BULLDOG
Diamond Member
- Jun 3, 2014
- 105,192
- 38,779
- 2,250
Point out the threat.
New York "SAFE" act turning into a gun ban program...
- Thread starter 2aguy
- Start date
Point out the threat.
But, how can that be??? The UK has banned guns because they are so enlightened. And how can the drug trade be a mitigating factor in the UK, when it is used to slur all legal gun owners in the USA?
BULLDOG
Diamond Member
- Jun 3, 2014
- 105,192
- 38,779
- 2,250
Imagine that. 80 years to catch up with us at their current rate.. We need to do what they are doing.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 113,045
- 53,540
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #184
It won't be 80 years.....going into the 1960s our murder rate was also low....by the mid 1960s the violent crime wave had started and went all the way through the 1990s when states revised their open and concealed carry laws......violent crime can explode.....and since they are cutting police manpower, cutting police resources and putting politically correct policiies on their police...they have all the ingredients our democrats over here use to increase the violent crime rate...
Anathema
Crotchety Olde Man
There are no reasonable restrctions on guns. There may be reasonable restrictions on PEOPLE, but not on firearms.
Do you truly believe that gun owners will just hand over our firearms without a fight? Both CT and NY failed massively when they tried to get people to register their rifles. The American gun owner will not go quietly into the night. Not even in the Liberal bastion of NY.
BULLDOG
Diamond Member
- Jun 3, 2014
- 105,192
- 38,779
- 2,250
Whatever. Get back to me when they are anywhere close to killing as many as we do. Their results are much better than ours.Why don't we copy them
BULLDOG
Diamond Member
- Jun 3, 2014
- 105,192
- 38,779
- 2,250
You're still nuts. Your opinion doesn't count.
Anathema
Crotchety Olde Man
British citizens,have no legal right to self-defense or the private ownership of weapons. They never have had either.
That's the difference - we recognize both of those as personal rihhts here in the USA. Even if it means more deaths.
Anathema
Crotchety Olde Man
Actually I have medical paperwork fro. Professionals stating otherwise, thank you very much.
skews13
Diamond Member
- Mar 18, 2017
- 11,668
- 15,714
- 2,415
Apparently the OP didn't pay attention to the fact the SCOTUS refused to hear any challenges to the Heller case. That would be the case where it was decided that an individual has the right to keep a gun in the home for self defense. That same ruling where the majority opinion was issued by one Antonin Scalia, also gave rights to the state to prohibit the carrying of firearms either concealed or open, and to prohibit what they deemed unusal, or military style weapons, or their accessories.
More restrictions such as these will be coming and there is no place else for the ammosexuals to appeal to.
Anathema
Crotchety Olde Man
I answer to a higher authority than the US Government. Only thst authority can remove my right to self-ddfense by any means necessary.
danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #192
Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not self-defense.
Anathema
Crotchety Olde Man
The only difference is who I'm defending myself from.
danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #194
Should gun lovers be required to muster to present Arms, every once in a while?
gun lovers should be required to have the "social support network" of their company and battalion commanders.
Anathema
Crotchety Olde Man
As a member of the common militia (all male citizens) I muster 6-8 times a month at a variety of locations for several different activities related to team ing and preparation.
As such, we have no general officers, like the National Guard does.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 113,045
- 53,540
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #196
Their low gun murder rate has nothing to do with their gun control laws....as the fact that they now have more shootings than they did before the ban......
They had a low gun murder rate before the ban...do you understand that....then, after they banned guns, their gun murder rate went up...do you understand that? That means their gun confiscation and ban did not affect their gun murder rate...it did take guns away from people who didn't use them to commit gun murder......as that one meme states.....you guys want to take cars away from everyone because someone was caught driving drunk.....
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 113,045
- 53,540
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #197
Please.....go back and read Heller ........then read it again....
We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179.
The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense.
“In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Secon
------
P.58
In Nunn v. State, the Georgia Supreme Court struck down a prohibition on carrying pistols openly (even though it upheld a prohibition on carrying concealed weapons).
See 1 Ga., at 251. In Andrews v. State, the Tennessee Supreme Court likewise held that a statute that forbade openly carrying a pistol “publicly or privately, without regard to time or place, or circumstances,” 50 Tenn., at 187, violated the state constitutional provision (which the court equated with the Second Amendment). That was so even though the statute did not restrict the carrying of long guns.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 113,045
- 53,540
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #198
This is the ruling in Caetano...where military weapons were specifically addressed in response to a challenge to Heller...
I highlighted the really important part in relation to your dumb post...notice the wording....Heller specifically protects weapons used in war.........as long as they are in common use....
Caetano v. Massachusetts - Wikipedia
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]
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 113,045
- 53,540
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #199
Dipstick.....you really need to read Heller....
In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.
The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” 8
It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carry ing a weapon in an organized military unit.
Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s armsbearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.”
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Assault weapons ban in VA passes both houses and will be signed by the governor...stock up before 7.1.2026- Started by Invisibleflash
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
Are there here users of John Deere equipment. You may have a problem- Started by Robert W
- Replies: 5
