No You Do Not Have An Absolute Right To Have Certain Types Of Or The Carrying Of Firearms

[skews13]

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”

Justice Scalia also wrote:

“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...kcyTS8oO4Bcio9tiQ&sig2=_z6ec0jGImhSGUdZGmsLUw

 

[martybegan]

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”

Justice Scalia also wrote:

“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjZ4oTAvcDUAhUBzIMKHVVBAzoQFgg9MAQ&url=https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/justice-scalias-gun-control-argument/&usg=AFQjCNGSFaggs-G15kcyTS8oO4Bcio9tiQ&sig2=_z6ec0jGImhSGUdZGmsLUw

All I want is to keep a 6 shot revolver in my own apartment. NYC says to do that I have to pay $600 or so in fees, and wait up to 6 months to get a license to do so.

Why should I give a rats ass about "any weapon I want" when gun grabbing fucks like you in government enforce the above?

 

[Iceweasel]

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”

Who argued otherwise? I haven't seen the argument to carry RPGs or flame throwers. Self defense is the accepted guide.

 

[martybegan]

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”

Who argued otherwise? I haven't seen the argument to carry RPGs or flame throwers. Self defense is the accepted guide.

it's always funny when they go argumentum ad absurdum and have to use artillery or crew serviced weapons as examples of "GUN NUTS WANT EVERYTHING HURR DURR"

 

[Marion Morrison]

We should be allowed any type of small arms carried anywhere at any time.

(According to 2nd amendment)

Some guys have artillery stuff.

 

[ZZ PUPPS]

I want a bazooka.

 

[Hossfly]

We should be allowed any type of small arms carried anywhere at any time.

(According to 2nd amendment)

Some guys have artillery stuff.

I carry a weapon everywhere I go except military bases and government buildings. Otherwise I completely ignore those no-gun-zones.

 

[JakeStarkey]

SCOTUS will hear a case coming up from inferior appellate courts.

The Supremes will decided what is a "weapon of war." 2aguy does not a missile frigate for the swimming pool.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I carry much of the time but not when visiting schools or government installations. I do carry a weapon to church. Pastor does, too.

 

[OldLady]

I carry much of the time but not when visiting schools or government installations. I do carry a weapon to church. Pastor does, too.

? That's kind of sad.

 

[OldLady]

I want a bazooka.

I want a MOAB

 

[JakeStarkey]

I carry much of the time but not when visiting schools or government installations. I do carry a weapon to church. Pastor does, too.

? That's kind of sad.

Nah, our church is a rowdy group. Someone speaking in tongues and jumping the pews and dancing and prancing in the aisles just may go off. Gotta be ready.

 

[blackhawk]

I want a bazooka.

I want a MOAB

Dam it that's what I was going to post. MOAB for everyone.

 

[Rustic]

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”

Justice Scalia also wrote:

“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjZ4oTAvcDUAhUBzIMKHVVBAzoQFgg9MAQ&url=https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/justice-scalias-gun-control-argument/&usg=AFQjCNGSFaggs-G15kcyTS8oO4Bcio9tiQ&sig2=_z6ec0jGImhSGUdZGmsLUw

An ar15 is a sporting rifle nothing more. Only fucking little snowflakes are scared of such a inadequate weapon for military muster...

 

[Rustic]

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”

Justice Scalia also wrote:

“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjZ4oTAvcDUAhUBzIMKHVVBAzoQFgg9MAQ&url=https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/justice-scalias-gun-control-argument/&usg=AFQjCNGSFaggs-G15kcyTS8oO4Bcio9tiQ&sig2=_z6ec0jGImhSGUdZGmsLUw

All I want is to keep a 6 shot revolver in my own apartment. NYC says to do that I have to pay $600 or so in fees, and wait up to 6 months to get a license to do so.

Why should I give a rats ass about "any weapon I want" when gun grabbing fucks like you in government enforce the above?

And the funny thing is none of those laws stop any violent crime whatsoever. They just make control freak progressives feel powerful… Every progressive, control freak should go out and buy a bobble head doll of Obama and shove it up their ass since they like him so much…
Obama progressives

 

[miketx]

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”

Justice Scalia also wrote:

“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjZ4oTAvcDUAhUBzIMKHVVBAzoQFgg9MAQ&url=https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/justice-scalias-gun-control-argument/&usg=AFQjCNGSFaggs-G15kcyTS8oO4Bcio9tiQ&sig2=_z6ec0jGImhSGUdZGmsLUw

Come get them. I say ban you and your kind, not guns. But again, come get them. I got two assault rifles and thousands of rounds.

 

[OldLady]

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”

Justice Scalia also wrote:

“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjZ4oTAvcDUAhUBzIMKHVVBAzoQFgg9MAQ&url=https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/justice-scalias-gun-control-argument/&usg=AFQjCNGSFaggs-G15kcyTS8oO4Bcio9tiQ&sig2=_z6ec0jGImhSGUdZGmsLUw

An ar15 is a sporting rifle nothing more. Only fucking little snowflakes are scared of such a inadequate weapon for military muster...

Sources told ABC News that the primary weapon used in shooting was an SKS 7.62 assault-style rifle. Authorities also recovered a Smith and Wesson 9 mm pistol, though it was not clear if it was used in the attack.
I don't know what an SKS 7.62 assault-style rifle is, but it was purchased legally.
Gun used in Scalise shooting was legally purchased assault rifle, sources say

 

[miketx]

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”

Justice Scalia also wrote:

“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjZ4oTAvcDUAhUBzIMKHVVBAzoQFgg9MAQ&url=https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/justice-scalias-gun-control-argument/&usg=AFQjCNGSFaggs-G15kcyTS8oO4Bcio9tiQ&sig2=_z6ec0jGImhSGUdZGmsLUw

An ar15 is a sporting rifle nothing more. Only fucking little snowflakes are scared of such a inadequate weapon for military muster...

Sources told ABC News that the primary weapon used in shooting was an SKS 7.62 assault-style rifle. Authorities also recovered a Smith and Wesson 9 mm pistol, though it was not clear if it was used in the attack.
I don't know what an SKS 7.62 assault-style rifle is, but it was purchased legally.
-assault-rifle-soabcnews.go.com/US/gun-scalise-shooting-legally-purchasedurces/story?id=48051990

A ten shot semi automatic rifle made for a few years in the forties, with a non removable magazine. Chinese mostly, I think.

 

[Rustic]

I carry much of the time but not when visiting schools or government installations. I do carry a weapon to church. Pastor does, too.

? That's kind of sad.

You do understand the whole purpose for concealed carry, is having people that are wanting to do harm to other people have the question in their head - are you carrying or not?
What is really sad control freaks like yourself trying to tell other people what lifestyle to have, if it's up to you to tell me what lifestyle I have to have - may i fucking jump off a cliff.

 

[Rustic]

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”

Justice Scalia also wrote:

“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjZ4oTAvcDUAhUBzIMKHVVBAzoQFgg9MAQ&url=https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/justice-scalias-gun-control-argument/&usg=AFQjCNGSFaggs-G15kcyTS8oO4Bcio9tiQ&sig2=_z6ec0jGImhSGUdZGmsLUw

An ar15 is a sporting rifle nothing more. Only fucking little snowflakes are scared of such a inadequate weapon for military muster...

Sources told ABC News that the primary weapon used in shooting was an SKS 7.62 assault-style rifle. Authorities also recovered a Smith and Wesson 9 mm pistol, though it was not clear if it was used in the attack.
I don't know what an SKS 7.62 assault-style rifle is, but it was purchased legally.
Gun used in Scalise shooting was legally purchased assault rifle, sources say

An SKS is a Chinese made a pile of shit... in a lot of ways it would be hard hitting a broadside of a barn while being in the barn…and is not an "assault rifle".