They don't want to take all your guns...

[007]

What do you think of this latest test of restrictions to the Second amendment from Illinois?

ISRA Urgent Alert - Illinois Near Total Gun Ban January 2nd!

So that leaves the bolt and lever action rifles and shotguns and revolver and single shot guns.
Can you still believe that we are not being systematically disarmed?

Then the same should apply to the police as well. If we have to be disarmed, so should they.

That is just ridiculous.

WHY?

If disarming the citizenry of America is going to make it so darn SAFE for EVERYONE, then shouldn't it be SAFE for the POLICE as well?

 

[P F Tinmore]

http://www.csctalkradio.com/tracks/010413.mp3

 

[PaulS1950]

Disarming the legal gun owners of the USA would prevent the thousands of times each year that gun owners protect themselves and others with legal firearms. It will do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns illegally and using them in crime.
It is a lot like disarming the prison guards so that inmates can't get guns. Many guns have been fashioned by prisoners out of such things as pipe and even bed frames in prisons - how can you believe that disarming legal owners of guns can prevent criminals from getting them?
Put down your emotional response for a moment and think about it. The only thing that gun laws do is make it easier for criminals to make more crime victims.
If 18, 19 and 20 year olds are too young to use a gun responsibly then why is that the exact age group that serves in the military to protect our country's interests? The only difference between those "teens" and the same age group outside the military is the training they receive to safely operate the guns they are issued. Lets educate our children in the safe use of firearms to prevent accidents and keep the guns for protection of ourselves, our children and our way of life. Prosecute the criminals to the full extent of the law. Prosecution for gun crimes is at an all time low because of "plea bargains" and other legal games that the judiciary plays with our laws. Lets force them to do their jobs to get the criminals off the streets. Lets get help for the mentally unstable. They are already restricted from owning, operating and possessing guns but those laws are not enforced. Get those with mental health issues the treatment that they need to be productive members of society and if they are unable to function in society lets put them in a place that allows them dignity and treats them for their illness.
The only way to stop crime is to get the criminals off the street.

A further note here for those who are still reading this rather lengthy post:
We all need to be as protective of all ten of the amendments in the Bill of Rights as we are of the first amendment. We are here exercising our first amendment rights and would not dream of giving it up. What you should understand is that if you empower the government to restrict or remove one of our rights then they can do the same to all of our rights. This is a rights issue - not a gun issue. It a way to remove power from law abiding citizens not just their guns. It is a way to remove your right to free speach and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. It is a battle to remove your freedom of religion and your responsibility to defend your rights and freedoms.
If we can lose even part of our bill of rights then we can lose it all.
Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom!

 

[Kilroy2]

That is the fear that because they take away one weapon that they will take away all your weapons. Sometimes they just want to take one particular weapon. Its called middle ground.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That is the fear that because they take away one weapon that they will take away all your weapons. Sometimes they just want to take one particular weapon. Its called middle ground.

"All bearable arms" does not allow for middle ground, and there's no rational reason we should agree to anything less.

 

[Kilroy2]

"All bearable arms" does not allow for middle ground, and there's no rational reason we should agree to anything less.

Why not as you do have your guns and rifles. Isn't that enough to protect your home as that is all that is required.

So are bombs bearable arms? How about machine guns?

weapons

1. a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage.
   "nuclear weapons"
   
   The sky is the limit.
   

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why not as you do have your guns and rifles. Isn't that enough to protect your home as that is all that is required.

Thank you for demonstrating there's no rational reason for us to accept anything less than "all bearable arms"
Feel free to try again.

So are bombs bearable arms? How about machine guns?

Answer your own question:
Read current USSC jurisprudence:
Heller
Caetano
Bruen
Tell us how machine guns and "bombs" qualify as "bearable arms".
-Then- tell us how AR15s,m et al, do not.

 

[Kilroy2]

Thank you for demonstrating there's no rational reason for us to accept anything less than "Still "
Feel free to try again.

Answer your own question:
Read current USSC jurisprudence:
Heller
Caetano
Bruen
Tell us how machine guns and "bombs" qualify as "bearable arms".
-Then- tell us how AR15s,m et al, do not.

No need to as your said it quite elegantly. Some gun owners are selfish

They want more than what they need

continue this line of reasoning is why you see in Heller, what you want to see. Ignoring stuff that is uncomfortable.


First of all Heller was a case concerning hand guns and the ban on handguns by DC. Now you want to include assault riffles. The main argument of the people was owning hand guns in the home for self defense.

This very statement suggest that handguns can protect home owners who feel the need for it.

the SC concluded that the District’s functional ban on handgun possession in the home and the requirement that lawful firearms in the home be rendered inoperable were unconstitutional.

Very specific language yet it is the gun supporters who want to expand that interpretation using the heller decision.

yet the one wrench is there final conclusion

After announcing that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms, the Supreme Court explained that, “[l]ike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.

Thus suggesting that it can be limited in certain circumstances.

So if they have handguns, then what is the need for AR - 15 assault rifles. These rifles should be able to be limited.

 

[Kilroy2]

WHY?

If disarming the citizenry of America is going to make it so darn SAFE for EVERYONE, then shouldn't it be SAFE for the POLICE as well?

Good point and I would also add how about the safety of innocent people. Seems there rights "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" are endangered . by some who are more concerned about their rights or what they really want for Christmas.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

I've been saying it for awhile. The Second Amendment is poorly written and doesn't even do what most think it does.

Congress could pass a bill tomorrow defining "arms" as nothing larger than a single shot .22 and that would be that, they could outlaw all other weapons.

We need a new clearer amendment. One that both protects gun rights AND yes provides for regulation and even the outright loss of rights under certain circumstances.

Alas, this will never happen until a majority of people from both sides of the coin come together and say "okay you're right, we MUST find a middle ground that provides for the rights of gun owners while at the same time does as much as possible to keep guns away from those who ought not have guns"

that day will probably never come because of one core group of people from each side

1. The group who INSISTS on fighting against banning gun sales which don't include a back ground check

2. The group who insists that anything that even remotely resembles an assault rifle should be outlawed

oh, and don't get me started on the people who claim that assault rifle is a made up term LOL

Just tie that to an amendment the curtails media lies or the reporting of lies under the guise of "free speech" and then put it to a vote...I won't even get you started on the medias invasion of privacy under the guise of "news coverage" LOL

 

[M14 Shooter]

No need ....

I accept your concession.
Thank you for demonstrating there's no rational reason for us to accept anything less than "all bearable arms".

Very specific language yet it is the gun supporters who want to expand that interpretation using the heller decision.

Heller:
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Caetano:
The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010).

"All bearable arms".
It takes considerable skill in self-delusion to interpret this as "only handguns".

After announcing that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms, the Supreme Court explained that, “[l]ike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.
Thus suggesting that it can be limited in certain circumstances.

When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct, and to justify a firearm regulation the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
Let us know when you can meet that challenge.

So if they have handguns, then what is the need for AR - 15 assault rifles. These rifles should be able to be limited.

"All bearable arms" - that is, those in common use for traditionally legal purposes.
It is impossible to soundly argue AR15s do not stand under this umbrella.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Good point and I would also add how about the safety of innocent people.

You REALLY need to keep up with jurisprudence.
The right to keep and bear arms, as protected by the 2nd, is no longer subject to a means-end test.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

2. The group who insists that anything that even remotely resembles an assault rifle should be outlawed

oh, and don't get me started on the people who claim that assault rifle is a made up term LOL

Whoever Controls Language Controls Thought

"Assault" is a crime. Calling a counter-assault rifle, necessary to disperse mobs of looters, just the opposite is as dishonest as calling it a "cop-killer" rifle.

Of course, we can't rely on the language-defective weaklings in the pro-gunrights media to call this defensive weapon by its logical term. Those fakes go along with all the #StupidSpeak mumbo-jumbo created by the Illiterate Liberal Language Lords.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Although what you've said above is implicitly correct, the actual language of Amendment Two makes no such specifications. In fact, the language of the Second Amendment is subject to interpretation by the Supreme Court, which could be extremely problematic for pro-gun advocates if the Court is dominated by anti-gun judges.

Nine Clowns With Gavels and Gowns

SCROTUS will decree that only National Guard members can keep at home the guns issued to them and can only use them when called to duty.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

That is the fear that because they take away one weapon that they will take away all your weapons. Sometimes they just want to take one particular weapon. Its called middle ground.

Give Them an Inch and They Think They Are Rulers

 

[Captain Caveman]

That is the fear that because they take away one weapon that they will take away all your weapons. Sometimes they just want to take one particular weapon. Its called middle ground.

Gun nuts don't have the brains to comprehend regs, they just default to, "Der all guns, der banned".

 

[Concerned American]

What do you think of this latest test of restrictions to the Second amendment from Illinois?

ISRA Urgent Alert - Illinois Near Total Gun Ban January 2nd!

So that leaves the bolt and lever action rifles and shotguns and revolver and single shot guns.
Can you still believe that we are not being systematically disarmed?

Your link doesn't work. However, is this not the law that the circuit court of appeals has placed a hold on?

 

[2aguy]

Why not as you do have your guns and rifles. Isn't that enough to protect your home as that is all that is required.

So are bombs bearable arms? How about machine guns?

weapons

1. a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage.
   "nuclear weapons"
   
   The sky is the limit.

Carrying a rifle around as you shop is awkward......that is why we have pistols.

Bombs are area effect weapons and are therefore unusual.......vs. firearms that are direct fire weapons......

 

[2aguy]

Gun nuts don't have the brains to comprehend regs, they just default to, "Der all guns, der banned".

No....anti-gun fanatics don't understand the most basic aspects of this debate, and fall back to stupid posts like yours....

 

[2aguy]

I accept your concession.
Thank you for demonstrating there's no rational reason for us to accept anything less than "all bearable arms".

Heller:
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Caetano:
The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010).

"All bearable arms".
It takes considerable skill in self-delusion to interpret this as "only handguns".

When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct, and to justify a firearm regulation the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
Let us know when you can meet that challenge.

"All bearable arms" - that is, those in common use for traditionally legal purposes.
It is impossible to soundly argue AR15s do not stand under this umbrella.

The more interesting part of Caetano is where Alito deals with the dumb arguments he anticipates about "dangerous and unusual."

Opinion of the Court[edit]



In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

------





As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment.



First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).



Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly. Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581. Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.



If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis

---