They Want to Take Your Guns

That is your opinion. However there is no evidence available to prove that it is fact.

Programs such as operation choke point say otherwise. As well as the ATF attempting to reclassify common rifle ammunition as armor piercing so that it may be prohibited from private ownership.

A false statement in all must exceptionally rare circumstances.

Considering the amount of proposed legislation to prohibit the legal ownership of common, modern firearms, you are deliberately engaging in intellectual dishonesty.

There are also ways to be safe in the handling of privately owned firearms.

None of which are known for their reputation as being effective guard animals.

And pray tell how will any of the above effectively prevent someone from committing a crime five minutes after they take possession of a firearm? If you cannot explain that, then your proposal is not even worth the bandwidth that your post consumes by its basic existence.

 

Do you intend to have every present believe that the federal government needed the second amendment in the bill of rights to insure that it could arm the militia for the purpose of defending the nation from attack?

 

then you can repeal it. The option to act like it is not there is not valid.

 

Considering that's what it did...yes.

You realize we had almost no standing Army right?

Calling up the militia was our defense. That;s who fought the French and Indian War and the beginning of the Revolution as well

 

Why go through the trouble to repeal something that is not relevant?

 

What it DOES say is that Since do need a militia (we no longer do) that the right to bear arms is protected under the Constitution.

It clearly ties that need and that protection together

 

Then perhaps you can elaborate on why the founding fathers included this little provision to insure the federal government would have the authority to arm the militia for defending the nation, in a section of the united states constitution specifically marked as the bill of rights, which goes out of its way to spell out certain inalienable rights held by the people of the nation.

Your entire argumentative position has no basis. You would have those present believe that the first amendment was intended to protect the right of the people to peacefully assemble, air grievances against the government without fear of legal repercussions, and participate in whatever choice of religion they wish. Immediately after this, the tone shifts with the second amendment, which protects federal authority to outfit the militia for protecting the nation against invasion. And then with the third amendment, all the way to the tenth amendment, the tone shifts back to that of the first amendment, and continues listing out rights held by the people, that the government may not infringe.

You are not the first to present this nonsensical argumentative theory. However you are just as wrong as those that have come before you.

 

Here's your credit

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/national-firearms-act

And it absolutely was upheld by Miller and it absolutely covers machine guns

 

It sounds like you have your mind made up, to be honest, in fact I'm sure you have convinced yourself that your opinion is gospel! So no amount of data, visuals or posts will or has ever had any influence on you have once you have entered your mule stance..

 

I'm not sure what that post has to do with this subject, but I can respond and the next time hope you will make the postings relative to the subject matter.

The point was, when posters have to stoop to calling their fellow posters idiots without provocation, then you need to show them they are wrong by example. We did not win in Korea and we considered that a police action. It isn't relative to the Second Amendment.

We didn't gain any ground in Vietnam. We lost tens of thousands of people to tunnel dwelling peons with SKS rifles and AKs. That tells me that wars aren't necessarily won by huge war machines, but by people on the ground. The Vietnam era vets were victims of some of the silliest shenanigans ever engaged in by politicians. We had to ask permission in order to defend ourselves; we would fight for a piece of land and give it right back.

Still, all of that isn't what this thread is about. This thread is about the Right to keep and bear Arms. God Bless all that served. This nation owes you more than a debt of gratitude, but we need to learn the lesson. Wars are somehow decided by the resolve of the guys on the ground with rifle in their hand and resolve in their heart.

 

So you have no good argument against what I said. Facts are like that. I'm glad you see the facts.

 

Did you READ the holding, the bottom line of the Miller decision?

"...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..."

Let's phrase this another way:

The sawed off shotgun was not a part of "ordinary military equipment" and was, subsequently, not a protected weapon for the purposes of this case. Miller was no asking the court to answer the question as to whether or not we had an individual Right to keep and bear Arms.

Today, sawed off shotguns ARE employed by the military. So, they are a part of the militia's arsenal. Registering guns, banning firearms, etc. are separate issues that the Miller Court did not rule on. Today, it is established law, you DO have an individual Right to keep and bear Arms... "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." Pp. 2–53 District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (200

Miller did not make the individual Right a part of their argument.

 

Not according to the late Justice Scalia that has stated in his opinions that there are valid reasons for limits and restrictions that even James Madison would agree with. People that believe the founders were idiots and that they'd support insane interpretations are really not worth paying attention to.

The Federal Government creates statutory rights all of the time. Our laws of property are based upon statutory rights where "ownership" allows people to "possess" that which they have never earned a "right to possess" for example. The Second Amendment creates a statutory right and not a natural inalienable/unalienable right because all rights are "inherent in the person" and the "arms" are not inherent in the person. The "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" is actually a reference a Freedom and not a Right. It provides an means for exercising the Right of Self Defense so technically it's the FREEDOM TO EXERCISE (the natural right of self-defense) by use of a weapon.

We can also note that the only reasons firearms are allowed to be used for self defense is because we don't currently possess an non-lethal weapon that will incapacitate and stop an act of aggression equal to or superior to a firearm. Firearms can result in death that is incidental to the act of self defense and if that can be avoided with a non-lethal weapon then the firearm becomes obsolete.

Yes, the term "arms" covers a very, very wide range of different objects and when I served in the US Army they told us that we should "arm" ourselves with anything we could put our hands on because even a glass vase or a large piece of Styrofoam is better than you bare hands in a fight for your life. Virtually anything can be classified as "arms" and it's left to the authority of Congress to decide which "arms" are protected by the Second Amendment

The states and local cities have been imposing gun restrictions since the nation was founded. Many western towns prohibited firearms within all or part of the city limits. People were prohibited from open carry and concealed carry in the 19th Century.

What's bazaar is that people today act like regulations of firearms is something new coming from the Democrats when, in fact, firearm regulations go back to the founding of the nation.

Those that are advocating that which has never existed (i.e. no restrictions on arms) in America simply aren't to be taken seriously. They have an agenda and an opinion both of which they pulled out of their rectal cavity.

Here's the bottom line. Based upon a compelling argument it is acceptable to infringe upon the "Freedom to Exercise" a "Natural/Inalienable/unalienable" Right because the infringement upon the Freedom to Exercise an Natural Right does not violate the actual Right itself. Any restriction on the Freedom to Exercise based upon a compelling argument should be to the least extent possible to resolve the issue of the compelling argument.

Now if we could just get Democrats and Republicans to agree on that we wouldn't be seeing anymore BS gun control laws and we wouldn't see any BS opposition to gun controls regulations that are valid based upon a compelling argument.

 

Now I have to research to find out what Scalia really said.
As to guns in the wild west days, just who would challenge a city?

Cities have done many things that were ruled illegal. Must we accept illegal acts due to cities having done that?

I wish you provided a list of the old towns that ruled the second amendment was not valid.

Let me give you the slave laws. We all know how the constitution provided for slavery.

Was that legal? Really yes it was. But do we fight to return to slavery based on that?

I don't. What about you?

I see guns from more than one vantage.
1. Guns are personal.
2. Guns are property.
3. Guns by being personal property are quite legal.
4. Passed laws in the country saying otherwise are themselves as illegal as we now think of Dred Scott as being illegal.

 

That is not the discussion. And unless you constitute a well regulated militia You really don't have constitutional protection.

 

Fine, you will get my reply using private mail.

 

I guess when you don't have a legitimate argument regarding the Right to keep and bear Arms, you have to stoop to making allegations upon which you cannot back up. ALL of these weak arguments were answered in posts # 169 and # 170 which are located on page 9 of this thread.

 

Please try to have an intelligent conversation. I know it will be a stretch but comparing guns to cell phones is way past idiotic.

 

But we no longer have state militias so the "military" argument in Miller no longer applies to justify private ownership for personal self-defense.

BTW the US military does not use "sawed off shotguns" but instead uses shorter barrel shotguns that are designed that way. A sawed off shotgun is a modified shotgun. I own a Mossberg Tactical shotgun with a pistol grip, folding/removable stock, and a short barrel and it's 100% legal so if someone wants a shorter barrel shotgun they should buy one like mine.

We can also note that the Second Amendment does not protect "commerce" related to arms. Congress and the states can impose restriction on the sale and transfer of arms based upon their authority to control commerce.

Finally we can note that the US Constitution prohibits the imposition of ex post facto criminal law so if a firearm is purchased lawfully it cannot be made illegal to own but regulations related to the ownership can be imposed after the purchase. Technically the government can't "ban" legally purchased firearms so the use of the term "ban" is bogus because government is prohibited from banning existing lawfully purchased weapons. That's why fully automatic firearms like the Thompson submachine gun were not 'banned" by the National Firearms Act of 1934. They were merely subjected to regulations of ownership.

 

WRONG.

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." Pp. 2–53.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (200

"...the Supreme Court held that the second amendment right recognized in Heller is fully applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment."
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)

You can choose to believe the self proclaimed "Court Jester" or the United States Supreme Court.

 

Well since most of you poor pathetic Conservatives have so little faith on the Supreme Court I guess I will agree with you that the Court is bogus.

 

Actually it was in the Heller v DC decision where Scalia wrote the opinion of the majority so it wasn't "just one man" because he had concurrence by the majority of the Supreme Court Justices and it wasn't just the opinion of an person or group of people, it was a Constitutional opinion enforceable throughout the jurisdiction of the United States government.

Nice try on trying to downplay the significance of a Supreme Court decision on firearms.

 

You are going nowhere with all of this writing, except to ignore the fact that you've been asked and answered. See page 9 of this thread, posts # 169 and # 170. Miller did not take up the issue of whether you could or could not modify a firearm.

Be that as it may, back in the 1980s an individual could legally modify any firearm provided you filed the paperwork and paid the taxes. There used to be a magazine called "Firepower" back then and you could buy it off the shelves in drug stores and grocery stores. Each month it featured all you would need to convert AR 15s, M1 carbines, Thompsons, Uzis, etc., etc. It showed how to convert one or two weapons every month.

WHEN Reagan signed the law to outlaw that hobby, he could not find a single instance wherein one of those weapons had been used in a crime. What the Hell precipitated a "need" to ban those weapons when the laws in place were quite sufficient? There wasn't and IS NOT.

Gun control on the installment plan.

 

I think the court is engaged in an illegal practice. ALL of this stuff was asked and answered prior to 1875. In posts # 169 and #170 I listed some of the court holdings on this point.

The Courts have been giving themselves more and more power; however, many are questioning whether or not the Courts have the authority to continue reinterpreting the law. It's a separate discussion, but it comes down to the "living Constitution" and original interpretation.

 

What does the cell phone have in common with guns?

I won't ask you to research so will give you the correct reply.

Both are personal property.

The wallet in your pocket is personal property. Does the Government have authority over you and your wallet too?