OK gun grabbers you have your mandatory gun registration

[jon_berzerk]

Ever read miller vs U.S. 1939? You might want to before you step in to this discussion on the consistency of the supreme court and the right to keep and bear arms.

the case of millers shotgun was never settled

Yes it was about millers shotgun, but also what firearms were protected by the second amendment. NFA 1938 and 1969 contradicts Miller 1939.

the case was sent back to the lower court

to be re heard and corrected but it ended there

 

[OODA_Loop]

Nobody is forcing you to buy a gun in the first place...self imposed penalty. Brilliant is right.

Criminals are forcing me to buy a gun.

Insuring the violent acts of those criminals is asinine.

 

[Spoonman]

How would this or anything they passed have prevented new town?

Since a nutcase can grab/steal/borrow a registered firearm as easily as a non-registered one, the answer is IT WOULDN'T.

Which is why we need to force purchasers to buy liability insurance for each gun they purchase. At the very least, the victims would be compensated.

how should we compensate the 5 million victims of obamacare?

oh yea, and how do we compensate the victims of every crime from a gun obtained illegally? will the criminals get insurance when they buy a gun on the black market? you know what we really need to isolate ourselves from? idiots who come up with these asinine ideas like yours. you are the real danger to society.

 

[candycorn]

Nobody is forcing you to buy a gun in the first place...self imposed penalty. Brilliant is right.

Criminals are forcing me to buy a gun.

Insuring the violent acts of those criminals is asinine.

No clown; nobody is forcing you to buy a gun. Turn down the crazy.

 

[Spoonman]

How about abortion registers or have fags register?

Yes I think those who are HIV Infected should be forced to register.

its as dangerous a weapon as a gun. and a much more painful death

 

[candycorn]

Since a nutcase can grab/steal/borrow a registered firearm as easily as a non-registered one, the answer is IT WOULDN'T.

Which is why we need to force purchasers to buy liability insurance for each gun they purchase. At the very least, the victims would be compensated.

how should we compensate the 5 million victims of obamacare?

oh yea, and how do we compensate the victims of every crime from a gun obtained illegally? will the criminals get insurance when they buy a gun on the black market? you know what we really need to isolate ourselves from? idiots who come up with these asinine ideas like yours. you are the real danger to society.

Stopped reading after Obamacare.

 

[Spoonman]

Which is why we need to force purchasers to buy liability insurance for each gun they purchase. At the very least, the victims would be compensated.

how should we compensate the 5 million victims of obamacare?

oh yea, and how do we compensate the victims of every crime from a gun obtained illegally? will the criminals get insurance when they buy a gun on the black market? you know what we really need to isolate ourselves from? idiots who come up with these asinine ideas like yours. you are the real danger to society.

Stopped reading after Obamacare.

I see you are also a liar

 

[candycorn]

Since a nutcase can grab/steal/borrow a registered firearm as easily as a non-registered one, the answer is IT WOULDN'T.

Which is why we need to force purchasers to buy liability insurance for each gun they purchase. At the very least, the victims would be compensated.

Good God... "THE VICTIMS?" As in the person that just kicked in your front door that was about to RAPE and MURDER you?

Don't you get sick of breathing all that foul smelling air with your head up your ass?

The 26 or so families of the Newtown kids; murdered.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Since a nutcase can grab/steal/borrow a registered firearm as easily as a non-registered one, the answer is IT WOULDN'T.

Which is why we need to force purchasers to buy liability insurance for each gun they purchase. At the very least, the victims would be compensated.

Insurance for the unlawful actions of others.

Brilliant.

Which is why we need to force purchasers to buy liability insurance for each gun they purchase. At the very least, the victims would be compensated.

Insurance for the unlawful actions of others.

Brilliant.

Nobody is forcing you to buy a gun in the first place...self imposed penalty. Brilliant is right.

You don't need insurance for a RIGHT. Driving is not a right, owning a firearm is. Stop being an idiot.

 

[candycorn]

how should we compensate the 5 million victims of obamacare?

oh yea, and how do we compensate the victims of every crime from a gun obtained illegally? will the criminals get insurance when they buy a gun on the black market? you know what we really need to isolate ourselves from? idiots who come up with these asinine ideas like yours. you are the real danger to society.

Stopped reading after Obamacare.

I see you are also a liar

Sorry. I saw Obama care, I and responded. If you would like to make a rational statement, I may respond, I may not. You don't seem very bright.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Which is why we need to force purchasers to buy liability insurance for each gun they purchase. At the very least, the victims would be compensated.

Good God... "THE VICTIMS?" As in the person that just kicked in your front door that was about to RAPE and MURDER you?

Don't you get sick of breathing all that foul smelling air with your head up your ass?

The 26 or so families of the Newtown kids; murdered.

Care to explain how this new law would have stopped those murders

 

[LeadRoundNose]

Which is why we need to force purchasers to buy liability insurance for each gun they purchase. At the very least, the victims would be compensated.

LOL! Yes, I can just imagine the thoughts behind a criminal's intent to murder innocents.

"It's ok if I murder innocents because by gawd my insurance is paid up."

Some of you people are basically insane is my only conjecture at this point.

 

[Abatis]

Ever read miller vs U.S. 1939? You might want to before you step in to this discussion on the consistency of the supreme court and the right to keep and bear arms.

A poorly written opinion for sure and wildly misread by anti-gunners but not inconsistent and not wrongly decided. It really does require a primer to understand it and the Court provided a cite for it, Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.

I really have no argument with Miller's protection criteria derived from Aymette and it was used to good effect in Heller.

A true an honest assessment of Miller's holding and Aymette's protection criteria was the impetus for the decision in Cases v. U.S, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942): (paragraph breaks added)

"At any rate the rule of the Miller case, if intended to be comprehensive and complete would seem to be already outdated, in spite of the fact that it was formulated only three and a half years ago, because of the well known fact that in the so called 'Commando Units' some sort of military use seems to have been found for almost any modern lethal weapon.

In view of this, if the rule of the Miller case is general and complete, the result would follow that, under present day conditions, the federal government would be empowered only to regulate the possession or use of weapons such as a flintlock musket or a matchlock harquebus.

But to hold that the Second Amendment limits the federal government to regulations concerning only weapons which can be classed as antiques or curiosities,-- almost any other might bear some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia unit of the present day,-- is in effect to hold that the limitation of the Second Amendment is absolute.

Another objection to the rule of the Miller case as a full and general statement is that according to it Congress would be prevented by the Second Amendment from regulating the possession or use by private persons not present or prospective members of any military unit, of distinctly military arms, such as machine guns, trench mortars, anti-tank or anti-aircraft guns, even though under the circumstances surrounding such possession or use it would be inconceivable that a private person could have any legitimate reason for having such a weapon.

It seems to us unlikely that the framers of the Amendment intended any such result."​

And because of the unacceptable holding of Miller, which rendered nearly all federal gun control invalid with its "in common use" and military usefulness protection criteria, this lower federal court ignored SCOTUS and in 1942, created the "militia right" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

The same year the 3rd Circuit inserted the "state's right" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in the federal courts in U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3 rd Cir. 1942)

So yeah, I've read Miller and all the case docs and all the cases that are cited in it and all the cases that cite it. One could say I've studied the case, what do you want to know?.

 

[007]

Nobody is forcing you to buy a gun in the first place...self imposed penalty. Brilliant is right.

Criminals are forcing me to buy a gun.

Insuring the violent acts of those criminals is asinine.

No clown; nobody is forcing you to buy a gun. Turn down the crazy.

Nobody is forcing the crazy man to kick in your front door and raping and killing you either, but you want to buy him insurance in case he gets hurt while raping and killing you.

So when did you first realize you were retarded?

 

[LeadRoundNose]

Criminals are forcing me to buy a gun.

Insuring the violent acts of those criminals is asinine.

No clown; nobody is forcing you to buy a gun. Turn down the crazy.

Nobody is forcing the crazy man to kick in your front door and raping and killing you either, but you want to buy him insurance in case he gets hurt while raping and killing you.

So when did you first realize you were retarded?

They don't realize it. In fact, they think they're brilliant.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Ever read miller vs U.S. 1939? You might want to before you step in to this discussion on the consistency of the supreme court and the right to keep and bear arms.

A poorly written opinion for sure and wildly misread by anti-gunners but not inconsistent and not wrongly decided. It really does require a primer to understand it and the Court provided a cite for it, Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.

I really have no argument with Miller's protection criteria derived from Aymette and it was used to good effect in Heller.

A true an honest assessment of Miller's holding and Aymette's protection criteria was the impetus for the decision in Cases v. U.S, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942): (paragraph breaks added)

"At any rate the rule of the Miller case, if intended to be comprehensive and complete would seem to be already outdated, in spite of the fact that it was formulated only three and a half years ago, because of the well known fact that in the so called 'Commando Units' some sort of military use seems to have been found for almost any modern lethal weapon.

In view of this, if the rule of the Miller case is general and complete, the result would follow that, under present day conditions, the federal government would be empowered only to regulate the possession or use of weapons such as a flintlock musket or a matchlock harquebus.

But to hold that the Second Amendment limits the federal government to regulations concerning only weapons which can be classed as antiques or curiosities,-- almost any other might bear some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia unit of the present day,-- is in effect to hold that the limitation of the Second Amendment is absolute.

Another objection to the rule of the Miller case as a full and general statement is that according to it Congress would be prevented by the Second Amendment from regulating the possession or use by private persons not present or prospective members of any military unit, of distinctly military arms, such as machine guns, trench mortars, anti-tank or anti-aircraft guns, even though under the circumstances surrounding such possession or use it would be inconceivable that a private person could have any legitimate reason for having such a weapon.

It seems to us unlikely that the framers of the Amendment intended any such result."​

And because of the unacceptable holding of Miller, which rendered nearly all federal gun control invalid with its "in common use" and military usefulness protection criteria, this lower federal court ignored SCOTUS and in 1942, created the "militia right" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

The same year the 3rd Circuit inserted the "state's right" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in the federal courts in U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3 rd Cir. 1942)

So yeah, I've read Miller and all the case docs and all the cases that are cited in it and all the cases that cite it. One could say I've studied the case, what do you want to know?.

We could compare notes. But the point is the supreme court has never been consistent when it comes to the second amendment.

 

[M14 Shooter]

literal defense does not work against Scotus rulings...

What SCotUS ruling(s) uphold registration?

Supreme Court Strikes Down D.C. Gun Ban, Upholds Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms | Fox News

The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.

close enough.

No. Not close enough.
Why? Because licensing and registration were not part of the case brought before the court and so there is no way to argue that the court in any way addressed the constitutionality of licensing and registration.
You have failed. Please do try again.

 

[M14 Shooter]

and yet scotus upheld that law didnt they......

They did not.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Which is why we need to force purchasers to buy liability insurance for each gun they purchase. At the very least, the victims would be compensated.

LOL! Yes, I can just imagine the thoughts behind a criminal's intent to murder innocents.

"It's ok if I murder innocents because by gawd my insurance is paid up."

Some of you people are basically insane is my only conjecture at this point.

it is a pretty safe bet that "criminals" would not be able to

or legally need to purchase the insurance

leaving victims still messed up by non insured perps

if we are to continue down the path of forcing Americans to buy insurance products

from private entities

the better route

would be for all Americans to purchase criminal victims plans

you could have it in the

bronze -covers break in some roughing up

silver-covers damage to property or self

gold- death by criminal firearm actions

platinum- death by criminal any means

the insurance could be purchased through a several million dollar website

set up by the government

 

[Abatis]

gun Registration is handled at the state level and has been found perfectly constitutional

Be careful when making emphatic, unequivocal statements as to the determination of constitutionality of gun control.

Very few laws have been challenged post Heller and Heller, whether you want to believe it or not, does bring the validity of many gun control initiatives into question.

Laws that have been challenged and that have been upheld using any permutation of the "state's right" / "militia right" / collective right" or any thought that the 2nd does not secure an individual right are infirm (as are any relying on applicability of the 2nd pre-incoproration (McDonald).