New York "SAFE" act turning into a gun ban program...

[BULLDOG]

Yes. And at the current rate our gun crime will be the same as yours in about 80 years.

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?

Imagine that. 80 years to catch up with us at their current rate.. We need to do what they are doing.

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...

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

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.....

You bet. Get back with me when the picture representing their dead bodies is as big as ours.

 

[skews13]

.More restrictions such as these will be coming and there is no place else for the ammosexuals to appeal to.

I answer to a higher authority than the US Government. Only thst authority can remove my right to self-ddfense by any means necessary.

You will answer to the authority having jurisdiction if you get caught with a gun in the wrong place.

 

[skews13]

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not self-defense.

The only difference is who I'm defending myself from.

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.

Please...read Heller.....many times.....

From Heller....

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited...”. It is “...not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should 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.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ “

Make sure you read it. Many times.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

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.

So what. Well regulated militia are authorized their own colors, standards, banners and guidons.

The militia of the United States only pledges allegiance to our own Colors.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not self-defense.

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.”

I did. I learned about precedent and to ignore the first clause or paragraph in favor of the "operative" clause or paragraph.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not self-defense.

The only difference is who I'm defending myself from.

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.

Please...read Heller.....many times.....

From Heller....

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms

Well regulated militia must muster to become, well regulated. It really is that simple.

 

[Rustic]

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not self-defense.

The only difference is who I'm defending myself from.

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.

Please...read Heller.....many times.....

From Heller....

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms

Well regulated militia must muster to become, well regulated. It really is that simple.

Take it in the context of the time, the founders were all about individual rights.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not self-defense.

The only difference is who I'm defending myself from.

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.

Please...read Heller.....many times.....

From Heller....

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms

Well regulated militia must muster to become, well regulated. It really is that simple.

Take it in the context of the time, the founders were all about individual rights.

They wrote our Constitution, for Context. The topic of the militia is establish in our Constitution.

 

[Rustic]

The only difference is who I'm defending myself from.

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.

Please...read Heller.....many times.....

From Heller....

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms

Well regulated militia must muster to become, well regulated. It really is that simple.

Take it in the context of the time, the founders were all about individual rights.

They wrote our Constitution, for Context. The topic of the militia is establish in our Constitution.

Ya, and they were never about the collective, the whole constitution is based on individual rights.

 

[2aguy]

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not self-defense.

The only difference is who I'm defending myself from.

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.

Please...read Heller.....many times.....

From Heller....

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited...”. It is “...not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should 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.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ “

Make sure you read it. Many times.

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited...”. It is “...not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

Yes....grenades are not allowed, they are dangerous and unusual....but you, of course, neglect this part of Heller...

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.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Please...read Heller.....many times.....

From Heller....

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms

Well regulated militia must muster to become, well regulated. It really is that simple.

Take it in the context of the time, the founders were all about individual rights.

They wrote our Constitution, for Context. The topic of the militia is establish in our Constitution.

Ya, and they were never about the collective, the whole constitution is based on individual rights.

Social contracts are collective, in nature. It should be a self-evident Truth.

The militia of the United States is a Collective, not about Individualism.

 

[2aguy]

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not self-defense.

The only difference is who I'm defending myself from.

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.

Please...read Heller.....many times.....

From Heller....

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited...”. It is “...not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should 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.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ “

Make sure you read it. Many times.

“Nothing in our opinion should 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.”

Yes....what part of that statement allows for magazine limits, gun registration or gun confiscation when the citizen isn't a felon or mentally ill?

 

[Rustic]

Please...read Heller.....many times.....

From Heller....

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms

Well regulated militia must muster to become, well regulated. It really is that simple.

Take it in the context of the time, the founders were all about individual rights.

They wrote our Constitution, for Context. The topic of the militia is establish in our Constitution.

Ya, and they were never about the collective, the whole constitution is based on individual rights.

Social contracts are collective, in nature. It should be a self-evident Truth.

The militia of the United States is a Collective, not about Individualism.

But That still does not mean that only the Militia can have firearms, firearm ownership is an absolute right the individual.

 

[danielpalos]

Well regulated militia must muster to become, well regulated. It really is that simple.

Take it in the context of the time, the founders were all about individual rights.

They wrote our Constitution, for Context. The topic of the militia is establish in our Constitution.

Ya, and they were never about the collective, the whole constitution is based on individual rights.

Social contracts are collective, in nature. It should be a self-evident Truth.

The militia of the United States is a Collective, not about Individualism.

But That still does not mean that only the Militia can have firearms, firearm ownership is an absolute right the individual.

Special pleading at its right wing finest.
Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; the unorganized militia is not necessary and may be Infringed, should the security needs of the State, require it.

 

[Rustic]

Take it in the context of the time, the founders were all about individual rights.

They wrote our Constitution, for Context. The topic of the militia is establish in our Constitution.

Ya, and they were never about the collective, the whole constitution is based on individual rights.

Social contracts are collective, in nature. It should be a self-evident Truth.

The militia of the United States is a Collective, not about Individualism.

But That still does not mean that only the Militia can have firearms, firearm ownership is an absolute right the individual.

Special pleading at its right wing finest.
Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; the unorganized militia is not necessary and may be Infringed, should the security needs of the State, require it.

Taken in the context of the time, People purchased their own firearms and controlled them, they did not have armories.
That is the reason they left Europe to begin with, to get away from the collective.

 

[danielpalos]

They wrote our Constitution, for Context. The topic of the militia is establish in our Constitution.

Ya, and they were never about the collective, the whole constitution is based on individual rights.

Social contracts are collective, in nature. It should be a self-evident Truth.

The militia of the United States is a Collective, not about Individualism.

But That still does not mean that only the Militia can have firearms, firearm ownership is an absolute right the individual.

Special pleading at its right wing finest.
Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; the unorganized militia is not necessary and may be Infringed, should the security needs of the State, require it.

Taken in the context of the time, People purchased their own firearms and controlled them, they did not have armories.
That is the reason they left Europe to begin with, to get away from the collective.

Means nothing. Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State. It says so, in the first clause.

 

[Rustic]

Ya, and they were never about the collective, the whole constitution is based on individual rights.

Social contracts are collective, in nature. It should be a self-evident Truth.

The militia of the United States is a Collective, not about Individualism.

But That still does not mean that only the Militia can have firearms, firearm ownership is an absolute right the individual.

Special pleading at its right wing finest.
Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; the unorganized militia is not necessary and may be Infringed, should the security needs of the State, require it.

Taken in the context of the time, People purchased their own firearms and controlled them, they did not have armories.
That is the reason they left Europe to begin with, to get away from the collective.

Means nothing. Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State. It says so, in the first clause.

And you think your American people can trust the federal government for their freedom, you are a fool.
We have no real freedom in this country

 

[danielpalos]

Social contracts are collective, in nature. It should be a self-evident Truth.

The militia of the United States is a Collective, not about Individualism.

But That still does not mean that only the Militia can have firearms, firearm ownership is an absolute right the individual.

Special pleading at its right wing finest.
Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; the unorganized militia is not necessary and may be Infringed, should the security needs of the State, require it.

Taken in the context of the time, People purchased their own firearms and controlled them, they did not have armories.
That is the reason they left Europe to begin with, to get away from the collective.

Means nothing. Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State. It says so, in the first clause.

And you think your American people can trust the federal government for their freedom, you are a fool.
We have no real freedom in this country

The right wing has nothing but repeal, instead of better solutions at lower cost; like they should have.

Bunch of slackers.

 

[2aguy]

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not self-defense.

The only difference is who I'm defending myself from.

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.

Please...read Heller.....many times.....

From Heller....

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited...”. It is “...not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should 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.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ “

Make sure you read it. Many times.

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ “

Yes.....you didn't read Miller.....

From Heller, on Miller....

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

The AR-15 rifle is "In Common Use" for "lawful Purposes" since it is the most popular, most common and most used rifle in the country by both civilians and police......it is a civilian self defense rifle....

And from Caetano...where the 4th Circuit was reprimanded by the Supreme Court for violating Heller...and where the Supreme Court made clear that military weapons are specifically protected by he 2nd Amendment...

Notice how you morons who claim a weapon is dangerous if it can kill a lot of people quickly is not a Constitutional reason to ban it.....

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.

 

[Rustic]

Buy more guns and ammo...