Well I don't really consider land mines to be what the 2nd amendment had in mind so I'd say no to those. Also blowing up the deer would defeat the purpose of what most people go hunting for which is meat. As for the guns it's only a threat to the public if someone that is part if the public uses them that way. It would be unfortunate if someone used a gun like that but to me it shouldn't decide what the vast majority of responsible and legal gun owners should or should not be able to freely buy and own as part of our rights. I'm not a gun expert or even a gun collector but I've fired military type guns at a gun range before with my dad and it threatened nobody.
4th Circuit Strikes down Maryland's Assault Weapon & Magazine Ban
- Thread starter Abatis
- Start date
Well I don't really consider land mines to be what the 2nd amendment had in mind so I'd say no to those. Also blowing up the deer would defeat the purpose of what most people go hunting for which is meat. As for the guns it's only a threat to the public if someone that is part if the public uses them that way. It would be unfortunate if someone used a gun like that but to me it shouldn't decide what the vast majority of responsible and legal gun owners should or should not be able to freely buy and own as part of our rights. I'm not a gun expert or even a gun collector but I've fired military type guns at a gun range before with my dad and it threatened nobody.
Take your pick:
A. Same reason they want gemstones. They like them.
B. To shoot politicians trying to become tyrants.
C. Both.
D. Neither.
E. Ooooooooo shiney !
To fight government forces of course!
Here's a prominent founding father explaining the premise, back in 1788:
"The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, "
James Madison, Federalist 46
James Madison, Federalist 46
To break out the ratio's, in 1788 the population was about 3 million, the "standing army" at best is 1% or 30,000 men . . . Citizens who have "arms in their hands" who stand "opposed" to the standing army, number 500,000.
Madison believed that to preserve and if needed, fight for and reclaim Liberty, each federal soldier should be opposed by at least 17 armed citizens.
As of Dec 5, 2015 the US population was 322,267,564 and the for fiscal year 2016 the total number of active duty military is 1,301,300 people with an additional 811,000 people in the seven reserve components for a total of 2,112,300 members of the modern "standing army" . . . so the ratio of "standing army to "total souls" in the nation is on the low side of Madison's estimate.
Actual numbers aren't known but it is estimated that about 75,000,000+ citizens own over 300,000,000+ guns.
That means that today, each active and reserve US armed forces member is opposed by 35 armed citizens.
That overwhelming superiority ratio and the civilian keeping and bearing of appropriate arms to fight the government, are what the 2nd Amendment protects.
The 2nd Amendment doesn't have anything to do with hunting or target shooting . . . it's about self-defense.
I admit being disappointed. I thought by your earlier reply you were going to give me some on-point rebuttal and maybe engage in some debate.
Nobody else here is capable of any discussion / debate on the law, I was hoping your waking this thread from the dead was going to be interesting.
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
not once.....
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
They'd ask for artillery actually. Not that that matters.
Oh, I honestly don't know. I'm seeing adds about filing my taxes which i've never done before and havent researched.
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
Rights are not predicated upon need.
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
You'd be wrong. All arms of military utility are protected by the 2A. Miller says as much, and the powers delegated to Congress agree as well.
They are a threat to politicians.
More people are killed with hammers than all rifles combined.
Let's be clear why pols keep trying to remove them.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Also, if you have the military grade rifles (say, M-16 or the vastly superior AK-47), the militia can always storm federal armories at the beginning of the revolution, and acquire those pesky land mines which Moon was referring to.
For example, in 1775, the British troops were attempting to seize an armory at Concord. The militia engaged them, not with cannons and explosives, but with muskets and basic arms.
For example, in 1775, the British troops were attempting to seize an armory at Concord. The militia engaged them, not with cannons and explosives, but with muskets and basic arms.
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
They can also be made by anyone with a modicum of machine skills. Hell I have machinist prints/CAD data for nearly 1000 guns.
Nobody is screaming for their right to landmines being recognized (in fact, there is no such right).
You call actual demands for respect for an actual right silly or insane, but you refuse to engage in a discussion of what the law actually is or even recognize that reasoned oppositional argument has been directed to you.
Who's looking insanely silly now?
moon is . . .
moon is . . .
moon
Satire for Sanity
Now don't be naughty. Come on over here if you want to advance any discussion;
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...s-as-many-as-four-people-and-injures-up-to-20
This thread has become an emotive mish-mash .
My current question is;
"would an unlicenced manufacturer still be protected by the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act if its manufacture was unlawful ? "
Which is the direct result of your asshattery and the rest of the anti's here who only promote logically immature emotional arguments for this topic.
This thread was begun by me and was ignored by the leftist gun haters for 3 weeks until you brought it back from the dead.
The entire argument for the protection or banning of assault weapons can be grounded one way or the other in the recent court decision that is the subject of this thread.
While you began strong, alluding that you are actually familiar with this case it is obvious you have no argument. Certainly no argument based in the legal framework or constitutional principles that determine the status of "assault weapons" under US law and absolutely no ability to discuss intelligently this topic in a manner that could resolve your profound (and apparently immune from facts) ignorance.
So emote away, wallow in your sillyness and your blinkered and bladdered barstool psychoanalysis of gun owners.
moon
Satire for Sanity
I brought your thread back up to have a look at you- after you invited yourself to leave some irrational dollop in one of mine.
In truth, I'm not in the least interested in the rulings of circuit judges over gun issues. I'm interested in the daddy of current legislation, the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, 2005 . If you want to discuss that, fine, but this thread ought to be put back to bed.
The constitutional protection of lawful possession and use of guns by a citizen and the lawful manufacture, distribution and sales of guns (commerce) which facilitates the acquisition of guns by a citizen and furthers the exercise of the right to arms, is the singular reason the 2005 law exists.
You have no understanding of the former which is why you are so confused by the latter. It is all protected action, the law was needed because of constitutional ignoramuses who want to use the civil legal system in their quest to violate the rights of US citizens (which they can not achieve through legislation).
I understand your reluctance to discuss the core right to arms; your self-imposed ignorance allows you to nurture and maintain (and profess) your emotionally based opinion without being tethered to reality.
moon
Satire for Sanity
Not at all. I share the view that the Amendment was never, ever intended to pander to the blood-lust of a multitude of assault-weapon totin' psychotics whose favorite targets are children in schools. It's me that understands that. You've draped yourself in pseudo-indignation that a fairly straightforward requirement of a past era might enable you, and those like you, to arm yourselves to the detriment of those with a deeper understanding. You're the enemy, in fact, and you need to be disarmed.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
It is the absolute height of stupidity to believe that the framers of the constitution/BoR would enact an Amendment guaranteeing the right of a government regulated army to bear arms after they had just successfully won their independence from a government regulated army that tried to take their arms from them.
come and take them.