|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jun 24, 2022 19:07:48 GMT
The anti Second Amendment folks are throwing this Scalia quote around like beads at a Mardi Gras parade, screaming "hypocrisy" at yesterday's invalidation of New York's "convince me you really, really need a gun before I give you a permit" law. Heller did recognize that certain time, place and manner restrictions on the purchase and carrying of weapons may pass constitutional muster. All yesterday's New York case did was hold that the New York law WAS NOT a reasonable time place and manner restriction. It went too far in restricting the Second Amendment individual right to KEEP and BEAR arms. No hypocrisy or even inconsistency in the two decisions. The issue in NY is politicians, celebrities, the wealthy and retired cops are able to get “carry” licenses while the commoners cannot. While I can hunt or go to a range with a handgun, I cannot carry because the state says I don’t need to. Let me add that in order to get a restricted hunting/target/premises license requires an FBI background check, multiple character references and up to a 1 year wait. All handguns are registered with the state and itemized on the license. Those responsible for the crimes are not going through these procedures. Laws are for the law abiding. The lawless do whatever they want. The King would be right proud of his magistrates.  |
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Jun 24, 2022 20:31:36 GMT
It is an individual right. When the militia was called up, you brought your own weapons and ammunition. Ref: Whiskey Rebellion We put limits on these rights. No need for a citizen to have a Howitzer or Tank. |
|
|
|
Post by gridley on Jun 25, 2022 16:32:12 GMT
Personally, I don't think a 21 year old minimum requirement (the same we have for handguns) goes against the Second So, an 18 year old enlists in the Army. Completes Infantry training and is assigned to a unit. After two years of active, honorable service he still shouldn't be able to buy a semi-automatic version of the selective-fire rifle he carries to defend his country? A huge number of teenagers fought - and many died - in the Revolution. Should we have prevented them from doing so?
We let 18 year olds vote. We let 18 years olds drive (in most states, we let under-18's drive at least under limited conditions). We let 18 year olds get married. We let them take jobs where they use power tools and heavy equipment.
"But you can't drink until you're 21!" Yeah, how many people out there never had a drink before their 21st birthday? Just among my friends in college at least 90% drank before they were legal.
|
|
|
|
Post by phydeaux2363 on Jun 25, 2022 16:45:46 GMT
It is an individual right. When the militia was called up, you brought your own weapons and ammunition. Ref: Whiskey Rebellion We put limits on these rights. No need for a citizen to have a Howitzer or Tank. They'll have to pry my howitzer from my cold, dead hands. More seriously, Mr. Glenn, most people, and the Court, recognize that some limits are not only necessary, but constitutional. Hence Scalia's quote from Heller used earlier in this thread. For example, fully automatics weapons are virtually impossible to own, and certainly are illegal to "carry." I don't have a problem with that. And last I looked no serious person was arguing that a private citizen could own an M1A1 Abrams. An M-60 maybe, but they were never very good anyway. I did have a problem with the New York law that made John Q. Citizen concoct some reason they needed need a gun in order to get a permit, when celebrities and politicians could just waltz in and get permits for themselves and their body guards. |
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Jun 25, 2022 17:37:07 GMT
Personally, I don't think a 21 year old minimum requirement (the same we have for handguns) goes against the Second So, an 18 year old enlists in the Army. Completes Infantry training and is assigned to a unit. After two years of active, honorable service he still shouldn't be able to buy a semi-automatic version of the selective-fire rifle he carries to defend his country? A huge number of teenagers fought - and many died - in the Revolution. Should we have prevented them from doing so?
We let 18 year olds vote. We let 18 years olds drive (in most states, we let under-18's drive at least under limited conditions). We let 18 year olds get married. We let them take jobs where they use power tools and heavy equipment.
"But you can't drink until you're 21!" Yeah, how many people out there never had a drink before their 21st birthday? Just among my friends in college at least 90% drank before they were legal.
I think if a youth completes infantry training he would qualify as being part of a "well regulated militia". In absence of that training I have no issue with a 21 year old requirement. |
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jun 25, 2022 19:19:10 GMT
So, an 18 year old enlists in the Army. Completes Infantry training and is assigned to a unit. After two years of active, honorable service he still shouldn't be able to buy a semi-automatic version of the selective-fire rifle he carries to defend his country? A huge number of teenagers fought - and many died - in the Revolution. Should we have prevented them from doing so?
We let 18 year olds vote. We let 18 years olds drive (in most states, we let under-18's drive at least under limited conditions). We let 18 year olds get married. We let them take jobs where they use power tools and heavy equipment.
"But you can't drink until you're 21!" Yeah, how many people out there never had a drink before their 21st birthday? Just among my friends in college at least 90% drank before they were legal.
I think if a youth completes infantry training he would qualify as being part of a "well regulated militia". In absence of that training I have no issue with a 21 year old requirement. Even Tween farm boys have been qualifying for that for ever so long. |
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jun 30, 2022 20:12:12 GMT
The High Court speaks again.
For the second time in as many weeks, the Supreme Court of the United States just dealt a major blow to gun control laws in deep blue states.
As you know, last week our nation’s High Court issued a pro-gun ruling in the landmark NYSRPA V. Bruen case.
Today the Supreme Court used their judicial authority to demand 4 lower courts reexamine their anti-gun rulings pertaining to the following extreme state level gun control laws:
*** A 4th Circuit ruling upholding MD’s ban on so-called “assault weapons.”
*** Two rulings (9th Circuit and 3rd Circuit) upholding radical magazine bans.
*** A 9th Circuit ruling upholding Hawaii’s de facto ban on public carry.
In issuing these orders, SCOTUS is essentially telling the courts that their decisions upholding these unconstitutional gun control laws were completely WRONG.
Moreover, the Supreme Court is demanding the lower courts do two things:
First, they need to read the Bill of Rights again, and this time pay attention to Amendment Number 2.
And second, the lower courts must start over and re-review these laws and actually come to a decision based on the text, history, and intent of the Second Amendment, along with the pro-gun precedent reached in the Bruen case last week.
|
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Jul 1, 2022 3:06:07 GMT
It is an individual right. When the militia was called up, you brought your own weapons and ammunition. Ref: Whiskey Rebellion We put limits on these rights. No need for a citizen to have a Howitzer or Tank. I don't know, I think maybe there is. But then again, I believe that the election was stolen and fraudulent. |
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jul 1, 2022 4:08:29 GMT
We put limits on these rights. No need for a citizen to have a Howitzer or Tank. I don't know, I think maybe there is. But then again, I believe that the election was stolen and fraudulent. My statistical senses are still tingling. As for howitzers and tanks ... They couldn't afford to feed it or move it, even if they could find the ammo and spare parts. Besides a coercive government, the threats have always been criminals and crazies. I'm all for taking them off the streets permanently, because you're never going to keep them from getting guns ... no matter what laws you pass. When animals go bad you put them down. The laws are aimed at us. |
|
|
|
Post by gridley on Jul 1, 2022 12:13:08 GMT
I don't know, I think maybe there is. But then again, I believe that the election was stolen and fraudulent. My statistical senses are still tingling. As for howitzers and tanks ... They couldn't afford to feed it or move it, even if they could find the ammo and spare parts. Besides a coercive government, the threats have always been criminals and crazies. I'm all for taking them off the streets permanently, because you're never going to keep them from getting guns ... no matter what laws you pass. When animals go bad you put them down. The laws are aimed at us. Myself, I've always felt that the *intent* of the 2nd was, as stated in the explanatory clause, to preserve a free state. That means ensuring the general populace can overthrow a totalitarian government... as the founders just had.
Private artillery and armor would be helpful in overthrowing a totalitarian government (which we can assume would manage to command a significant portion of the military, and would have such equipment itself), but are they necessary? Crew-served and individual heavy weapons in the hands of organized... dare I say "well regulated"... forces have repeatedly shown that they can let such forces hold their ground against mechanized troops. Win? Not quickly, if at all. Hold on? Yes. And if the populace is truly opposed to the government, holding on may be all they need to do.
Crew-served weapons (mortars, belt-fed machineguns, etc.) have a significant "force multiplying" power but are certainly within the capability of individuals or small groups (a few friends, say) to maintain and operate. Modern individual heavy weapons (MANPADS, ATGMs, etc.) are likewise significant but more costly on a per-shot basis and harder to maintain and use effectively. Still, an organized militia would have no trouble maintaining stockpiles of such equipment by pooling their resources.
Heavy equipment like armor and field artillery is another level of difficulty. You really need formal training to use such things effectively, and ONE tank or howitzer is more of a morale item than a tactical one in most cases. To field a mortar platoon is within the capabilities of a local militia with a few hundred members (the rest being trained and fielded as infantry). To field an armor platoon *probably* isn't - and without the ability to provide IFVs (or at least APCs) to the infantry there's a real limit on the armor's utility.
In short, while I'm generally a "no compromise" person when it comes to the 2nd, I'd actually welcome one compromise: a cap on what an individual could own at the "can you carry it" level in trade for an immediate entry of anything below that level into the 'legal to purchase, own, and use' level nationwide. In short form, I'd give up my right to own a tank (yes, I do believe that under the 2nd I have a right to own a fully equipped tank) if I could go out that same day and buy a brand-new 81mm mortar and a few hundred shells, or a case of Stingers.
|
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Jul 1, 2022 12:45:33 GMT
Gridley, you’re on my side!
|
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jul 1, 2022 13:19:40 GMT
My statistical senses are still tingling. As for howitzers and tanks ... They couldn't afford to feed it or move it, even if they could find the ammo and spare parts. Besides a coercive government, the threats have always been criminals and crazies. I'm all for taking them off the streets permanently, because you're never going to keep them from getting guns ... no matter what laws you pass. When animals go bad you put them down. The laws are aimed at us. Myself, I've always felt that the *intent* of the 2nd was, as stated in the explanatory clause, to preserve a free state. That means ensuring the general populace can overthrow a totalitarian government... as the founders just had.
Private artillery and armor would be helpful in overthrowing a totalitarian government (which we can assume would manage to command a significant portion of the military, and would have such equipment itself), but are they necessary? Crew-served and individual heavy weapons in the hands of organized... dare I say "well regulated"... forces have repeatedly shown that they can let such forces hold their ground against mechanized troops. Win? Not quickly, if at all. Hold on? Yes. And if the populace is truly opposed to the government, holding on may be all they need to do.
Crew-served weapons (mortars, belt-fed machineguns, etc.) have a significant "force multiplying" power but are certainly within the capability of individuals or small groups (a few friends, say) to maintain and operate. Modern individual heavy weapons (MANPADS, ATGMs, etc.) are likewise significant but more costly on a per-shot basis and harder to maintain and use effectively. Still, an organized militia would have no trouble maintaining stockpiles of such equipment by pooling their resources.
Heavy equipment like armor and field artillery is another level of difficulty. You really need formal training to use such things effectively, and ONE tank or howitzer is more of a morale item than a tactical one in most cases. To field a mortar platoon is within the capabilities of a local militia with a few hundred members (the rest being trained and fielded as infantry). To field an armor platoon *probably* isn't - and without the ability to provide IFVs (or at least APCs) to the infantry there's a real limit on the armor's utility.
In short, while I'm generally a "no compromise" person when it comes to the 2nd, I'd actually welcome one compromise: a cap on what an individual could own at the "can you carry it" level in trade for an immediate entry of anything below that level into the 'legal to purchase, own, and use' level nationwide. In short form, I'd give up my right to own a tank (yes, I do believe that under the 2nd I have a right to own a fully equipped tank) if I could go out that same day and buy a brand-new 81mm mortar and a few hundred shells, or a case of Stingers.
I stand corrected Captain Washington.  Such a simple, well-crafted statement, inserted 2nd behind God. Never has so much been stated in so few words. It is no wonder that the Left (and perhaps the extreme Right) want to bury it. Free Men (in the original dual meaning) just can't be trusted to shut up and acknowledge their Earthly Lords. Duty to Country (State) is really fidelity to a set of idea(s) that are embedded in the Constitution and its initial amendments. A "well regulated militia" is an expression of the citizenry. The stingers will raise eyebrows. 
Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
|
|
|
|
Post by code on Jul 4, 2022 22:25:34 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by code on Jul 4, 2022 22:27:23 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Jul 4, 2022 23:21:34 GMT
Looks perfectly normal. How can this lunatic be walking around freely in the midst of civilization? Mental illness in our society with NO control and then when they kill everyone is shocked. The warning signs were screaming loudly on this monster… |
|
Such a simple, well-crafted statement, inserted 2nd behind God. Never has so much been stated in so few words. It is no wonder that the Left (and perhaps the extreme Right) want to bury it. Free Men (in the original dual meaning) just can't be trusted to shut up and acknowledge their Earthly Lords. Duty to Country (State) is really fidelity to a set of idea(s) that are embedded in the Constitution and its initial amendments. A "well regulated militia" is an expression of the citizenry. The stingers will raise eyebrows. 
