Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
what post was that taken from you quoted from Willjr ??
Missouri Senate in a 23-10 Bans ALL Federal gun control
- Thread starter Edwardteach72
- Start date
what post was that taken from you quoted from Willjr ??
Chicken Shoot
.45 acp
Huh?? I quoted someone in this thread. LOL
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
@Chicken Shoot i think you did LOL .. but with out context on the argument .. i can't make a witty reply LOL
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
They are doing so illegally and the federal government is doing nothing to stop them.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
From the beginning of the thread.
Yes he did!
FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service--M-16 rifles and the like--may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
gun_slinger_boy
.338 Win Mag
And this is the problem. But I don't see any way past it. Besides taking away federal aid which will never happen. Especially not a state like NY. NY is a big teat the government can suckle. And in turn the government gives alot to NY to keep the free shit army stocked. It's all about the money. Money money money. Shit will never get better.
unconstitutional
adj. referring to a statute, governmental conduct, court decision or private contract (such as a covenant which purportsto limit transfer of real property only to Caucasians) which violate one or more provisions of the U. S. Constitution. Theultimate determination of constitutionality is the United States Supreme Court. Unconstitutional can also refer toviolations of a state constitution.
We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller's phrase "part of ordinary military equipment" could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act's restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller's "ordinary military equipment" language must be read in tandem with what comes after: "[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms "in common use at the time" for lawful purposes like self-defense. "In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same." State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6-15, 252-254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment's operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes , such as short-barreled shotguns.That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III,25 that accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right
Do you really see a problem here?
Last edited:
Where did little @Willjr75 GO???
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
I'm here. Don't see anything worth arguing about if you are going to keep quoting the same court decisions written by biased judges in favor of gun control.
Yes you just keep proving you never read the Heller v DC!
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Ok. Buddy. If you say so.
Post #96 and #99 how are they Gun Control?
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
It's Sunday. I'm tired. There isn't anything that hasn't been said already in regards to court decisions written by biased judges in favor of gun control. I have already explained to you at nauseum on which amendments from the Bill of Rights have clear written restrictions on them and which don't. You keep ignoring that.
All you keep doing is quoting decisions in favor of gun control. That doesn't make what founders wrote invalid.
Keep defending gun control. I don't care today. Keep fudding with someone else.
Sure Run away just like a liberal when you are proved wrong!!
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Not biting. Sorry.
I wouldn't expect less from you!!
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Ok Fudd. Yes.
Yup Liberal tactic name call!!
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
If you say so.
You said it not me!!
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Ok.
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
so says the courts that military weapons can be banned from the public .. why do i have a musket and a Mosin that's all legit and hunky dory .. ohhh because there single shots and arn't meant for killing ..
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
I'm back @nortatoga . I slept off my hangover.
The 2nd Amendment doesn't protect short barreled shotguns because the military doesn't have them. That's your argument for gun control when you quote that ridiculous ruling in Miller?
What about SBR'S @nortatoga ? Do the military field those as well?
You and your stupid Court decisions. I never, ever met a gun owner that defended gun control like you do. Even the stupid decisions that you post as if the Founder's intended what these gun control judges say contradict themselves. That goes to show that the courts are full of s***! And you eat it all up. S*** eater!
And while we're at it s*** eater, the military carries concealed in certain instances on American soil performing their duties and overseas during covert ops. But you wouldn't know that.
The 2nd Amendment doesn't protect short barreled shotguns because the military doesn't have them. That's your argument for gun control when you quote that ridiculous ruling in Miller?
What about SBR'S @nortatoga ? Do the military field those as well?
You and your stupid Court decisions. I never, ever met a gun owner that defended gun control like you do. Even the stupid decisions that you post as if the Founder's intended what these gun control judges say contradict themselves. That goes to show that the courts are full of s***! And you eat it all up. S*** eater!
And while we're at it s*** eater, the military carries concealed in certain instances on American soil performing their duties and overseas during covert ops. But you wouldn't know that.
Last edited:
Nice color photos from 1939? And I see your back to name calling just like a liberal!
You should reread post #96 and #99.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
You don't get it. The point is that the ruling is garbage just like Heller. Why is it garbage? Short barreled submachine guns existed in WW1. You think the Founders would be for short barreled rifles but not shotguns? The founders never intended for the NFA to be in existence.
You can't let go of SCOTUS's tit. You can't fathom that they make pro gun control rulings against what the founder's intended.
You waste your time thread after thread defending gun control on SBS's and concealed carry citing cases. Why would anyone want to do that unless they are for that specific type gun control?
Then you call me out as if you have something new, insult me and then can't take an insult back. You are a little, little man.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Explain it smart one.
The defendants never showed up in Court to make that case!
* National Firearms Act's restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. *
You don't show you don't win that is with any case!
So you may be right about the NFA but it is in existence and only a SCOTUS challenge can over-rule it! Which has not happened has it?
Now you telling someone what type of grip on a AR is NYS legal does that make you a supporter of the law? Well me citing Court case's does not make me a gun control supporter either! But it does point out the road-blocks which is what Scalia did in that paragraph which is in my signature that you hate so much.
You can't win a war if you don't know your enemy can you?
And name calling and insults has always come from you which is a Liberal tactic and it just makes chuckle, But I guess being called a Liberal hits a nerve with you.