Gun owner paranoia---

[2aguy]

And you again ignored what Scalia actually said.......

To the contrary, I quoted Scalia's applicable words verbatim that contradict various fallacies in denial of government's legitimate role in regulating firearms, as well as citing the applicable wording from the pertinent case:

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says "yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed" on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. It's up to future court cases to determine what those limitations are, he said on "Fox News Sunday."​

​

Some limitations "undoubtedly" are permissible, Scalia said, because limitations existed when the Constitution was written: "For example, there was a tort called affrighting, which if you carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people, like a head ax or something, that was, I believe, a misdemeanor," he explained.​

​

Front Page Featured | MRCTV

www.cnsnews.com

​

​

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)​

"The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry​

any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” ​

Obviously, despite the hysteria of some strident advocates for unbridled permissiveness, firearms are not exempt from government regulation - as further affirmed by all the extant statutes concerning them.

Federal Firearms Laws

www.justice.gov

​

Again, anyone wetting their cribs over the prospect of Big Blue Meanies snatching away their precious shooties are victims of paranoia-induced hysteria:

There is no legislative initiative in any of the fifty United States
or at the national level to repeal the Second Amendment.
​

Can government regulate firearms? Legal precedent, multiple such regulations being on the books, and Constitutional authorities concur in answering "yes." It would be absurdly presumptuous of me to contradict that reality.

You really are dumb..........Mexico also has a 2nd Amendment in their Constitution.......they have only one gun store, located on a military base, controlled by the army.....they have a tiny selection of legal guns for those who get permission to buy one...

it doesn't take ending the 2nd Amendment to ban and confiscate guns........ ending the lawful commerce in arms act is the first big step after putting anti-gun judges on the courts.........

 

[Auld Phart]

Democrats: "We need to keep guns out of the hands of children, criminals, and the mentally retarded"

Republican Translation: Them damn Liberals are gonna take all our shootin irons away!!

Why are Republicans so paranoid about guns? America has more guns in circulation than they have people. A few less guns in the hands of criminals and children seems like common sense to me.

If being able to fondle a shooty infuses confidence, why are so many of the gun-dependent so insecure?

If more people are killed by cars than guns, why don't they want to ban cars instead of guns?

They do ban cars in some areas.

A majority of people in this country want sane gun laws. Those who want a total ban are fringe

A majority of people in this country want sane gun laws

and who decides what's 'sane'?

Is banning 'assault weapons' sane?

Over 3 million in civilian hands, and less that 50 have been used to murder in the last 40 years.

Is that 'sane'?

I don't give a shit about the cap guns most of you peckerwoods call an assault weapon as long you behave - too include not showing up in public with your dick hanging out.

I don't give a shit about the cap guns most of you peckerwoods call an assault weapon

AR15s, AK47s, etc are 'cap guns'?

In a single pass over a football field, a mini-gun can lay a round in every square foot of the field. Your sweaty little finger at an ArmaLite manages one round per pull. As an assault weapon, it's a joke. AK-47s are reliable, unless you're trying to hit something in which case, I'd take an M16.

My reference to cap guns targeted little boys with their toys. Firearms of every kinds are serious tools for serious endeavors. If you need to get your rocks off, I suggest an old (like you) John Wayne Film.

. As an assault weapon, it's a joke.

I agree

and the idiots in DC calling it an assault weapon are even bigger jokes.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

And you again ignored what Scalia actually said.......

To the contrary, I quoted Scalia's applicable words verbatim that contradict various fallacies in denial of government's legitimate role in regulating firearms, as well as citing the applicable wording from the pertinent case:

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says "yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed" on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. It's up to future court cases to determine what those limitations are, he said on "Fox News Sunday."​

​

Some limitations "undoubtedly" are permissible, Scalia said, because limitations existed when the Constitution was written: "For example, there was a tort called affrighting, which if you carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people, like a head ax or something, that was, I believe, a misdemeanor," he explained.​

​

Front Page Featured | MRCTV

www.cnsnews.com

​

​

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)​

"The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry​

any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” ​

Obviously, despite the hysteria of some strident advocates for unbridled permissiveness, firearms are not exempt from government regulation - as further affirmed by all the extant statutes concerning them.

Federal Firearms Laws

www.justice.gov

​

Again, anyone wetting their cribs over the prospect of Big Blue Meanies snatching away their precious shooties are victims of paranoia-induced hysteria:

There is no legislative initiative in any of the fifty United States
or at the national level to repeal the Second Amendment.
​

Can government regulate firearms? Legal precedent, multiple such regulations being on the books, and Constitutional authorities concur in answering "yes." It would be absurdly presumptuous of me to contradict that reality.

You seem to be conflating misuse with mere possession.

Of course misuse for unlawful purposes is illegal. WTF?

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Democrats: "We need to keep guns out of the hands of children, criminals, and the mentally retarded"

Republican Translation: Them damn Liberals are gonna take all our shootin irons away!!

Why are Republicans so paranoid about guns? America has more guns in circulation than they have people. A few less guns in the hands of criminals and children seems like common sense to me.

If being able to fondle a shooty infuses confidence, why are so many of the gun-dependent so insecure?

If more people are killed by cars than guns, why don't they want to ban cars instead of guns?

They do ban cars in some areas.

A majority of people in this country want sane gun laws. Those who want a total ban are fringe

A majority of people in this country want sane gun laws

and who decides what's 'sane'?

Is banning 'assault weapons' sane?

Over 3 million in civilian hands, and less that 50 have been used to murder in the last 40 years.

Is that 'sane'?

I don't give a shit about the cap guns most of you peckerwoods call an assault weapon as long you behave - too include not showing up in public with your dick hanging out.

I don't give a shit about the cap guns most of you peckerwoods call an assault weapon

AR15s, AK47s, etc are 'cap guns'?

In a single pass over a football field, a mini-gun can lay a round in every square foot of the field. Your sweaty little finger at an ArmaLite manages one round per pull. As an assault weapon, it's a joke. AK-47s are reliable, unless you're trying to hit something in which case, I'd take an M16.

My reference to cap guns targeted little boys with their toys. Firearms of every kinds are serious tools for serious endeavors. If you need to get your rocks off, I suggest an old (like you) John Wayne Film.

. As an assault weapon, it's a joke.

I agree

and the idiots in DC calling it an assault weapon are even bigger jokes.

Well as fellow Americans (thank you Tricky), it's good to agree on something.

Seriously, I'm not who you think. A bleeding heart yes - but I grew up a country boy, hunted with my old man, drove old Fords down washboards as fast as they would go ... and for a time had the displeasure of shooting at other human beings. It changed me.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And that's what we are talking about shitlapper, infringement on the 2nd. Constitution doesn't say that, BATFe did. On their own. No input from anyone, no congress, nothing. They just make up their rules. And the ATF CFR book has more than doubled in the last 50 years.

Some folks have an acute gun fetish, and mistakenly derive an unrealistic sense of entitlement from the 2nd Amendment, fancying that they can mince around fondling any sort of man-enhancer anywhere and any time they wish.

Not so. Such unbridled permissiveness is delusional. There is no such carte blanche conferred by any Constitutional Amendment.

Please allow me to quote directly from the legal precedent that is pertinent:

The current interpretation of the Second Amendment is largely derived from District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) that ruled

"The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry
any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” ​

... In the years since that decision, there’s been a flood of legal challenges to federal and state gun control laws. According to one study, in 94 percent of those cases, courts have found that reasonable gun regulations didn’t violate the Second Amendment. They’ve mostly relied on the Heller Court’s explanation that its ruling shouldn’t “cast doubt” on several longstanding gun restrictions, including bans on gun ownership by certain individuals (like felons), prohibitions on some types of “dangerous and unusual weapons,” limits on carrying firearms in certain public places, and requirements for gun sales.​

​

The Second Amendment: What Are the Limits on the Right to Own Guns?

Most U.S. citizens have a Second Amendment right to own and carry firearms, but courts have upheld some gun control, including restrictions on some gun owners, certain types of firearms, and carrying guns in certain public places.

www.lawyers.com

​

I hope that you find this documented information helpful. There are many self-serving myths about that are thoroughly bogus.

And you again ignored what Scalia actually said.......

And the democrat party appointed Courts of Appeals judges are ignoring Heller, they are not citing Heller......

That which you ignore...

Scalia...

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/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Scalia.....

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

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


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



Alito.....
Caetano v Massachusetts...

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.
------


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

Having nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, that government has the authority to place limits and restriction on the sale and possession of firearms:

“For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

www.law.cornell.edu

Imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms include background checks, waiting periods, and magazine capacity restrictions – all of which are perfectly Constitutional and in no manner violate the Second Amendment.

 

[Shawnee_b]

Some folks have an acute gun fetish,

Some collect guns, some collect cow creamers.

 

[Shawnee_b]

and the idiots in DC calling it an assault weapon are even bigger jokes.

A bigger sick joke is Fienswine and shoemer defined what an "assault weapon is" By cosmetics.

 

[Shawnee_b]

Having nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, that government has the authority to place limits and restriction on the sale and possession of firearms:

No they don't. You libbies still can't wrap your tiny brains around "shall not be infringed"

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Having nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, that government has the authority to place limits and restriction on the sale and possession of firearms:

No they don't. You libbies still can't wrap your tiny brains around "shall not be infringed"

I think that to which the gentleman was referring is the fact that the Constitution is a living instrument which has been lawfully interpreted/changed on more than one occasion.

I understand that this reality is bothersome to dull-witted reactionaries. Consider this, the only constant in the universe is change. Adapt or perish, my fried.

If you doubt these truths, come out to California and wonder around with your cap gun over your shoulder. After you've been arrested and charged, you can test your "shall not be infringed theory" in court.

Good luck.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I think that to which the gentleman was referring is the fact that the Constitution is a living instrument which has been lawfully interpreted/changed on more than one occasion.

No, it is not a living document. A living document is one that automatically changes with the times. The founders didn't want that which is why they included an amendment process. If most people want something changed, it can be changed by the legislature.

 

[Shawnee_b]

If you doubt these truths, come out to California and wonder around with your cap gun over your shoulder. After you've been arrested and charged, you can test your "shall not be infringed theory" in court.

Good luck.

I did come out there in 1986 from WA state. With my capgun (1911 colt 45acp) in my wasteband as always. 3 Latinos pulled switchblades on me and asked "hey gringo, want something to remember east la by?" Sight of my vest pulled back stopped that in seconds. I wasn't arrested or charged and they are still cleaning shit out of their under-roos.

 

[Shawnee_b]

]


I think that to which the gentleman was referring is the fact that the Constitution is a living instrument which has been lawfully interpreted/changed on more than one occasion.

Takes alot to change it, a xiden XO can't do it. The retarded shit is talking an XO for gun control. Righttttt.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

I think that to which the gentleman was referring is the fact that the Constitution is a living instrument which has been lawfully interpreted/changed on more than one occasion.

No, it is not a living document. A living document is one that automatically changes with the times. The founders didn't want that which is why they included an amendment process. If most people want something changed, it can be changed by the legislature.

I could make a small argument to what you said, but instead will concede that your point is largely legit.

After all, I'm on record hereabouts objecting to conservative judges prostituting simple grammar in the 2ndA that clearly announces the reason for the amendment.

Thanks

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

]


I think that to which the gentleman was referring is the fact that the Constitution is a living instrument which has been lawfully interpreted/changed on more than one occasion.

Takes alot to change it, a xiden XO can't do it. The retarded shit is talking an XO for gun control. Righttttt.

No offense but I'm not sure I follow - so I'll pass.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

If you doubt these truths, come out to California and wonder around with your cap gun over your shoulder. After you've been arrested and charged, you can test your "shall not be infringed theory" in court.

Good luck.

I did come out there in 1986 from WA state. With my capgun (1911 colt 45acp) in my wasteband as always. 3 Latinos pulled switchblades on me and asked "hey gringo, want something to remember east la by?" Sight of my vest pulled back stopped that in seconds. I wasn't arrested or charged and they are still cleaning shit out of their under-roos.

Well, there's a lot of missing pieces to your story, but I'll ask what attracted you to East LA.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Having nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, that government has the authority to place limits and restriction on the sale and possession of firearms:

No they don't. You libbies still can't wrap your tiny brains around "shall not be infringed"

Crazy cons are incapable of reading simple English.

What part of “the Second Amendment right is not unlimited” do you not understand?

Don’t like it or agree with it?

Dig up your fellow conservative Scalia and argue with him about it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I could make a small argument to what you said, but instead will concede that your point is largely legit.

After all, I'm on record hereabouts objecting to conservative judges prostituting simple grammar in the 2ndA that clearly announces the reason for the amendment.

It's not as simple as that. First off a militia was a bunch of citizens that would get together to fight something. With no standing army, arms were not provided. They would take the same guns they used for hunting, for self-defense, and battle with those. That being said, men had to be armed at all times.

Secondly, quotes from our founders clearly displayed that the right to bear arms was not meant for militias only.

Third, as time went on, we in American have bastardized the English language. How people used the English language back then is a little different than how we use it today, and the justices were quite aware of that.

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

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

And you again ignored what Scalia actually said.......

To the contrary, I quoted Scalia's applicable words verbatim that contradict various fallacies in denial of government's legitimate role in regulating firearms, as well as citing the applicable wording from the pertinent case:

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says "yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed" on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. It's up to future court cases to determine what those limitations are, he said on "Fox News Sunday."​

​

Some limitations "undoubtedly" are permissible, Scalia said, because limitations existed when the Constitution was written: "For example, there was a tort called affrighting, which if you carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people, like a head ax or something, that was, I believe, a misdemeanor," he explained.​

​

Front Page Featured | MRCTV

www.cnsnews.com

​

​

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)​

"The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry​

any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” ​

Obviously, despite the hysteria of some strident advocates for unbridled permissiveness, firearms are not exempt from government regulation - as further affirmed by all the extant statutes concerning them.

Federal Firearms Laws

www.justice.gov

​

Again, anyone wetting their cribs over the prospect of Big Blue Meanies snatching away their precious shooties are victims of paranoia-induced hysteria:

There is no legislative initiative in any of the fifty United States
or at the national level to repeal the Second Amendment.
​

Can government regulate firearms? Legal precedent, multiple such regulations being on the books, and Constitutional authorities concur in answering "yes." It would be absurdly presumptuous of me to contradict that reality.

You really are dumb..........Mexico also has a 2nd Amendment in their Constitution.......they have only one gun store, located on a military base, controlled by the army.....they have a tiny selection of legal guns for those who get permission to buy one...

it doesn't take ending the 2nd Amendment to ban and confiscate guns........ ending the lawful commerce in arms act is the first big step after putting anti-gun judges on the courts.........

Not sure why Mexico would even need a gun store. Our system of policing guns insures that there

I could make a small argument to what you said, but instead will concede that your point is largely legit.

After all, I'm on record hereabouts objecting to conservative judges prostituting simple grammar in the 2ndA that clearly announces the reason for the amendment.

It's not as simple as that. First off a militia was a bunch of citizens that would get together to fight something. With no standing army, arms were not provided. They would take the same guns they used for hunting, for self-defense, and battle with those. That being said, men had to be armed at all times.

Secondly, quotes from our founders clearly displayed that the right to bear arms was not meant for militias only.

Third, as time went on, we in American have bastardized the English language. How people used the English language back then is a little different than how we use it today, and the justices were quite aware of that.

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

I've seen this argument before. It doesn't work.

I spent more than twenty years in big ticket sales, straight commission, where eating well depended on your ability to see through bullshit. Smart people make big decisions with attention to powerful motivation. Big decisions are not made for a string or weak ass reasons (what are in fact excuses).

The founders were quite capable or defining exactly what they meant. You and Scalia and et al are pushing excuses for an interpretation of a simple sentence that wouldn't fly in a sophomore grammar class.

I accept that an activist judge had his way, for now, but I know bullshit when I smell it.

Further, I'd wager good money that if I had you at a negotiating table I'd quickly unmask first, second and thirdly.

 

[dannyboys]

DEM Sheila Jackson Lee who is writing the new firearm legislation said she has "held a A5 15 and it weighs what ten boxes of household goods weigh". She also said "the A515 uses 50 Cal ammo".

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

DEM Sheila Jackson Lee who is writing the new firearm legislation said she has "held a A5 15 and it weighs what ten boxes of household goods weigh". She also said "the A515 uses 50 Cal ammo".

I wonder what kind of household goods she uses; paper plates and plastic forks?