Biden to tax away your guns

[Bob Blaylock]

I got to ask. Why do gun dealers and manufacturers need liability protection? I mean why are they so special. If a car company builds a car, and is willfully negligent, and people get killed, they can get sued.

If a car dealership sells a car to a man who goes on some evening to get drunk, and drive that car into a crowd of people, killing several, is the car dealership really responsible?

A car, after all, is a legal product, which is used by the overwhelming vast majority of those who own one, for entirely legal purposes. If someone misuses a car, resulting in harm to others, then that's on him, not on the manufacturer of the car, nor on the dealer that sold it.

There's absolutely no rational reason why this should be any different for firearms. Any misuse of one that results in harm is on the mute donkey committing that misuse,and not on the manufacturer nor the dealer.

The tactic of trying to hold gun manufacturers and dealers responsible when people misuse the product is an illegitimate attempt to chill the right of law-abiding citizens, as affirmed in the Second Amendment, to keep and bear arms, by chilling the availability of them.

 

[2aguy]

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

Get ready to pay up

www.theblaze.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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

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

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

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

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

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.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I've read Heller, and in that long and tedious effort by Scalia to ass kiss the NRA he made one very important comment, a comment which repudiates the last phrase of the 2nd A. to wit:

"shall not be infringed":

"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."

That's a prime example of what Orwell called “Doublethink”—“Shall not be infringed” somehow means that it's OK to infringe.

 

[2aguy]

I got to ask. Why do gun dealers and manufacturers need liability protection? I mean why are they so special. If a car company builds a car, and is willfully negligent, and people get killed, they can get sued.

If a car dealership sells a car to a man who goes on some evening to get drunk, and drive that car into a crowd of people, killing several, is the car dealership really responsible?

A car, after all, is a legal product, which is used by the overwhelming vast majority of those who own one, for entirely legal purposes. If someone misuses a car, resulting in harm to others, then that's on him, not on the manufacturer of the car, nor on the dealer that sold it.

There's absolutely no rational reason why this should be any different for firearms. Any misuse of one that results in harm is on the mute donkey committing that misuse,and not on the manufacturer nor the dealer.

The tactic of trying to hold gun manufacturers and dealers responsible when people misuse the product is an illegitimate attempt to chill the right of law-abiding citizens, as affirmed in the Second Amendment, to keep and bear arms, by chilling the availability of them.

And that is why all industries need to side with gun makers and gun stores....if you set up the precedent that the illegal use of a product opens you up for law suits........then cars are next.....as is the liquor industry and bars...........Right now they are held if they over serve....if they don't over serve but their customers still cause a wreck...they would now be liable according to the tactics of the gun law suits they want.

 

[kaz]

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

Get ready to pay up

www.theblaze.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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

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

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

 

[kaz]

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

Get ready to pay up

www.theblaze.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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

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

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

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

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

Not to mention all the writings of the people who WROTE the 2nd amendment which clearly state it is an individual right.

Why the hell would they put something that wasn't even an individual right in the Bill of Rights. That makes no sense

 

[kaz]

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

Get ready to pay up

www.theblaze.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

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

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

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

Because A, B.

Even someone government educated like you should get that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

That you are "Winston" is a joke

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

My God you're stupid. I said the government gives crappy educations. It does. We have the worst schools in the west and most expensive in the world. Government sucks at educating.

Since you obviously got nothing else, here two things that you don't grasp about that statement because you're a simpleton.

1) People can have been educated by the government and actually still be educated. It's just government didn't do most of the educating. That government sucks at education does not say that government actually prevents you from being educated.

2) Saying government sucks at education does not imply that ALL other forms of education are good.

My God you're stupid. How do you dress yourself? Government has failed you, totally. You are incapable of even basic reasoning, like points 1 and 2 above. How can anyone be that stupid?

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

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

- Government educated Winston: That doesn't mean government can't decide what arms you're allowed to buy, kaz

Of course it means that, moron

 

[Lesh]

What about the lawsuits regarding oxycontin? If used as intended, then there should be no liability to the makers...but there was

And that's what's wrong with our legal system. They should not be liable since it's not an over the country drug, and you need to have it prescribed by a physician.

Wow. Just wow. Either you're really nuts or you have no idea what Perdue actually did

 

[Lesh]

Not to mention all the writings of the people who WROTE the 2nd amendment which clearly state it is an individual right.

After the fact they can say anything they want. If they meant it to be that...they should have included that in the document.

They did not

 

[Lesh]

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

Gee...it BEGINS with "A Well Regulated Militia being necessary..."

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wow. Just wow. Either you're really nuts or you have no idea what Perdue actually did

I know what they did, but just because you promote your product doesn't mean a physician has to use it, or use it so often.

 

[2aguy]

I've read Heller, and in that long and tedious effort by Scalia to ass kiss the NRA he made one very important comment, a comment which repudiates the last phrase of the 2nd A. to wit:

"shall not be infringed":

"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."

That's a prime example of what Orwell called “Doublethink”—“Shall not be infringed” somehow means that it;'s OK to infringe.

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

Gee...it BEGINS with "A Well Regulated Militia being necessary..."

And yet it doesn't end there or even impact the rest of the 2nd Amendment.........People is a word used in a specific way.....and Scalia cites exactly what was meant at the time through both legal and historical examples.

 

[kaz]

Not to mention all the writings of the people who WROTE the 2nd amendment which clearly state it is an individual right.

After the fact they can say anything they want. If they meant it to be that...they should have included that in the document.

They did not

It was in the BILL OF RIGHTS.

The idea that they wrote nine amendments protecting individual rights then mixed in a government power is flat out stupid.

What is even the point of an amendment that government can decide what guns you're allowed to have? Why would they have done that?

And why did they all think they had protected individuals FROM government doing that?

Your argument is just low IQ, it makes zero sense

 

[MadChemist]

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

Get ready to pay up

www.theblaze.com

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

He will need to win the senate first.

 

[miketx]

Biden promised not a dime in new taxes for anyone who earns less than 400k. Exempting poor Americans below that threshold should be part of any proposed tax, as per his explicit vows to the Electorate.

The people who make more than that are the people who create companies and therefore more jobs. When you take more of their money in taxes they have less ability to create jobs. Less jobs mean more unemployment and less taxes paid in and more unemployment money paid out, requiring the idiots to have to tax more people and kill more jobs and business.

 

[Winston]

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

Get ready to pay up

www.theblaze.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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

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

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

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

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

You are totally full of shit.

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

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

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

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.

 

[kaz]

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

Gee...it BEGINS with "A Well Regulated Militia being necessary..."

So again you're going with you can't read because you were babysat by government schools.

That is an EXPLANATION of the right, not a qualification of it.

READ IT, simpleton.

"Because A, B." The right in that sentence is B, A is simply an explanation.

Because I need food to live, government cannot tell us what food we can buy.

Lesh. Well then that means government can regulate junk food, you don't need junk food to live.

This is just you are functionally illiterate, ignorant and just stupid. Learn to read, Puck

 

[miketx]

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

Get ready to pay up

www.theblaze.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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

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

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

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

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

You are totally full of shit.

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

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

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

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.

Total bullshit. We didn't have hardly any guns but we beat the most advanced well equipped army in the world. My God you people are full of shit.

 

[kaz]

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.

Total bullshit. We didn't have hardly any guns but we beat the most advanced well equipped army in the world. My God you people are full of shit.

Apparently Winston thinks his neck of the woods is the only place in the world. If they don't hunt, no one hunts. If they don't have guns, no one has guns. It's pretty stupid, really

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

Gee...it BEGINS with "A Well Regulated Militia being necessary..."

What can't be ignored is how it was written by the founders:


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

That little, red comma caused the Supreme Court to strike down D.C.'s ban on handguns, the country's strictest gun control law to date.

Before the Supreme Court heard the case, the D.C. circuit court of appeals nixed the ban, too. "According to the court, the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' On this reading, the bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don’t really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,'" The New York Times reported.

How A Comma Gave Americans The Right To Own Guns

The Supreme Court struck down D.C.'s ban on hand guns, the strictest gun control law to date, because of a comma.

www.businessinsider.com