crickets...

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by detbuch

QUOTE=Got Stripers;1131128]I'll go, I"m sure others like me were thinking it would only be a short time until another (yeah non Muslim, non radicalized) person with a life experience or two recent or past, that would push him or her over the edge. And of course the lucky recipients of their anger are unfortunate that they have access to an arsenal of assault type rifles and even without the advantages of the bump stocks that did so much damage in Vegas, they easily and quickly kill dozens or more.

I think that environmentalists should prefer mass killings rather than one-at-a-time types. Overpopulation leads to human pollution of the planet. We need more of those human cleansing incidents and conditions--mass killings, abortions, gay marriage, gender displacements, war/pestilence/famine/and hunger, More ideologies like Islam, and restrictive laws to keep us controlled and in place, in order to reduce the population and keep it down.

Assault weapons should be considered a good thing.

Wow, not much I can say to that, I'm sure the mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters of the children killed in this latest AR carnage will find comfort in your empathy. I hope you don't loose the other screws holding you together, I also hope that you too are armed to the teeth, because those are some scary and evil sentiments. Also for one who has such a fear of big government, I'd suggest you better watch what you type, homeland security is looking for text just like that; no doubt those statements fits the profile of many that might be on their radar.

Like I said in one of the other threads, I'd be worried about someone just like anyone on this board with access to these types of weapons, with a life changing experience putting them in a very dark place with a need to vent that anger. We legislate the amount of fertilizer you can buy, we legislate seat belt laws, the amount of alcohol you can legally have in order to drive, all to save a life or two; I think it's time to legislate some sensible gun laws to save thousands every year.

The only gun law, sensible or not, that would save thousands of lives a year would be to outlaw, worldwide, the production of guns. Would be kind of hard to enforce without the use of guns. But, the only gun law able to stop thousands or single digits of deaths is to eliminate the existence of guns. That would, without a need for further legislation, disarm everyone including, and especially, all governments.


Don't read more into what I'm suggesting, I have no issues with handguns, hunting rifles, shotguns or any other legally purchased firearm in the pursuit of what every warm blooded man or women loves to do. I too loved hunting back when I was younger, but 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?

Our founding fathers just finished a bloody war, against what they viewed as a tyrannical government, which was the reason they penned 27 words to insure they could form a militia and have the arms to do so. Does anyone really see any circumstance in our lifetime or your kids, where we need to take up arms against our own government?

The 2A helps to make sure that we don't have to fight our own government. That's the whole point of it. To ensure government doesn't remove itself from the bonds the Founders placed it. Before the British government tried to change things, the colonists too were in a place where it didn't seem necessary to defend against government tyranny. So they had to scramble to fight against it when it showed up. They learned the hard way the need of prevention, rather than waiting for disaster to occur in order to mobilize against it.

Again, while we are witnessing a lot of scary stuff, I feel sorry that you have such a depressing view of where our government is or could become. Do you really think one leader or some government/military conspiracy to take total control is in the cards, boy how do you sleep at night? And if you do and the possibility that the military in it's entirety will actually sign on (tin foil hat tipped here), do you think the small percentage of AR armed civilians are going to stop that?

Also consider their time and place, where aside from a cannon position from a fort or ship, they were all basically playing on the same single shot playing field.

So when Gatling guns were created for military use, what happened to the playing field?

Imagine your a responsible father or grandfather and your AR's are properly locked away and safe from all.....or so you thought. Like many parents, we are sometimes blindsided by finding out what some of our teens or young sons and daughters are dealing with, be it bullying, drugs, rape, PTSD; you pick a life changing emotional experience. Imagine getting the call at work from the FBI wanting to talk to you, asking you how your son or daughter had access (locks aren't a guarantee) to your AR rifles, then asking if you have seen the news?

Be safe and check your locks boys.

Most of the bad stuff you talk about, to the extent that it can be prevented by government, is avoidable to the greatest extent under dictatorial governments.[/QUOTE]

Again I feel sorry for you and your view of where our government and society is, must be tough on you to see where your kids and grand-kids are in a couple decades. Do I like our government today, not in the least, but I'm not looking at the glass half empty. We need change and I'm 110% convinced term limits is the exact change needed, but if that happens; 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.

[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