lindy
Member
Killing is a matter of will, not weapons.
You can't control the act itself by passing laws about the means employed.
You can't control the act itself by passing laws about the means employed.
Except that's not a part of the Constitution. That is from the Declaration of Independence. While the Declaration of Independence is part of the founding documents of our nation, it does not actually operate as legal authority.
Whether or not the Constitution guarantees life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness is something very serious Constitutional scholars cannot agree upon. Which means there's no clear way to make a case from any presumption thereby.
.....We continue to come here and other gun forums, quote the 2nd, pound our chests and all of our peers here, stand up and cheer in agreement. If only it was that easy everywhere. Folks outside the tight knit circle of gun owners have the power to change what and how we own firearms. We need arguments and real solutions to convince them. It is even more obvious after this last shooting that sentiment outside the gun community has changed.......once again.
When the case is before the Supreme Court, it is too late to introduce facts that are not in the trial record. That's why the Court discussed the rules of "judicial notice," and concluded that it was not able to take "judicial notice" that sawed-off shotguns were in use by the military. Even if the justices had personally "known" this fact (as opposed to taking "judicial notice" of it), they wouldn't have been able to take it into consideration.This is true and the reason for this ruling was Jack Miller didn't not show up at court and I don't believe his attorney did either because his client was nowhere to be found. Therefore, there was no knowledgeable person to argue that shotguns were, in fact, useful tools as shoulder arms in the military, hence their final ruling.
This is true and the reason for this ruling was Jack Miller didn't not show up at court and I don't believe his attorney did either because his client was nowhere to be found. Therefore, there was no knowledgeable person to argue that shotguns were, in fact, useful tools as shoulder arms in the military, hence their final ruling.
"Weapons of war" are precisely what the 2nd Amendment is designed to protect. Therefore, arguing that AR-15's are not "weapons of war" is pointless. Furthermore, the argument is unconvincing, since AR-15's, in all material ways, are clones of the standard rifles issued to the military. All that is lacking is a few parts to enable them to fire fully automatically, a capability which is marginal even in the military context.That “weapons of war” crap is a bunch of bologna. Cops aren’t soldiers. There’s an AR in almost every police car in the country.
That “weapons of war” crap is a bunch of bologna. Cops aren’t soldiers. There’s an AR in almost every police car in the country.
"Weapons of war" are precisely what the 2nd Amendment is designed to protect. Therefore, arguing that AR-15's are not "weapons of war" is pointless. Furthermore, the argument is unconvincing, since AR-15's, in all material ways, are clones of the standard rifles issued to the military. All that is lacking is a few parts to enable them to fire fully automatically, a capability which is marginal even in the military context.
If policemen were equipped with fully-automatic M16's (some are), would that make M16's any less "weapons of war"? You see the flaw in your reasoning.
Very well put and exactly right.
We keep having these discussions about how the Second Amendment isn't about hunting or self defense. We keep insisting its purpose is to protect our keeping and bearing arms as defense against tyranny and oppression.
So I have some questions for those who have been promoting the latter point of view. How's that been working out for you? Have you been winning over any anti-gun folks with that argument?
"The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." -- Senator Hubert H. Humphrey (D-Minnesota)"
Yes, the NRA has gone off the rails as far as the "socialism" bit is concerned. See Wayne LaPierre's editorial in this month's American Rifleman. It equated "liberalism" with "socialism," and had almost nothing to do with guns. I became livid reading that article, and I'm an NRA Life Member. I'm convinced that the NRA would be able to recruit a lot more members if it wasn't so identified with the Far Right. In fact, that identification is what allows the gun controllers to label it a "terrorist" organization without being laughed out of the room.I see that point as the NRA usually couches it terms of God giving us the right to prevent tyrants from having kindergarten teachers preach socialism. That tone looks ridiculous outside of a small set of the choir.
Absolutely. Longtime Democratic congressman from Michigan, John Dingell, was even on the NRA Board of Directors.There was a time before the parties separated into cliques dominated by extremes when the 2nd Amend. was supported by sensible folks of both parties.
Sadly, yes. Gun rights are caught up in the polarization and "tribalism" that has taken over the country. This is really bad for gun owners because, eventually, the "left" tribe is going to vastly outnumber the "right" tribe. The demographic trends are there for all to see.Unfortunately, gun ownership is now seen as totemic of the far right and litmus test for the left - it's evil. The right has its own stupid litmus tests but that's a different thread. However, the litmus tests of both sides are ruining America and usually antithetical to liberty. We just get frothing at the mouth nuts of both paradigms.
Exactly, and that's why I don't understand why there are still pro-gun people that hail Heller as a great victory. All that Heller did was narrowly hold that D.C. could not absolutely ban a loaded handgun in the home for self defense (after the proper licensing and registration). Meanwhile, Scalia seeded his opinion with all sorts of verbiage under which gun bans could be justified. That's why no post-Heller state-level AWB has been ruled unconstitutional.The problem with a personal protection orientation as foremost is that the antigun response may lead some of them to grudgingly accept that but in the Double Barrel Biden paradigm. They would quote our '5 is enough' folks who denigrate those who would carry more.
Heller's language can be used for this point of view and remove the ARs, higher capacity handguns and shotguns.
Yes, exactly! Where does that come from please?
Not cynical at all -- that's the truth. The national gun-rights organizations would rather have unresolved controversies and threats to gun ownership. If these things became resolved through some definitive court cases supporting gun rights, then there would be little reason for fundraising and agitation by the organizations. Their bread and butter depends on keeping things in flux.On the national level, a loss means more funding raising mailings - cynical old me.
Very well put and exactly right.
We keep having these discussions about how the Second Amendment isn't about hunting or self defense. We keep insisting its purpose is to protect our keeping and bearing arms as defense against tyranny and oppression.
So I have some questions for those who have been promoting the latter point of view. How's that been working out for you? Have you been winning over any anti-gun folks with that argument?
It didn't matter anyway. The Court was going to uphold the NFA no matter what.
The hard-core antigunners don't believe we should have guns for any reason. However, they're not the people we need to persuade. The ones that will decide this issue are the ones in the middle -- the ones that believe that there are some legitimate reasons for guns. Almost certainly, to them, the legitimate reasons don't include overthrowing the government. You can't argue tyranny as long as we have free elections, and the idea that we could have a dictatorship in America doesn't seem remotely possible.On the other hand, many anti-gun folks don't believe you have a right to a gun for self defense, nor do they see why you don't want to have your rights restricted for the sake of a hobby (hunting, target shooting).
AlexanderA, I imagine you've seen this before - but others might be interested in reading about the "Good Old Boy" shenanigans which transpired in 1939 -
http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_060964.pdf
I see that point as the NRA usually couches it terms of God giving us the right to prevent tyrants from having kindergarten teachers preach socialism. That tone looks ridiculous outside of a small set of the choir.
Still, I would prefer Miller to Heller as the basis for further Supreme Court elucidation. The Heller case did us no favors.Thanks for that link to the Miller case article. What an ineffable mess that case was. Wow.