Biden to tax away your guns


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.


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.


And you lying sack of shit.....you don't include what he says as to what can be limited.....he states locations, felons and mentally ill....he states that the Right

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.

and in Friedman v Highland Park, that came after Heller....Scalia, who wrote Heller....states........


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.
s
Quit posting bullshit from pro-gun nutjob sites. Read the damn opinion, from beginning to end, albeit I understand the historical revisionism is a little revolting. Like I said, there are assault weapons ban in dozens of jurisdictions throughout the country, Massachusetts jumps out there. And every one of those bans has been held up in court, many times the Judge actually quotes Scalia's opinion in Heller. Some have been appealed to the SCOTUS, and the SCOTUS has refused to hear a single one of them. Most telling, this nation did have an assault weapons ban, before Heller, and it was never successfully challenged in court. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.


The 4th Circuit in Massachusetts is violating the Constitution and the Supreme Court rulings........they have not been upheld in court, they were made up by the left wing, anti-gun extremists on the lower courts who are ignoring the Constitution and the Bill of Rights...

What is so hard for you, you doofus....to understand that you are wrong....

The SCOTUS has had that case on appeal for more than a year and they have refused to hear it. Get back to me when they actually agree to hear it, but I won't hold my breath. Pretty sure that ship has already sailed.


It hasn't sailed, as Thomas keeps stating......the problem is the left wing activists on the court who don't understand the Constitution, and want to rule how they feel, instead of according to the Bill of Rights.

Why is it that you think the left wing activists don't understand the Constitution? Can you at least accept the fact that the biggest bit of judicial activism in the last one hundred years was Scalia and Heller? I mean I understand you don't have the history background that I do, but Scalia's opinion is some major historical revisionism. And it is really pretty simple, prior to the battles of Lexington and Concord, the British were on the way to the armory, to confiscate the weapons that were kept THERE, not in their homes.

The Battle of King's Mountain, a pivotal battle in the Revolutionary War. General Fergunson was shot off his horse, by a rifle owned by my great, great, well who knows how many greats, grandfather. He was not there, the rifle was borrowed. He was too old to make the journey. But the reality is that one rifle was THE rifle for this entire region. And it was used for hunting, which is how old man Wiedner made his living. And the Native Americans feared that rifle. But everyone did not have a rifle, and few that did kept them in their home. It was just too dangerous. They were accurate, but they were slow, and no match for an accomplished archer, like the Native Americans. Who could send multiple arrows down range per minute.

It was the extra powder stores you nit wit......

Hey, twit.....when the British were marching to take those powder stores, what did the Americans use to shoot at them? Their privately owned guns that they brought to muster, you dumb twit......
 
Remember when owning a gun was no big deal? Remember when people kept there rifle right there in the gun rack in the cab of their truck? Remember when absolutely no one carried their gun into a restaurant where family's were eating. or marched up & down the street with an assault riffle slung over there arm. Remember when from a young age you were taught care, use & respect of guns? That's the problem. Pro gun and anti ass hat IDIOTS with guns. If your a gun person you should not be encouraging untrained respect lacking ass hats with guns.
 

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.


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.


And you lying sack of shit.....you don't include what he says as to what can be limited.....he states locations, felons and mentally ill....he states that the Right

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.

and in Friedman v Highland Park, that came after Heller....Scalia, who wrote Heller....states........


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.
s
Quit posting bullshit from pro-gun nutjob sites. Read the damn opinion, from beginning to end, albeit I understand the historical revisionism is a little revolting. Like I said, there are assault weapons ban in dozens of jurisdictions throughout the country, Massachusetts jumps out there. And every one of those bans has been held up in court, many times the Judge actually quotes Scalia's opinion in Heller. Some have been appealed to the SCOTUS, and the SCOTUS has refused to hear a single one of them. Most telling, this nation did have an assault weapons ban, before Heller, and it was never successfully challenged in court. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.


The 4th Circuit in Massachusetts is violating the Constitution and the Supreme Court rulings........they have not been upheld in court, they were made up by the left wing, anti-gun extremists on the lower courts who are ignoring the Constitution and the Bill of Rights...

What is so hard for you, you doofus....to understand that you are wrong....

The SCOTUS has had that case on appeal for more than a year and they have refused to hear it. Get back to me when they actually agree to hear it, but I won't hold my breath. Pretty sure that ship has already sailed.


It hasn't sailed, as Thomas keeps stating......the problem is the left wing activists on the court who don't understand the Constitution, and want to rule how they feel, instead of according to the Bill of Rights.

Why is it that you think the left wing activists don't understand the Constitution? Can you at least accept the fact that the biggest bit of judicial activism in the last one hundred years was Scalia and Heller? I mean I understand you don't have the history background that I do, but Scalia's opinion is some major historical revisionism. And it is really pretty simple, prior to the battles of Lexington and Concord, the British were on the way to the armory, to confiscate the weapons that were kept THERE, not in their homes.

The Battle of King's Mountain, a pivotal battle in the Revolutionary War. General Fergunson was shot off his horse, by a rifle owned by my great, great, well who knows how many greats, grandfather. He was not there, the rifle was borrowed. He was too old to make the journey. But the reality is that one rifle was THE rifle for this entire region. And it was used for hunting, which is how old man Wiedner made his living. And the Native Americans feared that rifle. But everyone did not have a rifle, and few that did kept them in their home. It was just too dangerous. They were accurate, but they were slow, and no match for an accomplished archer, like the Native Americans. Who could send multiple arrows down range per minute.


You don't know what you are talking about...the very thing you posted explains exactly why we have the 2nd Amendment...........

Gage's aide John Andrews explained that everyone in the area aged 16 years or older owned a gun and plenty of gunpowder.

Military rule would be difficult to impose on an armed populace. Gage had only 2,000 troops in Boston. There were thousands of armed men in Boston alone, and more in the surrounding area. One response to the problem was to deprive the Americans of gunpowder.
---------

The militia that assembled at the Lexington Green and the Concord Bridge consisted of able-bodied men aged 16 to 60.
They supplied their own firearms, although a few poor men had to borrow a gun. Warned by Paul Revere and Samuel Dawes of the British advance, the young women of Lexington assembled cartridges late into the evening of April 18.

A

 

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.


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.

So again, who's right is a "collective right" determined by?

If you mean the people decide ourselves, there is no difference between a "collective right" and an "individual right."

If you mean the government decides, it's no right at all. That they put a power of ... government ... in the bill of rights is a retarded argument. That they had nine individual rights and randomly mixed in one that wasn't is a retarded argument.

And again, just FYI, Winston was not FOR Big Brother like you are

Seriously, so the tenth amendment is an individual right? I mean do you even know the Bill of Rights?
 
Hey, twit.....when the British were marching to take those powder stores, what did the Americans use to shoot at them? Their privately owned guns that they brought to muster, you dumb twit......
As noted earlier on this thread it was powder and shot for CANNONS that the Brits were after at Concord and the harassment that followed was virtually the only time the militia mattered.

As noted the reason the Brits left Boston was because CANNONS had been installed on Bunker Hill and Dorchester Heights
 

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.


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.


And you lying sack of shit.....you don't include what he says as to what can be limited.....he states locations, felons and mentally ill....he states that the Right

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.

and in Friedman v Highland Park, that came after Heller....Scalia, who wrote Heller....states........


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.
s
Quit posting bullshit from pro-gun nutjob sites. Read the damn opinion, from beginning to end, albeit I understand the historical revisionism is a little revolting. Like I said, there are assault weapons ban in dozens of jurisdictions throughout the country, Massachusetts jumps out there. And every one of those bans has been held up in court, many times the Judge actually quotes Scalia's opinion in Heller. Some have been appealed to the SCOTUS, and the SCOTUS has refused to hear a single one of them. Most telling, this nation did have an assault weapons ban, before Heller, and it was never successfully challenged in court. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.


The 4th Circuit in Massachusetts is violating the Constitution and the Supreme Court rulings........they have not been upheld in court, they were made up by the left wing, anti-gun extremists on the lower courts who are ignoring the Constitution and the Bill of Rights...

What is so hard for you, you doofus....to understand that you are wrong....

The SCOTUS has had that case on appeal for more than a year and they have refused to hear it. Get back to me when they actually agree to hear it, but I won't hold my breath. Pretty sure that ship has already sailed.


It hasn't sailed, as Thomas keeps stating......the problem is the left wing activists on the court who don't understand the Constitution, and want to rule how they feel, instead of according to the Bill of Rights.

Why is it that you think the left wing activists don't understand the Constitution? Can you at least accept the fact that the biggest bit of judicial activism in the last one hundred years was Scalia and Heller? I mean I understand you don't have the history background that I do, but Scalia's opinion is some major historical revisionism. And it is really pretty simple, prior to the battles of Lexington and Concord, the British were on the way to the armory, to confiscate the weapons that were kept THERE, not in their homes.

The Battle of King's Mountain, a pivotal battle in the Revolutionary War. General Fergunson was shot off his horse, by a rifle owned by my great, great, well who knows how many greats, grandfather. He was not there, the rifle was borrowed. He was too old to make the journey. But the reality is that one rifle was THE rifle for this entire region. And it was used for hunting, which is how old man Wiedner made his living. And the Native Americans feared that rifle. But everyone did not have a rifle, and few that did kept them in their home. It was just too dangerous. They were accurate, but they were slow, and no match for an accomplished archer, like the Native Americans. Who could send multiple arrows down range per minute.

It was the extra powder stores you nit wit......

Hey, twit.....when the British were marching to take those powder stores, what did the Americans use to shoot at them? Their privately owned guns that they brought to muster, you dumb twit......

The militia in Concord had moved the weapons to safety long before the date of the raid.

Lexington, Concord and Bunker Hill: The American Revolution Begins - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com


Why the fuck would they have to "move the weapons" if they kept them under their damn bed. You morons have no clue as to American History. And it is insulting and shameful. In reality, the Patriots, and what they accomplished, is even more impressive when you know the reality of what was happening at the time. You assholes insult them, and you don't give them the credit they deserve. Mostly because of your own insecurities. You don't want real American History taught any more than you want shit for supper. Fucking assholes.
 

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.


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.


And you lying sack of shit.....you don't include what he says as to what can be limited.....he states locations, felons and mentally ill....he states that the Right

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.

and in Friedman v Highland Park, that came after Heller....Scalia, who wrote Heller....states........


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.
s
Quit posting bullshit from pro-gun nutjob sites. Read the damn opinion, from beginning to end, albeit I understand the historical revisionism is a little revolting. Like I said, there are assault weapons ban in dozens of jurisdictions throughout the country, Massachusetts jumps out there. And every one of those bans has been held up in court, many times the Judge actually quotes Scalia's opinion in Heller. Some have been appealed to the SCOTUS, and the SCOTUS has refused to hear a single one of them. Most telling, this nation did have an assault weapons ban, before Heller, and it was never successfully challenged in court. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.


The 4th Circuit in Massachusetts is violating the Constitution and the Supreme Court rulings........they have not been upheld in court, they were made up by the left wing, anti-gun extremists on the lower courts who are ignoring the Constitution and the Bill of Rights...

What is so hard for you, you doofus....to understand that you are wrong....

The SCOTUS has had that case on appeal for more than a year and they have refused to hear it. Get back to me when they actually agree to hear it, but I won't hold my breath. Pretty sure that ship has already sailed.


It hasn't sailed, as Thomas keeps stating......the problem is the left wing activists on the court who don't understand the Constitution, and want to rule how they feel, instead of according to the Bill of Rights.

Why is it that you think the left wing activists don't understand the Constitution? Can you at least accept the fact that the biggest bit of judicial activism in the last one hundred years was Scalia and Heller? I mean I understand you don't have the history background that I do, but Scalia's opinion is some major historical revisionism. And it is really pretty simple, prior to the battles of Lexington and Concord, the British were on the way to the armory, to confiscate the weapons that were kept THERE, not in their homes.

The Battle of King's Mountain, a pivotal battle in the Revolutionary War. General Fergunson was shot off his horse, by a rifle owned by my great, great, well who knows how many greats, grandfather. He was not there, the rifle was borrowed. He was too old to make the journey. But the reality is that one rifle was THE rifle for this entire region. And it was used for hunting, which is how old man Wiedner made his living. And the Native Americans feared that rifle. But everyone did not have a rifle, and few that did kept them in their home. It was just too dangerous. They were accurate, but they were slow, and no match for an accomplished archer, like the Native Americans. Who could send multiple arrows down range per minute.


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

CONCLUSION

Our hope here is to do much more than explode recently created myths about gun ownership in probate records. As we show, in probate inventories (
1) there were high numbers of guns in early America;1 2 (2) guns were much more common than swords or other edged weapons; 5 ' (3) women owned guns;.5 4 and (4) the great majority of gun-owning estates listed no old or broken guns.' Our estimates that at least 50% of male and female wealthholders owned guns in 1774 colonial America are the first carefully weighted national probate-based estimates for gun ownership in eighteenth-century America.

[/URL]
 

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.


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.


And you lying sack of shit.....you don't include what he says as to what can be limited.....he states locations, felons and mentally ill....he states that the Right

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.

and in Friedman v Highland Park, that came after Heller....Scalia, who wrote Heller....states........


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.
s
Quit posting bullshit from pro-gun nutjob sites. Read the damn opinion, from beginning to end, albeit I understand the historical revisionism is a little revolting. Like I said, there are assault weapons ban in dozens of jurisdictions throughout the country, Massachusetts jumps out there. And every one of those bans has been held up in court, many times the Judge actually quotes Scalia's opinion in Heller. Some have been appealed to the SCOTUS, and the SCOTUS has refused to hear a single one of them. Most telling, this nation did have an assault weapons ban, before Heller, and it was never successfully challenged in court. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.


The 4th Circuit in Massachusetts is violating the Constitution and the Supreme Court rulings........they have not been upheld in court, they were made up by the left wing, anti-gun extremists on the lower courts who are ignoring the Constitution and the Bill of Rights...

What is so hard for you, you doofus....to understand that you are wrong....

The SCOTUS has had that case on appeal for more than a year and they have refused to hear it. Get back to me when they actually agree to hear it, but I won't hold my breath. Pretty sure that ship has already sailed.


It hasn't sailed, as Thomas keeps stating......the problem is the left wing activists on the court who don't understand the Constitution, and want to rule how they feel, instead of according to the Bill of Rights.

Why is it that you think the left wing activists don't understand the Constitution? Can you at least accept the fact that the biggest bit of judicial activism in the last one hundred years was Scalia and Heller? I mean I understand you don't have the history background that I do, but Scalia's opinion is some major historical revisionism. And it is really pretty simple, prior to the battles of Lexington and Concord, the British were on the way to the armory, to confiscate the weapons that were kept THERE, not in their homes.

The Battle of King's Mountain, a pivotal battle in the Revolutionary War. General Fergunson was shot off his horse, by a rifle owned by my great, great, well who knows how many greats, grandfather. He was not there, the rifle was borrowed. He was too old to make the journey. But the reality is that one rifle was THE rifle for this entire region. And it was used for hunting, which is how old man Wiedner made his living. And the Native Americans feared that rifle. But everyone did not have a rifle, and few that did kept them in their home. It was just too dangerous. They were accurate, but they were slow, and no match for an accomplished archer, like the Native Americans. Who could send multiple arrows down range per minute.


You don't know what you are talking about...the very thing you posted explains exactly why we have the 2nd Amendment...........

Gage's aide John Andrews explained that everyone in the area aged 16 years or older owned a gun and plenty of gunpowder.

Military rule would be difficult to impose on an armed populace. Gage had only 2,000 troops in Boston. There were thousands of armed men in Boston alone, and more in the surrounding area. One response to the problem was to deprive the Americans of gunpowder.
---------

The militia that assembled at the Lexington Green and the Concord Bridge consisted of able-bodied men aged 16 to 60.
They supplied their own firearms, although a few poor men had to borrow a gun. Warned by Paul Revere and Samuel Dawes of the British advance, the young women of Lexington assembled cartridges late into the evening of April 18.

A


In many townships citizens were required to own gunpower, STORED IN THE ARMORY. Same for their guns, they were REQUIRED to be stored at the armory. You could check them out, much like a library book, anytime. This is not some secret, it has been known by historians since the very beginning.
 
N

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.


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.


And you lying sack of shit.....you don't include what he says as to what can be limited.....he states locations, felons and mentally ill....he states that the Right

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.

and in Friedman v Highland Park, that came after Heller....Scalia, who wrote Heller....states........


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.
s
Quit posting bullshit from pro-gun nutjob sites. Read the damn opinion, from beginning to end, albeit I understand the historical revisionism is a little revolting. Like I said, there are assault weapons ban in dozens of jurisdictions throughout the country, Massachusetts jumps out there. And every one of those bans has been held up in court, many times the Judge actually quotes Scalia's opinion in Heller. Some have been appealed to the SCOTUS, and the SCOTUS has refused to hear a single one of them. Most telling, this nation did have an assault weapons ban, before Heller, and it was never successfully challenged in court. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.


The 4th Circuit in Massachusetts is violating the Constitution and the Supreme Court rulings........they have not been upheld in court, they were made up by the left wing, anti-gun extremists on the lower courts who are ignoring the Constitution and the Bill of Rights...

What is so hard for you, you doofus....to understand that you are wrong....

The SCOTUS has had that case on appeal for more than a year and they have refused to hear it. Get back to me when they actually agree to hear it, but I won't hold my breath. Pretty sure that ship has already sailed.


It hasn't sailed, as Thomas keeps stating......the problem is the left wing activists on the court who don't understand the Constitution, and want to rule how they feel, instead of according to the Bill of Rights.

Why is it that you think the left wing activists don't understand the Constitution? Can you at least accept the fact that the biggest bit of judicial activism in the last one hundred years was Scalia and Heller? I mean I understand you don't have the history background that I do, but Scalia's opinion is some major historical revisionism. And it is really pretty simple, prior to the battles of Lexington and Concord, the British were on the way to the armory, to confiscate the weapons that were kept THERE, not in their homes.

The Battle of King's Mountain, a pivotal battle in the Revolutionary War. General Fergunson was shot off his horse, by a rifle owned by my great, great, well who knows how many greats, grandfather. He was not there, the rifle was borrowed. He was too old to make the journey. But the reality is that one rifle was THE rifle for this entire region. And it was used for hunting, which is how old man Wiedner made his living. And the Native Americans feared that rifle. But everyone did not have a rifle, and few that did kept them in their home. It was just too dangerous. They were accurate, but they were slow, and no match for an accomplished archer, like the Native Americans. Who could send multiple arrows down range per minute.


You don't know what you are talking about...the very thing you posted explains exactly why we have the 2nd Amendment...........

Gage's aide John Andrews explained that everyone in the area aged 16 years or older owned a gun and plenty of gunpowder.

Military rule would be difficult to impose on an armed populace. Gage had only 2,000 troops in Boston. There were thousands of armed men in Boston alone, and more in the surrounding area. One response to the problem was to deprive the Americans of gunpowder.
---------

The militia that assembled at the Lexington Green and the Concord Bridge consisted of able-bodied men aged 16 to 60.
They supplied their own firearms, although a few poor men had to borrow a gun. Warned by Paul Revere and Samuel Dawes of the British advance, the young women of Lexington assembled cartridges late into the evening of April 18.

A


In many townships citizens were required to own gunpower, STORED IN THE ARMORY. Same for their guns, they were REQUIRED to be stored at the armory. You could check them out, much like a library book, anytime. This is not some secret, it has been known by historians since the very beginning.

No, moron....they had their rifles and enough powder for their guns...the larger quantities were stored in the powder house....you twit.
 

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.


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.


And you lying sack of shit.....you don't include what he says as to what can be limited.....he states locations, felons and mentally ill....he states that the Right

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.

and in Friedman v Highland Park, that came after Heller....Scalia, who wrote Heller....states........


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.
s
Quit posting bullshit from pro-gun nutjob sites. Read the damn opinion, from beginning to end, albeit I understand the historical revisionism is a little revolting. Like I said, there are assault weapons ban in dozens of jurisdictions throughout the country, Massachusetts jumps out there. And every one of those bans has been held up in court, many times the Judge actually quotes Scalia's opinion in Heller. Some have been appealed to the SCOTUS, and the SCOTUS has refused to hear a single one of them. Most telling, this nation did have an assault weapons ban, before Heller, and it was never successfully challenged in court. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.


The 4th Circuit in Massachusetts is violating the Constitution and the Supreme Court rulings........they have not been upheld in court, they were made up by the left wing, anti-gun extremists on the lower courts who are ignoring the Constitution and the Bill of Rights...

What is so hard for you, you doofus....to understand that you are wrong....

The SCOTUS has had that case on appeal for more than a year and they have refused to hear it. Get back to me when they actually agree to hear it, but I won't hold my breath. Pretty sure that ship has already sailed.


It hasn't sailed, as Thomas keeps stating......the problem is the left wing activists on the court who don't understand the Constitution, and want to rule how they feel, instead of according to the Bill of Rights.

Why is it that you think the left wing activists don't understand the Constitution? Can you at least accept the fact that the biggest bit of judicial activism in the last one hundred years was Scalia and Heller? I mean I understand you don't have the history background that I do, but Scalia's opinion is some major historical revisionism. And it is really pretty simple, prior to the battles of Lexington and Concord, the British were on the way to the armory, to confiscate the weapons that were kept THERE, not in their homes.

The Battle of King's Mountain, a pivotal battle in the Revolutionary War. General Fergunson was shot off his horse, by a rifle owned by my great, great, well who knows how many greats, grandfather. He was not there, the rifle was borrowed. He was too old to make the journey. But the reality is that one rifle was THE rifle for this entire region. And it was used for hunting, which is how old man Wiedner made his living. And the Native Americans feared that rifle. But everyone did not have a rifle, and few that did kept them in their home. It was just too dangerous. They were accurate, but they were slow, and no match for an accomplished archer, like the Native Americans. Who could send multiple arrows down range per minute.


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

CONCLUSION

Our hope here is to do much more than explode recently created myths about gun ownership in probate records. As we show, in probate inventories (
1) there were high numbers of guns in early America;1 2 (2) guns were much more common than swords or other edged weapons; 5 ' (3) women owned guns;.5 4 and (4) the great majority of gun-owning estates listed no old or broken guns.' Our estimates that at least 50% of male and female wealthholders owned guns in 1774 colonial America are the first carefully weighted national probate-based estimates for gun ownership in eighteenth-century America.

[/URL]

Oh piss off. What that study says, and I already know it because I have been around the block with more than a few freaking gun nuts, is that probate records don't count, that people "secretly" owned guns. Well whoopie damn shit, and people "secretly" owned the cure to cancer but never revealed it. It is stupid. Gun ownership was no where near as prevalent in colonial times as you gun nuts want to believe. And for the most part, Americans were some piss poor hunters. I mean they traded those "guns" for freakin food with the Native Americans. If they were great hunters why the hell would they do that?

Besides, who the hell could afford a gun? The real guns, the guns that made the difference, were custom made. They weren't cheap. I mean if your position was true the Colonial Army would have relied on their soldiers to provide their own weapons, right? Is that what happened? Hell no. Not even close.
 

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.


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.


And you lying sack of shit.....you don't include what he says as to what can be limited.....he states locations, felons and mentally ill....he states that the Right

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.

and in Friedman v Highland Park, that came after Heller....Scalia, who wrote Heller....states........


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.
s
Quit posting bullshit from pro-gun nutjob sites. Read the damn opinion, from beginning to end, albeit I understand the historical revisionism is a little revolting. Like I said, there are assault weapons ban in dozens of jurisdictions throughout the country, Massachusetts jumps out there. And every one of those bans has been held up in court, many times the Judge actually quotes Scalia's opinion in Heller. Some have been appealed to the SCOTUS, and the SCOTUS has refused to hear a single one of them. Most telling, this nation did have an assault weapons ban, before Heller, and it was never successfully challenged in court. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.


The 4th Circuit in Massachusetts is violating the Constitution and the Supreme Court rulings........they have not been upheld in court, they were made up by the left wing, anti-gun extremists on the lower courts who are ignoring the Constitution and the Bill of Rights...

What is so hard for you, you doofus....to understand that you are wrong....

The SCOTUS has had that case on appeal for more than a year and they have refused to hear it. Get back to me when they actually agree to hear it, but I won't hold my breath. Pretty sure that ship has already sailed.


It hasn't sailed, as Thomas keeps stating......the problem is the left wing activists on the court who don't understand the Constitution, and want to rule how they feel, instead of according to the Bill of Rights.

Why is it that you think the left wing activists don't understand the Constitution? Can you at least accept the fact that the biggest bit of judicial activism in the last one hundred years was Scalia and Heller? I mean I understand you don't have the history background that I do, but Scalia's opinion is some major historical revisionism. And it is really pretty simple, prior to the battles of Lexington and Concord, the British were on the way to the armory, to confiscate the weapons that were kept THERE, not in their homes.

The Battle of King's Mountain, a pivotal battle in the Revolutionary War. General Fergunson was shot off his horse, by a rifle owned by my great, great, well who knows how many greats, grandfather. He was not there, the rifle was borrowed. He was too old to make the journey. But the reality is that one rifle was THE rifle for this entire region. And it was used for hunting, which is how old man Wiedner made his living. And the Native Americans feared that rifle. But everyone did not have a rifle, and few that did kept them in their home. It was just too dangerous. They were accurate, but they were slow, and no match for an accomplished archer, like the Native Americans. Who could send multiple arrows down range per minute.


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

CONCLUSION

Our hope here is to do much more than explode recently created myths about gun ownership in probate records. As we show, in probate inventories (
1) there were high numbers of guns in early America;1 2 (2) guns were much more common than swords or other edged weapons; 5 ' (3) women owned guns;.5 4 and (4) the great majority of gun-owning estates listed no old or broken guns.' Our estimates that at least 50% of male and female wealthholders owned guns in 1774 colonial America are the first carefully weighted national probate-based estimates for gun ownership in eighteenth-century America.

[/URL]

Oh piss off. What that study says, and I already know it because I have been around the block with more than a few freaking gun nuts, is that probate records don't count, that people "secretly" owned guns. Well whoopie damn shit, and people "secretly" owned the cure to cancer but never revealed it. It is stupid. Gun ownership was no where near as prevalent in colonial times as you gun nuts want to believe. And for the most part, Americans were some piss poor hunters. I mean they traded those "guns" for freakin food with the Native Americans. If they were great hunters why the hell would they do that?

Besides, who the hell could afford a gun? The real guns, the guns that made the difference, were custom made. They weren't cheap. I mean if your position was true the Colonial Army would have relied on their soldiers to provide their own weapons, right? Is that what happened? Hell no. Not even close.


You really are a shit for brains........guns were an essential tool for survival, for both hunting and fighting off the "peaceful," native American war parties.

The Colonial army couldn't depend on colonists to show up and many left immediately after their term of service was up, you doofus.......they had to go home to provide for their families, you doofus.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: kaz
Even if Turtlehead maintains leadership, It would just take two Republicans to side with bipartisan legislation to pass. We already know Romney, Collins are likely candidates.

It would also take every single Democrat Senator to go along with it. Firearms are one of the few issues that cross partisan lines. A Democrat Senator in a purple state can easily find themselves out of a job by supporting any gun measure. When our legislature came up with a CCW bill, it was a Democrat Governor who signed it because if he stopped it, his ass would have never had a chance at re-election.

We don't live in a country where only Republicans have guns. The most dangerous places in this country are heavily Democrat inner-cities. If they make it impossible for those people to own guns because they can't afford these fees, those people are not going to be happy.


In the 1990s the democrats lost control of the House after controlling it for 40 years because of their gun control push and the Assault weapon ban. This is why obama didn't openly push gun control, instead, working to put anti-gun judges on the bench and using Fast and Furious to spread American guns through Mexico....to restart the anti-gun movement.........

With the focus on state elections in the next two years, the democrats will likely go quiet on gun control, letting mayors push new laws and anti-gun judges make them Constitutional.....
Jesus fuck. Did you forget any conspiracy theory?

Fast & Furious was designed to stop the flow of guns intol Mexico. Why the fuck would Obama want guns to go into Mexico? You have zero logic. It was stupid people like you who thought it was OK to sell AR-15s to people 40 at a time & think that were not being smnugled into Mexico. Why do you want to smuggle guns into Mexico?
 
N

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.


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.


And you lying sack of shit.....you don't include what he says as to what can be limited.....he states locations, felons and mentally ill....he states that the Right

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.

and in Friedman v Highland Park, that came after Heller....Scalia, who wrote Heller....states........


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.
s
Quit posting bullshit from pro-gun nutjob sites. Read the damn opinion, from beginning to end, albeit I understand the historical revisionism is a little revolting. Like I said, there are assault weapons ban in dozens of jurisdictions throughout the country, Massachusetts jumps out there. And every one of those bans has been held up in court, many times the Judge actually quotes Scalia's opinion in Heller. Some have been appealed to the SCOTUS, and the SCOTUS has refused to hear a single one of them. Most telling, this nation did have an assault weapons ban, before Heller, and it was never successfully challenged in court. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.


The 4th Circuit in Massachusetts is violating the Constitution and the Supreme Court rulings........they have not been upheld in court, they were made up by the left wing, anti-gun extremists on the lower courts who are ignoring the Constitution and the Bill of Rights...

What is so hard for you, you doofus....to understand that you are wrong....

The SCOTUS has had that case on appeal for more than a year and they have refused to hear it. Get back to me when they actually agree to hear it, but I won't hold my breath. Pretty sure that ship has already sailed.


It hasn't sailed, as Thomas keeps stating......the problem is the left wing activists on the court who don't understand the Constitution, and want to rule how they feel, instead of according to the Bill of Rights.

Why is it that you think the left wing activists don't understand the Constitution? Can you at least accept the fact that the biggest bit of judicial activism in the last one hundred years was Scalia and Heller? I mean I understand you don't have the history background that I do, but Scalia's opinion is some major historical revisionism. And it is really pretty simple, prior to the battles of Lexington and Concord, the British were on the way to the armory, to confiscate the weapons that were kept THERE, not in their homes.

The Battle of King's Mountain, a pivotal battle in the Revolutionary War. General Fergunson was shot off his horse, by a rifle owned by my great, great, well who knows how many greats, grandfather. He was not there, the rifle was borrowed. He was too old to make the journey. But the reality is that one rifle was THE rifle for this entire region. And it was used for hunting, which is how old man Wiedner made his living. And the Native Americans feared that rifle. But everyone did not have a rifle, and few that did kept them in their home. It was just too dangerous. They were accurate, but they were slow, and no match for an accomplished archer, like the Native Americans. Who could send multiple arrows down range per minute.


You don't know what you are talking about...the very thing you posted explains exactly why we have the 2nd Amendment...........

Gage's aide John Andrews explained that everyone in the area aged 16 years or older owned a gun and plenty of gunpowder.

Military rule would be difficult to impose on an armed populace. Gage had only 2,000 troops in Boston. There were thousands of armed men in Boston alone, and more in the surrounding area. One response to the problem was to deprive the Americans of gunpowder.
---------

The militia that assembled at the Lexington Green and the Concord Bridge consisted of able-bodied men aged 16 to 60.
They supplied their own firearms, although a few poor men had to borrow a gun. Warned by Paul Revere and Samuel Dawes of the British advance, the young women of Lexington assembled cartridges late into the evening of April 18.

A


In many townships citizens were required to own gunpower, STORED IN THE ARMORY. Same for their guns, they were REQUIRED to be stored at the armory. You could check them out, much like a library book, anytime. This is not some secret, it has been known by historians since the very beginning.

No, moron....they had their rifles and enough powder for their guns...the larger quantities were stored in the powder house....you twit.

Bullshit. Many of the rifles used during the Battles of Lexington and Concord were Brown Besses, DISTRIBUTED by the crown during the French and Indian War.

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.


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.


And you lying sack of shit.....you don't include what he says as to what can be limited.....he states locations, felons and mentally ill....he states that the Right

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.

and in Friedman v Highland Park, that came after Heller....Scalia, who wrote Heller....states........


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.
s
Quit posting bullshit from pro-gun nutjob sites. Read the damn opinion, from beginning to end, albeit I understand the historical revisionism is a little revolting. Like I said, there are assault weapons ban in dozens of jurisdictions throughout the country, Massachusetts jumps out there. And every one of those bans has been held up in court, many times the Judge actually quotes Scalia's opinion in Heller. Some have been appealed to the SCOTUS, and the SCOTUS has refused to hear a single one of them. Most telling, this nation did have an assault weapons ban, before Heller, and it was never successfully challenged in court. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.


The 4th Circuit in Massachusetts is violating the Constitution and the Supreme Court rulings........they have not been upheld in court, they were made up by the left wing, anti-gun extremists on the lower courts who are ignoring the Constitution and the Bill of Rights...

What is so hard for you, you doofus....to understand that you are wrong....

The SCOTUS has had that case on appeal for more than a year and they have refused to hear it. Get back to me when they actually agree to hear it, but I won't hold my breath. Pretty sure that ship has already sailed.


It hasn't sailed, as Thomas keeps stating......the problem is the left wing activists on the court who don't understand the Constitution, and want to rule how they feel, instead of according to the Bill of Rights.

Why is it that you think the left wing activists don't understand the Constitution? Can you at least accept the fact that the biggest bit of judicial activism in the last one hundred years was Scalia and Heller? I mean I understand you don't have the history background that I do, but Scalia's opinion is some major historical revisionism. And it is really pretty simple, prior to the battles of Lexington and Concord, the British were on the way to the armory, to confiscate the weapons that were kept THERE, not in their homes.

The Battle of King's Mountain, a pivotal battle in the Revolutionary War. General Fergunson was shot off his horse, by a rifle owned by my great, great, well who knows how many greats, grandfather. He was not there, the rifle was borrowed. He was too old to make the journey. But the reality is that one rifle was THE rifle for this entire region. And it was used for hunting, which is how old man Wiedner made his living. And the Native Americans feared that rifle. But everyone did not have a rifle, and few that did kept them in their home. It was just too dangerous. They were accurate, but they were slow, and no match for an accomplished archer, like the Native Americans. Who could send multiple arrows down range per minute.


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

CONCLUSION

Our hope here is to do much more than explode recently created myths about gun ownership in probate records. As we show, in probate inventories (
1) there were high numbers of guns in early America;1 2 (2) guns were much more common than swords or other edged weapons; 5 ' (3) women owned guns;.5 4 and (4) the great majority of gun-owning estates listed no old or broken guns.' Our estimates that at least 50% of male and female wealthholders owned guns in 1774 colonial America are the first carefully weighted national probate-based estimates for gun ownership in eighteenth-century America.

[/URL]

Oh piss off. What that study says, and I already know it because I have been around the block with more than a few freaking gun nuts, is that probate records don't count, that people "secretly" owned guns. Well whoopie damn shit, and people "secretly" owned the cure to cancer but never revealed it. It is stupid. Gun ownership was no where near as prevalent in colonial times as you gun nuts want to believe. And for the most part, Americans were some piss poor hunters. I mean they traded those "guns" for freakin food with the Native Americans. If they were great hunters why the hell would they do that?

Besides, who the hell could afford a gun? The real guns, the guns that made the difference, were custom made. They weren't cheap. I mean if your position was true the Colonial Army would have relied on their soldiers to provide their own weapons, right? Is that what happened? Hell no. Not even close.


You really are a shit for brains........guns were an essential tool for survival, for both hunting and fighting off the "peaceful," native American war parties.

The Colonial army couldn't depend on colonists to show up and many left immediately after their term of service was up, you doofus.......they had to go home to provide for their families, you doofus.

You are the one being delusional. If guns were so prevalent and critical, why did the British government have to issue guns to soldiers during the French and Indian War? If they were so instrumental in providing food for the colonists through hunting, why did they trade them with Native Americans for food?

The fact is that the British government paid a bounty for militiamen that could provide their own gun during the French and Indian War. About eight percent of militiamen collected that bounty. Sorry, but eight percent of the population owning guns is not really supporting your fantasy. The reality is that a gun, during colonial times, cost about two months pay, of a skilled tradesman. Hunting, that is a damn joke. Muskets were highly inaccurate, and if you missed the first shot the game was long gone Spiking the Gun Myth (nytimes.com) by the time you could reload. Deadfall traps were a better option. Hell, the joke back then was who would bring a gun to a knife fight. Knives, axes, the proverbial tomahawk, were all a better choice of self-defense than a slow firing highly inaccurate musket.

Spiking the Gun Myth (nytimes.com)
 
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.

The AR has been used in the Record Braking Body Count Mass Shootings. The majority of the sillyvillian guns are not going to be taken EVER. You keep trying to use that fear and it's not working so well as people start seeing past the fear campaign. But the AR is a different breed. It WAS invented as a Military Weapon. Every feature on it is so that it can kill lots of people by a barely trained, scared shitless 18 year old in a firefight. Just because it can do other things doesn't make it any less. If I am 50 feet from my tool chest and only have my adjustable wrench handy and need to hammer in a nail I can still use the wrench. That doesn't make it a hammer.

If you bothered to actually "READ" the 1934 NFA you would see that the AR could possibly be added to that list. And that is what you should be centered on. You shouldn't be shrieking to the high heavens that they are out take all our "Guns". Otherwise, when you do have a point no one of importance will listen to you, chicken little.
 
Even if Turtlehead maintains leadership, It would just take two Republicans to side with bipartisan legislation to pass. We already know Romney, Collins are likely candidates.

It would also take every single Democrat Senator to go along with it. Firearms are one of the few issues that cross partisan lines. A Democrat Senator in a purple state can easily find themselves out of a job by supporting any gun measure. When our legislature came up with a CCW bill, it was a Democrat Governor who signed it because if he stopped it, his ass would have never had a chance at re-election.

We don't live in a country where only Republicans have guns. The most dangerous places in this country are heavily Democrat inner-cities. If they make it impossible for those people to own guns because they can't afford these fees, those people are not going to be happy.


In the 1990s the democrats lost control of the House after controlling it for 40 years because of their gun control push and the Assault weapon ban. This is why obama didn't openly push gun control, instead, working to put anti-gun judges on the bench and using Fast and Furious to spread American guns through Mexico....to restart the anti-gun movement.........

With the focus on state elections in the next two years, the democrats will likely go quiet on gun control, letting mayors push new laws and anti-gun judges make them Constitutional.....
Jesus fuck. Did you forget any conspiracy theory?

Fast & Furious was designed to stop the flow of guns intol Mexico. Why the fuck would Obama want guns to go into Mexico? You have zero logic. It was stupid people like you who thought it was OK to sell AR-15s to people 40 at a time & think that were not being smnugled into Mexico. Why do you want to smuggle guns into Mexico?


The gun control movement had been stalled because the democrats lost the House after controlling it for 40 years....they lost it because, to a large part, the Assault weapon ban...so democrats didn't want to talk about gun control.

So....to restart the gun control push, obama and his "wingman" holder, sent illegal guns to the drug cartels, so they would end up at crime scenes....and obama and his minions could then call for more gun control.....

They were not being smuggled into Mexico...the bulk of guns that the cartel gets come from the Mexican military, and from Europe and China......
 
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.

The AR has been used in the Record Braking Body Count Mass Shootings. The majority of the sillyvillian guns are not going to be taken EVER. You keep trying to use that fear and it's not working so well as people start seeing past the fear campaign. But the AR is a different breed. It WAS invented as a Military Weapon. Every feature on it is so that it can kill lots of people by a barely trained, scared shitless 18 year old in a firefight. Just because it can do other things doesn't make it any less. If I am 50 feet from my tool chest and only have my adjustable wrench handy and need to hammer in a nail I can still use the wrench. That doesn't make it a hammer.

If you bothered to actually "READ" the 1934 NFA you would see that the AR could possibly be added to that list. And that is what you should be centered on. You shouldn't be shrieking to the high heavens that they are out take all our "Guns". Otherwise, when you do have a point no one of importance will listen to you, chicken little.

Sandy Hook....26 people killed


32 people killed at Virginia tech shooting....2 pistols.

Luby's cafe, 24 people killed with two pistols.

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

The AR-15 is no different from any other civilian rifle, you dumb doofus.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top