We need to clean America of the guns !

Bob Blaylock

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2015
Messages
12,902
Reaction score
4,786
Points
360
Location
38°29′ North 121°26′ West
The ruling specifically stipulated that a sawed off shotgun could be banned "BECAUSE IT HAS NO FORESEEABLE MILITARY PURPOSE".
It's notable that the Miller ruling was factually in error, in using this premise as a basis for their ruling.

No one was there to argue for Miller's case, so they only heard the state's side of the argument. Had someone competent been there to argue Miller's side, then it surely would have been pointed out to the court that at the time, short-barreled shotguns, similar to what Miller was in trouble for possessing, were, in fact, a standard issue item in our Army. They were colloquially known as “Trench Sweepers”.

I think that there's a very good chance that a competent attorney arguing for Miller's side would have been able to persuade the court away from the premise that it was only military-suitable weapons that were covered by the Second Amendment.
 

Bob Blaylock

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2015
Messages
12,902
Reaction score
4,786
Points
360
Location
38°29′ North 121°26′ West
Considering I have said that for quite some time in here and you have found that as untrue, glad you finally admitted you are wrong. And it was owned by wealthy land owners for defense against Indians who highly respected the big fire sticks. Most of the Canons (not artillery) used by the Colonials were loaned by private individuals to be returned or replaced. As I have said more than a few times.

But the common man could not afford a canon. Your whole premise is based on a lie. It wasn't WE THE PEOPLE. It was WE THE RICH PEOPLE.
So what?

Canons are crap, anyway. Real photographers use Nikon or better.
 
Last edited:

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
18,825
Reaction score
2,563
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
The ruling specifically stipulated that a sawed off shotgun could be banned "BECAUSE IT HAS NO FORESEEABLE MILITARY PURPOSE".
It's notable that the Miller ruling was factually in error, in using this premise as a basis for their ruling.

No one was there to argue for Miller's case, so they only heard the state's side of the argument. Had someone competent been there to argue Miller's side, then it surely would have been pointed out to the court that at the time, short-barreled shotguns, similar to what Miller was in trouble for possessing, were, in fact, a standard issue item in our Army. They were colloquially known as “Trench Sweepers”.

I think that there's a very good chance that a competent attorney arguing for Miller's side would have been able to persuade the court away from the premise that it was only military-suitable weapons that were covered by the Second Amendment.
I question the 1934 Firearms act itself. We need a new take on it badly. There is just too much wiggle room.
 

Dick Foster

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2018
Messages
7,272
Reaction score
3,651
Points
1,065
Location
The People's Republic of the Californicated
Any Assault Style Long gun should be banned

You only need a shotgun and revolver for home defense!!
Get rid of big mags and pistols
Concealed guns must be illegal as well

This is the most violent nation in the history of the modern world
Do you realise that more people were killed with hammers than with AR15s last year? Shouldn't we therefore start with hammers, you fucking moron. Maybe we would be better off doing without your kind of idiot by locking your stupid asses up in nut houses like we once did.
 

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
18,825
Reaction score
2,563
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere

Jarlaxle

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2012
Messages
16,974
Reaction score
1,790
Points
245
Location
New England
The ruling specifically stipulated that a sawed off shotgun could be banned "BECAUSE IT HAS NO FORESEEABLE MILITARY PURPOSE".

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Which was, entirely, false. Short-barrel shotguns absolutely were used in the military at the time! (They were called "trench guns.")
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
66,619
Reaction score
19,286
Points
2,180
Location
Nevada
The ruling specifically stipulated that a sawed off shotgun could be banned "BECAUSE IT HAS NO FORESEEABLE MILITARY PURPOSE".

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Which was, entirely, false. Short-barrel shotguns absolutely were used in the military at the time! (They were called "trench guns.")




No, the "Trench Broom" you are referring to was the Winchester Model 1897 with a 20" long barrel. And a bayonet lug. I know, I own one. Nowhere near a sawed off shotgun.
 

asaratis

Uppity Senior Citizen
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
15,543
Reaction score
4,012
Points
280
Location
Stockbridge
Get rid of these guns
Be a civilized society
What more do you need than a shotgun and revolver
Are you stupid enough to think that criminals won't have all the firepower you're saying honest people should be prohibited from owning.

BTW, the 2nd Amendment is not about a need to have guns. It's about the right to have them.
I said just shotguns and revolvers only
Doesn't matter. The needs of people vary. I can imagine that there are many thousands of US citizens in each category listed below:
  • owns no firearms
  • owns only a small caliber revolver
  • owns only a shotgun
  • owns both a revolver and a shotgun
  • owns more than two of each
  • owns a semi-automatic pistol
  • owns multiple semi-automatic pistols
  • owns a bolt action hunting rifle
  • owns a lever action rifle
  • owns a semi-automatic rifle
  • owns one of each of ALL OF THE ABOVE
  • owns several of each of the above
  • owns a gun store
The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. (Arms is the PLURAL of arm) It doesn't say we can bear a sidearm. It doesn't say that we can bear a shot gun and a revolver. I can bear any number and any type of weapon that is available to an infantryman in the US military, with exception of fully automatic weapons such as machine guns and machine pistols. Since I have passed a background check, if my firearm du jour is small enough, I can conceal it on my person or in my glove box...fully loaded and ready to fire. And my permit is a Weapons Carry License...includes knives of any length, swords, pistols, revolvers, shotguns, rifles, baseball bats, boat paddles (actually a wicked weapon...especially if you strike with the edge of the flat end), ball peen hammers, screwdrivers, sharpened #2 pencils...the list is endless.

Need is a subjective term. Right is an objective term and is clearly defined. I have the right to bear arms. That right is guaranteed to me by the 2nd Amendment. It is not granted to me by the constitution...it is PROTECTED by the constitution no matter what you think my needs may be.
Second amend does not guarantee an AR 15 or 20-30 mag clip




Yeah, it does. So does the Supreme Court ruling in US v Miller.
Miller V was questioning the 1934 Firearms act that states what a shotgun can be and be illegal. Miller's shotgun was a sawed off shotgun with no shoulder stock. It had no use as a Militia nor a hunting application. But if read Miller V it doesn't say you can't have a sawed off shotgun. It goes on to explain how you can legally own one. Miller didn't pay the 200 bucks and have the proper NFA stamps and license. In conclusion, Miller V has nothing to do with whether an AR can have a 20 or a 30 round mag. But Heller V DC has established that a Reasonable amount as per other ruling since is at least 15 and not 10.
A sawed off shotgun with no shoulder stock is indeed illegal. A firearm manufactured with a 14" barrel and no shoulder stock is legal. Here is a photo of the one I bought at a gun store. There's a note that comes with it that says this weapon is not a shotgun, it is firearm.
1597511902363.png


It is a Remington 870 Marine Magnum Tac 14, with all metal parts nickel plated, including the inside of the barrel.

 

whitehall

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
46,124
Reaction score
9,924
Points
2,040
Location
Western Va.
Assault "style"? What difference does "style" make? People who think they can cure America's problems by confiscating legally owned weapons from law abiding citizens seem to rely on emotion rather than rational thinking and are often clueless about the law and the actual function of the thing they hate.
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
82,675
Reaction score
20,585
Points
2,180
Get rid of these guns
Be a civilized society
What more do you need than a shotgun and revolver
Are you stupid enough to think that criminals won't have all the firepower you're saying honest people should be prohibited from owning.

BTW, the 2nd Amendment is not about a need to have guns. It's about the right to have them.
I said just shotguns and revolvers only
Doesn't matter. The needs of people vary. I can imagine that there are many thousands of US citizens in each category listed below:
  • owns no firearms
  • owns only a small caliber revolver
  • owns only a shotgun
  • owns both a revolver and a shotgun
  • owns more than two of each
  • owns a semi-automatic pistol
  • owns multiple semi-automatic pistols
  • owns a bolt action hunting rifle
  • owns a lever action rifle
  • owns a semi-automatic rifle
  • owns one of each of ALL OF THE ABOVE
  • owns several of each of the above
  • owns a gun store
The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. (Arms is the PLURAL of arm) It doesn't say we can bear a sidearm. It doesn't say that we can bear a shot gun and a revolver. I can bear any number and any type of weapon that is available to an infantryman in the US military, with exception of fully automatic weapons such as machine guns and machine pistols. Since I have passed a background check, if my firearm du jour is small enough, I can conceal it on my person or in my glove box...fully loaded and ready to fire. And my permit is a Weapons Carry License...includes knives of any length, swords, pistols, revolvers, shotguns, rifles, baseball bats, boat paddles (actually a wicked weapon...especially if you strike with the edge of the flat end), ball peen hammers, screwdrivers, sharpened #2 pencils...the list is endless.

Need is a subjective term. Right is an objective term and is clearly defined. I have the right to bear arms. That right is guaranteed to me by the 2nd Amendment. It is not granted to me by the constitution...it is PROTECTED by the constitution no matter what you think my needs may be.
Second amend does not guarantee an AR 15 or 20-30 mag clip




Yeah, it does. So does the Supreme Court ruling in US v Miller.
Miller V was questioning the 1934 Firearms act that states what a shotgun can be and be illegal. Miller's shotgun was a sawed off shotgun with no shoulder stock. It had no use as a Militia nor a hunting application. But if read Miller V it doesn't say you can't have a sawed off shotgun. It goes on to explain how you can legally own one. Miller didn't pay the 200 bucks and have the proper NFA stamps and license. In conclusion, Miller V has nothing to do with whether an AR can have a 20 or a 30 round mag. But Heller V DC has established that a Reasonable amount as per other ruling since is at least 15 and not 10.






The ruling specifically stipulated that a sawed off shotgun could be banned "BECAUSE IT HAS NO FORESEEABLE MILITARY PURPOSE".

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Miller only dealt with the 1934 Firearms Act. Nothing more. That shotgun was specifically listed in it along with the Thompson M1921. it wasn't that the shotgun was illegal, it was the fact that Miller didn't pay the 200 bucks and have the proper FFL Licensing.





Miller stipulated why the shotgun could be regulated. Which absolutely guts your arguments to get rid of the ARs.
Using your logic, I should be able to cruise the neighborhood with my Mah Duece mounted on a tripod on top of my CJ-5. Heller V introduced the "Reasonable" to the mix of things.




Always with the infantile response. But, to your point, the first artillery (you do know what artillery is don't you?) unit in the US was a privately funded one.

So Artillery was provided by WE THE PEOPLE for almost 30 years.
Considering I have said that for quite some time in here and you have found that as untrue, glad you finally admitted you are wrong. And it was owned by wealthy land owners for defense against Indians who highly respected the big fire sticks. Most of the Canons (not artillery) used by the Colonials were loaned by private individuals to be returned or replaced. As I have said more than a few times.

But the common man could not afford a canon. Your whole premise is based on a lie. It wasn't WE THE PEOPLE. It was WE THE RICH PEOPLE.





Um, no, you haven't. You never knew about the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston until I refuted one of your other infantile arguments with their existence. And you claim it is by "my logic" that you can go around with a M2 HB. No, fool. That is the logic of the US SUPREME COURT!
The Supreme Court has avoided the 2A rulings except for the Heller V like the plague. Outside of weapons directly outlined in the 1934 Firearms Act, that is. And, to the best of my recollection, there are no mentions of any AR-15s in the 1934 Firearms Act. And using your logic, we should revoke the 1934 Firearms act as being against the 2nd amendment as well.

AR-15s are mentioned, by name, by Justice Scalia...he wrote the opinion in Heller,and he states that AR-15s, by name, and other rifles like it are protected by the 2nd Amendment.......

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
 

asaratis

Uppity Senior Citizen
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
15,543
Reaction score
4,012
Points
280
Location
Stockbridge
Get rid of these guns
Be a civilized society
What more do you need than a shotgun and revolver
Are you stupid enough to think that criminals won't have all the firepower you're saying honest people should be prohibited from owning.

BTW, the 2nd Amendment is not about a need to have guns. It's about the right to have them.
I said just shotguns and revolvers only
Doesn't matter. The needs of people vary. I can imagine that there are many thousands of US citizens in each category listed below:
  • owns no firearms
  • owns only a small caliber revolver
  • owns only a shotgun
  • owns both a revolver and a shotgun
  • owns more than two of each
  • owns a semi-automatic pistol
  • owns multiple semi-automatic pistols
  • owns a bolt action hunting rifle
  • owns a lever action rifle
  • owns a semi-automatic rifle
  • owns one of each of ALL OF THE ABOVE
  • owns several of each of the above
  • owns a gun store
The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. (Arms is the PLURAL of arm) It doesn't say we can bear a sidearm. It doesn't say that we can bear a shot gun and a revolver. I can bear any number and any type of weapon that is available to an infantryman in the US military, with exception of fully automatic weapons such as machine guns and machine pistols. Since I have passed a background check, if my firearm du jour is small enough, I can conceal it on my person or in my glove box...fully loaded and ready to fire. And my permit is a Weapons Carry License...includes knives of any length, swords, pistols, revolvers, shotguns, rifles, baseball bats, boat paddles (actually a wicked weapon...especially if you strike with the edge of the flat end), ball peen hammers, screwdrivers, sharpened #2 pencils...the list is endless.

Need is a subjective term. Right is an objective term and is clearly defined. I have the right to bear arms. That right is guaranteed to me by the 2nd Amendment. It is not granted to me by the constitution...it is PROTECTED by the constitution no matter what you think my needs may be.
Second amend does not guarantee an AR 15 or 20-30 mag clip




Yeah, it does. So does the Supreme Court ruling in US v Miller.
Miller V was questioning the 1934 Firearms act that states what a shotgun can be and be illegal. Miller's shotgun was a sawed off shotgun with no shoulder stock. It had no use as a Militia nor a hunting application. But if read Miller V it doesn't say you can't have a sawed off shotgun. It goes on to explain how you can legally own one. Miller didn't pay the 200 bucks and have the proper NFA stamps and license. In conclusion, Miller V has nothing to do with whether an AR can have a 20 or a 30 round mag. But Heller V DC has established that a Reasonable amount as per other ruling since is at least 15 and not 10.






The ruling specifically stipulated that a sawed off shotgun could be banned "BECAUSE IT HAS NO FORESEEABLE MILITARY PURPOSE".

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Smoke this:

 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top