The Right of the People (individually) to...

[9thIDdoc]

What possibly could be said to justify the ownership of weapons of war by private citizens?

Because, **** you. That's why.

Can a machine gun be used for hunting?

Irrelevant and wrongly assumes the right is tied to food collection.

As they as designed exclusively to kill as many humans as quickly as possible, why in earth should anyone have the ability to buy one?

Because the enemy of liberty (government) has millions of them. We have to keep government in check. We get what they have, or **** your standing army.

You will never speak for me so long as you remain against government of, for and by the people. And, you're far too inarticulate to discuss anything of value with.

Whatever made you think there is a need to justify constitutional rights?
A government that denies constitutional rights is certainly NOT of the people for the people by the people.

 

[Nosmo King]

What possibly could be said to justify the ownership of weapons of war by private citizens?

Because, **** you. That's why.

Can a machine gun be used for hunting?

Irrelevant and wrongly assumes the right is tied to food collection.

As they as designed exclusively to kill as many humans as quickly as possible, why in earth should anyone have the ability to buy one?

Because the enemy of liberty (government) has millions of them. We have to keep government in check. We get what they have, or **** your standing army.

You will never speak for me so long as you remain against government of, for and by the people. And, you're far too inarticulate to discuss anything of value with.

Whatever made you think there is a need to justify constitutional rights?
A government that denies constitutional rights is certainly NOT of the people for the people by the people.

Rights to bear arms is infringed. Where's your mortar launcher? Your rocket propelled grenade launcher? Your thermonuclear warhead?

The founding fathers were not clad in chalked togas bringing law from the Lord. They were men who could not conceive of automatic weapons. Or electric light. Or cotton candy. They certainly did not want civilians to own cannons, the most advanced weaponry of their day.

The constitution is not a suicide pact. Ignoring the havoc wrought by machine guns is irresponsible at best, criminally negligent at worst.

 

[ErikViking]

I don’t get this obsession over what the founding fathers intended. They weren’t gods, they didn’t have the ability to look 200 years into the future. An amendment is already a failure in forecasting, it shouldn’t be too hard to make another?

Then there is the obsession with exact types of weapons? Cutting-edge comparison is, what - Gatlin guns versus Tomahawk missiles? Of course they couldn’t imagine killing beyond visible range like that.

Then there is the concept of the battlefield. Their clashing of armies ended with WWI
, enter total war, with civilian society looked upon as an enemy to be destroyed. Today, asymmetric war fare and information are common concepts of the battlefield.

What small groups can achieve with limited resources are totally off the charts compared to their 18th century reality.

It’s not really important if people owns this or that weapon, the question is if the numbers and resources are in proportion to the effect a group can have, isn’t it?

I mean, forget the amendment, figure what strength you are willing to give a group bent against yourself? Any weapon more effective in offense (in combination with information) than all weapons available for defense seems like a bad idea to spread around uncontrolled.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If the founders were wrong, amend.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Why the **** would the SCOTUS grant certiorari to decide an issue it had already decided a few years earlier? WHY THE **** WAS CAETANO NECESSARY?

For the obvious reason you ******* IDIOT! The Supremes granted the Writ because the lower court may have ERRED and enough of the Robes wanted to hear it!! Your added lipstick on that pig notwithstanding!

Why did the SCOTUS examine this matter? TO CLARIFY THE DICTA IN HELLER and give a clean example of what the Court held, in order to prevent further commie bullshit.

Heller is noted 23 times in Caetano and in those instances it was to compare the precedents laid down as written in Heller and NOT TO CLARIFY them in Heller as you claim, but to display the errors of the lower Court in the three ways they tried to water down/alter them as established.

You're just trying to bail water out of that leaking boat you've placed yourself in. I'm not going to bother with your fucked up erroneous claims in your post #21 and juxtapose that trash to your later reversal. You're simply not worth my time you bloody FRAUD!

You're still just trying to baffle with bullshit to pump your dumb ass up. Jesus, you're ******* fragile! Are you fixated on your pecker given you refer to cock so very often. Seek help for that and your masturbation issues, jerkoff!!

 

[IsaacNewton]

The cowards would want them.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Why the **** would the SCOTUS grant certiorari to decide an issue it had already decided a few years earlier? WHY THE **** WAS CAETANO NECESSARY?

For the obvious reason you ******* IDIOT! The Supremes granted the Writ because the lower court may have ERRED and enough of the Robes wanted to hear it!! Your added lipstick on that pig notwithstanding!

Why did the SCOTUS examine this matter? TO CLARIFY THE DICTA IN HELLER and give a clean example of what the Court held, in order to prevent further commie bullshit.

Heller is noted 23 times in Caetano and in those instances it was to compare the precedents laid down as written in Heller and NOT TO CLARIFY them in Heller as you claim, but to display the errors of the lower Court in the three ways they tried to water down/alter them as established.

You're just trying to bail water out of that leaking boat you've placed yourself in. I'm not going to bother with your fucked up erroneous claims in your post #21 and juxtapose that trash to your later reversal. You're simply not worth my time you bloody FRAUD!

You're still just trying to baffle with bullshit to pump your dumb ass up. Jesus, you're ******* fragile! Are you fixated on your pecker given you refer to cock so very often. Seek help for that and your masturbation issues, jerkoff!!

You said the SCOTUS didn't take the case to clarify, then in the same sentence, you said they did it to show how the lower court watered it down (on the issue of dangerous and unusual in particular) ....otherwise known as.....clarifying a prior holding.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

For the obvious reason you ******* IDIOT! The Supremes granted the Writ because the lower court may have ERRED and enough of the Robes wanted to hear it!! Your added lipstick on that pig notwithstanding!

And, before denying that the courrt took the case to clarify, you stated the above. Enough robes wanted to hear it...to clarify Heller

 

[9thIDdoc]

What possibly could be said to justify the ownership of weapons of war by private citizens?

Because, **** you. That's why.

Can a machine gun be used for hunting?

Irrelevant and wrongly assumes the right is tied to food collection.

As they as designed exclusively to kill as many humans as quickly as possible, why in earth should anyone have the ability to buy one?

Because the enemy of liberty (government) has millions of them. We have to keep government in check. We get what they have, or **** your standing army.

You will never speak for me so long as you remain against government of, for and by the people. And, you're far too inarticulate to discuss anything of value with.

Whatever made you think there is a need to justify constitutional rights?
A government that denies constitutional rights is certainly NOT of the people for the people by the people.

Rights to bear arms is infringed. Where's your mortar launcher? Your rocket propelled grenade launcher? Your thermonuclear warhead?

The founding fathers were not clad in chalked togas bringing law from the Lord. They were men who could not conceive of automatic weapons. Or electric light. Or cotton candy. They certainly did not want civilians to own cannons, the most advanced weaponry of their day.

The constitution is not a suicide pact. Ignoring the havoc wrought by machine guns is irresponsible at best, criminally negligent at worst.

Wow. Paranoid much? You think maybe duck hunters and deer hunters are going to form a coalition to take over the government?
Pretty silly to speculate about what the FF intended when the the Supreme Court has already ruled on that very issue and
what they intended is actually a moot point because the Constitution says what it says.
Machine guns are heavily restricted and have been for a long time. Why do you think anyone is "ignoring the havoc" that is happening mostly in your imagination?
I have used assault rifles and machine guns in combat and have no desire for one as a civilian. The fact that anti-gunners seem unwilling to face is the fact that most common hunting weapons-depending on how they are used-are every bit a dangerous as a machine gun.

 

[my2¢]

I certainly don't see it that way. I see it the same as the government's right to deal with censorship matters for the technology of radio and television developed after the Bill of Rights in comparison to newspapers and printing press days of the Bill of Rights era.

You mean, the founders could not have foreseen these instrumentalities, and therefore, the Constitution must adapt and shift meaning to deal with these new technologies? Is that what you are saying?

The advance of technology changes everything, as can be seen when considering the right to free travel when the automobile replaced the horse-and-buggy and new regulation came into being.

 

[flacaltenn]

The right of the people to have motherfucking machine guns, shall not be infringed.

We must get back to the true meaning of infringement:

in·fringe
inˈfrinj/
verb

1. actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).
   "making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright"
   synonyms: contravene, violate, transgress, break, breach; More
   • act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
     "his legal rights were being infringed"
     synonyms: restrict, limit, curb, check, encroach on;

You screwed it up by declaring "ALL" --- meaning "EVERYBODY".. So it's no.. In Nevada you can get a license to retain a full auto military weapon. But the RESTRICTIONS on that special license are massive. And it's usually issued to gun ranges and tact training facilities.

It's fine with me to draw some lines. Like "automatic fire" weapons. Probably is -- most PEOPLE have no concept of what that actually means. The "bump fire" thing was new to me, and I grew up COUCHING a Junior rifle team and shooting all manner of weapons. THAT is an example of where Congress and lawmakers are always YEARS behind the train.

Congress needs to focus on their PRIMARY responsibilities, so that we all just don't SUDDENLY discover the loopholes when a tragedy occurs. I don't give a rip if I can't procure a full auto or get around it with a tricky bump stock. But I DO resent folks who don't actually HELP to find these "cheats" BEFORE people die.

This is from a guy who interprets the 2nd Amendment FUNDAMENTALLY.. And I recognize that a mere citizen could own a 18th century man o' war frigate with 10 cannon on it and be PAID by the Feds to go hunt pirates.

But the amount of firepower in a single hand does bother me. Considering how sick our society is and how fast we're circling the drain. THERE'S your "KILLING POTENTIAL" right there in a nutshell. It's a society that doesn't DESERVE the responsibilities of good citizens that the Constitution was designed for.

 

[radical right]

Congress needs to focus on their PRIMARY responsibilities, so that we all just don't SUDDENLY discover the loopholes when a tragedy occurs. I don't give a rip if I can't procure a full auto or get around it with a tricky bump stock. But I DO resent folks who don't actually HELP to find these "cheats" BEFORE people die..

They actually did this, before they undid it.

When they put a ban on large capacity magazines, they effectively made bump stocks, full-auto mod kits, special multi-shot triggers, you name it, they were made pointless.

There was no advantage in firing 7 shots instead of in 2 seconds being able to do it in 1/2 second. Since you're done, until you change magazines before you can do it again.

 

[Vastator]

If the founders were wrong, amend.

No. They weren't. They wanted the civilians to be as equally armed as the government military; so when the consent to be governed was revoked, the citizens could enforce it. That's why the 2nd amendment exists.

 

[flacaltenn]

Congress needs to focus on their PRIMARY responsibilities, so that we all just don't SUDDENLY discover the loopholes when a tragedy occurs. I don't give a rip if I can't procure a full auto or get around it with a tricky bump stock. But I DO resent folks who don't actually HELP to find these "cheats" BEFORE people die..

They actually did this, before they undid it.

When they put a ban on large capacity magazines, they effectively made bump stocks, full-auto mod kits, special multi-shot triggers, you name it, they were made pointless.

There was no advantage in firing 7 shots instead of in 2 seconds being able to do it in 1/2 second. Since you're done, until you change magazines before you can do it again.

What do you expect? Congress is inept, ill-informed, and self-absorbed. There's still the states.
I don't 7 was a special number. And I don't care if it's 10. But the OTHER STUFF you mentioned, needs to be nailed down.

 

[flacaltenn]

What do y'all expect from Congress? 2/3 of them judge a firearm on how it LOOKS for Gawd sakes.

 

[radical right]

I don't 7 was a special number. And I don't care if it's 10. But the OTHER STUFF you mentioned, needs to be nailed down.

When it comes to controlling full-auto or pseudo full-auto, the easiest way is to limit the size of the magazine. Because magazines are harder to make than bump stocks and conversion kits.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The advance of technology changes everything, as can be seen when considering the right to free travel when the automobile replaced the horse-and-buggy and new regulation came into being.

So, what you're saying is...it's alive....IT'S ALIVE !!!

 

[NYcarbineer]

The right of the people to have motherfucking machine guns, shall not be infringed.

We must get back to the true meaning of infringement:

in·fringe
inˈfrinj/
verb

1. actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).
   "making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright"
   synonyms: contravene, violate, transgress, break, breach; More
   • act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
     "his legal rights were being infringed"
     synonyms: restrict, limit, curb, check, encroach on;

Do you know why we have a Supreme Court?

 

[Marion Morrison]

The right of the people to have motherfucking machine guns, shall not be infringed.

We must get back to the true meaning of infringement:

in·fringe
inˈfrinj/
verb

1. actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).
   "making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright"
   synonyms: contravene, violate, transgress, break, breach; More
   • act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
     "his legal rights were being infringed"
     synonyms: restrict, limit, curb, check, encroach on;

You screwed it up by declaring "ALL" --- meaning "EVERYBODY".. So it's no.. In Nevada you can get a license to retain a full auto military weapon. But the RESTRICTIONS on that special license are massive. And it's usually issued to gun ranges and tact training facilities.

It's fine with me to draw some lines. Like "automatic fire" weapons. Probably is -- most PEOPLE have no concept of what that actually means. The "bump fire" thing was new to me, and I grew up COUCHING a Junior rifle team and shooting all manner of weapons. THAT is an example of where Congress and lawmakers are always YEARS behind the train.

Congress needs to focus on their PRIMARY responsibilities, so that we all just don't SUDDENLY discover the loopholes when a tragedy occurs. I don't give a rip if I can't procure a full auto or get around it with a tricky bump stock. But I DO resent folks who don't actually HELP to find these "cheats" BEFORE people die.

This is from a guy who interprets the 2nd Amendment FUNDAMENTALLY.. And I recognize that a mere citizen could own a 18th century man o' war frigate with 10 cannon on it and be PAID by the Feds to go hunt pirates.

But the amount of firepower in a single hand does bother me. Considering how sick our society is and how fast we're circling the drain. THERE'S your "KILLING POTENTIAL" right there in a nutshell. It's a society that doesn't DESERVE the responsibilities of good citizens that the Constitution was designed for.

Well that's just depressing.

 

[Crackerjack]

We should all have the right to full-auto military assault rifles and S.A.W.s

False premise. We do have the right to such weapons. The question (in some people's minds, unfortunately) is whether the state should recognize that right.