Good guy with a gun saved lives at second NZ mosque.

[justoffal]

As more Americans own and carry guns from 1996, our gun murder rate did not go up, it went down by almost 50%......and our gun crime went down 75%....the exact opposite of what you guys claim would happen.....the exact opposite, showing that law abiding gun owners who also carry guns, do not increase the gun crime rate.....actual data, actual research, actual real world outcome......

I’m not predicting that more lawful gun owners will drive the gun homicide rate up.

I’m saying that an increase in gun ownership is not a driver in reducing gun homicides. It certainly has an impact on accidental shootings some of which leads to death.,

17 million gun owners do not carry their firearms 24/7 locked and loaded and on high alert ready to intervene wherever and whenever the bad guys are about to shoot good guys or other bad guys?

I’m sure a majority of legal gun owners live in rural or smaller town areas which is not where the majority of gun homicides occur.

Many gun homicides happen out of public view between domestic partners or family members. How does gun ownership drive that statistic down?

Here's the simple truth... The second amendment does not need to pass any social tests or be justified as to its effects or lack thereof. It exists today for the same reason it always did and in the final analysis you will never find a Congress that will move to strike it. There are more supporters than detractors and that is not going to change.

Jo

 

[NotfooledbyW]

justoffal, post: 22039660

Here's the simple truth... The second amendment does not need to pass any social tests or be justified as to its effects or lack thereof. It exists today for the same reason it always did and in the final analysis you will never find a Congress that will move to strike it. There are more supporters than detractors and that is not going to change.

I’m not advocating getting rid of the second amendment by any means. What wrong with you paranoid people that you can’t deal in facts.

Its that the pro-gun cult members walk off a cliff for devotion to the AR-15 but you don’t defend your right to freely own an Abrams tank or any other weapon designed for use in war. You need that more so today if you plan to overthrow an oppressive government.

So you agree with Scalia that there are limitations in the Second Anendment. But you take an unreasonable stand so you can play with a military looking toy like the AR-15 which happens to be similar to the weapon of choice of nass murderers. Why associate yourselves with such human scum for a cult like devotion to such a style of rifle.

 

[2aguy]

justoffal, post: 22039660

Here's the simple truth... The second amendment does not need to pass any social tests or be justified as to its effects or lack thereof. It exists today for the same reason it always did and in the final analysis you will never find a Congress that will move to strike it. There are more supporters than detractors and that is not going to change.

I’m not advocating getting rid of the second amendment by any means. What wrong with you paranoid people that you can’t deal in facts.

Its that the pro-gun cult members walk off a cliff for devotion to the AR-15 but you don’t defend your right to freely own an Abrams tank or any other weapon designed for use in war. You need that more so today if you plan to overthrow an oppressive government.

So you agree with Scalia that there are limitations in the Second Anendment. But you take an unreasonable stand so you can play with a military looking toy like the AR-15 which happens to be similar to the weapon of choice of nass murderers. Why associate yourselves with such human scum for a cult like devotion to such a style of rifle.

You obviously don't know what Scalia actually wrote about the AR-15 rifle? Do you? Do you understand that Scalia named the AR-15, and stated that it, in particular, is a rifle protected by the 2nd Amendment...did you know that...do you understand that?

Here.....this is the Friedman v Highland Park ruling....Scalia dissented in that he wanted the case to be heard so they could strike down the 4th Circuits rulilng, which went against the previous Heller decision....here is Scalia stating that the AR-15 rifle is protected by the 2nd Amdendment...

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.

Now....knowing what Scalia said about the AR-15, do you now take back your previous post about what you think Scalia said?

 

[2aguy]

justoffal, post: 22039660

Here's the simple truth... The second amendment does not need to pass any social tests or be justified as to its effects or lack thereof. It exists today for the same reason it always did and in the final analysis you will never find a Congress that will move to strike it. There are more supporters than detractors and that is not going to change.

I’m not advocating getting rid of the second amendment by any means. What wrong with you paranoid people that you can’t deal in facts.

Its that the pro-gun cult members walk off a cliff for devotion to the AR-15 but you don’t defend your right to freely own an Abrams tank or any other weapon designed for use in war. You need that more so today if you plan to overthrow an oppressive government.

So you agree with Scalia that there are limitations in the Second Anendment. But you take an unreasonable stand so you can play with a military looking toy like the AR-15 which happens to be similar to the weapon of choice of nass murderers. Why associate yourselves with such human scum for a cult like devotion to such a style of rifle.

The actual weapon of choice of mass public shooters in gun free zones is the hand gun.....by far......

Do you understand that the Miller decision protects weapons of war under the 2nd Amendment? Or that the Caetano v Massachusetts also protects military weapons under the 2nd Amendment....?

Do you understand these rulings?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Opinion of the Court[edit]

In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

[7] Citing District of Columbia v. Heller[8] and McDonald v. City of Chicago,[9] the Court began its opinion by stating that "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 that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[6]

The Court then identified three reasons why the Massachusetts court's opinion contradicted prior rulings by the United States Supreme Court.[1]

First, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted Heller's conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding”.[10]

Second, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns were "dangerous per se at common law and unusual" because they were "a thoroughly modern invention", but the Supreme Court held that this was also inconstant with Heller.[11]


Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

-

 

[NotfooledbyW]

2aguy, post: 22043511

justoffal, post: 22039660

Here's the simple truth... The second amendment does not need to pass any social tests or be justified as to its effects or lack thereof. It exists today for the same reason it always did and in the final analysis you will never find a Congress that will move to strike it. There are more supporters than detractors and that is not going to change.

I’m not advocating getting rid of the second amendment by any means. What wrong with you paranoid people that you can’t deal in facts.

Its that the pro-gun cult members walk off a cliff for devotion to the AR-15 but you don’t defend your right to freely own an Abrams tank or any other weapon designed for use in war. You need that more so today if you plan to overthrow an oppressive government.

So you agree with Scalia that there are limitations in the Second Anendment. But you take an unreasonable stand so you can play with a military looking toy like the AR-15 which happens to be similar to the weapon of choice of nass murderers. Why associate yourselves with such human scum for a cult like devotion to such a style of rifle.

You obviously don't know what Scalia actually wrote about the AR-15 rifle? Do you? Do you understand that Scalia named the AR-15, and stated that it, in particular, is a rifle protected by the 2nd Amendment...did you know that...do you understand that?

Here.....this is the Friedman v Highland Park ruling....Scalia dissented in that he wanted the case to be heard so they could strike down the 4th Circuits rulilng, which went against the previous Heller decision....here is Scalia stating that the AR-15 rifle is protected by the 2nd Amdendment...

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.

Now....knowing what Scalia said about the AR-15, do you now take back your previous post about what you think Scalia said?

Here’s my point, braindead.

“So you agree with Scalia that there are limitations in the Second Anendment. “

Actually I was not referring to the AR-15 with that comment. I was referring to this:


“........Scalia's position, "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." Further, it is not "a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."”

Even Scalia acknowledged limits to Second Amendment

If the right to bear arms is not unlimited and you agree by not demanding full rights to the most lethal weapons developed for military use then you agree that society has a right to ban any weapon that society does not want in the hands of clueless military style gun cultists that can’t read simple language.

How is your militia gonna overthrow a Tyrannical Government if you can’t play with whatever toy you want to play with because the government won’t let you.

 

[justoffal]

2aguy, post: 22043511

justoffal, post: 22039660

Here's the simple truth... The second amendment does not need to pass any social tests or be justified as to its effects or lack thereof. It exists today for the same reason it always did and in the final analysis you will never find a Congress that will move to strike it. There are more supporters than detractors and that is not going to change.

I’m not advocating getting rid of the second amendment by any means. What wrong with you paranoid people that you can’t deal in facts.

Its that the pro-gun cult members walk off a cliff for devotion to the AR-15 but you don’t defend your right to freely own an Abrams tank or any other weapon designed for use in war. You need that more so today if you plan to overthrow an oppressive government.

So you agree with Scalia that there are limitations in the Second Anendment. But you take an unreasonable stand so you can play with a military looking toy like the AR-15 which happens to be similar to the weapon of choice of nass murderers. Why associate yourselves with such human scum for a cult like devotion to such a style of rifle.

You obviously don't know what Scalia actually wrote about the AR-15 rifle? Do you? Do you understand that Scalia named the AR-15, and stated that it, in particular, is a rifle protected by the 2nd Amendment...did you know that...do you understand that?

Here.....this is the Friedman v Highland Park ruling....Scalia dissented in that he wanted the case to be heard so they could strike down the 4th Circuits rulilng, which went against the previous Heller decision....here is Scalia stating that the AR-15 rifle is protected by the 2nd Amdendment...

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.

Now....knowing what Scalia said about the AR-15, do you now take back your previous post about what you think Scalia said?

Here’s my point, braindead.

“So you agree with Scalia that there are limitations in the Second Anendment. “

Actually I was not referring to the AR-15 with that comment. I was referring to this:


“........Scalia's position, "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." Further, it is not "a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."”

Even Scalia acknowledged limits to Second Amendment

If the right to bear arms is not unlimited and you agree by not demanding full rights to the most lethal weapons developed for military use then you agree that society has a right to ban any weapon that society does not want in the hands of clueless military style gun cultists that can’t read simple language.

How is your militia gonna overthrow a Tyrannical Government if you can’t play with whatever toy you want to play with because the government won’t let you.

That's the Crux. The second cannot be legislated into hibernation legally. At some point an unelected committee can and must intervene to retake sovereign decision should that be attempted and constitutionally assign themselves the right to Military action and access to all of the attendant hardware needed. It cannot work any other way. In the end....much like the civil war... The winning segment gets to appoint the judges who will jail the losers.

Jo

 

[2aguy]

2aguy, post: 22043511

justoffal, post: 22039660

Here's the simple truth... The second amendment does not need to pass any social tests or be justified as to its effects or lack thereof. It exists today for the same reason it always did and in the final analysis you will never find a Congress that will move to strike it. There are more supporters than detractors and that is not going to change.

I’m not advocating getting rid of the second amendment by any means. What wrong with you paranoid people that you can’t deal in facts.

Its that the pro-gun cult members walk off a cliff for devotion to the AR-15 but you don’t defend your right to freely own an Abrams tank or any other weapon designed for use in war. You need that more so today if you plan to overthrow an oppressive government.

So you agree with Scalia that there are limitations in the Second Anendment. But you take an unreasonable stand so you can play with a military looking toy like the AR-15 which happens to be similar to the weapon of choice of nass murderers. Why associate yourselves with such human scum for a cult like devotion to such a style of rifle.

You obviously don't know what Scalia actually wrote about the AR-15 rifle? Do you? Do you understand that Scalia named the AR-15, and stated that it, in particular, is a rifle protected by the 2nd Amendment...did you know that...do you understand that?

Here.....this is the Friedman v Highland Park ruling....Scalia dissented in that he wanted the case to be heard so they could strike down the 4th Circuits rulilng, which went against the previous Heller decision....here is Scalia stating that the AR-15 rifle is protected by the 2nd Amdendment...

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.

Now....knowing what Scalia said about the AR-15, do you now take back your previous post about what you think Scalia said?

Here’s my point, braindead.

“So you agree with Scalia that there are limitations in the Second Anendment. “

Actually I was not referring to the AR-15 with that comment. I was referring to this:


“........Scalia's position, "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." Further, it is not "a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."”

Even Scalia acknowledged limits to Second Amendment

If the right to bear arms is not unlimited and you agree by not demanding full rights to the most lethal weapons developed for military use then you agree that society has a right to ban any weapon that society does not want in the hands of clueless military style gun cultists that can’t read simple language.

How is your militia gonna overthrow a Tyrannical Government if you can’t play with whatever toy you want to play with because the government won’t let you.

Yes...you gun grabbers always post that quote, but fail to actually quote what he really said about the guns protected....

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.

You guys always ignore that....and you either don't know about what he actually wrote on the AR-15, or when I show you, you ignore it...because you want to focus on the one thing he said that has no bearing on the truth of what he wrote in Heller.....that all bearable arms are protected.......

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

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

 

[2aguy]

2aguy, post: 22043511

justoffal, post: 22039660

Here's the simple truth... The second amendment does not need to pass any social tests or be justified as to its effects or lack thereof. It exists today for the same reason it always did and in the final analysis you will never find a Congress that will move to strike it. There are more supporters than detractors and that is not going to change.

I’m not advocating getting rid of the second amendment by any means. What wrong with you paranoid people that you can’t deal in facts.

Its that the pro-gun cult members walk off a cliff for devotion to the AR-15 but you don’t defend your right to freely own an Abrams tank or any other weapon designed for use in war. You need that more so today if you plan to overthrow an oppressive government.

So you agree with Scalia that there are limitations in the Second Anendment. But you take an unreasonable stand so you can play with a military looking toy like the AR-15 which happens to be similar to the weapon of choice of nass murderers. Why associate yourselves with such human scum for a cult like devotion to such a style of rifle.

You obviously don't know what Scalia actually wrote about the AR-15 rifle? Do you? Do you understand that Scalia named the AR-15, and stated that it, in particular, is a rifle protected by the 2nd Amendment...did you know that...do you understand that?

Here.....this is the Friedman v Highland Park ruling....Scalia dissented in that he wanted the case to be heard so they could strike down the 4th Circuits rulilng, which went against the previous Heller decision....here is Scalia stating that the AR-15 rifle is protected by the 2nd Amdendment...

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.

Now....knowing what Scalia said about the AR-15, do you now take back your previous post about what you think Scalia said?

Here’s my point, braindead.

“So you agree with Scalia that there are limitations in the Second Anendment. “

Actually I was not referring to the AR-15 with that comment. I was referring to this:


“........Scalia's position, "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." Further, it is not "a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."”

Even Scalia acknowledged limits to Second Amendment

If the right to bear arms is not unlimited and you agree by not demanding full rights to the most lethal weapons developed for military use then you agree that society has a right to ban any weapon that society does not want in the hands of clueless military style gun cultists that can’t read simple language.

How is your militia gonna overthrow a Tyrannical Government if you can’t play with whatever toy you want to play with because the government won’t let you.

You are dumb.....

If the right to bear arms is not unlimited and you agree by not demanding full rights to the most lethal weapons

Again....Heller....what part of this do you not understand....?

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.

Then you have the first smack down of the 4th Circuit which addresses your comment on "Lethal Weapons..."

Here is Alito....after Heller, smacking you and the 4th circuit....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment.


First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.

If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636.


A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------

The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.


But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.


Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.


554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.
In any event, the Supreme Judicial Court’s assumption that stun guns are unsuited for militia or military use is unte

 

[NotfooledbyW]

2aguy, post: 22044052

... the truth of what he wrote in Heller.....that all bearable arms are protected.......

Are you making an argument that all bearable arms are protected?

With all of the words you keep posting how in the hell can you expect anyone able to figure out what your point is.

I’m saying you do not have the freedom to bear whatever arms you want to bear and specifically all the arms and wrsponry used in modern warfare.

If you think all bearable arms are protected by the second amendment without limitation or regulation then tell me why you can’t mount a fully automatic machine gun in the bed of your Mad Max monster mudder pick up truck and drive around on public roads fully loaded because you feel the need and the right to protect yourself however you see fit?

Why can’t you? Why do accept only the right to carry around the less deadly weapons in your toy box that only resemble the real bearable firearms that real soldiers use?

The right to bear arms is limited as Scalia said.

 

[justoffal]

2aguy, post: 22044052

... the truth of what he wrote in Heller.....that all bearable arms are protected.......

Are you making an argument that all bearable arms are protected?

With all of the words you keep posting how in the hell can you expect anyone able to figure out what your point is.

I’m saying you do not have the freedom to bear whatever arms you want to bear and specifically all the arms and wrsponry used in modern warfare.

If you think all bearable arms are protected by the second amendment without limitation or regulation then tell me why you can’t mount a fully automatic machine gun in the bed of your Mad Max monster mudder pick up truck and drive around on public roads fully loaded because you feel the need and the right to protect yourself however you see fit?

Why can’t you? Why do accept only the right to carry around the less deadly weapons in your toy box that only resemble the real bearable firearms that real soldiers use?

The right to bear arms is limited as Scalia said.

I'll simplify it for you. The second amendment is there for the strong.
If the current elected government
Decided to impose tyranny by force
Ultimately the Constitution says it's Ok to rebel by force. After the smoke settles the winner gets to appoint the judges who jail the losers.

Jo

 

[justoffal]

2aguy, post: 22044052

... the truth of what he wrote in Heller.....that all bearable arms are protected.......

Are you making an argument that all bearable arms are protected?

With all of the words you keep posting how in the hell can you expect anyone able to figure out what your point is.

I’m saying you do not have the freedom to bear whatever arms you want to bear and specifically all the arms and wrsponry used in modern warfare.

If you think all bearable arms are protected by the second amendment without limitation or regulation then tell me why you can’t mount a fully automatic machine gun in the bed of your Mad Max monster mudder pick up truck and drive around on public roads fully loaded because you feel the need and the right to protect yourself however you see fit?

Why can’t you? Why do accept only the right to carry around the less deadly weapons in your toy box that only resemble the real bearable firearms that real soldiers use?

The right to bear arms is limited as Scalia said.

I disagree....it is only limited by sub- constitutional local jurisdiction. In the final analysis if the people must rise up to prevent tyranny it doesn't matter if it's a pee shooter or the USS Gerald Ford.

Jo

 

[2aguy]

2aguy, post: 22044052

... the truth of what he wrote in Heller.....that all bearable arms are protected.......

Are you making an argument that all bearable arms are protected?

With all of the words you keep posting how in the hell can you expect anyone able to figure out what your point is.

I’m saying you do not have the freedom to bear whatever arms you want to bear and specifically all the arms and wrsponry used in modern warfare.

If you think all bearable arms are protected by the second amendment without limitation or regulation then tell me why you can’t mount a fully automatic machine gun in the bed of your Mad Max monster mudder pick up truck and drive around on public roads fully loaded because you feel the need and the right to protect yourself however you see fit?

Why can’t you? Why do accept only the right to carry around the less deadly weapons in your toy box that only resemble the real bearable firearms that real soldiers use?

The right to bear arms is limited as Scalia said.

No.....all rifles and pistols....in particular, the AR-15 rifle, as specified by Justice Scalia in his writing in Friedman v Highland park....so semi automatic weapons are protected rifles....as also confirmed by Justice Alito writing for the Court in Caetano v Massachusetts.

Do you deny that Scalia and Alito protected these weapons?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

2aguy, post: 22049772

No.....all rifles and pistols....in particular, the AR-15 rifle, as specified by Justice Scalia in his writing in Friedman v Highland park....so semi automatic weapons are protected rifles....as also confirmed by Justice Alito writing for the Court in Caetano v Massachusetts.

Do you deny that Scalia and Alito protected these weapons?

If you are stupid I guess you are gonna stay stupid.

You answered ‘“no” to this question, “ the right to bear arms is limited as Scalia said.”

I didn’t say anything about semi-automatic rifles being protected or not in that statement.

 

[2aguy]

2aguy, post: 22049772

No.....all rifles and pistols....in particular, the AR-15 rifle, as specified by Justice Scalia in his writing in Friedman v Highland park....so semi automatic weapons are protected rifles....as also confirmed by Justice Alito writing for the Court in Caetano v Massachusetts.

Do you deny that Scalia and Alito protected these weapons?

If you are stupid I guess you are gonna stay stupid.

You answered ‘“no” to this question, “ the right to bear arms is limited as Scalia said.”

I didn’t say anything about semi-automatic rifles being protected or not in that statement.

You don't want to admit that the AR-15 rifle and all semi-automatic rifles are protected by the 2nd Amendment, and Scalia stated they were ......you don't want to admit that.......

 

[NotfooledbyW]

2aguy, post: 22055728

You don't want to admit that the AR-15 rifle and all semi-automatic rifles are protected by the 2nd Amendment, and Scalia stated they were ......you don't want to admit that.......

Why not? I have never stated anything contrary to your assertion. Scalia said the 2nd Amendment is not unlimited. You do indeed accept that society and the courts have the right to limit your right to bear certain arms. Your acquiescence to those limitations means that you aqree that society and the courts can limit any ‘type’ of firearms they see fit and be consistent with the Constitution.