Zone1 Why not just amend the National Firearms Act to include ARs and AKs?

[alang1216]

This is a lie.
Miller ruled no such thing.
You cannot provide the text to this effect from Miller because it does not exist.

Actually it does:
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.​

Why do you need to lie to make a point?

Why do you need to lie to make a point?

 

[alang1216]

The USSC says otherwise.
Thus, his opinion means nothing.

None of our opinion mean anything but you need to tell that to RetiredGySgt. He thinks the opinions of several prominent English professors do matter, at least when they support his side.

the part about the militia is not a controlling clause you retard several prominent English professors in the past have stated so and basic English skills prove it, it is simply one of any number of things that could be used to justify the right.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). In perhaps the most cited Supreme Court case on the Second Amendment, the Court held that the “obvious purpose” of the Second Amendment was to “assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of” the state militia, and the Amendment “must be interpreted and applied with the end in view.” Essentially, the focus of the Second Amendment was to protect the rights of states to form militias, not the rights of individuals to own guns, and that the protections of the Second Amendment must be understood within the context of militia service. However, the Supreme Court hinted that an individual right may exist in the context of a “common obligation … to possess arm … and to cooperate in the work of defense” and that a sawed-off shotgun, the firearm at issue in the case, was unprotected because it had no “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.” This implied that all “free men” could possess weapons of the type used for militia service, but the Court halted this argument by insisting that only those guns usable in militia service and held for the purpose of militia service were protected by the Second Amendment

they also ruled that in order for a firearm to be protected by the 2nd amendment it must be in use or of use to the military and nowhere in that decision did they say it was not an individual right, you lied. The ruling affirmed that an individual had the right to own a firearm as long as it was in use or of use to the military.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Actually it does:
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.​

Why do you need to lie to make a point?

your own quote here says a citizen has a right to keep and bear arms it does not say only in a militia.

 

[Dadoalex]

You've missed the point again. If Democrats really wanted a limit or ban on ARs, amending the NFA would be how to go about it. They just love to stand on bodies and point the finger at Republicans.

The point is no matter what legislation you thinnk may work, Republicans like you will never let it pass...
But the time is coming...

 

[M14 Shooter]

No rights are absolute, every one has limitations.

This means you believe blacks and women can be denied the right to vote because they are blacks and women.
No way around it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually it does:

Nothing in what you posted supports the claim the court ruled that only those guns usable in militia service and held for the purpose of militia service were protected by the Second Amendment
See bold

Nothing in Miller supports this claim.

Why do you choose to lie?

 

[M14 Shooter]

None of our opinion mean anything...

Your concession of the point, accepted.

 

[alang1216]

they also ruled that in order for a firearm to be protected by the 2nd amendment it must be in use or of use to the military and nowhere in that decision did they say it was not an individual right, you lied. The ruling affirmed that an individual had the right to own a firearm as long as it was in use or of use to the military.

It said the 2nd amendment was protection FROM the Federal gov't, leaving the regulation of guns to the states. Heller changed that.

 

[alang1216]

your own quote here says a citizen has a right to keep and bear arms it does not say only in a militia.

Reading comprehension issue or do you read what you wish to read?

The Court [...] cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Reading comprehension issue or do you read what you wish to read?

The Court [...] cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

your own quote says the citizen's right retard.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Reading comprehension issue or do you read what you wish to read?

The Court [...] cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

That applies to the short barrel shotgun dumb ass they stated it didnt fulfill the military need.

 

[2aguy]

That applies to the short barrel shotgun dumb ass they stated it didnt fulfill the military need.

and they were wrong on that, apparently, short barrelled shotguns were used by the military in World War 1 trench warfare....

 

[M14 Shooter]

It said the 2nd amendment was protection FROM the Federal gov't, leaving the regulation of guns to the states. Heller changed that.

False.
McDonald changed that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Court [...] cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

Uh huh.
Why can the court not say that?
Hint: Its in the words immediately before your quote.

 

[alang1216]

Your concession of the point, accepted.

And of course, your acceptance means nothing.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And of course, your acceptance means nothing.

Doesnt change the fact you agree that the opinion of the guy you mentioned means nothing?

 

[alang1216]

they also ruled that in order for a firearm to be protected by the 2nd amendment it must be in use or of use to the military and nowhere in that decision did they say it was not an individual right, you lied. The ruling affirmed that an individual had the right to own a firearm as long as it was in use or of use to the military.

Miller said: Supreme Court case on the Second Amendment, the Court held that the “obvious purpose” of the Second Amendment was to “assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of” the state militia, and the Amendment “must be interpreted and applied with the end in view.” Essentially, the focus of the Second Amendment was to protect the rights of states to form militias, not the rights of individuals to own guns, and that the protections of the Second Amendment must be understood within the context of militia service.

If that is not clear please have a 4th grader read it to you.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Miller said: Supreme Court case on the Second Amendment, the Court held that the “obvious purpose” of the Second Amendment was to “assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of” the state militia, and the Amendment “must be interpreted and applied with the end in view.” Essentially, the focus of the Second Amendment was to protect the rights of states to form militias, not the rights of individuals to own guns, and that the protections of the Second Amendment must be understood within the context of militia service.

If that is not clear please have a 4th grader read it to you.

LOL make shit up and then claim victory

 

[M14 Shooter]

Miller said: Supreme Court case on the Second Amendment, the Court held that the “obvious purpose” of the Second Amendment was to “assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of” the state militia, and the Amendment “must be interpreted and applied with the end in view.” Essentially, the focus of the Second Amendment was to protect the rights of states to form militias, not the rights of individuals to own guns, and that the protections of the Second Amendment must be understood within the context of militia service.

And yet, the court did not in an any way question that Miller, not a member of any militia, had standing to invoke a defense under the 2nd.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense

The decision tunred on the servicability of the weapon in question, not if Miller was a member of the militia.

If that is not clear, have a 2nd grader read it to you/.