The words "to bear arms" is a military term

[bigrebnc1775]

Cut and paste where it says that it does. You can't, because it does not exist. You lose your OP.

I wasn't the one that said this?

Quote: Originally Posted by jakestarkey
the summary made clear that no person could interpret it to justify having access to military heavy weapons.

You were, now cut and paste the exact words that state what you just posted


Again here is my cut and paste with links

bigrebnc is quoting out of of context. This document no supports his OP than did the film or the book he introduced us to in the Hitler was a socialist rant. In fact, the evidence he supports almost always controverts his position.

I am quoting the qoute made, nothing taken out of contex.

Snippet from Miller vs. U.S.

Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.

Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894).
Brief summary
The case also made clear that the militia consisted of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.


Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 95 (1980).

Brief summary
Lewis recognized -- in summarizing the holding of Miller, supra, as "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'" (emphasis added)

Federal Cases Regarding the Second Amendment

The original post with the original link
This study is original historical research and analysis prepared for the Fifth Circuit in US v. Emerson,

RESETTING THE TERMS OF DEBATE ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT:

NEW LIGHT ON THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE PHRASE

"TO BEAR ARMS" BASED ON 300 HISTORICAL USES

OF THE TERM IN A MILITARY CONTEXT

IN EARLY AMERICA, 1618-1791
Resetting the Terms on the Second Amendment:...

Lewis, Miller, and Emerson agree with me, what do you have besides your opinion?

 

[JakeStarkey]

bigrebnc cannot point to exactly in Miller where it says he can own military heavy weapons.

If he can't do that, he has no case.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

bigrebnc cannot point to exactly in Miller where it says he can own military heavy weapons.

If he can't do that, he has no case.

You are the only one that has mentioned heavy wapons. Why should I point to exactly to something I haven't talked about?

 

[JakeStarkey]

OK, thank you for admitting you cannot own military heavy weapons. I can leave the thread alone now that you have given up.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

OK, thank you for admitting you cannot own military heavy weapons. I can leave the thread alone now that you have given up.

What is there to admitt I never said anything about heavy weapons you the board drama queen did.
But I do have a right according to Lewis, Miller, and Emerson to have and own military grade weapons.

 

[ABikerSailor]

the summary made clear that no person could interpret it to justify having access to military heavy weapons.

cut and paste where it says that?

From your post on the previous page........

Brief summary
The case also made clear that the militia consisted of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.

Where the fuck is an M-16 or an AK-47 considered a "common use weapon"? Or........for that matter.......30 round clips?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

the summary made clear that no person could interpret it to justify having access to military heavy weapons.

cut and paste where it says that?

From your post on the previous page........

Brief summary
The case also made clear that the militia consisted of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.

Where the fuck is an M-16 or an AK-47 considered a "common use weapon"? Or........for that matter.......30 round clips?

Which is more of an affective weapon for military use:
A flint lock musket
M-60?
Common use for what the military would have.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Wrong you overweight jackass......it means weapons COMMONLY AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Wrong you overweight jackass......it means weapons COMMONLY AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC!

Really fat bitch? I don't think so. as a matter of fact miller says you're an idiot and a moron Mr.Sea " I don't know what the difference is between a magazine and a clip" bitch
Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894).
Brief summary
The case also made clear that the militia consisted of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311
Prev | Next § 311. Militia: composition and classes
How Current is This? (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I'm 5'7 and weigh 140. I still have a 29 inch waist and 22 inch thighs EACH. No....fat isn't me, you must be looking in your mirror again.

No..........military style weapons aren't protected. It's for stuff like revolvers and rifles, not assault weapons.

Those only have a place in police, military, and criminal enterprises.

But......I guess you wouldn't know that you ignorant fat assed redneck prick.

 

[yota5]

# S: (n) weapon, arm, weapon system (any instrument or instrumentality used in fighting or hunting) "he was licensed to carry a weapon"

WordNet Search - 3.0

As you can see the words weapons, and arms are synonymous.

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.

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311
Prev | Next
§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
How Current is This?
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

United States Code: Title 10,311. Militia: composition and classes | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'm 5'7 and weigh 140. I still have a 29 inch waist and 22 inch thighs EACH. No....fat isn't me, you must be looking in your mirror again.

No..........military style weapons aren't protected. It's for stuff like revolvers and rifles, not assault weapons.

Those only have a place in police, military, and criminal enterprises.

But......I guess you wouldn't know that you ignorant fat assed redneck prick.

So the militia is not supposed to have military style weapons? You need to tell that to the superme court before they made that ruling. You aren't arguing with me you are arguing with the superme court now thats ignorant.
Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894).
Brief summary
The case also made clear that the militia consisted of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.



You sound like the size of a woman.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I'm 5'7 and weigh 140. I still have a 29 inch waist and 22 inch thighs EACH. No....fat isn't me, you must be looking in your mirror again.

No..........military style weapons aren't protected. It's for stuff like revolvers and rifles, not assault weapons.

Those only have a place in police, military, and criminal enterprises.

But......I guess you wouldn't know that you ignorant fat assed redneck prick.

So the militia is not supposed to have military style weapons? You need to tell that to the superme court before they made that ruling. You aren't arguing with me you are arguing with the superme court now thats ignorant.
Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894).
Brief summary
The case also made clear that the militia consisted of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.



You sound like the size of a woman.

How the fuck can anyone consider assault weapons "common use"? They aren't. Besides, you can't do anything with them other than kill people, they shoot too many rounds for hunting and will ruin the meat.

Sound like the size of a woman eh? What is that, some kind of suggestive hint that you wanna have sex with me?

Sorry douchebag, I'm straight.

 

[JakeStarkey]

yota5 and bigrebnc are in a mutual jerk. Mental masturbation is fun but sterile. As are your reasons.

Miller, in no way or shape or manner, gives you the right to military grade heavy weapons.

 

[idb]

yota5 and bigrebnc are in a mutual jerk. Mental masturbation is fun but sterile. As are your reasons.

Miller, in no way or shape or manner, gives you the right to military grade heavy weapons.

Miller may or may not give the right to keep military style weapons - I don't know.
But the whole point of the OP was that the document that bigrednec linked to was confirmation of that.
It doesn't.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are right, and bigrebnc is wrong.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'm 5'7 and weigh 140. I still have a 29 inch waist and 22 inch thighs EACH. No....fat isn't me, you must be looking in your mirror again.

No..........military style weapons aren't protected. It's for stuff like revolvers and rifles, not assault weapons.

Those only have a place in police, military, and criminal enterprises.

But......I guess you wouldn't know that you ignorant fat assed redneck prick.

So the militia is not supposed to have military style weapons? You need to tell that to the superme court before they made that ruling. You aren't arguing with me you are arguing with the superme court now thats ignorant.
Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894).
Brief summary
The case also made clear that the militia consisted of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.



You sound like the size of a woman.

How the fuck can anyone consider assault weapons "common use"? They aren't. Besides, you can't do anything with them other than kill people, they shoot too many rounds for hunting and will ruin the meat.

Sound like the size of a woman eh? What is that, some kind of suggestive hint that you wanna have sex with me?

Sorry douchebag, I'm straight.

No way you can get around it. You anted proof you have been shown the definition of a militia and three superme court rulings on what a militia should have. Accordiung to those three rulings the only firearms that are protected under the second amendment are military grade weapons Now that you have been shown the truth your pissed. Thats good.

Sound like the size of a woman eh? What is that, some kind of suggestive hint that you wanna have sex with me?

Don't flatter yourself and don't worry little tiny sea bitch, I like women to much to.

 

[JakeStarkey]

epic fail by bigreb. again.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

yota5 and bigrebnc are in a mutual jerk. Mental masturbation is fun but sterile. As are your reasons.

Miller, in no way or shape or manner, gives you the right to military grade heavy weapons.

Miller may or may not give the right to keep military style weapons - I don't know.
But the whole point of the OP was that the document that bigrednec linked to was confirmation of that.
It doesn't.

I will post this one more time for you from the OL IT CLEARLY GIVES THE INFORMATION AS TO WHAT IT'S ADDRESSING

[This study is original historical research and analysis prepared for the Fifth Circuit in US v. Emerson,]
RESETTING THE TERMS OF DEBATE ON THE

SECOND AMENDMENT:
NEW LIGHT ON THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE PHRASE "TO BEAR ARMS" BASED ON 300 HISTORICAL USES OF THE TERM IN A MILITARY CONTEXT IN EARLY AMERICA, 1618-1791
The Title of the thread is "The words "to bear arms" is a military term"

Emerson, Miller, and Lewis both agree with me.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

epic fail by bigreb. again.

Your opinion is neither compelling or relevant. Only the facts are. You haven't shown any yet.