crickets...

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

aside from fueling a shortage of testosterone, helping someone deal with a little big man issue or making someone like you with such a dismal view of the future feel more secure; what purpose does the AR assault weapon serve? . . .

I'd suggest to you the interpretation of the 2nd amendment will likely change to a more realistic one in light of our time and place and not one living in the past like you.

The AR platform meets the 2nd Amendment protection criteria established by SCOTUS better than any other type of firearm.

That criteria is, to boil it down, how well the gun performs in battle, IOW, killing people. To have the possession and use of the gun protected, the gun must be of a type:

In common use at the time by the general citizenry and that constitute the ordinary military equipment and/or that can be employed advantageously in the common defense of the citizens.

This protection criteria is a direct outcome of the "right to arms" being linked to militia service.

It has been the intransigence of the collectivist left that has kept the right connected to militia usefulness while the gun rights side has been trying to separate the two for 3/4 of a century now.

Are you saying now, that you want to reinterpret the 2nd Amendment so the right to arms can be formally divorced from any militia usefulness standard for arms protection, while you promise that we would be allowed to keep some sporting arms and others that don't offend you?

Why would we (gun rights people) accept such a disingenuous premise? Do you really think you speak from a position of trust, tolerance and respect on the subject of preservation of rights? You obviously hold my rights in disdain and contempt so pardon me while I tell you to KMA.

Thanks for your concern about my manhood and my outlook for the future but I'll just retain my rights, all of them in their current condition, with hopes for expansion.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

The AR platform meets the 2nd Amendment protection criteria established by SCOTUS better than any other type of firearm.

That criteria is, to boil it down, how well the gun performs in battle, IOW, killing people. To have the possession and use of the gun protected, the gun must be of a type:

In common use at the time by the general citizenry and that constitute the ordinary military equipment and/or that can be employed advantageously in the common defense of the citizens.

This protection criteria is a direct outcome of the "right to arms" being linked to militia service.

It has been the intransigence of the collectivist left that has kept the right connected to militia usefulness while the gun rights side has been trying to separate the two for 3/4 of a century now.

Are you saying now, that you want to reinterpret the 2nd Amendment so the right to arms can be formally divorced from any militia usefulness standard for arms protection, while you promise that we would be allowed to keep some sporting arms and others that don't offend you?

Why would we (gun rights people) accept such a disingenuous premise? Do you really think you speak from a position of trust, tolerance and respect on the subject of preservation of rights? You obviously hold my rights in disdain and contempt so pardon me while I tell you to KMA.

Thanks for your concern about my manhood and my outlook for the future but I'll just retain my rights, all of them in their current condition, with hopes for expansion.

[spence]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

The AR platform meets the 2nd Amendment protection criteria established by SCOTUS better than any other type of firearm.

That criteria is, to boil it down, how well the gun performs in battle, IOW, killing people. To have the possession and use of the gun protected, the gun must be of a type:

In common use at the time by the general citizenry and that constitute the ordinary military equipment and/or that can be employed advantageously in the common defense of the citizens.

This protection criteria is a direct outcome of the "right to arms" being linked to militia service.

It has been the intransigence of the collectivist left that has kept the right connected to militia usefulness while the gun rights side has been trying to separate the two for 3/4 of a century now.

Are you saying now, that you want to reinterpret the 2nd Amendment so the right to arms can be formally divorced from any militia usefulness standard for arms protection, while you promise that we would be allowed to keep some sporting arms and others that don't offend you?

Why would we (gun rights people) accept such a disingenuous premise? Do you really think you speak from a position of trust, tolerance and respect on the subject of preservation of rights? You obviously hold my rights in disdain and contempt so pardon me while I tell you to KMA.

Thanks for your concern about my manhood and my outlook for the future but I'll just retain my rights, all of them in their current condition, with hopes for expansion.

Such spin. The early cases your referring to were decisions in context of militias. Later individual rights cases made no such argument.

This is a complex issue with many opinions and legal contradictions. It's a work in process.

To claim its black and white is just disengenuous.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Such spin. The early cases your referring to were decisions in context of militias. Later individual rights cases made no such argument.

This is a complex issue with many opinions and legal contradictions. It's a work in process.

To claim its black and white is just disengenuous.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're spin is disingenuous.

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by spence

Such spin. The early cases your referring to were decisions in context of militias. Later individual rights cases made no such argument.

The Supreme Court has never endorsed a militia dependent right. The right has always been recognized by SCOTUS to be possessed by individual citizens independent of any militia enrollment status or attchment.

Your chronology is backwards. The "militia right" and "state's right" interpretations first appeared in the federal courts in 1942 in two lower (Circuit) court cases. Those two opinions spun US v Miller (1939) on its head and ignored /dismissed the determinations of SCOTUS to arrive at these new "collective right" interpretations.

Those theories held sway in the lower federal courts and state courts until DC v Heller in 2008, where SCOTUS re-affirmed the individual right, relied on US v Cruikshank (1876) and Miller's precedent -- one prong of Miller's protection criteria (in common use) -- to invalidate DC's statutes and 66 years of lower federal court perversions.

Originally Posted by spence

This is a complex issue with many opinions and legal contradictions. It's a work in process.

I agree. It will take decades to unwind the dozens of mid-20th Century lower federal court and state court decisions that sustained hundreds of unconstitutional gun control laws.

Originally Posted by spence

To claim its black and white is just disengenuous.

Says the guy that says a true examination of the issue is TLDR.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

The Supreme Court has never endorsed a militia dependent right. The right has always been recognized by SCOTUS to be possessed by individual citizens independent of any militia enrollment status or attchment.

Your chronology is backwards. The "militia right" and "state's right" interpretations first appeared in the federal courts in 1942 in two lower (Circuit) court cases. Those two opinions spun US v Miller (1939) on its head and ignored /dismissed the determinations of SCOTUS to arrive at these new "collective right" interpretations.

Those theories held sway in the lower federal courts and state courts until DC v Heller in 2008, where SCOTUS re-affirmed the individual right, relied on US v Cruikshank (1876) and Miller's precedent -- one prong of Miller's protection criteria (in common use) -- to invalidate DC's statutes and 66 years of lower federal court perversions.



I agree. It will take decades to unwind the dozens of mid-20th Century lower federal court and state court decisions that sustained hundreds of unconstitutional gun control laws.



Says the guy that says a true examination of the issue is TLDR.

And what year is it now?

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

And what year is it now?

Who exactly is empowered to decide that certain clauses of the Constitution have reached an expiration date and get thrown in the dumpster?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

Who exactly is empowered to decide that certain clauses of the Constitution have reached an expiration date and get thrown in the dumpster?

Once again, the freedoms guaranteed in the bill of rights have never been considered absolute and limitless...this is historical fact. Putting limits on those freedoms in the name of public safety, isn't the least bit contradictory to what the founding fathers clearly believed. The same guys who wrote the constitution, passed a rule that no one could possess firearms on the campus of UVA. Your conclusion that any restrictions amount to a trampling of the rights, doesn't pass the common sense test. Should wealthy people be able to buy a nuke?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Once again, the freedoms guaranteed in the bill of rights have never been considered absolute and limitless...this is historical fact.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

please shut up

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Once again, the freedoms guaranteed in the bill of rights have never been considered absolute and limitless...this is historical fact. Putting limits on those freedoms in the name of public safety, isn't the least bit contradictory to what the founding fathers clearly believed. The same guys who wrote the constitution, passed a rule that no one could possess firearms on the campus of UVA. Your conclusion that any restrictions amount to a trampling of the rights, doesn't pass the common sense test. Should wealthy people be able to buy a nuke?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The founders, including Madison and Jefferson who were reputed to be at the meeting which banned guns from their campus, considered the Bill of Rights an absolute limit on the federal government's ability to abridge those rights. Common sense had nothing to do with it.

As far as nukes would have gone, the Founders would not have given wealthy people, or any other class of people or individuals, the right to destroy the property of others in times of peace. In times of war, all bets were probably off.

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Once again, the freedoms guaranteed in the bill of rights have never been considered absolute and limitless...this is historical fact. Putting limits on those freedoms in the name of public safety, isn't the least bit contradictory to what the founding fathers clearly believed.

The founders / framers believed to their very core that the federal government only possessed the very limited and specifically delegated powers that the people granted to it via the Constitution. Our rights were considered the "great residuum" of everything NOT conferred to government.

There is no fluid, undefined power to restrain rights, even for the lofty goal of "public safety". Our rights are, "exceptions of powers not granted", interests that were held out from the view / influence / control of government, they are not within the grasp of government.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The same guys who wrote the constitution, passed a rule that no one could possess firearms on the campus of UVA. Your conclusion that any restrictions amount to a trampling of the rights, doesn't pass the common sense test.

The standard of "constitutionality" is not that the restriction is deemed to violate some interpretation of what a right is . . . What makes a law unconstitutional is that it was enacted by the legislature operating outside the powers granted to it.