The ultimate 2nd amendment poll!

[JakeStarkey]

Give us case law that has shown your right to own a mortar subject to Miller.

Give us case law that supports your right to a mortar under Heller.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The constitution doesn't specify "Firearms". It just says "arms".

And since treaties like SALT and START referred to nukes as "Arms", it would imply that we have a right to keep and bear arms.

Just taking your crazy to it's logical conclusion.

Arms using 18th century would be talking about firearms such as muskets.
Example Sack arms.

Doesn't that kind of show the fallacy of using something written in the 18th century as a guidepost for self governance, then?

if you take the silly notion that "arms" only meant small arms, that they weren't thinking of bigger weapons, but they really, really wanted us to keep "arms" in case we had to throw out any wanna-be Kings, then the notion is outdated... Mostly because today, the government has...

and

and this...

So, yeah, your chances of overthrowing the government is probably unlikely, but you are keeping us safe from those vicious preschoolers...

Do you know anyone that can carry one of those?
Stop with the straw man.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Give us case law that has shown your right to own a mortar subject to Miller.

Give us case law that supports your right to a mortar under Heller.

The only weapons protected by the second amendment should be a militia-type arm.
Miller vs US NOW IF YOU CAN SHOW ME WHERE MILLER HAS BEEN OVER TURNED YOU MIGHT HAVE AN ARGUMENT TO STAND ON.

 

[SayMyName]

The United States has always had some form of restrictions on firearms. To this day, one can see the Colt sidearm Republican Marshall Wyatt Earp surrendered, and forgot to pick up, in Anchorage, Alaska over a hundred years ago.

I am one life-long Republican that no longer gives license to interpretations of the 2nd Admendment that the party has tolerated for so long.

In light of the latest massacre, which makes Boston look like a "Bad Day," licensing of all firearms ownership. A test for safety. A background check that also requires a declaration of no history of mental illness and the taking of drugs to regulate depression, anxiety and other serious disorders. Also, restriction of ownership of weapons that fire more than 5 rounds in a rifle, and 10 for a handgun.

There should be no mall cops in our elementary schools as the NRA suggests. Its time they get on board and start seriously helping to prevent gun violence in this nation.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The United States has always had some form of restrictions on firearms. To this day, one can see the Colt sidearm Republican Marshall Wyatt Earp surrendered, and forgot to pick up, in Anchorage, Alaska over a hundred years ago.

I am one life-long Republican that no longer gives license to interpretations of the 2nd Admendment that the party has tolerated for so long.

In light of the latest massacre, which makes Boston look like a "Bad Day," licensing of all firearms ownership. A test for safety. A background check that also requires a declaration of no history of mental illness and the taking of drugs to regulate depression, anxiety and other serious disorders. Also, restriction of ownership of weapons that fire more than 5 rounds in a rifle, and 10 for a handgun.

There should be no mall cops in our elementary schools as the NRA suggests. Its time they get on board and start seriously helping to prevent gun violence in this nation.

Sorry you cannot license a right. You cannot place restrictions on the capacity of a magazine if the military has that size according to the second amendment and ruling from miller it should be available to the law abiding citizen.
I would however support a training class before you were allowed to make your first purchase of a firearm. And we already have laws on the books that should prevent mentally ill people from purchasing firearms. If only they were enforced. Also background check are done.

 

[JoeB131]

Do you know anyone that can carry one of those?
Stop with the straw man.

But the reason you guys give as to why YOU need an assault rifle with a high-capicity clip, and teflon coated bullets that can penetrate police body armor, is because, gosh darn, you might need to fight the government some day.

This is your whole rational. Otherwise, we could just limit private ownership to revolvers (for home protection) and bolt-action long guns (for hunting) and shotguns (good for either).

Letting civilians own war weapons, that only makes sense if you are actually planning to go to war, and you'd still be outclassed.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Do you know anyone that can carry one of those?
Stop with the straw man.

But the reason you guys give as to why YOU need an assault rifle with a high-capicity clip, and teflon coated bullets that can penetrate police body armor, is because, gosh darn, you might need to fight the government some day.

This is your whole rational. Otherwise, we could just limit private ownership to revolvers (for home protection) and bolt-action long guns (for hunting) and shotguns (good for either).

Letting civilians own war weapons, that only makes sense if you are actually planning to go to war, and you'd still be outclassed.

The right to keep and bear............ So stop with the straw man.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Any who argue that civilians should have access to the same weapons as the military fail.

That simply is not contemporary America law or interpretation of the Constitution.

 

[racewright]

Do you know anyone that can carry one of those?
Stop with the straw man.

But the reason you guys give as to why YOU need an assault rifle with a high-capicity clip, and teflon coated bullets that can penetrate police body armor, is because, gosh darn, you might need to fight the government some day.

This is your whole rational. Otherwise, we could just limit private ownership to revolvers (for home protection) and bolt-action long guns (for hunting) and shotguns (good for either).

Letting civilians own war weapons, that only makes sense if you are actually planning to go to war, and you'd still be outclassed.

You see every day our inalienable rights are taken away--the constitution does not give rights
it only says that your government or any other nation shall not take rights away this means us veterans have fought to preserve the constitution and will fight enemy's both foreign and domestic.
If you think there is a need for more gun laws then it is only because you are afraid of life and scared to death to live it and probably go to bed every night with the lights on.
Do not be afraid we combat veterans will protect you even if it is from yourself and a tyrannic government just like always, so be a good little wimp and just watch.

I carried a m16 in Vietnam in 1967/68 also a 45 used a 30 cal and you wish to now tell me I have to be subject to your foolish rules because you might get hurt, you chicken shit asshole go on let your wife or girl friend or any other ***** man tell you what to do.

 

[JoeB131]

Do you know anyone that can carry one of those?
Stop with the straw man.

But the reason you guys give as to why YOU need an assault rifle with a high-capicity clip, and teflon coated bullets that can penetrate police body armor, is because, gosh darn, you might need to fight the government some day.

This is your whole rational. Otherwise, we could just limit private ownership to revolvers (for home protection) and bolt-action long guns (for hunting) and shotguns (good for either).

Letting civilians own war weapons, that only makes sense if you are actually planning to go to war, and you'd still be outclassed.

The right to keep and bear............ So stop with the straw man.

Well-regulated Militia... so stop with that straw man.

 

[JoeB131]

You see every day our inalienable rights are taken away--the constitution does not give rights
it only says that your government or any other nation shall not take rights away this means us veterans have fought to preserve the constitution and will fight enemy's both foreign and domestic.
If you think there is a need for more gun laws then it is only because you are afraid of life and scared to death to live it and probably go to bed every night with the lights on.
Do not be afraid we combat veterans will protect you even if it is from yourself and a tyrannic government just like always, so be a good little wimp and just watch.

I carried a m16 in Vietnam in 1967/68 also a 45 used a 30 cal and you wish to now tell me I have to be subject to your foolish rules because you might get hurt, you chicken shit asshole go on let your wife or girl friend or any other ***** man tell you what to do.

Guy, I carried an M16 for a bunch of years, too. I never thought of it as a substitute for my penis like you obviously do.

I'm just curious where you guys were when those kids at Sandy Hook needed protecting. It wasn't the government who killed those kids, it was one crazy person who had a gun he never should have been able to get.

Incidently, there are no "rights". There are only privilages society lets you have.

Any dipshit who thinks he has "rights", needs to look up "Japanese Americans 1942" to see how fast "rights" vanish

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You see every day our inalienable rights are taken away--the constitution does not give rights
it only says that your government or any other nation shall not take rights away this means us veterans have fought to preserve the constitution and will fight enemy's both foreign and domestic.
If you think there is a need for more gun laws then it is only because you are afraid of life and scared to death to live it and probably go to bed every night with the lights on.
Do not be afraid we combat veterans will protect you even if it is from yourself and a tyrannic government just like always, so be a good little wimp and just watch.

I carried a m16 in Vietnam in 1967/68 also a 45 used a 30 cal and you wish to now tell me I have to be subject to your foolish rules because you might get hurt, you chicken shit asshole go on let your wife or girl friend or any other ***** man tell you what to do.

Guy, I carried an M16 for a bunch of years, too. I never thought of it as a substitute for my penis like you obviously do.

I'm just curious where you guys were when those kids at Sandy Hook needed protecting. It wasn't the government who killed those kids, it was one crazy person who had a gun he never should have been able to get.

Incidently, there are no "rights". There are only privilages society lets you have.

Any dipshit who thinks he has "rights", needs to look up "Japanese Americans 1942" to see how fast "rights" vanish

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Any who argue that civilians should have access to the same weapons as the military fail.

That simply is not contemporary America law or interpretation of the Constitution.

Miller vs US says otherwise.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

But the reason you guys give as to why YOU need an assault rifle with a high-capicity clip, and teflon coated bullets that can penetrate police body armor, is because, gosh darn, you might need to fight the government some day.

This is your whole rational. Otherwise, we could just limit private ownership to revolvers (for home protection) and bolt-action long guns (for hunting) and shotguns (good for either).

Letting civilians own war weapons, that only makes sense if you are actually planning to go to war, and you'd still be outclassed.

The right to keep and bear............ So stop with the straw man.

Well-regulated Militia... so stop with that straw man.

Yes the militia the militia would be the People not the government.
The founders did not say

A militia well regulated by congress being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The founders would not have made any laws that would allow a government to much power that would enable it to be a tyrannical government. They did not want a standing army because they know what would happen.

 

[JoeB131]

[

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Government passes a law saying only members of the Militia have guns. Membership in the militia is restricted to non-crazy people. (Well, you're out.)


The people support it. A few scary assholes have fights with the ATF and wind up in body bags. That just encourages people that we need more laws. (Keep in mind, after Waco and Ruby Ridge, we got more laws, not less.)

Everyone just kind of goes along with it.

Sorry, man. It's only a "right" if everyone goes along with it. People aren't going along with it anymore.

 

[LockeJaw]

Take the language back from those who pervert it. Theyre high-powered rifles, not assault rifles. If they keep giving you shit, just tell them you need it because you live in a housing Project in Chicago.. even if it isnt so. Watch the reaction change rather quickly when you Bring up how many kids are killed in Chicago, a Gun-Control city. Dishonest? Yes, but the left isnt exactly honest with themselves or us... I changed 3 minds on Facebook about the 2nd amendment yesterday doing this. If it works, screw it. Their entire philosophy is built on lies, im using a little white lie to spread the truth. Lol

 

[bigrebnc1775]

[

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Government passes a law saying only members of the Militia have guns. Membership in the militia is restricted to non-crazy people. (Well, you're out.)


The people support it. A few scary assholes have fights with the ATF and wind up in body bags. That just encourages people that we need more laws. (Keep in mind, after Waco and Ruby Ridge, we got more laws, not less.)

Everyone just kind of goes along with it.

Sorry, man. It's only a "right" if everyone goes along with it. People aren't going along with it anymore.

The government cannot pass a law restricting citizens from a Constitutionally protected right without doing the amendment process I dare you to try it.

 

[tjvh]

[

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Government passes a law saying only members of the Militia have guns. Membership in the militia is restricted to non-crazy people. (Well, you're out.)


The people support it. A few scary assholes have fights with the ATF and wind up in body bags. That just encourages people that we need more laws. (Keep in mind, after Waco and Ruby Ridge, we got more laws, not less.)

Everyone just kind of goes along with it.

Sorry, man. It's only a "right" if everyone goes along with it. People aren't going along with it anymore.

Sorry man, mob rules does not get to dictate what is written in the Constitution... If that is what you desire, then I'd say you missed the entire point of the Constitution.

 

[Dick Tuck]

No civilivan has a right to mortars, and no one can ban all guns.

Miller ruling says you can't ban the weapons obama is wanting banned.
Sinp.....
Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.

U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) - Google Scholar

You are one stupid turd ball, if that's what you got out of Miller.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No civilivan has a right to mortars, and no one can ban all guns.

Miller ruling says you can't ban the weapons obama is wanting banned.
Sinp.....
Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.

U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) - Google Scholar

You are one stupid turd ball, if that's what you got out of Miller.

That is exactly what miller was.
I think you better do some research