse for an education that you got.

Yes, you work for the Ministry of Truth, which means you lie, lie and lie some more, Big Brother.

That you are "Winston" is a joke

I don't know why you think so highly of your private education. Obviously, you didn't learn much. Probably got one of those private "religious" educations, boy howdy but that is some shit. Flat earth, evolution never happened, people shared the earth with dinosaurs. As if Fred Flintstone was a historical portrayal.

But this whole gun control thing is really not that complicated. The second amendment gives you the right to "arms". Not any arms, not all arms, just arms. And local jurisdictions have every right to limit what those arms are, Scalia said as much in Heller and he did not say that assault weapons were a protected arm. In fact, Scalia has been quoted in Heller through half a dozen defenses of local ordinances banning assault weapons, and every one of them has stood. So sorry, but I am not going to get excited when a bunch of lamebrain internet keyboard warriors that have not even spent an hour in a court room, let alone a day in law school, start opining on the second amendment.

 

[Lesh]

The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose,

And that purpose was to ensure the workings of a "well regulated militia". The 2A does not mention self defense...it does not mention hunting. It does not mention having fun at gun ranges.

Of course Scalia had to say something if he was going to engage in judicial activism...but there's no way his normal supposed "originalism" is in play here.

 

[2aguy]

Report: Biden’s proposed gun control plan could hit gun owners with $34 billion in taxes

Get ready to pay up

www.theblaze.com

I reckon it is far easier than flat out banning them.

This can be appealed in court....it would be like taxing books and magazines or newspapers to the point you invalidate the 1st Amendment...

Not really, since it is already done. Even Scalia admitted jurisdictions have the authority to tax guns. And that includes the federal government. It is actually a great idea, just make those "modern sporting rifles", that still cracks me up, like automatic weapons. Eliminating selling new by preventing their production, and then taxing the ones that are in private hands. Not really seeing a case here. You can still own your pistols, shotguns, and real rifles.

Cool. So you'd be behind that taxing free speech and the press as well as going to church are all perfectly valid as well?

What about protection from illegal search and seizure only being available to people who pay their tax for it?

Winston? Where'd you go? Since you're OK with taxing Constitutionally protected rights, so ...

Cool. So you'd be behind that taxing free speech and the press as well as going to church are all perfectly valid as well?​

What about protection from illegal search and seizure only being available to people who pay their tax for it?​

I don't know what is so hard to understand. You do not, I repeat, DO NOT, have a constitutional guaranteed right to own a modern sporting rifle. Now, when the second amendment was a collective right based on the arming of a militia, you could make the argument that you did have a constitutional right to modern sporting rifles. A really good argument. But that ship sailed away with the judicial activism, and creationism, of Heller. Now the second amendment is an individual right based on self-protection. Do you need a modern sporting rifle for self-protection. Why no, no you don't. Not only can we tax modern sporting rifles, we can ban their production for private use, we can even ban owning them. Because that ban would not significantly "infringe" upon someone's ability to have another type of gun for self-defense.

So fifty, maybe sixty years from now, you won't be able to own much more than a taser and some pepper spray. Hunting will die off, like it almost has. I mean there is more small game roaming around in the woods than there was when the colonists got here. Squirrels, Raccoons, Rabbits--hell, if it weren't for the cats the rabbits would have already taken us over. I mean how many people do you know that run a pack of beagles for rabbit hunting? Not near as many that have that beagle to primp and prune for the Westminister Dog Show. Poor fellas.

I guess what I am saying is that you gun nuts overplayed your hand. When the second amendment was a collective right, well when the Stormtroopers got them some laser fueled disrupters, well you could get one too. Now, tough shit. Some of us in this country warned you guys. We killed our NRA memberships and joined other outfits, like the Sportsman's Alliance. The NRA became nothing more than a Ponzi scam lobbying for the gun manufacturers. They don't give two shits if you lose your collective right to participate in a militia, they pursue the mighty dollar. When modern sporting rifles are outlawed they will just sell you tasers.

Yes....we do....what part of the Heller decision do you not understand? What does Scalia, who wrote the opinion in Heller mean when he says that AR-15s are protected weapons....?

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
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.

Tell me, what makes sawed off shotguns subject to regulation and bans and not modern sporting rifles? What you fail to realize is that if they can rationalize banning sawed off shotguns they can rationalize banning modern sporting rifles. And the fact that they can ban sawed off shotguns is a clear indicator that you and your friends are not constitutionally granted the right to own any damn weapon you want.

"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You really can't read that? And don't bring up the regulated militia since that is an explanation of protecting the right, it is not a limit on the right. That you can't read is a terrible arguement.

Because A, B.

Even someone government educated like you should get that.

And seriously, is Winston actually your name? Obviously it's not a 1984 reference since you're clearly on the side of Big Brother

I really like dipshits that want to condemn a public education. Yes, I have a public education, from the Ivy university of public universities. But I also graduated summa cum laude from a private university. Not really seeing much of a point. The "well-regulated militia" part was not an "explanation" until Scalia did his bit of judicial activism. For almost two hundred years it was a qualifier.

And yes, damn Skippy Winston is a Orwell reference. I will give you credit for that. But I have been Winston on numerous message boards for more than twenty years. Winston worked for the Ministry of Truth. That is where I am coming from, I have a videographic memory, I speak truth. The second amendment was never an individual right, the battles of Lexington and Concord were initiated because the British were marching to the ARMORY. Individuals did not have guns in their homes, too damn dangerous, the Indians might come and take them. In fact, it was BANNED in many towns for just that reason.

And here is the point that you just can't seem to understand, or that you are even willing to understand. When the second amendment became an individual right, a la Scalia, it ceased to fulfill it's primary function that the founders envisioned. And it laid open the path to the banishment of all types of weapons, the assault weapon first and foremost. The very decision you celebrate will end up being the very decision that eliminates the right you so naively believe you possess. It take a publicly school educated individual to point that out to you. And when it eventually happens, if you are still blessed enough to be among the living, remember Winston.

I don't know what "condemning" public education means. It just sucks. Obviously you know that given the pathetic excuse for an education that you got.

Yes, you work for the Ministry of Truth, which means you lie, lie and lie some more, Big Brother.

That you are "Winston" is a joke

I don't know why you think so highly of your private education. Obviously, you didn't learn much. Probably got one of those private "religious" educations, boy howdy but that is some shit. Flat earth, evolution never happened, people shared the earth with dinosaurs. As if Fred Flintstone was a historical portrayal.

But this whole gun control thing is really not that complicated. The second amendment gives you the right to "arms". Not any arms, not all arms, just arms. And local jurisdictions have every right to limit what those arms are, Scalia said as much in Heller and he did not say that assault weapons were a protected arm. In fact, Scalia has been quoted in Heller through half a dozen defenses of local ordinances banning assault weapons, and every one of them has stood. So sorry, but I am not going to get excited when a bunch of lamebrain internet keyboard warriors that have not even spent an hour in a court room, let alone a day in law school, start opining on the second amendment.

You are wrong....completely wrong.......

The lower courts are making up law, and writing law that goes against the actual Supreme Court ruling, hiding behind the fact that until Barret, there was a 4-4 split on the court and neither side trusted Roberts...

So you don't know what you are talking about...

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
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.

 

[2aguy]

The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose,

And that purpose was to ensure the workings of a "well regulated militia". The 2A does not mention self defense...it does not mention hunting. It does not mention having fun at gun ranges.

Of course Scalia had to say something if he was going to engage in judicial activism...but there's no way his normal supposed "originalism" is in play here.

You can lie all you want.......Scalia wrote the opinion and went into great detail to explain why you are wrong and don't know what you are talking about....

 

[danielpalos]

This is the law right wingers:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Insist your legislators stop slacking.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Report: Biden’s proposed gun control plan could hit gun owners with $34 billion in taxes

Get ready to pay up

www.theblaze.com

I reckon it is far easier than flat out banning them.

This can be appealed in court....it would be like taxing books and magazines or newspapers to the point you invalidate the 1st Amendment...

Not really, since it is already done. Even Scalia admitted jurisdictions have the authority to tax guns. And that includes the federal government. It is actually a great idea, just make those "modern sporting rifles", that still cracks me up, like automatic weapons. Eliminating selling new by preventing their production, and then taxing the ones that are in private hands. Not really seeing a case here. You can still own your pistols, shotguns, and real rifles.

Cool. So you'd be behind that taxing free speech and the press as well as going to church are all perfectly valid as well?

What about protection from illegal search and seizure only being available to people who pay their tax for it?

Winston? Where'd you go? Since you're OK with taxing Constitutionally protected rights, so ...

Cool. So you'd be behind that taxing free speech and the press as well as going to church are all perfectly valid as well?​

What about protection from illegal search and seizure only being available to people who pay their tax for it?​

I don't know what is so hard to understand. You do not, I repeat, DO NOT, have a constitutional guaranteed right to own a modern sporting rifle. Now, when the second amendment was a collective right based on the arming of a militia, you could make the argument that you did have a constitutional right to modern sporting rifles. A really good argument. But that ship sailed away with the judicial activism, and creationism, of Heller. Now the second amendment is an individual right based on self-protection. Do you need a modern sporting rifle for self-protection. Why no, no you don't. Not only can we tax modern sporting rifles, we can ban their production for private use, we can even ban owning them. Because that ban would not significantly "infringe" upon someone's ability to have another type of gun for self-defense.

So fifty, maybe sixty years from now, you won't be able to own much more than a taser and some pepper spray. Hunting will die off, like it almost has. I mean there is more small game roaming around in the woods than there was when the colonists got here. Squirrels, Raccoons, Rabbits--hell, if it weren't for the cats the rabbits would have already taken us over. I mean how many people do you know that run a pack of beagles for rabbit hunting? Not near as many that have that beagle to primp and prune for the Westminister Dog Show. Poor fellas.

I guess what I am saying is that you gun nuts overplayed your hand. When the second amendment was a collective right, well when the Stormtroopers got them some laser fueled disrupters, well you could get one too. Now, tough shit. Some of us in this country warned you guys. We killed our NRA memberships and joined other outfits, like the Sportsman's Alliance. The NRA became nothing more than a Ponzi scam lobbying for the gun manufacturers. They don't give two shits if you lose your collective right to participate in a militia, they pursue the mighty dollar. When modern sporting rifles are outlawed they will just sell you tasers.

Yes....we do....what part of the Heller decision do you not understand? What does Scalia, who wrote the opinion in Heller mean when he says that AR-15s are protected weapons....?

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
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.

Tell me, what makes sawed off shotguns subject to regulation and bans and not modern sporting rifles? What you fail to realize is that if they can rationalize banning sawed off shotguns they can rationalize banning modern sporting rifles. And the fact that they can ban sawed off shotguns is a clear indicator that you and your friends are not constitutionally granted the right to own any damn weapon you want.

Notice what the Supreme Court stated in Miller.....

If any guns are protected by the 2nd Amendment....it is the AR-15 rifle.....as well as fully automatic military rifles.....

United States v. Miller.........the government argued......

The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.


What the Court ruled.......guns that are used by a military are protected by the 2nd Amendment.....

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That ruling is moot at this point. I have explained this already. That ruling was when the second amendment was a collective right, "any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". Heller changed that, it is now an individual right based in self-defense. For instance, in Heller the problem was the requirement of trigger locks, that would in no way inhibit a militia force. So Scalia and his pals had to do some judicial creationism, history revisionism, and judicial activism, and they twisted the second amendment into a right based on self-defense.

And no where did Scalia say that assault weapons were "protected". Matter of fact, he did say that the ruling did not preclude local jurisdictions from legislating restrictions on arms as long as it did not impede that whole self-defense thing.

Yeah...nothing you just posted is true or accurate......Scalia went into great detail in legal precedent and British and American history....you are just wrong.

I just posted that AR-15s and rifles like it are mentioned by name by Scalia........they are protected by the 2nd Amendment.

He states that limiting gun selection by civilians based on "they have other options," doesn't hold Constitutional muster....

Except that......

Tyrants don't give a shit about no stinkin Constitution

 

[Lesh]

The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose,

And that purpose was to ensure the workings of a "well regulated militia". The 2A does not mention self defense...it does not mention hunting. It does not mention having fun at gun ranges.

Of course Scalia had to say something if he was going to engage in judicial activism...but there's no way his normal supposed "originalism" is in play here.

You can lie all you want.......Scalia wrote the opinion and went into great detail to explain why you are wrong and don't know what you are talking about....

What am I lying about asshole? I'm giving MY opinion of SCALIA'S opinion...ya dope

 

[2aguy]

The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose,

And that purpose was to ensure the workings of a "well regulated militia". The 2A does not mention self defense...it does not mention hunting. It does not mention having fun at gun ranges.

Of course Scalia had to say something if he was going to engage in judicial activism...but there's no way his normal supposed "originalism" is in play here.

You can lie all you want.......Scalia wrote the opinion and went into great detail to explain why you are wrong and don't know what you are talking about....

What am I lying about asshole? I'm giving MY opinion of SCALIA'S opinion...ya dope

No....you are lying about what Scalia wrote. So, shit stain.....you can lie about Heller and the other 2nd Amendment rulings, but that is what you are doing....lying.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Report: Biden’s proposed gun control plan could hit gun owners with $34 billion in taxes

Get ready to pay up

www.theblaze.com

I reckon it is far easier than flat out banning them.

Washington Free Beacon - Bias and Credibility

RIGHT BIAS These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may

mediabiasfactcheck.com

Not very credible; seems the source is in the same genre as supermarket tabloids.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

First of all, I am not a big fan of the NFA. But I can see why something similar must be on the books. But I find the NFA way too specific in some areas and too vague in others.

Here are some of the points from that law.

1. No more manufacturing of the weapons, parts. Even replacement parts and Modifications and addons. The exception to that would be for Law Enforcement and Military Applications. I believe Colt already sees the handwriting on the wall on that one when they stopped manufacturing of their Model 750 and other AR-15 variants.

2. Voluntary Government Buy backs. Not mandantory.

3. Limits in the transportation of the ARs. You can still own them but you can't go to your favorite gun club and fire them. But you can still fire them on private property.

4. In order to purchase/trade/inherit these weapons, it's going to take an EFL or a FFL license. In other words, only a legally licensed person can obtain one. If you already have one, you are within the law. But if you die, you cannot pass it on to anyone without either the EFL or FFL License. Unless the weapon is totally disabled (i.e. leading in the barrel and disabling the firing mechanism making it a wall hangar).

That's just a thumbnail of it. For the first 10 years, there was almost zero effect in the Thompson Model 1921. But after that, they started to rapidly disappear. Are you going to go out and fire a firearm that you can't repair or get replacement parts for? We are talking about Law Abiding Citizens here, not criminals. But in the end, even the criminals won't have them either except as wall hangars.

Given the fact very few people get killed with AR's, what's the point of messing with them at all? I'll tell you why, the media.

Democrats could care less about the 20 or 30 people that get gunned down every week in the streets of Chicago with hand guns, they're more worried about 6 people getting killed once a year or so with an AR. So why is the left so focused on them? Because the MSM sensationalizes the mass killings and ignores your everyday murders with common handguns.

Can you explain where the government is going to get this money to buy back guns when we are 26 trillion dollars in debt and growing? Better still, what would they actually accomplish with that? Criminals? Do you think criminals will ever give up their guns?

Yes, we have those stupid buy back programs here. A friend of mine used to work at the steel mills. He melted those guns down a couple of times. Do we still have gun murders in the city? You bet. So the city wasted all that money to solve nothing. Typical liberal thinking.

The point in all this is to make getting or owning a gun such a problem many will just give up on it. Government allowing manufacturers and gun stores to be sued out of business is the dictator way. If people don't resist this, the next step will be you have to be psychologically evaluated before being allowed to own a gun, and that means your ability of gun ownership will lie in the hands of leftist shrinks.

 

[Lesh]

And let's remember here Machine guns are already taxed and regulated...because it became obvious that they were dangerous to society. (The St. Valentines Massacre was the impetus)

No one (including Scalia) says that is not Constitutional. Taxing assault rifles is no different given the history of their use in mass murders

 

[Winston]

Report: Biden’s proposed gun control plan could hit gun owners with $34 billion in taxes

Get ready to pay up

www.theblaze.com

I reckon it is far easier than flat out banning them.

This can be appealed in court....it would be like taxing books and magazines or newspapers to the point you invalidate the 1st Amendment...

Not really, since it is already done. Even Scalia admitted jurisdictions have the authority to tax guns. And that includes the federal government. It is actually a great idea, just make those "modern sporting rifles", that still cracks me up, like automatic weapons. Eliminating selling new by preventing their production, and then taxing the ones that are in private hands. Not really seeing a case here. You can still own your pistols, shotguns, and real rifles.

Cool. So you'd be behind that taxing free speech and the press as well as going to church are all perfectly valid as well?

What about protection from illegal search and seizure only being available to people who pay their tax for it?

Winston? Where'd you go? Since you're OK with taxing Constitutionally protected rights, so ...

Cool. So you'd be behind that taxing free speech and the press as well as going to church are all perfectly valid as well?​

What about protection from illegal search and seizure only being available to people who pay their tax for it?​

I don't know what is so hard to understand. You do not, I repeat, DO NOT, have a constitutional guaranteed right to own a modern sporting rifle. Now, when the second amendment was a collective right based on the arming of a militia, you could make the argument that you did have a constitutional right to modern sporting rifles. A really good argument. But that ship sailed away with the judicial activism, and creationism, of Heller. Now the second amendment is an individual right based on self-protection. Do you need a modern sporting rifle for self-protection. Why no, no you don't. Not only can we tax modern sporting rifles, we can ban their production for private use, we can even ban owning them. Because that ban would not significantly "infringe" upon someone's ability to have another type of gun for self-defense.

So fifty, maybe sixty years from now, you won't be able to own much more than a taser and some pepper spray. Hunting will die off, like it almost has. I mean there is more small game roaming around in the woods than there was when the colonists got here. Squirrels, Raccoons, Rabbits--hell, if it weren't for the cats the rabbits would have already taken us over. I mean how many people do you know that run a pack of beagles for rabbit hunting? Not near as many that have that beagle to primp and prune for the Westminister Dog Show. Poor fellas.

I guess what I am saying is that you gun nuts overplayed your hand. When the second amendment was a collective right, well when the Stormtroopers got them some laser fueled disrupters, well you could get one too. Now, tough shit. Some of us in this country warned you guys. We killed our NRA memberships and joined other outfits, like the Sportsman's Alliance. The NRA became nothing more than a Ponzi scam lobbying for the gun manufacturers. They don't give two shits if you lose your collective right to participate in a militia, they pursue the mighty dollar. When modern sporting rifles are outlawed they will just sell you tasers.

Yes....we do....what part of the Heller decision do you not understand? What does Scalia, who wrote the opinion in Heller mean when he says that AR-15s are protected weapons....?

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
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.

Tell me, what makes sawed off shotguns subject to regulation and bans and not modern sporting rifles? What you fail to realize is that if they can rationalize banning sawed off shotguns they can rationalize banning modern sporting rifles. And the fact that they can ban sawed off shotguns is a clear indicator that you and your friends are not constitutionally granted the right to own any damn weapon you want.

Notice what the Supreme Court stated in Miller.....

If any guns are protected by the 2nd Amendment....it is the AR-15 rifle.....as well as fully automatic military rifles.....

United States v. Miller.........the government argued......

The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.


What the Court ruled.......guns that are used by a military are protected by the 2nd Amendment.....

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That ruling is moot at this point. I have explained this already. That ruling was when the second amendment was a collective right, "any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". Heller changed that, it is now an individual right based in self-defense. For instance, in Heller the problem was the requirement of trigger locks, that would in no way inhibit a militia force. So Scalia and his pals had to do some judicial creationism, history revisionism, and judicial activism, and they twisted the second amendment into a right based on self-defense.

And no where did Scalia say that assault weapons were "protected". Matter of fact, he did say that the ruling did not preclude local jurisdictions from legislating restrictions on arms as long as it did not impede that whole self-defense thing.

Yeah...nothing you just posted is true or accurate......Scalia went into great detail in legal precedent and British and American history....you are just wrong.

I just posted that AR-15s and rifles like it are mentioned by name by Scalia........they are protected by the 2nd Amendment.

He states that limiting gun selection by civilians based on "they have other options," doesn't hold Constitutional muster....

You are totally full of shit.

District of Columbia v. Heller :: 554 U.S. 570 (2008) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

Show me, show me where even "AR-15" is even in the opinion. But, you will find this in his opinion,

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

 

[Lesh]

Given the fact very few people get killed with AR's, what's the point of messing with them at all? I'll tell you why, the media.

The same could have been said about machine guns in the 30s...

 

[Winston]

The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose,

And that purpose was to ensure the workings of a "well regulated militia". The 2A does not mention self defense...it does not mention hunting. It does not mention having fun at gun ranges.

Of course Scalia had to say something if he was going to engage in judicial activism...but there's no way his normal supposed "originalism" is in play here.

You can lie all you want.......Scalia wrote the opinion and went into great detail to explain why you are wrong and don't know what you are talking about....

The difference between you and me is I have actually read the opinion. I linked it for you. You might want to take a gander.

 

[justinacolmena]

That ruling was when the second amendment was a collective right,

That's a Communist Party interpretation, as for other constitutional rights.
The rights of the accused at court are taken to be "collective" as well under a forced-confession plea bargain at the hands of a public defender or professional defense attorney who isn't in trouble with the prosecutor's bar.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The same could have been said about machine guns in the 30s...

If machine guns were legal today for anybody to buy, most people would not use them anyway.

I don't know where you people on the left get this idea that it's the gun that causes people to kill than it is the people who want to kill. If somebody wants to kill a bunch of kids in a school, they're going to do it whether they have an AR or any semi-automatic handgun, both which do the exact same thing, they fire a round every time you pull the trigger. You are not going to solve anything by taking away the scary looking guns forcing psychos to use the less scary looking gun that will accomplish the same goal for the killer.