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

[2aguy]

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

True.

It is a settled and accepted fact of law, beyond dispute, that no right is ‘absolute,’ including the Second Amendment right.

Our rights and protected liberties are subject to restrictions and limitations by government, provided those restrictions and limitations comport with Constitutional case law.

Firearm regulatory measures such as magazine capacity limitations, universal background checks, and laws restricting the possession of AR platform rifles and other semi-automatic weapons are perfectly Constitutional – in no manner ‘violating’ the Second Amendment, regardless subjective opinions as to the efficacy of such laws.

Should the Supreme Court at some point in the future decide that magazine capacity limitations, universal background checks, or laws restricting the possession of AR platform rifles are un-Constitutional, then and only then are such measures in violation of the Second Amendment.

No......5 politically appointed lawyers may rule on this...but they are still wrong....

 

[danielpalos]

Only the unorganized militia has a problem with it; slackers.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thank you for admitting the numbers are climbing despite the good guys having guns.

Yeah....you scare the police..and the gang bangers shoot each other more.......normal people aren't the ones shooting or getting shot......

meanwhile....Americans stop criminals 1,500,000 times a year.....

Those are LEO stops not by private citizens. And the rates are climbing.

 

[hjmick]

‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’

There is nothing dangerous about my weapons. NEXT!

 

[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

Of the 34 thousand people who die by firearms each year, very very few die from an assault weapon.

This is not an assault weapon… This is a sporting rifle the two are as different as night and day… bitches

 

[Rustic]

Top 20 states for firearm death rates:

20. Utah (12.6/100,000)
19. Georgia (12.6)
18. Indiana (13)
17. Kentucky (13.7)
16. Nevada (13.8)
15. Idaho (14.1)
14. Arizona (14.1)
13. West Virginia (14.3)
12. Missouri (14.4)
11. South Carolina (15.2)
10. Tennessee (15.4)
9. New Mexico (15.5)
8. Oklahoma (16.5)
7. Montana (16.7)
6. Wyoming (16.7)
5. Arkansas (16.8)
4. Alabama (17.6)
3. Mississippi (17.8)
2. Louisiana (19.3)

And the number 1 worst state for firearm deaths is...





No, it isn't pinko fag liberal gun control California (7.7)...







No, it isn't gun control Jew York (4.2!)....





It's...
















Alaska! (23.4).

 

[Rustic]

Massachusetts has the lowest firearm death rate. And some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation.

New York has the third lowest firearm death rate.

 

[danielpalos]

Arms fashions in modern times?

The "scarier" the Arms the "more strict" the liability.

 

[g5000]

Texlims aint ya heard

More lib character assassination.

A crazy liberal committed attempted murder yesterday, stirred up by you people. YOU PEOPLE are doing this.

Sorry, it's a fact Texas has way more, nearly double, gun homicides than Illinois.

You want to take a single incident and write it large, eh? How come you don't want to do that when an "assault rifle" is used?

Or how about when a right wing loony kills 9 people in a church?


Because you suffer from an idiot's confirmation bias, that's why.

You are full of shit. The facts are that there is no complete reporting of the actual stats, and all of the shit you get from all of the guncontrol pushers is just like the global warming liars stats PURE LIES. Now we go for MURDER RATES. or do you want to change to the complete spectrum of all deaths by what cause, and by what. like the accidental death, LIBERAL "So MANY CHILDREN are killed accidentally with guns each year we must ban them to save all of the children" BS accidental firearm deaths of children is about the third cause from the bottom of the list every year, many times more are killed by drowning. so lets make it illegal for kids to even take baths, and save many times more than a new gun law. Your stats are all twisted compilations from a long line of lies and propaganda by the gun control activist. Any way What difference does it make if a LAW ABIDING CITIZEN has an F16 and a nuke? a criminal or psycho liberal doesn't need anything that can be used as a weapon, not even pepper spray as they have used it many times on innocent by standers and NORMAL citizens.

No, I am holding up a mirror to you hypocrites. You have infected and destroyed the Republican and conservative brands and I want you out of my house.

Internment Camps...

For your enemies?

Comprehension fail.

 

[g5000]

“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

Of the 34 thousand people who die by firearms each year, very very few die from an assault weapon.

This is not an assault weapon… This is a sporting rifle the two are as different as night and day… bitches

I know the differences, retard.

 

[g5000]

Massachusetts has the lowest firearm death rate. And some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation.

New York has the third lowest firearm death rate.

Irony. That video is chock full of logical fallacies and lies of omission.

For example, the dipshit left out the fact that the percentage of gun owners in America has drastically declined over the past 40 years, at the same time homicides have decreased.

And it is a fact Massachussetts has the lowest firearm rate in the country, and New York has the third lowest. Which the dipshit in the video completely failed to mention.

Nothing you can do about facts and reality. Sorry!

 

[namvet]

the attack by the radical left at the ballgame will not go un avenged

 

[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

Of the 34 thousand people who die by firearms each year, very very few die from an assault weapon.

In mass shootings.....as of my last look at the Mother Jones total....167 people murdered with rifles with magazines.....in 34 years...

Knives are used to murder people over 1,500 times a year......so knives are far more dangerous than these rifles...particularly if you consider there are over 8 million of them in private hands...making them common....and useful...

Fallacy of selective equivalency. Fire arms murder more than 11000 people a year. By your nutty fallacy, all guns should be registered or confiscated.

People kill people firearms cannot kill people… Fact

 

[Rustic]

Massachusetts has the lowest firearm death rate. And some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation.

New York has the third lowest firearm death rate.

Irony. That video is chock full of logical fallacies and lies of omission.

For example, the dipshit left out the fact that the percentage of gun owners in America has drastically declined over the past 40 years, at the same time homicides have decreased.

And it is a fact Massachussetts has the lowest firearm rate in the country, and New York has the third lowest. Which the dipshit in the video completely failed to mention.

Nothing you can do about facts and reality. Sorry!

 

[Rustic]

Massachusetts has the lowest firearm death rate. And some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation.

New York has the third lowest firearm death rate.

Irony. That video is chock full of logical fallacies and lies of omission.

For example, the dipshit left out the fact that the percentage of gun owners in America has drastically declined over the past 40 years, at the same time homicides have decreased.

And it is a fact Massachussetts has the lowest firearm rate in the country, and New York has the third lowest. Which the dipshit in the video completely failed to mention.

Nothing you can do about facts and reality. Sorry!

Frivolous gun control laws stop no violent crime... we do not have the time or the money to deal with the stupidity of more gun control. We have bigger fish to fry

2017 Real Time Death Statistics in America

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

There is no "but" or "except for" anywhere in the 2nd Amendment only "Shall not be infringed".

 

[2aguy]

Massachusetts has the lowest firearm death rate. And some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation.

New York has the third lowest firearm death rate.

Irony. That video is chock full of logical fallacies and lies of omission.

For example, the dipshit left out the fact that the percentage of gun owners in America has drastically declined over the past 40 years, at the same time homicides have decreased.

And it is a fact Massachussetts has the lowest firearm rate in the country, and New York has the third lowest. Which the dipshit in the video completely failed to mention.

Nothing you can do about facts and reality. Sorry!

No..the number of gun owners has not declined...in fact, sectors of the population who hadn't owned guns are now buying guns...women and minorities...what has changed is that gun owners who are informed do not admit to phone surveys that they own guns....

 

[OldLady]

? That's kind of sad.

Why would it be sad.......

Was it sad that the members of Congress didn't have guns yesterday? And the only thing that saved them was the Whip was able to attend practice? Do you realize that the Whip rarely makes those early morning practices, and that it was a miracle that he was there...with his armed security?

Oh, for Pete's sake, 2AGuy, pay attention. Jake needs to carry in church? You'd think church was for quiet thoughtful peaceful meditation, not looking over your shoulder and keeping your handgun ready to fire. That's what we were discussing, not a public park.

Do you think the victims that Dylann Roof murdered in church would have like to have had handguns ready to fire?

They probably would have liked Dylan Roof not to have one. In some countries, that's the way of things.

He was a criminal. They can always get guns.

Is that why the three ISIS terrorists in London used a van and knives?

 

[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?

I'm not in the government. I also am a gun owner. You should be able to keep a gun in your home for protection.

The point if the thread is the Supreme Court ruled in Heller v DC that while you have a right to own a gun in your home for protection, or for hunting and sport shooting, the states and localities can make laws prohibiting the concealed and open carry of firearms in certain instances, and in certain places, and prohibit the types of firearms that may be sold or possessed in those localities.

With the written opinion on the court by none other than Antonin Scalia.

This is no longer a debate to be had. The decision has been made, and that is the final decision on the matter. If anyone violates the laws set in those states and localities concerning firearms, there is no further appeal if you are convicted of an offense.

For any gun owners that are still confused about their second amendment rights, I suggest they read the Heller v DC decision, before they find themselves not being able to own a gun because of a conviction.

So Citizens United is a done deal? Kelo is done deal? Plessey was a done deal all those years ago?

The California CC case coming up will decide if a State can restrict carrying a gun outside the home, Heller did not say States can automatically ban carry outside the home.



SC decisions are only as strong as the next case. Precedent is a concept and not a binding one.

As usual you progs twist Scalia's words to suit your gun grabbing ways.

And I call bullshit on you being a gun owner.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no "but" or "except for" anywhere in the 2nd Amendment only "Shall not be infringed".

The security of a free State and a (market) friendly ball game, is more important; we have a Second Amendment.